I heart the rule of law

And you should, too

On Monday, special counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court and the federal appeals court in D.C. (in case SCOTUS punts) to rule on whether TFG is immune from prosecution for 2020 election obstruction, as he and his disappointing counsel claim.

It is a double-barreled motion, and it is much needed. Otherwise, TFG will, as he’s done in every other day of his life in court, tie up the system with baffling motions meant to play out the clock. In fact, these recent motions are a reaction to that. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who’s presiding over the case, has already ruled TFG does not have immunity.

I am not a lawyer, though I do love me some law, and I can put quick work to this question. No. TFG does not, in fact, enjoy immunity from prosecution, and that isn’t about revenge. It’s about something holier, the very-American (and oft-ignored) notion that no one is above the law, not men who defecate on golden toilets, not sons of Arkansas who lie about sleeping with an intern.

Here’s the SCOTUS writ. The question is:

Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.

But there are gems scattered throughout, such as:

…respondent’s interpretation of the Impeachment Judgment Clause relied on a negative implication—that a President who is not convicted in an impeachment proceeding cannot face criminal prosecution—that reflected neither logic nor common sense.

And:

It requires no extended discussion to confirm that this case— involving charges that respondent sought to thwart the peaceful transfer of power through violations of federal criminal law—is at the apex of public importance.

And, finally:

The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case.

I love me some law, and I love me some Jack Smith. Git some, Attorney Smith. The Supreme Court is supposed to meet again on Jan. 5, but within hours of its filing, the court agreed to review this motion and they’ve given TFG’s truckload of hungry weasel-counselors until Dec. 20 to answer.

Glory!