The Attempted Assassination Of Former President, And Current Presumptive Republican Nominee For President, Donald Trump

Some were not surprised.  After all, ever since riding the escalator down within Trump Tower in NYC on June 16, 2015, Trump has likely been the most persecuted person in U.S. history.  Type into the search bar of the web version of the blog:  "The Deposing of an American President," written on March 12, 2017.  That's right.  Less than 2 months into his presidential term, Democrats were looking for ways to get Trump out of office.  Because, you know, they care about democracy, as they constantly tell us.  Unless, the democratic vote results in a Donald Trump elected to the presidency, in which case he became an "illegitimate" president, and democracy be damned. 

I also suggest taking a look at my June 16, 2018 post, "The Left's Non-Stop Hate."  More recently, we know that the Democrats and President Biden have repeatedly called Trump a threat to our country and our democracy.  And, too often, there have been those who have equated Trump with Hitler.  What a disgusting comparison.  As one friend and reader texted me about the way he heard Biden's comments:  "I am so glad to hear that Donald J. Hitler, aka 'son of Satan' is okay."  Dark?  Yes.  Disturbing?  Yes.  But hard to miss his point.  

Here was Biden in January of this year:  "Whether democracy is still America's sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time...that's what the 2024 election is all about."  And this:  "Now these MAGA voices who know the truth about Trump on January 6th have abandoned the truth and abandoned democracy."  

In case there was any doubt, here was Biden's deputy campaign manager:  "Our campaign believes that it is a moral obligation that we paint the picture of the threat that Donald Trump and the Republican Party pose to America."  There it is - the Republican Party is a threat to America.  They've said it enough that many now believe it.  I am curious as to how referring to half of the country as a threat to the country is in any way unifying, as Biden assured us multiple times, that he would be.  (No, I am not, and have not, excused the bad things Trump has said.  But he was the one who was shot, so I'm looking at those who may have motivated this shooter.  And, if Trump's own words turn out to be the motivation for the shooting, I will report that.)

But, I digress.  What we do know is that the shooter was a 20 year old resident of Pennsylvania.  As of now, we do not have his motive for the shooting.  And I have repeatedly said, that when it comes to these political shootings (it's political by its very nature, even if politics was not the motive) we should always blame the shooter - the perpetrator.  We know that at age 17, the perpetrator made a small donation of $15.00 to a Democratic PAC.  At age 18 he registered to vote as a Republican.  He was also described as a loner, as many of these shooters often are.  

It has also been reported that bombs and/or bomb making material, were found in the shooter's home and vehicle.  We also know that there was a major security failure that allowed the shooter to take up a position with a rifle on the roof of a building about 150 yards from where Trump was speaking.  Why was that site left unsecured?  It was also reported that a police officer climbed up the side of the building, but retreated when the shooter pointed his rifle at the officer.  Shades of Uvalde.  I can understand ducking down, but why not raise your hand with your weapon over the top of the roof and start firing?  Even if the officer missed, the shots would have alerted the protective detail and they could have removed Trump from the stage.

I was very impressed by the agents surrounding former President Trump, shielding him with their own bodies.  And while the female agent also did the same, it was quite obvious that she was considerably shorter than Trump, making it difficult, if not impossible, for her to protect his head.  I heard or read that thanks to DEI, the Secret Service had a goal of having 30% women.  Not really the best idea.  But were there no tall women available to protect Trump?  

Sadly, a 50 year old man, Corey Comperatore, was killed by the shooter.  Corey used his body to shield his daughters, and in doing so suffered the fatal wound.  May G-d bless his soul, and his family, and may his memory forever be a blessing.  Two others were wounded and originally listed in critical condition.  Thankfully, they are both now described as being stable.  

Tonight, President Biden spoke to the nation from the oval office.  Biden:  "...while we may disagree, we are not enemies.  We are neighbors, we are friends, coworkers, citizens, and most importantly we are fellow Americans.  We must stand together."  Again, it is still unknown if any of the heated political rhetoric played a role in motivating the shooter.  And Biden's comments are 180 degrees away from his earlier statements.  Now let's see if he, and others, follow through with what he said.

