Why does it feel like we’re just being gaslit here?

3:40 As a European I am in shock. How is it not wrong to start a storm on the parlament in your country? That is just crazy.

Men built America in blue jeans Men in suites tore it down..

"Insurrection", "genocide", "racism" - these words have lost their meaning.

All comments made by a lot of famous, infamous judges, professors of law, all legal minds seem to be very subjective. In the processes, the legal minds are insulting each other. The conclusion is that the laws and constitution have grey areas and that is why they can get away with their comments. They don't help the public.

Well this was a waste of time having two guys on that would circle jerk themselves with the same opinion on the case.

We’re toast. Right vs wrong isn’t this complicated.

Always love watching Yoo and Epstein. Two amazingly brilliant minds who are humble and lighthearted enough to be able to joke and disagree vehemently while still having fun

It's really fascinating to me that the same arguments are not proffered when the person running was not born in the US or is 25. If that individual was popular among voters, then why not apply the same logic that section 3 of the 14th ammendment intonates. It's picking cherries.

Isn't the torture memo a life-time disqualification?

I love how you disscuss law and the constitution as if all that mattered in the case of an individual who wants to tear it all down, when you start to choose if a law must be abided on political terms you already lost all respect for it, just keep that orchestra playing.

Fyi: There cannot be obstruction if there is no underlying crime.

Role of punishment is to discourage and interdict future transgressions So.... Who and how much should you dispense punishments ?

What planet is Yoo living on.

C’mon, how on earth can it ever be ok to try to overthrow the government? This cannot stand no matter how you read the 14th Amendment.

Now I get this ... These lawyers who are politically biased! These are 'right-wing' justices. At first, I thought this was going to be a legitimate conversation. How sad!

Ricky from the proud boys wasn't in DC on Jan 6th... Godzilla is a joke. King Kong won this one.

So the congress will say what happened on January 6 2021 is the contrary of an insurrection

During the Cold War, competent, motivated people had a reason to enter public service--because the US government was actually engaged in something important on a global scale. It was a high stakes game and politicians had something to gain by way of legacy in taking part in it. The problem is the orientation/structure of our government hasn't changed since the Cold War ended, but the the quality of people willing to take part in it has drastically fallen. There is no unifying mission to direct American policy, the US government is this weird zombie regime that just keep going on, apparently, with no clear purpose. It's no wonder our politicians are so awful, what competent, ambitious person would want to have anything to do with government? There's literally nothing to do there but complain about how bad x minority is being treated or complain about the people complaining about those things.

You lost me when one of your guests called prosecutor Smith a “Hack”! His emotionality proves to me that his objectivity, judgement and conclusions can’t be trusted as far as the trump cases are concerned!

Trump was not tried at the Senate. Mitchell McConnell said let the courts do it

Are you kidding me? Now you are suggesting state cases should not be brought for crimes committed?!

Fantastic discussion - as an avid con law enthusiast from across the pond, I wish we would hear more from leading American jurists on private and public law issues. Economic and social norms often have legal origins and it would be a valuable contribution by Hoover to engage in legal topics

Really great and interesting conversation, thank you. I find it hard to agree with John Yoo's optimism about the resilience of American institutions and culture given the deep political corruption that now seems to pervade the whole system. I wish that he is right but I just can't see how you can dial the madness back.

Reasonable Term Limits Please!

It is always good to see debate with humor and seriousness and no fighting.

Section 3 lists the person whom the bar applies to: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military..." If they wanted the President and Vice President to be barred to insurrectionists, they could have easily said so. They didn't. It applies to the Congress and to electors of the President and Vice President, not to the President and Vice President nor to Justices on the Supreme Court. Congress carefully and fully debated the specific language of the 14th Amendment. Then in the State Conventions did so. The State's leaders debated the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. They all obviously saw that the President, Vice President, and Justices to the Supreme Court were not named along with the Senators, Congressmen, and electors of the President and Vice President. They didn't miss that. They all agreed that they should not be included in the ban, which is why they are not specifically named but Congressmen and Senators are.

