Roberts Asks Special Counsel Lawyer Point Blank Why SCOTUS Shouldn't 'Send Back' Trump Immunity Case
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 апр 2024
- During Thursday’s oral arguments in Trump v. United States, Chief Justice John Roberts questioned special counsel attorney Michael Dreeben about the immunity case.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
I'm really losing a lot of faith in the US justice system.
Yep, agree!
Same here...🤨
Justice, lol. The fact that anyone is even arguing that a serial criminal shouldn't be allowed to be prosecuted for any reason says all we need to know about the state of our "justice" system.
Same. Name one branch or department of government you trust. Can't think of any? Me either.
I never had faith in it to start after about age 14.
I knew this country was corrupt but i didn't think it was this bad..
traitor trump has truly made the possibility of a traitor returning to the oval office.
They are not hiding it anymore. They've always had a problem with the Constitution. It kept them from doing whatever they wanted.
Democrat control for 60+ years. RINO complicity the whole time. Liberal Religion. What do you get? Lindsay Graham. Mike Johnson. Chuck Schumer. Nancy Pelosi. Joe Biden. Mitt Romney. Kevin McCarthy. et al, ad nauseam.
Criminals running the prison {and we're in the prison}.
Now you know. Trump 2024!
@@rogerramjet6134 Trump 2024 20 years in Rikers Prison and 24 years under house arrest afterward for this traitor? LOCK UP THE CAREER CON MAN?
This shouldn't even be up for debate or even a question.
Presidents are not entirely immune
@@burtonmatterhornBut he has broken no laws either way so it is indeed a politically driven prosecution which is unconstitutional.
@@someoneelse1i1i I think he’s guilty of conspiracy to defraud the government and obstruction of official proceeding. a president shouldn’t be allowed to try to steal an election.
Maybe just my age, but I fell like I am listening to children that don't know the difference between right and wrong.
If lawsuits in bad faith are not allowed....why are they happening now? The American people are not stupid.
I think 6 of the Supreme Court Justices are not stupid either.
Right on
A person is smart, sane, and understanding. People, are stupid, illogical, and insane.
Bingo...This is the most politicized Justice Dept I have ever seen. If this case law precedent stands, it will be hazardous to all Presidents of both parties.
Because it's not in bad faith . Just because you're blind to the truth doesn't make it bad faith.
"The obligation of the president is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed"
Boy wouldn't that be nice
Unfortunately we’d need a Time Machine to make it a reality.
This country is in more jeopardy than people believe.
You mean like securing the boarders?
Wow, SCOTUS has gone off the deep end with corruption, its crazy.
@@ChesterSm-ge1hb Apparently you aren't aware Trump has said the quiet part out loud that he wants the chaos at the border to continue so he can use it to race bait conservative white voters. Which is why Trump cynically ordered MAGA Republicans in Congress to obstruct a major bi-partisan immigration reform bill that would have solved a lot of the border security issues.
“Oh, just trust us. We won’t be corrupt. We promise.”
It's the criminal justice system. Trump also must be subject to it.
@@kfrerix9777 That last thing in the world that I would associate with anything to do with Trump is "Criminal Justice", because no matter what happens, that will not the case.
@@TimBear-px9gj No man can be above the law.
@@theyux1...but Trump is.
@@theyux1 why not? Biden is!!!!
Why do you have to impeach the president first. If the person is doing wrong for the nation they should be removed and a court trial should be called for.
Who gets to define “wrong”?
@@andrewlutes2048
Grand Jury…under the Constitution
If it is good enough for the rest of us, why not for a president?
@@danporath536simple here the constitution clearly states how to take care of wrongdoing in office of president.
That is why you vote every 4 years. Oh my god.
It's be ause you would simply get a red state or a blue state (as is happening ing now) just removing a president....
I find it amazing how lawyers and judges all have to go along with the façade that the legal system is incorruptible, yet politically motivated lawyers and judges are everywhere.
Right, just look at judge Cannon !!!
Prosecutors and judges are either elected or appointed by politicians. Of course they are political
I agree with you politically motivated lawyers and judges are everywhere. I wish to add the politically government employee.
As an observer with limited legal expertise, I find it difficult to discern the readiness of the courts to adjudicate motions influenced by a prosecution's political bias or animosity. Take, for instance, the recent case involving Donald Trump in New York, where allegations of financial fraud have been raised. Media reports indicate that a New York judge ruled in favor of state Attorney General Letitia James, affirming claims that Trump and his company overstated the value of their assets, constituting fraud.
My understanding, gleaned from university education, suggests that business valuation typically hinges more on cash flow than on assets alone. While assets certainly play a role in assessing a company's worth, they are not the sole determinant, particularly when it comes to securing business loans. Financial institutions, in evaluating loan applications, prioritize cash flow as the primary indicator of a borrower's ability to repay.
