Former DOJ Official Pours Cold Water On Alvin Bragg’s Hopes To Jail Trump

Jake Tapper called the “broad scope” of Donald Trump’s immunity argument set to go before the U.S. Supreme Court this week “crazy” because it would allow him to “do anything” he wants as president.

Trump laid out his argument on Truth Social Monday:

Without Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will no longer exist. Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity. A President must be free to make proper decisions. His mind must be clear, and he must not be guided by fear of retribution!

As Trump attends his hush money trial in Manhattan, Tapper said some of the former president’s attorneys will be before the Supreme Court on Thursday for what’s “shaping up to be a blockbuster hearing on whether Trump has total immunity in the federal election subversion case.”

Tapper read from former Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WY) op-ed in The New York Times Monday that warned, “If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for January 6 to account.”

Tapper continued, “Now, she suggests there’s key evidence against Trump. Grand Jury testimony from Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, and former White House aide Dan Scavino, that the January 6 Committee did not have that needs to be heard. What do you think?” Tapper asked legal analyst Tom Dupree.

“Look, I think the Supreme Court takes these constitutional issues very seriously,” Dupree said. “I don’t I think they are going to go as far as former President Trump is asking them to go. I don’t think they are going to sign off on the broad scope of presidential immunity Trump is advocating for.”

Tapper interjected, “That’s crazy. He’s basically advocating that he can do anything.”

“That’s right,” Dupree agreed. “But I think the interesting question is, to me, at least, goes to Congresswoman Cheney’s point, which is to say, is the Supreme Court going to simply say, ‘No immunity here. Let’s get on with the trial,’ or are they going to say that there may be some immunity here, but the contours need to be developed and determined by the district court? If that’s how the Supreme Court decides this case, it could well result in additional delay that pushes this behind the election as the district court has to wrestle with whether these allegations fall within the scope of this immunity.”