Liz Cheney: SCOTUS must shoot down Trump's immunity claims 'without delay'

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has written an editorial for the New York Times in which she urges the United States Supreme Court to quickly shoot down former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims.

In her editorial, Cheney explained why it was necessary for the court to resolve these claims quickly so that his election subversion trial could take place before the 2024 election.

"If the trial is delayed past this fall and Mr. Trump wins re-election, he will surely fire the special counsel, order his Justice Department to drop all Jan. 6 cases and try to prevent key grand jury testimony from ever seeing the light of day," she wrote.

Should this happen, Cheney said that American voters would be going to the ballot box without crucial information about the man who could once again become president.

READ MORE: House Republicans increasingly sick of MTG’s performance politics

"All of this evidence should be presented in open court, so that the public can fully assess what Mr. Trump did on Jan. 6 and what a man capable of that type of depravity could do if again handed the awesome power of the presidency," she argued.

Cheney added that the court could dispatch with Trump's claims relatively quickly given the decades of legal precedent that have established that American presidents are not above the law.

"Early this year, a federal appeals court took less than a month after oral argument to issue its lengthy opinion on immunity. History shows that the Supreme Court can act just as quickly, when necessary," she wrote. "And the court should fashion its decision in a way that does not lead to further time-consuming appeals on presidential immunity. It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later."

Cheney concluded by arguing that "the Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here."