Presidential Immunity - Part III (Let's Get Real)

In a July 2 Wall Street Journal editorial, reported online, they referred to something called the "Empirical SCOTUS" blog.  According to that site, 45.8% of the cases decided in the 2023-2024 term were unanimous.  Yes, I know.  Unanimous decisions often result from cases with less controversial issues.  Nevertheless, unanimity is unanimity.  And all nine justices agreed that states could not decide to keep Trump off the ballot.  And, all nine refused to give standing to pro-life doctors who wanted to sue the FDA and keep the abortion pill mifepristone off the market.

The paper notes that 22 cases were decided by a 6-3 decision; but only half of those were along ideological lines of 6 conservatives vs. 3 liberals.  Then, of course, there were the 8-1 decisions and 7-2 decisions.  So, let's get real with regards to the Democrats' self-professed panic mode.  They are the ones undermining the legitimacy of the Court for their own political ends.  

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor gave the most extreme possible examples of the abuse of presidential power, and then claimed a president could get away with it.  Such as a president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, or organizing a military coup.  Please.  Notwithstanding his protestations about the fairness of the 2020 election, Trump left office with doing no such thing as a military coup.

The New York Post's July 1 editorial had it right.  "The best course now would be for Smith to drop the (January 6) case altogether and for prosecutors, and their Democratic patrons, to swear off the use of further lawfare to take down political foes once and for all."  And:  "All that continuing this prosecution does is continue to sow division and weaken the nation's already shaky political institutions."  

What the Democrats and the left ignore are all the remedies still available to protect the country from a power hungry president.  A president can be impeached by the House, and if convicted by the Senate, is removed from office.  I fully acknowledge that those voting must be people of good will - but that's a problem with the Congress, not the presidency.  A president may also be removed from office by a vote of the people.  It's called an election.

And, in their July 2 editorial in their paper, the Wall street Journal noted:  "Another principle is that the burden is on the prosecutor to show that an official act doesn't deserve immunity."  They were referring to a quote from Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion:  "At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."  An exception to every rule.  

In reply to Justice Sotomayor, the Chief Justice opined:  "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."  I am, curious, however, as to which of her fellow justices she believes would find that using Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (no, I cannot imagine any president doing that) to be beyond prosecutorial reach.  I wish she had shown the courage to have named them. 

Presidential Immunity - Part II (The Elected Officials)

Democrat elected officials were no better in their comments.  Here was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  "The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."  What is she talking about?  "Today's ruling (on immunity) represents an assault on American democracy.  It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."  You want to defend our nation - protect the border!  "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

Impeach who?  All 6 of the conservative leaning justices?  Because you disagree with their decisions?  Just another example of the Democratic left's threat to democracy - change the makeup of the Court in order to get the "right" decision.  The ends justify the means.  Make no mistake, Ocasio-Cortez is no isolated member of The Squad.  

Here is Hakeem Jeffries, the Minority Leader in the House, and future Speaker if the Democrats gain control of the House:  "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme far right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."  "Extreme far right?"  Always the name calling by the left.  "Brought into compliance with the Constitution?"  How's that exactly?  The Court is a separate and co-equal branch of government.  The Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution.  What's the plan - threaten justices who don't conform their opinions to left-wing ideology?  Oh wait, Schumer already did that when he threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over the abortion decision.  

Speaking of Schumer, the Majority Leader in the Senate, he called the decision "disgraceful."  Schumer:  "This is a sad day for our democracy.  The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law.  Treason or incitement to insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president."  Okay, but Trump was neither charged with treason nor incitement to insurrection.  

Schumer:  "This decision undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court, and suggests that political influence trumps all in our courts today."  Wow!  That's what Jews call chutzpah!   The Democrats are doing everything in their power to undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court with their non-stop attacks.  Just because they disagree with some of the Court's decisions.  And they do it intentionally, hoping to scare the voting public into thinking that everyone is going to lose all their rights, unless a Democrat is always in the White House, always able to appoint left-wing justices.  Clearly, the Democrats have no respect for the Constitution's separation of powers.

