U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument on Former President Trump's Immunity Claim

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument on former President Trump's Immunity Claim - LIVE at 10am ET on C-SPAN www.c-span.org/video/?534673-...
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org/c-spanNow/
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org/quickguide/ Download our App www.c-span.org/special/?radioapp C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service. Subscribe to our KZbin channel: / cspan Follow us: Facebook: / cspan Twitter: / cspan Instagram: / cspan Subscribe: C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org/podcasts/ Newsletters: www.c-span.org/connect/ #cspan

[@maestoso47]

Thank you C-SPAN for actually showing the names of the people talking and for providing captions.

[@f0xh0nd51]

And for allowing comments

[@revhthboma7087]

Yes all around.

[@cassfonnesbeck8057]

Absolutely yes.

[@Torkmastaflex]

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

[@f0xh0nd51]

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

[@wallochdm1]

Why did this case even get to the Supreme Court? I guess Biden can just have Seal Team 6 take out Trump if there is 100% immunity. Right?

[@cleancutstacks2261]

That's what I have been saying about this situation

[@ob1680]

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

[@Playaflydre]

@ob1680 well he has immunity from prosecution correct??

[@jenniferflores3335]

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.

[@wallochdm1]

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

[@V.L.R.]

The fact that The SCOTUS didn’t immediately and unanimously decide to send this case back down to the lower court is absolutely unnerving. #perilousTimes #indeed

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@blakekaveny]

@@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.

[@liquidmark5081]

There shouldn’t be anything to send back down. A president is not a king. There should be no immunity for committing a crime while in office. Trump’s lawyers argued that he can’t be impeached without first being found guilty of s crime. Now they argue that he can’t be held accountable for a crime without being impeached first. Trump’s lawyer argues that other presidents can be charged for their official acts if trump is charged but all the examples he gave were presidents acting in America’s interests or at worst just being incompetent about something. Trump’s actions, were criminal and for his own benefit.

[@Playtechy]

@@liquidmark5081 There is immunity for official action taken by a President in office - that isn't in contention. It needs to go down to the lower courts to decide what constitutes an official act - and then apply immunity to them. The government doesn't dispute this in any way shape or form currently. The whole purpose of Impeachment is so that the DOJ can't prosecute their command in chief - because that would make the President subservient and below the DOJ he is supposed to oversee. The example of Bush misrepresenting evidence to Congress to get permission to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been a crime if not for a very wide and broad understanding of Presidential Immunity. Same with Obama sending ballets of cash to Iran to skirt around Financial Sanctions on Iran - had anyone else done it would have been a crime, but due to presidential immunity wasn't. Biden using his office to encourage and facilitate illegal crossings would be a crime had anyone other than the president done it - if not for presidential immunity. The question isn't whether there is immunity - it is only how far it stretches and going by previous applications of it as well as OLC opinion - it is all encompassing and broad.

[@V.L.R.]

@@liquidmark5081 EXACTLY…………..THANK YOU.

[@lesterstarks9607]

Any Supreme Court Judge that agrees with absolute Immunity, should resign

[@jsim5572]

Just pack the court, we know it already.

[@bad406camaro]

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.

[@geekworthy7938]

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

[@JarrodFrates]

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.

[@jamescanady8156]

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.

[@Mimi2Two]

I cannot remember (in my 73 years) when I have been more disappointed in a group of INTELLIGENT adults than I am with those who are currently seated as this Supreme Court…Unbiased keepers of our Constitution.

[@azraeldemuirgos9518]

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

[@Mimi2Two]

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

[@Playtechy]

@@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.

[@Lawh]

@@Mimi2Two What is your gripe with this issue?

[@colinjensen]

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

[@rikkyrok2905]

As an Australian this all seems so bizarre. Surely the lawfulness and immunity of the act must be considered within its entire context. The head of state should only be able to break the law where they reasonably and in good faith believe that the act itself is absolutely necessary for the public interest. Here, the court system was the place for disputation over the election outcome, not Executive action.

[@jimh3500]

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.

[@lavalampluva55401]

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”.

[@DGE123]

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).

[@DGE123]

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.

[@crystalswaggerstick890]

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

[@camilodelvillar6860]

Thank you C SPAN for being neutral and streaming the full argument along with showing who is talking

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@Savetheworldfirebidennow]

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

[@bqing87]

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.

[@Savetheworldfirebidennow]

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

[@JonathanSterlingUSA]

@@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.

[@josephlopresti26]

A disgrace to even discuss this matter.

[@ccmzadv4879]

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

[@asbjrnokkenhaug5465]

Should be obvious. A president is not immune beyond out of his/her elected term.

[@liquidmark5081]

@@ccmzadv4879it’s a disgrace to entertain the thought that the president should be able to blatantly flout the law.

[@ccmzadv4879]

@@liquidmark5081 They are not mutually exclusive.

[@stevehedman7969]

The lawyer said at 1:26:31 "making a mistake doesn't lead you to criminal prosecution". This statement is absolute absurdity! Every single day people are prosecuted for unknowingly making mistakes and spend time in jail over it.

[@geelee1977]

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

[@stevehedman7969]

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

[@Mark-kq6ch]

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

[@olenbrown]

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.

[@jeldon]

There has to be intent to commit a crime. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter: one has malice aforethought 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.

[@Sundown-777]

Thank you for allowing us to watch and listen.

[@Pam-si4jp]

Thank you to c span for this opportunity to watch this historic case hearing! And putting up the photos if who was speaking. Many thanks!

[@johanan62]

John Sauer's voice sounds like AI and it's scarily inhumane

[@PNWGlinda]

He sounds like he has something wrong with his throat or an addict.

