'Not working with much': Analyst tears apart Trump's 'head-scratching' legal filings

Donald Trump's lawyers have been accused of a lot of "head-scratching" legal filings as they seek to keep the former president out of criminal trouble — and a Washington Post columnist tore into them Thursday.

Recently, in an effort to argue he should be covered by presidential immunity, Trump's lawyers cited the past words of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a U.S. Supreme Court filing that highlights the dangers of presidents being subject to criminal prosecution or civil actions.

But Post columnist Aaron Blake said that section of the justice's ruling explicitly said that immunity should be temporary and end after leaving office.

"Even then, Kavanaugh didn’t go nearly as far as Trump now wants him and the rest of the Supreme Court to go," Blake wrote. "If it wasn’t already clear that Trump’s claim to full presidential immunity is extraordinary, spotlighting these words from Kavanaugh — of all people — would seem to drive it home."

Trump's immunity claim was rejected last month by an appeals court. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear it, but that appeal seems likely to merely delay an inevitable trial, Blake said. He added that the Kavanaugh citation marks the latest in a series of "dubious inclusions" in the former president's legal filings.

ALSO READ: Racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents

"These examples don’t even include the sloppy, error-riddled legal filings that characterized other Trump-aligned lawyers’ hasty efforts to overturn the 2020 election," Blake wrote.

"Trump has pitched his many legal setbacks as a result of a biased and weaponized legal system," the columnist added. "But when you have to reach for these kinds of arguments — including citing your own Supreme Court nominee who clearly took a position at odds with your own — it would seem to reinforce that you’re not working with much."