Happy Thursday! Today’s Brew starts off with a massive day for the Supreme Court, as justices are set to hear arguments in a case that will directly affect the 2024 election. SCOTUS Hearing Arguments on Trump Presidential Immunity All eyes are trained toward the District of Columbia this morning as the High Court hears arguments over whether former President Donald Trump had presidential immunity for his actions questioning the integrity of the 2020 Election. The more basic constitutional question is, “Does a former president maintain immunity for actions taken while in office after he leaves said office?” The implications are staggering. If the Supreme Court says “Yes,” then Jack Smith’s persecution of Trump is finished. If the Court says “No,” then not only does Trump still have to face trial, but the door will swing wide open for all presidents to be charged after leaving office for actions they took while in office. Trump argues this would “incapacitate” future presidents, destroying their authority. Said legal scholar Jonathan Turley: "This case may be rather maddening for the justices because it is surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs. If the court goes one way, a president has little protection in carrying out the duties of his office. If they turned the other way, he has a little accountability for the most serious criminal acts." But that's why the justices get the big bucks and fancy robes. Turley and other legal experts who spoke to Fox News Digital Wednesday think the Court will reject absolute immunity, but support “some amount” of immunity for presidents' official actions — perhaps by sending the case back to lower courts with “a more nuanced approach on constitutional immunity.” If so, the question will then become whether Trump’s actions fell under his official duties. Jack Smith argues no: Trump’s beef with the election was personal because he lost an election. Trump argues that of course his actions were part of his official duties. As head of the executive branch, it was his responsibility to ensure a free and fair federal election, and evidence suggests strongly that was not what took place in 2020. How a lower court would rule on that point — particularly one run by the judge hearing Trump’s case, Tanya Chutkan, who has been sending all the other January 6 defendants to prison — is anyone's guess. However, if SCOTUS sends the case back her way, it is unlikely it will be heard before the election. Oral arguments start at 10 a.m. Eastern time. Wray Warns of Terror Attack Like One That Killed Nearly 150 in Russia … But NBC News Only Talks About Trump NBC News interviewed FBI Director Christopher Wray Monday. The online story is titled “FBI Rejects Trump’s Vow to Investigate Political Rivals.” (Funny, because Wray’s FBI is currently actively investigating Biden’s political rivals.) The top half of the story is all about Trump. You have to get nearly to the bottom to discover this nugget from Wray: “We are increasingly concerned [about] the potential for some kind of coordinated attack here in the homeland, which may be not that different from what you saw against the concert hall in Russia a few weeks ago from ISIS-K." Oh. So Islamic terrorists likely let in through our border are set to massacre scores or hundreds of Americans out for an evening’s entertainment. That's important! But let’s focus on Trump’s big mouth instead. Wray also dropped this jaw-dropper when asked if the FBI is monitoring the anti-Jewish, pro-Hamas protests and riots on college campuses nationwide: "We don't monitor protests." So Wray's agents were at the peaceful J6 rallies because they wanted to enjoy a crisp winter day on the National Mall. And the feds hanging out at traditional Catholic services? Just there for the spellbinding sermons. Seriously, mobs chanting, "We are Hamas" in support of a terrorist organization responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of Jews and which still holds American hostages isn't worth monitoring? By George, I Think They’ve Lost Their Minds NPR used to read the Declaration of Independence on air every Independence Day. In 2022, it dumped that wonderful tradition. Now, a sharp-eyed X user discovered the taxpayer-funded outlet has put a trigger warning on archived transcript of previous readings. "Editor's note on July 8, 2022: This story quotes the U.S. Declaration of Independence -- a document that contains offensive language about Native Americans, including a racial slur." What racial slur is that? Way down in the Declaration there is a reference to King George III whipping up “merciless Indian savages” to wage “domestic insurrections.” I wonder: Would transcripts of NPR stories about the anti-Israel protests going on right now include trigger warnings about Jews being called “pigs”? Members of both the U.S. House and Senate have introduced legislation to strip NPR of its public funding since long-term editor Uri Berliner exposed beyond argument the liberal propaganda, bias, and woke, anti-free speech sentiments of new CEO Katherine Maher. Berliner resigned a few days later. Along the Stream Dr. Michael Brown offers the timely, "Christians, Now is the Time to Stand Up For Jews and Actively Condemn Antisemitism Everywhere." Sean Feucht is. Aliya Kuykendall explains in "Worship Leader Sean Feucht Heads to Columbia University Thursday for 'United for Israel' March." Aliya also shares Part 2 of her video interview with Pastor Innocent Byaruhanga, "Former Street Child, Now a Pastor, Shares About His Ministry to Orphans in Uganda." Al's Afternoon Tea served up "Biden's Campaign Backfire and Taking on B of A's Christian Debanking Bias." | 
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, just make sure they are not vulgar or they will be removed.