'Dispiriting day for Special Counsel Jack Smith': SCOTUS considers Trump immunity claim

Подписаться 7 млн

Просмотров 73 тыс.

50% 1

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in former president Trump's immunity claim. While they will ultimately decide whether or not former President Trump can be tried for plotting to overturn the 2020 election, they spent the day debating the distinction between personal and official acts. Katie Phang discusses with Peter Baker, Mark Joseph Stern, Josh Gerstein and Joyce Vance.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: www.msnbc.com/information/dow...
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#SCOTUS #Trump #JackSmith

Опубликовано:

16 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 876

@robthatsme9831 Месяц назад

This is absurd. We already rejected a king.

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

King Donald I.

@hellohsjkanhdhdhdbksks Месяц назад

What do you think , can we prosecute ex presidents for crimes

@Tessmage_Tessera Месяц назад

@@hellohsjkanhdhdhdbksks Of course we can. We already are.

@markg4257 Месяц назад

@@aspenrebel careful with that blade. Bush charged with lying, Obama charged with murder, Biden charged for illegal immigrant crime. Let’s not go there as a country. Only bad.

@selftaopath Месяц назад

He and all REDS want a dictator not a king.

@SqueakyWeasel247 Месяц назад

It spoke volumes that they felt comfortable talking about how their decision may potentially weigh on future presidencies but felt uncomfortable talking about the case in hand!

@fashe55 Месяц назад

Yep

@Chulitatr Месяц назад

...... Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

@carlosabram6030 Месяц назад

They were purposely ignoring the question because they and everybody else already knows the answer to that question

@user-hk1xg2tr7w Месяц назад

Yes we all know that the democrats are salty that the demon and Treasonous liars are the democrats.

@Chulitatr Месяц назад

They've been paid for by tRump and the GOP, that's why their SuperPACs, the RNCs funds are bankrupt and doesn't have money to campaign or rally now.

@gohboon7525 Месяц назад

Avoiding the QUESTION at hand aka CORRUPT & INCOMPETENT.

@GabeSteadyGeminiTaylor Месяц назад

All righty! Let’s gooo, President Joe Biden, get ready to go CRAZY I guess!

@bigneiltoo Месяц назад

Biden going crazy would be called redundant.

@DioZaWorldo Месяц назад

@@bigneiltooyeah but soon he can do whatever he wants, immunity baybeeee

@COLDB33R Месяц назад

To be fair, Biden swore an oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. If those domestic enemies happen to be sitting on the Supreme Court, and put there by an illegitimate president who only gained office with the aid of foreign enemies, so be it. He has still sworn an oath to go after them, and he should abide by that oath.

@benhunter8551 Месяц назад

"My Butts Been Wiped!"

@benhunter8551 Месяц назад

He passed that stage years ago.

@Chulitatr Месяц назад

That's RIDICULOUS for any judge having to define a crime for the SC, if they don't know the answer they shouldn't be on the SC!

@robertmyers8352 Месяц назад

You can lead boldly and fearlessly without breaking the law.

@dannmarceau9743 Месяц назад

Lucifer patiently waits for Mitch McConnell's arrival.🔥

@SteveM-gj2vy Месяц назад

Lucifer exists in EVERY REPUBLICAN....it's not something in the future. Satan spirit is in every corrupt person and IT CANT BE CHANGED unless they are locked up.

@tja3495 Месяц назад

followed by DJT.

@Brombones2000 Месяц назад

@@tja3495 Not even the Devil would want Trump.

@g_4784 Месяц назад

@@Brombones2000 No, he would prefer Biden, the "practicing Catholic" who believes in unrestricted abortion access.

@selftaopath Месяц назад

OH yea.... I can hardly wait. Hurry up Turtle.... get goin.

@sigsauer3719 Месяц назад

Turn out the lights the party is over…

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

Justice is slow. The odds are very much against trump avoiding any punishment whatsoever. Just give it some time. We'll see.

