The lawyer said at 1:26:31 "making a mistake doesn't lead you to criminal prosecution". This statement is absolute absurdity! Every single day people are prosecuted for unknowingly making mistakes and spend time in jail over it.
Within context, he was explaining that the laws in this category, ones that specifically allow prosecution of a president, are “malum in se”, which is to say the illegal act was not just a mistake but requires moral corruption to commit. This is in comparison to accidentally violating say the Hatch Act. That could be done with a mistake, but not the laws he is referring to.
There has to be intent to commit a crime. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter: one has malice aforethought or intention, whereas manslaughter is due to negligence without malice. People post things on these platforms knowing what they're talking about but get people to like them as factual statements.
The lower court ruled against immunity in this case, so DJT appealed it which brought it to the Supreme Court to rule on. Let's hope they see how preposterous this Absolute Immunity claim is.
As an Australian this all seems so bizarre. Surely the lawfulness and immunity of the act must be considered within its entire context. The head of state should only be able to break the law where they reasonably and in good faith believe that the act itself is absolutely necessary for the public interest. Here, the court system was the place for disputation over the election outcome, not Executive action.
They’re going after “total immunity” as a strategy to remove that line of defense. Once that is confirmed then they can go after official and non-official acts for prosecution. The second reason is for drama. They can point at Trump and accuse him of being tyrannical and accuse him of all kinds of character flaws in the media. That’s where a lot of political blood is spilled here in the good ol’ US of A. Trump is in reality asking for total immunity as it is being presented. His Team is saying he has immunity for doing Presidential things while being President. It is the prosecutors job to prove that Trump was conspiring to illegally overturn a legitimate election and that he was not acting out of the belief that he thought the election was fraudulent. So…that’s gonna be hard to do. But the drama and mud slinging is not that difficult.
American law is different than the common law ideas you cite. For eg, Under common law Immunity typically refers to legal protection from prosecution or liability, often granted to certain individuals or entities (e.g. diplomats, witnesses). Under American law it has a broader meaning, including not only legal protection but also sovereign immunity (states and federal government) and qualified immunity (government officials).
Here are some American Supreme Court cases dealing with immunity: Fitzgerald v. Nixon (1982): This case established presidential immunity precedents. The Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard Nixon was entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. Clinton v. Jones (1997): The Supreme Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial conduct. Trump v. Vance (2020): The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a president has absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas for private conduct that occurred before taking office. Trump v. Anderson: The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not block former President Donald Trump from appearing on its primary ballot. Trump v. United States: The Supreme Court is currently considering former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges related to the 2020 presidential election. Note: These cases are related to presidential immunity, but there are many other Supreme Court cases that deal with other types of immunity, such as sovereign immunity and/or qualified immunity.
I'm not sure why you would think it illegal to dispute election results. This is not uncommon in the US. A president who didn't question a likely corrupt election result would be more of a criminal in my opinion
By Article 2, the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", meaning the President must act within the law. He (at least so far, he) may not act in a criminal manner and expect to be free from future prosecution of those criminal acts after term expiration. If seeking re-election, however, a sitting President can also act in a capacity as an office seeker as well as an office holder, and this area has today become a little less grey. A President may not commit fraud as an office seeker to influence the vote -- there is also no such thing as blanket immunity or absolute immunity.
So then Biden can be prosecuted for election interference when he by fraud claimed the Hunter laptop story was made up by the Russians and the White House worked with the media and social media to help kill access to the story. Seems that’s exactly what Bragg is claiming Trump did.
Yea he is immune. Also when Obama was president and he said “I’m not going to enforce these laws” should be have been impeached there and prosecuted? As kavanaugh said what about the drone strikes on U.S. citizens? Weapons on mass Derstine in statement by bush. Can he be sued for that? What about Clinton’s indiscretions? It’s a can of worms. The idea that “this is only for him” doesn’t hold water. The dems are abusing and looking to abuse judiciary against other party. Biden when he’s does can be sued by any repub DA or state for all he’s done.
Thank you for providing this audio. . . so that We the People can continue in a clear and present comprehension of the Constitutional backbone that provides integrity and strength for our Rule of Law. Keep up the good work!
The fact that The SCOTUS didn’t immediately and unanimously decide to send this case back down to the lower court is absolutely unnerving. #perilousTimes #indeed
What would they decide? Stick with precedent and rule Trump is immune? Or make a brand new ruling against precedent that Trump isn't? Considering Presidential Immunity; which everyone acknowledges to have existed all the way up until Trump is a pretty big deal because it WILL affect all previous presidents too. If Trump isn't immune, neither is Bush, Clinton or Obama - on top of any future president. And if Trump wins and decides to relitigate Obama's Fast and Furious, Drone Strikes and funding Billions to Iran without Congressional approval - watch how fast the Democrats will argue that there is immunity all of a sudden.
@@PlaytechyNo president is immune from prosecution after they leave office and no one has ever argued that. If that was the case then why did Nixon pardon ford ie he was immune.
There shouldn’t be anything to send back down. A president is not a king. There should be no immunity for committing a crime while in office. Trump’s lawyers argued that he can’t be impeached without first being found guilty of s crime. Now they argue that he can’t be held accountable for a crime without being impeached first. Trump’s lawyer argues that other presidents can be charged for their official acts if trump is charged but all the examples he gave were presidents acting in America’s interests or at worst just being incompetent about something. Trump’s actions, were criminal and for his own benefit.
@@liquidmark5081 There is immunity for official action taken by a President in office - that isn't in contention. It needs to go down to the lower courts to decide what constitutes an official act - and then apply immunity to them. The government doesn't dispute this in any way shape or form currently. The whole purpose of Impeachment is so that the DOJ can't prosecute their command in chief - because that would make the President subservient and below the DOJ he is supposed to oversee. The example of Bush misrepresenting evidence to Congress to get permission to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been a crime if not for a very wide and broad understanding of Presidential Immunity. Same with Obama sending ballets of cash to Iran to skirt around Financial Sanctions on Iran - had anyone else done it would have been a crime, but due to presidential immunity wasn't. Biden using his office to encourage and facilitate illegal crossings would be a crime had anyone other than the president done it - if not for presidential immunity. The question isn't whether there is immunity - it is only how far it stretches and going by previous applications of it as well as OLC opinion - it is all encompassing and broad.
A PRESIDENT who RESPECTS the LAWS of the UNITED STATES does not have concerns of being charged nor have concerns of IMMUNITY. DJT's lawyer is really creating a scenario that we will NEVER OVERCOME if ANY PRESIDENT is afforded FULL IMMUNITY.
Trump was tried at first for sexual misconduct and convicted of defamation though she couldn't come up with a crime. If a woman accused you of such a thing I'm sure you would have something to say.
I cannot remember (in my 73 years) when I have been more disappointed in a group of INTELLIGENT adults than I am with those who are currently seated as this Supreme Court…Unbiased keepers of our Constitution.
@@Mimi2Two I think you want the SC to "Get Trump", constitutional or not. Presidents have always had immunity from official acts - and even the DOJ lawyer agreed to that in the end. The ONLY thing at contention is what is an official act or not and if personal acts can strip immunity away from official acts. The problem with the Left when discussing Trump - anything justifies "getting Trump". They loved Presidential immunity when the OLC used it to protect Clinton, they didn't care about it when Obama's DOJ opined that Bush was immune over the Iraq war, they will love it if it protects Biden for opening the borders against Federal statutes... But you want to throw it away for Trump. You're trying to kill a spider with a flame thrower and you're not realizing you'll burn the whole house down in doing it. Once immunity is gone; EVERY former president can (and likely WILL) be charged in retaliation and revenge, like Trump.
Why does it take so long to answer this question if NO ONE is above the law? This man stated he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and would not lose a vote. Since he feels that way, and he was elected, what stops him from the act of murder or ordering the act to be done to whomever speaks against him?
There is literally NOTHING in this situation that anyone needs to be neutral on. No president, past, present, or future, should be above the law. Blanket immunity as long as it’s deemed an “official act” is insanity.
@@bqing87 It's nothing like that. Everybody takes an oath to the Constitution. Anybody who thinks guv employees would follow such a command is not paying attention to recent events. There are plenty of safeguards, the real problem is UNELECTED officials.
----- < The Executive is vested in the President:: Article II, Section 1, clause 1. 3 U.S.C. 301(1) The power /functions of the president is VESTED IN THE LAW.& (2) nothing relieves the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of those he appoints. A violation of procedural law (like the Vote Count Act) or the commission of a crime (as in the Espionage statute) are NOT Article II duties. In this DC Election Interference case, asking VP Pence to reject lawful Certificates of Assertation was not an official duty. . . .... 3. U.S.C. . § 15(e)(1)A(ii) says, " no vote of an elector described in clause (i) which has been regularly given shall be rejected." A President must "take care to faithfully execute the law" Article II, Section 3. There is no "outside perimeter" in which a violation of federal procedural law (like the Vote Count Act), or a crime (like Willful Retention of Government Records) is an Article II duty/function. Here's the math. 1 Article II duty + 0 crime = 1 official act 1 Article II duty + 1 crime NOT= 1 official act
How?? There is a very clear vehicle to remove and then charge a US president. Its called Impeachment and then conviction in the Senate. That allows the legislative branch to check the executive and decide what is and is not official business or lawful business of the president. If this goes forward anyone future DOJ could charge a president for acts that one might argue is illegal.
@@2legit2KwitIt doesn't matter what crimes are committed. If a president commits a crime, then he should be prosecuted regardless. Leave your political beliefs out from the law.
The impeachment scenario is incredibly dangerous. The historic flip flop of partisan members in Congress would make the possibility of an unbiased impeachment laughable. We've already seen this in action.
Great question! 👍🏾…and if he doesn’t have absolute immunity and Trump claims he cannot do the job of president (properly) without absolute immunity? Then why does he want to be president?
❤❤❤i agree but when your job is to steal, you can't be honest ! When you look at the so-called justice gorsuch and Kavanagh and thomas, you can easily understand why they have been appointed !❤❤❤❤
This will be a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump. The case will be remanded to the District Court to determine which charges are official and which ones are not. Then, after Trump’s inaugurated, he will pardon himself and the legality of his own pardon will once again be before the court.
Gorsuch is attempting to interject immunity as "shorthand." No. Definitely, no. Once you interject a word into a discussion, it becomes part of the discussion. You cannot do an end run around the middle to rename stuff just because you want to do so. It should be MORE than obvious to anyone with half a brain the difference between an "official" and "personal" act. This is a circus! Alito has clearly chosen his position, as has Gorsuch. There is a presuposition that this is a strictly "political oppositional" case.
Alito, Gorsuch, etc, they are part of a movement in this country to eliminate the constitution and establish a "strong man led christian theocracy" in its place. The organization they are a part of, publicly announced a desire to eliminate the 1st amendment, among others. This was a decades long effort, and in years past, their documents show that all their efforts was about a controlling SCOTUS, from there, that is the key to victory for them.
