What Will the Supreme Court Rule on Presidential Immunity?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns presidential immunity. Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted former President Donald on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. A federal trial court ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution, and the case, Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, is now in the United States Supreme Court.

The justices on the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case, and a majority of them sympathized with the arguments of Trump’s attorneys that former presidents have some level of immunity that endures past the term of office. According to Bradley Jaye at Breitbart, “the ultimate question will be the establishment of a standard.” 

If the Court institutes a test, it would vacate (i.e., strike) the lower court decision that former presidents have no immunity, sending that case back to trial court. That court would then undergo a painstaking point-by-point analysis on each fact to determine if immunity exists.

That process could take months. And the Supreme Court appears likely to hold that decision itself would be appealable.

That course, if the Court takes it, would ensure the final outcome of a Trump trial in D.C. comes well after the November 5, 2024, Election Day – a stinging blow to Smith and President Joe Biden, Smith’s boss and Trump’s opponent in that election.

Justices explored several scenarios Thursday by which a president might potentially be charged with a crime.

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the government’s Michael Dreeben on the hypothetical scenarios of a president leading a “mostly peaceful” civil rights protests that could obstruct an official proceeding. “So a president then could be prosecuted for the conduct I described after he leaves office?” he asked.

“Probably not,” Dreeben said, arguing that such an action would not be among the “core kinds of activities” of official presidential duties.

Justices also probed if the institution of the presidency would be crippled if presidents are subject to criminal prosecution for anything they’ve done in office by anyone who might accuse them of wrongdoing – essentially creating “open season” on a president after leaving office.

Justice Samuel Alito asked if a president is in a “peculiarly precarious position” due to the nature and consequences of his duties.

“Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law, and they have to make decisions about questions that are unsettled, and they have to make decisions based on the information that’s available,” he said. “Do you really, did I understand you to say, well, you know, if he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake; he’s subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else?”

Dreeben pushed back, arguing a president “has access to legal advice about everything that he does.”

“Making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution,” Dreeben insisted.

Alito was dubious of Dreeben’s claim that a president enjoys a level of protection because federal grand juries would not indict without evidence. Alito cited the “old saw about indicting a ham sandwich,” continuing to ask, “You come across a lot of cases where the U.S. attorney or another federal prosecutor really wanted to indict a case and the grand jury refused to do so?” …

The arguments, while positive for Trump, did not reveal the Court would universally agree with his position. There is no indication that a majority of justices would agree [that] some kind of immunity exists that would summarily end the current prosecution.

But if there is some type of standard to determine immunity, the usual practice would be to strike the lower court’s opinion and send it back down to the lower court with the test – a remand that undoubtedly would be a victory for Trump’s legal team.

In further good news for Trump, even the three liberal justices seemed open to there being some level of presidential immunity that endures past the term of office. It is possible those justices concur in part with a decision to implement an immunity test while dissenting in part.

Common sense tells us that Presidents of the United States must have some immunity for decisions that they make while in office. Otherwise, they will shrink from making tough decisions that may affect the security and sovereignty of the nation.

How Do You Serve God?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Mosiah 1-3 in a lesson titled “Filled with Love towards God and All Men.” The lesson was introduced with the following message. 

When you hear the word king, you might think of crowns, servants, and thrones. In Mosiah 1–3, you will read about a different kind of king. Rather than living off the labors of his people, King Benjamin “labored with [his] own hands” (Mosiah 2:14). Instead of having others serve him, he served his people “with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord [had] granted unto [him]” (Mosiah 2:11). This king did not want his people to worship him; rather, he taught them to worship their Heavenly King, Jesus Christ. King Benjamin understood that it is “the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth” (Mosiah 3:5), who came “down from heaven” and went “forth amongst men, … that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name” (Mosiah 3:5, 9).

The righteous kings in the Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ were servant kings, not tyrant kings. They labored to provide their own homes, food, and clothing. They served the people instead of ordering the people to serve them. King Benjamin and his son, King Mosiah, were righteous kings.

