Based on the Constitution, Joe Biden and his corrupt cronies have no case against President Trump. They are breaking the law as set out in the Constitution for doing so.
Corrupt Jack Smith is ignoring the US Constitution by pushing his unconstitutional cases through the courts. He shows total disregard for our country, our Constitution, our office of the President, and President Trump.
Rasmussen Reports outline how Smith is breaking the law in indicting President Trump. This is something that has never been done because the President is protected by the law and the only means able to indict a President is after a Senate finds the President guilty of crimes. This has not been done.
Tom Fitton outlined key points from President Trump’s attorneys in response to corrupt Jack Smith’s case in DC.
In Trump’s opening appellate brief challenging the Biden regime’s unprecedented attempt to prosecute a former president, Trump’s lawyers lay out the dangers of Jack Smith’s political attack on our constitutional republic:
“During the 234 years from 1789 to 2023, no current or former President had ever been criminally prosecuted for official acts. That unbroken tradition died this year, and the historical fallout is tremendous. The indictment of President Trump threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come and stands likely to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic—the confidence of American citizens in an independent judicial system.
Under our system of separated powers, the Judicial Branch cannot sit in judgment over a President’s official acts. That doctrine is not controversial. It was treated as self-evident and foundational from the dawn of the Republic, and it flows directly from the exclusive vesting clause of Article II. In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall endorsed it, writing in Marbury v. Madison that a President’s official acts ‘can never be examinable by the courts.’
The structure of our government, the text of the Constitution and its early commentators, common-law immunity doctrines, our political history, the Supreme Court’s analogous immunity doctrines, and the policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers all dictate that no President, current or former, may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate. Nor may a President face criminal prosecution based on conduct for which he was acquitted by the U.S. Senate. The indictment against President Trump is unlawful and unconstitutional. It must be dismissed.”
The brief later details how the Biden/Jack Smith operation is trying to criminalize Trump’s privileged official presidential acts (citations omitted):
“…all five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts. They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as Chief Executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.
First, President Trump’s public statements and tweets about alleged fraud and irregularity in the federal election fall within the outer perimeter of Presidential duty, to which communicating with the public on matters of federal concern is absolutely central. This is especially apparent with respect to President Trump’s tweets; his Twitter account has been held to be an official government channel of communication based on ‘overwhelming’ evidence. President Trump’s other public statements are also plainly official.
Second, President Trump’s communications with the U.S. Department of Justice about investigating widespread reports of election fraud, and deliberating about replacing the Acting Attorney General, are quintessential Presidential acts. The President shall ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3, which include the numerous prohibitions on federal election crime. Directing the Attorney General to enforce these falls squarely within the Take Care power. Deliberating about whether to replace a Cabinet-level officer is a core exercise of the appointment and removal power.
Third, communications with state officials about their exercise of official duties with respect to a federal election falls within a President’s official duties. The President’s Take Care duty ‘include[s] the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the constitution itself … and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the constitution.’ This includes taking steps to ensure the integrity of federal elections, such as communicating with state officials who play a critical role in administering those federal elections. Presidential electors ‘exercise federal functions under, and discharge duties in virtue of authority conferred by, the Constitution of the United States.’
Fourth, communicating with Members of Congress, including the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate, about their exercise of their official duties lies at the core of Presidential responsibility. The President has intimate and extensive responsibility in the legislative process. Article II specifically provides that the President ‘recommend to [Congress’s] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’ This includes the Executive Branch ‘mak[ing] its views known to Congress on all matters in which it has responsibilities, duties, and opinions.’ Historical precedent from President Grant’s intervention in the disputed Hayes-Tilden election supports this conclusion.
Fifth, organizing contingent slates of electors to support the President’s advocacy to the Vice President and Congress is likewise an official act. The indictment itself alleges that these acts were intertwined with President Trump’s attempts to lobby the Vice President and Members of Congress. Thus, they fall under the President’s official duties both because those duties extend to ‘the rights, duties, and obligations growing out of the constitution itself’ and ‘all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the constitution,’ and because they are necessary and preparatory to, and thus intertwined with, the plainly official acts of communicating with Congress about the certification of the federal election.”
Trump’s legal team makes a key argument that the Left’s failed impeachment of Trump constitutionally proscribes any subsequent criminal prosecution on the same issues:
“The Impeachment Judgment Clause thus protects Presidents from harassing criminal prosecutions by requiring Congress first to make the political judgment that the President should be convicted. If, as here, the Senate acquits the President, the Senate has necessarily concluded that the President should remain in office and is not disqualified from service. For a prosecutor to conclude otherwise undermines that conclusion—indeed, a successful prosecution voids it—and arrogates to himself a judgment the Constitution reserves for Congress.”
During this Christmas season, let’s pray the Lord showers the DC appeals court with the gifts of wisdom, discernment, and courage to confront and stop the Biden’s regimes assault on the very structure of our constitutional government. For, as the DC appeals court is notoriously political and reflexively anti-Trump, it would be truly a miracle if the rule of law prevails at this stage of the legal proceedings.
And, no matter what happens in the appellate court, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be the next stop in this historic battle for constitutional government.
See the tweets below:
“no President, current or former, may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts unless he is first impeached and convicted by the Senate.”
Investigating & preventing Federal election fraud falls within the lawful range of presidential official acts. https://t.co/RBTXc2420t
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) December 25, 2023