But the democrats have also already made up their minds. Jackson had a point of view and everything she did was to further that point of view - which is Trump has zero immunity. She then adopted the language of the Prosecution to suggest he shouldn't be immune - proving that she picked her side. Instead of tacitly stating the facts of the case, she deliberately interjected incendiary language that the prosecutors want to use. An example of this; she stated Trump send "FAKE ELECTORS" or "FRAUDULENT ELECTORS" - that hasn't been proven in the case that they would be deemed fake or fraudulent to indicate some form of criminality, in fact when Democrats did the exact same thing in Florida in 2000, they called it an "Alternate Slate of Electors" - which is what Defense called it too. So why all of a sudden does Jackson take the side of using the prosecutors descriptive incendiary language against a defendant deemed to be innocent until proven guilty? The Conservative Justices were the only ones asking questions and listening to the answers; Jackson constantly interrupted Sauer as soon as he was saying something she didn't already agree with. This is the problem with the far-left wing Marxist Justices, their minds are made up on virtually every issues - which is why they vote with the Democrat side of EVERY issue, while the Republican nominated Justices constantly break rank and vote based on the matter at hand, not political lines.
The DOJ Lawyer described that the President has immunity for official presidential acts - while naming it all kinds of different things. Gorsuch pointed that out; he described immunity and was unable to distinguish what he described from immunity. So the argument isn't IF the president has immunity - both sides agreed that he does. It is only what constitutes an official act and if a private act can strip the immunity from an official act.
The ads have made this almost impossible to listen to. 9 minutes in and I've had 5 ads that ran for over 3 minutes EACH TIME. Please reconsider how you use ads on this channel. Getting to hear the oral arguments before the Supreme Court are too important to be sidelined by ads. Note: Just got another one at 12:11 minutes in; for arguments that are almost 3 hours long that's just nuts to have that many ads. I'll find a way to listen to this elsewhere. C-SPAN, do better!
Some of the judges just made my blood boil, the prosecutor should have just ask a counter question "your honour, if a sitting president just happens to unalive some innocent American children with a firearm by firing a gun a middle school for no reason, do you still think we can't charge him because he has immunity " presidential immunity has to have a limit
Are you being serious right now? What a stupid thing to write out. Did you think you were clever saying this? There's a reason you're bagging groceries for a living, and not practicing law. This statement is so absurdly stupid that I couldn't imagine it was even made in jest.
That would have been a very weak argument. It's a good thing you weren't up there because you certainly would've done a far weaker job defending his position. And I think the DOJ person had to bend his position at the end because it was indefensible.
Do you really think making an argument easily defeated which relies on NO LAW and only emotion is compelling at all? This is the problem with the left; they rely only on emotion they couldn't care less about justice, law or fairness. They certainly don't like the constitution. Is murder an "Official Act" of the office of the Presidency? No. Thus it is NOT IMMUNE. No one is suggesting that would have been immune. Sauer made that very clear that it only relates to OFFICIAL ACTS as president, not PERSONAL ACTS.
They aren't. No one said that. A president can be impeached and upon conviction immunity is removed. A president also cannot expect immunity for private actions (Although the OLC's original opinion was Clinton had immunity relating to the Starr report, even non-official acts). And how the Democrats have weaponized the legal system to target Trump to hamper his 2024 election proves there absolutely needs to be some protection, especially after leaving office. The fact that this has gotten to the supreme court is the same reason why it is also needed.
The Judicial branch isn't designed to have power over the Executive branch. They're supposed to be co-equal. Just as Congress isn't designed to have power over the Executive branch and the only way they could do it is by getting 2/3rd in impeachment which would almost always require the President's own party's votes and consent to do it.
The scotus KNOWS THAT EX 45 is GUILTY of all the charges brought against him in these cases. So the only thing they will do to further help him, after all the delaying, is to say he has immunity in… the world is watching & waiting to see how they frame it. SMH
New York State charges of POTUS CAUSING CROWD ELEGAL ENTRY AND DAMAGES AT 7:54 THE USA CAPITAL. ❤POTUS HAS NO LAWFUL POWER TO ORDER ANYONE TO TAKE THE ABOVE ACTIONS.
The Constitution is founded on the Rule of Law that includes no person is above the law, and all are equal before the law. This dates back to Magna Carta, so this whole concept of immunity is in direct conflict with the Constitution.
This is the problem. Instead of allowing for du process folks like you just want to call someone guilty and be done with it. I am sure you would never want that for yourself...right?
@@MrRjsnowden I would normally totally agree with you, and this is like the foundation of foundations. This is the bedrock underneath of the foundation of our country. No one is a king 👑 full stop, 🛑 And someone brought up earlier in this thread it’s good to have it on the books so we don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court again to rule on it should it ever happen again.
Arguably it could be brilliant he is just wasting as much time as possible, and assuming judge bias is already set in stone. Just take a whole year talking
Not yet it isn't, the end cycle of democracy is Ceaserism, always has been, founders made it a constitutional republic for a reason to avoid democracy as much as possible
@@BB-rh2ml Just a Republic not everyone could even vote at first you had to own land. Your voting rights can be taken away just not due to race sex and a couple other factors.
@@wandajohnson8225 A Representative Democracy where not everyone could vote so they included an Electoral College so they could run up a population count but not give everyone the right to vote. Your right to own firearms can also be taken away.
@@BB-rh2ml A Democracy is majority rule. We have a charter in our Republic that implements limits to avoid that, not the same. We're a Democratic Republic. And the QST ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights not tell us what we can do but to tell the Government what they can't. Uninfringed look it up. The foundeers acknowledge God given rights trump Government Tyranny.
@@Shichard2006In the end, everything in the Senate bill happened except the border provisions, which couldn't pass the Republican-dominated House Rules Committee and failed to bypass the rules on the floor vote. I believe it will go down as one of the worst political plays in legislative history.
@@Shichard2006 Because it allowed millions of illegal migrants into the country every year and gave absolute border power to the Executive. But hey keep on with the partisan talking points. It was a bad bill with to many strings attached.
@sethblank3139 lol. I guess I just look young. I'm on year 29 of my career in information technology I assure you I haven't seen a minimum wage paycheck since before Bill Clinton was President.
@@angelainamarie9656 I wouldn't respond to haters. Seriously .. he had NO argument but to insult. Typical!! You are good and you are ALLOWED to have your opinion!!
So let me get this straight. Trump’s legal team is arguing that the remedy to presidential abuse of power and violation of the law and such is through congressional action. That in order to hold a president at all legally responsible that we first need to impeach them in the house and convict them in the senate. Justice Gorsuch asks around 1:20:16 About a hypothetical that if a president leads a “peaceful” demonstration-and that causes some delay in congressional vote-could he later be arrested. The assumption or tone of the question assumes that it’s silly that a president would be arrested or subject to arrest for doing this. Doesn’t anyone see the huge problem? if it’s silly to arrest a president for illegally stopping congressional voting- when congressional action would be the only way of holding a president accountable- then there is no possibility of really ever holding a president accountable even with the constitutional mechanisms of impeachment or removal of office. The Supreme Court would be endorsing the president stopping that as well.
After all the abuse and hatred aimed at President Trump with unreasonable legal cases---in most cases accusations being done by the accusers themselves--now interfering with President Trumps campaign. Now The Democrats are recreating the ballot harvesting of a pandemic when there us none. There is constant harassment for him and his staff and supporters---beyond anything seen in history. This is the worst HATE CRIMEe ever. Thank you for listening,.
You're right. But he is also immune when he does that. So the case against Trump is pretty much over I'd say. He can't lose on appeal UNLESS the prosecutors can show Trump "KNEW" the election wasn't stolen and only undertook the following actions thereafter to commit fraud. The prosecutor will have a tough time doing that considering Trump has always maintained and still maintains the 2020 election was stolen and he believed he was "Faithfully executing the law" when he fought through legislatures and courts to address it. I think it is absurd that Trump's people have been charged for RICO for... Going to court to have it heard.... That's the argument and it is insane.
The amount of ads in this video is ridiculous. Y’all should really be ashamed. I’ve watched many podcasts longer than this with nowhere near the amount of ads ran in this video.
Then vote in representatives that you think would remove the president?? Or vote in representatives that will amend the constitution and change the impeachment clause.
It is. Npt so much about immunity, as it is about every time Trump's turns around, someone is trying to take him down! Leave it just so he does not get presjdency?
With 45, the lines between private conduct and presidential acts would BLEND.. There would be NO differentiation between what personal act 45 would decide to do like take revenge against a enemy or rival, and his thinking he would be justified to do so because according to the way he THINKS about it, that would not ever be a personal crime because he is performing the offense as a presidential act and as president ( Dictator) 45 can do whatever the HELL he wants to. 45 has already stated as his agenda the things that he would do that are breaking state and federal laws... and act with violent aberrant behavior committing criminal acts and calling it presidential. 😢 💔
@@BluSkyOne1 Tyrants like Obama who ordered a drone strike which killed an American citizen; which he admitted was a mistake and made without proper consideration? Only to be ruled "Immune" because drone striking American Civilians is an "Official Act" of the President? Or when Bush misrepresented facts and evidence to Congress on purpose (and conspired with his lawyers to make it happen), to coax Congress to agree to the War in the Middle East? He was called a literal war criminal in 2006-2007 by Democrats and demanded Obama to have him charged. Obama's DOJ found he was immune from all prosecution due to Presidential Immunity. There is a long and established history of Presidents being immune from prosecution after they leave office. This isn't new. The DOJ's position has, however completely flipped, to now they suggest there is no immunity. And that if there is to be any immunity it should be decided by the DOJ's AG... Yup, an AG that can rule over a president and former president... Imagine that.
Shame on them and....shame on us. A a court within country that is - or at least aspires to be - a democracy, essentially discussing whether or not a demonstrated insurrectionist and outright liar can operate outside the law is insane. This discussion should never be taking place.
I feel they all may have been compelled to take the argument for fear of the OPTICS. Let's hope it's because they are actually planning to rule AGAINST.
Dreeben was the one who struggled. He had to retreat from his argument there was "No immunity" for presidents. They both agreed by the end there is Presidential immunity for official acts. I don't know why Democrats can't accept that their OWN LAWYER accepts the reality that immunity exists.
There's far more being decided here than just the notion of Presidential immunity from prosecution -- this will affect the same for all Federal officials either appointed or elected, now and in the future, this also narrows the line between official duties and private actions, as well as official actions that can be seen to have primarily a private motive, as well as having overturned the notion that any one elected official, facing the end of their term and fearing prosecution, may officially pardon oneself and thus shield oneself from prosecution, as well also as clarifying need for defense from prosecution by claiming one is acting within the law, and further clarifying whether an elected official in a law enforcement or executive capacity may shield one in fear of prosecution by saying to them that they are acting within the framework of the law. We've so far witnessed what appears to be a unanimous agreement of SCOTUS that a sitting President does not have immunity from prosecution after the expiration of the term of office, but listening closely, one can catch subtle hints of partisanship at work.
