Skip to content

Supreme Court Rules on Trump’s Immunity

Spread the love

Trump_v._United_States Dissen

Trump Immunity Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity is out today. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official, but not unofficial, acts. They also noted that even comments that he thought the election was rigged as so many other people, “So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities,” it added. Even in the case Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Court held that his obstruction of justice was still immune to civil suits. The Supreme Court issued a significant ruling on presidential immunity back in 1982, where it held that presidents enjoyed absolute immunity from civil liability for actions that fell within the outer perimeter of their official duties. Trump was still president on January 6th,

This decision shows that the United States cannot possibly stand beyond 2032 and perhaps as soon as 2029. Even the Supreme Court is reflecting this deep polarization of the nation. The dissent in this decision reflects the deep divide and why America is tearing itself apart at the seams. Here, the dissent insists that the Constitution does not shield a former President from criminal acts, which is clearly words simply because this is Trump.

The Washington Post, America’s version of Lenin’s Pravda, emphasizes that the law is determined by political ideology by writing: “The Supreme Court says presidents have “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. The high court’s 6-3 ruling along ideological lines sends the case back to the lower court to determine what acts alleged in Donald Trump’s indictment on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election are official or unofficial. The ruling likely adds significant time and further appeals to the pending trial of the former president’s federal case in D.C.”


Held: A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused’s constitutional rights. Pp. 424 U. S. 417-431.


In Imber vs. Pachtman, 424 US 429 (1976), the Supreme Court was so anti-citizen that it handed prosecutors ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY no matter what. They have abused that power all the time, and they can target you because of who you are. They have driven people to suicide for being harassed and having their lives completely destroyed including members of their families, even for personal animosity or for political gain as Bragg is doing to Trump in New York, and God help you if you try to ever sue a judge for his bias as an official act. They anoint themselves with ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, which is far above the law – but they want to imprison Trump because he is their political nemesis.  Judges and prosecutors bestow ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY upon themselves, and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that dares to imply such a power.

Turn out Lights

We are rapidly approaching the fatal moment when it will be time to turn out the light on this experiment from 1776 by the Founding Fathers. Like all Republics, it has led to such corruption and moral deprivation that, as a unified nation, we will be unable to stand thanks to the polarization that is turning to deep-seated hatred. When Franklin was asked what kind of government they created, he replied, “Republic, if you can keep it.” We are reaching the end of the road. Civilization works when everyone benefits. It ceases to be viable when it divides, and one side assumes the power to abuse the other. Then the nation should split, for as we have seen today, there should have been no dissent unless you also remove all ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from judges and prosecutors as well.

Franklin on Revolution