Rachel Maddow Criticizes SCOTUS Delay in Trump Immunity Hearing as Flagrant Bull Pucky

Rachel Maddow Slams SCOTUS Decision

Rachel Maddow expressed strong criticism regarding the recent decision of the Supreme Court to address Donald Trump’s claim of "presidential immunity", but postponing the hearing until late April. She joined Lawrence O’Donnell as a guest on “All In With Chris Hayes” to share her concerns about the delay and the court’s intentions.

Background on the Case

The issue revolves around Trump’s assertion of absolute legal immunity as a U.S. president, even for criminal acts, which arose during the trial related to his actions following the 2020 election. Despite the outrageous nature of the claim, Trump’s legal team has steadfastly defended this position, even in extreme scenarios such as presidential involvement in political assassinations.

Initially, the trial was postponed, prompting Special Counsel Jack Smith to expedite the matter to the Supreme Court. However, the court rejected the request in December without providing any explanation. Subsequently, a federal appeals court also dismissed the argument on February 6, leading to Trump’s lawyers seeking relief from the SCOTUS.

Controversial Court Decision

The Supreme Court’s announcement of the hearing date on April 22 has sparked outrage, with legal experts and critics claiming that the decision reflects an attempt to prolong Trump’s criminal trials until after the 2024 election. Maddow, during her discussion with Hayes and O’Donnell, criticized the court’s deliberate delay tactics and its potential impact on Trump’s political future.

She highlighted the court’s tactics, stating, “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.”

Historical Precedent

Maddow also emphasized the historical precedent, pointing to Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, which clearly indicated that former presidents could still face legal consequences for their actions while in office. She discredited the notion of presidential immunity as a legitimate question, citing the pardon of Nixon as an example that contradicts such claims.

She quoted, “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.”

Challenges to Court’s Legitimacy

Maddow expressed deep concern about the court’s decision and its potential implications for its future legitimacy, stating, “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.”

She further criticized the court's actions, suggesting that the delay was a deliberate tactic to support a political ally, making it a matter of great concern for both legal experts and the general public.