@Chulitatr Месяц назад

@marybardmess7953 Месяц назад

It is not just a "notion" that this court is captured by the Leonard Leo and his gang of pirate oligarchs.

@Wicky173 Месяц назад

A Dispiriting Day for the whole of the USA, I would think!

@sheilawade433 Месяц назад

4:19 The Leo Leonard/Heritage Foundation chosen judges hands are tied by undue influences that are a burden to the court

@lyricessence Месяц назад

Dispiriting day for all Americans who treasure democracy.

@placitas52 Месяц назад

When I didn't think I could think less of this court.

@zdwade Месяц назад

You’re not a thinker.

@user-hk1xg2tr7w Месяц назад

FJB the liar and criminal FTDP🔥🙏🙏🔥🔥

@fashe55 Месяц назад

They are scrapping the bottom of the barrel at this point.

@liamgross7217 Месяц назад

This is the problem with politicians selecting judges. If they rule a president is immune then good luck for the future, you’ll need it.

@1alb Месяц назад

It’s a ‘dispiriting day’ for anyone with a working moral compass.

@ThatLife4U Месяц назад

Set aside biased opinion and look past TDS. That's what SCOTUS is doing

@user-hk1xg2tr7w Месяц назад

And obviously you don’t have a moral compass. FJB Trump 2024

@robertdebrus3732 Месяц назад

The fix is in this democracy is cooked

@dougkeyes4406 Месяц назад

because they are not interested in doing anything but allowing trump to stall them

@jocelynlopez6858 Месяц назад

As I have always said, Roberts is tje weakest Chief I have seen and read!!!

@coshawn311 Месяц назад

🗣️ we need to be honest with ourselves the Supreme Court is outdated

@benhunter8551 Месяц назад

True. We need far-left SJWs to decide what the law is.

@deborahtaylor9714 Месяц назад

It was amazing that SCOTUS entertained all sorts of ridiculous hypotheticals for immunity yet destroyed Roe v Wade without regard to the real medical situations that women face. Their consideration for women’s reproductive health, on the side of the men, didn’t even really face real issues let alone hypotheticals. The mental gymnastics that were performed by Gorsuch, Alito et al yesterday was ridiculous. If SCOTUS doesn’t understand corruptly, private, how do we expect any accountability? How did they ever practice law before? Thank goodness for Justices Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor and Barrett. They stuck to the case at hand and the reality of the highest ranked official in the land having no accountability. Thank you, ladies.

@Chulitatr Месяц назад

Excellent post. Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

@Jack_Callcott_AU Месяц назад

OK Debbie. The court rejected the concept that there is a right to an abortion in, or implied by the US Constitution, that is a past judgement that has waited for a long time to be fixed. From a legal point of view it was the right thing to do, at least by my estimation. In the long run it is better than judges deciding that there exists "an inalienable right to abortion." What if a woman in labour wants an abortion an hour before her child will be delivered. Does she have an inalienable right to an abortion derived from the constitution?

@junecauldwell6192 Месяц назад

What are OFFICIAL duties and unofficial duties? How does this apply to immunity for Presidents?

@bigneiltoo Месяц назад

The President WRITES laws. He is on par with Congress and SCOTUS even though he is ONE MAN (see balance of power). The President can PARDON HIMSELF. It's implied whatever he does is legal.

@heyaisdabomb Месяц назад

Well clearly, the justices think his "official duty" was to reject the electoral count, overthrow the election, and instill himself as dictator.

@TriggaTrey361 Месяц назад

It's just a loophole to give immunity to their King 👑

@TheMangoMussolini Месяц назад

In fairness, there are differences. It would take a treatise to fully explain it, but it would be very useful to listen to the arguments presented by Mr. Dreeban (counsel for the Special Counsel) during oral arguments. However, that entire premise is wide of the point. The case in question has nothing to do about "official and unofficial duties", but the Conservatives on the Court MADE it about that. The only issue before the Court is the question of whether an ex-president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes. They are determined to carve out an exception for Baby Hitler.

