Liberals are not a fan of the highest court in America doing its job.
Far-left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow had a total breakdown on air Wednesday after the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments from Trump’s legal team for his claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
While the former president was quick to applaud SCOTUS for taking such a major case seriously, his critics did not show nearly the same enthusiasm.
Maddow pointed to the pardoning of former President Richard Nixon as evidence that presidential immunity does not apply in the case that Trump is waging.
Rachel Maddow calls the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Trump immunity argument “B.S.” She adds, “for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it’s something that’s unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bull-pucky.” pic.twitter.com/o7RHFZn9AY
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) February 29, 2024
She claimed that since Nixon was pardoned for acts that he committed while president, presidential immunity is not “an open question.”
The MSNBC host claimed that the court is only listening to what could very well become a landmark case to “help [their] political friend” and “partisan patron,” which is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.
Maddow went so far as to say that the idea that “the Court needs to decide because it’s something that’s unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky.”
Should the Supreme Court hear this case?
Yes: 99% (680 Votes)
No: 1% (10 Votes)
If one were to look at the legal history, they’ll quickly find that it is unclear to an extent.
There were many cases against Nixon after he resigned from office that began to create a basis for presidential immunity.
Different cases such as Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones worked to flesh out presidential immunity, but they have far from fully painted a picture of what applies.
While of course, these cases are different than the case Trump is bringing, they established a precedent that when presidential immunity is brought into question it goes before the Supreme Court.
And the case that Donald Trump is waging is different than any case by a former president. No other president has been criminally indicted after leaving office, meaning there is absolute reason for this to go to the Supreme Court.
Pointing to the reasoning that Gerald Ford would pardon Nixon does nothing to flesh out the legality of presidential immunity but merely creates a strawman argument for Maddow to then claim political bias.
However, the MSNBC host failed to stop at not grasping the reasons that the highest court may need to hear a case that could establish legal precedent.
She was also happy to quickly create a narrative on how following the legal process would somehow lead to the end of democracy in America.
The far-left host stated that the court will “inevitably rule that presidents aren’t immune from prosecution after they leave office,” which will somehow cause Trump to “never leave the office of presidency.”
NEW: Far-left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow works herself into a panic and claims Donald Trump will remain in office for life if elected in 2024.
I’m convinced MSNBC is actually just an insane asylum.
“When [Supreme Court] inevitably rule that presidents aren’t immune from… pic.twitter.com/HTvuWSVYUV
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 29, 2024
The claims of Maddow have no basis in reality whatsoever and are pure fear-mongering to demonize her political opponents.
Ironically, she claims that her opponents failed to “have a plain reading of American history” while the simplest Google search will quickly show that there is a history of presidential immunity going to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps if the MSNBC host spent less time conjecturing about how she sees the evil in her opponent and instead began to educate herself on history, she could avoid making such simple mistakes on air in the future.
