And I kind of prepped the discussion here. I think we have a nice clip that nicely preps it here from, as I said, our friends from Newsmax. Yeah, I mean, there are two issues before the Supreme Court. Now, Devin’s referencing this presidential immunity fight. Trump has appealed Chutkin’s ruling against them there, that he’s immune for being prosecuted for acts as president. So he’s appealed that to the appellate court.

And the Biden Justice Department want the Supreme Court to bypass that and short circuit his due process rights by accelerating the consideration of this. And he’s also asked the appellate court to accelerate the consideration of this. What’s the emergency? What is the emergency? It’s the election. They want to convict. They want to try, convict. And if they can incarcerate and jail President Trump before the election, that’s what this is about.

This isn’t the rule of law. This is power politics through our Justice Department and FBI. We’ve been seeing it for the last eight years. I agree with that guy, but that’s exactly what’s happening. And I want to go a little bit more into that issue because you’re not going to hear a fair analysis from much of the media on this because they all hate Trump and want to see him put in jail, too.

But President Trump had sought immunity from prosecution for his acts as president, and he alleges his acts as president as it relates to debates about an election, are therefore immune, and he can’t be prosecuted, even presuming that the acts were problematic, and I don’t presume that at all, but the Biden administration wants to jail him for being a president and exercising his First Amendment rights. So anyway, he had asked the lower court judge, Chutkin, who’s an anti Trump judge, to throw out the case, dismiss the case based on this immunity defense, and she said no, he appealed it, which effectively put the whole case below on hold, and he appeals it to the next level in the court system, at the federal level, which is the court of appeals here for the District of Columbia Circuit.

And rather than just deal with that in the ordinary course, as I suggested on the newsmax program, the Biden Justice Department and Jack Smith asked the appellate court to accelerate its review because they’re desperate to get this process in place of trying and convicting him and from their perspective, hopefully jailing him before the election. And that would only be able to be achieved if Judge Chutchkin’s abusive decision to make him go to trial on March 4.

That date holds. And obviously, the more appeals that take place, the less likely that date holds because the appellate process takes the time. And on top of, so what they did was they’ve asked the appellate court to accelerate review. So they’re keeping that iron in the fire. And at the same time, they’re asking the Supreme Court of the United States say, don’t worry about what the appellate court does.

You can take this up directly and you need to rush and get this done. And of course, as I noted, there’s no emergency. The only emergency is a political one, to get Trump convicted, hopefully jailed, to ensure Biden is more easily reelected. And I want to highlight how outrageous this mean if this doesn’t tell you, on top of everything else that’s been piling up, that this is purely a political operation by the Justice Department, and they have some judges on their side, and I’m going to get into that.

The Trump administration, excuse me, the Trump lawyers, filed a brief with the appellate court highlighting this abuse, and they have a brief they’re supposed to file with the Supreme Court, which I guess will echo this. But I want to go over that brief with you in part. I posted a section of it on my twitter feed. As I say in the tweet, Trump’s legal team filed a powerful brief before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, calling out the Biden DOJ, Jack Smith’s desperate politicization of the court process in order to interfere with the election.

This is election interference, and this is a quote from the introduction. The prosecution has one goal in this case. Unlawfully attempt to try, convict, and sentence President Trump before an election in which he is likely to defeat President Biden. This represents a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election and to disenfranchise the tens of millions of voters who support President Trump’s candidacy while pursuing this partisan goal.

The president waited over two years, the prosecution waited over two years to bring this lawless case and then sought an extraordinary expedited trial calendar demanding that the jury selection begin in December 2023 under their initial request. By the way, guys, they’d be selecting a jury about now, right? They wanted to do it before the Iowa primary. That’s how crazed they were. Notwithstanding nearly 13 million pages of discovery and a litany of important and unresolved legal issues in support, the prosecution made the same argument it makes now, that violating President Trump’s due process rights would somehow vindicate the public’s interest in a speedy trial.