@ThatLife4U Месяц назад

Official duties are done under the presidency and unofficial is done in a personal capacity. Not having clear cut points is why SCOTUS will send it down to the appeals court to identify which are which. Accept that this won't be settled by November

@paulhefner2813 Месяц назад

Plotting and Planning. you have got to be kidding. Guess you did not get your way.

@jayneberkley9742 Месяц назад

Supreme Court Justices……eyes wide shut….America your in trouble…..

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Supreme court justices ... eyes open and mind engaged ... America you're doing better.

@marmac7619 Месяц назад

Thank You for sharing that Memorial provided by the Head of the World Central Kitchen. All they wanted to do was to feed hungry People that none of them knew or ever would! He reminded us that we are all interconnected w/ each other & this entire Planet! We live together in Peace or we all die ALL alone! Is it really worth it!

@J42494 Месяц назад

You mean follow the Constitution.

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

Phooey!! That doesn't mean anything.

@Xcross40 Месяц назад

It’s never been done.

@Tessmage_Tessera Месяц назад

@@Xcross40 We're doing it now.

@ClassicFIHD Месяц назад

@@aspenrebel TRUE! To the three constitution hating liberals it means nothing.

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

@@ClassicFIHD of course not. But liberal is the wrong term to use, they're socialist globalists.

@melissahubbard1181 Месяц назад

The conservative justices sounded like they were arguing the defense team’s case for them. Trump thanked them…

@christihanyi5538 Месяц назад

Supreme Court, you are losing credibility with everyone

@mtorres3097 Месяц назад

Why because it didn’t go your way?

@christihanyi5538 Месяц назад

@@mtorres3097 I'd try to explain why if I thought you capable of understanding, but I conclude that would be a waste of my time.

@sekseemarcuskidd Месяц назад

This ruling does not only effect Donald J Trump. It will effect every SINGLE president in our future. Get out of the present and look at the big picture.

@bigneiltoo Месяц назад

Liberals have spent 10 years of "two minutes hate" from 1984. They can ONLY see Trump bad.

@Tcb0835 Месяц назад

@@bigneiltoo😂😂😂

@Educated2Extinction Месяц назад

But... but... if Trump wins in November, there won't be a future.😫 🤣

@AmusedCoffee-ym3gb Месяц назад

Which is why they won't throw the book at him.

@iPsychlops Месяц назад

Yeah. Future fascists will get away without accountability.

@Phrostybacone Месяц назад

The criticisms re: the lack of focus on Trump specifically in the arguments is ridiculous. The question addresses whether presidents in general should have some form of immunity against criminal prosecution, and that is a sweeping legal question that applies to all presidents in the future. Of course you can’t decide that just in regard to Trump, it has to be carefully thought about in the context of its potential future impact.

@selftaopath Месяц назад

Fart will do anything to avoid accountability.... ANYTHING.

@terryhildrum3365 Месяц назад

Until now it was never a question, every president knew he could be held accountable for criminal actions. Now that's a big debate? Of course, the 6/9 SCOTUS majority members are also criminal and corrupt, so no surprise.

@vbs4257 Месяц назад

As a country, we are so f'ed. 😢

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Yeah, but with this decision, we are finally turning it towards the light. MAGA now! MAGA forever!

@RegebroRepairs Месяц назад

And as leaders of the democratic world, the world is as well.

@WeLuv9x5 Месяц назад

IKR? How much more damage can We The People take with Biden!?! 🇺🇸Trump 2024🇺🇸

@markg4257 Месяц назад

Biden read PAUSE on the teleprompter. Your worried about Trump?

@RegebroRepairs Месяц назад

@@markg4257 Yeah. Because Biden, best case, will be a good president, and worst case, he'll go senile and Kamala has to take over, and she'll be okayish. Trump, best case, will be a repeat of the worst president ever. And worst case, it will destroy US democracy. So stop worrying about Biden going senile, that's not an actual problem.

@rosegeaber7533 Месяц назад

Have we forgotten which “justices” are benefiting from the big money folks?! Speaks loudly to me!

