And for allowing comments

Yes all around.

Absolutely yes.

@@f0xh0nd51 sheds light on those acting in bad faith amirite? 😀

@@Torkmastaflex civil discourse is my favorite part 🗳️🇺🇸

That's what I have been saying about this situation

Doesn’t need seal team six he’s got the DOJ

@ob1680 well he has immunity from prosecution correct??

The lower court ruled against immunity in this case, so DJT appealed it which brought it to the Supreme Court to rule on. Let's hope they see how preposterous this Absolute Immunity claim is.

@@cleancutstacks2261 Works for me. PLEASE give the order.

What would they decide? Stick with precedent and rule Trump is immune? Or make a brand new ruling against precedent that Trump isn't? Considering Presidential Immunity; which everyone acknowledges to have existed all the way up until Trump is a pretty big deal because it WILL affect all previous presidents too. If Trump isn't immune, neither is Bush, Clinton or Obama - on top of any future president. And if Trump wins and decides to relitigate Obama's Fast and Furious, Drone Strikes and funding Billions to Iran without Congressional approval - watch how fast the Democrats will argue that there is immunity all of a sudden.

@@PlaytechyNo president is immune from prosecution after they leave office and no one has ever argued that. If that was the case then why did Nixon pardon ford ie he was immune.

You are just political is all, I am pretty sure you were also disappointed when they gave trump 9-0

@@azraeldemuirgos9518 If expecting the SC to uphold the Constitution is political then call it what you will.

@@Mimi2Two I think you want the SC to "Get Trump", constitutional or not. Presidents have always had immunity from official acts - and even the DOJ lawyer agreed to that in the end. The ONLY thing at contention is what is an official act or not and if personal acts can strip immunity away from official acts. The problem with the Left when discussing Trump - anything justifies "getting Trump". They loved Presidential immunity when the OLC used it to protect Clinton, they didn't care about it when Obama's DOJ opined that Bush was immune over the Iraq war, they will love it if it protects Biden for opening the borders against Federal statutes... But you want to throw it away for Trump. You're trying to kill a spider with a flame thrower and you're not realizing you'll burn the whole house down in doing it. Once immunity is gone; EVERY former president can (and likely WILL) be charged in retaliation and revenge, like Trump.

@@Mimi2Two What is your gripe with this issue?

Hopefully you watched this whole hearing before you started commenting on it. Otherwise you're just feeding the echo chamber.

And??????????????? You make a mistake and crash your car into someone, and you SHOULD be prosecuted.

@@geelee1977 ...and your point is what? listen to what he said..."mistakes DOESN'T lead to prosecution"

Just register as a democrat and you'll be fine 😉👍

Within context, he was explaining that the laws in this category, ones that specifically allow prosecution of a president, are “malum in se”, which is to say the illegal act was not just a mistake but requires moral corruption to commit. This is in comparison to accidentally violating say the Hatch Act. That could be done with a mistake, but not the laws he is referring to.

There has to be intent to commit a crime. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter: one has malice afterthought or intention, whereas manslaughter is due to negligence without malice. People post things on these platforms knowing what they're talking about but get people to like them as factual statements.

They’re going after “total immunity” as a strategy to remove that line of defense. Once that is confirmed then they can go after official and non-official acts for prosecution. The second reason is for drama. They can point at Trump and accuse him of being tyrannical and accuse him of all kinds of character flaws in the media. That’s where a lot of political blood is spilled here in the good ol’ US of A. Trump is in reality asking for total immunity as it is being presented. His Team is saying he has immunity for doing Presidential things while being President. It is the prosecutors job to prove that Trump was conspiring to illegally overturn a legitimate election and that he was not acting out of the belief that he thought the election was fraudulent. So…that’s gonna be hard to do. But the drama and mud slinging is not that difficult.

The founding fathers would never had wanted a POTUS to be totally immune. That’s why they left England. They didn’t want yet another “King”.

American law is different than the common law ideas you cite. For eg, Under common law Immunity typically refers to legal protection from prosecution or liability, often granted to certain individuals or entities (e.g. diplomats, witnesses). Under American law it has a broader meaning, including not only legal protection but also sovereign immunity (states and federal government) and qualified immunity (government officials).

