(Photo
by
Ali
Shaker/VOA)
Donald
Trump
just
asked
the
Supreme
Court
to
intervene
in
his
New
York
state
criminal
case
and
extend
its
newly
expanded
presidential
immunity
just
a
little
further
to
cover
illegally
concealing
a
hush
money
scheme
to
pay
off
an
adult
film
star
before
he
ever
became
president.
A
matter
of
hours
before
that
case
—
number
666
because
you
cannot
make
this
stuff
up
—
arrived
at
the
Court,
Trump
had
a
phone
conversation
with
Justice
Sam
Alito.
You
know,
just
the
kind
of
light-hearted
catch-up
you
have
with
your
bros
right
before
asking
them
to
suspend
the
criminal
code
for
you.
In
his
remarks
about
the
call,
Alito
puts
a
lot
of
weight
on
the
fact
that
it
took
place
before
Trump
filed
his
application.
Alito
seems
to
think
this
means
he
had
no
way
of
predicting
a
potential
conflict
when
all
it
really
seems
to
say
is
“Trump
decided
this
was
worth
filing
after
checking
in
on
Alito.”
While
the
emergency
filing
over
the
NY
case
hadn’t
hit
the
docket
yet,
Trump
already
had
business
before
the
Court
with
his
half-baked
effort
to
halt
the
planned
TikTok
ban
from
going
into
effect,
presumably
so
he
can
try
to
exact
some
sort
of
personal
vig
from
the
company.
But
since
Alito
doesn’t
think
it’s
a
problem
to
go
on
a
vacation
with
litigants
with
business
before
him,
a
telephone
call
with
a
litigant
certainly
wouldn’t
raise
any
flags
for
him.
And
we
know
his
thoughts
on
flags.
“William
Levi,
one
of
my
former
law
clerks,
asked
me
to
take
a
call
from
President-elect
Trump
regarding
his
qualifications
to
serve
in
a
government
position,”
Justice
Alito
told
ABC
News.
“I
agreed
to
discuss
this
matter
with
President-elect
Trump,
and
he
called
me
yesterday
afternoon.”
On
the
one
hand,
an
employer
checking
references
is
a
reasonably
innocuous
explanation.
On
the
other
hand,
this
might
be
the
least
believable
excuse
Alito
could
have
cooked
up.
Levi
almost
certainly
came
up
during
the
call.
He
might’ve
even
been
the
subject
superficially
the
whole
time.
But
it’s
a
special
kind
of
gullible
to
believe
this
call
wasn’t
really
about
Trump’s
legal
interests.
“No
one
is
questioning
Levi’s
credentials,
which
are
as
good
as
can
be,”
says
Fix
the
Court’s
Gabe
Roth.
“The
call
was
merely
an
excuse
for
Trump
to
speak
with
one
of
the
nine
people
determining
the
fate
of
his
hush
money
sentencing
in
the
coming
days
and
who
will
review
many
more
Trump-related
issues
over
the
next
four
years.”
It’s
also
unnecessary
when
Alito
could’ve
responded
to
the
ethically
fraught
request
with
a
letter
explaining
why
he
couldn’t
take
the
call
but
reaffirming
his
faith
in
his
former
clerk.
The
call
makes
even
less
sense
when
you
consider
that
Trump’s
barely
vetting
his
cabinet
secretaries.
Trump
didn’t
feel
the
need
to
check
Matt
Gaetz’s
public
Venmo
feed
but
feels
the
need
to
personally
check
references
on
whatever
middling
job
he’s
giving
Bill
Barr’s
former
chief
of
staff?
Industrial-grade
credulity
cannot
hold
up
to
this
kind
of
strain.
Alito
claims
the
conversation
never
strayed
into
Trump’s
upcoming
Supreme
Court
cases.
There’s
no
record
of
what
transpired
on
the
call,
but
we
should
totally
take
him
at
his
word.
It’s
not
like
he
said
in
2023
that
he
barely
knew
Paul
Singer,
the
billionaire
litigant
giving
him
a
free
private
plane
trip,
even
though
back
in
2009,
ABOVE
THE
LAW
contemporaneously
reported
on
an
event
where
Alito
was
introduced
by
his
personal
friend…
Paul
Singer.
I
mean,
a
guy
who
tried
to
mislead
the
public
on
such
an
easily
checked
matter
like
that
would
be
a
thoroughly
unreliable
narrator
about
his
own
ethical
issues!
Trump
wanted
to
take
Alito’s
temperature
—
directly
or
indirectly
—
and
found
a
justice
more
than
willing
to
comply
with
this
request.
Alito
should
recuse
himself
from
Trump’s
case
given
this
revelation
about
his
stunning
lack
of
judgment.
But
he
won’t
because
while
the
Trump
v.
United
States
opinion
is
reported
as
a
6-3
supermajority
providing
necessary
slack
for
Alito
to
sit
out
and
still
deliver
for
“the
Boss,”
it’s
not
so
simple.
Trump’s
attack
on
the
New
York
criminal
case
arises
—
in
part
—
from
the
section
of
the
Trump
opinion
suggesting
unofficial
acts
can
earn
immunity
if
any
of
the
evidence
involves
an
official
act
and
Trump’s
arguing
that
testimony
from
White
House
aides
about
what
he
did
after
the
fact
with
the
crime
that
took
place
before
becoming
president
should
nix
the
whole
case.
And
on
that
issue,
Amy
Coney
Barrett
refused
to
hop
aboard,
making
it
much
closer
to
a
5-4
question.
If
the
Chief
Justice
wants
the
public
to
regain
faith
in
the
legitimacy
of
the
courts,
this
might
be
a
good
place
to
start.
Even
assuming
an
entirely
innocent
phone
call
this
time
—
a
big
ask
—
if
Alito
hears
this
case,
it
establishes
a
precedent
for
Trump
to
have
private
chit-chats
with
the
justices
with
no
consequences.
The
risk
of
mischief
is
extraordinary.
This
is
where
that
whole
“avoid
the
mere
appearance
of
impropriety”
thing
would
come
into
play.
Except
this
Court
reads
that
classic
maxim
a
little
differently
these
days:
avoid
the
mere
appearance
of
impropriety.
[UPDATE:
I
hastily
wrote
“Peter”
Singer
in
the
first
draft,
apparently
confusing
billionaire
Paul
Singer
with
bioethicist
and
moral
philosopher
Peter
Singer
which
probably
says
something
but
I’m
not
sure
what
it
is.]
Trump
speaks
with
Justice
Alito
amid
push
to
halt
criminal
sentencing
[ABC
News]
Earlier:
Sam
Alito
Laments
It’s
Getting
So
You
Can’t
Take
All-Expense
Paid
Luxury
Vacations
Funded
By
Billionaires
Anymore
Donald
Trump
Demands
SCOTUS
Do
Him
A
Favor
Though
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.