SCOTUS Rules Trump Cant Be Prosecuted: Lower Courts REBUKE Woke Female Feminist Judges | Stew Peters Network

I gave this platform to God. Okay? I’m on a very specific mission. We have to identify who the real enemy is. We have to know, where does this infiltration come from? The american people need a warrior that’s unafraid to point out the real enemy. The american people are deserving of truth, exposure, and extreme accountability for the crimes against humanity that are being committed. We’re on the brink of the complete collapse of America, while at the same time, at the precipice of an amazing victory. If we want to prevent our children from facing a future bloodbath, I mean, I’m talking mass amounts of bloodshed.

We need to step up and fight this war, and we need to fight it now. Now uncensored. I refuse to be silenced or muzzled. Unafraid. No man will intimidate me. Unstoppable. So it’s no secret, it’s really no surprise to anyone that over the past several years, and really over the course of, I don’t know, several decades, our government, our fake government at all levels, are supposedly elected officials and representatives, all of their minions. They’ve. They’ve made some boneheaded and at times actually treasonous decisions in regards to how this country is run, how our civil liberties are handled.

And while our system of checks and balances allows the judiciary to rein these people in when needed for years, everyone knows that around the country there’s these various courts and federal districts or judges that are very out of touch with that principle. So instead of safeguarding our constitution, they’ve actually encouraged its destruction. Quite often, they’ve actively participated in that destruction. Most of the time, these judges lean very far to the left. They’re called activist judges. It’s extremely rare for any of these activist judges to be some kind of right wing zealot, because most of the time, people would classify themselves as right wingers or conservatives.

They take the constitution and take our system of law and order very seriously, or at least they claim to. They try to abide by it. But on the left, there’s always been an issue with these left wing judges legislating from the bench, taking advantage of our system, bypassing the legislature, holding up blatantly illegal legislation written by corrupt legislators. But because the way our system is structured, these rulings, even the very worst ones, can eventually work their way up to the Supreme Court, where they can be corrected. Now, for years, the Supreme Court has been unreliable at best.

They legalized gay marriage all over the country. They spent decades making landmark decisions that have flown in the face of everything that we believe America stands for. But over the past few years, that has started to change a little bit, in large part because President Trump was able to appoint three Supreme Court justices during his first term. The justices that he appointed, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, they haven’t been without fault. They’ve all made very poor decisions at different times as far as their rulings go. But they’ve also joined forces with the likes of Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito to issue groundbreaking rulings like the overturning of Roe v.

Wade. So if you ask most people, they’ll tell you the Supreme Court, at its current count, has five conservative judges, three liberal judges, and one toss up. Toss up, of course, is the infamous John Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush, was supposed to be the next great constitutionalist to run the court, but he’s been a complete and total disaster. He’s actually a fraud. He’s a traitorous. But knowing what we know about George W. Bush, that should come as no surprise. But regardless, under its current structure, the court has been able to make some extremely meaningful decisions.

And recently, there’s been two really big ones. They just took a baseball bat to the persecution of many J six patriots when they deemed that the DOJ’s treatment of these people is a violation of their constitutional right to a speedy trial. Among other things, there are people who have been held in federal custody for upward of three years now with no trial. Three years, no trial. An obvious violation of their constitutional rights. No law abiding government is allowed to arrest people and then just hold them indefinitely until they can come up with a way to convict them and keep them in jail under torturous conditions.

It’s disgusting. And on the heels of that ruling, the court made another big one with regards to President Trump and really all us presidents, for that matter. They ruled that the president is immune to prosecution when executing his official duties. So once again, the ruling takes a baseball bat to the Biden DOJ and all of these left wing persecutors and their attempts to take down President Trump and the America first movement by rigging the justice system and perverting our courts so they can cling to power. And this Trump ruling, you know, it’s been reported in the media like the Supreme Court just moved to allow Trump to become a dictator or something, which, of course, is completely false.

It’s not true at all yet. Just another hyperbolic, ridiculous talking point that’s been picked up and regurgitated over and over again by psychopaths like Joy Reid, our friend Kurt Doolittle has been following along very closely with the recent Supreme Court rulings, including the Trump ruling. He posted a little reality check to x the other day, writing, quote, the Trump ruling was not only a narrow but a codification of an unwritten law dating all the way back to the founders. Presidents must be immune from criminal prosecution for their acts as president, or they may not take actions necessary as president in the face of uncertainty and risk.

