Reacting to Oral Arguments in the SCOTUS Trump Immunity Case 

Probably let them argue case by case whether Trump was acting as President or personally. Along with making a new test to determine that.

Not complete immunity, but it seems like they’ll remand and delay the trial further so that if Trump wins the election it won’t matter.

@@strangekid35really interesting, but it’s so illusory that if the ruling bled into other cases about personal authority it could be dangerous. Like how liable is the business owner of an oil company for a spill. I know government is different, but I mean I think it’s unlikely that they can put something like that into law right?

8-1 Against DT with Thomas voting in favor of DT

After hearing this and the fact they're allowing it to be public, there's no way they allow this

Technically, he did plea non-guilty. So it's more: I didn't do it, but if I did, I should be allowed to... And it's all a conspiracy anyway, and if you disagree you are deranged - TDS - and you should see a psychiatrist. At this point, it just sounds oddly suspicious - to say the least.

this needs to be pinned

Do you not know how court cases work? They're arguing specifically immunity because that's the question at hand. Once that is decided the case goes to different questions like "did he break the law"

​@lovestein92 It doesn't need pinned, it's a true but misleading statement

No it's an argument about whether or not the State has standing to prosecute. It is in no way an admission of the alleged facts of the case.

That’s what impeachment is for.

@@TrekBeatTK don't be naive. We can't have other crooks in the Senate holding the president accountable. A Republican Senate would NEVER convict Trump no matter what he did.

@@TrekBeatTK How can you impeach someone who is no longer in office? Also, Trump's claim of immunity goes beyond his time in office.

I'm glad he's not my defense lawyer, "Your honor you can't punish my client for committing crimes, because other people commit crimes." This has led me to believe that the lawyer is Candace Owens in disguise because she is the queen of whataboutism.

@TrekBeatTK no, are you suggesting that if a president commits murder in open daylight they would need an impeachment before any action in taken? What if they have a massive majority in congress and it is decided not to impeach? You can still be president from prison technically.

Aw shucks

I second this notion

We have a motion on the floor and a second. The motion has been unanimously passed.

This always felt like the most bad faith argument… The president already can’t use the military on American soil outside of national guard without congressional authorization…

⁠​⁠​⁠@@CityGamer1337I mean, the president also “can’t” attempt to coerce the vice president to go along with a scheme to overturn an election by creating false elector slates. But Donald Trump did, so he should be able to be charged for it, since he was doing something obviously outside of his authority as president. If Joe Biden ordered seal team 6 to just drone strike a Donald Trump rally, unaliving everyone there, including Donald Trump, then obviously Joe Biden should be able to be charged for it. Even though he (legally) “can’t” do something like that. The “can’t” has to (at least in part) come from legal repercussions if a president does do something that they “can’t” do.

I know right!!! They would be the first ones to cry when the tables get turned 😅but... they know Democrats are sane people and they would never do something so irrational and stupid as Trump gas done.

If I was president and they decided the president had immunity i'd go from a man trying my best to a monster doing my worst. It is crazy important that we be able to hold people with that much power accountable

As soon they rule that trump has immunity he can drone strike the courthouse😂

@@googane7755 He will. Metaphorically if not literally. These Republican enablers of Trump are pathetic. Especially those on the Supreme Court. If they succeed in elevating him to president again, completely unrestrained and unchecked, even if all they do to that end is delay his criminal cases... of course the first thing he will do is gut and hobble the judiciary any way and every way he possibly can.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS. He would win in a FDR style landslide if he did it, too.

This makes sense

Delete Account bet, but I think their hope is to delay the trial past the election. And honestly, I think it’s going to happen.

@Pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Their goal is definitely to delay past the election, because then Trump could pardon himself if he wins.

Good thing for him I guess, because I have a better chance to be the next Supreme Court Justice, than he has of winning this ridiculous case.

Just like the prosecutors know, there isn't a possibility of conviction. They are just trying to harass, stigmatize, and politically tarnish Trump's image, especially close to election making him look unviable!

Impeachment is the remedy and as per constitution Article 1 section 3 clause 7, President can only be held criminally liable AFTER an IMPEACHMENT. And liable ONLY for the crimes indicted!

​@@honoviglobalnetwork1423Read the Constitution and provide citations before giving a response that reveals your lack of understanding.

​@@honoviglobalnetwork1423 Oh, and the only punishment is removal from an office not currently filled? /sarcasm Please go back and look over Article 3, it isn't long and it highlights clearly whom has jurisdiction where.

@trevinbeattie4888 Yeah, right, I'm not the one without understanding! Did you even look at the parts of the constitution I referenced? If you did, you wouldn't be talking nonsense! It is crystal clear. Only after an impeachment trial and conviction for the high crimes and misdemeanor alleged, then and only then, can you be held criminally liable for those crimes. These sham trials are not looking for conviction because they know it would have detrimental legal implications for future presidents democrats or Republicans. But the aim is harassment, stigmatization, diversion from the campaign trail, and to politically tarnish Trump, ultimately making him an unviable candidate! Now you have been schooled!