@romandevivo1163 Месяц назад

Country of law 😂😂😂 No one above the law 😂😂😂 Nothing more than incompetent and bought clowns in robes. A mockery of justice. Wake up folks.

@Rhonda1969 Месяц назад

I’m speechless, floored, blown away that SCOTUS would play footsie with notion of absolute immunity. Terrifying prospect. We’re in deep trouble as a constitutional republic. 💙🇺🇸😢

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

I'm choosing to remain optimistic and believe that they are only hearing the arguments because it's an important question that needs a definitive answer in the negative. As in, hopefully, they didn't see not hearing the arguments as a way to put this to rest for good. I'm hopeful, anyway. Presidents are not immune, if they are then we are no longer a democracy. Or "constitutional republic" sure, fine.

@user-hk1xg2tr7w Месяц назад

As long as the liar, loser, demonic President Joe Biden doesn’t get back in office 😂😂

@RegebroRepairs Месяц назад

@@TheAginG420 I'll be surprised if they even make a decision before the election.

@landon2150 Месяц назад

If you watch the oral arguments yourself it’s very plain to see that this reporting is a misrepresentation of the arguments and line of questioning. I’d recommend watching it yourself if possible. Both sides agreed total immunity was not the solution. It ended up being an argument about the process of holding a president accountable for criminal acts. One said he needs to be impeached first for a criminal proceeding to happen, the other said the current justice system can handle it without any additional precedent. Both sides agreed there are certain core presidential responsibilities and official acts that can’t be criminalized. The issue comes from the distinction of what “official acts” as president can’t be criminalized. Since a lower court already ruled there is no such “immunity” the Supreme Court now must rule either to confirm that, deny it, or somewhere in the middle. It’s going to be somewhere in the middle, which is why there was so much discussion surrounding the distinction between what a president does under his core powers as president and what he does personally or in some other capacity. Both sides had different interpretations of where that line should be drawn. Neither was saying the president is allowed to break the law without any way of holding him accountable.

@fifiwoof1969 Месяц назад

Thanks Katie ❤❤❤❤❤.

@user-tm4pz3we6w Месяц назад

Imagine a political party that wants to take away a person's freedom of speech just because that person belongs to a different political party.

@benhunter8551 Месяц назад

Don't have to, we're witnessing it in real time.

@dlewis895 Месяц назад

SC SUPPORTING PUTINS RULE OF LAW NO JUSTICE RULE LIKE PUTIN WITH ANY OPPONENTS IE NAVALNY

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

Ah yeah!! Here in Mass, one such party locked up an Investigative reporter for 60 days for his freedom of speech. Then tried to lock him up again indefinitely on a dangerousness hearing. But the judge said no.

@cowtownokla Месяц назад

Freedom of speech doesn't insulate a person from freedom of consequences.

@LifeFruit-re7mj Месяц назад

It’s 10x more nuanced than that

@TheMangoMussolini Месяц назад

It's not a "dispiriting day" for the Special Counsel. It is a disastrous day for the American people.

@neal5068 Месяц назад

No it isn't

@TheMangoMussolini Месяц назад

@@neal5068 You're right. To traitors, it's a glorious day. But my statement is still correct, since traitors aren't included in the title "American people". Funny how that works, huh.

@ThatLife4U Месяц назад

More than half the country disagrees and sees this case for what it is.

@TheMangoMussolini Месяц назад

@@ThatLife4U More than half, huh? Proof? Yeah, thought so.

@ThatLife4U Месяц назад

@@TheMangoMussolini Take the last election numbers, then subtract all the voters Biden has lost over the last 2 years. It's relatively simple math

@peterbruno657 Месяц назад

Trump isn't arguing there should be "some type of immunity for Presidents". He is arguing that a President has absolute immunity.

@Chulitatr Месяц назад

////.. Everything tRump is accused of doing; his lawyers are arguing should be legal. How can the SCOTUS GOP judges NOT consider the facts of the Trump crimes at the hearing, but make a ruling on the hypothetical basis when the facts and laws are right in their faces? The SCOTUS decision should be a unanimous NO, a president does NOT have absolute immunity. The GOP appointed SCOTUS justices are an 'imminent' threat to the constitution and democracy.