To illustrate this point further, consider the analogy of gold transformed into ornamental pieces versus gold dust. In essence, the inherent value remains the same, but perception alters its worth. Similarly, Trump's investment decisions likely hinged on his belief that the properties he acquired would generate greater returns than their purchase price. Logically, sellers would not part with their assets if they did not perceive value in the transaction, underscoring the subjective nature of asset valuation.
In light of these complexities, the notion of state and government attorneys acting in good faith warrants scrutiny and clarification. Given the staggering national debt surpassing $34 trillion, it becomes imperative to define what constitutes "good faith" behavior for all government employees, not solely attorneys. The Supreme Court, therefore, may need to elucidate this concept to ensure consistent standards of conduct across governmental entities.
@@13muller9all these indictments are bogus to begin with. And none of these judges have thrown them out. But you only believe one is bad. What a joke!
If only SCOTUS would say “you people deserve to rot in prison for this. Get this shit out of our court and do not ever come back”
The term “Good Faith” is something that should never be applied to our political and legal systems. Nothing they do is done in “Good Faith.”
No it does t matter who the person is , if a suit is in bad faith it’s simply in bad faith. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
@@FoodNerds Pelosi and the mayor of DC allowed Jan 6th to happen. They refused the 19,000 NG troops that Trump ok'd in writing day before. Why did the Jan 6th committee delete evidence? Yes, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
@@FoodNerdsthe issue here is how and who will determine what is good or bad faith? The law is based on objectivity, and tries to avoid subjectivity as much as possible to avoid these types of conflicts.
Exactly. The Biden admin conspired to manipulate the evidence. That case was pure provocation.
@@mostlysunny582 I know that. In reality Trumps team has a bias. I think the SCOTUS is trying to as objective as possible.
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” - Montesquieu.
Which has no application here as there is no such thing as Immunity in the Constitution
@@emilyalice1If not then Obama and Bush can go to prison. The Supreme Court of the United States found in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that the president has absolute immunity from civil damages actions regarding conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.
The more you persecute Trump the more popular he will become. Haven't you realized that yet? What has worked besides cheating in 2020. You're cheating now with election interference and TYRANNY!.
how about whoever asked these kind of questions should NOT be on the highest judicial seat of the Land??!! what a moronic bunch
Hes saying he trusts prosecutors to so the right thing? How many innocent people are rotting in prison at this very moment due to crooked prosecutors?
That was basically the foundation of his argument. We the people can trust the DOJ not to be political. And he was on the russia mueller team that Special Prosecutor Durham showed to be a sham and motivated politically by the people in charge of the Hillary Russia hoax investigation. There are even more examples of the DOJ violating the constitution going back decades. That lawyer is a good laugh.
So a president can commit crimes at will because of this? Do you even hear yourself?
Crime is defined by the winner.
@@cleverusername1894: so do we prosecute Barack Obama for taking out four Americans with drone strikes and Joe Biden for taking out a whole family of 10 including seven children by an errant drone strike in Kabul?
@cleverusername1894 if the president does something wrong the congress can vote to impeach and remove them within one hour. Your pretending like the framers did not put checks and balances in. They did. Stop trying to change what they put in place.
How can they lie so easily man? They wipe their asses with the so called oaths
Lol...no kidding. Couldn't have said it better myself. (Well, maybe I could have, but I didn't...)
That's your American BAR Association for ya there the real Criminals here.
Well said…!
That's what the 2nd and 3rd years of law school are for. Remember, you can get a Juris Doctor in 5 years.
They want to rewrite the constitution pretty soon you’ll be called the Americas not a republicans
This case should have been brought and resolved three years ago!
The government wasn't done figuring out all the details of their frame job at that point.
They seem to be more concerned with safeguards to protect a president who breaks the law rather than safeguards for the country against a President who would break the law.
Lies
@@philj4881Obvious truth
Obama and Biden are two of the most corrupt presidents in history and you are one of the most biased people in history.
We're from the government and we are here to help. We have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.
The Ken Paxton defense.
Bill Barr's motto.
very well said
Ronald Regan's quote is in reference to big government.
Words spoken by Trump himself.
In the US legal system, only non-attorneys get punished for lying & violating oaths 😢
Does it mean attorney is above the law?
Oh you mean like the oath that defendant Trump took?
Clinton was disbarred
@@CheongheiBill Clinton was disbarred
You've never been to family court I see.....
This is not the country I once knew. SCOTUS are from some other planet.
Roberts is right - the lower court did NOT attempt to define what criminal acts were excusable and which were not. BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY EXCUSABLE CRIMINAL ACTS. So SCOTUS could very well send it back - unaltered, and in full accordance with the lower courts' rulings.
What criminal acts.. ? Oh ya, none.
@@earlelkins9086 Election interference, pay attention.
So you would agree that President Obama should be prosecuted for using a drone to target an American citizen without any due process?
@@earlelkins9086 bravo, award winning argument right there! 😂 if only I too could see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and act without evil. Man you are totally not a fool haha. Brains cells on you.. ? Oh ya, none.
@@earlelkins9086 Currently - and that's only currently, ignoring all past criminal charges - the man is under indictment for 82 separate criminal charges. EIGHTY-TWO. And you're ignorant enough to just wave that away? Despicable.
