Update (2000ET): Despite the Supreme Court's direct ruling that "the President is not above the law", President Biden delivered lying remarks to the American people this evening about the "terrible disservice to the people of this nation" that SCOTUS delivered today.
(Article by Tyler Durden republished from ZeroHedge.com)
In a mumbly, halting reading of his needed teleprompter, Biden is lying about January 6, lying about Donald Trump, and lying about what the Supreme Court ruled today. pic.twitter.com/SLUXrp5xXM
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 1, 2024
President Biden directly attacked SCOTUS (and the 'far-right' justices that Trump appointed) for "gutting voting rights and civil rights, taking away a woman's right to choose, and today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation."
The President who bragged about going around a SCOTUS ruling on student loans is now worried Presidents can do whatever they want.
The shamelessness is the point.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 1, 2024
Then he lied some more, telling Americans that "my predecessor sent a violent mob to the US Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power..."
Biden lies! pic.twitter.com/N0UysgX2PA
— Patriotic American (@Trump2024FUlibs) July 1, 2024
Biden quoted directly from Justice Sotomayor's dissent (which was remarkably political and perfectly bite-sized for today's social media-consuming listener) where she said, "...with fear for our democracy, I dissent", to which Biden added "so should the American people dissent, I dissent."
why r u guys so afraid of retribution — did u, like, do something to him? pic.twitter.com/0T79ZV4SJT
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) July 2, 2024
"Biden was only able to speak for 3-4 minutes and refused questions from even his most reliably allies in the press, as per usual. He is apparently unwilling or unable to speak without the teleprompter."
This is what the leader of the free world has been reduced to...
We strongly suggest putting down all sharp objects and emptying your mouth of food before watching...
* * *
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he's not immune from unofficial acts.
As Bloomberg notes, the decision - which kicks the ball back to the lower court - 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.
The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.
"Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," wrote X user Martin Harry.
As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now "the issue is whether what constitutes official acts," adding that the ruling will "further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons."
"The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers."
..."The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. "
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
KEY PARAGRAPH: "Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer… https://t.co/Ux5gGq8EsY
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 1, 2024
Meanwhile, Justice Thomas called into question the legality of Smith's office:
Justice Thomas' concurrence in Trump v. U.S. is hugely significant. He questions whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's office is constitutional.
"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private…
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) July 1, 2024
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sotomayor writes that the ruling "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law."
"Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom… the court gives former President trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
Justice Sotomayor's dissent warning is unlike anything I've ever seen in a Supreme Court opinion https://t.co/eXkFnckIY7pic.twitter.com/kNNbde5WzE
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) July 1, 2024
Special counsel Jack Smith is leading two federal probes against Trump, both of which led to criminal charges. In Washington, Trump has been targeted over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, while a Florida case revolves around the mishandling of classified documents - for which Trump has claimed presidential immunity.
In response to the ruling, Trump said on Truth Social that it was a ""BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY."
It's a massive Trump W. Presumptive immunity for official acts.
No J6 trial in DC before the election, absolutely no chance.
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) July 1, 2024
Read more at: ZeroHedge.com
Please contact us for more information.