@floodgatestudios1825 Месяц назад

I kept hearing the white male judges say..." well im asking these questions for the future....not necessarily for the case before us..." seriously??? How about desling with whats before you!

@courtneybrubaker9738 Месяц назад

Six of them don’t want to. Thier goal is to protect Trump and replace our democracy with their Christian nationalist government. We must use our voice and vote to say NO.

@ThatLife4U Месяц назад

Race has nothing to do with it, do some critical thinking race grifter

@marciabradley7660 Месяц назад

Maybe they are considered about their future?

@Jerry-up8bk Месяц назад

Desling?or deciding or dealing?

@nigeltufnel9525 Месяц назад

Remember when the Republican party respected law and order, the Constitution and American values?

@josephsonora3787 Месяц назад

WHEN FjoeB's "P-ed-0-filia" TRIAL? I'M ASKING FOR A FRIEND NAMED ASHLEY BIDEN.

@BlackVulpes Месяц назад

no, it was always just aesthetics. This is why we're here now.

@dark14life Месяц назад

No.

@Lawlzinator Месяц назад

Remember when the democrat party didn't go seeking wars and put the rights of corporations (like pharma companies) above the rights of American citizens?

@ricksterbobolishious7523 Месяц назад

TRUMP. How does seeing that name make you feel?

@tammileroux3329 Месяц назад

I'm worried for a democracy

@EmmaSmith-nn1ui Месяц назад

An official act carried out corruptly ought to be prosecutable. If any official decisions by any official in any sphere are, for example, subject to bribery, they are corrupt and prosecution should follow.

@DuoJet63 Месяц назад

IMHO.....It will be a 5-4 ruling in favor of immunity,

@georgeoconnor4155 Месяц назад

Sickening

@Shweetthooth Месяц назад

Lol poor Jackie. He's going to go sit in the corner.

@brianbeaugez7003 Месяц назад

We've got to stop Trump at all costs. We must make up more charges and hope they stick, and if they don't we'll blame everyone we can, just like we're blaming the Supreme Court. Go Biden 2024!!

@lilithluv Месяц назад

The Venal 6 that's what those SC justices are. 🤬🤬

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Not as bad as the alt left ones. Those can't even define a woman, even with them being one.

@rebeccasmith8567 Месяц назад

Another one bites the dust!😂😂😂

@druwk Месяц назад

SCOTUS is broken.

@kaypakaipa8559 Месяц назад

No its perfect, Upholding democracy to a T

@Educated2Extinction Месяц назад

Like when they refused to even hear any of Trump's election challenges? Or maybe they're just broken when they don't toe the line drawn by the left.

@palehorse24681 Месяц назад

No it's not...its working fine. You're whole life is stupid so you're projecting onto other things.

@tja3495 Месяц назад

Traitors

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Yeah, but as soon as they get rid of the far left 'can't define a woman' justices, it will be a lot better.

@cozettalandry3429 Месяц назад

So then I guess it would be ok for Biden can ignore the voting and state he will be in office for 4 years

@SeattAl Месяц назад

No , his plan is to import new voters from the 3 rd world and let non citizens vote

@tigrrtom Месяц назад

A criminal act, regardless of whether it's official or private, is still a criminal act. The president has the best legal minds in the country at his disposal, so he/she should never do something that would be considered illegal. 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government is plain in its text and meaning.

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

Well said.

@mikerahman7510 Месяц назад

What is to consider ?? What is their purpose ? SCotUS , do your job ! Regardless of whom you bow to.

