'A rebuke': Impeachment lawyer uses hush money trial to shame Supreme Court

The criminal hush money trial in Manhattan is drawing to a close with the jury on track to start deliberating as soon as next week, wrote former White House ethics czar and impeachment counsel Norm Eisen for MSNBC — and that's a stunning rebuke to how the Supreme Court has tied up the former president's federal January 6 trial.

Trump currently faces four criminal trials, with the Manhattan trial the only one proceeding on schedule. The Georgia election racketeering case is delayed by an appeals court weighing an ethics complaint against prosecutor Fani Willis, while the Mar-a-Lago documents case has been indefinitely delayed by the judge — and the federal election case, which by all accounts should have been ready to go, is waiting on the Supreme Court to rule if Trump has presidential immunity.

"This week brought milestones, good and bad, in two of the criminal cases against Donald Trump," wrote Eisen.

While prosecutors rested their case on Monday in Manhattan, "The negative milestone came in Washington, regarding the federal prosecution of Trump in the District of Columbia for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election. On Monday, the Supreme Court blew past a critical date, by which precedent teaches the dispute over Trump’s claim of presidential immunity should have been decided. However the New York case turns out, its rapid movement should serve as a rebuke to the ethically conflicted Supreme Court justices who are obviously and unduly stalling the Washington case."

ALSO READ: Trump campaign allegedly took ‘excessive’ contributions by the nickel and dime

"The truth is we should have already had or been close to a verdict in the federal prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith," wrote Eisen. "That case concerns the conspiracy Trump allegedly orchestrated to manipulate the results of the 2020 presidential election, which culminated in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

"The Washington case had been set to begin in early March, and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg had expressed openness to postponing the New York case so the Washington one could go first. With the federal trial estimated to last eight to 12 weeks, it would most likely be done or wrapping up by now."

This is also considering the fact that the court could have taken up the case months before it did, at Smith's request, and decided to wait until the appellate court had ruled instead.

Furthermore, even when the court does decide that case, the right-wing justices appear to be considering a ruling that would require lower courts to spend months sorting out what is and isn't an official act, snuffing out any chance of the case being heard before the November election can take place — something that the arch-conservative legal theorist, retired federal Judge Michael Luttig, has adamantly insisted is not necessary for this trial to move ahead.

ALSO READ: Delay, delay: Lauren Boebert keeping personal finances secret until after GOP primary

"At a minimum, given Roberts’ repeated statements of concern for the credibility of the court, he owes the public a transparent accounting of how Alito and Thomas can be allowed to continue to sit on this case," wrote Eisen, referenceing their conflicts of interest.

"This has gone much too far already. Each day without a ruling on immunity from the Supreme Court is an intentional delay that most likely ensures Trump won’t be held accountable for his alleged attempts to steal the last election ahead of the next one."