Left-wing sycophants are suggesting President Joe Biden could try to assassinate former President Donald Trump or justices of the Supreme Court (or anyone!) after the high court threw a monkey wrench into their lawfare efforts to knock Trump out of the presidential race.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that presidential action falls into three categories. The first category includes acts that fall “within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and are therefore subject to “absolute immunity.” The second category encompasses those actions for which a president is entitled to “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Those actions are then to be litigated in court to determine whether they constitute an official or unofficial act before any prosecution can take place. The third category pertains to “unofficial acts” for which “there is no immunity.”
The ruling severely hampers Special Counsel Jack Smith’s efforts to prosecute Trump ahead of the election by remanding several key questions back to the lower courts while outright rejecting other claims made by the DOJ. To be clear, we only ended up in this precarious position because Democrats decided to use lawfare to target their political opponent, forcing the Supreme Court’s hand to answer such a question.
As expected, leftists on X (with the IQ of a rock) who don’t understand the ruling are suggesting the ruling permits any type of action by the president so long as the president calls it an official act.
Of course that is not the case, which is why the court explicitly stated unofficial acts have “no immunity” and that a court must first evaluate the status of all questionable acts before prosecution can begin.
[READ NEXT: Clarence Thomas Challenges Jack Smith’s Legitimacy As Trump Makes Same Argument In Florida]
The ruling further clarifies that the president is not immune from impeachment for these official acts. Congress is still permitted to hold a president accountable for official acts so that he can be removed from office. It’s exactly what happened when the House impeached Trump for Jan. 6. The Senate voted to acquit.
As Marc Thiessen explained, the DOJ is “seeking to effectively retry him in the courts” because they did not get their desired outcome in the Senate.
But how would these leftist bootlickers know any different when Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor fanned the flames of hysteria by deliberately misrepresenting the majority’s holding in her dissent?
“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor falsely claims. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.”
“Because if [the president] knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today,” Sotomayor continued.
Sotomayor’s dishonest portrayal of the ruling helps explain why hoards of X users are falsely suggesting the president could use his authority to engage in all kinds of acts that would not actually be permitted under this ruling.
“According to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send in Seal Team 6 to take all of them out. He could send in the military to take out Trump. He has ‘immunity’ for official acts now!” the Democrats’ TikTok surrogate Harry Sisson posted on X.
One X user by the name of Jack Eason said, “Biden should have Trump killed and see what happens next. Might set ‘dangerous precedents’ or whatever, but since conservatives have had to scramble to assert the president as king, legally he’s in the clear. He could also bomb SCOTUS. Nothing of value there.”
Lawyer Bradley P. Moss had an unmitigated meltdown over the decision, suggesting Biden could execute Steve Bannon. Bannon was sent to prison on Monday by Biden’s Department of Justice.
“According to the Supreme Court, President Biden can have the military execute Bannon in the prison showers tonight and be immune from prosecution,” Moss posted to X. Other posts from Moss on the matter suggested a president can “nuke his political opponents” or “execute” the Supreme Court with no consequence.
Senior politics reporter at HuffPost Igor Bobic falsely insinuated on X that the Supreme Court would permit Biden to drone journalists at random (not to be confused with the Obama-Biden administration’s murder of four Americans in drone strikes, for which no one has been held accountable).
Co-founder of Punchbowl News John Bresnahan responded that “Biden has immunity for at least 6 more months……”
Newsletter writer Craig Calcaterra posted to X suggesting it’s “OK” if Biden drones Mar-a-Lago.
“Ordering an airstrike is an official act for a president so the Court has apparently just made Biden calling in a drone attack on Mar a Lago presumptively OK.”
Candidate for the Minnesota House Will Stancil asked what is holding Biden back from “just drone strik[ing] Trump and end[ing] this.”
Misrepresentation of a case with such high-stakes implications is dangerous — both for the future of the nation and, honestly, Trump’s safety.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
Comments are closed.