DONALD TRUMP FEDERAL ELECTION CASE: CAN A PRESIDENT BE IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL CHARGES?

Trump's Supreme Court immunity arguments make me wish Americans were immune to con artists

That one of the Supreme Court justices didn’t just stand up during Thursday’s oral arguments and say 'OK, this is absurd. Y'all need to stop it!' is disappointing.

An attorney for former president and current criminal defendant Donald Trump stood in front of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices Thursday begging – like a dog, as Trump would say – for his client to have absolute presidential immunity.

The desire for immunity stems from the fact that Trump has nearly twice as many criminal indictments as the American flag has stars. And the need for the Supreme Court to even consider whether a president can effectively be above the law stems from the fact that a large swath of Americans have let themselves get brainwashed by a con artist – I’m talking about Trump, in case that isn’t clear – who leaves a trail of criminality in his wake.

No president has ever had to argue for absolute presidential immunity because no president has ever found himself so eyeball-deep in indictments and court cases.

The system, for every president this country has ever had, including Richard Nixon, has worked just fine. Yet we’re to believe that Trump, for some mysterious reason, is being so persecuted that the high court must step in to protect him?

Trump's desire for absolute immunity is wildly self-serving
That one of the justices didn’t just stand up during Thursday’s oral arguments and say “OK, this is absurd. Y’all need to stop it!” is disappointing. That Americans had to listen to Trump’s lawyer actually argue that a president ordering the military to assassinate a political rival “could well be an official act” deserving immunity is ... well, it’s just kooky.

That kookiness was unfolding while Trump himself sat in the defendant’s chair in a Manhattan courtroom listening to a guy named David Pecker, former publisher of the sleazy National Enquirer, testify about burying stories that might have harmed Trump’s chances in the 2016 presidential election.

Regarding a “catch-and-kill” arrangement that would hide allegations of an affair between Trump and Playboy model Karen McDougal, Pecker said: “We didn’t want the story to embarrass Mr. Trump, or embarrass or hurt the campaign.”

I feel embarrassed for all of us.