Donald Trump introduced a new legal tactic on Thursday, intending to postpone the Supreme Court’s review of his claim to presidential immunity regarding the January 6 events.
As reported by Raw Story on Thursday, February 15, 2024, this action has stirred controversy, prompting legal experts to weigh in with strong opinions.
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin criticized the move as “outrageous,” providing insight into the intricate aspects of Trump’s recent legal maneuver.
Trump’s core argument revolves around his assertion that, as president during the January 6 incident, he should be immune from any charges related to election interference.
In a recent filing with the Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team initiated a timeline that could lead to a ruling on the matter at any time.
However, rather than focusing on the factors supporting a continued delay, Trump’s initial argument, as per Rubin, took an unexpected turn by accusing Jack Smith, a critic of Trump’s delay motion, of partisanship.
Rubin questioned Trump’s portrayal, suggesting that Smith’s push for a speedy trial might stem from a desire to ensure voters have access to all relevant information and to prevent Trump from avoiding trial through potential reelection.
According to Rubin, this initial argument marked the beginning of what she viewed as a troubling trend in Trump’s legal strategy.
The situation escalated further as Trump’s legal team contended that the seven-month timeframe allotted for pretrial proceedings—likely to reset once the delay ends—was inadequate.
What made this assertion particularly significant was the reasoning behind it: the argument that Trump’s case could be impacted by an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning the interpretation of a statute used to charge him.
Rubin found this line of argumentation particularly concerning.
Trump’s legal team raised concerns about the extensive volume of discovery, but then introduced the notion that an impending Supreme Court case would impact their own case.
What adds a twist to this development is that it’s the first instance Trump has brought up this argument, and the petitioner in the January 6 case, Joseph Fischer, was not present at the Capitol until after Congress had adjourned.
The potential implications of whether Fischer obstructed an official proceeding may vary significantly from Trump’s case, where alleged obstruction involved efforts to tamper with evidence.
Rubin criticized Trump’s legal team for introducing this argument at such a late stage and questioned the relevance of a case that was granted certiorari on December 13, 2023.
He’s a criminal with lots of money and a cult using both to avoid being held accountable for his actions. Appears he expects any legal actions to go against him.
Karma has caught up with the Rumpster.