The “WHAT IF” article concerning how the government will operate in a Trump second term was written well before July 1st,2024 and predicted a “bumbling Biden”, a Supreme Court ruling granting the President limited, but broad immunity and the gutting of the independent regulatory agencies. Those predictions turned out to be accurate. President Biden showed the effects of his age at the debate. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) just ruled 6-3 that the President is entitled to limited immunity. That is, he is immune from any responsibility for any criminal or civil acts that he does in an “official” capacity. SCOTUS waited until the very last minute before the end of their term to announce their ruling which they knew would help Donald Trump avoid another criminal trial before election day. The case was sent back to the lower courts for hearings on the question of what an “official” act is as opposed to a personal act. However, it is clear that the Court ruled that Mr. Trump is “above the law” like a king, in many instances. SCOTUS also took away much of the powers of the independent regulatory agencies of the federal government by reversing the established law of the Chevron case. SCOTUS is doing its best to get Mr. trump reelected.
Where did SCOTUS find the authority or precedent to issue the presidential immunity ruling? We can’t find the basis for presidential immunity in the Constitution and as Judge Alito has said, if it’s not in the Constitution it doesn’t exist. We can find no court precedent for this ruling. However, we believe that a 1973 memo, confirmed in a second, 39-page opinion written in 2000 by an Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice declared that a sitting president could not be indicted or criminally prosecuted since it would interfere with his ability to carry out his duties under the Constitution. However, no one considered it a binding opinion. Also, it did not find that the president could pardon himself. This opinion just covered keeping the president out of court while he was in office. Nor did it provide that the presidential immunity continued after the president left office. We came close with Mr. Nixon, but no one dreamed that he could have had his conversations declared privileged and argue that he was immune and not impeachable. The only case we could think of involving presidential immunity was the Paula Jones suit against then President Clinton. Clinton was NOT granted immunity and was compelled to testify under subpoena before a grand jury while he was a sitting president. He answered sworn written interrogatories and testified under oath in a deposition that he did not have sexual relations with Monicka Lewinsky, but the court found him in contempt for lying. He was impeached for lying to and obstructing Congress, but the Senate found him “not guilty”. He was disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court and the Arkansas Bar suspended him for five years. His approval ratings soared during this period of time.
In 1997 in the Clinton case, the Federal District Court found that the president is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens, but the facts in the Clinton case involved unofficial acts, unless you believe that having sex with a White House intern is an “official” act. In our opinion the Clinton case was the prevailing law on the immunity issue until the present ruling. The Clinton rulings seem to explain why the recent SCOTUS Trump ruling spoke about immunity only for “official” acts. This decision, however, should not give Mr. Trump immunity in his New York State “Stormy Daniels” conviction, unless the Supreme Court finds that paying off a sex professional for her services is an “official” act. Maybe they’ll find a way. The sentencing in the New York Trump conviction is now postponed until September to give the New York court time to consider whether immunity applies to the evidence used against Mr. Trump since he signed the payoff check in the White House. By that time the Hunter Biden sentencing should have occurred. If Hunter goes to jail, Mr. Trump may also face jail time which might last through the election date.
We believe that the president was never expected to be treated with royal immunity privileges. This goes far beyond the 2020 non-binding memo which provided for a temporary stay from prosecution while he is in office. The president’s powers are limited by the Constitution. These limits include the right to declare war. The president is limited in not being allowed to determine how our money is spent. The president is not supposed to be able to control the Congress as to the laws it makes nor is he or she supposed to be able to interpret the law. All Cabinet and Judicial appointments are to be subject to investigation and approval by Congress. The Trump Republican 2025 plan expects to get around these constitutional limitations, by creating “acting” cabinet members, using threats of criminal prosecutions without foundation and by doing away with the independent regulatory agencies.
What if Mr. Trump is not re-elected. Will a Biden Presidency find a way to put the Court back on track and reconsider and undo the extremist decisions of the present SCOTUS? …Stay tuned!
GOD BLESS OUR WAR HEROES AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!