The Corrupt Jack Smith Filed His Argument Against Allowing Immunity for President Trump

Jack Smith's Brief to the Supreme Court is stunningly biased and absurd; like a large turd in the scales of justice.  At the start, Mr. Smith (most similar to Mr. Smith in the Matrix) alleges that President Trump did the following:

[W]hile serving as President, conspired with several private individuals and a public official to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”  The indictment alleges that petitioner sought to accomplish the conspiracy’s objectives through five means:  using deceit toward state officials to subvert the legitimate election results in those States; using deceit to organize fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted States and cause them to send false certificates to Congress; leveraging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to use deceit to have state officials replace the legitimate electoral slate with electors who would cast their votes for petitioner; attempting to enlist the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, to fraudulently alter the election results during the certification proceeding on January 6, 2021, and directing supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the proceeding; and exploiting the violence and chaos that transpired at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

With this absurd scheme he cooked up, Mr. Smith then wraps himself in a blanket of impartiality when at page 20, of all people, Mr. Smith provides a section entitled “Robust safeguards protect against the risk of improper prosecutions.” – the apparently now unbiased Mr. Smith argues:

The Executive Branch and the criminal justice system contain strong safeguards against groundless prosecutions. Congress has vested in the Attorney General “the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government,” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694, and DOJ has a longstanding commitment to the impartial enforcement of the law. See Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc’y 18 (1940). DOJ’s standards and institutional structures reinforce those values: federal prosecutors are required to make prosecution decisions based on the facts and the law, see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.000 and they may not consider, inter alia, a potential defendant’s “political associations, activities, or beliefs”

When Mr. Smith references a statement from 1940 saying the DOJ has a long-standing commitment to impartiality yet Navarro, a Trump loyalist, stews in Prison for not testifying to a Kangaroo committee that didn’t allow conservatives on it; while liberal DOJ attorneys refuse to testify to a committee that follows bipartisan rules, this is an extremely biased circumstance.  As reported here, a Biden appointed Judge, Ana Reyes, called the hypocrisy “quite rich”, and in the same hearing, the DOJ prosecutors refused to confirm to the Judge that they would follow her ultimate order.

Also just last week, an cruel example of an exceedingly overzealous DOJ prosecution of a 70 year old peaceful praying grandmother:
 
And on Monday, the Fischer case will hear the DOJ’s biased and absurd interpretation of Section 1512 designed for the extraordinary corruption scandal of Enron yet applied by this DOJ to allege President Trump and January 6ers corruptly obstructed an official proceeding.

April 15 and April 22 represent the two most important Supreme Court hearings in American History – they will determine whether the Supreme Court cares sufficiently for our Constitution and our way of life. If the Court denies President Trump immunity, this would empower the DOJ to expand its lawless and nationally destructive pursuit of the President in all manners they can contrive.

And note, immunity is lost in any case with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.  Any bad acting President that is impeached and found guilty in the Senate can be prosecuted – so the idea of immunity is limited to those Presidents that are not convicted including President Trump, which makes sense as a conviction of the highest politician on a less than bipartisan standard would inevitably be subject to political bias as we are witnessing.  The Supreme Court understands this – so if they fail to protect the President, then they simply are acting with the same bias.

 
Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

ad-image

Get latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox

Copyright © 2024 Conservative - All Rights Reserved
Powered by