Here are some American Supreme Court cases dealing with immunity: Fitzgerald v. Nixon (1982): This case established presidential immunity precedents. The Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard Nixon was entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. Clinton v. Jones (1997): The Supreme Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial conduct. Trump v. Vance (2020): The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a president has absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas for private conduct that occurred before taking office. Trump v. Anderson: The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not block former President Donald Trump from appearing on its primary ballot. Trump v. United States: The Supreme Court is currently considering former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from conspiracy and obstruction charges related to the 2020 presidential election. Note: These cases are related to presidential immunity, but there are many other Supreme Court cases that deal with other types of immunity, such as sovereign immunity and/or qualified immunity.

I'm not sure why you would think it illegal to dispute election results. This is not uncommon in the US. A president who didn't question a likely corrupt election result would be more of a criminal in my opinion

Showing the whole argument is the only way CSPAN can be considered neutral.

A camera ONLY focused on the FEW hate filled miss informed is NOT neutral dude

There is literally NOTHING in this situation that anyone needs to be neutral on. No president, past, present, or future, should be above the law. Blanket immunity as long as it’s deemed an “official act” is insanity.

@@bqing87 then we can prosecute Biden for acts of treason for allowing over 9 million illegal criminals into This country to kill Americans

@@bqing87 It's nothing like that. Everybody takes an oath to the Constitution. Anybody who thinks guv employees would follow such a command is not paying attention to recent events. There are plenty of safeguards, the real problem is UNELECTED officials.

Never a disgrace to bring things to light in a public discussion. Much worse to let dumb things fester in the dark.

Just pack the court, we know it already.

And yet the constitution in black letters on a white background clearly address this issue. Any Person on the court or not who says the constitution does not should resign. The only question is what an official act is. The absolute Immunity as described Is not the question you should focus on.

If this goes wrong, and they act stupid, oh yeah.

None of the Justices showed evidence during oral arguments that they supported the idea of absolute immunity for all acts. Even Trump's own counsel didn't support that.

The issue is that we as a country have already started down this slippery slope, we have given immunity to other government officials. The logical conclusion here is that if other entities of the government have been granted immunity then why would this not also apply to the president. As evidence of this The OLC's opinion that sitting presidents can't be indited. I feel that the SCOTUS will simply enshrine the OLC's opinion.

That's what Biden is trying to do.

​@stevev.8779 he has immunity right??

​@stevev.8779 how is Biden trying? He's literally not involved in any way. Please educate yourself & not just follow blindly.

That’s precisely what’s happening.

​@BillAshtonNelo so Biden has immunity then correct??

Impeachment

@@vincentriggs711 yeah, we saw how that went. Impeachment means nothing if you have congress in your palm. The law is the law for EVERYONE.

Watch out clinton, biden and obama...

Trump was tried at first for sexual misconduct and convicted of defamation though she couldn't come up with a crime. If a woman accused you of such a thing I'm sure you would have something to say.

@@austinmerrill752 democrats control the doj. Nothing will be done to any of them.

Great question! 👍🏾…and if he doesn’t have absolute immunity and Trump claims he cannot do the job of president (properly) without absolute immunity? Then why does he want to be president?

And why did Trump use his campaign lawyers instead of the DOJ if he was working "officially"

This comment is so underrated that its criminal😂​@@scrambledeggs88

Why did this only become an issue when Trump became president? Because he’s the victim?

That's like saying why does someone need a seatbelt after an accident???

I think they should pray they get it right Americans have long history of bashing tyrants.

@@BluSkyOne1 Tyrants like Obama who ordered a drone strike which killed an American citizen; which he admitted was a mistake and made without proper consideration? Only to be ruled "Immune" because drone striking American Civilians is an "Official Act" of the President? Or when Bush misrepresented facts and evidence to Congress on purpose (and conspired with his lawyers to make it happen), to coax Congress to agree to the War in the Middle East? He was called a literal war criminal in 2006-2007 by Democrats and demanded Obama to have him charged. Obama's DOJ found he was immune from all prosecution due to Presidential Immunity. There is a long and established history of Presidents being immune from prosecution after they leave office. This isn't new. The DOJ's position has, however completely flipped, to now they suggest there is no immunity. And that if there is to be any immunity it should be decided by the DOJ's AG... Yup, an AG that can rule over a president and former president... Imagine that.

Praying? Praying for what?

So Biden and Hunter are surely going to jail, right?

So then Biden can be prosecuted for election interference when he by fraud claimed the Hunter laptop story was made up by the Russians and the White House worked with the media and social media to help kill access to the story. Seems that’s exactly what Bragg is claiming Trump did.

100%.

