The issue of presidential immunity is being tested in the DC political Lawfare case against President Donald Trump.

As the Jack Smith prosecution claims President Trump tried to “overturn the results of the 2020 election,” the issue of presidential actions intended to secure & protect the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes a focus.

The legal counsel for President Trump has stated any action by the president to ensure election security falls within official acts, and is therefore subject to immunity from prosecution.  The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court is now involved in determining whether the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution, or whether any/all future presidents can be prosecuted for their action while in office.  Inside the debate is the larger question of whether the “bureaucratic state” controls the president, or whether the office of the president controls the executive branch bureaucratic state.

The leftists and communists agree with former AG Bill Barr, that institutions run the government, and the office of the President is simply a figurehead within it.  In essence, the DC institutions are omnipotent and powerful, and the president is simply occupying space the deep state allows.  That’s the core ramification within the immunity argument.

In this video, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks several questions about limiting the immunity of the president and some of the ramifications that will surface for future presidents.  WATCH:

Interestingly, at 2:30 of the video, Justice Kavanaugh notes the current Lawfare approach – crowdsourcing for prosecution angles with the DOJ, which was the same Lawfare approach used by the beach friends to attack Kavanaugh’s nomination.  Judge Kavanaugh uses that hidden reference point – very subtlety – but its inclusion shows that he knows exactly what is taking place here.

I also like the part where the DOJ argues President Obama is not guilty of murder, via drone strike, because the type of murder created by Obama in that situation was “lawful murder.”  Collateral killing via drone strike is considered by the DOJ to be: the lawful murder of another person with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with the DC administrative Deep State having the power to determine what is “lawful conduct” vs “unlawful conduct” by their political opposition?  Oh wait, it’s done by DOJ statutory interpretation, lolol… now I feel better.   Good grief, can people not see where this ends.

That said, here’s what the SCOTUS is going to do… I’m 95% certain of this.

[Oh, and Steve Bannon’s insufferable legal analysis, by Mike Davis, is GASLIGHTING.  Davis is an idiot and totally dishonest legal mind (wants to be AG – God, help us), who only tells MAGA what they want to hear; so, I would suggest ignoring his claim that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity.  Mike Davis is totally wrong.]

(more…)

Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.

The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens.  Full Hearing Audio:

Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way.  “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.

Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation.  “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”

Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content.  “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.

The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms.  The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.

(more…)

For some reason CBS Sunday Morning put Christine Blasey-Ford back into the media cycle with an interview about her life after accusing Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh of sexual assault. {Full Interview Here} The CBS motive appears to be restimulating the gender vote in an election year.

Blasey-Ford comes across as she did in the original 2018 fiasco; detached from the information and regretting she ever participated.  For those who know the entire deep weeds backstory of the Rehoboth “beach friends,” former and current DOJ people who are now constructing political Lawfare, it is well accepted Blasey-Ford was a tool for their use.  Heck, the accuser never even penned the letter she was conscripted to write to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  [Hook, WATCH]

The resurfacing of Blasey-Ford may be intended to stimulate the gender vote, but has the potential to backfire if people start to dig deep into this prior storyline.  Within the 2018 background, and with the application of hindsight, all of the Lawfare “beach friends” become visible.

Names like Mary McCord, David Laufman, Monica McLean and Michael Bromwich all swirl around the construct that used Blasey-Ford as the vessel for their hit against Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee.  The Senate investigation into the Blasey-Ford accusations was quickly dropped by the media after the investigative staff began to discover the network and connections.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and accepted the case of President Trump arguing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office.  At the heart of the issue the court will determine if the charges brought by Jack Smith need to be dropped, or if the case against President Trump can continue forward.

If the Supreme Court begins defining what types of immunity exist for Presidents in office, they are beginning to open the door to multiple Lawfare efforts against the chief executive by agencies of the administrative state.  This could be extremely troublesome for the future abilities of the presidency far beyond Donald Trump.

[SOURCE]

WASHINGTON DC – In a one-page order Wednesday, the court set an expedited schedule to hear the immunity issue, with oral arguments to be set during the week of April 22. In the meantime, proceedings in the trial court will remain frozen.

(more…)

Apparently the Lawfare crew have been working and coaching overtime to give Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold a framework to explain to the Supreme Court how Colorado’s very specific election laws allow for presidential candidates to be disqualified despite meeting all constitutional requirements.  State Solicitor General Sharon Stevenson would be the legal mind representing Jena Griswold. This should be an interesting attempt.