However, this ruling does not render them immune from murder, theft, etcetera, as a private citizen external to their role as president, murdering your wife, raping an intern, or embezzling funds, for example, and it does not render them immune from impeachment. The left has no respect for reciprocity, sovereignty, rule of law, and only power. So the codification of the customary law has been a long time coming. Nothing new here. I expected this ruling, end quote. So really, in this case, the Supreme Court did exactly what it’s designed to do. And although this was far from a unanimous ruling, being split down what you could term as partisan lines, the court managed to make the right decision.

Kurt Doolittle is with us now for more on this. Kurt, really, in this case, the Supreme Court did exactly what it’s designed to do. Is that right? Yeah. No, though I’m like, you know, you sound like a constitutional expert on the matter with excellent. And I’m kind of impressed at what you covered. Yes, they did. They did. They did the right thing. They did the right thing in this case. They just codified what was already in stance. It wasn’t a big reach for them, and it was something most of us who are fairly skilled in these matters predicted.

There was no way they were going to let that stand. It’s unfortunate for Trump that it takes so long to work up through the process, but it was, in my opinion, deterministic. Although you did see the fruitcakes on the fort, the court continued their little tirades, but the court did come to the right decision. So in America, some fake or installed president, like the guy in the skin suit pretending to be Joe Biden, they just can’t come in with some staff full of Stalinists and start throwing people in jail because they don’t like the policy decisions they made four years ago, etcetera.

So, I mean, I think this is an obvious, an obvious. It’s obvious. Yeah. Why was it split down the middle? How could this not be unanimous? Because those people that voted against it were, if you read their opinions, which is kind of intellectually insulting. They’re actually in favor of being able to take someone down through the court system. And I think it’s, my opinion is they just don’t understand, which is a common criticism. They don’t understand the history of this matter and why it’s so important in that presidents have a difficult position and that there is already remedy through the matter of impeachment.

And there’s an impeachment provides the remedy to get rid of someone. But what they don’t want it to do is turn the court into the fight nightclub, where the court’s asked to resolve disputes over things that are really just political assassinations or attempts at hyperbole and other nonsense. The example would be the flipping the case around. Do we really care that Clinton had oral sex with an intern in the Oval Office? I mean, he’s not exactly the first guy to. I mean, 1st. 1st president of Philander in the White House. Well, I mean, as a Christian, I care.

I don’t want that happening in the. But that’s a moral problem. Right. And that’s a matter for, that’s a matter for the US to say about him in a voting cycle. But it’s not a matter. It’s not a matter for us to say, okay, well, was this an abuse of power in the office that affects the public and, you know, public and private matters being what they are? I don’t like, I didn’t, I’m not, I mean, I, my advocate, my position on Clinton was, well, let’s, let’s just vote him out of office. But I don’t think what he did is criminal in the sense that it’s, it has an, or acts or whatever they were had an impact on policy.

I think what the christian argument would be, which is the one I would support, is that a person who makes questionable moral judgments like that is not someone who want in the position of making grander moral judgments about policy. Yeah. When you look around at these courts and you look at some of these prosecutors, Kurt, and you look at how these very obvious rulings were split down the middle, it almost seems like, I mean, it’s not hyperbolic to say that we just absolutely have the absence of the rule of law in this country. Do you agree with that? I mean, this is like a banana republic.

It was a systemic attack on our system, especially in the post war era, but culminating with the ethnic group that most practiced lawfare in the post war period was extremely successful in using the momentum of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War and the time periods collision of classes, so to speak, that resulted from the post war area. They made a very good use of that to push the court in the direction of legal activism, what our court is intentionally doing. And we have a group of people that, believe it or not, from Yale and Columbia, not Yale, Yale and Chicago, who created a thing called the Federalist Society back in the eighties.

