If Dems and media hacks had actually READ the ruling before gaslighting us all about what’s in it, they may have noticed a much bigger problem than the one they’re trying to conjure up.

Biden gave a speech condemning the ruling (but he will probably wish it offered even MORE immunity protection that it was given), AOC has announced impeachment plans when she comes back from break.

(Notice this is the same party that recently cheered the constitutionally dubious gag order against Trump because his reckless speech might ‘endanger’ Judge Merchan or his family. Amazing how these people don’t get whiplash from how quickly they flip their positions.)

Not only is the superheated ‘death of America’ hand-wringing childishly absurd, but one little poison pill in the ruling stands as a massive nightmare for the DOJ’s ‘get Trump’ cabal.

Let’s take a look.
The full text is here for anyone who wants to read it.

First: what it DOES say about Trump’s immunity:

The first 8 pages give a quick-and-dirty summary of the prevailing opinion of the court, for anyone who wants a grasp of the details without slogging through reams and pages of dense legal language.

The Court went all the way back to cases like the one where Jefferson was subpoenaed about Aaron Burr. In areas of consideration where there was no precedent, the Court made reference to the Framers’ design and cited the Federalist Papers.

That’s hardly what you might expect in the origin story behind a radically unhinged ruling. This ruling, despite Democrat handwringing, is nothing of the sort.

There is another reason to call BS on the handwringing. They did not make hard rulings on Trump’s own situation. There are a couple of reasons for that.

1. Lower courts rushed through their rulings and didn’t ask all the relevant questions that SCOTUS would need in view to arrive at a ruling. 2. Their own timeline for considering the case was — by SCOTUS standards — a rush job and was not given adequate time to properly weigh the various particular facts relevant to each specific immunity claim. 3. SCOTUS was conscious of their role as the last court in the decision making process rather than the first, and set general guidance in place for which it would be incumbent on lower courts and the appeals process to feel out the right application of general boundaries between the grey areas set out by the general principles.

The fact that some level of Presidential immunity is required was drawn from earlier cases and the Federalist Papers. It serves the Nation’s best interest to have a President who is not hamstringed in his duties by fear of retribution or consequence of making a hard or unpopular decision.

Nixon, for example, could not be sued by someone who lost their job after the Nixon ordered the military structure to be redesigned.

Here are the general principles set out by the Court:

1) Any presidential act that is explicitly spelled out as a Presidential perogative as defined by the Constitution confers total immunity.

Some acts, like issuing of pardons or the firing of subordinates, are exclusively within the domain of Constitutional authority. The decisions and motives behind official acts spelled out by the Constitution are not subject to oversight of any kind.

2) Any presidential act that is performed as part of official presidential duties, but does not fall solely within the authority of the President will have the presumption of immunity.

Total immunity is NOT conferred on such acts. But the burden of proof will be on the prosecution that circumstances warrant the negation of presidential immunity.

In other words, the President is granted the presumption of innocence and having acted in good faith unless evidence can be shown that such a presumption should be overturned.

3) Any act done as a private person not directly derived from official authority and functions of the Office of President confers NO immunity.

Examples of this might include acts of physical violence, sexual assault, fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

The Court acknowledged that some allegations against Trump (like the threatened removal of an AG) would fall clearly within his official prerogatives. Others will need to have the particular facts looked at to see whether immunity does or not apply in each instance. There was also instruction given for which categories of evidence could and could not be drawn upon in litigation against a President.

The case was kicked back down to a lower court with the expectation that this decision would guide any further legal consideration in this matter.

This is what you might expect of a court giving a nuanced and principled answer for a question that would continue to impact and guide such cases centuries hence.

Trump’s legal team pressed for very broad immunities. The DOJ pressed for almost none at all. The Court’s opinion came down somewhere between the two.

These laws benefit past and future presidents equally and despite the rhetoric we’re hearing, a cursory reading of the text will show there is obviously no provision for a ‘rogue’ politician to murder his or her political enemies.

If they were being honest, what they’re most upset about is the fact that this ruling means Dems won’t get the satisfaction of dragging Trump through yet another criminal trial in the height of the election cycle.

If you doubt that was their real motivation, you need look no further than Biden’s speech in response to the verdict.

Bad News For Dems

If they weren’t so busy looking for reasons to claim the sky is falling, they might have noticed something in the Concurring opinion by Thomas that would REALLY ruin their day.

On page 52 of the digital document, we see the beginning of the Thomas Concurrence.

In just the second paragraph of his dissent, he cracks open a nightmare scenario for the Biden DOJ. He lays out the case for why unanswered questions concerning the legitimacy of Jack Smith himself as Prosecutor could prove a serious impediment to the case itself.

In simple terms, if everything done in the Government’s name must be done under lawful authority for it to be considered valid, it must be shown that everything Jack Smith has done to this point in prosecuting Donald Trump has been rooted in a lawful and just authority.

The sorts of authority he has been wielding would normally require the advise and consent of Senate confirmation before they could be sworn in, and Jack Smith was not merely a reassigned sworn in official, he came onboard as a private citizen who had been working in Europe.

Thomas directly cites the Appointments clause, a point brought up in multiple friend of the court briefs, including one signed by multiple former Attorneys General including Ed Meese.

In page after page of legal reasoning, Thomas tears into the validity of the appointment of Jack Smith.

Not only is is he not appointed under any specific statute or provision of law that would legally define his role and position, his appointment is not in compliance with the appointments clause.

Biden’s DOJ may have got caught playing fast and loose with the law in their eagerness to take down a political rival. Depending on how this is resolved, it could nullify anything he had a hand in.

Taken together with the ruling on how they’ve wrongly applied the law in perhaps hundreds of J6 cases, this would put a capstone on a nasty series of losses on their part.

• Clarence Thomas: Democrats Broke Law Trying To Prosecute Trump

Is it any wonder the left is seething with hatred at a Supreme Court that is no longer their plaything to dutifully rubber-stamp social changes they could not otherwise hope to pass through the normal process of legislation?

Cross-posted with Clash Daily

Related:

• Unhinged ‘Orange Is The New Black’ Actress Demands Biden Murder Trump: ‘It’s All Out War Now’ (Video)
• Unhinged Liberals Respond To SCOTUS Immunity Ruling With Calls For Biden To MURDER Trump, Others
• Leftists Falsely Claim Supreme Court Now Allows Biden To Murder
• LYING BIDEN UNHINGED: Old Man ‘Defends Democracy’ By Declaring War On Supreme Court, Spreading More Lies (Video)
• Supreme Court: Presidential Immunity is Absolute for Official Acts

Turn your back on Big Tech oligarchs and join the New Resistance NOW!  Facebook, Google, and other members of the Silicon Valley Axis of Evil are now doing everything they can to deliberately silence conservative content online, so please be sure to check out our MeWe page here, check us out at ProAmerica Only and follow us at Parler, SocialCross, Speak Your Mind Here, and Gab.  You can also follow us on Truth Social here, Twitter at @co_firing_line, and at the social media site set up by members of Team Trump, GETTR.

Give a middle finger to unaccountable global censors and big tech fascists.  Bookmark this site, sign up for our newsletter, and check back often.

While you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!And be sure to check out our friends at Trending Views: