top of page

President Trump's Fight To Save America & The Democrat Deep State's Fight To Stop Him.

On Thursday, April 25th, 2024, Americans moored themselves to the T.V., intently listening in on the United States Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding former President Trump's Constitutional claim to Presidential Immunity in the case, Trump v. The United States, Docket # 23-939 in what, for all intents and purposes, not only turned out to be a slam dunk day for President Trump but in what also, in all likelihood, signaled the beginning of the end of Special Counsel Jack Smith's contrived, politically motivated January 6th case, or moreover, "plot," against the President whereupon Smith, a Biden/DOJ real life "Lavrentiy Beria," falsely accuses Trump of attempting to upend the results of the 2020 General Election simply because he had the temerity to exercise his 1st Amendment Constitutionally protected, guaranteed Right to 1) object to, contest, and challenge an election, and 2) to speak, when he delivered a speech at the Ellipse,approximately two miles from the Capitol, to a crowd of America-loving Patriots, whereupon he said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to PEACEFULLY and PATRIOTICALLY make your VOICES HEARD." —The one line from the President's speech, no less, that the Left-wing media mouthpieces refuse to air, discuss, much less acknowledge; indeed, an inconvenient fact that doesn't seem to jibe with Jack Smith's and the Democrats' narrative as they desperately pursue a specious Trump conviction before the 2024 General Election.

As it presently stands, and much to Jack Smith's insidious angst, this, his spurious electioneered case against President Trump, now hovers in judicial limbo, awaiting a ruling as our Nation's Highest Court in the Land contemplates and considers the momentous issue of Presidential Immunity, which, in an 1866 case, MISSISSIPPI v. JOHNSON, the Supreme Court ruled and placed that "the President is beyond reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise… " 

Unfortunately, due to the weaponization of our Government at the behest of the current Dictator-in-Chief, Joe Biden, and at the direction and despotic discretion of his DOJ wingman, AG Merrick Garland, Presidential Immunity, a 234-year-old Constitutional Protection under Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution, is now under assault by Jack Smith and his cult of Stalinesque Berias who are currently seeking to scrub that protection from our Constitution's Separation of Powers Doctrine in order to strip President Trump of its protections so they can convict and imprison him before the 2024 General Election in November, in what can only be characterized as a Cold-War Soviet-style bid to eliminate the Establishment threat that is The People's President, Donald J. Trump, and in so doing, not only 1) protecting the permanent Deep State bureaucratic swamp that is Washington DC, but 2) also walking Biden into another four more economic disastrouswar fueled and funded years in the White House because, let's face it, Joe Biden is little more than a puppet for the Cultural Marxist Deep State, a weak and feckless frontman for the Establishment, a corrupt bloviating coward, and an abject failure of a President who has not only managed to garner the WORST Approval Ratings since WWII but who also can't win an election on merit, and so must weaponize our Government against his political opponent in order to steal it, but I digress.

Obviously, it goes without saying that not only will the Supreme Court's ruling on this case have a profound impact on Smith's J6 case in Washington D.C., but it will also directly affect his Classified Documents Case in Florida, in addition to Fulton County DA Fani Willis's cooked-up case against President Trump in the State of Georgia, which coincidentally is also stalled in judicial limbo due to not only Ms. Willis's judicial incompetence and improprieties that, quite frankly, are bordering on, if not outright, criminal but also pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter of Presidential immunity. 

For several hours, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both the Defense and the Prosecution. John Sauer, a Missouri-based defense attorney for President Trump, argued that Jack Smith's indictment against Trump "uses vague statutes to criminalize what is considered "core authority" of a Presidency." By contrast, the Prosecution, i.e., Jack Smith's vicious little pit bull, Michael Dreeban, a former Mueller sycophant and goon, argued that Presidential Immunity wasn't "necessary," that essentially we, the American people, should erase it and completely dismiss the Constitution's Separation of Powers Doctrine that our Founding Fathers carefully crafted for our protection against the tyranny of an overreaching Government, and instead, blindly trust prosecutors. 

In fact, Dreeban all but proclaimed on live T.V. that the Department of Justice should, in no uncertain terms, be permitted to decide, without oversight and with impunity, what Presidents they would, could, and ought to target for Prosecution as if the Department of Justice were the pinnacle of integrity and honesty when it/they are anything and everything but that… rather, unelected, life-tenured bureaucrats, i.e., Deep Staters, people who have not only corrupted and weaponized our Justice System, Agencies, and Institutions against the Democrats political opponents, but also against the American people, spying on them without just cause while labeling School parents terrorists simply because they had the audacity to question the surreptitious, insidious indoctrination of their children in public schools… hello, can anyone say the rise of the 4th Reich ten times fast? 

The gall! These people, partisan Government prosecutors, want us to blindly trust them to do right by us after all they have done to diminish our trust in the legal system. I don't know what's in the water they are drinking, but that notion is laughable on its face, utterly ludicrous, ridiculous, not to mention wholly unacceptable and incompatible in and with the Constitutional Principle of Self-Governance. 

In Federalist No. 47, James Madison, the 4th President of the United States and one of our remarkable Founding Fathers, wrote that "the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct." And why? Well, because the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

We, the People, decide who our President will be, not a bunch of power-hungry Bureaucrats, Career Politicians, Activist Judges, and Left-wing Prosecutors through an unconstitutional process of prosecutorial elimination.

That said, during the hearing, the Justices proffered pointed statements not only concerning Constitutional Law and historical precedent but regarding questionable actions taken by past Presidents, going back as far as President Dwight Eisenhower and JFK to more recent Presidents, like, for example, Barack Obama. They interrogated both sides, cross-examining and asking complex questions regarding the nuances and Constitutional concerns raised by President Trump's legal challenge to Jack Smith's spurious case against him. 

In point of fact, Constitutional expert Joe diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, told Newsmax that Chief Justice John Roberts excoriated the D.C. Circuit Court's stacked bench of Democrat Judges for the injudicious way in which they framed the Prosecution of President Trump, rebuking and utterly shredding their ruling that "a President can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted," as nothing more than "flimsy logic," unsophisticated, incomplete, and sloppy. Indeed, the entire bench of Conservative Supreme Court Justices, particularly John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, made it crystal clear to Jack Smith's team of Stalinist prosecutors, in addition to the D.C. Circuit Court of Democrat appointed Activist Judges —whom I'm quite sure were listening in on the hearing as their judicial reputations were being scorched, — that not only must all Presidents be protected from "rogue prosecutors" but that they were incensed and perturbed by not only the Court's verdict in Trump's case but also by their uncouth analysis of the case, making it patently obvious in very unsubtle ways to anyone listening in that: 

1– said verdict was going into the dustbin of tyrannical history. 


2– they were disgusted by not only the D.C. bench of Activist Democrat Judges and Jack Smith but also by their unconstitutional standards and un-American behavior! 

Indeed, after three hours of listening to the back and forth between the bench of nine Supreme Court Justices, Prosecutors, and Defense Attorneys, it was evident, or at least according to most Constitutional scholars, that is, that the Supreme Court would, in all probability, come down somewhere in the middle, however, primarily in President Trump's favor rather than Jack Smith's favor despite the three liberal justices dismissive and relatively ignorant anti-immunity sentiments, Trump-hating jabs, and Left-wing subjective opinions on the Constitutional matter of Presidential immunity; however, that said, with some Constitutional experts, like, for instance, Joe diGenova, suggesting that, in addition to the six Conservative Justices, Trump might pick up one or two Liberal Justices on the notion that if the tables were turned, Democrat Presidents might find themselves in hot water, and a whole heap of trouble, being picked-off and prosecuted by Conservative Prosecutors for the mountain of questionable actions they took while in Office if they were to rule in favor of Jack Smith's efforts to eliminate Presidential Immunity; a notion which, of course, was not lost on the majority Conservative Bench of Justices, particularly on two of them:

1)— Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who asked Michael Dreeben why Barack Obama was never charged for drone strikes against civilians.