An oath is only as solid as the honor of the taker. If a dishonorable person speaks it. It is as solid as smoke.
Plus most of these characters did NOT take a legitimate oath!
Hence why it is a bad idea to give presidents 100% immunity. Unless your concerns mean we should just ditch democracy entirely. Which seems to be the popular opinion on here.
"Prosecutors take an oath. The Attorney General takes an oath."
The President also takes an oath. And the whole contention here is that he may violate his oath. Why should we assume they won't as well?
trump obviously tried to overthrow the gov't, the rule of law, the transition of power. he absolutely broke his oath of office. he belongs in jail.
@@zacangerHe never broke his oath. The criminals you worship break it every day, including this prosecutor.
@@Skyblade12 laughable. He admitted dereliction of duty, publicly, more than once.
The corrupt President, having violated his oath, will force his subordinates to violate theirs. “I was just following orders”.
@@Skyblade12 Can you give an example? That is of both 1. a thing that he has done that is criminal and 2. the exact crime that is, with the relevant law. Otherwise please don't make inflammatory comments like this that betray your clear bias.
Far out. A UK or Australian barrister would wipe the floor with these Justices.
The only thing 'Far out' is your logic and any comparison to the issue at hand.
UK and Australia are authoritarian regimes and as an American military veteran (Officer) I am against defending Australia from China in the event that would become necessary. Have a great day.
SCOTUS needs to decide upon a method that does NOT rely on the good faith of the Justice Department.
It’s called a grand jury which is even worse because the prosecutor can present anything he wants, exclude exculpatory evidence and as we’ve seen threaten witnesses with long sentences fir crime to be determined if they don’t co operate. Maybe SCOTUS. Should be looking at stripping qualified immunity from prose and government actors who act in bad faith.
The SCOTUS is refusing to apply the law in the actual facts of this case. Instead, they are labouring under semantics without regard for their own precedents and, the trump appointed judges and conservative judges are deliberately refusing to pass any judgement but instead are displaying absolutely breathtaking cowardice by sending this back without any definitive sense of justice or application of the laws ,specifically for this case.The facts are that trump was warned repeatedly to hand back the classified documents but instead he lied, then stalled then hid the documents in blatant disregard and complete disdain for the law.This was not a role of his governmental duties, nor was it in the interests of the nation to hide that fact.Indeed ,he acted purely for his own benefit in order to hide his criminal action and stained the oath of the office he held.No one ,particularly those who are in elected positions, are above the law.
SCOTUS doesn’t get to decide the law and methods. They exist only to decide if the law or ruling is constitutionally valid. There are different branches of government for a reason.
Or maybe SCOTUS needs to quit playing partisan politics, admit that Trump committed acts publicly that certainly SEEM to have violated the law, and that the proper place to decide that is in front of a jury.
And no, this isn't going to keep happening, and yes, Trump did commit those acts in public (or he was recorded). To me, it certainly seems like he incited an insurrection, that phone call sounded like he was asking for thousands of votes to be created, it sounds like there was a conspiracy to push false electors to interfere with the actual, legal process, and he sounds like he was in a conpiracy to fake records and pay off Stormy Daniels because he was afraid some people who support him while claiming to be Christian might have been offended if it came out.
Does that mean all those things are true? No. But I'd say we've already seen enough evidence that a jury needs to decide the facts of the case, not the Supreme Court decide the President is immune to the laws he's supposed to enforce.
The ONLY thing that will be acceptable from SCOTUS is a test to decide if an action is official or not.
@@deviouskris3012 SCOTUS decides if a law is going to stand or be struck down, technically they do decide the law itself their sole job.
We both acknowledge EVERY branch has corruption.
Yes.
A qualitative analysis is easy. Does corruption exist? Yes.
The more difficult and important consideration is the quantitative analysis, how much of this thing exists?
@@phebelle04 beyond imagination.
Drwbwn to Roberts..."Are you saying you don't have faith in the judicial system as it has been for over 200 years?"
WE HAD A REVOLUTION TO OUST A KING
When I accepted my recent promotion (Director), I asked my predecessor why he was leaving. (We had a working experience going back 12 years)
He replied stone straight faced, “people are so fucking stupid”
And I have found that to transcend all vocations, industries, institutions, and cultures. At 35 I changed careers to avoid having stupid people on my team that I didn't choose, and I couldn't fire. I'm 62 now and I think they will inherit the earth.
Anyone out there know what "totalogical" is? My spelling is probably bad.
It usually takes about 40-50 years for most Americans to grow up.
@@donaldmaxie5264 A tautology is a statement that presents a definition as truthful. It's a stipulation, not a statement about things or relationships that can be checked out as true or false. Tautologies are always 100% true b/c they are circular. Using the term here is a criticism.
@@donaldmaxie5264Tautological means circular reasoning, as in, we know the prosecutor acts in good faith because he acts in good faith.
