How Trump jurors prioritized 'facts' — unlike the Supreme Court: ex-federal prosecutor

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejects former President Donald Trump's absolute immunity claims, the justices have delayed special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case.

Smith was hoping the High Court would address Trump's claims in a timely fashion; instead, it didn't hear oral arguments until Thursday, April 25, and Smith's case is in limbo until a decision is reached.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on April 30, former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut is highly critical of the way the Supreme Court has handled Trump-related matters — arguing that jurors have been much more mindful of facts.

READ MORE:Justices' views on Trump immunity stun experts: 'Watching the Constitution be rewritten'

"While it's not time to give up hope for criminal and electoral accountability," Aftergut emphasizes, "it is time to accept that the Supreme Court majority is not coming to save us; if anything, it's coming to save him.… These justices' insistence on taking the case, then slow-walking the schedule, and now focusing on how to protect the office of the presidency into the future means, perversely, that in the actual case before them, they are creating the conditions to let the man who nearly destroyed the Constitution get off scot-free — all while setting the stage for him to complete the task."

Aftergut adds, "Certainly, if he is elected, the prosecutions against him will vanish faster than you can say 'dictator on Day One.'"

The former federal prosecutor, however, is much more favorable to jurors in his Bulwark article.

"Juries use their common sense to deliver convictions when prosecutors present evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Aftergut writes. "We've seen it in cases involving every Trump-related criminal defendant, from Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in 2018 to Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro in 2024. We also saw it in January's jury verdict of guilty against the Trump Organization."

READ MORE: Ex-prosecutor: SCOTUS delay in deciding Trump immunity is 'corrosive' to democracy

Aftergut continues, "That case was prosecuted by the Manhattan team now trying Trump himself before the same judge, Juan Merchan. In addition, there are the judgments against Trump himself, though civil in nature. Two different juries delivered crushing verdicts totaling $88 million in damages for defaming E. Jean Carroll by denying his sexual assault on her in the mid-1990s."

READ MORE: Why Brett Kavanaugh's 'Nixon pardon' argument doesn’t work in Trump’s case: analysis

Dennis Aftergut's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.