And they’re the people that said they were. My generation said, this cannot happen anymore. We have to build a legion of academic jurists who are capable of restoring the rule of law and ending and reversing lawfare because it bypassed the people. I mean, the people are sovereign. And so our government is set up to require a thing called concurrency, which means that the classes and the regions must agree for legislation to pass. So what they did was they made up rights that were poorly codified, and they conducted a systematic and intentional design to use race as the means by which to.

To circumvent the people in the legislature and use the court to cause legislation from the bench. And the court’s basically saying, wow, we really screwed up. Abortion was a screw up, the marriage thing was a screw up. It turns out in retrospect that nobody would like this, but the evidence is inconvertible that most of the race based nonsense was also harmful. Because if you look at the progress of creating a black middle class, the black upper middle class and the black elite prior to the civil rights movement, it was actually they were making more progress faster than they have made since before this ruling.

Do you know of any presidents or can you think of any specific action or inaction that a president may not have taken at any given time because they were afraid of this prosecution and not having immunity as the president in their official duties? This is getting out of control. Our government is sinking a trillion dollars in debt every 100 days. That’s right, a trillion dollars every hundred days. Do you want to bail the government out of debt? Yeah, no, I don’t think so. You see, when people worry about the national debt, they often turn to safe haven assets.

That’s why thousands of people have called goldco the number one rated gold company, so that they can diversify their money with time tested safe haven assets. Physical gold and silver. Today, Gold Co. Is offering fans of this show up to 10% instant match in bonus silver with a qualified account. Just call them 855706 gold. Again. 855706 gold free bonus silver. A half ounce silver coin. Free gold and silver information kit. What are you waiting for? Safeguard your money with physical gold and silver. Just like I did with Gold Co. Call 855706 gold again. 855706 gold. Or just visit them online@stoolikesgold.com.

again. That’s stulikesgold.com. friends, I would like to reserve this book in your name. It’s called a Navy SeaLs bug in guide. Inside of this book, Joe Lambert reveals everything that you need to do to ensure that you never have to leave your home during dark times, creating a self sufficient fortress that will sustain you and your family for however long it takes, even years, until things get back to normal. You’ll discover exactly what to do, what to stockpile inside, and how much of it long lasting foods, water, communication devices, a survival generator, and many other items that you’ll need to successfully bug in for months or even years.

The immediate payoff of having these projects is that they make you independent, self sufficient on your own property. You don’t want to depend on anyone, especially the government, for your basic needs. Go to buginguide.com stew to take advantage of a surprise gift that can help you out a lot in the next crisis. This book offer won’t be available for long. Go to bugindguide.com stu. That’s buginguide.com stu. I mean, I’ll take the big, outstanding, obvious one. What if the cuban missile crisis had blown up? You want the president prosecuted over that? Conversely, do you want him to not make the right decision because he’s afraid of being prosecuted? Or even in this case, I’m of the camp because I was going to go.

The January 6 was just another political event, and that the narrative made up about it is ridiculous in comparison to the bombings that the Democrats and the left did do when I was a kid in the sixties and seventies, Congress, they bombed Congress. They bombed Congress. So this is nothing. And we were living under the tyranny, the urban tyranny of the left for two summers. So I don’t understand why you would look at this thing that way, other than it had more direct political coercive power than the left’s active activities did. Yeah. Have you ever looked into what may have happened had Trump decided, hey, I’m just not leaving, of course, but I understand Trump very well.

I mean, I hate to say that I think like him, but it’s more that he writes. He wrote the book the Art of the Deal, and if you understand that book, you understand how clearly he thinks about the world and why he talks about, he talks as he does. And so from my understanding, he’s trying to build a heroic legacy. And all he wanted was if he was delegitimized, that was not helping him achieve his goals. And so what? He wants to be known as the guy who saved America from the left prior to its fall.

And it’s certainly in foreign policy, he’s already done it. In domestic policy, he couldn’t get it done because the Congress was too much of an obstacle. But if he had actually said that he done that, it would have been counter to his objectives. He knew, because I’m only one degree separated, he knew that what he would need to say if he wanted those people to actually revolt. He knew the words he needed to say, and so did most. Enough of the key people in the world know what he had to say. And he could have had that thing turn into something he didn’t.