They don't support EXACTLY what theyre doing
The prosecution attorney had a poor presentation with false “assumptions” - SCOTUS will hopefully and appropriately refer back to the kneee jerk politicized appellate court 😅
If it's a crime than it's Not a official duty. It's a crime. And also conduct unbecoming a officer, Commander and Chief,so ya term limits for SCOTUS Now.
"Prosecutors will always act in good faith" HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaha and prosecutions are " not going to be politically motivated" also ha ha ha aha ah ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaha ha. really
😂😂😂😂 😂
You got a kick out of that line too.
😂”Believe All Prosecutors” is what he’s saying. He sounds like a Bugs Bunny character.
you know, if someone but the good faith to trump. who also took a oath, that would be sad
As an observer with limited legal expertise, I find it difficult to discern the readiness of the courts to adjudicate motions influenced by a prosecution's political bias or animosity. Take, for instance, the recent case involving Donald Trump in New York, where allegations of financial fraud have been raised. Media reports indicate that a New York judge ruled in favor of state Attorney General Letitia James, affirming claims that Trump and his company overstated the value of their assets, constituting fraud.
My understanding, gleaned from university education, suggests that business valuation typically hinges more on cash flow than on assets alone. While assets certainly play a role in assessing a company's worth, they are not the sole determinant, particularly when it comes to securing business loans. Financial institutions, in evaluating loan applications, prioritize cash flow as the primary indicator of a borrower's ability to repay.
To illustrate this point further, consider the analogy of gold transformed into ornamental pieces versus gold dust. In essence, the inherent value remains the same, but perception alters its worth. Similarly, Trump's investment decisions likely hinged on his belief that the properties he acquired would generate greater returns than their purchase price. Logically, sellers would not part with their assets if they did not perceive value in the transaction, underscoring the subjective nature of asset valuation.
In light of these complexities, the notion of state and government attorneys acting in good faith warrants scrutiny and clarification. Given the staggering national debt surpassing $34 trillion, it becomes imperative to define what constitutes "good faith" behavior for all government employees, not solely attorneys. The Supreme Court, therefore, may need to elucidate this concept to ensure consistent standards of conduct across governmental entities.
Based on this discussion, is ignoring a Supreme Court ruling about student loans considered to be "faithfully executing his duties"? Is the Ignorer-in-Chief immune from being prosecuted while still in office?
No one is ignoring a Supreme Court ruling about student loans - no matter what lies conservative media tells you.
Or even after. Contempt of court
But Brandon has PTSD from his uncle getting eaten in WW2 by cannibals, if I recall correctly!
And special counsel Hur, investigating his illegal stealing of classified US documents as a Senator, said that Joe is too demented and feeble to be prosecuted.
@@_NoHandle_I still owe my student loans, so I really don’t understand what FOX News is on about. No one is cancelling my debt. It is obviously only some certain demographic of ‘Special People’
These same people can get away with defaulting on home loans yet keep the house and so on. It’s all political.
The ruling was not ignored. Texas, Alabama, and a number of other states have ignored supreme court rulings repeatedly, why are they not being prosecuted?
Then he should ask why the supreme Court took it up in the first place,
Their answer would have been.
The SCOUTS has to find a way to protect.... Justice Ginnie Thomas.
If Supreme Court is considering sending this back to lower court why did they take it? To help their fellow criminal, of course.
The Supreme courtNeeds to Stop it, Throw it out.
to save trump and to turn us into a dictatorship?
"Good faith " only applies to honest people, in this case does not.
It only applies to people who believe the statement that all men are equal in the "eyes" of God.
Good faith is like saying "I believe in an afterlife, I have faith".
Nothing about Trump speaks to “Good faith”
There is no such thing as Immunity in the Constitution. The problem is SCOTUS playing olitics. Your lack of legal knowledge is embarrassing.
@@emilyalice1 Stuff doesn't have to be in the constitution to be valid, boy. We are a legal system based upon "common law" and "precedents".
You might want to ask Mr. google about this. IF you can find him...
Yea TRUST ME! We would never go after a president for purely political purposes!
That's a big bunch of BS
Wow. What a great discourse. Thanks again, Forbes.
Who decides what is legal, the opposition party?
The legislature.
The laws
Only Democrat party activists get to decide.
@@blshouse There's no such organization as the "Democrat party." When used as an adjective, the word is democratic, as in the "Democratic Party."
The real answer is judges. Not laws, not the legislature, and CERTAINLY not the people.
They have got to be joking. They're worried about following law when they've stomped all over the law for seven years. Longer than that really.
"Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right trial by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge." Duncan vs Louisiana. its the jury system thats the bedrock of the justice system and a pillar of democracy. If you dont have faith in your peers time to move out.
This guys voice is so painful
Not as bad as Biden!
As are _his_ arguments.
Wally Cox
Wally Cox
Is it a guy?
If they don't give immunity..may we charge them ALL....past and Present!!
