The hits keep on coming for our bitter, corrupt and desperate establishment.
On Wednesday — one day after former President Donald Trump rolled to another resounding victory by trouncing former South Carolina governor and establishment darling Nikki Haley in the Michigan Republican presidential primary — the Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, according to NBC.
Trump applauded SCOTUS’ decision in a two-part post on the social media platform Truth Social.
“Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity,” Trump’s post began.
Perhaps the former president gave the legal profession too much credit. After all, many of those “scholars” and so-called “experts” have beclowned themselves in recent years by exhibiting Trump Derangement Syndrome. One suspects, in fact, that most would prefer a swift Trump conviction to any clarity SCOTUS might provide in advance.
Whatever the case might be, the former president made a strong argument for immunity.
For instance, without immunity, presidents would have reason to fear “wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office.” Trump knows that from experience.
Furthermore, the absence of immunity “could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail” of a sitting president.
Are the prosecutions of Trump politically motivated?
In the second part of his post, Trump added that without immunity the presidency, in effect, “will ‘no longer exist.’”
“This is in no way what the Founders had in mind,” Trump wrote.
According to NBC, SCOTUS indicated in its brief order on Wednesday that it would issue a ruling on the question of “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.”
That announcement dealt a blow to the vile establishment hatchet-man Jack Smith, who masquerades as a legitimate special counsel.
In August, Smith announced an indictment charging Trump with “conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding” in connection with the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6, 2021.
Now, Smith can barely conceal his desperation and panic.
“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here,” Smith wrote in his court papers, according to NBC.
Thanks to SCOTUS, a “speedy” verdict now appears impossible. In other words, the corrupt establishment likely will not convict Trump on those bogus charges before the 2024 presidential election.
In fact, SCOTUS indicated that it would hear arguments during the week of April 22. And that would mean that the high court could rule on the case by the end of its term in June.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Washington D.C.-based judge who has shown anti-Trump bias in the past and has handed down draconian sentences to Jan. 6 defendants, originally scheduled Trump’s trial for March. But that case disappeared from the court’s docket earlier this month while Trump pursued his immunity-based appeal.
At its core, of course, Smith’s case against Trump involves the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. On election night, we all saw the counting stop in battleground states. And we know that during that election season the U.S. government pressured social media companies to censor posts that questioned the use of mail-in ballots.
For instance, on the social media platform X earlier this month, Tucker Carlson posted an interview with former State Department official Mike Benz, who now serves as Executive Director of Foundation for Freedom Online. In September, Benz submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS in a case involving the Biden administration’s online censorship efforts.
Beginning around the 42-minute mark of the following video, Benz explained how the U.S. national security state chillingly censored social media posts that cast doubt on the legitimacy of mail-in ballots.
Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. “What I’m describing is military rule,” says Mike Benz. “It’s the inversion of democracy.” pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 16, 2024
But the establishment does not want you to believe your lying eyes. And to ensure that outcome, it will prosecute anyone who dared to notice.
Thus, in the short run, Trump had reason to applaud SCOTUS’ decision. Anything that frustrates the likes of Smith and Chutkan qualifies as good news.
Still, when government entities censor citizens’ election-related speech, that constitutes the rigging of an election. In a larger sense, therefore, we cannot celebrate until we have driven the entire election-rigging establishment from power altogether.