All he was looking for was he honestly, like many conservatives, believed this was not an honest election. And despite the arguments of the left, that’s still an open question. No matter how many times they try to create reality by chanting that this case has been solved in the minds of the american people, that was a question. And he felt it needed to be added, asked. And the people that were coming to protest, were protesting because they thought he was being, they thought there was the matter needed, at least in the inquiry. And I agreed with that.

And so I still agree with it. But would he have done anything? I don’t know. He knew exactly what to do if he wanted to create a civil conflict and he didn’t do it. And he didn’t do it because he has a very moral goal in mind. His mind. And just, I mean, I can take the other position. It’s not like I’m a, I’m a little fanboy here. I can take the opposite position, but I just happen to understand how Trump thinks. And it’s like women can’t understand men, but men can understand women sometimes. Right, it’s this.

And the left can understand. The right can understand the left, but the left can’t understand the right. Trump’s not, he’s not complicated. He’s actually profoundly moral. He just will use the left against themselves and they hate it. And so if you understand what he’s doing and if he had a press secretary more like me than the ones he’s chosen, it would be easy for him to make his hyperbolic statements, which is intentional on his part, and then the media would outrage, and then the press secretary would be able to stand up and say, well, here’s what’s really going on.

And that would actually be an incredibly powerful thing for President Trump to bring about. But for some reason, his selection process for his public representatives appears to be too sentimental and not strategic enough. It’s an interesting take. Is this a double edged sword? I know that this ruling doesn’t allow for a president to take inappropriate or, you know, sexually inappropriate showers with your daughter, as Ashley Biden has written in her diary, doesn’t allow for you to. Oh, my God. Jesus. Yeah. And I think that Trump should have taken that diary right up on that debate stage and just read directly from it.

Everybody knows its legitimacy at this point. Those are her words, written as an adult. He’s really german aristocracy. Old German. He thinks like, old german aristocracy. That would be like he, for him to make an off the cup comment, off the cuff comment about it would probably be one thing, but that would, he would view that as beneath him. I think to really get up there and delve into it, I mean, I can. Well, the media is not reporting it, and I think that it’s unfair for the american people to not know about it. Trump has sway in an influence over hundreds of millions of people.

I agree. I agree. But you have a job, and you’re exceptional in your job. I have a job. We have jobs to inform the public that wants to hear in the frame that they can understand. He’s got his own frame and his own agenda. By and large, it works. If we were to ask him to do everything we do like we do, how would that affect the rest of what he does? And I’m not sure that’s a good idea. I think it’s better that we divide the labor so that he does what he does. You do what you do, I do what I do.

The other guys do what they do, and we move the needle that way, rather than wanting to take all the burden off of us. Because it is a burden. Right. I mean, you work hard. Your team is amazing. I work hard. I’m very proud of my team. And there’s a lot of guys out there who are working toward this. Maybe not as good as you are, but they’re working out there toward this. And if we ask Trump to be the lone mandeh, what would happen? If we ask any leader to be the lone iconography of it? Right.

If that guy goes, what happens? We’re ended. But if we all keep converging, which we are. Right, it’s taking us a long time as the right to converge, but if we keep converging, we’re going to win. And so I probably have a different sentiment to a lot of people on the right, and that’s that the right likes to solve a clear problem hard, fast, and now and have it over with. This is a very right wing disposition. The left does it the other way. They say we’re going to incrementally undermine everything until we get to where we’re there, and we’re never going to tell anybody what we’re doing.

So we have polar opposites. I’m not exactly in the middle, but I’m in the classical liberal sense of, I understand how slowly things move and how complicated they are to get people’s minds to change. And so I don’t expect our leaders to do more than what they’re able to do while still preserving their ability to act in the capacity we’ve asked them to. So, I mean, although, although Biden can’t do these things and no president can do these things personally, molest your daughter, etcetera, make deals with Burisma, take bribes from foreign countries, you know, extort, that’s prosecutors, that’s prosecutable, all of that is.

But however do you fear that this ruling is a double edged sword in the sense that now Biden could use the authority of executive powers to become more brazen in his quest to damage the country or whoever’s pulling his strings, whether it be Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu? I don’t think so, because what we’re, it would, it takes, it’s the kind of money and power and interest it takes to do this stuff in New York City is very easy to do in New York City against Trump. But when you bring it outside of New York City and a narrow focus of a rich guy like that, what are you going to go after someone like for? That’s pretty hard.

