The fact that the case of the former president, who designed a scheme to enlist fake electors and overthrow the 2020 election, has to go before the Supreme Court, packed with his appointees, is such an obvious perversion of justice that future generations will not even have to research it beyond the surface.
The man attempted to cheat the election system by installing fake people to take the place of state officials, whose job it is to finalize the election of the president. The scheme was clearly to prevent the duly elected president from taking office and for him to remain in office beyond his term. This is not even a viable plot in a bad work of fiction.
If the Supreme Court of the United States rules in any direction other than allowing prosecution of this man for his acts, we have a perversion of justice in real, historical time. There is no justifiable reason this case would not be clearly decided by people who have eyes, ears, and a genuine sense of reality. And if they let this man go free, it will unleash a wave of crime throughout the country committed by both Democrats and Republicans who are either pissed at the government or foolish enough to believe they can get away with nothing less than murder.
In “A straightforward but legally untested question: whether a former president is immune from federal prosecution for official acts. Trump is the first ex-president to face criminal charges, making his appeal the first time in the country’s history that the Supreme Court has had occasion to weigh in on this issue.”
The topic itself is apparently obvious and needs no further interpretation or investigation let alone a meeting of top judicial officials to determine what he did was outright wrong. The idiocy in this even being reported as a real story defies logic in terms of how a country should function. People off the street, who have no formal education or cannot read, or write, or even speak english can look on this situation and make a clear ruling. But the case is laid out as thus by reputable news sources:
“Though Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, there’s no bar against charging a former one. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team says the Founding Fathers never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by President Joe Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.”
This statement is cut and dry and has no other interpretation other than what it says. To read deeper into this statement is unnecessary and can only lead to an incomprehensible conclusion of nothingness and an alternative reality. He did what he did and anyone can see what he did, and that what he did was wrong – based on the laws of simple right and wrong – criminal as related to what the Justice Department itself defines as criminal, even going back to refer to the intentions of the freaking Founding Fathers of this country.
In protection of this criminal act of betrayal of the founding principles of this country, the defense for the accused came up with an argument that should never be taken seriously and should never make the pages of a history book because of its stupidity and profound dumbness. They essentially claim this man should not be prosecuted for the crime he committed and the obvious act of cheating in an election. They say he should be able to get away with it because he was the president. See for yourself.
“Trump’s lawyers, by contrast, say former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity. They warn of a potential floodgate of prosecutions against former presidents if they’re not entitled to immunity and say the office cannot function if the commander-in-chief has to be worried about criminal charges. And they cite a previous Supreme Court ruling that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, saying the same analysis should apply in a criminal context.
“…if the commander-in-chief has to be worried about criminal charges.” Read that again. Basically, the argument goes, if a teacher has to worry about the consequences of smacking a student, they cannot do their job competently. If a business owner does not pay their employees for 8 hours of work because he wanted to keep the money for himself, he should not have to worry about the law because this would restrict him from running his company.
The entire issue is about breaking the laws and traditions of a solidified Democracy, or Constitutional Republic, whatever it is called, controlled by the leader, entrusted by the people to do the right thing pertaining to legal and fair elections. How hard is that to do and to judge against. He attempted to cheat and to overthrow a legitimate election; it is that simple.
DISCLAIMER: The content of Pro Liberation is firmly opinionated and is not meant to be interpreted as official news. We glean facts and quotes from mainstream news websites and abridge its meaning for readers to relate. We do not indulge in misinformation, conspiracy theories, or false doctrine but choose to express our right to free speech as citizens of this country and free born under God the Creator. We represent Nu Life Alliance Inc. a non-profit organization in the battle for social and economic justice. Donate to our cause at the following link. DONATE