👍🏾 well said. Thank you

Yea he is immune. Also when Obama was president and he said “I’m not going to enforce these laws” should be have been impeached there and prosecuted? As kavanaugh said what about the drone strikes on U.S. citizens? Weapons on mass Derstine in statement by bush. Can he be sued for that? What about Clinton’s indiscretions? It’s a can of worms. The idea that “this is only for him” doesn’t hold water. The dems are abusing and looking to abuse judiciary against other party. Biden when he’s does can be sued by any repub DA or state for all he’s done.

Too bad.

What does that mean?

The usual Dem response when the Supreme Court argues the Constitution.

I agree with you. Those 3 Democrat Justice have to go.

Remember, it’s an equal branch of government, this comment wasn’t thought up by you, but the notion of creating an illusion of corruption is nothing more that a tactic used by Hitler to remove constitutional judges replacing them with activists judges. . I’d be very very careful.. that’s overthrowing an equal branch of government. …

A couple of the Republican ones seemed skeptical - or at least asked questions that pushed both ways. Barret could go either way on this. Each of the Democrats decided the outcome before the arguments and will vote party lines as they always do. Republicans may break rank (which they do often), though should still decide in favor of Immunity.

Just give up yall

He is evil

@@idaharyatihassan7425 got it. Orange man bad.

Imagine if he worked that hard for the American worker.

@@camille9803 he tried to build the wall.

I hope that’s not a threat.

Probably all except Justice Ferret and the fat guy who does not give two shits about the law.

How?? There is a very clear vehicle to remove and then charge a US president. Its called Impeachment and then conviction in the Senate. That allows the legislative branch to check the executive and decide what is and is not official business or lawful business of the president. If this goes forward anyone future DOJ could charge a president for acts that one might argue is illegal.

@@shanemckenzie-wc3mq If you cede all/absolute power to a president why would you need a Supreme Court?

Their power is worthless already. They ruled that Biden cannot just forgive college loans without Congress authority. Yet Biden still does it.

Trump needs to be jail

No imunity

Agreed they should have just backed up the appeals court. I feel like it’s just to show they are impartial by going against Trump.

Do it now or later. At least DOJ is able to know their concerns and can argue effectively when this comes up for appeal

@@Rmc3591 fair point

This is the problem. Instead of allowing for du process folks like you just want to call someone guilty and be done with it. I am sure you would never want that for yourself...right?

@@MrRjsnowden I would normally totally agree with you, and this is like the foundation of foundations. This is the bedrock underneath of the foundation of our country. No one is a king 👑 full stop, 🛑 And someone brought up earlier in this thread it’s good to have it on the books so we don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court again to rule on it should it ever happen again.

🤚👏👏👏👏👏👏 comment of the day!!!

Except past presidents have taken actions that are not legal yet never got charged due to immunity. Like when Obama had the CIA drone strike a US citizen.

What does that say for the SCOTUS response to Drumph’s next fraudulent election complaint? They will be involved State by State and will ultimately decide the results once again removing that decision from the populace. This has always been the Republicans goal..rule by the minority.

If the president orders a drone strike on someone that has not yet attacked the US but is planning to do so, or even is not planning to attack the US but a friendly nation or maybe an NGO, should they be tried for murder? If the president orders the secret recovery of a foreign adversary's sunken submarine in violation of international law, should they be tried for theft? If the president orders the covert entry of a facility in another country to place listening devices in equipment being sent to be used by a third country, should they be tried for breaking and entering? These are all things that presidents have addressed in the last fifty years, some of them many times. If you or I did them, we would absolutely be subject to arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, and possibly extradition. But no president has ever been indicted, much less tried, for any of these things, nor should they under current interpretations of presidential powers, as displayed in these arguments.

Awesome, we can get Biden for breaking immigration law!

❤❤❤i agree but when your job is to steal, you can't be honest ! When you look at the so-called justice gorsuch and Kavanagh and thomas, you can easily understand why they have been appointed !❤❤❤❤

No market like the black market

you got em lol

This will be a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump. The case will be remanded to the District Court to determine which charges are official and which ones are not. Then, after Trump’s inaugurated, he will pardon himself and the legality of his own pardon will once again be before the court.

No actual justice happens in Jack Smith’s court. He is an obvious political hack.

I my comments I continue to talk on we the people!!! I'm hoping that still means something.