I try to answer your question. I feel like from your reaction, I’m being too vague about it. But what I’m really saying is that in the case of Biden, there needs to be some, I hate to do this. Let’s just say in general, if you found out that a guy was doing something clearly untoward, not questionable, but untoward, to me, showering with your daughter is pretty off the charts. Combined with his sniffing babies and other weird behaviors, he’s got, I mean, he’s clearly got some issue there. But when you get into, is he doing anything that is, is criminalizable outside of his role as the president? And in particular in the case of, let’s say, the child molestation or something like that? That’s a high crime.

That’s not a minor thing that we could get someone out of office like that, though. I expect it to be something on the order of we would do it through impeachment instead of through the courts. In other words, the courts is the wrong place to dismantle a president. If he were impeached, obviously, the Senate would never move to convict and he would never be removed. So in the case of, like, Alejandro Mayorkas, I mean, it’s all just kind of a show, isn’t it? I mean, when was the last time that an impeachment actually did something positive for Americans? It doesn’t work.

I mean, that was my, I think it was my college thesis on the presidency. In college it says that impeachment doesn’t work. So the impeachment doesn’t work in the sense of it’s too hard to get someone actually impeached. So what does work? I mean, I believe that there’s absolutely a political solution. A lot of people, when I say that we’re running out of time, we have to do something. We have to rise up. When I say militia is not a bad word, oftentimes people put me in this narrow box, you know, where they, they believe that I’m saying, well, we need to violently overthrow the government or pick up arms against our government.

I don’t think that the american citizenry is really going to go to battle with the United States military. I just don’t, I mean, I don’t see that as being a winnable battle. Fast, actually. Yeah. And they know that. Yeah, well, we’re not, people don’t want to do it. But I’m just, the reality is that there’s only, there’s not enough, there are only two cities in the United States with a police force large enough to do anything meaningful. And they’re only, and the United States government, if you look at the fieldable personnel, it’s too small to do.

We can’t even hold a foreign country more or less a domestic. But I think that this needs to be a very decentralized effort because I think that once you start to identify, I was trying to counter that issue. Sorry, I don’t want to interrupt you, but I want to clarify. I was just saying that I have an issue with that I want to take off the table, that if we wanted to, it could happen. But our goal needs to be to not need to make that happen. Right. Right. That’s my point. Yeah. And I think that it’s certainly winnable.

So, I mean, what do you do? Take a generational approach to this, where, you know, over the generations, we just start to restore the rule of law in this country? Or do you think that there’s just not enough time for that? What is the political solution? There’s not enough time. The political solution is, is to. Is to break, make the government incapable of funding by what you would say. I always takes 2 million people in Washington, DC for 90 days. That’s what it’s going to take to have it happen. And I think you already know that.

If I understand you’re thinking correctly, that’s what it’s going to take. It’s going to take. I’ve said three to five. Well, I’ve said three to 5 million. Right. But the reason I say that is I’ve done a million one in Ukraine, so I’ve done one. I know what happens with a million. So what happens when you get a million is you get 2 million. What happens when you get 2 million? You get five. If we had 5 million people in DC for 90 days, it’d be over. What would they be there doing? The purpose of getting there is to be able to state a message for the redress of grievances, a set of demands.

And those demands have to be reasonable and moral. In other words, we don’t have to get everything at that meeting. We have to get enough to fix the institution so that we bring about the correction. I’ve done most of this work. I mean, it’s not something. It’s something I’ve worked on for a very long time. But you’re right, it’s going to take two, three, five. The more the merrier. Million people. I just don’t want to see, like uniforms, official signups, information sharing. I don’t want to see that kind of organization because that kind of an entity becomes really easy to smash.

I think that it needs to be very decentralized where people shut up, don’t really talk about what it is that they’re doing, but that they are very well organized internally, that they keep it a secret until they affect the change that they. That they need to affect by way of action that’s discussed behind closed doors, not right. My organization looks at it is that you have to have a plan ready, but the event will be an opportunity seized, not a plan brought to fruition. In other words, you need a solution to the problem and you need to make people aware of the conflict.

