The beauty of what Judge Pan did was that she walked him out to the end of the branch, then cut it off at the trunk. The Seal Team 6 question got most of the coverage but it was one part of her bigger goal which was to smash the "absolute immunity" argument.
We’ve seen crowds gather on DJT’s motorcade route and make humour of imagining him in a convertible. The opposition have created the conditions for a tragedy so they can install candidates from within in a seamless manner. This is the most opportune time for the opposition to relinquish ALL responsibility and prepare a back story. Can they find a record of DJT seeing a therapist for a couple of sessions during the most stressful moments of his presidency? Maybe he placed a bet on a football match once? Maybe there was a couple of weeks where he drank excessively and there is a record of the doctor prescribing him a recommendation of going teetotal for a month? The aim for the opposition is to find something tangible which everyone can point to and say: ‘Oh yeah. That tipped him over the edge!’ But we know DJT will still have the audacity to go for the American dream once more. The public will rejoice as they see him get to the top with his lovely, beautiful and young wife by by his side. DJT will have it all and America will be great again.
Mr Conway is looking much better and happier since deciding to leave Kellyanne. What a piece of work she is, ie. alternate facts. As to judge Pan, she asked logical questions to get to the root of the immunity matter: no one is above, immune, from the law.
You look great George! You deserve a great person in your life. Thank you for ALWAYS STAYING TRUE TO YOUR OWN MORAL COMPASS during the Trump presidency, the difficulties with your ex wife, and still staying true and positive. You are a true gentleman. Thank you
@@blackstorm9755 Because Trump doesn't own them. They're 'free agents,' owned by entities who scoff at truth, justice and working class Americans, unless they need to be put down or told how to vote.
I'd rather see them take the case and unanimously rule that the US Constitution does not confer any immunity from criminal prosecution to the President. That would be 100% in keeping with the Republican goal of tilting SCOTUS to strict constructionism.
So glad I found this. I just finished reading George Conway's article and was trying to find him being interviewed. Pure genius. George is looking great, too! 😊
Indeed not. It's the duty of a judge to examine the arguments in exactly this light. No one should be surprised by this, least of all the Defense. I swear, it's as if there's a kind of deep epistemic vacuum shared by all the people involved with this wave of political corruption. They can't seem to think straight about anything. Yes, it's all diabolical and nasty and bigoted and profoundly dishonest. But I think that somebody forgot to tell these people to reserve at least a tiny thread of integrity and honesty somewhere, some island of sanity to retreat to when their fabricated pretense starts to fall down around their ears. But they haven't. It's lies and deception, vileness, brutality, and sheer stupidity all the way down with these people. There is no redeeming feature to polish up and present as a cover story or even as a distraction. The Defense would be polishing turds. Come to think of it, I guess that, in fact, they are.
Judge Pan did not set a trap. She asked a very valid question which emerged the implications and ramifications of Trump's lawyer's arguement. To suggest it was a trap is misreporting. Judge Pan was astute and very aware of the Law.
It was a straw man argument but ultimately it exposes the flaw in American political structure, the president has way too much power. That is not Trumps fault, it has happened over a variety administrations, slowly increasing executive power.
His defense isn't that he didn't do it. His defence is that he did it and is immune from the consequences. The position that he has absolute immunity is an admission of guilt.
@@triciac1019 the irony is that the Republican Senators argued that they didn't have to hold him responsible precisely because he would/could face criminal charges. McConnell came right out and said that.
Republicans can never get to a simple answer when it comes to Trump. Yet, they got the black, female President of Harvard fired for not giving what they perceived as a simple answer. When Lindsey Graham was asked about Trump’s “poisoning the blood of our country” comment, he brushed it off as “just words.” Graham said he wasn’t concerned about words. The same response did not protect the black, female President of Harvard.
@@caroledmonds4070 He has nothing it's just he feel the need to say something to try to deflect away from the walls closing in on the Manchurian Cantaloupe.
@@MaryReese-oy8is Soo, you agree that NO ONE should have "absolute immunity" if they are performing CRIMINAL ACTS and you disagree with the 🍊 🤡 and his lawyers? Good for you! You'll notice that NO ONE was cited SPECIFICALLY. "I LOVE the poorly educated!"
You do realize that every single president has committed war crimes against other nations, right? Obama literally blew up a wedding party with a bomb. Both Bushes invaded other countries. Clinton-Bosnia. It goes on and on. None were prosecuted for their actions because they were performed in service to their nation.
Why would someone ask for immunity from the courts if they were not guilty of something? Wouldn't they want to go to court to have their innocence proven?
Not really. If a paramedic breaks your ribs administering CPR, they are immune from lawsuits because they were trying to help you not harm you. Immunity protects them from frivolous lawsuits by petty people that don't appreciate that their life was saved.
@@evagass41 That’s immunity from liability. What they’re arguing is criminal immunity, something that paramedics were never in danger of in the first place.
Bc it’s Trump. The big baby won’t take NO for an answer. The lawyers are basically ruining their lives and their law licenses by contorting themselves into unrecognizable sycophants for their dictator.
@@Avo7bProject A president can't pardon himself. The POTUS already said so. The same one that is currently seated. I can't believe they are not remembering that fact.
Not quite. We don't have any actual legal precedent on this because it's never been tested in court. Had Nixon faced criminal charges, his lawyers would certainly have argued immunity, and hopefully been shot down on it. Ford's pardon prevented that. Even the OLC memos in 1973 and 2000 that say no to indicting a sitting president are just DOJ policy, not law. Both the special council investigating Nixon (Jaworski, I think?) and Ken Starr concluded they had the power to indict, but instead they punted to Congress for impeachment. In the case of Nixon it was somewhat justified, as that Congress would have convicted him and thrown him out had he not resigned. Clinton actually made a plea agreement to avoid criminal charges: losing his law license for 5 years, being suspended from the Supreme Court Bar (which he resigned from during the suspension) and a fine of $25,000. You would think the mere fact of Clinton's needing to make a plea agreement to avoid prosecution implies that presidential immunity doesn't exist. But that would make sense.
I was saying the same thing Biden should just have Trump arrested put in prison stay in office and just pardon himself and just before his term ends resign😮 that seems to be the logic of the Republicans😊 they won't be able to impeach Joe Biden because they don't have any evidence
This non-American agrees. However, I think they're giving way to him a bit, so that there's no chance of any fallout. I'm just hoping the SC upholds the ruling, or declines to accept the appeal.
Makes a mockery of our judicial system! It's a fkng waste of time and almost legitimizes the argument of possibility of legitimacy. . Fkng DISGRACE! corruption, lies, insanity. And it is the insanity of bringing the argument in the first place. We are embarrassed by the motion! @@thenutsonyourchin
@@jockyoung4491 - In 2016, the vulgarian's largest base was made up of all the Independents and Democrats who stayed home and did NOT vote. The Repubs would LOVE to repeat performance. We cannot sit by and let it happen without at least trying to pry those folks off the couch!
What’s truly absurd is that the Appeals Court heard the case to begin with. And then the absurdity will continue when the SC agrees to hear the appeal of that ruling, instead of simply upholding the lower court’s ruling, which simply put, is that “ a President is not a King.” Ridiculous.
