Rachel Maddow Fries SCOTUS for Trump Immunity Hearing Date: ‘It’s BS’ and ‘They Don’t Care That We Know It’

February 28, 2024 @ 8:26 PM

Rachel Maddow had strong feelings about the news Wednesday that the Supreme Court will take up Donald Trump’s “presidential immunity” claims, but won’t hear the case until late April.

Maddow appeared alongside fellow MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell as a guest on Wednesday’s “All In With Chris Hayes” where, during their discussion, she explained why the decision to even hear the case at all makes no sense and called the nearly 2 month delay “BS.”

“They know it, and they don’t care that we know,” Maddow added. You can watch the clip now at the top of the page.

For background, at issue is the unconstitutional argument Trump introduced last fall in the criminal trial over his efforts to overthrow the government after the 2020 election: That U.S. presidents have total legal immunity from all criminal acts. In case you forgot, yes, his lawyers say this applies even if a president literally murdered political opponents.

After that trial was delayed, Special Counsel Jack Smith attempted to fast track this question to SCOTUS but in December the court denied that request without explaining why. Then on Feb. 6, a federal appeals court firmly rejected it, after which Trump’s lawyers appealed to SCOTUS.

So it is that on Wednesday, after taking nearly all month to say anything, SCOTUS announced it will hear arguments on April 22. Legal experts and critics of the court’s right wing majority say this is nothing more than an effort to help delay Trump’s criminal trials until after the 2024 election. Which brings us back to Maddow.

During the discussion with Hayes and O’Donnell, Maddow said, “the cravenness of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing here… putting this off for seven weeks, sitting on it for two weeks for no reason, obviously pushing all of the cases that they can push, pushing them to the point where Trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases.”

“Got it? It’s the timing but it’s also the idea that the immunity thing is an open question,” she continued, displaying some sarcasm in her voice. “Right. Is it really? Presidential immunity an open question? Because what’s the most famous pardon in American history? Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon once he had resigned and was a former president.”

“Why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon? Quote, ‘as a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation as president,’ meaning as a result of stuff he did while President, quote, ‘Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and the discretion of the authorized prosecutor,” Maddow continued.

“So the idea that this is an open question, that 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 explained. “So the idea that this has to be taken up, is them saying ‘the sky is green.’”

“And I think even for the non lawyers among us to be able to say, ‘you know what, the sky is not green, even on our worst day, this is B.S., you’re doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron.’ It’s just flagrant, flagrant bull pucky, and they know it, and they don’t care that we know it. And that’s disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court,” Maddow concluded.