Judges Signal Key Trump Charges Could be Dropped

Look at the crossroads. What is arguably the most important trial yet for Donald Trump is right now taking place. And the impacts of this could actually go a lot further, because right now he is standing before the Supreme Court, and this trial could determine whether Trump, being a former president, can be criminally charged at all. And the decision could impact not only Trump, but also every single other former and even current president still living in the United States. And going by some of the deliberations on Thursday, because that's the last time we saw it, it seemed the justices were actually leaning in the direction of saying Donald Trump does not have total immunity, but they also acknowledge that any ruling on this is likely going to have very broad implications, like, for example, maybe the next president going after people on the other side of the aisle. Now SCOTUSblog says that during more than two and a half hours of oral arguments, some of the court's conservative justices expressed concern about the prospect that, if former presidents do not have immunity, federal criminal laws could be used to target political opponents. Hmm, where have we seen that before? I feel like we're watching it right now. But regardless, it notes that, however, the justices left open the prospect that Trump's trial in Washington, D.C. could still go forward because the charges against him rest on his private rather than his official conduct. However, the timing of the court's eventual opinions and the resulting trial remains unclear, leaving open the possibility that the court's decision could push Trump's trial past the November election, meaning they can't use this to impact the elections in 2024. Now, it notes that Trump was indicted in August of 2023. He was indicted many times, but regardless, this is about the four counts from special counsel Jack Smith and his investigation of the January 6, 2021 incident, call it what you will, and it alleges that Donald Trump conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Now, Trump asked, it says, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin to throw out the charges against him, arguing that he could not be held criminally liable for his official acts even after leaving office. Now, I should note that on January 6, Donald Trump was still the president. And of course, they were counting the Electoral College votes. He had not yet stepped down from office. He was still president. And so, of course, if the question is about him doing things on his own free time when he was a private citizen or whatever, it'll very likely not apply to this. But again, we'll see how broadly the Supreme Court rules. Now, this is raising some pretty serious debates. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, he brought up one of the issues we mentioned early on, notably that Jack Smith, the special counsel, was a private citizen when he was appointed special counsel to investigate Trump and legally, technically, should actually not even be legitimate. Fox News notes the High Court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution while actions he took while president. But another issue is whether Smith, the special counsel, and the office of the special counsel itself have the authority to bring charges at all. And notes that in a 42-page amicus brief presented to the High Court in March, Meese and Murkasey questioned whether, quote, Jack Smith has lawful authority to undertake the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump. Notes that Murkasey and Meese, both former U.S. Attorneys General, said Smith and the office of special counsel itself have no authority to prosecute, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate to any position. Again, meaning the entire thing is a sham, basically. And notes that federal prosecutions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as Meese and Murkasey argued. But neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. He wields tremendous power, effectively answerable to no one by design, and that is a serious problem for the rule of law. Whatever one may think of former President Donald Trump or the conduct on January 6, 2021, that Smith challenges in the underlying case. And notes that the crux of the problem, according to Meese, is that Smith was never confirmed by the Senate as a U.S. Attorney and no other statute allows the U.S. Attorney General to name merely anyone as special counsel. Smith was acting U.S. Attorney for a federal district in Tennessee in 2017, but he was never nominated to the position. In other words, frankly, all the powers he's wielding right now may not be legitimate. In fact, legally, they're not, I would say. But like a lot of the concerns that were raised by conservative justices went into the broader implications of the case for the stability of the American system overall, basically. We'll be talking more about this, though, after a quick word from our sponsor. Experts agree one of the best ways to protect against financial uncertainty is to diversify your portfolio. Learn how physical gold and silver can secure your retirement funds from today's economic challenges with a gold IRA from American Hartford Gold. You can safeguard your wealth with no penalties or taxes when you transfer your current qualifying retirement accounts. Call now and our precious metals specialists will send you a free information kit, no cost or obligation. American Hartford Gold, a trusted industry leader with an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau, has a five-star rating from thousands of happy clients. Whether you are getting physical precious metals in a gold IRA or delivered to your doorstep, we offer only the highest quality gold and silver. For your peace of mind, we also offer a no fee buyback commitment, a low price guarantee, along with free shipping and free insurance. So don't wait. Call the number on your screen today and secure your financial future. Welcome back. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on President Trump's presidential immunity and how far it goes, because this is raising some pretty serious debates and a whole lot of concern about really what this means for the future. A lot of conservative justices went into the broader implications of this case for the stability of the American system and the future of whether, frankly, we're going to be a banana republic. Now, many raised issues of accusations against former presidents, for example. Here's Justice Clarence Thomas discussing this with Michael Dribben, the attorney for special counsel Jack Smith's team. In not so distant past, the presidents or certain presidents have engaged in various activity, coups or operations like Operation Mongoose when I was a teenager. And yet there were no prosecutions. Why? If what you're saying is right, it would seem that that would have been right for criminal prosecution of someone. So, Justice Thomas, I think this is a central question. The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not. Interesting. So according to the attorney, the reason we haven't seen any criminal prosecutions of former presidents is because there were no crimes, right? We could argue, of course, that maybe those crimes were just not investigated or prosecuted because previously it was assumed that no president could be prosecuted like this. And what they're doing to Donald Trump has never been done in the history of this country. But of course, you know, who determines whether a crime took place? Were there investigations? Were those investigations actually carried through? Were there any challenges to this? Were there any alleged crimes that were similar to what Donald Trump is being