This case is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, April 25th. The question presented to the Supreme Court of the United States is:
WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE.
To begin with we should consider the central weakness to Jack Smith case – where he deems Nixon’s resignation before House impeachment and Senate conviction followed by his pardon as the closest historical parallel to what President Trump faces:
The closest historical analogue is President Nixon’s official conduct in Watergate, and his acceptance of a pardon implied his and President Ford’s recognition that a former President was subject to prosecution. Since Watergate, the Department of Justice has held the view that a former President may face criminal prosecution, and Independent and Special Counsels have operated from that same understanding. Until petitioner’s arguments in this case, so had former Presidents.
Jack Smith falsely contrives the Nixon parallel above as Nixon stepped down when he learned that the House was prepared to impeach him – and this is a glaring constitutional distinction Jack failed to state. Nixon, upon expected impeachment and anticipated conviction in the Senate, would have become subject to criminal liability if convicted. He determined to resign and avoid that process.
President Trump; however, did not resign and allowed the impeachment process to go forth, which, upon impeachment, initiated the trial in the Senate, where President Trump was exonerated. The difference is simply massive – the two cases cannot be compared, and yet to the showman Jack Smith this is the closest parallel.
In short Smith compares a defendant that takes a deal before trial to another defendant that sits through trial and is vindicated. As reflected in the President’s Reply Brief, Alito pointed out, “[t]he plain implication” of the Impeachment Judgment Clause, as elucidated by Hamilton, “is that criminal prosecution, like removal from the Presidency and disqualification from other offices, is a consequence that can come about only after the Senate’s judgment….” Trump v. Vance, 140 S. Ct. 2412, 2444 (emphasis added).
This means that the Senate exonerated the President, and therefore he is immune from prosecution regarding official acts (at least).
Further highlighting games at play by Marxists, Tucker Carlson, in his recent interview with Joe Rogan, describes the frame job that was applied to Richard Nixon:
NEW: Tucker Carlson explains how the FBI and CIA conducted a coup to take out President Richard Nixon with help from journalist Bob Woodward.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 20, 2024
“Richard Nixon was taken out by the FBI and CIA, and with the help of Bob Woodward.”
“[Woodward] was that guy. And who is his main… pic.twitter.com/K8Yt9zy9Qk
At the time, while many conservatives recognized this attack on Nixon was political and diabolical, liberals rapidly took the win and made any defense of Nixon third rail – a no go zone – this reduced any potential to vindicate him ex-post; hence, years later Tucker’s video will undoubtedly surprise many.
In the case of President Trump, who is used to dealing with attacks from criminals and cons throughout his career, he smartly avoided traps and fought aggressively against the Marxists. His success is a model for all future Republicans that seek the highest office – you need to be independently wealthy, avoid all corruption, have a sixth sense for traps, and be ready to fight endlessly.
Liberals seek to shamelessly eliminate President Trump under an obvious political persecution; however, they now must destroy every element of our Constitution because they failed to take out President Trump via the Constitutional House impeachment and Senate conviction processes designed to do so.
More specifically, looking at precedents relating to Presidential Immunity. Over the decades, attacks on Presidents have narrowed or clarified the extent of presidential immunity.
1. Nixon was forced to respond to subpoenas and provide evidence:
“the Nixon Court recognized that it was “imperative” that “compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or the defense.” Ibid.
The Court thus concluded that the President’s “generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” Id., at 713, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039. Two weeks later, President Nixon dutifully released the tapes.” Trump v Vance at 2422.
2. President Clinton had sought immunity from civil liability, not just official acts -- This form of immunity was denied as described in Trump v. Vance:
[In Clinton v. Jones] President Clinton argued that the risk of being “distracted by the need to participate in litigation” entitled a sitting President to absolute immunity from civil liability, not just for official acts, as in Fitzgerald, but for private conduct as well. We disagreed with that rationale, explaining that the “dominant concern” in Fitzgerald was not mere distraction but the distortion of the Executive’s “decision making process” with respect to official acts that would stem from “worry as to the possibility of damages.” The Court recognized that Presidents constantly face myriad demands on their attention, “some private, some political, and some as a result of official duty.” But, the Court concluded, “[w]hile such distractions may be vexing to those subjected to them, they do not ordinarily implicate constitutional . . . concerns.” (emphasis added).
3. In Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court found that distraction, stigma and harassment were not sufficient to confer immunity to the President on needing to answer state criminal subpoenas.
And now, given what we see in the parade of political prosecutions against President Trump, in Trump v. Vance, relying on the incremental takings of immunity from Nixon and later Clinton, the Court went further. The Supreme Court stated in Trump v. Vance:
The President’s primary contention, which the Solicitor General supports, is that complying with state criminal subpoenas would necessarily divert the Chief Executive from his duties. He grounds that concern in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which recognized a President’s “absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”
In explaining the basis for that immunity, this Court observed that the prospect of such liability could “distract a President from his public duties, to the detriment of not only the President and his office but also the Nation that the Presidency was designed to serve.” The President contends that the diversion occasioned by a state criminal subpoena imposes an equally intolerable burden on a President’s ability to perform his Article II functions.
President Trump then argued the Court should prohibit state criminal subpoenas that are distracting, stigmatizing or harassing. The Supreme Court, likely impacted by the extent of fake news at the time, unfortunately, relied on its previous finding in Fitzgerald (the Nixon case), where the Court did not hold that distraction was sufficient to confer absolute immunity then also found that distraction, stigma and harassment were not sufficient to confer immunity to the President on needing to answer state criminal subpoenas.
In doing so, the Court again favored weakening Presidential immunity in Trump v. Vance – setting up the endless pursuit of President Trump by states led by overzealous and politically biased prosecutors in what appears a conspiracy against President Trump that involves the Biden White House.
Now we can see that distraction, stigma, and harassment that the Supreme Court poo-pooed in Trump v. Vance is nothing less than a tidal wave directly interfering with the 2024 election of the President.
Today, as candidate, President Trump faces harassment, stigma, distraction and jailtime in spades – all as a part of a vast political effort to destroy him. The Supreme Court must acknowledge its error in Trump v. Vance and at a minimum fully recognize the President’s immunity regarding official act given his exoneration in the Senate trial.
As this case is heard at the Supreme Court, Judge Merchan will be actively restricting President Trump’s ability to campaign or even watch his son’s graduation. Merchan does not allow the President to be referred to as President or even to use his phone silently in court. This is false imprisonment and election interference – not a mere distraction and far beyond harrassment.
The Court for some reason was blind to the reality we face today – however, these facts should now highlight the extent to which the court erred – and should therefore impact their decision-making process on Thursday favorably for President Trump.
Comments