Paul welcome to the journal editorial report, im paul gigot. The Supreme Court on wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from prosecution in his federal election interference case. Dealing a blow to special counsel jack smiths effort to try the former president and likely 2024 republican nominee before with no. Oral arguments are now set for late april with a decision expected by late june. A timetable that could push the trial originally set to begin this monday close to election day and possibly beyond. For more on the political and legal implications of the justices decision to take the case, im join ised by Wall Street Journal columnists Dan Henninger, kim strassel and bill mcif gun. So, bill, the bill mcgurn. If Supreme Court didnt have to take this case the Supreme Court didnt have to take this case, and theres an argument for dodging it because they could have let a d. C. Circuit opinion that denied immunity stand. Now they take this, t
prosecution because it tainted or possibly tainted the information the justice department prosecutors were using. so this is actually a tell for us to see, you know, is the justice department looking at these high level figures? if they let the immunity stand, that s it is not decisive. there is all sorts of complexities here, but that s one thing that might happen is that we start to learn who the justice department is looking at and i really hope the justice department is looking at trump and those in his inner circle. i don t see how you can get away with something like this, maybe you can try and whitewash it, call it legitimate political discourse, but the images and events of that day speak for themselves. neal katyal, as always, thank you for coming to the sunday show. coming up, former vice president pence defies 45, kind of. and some republicans who publicly rebuked trump have managed to rake in record campaign bucks. we ll talk about it after the