Gear yourself up for another Donald Trump rant on Truth Social after he hears what Ronald Reagan’s former lawyer has to say about his chances of the U.S. Supreme Court granting him presidential immunity. According To Peter J. Wallison, who served as a lawyer for the late president, Trump’s chances of this happening aren’t likely.

Wallison’s remarks stem from the charges Trump faces in a federal case regarding his alleged effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which led the Department of Justice to charge Trump on four counts last August, including conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights, Newsweek reports.

You’d think something like this would be enough to knock the former President from his lofty position atop the 2024 GOP presidential primary, but nope. He continues to maintain his innocence, pleading not guilty to all of the charges and claiming federal prosecutors are targeting him for political gain, so maybe the fools who are supporting him actually believe this. He has argued he is immune from prosecution over charges he interfered in the 2020 election because he was president when all these alleged offenses were committed.

In an op-ed for The Wallstreet Journal Titled Against Immunity for Trump, Wallison writes that he is against immunity for the former president. Wallison is the senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank.

“The Supreme Court could ultimately hold otherwise, but the case is strong that Mr. Trump should be denied immunity. There can hardly be a more serious crime for a president than to use the power of his office corruptly to prevent his successor from becoming president through a valid election,” he wrote.

Wallison rejected Trump’s claims that a trial would constitute double jeopardy because he has already been impeached over the failed January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building. And Wallison has the backing of the U.S. Constitution here because according to Article 1, Section 3 it notes that “when an official is impeached and convicted, he can still be tried criminally.” He also added that a Washington, D.C., circuit court had earlier found that Trump was “engaged in re-election activities, not presidential duties,” when he purportedly tried to scupper the election results.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing the election interference trial and denied the immunity request from Trump’s legal team in early December. The decision was then taken to an appellate court. Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the immunity claims, but last Friday the court ruled that the appellate court must first rule on the decision. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the election interference trial, denied the immunity request from the former president’s legal team at the start of December. The decision was taken to an appellate court. Department of Justice (DOJ) Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the immunity claims, but the court ruled last Friday the decision must be first made by the appellate court.

Quite a lot rests on the outcome of the appellate court’s ruling. Smith’s or Trump’s legal team could sue to appeal in order to involve the Supreme Court in the ruling. But that process could drag out the start of Trump’s trial to beyond the March 2024 start date, something, and analysts say Trump is hoping the trial will be pushed back until after the November election. Well, of course, he is.

After all, if he wins the election he could drop the case or pardon himself.

But Wallison, as Reagan’s former attorney, has decades of experience, and if he believes the Court won’t grant immunity, he’s likely correct.

Wonder if there’s any ketchup being tossed on the walls of Mar-a-Lago right now?