Since there has been no investigation into the facts upon which President Trump was acting; then we are in the dilemma that we are in presently before this court.

So it’s likely that The Future Trial of Joe Biden be handled as Unconstitutional by our Media When it is Brought by Trump’s Justice Department?

And when we then insist on Joe’s lock down through gag orders (as is being done to Trump the past) the then to be past President Joe’s ability to communicate will likely be unaffected; but oh how much fun that will be.

This precedent therefore can’t be allowed to be made for it will matter to our future.

Court to Decide Trump Contempt Sanction Including Objection to Use of Turley Quotation

The argument before the Supreme Court today involved one possible deterrent to the potential for any abuse of not having Presidential immunity from acts performed by the office holder of the Presidency. This was seen in the following light:

It was argued that the fact that any President could due to their own actions be subject to criminal prosecution by the Administration following him or her in office; therefore this should deter any chance of abusive prosecutions by their own DOJ of prior Presidential office holders. Therefore the fact that there is no Presidential immunity should not be a concern.

They must think us and the court to be blind. This is the real question. It must be analyzed for obvious reasons.

The facts of the argument should be true; but would it? There are concerns?: what should be our concern when we have in office a President who has no expectation of such a risk? This could exist for many potential reasons: one, they are too old and mentally impaired to understand the consequences of such actions. This President has already been found by his own DOJ’s investigation to be such. Two, they are operating within a reality that exists because they represent the “darling party of the Media”, and therefore it is all but understood that they will never stand trial for their actions even should those actions not be immune from the law. We call that a double standard in applying the law, or even the use of law fare. Thirdly they are a Manchurian candidate, put in place through election Fraud by another country’s interference with our election.

I suggest to you that one or all of these factors could be in play with the current Administration and our congress should be looking into each. And therein resides our dilemma, should the Supreme Court decide to eliminate such immunity. And even if it should be determined that none of this is true; there still exists the potential for any of it to be true and abused in the future; even as there is the attempt to do right now in the Donald Trump cases. Certainly there must be immunity from election challenges. That is a sworn constitutional duty.