@craigsmith628 Месяц назад

Well Biden then in an official act as president can assinate Trump and the conservative part of the supreme court for the sake of democracy oh well do what you need to do Biden

@danielwilliams2505 Месяц назад

If justice Roberts is worried about the SCOTUS credibility, then the final verdict should be unanimous in no presidential immunity

@user-ed9qr1uj6f Месяц назад

It don't need to be redacted it needs to be reckoned with Pittman's Court Austin Texas moving force

@kennethmeuleman1244 Месяц назад

The fix is in

@scoobydoo7737 Месяц назад

God forbid a scotus judge not know what a word really means..... Like the word woman

@letsbereal9455 Месяц назад

Who's the second man who spoke (the one with the beard)? He seems emotional and not grasping the big picture.

@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw Месяц назад

Establishing what defines official vs personal acts would not be a bad thing, in this case and for future reference, however.

@JimHaney-uc9ps Месяц назад

For trump anything will be official, that’s what the sc wants for trump.

@RegebroRepairs Месяц назад

There has already been cases on this, so it's already established.

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

We already know what a president's official acts should be. The president has the power to direct limited military action and the power to veto bills and propose legislation. That's pretty much the extent of it. Anything a president does that involves their ability to persuade/influence because of their position does not fall under "official duties" as that power only comes from the position, itself. Asking for dirt to be dug up on his opponent, interfering with the election on a state and federal level, those things were him using his position to influence others. In no job is that an "official" act, unless you are a king. Then everything you do is official. IMO, he's already lost this argument, but I guess we will see.

@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw Месяц назад

@@TheAginG420 Then why are they arguing about it? Common sense would dictate the difference in most cases.

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

@@DanaAgenbroad-pw4zw Not sure your point. It's common sense to me what is an official act and what's not, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be clarified for the rest.

@salvadorbravo4187 Месяц назад

We need SCOTUS term limits NOW!

@Nothinleft Месяц назад

This is a gross misjustice and I agree with you. Its absolutely garbage to hear this.

@jeffhampton2767 Месяц назад

Marjorie Taylor Greene for the Supreme Court❤

@mkay3310 Месяц назад

That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Why not just stack the court? If there's a blue wave in 2024 and dems hold 50% of both houses and the White House, they could stack the Court to allow Biden to add more justices to the court. For example, they could double the court's size and Biden would have the ability to appoint a bunch of liberal justices. This would be easier than getting the 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all states necessary for an amendment to set term limits.

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Right after you get congressional term limits. And Real ID voter laws.

@wooganotti Месяц назад

Good luck with that We can't get those for senators or congressman.. I mean hello pelosi, McConnell, Graham, and Schumer.. The people who have ruined this country for 40 years

@annmd1735 Месяц назад

Thank you Joyce Vance for the light of hope in seeing the treasonous acts brought to light, and hopefully justice..

@superdave77 Месяц назад

This is what happens when you make up a fake case and choke

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

The case is real, otherwise SCOTUS wouldn't even hear it. By that alone your statement is false.

@mrsavedbygrace2569 Месяц назад

These guys are bringing me down

@christophercable2700 Месяц назад

😂😂😂 your tears are delicious

@ImYourPapi. Месяц назад

The meltdown is hilarious 😂

@MVbailegardens Месяц назад

Evidence becoming public. All in favor......

@noelpaintonsmith8091 Месяц назад

SOTUS needs term limits like everyone else. Let's start with getting Clarence Thomas out first. His time is up.

@ibeetellingya5683 Месяц назад

The 'conservative" Justices have done us a favor: they've effectively announced that the plot to replace Democracy is nationwide and deep, they're cheering it on, and they expect it to work.

@dougsinthailand7176 Месяц назад

Enjoy your last few months of democracy. Decide on how you will live under trump II.

@gevowavemagnet Месяц назад

9:55, Thomas' eyes says it all...

@romantemniuk9881 Месяц назад

Lol lions and tiger and bears oh my,!!!!

@sps000111 Месяц назад

This question is easily answerable. The 12th Amendment requires state legislatures to assign electors. If there is a matter before the legislature, Free Petition under the 1st Amendment, excepting quid pro quo, applies. Trump exercised a well-established Constitutional Right, and that is not a crime. Simple!

@FlawlessP401 Месяц назад

10:30 she has no authority to declare unofficial acts only congress can through impeachment.

