Justice John Roberts skewered a Feb. 6 ruling from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that rejected Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. The president has immunity from prosecution for actions taken within the purview of his duties. The examples that the liberals on the Supreme Court gave, such as assassinating a political rival or staging a coup, do not fall into that category, meaning that their arguments are ridiculous at best and Biden-like at worst.
However, seeing that elections are fair and honest is definitely something that the president has a duty to explore. This is especially true in Georgia, where Biden allegedly overcame a Trump lead of 200,000 votes on election night to win by 12,000 votes. The Georgia State Elections Board (SEB) initiated an investigation into the Fulton County data from the RLA report. In just 2 of the 36 errors found, there were 3,125 duplicate ballot counts and 17,852 votes counted without corresponding ballot images. Those votes should not have been counted and were enough to swing the election to Trump.
Roberts said:
“They said that there is no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith, and there is no reason to worry because a grand jury will have returned the indictment. Now, you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment, and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases. I‘m not suggesting here, so if it’s tautological, if those are the only protections the court gave that is no longer your position, you are not defending that position, why shouldn‘t we send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?”
Prosecutor Dreeben responded:
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL“Well, I am defending the court of appeals’ judgment and I do think there are layered safeguards the court can take into account that will ameliorate concerns about unduly chilling presidential conduct. That concerns us. We are not endorsing a regime that we think would expose former presidents to criminal prosecutions in bad faith, for political animus, without adequate evidence. A politically driven prosecution would violate the Constitution… It’s is not something within the arsenal of prosecutors to do.”
Trump’s attorneys accused special counsel Jack Smith of having “a political motive” to try the case before the 2024 presidential election in a reply brief filed Feb. 15. The Supreme Court previously denied Smith’s request to provide expedited review of an appeal of a December ruling by United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia that rejected a motion by Trump’s attorneys to dismiss the charge on grounds of presidential immunity.
The three-judge appeals court panel unanimously rejected Trump’s claim in a Feb. 6 ruling. “Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct,” the ruling said.
“Prosecutors take an oath, the attorney general takes an oath. I don‘t want to overstate your honor‘s concern with potentially relying solely on good faith, but that is an ingredient and then the courts stand ready to adjudicate motions based on selective prosecution, political animus,” Dreeben told. “This court relied on those very protections in a case just two years ago.”
…Roberts just slammed the lower court "a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws."…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) April 25, 2024