2)— Justice Clarence Thomas, who shredded Jack Smith's hogwash subjective theory that Trump is, ostensibly, the first President to face criminal charges because, or at least according to the Prosecution, that is, no other former president has ever committed a crime; however, Justice Thomas quickly debunked that lie when he gave Dreeban and Smith a refresher course in history, reminding them that "Over the not-so-distant past … certain presidents had engaged in various activities, coups or operations like Operation Mongoose when I was a teenager, and yet there were no prosecutions." —Operation Mongoose was a covert CIA operation that was authorized under President Dwight Eisenhower and continued under JFK whereby the CIA conducted terrorist attacks on Cuban civilians while attempting, on several occasions, to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

According to Constitutional Scholar Mike Davis, the Supreme Court will likely send or remand the case back to the lower courts, i.e., to Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom, to determine which acts constitute "Official" and, therefore, protected and which acts were "Personal" and, therefore, not protected under the Presidential Immunity Clause of the Constitution, in addition to ruling that "Criminal Statutes" do not apply to a President unless they are categorically "clear-cut!" Once back in Chutkan's purview, the Court, as I said before, will have to determine what, in Trump's case, constitutes "Official Duties" and, likewise, "Personal Acts," which I'm sure given that it's Trump, they, or rather, she will rule that, no matter what, it was all "Personal;" therefore, Trump must be prosecuted. However, Trump's team can then immediately appeal it back to the D.C. Circuit Court, where, once again, I'm quite certain, the Democrat-stacked Court will, in all likelihood, uphold Tanya Chukan's "Get-Trump" ruling. At which point, once again, Trump's team will be able to immediately appeal it back to the Supreme Court, where this time around, SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not President Trump's acts were "Official" or "Personal." Like true Constitutional Justices, airing on the side of our Constitutional Republic and a President's sworn duty to ensure that ALL our laws are faithfully executed, which includes "ELECTION LAWS," among other things, the Supreme Court will have no other choice but to rule that President Trump's acts were indeed "Official," which will then effectively end the case once and for all, whilst Democrats are left pulling their hair out, screaming, and roaring in an apoplectic fit of Marxist rage

As I am sure most Americans are aware to some degree or another, if not painstakingly, astutely aware at this point that in every conceivable manner, means, and way, Jack Smith's cases against President Trump are no different than all the other trumped-up, pun intended, cases, witch hunts, hoaxes, and probes, that rabid Democrats have drummed up, cooked up, and brought against Trump, from Russia, Russia, Russia, to James Comey's Crossfire Hurricane plot against the President, to Impeachment #1, Impeachment #2, the Mueller Probe, Peekaboo James, Alvin Bragg, double-wide Fani Willis, and so on and so forth, in that they are all purely political in nature, in some instances, abnormally convoluted protractions and distortions of the law and reality, while in other instances, or actually most instances, they are either out and out contrived falsehoods or projections of crimes that Democrats have themselves committed that are being flipped and shoved down our throats by a bunch of sycophantic prosecutors who are not only loyal to the Cultural Marxist Democrat Party but who have been actively working to destroy Trump and American populism for approximately seven years now; however, and thankfully so, none of that was lost on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who posed a question to the Prosecution that basically called out Joe Biden, of course, without actually saying his name, as a "bitter political opponent" whose lawfare campaign against Trump will lead America into "a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy." 

