6 to 3 — The Numbers of the Beast
How the SCOTUS split gives away the coup
CNN trumpeted out this first line to describe the US Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, released just three days before Independence Day:
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision Monday granting Donald Trump partial immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, handing the former president a significant win during his reelection bid.
Many have talked about the complicity of the media in ‘normalizing’ Trump’s buffoonery and violent rhetoric, but fewer mention how nefariously they do it for the most pernicious body involved in this American Civil War.
Stop there. Lest you think my rhetoric employs its own leveled-up hyperbole, read my explanation for the civil war comment. If that does not satisfy, and you have some time, turn the 70+ pages of my piece breaking down the electoral portion of the assault against our government. It is disturbing in its expansiveness, and even more information has come out since I posted that article. Moreover, it illustrates just a single prong of this insurrection.
Make no mistake, the United States is embroiled in a civil war, and has been for years. It looks a bit different than the depictions of the Blue and the Gray in our high school textbooks, but the American education system is notorious for its cheap facsimile approach to learning. Necessary nuance does not rule the day in our classrooms.
Thus, CNN’s lede simply accomplishes what every high school diploma verifies — that the people know just enough overly simplified information that is required for them to feel informed, while leaving them to walk away wholly ignorant and subject to any number of resultant harms. CNN is not interested in enlightening the reader in its coverage anyway. Like all media today, it only wants the clicks. One can easily tell by the trajectory of its subheadings:
Trump got a bigger win than expected.
What’s next in the federal case against Trump?
Liberals tear into majority for creating ‘a king above the law.’
Trump’s nominee Barrett pushes for a swift trial.
Posterity vs. Trump
Justice Thomas questions the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment.
One loss for Trump: Impeachment isn’t a legal shield.
To keep the rapt attention of its readers, CNN orients its exploration of the “takeaways” from the decision as if it was only about whether the criminal prosecutions of Trump may continue. For about two years, most of the media has characterized the criminal prosecutions of Trump as the panacea to America’s political problems. CNN just continues that bleating here.
While I generally refrain from Hitler references because they tend only to add to the vacuousness of the discussion, it is worth noting that Hitler went to prison just like other dictators have before finally wresting control of their respective countries. But even if Trump goes to prison and dies there at his advanced age, he is but the current clownish face plastered over an alarmingly pervasive coup effort. His treasonous backers — the Peter Thiel's and Leonard Leos, Congressional sycophants, MAGA lunatics willing to do violence for them, and these Supreme court jesters are the real enemies. And they can readily find another figurehead for the movement.
That this decision split 6–3 down ideological lines leaves zero remaining doubt about where this court sits amidst this war. Take, for example, the concurrence of Clarence Thomas — who has directly contributed to the insurrection through his abuse of the court. He writes:
No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes.
This opening statement is meant to whitewash the nature and perniciousness of what Trump actually sought to do. Only one president —Richard Nixon — came close to attempting to subvert an election the way Trump has and he avoided criminal prosecution only because he scurried away from office, not because some complicit, venal court stepped in to save him. As I wrote previously:
Writing for an 8–0 majority, Chief Justice Burger “rejected the idea that the President alone could establish the scope of his powers and affirmed that no one, including the President, was above the law.” Following the ruling, Nixon almost immediately resigned.
The majority engages in a similar glossing over, stating “This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency,” as if the Nixon thing simply didn’t happen. While this statement is technically true, that’s precisely the method behind its obfuscation. Nixon was not prosecuted precisely because he quit, but the majority leaves its articulation without context to fabricate the exclusivity and ostensible momentousness of this case.
As Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan clearly point out in their dissent, “under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless.” The majority opines that the president remains subject to federal criminal laws, “not above them,” but foregoes explaining exactly how within this nonsensical drivel passing as legal analysis. Anticipating this complaint, it offers this paltry solution:
[T]he President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
Good luck proving an absence of intrusion.
This decision was 6 to 3 for a reason. The majority of the court is a handpicked band of traitors, slaves to ideological and corruptive influence by which they presume — temporarily at least — to rule as dictators. But they are merely paving the way for a real despot to don the iron gauntlet, Trump or otherwise. The courts, this one included, are a mere check on power, something tyrants do not entertain for long. The Supreme jesters may feel empowered for now, but the gate they keep pushing ever more widely open is inviting in the horde that will eventually feast upon them after it is fully satiated from devouring us.
Biden is in the sunset years of his life, with little time left to solidify his legacy. He could put a feather in the cap of his decades’ long public service by acting on his newly proffered immunity and treating this cadre of coup-conspirators like the traitors they are. After all, saving the Republic most certainly constitutes an ‘official act.’
Robert Vanwey was Senior Technical Analyst for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice, who specialized in investigating public corruption, and technology and financial crime. He also has a Juris Doctor and Master degree in history.
Just Say We Won is his detailed narrative of Trump’s attempted soft coup to overthrow the United States of America. According to Trump, Any President can do Anything, Including Kill You, is a careful analysis of Trump’s case before the Supreme Court, in which he begs them to save him from the consequences of his devilry.
If you like Rob’s work, check out the Evidence Files Substack for an exploration into technology, science, aviation, and the Himalayas, where he frequently lives and works.
