Monumental SCOTUS Immunity Decision

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Federal Case Against Trump

On August 1, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump him on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election.

The following is a summary of the allegations, written from the perspective of federal prosecutors.  It should be recognized that some of the language is presumptive, particularly in reference to terms such as “false claims”, “fraudulent electors”, and “false certificates”.  In real time, those actions were likely taken under circumstances in which the President had legitimate concerns.  

The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. According to the indictment, Trump advanced his goal through five primary means.

First, he and his co-conspirators “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to . . . change electoral votes for [Trump’s] opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for [Trump].” [1]

Second, Trump and his co-conspirators “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states” and “caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.” [2]

In 1876, there was a disputed presidential election whereby Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican Gov. of Ohio, won 165 electoral votes, but lost the popular vote to New York Gov. Samuel Tilden, who had secured 184 electoral votes.  However, those were the results of the initial count and there were 20 electoral votes unresolved from Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon.  Those 20 disputed electoral votes were presented to Congress by each party as “alternate” slates of electors from the respective four states.  There was no claim by the losing Democrat Party that they were “fake” electors.   Both slates were simply submitted to Congress for consideration.  To address the issue, Congress established an Electoral Commission which awarded all 20 disputed votes to Hayes, who became POTUS 19 by a single electoral vote.  So, despite precedent regarding the exact same circumstances, somehow when Trump attempts to ensure a free and fair election, in his official capacity as the sitting President, submitting an “alternate” slate of electors is construed as a crime, according to the Democrat Party and their advocates in the Propaganda Media Complex.

Third, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to use the Justice Department “to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.” [3] 

As President, it is entirely within his constitutional authority to communicate and coordinate with the Department of Justice, part of the Executive branch.

Fourth, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to persuade “the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.”  And when that failed, on the morning of January 6, they “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” [4] 

The President has every right to communicate and direct his Vice President.  It is the prosecution’s assertion that the election results were legitimate and that Trump’s claims were “false”.  On January 6th 2021, he did NOT “knowingly” repeat “false claims” as he had evidence of over 1,000 independent affiants who swore under penalty of perjury that they witnessed massive voter fraud.  At that time he had every reason to question those vote results and it is entirely within the scope of his authority to ensure that elections are free and fair.  Nor did he direct his supporters to obstruct the certification proceeding.

Fifth, when “a large and angry crowd . . . violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” Trump and his coconspirators “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.” [5] 

There are a lot of conflicting accounts related to events at the Capitol on January 6th.  We saw videos of Trump supporters being escorted into the building by Capitol Police. We saw videos of anarchists breaking windows.  We saw videos of Trump supporters sitting in “official” chairs.  But there are multiple reports of Antifa and FBI operatives coercing the more “violent” behaviors in leadership roles.  Despite media and DNC claims of death on the scene, the only casualty was the killing of an unarmed 14-year Air Force veteran by the Capitol Police officer who was never charged.  Also, Trump offered to provide 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of time, but Nancy Pelosi declined the offer. And I have always wondered why the joint session needed to “run for cover”, or even delay their meeting, as it is almost certainly a secure room in which they were meeting.  It almost reeks of a government setup. 

Based on this alleged conduct, the indictment charged Trump with (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(k), (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2), §2, and (4) conspiracy against rights in violation of §241.1 [f]

Let’s examine those statutes.

18 U. S. C. §371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.  [6]

§1512(k) – Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

§1512(c)(2) – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c)  Whoever corruptly—

     (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,  [7]

§2 – Principals

  • Whoever commits an offense against the United States, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.  [8]

§241.1 [f] – Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—  [9]

The Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision in Trump v. United States

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued their decision in Trump v. United States that dealt with the question of presidential immunity for alleged criminal acts committed while a sitting President was in office.  It is a monumental decision in that SCOTUS has declared that any President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he may have taken while in office that fall within the sphere of his ambit, or purview, as official duties granted by the Constitution.  In their Opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, they meticulously distinguished the difference between absolute and presumptive immunities, and repeatedly stressed that the President is not protected from acts determined to be “unofficial”.

