TRUMP IMMUNITY
✳️ {logged 8AM July 1, 2024 before the Opinion by the Supreme Court was released} by William Newton
ULTIMATELY IMO, immunity WHILE being President must be the ruling.....as it would create "pause" and in certain times, urgency is required. Who is the best judge of what determines "Official acts" better than the US Congress?
How we got here....
Trump was indicted in August 2023 on four counts, arising from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, alleging that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But most don't understand THAT it falls well into the "official duties" of every President to ensure our elections are NOT FRAUDULENT.
✳️ (It was also within the official duty of the Vice President (as President of the US Senate) to return any election results in controversy BACK TO THE STATE - Pence did NOT. Maybe he should be prosecuted next⁉️🤔
AND representing Trump, John Sauer told the justices that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the “presidency as we know it” will be changed. The “looming threat,” he contended, will “destroy presidential decisionmaking precisely when” the president needs to be bold.
👉🏾As I've pointed out.....and so I agree with Sauer‼️
ITS NOT ABOUT TRUMP......
And the impact of the court’s decision, he suggested, will have an impact far beyond Trump’s case. He pointed to the prospect, for example, that President Joe Biden could be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the United States illegally through his border control policies. And it doesn't STOP there.....
Further, I must point out that Trump, while impeached, was NOT found guilty by the US Senate as required.....
In the end the debate will center over "Official vs Private acts".
As there is as yet NO qualifier as to what constitutes either - then it'll be "remanded"......and so, pushing it out past the November election; otherwise it's obvious INTERFERENCE‼️
This process will continue but in the end, a President MUST not be hamstrung in decision making and the US Congress has the oversight.....
The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"
(Article I, section 2) and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..... #NewtonSaidIt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
♦️AND on further reading -
"FISCHER" PRESENTS A CLUE about the upcoming possible decision over the Trump "interference" case....
KEEP IN MIND the most recent ruling by SCOTUS wherein the opinion in Fischer (the J6er), Justice Roberts writes in footnotes:
"According to the complaint, about an hour AFTER the
Houses RECESSED, Fischer trespassed into the Capitol and
was involved in a physical confrontation with law enforce-
ment." {my emphasis added}
👉🏾This takes judicial note - by pointing out that in Fischer's case, he could NOT have 'disrupted an official proceeding' because IT WAS AT RECESS‼️
"Otherwise", a word that the opinion focused on in the statute, leads to Roberts' long-winded explanation of the "Vagueness Doctrine".....and how it applies in "Fischer". That's both notable AND telling when applied to Trump's "interference" charge...... This also leads me to believe, using the same measure, Trump could not have interfered given ALL the other extraneous evidence to the contrary. I see it as the government's charges as an indication their lawyers suffer from an incurable case of apophenia.
♦️I personally believe outside of any presidential immunity conclusions, the balance of claims against Trump will ultimately be rejected as well on remand because after the "Fischer" ruling, even those activities deemed "private acts" by Trump lack the same specificity required in "Fischer". #NewtonSaidIt
✳️ {logged 10:20AM July 1, 2024}
Comentarios