Former senior advisor to President Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, voiced vehement opposition to Judge Chutkan’s recent ruling, emphasizing the potential ramifications for presidential immunity in a scathing critique on social media.*
In the wake of the judge’s decision regarding Trump’s criminal prosecution linked to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Miller took to various platforms to express his concerns. Judge Chutkan’s ruling, reported by RawStory on Saturday, December 2, determined that the ex-president is not shielded from criminal charges based on his presidential status during the alleged misconduct.
Miller’s critique centered on the perceived radical and perilous nature of revoking the doctrine of presidential immunity. “Many likely don’t appreciate just how radical and dangerous it is to revoke the doctrine of presidential immunity,” Miller stated, underscoring the potential consequences of such a legal precedent.
More Read
The former advisor argued that this decision bestows excessive power upon individual judges, jurors, or prosecutors, potentially allowing a single far-left figure to veto the actions of a democratically-elected president. He contended that such a ruling creates an anti-constitutional and anti-democratic framework, imposing restrictions on future presidents within narrow confines.
“A President is the embodiment of the state and the voter,” Miller emphasized, asserting that holding the president liable for speech during their term could erode the sovereign authority of the American people.
According to Miller, conservatives who remain silent on these developments are neglecting to uphold the principles of the Republic. “Conservatives not speaking out against these travesties are clearly uninterested in conserving this Republic,” he stated, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
In a subsequent post, Miller raised concerns about the selective application of presidential immunity, suggesting that it could dissolve immunity for Republican officeholders. “If just one extreme partisan can dissolve the immunity, then the immunity is already dissolved,” he argued.
Drawing parallels between legal reasoning and Democrats’ stance on the First Amendment, Miller suggested a closed loop of illogic, stating, “Your rights extend only to the edge of the left’s permission.”
He concluded by expressing apprehension that Democrats might escape legal consequences for breaking election laws, while Republicans could face legal repercussions for exposing or seeking legal redress for such actions.
As legal proceedings surrounding the former president unfold, Miller’s comments underscore the broader implications of Judge Chutkan’s ruling, turning the spotlight on the complex intersection of presidential immunity, political partisanship, and the preservation of democratic principles. The ongoing legal battles continue to fuel intense debates across the political spectrum.