@lostbutfreesoul Removal from office if convicted by two-thirds majority of Senate and then and ONLY then the presidents can be held criminally liable for the crimes of which he or she was convicted!

MAGA has "forgotten" Moscow Agents Governing America

The attitude you're describing has leaked its way into everything. Economys make profit, not serve people!

There are remedies under the constitution by impeachment when they "act above the law."

@@honoviglobalnetwork1423 why did mitch mcconnel say he voted not to impeach because it's up to the justice system?

@@darthbahnsen3832 Mitch can say what even he wants. The constitution is clear! The remedy for bribety, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors IS the IMPEACHMENT TRIAL! Which in this case has already been litigated! Any further liability under the law, can ONLY subsequently be pursued after a two thirds majority of congress vote. If not, then any court can bring frivolous cases against the President that will hamper, harass or divert from performance of duties!

Tha I God it's not just me who thinks so lol. His voice is terrible!

Is his microphone broken

@@hrodriguez561 it's probably a microphone issue, but he might also be a smoker. Hard to tell

A strong decision from the Supreme Court would have a stronger impact than an Appeals court decision.

​@rorypaul153 Do I want a strong impact? No. All I want is for this court to make the obvious finding that defrauding the US government and the people of a free and fair ekection is not covered by immunity and the case can go forward, tomorrow.

The check is that they can’t enforce their own rulings. They just stand as justifications for Congress to pass certain laws and how the President enforced certain laws

They could be impeached by the House. It has happened before, but Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted by the Senate.

They do. It’s Congress

Technically they can be impeached...it probably doesn't happen enough.

What are you talking about they can be impeached Samuel Chase in 1805

I feel as the courts will give trump immunity because they seemed skepetical

@@LostLightAstrophotography7 I mean other courts have already considered the question and they did not. This isnt exactly a new question or idea. It is however the first time its been relevant with a Supreme Court thats aggressively corrupt and incompetent.

​@@2639thebossi would hope they follow the other courts but im not gonna get my.hopes up

It could not be further from Open-and-Shut

@@2639theboss how are they "aggressively corrupt and incompetent?" The only one that you can say that about is Thomas Clearance imo. correct me if Im wrong ig.

In the act of his presidential duties. Does that include staying in power? NFW!

If the bus director said to his/her drivers “the routes need to be finished as soon as possible, drive fast,” then yes the director and company would be in large part liable for damages caused by the drivers. Ditto Obama. My parents are bus drivers; they are told to drive as slowly and cautiously as necessary despite the official time tables because of this. I don’t see bus drivers bombing and killing hospitals full of doctors and Medicins San Frontier staff…

I feel bad for all of the AP Gov students in the future who are gonna have to study all of these cases about trump which are making it to the supreme court lol

Both sides agree that there are some things that a President can do that Congress cannot criminalize. For example, a president be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for pre-emptively pardoning an individual. Likewise, a president cannot be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for telling his AG or a USA not to prosecute an individual.

@@charleskramer8995 the power of the pardon is darn near impenetrable. I don't see how it could rise to obstruction when its word for word in the constitution as a power granted to the executive. They're grasping at straws, and trying to decide future cases(the justices said so), where a criminally corrupt DOJ goes rogue, in doing so, they may very well destroy our democracy. The criminal justice system is there for a reason, let it determine if Trump was guilty of a crime, not take away the entire process.

Might be a smoker

I know it's petty and shallow because I dislike the guy, but man that voice is grating

It sounds like he has permanent strep tgroat or something. I kinda feel bad for him in that reguard

Radiation or radioactive materials?

@@anoemuser310 Yes.

He seems like a decent lawyer, it’s just an impossible position to defend.

@@Avogadros_number I imagine good lawyers want to be paid and don't want to end up in prison or disbarred like his previous ones. Regardless, I was more talking about the dream of arguing a case in front of the court.

He is getting paid though ​@@MrKeychange

@@zsand90 Is he?

@@MrKeychange obviously

Meanwhile biden put forth an executive action directly violating your rights. That isn’t to far? And to push the point further, biden killed 7 children. Should he be immune from prosecution? Because nobody is charging him… and do you actually believe anybody ever will?

@TheMINDL3SSGamers biden didn't kill anyone, it was the military, and biden hasn't violated our rights unlike trump who did, and trump committed treason against the united states.

Heck yeah. Thanks for watching!

Who's the other? I'm not understanding.

​@@sudafedup trump since he is a con man

James Buchanan pretending he didn’t sit there and watch the Civil War start:

Nixon and Trump.@@sudafedup

@@4thNebula Ah. Yeah I went brain dead there.

