There are now three cases in front of the Supreme Court that are directly related to the election.

First there is the issue of whether some state court judge or official, like the state Secretary of State, can take Trump off the ballot. I think the answer is pretty clear and I expect at least an 8-1 decision from the Supremes. There are only three requirements under the constitution. You’ve got to be at least 35 years old, have been a resident of the US for 14 years and in the words of Bruce Springsteen been ‘Born in the USA’! That’s it and no state can change the constitution. That’s why even if Trump gets convicted of something, he can still run for president.

The second case, and I’m not sure if Trump has joined this case or not, involves the construction of obstructing an official proceeding. At least two hundred of the J6 defendants have been charged under that statutory provision. And of great importance, a significant number of the charges in Smith’s J6 case against Trump are based on that statute. Thus if the Supremes find that that statute is not relevant, a large portion of smith’s bogus case goes up in smoke. And I think that that’s what they will do because first of all, at least 4 justices must vote to grant certiorari and hear the case. And the statute involved is an outgrowth of the Enron or Exxon case and never considered that it would be used in the way it is.

And lastly there is the question of presidential immunity. This is more complicated because the constitution doesn’t specifically grant any immunity to the president. It does however grant immunity to senators and representatives.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that “The Senators and Representatives” of Congress“shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrestduring their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

This maybe necessary because the framers were concerned with things like the president arresting opposition party members to keep them from voting on legislation. However it is clearly subject to gross abuse without recourse. There is nothing to stop one of these officials from getting up at the podium where we see them all the time giving insane speeches about pretty much anything. There is nothing to stop them from saying you’re having sex with all your children and the family pets and you would defenseless.

BTW if you recall that’s why I said that Kyle Rittenhouse should sue Magoo for defamation because he was neither a senator or VP when he made the remarks.

I have looked at the cases and I’m sure they will recognize some immunity for Trump but I don’t know how far it will go and I hope that they address the issue of whether any immunity lasts beyond his term. Magoo waived Trump’s immunity which I don’t think he can but if he can it would be good to know so that when Trump wins he can immediately waive Magoo and Obama privileges and get all their crap into the public domain.

I guess this isn’t really helpful but it does explain the need for the Supremes to take up the case, contrary to all the bs being spewed by the MSM. Future presidents need to know the boundaries of their privilege and whether it makes them less likely to make tough but necessary decisions.