accused of? In other words, well, look, I'd say we've seen many things done by former presidents that could be considered crimes, at least on the same ground as what Trump is being charged with. How many of them took classified documents? A lot of them. Like the sock scandal, Sockgate of Bill Clinton. Like, for example, Barack Hussein Obama taking a lot of documents and then denying them to even investigators because he said they're at his library, right? Trump is being charged with this while others are not. And many faced allegations on other things. For example, rape. How many former presidents have been accused of rape? Well, Bill Clinton comes to mind. He's been accused many times, in fact. But is he being charged like Trump is? What about issues under Barack Hussein Obama, like Fast and Furious? Or, for example, him working with the cartels to supply guns and drugs and things like that, which was, of course, some of the information that came about. Justices raised questions about military operations under Barack Obama and the killings of civilians. And, of course, all of these things, well, do raise some concerns. Others raised questions of the Japanese internment camps during World War II, for example, under the former president at the time. And Justice Clarence referenced as well, as you saw him say, Operation Mongoose, which was, of course, the CIA program carried out under President John F. Kennedy, which saw the use of terrorist attacks against civilians in Cuba in a failed attempt to start a coup. And on that note, I'd question even further whether similar incidents of coups and color revolutions would also fit into that category. The Arab Spring Revolutions come to mind. Maybe the overturning of the government formerly in Ukraine. The killing of Gaddafi in Libya. As Hillary Clinton said, no, she came, she saw, he died, as maybe extensions of that. What about George Bush's war in Iraq over fake news from New York Times of weapons of mass destruction? I'd say there's a very long list of incidents that could be labeled as crimes under previous administrations if they held them to the same level of standard they're holding Trump to. Not to mention, for example, the allegations that Trump tried overthrowing democracy by doing things like calling for investigations into election fraud. How many former presidents called for investigations into election fraud? How many of them talked about dueling electors, right? How about dueling electors being appointed, which was one of the main points Trump is being charged with? For example, how many presidents did this in the past? Remember that when Donald Trump was elected president, many Democrats were calling not just for dueling electors, but for electors to go against the votes and just cast an opposite vote, which actually is much further than what Trump is accused of doing. And, you know, maybe on these exact same grounds, frankly, every elected leader who spread fake news about the Trump-Russia hoax that all should be put on trial, because, of course, they were using Russian disinformation, which has now shown to have been, in order to undermine a presidency, rig an election, and, of course, target their political enemy. Maybe along with everyone else who tried impeaching him based on those false claims, which they actually tried to do. I'd say the political targeting of political enemies can be a very dirty business once you open that door. And this was, again, one of the main concerns that was raised during the hearings. Justice Samuel Alito raised similar concerns. Here's what he had to say. If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail. Justice Kavanaugh also elaborated on this problem and what it can mean for the future of the American political system. You know, if presidents can be targeted for prosecution by their political enemies, and he suggested that history has shown that once you open that door for it being possible to target presidents for criminal prosecutions, it usually does not stop. Once that door is open, it is very, very hard to close. That's the concern going forward, is that the system will, when former presidents are subject to prosecution and the history of Morrison versus Olson tells us it's not going to stop. It's going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president or, and the next president, and the next president after that. Now the prosecutors on the other side, under the authorities of Jack Smith, they would say otherwise. Now they're arguing that if presidents are given broad immunity, then it could damage the basic system of checks and balances. If a president has broken the law, should it just be allowed to happen? Should we not be able to put them on trial? What if they actually did do something serious? Should we have no way of legal recourse with that? Now, look, while we still need to see how this case plays out, it seems now that the justices may take somewhat of a middle ground on this. It could still go either way, but here's a few key points that seem likely to happen. I'll be talking about that after this. Briefly, though, I would question folks. Many people have said, you know, throw her in jail and so on. Many people have noticed that there are possible crimes on the other side of the political aisle. Maybe justice does need to be able to take place for former presidents and people in high level positions. If this is able to go through, of course, depending on how the Supreme Court rules on it, we could very likely see charges happening in many parts of our government. This will open the door or close it to prosecutions of former presidents and top level officials. But we talk about this and as well as the other legal cases that are helping Trump's 2024 campaign and how the Biden administration is formally preparing for President Donald Trump to actually win. All of this, though, only on Epic TV. So those on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Rumble, click the link in the description below and join us on EpicTV.com. Not only will you get access to the rest of this episode and the Q&A, of course, but here's also at Epic Times, we've consistently covered news that corporate media does not dare to cover or that they actively even try to change the narrative up or hide from you. One example is our coverage on January 6th. Now we've been at the forefront of what really happened that day with our documentaries and special reports covering what other media have not dared to touch. So if you want the truth of what's really happening in America, join us on EpicTV.com. Let me show you a quick trailer of a documentary, the real story of January 6th, part two, The Long Road Home, before we go exclusively to EpicTV.com. Calling the January 6th investigation the biggest investigation in FBI history. There are more than 1,100 arrests and they show no signs of slowing down. When you take an oath, you have to abide by it. They're just gonna identify you on video, arrest you, and then figure out what the evidence is after that. Those involved must be held accountable. He's an innocent man and he has been punished for something that he never did. Every day you wake up and you're like, how did I get out of bed today? You have to stay away from the word patriot now because that's a terrorist organization. We interviewed two whistleblowers from the FBI. I sacrificed my dream job to share this information with the American people. That siege was criminal behavior, plain and simple. It's behavior that we, the FBI, view as domestic terror. We started with death threats, the hate mail. I don't care what they do to me, but I do care what they do to my family. Our family struggles every day. It's gonna change narratives no matter what your political perspective is.