The Supreme Court has just handed us a masterclass in judicial spin, and frankly, it is nauseating. The transcription of this morning’s news at “Tenwire” describes a world that doesn’t exist—a fantasy where the law actually applies to everyone and our highest court has the backbone to stand up to a former president. If you’ve been following the actual reality of Trump v. United States, you know that the rosy picture painted by this broadcast isn’t just a “legal loss” for Trump; it is a meticulously crafted hallucination.

The 9-0 Myth and the Reality of 6-3

The broadcast claims a “unanimous 9-0 decision” rejecting absolute immunity. Let’s be clear: that is a complete fabrication of the actual legal landscape. The real ruling delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts was a 6-3 split along blatant ideological lines. While the court technically said no one has “absolute” immunity for every single thing they do, they built a fortress of “presumptive immunity” around the presidency that is effectively the same thing.

The three liberal justices—Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—didn’t just “vote against him” as part of a unanimous block. They issued a blistering dissent. Justice Sotomayor’s words were haunting: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” To suggest this was a 9-0 victory for accountability is a staggering level of hypocrisy. It masks a decision that actually grants a president the power to use the Department of Justice as a personal hit squad, completely immune from the “reach of the criminal justice system” the transcript so proudly mentions.

The “Official Act” Loophole

The transcript suggests that the “final roadblock to prosecution” has been removed. In reality, the Court didn’t remove the roadblock; they turned it into a labyrinth. By creating a distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts, the Court has ensured that Donald Trump’s legal team can litigate every single tweet, meeting, and phone call for years.

Take the allegations involving the Department of Justice. The transcript claims the court spoke with “one voice” saying Trump can be prosecuted. The truth? The majority ruled that Trump’s interactions with the DOJ are “absolutely immune.” This means he could literally order the investigation of a political rival based on lies, and the courts cannot even look at his motives. The “chilling effect” the defense complained about isn’t on the president; it’s on the rule of law itself.

The Delay Tactic Masquerading as Urgency

There is a profound irony in the transcript’s discussion of an “expedited trial” or a “60-day window.” We are being told to watch for “indicators of urgency” while the Supreme Court did exactly what Trump needed: they waited until the very end of the term to release a decision that requires the lower courts to start the entire process over from scratch.

The “Scenario One” mentioned—a trial in July—is a pipe dream. By remanding the case to Judge Chutkan to determine which acts are “official,” the Supreme Court guaranteed that no jury will hear this evidence before the next election. It is the ultimate “political decision” disguised as a neutral legal framework. The transcript quotes legal experts like Neil Katyal and Lawrence Tribe as if the path is clear, but the reality is a muddy, bureaucratic swamp designed to let the clock run out.

A Legacy of “Loaded Weapons”

The most offensive part of this narrative is the idea that the three Trump appointees “voted against him.” They did exactly the opposite. They provided the votes to ensure that the most damaging parts of the indictment—those involving the abuse of the executive branch’s core powers—might never see the light of day in a courtroom.

This isn’t a victory for democracy; it’s a blueprint for autocracy. The “unanimous” facade mentioned in the news report is a dangerous distraction from a 6-3 reality that reshapes the presidency into a “law-free zone.” Every future president now knows they can commit crimes under the guise of “official duties” and have a high-court-mandated “golden shield” to protect them.

The path to prosecution isn’t “cleared.” It is barred by a new constitutional doctrine that prioritizes the “boldness” of a president over the safety of the republic. We are watching the institutional weight of the Supreme Court being used to delegitimize the very idea of criminal accountability.