Join the fight and contribute to our war chest.

Ditch the ads for $5 per month or $49 per year.

President Trump just received the news that he—and the whole country—has been eagerly anticipating from the Supreme Court. They’ve declared that presidents are fully immune from criminal prosecution while conducting official government business.

All American patriots are celebrating this ruling as a victory, and rightfully so.

WSJ:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former U.S. presidents retain significant immunity from prosecution for acts taken while in office, a decision that could hamper efforts to prosecute Donald Trump for his alleged attempt to subvert the 2020 election.

The president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, joined in whole or part by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The ruling will likely throw a major monkey wrench in the regime’s plans to destroy President Trump.

Sean Davis:

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled on the Trump immunity question.

In a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that presidents have “absolute immunity” for official “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and instructed the lower trial courts to hold specific evidentiary trials on each anti-Trump criminal count to determine which counts, if any, apply to non-immune acts. The Court ruled that presidents do not have immunity for non-official conduct.

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the Court ruled. “Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.”

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” the Court added.

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” the Court concluded. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority.

The ruling likely delays any final action on these anti-Trump criminal lawfare trials until after the election in November.

Many believe this landmark ruling effectively sinks Jack Smith’s cases, leaving them floundering. It’s a tough blow for Jack and the regime’s lawfare attacks against President Trump and our justice system, but it’s a tremendous victory for the nation and the sanctity of the US Constitution. Of course, in this day and age of political warfare, nothing is a complete and total victory, but most legal experts agree that it’s easily the best-case scenario among the likely outcomes Trump faced.

Josh Hammer:

So Trump v. United States came out right along the lines of what many of us had been predicting.

That is a win for Donald Trump—not a total and complete win, but easily the best scenario among those that were plausible.

Two terrible days in a row for the scoundrel Jack Smith.

And on that note, President Trump reacted joyfully to the ruling on Truth Social.

We now know why Jack Dorsey and Twitter acted so quickly to “nuke” President Trump’s account.

Here’s a closeup of the images:

Legal eagle Jonathan Turley appeared on Fox News and called the ruling a “major victory” for President Trump.

Professor Turley also pointed out a death blow to Jack Smith’s case:

…Note this language:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

Congressman Jackson said this is the end of the left’s “KANGAROO courts.”

Ronny Jackson:

BIG WIN FROM SCOTUS!!

President Trump said it best: if a president doesn’t have immunity, nothing can be accomplished in office.

The RADICAL LEFT can no longer continue with their KANGAROO courts, and their BLATANT bending of the law for an administration they disagree with and a group of people they HATE.

MAGA!!

Attorneys are calling for the sham charges to be dropped immediately.

Don Jr. is thrilled with the ruling, calling it “solid.”

Trump loyalists are celebrating.

Clearly, the left-wing justices need reminding that the Supreme Court isn’t there to offer advice—it’s there to make rulings on constitutional matters.

Julie Kelly:

Chief Justice to Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor:

“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial.

The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the Court of providing ‘no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct.’ It would have us exhaustively define every application of Presidential immunity. Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after ‘revers[ing] on a threshold question.'”

S

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas launched a “legal missile” at Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Benjamin Weingarten:

Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Trump v. U.S. is hugely significant. He questions whether Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office is constitutional.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

Justice Thomas:

“We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be ‘established by Law.’ As James Madison cautioned, ‘[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.’ 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord.”

Justice Thomas launches a legal missile at AG Merrick Garland:

“It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office ‘established by Law,’ as required by the Constitution”

“…None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose”

“…Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause”

Justice Thomas: “In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law…

Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee.”

S

 

Thomas also notably called Smith’s appointment “unlawful.”

Here’s a closeup of the image:

Once again, Thomas proves he’s one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time.

And speaking of justices, Amy Coney Barrett continues to confuse and frustrate many on the right.

Paul Ingrassia:

ACB’s concurrence is reason why we should never again appoint law professors to the Supreme Court.

Noxiously pedantic; odiously schoolmarmish; adds absolutely nothing of substance to the case. Erodes the precedential authority of the majority, and reads — under the guise of “independence” — as a covert attack on the President who nominated her to the Court.

Even includes “hypotheticals” that are typical of law school lectures, but have no place in a Supreme Court decision. Pseudo-intellectual gibberish masquerading as intelligent reasoning and analysis. Disgusting!

Image:

There’s definitely something off with ACB. She’s a bit of a mystery, but not in a good way. Her rulings and reasoning leave everyone scratching their heads. She notably has a bone to pick lately with Justice Thomas as well.

Here’s a closeup of the image:

Image

Of course, not everyone is happy with the ruling. Senator Chuck Schumer, who once threatened the Supreme Court justices, lashed out in a post on X:

Meanwhile, Biden’s top online paid shill, Harry Sisson, is so rattled by the ruling that he’s now spewing assassination threats at President Trump.

And we’ll leave you with a reminder of just how inept some of these so-called “experts” really are. These pathetic establishment relics are tainted and clouded by a severe case of Stage 5 TDS, and they are totally unreliable and always wrong.

While this may not be the sweeping victory we hoped for, it’s definitely a major step in the right direction. It begins the dismantling of the regime’s lawfare apparatus that has been suffocating President Trump, J6 political prisoners, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, and others. Keep up the fight—it’s making a difference.

The Supreme Court’s official decision can be read here.

JOIN THE FIGHT — DITCH THE ADS — READ THE NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL