Trump Begs Supreme Court To Save Him Once Again

Donald Trump has officially asked the Supreme Court to bail him out once again. Last week he was begging the court to NOT allow him to be kicked off ballots, and this week his legal team sent a filing to SCOTUS asking them to both stay the lower court's decision in order to postpone the trial, as well as to take up the overall immunity issue. The court has several options for what they could do here, and most of them are not good for the country. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses those options.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

On Monday, Donald Trump's lawyers submitted their filing with the US Supreme Court asking them to do two things. One, put a stay on the decision from the DC appellate court that had effectively, immediately, um, remanded the case back to the trial court so they could proceed. So they're asking him, get rid of that. Him, uh, talking about SCOTUS accidentally said him, admit them. But anyway, they're saying, SCOTUS, don't let that trial proceed just yet and take up the case of immunity. But they add, take your time, right? I mean, we don't need to do anything rash here. Obviously this is a pretty big decision. So, uh, you know, this, this needs some careful thought and consideration because of course, Donald Trump's lawyers are trying to delay, delay, delay, and this time it may not work so well for them. Here's the thing, the appellate court that again last week had ruled that Donald Trump does not have immunity.

He is effectively citizen Trump. They kind of covered all their bases according to the legal experts with their decision. They almost made it appeal proof, which was not just to dismantle every legal argument that Trump's lawyers put forward. They did of course do that. But the big thing was the fact that they gave the Supreme Court an out and that out is the Supreme Court saying, listen, we've seen the appellate court's decision based on their reasoning. We find no reason to take up the case. So that's a good out for the Supreme Court to keep their hands clean on this matter, because if the Supreme Court decides to weigh in on this, it's gonna get messy for them no matter which way they decide. But they do have several options here. Obviously the first one that I mentioned, they can say, Nope, lower court. Got it.

Right. We're not gonna touch it. That decision stands, see you later. You don't have immunity. Second thing is they can take it up and from there we have multiple different options. And I think one of the most likely ones, and this is actually one that I haven't discussed before, I think part of what they may do is kind of dismantle piece by piece and possibly give him immunity on some issues and not on the others. Here's what I mean by that. We, of course, have the conspiracy against the United States charges that Trump is facing in the January 6th trial. Now, that of course, is the fake elector scheme. The fake elector scheme. The lawyers that were being paid, they went state by state trying to get these things set up. They were being paid from Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Therefore, that that fact alone that it was paid for by the campaign shows that it was not the actions of a president, it was the actions of a candidate. Therefore, he's not entitled

To immunity there. I could see the court doing that. And then anything related to the Capitol Riot itself, they could argue, well, he gave a speech. Presidents give speeches. That was a presidential act. So he has immunity there. So they could kind of do a 50 50, like he's immune from these charges. He's not immune from these because he was a candidate. So that's one option. Then obviously they could say, Nope, he's got total immunity. Or they could say he has no immunity because he was acting as a candidate. So they can do this one of many ways, but I think the thing that they would love to do is to not take it up at all.