@@theresaharrell9043 You forgot a word, "we the wealthy people"

There isn't any. They are going to adjudicate their own obsolescence, which is precisely the point. Doesn't anyone get what's going on yet? The American Experiment is over. We are reverting back to Monarchy. This is what the elites want, because it's easier to manage massive inequality this way. Under a feudal system it doesn't matter what the average citizen wants. We are going forward to the past, only this time the Kings and Queens will have the surveillance state and weapons of mass destruction at their fingertips. We are entering a new dark ages. The age of reason and enlightenment is over. Have fun. And good luck.

The executive is not above the law. That is what impeachment is. President Clinton sexually assaulted Paula Jones. Let’s put him in jail.

They aren't. No one said that. A president can be impeached and upon conviction immunity is removed. A president also cannot expect immunity for private actions (Although the OLC's original opinion was Clinton had immunity relating to the Starr report, even non-official acts). And how the Democrats have weaponized the legal system to target Trump to hamper his 2024 election proves there absolutely needs to be some protection, especially after leaving office. The fact that this has gotten to the supreme court is the same reason why it is also needed.

Based on your comment I implore you to educate yourself on the role of each branch.

The Judicial branch isn't designed to have power over the Executive branch. They're supposed to be co-equal. Just as Congress isn't designed to have power over the Executive branch and the only way they could do it is by getting 2/3rd in impeachment which would almost always require the President's own party's votes and consent to do it.

That’s exactly the world the GOP wants.

Is going to become the USA doomsday.

Dictators that’s what the wealthy want

it would be 1776 all over agian nobody is going let them turn our president into a sitting dictator.

It's the end of America as we know it. We become Hungary. Which is what the MAGAtards want.

You are a buffoon.

Be honest here, if you can. Biden has taken classified documents (illegally) from the time he was a Senator. Clinton took classified documents and hid in his sock drawer. Obama has taken classified documents. Pence took classified documents. But ONLY Trump is a criminal?

You're kidding right?

@@jeannettesoto2335 not in the Least!!! Trump wouldn’t know how to tell the truth, if his life depended on it.

How about all the ❤secret documents in Biden’s garage you Dems sure like to throw stones but will never take accountability for your actions .One reason I proudly admit I am an EX democrat could no longer support a party who cares NOT for the people of this country except for the elites.

What nonsense.

Bull shit ...they have a big problem here...The use of impeachment is the tool for wrong doing by a president

Dreeben was the one who struggled. He had to retreat from his argument there was "No immunity" for presidents. They both agreed by the end there is Presidential immunity for official acts. I don't know why Democrats can't accept that their OWN LAWYER accepts the reality that immunity exists.

Jackson says it too 57:00

Its because you are slooooow - He actually destroyed your communist judges

I feel the same, if the court sides with him it will be a horrible mess not only for the Government but for the Public as a whole

​@@cheetah4054I'm betting it's gonna be an 8-1, siding with the United States with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Arguably it could be brilliant he is just wasting as much time as possible, and assuming judge bias is already set in stone. Just take a whole year talking

Have you ever heard of impeachment???

And, if there is no immunity, I look forward to the day when Bidum is convicted for not enforcing our immigration laws! Lock him up!

It is. Npt so much about immunity, as it is about every time Trump's turns around, someone is trying to take him down! Leave it just so he does not get presjdency?

@@MrRjsnowden Trump was impeached twice. So that is a null argument.

@@MrRjsnowden with total immunity you have no impeachment

This case is on a short chain.

Some of them yes .. were placed there by Trump himself !!! 👍👍👍

Which ones and what is your proof?

I dont think you understand how our system works at all

If it's up to democrats, they would Bury the Constitution.

​@@rebeccasmith8567 I mean considering everything we know concerning Clarence Thomas

Funny. Thanks for the laugh.

And you voted for Biden, right?

@@stevev.8779 And your point?

​​@@stevev.8779Biden would have immunity from being prosecuted as well then correct??

​@@Playaflydre: Unfortunately, yes .

@@stevev.8779 its what patriots with morals do. I imagine you're more of a pro-rape and pro-sedition kind of guy?

@@raygunner2437Woody Johnson was also sacked by Trump for refusing to get the British Open Golf Tournament directed to one of Trump’s golf courses 😮

Right on

I think the Justices know this which is why they asked the question lol

@@lukeharris3949 How do you know he was fired over the Golf tournament that he has no power to do and never had the power to do? Sounds a bit fishy to take that on face value.

"what if something corrupt happened?" can't be corrupt, it happens all the time!

