Trump Trial Vultures Bully Appellate Court for Immunity Decision

Frustrated by dashed plans to spend the spring in a Washington courtroom to watch the unprecedented criminal trial of Donald Trump, the media are lashing out. "Can anything be done here?"

To the joy of winter-weary Americans, Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow on Groundhog Day, supposedly indicating the arrival of an early spring this year.

But the encouraging news out of Gobbler’s Creek, Pennsylvania stood in stark contrast to the brooding reaction by the corporate news media and legal “experts” in the Acela corridor as a creature of a different species cast a long shadow on the much-anticipated trial of Donald Trump. On February 2, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan finally pulled the trigger on what some have predicted for weeks: she officially vacated Trump’s March 4 trial date in Washington.

Chutkan’s brief order sank the hope of political reporters, opinion columnists, and former federal prosecutors who had planned to beat the winter doldrums by giving a blow-by-blow account of the lead-up to the history-making clash between Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith. 

Instead, the commentariat is left with little to do but hit the refresh button on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s website. It is there, after all, that Andrew Weissmann’s dream of his own version of “Springtime for Hitler” went to die—at least for now.

After agreeing to expedite Trump’s appeal of Chutkan’s order denying his claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, the appellate court is now under public pressure to reach a hasty decision on the unprecedented matter. (The Supreme Court denied Smith’s rare motion to skip the appellate court altogether and resolve the issue more quickly.)

Chutkan, an Obama appointee, published her historic opinion on December 1; Trump’s lawyers filed an appeal a few days later. On December 13, Chutkan put on hold the existing pretrial schedule, which involved a protracted jury selection process in the most Democratic city in the country, pending resolution of the appeal.

The once-active court docket for USA v Trump in the District of Columbia largely went idle.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court, after receiving rushed briefs from both sides, heard oral arguments on January 9. Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, both appointed by Joe Biden, and Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by George H. W. Bush, peppered Trump’s attorney with questions and hypotheticals. Several minutes were wasted debating an absurd hypothetical presented by Pan related to a presidential order to use Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival.

Now the same pundits who swooned over the gotcha question posed by the politically compromised Pan are fuming over the panel’s so-called “delay” in issuing their opinion—although the average time between oral arguments and a decision in the D.C. Circuit court is about four months.

The media’s collective impatience is prompting some to openly bully one judge—a tactic they denounce when Trump does so—and recommend extra-judicial steps to force the process along. “Can anything be done here?” MSNBC hostess Alex Wagner asked in a segment lamenting the court’s silence thus far.

Oh, Snap!

Weissmann, the swishy lead prosecutor for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who came up empty on crimes related to Trump-Russia election collusion, expressed his frustration on the evening of Jan 31:

Weissmann kept up the “SNAPADOODLE” crusade. In response to Chutkan’s order vacating the trial date, Weissmann again tweeted that the delay was “one more reason for DC Circuit to SNAPADOODLE.”

Rather than blame Judge Chutkan for the delay—she waited almost two months before responding to Trump’s immunity motion—or Judge Pan for creating a possible headache for the panel with her outlandish “Seal Team Six” hypothetical or Jack Smith for waiting until August 2023 to bring the four-count indictment, Weissmann blamed the only Republican judge involved. “Judge Henderson, as I strongly suspect she is the delay, as she was not in favor of expediting this case and has the prerogative as the senior judge on the 3-judge panel to assign herself writing the court opinion - and to sit on it,” Weissmann tweeted the same day. (Henderson, like her two Democratic colleagues, sounded highly skeptical of Trump’s argument. As the senior-most judge, she has the prerogative to write the opinion.)

Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute—once considered an esteemed conservative-aligned organization—also blamed Henderson. “There is only one plausible explanation for why the three judge panel of the DC circuit has delayed its ruling on a slam dunk case involving presidential immunity. Karen Lecraft Henderson is emulating Aileen Cannon. Delaying to help Donald Trump,” Ornstein posted, comparing Henderson to Trump appointee Judge Cannon, who is handling the classified documents case in Florida.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor and the media’s frequent go-to for legal analysis, even suggested the two Biden appointed judges could issue a ruling without Henderson. While noting the move would represent a “breach of judicial decorum,” Vladeck told the New York Times the pair “could in theory release a decision without her.”

And looking like his dog just died, CNN commentator Ryan Goodman called Chutkan’s order “a good day for Trump,” but nonetheless concluded that Chutkan “put a little more pressure on the D.C. Circuit to rule” by indefinitely postponing the trial date.

Marcus Meltdown, Page Ten

But perhaps no one is more unhinged about the trial’s unknown fate than Ruth Marcus, associate editor at the Washington Post.

While acknowledging “it can take months for appellate judges to produce a ruling,” Marcus described the panel’s prolonged action as “unconscionable.”

In an unhinged rant completely detached from the circumstances of the case, Marcus blamed Trump for attempting to “manipulate the system” and seizing on a “loophole”—otherwise known as due process in immunity matters—to file the appeal prior to a conviction. Marcus tried to cloak her desperation to see Trump in handcuffs before Election Day with feigned concern over voting rights:

Failing to try Trump before the election would be a terrible disservice to voters. They are entitled to know before casting their ballots whether they are choosing a felon, especially one guilty of election interference. Polling suggests that a Trump conviction would matter even to many Republican voters. What happens if the trial can’t start until the general election campaign is in full swing? No doubt Trump — having engineered the delay that ensured this overlap — will then insist that the electoral calendar calls for postponing the trial. This calls to mind the murderer who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

Yes, Ruth Marcus, that is exactly comparable. Galaxy brain thinking!

Marcus further suggested Trump should be under “strict court supervision” to prevent him from exercising his due process rights related to appeals and a petition before the Supreme Court, insanely complaining that Trump cannot be permitted to “[exploit] the usual deadlines for filing appeals.”

So, the same “no one is above the law!” scolds now insist Trump should be prohibited from pursuing the standard legal process. In other words, they now argue Trump is below the law.

The cold reality for these political vultures is that even if the appellate court issues a ruling next week, Trump is entitled to other relief including a request for the full appellate court to consider his case followed by a pathway to the Supreme Court. With the court’s term ending in late June, the chance this crucial matter is resolved by the Republican National Convention in July looks slimmer by the day.

But good news for the vultures: Attorney General Merrick Garland recently indicated the Department of Justice will not object to a criminal trial taking place during the height of campaign season. Any trial decisions, Garland said, are now in the hands of the judges not the DOJ.

Hope springs eternal in the orbit of Trump trial watchers.