But in essence, I’m agreeing with you, we have to seize an opportunity that the government does something or brings about some crisis that is so agitating that those 5 million people will show, but we can’t engineer it. I know because I’ve had the FBI in my kitchen too often to tell me not to do that. So, I mean, it’s absolutely possible both ways, but the way to make it, the way to survive that conflict is to make sure it’s spontaneous. We have a plan, but the opportunity is spontaneous. Kurt Doolittle, I can’t wait to sit down with you in person and talk more about the specifics of that type of action.

Thank you so much for coming. And you have a thing, I guess, coming soon, don’t you know? We’re going to be talking about that upcoming with this extreme accountability stuff. I had kind of an epiphany. I had a revelation over this past holiday weekend about that, and so I’m going to be addressing that publicly here very soon. But in any event, we will get together privately, personally and discuss this in greater detail. Love you, man. Thanks for all your work. Yeah, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate you. There’s a whole bunch of stories that have to be dug into, rethought, reconsidered, and in some cases, completely discarded.

As modern Americans, we’ve been spoon fed this dumbed down, cartoonish, simplified version of history. It’s all fake. It’s all bull. Everything that we have been taught is part of a self serving narrative written by the people who will say and do anything to keep us on a leash. Now, this version of history, some big name corrupt families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds and their many associates are credited over and over and over again with propelling human development. Throughout the late 18 and early 19, hundreds, almost every major american city, was burnt to the ground. What if we really are quite literally living atop the ashes of an advanced civilization that’s been hidden from us for our entire lives? I’m going to ask you for your undivided attention because I’m going to tell you about what could possibly be the most important life saving supplement that I have ever talked about.

It’s called cardiomiracle. Each serving of cardiomiracle has a combination of over 50 high quality ingredients, including a huge variety of fruits, vegetables, amino acids, and herbs, all of which come together to promote your body’s ability to produce nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is so important for heart health. It helps to relax and dilate your blood vessels, which supports blood flow and circulation. And I love that you don’t have to take this giant pill to get all of this nutrition. No, cardiomiracle comes in a powder formula, so it’s really easy to mix all day, throughout the day into juice or water, and take it at any time.

That also helps to support mood regulation because it’s a neurotransmitter, it’s a neuromodulator in the brain, so it can support the release of serotonin and dopamine, both of which are really important and involved in mood regulation. Cardiomiracle also supports mental clarity, sleep quality, energy levels. It can even help with recovery after exercise. Nitric oxide is essential for so many functions in the body, and cardiomiracle supports the production of nitric oxide. So you get many benefits from just one supplement. Please go to highpowerheart.com again, highpowerheart.com dot. I’m telling you, this could quite possibly be the most important supplement that I will ever talk about.

Cardiomiracle. Go to highpowerheart.com dot. If there is one mineral that you should be worried about not getting enough of, it’s magnesium. Magnesium is the body’s master mineralization. 600 critical reactions, hormone balance, stress management, sleep quality, even digestion is influenced by the presence of magnesium. Well, there’s two big problems with what I just said. Number one, magnesium has been largely missing from us soil since the 1950s. I wonder if that’s intentional. It certainly does explain why up to 75% of the population may be deficient in magnesium. Number two, most supplements contain only one or two forms of magnesium, when in reality your body needs seven.

The only full spectrum magnesium supplement, the only magnesium supplement on the market that has all seven critical forms is called magnesium breakthrough by bioptimizers. And that’s why I’m so excited to tell you that I was able to arrange a killer deal for you. You won’t find this deal on Amazon. You won’t find this deal on the company’s own website. This deal is exclusively for you, my audience, and it’s for a limited time while supplies last. So right now, you can get a bottle of magnesium breakthrough for free. Just go to magbreakthrough.com stewfree. Again, that’s magbreakthrough.com stewfree.

And get your bottle of magnesium breakthrough for free right now, today. Again, that’s magbreakthrough.com stewfree.
[tr:tra].

See more of Stew Peters Network on their Public Channel and the MPN Stew Peters Network channel.