When Richard said “You keep writing it, and I’ll sign it.” 😂

I’m thrilled to still be watching Uncommon Knowledge with Mr. Peter Robinson himself. Always a pleasure and I always come away more educated.

Thank you Peter

So, it is yet so far from over.. wow.. we are not guided as wise as we think..

Great conversation. It gave me HOPE!

No matter what the. Court, the voter is now the court.

The Americans are odd. They rebelled against their monarch, and then follow a grifter as if he is a king...😂

These two are a hoot!

👏👏👏 - Thank you Peter, Richard and John. That was fun and educational, as always, gentlemen

awesome talk!

I found this video very interesting. It is despite the fact that I think the two scholars were not 100% impartial

This program is absolutely stellar! Thank you to Peter Robinson for bringing such wonderful guests and airing this publicly. It is such a breath of fresh air!

Really enjoyed this discussion. Jon gives me hope. He is a breath of fresh air. He is very articulate and an excellent attorney. I always listen when he speaks, even if I may disagree with his comments.

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative review of the legal system

The Epstein, Yoo, and Robinson podcast is always a joy. Conviviality has become an endangered virtue, which makes this podcast even more important. The legal insights are equally dazzling.

I’m not from the USA but I really appreciated the concluding comments which leave me with greater confidence in the future of the US legal system.

I think these guys are just trying to protect Trump. Trump was disqualified in Colorado. It was argued. These guys are just arguing the loosing sides point.

Brilliant!

Thank You.

This was an intelectual discussion of important issues without the anger and malice that has permeated politics in the media and social media, where unfortunately the masses are getting their world views....

Kinda like a cherry grove; Hoover, why so partisan? And 20% is just questions.

Absolutely excellent session. Please have them back.

They don’t acknowledge that 14.3 does say “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States”. No common understanding of that verbiage could suggest that it doesn’t apply to the presidency. Also, it says an insurrection “against the constitution”, that is important to understand. At a minimum he gave “aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists. Weak arguments from these gentlemen in my opinion.

Frankly, the comments at the end about how there are no smart democrats completely negated the discussion. The clear Republican bias skews interpretation of the law.

Wow, a great discussion on law and the constitution and matters that matter in this current national debate. May it clear up some difficult matters of law and order in America.

High-level debate! Great!

Fair and balanced discussions from one viewpoint are not possible or informative. We have seen professors lawyers and former judges giving opposite views. It would not have been hard to get one to argue the opposing view, instead of a circle jerk.

Impeachment is a JOB ACTION, To invoke it as double jeopardy in an ensuing trial is REDICULOUS.

Any suggestions on halting the onset of Fascism, other than the rickety process of voting?

We always have a choice between dumb and dumber, greedy and geedier,big and bigger,oh the infinite,irrelevant,decions!😊😮😢

Double jeopardy for the political theater called impeachment? The legal gymnastics continue...

Very sad now knowing what Henry Kissinger said before his death.

Excellent & Timely Discussion. I learned a lot.

Actually, the southern states were not insurrectionists in that they did not seek to overthrow the gov in Wash DC. They were seceding just as the 13 colonies had seceded and as Nw England states had contemplated doing decades earlier

I liked this discussion

It doesn't matter to originalists how much chaos 50 states would bring separate rulings section 3 article 14. What's the counterargument? The Gee it's too hard defense? The states were SUPPOSED to have such power.

The rule of law applies for everyone

was the jack smith appointment illegal? is he a legitimately appointed special prosecutor?

it will come down to the letter r - love it

Yoo lost me at the end, with loosing the Boomers for the younger generation, the names mentioned have already proven to be a disaster, and he would be fine with unleashing them upon our entire Nation?!👎👎👎

Interesting. I wish Peter would do an interview with Luttig after this. Maybe it will happen.

Apparently these gentlemen believe the good old days were in the 1970's. I guess in 30 years they enter the 21st century.

