A left-wing elitist views the USSC decision on immunity within a completely different reality!
At the core of the argument between immunity and no immunity were the two extreme positions:
That immunity would allow a President to legally order Navy Seals to kill Americans, including political opponents.
Without immunity a new Administration could promote the criminal prosecution of the previous President over political disagreements.
Chief Justice Roberts stated early in his ruling that this was a question that had never been brought before the court in our nation's history. He also suggested that previous restraint in charging ex-Presidents had made the legal argument moot. The implication in this statement was to put the blame for the court even needing to rule on Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, and the Biden DOJ for bringing what nearly everyone agrees are dubious charges that could have just as easily been passed over. In fact, I would argue that had Donald Trump not announced that he would run again in 2024, that none of these charges would have been brought. My argument is bolstered by the fact that all of these charges were several years old when brought and only initiated after Trump announced his bid.
This made me point out that of the two arguments, we had never had to deal with the idea of a President ordering a Navy Seal hit on a political opponent, but we were currently dealing with an Administration pushing the boundaries of the law in order to charge the previous President with crimes for actions he took as President. It only made sense that the Justices should deal with the very real example of the latter extreme, even if that came at the expense of the former "hypothetical" extreme that we had never actually seen.
Today I read an article from the "Guardian" where the author suggests a different reality.
What are we to make of the fact that the court has clearly perceived the risks posed by a rogue prosecutor to far outweigh those posed by a rogue president – this notwithstanding the fact the dangers posed by the former are entirely speculative while those posed by the latter are all too real?
This is a puzzling assessment here. The only thing that makes sense is that this author clearly believes that by holding a rally (that was actually less violent and less destructive than the rallies held by Clinton and Democrats after their loss in 2017) is an example of a "rogue President" behaving in a situation not unsimilar to ordering political hit jobs. That challenging election results, not unlike the challenges brought to his own 2016 win, is an act of a rogue President.
He would also have to clearly believe that the Biden Administration acting through Jack Smith is just business as usual. They must truly believe that there is nothing "rogue" or politically motivated in regard to Smith (and others) bringing the charges they did against Trump. This of course ignores the longstanding DOJ policy against charging ex-Presidents for anything that might be construed as dubious or political in nature, apparently carving out a much-needed exception for the bad orange man.
Once again, it would appear that the overwhelming hatred of the Donald makes the "hypothetical" "real" and the "real" just "hypothetical". They know deep down in their psyche that Trump ordering hits on political opponents will become "real" and therefore it is. Meanwhile the idea of Jack Smith being a politicized prosecutor bending the law is either untrue and/or simply justified (because of their personal feelings about Trump) and so that concept remains "hypothetical". It would otherwise seem odd to see two sets of people seeing altogether different realities, but that seems to happen a lot when we deal with politics in 2024.
Every narrative promoted by the left is a false narrative. Every single one. Acknowledge that simple fact and everything we're witnessing snaps into focus.
Sad to say I can see their "logic". A president has much more power than a prosecutor so a rogue one would be more dangerous. But as you point out rogue prosecutors are now becoming common while such a president is just speculation.
Closest example would be Biden himself though.
We'll see what happens there.