@@lukeharris3949 How do you know he was fired over the Golf tournament that he has no power to do and never had the power to do? Sounds a bit fishy to take that on face value.
It is surprising to me that some Justices seem to forget the structure of checks and balances when positing their hypotheticals. It is as if they assume they don’t exist, so they can raise false flags to call attention to an implausible scenario and the counsel has to keep reminding them that there is a Constitutional path to investigate and prosecute.
Our Founders did not deal in an age where the President had tools of communication such as using Twitter and other social platforms to spread falsehoods in real time. During the time of our Founders communications took days not seconds.
They didn’t live in an age where 50 years of 24/7 hate media could destroy the mental faculties of half the population and result in the election of a megalomaniacal psychopath.
Who determines what is a "falsehood"? You or the person controlling Twitter? Some "falsehoods" to you maybe the truth yet without true knowledge you think it's false. If you collect your evidence from biased sources then you may never know the truth. Just like Russia collusion which media pushed for years, was all false.
This is the same argument antigun people use, claiming the 2A was designed for muskets not modern weapons. Just because a technology has improved doesn't mean the founders didn't anticipate such future. Use your head.
@@OnlyTwoShoes Really, so you are going to claim the founders anticipated the future of technology and firearms. Really? They couldn’t even anticipate women voting yet someone they managed to anticipate the future of firearm advancement and accessibility? I would say use your head but it’s obviously empty.
“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want.”
Except Biden, Hillary Clinton, EVEN Bill Clinton who was FPUBD GUILTY IN THE SENATE but they refused to prosecute him after he left office. Trump didn’t commit a single crime yet he’s having rogue DAs abuse their position for political gain and persecutions despite them being bogus show trials that will be overturned. FFS 🤦♂️ #FJB so many morons who refused to accept the results of 2016, protested with “fake” electors, pressured the EC to vote against their states votes 🗳️ and had millions of ppl try to stage a coup against Trump and remove him from office by any means necessary not thru legal means like Trump using attorneys and when judges didn’t even listen to his arguments and dismissed he left willingly he is allowed to say he believes it was rigged just like Al Gore, John Kerry and every Democrat who refused to accept the results of EVERY election they lost but rules for thee not for me(Demokkkrats) so dumb
@@rickybobby7276 Good for them, I don't see how that's relevant to us. Wait, are we the Romans? Let me do some Googling.... No, we are not ancient Rome. Notice the dividers between toilets and lack of slaves?
"It would depend on the circumstances," Sauer argued. The fact that no justice asked what circumstance would allow it shows how morally deficient they are, while trying to do legal gymnastics.
Even the Democrat Justices didn't bring it up. Because they would be getting so deep into a hypothetical it starts to lose cohesion and value in the debate. "It would depend on the circumstances" is an indication the Justices needs to consider what they are, irrespective of Sauer's opinion. And Sauer would just likely give a rough indication such as "Well it would depend on x, y and z and if this happened and that happened it would change how you'd conclude" - which is wholly open ended and unhelpful, because you don't have a full context of the situation to draw from. Like most things; context matters, without it, you can't really do much.
1:15, 1:49 Wait, was George Bush's lying to Congress about WMDs in Iraq a "controversial decision" requiring "bold and fearless action"? Also, how was it a crime that created the risk of prosecution after leaving the White House unless presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts? What criminal law was George Bush breaking here?
As Dreeben pointed out, relying on both impeachment and conviction in order to criminally prosecute would essentially nullify the checks and balances system.
@@laurenopferman7278, seriously? We're witnessing now that corruption can happen in a highly partisan jurisdiction (and DOJ) as they prosecute for charges they've characterized as criminal against their political opposition--and select the jury carefully to eliminate anybody except their own like-minded partisans. It doesn't make sense to think corruption can happen in Congress but not in the local or Federal Justice system.
@@MrRjsnowden Impeachment? You mean politicians getting to decide what is "Fair" lol... Impeachment is such a crock I think. They got Trump for 2 impeachments and never had evidence both times. Mayorkis is actively preventing law from being followed with the southern border (Not even in dispute, he has fought against enforcement and promoted incentives for illegals) - and the Democrats won't even let there be a trial? It is completely unbalanced and you're NEVER going to get rid of anyone in Washington DC through impeachment, no matter how evil and corrupt they are, provided they are also politically connected / liked in DC.
By the end they all appeared to agree that all OFFICIAL actions carry an immunity for the President. The only distinction is the DOJ lawyer tried to push a case that the "Checks and balances" already in place is sufficient to have the DOJ decide on a case-by-case basis. In otherwords, the outgoing president is at the mercy of the incoming administration's DOJ AG. That argument is so absurd, it is clear why the DOJ lawyer abandoned it shortly after being questioned. And this proves that the DC Judge was absolutely 100% wrong when she ruled that there was "No immunity" at all. It isn't supported by a single fact anywhere. I doubt that judge can be trusted in the future to make constitutional decisions, because it looks like she said what she wanted to "Get Trump" - like taking a flame thrower to kill a spider, not realizing the fire that would result in the complete destruction of Presidential immunity.
Presidential immunity absolutely exists and the executive branch DOJ prosecutions of a former Presidents for his official acts is contingent on their being an impeachment conviction. If these justices make the ruling that Presidents are not immune in the absence of a guilty impeachment conviction they would also be stripping themselves of their own immunity privileges as its under the same clauses of the constitution. They would also be elevating the unelected agencies (who have historically been unaccountable to the people) to a higher position of power then our duly elected Presidents. It would basically result in a rewrite of the constitution because it diminishes it altogether to mean nothing at all. It's dangerous. Every one of the charges made against the former President all relates to his being elected President in the first place, so they are all related to his official acts.
@@Playtechy Presidential immunity is as corrupting and anti-constitution as qualified immunity, the founders are rolling over in their grave as America eliminates their government in favor of a king. On the upside, any immunity granted only INCREASES Biden's current power.
North Korea ...here we come ..after Donald ..then Jr....would take over ...then eventually Barron if that is Trump's argument.Absolute immunity means we would have a lawless leader... The fact that we got to this point where they have to argue whether or not a president can be a criminal is mind bothering
A couple of the Republican ones seemed skeptical - or at least asked questions that pushed both ways. Barret could go either way on this. Each of the Democrats decided the outcome before the arguments and will vote party lines as they always do. Republicans may break rank (which they do often), though should still decide in favor of Immunity.
@@carbeme33 I agree, The republicans seem to break rank often. They rarely vote together. So for me, that is each of them thinking independently and not worrying about party-lines. The 3 Democrat Justices almost always vote along party lines. I had to laugh when someone suggested the Conservative justices will vote pro-Trump because of party lines, when the history of the voting of the Justices would indicate that the Democrats would vote against Immunity due only to party lines. Jackson did however admit afterwards that immunity should exist because if Trump gets back in office he could go after Obama and Biden.
@@Playtechy it’s just a mess and just like church should be separate from state, politics should be separate from the judicial system. And there shouldn’t be immunity for anyone who committed a crime for personal gain or malicious intent. For any president current or later, if you did something along those lines you must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law period. The presidency is not a get out of jail free card.
@@carbeme33 But who is going to preside and judge over the President? That's the whole point of it really. Is a president's subordinates more powerful than the president (their own commander in-chief)? That's why Impeachment needs to happen first, because it is a high bar to pass to get 2/3rds of politicians to vote on it - and when convicted (When the president's right to due process and a fair trial is honored) it removes immunity and the president can be formally charged. But not impeaching, or failing at impeaching renders the ability to charge mute. No president should have to look over their shoulder for the next administrations to relitigate everything they ever did in office to find a crime - the remedy is impeachment, not sending political hacks after a president when they're out of office. Raegan solved the Cuban Missile Crisis and he likely broke some law somewhere to do it. He made a backroom deal to end that threat and if all the communications and documents were released, there could very well have been a crime there - does that mean he should be charged because he handled a tough situation and weighed up the pros and cons for it? That's why they get elected President; because we trust that they will do what is needed in the interest of the nation and not need to worry about strict legal codes that can be used decades later to relitigate their weighing of the situation. Hell, Obama sent a pallet of random cash to Iran in contravention of Financial Sanctions. That's a crime if anyone else did it. But as president Obama weighed the human lives involved and decided to pay the ransom - skirting the sanctions. Republicans didn't go after him for that, though they did politically criticize the decision. And yes, each of the "prosecutors" going after Trump are indeed political creatures, two of whom ran political campaigns on the promise to "Get Trump" due to political differences.
that the scotus would even discuss the question of legality of a citizen without the restraint of law to control their actions proves that this country is DONE.......
@@Power_to_the_people567 You are missing a comment from @wallcraft, which I was answering. Try to pay attention to the the who is tagged in a reply before acting like a jackass
1:04 excellent examination by the CJ Roberts and Prosecutor argues this is not political prosecution. Right, then I don't know what is. Excellent Justice Kavanagh exam followed.
@@eagleriver7863 Sex is biological attributes (even then you have people who are born with ambiguous characteristics within the biological sex -Intersex individuals) Gender is the SOCIAL construct such as their roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities. Gender can also refer to how people are perceived by social institutions based on their gender presentation. Gender varies by society and can change over time. So you essentially, trying to categorize a Woman as (having periods and babies) what about the 1 in 6 Women who are infertile and and don’t have periods?
@@yaxjvn You talk like communist. You want to disrupt family as a basic unit and destroy Bible morals. You are a son of Satan. Even worse than the son of bitch. At least bitch knows she is a woman and man are dirty and bad.
@@nancyjo1957 Really? Alto's ignorance towards this is shocking enough, but to actually say and several times angrily demand NOT to listen or discuss the FACTS of the case obviously shows his bias. All judges use the facts to determine their decisions.
The Supreme Court needs to have checks and balances within itself. With due respect to our court systems, the arrogance of the court and the way they handle things is disgusting. They seem to be a group of people with the easiest job in the world. They take months to hear a case while knowing they want some shit to be sorted out by lower courts, then why take a case and waste times, nothing but political reasons. They can take any position on a given case and be revered for their decision as if they are faultless deciders. E.g they'll say well if people are dumb enough then they deserve dumb results, Supreme Court can't decide for them what dumb people they elect.
They are full of it! Every media in this country headlines should be “Any Justice that participates in the delays of Trumps trials should resign immediately! Where is the Media!!!!!!!!
Remember, it’s an equal branch of government, this comment wasn’t thought up by you, but the notion of creating an illusion of corruption is nothing more that a tactic used by Hitler to remove constitutional judges replacing them with activists judges. . I’d be very very careful.. that’s overthrowing an equal branch of government. …
36:54 impeachment is often called a political act. I meam everything is political but each rep in Congress has to weigh to impeach or not, not solely on morals but also their own job.
