Justice Kavanaugh Warns Of Vicious Cycle Of Malicious Prosecutions That Could End Presidency

During Thursday’s deliberations at the U.S. Supreme Court on former President Donald Trump’s immunity claim, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that a decision in the case has future implications for whether future presidents are shielded from vicious cycles of malicious prosecution that could effectively end the presidency as we know it.

In the course of two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments on April 25, justices on the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected President Trump’s claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president.

President Trump was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith in August 2023 on charges of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Pleading not guilty, the former president has argued that he should receive absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that fell within the scope of his official duties. The exception to this immunity, he has argued, is if Congress impeaches and convicts him on charges.

A federal appeals court rejected that argument, claiming that presidents must face prosecution for alleged criminal wrongdoing.

The question that is now before the Supreme Court is: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?”

During Thursday’s deliberations, the justices weighed the claim of absolute immunity that, if adopted, would stop Mr. Smith’s prosecution of the former president dead in its tracks.

Several conservative justices suggested they favor imposing limits on the prosecution of former presidents, while highlighting the importance of the case for the future.

Justice Kavanaugh said that when presidents are subject to prosecution, history shows that it’s not going to stop.

“It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president ... and the next president and the next president after that.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said that the court is “writing a rule for the ages,” along with Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Kavanaugh all said that their concern was not so much the case against President Trump, but rather the effect of the ruling on future presidencies.

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Justice Kavanaugh said.

‘Rule for the Ages’

Former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who argued for Mr. Smith, said that the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law.

Mr. Dreeben also said that the crimes President Trump is charged with—including allegedly participating in a scheme to enlist dueling electors in battleground states won by President Joe Biden to cast alternate slates of electoral votes for him—weren’t a part of the president’s official duties.

Attorney D. John Sauer, who argued for President Trump, told the justices that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the “presidency as we know it” will be changed, contending that the looming threat is that a decision to deny immunity would “destroy” presidential decisionmaking at a time in the nation’s history when it needs to be bold.

Mr. Sauer argued that the impact of the case would have implications far beyond the question at hand, raising the hypothetical prospect of President Biden facing charges of encouraging illegal immigration with his border policies.

Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern about the future implications of the case, warning of the prospect of a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions that could hamper presidents for years to come.

Mr. Drebeen contended that the laws currently on the books have not shown they are prone to abuse, telling the high court that “we’ve lived from Watergate through the present, through the independent counsel era with all of its flaws, without these prosecutions having gone off on a runaway train.”

Justice Kavanaugh argued that the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies were all “hampered” by investigations, while suggesting that holding a president accountable is less important than protecting the functioning of the presidency.

He raised the question of the “risk” of a “creative prosecutor” using “vague” statutes against a commander-in-chief, telling Mr. Dreeben that this case has “huge implications” for the presidency, and that he was “very concerned about the future.”

Justice Kavanaugh cited the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, as “one of the Court’s biggest mistakes” because it “hampered” presidential administrations. He argued that when former presidents are subjected to prosecution, this risks triggering a vicious cycle of vindictive prosecutions.

“What would the reaction be if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person?” he asked.

“Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him?”

I am reading an article from the AP published February 22, 2021, in which it is reported that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Cavanaugh were willing to examine the issue of late-appearing votes in the critical swing state PA. The first three justices wanted to take the case even though the election had been certified, BECAUSE, they wanted to provide "guidance" on the issue of delayed vote counting, mail-in ballots and the fraud known to be associated with it, and other voter fraud issues.

Cavanaugh refused inexplicably to take it (he would have been the required fourth justice needed to force the Court to take the case so his refusal was decisive... but he did not).

What should he do? He should take cases like that, and not succumb to the intimidation of the compromised Chief Justice who essentially ordered Barrett (and maybe Cavanaugh and others) not to take up the whole issue of election fraud.

The justices, for reasons unknown but may be related to intimidation from the Chief Justice, have fecklessly sidestepped dealing with the widespread fraud associated with the 2020 election: They don't speak of it or refer to it in any arguments or decisions. It is a nonissue in ANY of their op-eds or magazine articles or rubber-chicken-dinner speeches.

That failure on their part to shed light on and lend credibility to the real existence of election stealing, as investigators like D'Souza and others have proved, may prove crucial. It is something you two and I will sadly contemplate if and when we see the same widespread fraud perpetrated (unopposed) in the 2024 election...and if it leads to Joe Biden being reelected for another four years.

Remember, when that happens, that it could have been prevented, had the Supreme Court made the issue of voter fraud front and center when it had the opportunity to do so.

Because it did not, the left, especially the press, made the bold move of cancelling anyone and everyone who even brought up the possibility of fraud. They made the voting fraud issue disappear, with this critical help of the SCOTUS, and particularly Cavanaugh.

Although the procedures the Supreme Court does are limited, each justice is a legal celebrity who can attach his personality and intellect to one or more issues to great advantage. Cavanaugh and Barrett can take advantage as relative newcomers and should focus on this issue.

It is so fundamental: If voting fraud occurs enough to throw elections, then all the legislators and judiciary are potentially fraudulent. Then all the laws are fraudulent, and all the procedures of our courts (think about the Soros and Zuckerberg DAs around the country and what they are doing to our republic now!) are fraudulent. All our judges are fraudulent. Everything in the law is a fraud.

We would then be left with nothing but vigilantism, and jury nullification, as means of maintaining any kind of law and order.

Notice I didn't even mention the executives like Biden elected by fraud: He and maybe others have the power to start world wars, bankrupt our economy, tax us into slavery, imprison us, and maybe kill us.

Election fraud is a big deal. It may be the biggest deal of all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.