The Supreme Court acted fairly, they acted properly in their interpretation of the Constitution, and they acted with the highest possible degree of integrity.  The reaction from the uber-liberal media and prominent Democrats was despicable.  You can be sure that under the next Democrat administration there will be a push to pack the Supreme Court with as many liberal judges as necessary to swing the balance of power in their favor so they can dominate all three branches of government under an iron fist.  For now, the Supreme Court is the last firewall between our constitutional republic and communism.

The result of their decision, an outline of which I have provided under “Opinion of the Court”, is that the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith is remanded to the lower courts because their prosecution made no distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts and the Supreme Court is not a court of first review.

Opinion of the Court

Full Disclosure:  Most of the text below is copied directly from the Opinion written by SCOTUS.  It is not all quoted due to the many sets of quotation marks within.  All footnotes are provided to quickly access the pertinent pages.  I’ve added my own comments to certain sections.  My remarks in this segment are italicized.

The first eight pages of this pdf document [10] is the syllabus of key points rendered in the Opinion, which provides more detail.  The court concluded the syllabus portion of their decision by writing:

“Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.” [11]

 “We conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.  At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” [12]

In other words, no President can be expected to act unencumbered if he needs to be consulted on legal jeopardy, particularly when dealing with matters requiring grave decisions.

No President should be subject to prosecution for decisions that may result in grave consequences, and must therefore have some protection against legal jeopardy that might encumber decisions regarding grave matters.  He must be free to act swiftly when necessary in order to uphold his oath of office to preserve and protect the citizenry.

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity . . .

The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.” [13]

Here, the Court clearly decides that the President is not protected for “unofficial” acts, or acts committed beyond the scope of his constitutional authorities.

For example, the President can’t order the assassination of his primary political rival and expect to be immune from prosecution for obvious criminality.

The office of the presidency does not entitle the President to act as a King, or Dictator, as you likely heard many prominent Democrats and their Propaganda Media Complex talking heads crying about.  They are either lying or have obviously not read the Opinion in an effort to fear-monger the voters.  They actually expect you to believe everything they say without question.  And as usual, they all portray this using the exact same catch phrases, as if a memo was dispatched from central command.  This particular clause of the decision is clearly explained on page 4 of the syllabus.  Were they all so lazy and ignorant enough to not bother reading the first 4 pages before pontificating on its ramifications?  These reprobates need to be held to account.  Perhaps somebody should organize a campaign to boycott advertisers of the mainstream media and demand a return to legitimate journalism.  We the People want fair and balanced news, not propaganda designed to secure the permanent power structure of one political party.

“Determining whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution requires applying the principles we have laid out to his conduct at issue. The first step is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, however, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis. Because those courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.”  [14]

This is where SCOTUS is essentially reprimanding the lower courts for hastily prosecuting this case while failing to consider constitutional provisions or existing case law and laying the groundwork for their decision to remand back to the lower courts for thorough analysis.  The mere fact that the D.C. Circuit expedited this case in an attempt to convict Trump before the November election is further evidence that this case is politically motivated and arguably depicts election interference, an act that redirects criminality on those who brought the case. 

“Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”  [15]

I would strongly argue that the President’s communications with his Vice President and state officials is certainly within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility to ensure elections are free and fair.  I can’t see any way that could be disputed. 

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” [16]

Here, the court is saying that once it has been determined the alleged act falls within the scope of the President’s authority, motive cannot be considered further.  The investigation is over.

“The indictment broadly alleges that Trump and his coconspirators sought to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.   It charges that they conspired to obstruct the January 6 congressional proceeding at which electoral votes are counted and certified, and the winner of the election is certified as President-elect.  As part of this conspiracy, Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly attempted to leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.” [17]

My only comment with this particular statement is that SCOTUS misrepresents Trump’s attempt to submit “alternate” slate of electors, as was previously done in the election of 1876.  They were not “fraudulent” slates.

“Trump and his co-conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding those States’ certification of electors.” [18]

“And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.  Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” [19]

In reference to Trump’s communications with his acting Attorney General, he is absolutely immune from prosecution and any inquiry regarding alleged motive.  I would argue, the same absolute immunity applies with respect to his communications with his Vice President and any state officials, such as the Georgia Secretary of State.