He did start an insurrection with his words

Right, that's what I would have done, too: invite the guy who provided legal cover for torture and another reactionary weasel to have this discussion. Not Judge Luttig, for instance, making the obvious case that is no less obvious than the OJ Simpson trial was, but we know what happened there, don't we? But anyone reading this has a very high likelihood of voting for the criminal. Rest easy!

Thank you for this. It was highly entertaining and enlightening 😁

Lol from Canada 🇨🇦 but worried since we always get the backdrafts

Love this show. Always fun but informative.

The question I would like to ask these gentlemen is: What recourse do Americans have in the event that a candidate for president, whom they do not support, openly states his or her intention to perform illegal acts if and when elected? Are there any extremes of behavior that rightly should be decided by the courts and not left to the opinions of low-information voters?

Supreme Court case United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882): "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."

I'm totally baffled. I live just outside London, UK. Do you want Trump to be your president? Or do you not want him to be your president? Personally I think he's a meglamaniac but I don't vote on your politicians. Get yourselves together USA. Come on . Do the right thing

Get some politicians who are not complete cads! Come on USA. Let's make world democracy about raising living standards throughout the world

I wish the host wouldn’t interrupt his two guest so much!

Excellent scenario! Love the back in forth of the law!

I am personally,waiting for the panel to recommend Trump, be given the medal of Honour,for his services on January 6th!!!

13:33 Is this consistent with originalist theory that words mean what the authors of amendment intended?

What a lively and thought-provoking discussion!

Any U.S. Citizen by birth, who has attained the age of 35 years, has the Constitutional Right to run for the Office of the President. There is no specified method in the Constitution to examine IF a person running for the Presidency is Native-born and 35 or over. So how does someone who wishes to challenge someone who runs for the Presidency on those grounds or on other disqualifying grounds do so if there is no specific method established to do so? Since the person seeking disqualification wishes to take from someone the Right to Run for the Presidency, and there is no specific method of examining the question and possibly taking from a person the right to run for the Presidency, then the task falls to the Federal Courts to determine if federal laws disqualify that person, and so strip that person of the right to run for the Office of President. But it must be done in a Due Process Hearing wherein all Parties to the suit are given their legal rights and protections. This is the guarantee of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Pres. Trump has not been given this or any due process hearing and so his rights are fully intact.

Stellar conversation. Thank you. 💚

What's the point having two person with the same opinions?

Always love when they are on. Thank you!!

50 States doing Something Independent. Roe vs Wade was overturned and each State was told to do what they want and that was precedence (sp).

The 2 professors keep mentioning the acquittal of Trump in Congress. Is impeachment a political process, not a legal process under the court of law, right? Oh, just wondering what they would say if Biden was doing Trump's deed, and stuck in Trump's shoes now.

I dont aprove the 'uncommon platitudes' show in general, but this very episode.

The show would be more interesting by adding a law expert from the other side of the political arena instead of just right wing inclined people.

Great discussion! Very enlightening.

Are they bought by the heritage center?

America was not created by Constitution but by Declaration of Independence. And in Declaration is said 'created equal' and what one human can't do because s/he wants to do. So you can endlessly argue that according to Constitution you can reject Declaration of Independence or do what most probably Washington would do. Otherwise you can be just a part of British Empire.

So glad to see these smart and reasonable people talking about all this. The main stream media has only done a good job of making up for the loss of Jerry Spinger…

Disappointed to hear professional lawyers pushing their own agenda not the law

"If Richard occupied all 9 seats of the Supreme Court, there would still be a lot of 5-4 decisions." Awesome

I love listening to Yoo and Epstein. I've learned so much from them over the years. Again, they did not disappoint.

Did he just say that it’s the Baby Boom Generation that has caused this entire fiasco?

I appreciate the humor that pervades this segment. How else to engage with this crazy place we find ourselves in the time-space continuum? It’s like pieces of history are leaking through. I can’t help but see the Gracchi, Cateline, and Marius looking at us through the windows. As an old guy with not much impact on events I am intensely interested in how this whole lawfare and election stuff turns out. Great segment, Thank You.