[UPDATE] MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman slammed the US Supreme Court for deciding to hear his immunity appeal, saying that the high court ultimately delivered victory to former President Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, SCOTUS ordered all lower courts to temporarily pause Trump’s scheduled court hearings as they will take up the former president’s immunity appeal.
The oral arguments will begin on April 22, which means that the election interference case filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith, will be put on hold indefinitely.
Weismann quipped that the SCOTUS’ move had already decided that Trump is immune because the case won’t move forward before the election. Although, the former prosecutor also said, that eventually, the high court will rule “against him.”
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” interviewed Weismann on Thursday, where the analyst remarked, “I’m very pessimistic … I think ultimately, they will not grant immunity in this case, but they have given him the win because the D.C. case, let’s just face it, is on life support now,” Weissmann said. “It is really, really hard to figure out how this case gets to trial before the election. I think that’s the end result of what they did here. So they may ultimately say that he does not have immunity, but in fact, he will have been given immunity because the case will not go to trial before the election, meaning if Joe Biden wins, the case goes forward but if he loses, the case is over.”
The legal analyst added, “By granting the stay, they essentially are saying that he is de facto immune. So I don’t think they should have taken the case. And I think it ends up being that they’ve given a win to Trump here and I think they’re gonna give Trump a win in the Colorado case as well.”
[Original Story] Jack Smith’s Election Case on Hold Indefinitely as Supreme Court Will Tackle Trump’s Immunity Claim
Trump’s legal team emphasized that Trump, while he served as President of the United States, should be guaranteed “full” immunity for any “alleged” crimes he committed.
As reported by CBS News, Trump’s attorneys said in last month’s filing, “In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists.”
“To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”
For President Trump’s lawyers, his actions on Jan. 6 were done while performing his duties as president, arguing that the GOP leader takes election integrity and threats of election fraud seriously.
On the other hand, prosecutors insist that Trump has no immunity, stating that the charge against him was a criminal case.
The high court ordered both parties to limit their arguments to the question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Aside from the charges brought by Smith in August 2023, Trump also has pending court hearings in three more criminal cases. Trump maintained that he was innocent in all of them and emphasized that all the charges were politically motivated.
It will be the first time the SCOTUS will address and decide whether presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution.
Andrew Weissman is a criminal, a traitor and a number of other things that I can’t print here. He deserves no consideration at all for any reason. Wait for his name to pop up again when the fraudulent activity is revealed in the next election…….