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.” [20]

Here, the Court guides the lower courts future considerations by classifying all of Trump’s communications with the Vice President as actions that are at least presumptively immune.

“Trump and his co-conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding those States’ certification of electors.” [21]

As I said above, the 5 states mentioned here were merely attempting to submit “alternate” slates of electors as the states of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon did in the election of 1876.  Those 20 electoral votes were all awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes and elected him as the 19th President by a single vote.  That could not have happened if those “alternate” slates had not been permitted to be submitted to the joint session of Congress.

Again, I argue the President has not only the right, but the duty, to ensure that elections are free and fair, and is entitled to communicate with state election officials.

The indictment alleges that Trump attempted to convince officials in those states to examine their election results and procedures and when they refused to alter their processes, he coerced them to submit “false certificates”, or “fraudulent” slates to the Vice President.  This is where I might suggest those state officials may not have had enough time to effectively audit every single vote to determine its validity and it would have been prudent to submit the “alternate” slates in case further examination revealed massive fraud.  In other words, delay the certification pending state audits.

The Supreme Court has remanded, the case, with guidance, back down to the “lower courts” for consideration of the distinction between official and unofficial actions allegedly committed by former President Trump in reference to his constitutional authority, something the District Court and the D.C. Circuit Court had hastily disregarded.  The reasoning is that SCOTUS is a court of final review and that prescribed analysis is best left to a court of first review.  In other words, SCOTUS has determined that the lower court(s) must first make determinations that correlate certain allegations to unofficial acts, then subject to appeal, before coming back to the Supreme Court.  

The SCOTUS Decision in Fischer

On the June 30, 2024 broadcast of Life, Liberty and Levin, host Mark Levin mentioned that Special Counsel Jack Smith was applying a creative legal theory to the Trump case in manipulating the interpretation of U.S. Code §1512, which is cited by Smith in two of the four federal charges against Trump.  Those charges relate to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a federal law that established regulations and auditing requirements for public companies.  The law was passed in response to corporate scandals and the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and was created to protect shareholders, employees, and the public from fraudulent financial practices and accounting errors.  It has nothing to do with the so-called “insurrection” of January 6th, and should be dropped entirely.  That leaves sections 371 and 241.

As defined in the segment titled “The Federal Case Against Trump”, the 371 statute reads, in part, “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose . . . “

WHAT?  This statute was intended to address fraud committed by federal contractors.  I still don’t know how it’s applicable to Trump.

As defined in the segment titled “The Federal Case Against Trump”, the 241 statute reads, in part, “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution . . . “  This statute was enacted in 1948 to protect the civil rights and prevent intimidation of black voters by the Ku Klux Klan.  It’s a pretty shaky charge to bring against Trump.

This case concerns the prosecution of petitioner Joseph Fischer for his conduct on January 6, 2021. That day, both Houses of Congress convened in a joint session to certify the votes in the 2020 Presidential election. While they did so, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the Capitol. As set forth in the criminal complaint against Fischer, some of the crowd eventually “forced entry” into the building, “breaking windows,” and “assaulting members of the U. S. Capitol Police.”  This breach of the Capitol caused Members of Congress to evacuate the Chambers and delayed the certification process. The complaint alleges that Fischer was one of those who invaded the building.

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Fischer v. United States, in which they cited 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(1), wherein it states,  

(c)  Whoever corruptly—

     (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (§1512(c)(2)as shown above) [22]

Judge Walker of the D.C. Circuit Court read the element of the statute – “corruptly” – as requiring a defendant to act with “an intent to procure an unlawful benefit.”

