The Supreme Court hands 'gift' to Donald Trump — and why it's a big problem for Jack Smith

The Supreme Court hand-delivered Donald Trump a big win on Wednesday.

Legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, who is by no means a Republican, agreed the Supreme Court's decision to hear the former president's argument that presidential immunity protects him from criminal prosecution is a "gift" — whether or not the court ultimately agrees with him.

It's a "gift," Toobin explained, because the timeline almost certainly means there will not be a trial before Election Day.

After indicting Trump last August on four charges related to election interference, special counsel Jack Smith wanted to begin trial in January. But U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan thought that timeline did not give Trump sufficient time to prepare his defense. She ultimately set a trial date for March 4 — the day before Super Tuesday.

But the trial was derailed in December when Trump appealed Chutkan's ruling that presidential immunity did not protect him in this case. That appeal immediately halted court proceedings, and they have remained stalled now for more than two months.

Smith has repeatedly urged the courts to expedite rulings on the issue, prioritizing the "public interest" and "national interest" in the case. By this Smith means that he wants a trial conclusion before Election Day, and he fears that any delay — whether or not Trump's constitutional rights are respected — increases the likelihood that there will be no jury decision before Nov. 5.

Clearly, the Supreme Court disagrees with Smith's alarm.

Not only did the Supreme Court set oral arguments for the week of April 22 — two months away — but the justices told the D.C. Circuit Court to keep its ruling in place until they issue their own ruling, which will likely not come until the end of June.

With court proceedings halted until the Supreme Court issues its decision, Trump's trial will be delayed until late summer at the earliest, which presents a significant problem for Smith: DOJ policies prohibiting election interference.

In fact, according to Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith, Smith's urgency — clearly with the election in mind — already "appears to violate" the DOJ's Justice Manual.

Specifically, Goldsmith believes Smith could be running afoul of Section 9-85.500, which states:

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.

"If this were any other defendant than Donald Trump, the rush to trial—which cannot possibly give the Trump legal team adequate time to prepare its defense—would be deemed wildly unfair. Prosecutors and judges typically give defendants significantly more temporal leeway in trials of lesser magnitude with less severe charges," Goldsmith explained.

In reality, the Supreme Court issued a routine order.

But liberals are seething because they believe Trump is guilty — no matter the presumption of innocence — and they see any further delay in court proceedings as a delay of justice. In short, they believe the ends justify the means.

However, Goldsmith, who is no Trump supporter, strongly disagrees. Instead, he believes this approach is "uniquely harmful" to American democracy.

"The Biden Justice Department rushing to put away Biden’s political opponent is uniquely harmful," he wrote this month. "The damage to our institutions from this outcome — to belief in the legitimacy of the presidential electoral process, and to the integrity of the Justice Department and the possibility of apolitical justice — is unknowable, but it is very likely to be serious and with us for a long time."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!