My biggest takeaways from the USSC decisions regarding Jan 6th and Presidential immunity.

Both decisions had to do with Democrats and the deep state, not Donald Trump.

For me, this can be boiled down to two different things:

1. The DOJ and DC courts being exposed as politicized hyperpolitical hypocrites.

2. Biden and Democrats overstepping their partisan lawfare attacks against Trump.

Let's start with the Obstruction of Congress ruling. I honestly do not believe that most people really understand what Obstruction of Congress is. There is no question that it can make perfect logical sense that people entering the Capital with the intent of preventing an official congressional act were committing the crime of Obstruction of Congress. The semantics appear spot on.

However, when you think about "Obstruction of Justice" as it pertains to criminal and civil cases, we do not think about someone trying to break up a trial with a protest. Instead, we think about someone destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses, ignoring subpoenas, and possibly lying under oath.

If you look back at the Obstruction of Congress law as it was passed in the wake of the Enron hearings, things become a little clearer. During those congressional hearings Enron destroyed evidence, ignored subpoenas, and basically obstructed justice. But because it was a congressional hearing, rather than a court hearing, there were no criminal penalties. Obstruction of Congress was written shortly after those hearings to mirror the protection that the courts had so that this same sort of behavior in a congressional hearing could be punished to the same degree.

If the Obstruction of Congress was to include American protesters attempting to prevent a congressional act from taking place, then how many "occupations" and such would have fallen under that law? When 450 anti-Kavanaugh protesters "stormed the capital complex" to prevent a Judicial committee vote on Kavanaugh's nomination, wouldn't that have also qualified as Obstruction of Congress? Of course not. Instead, those protesters were hailed as social justice warriors who were engaging in their constitutional right to protest a cause they believed in. They were arrested and given citations and fines that fell somewhere between $35 and $50. Could you imagine the outrage had Trump ordered his AG to charge these protesters with felonies under a law that prosecutors knew was not really valid to the situation?

Bottom line: at no time prior to January 6th has any protester entering any capital anywhere at any time been jailed for obstruction. These charges and jail sentences were an obvious bending of the law in order to specifically punish conservative protesters and push the narrative that these same people had created.

On the case of Presidential immunity there was always two sides of the same extreme argument. One side was the argument that if you provide Presidential immunity, a President could order someone to be murdered (or something of that nature). The other side was that if you subjected Presidents to criminal charges for official acts, opposing Administrations could use the DOJ to punish previous politicians for official decisions or actions they didn't agree with.

The key statement in my mind regarding the immunity ruling was Chief Justice Roberts exasperatingly suggesting that we had never in 250 years of being a country asked the court to make this sort of judgement. Judicial prudence and restraint had always been in play and the unwritten rule was that any charges against an ex-President would have to be so obviously and non-partisan as to enjoy virtually universal support. Obviously bringing charges against Trump in the unique and questionable manner that Jack Smith has done was neither obvious nor non-partisan. In fact, these charges have torn the country apart in disagreement.

As it pertains to the two extreme positions, we have never been in a situation where a President ordered someone to be murdered. But over the past year we have encountered unprecedented lawfare against a former President and Presidential candidate initiated by the Administration hoping to stay in power. The former extreme remains only a hypothetical, while the latter extreme is our current reality. When choosing to protect the country from either a hypothetical or an actual situation, how could any reasonable court choose to protect the hypothetical while allowing the actual to continue. That simply makes no logical, much less legal sense.

Moreover, the Roberts written decision cuts the Jack Smith "state of mind" argument off at the knees. For the most part, Smith concedes that most of what Trump did was not technically illegal in and of itself. Candidates file election challenges all the time. Losing candidate often times toss around stolen election rhetoric. Protests and even riots from the supporters of a losing candidate are commonplace. Yet never before has any losing candidate been charged with a crime because they didn't accept election results. Smith contends that Trump "knew" he lost and that somehow this makes his challenges and stolen election narrative illegal. Roberts specifically stated that when the district court considers the case under the parameters of the high court's ordered remand, that Chutkan does not take into consideration the President's "intent" when looking at the various behavior that she is supposed to be considering. They cannot turn his actions as President into something illegal because of their own opinion of his state of mind.

At the end of the day, we are unlikely to see either Jack Smith case go to court before the election and that is a good thing. Any person with a pulse is well aware of the actions that were taken by Donald Trump after the 2020 election. Asking Americans to replace their own judgements with the findings of 12 partisan Democrat jurists listening to a partisan prosecutor in a court overseen by a partisan judge would not serve the nation or the election to any degree. The only people it would serve are the partisan players involved and the corrupt Administration trying to use lawfare to stay in power. I would offer that it is much better to let the American public make their own judgement and leave partisan lawfare out of it.