AOC Sends Impeachment Threat to SCOTUS After Immunity Ruling for Trump – ‘Assault on American Democracy’

We can say this much about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The New York Democrat is nothing if not consistent in her denial of reality.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that former President Donald Trump had some level of immunity for official decisions taken while he was president — a decision that almost certainly means special counsel Jack Smith’s case related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion won’t make it to a jury before the November election — AOC promised on social media to bring articles of impeachment.

Against whom or what? One is reminded of Marlon Brando’s answer when asked what his character was rebelling against in the film “The Wild Ones”: “What have you got?”

While the decision Monday sent the left into a state of predictable apoplexy, the ruling in Trump v. United States was a relatively predictable one and not as far-reaching as some on the left claimed. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the majority said a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers” and “is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

Roberts noted that withholding immunity would create, in his words, “an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next.”


Replacing Biden Won’t Solve Democrats’ Problems – Look Who Will Inherit His Campaign War Chest

As legal analyst Dan McLaughlin wrote at National Review, this didn’t magically grant presidents immunity for anything, simply that which was theirs to do under the purview of Article II of the Constitution.

Unofficial acts, including campaign acts, are not immune — which, as McLaughlin noted, “should leave most of Smith’s indictment standing.”

The court also rejected Trump’s argument that a president could not be prosecuted if he had been impeached and convicted by the Senate.

What constitutes an official and unofficial act would be determined through the court system “in the way that immunity decisions customarily are: as a defense to trial, which can be immediately appealed,” McLaughlin noted.

In a scathing dissent written on behalf of the court’s three Democrat-appointed justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she wrote.

And then there were the more febrile voices, such as Elie Mystal in The Nation. Headline: “The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially.”

This headline derives from a reductio ad absurdum (emphasis on absurdum) of what the immunity ruling meant in Sotomayor’s dissent:


Trump Strikes Fear in AOC, Says She Might Get Jail Time During Absurd Meltdown – ‘He’s Out of His Mind!’

“Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder…When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Never mind the fact that this presupposes no separation of powers, chain of command or other mechanisms to stop and/or punish the president: Are we to understand that a 6-3 ruling of whether the president enjoys immunity for official acts under Article II of the Constitution would stop this?

“Oh,” you can hear Joe Biden celebrating from the Oval Office. “I was just gonna leave Corn Pop alone, even though he was a bad dude! But now Chief Justice Roberts says I can send SEAL Team 6 after him! Release the hounds!”

Amid all this thorough uncertainty over who the president is going to kill first, though, never fear: AOC is on the job.

“The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” the congresswoman wrote on X.

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy,” she said. “It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.

“I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

Impeachment articles for what? Rendering a decision you don’t like?

And on whom? Presumably, anyone on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a Republican. Who knows, though?

Are you voting for Trump?

Because this isn’t serious talk. Even if the Democrats controlled the House, where impeachments happen — they don’t — getting the two-thirds vote needed for conviction in the Senate has less than zero chance of happening.

If such articles were filed and Ocasio-Cortez were to magically get some GOP votes to get a majority for them, all they would do is gum up the works of the lower and upper chambers of Congress in the months before the election for a partisan political exercise in dismantling checks and balances, one that almost certainly would fail.

With the polls not trending the Democrats’ way and Thursday’s debate performance by Biden confirming the uphill battle AOC’s party faces, this would be another self-inflicted wound going into November.

But, chances are, she didn’t think about this before she sent out this missive. Chances are she won’t think about it afterward, either. In the moment, it felt right.

However, when it comes to promising absurd, pyrrhic stands she has no intention of really making, maybe Ocasio-Cortez should take her own advice: Oh girl, baby girl, don’t even play.

A Note from Our Deputy Managing Editor:


I heard a chilling comment the other day: “We don’t even know if an election will be held in 2024.” 


That wasn’t said by a conspiracy theorist or a doomsday prophet. No, former U.S. national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said that to the founder of The Western Journal, Floyd Brown.


Gen. Flynn’s warning means that the 2024 election is the most important election for every single living American. If we lose this one to the wealthy elites who hate us, hate God, and hate what America stands for, we can only assume that 248 years of American history and the values we hold dear to our hearts may soon vanish.


The end game is here, and as Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”


All of this means that without you, it’s over. We have the platform, the journalists, and the experience to fight back hard, but Big Tech is strangling us through advertising blacklists, shadow bans, and algorithms. Did you know that we’ve been blacklisted by 90% of advertisers? Without direct support from you, our readers, we can’t continue the fight.


Can we count on your support? It may not seem like much, but a Western Journal Membership can make all the difference in the world because when you support us directly, you cut Big Tech out of the picture. They lose control. 


A monthly Western Journal Membership costs less than one coffee and breakfast sandwich each month, and it gets you access to ALL of our content — news, commentary, and premium articles. You’ll experience a radically reduced number of ads, and most importantly you will be vitally supporting the fight for America’s soul in 2024.


We are literally counting on you because without our members, The Western Journal would cease to exist. Will you join us in the fight? 



Josh Manning

Deputy Managing Editor

The Western Journal


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One and football (of both American and world varieties).


Morristown, New Jersey


Catholic University of America

Languages Spoken

English, Spanish

Topics of Expertise

American Politics, World Politics, Culture

Source link