The End of the American Pogrom 2020-2024

It’s Time for Restorative Justice for the Political Prisoners

Over the last four years, America has helplessly watched in horror while the rogue Biden Regime went on a spree of legalized terror hunting its opposition. While cities burned, cars mowed down innocent bystanders, invaders flooded our nation, and shooting sprees occurred nightly in our cities, the combined law enforcement and intelligence apparatus managed to find a much graver national security threat to dedicate what must have been well over a billion dollars in resources to eliminating. The Left painted elderly grandmothers that peacefully took an escorted tour through a public building guided by police and devout Christians just trying to offer hope, mercy, and love for innocent infants as domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, racists, and white supremacists. They used every hyperbolic smear known to polarize their opposition as the worst enemies imaginable, so the Department of “Justice” could then justify its draconian actions. This was the first American Pogrom and must not ever happen again. This will only be stopped if those most responsible are held accountable. However, many of the worst offenders, to include judges, prosecutors, and agents enjoy what is known as either Absolute or Qualified Immunity allowing these bureaucrats to operate in a lawless manner with impunity no matter how evil their intentions. I use the term evil specifically, because in legal documents, that is how it is defined. In the case of Bottos v. Beamer, 399 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ind. 1973), the court stated that a judge's intentions and motivations, "no matter how evil, sinister, or diabolical they may be," are irrelevant due to judicial immunity. This principle is further illustrated in training materials from the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, which note that under absolute judicial immunity, a judge's motives or intent are immaterial, even if the motives are evil. I’m here to argue today that his must end. No one…not the president, not a judge, not a federal agent should ever be granted immunity that extends to “no matter how evil” their intentions. Nothing could be further from good, proper, and just than that perverse interpretation of immunity by judges to protect their own corrupt and illegal actions. President Trump and members of Congress, this must end and end now.

During Biden’s reign of terror, America witnessed the FBI transform into a modern Stasi armed with Orwellian technology as it leveraged facial recognition, cell phone tracking, and credit card data to conduct unconstitutional dragnets for anyone deemed a political enemy. This was always the problem with legislation like the Patriot Act that created turnkey tyranny. All it required was a leader evil enough to flip the switch. American rights weren’t just abused under this pogrom, they were grossly violated to inflict maximum terror on the targets. Not only were basic First and Fourth Amendment Rights protecting speech, assembly, religion, and privacy violated, but all sense of due process and fair trials were intentionally ignored. Worse, after using SWAT teams armed, trained, and equipped to capture or kill the most dangerous of criminals to break down doors in the middle of the night and drag innocent citizens from their beds at gunpoint, the captives were then imprisoned and tortured in the most inhuman and horrendous of conditions with often little or no contact or communication with anyone. Some men spent nearly four years in solitary confinement, being fed what amounted to black sewer water and rancid food without proper medical attention. Many were viciously beaten and abused by federal guards. The treatment was so inhumane, many committed suicide, were crippled, or died. If it was not for President Donald Trump putting a hard stop to going further down this road to full dystopian tyranny, America may very well have spiraled into the abyss rivaling the horrors of Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Stalinist Russia. The American Pogrom of 2020-2024 can never ever be allowed to happen again. Pardoning the political hostages was not enough. Now, President Trump must move to hold those that participated accountable, and they must be punished for their crimes. Like Nazi Germany, just following orders is no excuse whether you were an agent, a guard, a prosecutor, or even a judge.

The Legal Argument: President Trump’s roadmap to eliminate Absolute Immunity and bring those to justice that participated in the Pogrom of 2020-2024

The question of whether a President can eliminate absolute immunity for federal judges and prosecutors rests on constitutional principles, statutory interpretation, and the separation of powers. Absolute immunity is a doctrine derived from common law and judicial interpretation, primarily to protect judges and prosecutors from civil liability and ensure independent decision-making. While the Supreme Court has recognized this immunity in cases like Pierson v. Ray (1967) for judges and Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) for prosecutors, it is not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution or statute. This opens the door for its reconsideration through legislative or executive action, provided constitutional boundaries are respected. Let me say that again. Nowhere in the Constitution is Absolute Immunity provided for in the Constitution.