Sometimes the way a person speaks is cultural. just because they’re being assertive does not mean they’re being aggressive or biased. The only one that was speaking fast was Justice Jackson and she speaks that way all the time.

If I was talking with someone as retarded as trumps lawyer who’s arguing that the president of the UNITED STATES IS ABOVE THE FUCKING LAW I’d be condescending and rude too. Fuckoff with your highroading bullshit

Clue less argument something is hiden for baby lawers i.e unable to distinct thrinity of act

How so? If Bush Junior can lie about WMD’s, and not be prosecuted… than Trump certainly cannot. Apples and oranges!

@@yednekachewgeremew1886 ? Huh?

If Obama can murder Americans via drone strike without prosecution, why wouldn't that apply here?

Yeah, Trump isn't winning this case. What is John Sauer even yapping about?

Right. Like ignoring the southern order and conflating legal green card holders with illegal aliens.

​@@briannguyen6248why didn't Republicans vote for their OWN border bill?

​@@Shichard2006In the end, everything in the Senate bill happened except the border provisions, which couldn't pass the Republican-dominated House Rules Committee and failed to bypass the rules on the floor vote. I believe it will go down as one of the worst political plays in legislative history.

@@Shichard2006 Because it allowed millions of illegal migrants into the country every year and gave absolute border power to the Executive. But hey keep on with the partisan talking points. It was a bad bill with to many strings attached.

Like forgiving college loans when ruled against by the courts? Like selling out country out so his son could score money from China?

Yes exactly!!!

By the end they all appeared to agree that all OFFICIAL actions carry an immunity for the President. The only distinction is the DOJ lawyer tried to push a case that the "Checks and balances" already in place is sufficient to have the DOJ decide on a case-by-case basis. In otherwords, the outgoing president is at the mercy of the incoming administration's DOJ AG. That argument is so absurd, it is clear why the DOJ lawyer abandoned it shortly after being questioned. And this proves that the DC Judge was absolutely 100% wrong when she ruled that there was "No immunity" at all. It isn't supported by a single fact anywhere. I doubt that judge can be trusted in the future to make constitutional decisions, because it looks like she said what she wanted to "Get Trump" - like taking a flame thrower to kill a spider, not realizing the fire that would result in the complete destruction of Presidential immunity.

Presidential immunity absolutely exists and the executive branch DOJ prosecutions of a former Presidents for his official acts is contingent on their being an impeachment conviction. If these justices make the ruling that Presidents are not immune in the absence of a guilty impeachment conviction they would also be stripping themselves of their own immunity privileges as its under the same clauses of the constitution. They would also be elevating the unelected agencies (who have historically been unaccountable to the people) to a higher position of power then our duly elected Presidents. It would basically result in a rewrite of the constitution because it diminishes it altogether to mean nothing at all. It's dangerous. Every one of the charges made against the former President all relates to his being elected President in the first place, so they are all related to his official acts.

@@Playtechy Presidential immunity is as corrupting and anti-constitution as qualified immunity, the founders are rolling over in their grave as America eliminates their government in favor of a king. On the upside, any immunity granted only INCREASES Biden's current power.

North Korea ...here we come ..after Donald ..then Jr....would take over ...then eventually Barron if that is Trump's argument.Absolute immunity means we would have a lawless leader... The fact that we got to this point where they have to argue whether or not a president can be a criminal is mind bothering

She is very obviously a leftwing activist and, without a doubt, the least talented SCOTUS ever appointed. The left admires their activist justices because rather than interpreting the constitution no matter what , they simply bend the constitution to suit their desired outcome . The Dumocrats are so corrupt when SCOTUS doesn't decide in their favor they allow the jurist to be harrased at their homes and threaten to stack the courts . Your idea of a great SCOTUS is not at all what the forefather intended.

Excellent. She's fantastic.

she's trash

If only she could tell us what a woman is.

No, she played to your narrative. She's one opinion. There are 8 others.

I wouldn't call them a court they really don't deserve that description

​@@angelainamarie9656says the minimum wage employee

@@sethblank3139 lol. I guess I just look young. I'm on year 29 of my career in information technology I assure you I haven't seen a minimum wage paycheck since before Bill Clinton was President.

@@angelainamarie9656 I wouldn't respond to haters. Seriously .. he had NO argument but to insult. Typical!! You are good and you are ALLOWED to have your opinion!!

Let me guess, you want a all “basketball american” supreme n’ shit, nigga?