The only loss of Democracy. In a Republicans win is that of a loss of the Democratic Party for all the false cases used against the Trump conservatives. Their stifling of Christian speaking on line and the inability of conservatives to protect fheir children. And their cruelty to Americans with millions of dangerous refugees. The media and schools have created a culture over-sexualizing children and lying due to political partiality. And the federal agencies are set up to recreate these dysfunctions--expanding the budget to more trillions, feeding greater wealth to corrupt leaders who influence the stock market or taking personal money from other nation and creating wars.
I hope they give Trump absolute immunity. Cause Dark Brandon has work to do. First he needs to take out his political rivals and anyone who doesn't agree with his world and social views. There are six Supreme Court seats that also qualify for this action. There is also senators and representatives that quality for this action also. Even quality immunity based on what Trump's lawyer describes will give Dark Brandon the power to do all the above. Is that what they really want? Come on people we need a decision fast cause Dark Brandon has work to do.. Now do you really want this? And there is still so much more. Make sure the elections elect Dark Brandon's people for all seats and then Hand the Presidency over to his Vice President without an election. That doesn't sound like a Republic or Democracy. Why did the Supreme Court even take this up?
ALito suggests non-viable Hypoteticals to try and weaken strong precidents. "Wise men talk because they have something to say - fools because they have to say something"? Plato. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool" Shakespere. “Only a fool never changes his mind.” Branston
The oath of office: 'to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution' means one must follow it -- i.e. not commit acts in violation of the Constitution
@@hyacinthsutherland1177 WOW .. how RUDE are you?? Do you say a person that has diabetes shouldn't be doing a particular job? Should that person be discriminated against because of their health issues? Should this lawyer be discriminated against because of a health issue/disability? How dare you people make fun of a disability. He has Spasmodic dysphonia which is a voice disorder. It causes involuntary spasms in the muscles of the voice box or larynx. This causes the voice to break and have a tight, strained or strangled sound. It is a life long illness/condition/disability and it's very hard to overcome and stand before people and talk. This is a brave person to even do this job. That doesn't mean he is right or wrong on his argument ... BUT RUDE of YOU to call out his disability and question whether he should be a lawyer. SMH Haters all!! True TDS!
Jackson and Sotomayor should not be on the court. Not because they are not qualified, I really question their ability to be objective. This particular case has proven that to me. It's so obvious that they don't like Trump. A little too personal. Jackson was attacking the guy. That was surprising. " NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW" sounds like a Pavlovian whistle I've heard before. It doesn't matter how much you like or dislike Trump. When you spend 8 years investigating, indicted, impeached twice and attempted to find something in the law to convict him, that's the very definition of a political and judicial witchhunt. To the point where you never found anything criminal, so you weaponized the political system. The boomerang always returns to the sender. This Supreme Court decision has serious implications. Replace them with 2 other judges. Since they were appointed by a Democrat then the Dems should replace them. That's a scary thought now days
Thank you C-SPAN for actually showing the names of the people talking and for providing captions.
And for allowing comments
Yes all around.
Absolutely yes.
@@f0xh0nd51 sheds light on those acting in bad faith amirite? 😀
@@Torkmastaflex civil discourse is my favorite part 🗳️🇺🇸
Thank you for allowing us to watch and listen.
Yes, thank you Justices Alito/Thomas/Kavanugh/Barrett/Gorsuch/Roberts
Thank you to c span for this opportunity to
watch this historic case hearing! And putting up
the photos if who was speaking. Many thanks!
The lawyer said at 1:26:31 "making a mistake doesn't lead you to criminal prosecution". This statement is absolute absurdity! Every single day people are prosecuted for unknowingly making mistakes and spend time in jail over it.
And??????????????? You make a mistake and crash your car into someone, and you SHOULD be prosecuted.
@@geelee1977 ...and your point is what? listen to what he said..."mistakes DOESN'T lead to prosecution"
Just register as a democrat and you'll be fine 😉👍
Within context, he was explaining that the laws in this category, ones that specifically allow prosecution of a president, are “malum in se”, which is to say the illegal act was not just a mistake but requires moral corruption to commit.
This is in comparison to accidentally violating say the Hatch Act. That could be done with a mistake, but not the laws he is referring to.
There has to be intent to commit a crime. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter: one has malice aforethought or intention, whereas manslaughter is due to negligence without malice. People post things on these platforms knowing what they're talking about but get people to like them as factual statements.
Why did this case even get to the Supreme Court? I guess Biden can just have Seal Team 6 take out Trump if there is 100% immunity. Right?
That's what I have been saying about this situation
Doesn’t need seal team six he’s got the DOJ
@ob1680 well he has immunity from prosecution correct??
The lower court ruled against immunity in this case, so DJT appealed it which brought it to the Supreme Court to rule on.
Let's hope they see how preposterous this Absolute Immunity claim is.
@@cleancutstacks2261 Works for me. PLEASE give the order.
As an Australian this all seems so bizarre. Surely the lawfulness and immunity of the act must be considered within its entire context. The head of state should only be able to break the law where they reasonably and in good faith believe that the act itself is absolutely necessary for the public interest. Here, the court system was the place for disputation over the election outcome, not Executive action.
They’re going after “total immunity” as a strategy to remove that line of defense. Once that is confirmed then they can go after official and non-official acts for prosecution. The second reason is for drama. They can point at Trump and accuse him of being tyrannical and accuse him of all kinds of character flaws in the media. That’s where a lot of political blood is spilled here in the good ol’ US of A. Trump is in reality asking for total immunity as it is being presented. His Team is saying he has immunity for doing Presidential things while being President. It is the prosecutors job to prove that Trump was conspiring to illegally overturn a legitimate election and that he was not acting out of the belief that he thought the election was fraudulent. So…that’s gonna be hard to do. But the drama and mud slinging is not that difficult.
The founding fathers would never had wanted a POTUS to be totally immune. That’s why they left England. They didn’t want yet another “King”.
American law is different than the common law ideas you cite. For eg, Under common law Immunity typically refers to legal protection from prosecution or liability, often granted to certain individuals or entities (e.g. diplomats, witnesses). Under American law it has a broader meaning, including not only legal protection but also sovereign immunity (states and federal government) and qualified immunity (government officials).
Here are some American Supreme Court cases dealing with immunity:
Fitzgerald v. Nixon (1982): This case established presidential immunity precedents. The Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard Nixon was entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.
Clinton v. Jones (1997): The Supreme Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial conduct.
Trump v. Vance (2020): The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a president has absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas for private conduct that occurred before taking office.
Trump v. Anderson: The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not block former President Donald Trump from appearing on its primary ballot.
Trump v. United States: The Supreme Court is currently considering former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
Note: These cases are related to presidential immunity, but there are many other Supreme Court cases that deal with other types of immunity, such as sovereign immunity and/or qualified immunity.
I'm not sure why you would think it illegal to dispute election results. This is not uncommon in the US. A president who didn't question a likely corrupt election result would be more of a criminal in my opinion
By Article 2, the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", meaning the President must act within the law. He (at least so far, he) may not act in a criminal manner and expect to be free from future prosecution of those criminal acts after term expiration.
If seeking re-election, however, a sitting President can also act in a capacity as an office seeker as well as an office holder, and this area has today become a little less grey. A President may not commit fraud as an office seeker to influence the vote -- there is also no such thing as blanket immunity or absolute immunity.
So Biden and Hunter are surely going to jail, right?
So then Biden can be prosecuted for election interference when he by fraud claimed the Hunter laptop story was made up by the Russians and the White House worked with the media and social media to help kill access to the story. Seems that’s exactly what Bragg is claiming Trump did.
100%.
👍🏾 well said. Thank you
Yea he is immune. Also when Obama was president and he said “I’m not going to enforce these laws” should be have been impeached there and prosecuted? As kavanaugh said what about the drone strikes on U.S. citizens? Weapons on mass Derstine in statement by bush. Can he be sued for that? What about Clinton’s indiscretions? It’s a can of worms. The idea that “this is only for him” doesn’t hold water. The dems are abusing and looking to abuse judiciary against other party. Biden when he’s does can be sued by any repub DA or state for all he’s done.
Thank you for providing this audio. . . so that We the People can continue in a clear and present comprehension of the Constitutional backbone that provides integrity and strength for our Rule of Law. Keep up the good work!
I my comments I continue to talk on we the people!!! I'm hoping that still means something.
@@theresaharrell9043 You forgot a word, "we the wealthy people"
The fact that The SCOTUS didn’t immediately and unanimously decide to send this case back down to the lower court is absolutely unnerving. #perilousTimes #indeed
What would they decide?
Stick with precedent and rule Trump is immune?
Or make a brand new ruling against precedent that Trump isn't?
Considering Presidential Immunity; which everyone acknowledges to have existed all the way up until Trump is a pretty big deal because it WILL affect all previous presidents too.
If Trump isn't immune, neither is Bush, Clinton or Obama - on top of any future president.
And if Trump wins and decides to relitigate Obama's Fast and Furious, Drone Strikes and funding Billions to Iran without Congressional approval - watch how fast the Democrats will argue that there is immunity all of a sudden.
@@PlaytechyNo president is immune from prosecution after they leave office and no one has ever argued that. If that was the case then why did Nixon pardon ford ie he was immune.
There shouldn’t be anything to send back down. A president is not a king. There should be no immunity for committing a crime while in office. Trump’s lawyers argued that he can’t be impeached without first being found guilty of s crime. Now they argue that he can’t be held accountable for a crime without being impeached first. Trump’s lawyer argues that other presidents can be charged for their official acts if trump is charged but all the examples he gave were presidents acting in America’s interests or at worst just being incompetent about something. Trump’s actions, were criminal and for his own benefit.
@@liquidmark5081 There is immunity for official action taken by a President in office - that isn't in contention.
It needs to go down to the lower courts to decide what constitutes an official act - and then apply immunity to them.
The government doesn't dispute this in any way shape or form currently.
The whole purpose of Impeachment is so that the DOJ can't prosecute their command in chief - because that would make the President subservient and below the DOJ he is supposed to oversee.
The example of Bush misrepresenting evidence to Congress to get permission to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been a crime if not for a very wide and broad understanding of Presidential Immunity.
Same with Obama sending ballets of cash to Iran to skirt around Financial Sanctions on Iran - had anyone else done it would have been a crime, but due to presidential immunity wasn't.
Biden using his office to encourage and facilitate illegal crossings would be a crime had anyone other than the president done it - if not for presidential immunity.
The question isn't whether there is immunity - it is only how far it stretches and going by previous applications of it as well as OLC opinion - it is all encompassing and broad.
@@liquidmark5081 EXACTLY…………..THANK YOU.
A PRESIDENT who RESPECTS the LAWS of the UNITED STATES does not have concerns of being charged nor have concerns of IMMUNITY. DJT's lawyer is really creating a scenario that we will NEVER OVERCOME if ANY PRESIDENT is afforded FULL IMMUNITY.
Impeachment
@@vincentriggs711 yeah, we saw how that went. Impeachment means nothing if you have congress in your palm. The law is the law for EVERYONE.
