Trump Gets Major Presidental Supreme Court Immunity: The recent developments continue to shake up our disillusioned and embattled establishment.
Just a day after former President Donald Trump secured yet another decisive win by defeating former South Carolina governor and establishment favorite Nikki Haley in the Michigan Republican presidential primary, the Supreme Court made an announcement.
According to NBC, the Court declared that it would entertain arguments regarding Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
Trump praised the Supreme Court’s decision in a two-part post on the social media platform Truth Social.The post began with Trump stating, “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.
“However, Trump also expressed skepticism towards some members of the legal profession, suggesting that certain “scholars” and “experts” have discredited themselves in recent years due to their bias against him. He implied that these individuals might prioritize his conviction over the potential clarity the Supreme Court’s decision could offer.
Nevertheless, Trump argued strongly in favor of presidential immunity. He asserted that without it, former presidents could face unjust prosecution and retaliation, drawing from his own experiences. Additionally, Trump warned that the absence of immunity could make sitting presidents vulnerable to extortion and blackmail.
In the latter part of his statement, Trump emphasized the significance of presidential immunity, stating that without it, the presidency essentially loses its essence. He argued that such a scenario is not aligned with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
NBC reported that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) hinted in its recent order that it would address the issue of whether a former president retains immunity from criminal prosecution for actions conducted during their time in office.
This development came as a setback for Jack Smith, a figure criticized as an instrument of the establishment, who serves as a purported legitimate special counsel.
Back in August, Smith unveiled an indictment accusing Trump of various offenses related to the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, including conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to suppress voters, and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
Now, Smith finds it increasingly difficult to hide his desperation and panic.
In his court documents, as reported by NBC, Smith emphasized the urgency of resolving the charges swiftly, asserting that any delay jeopardizes the public’s interest in a prompt and fair verdict—a crucial aspect in every criminal case, particularly given the significant national implications at stake.
However, the recent decision by SCOTUS suggests that achieving a “speedy” verdict is now unlikely. This implies that the corrupt establishment may not be able to convict Trump on the alleged charges before the 2024 presidential election.
SCOTUS signaled its intention to hear arguments during the week of April 22, suggesting the possibility of a ruling by the end of its term in June.
Initially, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, known for her past anti-Trump bias and harsh sentencing of Jan. 6 defendants, scheduled Trump’s trial for March. However, the case disappeared from the court’s docket earlier this month as Trump pursued an appeal based on immunity.
At its heart, Smith’s case against Trump revolves around the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. Many witnessed the halt in vote counting on election night in battleground states. Furthermore, during the election season, the U.S. government pressured social media platforms to censor posts questioning the use of mail-in ballots.
For instance, Tucker Carlson recently shared an interview with former State Department official Mike Benz on the social media platform X. Benz, who now heads the Foundation for Freedom Online, had submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS regarding the Biden administration’s online censorship efforts. In the interview, Benz detailed how the U.S. national security state enforced censorship on social media posts casting doubt on the legitimacy of mail-in ballots.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the establishment attempts to discredit any dissenting opinions, going so far as to prosecute those who dare to question the narrative.
In the short term, Trump may find some relief in SCOTUS’ decision, as anything that thwarts individuals like Smith and Chutkan can be seen as positive news. However, the broader issue remains: when government entities censor citizens’ election-related speech, they undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Until the entire election-rigging establishment is ousted from power, there can be no true cause for celebration.