by WorldTribune Staff, July 2, 2024 Contract With Our Readers
In its Monday ruling on presidential immunity, did the U.S. Supreme Court say that a sitting president is immune from prosecution for ordering the military to kill a political opponent?
Leftist minds think so.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s legal team launched an effort to have his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan overturned with the ruling’s impact on multiple other legal offensive against Joe Biden’s top political rival in question.
The Left ate up Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s contention that Monday’s ruling on immunity allows a president to deploy Seal Team 6 to assassinate his rival. / Public DomainLiberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent of the 6-3 decision: “This new official-acts immunity now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
Slate.com took the bait, and ran with the headline: “Can the President Send SEAL Team Six to Assassinate His Rival? After Monday, Yes.”
Joe Biden’s handlers slapped a coat of spray tan on him and sent the 81-year-old out to assail the Supreme Court’s decision as a “dangerous precedent.”
Biden said the decision makes the president equal to a king. He pledged to respect the limits of presidential power but warned that Donald Trump would now have unchecked power.
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are no limits on what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden said. “The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent: “Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics … or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup … has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model.”
In writing for the majority on Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that acts taken by a president in their “core constitutional capacity” are immune from prosecution, and that “official actions” taken by a president are entitled to “presumptive immunity.” Roberts stated that this immunity did not carry over to “unofficial” acts.
Former Attorney General William Barr said the liberals’ examples were false and the dissents “unfairly portray the majority opinion.”
Barr told Fox News that a president has the constitutional authority to direct a case be dropped, but he doesn’t have the authority to accept a bribe in doing so. He went on to say the president could direct his Department of Justice to investigate something, but he can’t fabricate evidence as part of that investigation.
“The worst example, I think, the one that makes no sense whatsoever is the idea he can use SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent,” Barr said.
“The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth. He has authority to direct the Justice Department against criminals at home. He doesn’t have the authority to go and assassinate people whether he uses the SEAL Team or a private hit man — it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make it a carrying out of his authority, so all these horror stories are really false,” Barr said.
Soon after the decision was handed down on Monday, former Trump’s legal team sought to have his conviction overturned and the upcoming sentencing in the case postponed.
In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, Trump’s lawyers argued that the verdict on the hush money case should be invalidated because they believe the jury was exposed to evidence during the trial that should have been shielded by presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal team has requested a delay in the sentencing, which is set for July 11, pending Merchan’s assessment of how the Supreme Court’s ruling might impact the conviction.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed to postpone the sentencing until Sept. 18.
In his concurrence on Monday’s ruling, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether special counsel Jack Smith’s office is constitutional.
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.
“We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be ‘established by Law.’ As James Madison cautioned, ‘[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.’ 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling:
“Today’s commonsense Supreme Court immunity ruling is a victory for former President Trump, the U.S. Constitution, and the rule of law. The Biden administration’s political decision to try to put Trump in jail for simply being president was unsurprisingly rejected by the Supreme Court.
“Make no mistake, the Supreme Court is imposing a virtually insurmountable burden on Jack Smith in his vicious pursuit of Trump over the election and document disputes. The unprecedented charges against Trump were frivolous to begin with and, after today’s decision, should be shut down completely by the Justice Department.”
Investigative reporter Julie Kelly posted on X that there is a new filing in the Trump classified documents case:
No SCOTUS bombshells this am but there’s a new filing by Trump in docs case related to malfeasance in the FBI raid and investigation.
It appears Jack Smith only recently turned over some FBI emails about the raid. Defense suspects there are more comms that the special counsel is… pic.twitter.com/hHufQZgGno
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) July 2, 2024
Liberal minds explode after Supreme Court ruling; Biden lawfare in jeopardy added by Editor Two on July 2, 2024
View all posts by Editor Two →
Source link