As he awaits sentencing for 34 felony fraud counts in New York State, the prospects of the Malignant Loser going to trial for his part in the January 6 coup and insurrection haven't been seriously diminished by the Republican Supreme Court's immunity decision in Trump v. United States, according to one expert.
This is a lengthy excerpt from an op/ed by Richard Lazarus, Charles Stebbins Fairchild Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, in today's Washington Post:
... The chief justice’s opinion leaves little doubt that [Judge Tanya] Chutkan can now validly conclude that Trump is not entitled to any immunity from felony prosecution (even though he was president at the time) for the calls and meetings he held with state and local election officials to persuade them to block the election results. The court ruled that any immunity Trump enjoys, whether absolute or presumptive in nature, is limited to “official acts.” There is no immunity for actions that are “unofficial” in nature. The court accordingly invited Chutkan to analyze Trump’s “interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons” to determine whether those interactions were official or unofficial in nature. But Roberts’s opinion did not hesitate to make clear that Chutkan could legitimately conclude that all these contacts were unofficial in nature. The court carefully pointed out that “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function.”
The court similarly left little doubt that Chutkan was free to conclude that the speeches Trump made to the general public, including the rally on Jan. 6, which prosecutors alleged were designed to incite the mob that attacked the Capitol, were unofficial in nature and therefore not entitled to any immunity. The chief justice expressly acknowledged that there are “contexts in which the President … speaks in an unofficial capacity.” And to drive the point home, he offers an example: “as a candidate for office.” The reference is hardly subtle. The court is peremptorily endorsing a finding that, based on Chutkan’s “objective analysis” of “content, form, and context,” Trump’s speeches were those of a “candidate for office” and not entitled to immunity from prosecution. [snip]
Finally, it is quite clear that the special counsel can secure a conviction without relying on any of the evidence that the Supreme Court ruled must be out of bounds on immunity grounds even for a prosecution of unofficial acts that are not subject to immunity. That includes evidence of Trump’s “discussions with Justice Department officials” about securing an official opinion suggesting fraud in the 2020 election. While such evidence would certainly have weighed in favor of a jury’s finding the former president guilty, the special counsel has more than enough incriminating evidence without it, beginning with the stunning recordings of Trump’s conversations with officials in states such as Georgia...
While it will not go to trial before the election, the evidence of the Malignant Loser's guilt can be laid out in time for the public to be reminded of his disqualifying, authoritarian conduct once again. We may yet see him get his comeuppance like so many of his frothing followers have, especially if Vice President Harris prevails. He may want to book that flight to Venezuela (or more likely Moscow) soon.
(Illustration: Salon/Getty Images)
