Democrats pinned their hopes for the 2024 election on the ability of Democrat prosecutors to secure guilty verdicts against Donald Trump in political show trials.
But Democrats got an unexpected reality check.
And the Supreme Court delivered Alvin Bragg this massive smackdown.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court gave a warm reception to the idea that a President must enjoy some level of immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office.
That threw a massive monkeywrench in Joe Biden prosecutor Jack Smith’s scheme to interfere in the 2024 election by trying Trump for January 6 in Washington, D.C. prior to election day.
Multiple Supreme Court Justices worried about Jack Smith’s contention that Presidents enjoyed no criminal immunity and that opening the door to trying Presidents would lead to an endless cycle of partisan prosecutions every time a President left office.
Smith’s argument that prosecutors were saints among men possessing pure motives and heat struck conservative Supreme Court Justices like Brett Kavanaugh as ludicrous.
Kavanaugh warned that a “creative prosecutor” could settle political scores for their side by seeking revenge through the courts as a punishment for actions taken in office that the other party opposed.
Kavanaugh again turning back to separation of powers issues related to Congress passing laws and which ones apply to the president.
“It is a serious Constitutional question whether a statute can apply be applied to the president’s official acts.”
Argues Congress needs to speak…
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 25, 2024
George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News that Kavanaugh didn’t have to look too far for a real world example of the hypothetical he proposed.
Turley pointed to Bragg’s abusive persecution of Trump where Bragg stitched together a fake federal campaign finance violation based on the way Donald Trump recorded a payment in his private company checkbook.
“In some ways, having him in New York is the best argument he could put in front of the justices because Alvin Bragg is making the case for him,” Turley began. “I mean, as the court considers the implications of not extending immunity to presidents, Alvin Bragg is showing what that means.”
“This is a highly political, in my view, legally absurd case in Manhattan, and it is playing out as the court considers the implications of this type of prosecution, and so for the court, I think it’s only going to reinforce this idea that we don’t necessarily want to go to either extreme, but perhaps there is a nuanced or middle road here where we can afford some protection to a president for actions taken related to their office,” Turley added.
Swamp Digest will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.