The rule of law is a moral principle.

Even the Democrat Justices didn't bring it up. Because they would be getting so deep into a hypothetical it starts to lose cohesion and value in the debate. "It would depend on the circumstances" is an indication the Justices needs to consider what they are, irrespective of Sauer's opinion. And Sauer would just likely give a rough indication such as "Well it would depend on x, y and z and if this happened and that happened it would change how you'd conclude" - which is wholly open ended and unhelpful, because you don't have a full context of the situation to draw from. Like most things; context matters, without it, you can't really do much.

Not yet it isn't, the end cycle of democracy is Ceaserism, always has been, founders made it a constitutional republic for a reason to avoid democracy as much as possible

@@ram76921The founders made us a Representative Democracy

​@@BB-rh2ml Just a Republic not everyone could even vote at first you had to own land. Your voting rights can be taken away just not due to race sex and a couple other factors.

@@wandajohnson8225 A Representative Democracy where not everyone could vote so they included an Electoral College so they could run up a population count but not give everyone the right to vote. Your right to own firearms can also be taken away.

@@BB-rh2ml A Democracy is majority rule. We have a charter in our Republic that implements limits to avoid that, not the same. We're a Democratic Republic. And the QST ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights not tell us what we can do but to tell the Government what they can't. Uninfringed look it up. The foundeers acknowledge God given rights trump Government Tyranny.

So if they aren't loyal they better look out

Hey we never know ❤

Alito and Thomas weren’t appointed by the Nod Father. They have a different motive for their corruption.

​@Rmc3591 Shame on them!!! In my opinion, that's just like being on a jury!! You must obey the law.

Or maybe you all don't know the law. 🤔

Oh please just shut up. Your stupid comment is the usual stupidity from racist Democrats. Shame on you.

Nothing in our Constitution says they have to obey "international" law.

​@gman8177 you're retarded

You're right. But he is also immune when he does that. So the case against Trump is pretty much over I'd say. He can't lose on appeal UNLESS the prosecutors can show Trump "KNEW" the election wasn't stolen and only undertook the following actions thereafter to commit fraud. The prosecutor will have a tough time doing that considering Trump has always maintained and still maintains the 2020 election was stolen and he believed he was "Faithfully executing the law" when he fought through legislatures and courts to address it. I think it is absurd that Trump's people have been charged for RICO for... Going to court to have it heard.... That's the argument and it is insane.

nato

@@catheerineflannigan3321 NATO cannot make a law that America has to abide by. it is done only by consent.

Congress, and impeachment. Ya'll commenting in this thread and know none of the arguments being presented.

It's the law?

@@MasterofSFL yup ,the short bus cnn viewers have no clue what this is about

@@MasterofSFL Yeah go ahead and start impeachment hearings for someone who executed an opponent. What could possibly go wrong.

I understand exactly what they are saying , but John is spot on! Also, the judge justices are great in.questions and answers!

Sounds like you fell in love with it a bit.

Are you being serious right now? What a stupid thing to write out. Did you think you were clever saying this? There's a reason you're bagging groceries for a living, and not practicing law. This statement is so absurdly stupid that I couldn't imagine it was even made in jest.

And this is the type of stupidity leftists Democrats create because they do not understand the Constitution.

That would have been a very weak argument. It's a good thing you weren't up there because you certainly would've done a far weaker job defending his position. And I think the DOJ person had to bend his position at the end because it was indefensible.

Do you really think making an argument easily defeated which relies on NO LAW and only emotion is compelling at all? This is the problem with the left; they rely only on emotion they couldn't care less about justice, law or fairness. They certainly don't like the constitution. Is murder an "Official Act" of the office of the Presidency? No. Thus it is NOT IMMUNE. No one is suggesting that would have been immune. Sauer made that very clear that it only relates to OFFICIAL ACTS as president, not PERSONAL ACTS.

First, your honour is never used in the SCOTUS. The argument is that after a president is impeached and convicted, they will be able to be held criminally liable for whatever they were convicted for.

Trump shot someone? When?

@@Wallcraft_OfficialWhere did they state trump actually shot someone?

@@BB-rh2mlThey are arguing that he can. Not that he did. Pay attention

@@Power_to_the_people567 You are missing a comment from @wallcraft, which I was answering. Try to pay attention to the the who is tagged in a reply before acting like a jackass

@@BB-rh2ml It doesn’t matter who is tagged. You asked a question. And I provided the answer. Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.

