Will Trump get full presidential immunity? Law expert explains
Former President Donald Trump is in the midst of multiple legal battles, but everything could change if the Supreme Court rules that he has full presidential immunity.
“The Court is a lot more concerned about the presidency than about Trump,” National Review contributing author Andrew McCarthy tells Glenn Beck.
“It’s an important point to make because a lot of the coverage has been this hysteria over whether the Trump-packed Supreme Court is in the tank for him and they’re going to get rid of Jack Smith’s prosecution,” McCarthy says. “I don’t think that’s going to happen at all.”
Rather, McCarthy believes that the court will send the case back to the trial judge in Washington “with instructions to sort out what things in the indictment against Trump are what you would call "official acts" that might arguably be immune from prosecution” and “what are private acts or private wrongs that he would not have immunity for.”
However, according to McCarthy, Trump’s lawyer has admitted that a lot of conduct charged in the indictment is considered private conduct that wouldn’t fall under an immunity claim.
“What are some of the acts that could fall under private?” Glenn asks, adding, “and what are the acts that are the president and you don’t prosecute?”
One of the “solid examples” McCarthy uses is that “Trump’s lawyer conceded that if Trump made a private scheme with private lawyers to get slates of electors designated for him and to supply documents to the Congress suggesting that they were the authentic, actual slate of electors designated by a state, that would be private conduct because it’s purely office-seeking.”
“On the other hand,” McCarthy explains, “there’s an allegation in the indictment that Trump tried to use the Justice Department to signal to states that there were serious concerns about fraud and considered both removing the attorney general when he got push back and considered sending a letter that they never sent from the Justice Department to the state of Georgia to tell them that they needed to do more scrutiny over what happened in the popular election.”
“Trump argues very strongly, and I think the court will probably go along with this, that is the president’s control over the Justice Department,” he says.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
How is Fulton County not embarrassed by Fani Willis after she said THIS?!
The future of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is being determined after she was accused of misconduct during the Georgia election interference case against former president Donald Trump, and it does not look bright.
Willis apparently has hoards of cash at her house, which she had been using to reimburse the man she was having an affair with — special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
“I always have cash at the house,” Willis told the court. “If you’re a woman, and you go on a date with a man, you better have $200 in your pocket so if that man acts up, you can go where you want to go. So I keep cash in my house.”
When questioned as to where all the cash was coming from, she didn’t have an answer.
“It came from my sweat and tears,” Willis told the prosecutor.
Sara Gonzales is shocked.
“How is Fulton County not so embarrassed right now?” Gonzales laughs.
Willis then went on to further the embarrassment by insinuating that Nathan Wade had erectile dysfunction or something of the sort, telling the court that they had “very limited contact” in 2020.
“Mr. Wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegation somewhat ridiculous,” Willis said. “I’m not going to emasculate a black man.”
“I’m pretty sure you just emasculated a black man, ‘cause you said all that needed to be said,” Gonzales comments.
To hear more, watch the clip below.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
Levin: Precedents and presidents, the left's relentless campaign against Trump
Not a single person has been charged with insurrection regarding January 6, yet the Democrat Party continues to dredge up baseless allegations against former President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, there’s plenty of actions other former presidents have taken that could also be looked at through a criminal lens.
“What if a president ordered the killing of an American citizen overseas or ordered the killing of what he believed to be terrorists but also winds up killing, let’s say, an American citizen who’s 16 years old, a teenager— perhaps the son of one of these terrorists who hasn’t actually committed a terrorist act,” Mark Levin says.
“Is that criminal, guys?” Levin asks, adding, “well, that’s what Obama did.”
“So my question to you is: should Obama have been prosecuted for knowing that he could possibly kill an innocent American citizen while trying to take out his father?” He adds.
This isn’t hypothetical. That case was actually brought to federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Obama administration.
However, the court did nothing.
“It sidestepped,” Levin explains, “that’s what they do for Obama and Biden and their ilk.”
Joe Biden isn’t innocent either.
“Can Joe Biden be sued for violating our immigration laws by people who’ve literally lost family members as a result of that decision? People being killed on the border, people being raped on the border, illegal aliens in the country killing American citizens — can he be used for that?” Levin adds.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.