A coup is not an official duty. No immunity
They’re throwing Biden under the bus! He’s violating his oath and duty every day! Paying off school loans after the Supreme Court has deemed it illegal, and flying illegal aliens into this country from their home countries! (I won’t even get into his trouble with Hunter), As soon as he’s not president, will they charge him with these crimes? Will future presidents be scared to death to make a call about anything for fear of later prosecution? They are opening a giant can of worms here that they may never be able to get the top back on! All in a desperate attempt to remain in power despite a terrible performance by their party. Will every republican from now on be prosecuted if they run for office? Is that how they plan to stay in control? I can’t believe the court has to even hear this nonsense and pretend to be serious. And the worst part is we don’t know if sanity will prevail?
So Biden can “remove” trump and have total immunity!! Problem solved!!
If they committed major crimes outside of their duties as president, yes. The founding fathers certainty didnt grant immunity for dictator-like actions.
@@CelexanomnomThe coup was orchestrated by Nasty PillsMostly. The DOD presented EVIDENCE that exonerates Trump from planning January 6th. The same evidence INCRIMINATES Nancy Pelosi. She chaired the farcical J6 Committee that DESTROYED the evidence that would have exonerated Trump much sooner. The entire J6 Committee will be indicted for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!!
The President should lead by example.
What part of that don't people understand?
Attorney needs to learn how to read the whole law not just the part he wants to. Corruption at its best.
Why are they so incapable of issuing obvious rulings? I think if you asked 5 year old children across the country they intrinsically know the answer to this question - just like the rest of us.
The tyranny of allegation is not the rule of law.
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” - Montesquieu.
Immunity = allegations have nowhere to go. Tyranny of immunity?
These are great sentiments but irrelevant here. Evidence is present in this case.
@@gemanscombe4985 You bet! We are going to prosecute Biden when he is out. Count on it.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word allegation, it appears you're not aware what it means. If you want allegations, look no further than the GOPs steadfast insistence Biden profited from foreign businesses.
How many American Presidents have NEEDED a blanket immunity. This concept is absolutely ridiculous!
Well none, but that’s because they operated by the gentlemen’s agreement to move on and not turn our country into a 3rd world war zone of political persecution. But since that ship has now sailed thanks to the Trump indictments, we now have to have court rulings. What a world.
@@artandarchitecture6399 Yet only one has ever asked for it. Make of that what you will.
*Want* does not mean the same thing as *Need* does...
I bet you would change your tune when they prosecuted Obama in Alabama!
It seems all president's so far have done fine without immunity save for Nixon and trump...
Wow, this is a judge trying to find a way to let his guy wiggle out of trouble. He already agreed that if the president breaks the law even in an official act you should be held accountable. He then goes on to undermine his very own judicial system with bullshit banter. The presidents job is to uphold the law then he clearly should be held to that very standard.
The justice department judge shops until they find a politically friendly judge,then cherry picks what to present to a grand jury.There are no safeguards.
Of course, a government lawyer would never breach his public trust by pursuing a political prosecution. What are you suggesting?
I am suggesting a complete compromise by a demographic that uses prismatic light as their symbol and their partner demographic uses the slogan,”By any means necessary”
If you know you know
If I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.
I assume this is sarcasm.
LOL
@@tykemorris I am sure that it is. That's the way I read it.
If a politicians breaks the law they still need to be prosecuted according to the law
This lawyer is a CLOWN.
And your in a cult
please explain.
@@DiannaLora Do your own research.
@@LordFardCry-ck3si and you are its chief ring leader
This SCOTUS IS BLASPHEMOUS
THEY SHOULDN'T BE HEARING THIS CASE!!
Prosecutors are charged with dispensing justice, not convictions. Most of them fail to remember that.
So far, I can’t find a single word that provides immunity from the law for US Presidents. Not one. I’d sure love these judges to show me one.
So Biden who withheld a billion dollar loan until a prosecutor got fired would be liable? We have him on tape and video." Son of a bitch, he got fired". Oh my bad, he was only Vice President so he gets a pass.
LOL, you can't find any single word. 😅😅😅😅
What about the Impeachment process...
Me also, but they aren't even speaking about what the case Is about.
@@robertmadison1205not a criminal court or in the constitution on prosecution. So no that argument has no merit.
Best statement in this hearing is at the 3:37 mark. "the idea of taking away immunity. There is NO IMMUNITY that is in the Constitution, UNLESS this court CREATES IT TODAY!"
You have clearly never read any founding documents or the founding fathers.
What is this thing called “qualified immunity” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
@@countpiculaIt doesn’t matter what the founding fathers wrote in their documents. These documents are not the rule of law but, the US Constitution is
@@user-pm4jb2iy6yBS
The constitution is open to interpretation in many regards. Having the framers offer meaning and direction is invaluable to how the constitution is interpreted.
@@tigo01 All of the immunity references are to COURT decisions, NOT THE CONSTITUTION!
the DO Injustice opinion is irrelevant to the Supreme Court - his is biased and so far he only argues based on psychology and word monger and not rule of law and constitution
---- < The 1973 OLC opinion that a SITTING president can't be indicted doesn't apply to a former president. However, it is a rule and not a Constitutional provision or a law. It should be revoked but only the DOJ can do that.