Without question, the gravity and magnitude of the situation, of this case, and even just the mere inkling of a thought of the looming catastrophic implications that such an extreme ruling, the elimination of Presidential Immunity, would have on and for our Constitutional Republic, was not only disquieting but also front and center for the Justices, or, rather, I should say, for the Conservative Justices, that is. In point of fact, during the oral arguments on Thursday, several Justices, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, who stated, "We are writing a rule for the ages," made it very clear that they were seriously concerned about how the termination and denial of Presidential Immunity protections would not only impact President Trump but also how it would affect the functioning of the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, our Republic, and all future Presidents ability to do their job going forward.

It goes without saying that President Trump, in line with these Justices, and most reasonable, rational, fair-minded Americans, particularly Constitutional Conservatives, who, unlike Democrats, aren't trapped in a self-induced TDS coma and who can, in fact, think and see outside of and beyond their own selfish interests, wants, needs, and desires in order to put OUR COUNTRY FIRST, believe that the loss of Presidential Immunity would lead to a Constitutional crisis like no other. One that would, no doubt, birth and give rise to authoritarianism, leaving all future Presidents hogtied, unable to carry out their Constitutional duties because any deviation from what the Establishment wants and expects from them would be automatically and immediately met with fury, and the absolute threat, or rather, the reality of Prosecution the moment they leave Office, which, in point of fact, succinctly describes what Joe Biden and his band of Democrat "Beria" prosecutors are doing to President Trump at this very moment in time. 

Think about what the dire, catastrophic consequences would be, what it would mean for the American People and our Constitutional Republic if the Justices were to eliminate Presidential Immunity and rule that Presidents can be prosecuted for their acts in Office. A blanket repeal of immunity would most certainly irrevocably destroy our Constitutional Republic as we know it and everything that not only our Founding Fathers fought, suffered, and sacrificed everything for, but also everything that every American soldier fought, suffered, and sacrificed everything for, giving up life and limb for our "Freedoms and Rights" in every war waged since America's founding; indeed, a debt we owe these heroes who laid down their lives to protect us and our country for which we will never be able to repay; the least we can do is ensure that they did not die in vain. 

A partial repeal that pertains to "Personal Acts" rather than "Official Acts" would, of course, be less damaging; however, not all that much less damaging at the end of the day when you think about all the partisan political scheming that goes on behind the scenes in the unspoken name of "Absolute Power." Indeed, it's just a pit stop on the way to a full repeal. Think about it: who is to say that what are deemed "Official Acts" are not also "Personal Acts?" Who decides? After all, the two aren't mutually exclusive; what benefits the country is obviously going to, in more than one way, benefit the President, too… what is good for the country will also benefit the President's personal and political career and standing —it's an unavoidable byproduct of doing a good job— but that doesn't necessarily mean that his motives are nefarious and self-serving if they happen to, at the same time, benefit him, even though the opposition —particularly Democrats given their track record— will, no doubt, frame such "Official Acts" as "Personal Acts," and in the worst possible way imaginable; it's what career politicians do, they are master manipulators. You can't entirely separate the two, so the question then becomes, who decides what is "Official" and what is "Personal," the Supreme Court, Judge Tanya Chutkan, Congress, or We, the People, through an Article V Convention of States? Where do we draw the line between what is "Official" and what is "Personal?" Can you truly even draw a line between the two? —In my opinion, you can't, or at least not entirely, of course, apart from some obvious exceptions, but they are far and few between. 

Without the protection of Presidential Immunity, the reality is that the Executive Branch will cease to function because all future Presidents will either:

1)— The most likely scenario: be left crippled, unwilling, and afraid to carry out their duties for fear of Prosecution, becoming little, or rather, nothing more than a figurehead, a political pawn and puppet for and of the Establishment Deep State. 


2) The least likely scenario: be willing to carry out their constitutional duties and, upon leaving Office, face the unmitigated threat and prospect of Prosecution from their political opponents. Political opponents who will, in a myriad of ways, twist, contort, and distort their "Official Acts" into "Personal Acts" or personally motivated self-serving acts just so they can eliminate the opposition or competition, which is why, during oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito brought up the point that "if you know that as soon as you leave office you're going to get prosecuted, aren't you going to stage a Coup, and doesn't that raise the political stakes." Of course, it does, which is why Presidential Immunity is essential, not simply for the protection of President Trump and all future Presidents, but for the protection and preservation of our Constitutional Republic. 

