MAGA figures celebrate Supreme Court’s immunity decision: Trump’s lawyers “saved President Trump’s legal behind here”
Jeffrey Clark: The Supreme Court decision “undoes significant amounts of damage done to the presidency as a result to the weak period when the Congress went after President Nixon and tried to strike while he was weak”
Published
Citation
From the July 1, 2024, edition of Real America's Voice's War Room
MIKE DAVIS (GUEST): What saved President Trump here is presidential immunity must be immediately decided.
DAVE BRAT (HOST): Right, right, right.
DAVIS: Meaning you have to decide it before the trial, not after the trial. And I would say this, that Trump’s lawyers, John Sauer and Will Scharf, are the ones who came up with this argument on presidential immunity, they saved President Trump’s legal behind here, and if they didn’t raise this argument, Trump would be in prison right now after Jack Smith railroaded him in D.C.
…
JEFFREY CLARK (GUEST): Look, first, I’ve got to say, on the Supreme Court immunity decision, this decision is huge. It is the most important constitutional decision in a very long time. It cements the framers’ vision of the presidency. I think it undoes significant amounts of damage done to the presidency as a result to the weak period when the Congress went after President Nixon and tried to strike while he was weak. I think this undoes a lot of that damage.
And, look, it creates a, a trifurcation where at the top level, the president is absolutely immune for things within the core of his office. Then at a middle level, there's a presumptive immunity for other official acts.
And then finally, there's no immunity for acts that are unofficial. And where does he put — and you raised the issue, Dave, of, you know, where does he the the the Supreme Court put the issue that relates to me about President Trump working with the Justice Department? Well, it says that the president has absolute authority to investigate whom he chooses and to prosecute whom he chooses because he is the chief prosecutor of the United States. So that means that falls into the absolute immunity category, which means that, you know, just from a personal standpoint, I shouldn't be having to deal with all the stuff I've had to deal with over the last 3 and a half years. So I love the vindication of that.
You know, my opponents in the bar and my opponents, like Fani Willis, etc. are gonna be seeing new briefing on that. And, look, I think that this also, gives great ammunition to President Trump to fight against the office of Jack Smith because Jack Smith was, essentially established as a kind of independent official. But the whole logic of this immunity case is that there are no independent officials at the Justice Department. So this is a major vitamin shot in the arm to President Trump's arguments in front of Judge Cannon down in that documents case. I hope it, you know, foretells the dismissal of that case.
I also think it restrengthens executive privilege, which is on the line in terms of, Steve Bannon going to jail. Right? I think that that's been watered down since the Nixonian era. I think this will, portend a, you know, a strengthening of executive privilege. So it's just great all across the board.
And then, Dave, you asked the question about what can we do as a matter of solutions. The first and most important solution is to get President Trump back in the White House because the Justice Department can be reformed with new regulations, with new policies, with new presidential directives to stop this ridiculous lawfare, but to pursue righteous cases against true lawbreakers. And then second, we need, as a matter of federalism, for the states to step up. The bars have become weaponized, and state legislatures can pass new laws to block that — block that kind of lawfare in front of bars and ensure that complainers are people who actually have firsthand knowledge of the lawyer-client relationship, which none of the complaints against any of the people tied to President Trump, you know, really fit into.
And then also, look. If, you know, people in the private sector need to do their, their work. Right? It's action action action. And if they're gonna fight with this lawfare on the Democrat side all the time, they need to face lawfare coming back from the people of United States against Democrat officials. And then once they get a taste of it, I think they'll stop this nonsense, and we'll get closer to the vision of the republic that the framers had in mind.