Supreme Court put on notice by expert over 'absurd' framing of Trump's immunity demand

The Supreme Court's decision to review former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity is not only outrageous because it jeopardizes any chance of holding the January 6 trial before the election, argued legal analyst Lisa Rubin on MSNBC Thursday.

In fact, she argued, even just the way the Supreme Court is setting the scope of this review is ridiculous.

"You made the point that ... the single question that these justices are now going to debate is an absurd one," said anchor Joy Reid. "You just saw Gerald Ford, the idea that there's even a question of whether overthrowing the government is an official act of the president — I'm going to let you talk."

ALSO READ: 'Hound them': Supreme Court faces flood of protests over Trump immunity case

"I think that's right, Joy, that it is an absurd question, and it's particularly absurd the way that the justices have framed it in their order yesterday," said Rubin. "When the Supreme Court hears a case, they define the issues before them in something called a question or questions presented. Some cases have multiple questions, but this case only has one. And the way that it's framed is somewhat telling because it says, whether and if so to what extent a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve his official acts."

"You know, yesterday, I was really troubled by the 'alleged,'" Rubin continued. "But having talked about this last night with Kristy Greenberg, who is a former federal prosecutor, she pointed out to me that the 'whether and if so to what extent' should also trouble us to some degree, because both Tanya Chutkan and the D.C. Circuit found that there is no immunity for a former president for official acts, full stop. Now, the Supreme Court, in the way they framed the question, seems to be suggesting that they want to parse that a little bit. They want to carve out some form of official immunity, and more so, that they want to allow perhaps the former president to define what is and is not 'official acts' rather than allow the Department of Justice, to determine what that is based on the allegations of the indictment."

"So you're right. I think this is somewhat farcical," she added. "I'm not sure why the court is taking this case, if not to at least partially reverse the D.C. Circuit, and make it all the more difficult for Tanya Chutkan or anybody else other than Juan Merchan here in New York State, to try any of the cases involving former President Trump before this election."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com