What Democrats, along with Joe Biden, Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, and all the other Cultural Marxist, George Soros-funded DAs, and Activist Judges, don't get what they are failing to recognize and understand in their mad hatter rush to strip their nemesis, the People's President, Donald J. Trump, of his Presidential Immunity protections in order to prosecute and imprison him before the November 5th General Election, is that they are, in point of fact, also leaving Biden, President Obama, President Bush, and President Clinton open and vulnerable to the exact same sort of indictments and prosecutions that they are currently serving up and leveling against President Trump with the elimination of the Constitutional Protection of Presidential Immunity, after all, their is no precedent here, which means that there is no statute of limitations, which means that the Democrats black Deity, Barack Obama is fair game for Prosecution once a Republican takes the Presidency. 

Indeed, without Presidential Immunity, the left's Deity-in-Chief, Barrack Obama, could and would face Prosecution for 1) knowingly ordering a drone strike that killed innocent Americans, 2) negotiating with terrorists and freeing up pallets of cash to give over to our enemy Iran, an authoritarian murderous regime that he knew would use the money to fund terrorist activities and attacks not only against innocent Americans but also around the world, 3) Benghazi, denying requests for help from Americans who were trapped and under attack, 4) the Obama-era gun-trafficking operation scandal known as Fast and Furious, 5) among a plethora of other self-serving questionable actions, using the CIA to spy on President-Elect Donald Trump, 6) using the IRS to target Conservatives, in addition to 7), the A.P. scandal, spying on Journalists in violation of the 1st Amendment, and much much more. 

As for Joe Biden, who was part and parcel of Obama's dubious activities, well, he could and would, in point of fact, be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring and violating immigration laws, for his illegal mass parole of illegal aliens into our country and the resulting array of crimes, which includes rape and murder, and, for that matter, violating  Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution, otherwise referred to as the "Invasion Clause," among a laundry list of other grave and self-serving acts, like for example, intentionally leaving Americans behind in war zones; he learned that one from Obama, no doubt, not to mention selling out America for his and his family's personal financial gain, and that's just an appetizer of what would await Biden. George Bush, well, he could and would be prosecuted for lying about weapons of mass destruction. For that matter, Clinton could and would be charged for setting the stage for 9/11, deliberately ignoring the threat that Osama Bin Laden posed after the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers, because he was too busy getting laid in the Oval Office, then of course, there's also the whole Sandy Berger, Oops, my hand accidentally stuffed Classified Documents into my socks scandal.

Bearing the aforementioned in mind, It was obvious, all the same, that through the kind of statements and line of pointed questions "most" of the Supreme Court Justices posed during the three-hour hearing that they were and are, in fact, not only taking this case very seriously but are painstakingly aware of the immense, far-reaching implications their ruling will have on the viability of our Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers envisioned and created, —which I'm sure is weighing heavily on their minds as they deliberate their way to a decision; however, that said, it should also be pointed out that, of course, aside from freshman Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's (KBJ) embarrassing lack of Constitutional knowledge as a Supreme Court Justice, in addition to her disgraceful subjective jabs that the Oval Office was, ostensibly, a crime center, Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a seasoned Justice, who should have known better, made some pretty outrageous false and misleading statements and allegations herself:

1)— She propagated malinformation by rephrasing the term "Alternate Electors" as "Fake Electors" in a manipulative, cunning effort to smear Trump and make something that is perfectly lawful under the "Electoral Count Act of 1887" sound dark, sinister, and illegal… a blatant lie, as she well knows, that must be called out and corrected!