The principle that I wish to discuss tonight is taught in Mosiah 2:10-26: “When I serve others, I am also serving God.” We will first look at the scripture block.

10 I have not commanded you to come up hither that ye should fear me, or that ye should think that I of myself am more than a mortal man.

11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.

12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;

13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—

14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.

16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?

19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—

21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you.

26 And I, even I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are; for I am also of the dust. And ye behold that I am old, and am about to yield up this mortal frame to its mother earth. [Emphasis added.]

What does it mean to you to know that when you serve other people, you are also serving God? If you would like some ideas, you might like the video titled “The Old Shoemaker.” 

Sister Joy D. Jones, General Primary President, learned the truthfulness of the teachings of King Benjamine while ministering to family who were not participating in Church activities. At first, the two ministers met with rejection and disappointment. Then they reexamined the why of their service and were more capable of showing love to the family. She said the following in a talk in the October 2018 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Sometimes we may initially serve from a sense of duty or obligation, but even that service can lead us to draw on something higher within us, leading us to serve in “a more excellent way”—as in President Nelson’s invitation to “a newer, holier approach to caring for and ministering to others.”

When we focus on all that God has done for us, our service flows from a heart of gratitude. As we become less concerned about our service magnifying us, we realize instead that the focus of our service will be on putting God first.

President M. Russell Ballard taught, “It is only when we love God and Christ with all of our hearts, souls, and minds that we are able to share this love with our neighbors through acts of kindness and service.”

I testify as did King Benjamin and Sister Jones. When we are in the service of our fellow human beings, whoever and wherever they may be, we are only in the service of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

 

What Does the Rising Generation Need to Know?

Families, communities, and nations are stronger when the rising generation are reared to accept personal responsibility for their words and actions and obedience to laws. The scenes on university campuses show out-of-control youths who are rioting because they are not getting what they want. Temper tantrums should be corrected while children are still little.

According to Andrew Chapados at The Blaze, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (D-N.Y.) criticized the police for holding rioting students at Columbia University accountable for their words and actions. She claimed that the police made a “horrific” choice when they enforced the law against the students. She responded to the deployment of counterterrorism units to the Columbia University campus to disperse pro-Palestinian protesters. 

“Not only did Columbia make the horrific decision to mobilize NYPD on their own students, but the units called in have some of the most violent reputations on the force. NYPD had promised the city they wouldn’t deploy [Special Response Groups] to protests. So why are these counterterror units here?” she posted on X.

Chief John Chell, the NYPD’s chief of patrol, did not like what AOC wrote on X and responded with a sarcastic tone.

“Truly amazing! Columbia decided to hold its students accountable to the laws of the school. They are seeing the consequences of their actions. Something these kids were most likely never taught. Good SAT scores and self-entitlement do not supersede the law. I am sure you would agree that we have to teach them these valuable life skills,” he said, referencing Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks.

“Secondly, I was with those ‘units’ last Thursday that you describe as having, ‘the most violent reputations.’ These ‘units’ removed students with great care and professionalism, not a single incident was reported,” the chief continued.

The chief then made remarks about “anti-Semitic speech” and “vile language” toward police officers. He then asked whether AOC agreed that “any hateful speech is unacceptable.”

Chell went on to say that “hate has no place in our society.”

AOC did not like the response of the police chief and mocked it: “‘Laws of the school?’ That’s not a thing.” She continued:

“The inaccuracy of what constitutes a law in your statement is highly concerning, considering it is law enforcement putting their hands on kids. NYPD promised to not call counterterror SRG units on protests. It’s time to keep your word,” she added.

Mocking the police response was not all that AOC did. On the next day, she visited the protesters on Columbia’s campus. Reports are that she praised the leadership of the pro-Palestinian camp.

“The leadership you have is so fantastic,” AOC said, according to reporter Danny De Urbina. The reporter alleged that one of the protest leaders has been shown on camera calling for the deaths of “Zionists,” equating them to “fascists” and “Nazis.”

Ocasio-Cortez also supported Speaker of the House Mike Johnson getting booed at Columbia, saying that it was “good” that the speaker was being booed because “he’s trying to take all their reproductive rights away.”

