Five Court Updates

Supremely embarrassing

Getty Photo Credit: Pool/Geoff Livingston

Today Donald was at the center of another legal debacle complete with a split-screen with, on one side, the election interference case in New York City; and, on the other, a Supreme Court hearing to determine whether Donald has immunity from his many alleged federal crimes.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the near-universal blow-by-blow coverage, it was easy to miss some of the more salient details of today’s two proceedings. It is truly mind-boggling that Donald, corrupt to the core, weak, and out of power, continues to garner so much attention. But let’s not lose sight of what this is all about: What unfolded in both courthouses underscores the need for us to fight for and uphold our democratic values, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court does Donald a massive favor with its immunity  decision—call it an in-kind campaign contribution—but I’ll explain below why it may not matter in the short-term, at least in the context of Donald’s day of reckoning.

1. In front of the Supreme Court, Donald’s attorney argued that his client could legally order the assassination of a political rival

During the hearing over “absolute immunity,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Without hesitation, Donald’s attorney John Sauer answered, “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that would well be an official act.” In other words, yes.

Let’s stop and take that in: In front of the Supreme Court of the United States, an attorney in good standing actually argued that the president should be immune from prosecution if he has his political rival assassinated.

Sotomayor said it best:

“I am having a hard time thinking that creating false documents… that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that,” Sotomayor concluded. 

I asked attorney Joe Gallina to comment on the judicial validity of the argument:

“There is absolutely zero legal basis for a president to have immunity for the murder of his opponent. It’s beyond ridiculous and frankly frightening Trump’s team would even suggest it. While the justices will determine where the line exists for the level of immunity, Trump’s heinous arguments makes it all the more clear that his legal position is without merit.”

In a sane country, this case never would have made it to the Supreme Court. It’s a  ludicrous argument being made on behalf of a ludicrous defendant. The concept of immunity itself goes against one of this country’s most fundamental principles: no president is above the law. For so-called originalists to be pretending otherwise is quite something to behold. It is, in fact, sickening.

2. A reminder that the current Supreme Court is corrupt and illegitimate

This hearing was brought as a result of the federal indictment of Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election which centered around his inciting an insurrection against his own government. Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni, was intimately involved in those efforts yet, in his infinite and easily bought wisdom, Thomas has decided he does not have to recuse himself. 

This is a conflict of interest so glaring, so in-your-face offensive that it’s a travesty we cannot  ignore — it’s a slap in the face to the very concept of judicial impartiality.

The Supreme Court’s code of ethics is supposed to prevent this kind of situation, but, since it’s voluntary and self-administered it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Just as a reminder, from the Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct: 

“CANON 2: A JUSTICE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.”

This isn’t just about one case or one justice; it’s about the integrity of our entire judicial system. If a justice can preside over a case involving an individual who has direct ties to his family, what does that say about our courts?

In my view, at least three of the current justices should not be on the Supreme Court at all – Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. I would argue that all of Donald’s appointments — including Neil Gorsuch — are illegitimate, and Samuel Alito, like his colleague Clarence Thomas, has proven himself to be such a corrupt partisan hack that he also has no place on the nation’s highest court. But here we are, an illegitimate majority that seems hell-bent on torching the Constitution while dragging this country back to the 1860s.

We need serious reform, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and greater diversity. But what we need first is to expand the Court by at least four seats as a counter-balance to an out-of-control majority that is completely out of step with the vast majority of the American people.

3. In the short-term, it really doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court rules on immunity

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity or the extra-judicial reasoning that will no doubt be employed by its corrupt right-wing, Donald’s greatest hope was that a verdict in the January 6th case would be delayed, preferably beyond the election. In that sense, he has already won — with a caveat.

I have absolutely no confidence in the extremist super-majority. The fact that the idea of presidential immunity would be anathema to the founders is irrelevant to them. I wouldn’t put it past them to do something as insane as claim that Donald cannot be held accountable for any of his federal crimes. But even if they don’t go that far, it looks like they are going to delay their ruling to the maximum extent possible so that it would be impossible for the January 6th trial to start before the election.

But the truth is that, despite today’s debacle in the Supreme Court being a win of sorts for Donald, there’s a lot more going on that is not in his favor. Because no matter what happens at the federal level, and no matter how the Court rules, Donald cannot be pardoned for state crimes.

And because, as is being demonstrated by the prosecution in the New York election interference trial, the crimes were allegedly committed before he got into the White House. As a result, presidential immunity can’t overturn his conviction either — or stop a guilty verdict before the election.

So, the stakes in these state trials — Georgia, and particularly New York — are incredibly high. But the cases against him are also very strong.

4. David Pecker ends the afternoon with a bombshell

The election interference case against Donald centers around his alleged involvement in a conspiracy with his attorney Michael Cohen and David Pecker, publisher of The National Enquirer to suppress negative stories about him that might hurt his campaign.

Prosecutors are arguing this was not about keeping embarrassing stories from Melania but, rather, a calculated move to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. 

At the end of the prosecution’s direct examination today, David Pecker, corroborated the state’s entire argument:

Per The Washington Post, Pecker told the jury “that coverup efforts he assisted in were designed to protect the then-candidate’s 2016 campaign, not his family.”

Pecker admitted that he “did not think Trump and lawyer Michael Cohen, his conduit at the time, were aiming to keep the stories of two women — Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels — out of the news to protect wife Melania Trump, daughter Ivanka or any other relatives.”

Pecker told prosecutor Joshua Steinglass that Donald thanked him for burying stories during a meeting at Trump Tower in January 2017, shortly before his inauguration. He further revealed that “neither Trump nor Cohen brought up Trump’s marriage in conversations, that happened over months about how to handle McDougal and later Daniels.”

Instead, Pecker said, “it was basically what the impact would be to the campaign and the election.”

5. The long arm of justice: Donald’s legal quagmire deepens

In the New York case, prosecutors have been constructing a robust case, which the defense has, so far, been unable to challenge effectively. While it seems like this trial has already been going on for a hundred years, Pecker is the first witness and today was, effectively, day two.

We’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg and we have another four to six weeks to go, with testimony to be heard, potentially from Michael Cohen, Karen McDougal, and others. But at least the wheels of justice are turning in New York.

And, of course, there is still the possibility that he will be found in contempt. This morning, prosecutors entered an additional four instances of Donald having broken Justice Merchan’s gag order and he still has to rule on the first eleven.

The Secret Service has even reportedly begun planning for the possibility of Donald serving time in jail.

Here’s what we can all do:

The Supreme Court hearing notwithstanding, today brought us one day closer to accountability — and the New York trial will continue outside the reach of Trump’s enablers.

And as for SCOTUS, just as millions of women stood up to dismantle the Republican House majority and pass abortion protections in even the reddest states after it overturned Roe v. Wade, it will embolden Democrats to come out in even greater numbers.

We are far from powerless.

In the meantime, we’ll continue to shine a light on these crucial stories. 

As I recently wrote, my quest to stop Donald began in the fall of 2017, when I handed over 40,000 pages of documents to The New York Times, despite the risks.

In the last couple of years I’ve been privileged to be a part of this amazing community. Every day, thanks in large part to all of you, I can dedicate myself to defending democracy.

The key to voter turnout is hope, and I am determined to persuade voters that Donald and the entirety of the Republican Party can and will be held accountable, both legally and at the ballot box.