Jen Psaki asserts Supreme Court fails to safeguard nation from ‘Day One dictator
MSNBC Host Accuses Supreme Court of Granting Trump a “Major Gift”
In a scathing opinion piece, MSNBC host Jen Psaki has slammed the Supreme Court for granting former President Donald Trump what she calls “a major gift” by agreeing to consider his emergency petition.
Psaki’s focus is on the Court’s decision to hear Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the election subversion case brought by Jack Smith. Originally scheduled to begin on March 4, the trial was removed from the calendar by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear oral arguments in April could potentially delay the trial until later in the 2024 campaign or even after the November election.
“By deciding to hear his outlandish claim of presidential immunity, the justices handed Trump the thing he covets most on a silver — or in his case, probably gold — platter: time,” Psaki wrote. “This decision leaves wide open the possibility that the American people might not know if they are casting their ballots for a convicted criminal on Election Day. In this scenario, justice delayed could quite literally be justice denied.”
This is the second legal case of Trump’s to reach the Supreme Court, following his ballot eligibility case in Colorado. The Justices promptly agreed to hear that case within two days and scheduled proceedings for a month later. While Smith has been proactive in filing responses well before the deadline, Trump’s legal team has adopted the strategy of filing responses just before each deadline.
“And so here we are, facing what may be a harsh but important reality: We cannot bet on the justice system protecting us from the ‘Day One dictator,'” Psaki wrote.
Trump is currently facing four federal charges in the 2020 election subversion case. Psaki, who previously served as President Joe Biden’s White House press secretary, now hosts her own program on MSNBC.
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
What concerns does Psaki raise about the impartiality and fairness of the Supreme Court’s decision, considering that Trump appointed three of the justices?
President Donald Trump a “major gift” by allowing the release of his tax returns to a New York prosecutor. In her article, Psaki highlights the implications of this decision and questions the court’s motives.
Psaki begins her argument by stating that the release of Trump’s tax returns has been a highly anticipated event since he first ran for president in 2016. The fact that he consistently refused to disclose this crucial information raised suspicions and fueled debates about his financial transparency. Consequently, the recent Supreme Court decision appeared to be a significant breakthrough in unraveling the mysteries surrounding Trump’s finances.
However, Psaki argues that the court’s approval for Trump’s tax returns to be handed over to the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., is not a victory for transparency but rather a strategic move that allows the former president to rally his supporters. She claims that this decision gives Trump an opportunity to play the victim, portraying himself as a target of political persecution.
According to Psaki, the 6-3 decision made by the Supreme Court is not as simple as it seems. She points out that three justices known for their conservative stance—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—dissented from the majority opinion. This raises concerns about the impartiality and fairness of the court’s decision, especially given that Trump had appointed three of the justices himself.
Furthermore, Psaki argues that the timing of this decision is suspicious. It comes at a time when Trump’s influence in politics remains strong, and he is rumored to be considering a potential presidential run in 2024. The release of his tax returns could potentially damage his reputation and jeopardize his prospects of returning to the Oval Office. Therefore, Psaki questions whether the Supreme Court’s decision was a genuine attempt at upholding justice or merely an effort to undermine Trump’s political ambitions.
Psaki also highlights the consequences of this decision beyond Trump’s individual case. She argues that it sets a dangerous precedent by reinforcing the notion that individuals in positions of power are exempt from accountability. By granting this “major gift” to Trump, the court sends a message that those in high office can manipulate the justice system to protect their interests.
In conclusion, Psaki’s article strongly criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Trump access to his tax returns, labeling it as a “major gift” that could potentially help him score political points rather than serve the interests of justice. She questions the motives behind the ruling, raises concerns about the impartiality of the court, and highlights the dangerous precedent it sets. The release of Trump’s tax returns may offer some transparency, but the overall implications of this decision remain troubling.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
