Search Posts

Nine days. That's how long Donald Trump has to respond to a new motion filed by special counsel Jack Smith earlier today. Smith is asking the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling on whether Trump has presidential immunity for his actions related to his objections to the results of the 2020 election. Of course, all the usual suspects say it's all about making sure the trains run on time. I do think it's a smart move, Jake. I think it's a necessary move, in fact, because this is, as a practical matter, the only real way Jack Smith can hold on to his current trial date, which is March 4th, 2024. It's his only chance of keeping this case on track. Now, that's a load of bunk. It's notable, right, that in his request Jack Smith says it's important to decide it quickly, but he never gives any reason as to why. The only sensible explanation is that Smith filed this request because he wants Trump tried, convicted, and sentenced before the 2024 election. Joining me now, Christopher Landau. Chris has argued before the court several times, and also clerk for Justices Thomas and Scalia. Chris, explain this for us. All right. Well, it's good to be here, Laura. The special counsel filed two motions today. One was an extraordinary motion to have the Supreme Court decide this important immunity issue before the court of appeals. I mean, the district court, we have three levels in our system, district court, court of appeals, Supreme Court. The normal path is for the case to go to the court of appeals. Jack Smith wants the Supreme Court to basically take that case before the court of appeals has even decided it. Why? Well, I think it's obvious. The mask is coming off, Laura, that this is about election interference. As you just said, this is all about the timetable that they want to get Trump convicted before the 2024 election. So you have to speed it up. This is highly unusual. Look, they brought an incredibly unprecedented case. Never before in American history has anything like this come up through the legal system. Obviously, Trump has legal defenses. Like I was president then, and there's very tricky immunity questions. Okay. Instead of having the legal process play itself out like it usually does, they're insisting that there is imperative public importance in this. Yeah. Public importance is that Biden's down in like five, six, seven swing states. Laura, it is one of the most depressing things as an American to see that we are really in a banana republic where this is again, there's no way to explain this other than election interference. They want a DC jury essentially to decide the 2024 election by having this jurisdiction where, by the way, in the last election, Biden got 92% of the votes and Trump is five. So they want to tell the rest of the country, oh no, Trump was criminally convicted in DC. Are you going to vote for a convicted felon? I mean, this is all a setup. And again, the legal system, whoever's right or wrong on some of these legal issues, we have a process. And I think it is particularly important in an election case like this to make sure that the special counsel crosses his T's and dots his eyes. Why doesn't Congress bring him to testify on Capitol Hill? Where is the accountability? Congress has a role here. Does it not? This is why Justice Scalia thought all of this was basically unconstitutional. This whole special counsel thing. They're accountable to no one. The Biden Justice Department acts. I mean, this is such a charade. Like, oh no, it's not us. It's this special counsel who's doing it. Yeah. Well, Politico just reported moments ago, Chris, that Smith has extracted data from the cell phone Trump used while he was in the White House and plans to present evidence of his findings to the DC jury to demonstrate how Trump used the phone in the weeks during which he attempted to subvert it. I mean, this is what it is now in a presidential election year. You're going to take the cell phone of the guy who's beaten the other guy by how many points? Laura, I mean, come on. You know, there was no question that January 6th, if Trump is the nominee, will be a major issue, but the Democrats don't want to fight this in the political arena. They want to say, oh no, this is a criminal case, folks. This is, you know, this is the mighty halls of justice. This is again, this motion to the Supreme Court can only be explained by their desire on timing. There's no imperative public need to have this trial in March of next year. What's the imperative public need on that? No, it's convenient politically because otherwise it's very unlikely given normal judicial, uh, procedures and processes that this won't be decided before the election. And that's the worst of all worlds for them. The voters, voters don't seem to buy into any of this. Well, you know, I mean, listen, we'll, you know, we'll see what happens. I have to say the one law that they can't manipulate is the law of unintended consequences. And so far it's not worked that well for them on this. Chris Landau, you made something complicated, really understandable. Great to to see you, as always. - Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.