“Why would I ever listen to a man that thinks he should have more say over my body than I do? NEXT,” she added.

The rising generation needs to be taught about personal responsibility in their parental home – before they can come under the control of radicals like AOC and liberal college professors.

When parents teach correct principles, it is more difficult for other people to take over. Parents and children with strong principles help to build strong families, and strong families strengthen communities and nations.

Why Are Former Prosecutors Negative about Trump’s New York Trial?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns political prosecution and persecution in defense of “protecting democracy.” Katelynn Richardson published an article in The Daily Signal about Donald Trump’s hush money trial. She reminded her readers that prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office did not tell Trump which crime he had committed. 

One year after the indictment and in the courtroom on Tuesday, Bragg’s office finally told Trump the crime with he was charged: “a violation of state election law.” Richardson shared information given by former federal prosecutors.

Former federal prosecutors told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Bragg’s lack of clarity is unfair to the defense, which can’t prepare to argue against a charge they don’t know, and unlike what they’ve seen before.

“I don’t recall ever having a trial where the defense didn’t know what the government was trying to prove,” former federal prosecutor Jonathan Fahey told the Daily Caller News Foundation, likening Bragg’s approach to a “trial by ambush.”

Richardson then summarized the charges against Trump and the situation before the trial. Last April, Bragg “charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records allegedly related to $130,000 paid to keep porn star Stormy Daniels from telling her story of an alleged affair ahead of the election.” The charges are misdemeanors, but Bragg raised “the eight-year-old misdemeanor offenses as a felony” by arguing that Trump was trying to “commit or conceal another crime” that he never specified until Tuesday. Richardson reported as follows.

That is, until Tuesday, when it came out after defense attorneys objected to prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’ line of questioning that they were claiming Trump violated New York Election Law § 17-152. The statute makes it a misdemeanor for any two or more people to “conspire” to influence an election using “unlawful means.”

During opening statements Monday, Matthew Colangelo, senior counsel for the district attorney and a former top official in the Biden Department of Justice, argued that the records Trump allegedly falsified in relation to Daniels’ payment are part of a broader “conspiracy” to influence the 2016 election involving Trump, his former attorney Michael Cohen, and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.

Prosecutors are seeking to demonstrate that conspiracy – which they clarified is rooted in the election statute, though it is not named in the indictment – through witness testimony.

According to Richardson, “former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky said the theory put forward by Bragg under the statute is ‘bizarre.’” Cherkasky continued, “The misdemeanor statute of limitations is expired on this offense, just as it is expired on the underlying offense, raising a significant legal question about the propriety of this approach.”

Cherkasky’s statement continued: “One of the biggest issues in this case is that the prosecution has essentially withheld this theory until trial has started. The defense has complained about this the entire time, but the judge has refused to require identification of the felony escalator at an earlier stage. This amounts to another form of ‘trial by fire,’ which isn’t how the American criminal justice system is supposed to work.”

Richardson spoke to another “expert witness,” John Malcolm, vice president for The Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division. Malcolm said he, as a former prosecutor, found “three things about the revelation that ‘amaze’ him.

“First, that Alvin Bragg’s office did not provide advanced notice of the precise allegations in order to enable former President [Donald] Trump’s legal team to prepare an adequate defense,” he said. “Second, that the statutory code section cited by the lead prosecutor (New York Penal Code Section 17-152) prohibits a conspiracy ‘to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means…,’ but Bragg has still not divulged what those ‘unlawful means’ were.”

“And third, and most shockingly, that penal code section is a misdemeanor, which means that Alvin Bragg is claiming that committing a misdemeanor (making a false business entry) in order to conceal the commission of another misdemeanor (conspiring to promote someone’s candidacy in an unlawful manner) can – like magic – be converted into 34 felony offenses,” he continued.

According to Fahey, everything about the case “stinks to high heaven.” He said what lots of other people think, “If this was anyone other than Donald Trump, this would be laughed out of court.”

When liberals, who have never supported Donald Trump, are discussing how bad the case, it must be really bad!