2)— She also engaged in some extraordinarily inappropriate, not mentioned, unrealistic fear-mongering "what if" hypotheticals by asking questions, like, for example, "If the President decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Which, not only as a matter of law but as a United States Supreme Court Justice who has been tasked with interpreting and applying the Constitution as written, should, at this stage in her judicial career, know that not only under the Constitution but also under Executive Order 12333, submitted to the Court in this case, that the military is strictly forbidden from obeying orders that involve engaging in or conspiring to engage in unlawful criminal acts such as the assassination of political opponents or rivals. In point of fact, in an Amicus Brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Trump's case, Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, Secretary Robert Wilkie, and Retired Lieutenant General William Gerald "Jerry" Boykin stated that "A President of the United States enjoys broad authority to direct the military with very few limitations. But one such limitation is that the President's orders may not contravene the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Accordingly, the President has no authority to order the military to assassinate a political rival. Furthermore, the military is required not to carry out such an unlawful, non-military order, if given. Indeed, any military officer who carried out or issued such an order would be committing the gravest of crimes-murder." 

Did Justice Sonia Sotomayor even bother to read any of the 18 Amicus Briefs that were submitted to the Court in Trump's case on his behalf, or did she just read Jack Smith's motion and the accompanying anti-Trump Amicus Briefs? 

Seriously, can Democrats, more specifically those who should know better, like, for example, Democrat Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, particularly in such a time as this, show some judicial restraint, competence, and integrity, thoroughly read all briefs and motions before they run their mouths like a bunch of ignorant media mouthpieces trying to push a narrative, stop lying, tell the truth, and finally, quit fear-mongering, even if for half a millisecond, as hard as that might be for a Leftist, and try to set a precedent somewhere within the realm of reality for the SAKE OF OUR COUNTRY rather than their Left-wing, Trump-hating Lawfare agenda.

Without question, the three Liberal Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan, made it quite clear during the Court's oral arguments that their positions on the Constitution's Presidential Immunity Protections were and are more aligned with the Government's, i.e., Jack Smith's and the DOJ's, position on it, in that, we don't need "Presidential Immunity," that, and as I said before, in their warped view, we should just blindly trust prosecutors like Jack Smith to do right by the American people, that, in their "subjective" delusional opinions, the only way forward was or is to completely "erase" our Constitution's Separation of Powers doctrine, an action that our Founding Fathers not only feared but, in Federalist 47, referred to or termed as "DEMOCRATIC TYRANNY."

Indeed, at the Constitutional Convention, after having just fought a long hard battle for our "Independence and Freedom" from what they considered a tyrannical Government under the British Monarch King George III, our Founding Fathers, keen to prevent such acts of "Democratic tyranny," deliberately designed a system or Government that was divided into "Three Coequal Branches," with each one being a "Check and Balance" on the other, ergo thwarting the rise of authoritarian regimes and the resulting tyranny, whether hard or soft, that inevitably emerges from said regimes or systems of governance due to one, a few, or many ideological, unethical, rogue Government Officials, like, for example, Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and Jack Smith, who are behaving like quasi Kings on a power trip with an agenda while harboring an overtly massive grudge for their Party's political opponents. 

To our Founding Fathers, "there is only so much "power" in a political system, a true "zero-sum" situation. People "power" is called "freedom." Government "power" is called "tyranny." And because only so much power is available, the only place government obtains power is by taking freedoms from the people. The more "power" government has, the less "free" the people are…" which Demonstrates:

1)— why and how important it is that the Supreme Court's majority bench of Conservative Justices stick together and rule to protect Presidential Immunity, not just for the sake of President Trump and future Presidents, but for the Preservation and Protection of our Constitutional Republic.


2)— why the Senate should never ever EVER confirm Activist Judges who hail from the far-left, Democrat-stacked D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. 

Linda Genzel, editor @ WECU News 


To Save America, Vote For Donald J. Trump, Tuesday, November 5th, 2024.

60 views0 comments


bottom of page