The US Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The political and media fallout will dominate the news cycle for the foreseeable future, while high-level discussions are underway to decide whether to continue prosecution. Will special counsel Jack Smith press on or raise the white flag of surrender?
The Court determined that the President of the United States has presumptive immunity for official acts. "The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts," the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. "That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party."
To understand what this historic ruling means, we spoke with Liberty Nation News' Legal Affairs Editor Scott D. Cosenza, Esq.
The Immunity Question Fallout
Mark Angelides: What does the Supreme Court decision mean for Trump?
Scott D. Cosenza: First, it means he will not be put on trial before the election. If the prosecution continues, it will be long after November when any trial could occur. That's because the Supreme Court sent Trump's case back down to the district court for numerous findings, requiring significant briefings and arguments. All of which will be appealed, of course, increasing delays.
Mark: I think the most crucial question here, Scott, is how the decision impacts the cases being pursued by Smith.
Scott: They have come to a screeching halt. The calendar win for Trump here is complete. Smith will have to go back into court and justify each charge in light of the new immunity ruling. Every act charged will be examined for determination -- was it an official act?
Mark: What is happening in the halls of power right now?
Scott: Smith's superiors are no doubt trying to find some path forward that they can call a win. Perhaps a withdrawal combined with an insult thrown at the composition of the Court? "MAGA Justices make justice impossible" or something of the like. Or keep on, self-deluded, like the Black Knight in Monty Python – "Tis but a flesh wound – Come on then!"
Mark: It seems highly likely that Democratic lawmakers and their friends in the Fourth Estate will insist that the Court's dissent was the verdict that should have been. What did it say?
Scott: Justice Elena Kagan was not a fan of the majority's opinion. She wrote, "Today's decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."
Mark: When we combine this decision with last week's ruling on Jan. 6 defendants being overcharged, what change in fortune is this for Trump?
Scott: It's a sea change to Trump's advantage. Democrats' attempts to criminalize Trump, punishing him with the process and potentially guilty verdicts, is a total failure. The Supreme Court today drove a spike into the coffin of this Biden Department of Justice’s "get Trump" effort.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
