SCOTUS Ruling: Biden Cannot Be Prosecuted For Laken Riley's Murder

LEFT: Photo from Thursday’s debate. RIGHT: Photo from Monday’s diatribe against the US Supreme Court. Thus, Jill Biden thinks spraying his face with tan makeup will disguise his dementia.

On Monday, the Supreme Court drew a clear line between a president’s official duties (which are immune from criminal prosecution during and after his tenure) and a president’s personal or private actions. Thus, a future DOJ will not be able to prosecute Joe Biden for aiding and abetting Jose Ibarra, who murdered Laken Riley. Likewise, once he is out of office, the Athens-Clarke County, Georgia district attorney will not be able to prosecute Biden for importing, supporting & protecting the illegal alien who killed Laken.

Nevertheless, both federal and/or state prosecutors can still try Biden for income tax evasion, treason, bribes, and all the various criminal methods he employed to get wealthy by selling his senate & VP offices to the highest foreign bidder. I, for one, want Trump’s Department of Justice to start prosecuting Joe Biden & his various family members, AKA co-conspirators, immediately after January 20, 2025.

This Supreme Court ruling re-affirmed what was long practiced before Trump Derangement Syndrome spread throughout the DC Swamp: Presidents have immunity for their official actions, but not for private actions. This common sense ruling upended the lawfare case against Donald J. Trump wherein the Biden Regime is claiming he orchestrated the events in the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

SCOTUS SHOT DOWN BIDEN LAWFARE CASES

In Donald J. Trump v United States wherein the former president asked the US Supreme Court to define the parameters of his, and all president’s, immunity prior to Jack Smith’s lawfare trial in United States v. Donald J. Trump, the court ruled in Trump’s favor.

This ruling affects all four of the criminal lawfare cases filed against President Trump:

ONE: Biden’s Department of Justice appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to file a ludicrous criminal case against Trump, claiming he organized the January 6, 2021 protest at the US Capitol Building. In last week’s ruling, the Supreme Court kicked out two of Smith’s charges against Trump. This second ruling probably kills the remaining two charges.

TWO: Immediately after the court’s immunity ruling, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg wrote a letter to Judge Juan Merchan asking to delay Trump’s July 11th sentencing. Even Trump Hater Bragg believes Trump may be immune from some or all of this political case against him.

THREE: Fulton County, Georgia DA Fani Willis will be forced to review and reconsider her lawfare case Getting Trump! in light of this immunity ruling. They filed RICO charges against Trump and 18 others because they questioned 2020 election irregularities. Of course, the evidence of massive “irregularities” was everywhere by the time this corrupt case began. Americans had good reason to question the election results since Democrats changed so many election procedures, many illegally. Besides, doesn’t a president have the same First Amendment Rights as all other Americans?

FOUR: Following this Supreme Court ruling, US District Judge Eileen Cannon will be reviewing Jack Smith’s charges against President Trump. Three months after the raid on Mar-A-Lago, Biden’s Department of Justice promoted Jack Smith to position of special counsel so that he would have more power to persecute President Trump for legally, securely storing White House documents at his home.

OPINION OF THE COURT, SELECTED PARAGRAPHS

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.

Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations — such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public — present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.

It is ultimately the government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the district court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.

He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government — for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.