With four cases being brought simultaneously, it’s hard to keep straight
from which case this arose.
If insider trading is against the law, why do our politicians get to do it?. It's an obvious conflict of interest to start with by passing legislation that affects corporations that they have the ability to determine success or failure with. That's why we end up with so many politicians that are millionaires amongst other things.
The lawyer is saying the President can be prosecuted. The prosecution depends entirely upon the "good faith" of the prosecutor. Is that not what he said? The Chief Justice is saying, that is not the law. The Chief Justice is saying the court of appeal must "get into the questions _what_ acts are we talking about? _What_ documents are we talking about?" The Court of Appeal simply said, what counts for us is merely the _fact_ the Government chooses to prosecute. It is not our concern to examine the predicate for the prosecution."
@@jumpinjackflash3111 It's tricky. First it is a case of first impression. Never been done before. Second, Bragg is charging Trump with a NY Penal Law which makes it a misdemeanor to not accurately state the purpose of the checks you write from your personal business register. (But, you must do this with the "intent to defraud" someone.) Then, Bragg is saying, if Trump did this with the criminal intent to commit another crime, the NY Penal Law increases the penalty to a felony.
It is at the second leap Bragg is making that it appears he is invoking the Federal Election Campaign Law of 1971, to argue, by hiding from the public his "bad" chararcter, to enhance his chance of election, Trump violated the Federal Law. This is, in fact and law, pure silliness. But, it also appears, Bragg has a fall back position to another NY Penal Law that he may ultimately rest his case on for the concept of turning a misdemeanor into a felony. So, it is only NY voters who are the subject of Trump's "Fraud," not the voters of the United States. Again, a case of first impression for the appellate courts to deal with.
Whether you like, or hate Trump, what the Democrats have been doing with their prosecutions in court, we can bet the Republicans will return the favor with Biden. Do we want this behavior between political parties to become part of our daily routine as a Nation?
@@joeryanstrialbook2005 nice try, but wrong conclusions based on wrong opinions.
@@joeryanstrialbook2005If the Democrats are successful in their attempt to defeat Trump through lawfare, never again will a Republican be allowed to run for President and the donkey party would succeed in turning our country into a Marxist Dictatorship.
Never been convicted of anything to do with Jan 6th
@@chanceamandageee157 why did trump use the 5th over 400 times when he was questioned in during a deposition before lawyers from New York Attorney General Letitia James' office in its probe into the Trump Organization's business practices.
Sounds like Hermey the Elf quit his job as a dentist on the isle of misfit toys and became the special counsel arguing this case.
That's hilarious. The only problem is if you aren't over 50 or 60, you don't know the reference.
I needed that, thank you too friggin funny 😊
He is after the elusive Trumple with his friend Yukon Jack Corneilus Smith.
They won't catch the Trumple!
Welcome to Dictatorship. Checks and Balances no longer exist. Period.
Perfect analogy of the criminal elf
At the end it sounded like the prosecutor was saying "while in office" he is immune but once out of office doesn't even have the protections a congressman would have
So when are lawyers who knowingly defend “ guilty” people and get them off held to account?
@@kennethstreet5734 non sequitur much?
Last week senators were debating conduct of scotus corruption. They should be above reproach integrity man peace
The Supreme Court didn’t have to take this case and there was no good reason for them to take it they could’ve just held up the courts decision
Hey slick, did you ever take a Civics class? But I do agree the Supreme Court shouldn't have took this case, they should have thrown it out with no arguments heard. The President is a co-equal branch. End of Story. The rest is just a farce from media. The mechanism is called Impeachment, and since the lowlife dems failed twice it is over. Unless you think it's okay to prosecute a former president for crimes in office... Obama killed innocent civilians, Bush Jr put us in a fake WMD war with Iraq, Clinton attacked an aspirin manufacturer in Sudan, Johnson faked an attack on Navy warships -Gulf Of Tonkin, and the list goes on and on. But Trump never got us into war. Makes your argument sound weak as hell.
I hope so.
Unless the conservative judges just want to draw things out with stupid questions and hypothetical situations so that Trump doesn't face trial BEFORE the November election.
That's one reason I can think of for why SCOTUS took this case.
Why is no one mentioning the pandemic and how the circumstances of immediate change in voting norms were all urgently changed?
OF COURSE IT SHOULD BE QUESTIONED.
What in particular are you referring to?
@Iluvpie6 For starters, you living under a rock apparently.
States changed voting circumstances b/c the vaccine was not ready and wouldn't have gotten to enough people if it had been. Covid was a real threat. Believing otherwise does not convince viruses to go away.
@@Berserker006amazing how these concerns disappear under scrutiny, almost as though the people who perpetuate them are relying on the ignorance of their followers.
What does that have to do with this case?
I didn’t know that the president of the university in Teheran had such a sense of humor, but I heartily agree with him. I believe that he made a sincere offer and we should back him up on it. I have been making similar suggestions for a long time.
