Supreme Jackson Announces she is ‘Concerned’ Over Trump’s Immunity Ruling

Absolutely stunning public remarks made by a Supreme court Justice regarding Trump just a few weeks out before voting begins in a CBS interview. It opens up the story of the refiling of charges yesterday against Trump by Jack Smith.

She gives fodder to the media to refocus the attention once again on Trump. She does this during an election cycle when she acknowledges there probably will be election cases coming before the court. Worse, she does this to hawk her book.

Jackson thus must recuse herself of any future cases regarding Trump and the forthcoming election. But of course she won’t. This from the same person who can’t explain the biological difference between a man and a woman.

A small portion of her remarks on Apr 25, 2024 during the hearing of the case.

“If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer. She said she was worried that granting Trump’s position for presidential immunity would “embolden” a president to act criminally “with abandon.”

CNN:

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told CBS News that she is “concerned” about the court’s divisive decision to grant sweeping immunity to former President Donald Trump because it treats one person differently than others in the criminal justice system.

“I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same,” Jackson told “CBS News Sunday Morning”in an interview, part of which aired Tuesday.

The reverberations of the ruling are still being felt in the criminal cases pending against Trump. The Supreme Court’s decision has delayed special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against the GOP presidential nominee for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Trump, the Supreme Court ruled, could still be prosecuted for unofficial actions.

Smith filed a superseding indictment on Tuesday that retained the same four charges but stripped down parts of the original indictment dealing with actions Trump took that the court suggested would be immune from prosecution.

A District Court in Washington, DC, will hold a hearing on next steps in that case next week.

The court is also going to face a flurry of expected election litigation this fall.

Asked by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell whether she is ready, Jackson said she is “as prepared as anyone can be.”

I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process,” Jackson said, according to an excerpt of the interview provided by CBS. “And so, the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond – if – if that should be necessary.”

Of course there is no mention whatsoever by CNN that Jack Smith himself is under litigation regarding the legality of his very appointment. This clip is only click bait for her full Sunday interview and the selling of her book.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sits down with “CBS Evening News” anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell to discuss the court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

We are looking down the barrel of potentially a couple more Jackson types on the Supreme court either by death or by expanding the number of Justices by a rogue Senate if Trump is defeated and the GOP lose the majority. Worth thinking about.

The worst of the swamp today.

Democrats Descend Into Madness Over Supreme Court Immunity Decision

The prediction of mass extermination by Trump of his enemies fills the news cycle in mass hysteria. At first it was funny…. once again watching the Left descend into the same madness that was exhibited the morning after Trump’s victory in 2016.

Now it is not so laughable. This craziness can easily get someone killed. Worse, the Supreme court members are now targets. There is a complete disassembling of what the truth is regarding the ruling on immunity.

Here is we go:

Nobody likes to lose but leftists take indignant defeat to a whole new level.  Though they claim to “defend democracy” in their spare time, Democrats also have a tendency to abandon the democratic process when that process interferes with their intentions to remain in power.  

Case in point: The Supreme Court’s recent decision to give immunity from prosecution to Donald Trump in the case of “some official acts” taken during his tenure in office.  Leftists have responded with outrage at the 6-3 decision with much of their political hopes resting on the strategy of burying Trump in as many legal battles as possible to keep him from running for president again.  Democrats are now flooding social media and the news feeds with suggestions that the SC decision makes it possible for Joe Biden as president to eliminate the conservative competition “as a part of his official duties.”

…..The tools for legally punishing presidents already exist, including impeachment and charges of treason.  And, keep in mind, if Trump does not have immunity for previous actions as president, then neither does any other president.  How many skeletons are in the closets of men like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

Beyond this, assassination of a political opponent or the conservative members of the Supreme Court is not recognized as an official duty of the presidency.  Democrats, as usual, take their conclusions to the dramatic extreme in order to provoke public fear through emotionally energized disinformation.  Leftists have been fantasizing publicly about murdering Trump for some time now.  However, these “theories” on how Biden could respond to the Supreme Court are not simple hypotheticals for the sake of argument, there is an element of desperation and bloodlust. 

Read more

‘Take Out Trump’: Left-Wingers Fantasize About Biden Having ‘Immunity’ To Assassinate Trump, SCOTUS Justices

The left-wing media and pundits fantasized about President Joe Biden assassinating former President Donald Trump and Supreme Court justices as an official act following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision Monday.

Several pundits accused the Supreme Court of being an ally to Trump, while others went as far as to suggest allowing President Joe Biden to assassinate Trump.

The Nation Justice correspondent Elie Mystal claimed Biden was able “to do the funniest thing ever,” prompting social media users to accuse him of suggesting Biden should commit lethal harm to his political opponent.

The very worst of the swamp.

The Left Goes Nuts Over the ‘Craveness’ of the Latest Supreme Court Ruling Over Trump.

The Left goes nuts after the Supremes take up Trump’s immunity case claim, leaving the Democrats bereft of a way forward in locking up Orange Man before the fall election. One actually has to look at the remarks to appreciate the distortion of reality these people are proclaiming. Do they actually believe that Trump, once in office again, will never leave? That he will round up his “enemies” and throw them in jail? Or is it their own projection.

How to even address the flaws in the rationale of their thinking.

Something for a Friday to consider. Know your enemy. We would be wise to pay attention to the nonsense going on out there.

Various clips are out there, spewing the nonsense that the sky has fallen. Here are two.

What is suggested is that after a President leaves office, any D.A. in the land could file charges for conceived offenses during his Presidency.

Illinois is the latest example of the courts, with a judge who usually handles traffic offenses, knocking the President off the ballot as an example of the whole thing going haywire.

I would think Biden and Obama should be as concerned over this matter as well as Trump. What a field day. Granted, this issue is much more nuanced than a simple yes or no, but with the state we are in, open season on the President doesn’t seem wise.

The march is on to end Executive Privilege so that any communication that goes on during the President’s time in office is fodder for discussion. Then potential prosecution.

Peter Navarro is an example.

The former Trump White House adviser was charged with contempt of Congress after refusing to provide testimony to the House panel investigating the Capitol attack. This week the judge refused to put his jail time on hold while his appeal was in the works. Thus, an appeal was denied. His appeal was Trump was claiming Executive Privilege.
 
But no one knows how to suspend reality over the whole Supreme court decision to hear Trump’s appeal than Rachel Maddow. Lost is the fact that a speedy trial is the right of the accused, not the prosecution.
 
“This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend,” says Rachel Maddow on the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Trump immunity argument, delaying his coup trial. “And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it’s something that’s unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky.”
 
 
 
 
 
Sleep well swamp. The whole thing hangs by a thread.
 
 

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

While the National Review comments that “for no apparent reason, Zero signed this bill while we were not watching,, we were posting on this months ago– the intent? The Copenhagen meeting had much on the agenda besides global warming and this is the first step in what Bill Bennett had warned about.

You just can’t make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

 Specifically, previously Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?

Watch out for U.N. Copenhagen-they say deal impossible, but

… The E.U. is on board. One of the main features is a one world government where countries wind up giving up many of their rights to a commision, including a legal system. https://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/watch-out-for-u-n-copenhagen-they-say-deal-impossible-but/

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=