@jimmieclark4638 Месяц назад

And so did the liberal judges

@klovisKanofTrad Месяц назад

The only thing disgusting is the first male guest has the most fascist views. He’s no American he’s a threat

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Yep, Democrats firmly believe that following the constitution is a threat to America.

@tejanoj3017 Месяц назад

It is no longer the SCOTUS we once knew. It's now the SCOTFS - SC of the federalist society. Follow the money.

@tmayorca8770 Месяц назад

Lol. You are misinformation. Three are liberals. You big mad since the 9-0 TRUMP VICTORIOUS SLAM DUNK SCOTUS DECISION

@selftaopath Месяц назад

I firmly believe our nation has fallen. There is no coming back.

@suzanneb4187 Месяц назад

SC ….BS…bought and paid for …

@peterbruno657 Месяц назад

Why does the logic stop at President? Wouldn't Secretary of State, Senators, or even a Mayor have immunity too? They have to act boldlyand could become the victim of politically motivated prosecutions.

@tonyscott6837 Месяц назад

I believe that the Supreme Court Justices should have a term limit. Additionally, I propose that the Supreme Court Justices should be elected by the people, rather than being appointed by the President. This would allow for greater accountability and transparency in the selection process. Furthermore, if any Justices are found to be corrupt, they can be voted out of office. In this way, we can ensure that the Supreme Court remains an impartial and just institution.

@tmayorca8770 Месяц назад

That's hilarious. That's not how it works at all.

@nathanb7281 Месяц назад

I believe they should have watched Weekend at Bernie’s before the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

@nathanb7281 Месяц назад

@@tmayorca8770That’s why he was expressing it as an opinion, Cletus.

@tmayorca8770 Месяц назад

@@nathanb7281 And he's still wrong. Junior.

@nathanb7281 Месяц назад

@@tmayorca8770 You’re opinion is wrong, Cletus. 🤣 Guess what else. If the Supreme Court determines that the President has immunity for everything. Biden could have Trump imprisoned and steal the next election. 🤣

@user-ed9qr1uj6f Месяц назад

COURT documents 1983 pharma poporous prosecutor prose Marshall 😅

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

What is the supreme court now? 5 1/2 to 3 1/2? Chief justice is split.

@thomaslucignano5188 Месяц назад

Lol. No, it's obviously 6-3. Roberts is a solidly right-wing vote on the high court.

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

Seems about right.

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

@@thomaslucignano5188 Ha! Hardly! He goes more Left.

@craigamiclever7952 Месяц назад

We are going to have a hearing on Jan6th and Trump’s role in it. It’s scheduled for November 2024. I hear we are calling it an election.

@g_4784 Месяц назад

Is this supposed to imply that most American voters are going to have J6 actively on their minds at the ballot box? Because nobody cares anymore.

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

He shouldn't be even allowed to run, period.

@g_4784 Месяц назад

@@TheAginG420 Why

@TheAginG420 Месяц назад

@@g_4784 Because he represents the worst that America has to offer as president. Because he tried to overthrow our democracy when he couldn't stand losing. Because he's a vengeful, petty, hateful man who doesn't care about anyone but himself. I could go on..

@parker4149 Месяц назад

Lol but liberals dont think the Colorado Supreme court was playing political games. Its a pick a choose situation for both parties. Start thinking for yourself

@Yoduh1 Месяц назад

He got away with it. It will all be legal.

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

Well, that saves Brandon from being arrested by Texas and Florida for him leading an illegal invasion of the U.S.

@paulworth7638 Месяц назад

got away with what?

@g_4784 Месяц назад

@@paulworth7638 He got away with [dubious crime based on lacking evidence and a specious legal theory], of course!

@chuckfrezzel348 Месяц назад

It is not looking good Dems!

@paimei6798 Месяц назад

I'm just saying ?

@Image-X Месяц назад

What a great day!