So let’s prosecute Bill Clinton for sexually assaulting Paula Jones and let’s prosecute Obama for allowing four Americans to be slaughtered in Benghazi.

He only argued that AFTER the Supreme Court Justices expressed skepticism against his opinion there is no immunity. He didn't express that view in the DC Court - who agreed with him that there is "No Immunity" at all. He just knew his position was wholly untenable and he had to concede ground. But then for him to go on to say that the DOJ should be responsible for deciding upon Immunity for presidents was wholly tone deaf. He was trying to say how amazing the DOJ is and how they never get political and never make mistakes and blah blah - I pissed myself laughing when I head that, thought I'd turned over to a Babylon Bee video. Imagine the god-complex from Dreeben, who works for the DOJ, to suggest the DOJ should get the power to wield Immunity and steal that from the constitution to use it where the DOJ decides against the President. How sinister is that? Trying to usurp an insane amount of power that doesn't belong to you and wrestle it away from the constitution.

@@Playtechy your whole monologue was a bit unnecessary. Did I not say he conceded? I believe I did. But since you had so much to say, I will respond with this, REAL LEADERS understand they are to respect and PROTECT the law, not abuse it.

@@Rmc3591 Dreeben's argument (arguing on behalf of the DOJ) that the DOJ should should decide when and how immunity works - after their sordid history, shows a massive lack of awareness. He would have stuck to that argument had the Justices not pressed him on it. And yes, he did concede ground, but only because he KNEW it wasn't going to fly. The ONLY reason he conceded ground was because his position was so utterly absurd that he knew he had to change tactics to achieve the goal of allowing Trump to be prosecuted for all the crimes; even official acts. That's why he said it had to be explicitly mentioned in Article 2, even though Presidential power and processes for the White House has changed and increased in since the Constitution was written - and thus while Article 2 doesn't explicitly state each conduct it is automatically implied because that's what was intended in the Constitution and how it was originally written. The OLC opinion and Starr report acknowledged presidential immunity - and didn't limit it to Article 2 explicit conduct - but all conduct implied under Article 2. This was DOJ position for everyone else, except Trump. Dreeben is a scumbag, it's easy to see why he was on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation; because he has no ethics.

What BS. If that was true then the current DOJ would actually prosecute Mayorkis.

Except Biden.

​@@peace-yv4qd*Except no one Keep your political BS out from the law.

Temporary dictators were able to make major changes in Ancient Rome.

Except Biden, Hillary Clinton, EVEN Bill Clinton who was FPUBD GUILTY IN THE SENATE but they refused to prosecute him after he left office. Trump didn’t commit a single crime yet he’s having rogue DAs abuse their position for political gain and persecutions despite them being bogus show trials that will be overturned. FFS 🤦‍♂️ #FJB so many morons who refused to accept the results of 2016, protested with “fake” electors, pressured the EC to vote against their states votes 🗳️ and had millions of ppl try to stage a coup against Trump and remove him from office by any means necessary not thru legal means like Trump using attorneys and when judges didn’t even listen to his arguments and dismissed he left willingly he is allowed to say he believes it was rigged just like Al Gore, John Kerry and every Democrat who refused to accept the results of EVERY election they lost but rules for thee not for me(Demokkkrats) so dumb

Except the Biden crime family

How?? Impeachment is the definition of checks and balances???

@@MrRjsnowden As we have seen, corruption can happen in multiple branches.

​@@laurenopferman7278, seriously? We're witnessing now that corruption can happen in a highly partisan jurisdiction (and DOJ) as they prosecute for charges they've characterized as criminal against their political opposition--and select the jury carefully to eliminate anybody except their own like-minded partisans. It doesn't make sense to think corruption can happen in Congress but not in the local or Federal Justice system.

@@MrRjsnowden Impeachment? You mean politicians getting to decide what is "Fair" lol... Impeachment is such a crock I think. They got Trump for 2 impeachments and never had evidence both times. Mayorkis is actively preventing law from being followed with the southern border (Not even in dispute, he has fought against enforcement and promoted incentives for illegals) - and the Democrats won't even let there be a trial? It is completely unbalanced and you're NEVER going to get rid of anyone in Washington DC through impeachment, no matter how evil and corrupt they are, provided they are also politically connected / liked in DC.

Impeachment and a Senate trial is the Constitutional way to punish a sitting president.