What Do Law Professionals Say About New York Case?

We are now in the second week of the New York vs. Donald Trump legal battle. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is determined to put Trump in jail for a crime that has not yet been named. Numerous law professors have questioned Bragg’s motive and actions.

Chris Enloe at The Blaze reported about the latest legal professional to call out Bragg’s effort. According to Enloe, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, considers the prosecution of Donald Trump to be a “historic mistake.” 

Shugerman made that conclusion after witnessing opening arguments on Monday in which prosecutors alleged Trump “orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

In short, prosecutors claim Trump falsified business records to interfere in the 2016 election.

The problems with their thesis, Shugerman wrote in the New York Times, are obvious: an “unprecedented use of state law” and a “persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.”

“As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal,” Shugerman wrote.

He continued:

“In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, ‘It was election fraud, pure and simple.’ None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.”

According to Shugerman, there are “three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution” in the case, all three of which concern the novel legal theory prosecutors are using against Trump for which there is no precedent.

“Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law,” Shugerman wrote. “This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America.”

He added, “This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution.”

Still, Shugerman said the legal process should play itself out – but predicted Trump may ultimately win.

“If Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories, and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all,” he said.

George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley has similar ideas about the case. I have heard Turley’s comments on numerous programs, and he always says that there is legal basis for the case. Enloe reported that Turley said on Monday that “he is left in ‘utter disbelief’ that Bragg chose to prosecute the case … an embarrassment.”

When Is Surrogacy An Evil Act?

There are many couples who long for a family but learn that one or both of them are infertile. A large number of infertile couples attempt other means to have a family, such as invitro treatment, adoptions, or surrogacy. When the action is blessed and a healthy child is the result, the happy couple and all their family and friends rejoice.

In most cases, the child is also blessed to be in a loving family. However, there are some cases where the child is abused, and some where the abuse is planned long before the child is born. Emma Waters reported on such a case in her article published in The Daily Signal. 

In a recent sting operation, the FBI arrested and charged a Chicago man for knowingly distributing material on child sexual assault and boasting about sexually abusing his young nieces and nephews.

The man’s arrest came less than a week before he and another man identified as his husband were set to collect their newborn son from a commercial surrogate in California.

Commercial surrogacy is a contractual agreement where someone pays a woman to gestate and birth an unrelated child for a fee. In the United States, it’s an underregulated and unaccountable practice. Unlike adoption, the intended parents are not required to undergo a background check or home visit.

Male same-sex couples or single men, who lack a womb in their fruitless arrangements, make up a large percentage of this industry’s clients. Morally, the inclusion of a third person in the package deal of marriage, sex, and procreation violates God’s “one flesh” vision.

Proponents tend to frame surrogacy as a beautiful experience in which a woman helps someone complete a chosen family. This overlooks serious concerns. Critics point out that surrogacy is effectively a form of baby-selling that exploits women who need financial assistance. Moreover, the practice flourishes when loose laws allow bad actors to create children.

Unfortunately, as the recent FBI arrest shows, these aren’t hypothetical concerns. Here are the all-too real details:

Adam Stafford King, a well-known Chicago veterinarian and dog breeder, was intercepted by the FBI when agents seized another pedophile’s phone and gained access to his messaging accounts on Telegram and Scruff.

King openly discussed how he preferred boys in the “single digits” and planned to sexually abuse his surrogate-born son. King sent photos of his son’s sonogram and newborn outfit in anticipation of the sexual abuse.

King’s husband and extended family claim they had no knowledge of this. The surrogate-born son, who may not be related to either man, was born around March 29. Unless a court intervened, King’s husband planned to collect the newborn child and raise him at his parents’ house for the time being.

If King and his husband were a one-time experience, it would be bad enough. However, there are other times that “men with a history of sexual abuse or pedophilic behavior” gained control of a child through surrogacy. Waters told of another couple:

A few months ago, the well-known You Tuber Shane Dawson and his partner created twin boys through a surrogacy contract. Dawson has admitted to masturbating to pictures of minors and googling child pornography. Such behavior made it unlikely that Dawson and his partner could pass an adoption screening, yet a surrogacy contract was no problem.