Watch out clinton, biden and obama...
Trump was tried at first for sexual misconduct and convicted of defamation though she couldn't come up with a crime. If a woman accused you of such a thing I'm sure you would have something to say.
@@austinmerrill752 democrats control the doj. Nothing will be done to any of them.
If President has the rights to do what ever and not be liable Biden can simply have trump in jail now .End of matter
That's what Biden is trying to do.
@stevev.8779 he has immunity right??
@stevev.8779 how is Biden trying? He's literally not involved in any way. Please educate yourself & not just follow blindly.
That’s precisely what’s happening.
@BillAshtonNelo so Biden has immunity then correct??
I cannot remember (in my 73 years) when I have been more disappointed in a group of INTELLIGENT adults than I am with those who are currently seated as this Supreme Court…Unbiased keepers of our Constitution.
You are just political is all, I am pretty sure you were also disappointed when they gave trump 9-0
@@azraeldemuirgos9518 If expecting the SC to uphold the Constitution is political then call it what you will.
@@Mimi2Two I think you want the SC to "Get Trump", constitutional or not. Presidents have always had immunity from official acts - and even the DOJ lawyer agreed to that in the end. The ONLY thing at contention is what is an official act or not and if personal acts can strip immunity away from official acts.
The problem with the Left when discussing Trump - anything justifies "getting Trump". They loved Presidential immunity when the OLC used it to protect Clinton, they didn't care about it when Obama's DOJ opined that Bush was immune over the Iraq war, they will love it if it protects Biden for opening the borders against Federal statutes... But you want to throw it away for Trump.
You're trying to kill a spider with a flame thrower and you're not realizing you'll burn the whole house down in doing it. Once immunity is gone; EVERY former president can (and likely WILL) be charged in retaliation and revenge, like Trump.
@@Mimi2Two What is your gripe with this issue?
Hopefully you watched this whole hearing before you started commenting on it. Otherwise you're just feeding the echo chamber.
Why does it take so long to answer this question if NO ONE is above the law? This man stated he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and would not lose a vote. Since he feels that way, and he was elected, what stops him from the act of murder or ordering the act to be done to whomever speaks against him?
Thank you C SPAN for being neutral and streaming the full argument along with showing who is talking
Showing the whole argument is the only way CSPAN can be considered neutral.
A camera ONLY focused on the FEW hate filled miss informed is NOT neutral dude
There is literally NOTHING in this situation that anyone needs to be neutral on. No president, past, present, or future, should be above the law. Blanket immunity as long as it’s deemed an “official act” is insanity.
@@bqing87 then we can prosecute Biden for acts of treason for allowing over 9 million illegal criminals into
This country to kill Americans
@@bqing87
It's nothing like that. Everybody takes an oath to the Constitution. Anybody who thinks guv employees would follow such a command is not paying attention to recent events. There are plenty of safeguards, the real problem is UNELECTED officials.
----- < The Executive is vested in the President:: Article II, Section 1, clause 1. 3 U.S.C. 301(1) The power /functions of the president is VESTED IN THE LAW.& (2) nothing relieves the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of those he appoints. A violation of procedural law (like the Vote Count Act) or the commission of a crime (as in the Espionage statute) are NOT Article II duties. In this DC Election Interference case, asking VP Pence to reject lawful Certificates of Assertation was not an official duty.
. . .... 3. U.S.C. . § 15(e)(1)A(ii) says, " no vote of an elector described in clause (i) which has been regularly given shall be rejected."
A President must "take care to faithfully execute the law" Article II, Section 3. There is no "outside perimeter" in which a violation of federal procedural law (like the Vote Count Act), or a crime (like Willful Retention of Government Records) is an Article II duty/function.
Here's the math.
1 Article II duty + 0 crime = 1 official act
1 Article II duty + 1 crime NOT= 1 official act
Trump needs to be jail
No imunity
i hope they understand their power would be worthless if they allow this.
I hope that’s not a threat.
Probably all except Justice Ferret and the fat guy who does not give two shits about the law.
How?? There is a very clear vehicle to remove and then charge a US president. Its called Impeachment and then conviction in the Senate. That allows the legislative branch to check the executive and decide what is and is not official business or lawful business of the president. If this goes forward anyone future DOJ could charge a president for acts that one might argue is illegal.
@@shanemckenzie-wc3mq If you cede all/absolute power to a president why would you need a Supreme Court?
Their power is worthless already. They ruled that Biden cannot just forgive college loans without Congress authority. Yet Biden still does it.
Ridiculous argument
Clue less argument something is hiden for baby lawers i.e unable to distinct thrinity of act
How so? If Bush Junior can lie about WMD’s, and not be prosecuted… than Trump certainly cannot. Apples and oranges!
@@yednekachewgeremew1886 ? Huh?
Yeah, Trump isn't winning this case. What is John Sauer even yapping about?
@@2legit2KwitIt doesn't matter what crimes are committed. If a president commits a crime, then he should be prosecuted regardless. Leave your political beliefs out from the law.
The impeachment scenario is incredibly dangerous. The historic flip flop of partisan members in Congress would make the possibility of an unbiased impeachment laughable. We've already seen this in action.
This attorney is literally talking in circles. Like the laws in place just "beat around the bush" of issues.
This case is on a short chain.
27:38 He very nearly said "elector scheme".... 😂
Why doesn't somebody ask this question? Why does the President need lawyer's if he is immune from the law?
Great question! 👍🏾…and if he doesn’t have absolute immunity and Trump claims he cannot do the job of president (properly) without absolute immunity? Then why does he want to be president?
And why did Trump use his campaign lawyers instead of the DOJ if he was working "officially"
This comment is so underrated that its criminal😂@@scrambledeggs88
Why did this only become an issue when Trump became president? Because he’s the victim?
That's like saying why does someone need a seatbelt after an accident???
I only want that justices do their work with honesty!
❤❤❤i agree but when your job is to steal, you can't be honest ! When you look at the so-called justice gorsuch and Kavanagh and thomas, you can easily understand why they have been appointed !❤❤❤❤
No market like the black market
you got em lol
It’s hard to listen to John sauer. His voice is horrible
We cannot help but feel that we need to clear our collective throats. Very difficult to listen to indeed.
Go read the transcript!@@dinacox1971
Supreme Court should just do their ruling now to get it done and over with. Send it back to Jack smith’s court.
This will be a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump. The case will be remanded to the District Court to determine which charges are official and which ones are not. Then, after Trump’s inaugurated, he will pardon himself and the legality of his own pardon will once again be before the court.
No actual justice happens in Jack Smith’s court. He is an obvious political hack.
Gorsuch is attempting to interject immunity as "shorthand." No. Definitely, no. Once you interject a word into a discussion, it becomes part of the discussion. You cannot do an end run around the middle to rename stuff just because you want to do so. It should be MORE than obvious to anyone with half a brain the difference between an "official" and "personal" act. This is a circus! Alito has clearly chosen his position, as has Gorsuch. There is a presuposition that this is a strictly "political oppositional" case.
Alito, Gorsuch, etc, they are part of a movement in this country to eliminate the constitution and establish a "strong man led christian theocracy" in its place. The organization they are a part of, publicly announced a desire to eliminate the 1st amendment, among others. This was a decades long effort, and in years past, their documents show that all their efforts was about a controlling SCOTUS, from there, that is the key to victory for them.
But the democrats have also already made up their minds.
Jackson had a point of view and everything she did was to further that point of view - which is Trump has zero immunity.
She then adopted the language of the Prosecution to suggest he shouldn't be immune - proving that she picked her side.
Instead of tacitly stating the facts of the case, she deliberately interjected incendiary language that the prosecutors want to use.
An example of this; she stated Trump send "FAKE ELECTORS" or "FRAUDULENT ELECTORS" - that hasn't been proven in the case that they would be deemed fake or fraudulent to indicate some form of criminality, in fact when Democrats did the exact same thing in Florida in 2000, they called it an "Alternate Slate of Electors" - which is what Defense called it too.
So why all of a sudden does Jackson take the side of using the prosecutors descriptive incendiary language against a defendant deemed to be innocent until proven guilty?
The Conservative Justices were the only ones asking questions and listening to the answers; Jackson constantly interrupted Sauer as soon as he was saying something she didn't already agree with.
This is the problem with the far-left wing Marxist Justices, their minds are made up on virtually every issues - which is why they vote with the Democrat side of EVERY issue, while the Republican nominated Justices constantly break rank and vote based on the matter at hand, not political lines.
The DOJ Lawyer described that the President has immunity for official presidential acts - while naming it all kinds of different things. Gorsuch pointed that out; he described immunity and was unable to distinguish what he described from immunity.
So the argument isn't IF the president has immunity - both sides agreed that he does.
It is only what constitutes an official act and if a private act can strip the immunity from an official act.
The ads have made this almost impossible to listen to. 9 minutes in and I've had 5 ads that ran for over 3 minutes EACH TIME. Please reconsider how you use ads on this channel. Getting to hear the oral arguments before the Supreme Court are too important to be sidelined by ads. Note: Just got another one at 12:11 minutes in; for arguments that are almost 3 hours long that's just nuts to have that many ads. I'll find a way to listen to this elsewhere. C-SPAN, do better!
Imagine the precedent this would set.
That’s exactly the world the GOP wants.
Is going to become the USA doomsday.
Dictators that’s what the wealthy want
it would be 1776 all over agian nobody is going let them turn our president into a sitting dictator.
These justices are supposed to be impartial, they seem ready to provide a lunatic with all the ammunition he needs I
Cannot understand this
Some of the judges just made my blood boil, the prosecutor should have just ask a counter question "your honour, if a sitting president just happens to unalive some innocent American children with a firearm by firing a gun a middle school for no reason, do you still think we can't charge him because he has immunity " presidential immunity has to have a limit
Are you being serious right now? What a stupid thing to write out. Did you think you were clever saying this? There's a reason you're bagging groceries for a living, and not practicing law. This statement is so absurdly stupid that I couldn't imagine it was even made in jest.
And this is the type of stupidity leftists Democrats create because they do not understand the Constitution.
That would have been a very weak argument. It's a good thing you weren't up there because you certainly would've done a far weaker job defending his position. And I think the DOJ person had to bend his position at the end because it was indefensible.
Do you really think making an argument easily defeated which relies on NO LAW and only emotion is compelling at all?
This is the problem with the left; they rely only on emotion they couldn't care less about justice, law or fairness. They certainly don't like the constitution.
Is murder an "Official Act" of the office of the Presidency? No. Thus it is NOT IMMUNE. No one is suggesting that would have been immune. Sauer made that very clear that it only relates to OFFICIAL ACTS as president, not PERSONAL ACTS.
Really sucks watching/hearing our democracy crumbling before us.
Unbelievable, it is ridiculous we are even here.
It’s a sad and sorry state of affairs.
What's the point of a Supreme Court if the Executive is above any legal consequences?
The executive is not above the law. That is what impeachment is. President Clinton sexually assaulted Paula Jones. Let’s put him in jail.