Chief Justice Roberts opinion [23] opens thusly;

“The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly ‘alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.’ 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibition to anyone who ‘otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.’ §1512(c)(2). We consider whether this ‘otherwise’ clause should be read in light of the limited reach of the specific provision that precedes it.” [24]

“Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 1512 imposed criminal liability on anyone who ‘knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person’ to, among other things, shred documents. 18 U. S. C. §1512(b)(2)(B) (2000 ed.). But the Enron accounting scandal revealed a loophole: Although Enron’s ‘outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents,’ the statute curiously failed to impos[e] liability on a person who destroys records himself.  As a result, prosecutors had to prove that higher-ups at Enron and Arthur Andersen persuaded someone else to shred documents rather than the more obvious theory that someone who shreds documents is liable for doing so.  The parties agree that to plug this loophole, Congress enacted Section 1512(c)—the provision at issue here—as part of the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place. The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1).” [25] 

In Count Three, the only count now before us, the Government charged Fischer with violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2). Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. It concluded that the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) is limited by subsection (c)(1) and therefore requires the defendant to “‘have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object.’”

The Court thus decided:

To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. See supra, at 9. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the sufficiency of Count Three of Fischer’s indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2). [26]

Wherein the Justice Department is citing 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2) in the Fischer case, they are citing Trump for violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1), making the Fischer  decision relevant to Trump’s case.  Neither on January 6th, nor in the New York case, did Trump “impair the availability or integrity of evidence”.  It is arguable that he personally obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding on January 6th, but the happenings in and around the Capitol were actions of other actors, some of whom may not have been true Trump supporters.  And when the transcript of his speech that morning is reviewed, it is clear that he urged the crowd to “peacefully and patriotically” march down to the Capitol.  He clearly did not incite a riot, or engage in any sedition, or insurrection, or the federal indictment would have included those charges.

The Status in the Four Jurisdictions

In New York – Trump was convicted on May 30, 2024 of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment reimbursement to his lawyer, who was the star witness against him. 

In January 2017, Trump, Weisselberg and Cohen (Lawyer A) agree the lawyer would be paid the $420,000 (previously paid by Cohen) through 12 monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017, according to court documents. Cohen (Lawyer A) was to send an invoice to the Trump Org each month falsely requesting a payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered. Cohen (Lawyer A) does not have a retainer agreement with Trump or the Trump Organization, according to prosecutors.

However, paying the woman for her silence is NOT a crime.  The alleged crime was “falsifying” the accounting ledgers by classifying the payments as “legal expenses” to conceal the criminal conduct of the “scheme to boost his election chances.” [27]

Election interference is covered by federal statutes.

All the reimbursements were made after Trump was inaugurated.

The New York state laws cited in the indictment are thoroughly reviewed in my previous post.  You can see my analysis HERE

Judge Juan Merchan has a conflict of interest because his daughter works for a Democratic consulting firm that donated to the Biden campaign in 2020, though he refused to recuse himself.

On July 1, 2024, Trump’s legal team requests Judge Merchan to throw out the conviction on the grounds that the jury saw evidence that should have been protected by presidential immunity, citing the SCOTUS decision.

Judge Merchan has delayed the previously scheduled sentencing hearing from July 11 to September 18, 2024 pending further review.

In Georgia – District Attorney Fani Willis was scheduled for a review by the Fulton County Board of Ethics for conflict of interest in that she may have benefitted financially through her romantic involvement with a prosecutor she hired to assist her in the case.  On March 7, 2024, Fulton County punted their review saying she was not a county employee, but a state constitutional officer and referred any review to the Georgia State Ethics Commission.

That prosecutor, Nathan Wade, stepped down from his position under an ultimatum issued by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott MacAfee.  The case is currently being reviewed by the Georgia Court of Appeals in consideration of filings by Trump and 8 co-defendants who have moved to disqualify Willis.  Arguments are tentatively scheduled to begin on October 4, 2024, with rulings not expected until mid-March 2025. 

The SCOTUS immunity decision casts further doubt on the case because Trump, as President, had every right to communicate with state employees and inquire about election integrity, and certainly falls within the scope of his “official” duties to ensure the election was free and fair.  His call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger asking him (perhaps rhetorically) to “find 11,780 votes” is asserted by prosecutors to be the most damning evidence.  There is no proof that Trump was demanding Raffensberger to manufacture phony ballots.  The context of the call is extremely important in that it may show Trump’s quote to simply be a wish.

Furthermore, election interference falls under the jurisprudence of federal courts.

