Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


MSNBC’s Maddow: ‘Craven’ Supreme Court Is Helping Trump

via CBS News
This article was originally published at Publications approved for syndication have permission to republish this article, such as Microsoft News, Yahoo News, Newsbreak, UltimateNewswire and others. To learn more about syndication opportunities, visit About Us.

Rachel Maddow criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case on whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution, calling it a craven attempt to help him.

She highlighted the timing of the court’s actions and argued that the idea of presidential immunity is not an open question based on American history.

Maddow said, “The cravenness of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing here. You know, putting this off for seven weeks and sitting on it for two weeks for no reason. Obviously, pushing all of the cases that they can push to a point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. Got it. It is the timing. It is the idea that the immunity thing is an open question.”

Maddow expressed concern about the court’s legitimacy and accused them of using the case as a tactic to support a political ally.

“Is presidential immunity and open question? What is the most famous pardon in American history? Gerald Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon once he was resigned and a former president. Why did Gerald Ford pardon him? As a result, occurring before his resignation as president of the meeting as a result of stuff he did while president, quote, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment in trial and whether or not he shall be prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and discussion of the authorized prosecutor,” she said.

She added, “The idea that this is an open question and it might be that a former president can never be tried for something that he did because he was president when he did it is disproven by a plain reading of American history and the whole justification for Richard Nixon being pardoned in the first place.”

“The idea that it has to be taken up is them saying that the sky is green. I think even for the non-lawyers among us to be able to say, this sky is not green even on our worst day. This is BS, and you are doing this as a tactic to help for political friend, partisan patron. For you to say that this is something the court needs to decide because it is unclear in the law is fragrant bullpucky and they know it and don’t care that we know it. That is disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court,” she said.

You May Also Like