They aren't. No one said that.
A president can be impeached and upon conviction immunity is removed.
A president also cannot expect immunity for private actions (Although the OLC's original opinion was Clinton had immunity relating to the Starr report, even non-official acts).
And how the Democrats have weaponized the legal system to target Trump to hamper his 2024 election proves there absolutely needs to be some protection, especially after leaving office. The fact that this has gotten to the supreme court is the same reason why it is also needed.
Based on your comment I implore you to educate yourself on the role of each branch.
The Judicial branch isn't designed to have power over the Executive branch. They're supposed to be co-equal.
Just as Congress isn't designed to have power over the Executive branch and the only way they could do it is by getting 2/3rd in impeachment which would almost always require the President's own party's votes and consent to do it.
The scotus KNOWS THAT EX 45 is GUILTY of all the charges brought against him in these cases. So the only thing they will do to further help him, after all the delaying, is to say he has immunity in… the world is watching & waiting to see how they frame it. SMH
New York State charges of POTUS CAUSING CROWD ELEGAL ENTRY AND DAMAGES AT 7:54 THE USA CAPITAL. ❤POTUS HAS NO LAWFUL POWER TO ORDER ANYONE TO TAKE THE ABOVE ACTIONS.
The Constitution is founded on the Rule of Law that includes no person is above the law, and all are equal before the law. This dates back to Magna Carta, so this whole concept of immunity is in direct conflict with the Constitution.
What BS. If that was true then the current DOJ would actually prosecute Mayorkis.
It just kills me that scotus is even listening to arguments!
Agreed they should have just backed up the appeals court. I feel like it’s just to show they are impartial by going against Trump.
Do it now or later. At least DOJ is able to know their concerns and can argue effectively when this comes up for appeal
@@Rmc3591 fair point
This is the problem. Instead of allowing for du process folks like you just want to call someone guilty and be done with it. I am sure you would never want that for yourself...right?
@@MrRjsnowden I would normally totally agree with you, and this is like the foundation of foundations. This is the bedrock underneath of the foundation of our country.
No one is a king 👑 full stop, 🛑
And someone brought up earlier in this thread it’s good to have it on the books so we don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court again to rule on it should it ever happen again.
Praying for peace
Wow.. Thank you so much C-SPAN
Sauer talks in un ending circles. His arguments make no sense in this proceeding.
Jackson says it too 57:00
Its because you are slooooow - He actually destroyed your communist judges
I feel the same, if the court sides with him it will be a horrible mess not only for the Government but for the Public as a whole
@@cheetah4054I'm betting it's gonna be an 8-1, siding with the United States with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Arguably it could be brilliant he is just wasting as much time as possible, and assuming judge bias is already set in stone. Just take a whole year talking
This is a Democracy System Not a Dictatorship.. it is not up to president to go after Judicial, Executive and Legislative..
Not yet it isn't, the end cycle of democracy is Ceaserism, always has been, founders made it a constitutional republic for a reason to avoid democracy as much as possible
@@ram76921The founders made us a Representative Democracy
@@BB-rh2ml Just a Republic not everyone could even vote at first you had to own land. Your voting rights can be taken away just not due to race sex and a couple other factors.
@@wandajohnson8225 A Representative Democracy where not everyone could vote so they included an Electoral College so they could run up a population count but not give everyone the right to vote.
Your right to own firearms can also be taken away.
@@BB-rh2ml A Democracy is majority rule. We have a charter in our Republic that implements limits to avoid that, not the same. We're a Democratic Republic. And the QST ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights not tell us what we can do but to tell the Government what they can't. Uninfringed look it up. The foundeers acknowledge God given rights trump Government Tyranny.
250 years, the president's didn't need it. Now we need it? How dumb do they think we are? It is insulting!
When the Constitution was written, it stated it was okay to own slaves.
I find it so incredibly sad that some of the population are traitorous to our very well being & secure existence.😮 Sighhh.
Right. Like ignoring the southern order and conflating legal green card holders with illegal aliens.
@@briannguyen6248why didn't Republicans vote for their OWN border bill?
@@Shichard2006In the end, everything in the Senate bill happened except the border provisions, which couldn't pass the Republican-dominated House Rules Committee and failed to bypass the rules on the floor vote. I believe it will go down as one of the worst political plays in legislative history.
@@Shichard2006 Because it allowed millions of illegal migrants into the country every year and gave absolute border power to the Executive. But hey keep on with the partisan talking points. It was a bad bill with to many strings attached.
Like forgiving college loans when ruled against by the courts? Like selling out country out so his son could score money from China?
1:29 As Dreeben gets into what makes the facts of this case so egregious, Roberts cuts him right off. "Thank you, Counsel!"
To be honestly honest with this Supreme Court Justices you make me sick 🤢 period
I can't STAND Hearing the LIES. *GOD HELP US!!
Pie ass liberal fool
Trump's lawyer sounds crazy. He thinks Trump would be allowed to order a coup without any legal consequence???
That was not the argument.
That's what Biden and the Democrats did. They stole the election.
Wow. Are you really listening to the arguments? Irrational Trump haters have selective hearing.
Yup, of course that's what jackass Saur's disingenuously arguing, bc it's EXACTLY what HumptyTrumpty did: called & organized openly for a coup!
Nixon, Trump......all in my adult life. Tighten up!!
The federalist Society Supreme Court
I wouldn't call them a court they really don't deserve that description
@sethblank3139 lol. I guess I just look young. I'm on year 29 of my career in information technology I assure you I haven't seen a minimum wage paycheck since before Bill Clinton was President.
@@angelainamarie9656 I wouldn't respond to haters. Seriously .. he had NO argument but to insult. Typical!! You are good and you are ALLOWED to have your opinion!!
Let me guess, you want a all “basketball american” supreme n’ shit, nigga?
@@angelainamarie9656Never respond to personal insults. You make yourself a bigger target and you are feeding the trolls more ammunition against you
So let me get this straight. Trump’s legal team is arguing that the remedy to presidential abuse of power and violation of the law and such is through congressional action. That in order to hold a president at all legally responsible that we first need to impeach them in the house and convict them in the senate.
Justice Gorsuch asks around 1:20:16 About a hypothetical that if a president leads a “peaceful” demonstration-and that causes some delay in congressional vote-could he later be arrested.
The assumption or tone of the question assumes that it’s silly that a president would be arrested or subject to arrest for doing this.
Doesn’t anyone see the huge problem? if it’s silly to arrest a president for illegally stopping congressional voting- when congressional action would be the only way of holding a president accountable- then there is no possibility of really ever holding a president accountable even with the constitutional mechanisms of impeachment or removal of office. The Supreme Court would be endorsing the president stopping that as well.
After all the abuse and hatred aimed at President Trump with unreasonable legal cases---in most cases accusations being done by the accusers themselves--now interfering with President Trumps campaign. Now The Democrats are recreating the ballot harvesting of a pandemic when there us none. There is constant harassment for him and his staff and supporters---beyond anything seen in history. This is the worst HATE CRIMEe ever. Thank you for listening,.
A president has responsibilities to obey US laws plus international.
Nothing in our Constitution says they have to obey "international" law.
@gman8177 you're retarded
You're right.
But he is also immune when he does that.
So the case against Trump is pretty much over I'd say. He can't lose on appeal UNLESS the prosecutors can show Trump "KNEW" the election wasn't stolen and only undertook the following actions thereafter to commit fraud.
The prosecutor will have a tough time doing that considering Trump has always maintained and still maintains the 2020 election was stolen and he believed he was "Faithfully executing the law" when he fought through legislatures and courts to address it.
I think it is absurd that Trump's people have been charged for RICO for... Going to court to have it heard.... That's the argument and it is insane.
nato
@@catheerineflannigan3321 NATO cannot make a law that America has to abide by. it is done only by consent.
The commercials are too frequent
Poor
The amount of ads in this video is ridiculous. Y’all should really be ashamed. I’ve watched many podcasts longer than this with nowhere near the amount of ads ran in this video.
What if. Congress is corrupt and does not convict
That would be the peoples fault
Not what if. When.
What if the courts or the Justice Department were corrupt and pursued lawfare against their political enemies?
It already happened. Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Biden should all be convicted and prosecuted.
Then vote in representatives that you think would remove the president?? Or vote in representatives that will amend the constitution and change the impeachment clause.
A disgrace to even discuss this matter.
Never a disgrace to bring things to light in a public discussion. Much worse to let dumb things fester in the dark.
Should be obvious.
A president is not immune beyond out of his/her elected term.
@@ccmzadv4879it’s a disgrace to entertain the thought that the president should be able to blatantly flout the law.
@@liquidmark5081 They are not mutually exclusive.
what a disgrace that people preach one thing and act differently. how about no one is above the laws? how about your demand accountability.
Total immunity - be careful what you wish for
Have you ever heard of impeachment???
And, if there is no immunity, I look forward to the day when Bidum is convicted for not enforcing our immigration laws! Lock him up!
It is. Npt so much about immunity, as it is about every time Trump's turns around, someone is trying to take him down! Leave it just so he does not get presjdency?
@@MrRjsnowden Trump was impeached twice. So that is a null argument.
@@MrRjsnowden with total immunity you have no impeachment
With 45, the lines between private conduct
and presidential acts would BLEND.. There would be NO differentiation between what personal act 45 would decide to do like take revenge against a enemy or rival, and his thinking he would be justified to do so because according to the way he THINKS about it, that would not ever be a personal crime because he is performing the offense as a presidential act and as president
( Dictator) 45 can do whatever the HELL he wants to. 45 has already stated as his agenda the things that he would do that are breaking state and federal laws... and act with violent aberrant behavior committing criminal acts and calling it presidential.
😢 💔
EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH THIS AND BE PRAYING.
I think they should pray they get it right Americans have long history of bashing tyrants.
@@BluSkyOne1 Tyrants like Obama who ordered a drone strike which killed an American citizen; which he admitted was a mistake and made without proper consideration?
Only to be ruled "Immune" because drone striking American Civilians is an "Official Act" of the President?
Or when Bush misrepresented facts and evidence to Congress on purpose (and conspired with his lawyers to make it happen), to coax Congress to agree to the War in the Middle East? He was called a literal war criminal in 2006-2007 by Democrats and demanded Obama to have him charged. Obama's DOJ found he was immune from all prosecution due to Presidential Immunity.
There is a long and established history of Presidents being immune from prosecution after they leave office.
This isn't new. The DOJ's position has, however completely flipped, to now they suggest there is no immunity. And that if there is to be any immunity it should be decided by the DOJ's AG... Yup, an AG that can rule over a president and former president... Imagine that.
Praying? Praying for what?
🙌🏿✝️🧎🏽
@@BluSkyOne1 Let's hope that when Trump gets back into the White House the Biden regime and its tyrants will be dealt with swiftly.
Shame on them and....shame on us. A a court within country that is - or at least aspires to be - a democracy, essentially discussing whether or not a demonstrated insurrectionist and outright liar can operate outside the law is insane. This discussion should never be taking place.