In Washington D.C. – On Aug. 1, 2023, former President Donald Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. on four counts related to alleged attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Trump faces four felony charges in the D.C. election “subversion” case.  The charges are those specified under the heading “The Opinion of the Court” above.

In early February of this year, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin pushed back the March 4 trial date, awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court on Trump’s petition claiming presidential immunity. 

As we now know, SCOTUS has issued an Opinion in this case. (see “Opinion of the Court” above)

In Florida –

Judge Aileen Cannon is meticulously reviewing pre-trial motions, including Trump’s legal team questioning the authority of Special Counsel Jack Smith that may be in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Constitution does allow the appointment of “inferior” officers by the President alone, by the heads of departments, or by the judiciary, so I believe Smith’s appointment may be constitutional, having been appointed by the Attorney General.  However, she has several other motions to consider and has declined to be rushed to trial by Smith.

Where Do We Go From Here ?

Due to these two Supreme Court decisions, all four cases brought against former President Donald J. Trump are essentially “tied up in court” and there is virtually no chance that any of them will proceed to trial before the November election.  Even the New York “hush money” trial that convicted Trump of filing false business records is in limbo. 

The entire strategy of the Democrat Party has seemed to backfire.  Their plan was to “get Trump” by any means necessary in order to prevent him from having any chance to regain the White House.  They concocted a scheme to encumber him by creatively interpreting several statutes, as defined above, and slamming him with lawfare in four different jurisdictions, all in an effort to keep him off the campaign trial and potentially imprison him.  But shockingly, Trump’s numbers in the polls were immediately boosted following the verdict in New York and Biden sank even lower than he was before.  However, their lawfare game is not over. Trump still faces some headwinds that need to be argued in the lower courts and potentially return to the Supreme Court.

The good news for the Democrats, is that the SCOTUS immunity decision is probably more beneficial for them than it is for Trump, because Trump’s actions are far less egregious than the actual crimes committed by Biden and his puppet-master, Barack Obama. They should be dancing in the streets because it probably exonerates them from several charges.  Instead, all we hear is a bunch of activist talking heads melting down on CNN, MSLSD, ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the rest of the phony journalists in the Propaganda Media Complex.  Their hatred of Trump is on full display.  Can you imagine the outrage they will portray when the next Attorney General indicts Obama for treason and Biden for bribery, money laundering, and other potential crimes ? 

For some time now, Democrat messages have been warning their idiotic followers that the Trump administration will conduct a revenge campaign against his adversaries, but it won’t be revenge, it will be JUSTICE.  He has already proven he was forgiving by not urging the indictment of Hillary but after what they’ve done to him, they will deserve being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  We the People DEMAND JUSTICE!

Comments welcomed.


[1]  Supreme Court of the United States ; Opinion of the Court ; Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States ; on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ; July 1, 2024 ; considering the scope of a President’s immunity from criminal prosecution ; Pp 1-2

[2]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[3]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[4]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[5]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[6]  18 U.S. Code §371 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[7]  18 U.S. Code §1512 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[8]  18 U.S. Code §2 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[9]  18 U.S. Code §241 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[10]  Trump v. United States ; Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ; Case No. 23-939 ; Argued April 25, 2024 – Decided July 1, 2024 ; full text, 119 pages

[11]  ibid. ; syllabus, p. 8, section (e)      

[12]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 14 

[13]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 15 

[14]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 16 

[15]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 17 

[16]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 18 

[17]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 18 

[18]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 25 

[19]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 21 

[20]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 23 

[21]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 25 

[22]  18 U.S. Code §1512 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[23]  Supreme Court of the United States ; Opinion of the Court ; Joseph W. Fischer, Petitioner v. United States ; on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ; Case No. 55-72 ; Argued April 16, 2024 – Decided June 28, 2024 ; full text, 43 pages

considering the applicability of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with respect to the actions of petitioner on January 6 ; Pp 1-2

[24]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 1

[25]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, Pp. 9-10

[26]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 16

[27]  Katersky, A. & Charalambous, P. ; Timeline: Manhattan DA’s Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case Against Donald Trump ; ABC News ; July 2, 2024 ;

Under dateline: April 4, 2023