Absolute Immunity

“You need to know that the least of peasants, and what is even more, the beggar is just as much a human being as is his majesty, and he has to find justice by that fact that all humans are equal before the law; it may be a prince suing the peasant or vice versa, then the prince will be equal to the peasant before the law: and in such affairs it has to be proceeded purely by justice with no regard to the person. The justice councils in all provinces have to only comply with this. And wherever they do not go straight forward with justice without regard of person or class and put aside natural justness, they shall get in trouble with his royal majesty. A legal council which exercises injustices is more dangerous and worse than a gang of thieves; one can protect oneself against those, but nobody can protect himself against rogues who use the robes of justice to carry out their vicious passions; they are worse than the biggest scoundrels in the world and deserve double punishment.” —Friedrich von Hohenzollern, King of Prussia[1]

On June 30, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all U.S. presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts that were committed within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” and “presumptive immunity” for other official acts,[2] which means that immunity is assumed until proven otherwise by one of the parties in a litigation.[3]

This ruling probably leads to the collapse of most if not all criminal proceedings against former U.S. President Donald Trump currently tried before various courts. Accordingly, Trump supporters were as ecstatic about this decision, as his opponents were horrified.

While I have my own views on the Trump drama unfolding here in the U.S. ever since he first decided to run for office, I want us all to take a step back and consider what this means in general and for all of us, both in the U.S. as well as abroad.

Immunity from prosecution for government officials is an old concept. In countries transitioning from absolute to parliamentary monarchy, such as the UK and Germany, immunity was introduced for members of parliament in order to protect them from persecution through prosecution by the monarch. The institution was maintained even after the monarchy had been abolished, as is the case in Germany, or where the monarch had lost most of his powers to initiate prosecutes, such as the UK. Therefore, the original reason for immunity no longer exists. It now merely serves as protection against common folks as well as political rivals.

I initiated this article for a good reason with a quote from the writings of Frederick the Great. Giving people – no matter the branch of government they serve in – governmental powers that can be abused to oppress and persecute people, but then making them immune against attempts to hold them accountable for such acts, is a safe way into tyranny. Bestowing power on anyone should not come with less accountability, but with more.

Germany’s historical experience during the National-Socialist period has led to the West-German legislature introducing a fundamental change in its penal law: following in Frederick the Great’s footsteps, the law was amended by stipulations that threatened any person committing a crime as a government official with a higher maximum penalty than those who had committed their crimes privately. Since this also threatened the very persons having enacted those provisions, they were deleted from the record in later years.

The person in the world holding the most powers in his hands should not only NOT be immune from criminal persecution. That person should be held accountable with a multifold threat of punishment for crimes committed while acting as an official.

To give this a very concrete reference point, let me give you a concrete example. What would you think should happen to a person who kidnaps another individual and holds that individual imprisoned for many years, just because he feels like it? Anyone can file a criminal complaint against that person. An investigation with arrest, prosecution and sentencing would surely follow, probably resulting in a prison term of many years for the felon.

When a U.S. government official of the executive branch does the same thing – arresting lawful residents in the U.S. and ensuring their incarceration for many years – then the consequence is – nothing. Filing a criminal complaint against that person with the executive branch will go nowhere. It would be like filing a complaint with a robber for his robbing.

This is exactly what happened to me in 2005. An act of Congress of 1961 clearly states that, as the husband of a U.S. citizen, I had the right to permanently reside in the U.S. And yet, the Jew Michael Chertoff, back then recently put in charge of the U.S. Department for Homeland Security, decided to have me arrested for no reason other than his contempt for me, and have me shipped to a country where he knew – and hoped – that I would be imprisoned for a long time for acts which were and are perfectly legal in the U.S. Which personal consequence did this criminal act have for him? None.

Former U.S. presidents had to hide false-flag operations, not just in order to make them effective, but also in order to prevent personal consequences. Will this still be the case when they commit such acts in the future in pursuance of the official duty of keeping the country safe from its enemies?

The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is seen as a partisan, pro-Trump decision, as it helps Trump in his attempt to win the coming election. The fact that this 6:3 split decision runs exactly along the judges’ party affiliations supports this claim. However, the danger really lies in those future acts by U.S. presidents that have bipartisan support.

We may assume that the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors will continue or may even escalate more in the future. It is also possible, in fact rather likely, that Holocaust revisionism will gaining traction among opponents of Zionist genocidal tendencies. To pull the emergency brake – for “the safety of the nation” or rather for the safety of the U.S. government’s Zionist occupiers – a future U.S. president may issue an executive order to arrest, incarcerate and, where possible, deport all Holocaust skeptics in violation of all kinds of laws, the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment included. Who is going to stop him? There will be no consequence for him whatsoever.

And what about yet another 9/11 false-flag operation to expand Zion’s wars to include all Muslim nations? As was the case regarding 9/11, no one in Congress is likely to initiate or, if tried, likely to succeed with attempts to launch an investigation, let alone an impeachment, in such a case. The judiciary will never see a case either, because the prosecution is controlled by the U.S. president as long as he holds that office. And once he steps down, he enjoys absolute or at least presumptive immunity.

Knowing that they are immune from prosecution, the temptation to violate the law will be almost irresistible for all future presidents.

Power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Immunity corrupts – absolute immunity corrupts absolutely.

Immunity for officers of the government is a holy cow that needs to be slaughtered.

A government official who exercises injustices is more dangerous and worse than a gang of thieves; one can protect oneself against those, but nobody can protect himself against rogues who use their official powers to carry out their vicious passions; they are worse than the biggest scoundrels in the world and deserve not immunity from prosecution, but double punishment.

America needs a new Independence Day.

Happy Fourth of July!

Endnotes