Continuing his radio tour across our Republic discussing the Supreme Court's recent and landmark ruling on presidential immunity, President John Pudner traveled to Florence, South Carolina to not only analyze the ruling's implications, but more pertinently, detail the history, blatant partisanship, and failings behind the man at the forefront of this case - Special Prosecutor Jack Smith.
While the ruling was brought about by Smith’s series of indictments against former President Trump, as Pudner notes, this isn’t the first time, nor likely the last, the Court has reprimanded him. In 2010, the Court, in a rare, unanimous verdict, overturned Smith’s case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell who, in a similar political prosecution, was forced to spend $28 million defending himself, received a two-year prison sentence for a two-dollar crime, and was ultimately incapable of mounting an expected US Senate run that could’ve reshaped the political balance of power in the Old Dominion. So aghast was the Court at the case that former Justice Stephen Breyer, a noted liberal on the Court, had this to say of the now-Special Prosecutor during oral arguments:
“To give that kind of power to a criminal prosecutor (Jack Smith), who was virtually uncontrollable, is dangerous to the separation of powers.”
Despite this clear admonishment from the Court, the Biden Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland, once a Supreme Court nominee himself, appointed Jack Smith to lead the case against former President Trump, and as Pudner and former Lt. Governor Ken Ard dissect, while the decision does give clear clarifications on the key aspects behind Smith's indictments, it only delays the hyper-partisan prosection that aims to further divide and destabilize an already fractured Republic.
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
Jack Smith, prosecuted, lower courts, ruling, immunity, Bob McDonnell, Supreme Court
SPEAKERS
Ken Ard and TBOR Action President John Pudner
Ken Ard 00:00
We have with us this morning president of Take Back Our Republic Action, he was a Bush 2000 aide, and the only person in US history to run a campaign defeating a majority leader in a primary. He's been with us before, John Pudner. Good morning, how are you?
John Pudner 00:15
Good, thanks for having me on.
Ken Ard 00:17
John, I would expect the media to be hyperbolic, I've trafficked in hyperbole from time to time, but as somewhat of an informed expert, what did you make of the Supreme Court's decision yesterday on presidential immunity?
John Pudner 00:32
Well, they're trying to spin this, as you know, an out-of-the-blue new power. The Supreme Court often rules on things when they're questioned for the first time and that's what's happened here. If you'd had a prosecutor like Jack Smith trying to throw US presidents in prison, over the centuries of our Republic, you would have had this ruling a lot earlier. You can't do it. Can you imagine being prosecuted for what happens in a war? You have a bad apple here in Jack Smith, who has a history of this, got a conviction to put a Virginia governor in prison before being overruled nine to nothing by the Supreme Court 10 years ago, and so you just have this out of hand prosecution, and you had to have a ruling from the Court. The left will just keep saying brand new powers no one's ever had, but I think they just established what we assumed the President has immunity on for actions.
Ken Ard 01:24
But John, I mean, how does this affect, in particular, specifically, the Jack Smith investigation and the charges levied against former President Trump?
John Pudner 01:34
At the very least, it pushes them back while questions are answered by the courts. It's not going to happen before the election, which was obviously the big goal, to try to sidetrack Trump in the election. For example, with Bob MacDonald in Virginia, since at the time, Jack Smith wasn't a household name known around the country, he looked like he could be a US Senator after being governor, and so they drained him, cost McDonald $28 million to defend himself, Jack Smith got him for kind of complimenting a businessman who was banned, which governors do to everyone, but it made him a non-political entity. He was a rising Republican star. It stops that, it seems to put a lot of holes in his cases, period, but it doesn't mean he couldn't proceed and get something. I mean, theoretically, some acts are considered part of being president, some acts are private, and he's got to be able to go back and say these are things he didn't do as president, these are things he did were private, and therefore I prosecuted him. He's got to make that case now on a much higher bar for him.
Ken Ard 02:39
As part of the decision, they refer some of this back to the lower courts. What lower court is that, the appellate court? I mean, who will make determinations? I read the entire decision majority yesterday and the dissenting opinion, but in the majority opinion, it says that some of these will go back to the lower courts. Is that the appellate court in said state?
John Pudner 03:00
Well, it's appellate initially, and then they make decisions that could go back further than that. The Supreme Court tries to leave leeway for the other courts, they don't want to become a trial court on any issue, not just this one, so the appellate court will have to look at things and decide if there's stuff that needs to go back further. But yeah, they've got to kick it back down one level, at least. This is as far as the Supreme Court's ruling, and here are your new rules to function under.
Ken Ard 03:31
Well explained, John. Thank you for your time, sir.
Comments