I feel they all may have been compelled to take the argument for fear of the OPTICS. Let's hope it's because they are actually planning to rule AGAINST.
We are a Constitutional Republic....not a Democracy. Learn the difference.
Oh my god the orange man is so bad and he looked at me ugly oh my god nooooooooo!!!
Don't forget Joe Biden and the Democrats stole the election.
The judges are simply having a hard time. They simply cannot think rationally and save Trump at the same time.
What nonsense.
Bull shit ...they have a big problem here...The use of impeachment is the tool for wrong doing by a president
Dreeben was the one who struggled. He had to retreat from his argument there was "No immunity" for presidents.
They both agreed by the end there is Presidential immunity for official acts. I don't know why Democrats can't accept that their OWN LAWYER accepts the reality that immunity exists.
There's far more being decided here than just the notion of Presidential immunity from prosecution -- this will affect the same for all Federal officials either appointed or elected, now and in the future, this also narrows the line between official duties and private actions, as well as official actions that can be seen to have primarily a private motive, as well as having overturned the notion that any one elected official, facing the end of their term and fearing prosecution, may officially pardon oneself and thus shield oneself from prosecution, as well also as clarifying need for defense from prosecution by claiming one is acting within the law, and further clarifying whether an elected official in a law enforcement or executive capacity may shield one in fear of prosecution by saying to them that they are acting within the framework of the law. We've so far witnessed what appears to be a unanimous agreement of SCOTUS that a sitting President does not have immunity from prosecution after the expiration of the term of office, but listening closely, one can catch subtle hints of partisanship at work.
They are human. Of course they bring their own life experiences to bear. Everyone has their own opinion as to what the law "says."
They are trying to lighten the Toast
I think its funny people think these judges have the power to grant dictator powers to a president, they should have taken our guns first. ROFL.
“What if someone appointed an ambassador in exchange for money”…..ummm most ambassadors are donors…that’s literally what happens in the open
@@raygunner2437Woody Johnson was also sacked by Trump for refusing to get the British Open Golf Tournament directed to one of Trump’s golf courses 😮
Right on
I think the Justices know this which is why they asked the question lol
@@lukeharris3949 How do you know he was fired over the Golf tournament that he has no power to do and never had the power to do?
Sounds a bit fishy to take that on face value.
"what if something corrupt happened?" can't be corrupt, it happens all the time!
It is surprising to me that some Justices seem to forget the structure of checks and balances when positing their hypotheticals. It is as if they assume they don’t exist, so they can raise false flags to call attention to an implausible scenario and the counsel has to keep reminding them that there is a Constitutional path to investigate and prosecute.
What is the implausible scenario? The very present allegations assert that a sitting president attempted to use his power to overthrow an election.
Our Founders did not deal in an age where the President had tools of communication such as using Twitter and other social platforms to spread falsehoods in real time. During the time of our Founders communications took days not seconds.
They didn’t live in an age where 50 years of 24/7 hate media could destroy the mental faculties of half the population and result in the election of a megalomaniacal psychopath.
Your point is??? So they could basically spread falsehoods slower???
Who determines what is a "falsehood"? You or the person controlling Twitter? Some "falsehoods" to you maybe the truth yet without true knowledge you think it's false. If you collect your evidence from biased sources then you may never know the truth. Just like Russia collusion which media pushed for years, was all false.
This is the same argument antigun people use, claiming the 2A was designed for muskets not modern weapons. Just because a technology has improved doesn't mean the founders didn't anticipate such future. Use your head.
@@OnlyTwoShoes Really, so you are going to claim the founders anticipated the future of technology and firearms. Really?
They couldn’t even anticipate women voting yet someone they managed to anticipate the future of firearm advancement and accessibility?
I would say use your head but it’s obviously empty.
Was there a deal made by these judges when 45 nominated them??🤔 otherwise they should do the job.
So if they aren't loyal they better look out
Hey we never know ❤
Alito and Thomas weren’t appointed by the Nod Father. They have a different motive for their corruption.
@Rmc3591 Shame on them!!! In my opinion, that's just like being on a jury!! You must obey the law.
Or maybe you all don't know the law. 🤔
“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want.”
No One is above the Law.
Except Biden.
@@peace-yv4qd*Except no one
Keep your political BS out from the law.
Except Biden, Hillary Clinton, EVEN Bill Clinton who was FPUBD GUILTY IN THE SENATE but they refused to prosecute him after he left office. Trump didn’t commit a single crime yet he’s having rogue DAs abuse their position for political gain and persecutions despite them being bogus show trials that will be overturned. FFS 🤦♂️ #FJB so many morons who refused to accept the results of 2016, protested with “fake” electors, pressured the EC to vote against their states votes 🗳️ and had millions of ppl try to stage a coup against Trump and remove him from office by any means necessary not thru legal means like Trump using attorneys and when judges didn’t even listen to his arguments and dismissed he left willingly he is allowed to say he believes it was rigged just like Al Gore, John Kerry and every Democrat who refused to accept the results of EVERY election they lost but rules for thee not for me(Demokkkrats) so dumb
Except the Biden crime family
@@rickybobby7276 Good for them, I don't see how that's relevant to us. Wait, are we the Romans? Let me do some Googling....
No, we are not ancient Rome. Notice the dividers between toilets and lack of slaves?
"It would depend on the circumstances," Sauer argued. The fact that no justice asked what circumstance would allow it shows how morally deficient they are, while trying to do legal gymnastics.
The rule of law is a moral principle.
Even the Democrat Justices didn't bring it up. Because they would be getting so deep into a hypothetical it starts to lose cohesion and value in the debate. "It would depend on the circumstances" is an indication the Justices needs to consider what they are, irrespective of Sauer's opinion. And Sauer would just likely give a rough indication such as "Well it would depend on x, y and z and if this happened and that happened it would change how you'd conclude" - which is wholly open ended and unhelpful, because you don't have a full context of the situation to draw from.
Like most things; context matters, without it, you can't really do much.
1:15, 1:49 Wait, was George Bush's lying to Congress about WMDs in Iraq a "controversial decision" requiring "bold and fearless action"? Also, how was it a crime that created the risk of prosecution after leaving the White House unless presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts? What criminal law was George Bush breaking here?
We cry for this..
As Dreeben pointed out, relying on both impeachment and conviction in order to criminally prosecute would essentially nullify the checks and balances system.
How?? Impeachment is the definition of checks and balances???
@@MrRjsnowden As we have seen, corruption can happen in multiple branches.
@@laurenopferman7278, seriously?
We're witnessing now that corruption can happen in a highly partisan jurisdiction (and DOJ) as they prosecute for charges they've characterized as criminal against their political opposition--and select the jury carefully to eliminate anybody except their own like-minded partisans.
It doesn't make sense to think corruption can happen in Congress but not in the local or Federal Justice system.
@@MrRjsnowden Impeachment?
You mean politicians getting to decide what is "Fair" lol...
Impeachment is such a crock I think. They got Trump for 2 impeachments and never had evidence both times.
Mayorkis is actively preventing law from being followed with the southern border (Not even in dispute, he has fought against enforcement and promoted incentives for illegals) - and the Democrats won't even let there be a trial?
It is completely unbalanced and you're NEVER going to get rid of anyone in Washington DC through impeachment, no matter how evil and corrupt they are, provided they are also politically connected / liked in DC.
Impeachment and a Senate trial is the Constitutional way to punish a sitting president.
Why would a president need to hide stuff from Congress? Like Trump main issue is he would like to hid certain acts from Congress but WHY?
The question isn’t if a president has immunity it’s what that immunity looks like
Yes exactly!!!
By the end they all appeared to agree that all OFFICIAL actions carry an immunity for the President.
The only distinction is the DOJ lawyer tried to push a case that the "Checks and balances" already in place is sufficient to have the DOJ decide on a case-by-case basis. In otherwords, the outgoing president is at the mercy of the incoming administration's DOJ AG. That argument is so absurd, it is clear why the DOJ lawyer abandoned it shortly after being questioned.
And this proves that the DC Judge was absolutely 100% wrong when she ruled that there was "No immunity" at all. It isn't supported by a single fact anywhere. I doubt that judge can be trusted in the future to make constitutional decisions, because it looks like she said what she wanted to "Get Trump" - like taking a flame thrower to kill a spider, not realizing the fire that would result in the complete destruction of Presidential immunity.
Presidential immunity absolutely exists and the executive branch DOJ prosecutions of a former Presidents for his official acts is contingent on their being an impeachment conviction. If these justices make the ruling that Presidents are not immune in the absence of a guilty impeachment conviction they would also be stripping themselves of their own immunity privileges as its under the same clauses of the constitution. They would also be elevating the unelected agencies (who have historically been unaccountable to the people) to a higher position of power then our duly elected Presidents. It would basically result in a rewrite of the constitution because it diminishes it altogether to mean nothing at all. It's dangerous. Every one of the charges made against the former President all relates to his being elected President in the first place, so they are all related to his official acts.
@@Playtechy Presidential immunity is as corrupting and anti-constitution as qualified immunity, the founders are rolling over in their grave as America eliminates their government in favor of a king. On the upside, any immunity granted only INCREASES Biden's current power.
North Korea ...here we come ..after Donald ..then Jr....would take over ...then eventually Barron if that is Trump's argument.Absolute immunity means we would have a lawless leader... The fact that we got to this point where they have to argue whether or not a president can be a criminal is mind bothering
It sounds like the judges have already decided by their statements and questions.
A couple of the Republican ones seemed skeptical - or at least asked questions that pushed both ways. Barret could go either way on this. Each of the Democrats decided the outcome before the arguments and will vote party lines as they always do. Republicans may break rank (which they do often), though should still decide in favor of Immunity.
@@Playtechyand this is where the problem lies. The judges should not be making decisions based on party lines period.
@@carbeme33 I agree,
The republicans seem to break rank often. They rarely vote together. So for me, that is each of them thinking independently and not worrying about party-lines.
The 3 Democrat Justices almost always vote along party lines.
I had to laugh when someone suggested the Conservative justices will vote pro-Trump because of party lines, when the history of the voting of the Justices would indicate that the Democrats would vote against Immunity due only to party lines.
Jackson did however admit afterwards that immunity should exist because if Trump gets back in office he could go after Obama and Biden.
@@Playtechy it’s just a mess and just like church should be separate from state, politics should be separate from the judicial system. And there shouldn’t be immunity for anyone who committed a crime for personal gain or malicious intent. For any president current or later, if you did something along those lines you must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law period. The presidency is not a get out of jail free card.
@@carbeme33 But who is going to preside and judge over the President?
That's the whole point of it really. Is a president's subordinates more powerful than the president (their own commander in-chief)?
That's why Impeachment needs to happen first, because it is a high bar to pass to get 2/3rds of politicians to vote on it - and when convicted (When the president's right to due process and a fair trial is honored) it removes immunity and the president can be formally charged.