Here is Senator Richard Blumenthal, (D-Conn):  "My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out of control Court.  The members of (the) Court's conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme partisan hacks - politicians in robes."  Isn't that nice and respectful?  Calling Supreme Court Justices "partisan hacks," simply because you disagree with some of their decisions.  Again, just another Democrat seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, while at the same time trying to frighten the voting public.

Not surprisingly, President Biden chimed in as well.  "No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States...(with) today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.  For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do."  He's wrong, of course.  And he clearly has no appreciation for how the decision protects him from future prosecution.  Ordinarily, I would say it's the president's job to say something like this:  "While I disagree with the Court's decision, they have now ruled.  And under our Constitution's separation of powers, we need to be respectful of that - even when we disagree."  Didn't Biden promise to be the unifier?  Unfortunately, he has repeatedly acted as the divider in chief.  

  

Presidential Immunity - Part I (The Commentators)

The Supreme Court decision prompted the usual emotional and over-the-top reactions from Democrats and the left.  In a 6-3 decision, along ideological lines (mostly), the Court held that a president has absolute immunity in carrying out the core functions of the executive.  See Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution for those core functions.  The Court further held that a president has "presumptive immunity" from criminal prosecution for official acts that are outside of the core functions.  Finally, there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

I suspect that the Court was concerned about the extensive lawfare being conducted against former President Trump, with a possible tit for tat reaction the next time Republicans gained control of the White House.  Here is what the ACLU said in November, 2010:  "The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat."  Without immunity, Obama could be prosecuted for murder.  How about prosecuting Biden for failing in his duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.)  

Biden has certainly not taken care that our immigration laws be enforced.  Wasn't it foreseeable that large amounts of illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, would be smuggled into our country - resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.  The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Biden had no authority to forgive student loans.  After all, someone ends up paying those loans - the taxpayers.  To come with that money requires an act of Congress.  Article I, section 7, states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."  It is a simple separation of powers issue.  Yet, the Democrats and the left had no problem with Biden having that power, because they agreed with the policy.  And Biden ignored the Court's decision.  As always, the ends justify the means for the left.  

Laurence Tribe is a well known left-wing Professor (now Professor Emeritus) at Harvard Law School.  In a July 2 Op-Ed in the New York Times, he called the immunity decision an "outrage."  Tribe expressed his concern that if Trump returned to the White House, he would use "the Justice Department to engage in politically motivated prosecutions."  Isn't that ironic?  Recall that the New York Times had reported increasing pressure on AG Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump over the events of January 6. 

As reported by the New York Post in 2022, a front page article of the New York Times said:  "As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted , according to two people familiar with his comments.  And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6." 

Isn't that interesting?  Biden tells his inner circle that Trump is threat to democracy.  He clearly wants to see Trump prosecuted.  How convenient then, that some aides then tell the New York Times what Biden said privately, and Merrick Garland gets the message.  This way, Biden can claim that he never directed his AG to prosecute Trump.  But Tribe is worried about Trump using the Justice Department to prosecute people...really?  Tribe's solution is awful.  He suggests a permanent and separate branch of government, "charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."  Then what would be the responsibility of the AG and the 93 United States Attorneys (and all the associate attorneys) spread out across the country?  Unless Tribe has in mind that this separate branch would target members of Congress and presidents only.  Also a terrible idea.  It would be the equivalent of round the clock special counsels, likely interfering with the president and the Congress carrying out their duties.

Erwin Chemerinsky was no better.  In his June 30 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times (not directly discussing the immunity decision, but indicative of left-wing thinking), he criticized recent SCOTUS  decisions as being "simply a matter of conservative justices imposing conservative ideology to come to conservative results."  Just an obvious attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because he's just another leftist unhappy with there being a conservative majority on the Court.  And what was Roe v. Wade, other than liberal justices imposing liberal ideology to come to liberal results.  There was no constitutional basis for that decision.