The Supreme Court targets Trump’s shield

I am as close to being black-pilled as maybe I have ever been, or at least since the darkest days of the COVID lockdowns.

I want to be wrong about Donald Trump’s pending visit to the U.S. Supreme Court in April. I want to be wrong about the court’s likely decision, expected by the end of June. People whose opinions I respect think I am wrong. I will explain why I disagree with them.

This is a political assassination through other means.

We are not a nation of laws, and we never have been. We are a nation of political will, and we always will be. Laws do not enforce themselves. Rules do not enforce themselves.

Some of the headlines you are seeing are making it sound as if the court is granting Trump's appeal in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against the former president. In reality, the court granted Smith’s request “to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari” concerning “whether and if so, to what extent, does a former president enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

This means Trump's defense strategy of running out the clock through appeals has been circumvented by the Supreme Court.

Recall that Smith at the end of last year tried to go to the Supreme Court for an immediate decision on whether a president has total immunity, essentially forever, no matter what, for whatever he did in office. I thought for sure Smith would not have made that motion unless he was confident how it would go. That’s why I was stunned on December 23 when the court told him it would not expedite a decision on the matter.

Then Trump appealed the question of his perpetual immunity rendered by trial Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Obama acolyte who ruled against him, to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel of three judges unanimously ruled against Trump, noting that Bill Clinton faced penalties once he was out of office for the act of committing perjury while in the White House.

In citing that precedent, they also told Trump not to even bother trying to appeal to the full court, and they only gave him six days to file an appeal. Clearly, they were trying to speed up the ultimate outcome, yet Trump appealed to the full court nonetheless to stretch out the clock.

Moves and countermoves. That left Smith to file a motion once again on February 14 to go directly to the Supreme Court to answer the immunity question. And this time, the motion was granted. Oral arguments will take place April 22, and a ruling can happen in time to hang around Trump’s neck before Election Day. That will come no later than June 30, the end of the court's session. That still leaves the Spirit of the Age at least 128 days to put Trump in front of its D.C. star chamber.

When the Supreme Court took up the Dobbs case in Mississippi, none of us seriously thought the eventual decision would be made only to mandate the status quo on baby murder. Something was going to be clarified, and so it will be with Trump and expediting the immunity decision at the request of his would-be hangman.

Trump is likely going to lose.

Most of the people I’ve talked to or whose opinions I respect agree with what I’ve laid out so far. But here’s where I diverge, and things are even worse for Trump than many people believe. Let's say the court doesn’t issue a ruling on this until June 30. Does that still make it too difficult for Trump’s enemies to bring him to trial on specific charges before Election Day?

That’s a question you ask only if you are thinking of all this as a buttoned-down legal proceeding conducted with the intent of having a political outcome, when in fact it is a political proceeding with the intent of having a legal outcome.

In other words, this is a political assassination through other means.

The legal proceeding is only being used to make it look “official” to the normies. And if that is the case, there is no way that the people who have dreamed of putting Trump in prison for years will be given the green light to do so, only to not follow up because the so-called process has run out of time.

Do we even believe our own talking points about who the left is and how it operates? Do you mean to tell me the folks who actually followed through with trying to take Trump off the ballot in multiple states are suddenly going to tuck tail and give up because of clerical overload? No, they're not going to do that. Especially with a “permission slip” in hand from the Supreme Court.

They don't care if they need to gavel in the trial the morning of the election if that’s the direction Chief Justice John Roberts lets this go — and it appears that he will with this expedited process. Just like when he saved Obamacare not once but twice by redefining taxation and state exchanges beyond the definitions Obama’s own lawyers used to make their case. Just like when the leaker in the Dobbs case failed to surface despite his “investigation.” Roberts is in the process of putting his thumb on this scale, too, and it is highly unlikely that he would be wasting such an effort unless, as in the past, somebody on the right was about to get royally screwed.

I predict Roberts will ultimately concoct the proverbial splitting of the baby. His court will pimp-slap Colorado harshly for attempting to take Trump off the ballot without any due process, and then he’ll have his quorum turn right around and do the same to Trump’s immunity case. All to make the case, like the institutionalist swamp creature he is, that America was “saved” from the worst instincts of both sides.

Except one will have far greater political consequences than the other. Can you guess which one?