Alito, Gorsuch, etc, they are part of a movement in this country to eliminate the constitution and establish a "strong man led christian theocracy" in its place. The organization they are a part of, publicly announced a desire to eliminate the 1st amendment, among others. This was a decades long effort, and in years past, their documents show that all their efforts was about a controlling SCOTUS, from there, that is the key to victory for them.

But the democrats have also already made up their minds. Jackson had a point of view and everything she did was to further that point of view - which is Trump has zero immunity. She then adopted the language of the Prosecution to suggest he shouldn't be immune - proving that she picked her side. Instead of tacitly stating the facts of the case, she deliberately interjected incendiary language that the prosecutors want to use. An example of this; she stated Trump send "FAKE ELECTORS" or "FRAUDULENT ELECTORS" - that hasn't been proven in the case that they would be deemed fake or fraudulent to indicate some form of criminality, in fact when Democrats did the exact same thing in Florida in 2000, they called it an "Alternate Slate of Electors" - which is what Defense called it too. So why all of a sudden does Jackson take the side of using the prosecutors descriptive incendiary language against a defendant deemed to be innocent until proven guilty? The Conservative Justices were the only ones asking questions and listening to the answers; Jackson constantly interrupted Sauer as soon as he was saying something she didn't already agree with. This is the problem with the far-left wing Marxist Justices, their minds are made up on virtually every issues - which is why they vote with the Democrat side of EVERY issue, while the Republican nominated Justices constantly break rank and vote based on the matter at hand, not political lines.

The DOJ Lawyer described that the President has immunity for official presidential acts - while naming it all kinds of different things. Gorsuch pointed that out; he described immunity and was unable to distinguish what he described from immunity. So the argument isn't IF the president has immunity - both sides agreed that he does. It is only what constitutes an official act and if a private act can strip the immunity from an official act.

And once again, a Dem like you tries to insult the lawyers instead of understanding the Constitution.

Oh please. Your hysteria is ridiculous.

Lighten up Frances.

I don't mind as long as they prosecute the Biden administration!

New York State charges of POTUS CAUSING CROWD ELEGAL ENTRY AND DAMAGES AT 7:54 THE USA CAPITAL. ❤POTUS HAS NO LAWFUL POWER TO ORDER ANYONE TO TAKE THE ABOVE ACTIONS.

Except Hunter Biden and the whole Biden family. And Obama when he killed four Americans in Benghazi.

except the President ...read he constitution

That would be the peoples fault

Not what if. When.

What if the courts or the Justice Department were corrupt and pursued lawfare against their political enemies?

It already happened. Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Biden should all be convicted and prosecuted.

Then vote in representatives that you think would remove the president?? Or vote in representatives that will amend the constitution and change the impeachment clause.

They are human. Of course they bring their own life experiences to bear. Everyone has their own opinion as to what the law "says."

They are trying to lighten the Toast

I think its funny people think these judges have the power to grant dictator powers to a president, they should have taken our guns first. ROFL.

That was not the argument.

Biden and his crew led riots across the country for over a year burning cities. You have a short memory.

That's what Biden and the Democrats did. They stole the election.

Wow. Are you really listening to the arguments? Irrational Trump haters have selective hearing.

@@manofmartinthis is why some justices rejected the idea of its proceedings being televised. people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about think they know everything

Because recusal is left up to the discretion of each individual Justice.

Thomas is a criminal why is he on the bench? His wife took part in an insurrection? wake up America get rid of this idiot!

Because he's bought and paid for by trump fans

Because no one has the power to force him to do so.

The same way the judge overseeing the “hush money” case hasn’t recused himself from….. Trump 2024

Oh I'm sure you're suitable to preside over their competence... While Jackson was laughibly asking if a President could get Seal Team 6 to kill a presidential rival 🤣

In modern history, no justice has been impeached from the SCOTUS. Your lack of knowledge is shining through.

@@Playtechy I’m sorry if I hurt ur feelings

@@eloyrodriguezviera6187 Are you suggesting your emotions are at play here? My emotions are never at play, only facts and logic. You should lead with facts and logic rather than letting your emotions carry you.

Intelligent post.

This is sadly the opinion of too many people - "Rubber stamp us going after Trump or else". Follow the law for once, please. That's all we've ever asked for.

If only we had you on the supreme Court instead of alito... I'm sure the USA would be so much better off..

@@franke.8583 I say, just put a wig on a monkey and already we're 300% better off. I think monkeys have a capacity to feel and a recognition of community. They don't play with their feces for the fun of it (like Alito)