@Karenbuckert Месяц назад

NO ONE is above the law….FORMER President or not. Thomas should recuse himself, possibly a few others. This is a matter of law as defined by the Constitution…..not the politics of the day. Yes, decision may impact the future…..but the here and now….needs to be defined.

@steveweing Месяц назад

So should there be a law to decide whether a president has immunity or subject to laws? Oh wait. He’s immune from such a law that decides that. Partial immunity from laws is always immune.

@RegebroRepairs Месяц назад

There are such laws already. Trump's lawyers and the supreme court are just pretending that maybe those laws don't apply to presidents, for absolutely no reason at all.

@mtorres3097 Месяц назад

Let the meltdown begin 😂

@gnirolnamlerf593 Месяц назад

Exactly what illegal acts does the Constitution say the president is allowed to commit after taking the oath "to faithfully execute the laws". How is committing an illegal act faithfully executing laws? We know that the military is not required to follow a president's orders if he orders them to commit an act that violates their oath. The suggestion by the right wing that presidents need to have the right to break the law with impunity is exactly what kings and dictators are allowed to do. Why bother with a revolution in 1776? Why bother having a Supreme Court sitting in Washington? Should have just allowed British courts to continue to rule on orders of the Parliament and king on cases in America, if that's the system they want. Which side would Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Gorsuch have been on in 1776? Well, Thomas might have been a slave, who would have argued that slavery actually helped him, as Gov. DeSantis does, but I think we know where the others would have come down.

@gohboon7525 Месяц назад

IT WAS A CIRCUS TO PLEASE ONE AUDIENCE. UNBELIEVABLE.

@gregknobloch Месяц назад

Wake up America. This could be the end of good times.

@xNialx Месяц назад

They already passed a while back... its now a matter of damage control.

@ScanCruiser Месяц назад

Good times ended exactly one year into President Walking Dead's regime.

@g_4784 Месяц назад

That we have ever seen good times since 2020 is quite the statement...

@ThatLife4U Месяц назад

Can you honestly say your life and the world is better now than 5 years ago? I doubt that you can

@troopr3845 Месяц назад

I hope Biden and Obama and Clinton and Bush are ready to go to trial for their criminal cases.😅

@mjack7749 Месяц назад

These people are hilariously delusional

@landon2150 Месяц назад

I listened to the entire 2.5 hours of oral arguments and questioning for the presidential immunity case. It’s very disappointing to hear such misrepresentation of the arguments. This is bad and very biased reporting. Both sides agreed the president is bound to the law, the question was how he should be allowed to be held accountable. One side said through the process of impeachment and then criminal proceedings, the other said through the current justice system without a new precedent. Both conceded there were distinctions about how criminal law could be applied to the president for acts as president. There was a lot of common ground in the arguments. The justices also leaned into a vague general architecture for their questioning not applying it to this particular case alone, and didn’t even mention January 6 (they did use a protest the president participated in as an example). Please go watch the full arguments if you don’t want crap from news outlets like this one.

@johnathanleonardo912 Месяц назад

This isnt about "presidential immunity" its Trump immunity. We all know if Biden does the same thing in 24, the supreme court would be like "yea criminal prosecution goes for ex presidents as well"

@bugwar5545 Месяц назад

You are dealing with a full deck, are you?

@tigerslick1111 Месяц назад

This lispy soyboy hasn’t made a single point

@IvanPowell-dt6vb Месяц назад

That’s what I’m saying

@KJamesB Месяц назад

Another Magat

@Thebob6 Месяц назад

Trump isn’t even saying he committed a crime. All he is saying is what was always common sense until Trump derangement syndrome in 2015.

@jeffmisch1485 Месяц назад

You mean MAGA.

@BrianWeber-gt4ho Месяц назад

No president has EVER had 100% immunity for life ever......

@aspenrebel Месяц назад

It has already been proven that Biden as vice president, took home classified documents after he stopped being Vice President. Has he been charged, indicted, arrested, prosecuted, and tried?

@g_4784 Месяц назад

I'm confused as to why Trump's making the 'presidential immunity' argument instead of pointing out that he never actually committed a crime.