Donald Trump won the case, but it might be the worst thing that ever happened to him

Following the US Supreme Court’s decision that the former president, Donald Trump, has partial immunity for acts he did as part of his duties surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, the break-in to the Capitol, we spoke with Dr. Shai Har-Zvi, an expert on the US and a senior researcher at the Policy and Strategy Institute at Reichman University, on the implications of the decision.

Trump defeated Biden, but his one word upset a lot of Americans – and related to Israel

According to Dr. Har-Zvi, “This is probably the best week that Trump has had in the campaign in a long time and it is not without reason that he hastened to congratulate the decision. The meaning of the decision is that the cases against him return for additional and prolonged hearings in lower courts and will certainly not be decided before the presidential elections this November. In fact, Trump’s main achievement is the success in delaying the proceedings against him, which is a known practice of his. This, out of the hope that if he wins and is elected president – he will pardon himself in the federal cases being conducted against him.

Dr. Har-Zvi added: “However, it is important to emphasize that this does not solve all his legal problems, since in state cases, such as the one being conducted in Georgia, the president does not have the authority to grant amnesty, although even there Trump manages to resort In procrastination following the entanglement in a romantic affair of the prosecutor in the case, Fanny Willis. In addition, on July 11, the verdict is supposed to be handed down on Trump’s conviction on all 34 charges in the hush money case for adult movie star Stormi Daniels.

The court’s decision was passed by a majority of six to three, with all conservative justices voting in favor. “This serves to illustrate one of Trump’s most significant achievements during his presidency, when he was able to appoint three judges to the Supreme Court within four years,” explains Dr. Har-Zvi. “The last appointment was even made a few days before the 2020 presidential elections. For comparison, Clinton and Obama managed, in the 16 years they served as presidents, to appoint only four judges together (two each of them).”

According to the expert, “it is likely that the ruling will further intensify the feelings among the Democrats, that the upcoming elections are of crucial importance to the image and character of the USA for many years to come. One of the meanings may be the awakening of Democratic voters and the feeling that they must go out and vote, as happened in the midterm elections about two years ago, in response to the ruling on abortion. So, contrary to expectations, the Democrats had impressive achievements – they kept the majority in the Senate and were close to achieving the majority in the House of Representatives as well.”

Dr. Har-Zvi added: “Furthermore, it is possible that in the scenario of a democratic victory in the presidential elections – calls will be renewed to increase the composition of the Supreme Court, to allow the appointment of more liberal judges and thus reduce the clear conservative majority that exists today. Biden himself has repeatedly rejected in recent years any attempt to change the composition of the court.”

“The ruling finds the Democratic Party at one of the lowest points in the campaign, after the failed confrontation and the public debate going on these days about whether Biden should continue or retire and who might replace him. This, given the fact that the natural candidate, Vice President Camilla Harris, is not highly popular. If the demon dance around the issue continues and prolongs, this may hurt the president even more. It is likely that the polls that will be published in the coming days and the position of the major donors will have decisive effects on Biden’s final decision,” said Dr. Har-Zvi in ​​conclusion.