Presidential Authority over Immunity

The President, while constrained by constitutional limits, has several pathways to challenge, nullify, and/or reshape the doctrine of absolute immunity:

1. Constitutional Oversight and Executive Responsibility

• Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3): The President is tasked with ensuring the faithful execution of laws. Immunity has led to unchecked abuses by judges and prosecutors, which infringes on the President’s constitutional obligation to see that the law is not abused. From this legal perspective, President Trump could argue that his obligation to ensure accountability and fairness in federal law is impaired and that immunity must be removed for the interests of society in accordance with his legal powers and authorities.

• Checks and Balances: Absolute immunity infringes on the principle of accountability, which is foundational to the rule of law. As an extension of the Take Care Clause, President Trump should assert that immunity undermines the ability of victims to seek redress, thus eroding public trust in the judiciary and prosecution.

• Commander in Chief: President Trump has declared a national emergency on the border related to illegal immigration and organized crime. I generally do not support emergency powers, but it nonetheless exists. In times of war in particular, the President’s power, since at least Lincoln, can be argued that it extends to the Judiciary in as far as national security issues are concerned. Absolute immunity has led to state sponsored terrorism against the citizenry. As the Commander in Chief, he has the authority to protect the citizens…against all enemies, foreign and domestic, regardless of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

• Chief Executive: People forget that the Attorney General operates from the delegated powers of the President. The President is still the top law enforcement officer in the nation and neither Absolute Immunity nor Qualified Immunity absolve a judge or prosecutor from being criminally prosecuted. In fact, this may be the most direct way President Trump has of addressing the judicial abuses of the last four years. Numerous federal laws related to corruption, obstruction of justice, and abuse of authority have occurred and it is upon President Trump to see to it that they do not escape justice.

2. Influence Over the Department of Justice

• It is important to note that federal prosecutors, FBI agents, and the Bureau of Prisons are all part of the Executive Branch, and their actions fall under the President’s authority. Further, and more importantly, their immunity is better seen as Qualified Immunity, which is a lesser, more constrained application of immunity. This differs from federal judges, which enjoy Absolute Immunity and sit within the Judiciary Branch. President Trump should direct that immunity for prosecutors, federal agents, and federal prison guards involved in the pogrom are immediately waived opening them to potential criminal and civil lawsuits. This may be temporary and specific, or better, clarified in a manner that allows for a long-term permanent change to immunities generally extended to the officers of the government acting in an official capacity.

• For judges, while the judiciary is an independent branch, President Trump can and should still advocate for legislative reforms and appoint judges who are open to reconsidering doctrines like absolute immunity.

3. Legislative Pathways

The President does not unilaterally have the power to eliminate absolute immunity for judges, but President Trump should work in coordination with Congress to pass laws addressing this issue:

• Article I, Section 8: Necessary and Proper Clause: Congress can enact laws deemed "necessary and proper" for carrying out its constitutional powers. Regulating judicial and prosecutorial conduct to ensure accountability and fairness falls within this purview, especially as it pertains to the administration of justice.

• Article III, Section 1: Congressional Oversight of Federal Courts: Article III grants Congress the authority to establish and regulate lower federal courts. This includes defining the scope of judicial protections and establishing mechanisms for judicial accountability.

• Enforcement of Civil Rights: Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce due process and equal protection. This includes enacting laws to address judicial or prosecutorial misconduct that infringes upon individuals’ constitutional rights.

• Congressional Legislation: Congress has the authority to modify or abolish common-law doctrines like immunity through legislation. For instance, a federal statute could explicitly subject judges and prosecutors to civil liability for acts outside their official capacity or acts done in bad faith.

• Prior Congressional Action: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waived sovereign immunity for certain actions by federal employees, allowing individuals to sue the government for torts. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows individuals to sue state officials, including judges and prosecutors, for civil rights violations. These statutes demonstrate Congress’s ability to limit or modify immunity doctrines in pursuit of justice and accountability.

• Policy Justifications: The President could push for legislative changes by highlighting cases of egregious misconduct, demonstrating how immunity shields individuals from accountability.

