Neal Katyal intentionally lied about Supreme Court's Trump Immunity Ruling

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal isn't a stupid man. He's just a propagandist. You don't attain the rank of U.S. Solicitor General by being stupid. Katyal is dishonest, though. The proof I have is that he intentionally mislead the American people when he said "I want to read to you from what Justice Sotomayor says at the end of her dissent. I've never seen language like this in a Supreme Court opinion. She says, quote, 'Never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.'"

First, before getting to Katyal's intentional dishonesty, let's admit that Katyal's spin came from Justice Sotomayor's spin. If all a president had to do to get away with a crime was use "the trappings of his office", then why was the indictment returned to the trial court to find out what actions were part of President Trump's actions were part of his presidential responsibilities and which actions were part of his private actions?

The additional proof that Gen. Katyal is being intentionally dishonest is in this paragraph:

I have not, and what she is signaling here it's not just about the Trump January 6th case. It's about every president who goes forward and indeed possibly Trump next year and being immune now from the criminal law to use the Justice Department in ways the court today calls "absolutely immune" to undermine elections, to go after individuals, this is a -- you know, according to the dissent, which, you know, it seems like as grave a shift in our constitutional system as any in our lifetimes.

Katyal omits the fact that the Majority opinion includes a section that talks about what isn't immune. If, for instance, Trump were to use the DOJ to undermine elections, that's covered by the section of the Constitution that deals with impeachments. I'm fairly certain that undermining elections would be considered a high crime or misdemeanor.

From Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion:

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.

Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion provides proof that Katyal's statement about a president using "the trappings of his office" to commit a crime is fiction. That isn't what the majority opinion says. Katyal isn't the only Democrat peddling this fiction. Biden repeated the same fiction in his address to the nation:

BIDEN: For all practical purposes, today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.

This virtually guarantees as fact that Democrats will run against the Supreme Court and Republicans as one and the same entity. This must be swatted aside like gnats at a 4th of July picnic. What's ironic is that Biden opens his speech saying that the presidency tests a man's strength as much as his character. Based on the majority opinion and Biden's speech, Biden fails both tests.

In the past week, Democrats have shown themmselves to have failed the test of being a party of integrity. Democrats have as much to do with integrity as polar bears have to do with the tropics. It's time to stop treating elected Democrats like they're people of integrity. I certainly won't give them the benefit of that doubt.