Is SCOTUS going to save Trump? Maybe, maybe not
We don't know if Trump's trials will be delayed until after the election - or even if they'll make a difference if they are held before.
[Note: the editor of a popular Substack page saw some comments I’d written about this subject, and commissioned a full-length piece from me. Then the hallucinogens wore off, he realized what a shocking error in judgment he’d made, and now they’re paying me to take it back. Enjoy, and say “no” to drugs, kids.]
There is an “ancient Chinese parable” beloved by many self-help writers and inspirational social media accounts, which goes something like this:
A farmer and his son had a beloved horse who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbors exclaimed, “Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not.”
A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild horses back to the farm as well. The neighbors shouted out, “Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not.”
Later that week, the farmer’s son was trying to ride one of the horses and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The neighbors cried, “Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not.”
A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all boys for the army. They did not take the farmer’s son, because he had a broken leg. The neighbors shouted, “Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!” To which the farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”
I have no idea if this tale actually originated in ancient China, or if someone thought it up in the seventies, like the purported Chief Seattle “how can you buy or sell the sky” speech.
But it’s one of the first things I thought about when the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed that it will hear former President Donald Trump’s arguments that he should be immune from prosecution for events carried out while he was in office, and the corresponding rending of garments from left-leaning commenters who view this as a conservative-dominated SCOTUS putting its thumb on the scale,
Some fear that the Court will rule in Trump’s favor and grant him blanket immunity for all criminal acts committed while in office.
In reality, the Supreme Court - including the Justices appointed by Trump himself - has ruled against him more often than not, and all but the most strident anti-SCOTUS commentators expect that pattern to continue.
The more serious concern is about the effect this will have on the criminal prosecutions against Trump, including those related to the January 6 insurrection.
The Court is holding a hearing on April 22, and it is expected that a decision will be rendered by the end of June.
Despite that “expedited” timeline, it is now an article of faith that there’s no way the January 6 trial can be completed before Election Day, and that the Court’s decision to entertain Trump’s arguments at all is a massive win.
Maybe so, maybe not.
As George Conway notes, just because a decision may not arrive until June doesn’t mean there is no possibility the trials cannot proceed. Assuming Trump’s arguments are shut down by the Supreme Court, the January 6 trial may commence in late summer.
Which could mean the most important months of the election cycle - between the national conventions and Election Day - could see the Republican front-runner tied up in court instead of campaigning.
And the media coverage dominated by headlines about what he did when his acolytes stormed the Capitol Building, instead of policy debates and standard-issue campaign gaffes (of which I expect many, considering that both likely candidates for President in 2024 are older than was Konstantin Chernenko when he died and was subsequently appointed leader of the Soviet Union).
Maybe so, maybe not.
We don’t know for sure how SCOTUS will rule. We don’t know for sure if and when the January 6 trial will begin or end.
Most of all, we don’t know how the trial would affect the election campaign even if it is being heard in the months leading up to November 5.
There appears to be an assumption that the January 6 trial will prove absolutely devastating to Donald Trump and his chances of returning to the White House, and possibly even lead to his imprisonment and disqualification from running for President.
But there’s an ancient American proverb (circa 1996) that goes, “when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of u and umption."
In case you haven’t been paying attention to the news lately - and who could blame you? - Donald Trump is already mired in several legal proceedings involving fraud and defamation, the latter stemming from an incident in which a court found it likely that he sexually assaulted writer E. Jean Carroll.
Let me repeat that: a court found it likely that Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, likely 2024 Republican Party nominee for President and the overwhelmingly preferred candidate of “Christian-right” voters, likely sexually assaulted a woman. And now he has to pay her $83.3 million in damages.
This case, and the one in which Trump has been ordered to pay $355 million in damages for corporate fraud, were civil proceedings in which the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case, and which will not see The Donald face any jail time.
In a normal political environment, these cases would be absolutely devastating to Trump’s reputation, his political career, and his chances of being elected to any position higher than sanitary commissioner.
But this is not a normal political environment, and hasn’t been for many years.
The fact is, Trump’s appalling, corrupt and allegedly criminal behavior doesn’t generate the kind of media attention that gaffes, scandals and court cases involving lesser politicians would have during the Clinton, Bush or Obama eras.
I don’t believe this is because of any particular “media bias” - if you are convinced the finger-snappers at the New York Times want Trump re-elected, nothing I say will change your mind, so I won’t even bother - but simply because it’s become what we expect from Donald J. Trump.
Imagine Tom Hanks getting arrested for shoplifting a Mars bar, and compare it to Steven Seagal being indicted for carrying out war crimes in occupied Ukraine. The former will get a lot more media coverage, simply because we expect someone like Seagal to act in that manner.
It’s possible that the January 6 trial, if it goes ahead, might turn “soft” Trump voters against him.
Or maybe the “hush money” trial, which involves events Trump allegedly committed before assuming office and will proceed regardless of the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity, will be damaging enough to Trump.
Or maybe he’ll be arrested or sued for something else.
Maybe, maybe not.
As someone who fears Trump returning to the most powerful position on earth, I’d love nothing more than to see him taken down by some deus ex machina which removes him from the ballot. (That’s the one thing me, #resistance Twitter, and most Republican politicians have in common.)
However, we cannot assume that’s going to happen. The only certainty is that Trump’s fate is tied to the will of the voters.
Even if a majority of Supreme Court Justices were trying to actively help Trump avoid justice, it comes down to the ballot box.