Griswold asked the Supreme Court for 15 minutes to explain how Colorado law supersedes the U.S. Constitution.  In an order announced earlier today [pdf here], the court has granted Ms. Griswold 10 minutes to make her case.  The oral arguments will take place on Thursday, February 8th.

[Source Link]

President Trump’s attorneys will have 40 minutes.  The Lawfare group “Colorado voters”, funded by CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), will have 30 minutes, and the Colorado Secretary of State will have 10 minutes.

(Via MSN) – The U.S. Supreme Court will hear directly from Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold next week as it considers an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision finding former President Donald Trump ineligible for the state’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.

The Supreme Court granted Griswold’s request to speak during oral arguments in an order Friday that allotted her 10 minutes. The justices also will hear from lawyers for Trump and the Colorado voters who challenged his eligibility during Thursday’s hearing in Washington, D.C. (read more)

(more…)

In a 5-4 ruling today [pdf Available Here], Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the radical leftists on the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, to say that Texas is not permitted to protect itself from illegal border crossers.  None of the justices provided any explanation for their vote.

The court majority sided with the Biden administration policy of removing razor wire to permit illegal alien entry without impediment.  Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas, in favor of national border integrity.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border, while a lawsuit over the wire continues.

The justices, by a 5-4 vote, granted an emergency appeal from the Biden administration, which has been in an escalating standoff at the border with Texas and had objected to an appellate ruling in favor of the state.

The concertina wire along roughly 30 miles (48 kilometers) of the Rio Grande near the border city of Eagle Pass is part of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s broader fight with the administration over immigration enforcement. (read more)

God, I pray for stability right now, because this is infuriating.

(more…)

In a Friday notice, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging a Colorado democrat court decision to block President Trump from the GOP ballot under the auspices of a 14th amendment claim.  [SCOTUS Announcement pdf HERE]

The high court has scheduled oral arguments for February 8, 2024, and set forth a schedule as below for the case review.

[Source pdf]

President Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot (and also Maine) while the Supreme Court takes up the case.  Both the Colorado effort (court) and the Maine decree (Secretary of State) were stayed pending appeal.  In essence, and reflected in both their actions, in both states the decisionmakers expect to lose.

WASHINGTON DC – Plunging into a political minefield, the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president.

The court agreed Friday to consider whether states have the power to disqualify Trump from the ballot due to his attempts to upend the 2020 election and his role in stoking the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (MORE)

(more…)

At the same time the Colorado Republican Party files a petition to the United States Supreme Court to overturn a disqualification ruling issued by the Colorado Supreme Court {link}, a challenge that will result in President Trump appearing on the Colorado ballot {link}, the Democrat Maine Secretary of State has ruled by fiat that Trump should be disqualified.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued a public statement [SEE HERE] declaring that under her independent determination, President Trump should be disqualified.

[SOURCE pdf]

(Via Politico) – Maine on Thursday became the second state to declare former President Donald Trump ineligible to serve as president because of his involvement in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows made the decision, booting Trump off the state’s ballot under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that argues Trump cannot serve again because he supported or “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”

(more…)

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

(more…)

After years of assembling datapoints around the potential for the Supreme Court to be compromised, it was the discovery of Mary McCord’s husband Sheldon Snook deep in the office of Chief Justice John Roberts that finally sealed the deal for me personally.  Yes, the Supreme Court is compromised.

Quick Context. Mary McCord was the architect of all Trump targeting efforts. The FISA on Carter Page, the weaponization of the DOJ-NSD, the installation of Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), the companion to Sally Yates in the Flynn targeting, lead staff for the Schiff/Nadler impeachment effort, later appointment by FISA Presiding Judge Boasberg to be amicus to the FISC, in combination with Chief Justice John Roberts holding authority over the FISC, and the discovery that Sheldon Snook, McCord’s husband works in Robert’s office as “special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.” (link)

Mary McCord is the fulcrum point for all of the above issues.  She connects all of the targeting operations.  Mary McCord is the center of it, and John Robert’s office is compromised by the appointment of her husband Sheldon Snook.  So, this story below does not surprise me.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith jumped over the appeals court and asked the Supreme Court to decide on President Trump’s position of presidential immunity for his requests to secure the integrity of the 2020 election while in office.   In the fastest turn around time in history, the Supreme Court [Robert’s office] said yes, they will hear the arguments.

[Source Link]

(more…)