Of course, the public doesn’t have an interest in a speedy trial. It’s the defendant who has an interest in a speedy trial. The speedy trial law, as I recall it, is designed to protect defendants’rights. The prosecution was wrong then and is wrong now. The appeal presents novel, complex and sensitive questions of profound importance. Whether a president of the United States may be criminally prosecuted for his official acts as president goes to the core of our system of separated powers and will stand among the most consequential questions ever decided by this court.

The manifest public interest lies in the court’s careful and deliberate consideration of these momentous issues with the utmost care and diligence. Likewise, the public interest lies in ensuring that President Trump, like all citizens, has a full and fair opportunity to develop and present his arguments to this court. A rushed schedule, as the prosecution demands, would vitiate these constitutional rights and irreparably undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

The court should deny the prosecution’s motion to expedite. Normally, I would avoid talking about procedural moves like this, but it highlights in a dramatic fashion the abuse of the justice system, as I said, in league with the courts to try to interfere in our election. The Trump brief goes on to highlight how application of Biden’s DOJ’s unprecedented decision to try to jail Trump for official acts as president would have upended american history in the history of the United States.

Again, this is a quote from the brief. No president has been subject to criminal prosecution for the exercise of official responsibilities until now. The question whether a president is immune from criminal prosecution for his official duties is a novel question of exceptional sensitivity and importance, one that warns careful and deliberate treatment, not a hyper accelerated briefing schedule and rush to judgment driven by partisan concerns. American history abounds with examples of presidents who are accused by their political opponents of criminal activity in their official acts.

This goes back to the beginning of the republic, or to the dawn of the republic. Could President George W. Bush face criminal charges of defrauding the United States and obstructing official proceedings for allegedly giving Congress false information about a weapons of mass destruction of Iraq to induce war on false premises? Could President Obama be charged with murder for allegedly authorizing the drone strike that killed Armour Alawaki and his 16 year old son, both us citizens.

Could President Nixon have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice for ordering the dismissal of Archibald Cox in the Saturday night massacre? Could President John Quincy Adams have been indicted and imprisoned for the corrupt bargain of appointing Henry Clay as his secretary of state? That was a famous dispute. According to President Trump, the answer to these questions is no, an answer that is deeply rooted in a doctrine of separated powers.

But the prosecution disagrees. These are questions of historic sensitivity and importance. They warrant the most careful consideration possible, not the breakneck speed demanded by the prosecution. And I say afterwards, you’ll see on the tweet there, I would add that any competent federal prosecutor could come up with a number of crimes committed by Joe Biden in the course of his official duties as president. Now, for a Trump, or whoever, the successor to Biden’s administration, and it will be their successor either next year, in 2025, or after his second term ends, if he’s reelected, ironically.

Oh, I wanted to read this part, too. Excuse me. And finally, the Trump legal team highlights the Biden DOJ, Jack Smith’s bad faith invocation of a fake emergency to try to ruin Christmas for Trump and his lawyers. The proposed schedule would require attorneys and support staff to work round the clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans. It is as if the special counsel growled with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming, I must find some way to keep Christmas from coming.

Quoting, but how? But quoting. Dr. Sue Sally Grinch stole Christmas. Published Random House, 1957. I can’t believe that book was 1957. So what happened? The appellate court ignored all this. A panel controlled by leftists demanded and required Trump to abide by largely the expedited schedule that the government is seeking, the Biden regime is seeking. And so they don’t care about this. I mean, it shows you how the system is really compromised by this anti Trump animus that this fake emergency created by the Justice Department in the middle of an election year is being used, in my view, to try to railroad Trump.

It’s just terrible. Now, ironically, now, as I said, the same type of arguments being considered by the Supreme Court. They want the Supreme Court to not even wait for the appellate court to rule and just move along and deal with this presidential immunity case. So we’ll see how the court handles that. And the briefing is due from Trump on that issue next week. So that’s the presidential immunity issue.

Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that. Subscribe button. And like our video down below. .