We don't know what the SC will do yet. I think to not accept it, or to uphold the lower court's ruling, could be a distinct possibility. A speedy and nice off-ramp for them.
@@sheilaboston7051I think the same. SCOTUS needed to get involved in the 14th amendment question - states were interpreting Federal law and reaching different conclusions. This is a simple jurisdictional case that SCOTUS can decline to review, if they agree with the DC circuit.
The question is, by definition, a rhetorical trap. Trap, in this context, does not imply the question was invalid or dishonest, it just means that if they stick to their underlying argument they have to admit to a contradiction of terms.
@Sticky-Situation - Wrong! It was a "totally valid question" intended to act as a very nasty trap! That DC circuit court judge smartly & deliberately walked Trump's 3rd tier lawyer into a corner neither he nor Trump can march out of now! Trapped indeed!
It's actually a pretty common "trap" in that situation and Trump's lawyer obviously never saw it coming. And, yes, each question in the sequence was completely valid, but by answering each the way he did Trump's lawyer walked on the trap.
There's no way that Trump's lawyer didn't know that argument was weak AF. The problem with narcissistic yt men is they think no one is smarter than them.
The framers of the Constitution assumed that politicians in the future would have principles and would react to correct criminal acts in the Executive Branch. The GOP proved that is not the case.
Trump's hero the brutal dictator on $20 proved it when he told SCOTUS "Let's see you enforce the law & stop me", then committed the Deadliest US Terror Event.
They did not "walk into a trap" - they were ill prepared (or not prepared at all) and attempting to support a theory that even a 3 year old could tell them was wrong.
I would say I'll prepared also. But what baffles me is that this isn't a poor man by any means. So I'm thinking he would hire what money can afford. But his lawyers haven't done much for him. So is it greed for money and status that places them as his lawyers? Or, or do they honestly believe in this man and expect to get paid?
@@f.miller9522I don’t think the man could hire a decent lawyer if he tried now. There’s not a decent lawyer, who regards the Bar and his duty to the rule of law with respect, that would work for him.
Cognitive dissonance is the primary tenet of the Republican Party. It’s as if they like the feeling of believing two contradictory things at the same time.
@@Imperium83 yep. just look at your sentence: "is literally a walking vegetable." Literally he may be an older man than Trump by less than 10 years, but never a vegetable as he's, like all other human kind, literally a piece of meat and a bunch of more things - but none vegetables. Like @JamesLibrary commentated "It’s as if they like the feeling of believing two contradictory things at the same time.", in fact your own words just prove him right. Geez...
George Bush wasn’t prosecution for illegal torturing people in Guantanamo, or killing innocent people in Iraq. Obama killed so many innocent people with his drone program, the list goes on and on. If a President can easily be held personally responsible for all of his Presidential actions it would be hard for any President to make tough decisions. For the record, I’m not arguing that it’s good or bad.
It shields the office holder from criminal prosecution for actions taken while performing the duties of the office, if it didn't previous presidents would be on the hook for war crimes.
All we can do is shake our head and wonder which defense they will use on any day in court. Thank you, George, for pointing out their inadequate knowledge of the legal system !
The fact that the Judges are even going thru this is telling within itself🤔 You don't have to explain to a criminal that - you are a criminal, All you have to do is hold them accountable.🤫 He already told you and showed you what he would do. He even THREATENED the Judge. (But he's still free - HOW😶)
The Seal Team 6 question was a yes or no answer, and Trump's lawyer indicated yes-Trump could murder an American and not be prosecuted. We literally just saw Congress Impeach Trump twice with a slim majority, and the Senate fail to impeach twice because maga operatives in the House and Senate declared their trial to be the duty of the court. Same guys said prosecute the guy after his term ends, btw, and that most of them feared their House/Senate vote to impeach would result in violence against them. The judicial branch is a SEPARATE branch that is CO-EQUAL precisely to prevent what Donald Trump wants.
No president has ever been impeached & convicted. If it didn't happen to the smelly, creepy, orange clown it will never happen. Practically speaking, the clown's lawyer is okay with the clown committing crimes & can never be tried & held accountable in a court of law.
Many GOP Senators claimed that they voted to acquit only because Trump was out of office during the second impeachment. By Trump’s position in the appeal, a President could easily commit a bunch of crimes in the last few hours of presidency or at any point, resign shortly after such acts with no consequences. Did they mean to say that the Republicans were wrong not to convict Trump? Also their Double Jeopardy argument kind of contradicted with the immunity claim. If a President were convicted by the Senate, wouldn’t a criminal trial be more of an issue because the Congress had already punished the President through impeachment?
This lawyer is a former state solicitor-general, he’s actually not in the same class as Joe Tacapiba & Alina Habba. He failed so badly because there are no good arguments for the immunity case. And he failed because he was willing to run these absurd arguments just to get more delay. His competency is not the issue, his ethics are.
I think everybody is focusing too much on impeachment and conviction from the house and Senate. Most important thing is can a president be convicted of criminal activity. Since no one is above the law, the answers yes
Trump’s lawyer effectively answered no but he wouldn’t say so. Instead, he kept repeating the same point about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers over and over again because his position was too ridiculous to say it out loud. It must be frustrating to be in the legal profession if you care about logic and consistency.
from what i heard it was basically an argument that impeachment is a necessary pretrial stage of any prosecution process. so when the example of st6 was deployed it was to show that something blatantly illegal (assassination of a political opponent for political motives) could still be met with impunity because it was the president what ordered it. which contradicts the oath the president takes to be president - i.e. the president was lying (on oath or on behalf of the oathkeepers) and therefore trying to eat and drink his tea and cake twice over.
I love these 3 judges and have faith in them. I am sitting at the edge of my seat waiting for there ruling on this,and am confident justice will prevail.
Almost certainly the military chain of command. Under the UCMJ you don't have to follow an unlawful order, which that would clearly be. Every link in that chain of command could refuse that order, and it would only take one link for the whole thing to break down. I doubt it would get past the Secretary of the Navy if any President were foolish enough to submit such an order. Which is not to say that Von Golfcart _isn't_ that foolish. I suspect any President who tried such a thing would find himself legally locked up in a military detention center before the order got past Pennsylvania Avenue.
Trump's lawyers are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. They HOPE that they'll get paid by parroting the 'legal theories' that Trump believes. They deceive themselves - some of Trump's recent lawyers are suing him for non-payment of their fees.
The real questions are: " is an attempted coup d'etat a type of insurrection. Of course it is. And: is any act that ends the rule of law....for one or for all...legal? Really? Is that really what we've come to?
A third of the nation is homeschooled by badly educated religious zealots...half the nation uses textbooks written by badly educated zealots. It's no surprise that we are where we are.
Is it a coup if the head of state is ordering it? No. It's tyranny, but not a coup. Holding onto power through violence isn't the same as grabbing power through violence.
How ridiculous calling being asked to explain scenarios a "nasty trap". If a lawyer can't satisfactorily explain away ANY and ALL questions asked, they haven't been "trapped", they're just barking up at a tree after the lumberjack has shouted TIMBER, and it crushes them flat!
