Staff Reports
The Supreme Court is about to tackle what could be the biggest legal question of 2024: whether former President Donald Trump has absolute immunity from his criminal indictments. Of course, the radical left is clutching its pearls at the very thought.
With the justices expected to hand down decisions soon, conservatives nationwide are eagerly awaiting the ruling that could echo through the ages. The issue? Whether Trump can be prosecuted for actions he allegedly took to challenge the 2020 election results. Naturally, the leftists are already gathering outside the Supreme Court, howling for Trump’s head on a pike.
Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity could alter impeachment
Michael Macagnone | CQ-Roll Call (TNS)WASHINGTON — How the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity in former President Donald Trump’s effort to jettison his federal charges could have… https://t.co/WITd2BM5CR pic.twitter.com/PMQ2iAk79M
— American Chronicles (@lbc_chronicles) April 30, 2024
As the court gears up to deliver its verdict, Trump took to his Truth Social account to remind the justices of the obvious: without presidential immunity, future leaders could be paralyzed by the fear of prosecution and blackmail. That’s a thought that ought to chill any sane person’s bones, but sanity isn’t exactly a strong suit for today’s progressive crowd.
Trump’s case stems from the indictment led by special counsel Jack Smith, who seems to believe his mandate is to rehash every grievance from the 2020 election. Trump’s legal team rightly argues that former presidents should not face criminal charges for their official actions. The premise is straightforward enough: Congress must convict a president through impeachment before any federal criminal charges can be laid against a former commander-in-chief.
But Jack Smith and his ilk have a different take, arguing that the framers never intended for presidents to have everlasting immunity from criminal prosecution. They’ve already managed to get lower courts to agree, but Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have hinted that these lower courts might have botched the job. Roberts questioned why a former president can be prosecuted simply because he’s no longer in office. A fair point, but fair points aren’t the left’s strong suit.
Legal experts have speculated that the Supreme Court might kick the case back to lower courts to sort out what actions are considered “public” versus “private” conduct. If that happens, it’s anyone’s guess how long this legal circus will continue. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani believes this scenario is highly possible, given the justices’ interactions during oral arguments.
Regardless of whether Trump enjoys full, partial, or no immunity, he’s already scored one victory: delay. Trump’s team has been arguing that a trial before the election would be a political hit job by a rabidly partisan administration. Chutkan, who initially aimed for a March trial, might have to slow down her roll, giving Trump an edge in the upcoming election cycle.
Of course, there’s always the chance the high court could reject Trump’s immunity claims entirely, leaving him to face the music for trying to “obstruct” or “defraud” the nation. But let’s not kid ourselves. The fact that the Supreme Court even took up the case suggests they might see things differently than the lower courts.
Stay tuned, because the justices’ decisions are expected by the end of the month. It’s going to be one heck of a showdown.
