The Alarming Prosecutions Against Donald J. Trump

One of my great friends texted me with concerns about all of these lawsuits filed against President Donald J. Trump. Will this result in bankruptcy for him or jail time?

I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll admit that I can’t be sure about my answer to that question. However, I found the following discussion on Truth Social can give us hope about the final outcome in these (what I consider bogus) cases against him.

Here’s a reminder about some of what Trump accomplished for us:

Here’s the discussion, and 👇🏻 This gives me hope that Trump’s cases will be dismissed!

”The Establishment and its cronies nearly lost their minds when SCOTUS delivered a 9-0 ruling on the Colorado ballot case yesterday. Outrage was also seen when SCOTUS agreed to hear oral arguments on the Immunity case. This upcoming case is going to bring down the house on the left’s use of warfare in the political realm as it will be one of the most monumental rulings in our nation’s history. Not to mention, it will have a major impact on EVERY pending case they have against Trump, bringing the political persecution cases to an end.

I’m not anticipating another 9-0 ruling, but another win is on the horizon…The Storm is Coming…

#RatPack #RPN #PHPnews

*******

Yup 👍 The Supreme Court upheld Our U.S. Constitution to end this insane erroneous legal persecution , feigning prosecution of a legitimate winning candidate . I was happy to see the strength of the separation of powers maintaining lanes of all 3 branches to function appropriately . Now let’s save Our Constitutional Republic by re-electing President Trump in an overwhelmingly landslide . 🙏👍❤️🇺🇸

@Snapcarver

*******

The problem lies in the framing. As I understand it (and I could well be wrong) the court is under the impression that Trump is demanding absolute immunity. Not sure if this is a faulty presentation by Trumps team, or misinterpretation by SCOTUS… but I’ve heard reports that the court abhors the thought of rubber stamping “above the law”. Trumps team may be asking the court to leave it to congressional impeachment for actual crime committed as president. I’m not sure of the nuts and bolts of the case as argued. It may well be that Trump ISNT asking for absolute immunity, it’s ass-hat justices painting it that way. But IMHO that is what this case hinges on. Actions vs policy decisions.

@AnotherMarko

*******

It’s possible that Trump wants SCOTUS to rule against him on this case, since it would then have a boomerang effect on the nefarious activities of past Presidents that might currently be veiled behind this Presidential Immunity act. Trump is safe no matter what happens since he is innocent of their claims, IMHO.

@Pepredjax

*******

Yes, absolute immunity is needed. I’m not talking about the president of United States, committing a heinous crime like strangling somebody in the White House in WH , which would be murder. I’m talking about using the government and presidential powers to carry out certain situations , If there is not absolute immunity, every president would be guilty of crimes.

@trumpwinsagain

*******

That’s what I was getting at… Confusion (perhaps intentional) over the definition of “absolute immunity”… which is being framed as “get away with murder”.

@AnotherMarko”

*******

Please feel free to share your thoughts, comments & questions in the comment section.

~ Christine 🙏🏻👏🏻🇺🇸

*Update* President Trump Announces His Supreme Court Nominee – Brett Kavanaugh

via *Update* President Trump Announces His Supreme Court Nominee – Brett Kavanaugh

 

My comment there:

From what I have heard about Brett Kavanaugh, he sounds like an excellent conservative choice for the next Justice for SCOTUS! Lovely family, too!

The leftists may scream their opposition to this nominee, so let them! They will never change. Considering any conservative is anathema to them. Well, tough!

I pray for God’s protection over him and his family. The confirmation process will likely have nasty moments because of the sore losers who still can’t get over HiLIARy losing the election. I pray that his wife and two beautiful daughters are shielded from the rancor and awful threats from those who would do them harm. Please protect them, Lord Jesus!

Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term. 

In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker — while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases. 

The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. 

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.  [Fox News website]

As with any Supreme Court decision, there will be people who are cheering this decision as well as those who will be jeering (or, just dismayed) at the decision.

Here is the important part regarding this decision:

Phillips has said he lost business and had to let employees go because of the controversy.

And he has maintained that it’s his choice: “It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience,” he said last year.

The court in December specifically examined whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the local baker to create commercial “expression” violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.

When “gay” marriage legalization was decided by the Supreme Court years ago, many Christians were concerned that their religious beliefs would be negatively affected.  They were correct!  This is only one case out of dozens that have come up because of the clash between that decision and the deeply held religious beliefs of Christians.

As Jack Phillips reiterated in the article, it was about the event he was asked to use his business talent for, not the people involved!  This is an important distinction and it is my hope and prayer that this ruling will end the bashing and suing of Christian business owners that is going on here in America; and the rights of such business owners will finally be recognized.

I did a search to find the signs that have been placed outside the doors and windows of businesses in the past.  I’m old enough to remember seeing many of them displayed at restaurants and other places of business.

Some of the signs are actually humorous.  “Unless you’re Batman” LOL!

Now, take a look at the opinions in the following surveys.  Can you see the difference in the wording in the second survey (on the right side) vs. what Jack’s refusal at his Phillips Cake Shop was actually about?

 

Please read about Barronelle Stutzman’s case and view the video.

ADF Legal.org: Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington | Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll

Barronelle Stutzman, the sole owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, has served and employed people who identify as homosexual for her entire career. Despite this, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Attorney General claim that she is guilty of unlawful discrimination when she acted consistent with her faith and declined to use her creative skills to beautify the same-sex ceremony of a longtime customer, Robert Ingersoll, and another man, Curt Freed.

Did you catch that?  Mr. Ingersoll was a long-time customer of Ms. Stutzman!  This is another case of religious beliefs of a business owner vs. the demands of two homosexual men who want to marry and have a Christian unjustly punished because she will not use her talents for an event that goes against her deeply held religious beliefs!  Please take the time to go to the link and read/view the video regarding the entire story on this lawsuit.

It is extremely sad that this gentle woman is being BULLIED by that state’s attorney general and the ACLU into compliance through an unnecessary lawsuit by individuals who want to FORCE a person to comply with their desires.  It is an example of forced coercion.  Rather than respecting her religious beliefs on this one issue (the two men involved were given kind advice to go to another great florist) they, and the Washington State attorney general as well as the ACLU, would rather destroy this woman’s livelihood in order to get their way!

Excerpt from ADF website:

“You have to make a stand somewhere in your life on what you believe and what you don’t believe,” Barronelle told CBN in an interview. “It was just a time I had to take a stand.”

After hearing about Barronelle’s decision in the news, the Washington State attorney general decided to take matters into his own hands, and sued her. The ACLU followed close behind. Both lawsuits attack not only her business, but Barronelle personally.

Alliance Defending Freedom asked the court to dismiss the attorney general’s lawsuit since he was not personally involved in the incident, and filed a countersuit against him. They also asked the court to protect Barronelle from personal attacks from the ACLU and the state, and restrict the lawsuits to her business, Arlene’s Flowers.

The court ruled against Barronelle and ordered her to pay penalties and attorneys’ fees.

ADF petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to take up Barronelle’s case, and, in March 2016, the court agreed. Oral arguments were heard on November 15, 2016 at Bellevue College.

In February 2017, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that the government can force her—and, by extension, other Washingtonians—to create artistic expression and participate in events with which they disagree.

In July 2017, ADF petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Barronelle’s case. We are awaiting the Court’s decision.

Create Freely

Alliance Defending Freedom is here to protect the right of creative professionals to use their God-given talents in ways that are consistent with their beliefs.

Hat tips to all links.