The trial of Donald Trump in New York City has ruined Trump's reputation so thoroughly that he's likely to take a big political hit from it. Bear in mind that this is essentially an election interference case, and David Pecker, the first witness in the trial, has pretty much admitted that he bought news stories that would hurt Trump in the 2016 presidential election,and he spent as much money as he possibly could to keep the truth about Trump's extramarital affairs out of the public record . . . and Michael Cohen picked up the slack when Pecker refused to spend another cent. And the plot was devised to bury such stories and falsify business records accordingly as far back as August 2015, before the presidential primaries began, before the 2016 presidential campaign began in earnest, a time when Martin O'Malley had at least a semi-realistic chance of becoming the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee - and was in Minneapolis calling for the Democratic Party to have more debates despite the Democratic National Committee's zealous goal to protect Hillary Clinton.
But, at least, everything the Democratic Party did to protected Hillary was legal. Unlike everything done to protect Donald Trump. The longer this trial goes, the worse it gets for Trump.
Good thing, too, because thanks to the Supreme Court, the other election interference trial has zero chance of getting off the ground - and will crash if it does. The conservatives on the Court - except for Justice Barrett chose not to answer Donald Trump's claim of immunity for charges related to the January 6 insurrection regarding Trump's appeal to the Court but chose to ponder whether Presidents are entitled to immunity from their actions but went off on tangents about hypotheticals going far into the future. The all-female liberal wing couldn't believe their ears, trying tot get the case back n track. Justice Jackson noted that if Presidents get full-blown immunity, it would make the Oval Office the center of all criminal activity in the United States, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and yes, Barrett, largely concurring.
None of that seemed to bother Justice Alito. "Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions, he said without sarcasm or dramatic irony. "Did I understand you to say, 'Well, you know if he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake. He's subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else.' You don't think he's in a special, a peculiarly precarious position?"
Listening to the conservative argument for Trump's immunity claim question - well, listening as much as I could take - was sort of like hearing heavy-metal fans who hate twenty-first-century pop making the argument that Kiss is artistically superior to Taylor Swift. You were basically watching a bunch of white guys (Justice Thomas, who should have recused himself from oral arguments, mostly just sat there and nodded a lot) setting themselves up to be humiliated by a savvy black woman and a wise Latina. And their gal pals.
And if I may keep the pop metaphor going, this Supreme Court oral argument was the Woodstock '99 of Supreme Court oral arguments.
All of the conservative justices not named Amy or John by their mothers, but when it came to making a mockery of the Court, Justice Alito was the top Katzenjammer.
And I don't need to tell you again that he came form my hometown.
Posts