No, what's ridiculous is you criticizing language that's regularly used in legal proceedings, on a topic regarding legal issues. It's not just explaining scenarios that's going on here, there a whole strategy that drives every single question and when and how it will be asked. It is setting a trap. Traps are one of the reasons that criminal defendants are best advised to avoid providing testimony. Indeed, Diaper Don's lawyer was caught up in this well planned, nasty trap.
@@user-fed-yumto extend on your reply, 'setting traps' is also common practice by good journalists, debaters, etc. They basically test the standpoint of opponents. Of sich a point isnt sollid, it not their fault for testing it ofcourse. And to be fair the lawyer that stepped into this trap was pretty good, sidestepped a lot of traps prior to this one, but the conversation was like a minefield. Most lawyers would already been lit up before that point with such a rediculous view to defend. Disclaimer: not a fan of trump or his awyers. I think those people are scum of the earth.
I believe you fail to understand what happened here. Trump went to court claiming that he couldn't be prosecuted unless congress approved, he left saying that he could be prosecuted when congress approved. The first statement is a defense. Congress didn't approve, he can't be prosecuted. The second is an admission: the constitution doesn't protect the president from prosecution at all, and even gives one explicit example of when a president can be prosecuted. Agreeing to that interpretation was the trap.
Come to think of it, and all we really had to do was follow the Constitution, heed it's warnings, and preserve the Rule of Law, fascinating how they wrote it down and the court records not only for posterity but also for precedent.
And did not give voters the right to vote for someone who has participated in insurrection, it was taken of the table by disqualifying them from holding public office it was decided for us. The constitution doesn’t allow voters the right to vote for them. It isn’t a voting rights issue. We have never had that right. It isn’t a criminal issue. It’s a qualifying issue.
@@MyHalcyonDaysAreHere'Crazy, that's all WE AND THE SENATE had to do. Is there unbiased reporting now that Murdochs made their decision clearly at last night's town hall? Great reply and love UR name!
Yeah, the 'nasty traps' blew the Trump legal team's strategy and Trump's defense to kingdom come. It's was like the closing act of a magnificent, operatic tragedy. But I was crying tears of joy.
that's not what he's saying. you can't do something criminal -- but you can't be prosecuted for your doing your job -- as president. or Joe could be prosecuted for treason and giving our airbase away
QUIT FOCUSING ON TRUMP. I live in NY. James Madison High School just told it's students to STAY AT HOME for remote learning going forward. WHY? To make room for 2,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS...they've run out of room at the Hotels...they're now housing them in Schools!!!! I SERIOUSLY can't handle another year of Biden and his Administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trump's lawyer just oked Biden to take Trump out with a Seal Team... 😂😂 I don't blame him. I can't even imagine how he deals with that monster dumpster fire.
@@rw0050 you're not smart, that's ok. But what Trump is arguing with immunity, only helps Biden. As Biden is in fact the current sitting President. Trump has no power to do anything, even if he wins the immunity fight. The judges asked a pointed question and Trump's goons fell for it. By their thinking, Biden could also use the Seal team 6 to take out the rival.
This hearing was ridiculous. They argued complete immunity, which is absurd nonsense, then pretended that they weren't arguing it, which is Alice-in-Wonderland logic. Waste of the courts time.
Very simple question and answer. Is arguing for absolute immunity not an admission of guilt? I mean if you're innocent you do not require immunity. Presidents do not have absolute power. Dictators do. But every single human being must be held accountable for his/her actions no matter the circumstance. A president represents the country does he not. Not his party.
When the logical conclusion of your argument is something so outrageously stupid, being forced to state the stupid thing out loud is not in any way a trap.
It's far easier to cause damage than to repair it. It's why we have such an elaborate system to manage who can hold Presidential office. And yet it is clearly far more prone to failure than it should ever be.
Brilliant Conway helped us get it right. I don't suspect most Americans will understand what is going on in the battle but get your horses hitched. lol
George Conway is looking very good. He is very obviously , working out and on a very healthy diet, he also appears to be getting more sleep. I always love listenting to George Conway for his ability to cut to the chase.
Curious how the Maga trolls never have any comments defending the Kellyanne gila monster Barbie. I mean, she is such a staunch trumper, and yet not one of them says, "What about sleepy Joe, Hunter, and Nancy Pelosi?", to deflect all the negative comments about her.
Yes. I mean, yes, of course it was. But it was also obvious and basic, a completely textbook question, straight out of law school. More than that, it's a question straight out of popular culture. Come on. What James Bond villain isn't trying to leverage some sort of ABSOLUTE power? It's even more overt in science fiction, where the bad guy is so hungry for power that he puts the entire galaxy, or all of spacetime, at risk. When a malignant narcissist says that he wants absolute immunity for his misdeeds, he's only telling you the truth. He really does. And he's only getting started. So when you ask that malignant narcissist (or his craven legal team) if they're REALLY SERIOUS about the "absolute" part of absolute anything, don't be too surprised if they answer "yes." They SHOULD prudently answer "no" and shuffle their papers, but the narcissist pulling their strings won't let them. He sees nothing wrong with absolute power over spacetime. It works for him, right? And nobody else matters, literally nobody. The courts should just fall in line with this, so he thinks. Trump did nothing wrong. It was all perfect.
I think arguing it before the appeal court is more important and necessary than most people understand. Alot of this has never been tested before so the answers were never really clear. But by letting the appeals process play out, we are witnessing American history while it is being written, argued and debated. We may see this now as a waste of time, but our children and grandchildren will thanks us for doing so. Like planting the seed of a tree for which we will never live long enough to enjoy the shade it gives, lawyers in the future, our descendants, some of who are not even born yet will have precedent cases to refer to while making future arguments possibly before the supreme court that may save our nation in the future. So I say...... no matter the work, the frustration, the exhaustion.... let us plant this tree of justice, nurture it and have something strong and solid to pass off to future generations so that they may enjoy the fruit and comfort of the shade it may provide. It is worth the work.
It's certainly important to have an appeal process, in order to catch issues that are not reducible by a finding of fact. But here the trial court has rendered a reasonable decision which addresses the issue. That could have been sufficient, and it would have contributed substantially to case law if allowed to stand, as it would have by default. This particular appeal is not, to my way of thinking, serving a genuine quest for justice but is actively trying to undermine justice as commonly understood. The fact that there has never been a call to test it before says something about its hyperbolic character, and about how far it lies outside what is commonly understood. If it has never before been tested, we're obliged to ask why is it being tested now? Is some socially useful purpose being pursued, or are we merely being asked to indulge the ambitions of a despot? Never mind. Such tests will still serve to close gaps in the law, however rare or hyperbolic or even despotic they might be. As long as the judicial process itself is not undermined, the law will be stronger as a result.
The beauty of what Judge Pan did was that she walked him out to the end of the branch, then cut it off at the trunk. The Seal Team 6 question got most of the coverage but it was one part of her bigger goal which was to smash the "absolute immunity" argument.
The most brutally eloquent summary I’ve seen. Well done.
We’ve seen crowds gather on DJT’s motorcade route and make humour of imagining him in a convertible. The opposition have created the conditions for a tragedy so they can install candidates from within in a seamless manner.
This is the most opportune time for the opposition to relinquish ALL responsibility and prepare a back story.
