Supremes Rule for Trump — Sort Of

Presidents Are (Partially) Immune [The Daily Reckoning] July 01, 2024 [WEBSITE]( | [UNSUBSCRIBE]( Supremes Rule for Trump — Sort Of Portsmouth, New Hampshire [Jim Rickards] JIM RICKARDS Dear Reader, It’s been a momentous past week for the Supreme Court. It’s released several important decisions that will have a significant impact on American politics. This morning, the Supreme Court issued another major ruling. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that presidents do have immunity for official acts that they performed in office. The court ruled that presidents don’t have unlimited immunity — they’re not immune from prosecution if they murder someone while in office, for example. The president can’t order the Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival, as some seem to think this ruling allows. That’s nonsense. But the majority ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution relating to actions pertaining to the office of president. And the decision could jeopardize many of the cases against Trump because they pertain to actions Trump undertook as president. The History of Presidential Immunity The issue of presidential immunity traces back to the earliest days of the Republic, when Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that Thomas Jefferson could be forced to hand over documents related to the treason case against Aaron Burr (who you might remember as the man who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel). It’s been a balancing act ever since, but the Supreme Court has never authorized the prosecution of a president for official acts he committed as president. Writing for the majority in this case, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that presidential immunity “extends to the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority… There is no immunity… for a president’s unofficial acts.” I predicted the court would reach this decision. The court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson were the predictable dissenters. I believe the decision should have been 9-0. A president needs to be immune from official actions he undertook while in office. Otherwise, fear of being prosecuted could impact the sometimes difficult but necessary decisions a president has to make. [New Biden Bucks Follow-Up Available Now]( Since posting my original Biden Bucks presentation online, millions of people have viewed it. Snopes and the Associated Press have even attempted to “fact check” me and claim my warnings are false: [Click here for more...]( Point being, the message has raised a storm and caused a lot of controversy. But in the time between the message and now, a lot of new developments have come to light. That’s why an update to the original prediction was just released… one which will likely be even more controversial. [Click Here To Access The Biden Bucks Follow-up]( Fear Shouldn’t Dictate Policy Those decisions may be right or they may be wrong. But a president needs to make those decisions based solely on what he believes is for the good of the country. He can’t be afraid of being prosecuted for these decisions once he leaves office. That just opens a can of worms. It criminalizes policy. President Obama ordered drone strikes on American citizens living overseas who were tied to terrorism. Technically, as American citizens, that violated their due process rights. But it’s not like Obama ordered drone strikes on normal Americans walking down Main Street. They were terror suspects living overseas. The assumption must be that Obama was acting in what he perceived to be the best interests of the United States. You may agree or disagree with that decision. But what if Obama decided against the strikes based on fear of future prosecution and these people went on to commit acts of terrorism that killed innocent Americans? As you can see, it’s complicated. Where would it end? Of course, any prosecution would be strictly political. A Democratic administration would never pursue charges against a former Democratic president, just like no Republican administration would pursue charges against a former Republican president. It also raises questions about the separation of powers. The executive, legislative and judicial branches were designed to be equal branches of government. Prosecution of official presidential acts would subordinate the executive branch, challenging the separation of powers doctrine. Now I want to switch gears to discuss another momentous decision the Supreme Court handed down last week. Specifically, I want to concentrate on one decision that will impact all of my readers, especially in the run-up to the November presidential election. The case in question is Murthy v. Missouri. Supremes Bless Government Censorship It was a landmark case in the area of free speech and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration that government can put pressure on social media companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter to censor news the government does not like and to promote official government lies. At various times during the COVID pandemic (2020–2022) and ahead of the midterm elections in 2022, the White House and their flunkies put pressure on the social media companies to deplatform or downgrade voices that questioned the so-called vaccines, opposed the use of masks and social distancing, objected to lockdowns and school closures or gave credence to the Hunter Biden laptop story and Biden crime family corruption. [Biden out August 19?]( [click here for more...]( A former CIA insider just announced a disturbing prediction… Biden will withdraw as the Democrat nominee on August 19. [See his shocking evidence in this new report.]( [This former CIA advisor says the Dems already have Biden’s replacement – a shadow candidate hand-selected to defeat Trump]. [Click Here To Learn More]( These efforts at censorship weren’t hard to do. The social media companies were heavily staffed by former members of the FBI, CIA and White House staff who were in sync with Biden administration propaganda. When the White House called Facebook or Twitter, they were usually speaking with old friends who had previously worked at censorship from inside the administration. The irony was that the parties being censored were right. The vaccines did not stop infection or the spread of the disease. Masks were useless. Lockdowns destroyed the economy but did nothing to stop the spread of the virus. An entire generation of American children were deprived of two years of crucial formative education so that cowardly teachers’ unions could get paid to stay home. The Hunter Biden laptop was real, and it did reveal massive corruption by the Bidens. Enabling Big Brother Still, the censorship of credible voices went ahead, and the Supreme Court just gave it a green light to continue. The only ray of hope is that the Supreme Court rejected the complaint in this case on procedural grounds (lack of standing to sue and an overly broad complaint). The court never reached the substance of the censorship. This means future cases alleging government censorship may have more success. But that result may take years to unfold. In the meantime, the Big Brother approach of Biden and his enablers in social media can continue. The best advice for investors is not to believe anything coming out of Washington or social media. It’s best to seek out independent advice from those without conflicts or political agendas. Those voices are becoming increasingly rare. Regards, Jim Rickards for The Daily Reckoning [feedback@dailyreckoning.com.](mailto:feedback@dailyreckoning.com) P.S. I call this book [“the most dangerous book in America.”]( And I want as many Americans as possible to get a copy. But with fewer than 500 copies left, my publisher may run out of stock soon. I don’t know if or when more copies will be printed. So you should get your copy today. So here’s how to claim yours: - [Click this link to watch my short message.]( - Review your account information. - Confirm you’d like to accept my offer. And I’ll get your copy of the most dangerous book in the mail right away. Remember → there are under 500 in stock. So to claim your book… [Simply click here and I’ll explain what you need to do.]( Thank you for reading The Daily Reckoning! We greatly value your questions and comments. Please send all feedback to [feedback@dailyreckoning.com.](mailto:feedback@dailyreckoning.com) [Jim Rickards] [James G. Rickards]( is the editor of Strategic Intelligence. He is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 35 years of experience working in capital markets on Wall Street. He is the author of The New York Times bestsellers Currency Wars and The Death of Money. [Paradigm]( ☰ ⊗ [ARCHIVE]( [ABOUT]( [Contact Us]( © 2024 Paradigm Press, LLC. 1001 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. By submitting your email address, you consent to Paradigm Press, LLC. delivering daily email issues and advertisements. To end your The Daily Reckoning e-mail subscription and associated external offers sent from The Daily Reckoning, feel free to [click here.]( Please note: the mailbox associated with this email address is not monitored, so do not reply to this message. We welcome comments or suggestions at feedback@dailyreckoning.com. This address is for feedback only. For questions about your account or to speak with customer service, [contact us here]( or call (844)-731-0984. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized financial advice. We allow the editors of our publications to recommend securities that they own themselves. However, our policy prohibits editors from exiting a personal trade while the recommendation to subscribers is open. In no circumstance may an editor sell a security before subscribers have a fair opportunity to exit. The length of time an editor must wait after subscribers have been advised to exit a play depends on the type of publication. All other employees and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an initial recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. The Daily Reckoning is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. Please read our [Privacy Statement.]( If you are having trouble receiving your The Daily Reckoning subscription, you can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by [whitelisting The Daily Reckoning.](