But not impeaching, or failing at impeaching renders the ability to charge mute.
No president should have to look over their shoulder for the next administrations to relitigate everything they ever did in office to find a crime - the remedy is impeachment, not sending political hacks after a president when they're out of office.
Raegan solved the Cuban Missile Crisis and he likely broke some law somewhere to do it. He made a backroom deal to end that threat and if all the communications and documents were released, there could very well have been a crime there - does that mean he should be charged because he handled a tough situation and weighed up the pros and cons for it?
That's why they get elected President; because we trust that they will do what is needed in the interest of the nation and not need to worry about strict legal codes that can be used decades later to relitigate their weighing of the situation.
Hell, Obama sent a pallet of random cash to Iran in contravention of Financial Sanctions. That's a crime if anyone else did it. But as president Obama weighed the human lives involved and decided to pay the ransom - skirting the sanctions. Republicans didn't go after him for that, though they did politically criticize the decision.
And yes, each of the "prosecutors" going after Trump are indeed political creatures, two of whom ran political campaigns on the promise to "Get Trump" due to political differences.
that the scotus would even discuss the question of legality of a citizen without the restraint of law to control their actions proves that this country is DONE.......
Do we really need the Supreme Court to tell us that Trump can't shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it?
Trump shot someone? When?
@@Wallcraft_OfficialWhere did they state trump actually shot someone?
@@BB-rh2mlThey are arguing that he can. Not that he did. Pay attention
@@Power_to_the_people567 You are missing a comment from @wallcraft, which I was answering.
Try to pay attention to the the who is tagged in a reply before acting like a jackass
@@BB-rh2ml It doesn’t matter who is tagged. You asked a question. And I provided the answer. Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.
this is getting sent back down to the lower court....
1:04 excellent examination by the CJ Roberts and Prosecutor argues this is not political prosecution. Right, then I don't know what is. Excellent Justice Kavanagh exam followed.
Thank you Justice Jackson …….at last somebody with common sense !
She/He doesn't know what is a woman. How does she have common sense?
Respected🌹suprimcourte🌹chefgestise❤️ollmoste🌹comenteiamtrulyunderstante🌹respected🌹sperimecourte❤️argement🌹ollmoste🌹iamunderstante🌹respectefull🌹yoursiovely🌹nationalleeder🌹jesuscherste❤ioved🌹pranam🌹thankyousomach🌹rightnow🌹
Respecte❤suprimecourte🌹judge🌹iam🌹ollmoste❤superimecourte🌹argements🌹veedio🌹twoveedio🌹presidente🌹trampesir🌹courte🌹argements🌹iamunderstante🌹thankyousomach😂ioved🌹
@@eagleriver7863 Sex is biological attributes (even then you have people who are born with ambiguous characteristics within the biological sex -Intersex individuals) Gender is the SOCIAL construct such as their roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities. Gender can also refer to how people are perceived by social institutions based on their gender presentation. Gender varies by society and can change over time. So you essentially, trying to categorize a Woman as (having periods and babies) what about the 1 in 6 Women who are infertile and and don’t have periods?
@@yaxjvn You talk like communist. You want to disrupt family as a basic unit and destroy Bible morals. You are a son of Satan. Even worse than the son of bitch. At least bitch knows she is a woman and man are dirty and bad.
Alito is a complete TYRANT! Just awful
Oh please. Your hysteria is ridiculous.
@@nancyjo1957 Really? Alto's ignorance towards this is shocking enough, but to actually say and several times angrily demand NOT to listen or discuss the FACTS of the case obviously shows his bias. All judges use the facts to determine their decisions.
@@joeflaherty8793 Calling Alito ignorant shows your inability to know the facts.
The Supreme Court needs to have checks and balances within itself. With due respect to our court systems, the arrogance of the court and the way they handle things is disgusting. They seem to be a group of people with the easiest job in the world. They take months to hear a case while knowing they want some shit to be sorted out by lower courts, then why take a case and waste times, nothing but political reasons. They can take any position on a given case and be revered for their decision as if they are faultless deciders. E.g they'll say well if people are dumb enough then they deserve dumb results, Supreme Court can't decide for them what dumb people they elect.
His lawyers use totally different types of presidential times that have nothing to do with this case
Our forefathers never thought there would be anyone like trump
They are full of it! Every media in this country headlines should be “Any Justice that participates in the delays of Trumps trials should resign immediately! Where is the Media!!!!!!!!
I remember when the Supreme Court was worthy of respect. Then came Trump and his unqualified nominees.
They have to follow the law that has been written, we do not have to like it,but that is how the cookie crumble
Go cry elsewhere.
@@deborahbeltz718 the problem is, they do not. Certain ones follow only their own ideology.
So you loved that 'separate but equal' doctrine? Maybe the case where we put Japanese citizens in camps?
@@SecondChair please explain how you deduced that from any of the post or replies.
Justice Delayed IS JUSTICE DENIED !!!
We are NOT a nation of Kings, Monarchs or Dictators therefore no one is above the law, we are all created equal!
Justice Jackson is clealyr the standout higher intelligence on the bench.
It's high time to clean up SCOTUS!
What does that mean?
The usual Dem response when the Supreme Court argues the Constitution.
I agree with you. Those 3 Democrat Justice have to go.
Remember, it’s an equal branch of government, this comment wasn’t thought up by you, but the notion of creating an illusion of corruption is nothing more that a tactic used by Hitler to remove constitutional judges replacing them with activists judges. . I’d be very very careful.. that’s overthrowing an equal branch of government. …
nonsense words
SCOTUS adjourned the presidential immunity hearing until Thursday 9th May at 10am which is today.
What happened?
John Sauer's voice sounds like AI and it's scarily inhumane
He sounds like he has something wrong with his throat or an addict.
It’s called dysphonia.
my previous
I thought it was RFK Jr.
He's got COPD. I'm sure you are perfect
Where is the check on power if we allow for absolute presidential immunity?
Congress, and impeachment. Ya'll commenting in this thread and know none of the arguments being presented.
It's the law?
@@MasterofSFL yup ,the short bus cnn viewers have no clue what this is about
@@MasterofSFL Yeah go ahead and start impeachment hearings for someone who executed an opponent. What could possibly go wrong.
I understand exactly what they are saying , but John is spot on! Also, the judge justices are great in.questions and answers!
36:54 impeachment is often called a political act. I meam everything is political but each rep in Congress has to weigh to impeach or not, not solely on morals but also their own job.
ALLOWING IMMUNITY IS ALLOWING A COUP. ANY THIRD GRADER KNOWS THAT!!!!
The only loss of Democracy. In a Republicans win is that of a loss of the Democratic Party for all the false cases used against the Trump conservatives. Their stifling of Christian speaking on line and the inability of conservatives to protect fheir children. And their cruelty to Americans with millions of dangerous refugees. The media and schools have created a culture over-sexualizing children and lying due to political partiality. And the federal agencies are set up to recreate these dysfunctions--expanding the budget to more trillions, feeding greater wealth to corrupt leaders who influence the stock market or taking personal money from other nation and creating wars.
I hope they give Trump absolute immunity. Cause Dark Brandon has work to do. First he needs to take out his political rivals and anyone who doesn't agree with his world and social views. There are six Supreme Court seats that also qualify for this action. There is also senators and representatives that quality for this action also. Even quality immunity based on what Trump's lawyer describes will give Dark Brandon the power to do all the above. Is that what they really want? Come on people we need a decision fast cause Dark Brandon has work to do.. Now do you really want this? And there is still so much more. Make sure the elections elect Dark Brandon's people for all seats and then Hand the Presidency over to his Vice President without an election. That doesn't sound like a Republic or Democracy. Why did the Supreme Court even take this up?
Yup. Not the America I want to live in.
That's what you voted for when you voted the Democrats in. The Democrats are evil people and have no love for this country.
ALito suggests non-viable Hypoteticals to try and weaken strong precidents.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say - fools because they have to say something"? Plato. "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool" Shakespere. “Only a fool never changes his mind.” Branston
sauer knows it's not right to argue and he has no base to argue BUT he earns money from trump so he just has to do the talk and try but...NO...sorry.
He probably figures that if he doesn't somehow win that twump won't pay him.💙
We must REJECT THIS COMPROMISED COURT RULING . IF THOMAS IS NOT RECUSED AND ALITO AND THOMAS ARE NOT CHARGED WOTH BRIBERY . WTF ARE THEH DOING?
Lighten up Frances.
I don't mind as long as they prosecute the Biden administration!
No person is immune from the law if you're not Sovereign.
Except Hunter Biden and the whole Biden family. And Obama when he killed four Americans in Benghazi.
except the President ...read he constitution
The oath of office: 'to protect, preserve, and defend the constitution' means one must follow it -- i.e. not commit acts in violation of the Constitution
how is Sauer even an attorney he is as Dumb as Rudy
And once again, a Dem like you tries to insult the lawyers instead of understanding the Constitution.
What is wrong with his voice . Is it from overuse or medical issue
I agree instead of wasting time on trump go check out his voice box he does have a problem 😮
@@hyacinthsutherland1177 WOW .. how RUDE are you?? Do you say a person that has diabetes shouldn't be doing a particular job? Should that person be discriminated against because of their health issues? Should this lawyer be discriminated against because of a health issue/disability? How dare you people make fun of a disability. He has Spasmodic dysphonia which is a voice disorder. It causes involuntary spasms in the muscles of the voice box or larynx. This causes the voice to break and have a tight, strained or strangled sound. It is a life long illness/condition/disability and it's very hard to overcome and stand before people and talk. This is a brave person to even do this job. That doesn't mean he is right or wrong on his argument ... BUT RUDE of YOU to call out his disability and question whether he should be a lawyer. SMH Haters all!! True TDS!
Doctors can fix that voice!so annoying !
Robert Kennedy Jr voice is worst but equally is annoying hear that voices.
Smokers voice
Jackson and Sotomayor should not be on the court. Not because they are not qualified, I really question their ability to be objective.
This particular case has proven that to me. It's so obvious that they don't like Trump. A little too personal. Jackson was attacking the guy. That was surprising.
" NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW" sounds like a Pavlovian whistle I've heard before.
It doesn't matter how much you like or dislike Trump. When you spend 8 years investigating, indicted, impeached twice and attempted to find something in the law to convict him, that's the very definition of a political and judicial witchhunt.
To the point where you never found anything criminal, so you weaponized the political system.
The boomerang always returns to the sender.
This Supreme Court decision has serious implications.
Replace them with 2 other judges. Since they were appointed by a Democrat then the Dems should replace them.
That's a scary thought now days
Justice Jackson is seriously sharp, she seems to be far more intelligent than the others
Yes and no. She can’t talk w o saying
I mean
You know
You are a fool
@@paulsolon6229 that’s just a vocal tick that many people have, she’s not a trained public speaker as far as I know.
@@psylocyn she has a tick, ugh. the speaking is consistent w someone who lacks knowledge of their speech
@@paulsolon6229 smh