Can they find a record of DJT seeing a therapist for a couple of sessions during the most stressful moments of his presidency? Maybe he placed a bet on a football match once? Maybe there was a couple of weeks where he drank excessively and there is a record of the doctor prescribing him a recommendation of going teetotal for a month?
The aim for the opposition is to find something tangible which everyone can point to and say: ‘Oh yeah. That tipped him over the edge!’
But we know DJT will still have the audacity to go for the American dream once more. The public will rejoice as they see him get to the top with his lovely, beautiful and young wife by by his side. DJT will have it all and America will be great again.
@@jahualhaq9853😂😂😂😂
Mr Conway is looking much better and happier since deciding to leave Kellyanne. What a piece of work she is, ie. alternate facts. As to judge Pan, she asked logical questions to get to the root of the immunity matter: no one is above, immune, from the law.
Weight loss is good on all counts for Conway..besides his intelligence..enjoy him.. 🇨🇦
George is looking great. See what happens when you rid yourself from a negative and toxic person. Good for him.
Losing that 120 pounds of dead weight really has made him glow 🌟
Bill and Hillary . Nancy Pelosi, and most of the Dems are.
George is bringing respect back to the Conway family name. good riddance to alternative facts and spin doctor gymnastics
You look great George! You deserve a great person in your life. Thank you for ALWAYS STAYING TRUE TO YOUR OWN MORAL COMPASS during the Trump presidency, the difficulties with your ex wife, and still staying true and positive. You are a true gentleman. Thank you
Hopefully the supreme courts will not hear this case and put a end to all of this BS
I hope this ruling ends this Sh.tShow! The S Court need not waste any time on this, they have more important issues 2 labor over..
They will probably punt it back to the State Court. Which will shut this down for good.
@@blackstorm9755 rrr
@@blackstorm9755 Because Trump doesn't own them. They're 'free agents,' owned by entities who scoff at truth, justice and working class Americans, unless they
need to be put down or told how to vote.
I'd rather see them take the case and unanimously rule that the US Constitution does not confer any immunity from criminal prosecution to the President. That would be 100% in keeping with the Republican goal of tilting SCOTUS to strict constructionism.
So glad I found this. I just finished reading George Conway's article and was trying to find him being interviewed. Pure genius. George is looking great, too! 😊
I’ve never seen Conway smile and laugh so much
Looks so much better and happier after splitting with the horrible lieing treasonous wife.
Would take a while to get over such a dishonest wife
That mofo looks better every time i see him!
Much more respectful of George Conway!
Maybe it's a Dorian Gray issue. Doesn't Kellyanne look more terrible every time? @@bolasblancas420
Taking an argument to its logical conclusion as Judge Pan did is not setting a trap.
Indeed not. It's the duty of a judge to examine the arguments in exactly this light. No one should be surprised by this, least of all the Defense.
I swear, it's as if there's a kind of deep epistemic vacuum shared by all the people involved with this wave of political corruption. They can't seem to think straight about anything.
Yes, it's all diabolical and nasty and bigoted and profoundly dishonest. But I think that somebody forgot to tell these people to reserve at least a tiny thread of integrity and honesty somewhere, some island of sanity to retreat to when their fabricated pretense starts to fall down around their ears.
But they haven't. It's lies and deception, vileness, brutality, and sheer stupidity all the way down with these people. There is no redeeming feature to polish up and present as a cover story or even as a distraction. The Defense would be polishing turds. Come to think of it, I guess that, in fact, they are.
Indeed, Trump's lawyers are like Wile E Coyote. They dug a hole then ran headlong into it.
Amen.
No, the trap was the lawyer's argument. They brought up something that they had no possible way to defend or argue.
Whatever. Either way, Trump's lawyers didn't see this coming otherwise would have had a better answer.
Judge Pan did not set a trap. She asked a very valid question which emerged the implications and ramifications of Trump's lawyer's arguement. To suggest it was a trap is misreporting. Judge Pan was astute and very aware of the Law.
💢💯💢
its ridiculous
Logic and reason are traps for the disingenuous.
Valid questions are the trap
It was a straw man argument but ultimately it exposes the flaw in American political structure, the president has way too much power. That is not Trumps fault, it has happened over a variety administrations, slowly increasing executive power.
Mr. Conway is a breath of fresh air in this nightmare! He obviously an expert on the law. And I usually agree with his point of view!
His defense isn't that he didn't do it. His defence is that he did it and is immune from the consequences. The position that he has absolute immunity is an admission of guilt.
A lifetime of being immune from the consequences of his actions has him believing that he should never be held to account.
That's what his attorneys said during his second impeachment. So did republican representatives. "He did it, but shouldn't face the consequences."
Delay delay & lie like a dog. Where have we heard these words before?
@@triciac1019 the irony is that the Republican Senators argued that they didn't have to hold him responsible precisely because he would/could face criminal charges. McConnell came right out and said that.
I ❤ to listen Mr. Conway. He always is right !
its not a trap if what was said was true and honest. all they did is ask a simple question. the awnser was no and somehow they couldnt say no.
Agree it wasn't a trap. The judge outsmarted Trump's lawyers. But then again, a first year law student could outsmart Trump's lawyers.
The point was it’s a trap of his own making.
Republicans can never get to a simple answer when it comes to Trump. Yet, they got the black, female President of Harvard fired for not giving what they perceived as a simple answer.
When Lindsey Graham was asked about Trump’s “poisoning the blood of our country” comment, he brushed it off as “just words.” Graham said he wasn’t concerned about words. The same response did not protect the black, female President of Harvard.
But he tried so hard to avoid answering!
I'm shocked that Trump's lawyers have the gall to make these ridiculous arguments to intelligent and accomplished judges. How disgraceful.
I'm shocked at how bad *ALL* of Trump's lawyers have been.
Perhaps they're the only ones willing to put up with his "alternative facts".
They’re stupid. Period.
As long as they got paid up front I doubt they care.
Don't be they are there because of their practicing licenses,, Trump is the actual Lawyer
@@robby1816Even the impeachment lawyers were bad.
there is no such thing as "Absolute Presidential Immunity"
Never has been Never will be
Obama sure hopes so.
@@uio890138when did Obama claim immunity, and under which context?
@@caroledmonds4070 He has nothing it's just he feel the need to say something to try to deflect away from the walls closing in on the Manchurian Cantaloupe.
Unless he appoints himself king.
@@zeeb696 You mean his handlers. Joe is clueless.
You don't have to be a lawyer and/or judge to see that was going to fail miserably
NO ONE should be "absolutely immune" when performing CRIMINAL ACTS.
That's what their trying to prove
THERE WERE NO CRIMINAL ACTS
PROVE OTHERWISE!!!!!!
@@MaryReese-oy8is Soo, you agree that NO ONE should have "absolute immunity" if they are performing CRIMINAL ACTS and you disagree with the 🍊 🤡 and his lawyers? Good for you! You'll notice that NO ONE was cited SPECIFICALLY. "I LOVE the poorly educated!"
@@vernalc2449
NO CRIMINAL ACTS. Back to bed little one
You do realize that every single president has committed war crimes against other nations, right? Obama literally blew up a wedding party with a bomb. Both Bushes invaded other countries. Clinton-Bosnia. It goes on and on. None were prosecuted for their actions because they were performed in service to their nation.