It might have been brought up in the briefings, and no one felt the need to explore it further in the oral arguments

@@alonkatz4633 I don’t see why they wouldn’t bring it up. It seems like it completely demolishes trumps argument

@@blakekaveny Because it's so obvious. The Justices might not need to hear more about this issue because of it. Then again, it's just a theory of mine, I haven't heard the briefings.

Impeachment yes, criminal liability no. The problem with the Watergate scandal is that after Nixon resigned his successor, President Ford, pardoned him which rendered the question of criminal liability moot.

@@trevinbeattie4888 I’m not talking about president Nixon. The case Nixon v United States has to do with judge Walter Nixon. He was arguing his impeachment conviction was invalid since the senate used a committee that he didn’t get a proper trial. The Supreme Court ruled in 2 ways. One they said that since the constitution says the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment that means they can basically do it however they want. They also ruled that since the courts can be checked by impeachment the courts have no jurisdiction since it would violate the separation of powers. Lastly they said matters of impeachment couldn’t be heard before the courts since they were solely political.

But that’s EXACTLY HIS POINT. Impeachment is the process dealing with Presidential acts. Unless impeachment leads to conviction, the President has immunity from criminal prosecution by the DOJ.

You really have no idea how the justice system works. An argument from standing is not an admission of the facts.

They are better than the affirmative action wing of the court

LOL don't say that shit in America bruh

Both equally mentally unstable.

@@imperiumgrim4717 Bruh, it's totes necessary, bruh. Bruh, he literally is trying to trash the constitution, bruh. Like, bruh!

Is he still an active teacher? His channel is big enough that he can definitely make a good living as a full-time RU-vidr.

He stopped teaching a few years ago as I recall.

There is a world of difference between “leaves office” and “is removed from office”.

I know. I want to hear this, but I just can't 💀

Yes, and every other future president

@@nathansimpson5721 Biden just says he is president for forever even past death… lol. I’m kidding but that’s the end result I guess eventually.

@@KristoferOlafsson no, because the President’s term is limited. So that would not fall under immunity.

@@TrekBeatTK so your saying it’s a crime not to accept term limits, and a crime to arrest anyone running against you. It’s the same path that lots of those countries we look down on have gone.

@@KristoferOlafsson no, immunity only extends to the limits of his acts as President. When the term is up, he is no longer lawfully president and therefore he could be prosecuted after that. Again, this is not complicated.

Blassingame v. Trump in the D.C. District Courts. Pretty much, two capitol police officers and a dozen Congress members sued Trump for physical (injuries on J6) and emotional damages. Trump tried arguing that he has absolute immunity from the lawsuit but the courts ruled that he doesn’t have this immunity when it comes to personal lawsuits pertaining to “unoffical” presidential acts. “First, it explained that absolute presidential immunity does not shield a former president sued in his personal capacity from damages liability for unofficial conduct.” “Second, the brief argued that the separation of powers concerns and public policy considerations motivating the Supreme Court’s immunity precedent further compel the denial of Trump’s claim for absolute immunity. The Supreme Court has explained that under separation of powers principles, courts must refrain from reviewing a president’s official actions in private suits for damages, as the threat of such litigation could inhibit the performance of his official functions.”

No he can’t. He has all the power of the Executive, but that doesn’t extend to dismantling the entire government. He has only the broad power to execute granted by the Constitution. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to grasp.

@@TrekBeatTK The president grants himself/herself emergency powers to do so. Lincoln, jailed newspapermen and abolished newspapers and FDR jailed American citizens without due process certainly those powers were beyond the scope of the Constitution. For those who say we were at war, the president was granted extraordinary powers. Nixon set prices for products and wages, that's pure socialism and beyond the scope of presidential powers but it happened. Presidents of the past granted themselves extortionary powers way beyond the boundaries set in the Constitution. I think with absolute immunity those types of abuses of power will not only become more frequent but more magnified. If is granted absolute immunity what can be done to hold him accountable? Nothing.. Presently if a president breaks the law or oversteps the bounds of the Constitution, they will be held accountable under the law. Once a president is given absolute immunity accountability simply disappears. It is no longer part of the process. I grant you I am using an extreme example but if a president is ruled to have absolute immunity that means the law simply cannot be applied to the president. Or at least any punishments prescribed by the law cannot be applied to the president. To paraphrase power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. Immunity lessens restraint absolute immunity removes all restraint.

@@TrekBeatTK The issue here is congress has no enforcement capabilities besides impeachment. They can't order the sergeant at arms to arrest the president. They can't do anything to stop him, besides letting the courts decide, but if there is no repercussion for disobeying congress, and the courts can't enforce anything either, so what stops a president from disobeying a court? There is a lot here in our system that relies on good-faith actors. Good luck getting a 2/3 majority in the senate to convict.