As children’s rights activist Katy Faust details, there is a growing list of men who have a history of child sexual abuse or intend to abuse their own child gained through surrogacy. And these are just the ones we know about.

Waters shared “one final, haunting question: What about the children?” No one seems to care about “what is best for the child?” Some problems include the following: 

1) The child is likely to never know his biological mother as such cases involve “an anonymous egg donor selected from a catalog.” The baby recognizes his gestational mother’s voice, disposition, and body but is handed to someone that is unrelated. 

2) Children who are reared by male partners are “at least 11 times more likely to suffer sexual or physical abuse as unrelated men frequent the home.” 

3) The child will eventually understand that he came from the process of in vitro fertilization, where parents can “eugenically select the kind of child they want,” including the sex of the embryo. 

4) The child will be forced with realization that “he was not conceived in a loving union but purchased through a highly lucrative contract” – not much different than purchasing a child after birth.

Michigan and Minnesota are two states that have made commercial surrogacy easier. Instead of legalizing “the buying and selling of children,” state and national laws “should encourage, whenever possible, married mothers and fathers to raise their children.” The laws should not legalize ways to abuse children.

Who Is Liz Truss?

My VIP for this week is Liz Truss, former British Prime Minister. She spoke today at The Heritage Foundation about challenges faced by both the United States and the United Kingdom from the Global Left, their extremist activists, and the power they hold. In her speech, she “warned that conservatives must create a stronger infrastructure to take on the Left – which is well-funded, activist, and has many friends in high places – by recruiting more conservative activists and candidates who can fight in the trenches in the ideological war that we now face.” Some of the excerpts from her remarks are as follows as published in The Daily Signal. 

Why am I launching “Ten Years to Save the West” in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom? Well, I like to think of the United States of America as Britain’s greatest invention, albeit a slightly inadvertent invention. And if you look at our history, from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights to the American Constitution, we have developed and perfected representative democracy.

And if you look at what is going on in our societies, first of all, the Brexit vote back in 2016 and then the election of President Donald Trump later that year, you can see the same desires of our people for change and the same desires for those conservative values and that sovereignty.

And if you look at the battle for conservatism now and the frequency with which we get new prime ministers in the United Kingdom and the frequency with which you get new speakers of the House here in the United States, we can see again that there is a battle for the heart and soul of conservatism on both sides of the Atlantic. And I think that battle is very important. Because, let’s be honest, we have not been winning against the global Left.

If you look at the history since the turn of the millennium, the Left have had the upper hand. And it’s not the old-fashioned Left who used to argue about the means of production and economic inequality. It’s the new Left who have insidious ideas that challenge our very way of life.

Whether it’s about climate extremism that doesn’t believe in economic growth, whether it’s about challenging the very idea of a man and a woman and biological sex, whether it’s about the human rights culture that’s been bedded into so much of our society that makes us unable to deal with illegal immigration – those new ideas have been promulgated by the global Left and they have been successful in infiltrating quite a large proportion of society and a large part of our institutions.

Truss then discussed the state of economics, the immigration and human rights culture, wokery, the fluidity of gender, the non-reality of biological sex, and biological boys in girls dressing rooms. She discussed the stopping of coal-fired power stations in the U.S., discouragement of [liquefied natural gas] terminals being built, and the stopping of fracking in the United Kingdom. She continued with the imposition of electric vehicles, air-source heat pumps, extra taxes on the public, and coal-fired power stations being built in China.

Truss spoke about other reasons why the West is in trouble and why conservatives should learn better ways of defending the Constitution and the American way of life. She concluded with the following message.

But my final message is that winning in 2025 or winning in 2024 and going into government in 2025 is not enough. It’s not enough just to win. It’s not enough just to have those conservative policies. That there will be huge resistance from the administrative state and from a Left in politics that has never been more extremist or more virulent.

And that is why it will need all the resources of the American conservative movement, think tanks like Heritage, and hopefully your allies in the United Kingdom to succeed. But you must succeed because the free world needs you.