Why would someone ask for immunity from the courts if they were not guilty of something? Wouldn't they want to go to court to have their innocence proven?
The act of asking for immunity implies guilt, it's a yes or no question. Read my lips, oui or non? Even the french can understand !
Only if you're innocent...🤔👍
Not really. If a paramedic breaks your ribs administering CPR, they are immune from lawsuits because they were trying to help you not harm you. Immunity protects them from frivolous lawsuits by petty people that don't appreciate that their life was saved.
@@evagass41 That’s immunity from liability. What they’re arguing is criminal immunity, something that paramedics were never in danger of in the first place.
Bc it’s Trump. The big baby won’t take NO for an answer. The lawyers are basically ruining their lives and their law licenses by contorting themselves into unrecognizable sycophants for their dictator.
No one is above the law (period).
Unless you're a Democrat. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
Well, if a president that can pardon himself, then perhaps the law cannot reach him?
@@Avo7bProject A president can't pardon himself. The POTUS already said so. The same one that is currently seated. I can't believe they are not remembering that fact.
@Avo7bProject That's why Ford pardoned Nixon. Nixon didn't pardon himself before he left office.
@@Gg-lt9fb
Here we go again.......🙄
I thought we settled this immunity BS during the Nixon years.
I think the only time it came up before 45 was when David Frost interviewed Nixon and Nixon said, “If the President does it, then it’s not illegal.”
Exactly! I've been saying that same thing all along.
Not quite. We don't have any actual legal precedent on this because it's never been tested in court. Had Nixon faced criminal charges, his lawyers would certainly have argued immunity, and hopefully been shot down on it. Ford's pardon prevented that. Even the OLC memos in 1973 and 2000 that say no to indicting a sitting president are just DOJ policy, not law.
Both the special council investigating Nixon (Jaworski, I think?) and Ken Starr concluded they had the power to indict, but instead they punted to Congress for impeachment. In the case of Nixon it was somewhat justified, as that Congress would have convicted him and thrown him out had he not resigned. Clinton actually made a plea agreement to avoid criminal charges: losing his law license for 5 years, being suspended from the Supreme Court Bar (which he resigned from during the suspension) and a fine of $25,000.
You would think the mere fact of Clinton's needing to make a plea agreement to avoid prosecution implies that presidential immunity doesn't exist. But that would make sense.
@@AnitaClue Excellent summary. Thank you.
It’s a shame lawyers can’t be disbarred for abject stupidity 🤷🏻♀️
That wouldn't be fair. ...
Trumps Jan 6th posse is going to need deplorable lawyers for their defense. 😂
Smart lawyers with ethics refused to represent him.
If Trump wins his appeal, President Biden never has to leave the White House.
So true! He can then "appoint" Kamala Harris the next president and she can stay forever. Then she can. And so on and so on.
Hahaha 😆
I was saying the same thing Biden should just have Trump arrested put in prison stay in office and just pardon himself and just before his term ends resign😮 that seems to be the logic of the Republicans😊 they won't be able to impeach Joe Biden because they don't have any evidence
Yah ! President Biden can stop the election and make himself another 4 years for president that’s definitely makes Trump a cry baby loser 😂😂😂
I'm liking this. It sure would teach his a$$ a much needed lesson.
NO PERSON SHOULD BE IMMUNE.
Aye !
Especially a former president. 👍🏽
@@baanjones5910 ESPECIALLY
Then why am I still taking the flu shot? JAJAJA
@@peace4myheart because it means you're not immune. JAJAJA
Love to hear George Conway succinct factual reporting
He looks happier and healthier every time I see him.
@@elizabethstewart12 Did he strangle his missus perhaps? Can be.
So happy for Conway that he has gotten away from Skeletor and has a real life.
Thats who she reminds me of. lol.
He looks so much healthier
Yes and I believe he lost a lot of weight, on the right course in life obviously. 👏
Yeah, I don't recall him smiling much at the time, much less laughing out loud.
I call her the Crypt Keeper but Skeletor is good too. 😂
A case being decided by three female judges. This must be Reality Loser's worst nightmare.
Women bring him down ALL the time ❤
@@kathy-t5q maybe that's why they were picked. Strong females very unlikely to put up with cr*p.
So you say they are biased and have an agenda. Interesting.
@@kelperdude Of course they don't. But tRump still can't handle it when a woman says "No".
@@kelperdude Actually they are doing their job which is to hold criminals accountable.
As an American, I find it incredibly embarrassing to think that the Court even countenanced hearing this nonsense.
This non-American agrees. However, I think they're giving way to him a bit, so that there's no chance of any fallout. I'm just hoping the SC upholds the ruling, or declines to accept the appeal.
@@thenutsonyourchin Courts don't even bother hearing baseless cases all the time.
Makes a mockery of our judicial system! It's a fkng waste of time and almost legitimizes the argument of possibility of legitimacy. . Fkng DISGRACE! corruption, lies, insanity. And it is the insanity of bringing the argument in the first place. We are embarrassed by the motion! @@thenutsonyourchin
@mile_high_topher
I guess we will find out, so stay turned to MSNBC on how are they going to spin this once again.
@@thenutsonyourchinFor them, not of them. We're embarrassed for the judges. Why? Because Trump is a clown who hired chimpanzees.
"Sleepwalking into a dictatorship" has never been more true than right now. Will America survive? We'll see.
As long as everybody actually votes, we should be fine.
@@jockyoung4491 - In 2016, the vulgarian's largest base was made up of all the Independents and Democrats who stayed home and did NOT vote. The Repubs would LOVE to repeat performance. We cannot sit by and let it happen without at least trying to pry those folks off the couch!
Yep. We have joe in the WH, so it came true. I hope we still have a country after his last year.
@@kelperdude you need to stop brushing your tooth using fly spray.
@@kelperdude
We won't if Trump wins. Which is why that simply cannot happen
Thank you George Conway! Absolutely beautifully said. 😅
Fantastic way to explain that argument Mr. Conway!
By "nasty trap," do you mean highly educated, informed and PREPARED lawyers?
That is exactly what Conway meant. The Rump's lawyer must have been siting on a toilet when he came up with his arguments!. He should have flush them!
@@sharonbrown5162 YOU are one of the VERY FEW who gets my comment. Thank you! I was SHOCKED at the poopola that spewed from DJT's "lawyers" pie hole.
What’s truly absurd is that the Appeals Court heard the case to begin with. And then the absurdity will continue when the SC agrees to hear the appeal of that ruling, instead of simply upholding the lower court’s ruling, which simply put, is that “ a President is not a King.” Ridiculous.
We don't know what the SC will do yet. I think to not accept it, or to uphold the lower court's ruling, could be a distinct possibility. A speedy and nice off-ramp for them.
The problem with your statement is that Trump appealed it so they had no choice but to hear the case. Blame Trump for abuse of the courts.
@@sheilaboston7051 I agree. The Supreme Court has no reason to wade into this if the Appellate Court writes a solid decision.
@@sheilaboston7051I think the same. SCOTUS needed to get involved in the 14th amendment question - states were interpreting Federal law and reaching different conclusions. This is a simple jurisdictional case that SCOTUS can decline to review, if they agree with the DC circuit.