• Impeachment: Congress does have the power to impeach and remove federal judges. The judges within the DC Circuit that have become infamous for their abuse of due process, flagrant misapplication of judicial procedures, indifference to gross abuses of prisoners, and outright inventive interpretation of law on top of imposing overly harsh, cruel, and unusual punishments on political opposition. This gross dereliction of duty and abuse of justice must be answered for, and the prescribed method is to impeach these judges by a simple majority in the House and then move the case to the Senate for trial and removal. If President Trump control Speaker Johnson, the Republican majority in the House should immediately move to impeach all of the DC Circuit judges that are most responsible for implementation of the pogrom’s worst abuses of the last four years. Legal scholars have also argued impeachment is not the only way federal judges can be removed. Specifically, the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and “during good behavior” language within the Constitution suggest judges can also be removed for acts of misconduct and/or maladministration. President Trump should pursue this broader interpretation with Congress to craft lasting legislation to better balance and check the powers of the judiciary against abuse.

4. Judicial Precedent and Reform

The President should leave no avenue untraveled. President Trump should challenge absolute immunity through indirect means, such as:

• Encouraging the Solicitor General to argue for a narrowing of the doctrine in key cases before the Supreme Court.

• Appointing federal judges who support a more limited view of immunity doctrines.

• Advocating for judicial reforms, such as independent oversight mechanisms for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

5. Policy Justifications for Abolishing Absolute Immunity

Eliminating absolute immunity serves several critical policy goals:

• Accountability: Judges and prosecutors should be held accountable for actions that exceed their lawful authority or constitute misconduct, particularly when those actions violate individuals’ rights.

• Deterrence of Misconduct: The absence of absolute immunity would incentivize judges and prosecutors to act with integrity, as they would face consequences for abuse of power.

• Restoration of Public Trust: High-profile cases of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct erode public confidence in the justice system. Allowing for liability would demonstrate a commitment to fairness and transparency.

6. Potential Constitutional Challenges

Opponents may argue that eliminating absolute immunity violates the separation of powers or judicial independence. The President can and should counter these arguments:

• Accountability vs. Independence: Eliminating immunity does not compromise judicial independence; it ensures accountability for actions that fall outside the scope of judicial or prosecutorial duties. Further, President Trump should argue, and correctly so, that immunity should not, and does not provide the members of the Judiciary a blank check to act with malice, criminality, or simply unjustly. Common Law of the old Monarchy be damned in this case. Judges are not gods. They administer the law, but they are not above the law. This has led repeatedly to gross abuses, is unnecessary for the conduct of impartial justice, and in fact, is a necessary and proper check and balance to ensure proper justice is administered.

• Qualified Immunity as a Middle Ground: The President should propose Qualified Immunity—requiring judges and prosecutors to prove they acted in good faith—as a constitutional and pragmatic alternative to Absolute Immunity. There is a need for some basic immunity in order to conduct judicial duties, but this can never again extend to the infliction of grave terror upon political opposition. The politically motivated hyperbolic narratives of criminal conduct designed to dehumanize opposition and justify all types of abuse under the color of law must never be protected.

7. International and Historical Comparisons

For those biased actors trying to still insulate themselves from their crimes by arguing Absolute Immunity is a necessity, I suggest Americans look beyond our borders to see if that’s the case in other nations. In fact, many other democratic nations hold judges and prosecutors accountable for misconduct without compromising judicial independence. The President could draw on these examples to demonstrate that accountability strengthens, rather than weakens, public confidence in the justice system.

8. Conclusion: Presidential Leadership in Promoting Accountability

While the President Trump cannot unilaterally eliminate Absolute Immunity, he can immediately waive Qualified Immunity, take actions against rogue judges using the powers of the Executive, play a pivotal role in advocating for legislative reform, influence judicial interpretation, and ensure accountability mechanisms are in place going forward. This approach aligns with constitutional principles, the rule of law, and the public’s expectation of a fair and just legal system. Justice will not be served until those that abused their authority and obliterated any faith in our judicial system are held accountable.

With hopes true justice will be realized for the persecuted.

D.t.Y.

January 26, 2025