by Donald Russo, American Thinker:
As noted by Chief Justice John Roberts in his landmark July 1, 2024 immunity decision in Trump v. U.S., a former president of the United States had never been indicted by the United States prior to Jack Smith’s filing charges against President Trump. The case of USA v. Trump was, ipso facto, a perverse joke. It was a diabolical move to change America. Nonetheless, the federal court system, up to and including the Supreme Court, had to take it seriously. That is why the nefarious forces behind Jack Smith saw to it that the grossly politicized District Court for the District of Columbia should serve as the base of operations for this leftist commando raid on the rule of law.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
For Trump. the court system by 2023 had by default become the last refuge in a crisis that had burst through the traditionally defined and universally understood boundaries of Article I, Article II, and Article III of the U.S. Constitution. There were eight issues that had to be examined in order to sift through the miasma of Democrat party lawfare. What is unique is the fact that any one of these eight issues offered an independent basis for determining the outcome of USA v. Trump. The eight issues can be analyzed as follows.
I. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
In Judge Aileen Cannon’s September 5, 2022 decision in the Trump Mar-a-Lago search warrant case, Judge Cannon cited SCOTUS’s decision in Trump v. Thompson (See Part III), citing 142 S.Ct. 680, 688 (2022). SCOTUS’s July 1, 2024 immunity decision verified Judge Cannon’s suspicion that Trump has at least some level of presidential immunity protecting his conduct that Joe Biden could not waive.
II. THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT
In Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F. 3d 1274, 1291 (1993), the term “federal records” was defined in federal cases as “agency records.” Unless Jack Smith could prove that Trump had in his possession identifiable records taken from federal agencies, they should be deemed to be “presidential records.” If they were agency records, the Archivist would then follow Federal Records Act procedures. If Armstrong applied to Trump’s actions, Jack Smith’s case should have ended right there. The actions of the Archivist in making a criminal referral against Trump will in all likelihood be reviewed in future investigations.
III. THE “CLINTON SOCK DRAWER” CASE
In Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration, 845 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.D.C.2012), the Court held that plaintiff’s injury was not redressable because the National Archives had no authority or means to obtain the records from the president at all. Judge Amy Berman Jackson held that under the Presidential Records Act, courts had no statutory means to “second-guess” a former president’s handling of his presidential records.
Obviously, the aforementioned decision applied to Trump’s actions. The Jack Smith filing should have ended right then and there, but Democrats and left-leaning judges chose to ignore the “Clinton Sock Drawer” case.
Read More @ AmericanThinker.com