@@SMS9155You’re missing the point completely.
George Conway is finally getting the recognition he deserves. When he talks…..I listen!
And he does look so good, thin and handsome!
👍
That was not a "nasty trap", it was a totally valid question!
The question is, by definition, a rhetorical trap. Trap, in this context, does not imply the question was invalid or dishonest, it just means that if they stick to their underlying argument they have to admit to a contradiction of terms.
@Sticky-Situation - Wrong! It was a "totally valid question" intended to act as a very nasty trap! That DC circuit court judge smartly & deliberately walked Trump's 3rd tier lawyer into a corner neither he nor Trump can march out of now! Trapped indeed!
It's actually a pretty common "trap" in that situation and Trump's lawyer obviously never saw it coming. And, yes, each question in the sequence was completely valid, but by answering each the way he did Trump's lawyer walked on the trap.
There's no way that Trump's lawyer didn't know that argument was weak AF. The problem with narcissistic yt men is they think no one is smarter than them.
To Trump’s lawyers valid questions will always be a trap
Such a good discussion. Thank you Chris and George.
The framers of the Constitution assumed that politicians in the future would have principles and would react to correct criminal acts in the Executive Branch. The GOP proved that is not the case.
Trump's hero the brutal dictator on $20 proved it when he told SCOTUS "Let's see you enforce the law & stop me", then committed the Deadliest US Terror Event.
I hope we still have a country after this last year of joe.
oh so Joe taking money from china and then letting spy balloons traverse our military bases is ok?
@@kelperdudewhat an idiotic comment
@@porthosduvallon5301- that would not be my comment, but rather the person sitting in the WH right now.
They did not "walk into a trap" - they were ill prepared (or not prepared at all) and attempting to support a theory that even a 3 year old could tell them was wrong.
I would say I'll prepared also. But what baffles me is that this isn't a poor man by any means. So I'm thinking he would hire what money can afford. But his lawyers haven't done much for him. So is it greed for money and status that places them as his lawyers? Or, or do they honestly believe in this man and expect to get paid?
@@f.miller9522I don’t think the man could hire a decent lawyer if he tried now.
There’s not a decent lawyer, who regards the Bar and his duty to the rule of law with respect, that would work for him.
Exactly. This is only about delaying. And Trump further more pretend to be a victim.
You're right - it's a clickbait video title.
@@robm.4512 I think he just wants lawyers who'll do what he wants them to do. That's probably why many of their arguments sound so ludicrous.
Man, George looks so much healthier and happier now that he's rid himself of Skelator-Ann.
He's probably getting some too now
Cognitive dissonance is the primary tenet of the Republican Party. It’s as if they like the feeling of believing two contradictory things at the same time.
Lol
Your party "leader" is literally a walking vegetable.
@@Imperium83and yours is a traitor😂. Cope
@@Imperium83 yep. just look at your sentence: "is literally a walking vegetable." Literally he may be an older man than Trump by less than 10 years, but never a vegetable as he's, like all other human kind, literally a piece of meat and a bunch of more things - but none vegetables. Like @JamesLibrary commentated "It’s as if they like the feeling of believing two contradictory things at the same time.", in fact your own words just prove him right. Geez...
@@Imperium83 Then it must really sting when the orange ignoramus can’t even intellectually match a vegetable.
Looking at Trump, in Court, listening to the arguments, I'm reminded of Homer Simpson when he's confused.
"Doh!"
Great commentary! Thank you Chris and George ☺️
cog kaggle cop 2_
What a ridiculous answer. The office itself doesn’t shield an office holder from criminal prosecution.
Trump is grasping at straws. I guess I'm glad for some kind of absurdity to break the fear that Trump will return.
Sure it does , why do you think every other president is walking around.
Seriously? This your first time around the block?
George Bush wasn’t prosecution for illegal torturing people in Guantanamo, or killing innocent people in Iraq. Obama killed so many innocent people with his drone program, the list goes on and on. If a President can easily be held personally responsible for all of his Presidential actions it would be hard for any President to make tough decisions. For the record, I’m not arguing that it’s good or bad.
It shields the office holder from criminal prosecution for actions taken while performing the duties of the office, if it didn't previous presidents would be on the hook for war crimes.
If he’s innocent, why does he need immunity?
Durrrr🤪😵💫
He wants immunity so he can keep committing crimes , become a dictator !
Political persecution. Thanks for asking
So no one will ever question him and he can make all these other court cases go away
@@kahanakahuna1470 I've a question. Do magnets work under water?
All we can do is shake our head and wonder which defense they will use on any day in court. Thank you, George, for pointing out their inadequate knowledge of the legal system !
The fact that the Judges are even going thru this is telling within itself🤔 You don't have to explain to a criminal that - you are a criminal, All you have to do is hold them accountable.🤫 He already told you and showed you what he would do. He even THREATENED the Judge. (But he's still free - HOW😶)
I wonder that myself, total BS!
Always enjoy listening to George.
The Seal Team 6 question was a yes or no answer, and Trump's lawyer indicated yes-Trump could murder an American and not be prosecuted. We literally just saw Congress Impeach Trump twice with a slim majority, and the Senate fail to impeach twice because maga operatives in the House and Senate declared their trial to be the duty of the court. Same guys said prosecute the guy after his term ends, btw, and that most of them feared their House/Senate vote to impeach would result in violence against them. The judicial branch is a SEPARATE branch that is CO-EQUAL precisely to prevent what Donald Trump wants.
😅
Explain to me what’s wrong with MAGA?
No president has ever been impeached & convicted. If it didn't happen to the smelly, creepy, orange clown it will never happen. Practically speaking, the clown's lawyer is okay with the clown committing crimes & can never be tried & held accountable in a court of law.
Many GOP Senators claimed that they voted to acquit only because Trump was out of office during the second impeachment. By Trump’s position in the appeal, a President could easily commit a bunch of crimes in the last few hours of presidency or at any point, resign shortly after such acts with no consequences. Did they mean to say that the Republicans were wrong not to convict Trump?
Also their Double Jeopardy argument kind of contradicted with the immunity claim. If a President were convicted by the Senate, wouldn’t a criminal trial be more of an issue because the Congress had already punished the President through impeachment?
@@edwardl.990Oh, that might take YEARS!😂
When it comes to lawyers, you get what you pay for. This is what happens when you run around stiffing every top lawyer. 🤷🏿♀
Trump had pretty bad results last year with his various ballot lawsuits. How many crack attorneys really want Trump files in their prior history?
This lawyer is a former state solicitor-general, he’s actually not in the same class as Joe Tacapiba & Alina Habba.
He failed so badly because there are no good arguments for the immunity case.
And he failed because he was willing to run these absurd arguments just to get more delay.
His competency is not the issue, his ethics are.
Yep!👍🏽 nobody wants to represent him.
