Jack Smith's latest move shows just how desperate he is to interfere in the 2024 presidential election: he asked the Supreme Court to quickly rule on former President Donald Trump's immunity and double jeopardy claims in an attempt to keep the trial scheduled for before the election.

This is a pretty risky move for Smith: if the conservative Supreme Court rules that Trump did have immunity on January 6, 2021, or that double jeopardy applies, then Smith's case just went up in smoke.

On the other hand, Trump's appeal after Judge Tanya Chutkan denied his claims initially could take long enough to push the trial until after the election.

Smith knows that his only chance to get a conviction against Trump may be to quickly resolve the appeal.

No precedent?

Besides claiming immunity, Trump also argued that double jeopardy applies to the case after the Senate acquitted him of wrongdoing on January 6.

Smith and his team pointed out that the two issues at hand have not been ruled on previously by the courts, which make them important questions that likely would eventually make it to the highest court in the land one way or the other.

"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," prosecutors wrote in Monday's filing.

And it seems that the court agrees with Smith, at least about taking on the case.

The court said "yes"

Just hours after the filing, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the case on an expedited basis.

The Supreme Court's quick decision could mean one of two things: a majority believes that the president does have immunity, or that double jeopardy applies, or both, and wants to dispose of this case before it goes any further; or a majority wants Trump out of the picture and sees the need to rule quickly to keep the trial on track.

It could also mean that the court just sees the need to resolve the issue and doesn't have an opinion yet one way or the other.

It's a situation that hasn't been seen before--a former president being criminally charged with actions he took while he was still president.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes regardless of the outcome.

Trump has made a lot of history in his years in politics, and it seems like he's far from finished.