MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is outraged that the Supreme Court will consider former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim, Breitbart reported. She blamed the "cravenness of the court" for the decision to hear his appeal.
Maddow spoke to Chris Hayes on Wednesday's "All In With Chris Hayes" on MSNBC about the high court's willingness to hear the Trump case. Special Counsel Jack Smith is attempting to prosecute the former president for trying to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, The Hill reported.
Trump's legal team asserted that the former president had immunity from prosecution due to his role at the time. The Supreme Court will now take on the unprecedented issue.
The leftist MSNBC host believes the Supreme Court is doing so to delay Smith's trial. Rather than considering that Trump's immunity claim holds water, she instead lands on the assertion that the Supreme Court is just out to help Trump.
"The cravenness of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing here. You know, putting this off for seven weeks and sitting on it for two weeks for no reason," Maddow complained.
The delay in the trial no doubt helps Trump to some extent. However, the court's decision not to put the case on hold during the appeal is not entirely helpful to the former president.
Trump's attorneys had asked for the case to stop during the appeal, which would have pushed the trial until after the 2024 presidential election. Despite Maddow's contention, the Supreme Court took Smith's suggestion to hear the appeal immediately to prevent further delays.
"Obviously, pushing all of the cases that they can push to a point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. Got it. It is the timing," Maddow claimed of the court's motives.
"It is the idea that the immunity thing is an open question. Is presidential immunity an open question? What is the most famous pardon in American history?" Maddow posed.
She cited the case of former President Gerald Ford pardoning his predecessor, Richard Nixon. Maddow believes it proves there's no such thing as presidential immunity since Ford made that move that would have been superfluous otherwise.
"The idea that this is an open question and 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," Maddow asserted. She implied that presidential immunity doesn't even exist.
"This is BS, and you are doing this as a tactic to help a political friend or partisan patron. For you to say that this is something the court needs to decide because it is unclear in the law is fragrant bullocky, and they know it and don't care that we know it," Maddow claimed. "That is disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court."
The Supreme Court will indeed examine the issue as laid out by the Constitution. Maddow would understand that if she were intellectually honest, but her mind is too clouded by hatred for Trump to see it any other way.