@@baanjones5910 Nobody with integrity and qualifications*
Probably will stiff these guys too…u need a billion dollar retainer when representing Trump
I think everybody is focusing too much on impeachment and conviction from the house and Senate. Most important thing is can a president be convicted of criminal activity. Since no one is above the law, the answers yes
Please put him in prison pretty please 🙏🏻
Judge Pan *had* to keep going at it, as Trump's lawyer kept avoiding the question.
pan top of new england
Trump’s lawyer effectively answered no but he wouldn’t say so. Instead, he kept repeating the same point about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers over and over again because his position was too ridiculous to say it out loud. It must be frustrating to be in the legal profession if you care about logic and consistency.
from what i heard it was basically an argument that impeachment is a necessary pretrial stage of any prosecution process. so when the example of st6 was deployed it was to show that something blatantly illegal (assassination of a political opponent for political motives) could still be met with impunity because it was the president what ordered it. which contradicts the oath the president takes to be president - i.e. the president was lying (on oath or on behalf of the oathkeepers) and therefore trying to eat and drink his tea and cake twice over.
I love these 3 judges and have faith in them. I am sitting at the edge of my seat waiting for there ruling on this,and am confident justice will prevail.
I just have to say it George looks so much better now that kellyanne got on her broom and flew Back to the Sewer where she came from
Couldn't have said it better. Some people are under Trump's spell and so greedy that they let their life fall apart and for whatttt???
He sure does. Imagine the level of stress that is gone.
Nice hair style...George's time has come.
Insulting to every witch ever.
Frfrfr
Under the Trump theory, who would stop the President from sending SEAL Team 6 to the capital to prevent an impeachment vote?
Or to Maralago
Almost certainly the military chain of command. Under the UCMJ you don't have to follow an unlawful order, which that would clearly be. Every link in that chain of command could refuse that order, and it would only take one link for the whole thing to break down. I doubt it would get past the Secretary of the Navy if any President were foolish enough to submit such an order. Which is not to say that Von Golfcart _isn't_ that foolish. I suspect any President who tried such a thing would find himself legally locked up in a military detention center before the order got past Pennsylvania Avenue.
But this guy sent a mob to go after his Vice President on Jan.6th…not so different from seal team 6 - AND called for Milley to be sentenced to death.
@@tarmaqueThe point is, though, half this country would be completely ok with an order like this.
what would stop Mr Biden from prohibiting Mr trump from running.
Trump's lawyer walked into a stupid trap when he took him on as a client
Absolutely no such thing as absolute immunity 😂
The very fact that Trump's lawyers allow Trump to be his own lawyer and let him run the show makes Trump's lawyers even dumber than Trump.
They hope their grandchildren will see their names in their history e-books.
They get paid, and because Trump spoke, they can blame him.
Trump's lawyers are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. They HOPE that they'll get paid by parroting the 'legal theories' that Trump believes. They deceive themselves - some of Trump's recent lawyers are suing him for non-payment of their fees.
His attorney is bowing to him. Bending over-
And over again.
Is that possible 🤔 😳
A trap ? Should be a jail cell period...
One of the greatest legal failures I’ve ever seen. The trump lawyers just destroyed their own case.
Shhhhsh.🤫 It hasn’t hit him yet. They’re still tell donnie he’s winning so they’ll get paid.
@@bunkie1996AWell, yes and no. He left with a threat. I think he’ll make sure it’s met. What was his name dilly?
That is what happens when guilt is EVERYWHERE - it is almost impossible not to (t)bump into!
Come on... They had no case to begin with.
Y'all gonna find out how stupid you are very soon. 😂
The irony is that seal team would be held guilty of following an unlawful order under the UCMJ
George I love hearing you talk. 👍👍
The real questions are: " is an attempted coup d'etat a type of insurrection.
Of course it is.
And: is any act that ends the rule of law....for one or for all...legal?
Really? Is that really what we've come to?
A third of the nation is homeschooled by badly educated religious zealots...half the nation uses textbooks written by badly educated zealots. It's no surprise that we are where we are.
Is it a coup if the head of state is ordering it?
No.
It's tyranny, but not a coup. Holding onto power through violence isn't the same as grabbing power through violence.
Your the man George Conway , good job
How ridiculous calling being asked to explain scenarios a "nasty trap". If a lawyer can't satisfactorily explain away ANY and ALL questions asked, they haven't been
"trapped", they're just barking up at a tree after the lumberjack has shouted TIMBER, and it crushes them flat!
No, what's ridiculous is you criticizing language that's regularly used in legal proceedings, on a topic regarding legal issues. It's not just explaining scenarios that's going on here, there a whole strategy that drives every single question and when and how it will be asked. It is setting a trap. Traps are one of the reasons that criminal defendants are best advised to avoid providing testimony. Indeed, Diaper Don's lawyer was caught up in this well planned, nasty trap.
@@user-fed-yumto extend on your reply, 'setting traps' is also common practice by good journalists, debaters, etc. They basically test the standpoint of opponents. Of sich a point isnt sollid, it not their fault for testing it ofcourse.
And to be fair the lawyer that stepped into this trap was pretty good, sidestepped a lot of traps prior to this one, but the conversation was like a minefield. Most lawyers would already been lit up before that point with such a rediculous view to defend.
Disclaimer: not a fan of trump or his awyers. I think those people are scum of the earth.
I believe you fail to understand what happened here.
Trump went to court claiming that he couldn't be prosecuted unless congress approved, he left saying that he could be prosecuted when congress approved.
The first statement is a defense. Congress didn't approve, he can't be prosecuted.
The second is an admission: the constitution doesn't protect the president from prosecution at all, and even gives one explicit example of when a president can be prosecuted.
Agreeing to that interpretation was the trap.
What was it Trump said he would do to an individual that commits treason?
Wow, George Conway looks so much happier and healthier.
If Trump doesn't insult your intelligence you probably don't have any.🤣🤣🤣
And you probably don't have a job ????
Go take another Covid vaccine 🤣🤣🤣😂
@@josephshulman6666- do you?
Biden insults and embarrasses our whole Country but you are to ignorant to notice!
Great point,I must say!
Our Founding Fathers saw Trump's MAGA before WE did! G-d Bless America ❤️🇺🇸
If our Founding Fathers saw the impurities known as Trump ang his "MAGA", they would have given us a warning a long time ago.
Come to think of it, and all we really had to do was follow the Constitution, heed it's warnings, and preserve the Rule of Law, fascinating how they wrote it down and the court records not only for posterity but also for precedent.
And did not give voters the right to vote for someone who has participated in insurrection, it was taken of the table by disqualifying them from holding public office it was decided for us. The constitution doesn’t allow voters the right to vote for them. It isn’t a voting rights issue. We have never had that right. It isn’t a criminal issue. It’s a qualifying issue.
Yah, even the slaveholders who denied women the right to vote and invented the Electoral College to undercut democracy.
@@MyHalcyonDaysAreHere'Crazy, that's all WE AND THE SENATE had to do. Is there unbiased reporting now that Murdochs made their decision clearly at last night's town hall? Great reply and love UR name!
Yeah, the 'nasty traps' blew the Trump legal team's strategy and Trump's defense to kingdom come. It's was like the closing act of a magnificent, operatic tragedy. But I was crying tears of joy.
Judge Pan probably not Trump's "type"
You guys are on your way out, looking forward to it!
I remember “When the President DOES IT then it’s legal.” Even when I voted GOP, I knew that was BS. I’m 77. It still is baloney.
that's not what he's saying. you can't do something criminal -- but you can't be prosecuted for your doing your job -- as president. or Joe could be prosecuted for treason and giving our airbase away
I went for joe in 2020 and he gave me 40 year high inflation.
