This is a wonderful article that explains the “Presidential Immunity” argument that President Trump and his lawyers will present to the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 25th!
Voters for Trump, (as well as the haters against him), need to read the post at the link below to understand what will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court in this immunity case.
The following is a long excerpt, but it does explain, very well I might add, why President Trump is entitled to the immunity claim he is making!
“From the Brief of Marxist Jack Smith comes a contrived argument almost as bad as the corrupt effort to impose Section 1512(C)(2) on Mr. Fischer, and thereby many January 6ers, last week. While we fully expect 1512 will fall and eliminate those obstruction charges against President Trump and against many January 6th protesters, the upcoming Presidential Immunity case is critical to end the broader persecution of President Trump, shut down the corrupt efforts of the DOJ and allow the 2024 election to proceed more peacefully, minus any contrived black swans of course.
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). “
*******
And there you have it! Go to the link for the rest of the article, and the tweets shared there.
All of the haters against President Trump in this case, will likely have their heads explode when the verdict comes out in Trump’s favor! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😊😊😊
Talk Wisdom 