Trump blew his chance to try to obstruct the Manhattan criminal case: legal expert

Former President Donald Trump has done everything in his power to delay and obstruct most of his criminal trials — and he scored a big win this week as the Supreme Court agreed to review his claims to presidential immunity in the federal election interference case, which would potentially put that on hold for months longer.

But there's one case that he may have blown his chances to properly obstruct, said legal analyst Lisa Rubin in a writeup for MSNBC's MaddowBlog: the hush money case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

"Specifically, when Trump was first indicted in that case, he moved to remove the matter to Manhattan federal district court (i.e., the Southern District of New York), arguing that as a federal officer, he was entitled to a federal forum," wrote Rubin. "Trump also argued that his defense would turn on one or more questions of federal, rather than state, law, as required by the removal statute and precedent. In his brief, Trump said he intended to defend himself by arguing: 1) that any prosecution of him premised on an underlying violation of federal campaign finance law was preempted by the pertinent federal statute; and 2) more significantly, that he was immune from prosecution as a matter of federal constitutional law."

ALSO READ: ‘Leave the drama to them:’ Mother of Lauren Boebert’s grandson speaks out

That argument crashed and burned, with state judge Alvin Hellerstein finding that "not only was Trump a former federal officer ineligible for removal, but that even if he were eligible, the federal legal defenses he intended to raise were not even colorable."

"Trump initially appealed Hellerstein’s decision, but he withdrew that appeal in mid-November," wrote Rubin. "Why? We don’t know for sure — but one likely reason is that his removal argument undermines, if not contradicts, one of his main defenses in the various ballot qualification battles. Trump could not continue to argue he was a federal officer for purposes of removal without appearing to concede as much in, say, the Colorado case, in which Trump argued that the president is not an officer of the United States. Perhaps not coincidentally, Trump withdrew his removal appeal just two days before the Colorado trial court ruled on Trump’s ballot eligibility following a weeklong trial."

Ultimately, for all of these reasons, Rubin argued, even though Trump has tried to claim presidential immunity from every other case he is charged with, "the odds of his pressing a presidential immunity defense at this point in the New York case are slim — and the likelihood that Merchan would allow it is even slimmer."