The Justice Department’s angle on this reminds me of a frustrated parent responding to kids who asks why. “Because I said so!” Chronological 😆
Prosecutor's take a oath ? Someone need's to tell that to Fanni !!!
What part of the oath did she violate? I am only aware of one possible occasion where she did something that could be considered unethical, and it was a case from a long time ago, way before the trump case.
@@Iluvpie6i guess you were fkn sleeping thru the trial. She needs to be disbarred and put in the slammer for 20yrs with no parole
supreme court is laying the smack down on these clowns
really you need to watch more Law and Order, hes busted every story line they are pushing,
@@diegojines-us9pc Not the case. Murder or theft is obviously outside the immunity scope. Everything that is within the scope of Presidential functions, even remotely, is covered by immunity ... to allow presidents to perform activities ... even after they leave office
@@diegojines-us9pc read a book he wins this hands down only a fool would think other wise
@markcredit6086 At least the actual intelligent justices (conservatives) seem to understand the constitution. The liberal justices seem unbelievably ignorant of the constitution and completely politically biased. I wouldn't be surprised if the decision on this is split along party lines.
5/9 of SCOTUS *are* clowns.
To bring this before the courts is simple BS
@Forbes - thanks for posting. Good to listen to source material without editorial opinion.
A political prosecution would be the only reason why a former president would be brought up on charges. Never in a million years would the same party bring charges against a former president of their own party. The arguments against immunity are ridiculous and self serving.
@kevinpohlner2840 the argument for immunity is ridiculous and self serving. Presidents have never needed immunity before because they were presidents while in the office, unlike trump who is a life long con man and criminal
You don't see that Trump took it too far? Similar to Nixon... just too far. One man crime machine attracting massive number of like-minded people to join him in crime. Criminal minds gotta crime.
I see you're a resident of Fantasyland.
You know the R's went to Nixon and told him they will impeach? That's why he resigned. And guilty men take pardons
It's sickening that people will let other people who commit crimes off the hook because of politics. It's self serving
“The arguments against immunity are ridiculous and self-serving.” Do you even hear yourself? Nobody, NOBODY should get absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. You can run the country without breaking the law; powerful people make high-stress and widely impactful and controversial decisions all the time with the full understanding that if they commit CRIMES, they can go to JAIL. A president has ample resources to put into his own defense if needed, which should be sufficient deterrent against unfounded prosecutions, but if they LEGITIMATELY COMMIT A CRIME, there should be LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. Impeachment is not a legal consequence, it’s WAY more political than our legal system, and it is stupidly insufficient to address this issue.
This special counsel sounds like a sniveling child
He sure thinks we’re stupid
He also was in the Biden Administration's DOJ before joining this case.
@@albundy7623You clearly lack critical thinking skills Bundy
@@BlackrainOrdinancebut he scored 4 touchdowns in one game!!!
Classic maga. Can't win an argument so attack a characteristic and bully... just like Jesus right?
Why are the SC justices ignoring the real questions and the DC appeals decision. To suggest that a grand jury the DA and the judge is basically corrupt all at the same time is ridiculous and doesn't address the question of absolute immunity. This sounds like judicial activision and legislation from the bench. What a horrible precedent to set at the highest court in the land.
You can look at the polls and clearly see your interpretation is not the common one. Majority of people feel this is persecution and law fair where the only reason he’s being indicted is for political reasons. It’s just the opposite of what you started. The DA being corrupt and trying to take out a political opponent is the reason for the prosecution is the most logical reason and the one most excepted by the general community as being correct
So we should trust prosecutors and not the president or congress who is responsible for impeachment when the president is following his oath of office.
What a COLOSSAL waste of time !
Imagine having to listen to that voice all day. 😵💫
Can’t argue his facts so you make fun of his character. You must be a great parent
@@Mazilllllol you're butthurt. Keep it up soiboi.
@@Mazillll Ask ur mom and then cry some more
Two parties, the defendant and the advocate of the people. Who the hell does Jack Smith represent ???
So here is his argument…. All prosecutors and attorney generals are people of good faith and would never use their power without good cause …. Man oh man ….
I love how they say it's not political but majority of the people see it as polictical lol
So, politicians should be exempt from prosecution because it's too political?
So what the Republicans are saying all of you want a dictator correct?
@larryrowe5259 you know why I feel people who think like you need medical help???it's because nobody say they Trump should be exempted but if you think Joe biden,Obama and George Bush who committed worse crimes should have a pass then you are the problem of America,a special counsel just said Joe biden committed a crime but he's too old to face trial,so the fact that you don't have a problem with all that,Hillary destroying all these evidence but you want to see Trump face trial so bad then you part of the problem America have today
I doubt that. As far as I can tell, most people believe Ttump to be guilty of a quite staggering variety of crimes and expect him to be held accountable for his actions
this case is ridiculous! why are they even wasting time...
exactly this is just to waste time
trump obviously tried to overthrow the gov't, the rule of law, the transition of power. he absolutely broke his oath of office. he belongs in jail.