@@kelperdude Joe had nothing to do with inflation. What would you have done about inflation?
Some people are beyond help.@@ellisjames7192
@@kelperdude We're talking about trump's crimes.
Well said George….you nailed it 👍
Excuse me, where was the TRAP? He walked into reality, it was no "trap".
The court shouldn't even be entertaining this nonsense, period.
This stupidity has got to stop.
QUIT FOCUSING ON TRUMP. I live in NY. James Madison High School just told it's students to STAY AT HOME for remote learning going forward. WHY? To make room for 2,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS...they've run out of room at the Hotels...they're now housing them in Schools!!!! I SERIOUSLY can't handle another year of Biden and his Administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!
100% Trump could get over 1/3 of congress to turn a blind eye on that scenario… it’s terrifying
Especially if he has a member, or two, of the team hanging around with him.
BUT HE NEEDS 2/3 TO BE ALLOWED TO RUN
I'm not an American, do you guys have an official death squad called Seal Team 6 presumably based out of Gitmo.
Bravo Chris Hayes and George Conway. Crystal !
No news on Epstein
Trump's lawyer just oked Biden to take Trump out with a Seal Team... 😂😂 I don't blame him. I can't even imagine how he deals with that monster dumpster fire.
Oh Please ! Let Crooked Joe get his nap.
@@rw0050 let’s see if don can put his pants on tomorrow morning. people ask him how he does it all the time.
@@rw0050 Oh boy - if you think Joe is crooked, wait until you hear about this other guy called Trump!!!!
SEAL Team 6, if you're listening... 😂
@@rw0050 you're not smart, that's ok. But what Trump is arguing with immunity, only helps Biden. As Biden is in fact the current sitting President. Trump has no power to do anything, even if he wins the immunity fight. The judges asked a pointed question and Trump's goons fell for it. By their thinking, Biden could also use the Seal team 6 to take out the rival.
Another judge that I now admire. Great job not letting it go.
Looking Good, George. ❤
This hearing was ridiculous. They argued complete immunity, which is absurd nonsense, then pretended that they weren't arguing it, which is Alice-in-Wonderland logic. Waste of the courts time.
George Conway looking svelte. Separating from the Crypt Keeper agrees with him.
George is looking good after getting away from Kellyanne.
kellian west
That made ZERO sense!
Very simple question and answer. Is arguing for absolute immunity not an admission of guilt? I mean if you're innocent you do not require immunity. Presidents do not have absolute power. Dictators do. But every single human being must be held accountable for his/her actions no matter the circumstance. A president represents the country does he not. Not his party.
When the logical conclusion of your argument is something so outrageously stupid, being forced to state the stupid thing out loud is not in any way a trap.
Yeah, I take it as the judge laying out a line of "You *surely* don't mean this, do you?"
@@Avo7bProject "Yes, judge, I suppose I do mean that. Joe Biden could drone strike Mar-a-lardo."
I can't believe how much trouble this lightweight party boy has caused this country.
It's far easier to cause damage than to repair it. It's why we have such an elaborate system to manage who can hold Presidential office. And yet it is clearly far more prone to failure than it should ever be.
hiya. only me
Brilliant Conway helped us get it right. I don't suspect most Americans will understand what is going on in the battle but get your horses hitched. lol
George is so sharp! Thank you for your knowledge about this.
Mar-A-Lago aide: "Sir, some people at the door say they're from 'Seal Team Six.' Shall I show them in"?
Conway looks so much happier
the road works
George looks awesome and happy. I'm glad 🗳️🧢💙🥂
I can’t believe it’s taking this long for a decision.
Because theirs nothin for a decision
@@LouieMcGood-ef6ud *There’s
Hey, George, looking good! Divorce agrees with you!
George Conway is looking very good. He is very obviously , working out and on a very healthy diet, he also appears to be getting more sleep.
I always love listenting to George Conway for his ability to cut to the chase.
He kicked the alternative facts wench to the curb that's why.
Can you imagine what he had to endure being married to KellyAnne.
He removed a 85 pound ghoul backpack.
Curious how the Maga trolls never have any comments defending the Kellyanne gila monster Barbie. I mean, she is such a staunch trumper, and yet not one of them says, "What about sleepy Joe, Hunter, and Nancy Pelosi?", to deflect all the negative comments about her.
It was a brilliant question by Judge Pan
Yes. I mean, yes, of course it was.
But it was also obvious and basic, a completely textbook question, straight out of law school.
More than that, it's a question straight out of popular culture. Come on. What James Bond villain isn't trying to leverage some sort of ABSOLUTE power? It's even more overt in science fiction, where the bad guy is so hungry for power that he puts the entire galaxy, or all of spacetime, at risk.
When a malignant narcissist says that he wants absolute immunity for his misdeeds, he's only telling you the truth. He really does. And he's only getting started.
So when you ask that malignant narcissist (or his craven legal team) if they're REALLY SERIOUS about the "absolute" part of absolute anything, don't be too surprised if they answer "yes."
They SHOULD prudently answer "no" and shuffle their papers, but the narcissist pulling their strings won't let them. He sees nothing wrong with absolute power over spacetime. It works for him, right? And nobody else matters, literally nobody. The courts should just fall in line with this, so he thinks. Trump did nothing wrong. It was all perfect.
What question?
had the hook
Trump was quiet the whole time, could not utter a word. So much for claiming absolute immunity.
Trump save all his lies for his rallies.
T**** presidency was a mistake.
Love you George, great analogy.
I love George’s great mind and sense of humor
Sure his humor clearly surpasses both his romantic choices by the mile high!
I think arguing it before the appeal court is more important and necessary than most people understand. Alot of this has never been tested before so the answers were never really clear. But by letting the appeals process play out, we are witnessing American history while it is being written, argued and debated. We may see this now as a waste of time, but our children and grandchildren will thanks us for doing so. Like planting the seed of a tree for which we will never live long enough to enjoy the shade it gives, lawyers in the future, our descendants, some of who are not even born yet will have precedent cases to refer to while making future arguments possibly before the supreme court that may save our nation in the future. So I say...... no matter the work, the frustration, the exhaustion.... let us plant this tree of justice, nurture it and have something strong and solid to pass off to future generations so that they may enjoy the fruit and comfort of the shade it may provide. It is worth the work.
It's certainly important to have an appeal process, in order to catch issues that are not reducible by a finding of fact.
But here the trial court has rendered a reasonable decision which addresses the issue. That could have been sufficient, and it would have contributed substantially to case law if allowed to stand, as it would have by default.
This particular appeal is not, to my way of thinking, serving a genuine quest for justice but is actively trying to undermine justice as commonly understood. The fact that there has never been a call to test it before says something about its hyperbolic character, and about how far it lies outside what is commonly understood. If it has never before been tested, we're obliged to ask why is it being tested now? Is some socially useful purpose being pursued, or are we merely being asked to indulge the ambitions of a despot?
Never mind. Such tests will still serve to close gaps in the law, however rare or hyperbolic or even despotic they might be. As long as the judicial process itself is not undermined, the law will be stronger as a result.