Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Rachel Maddow Explodes Over Trump’s Supreme Court Victory

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.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow responds to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Donald Trump.

Presidential immunity


Rachel Maddow strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in April, calling the delay tactics “BS” intended to help Trump politically.

The precedent


Maddow argued on MSNBC that the precedent of Richard Nixon being pardoned for crimes committed as president disproves any notion that a former president has total immunity.

The delay


She said the delay until after the 2024 election is plainly meant to aid Trump, and that even non-lawyers can see through this “dilatory tactic” given American history and the Nixon pa

Partisan manner


Maddow said the Court “knows it, and they don’t care that we know” they are acting in a partisan manner rather than legitimately considering an open legal question. “They know it, and they don’t care that we know,” Maddow said.

Undermine the Court


She expressed concern this type of “flagrant” behavior could undermine the Court’s future legitimacy.

The pacing


“The cravenness of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing here… putting this off for seven weeks, sitting on it for two weeks for no reason, obviously pushing all of the cases that they can push, pushing them to the point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases,” Maddow said.

Open question

“Got it? It’s the timing but it’s also the idea that the immunity thing is an open question,” she added. “Right. Is it really? Presidential immunity an open question? Because what’s the most famous pardon in American history? Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon once he had resigned and was a former president,” she continued.

Oral arguments


The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear oral arguments on April 25 regarding whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal charges in his federal election interference case.

Conspired to overturn


This pivotal case, prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, alleges that Trump unlawfully conspired to overturn President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. The central question at hand is whether an ex-president can face criminal charges for official acts performed while in office, a claim vehemently contested by Trump.

His resignation


“Why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon? Quote, ‘as a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation as president,’ meaning as a result of stuff he did while President, quote, ‘Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and the discretion of the authorized prosecutor,” Maddow said.

The idea


“So the idea that this is an open question, that 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,” she said. “So the idea that this has to be taken up, is them saying ‘the sky is green.’”

Our worst day


“And I think even for the non lawyers among us to be able to say, ‘you know what, the sky is not green, even on our worst day, this is B.S., you’re doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron.’ It’s just flagrant, flagrant bull pucky, and they know it, and they don’t care that we know it. And that’s disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court,” Maddow added.

The criminal case

Oral Arguments and Delayed Trial: The criminal case against Trump is currently on pause as the Supreme Court deliberates on his claim of presidential immunity.

The case can proceed


If the court rules that the case can proceed, Trump could potentially face trial shortly before the November presidential election.

The lower courts


Legal Battle and Lower Court Rejection: Two lower courts have already dismissed Trump’s presidential immunity argument, prompting the case to be taken up by the Supreme Court. Special Counsel Smith has urged the court not to further delay the election case by considering the immunity claim.

Various methods


Allegations and Plea: Smith alleges that Trump illegally conspired to overturn President Biden’s victory through various methods, culminating in an effort to impede Congress from counting legitimate electoral votes on January 6, 2021. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Criminal liability


Potential Implications and Legal Perspectives: Impact on Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case could significantly shape the legal understanding of a former president’s criminal liability for actions taken during their time in office, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving presidential immunity.

Significant implications


Ongoing Litigation and Political Dynamics: Trump is also facing legal battles in Florida and Fulton County, Georgia. With the upcoming presidential election, the outcome of these cases holds significant implications for Trump’s political future.

Critical Juncture


The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s presidential immunity marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle, with potential ramifications for the intersection of executive authority and criminal accountability.

The legal and political landscape


The decision rendered by the Supreme Court will undoubtedly reverberate through the legal and political landscape, shaping the contours of presidential immunity and the boundaries of legal recourse for former presidents.

You May Also Like