"the court is supreme because the court says its supreme" is the very kind of argument that John Roberts seems to be pushing back on here. Be careful what you wish for John. You just might get it.
When someone mentions the things that they are not doing, before they are actually accused of doing them, there doing them.
Gotta Love Chief Justice Roberts.....
...maybe
Good faith = corruption
Blank check
Justice Robert makes a great point.
Supreme Court needs to be re-made
Before listening to the video my answer would be, "why didn't you do that in the first place?" If the court does that, they are just playing games and stalling for time.
So if you are calling into question how the justice system works, and its not good for the President, why is every other citizen subjected to it?
Yes. All the way through this there is de facto admission that the system fails a lot. What they are now saying is that because the system fails a lot a President can't be subject to it. Which begs the question why everyone else *is* subject to it.
Thats true, but, you have to admit that Trump is so hated politically that it drove his enemies to use lawfare to destroy him.
Great Question!
THE WRITTEN LAW : "Up is down" , Black is white , Clear is cloudy ; 'Guilty equals appeal = Delay = 'Rinse and Repeat ' .
… presidents also take an oath.
Sure a grand jury only hearing prosecution.. I'm extremely happy roberts pointed to the ham sandwich indictment .
There is a difference between Lawful Procecution and Political Proceceution
trump obviously tried to overthrow the gov't, the rule of law, the transition of power. he absolutely broke his oath of office. he belongs in jail.
Trump is indicted by a grand jury… several times over…the evidence in the Stormy Daniels case is overwhelming. it is unbelievably corrupt, what he did. He paid the national inquiry to purchase all bad stories about him and not publish them. He paid off the witnesses with Michael Cohen’s home line of credit. He then paid Michael Cohen back by saying it was his normal salary. He has continued to lie about it. He’s going to jail and he deserves it.
Nope both misspelled nonsense.
and trump is being lawfully prosecuted. remember, he's the guy who paid a $25,000,000 fine in 2017 for his trump "U" fraud. paid a $2,000,000 fine in 2019 for stealing from a charity.
@@paulhowell4316 have a nice day
Why did they take it in the first place? They’re selfish and despicable!
They did it to make you even more upset...
Because they’re spineless and tRump says they better if they know what’s good for them!!!
Roberts - wolf in sheeps clothing. ❤️🙏
They're going to send it back to the lower court.
Yes, because if they rule on it now, Trump can't be a candidate, and the court desperately wants him to be a candidate.
Remember there are justices on this court that Trump put in place,
and I haven't heard anything about those justices excusing themselves,
like they should, from hearing a case about the man who gave them their job!
If SCOTUS knew they were going to 'send back' this case to the appellate court why did they wait until April 25 to do that? Why waste our time and theirs to hold hearings? This could have been done months ago. Appears to be a pretty obvious case of "delay" to me.
Why wait? Because of vanity. Waiting allows the possibility that Trump might get elected. Afterward, Chief Justice John Roberts would have an opportunity to show the world his awesome power to dictate what a sitting president can do, or not do. If Roberts directs his Court to act swiftly, Roberts can only wrangle a mere ex-president. He would miss an opportunity to show the world that the most powerful man on the planet is ... Roberts.
We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. The supreme court has to make a decision. Are they biased or not...we soon shall see.
If your opinion is that a decision favoring Trump means they are biased, I reject that notion. If your opinion is that they decide as a group that one way or the other is the correct course to take, even if it favors Trump, then we'll have to say the lawyers followed the law and the Supreme court in the land made a decision based on the facts in the case. If you think the cases brought be the DOJ with Smith are fair, you are misguided. We are just beginning to see involvement with politics and unethical (at best) behavior between the DOJ and the White House in the prosecution of Trump.
If you are not able to see that, through the words in the un-redacted documents presented in the prosecution of Trump in Florida, I'm going to ask where do you see checks and balances going on when the President of the US CAN order the prosecution of his main opponent in an election? Show me how there is fairness and balance going on in Florida, in Washington D.C., In Georgia, and in New York? All at once? Are you for real? If the Supreme Court decides that Jack Smith cannot proceed, will you think that is bias? When a Democrat get prosecuted on the same grounds, will you allow the same level of perceived persecution? I think not.
Checks and balances, I pledge no allegiance to any man. I think for myself.
This Supreme Court is biased. That’s why they were chosen.
@@gben2457 Neither do I, but there is fairness to contend with in some of this.
gben2457,Who gets to judge if their biased or not?maybe a dimocrap.I don't think so!!
Its insane to ask a question---whether a president has immunity from criminal prosecution----which has never been asked in more than two centuries. The very notiion that a citizen----our chief citizen---would be beyond the reach of the laws applicable to every other citizen is contrary to the very notion of "equal justiice under law." The threat of prosecution is a major impediment to unchecked executive power. We have gone completely through the looking glass.
Why did you take it in the first place. What is it Robert was your question “TO HARD”.