[@jojodress]

Boy his lawyers won't give up! UNBELIEVABLE

[@kikim.29]

Just give up yall

[@idaharyatihassan7425]

He is evil

[@kikim.29]

@@idaharyatihassan7425 got it. Orange man bad.

[@camille9803]

Imagine if he worked that hard for the American worker.

[@kikim.29]

@@camille9803 he tried to build the wall.

[@neerajareddy759]

If President has the rights to do what ever and not be liable Biden can simply have trump in jail now .End of matter

[@stevev.8779]

That's what Biden is trying to do.

[@Playaflydre]

​@stevev.8779 he has immunity right??

[@SourTangent]

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

[@BillAshtonNelo]

That’s precisely what’s happening.

[@Playaflydre]

​@BillAshtonNelo so Biden has immunity then correct??

[@bestlaidplans4511]

What's the point of a Supreme Court if the Executive is above any legal consequences?

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@BeachBum1983]

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

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@shanemckenzie-wc3mq]

EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH THIS AND BE PRAYING.

[@BluSkyOne1]

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

[@Playtechy]

@@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.

[@zekethedego]

Praying? Praying for what?

[@kobushauman3310]

🙌🏿✝️🧎🏽

[@Playtechy]

@@BluSkyOne1 Let's hope that when Trump gets back into the White House the Biden regime and its tyrants will be dealt with swiftly.

[@Robert_Douglass]

By Article 2, the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", meaning the President must act within the law. He (at least so far, he) may not act in a criminal manner and expect to be free from future prosecution of those criminal acts after term expiration. If seeking re-election, however, a sitting President can also act in a capacity as an office seeker as well as an office holder, and this area has today become a little less grey. A President may not commit fraud as an office seeker to influence the vote -- there is also no such thing as blanket immunity or absolute immunity.

[@stevev.8779]

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

[@cassandraortiz321]

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.

[@klaus3579]

100%.

[@lukeharris3949]

👍🏾 well said. Thank you

[@chrischreative2245]

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.

[@Zippezip]

Why doesn't somebody ask this question? Why does the President need lawyer's if he is immune from the law?

[@lukeharris3949]

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?

[@scrambledeggs88]

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

[@Torkmastaflex]

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

[@cvance37]

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

[@MrRjsnowden]

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

[@amyhazelvang7198]

Wow.. Thank you so much C-SPAN

[@angelikabehrend417]

It's high time to clean up SCOTUS!

[@lane5911]

What does that mean?

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@Playtechy]

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

[@bittorrentpromotion4084]

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. …

[@ccmzadv4879]

nonsense words

[@tski3458]

i hope they understand their power would be worthless if they allow this.

[@shanemckenzie-wc3mq]

I hope that’s not a threat.

[@Zippezip]

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

[@MrRjsnowden]

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.

[@TMagee-kz3kb]

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

[@gman8177]

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

[@Mtb94]

No one is above the law! Some of these justices are compromised and should recuse themselves. Disgraceful

[@mrpaulweaver]

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

[@rebeccasmith8567]

Which ones and what is your proof?

[@sethblank3139]

I dont think you understand how our system works at all

[@jeannettesoto2335]

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

[@novalvegate]

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

[@jenniferszarek4818]

Thank you Justice Jackson …….at last somebody with common sense !

[@eagleriver7863]

She/He doesn't know what is a woman. How does she have common sense?

[@jasontomlinson6371]

The amount of ads in this video is ridiculous. Y’all should really be ashamed. I’ve watched many podcasts longer than this with nowhere near the amount of ads ran in this video.

[@josephdan2850]

Supreme Court should just do their ruling now to get it done and over with. Send it back to Jack smith’s court.

[@prisonersdilemma939]

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.

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@Michelle-yk5mq]

A PRESIDENT who RESPECTS the LAWS of the UNITED STATES does not have concerns of being charged nor have concerns of IMMUNITY. DJT's lawyer is really creating a scenario that we will NEVER OVERCOME if ANY PRESIDENT is afforded FULL IMMUNITY.

[@vincentriggs711]

Impeachment

[@SCWynne-ie1ey]

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

[@austinmerrill752]

Watch out clinton, biden and obama...

[@vincentriggs711]

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.

[@vincentriggs711]

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

[@LocalAmarillo_tv]

Could you not get someone with a clear voice. Wtf

[@jannmutube]

----- < The Executive is vested in the President:: Article II, Section 1, clause 1. 3 U.S.C. 301(1) The power /functions of the president is VESTED IN THE LAW.& (2) nothing relieves the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of those he appoints. A violation of procedural law (like the Vote Count Act) or the commission of a crime (as in the Espionage statute) are NOT Article II duties. In this DC Election Interference case, asking VP Pence to reject lawful Certificates of Assertation was not an official duty. . . .... 3. U.S.C. . § 15(e)(1)A(ii) says, " no vote of an elector described in clause (i) which has been regularly given shall be rejected." A President must "take care to faithfully execute the law" Article II, Section 3. There is no "outside perimeter" in which a violation of federal procedural law (like the Vote Count Act), or a crime (like Willful Retention of Government Records) is an Article II duty/function. Here's the math. 1 Article II duty + 0 crime = 1 official act 1 Article II duty + 1 crime NOT= 1 official act

[@carolmckellar8819]

Trump needs to be jail

[@carolmckellar8819]

No imunity

[@debrabowers8652]

It just kills me that scotus is even listening to arguments!

[@f0xh0nd51]

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.

[@Rmc3591]

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

[@f0xh0nd51]

@@Rmc3591 fair point

[@MrRjsnowden]

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?

[@f0xh0nd51]

@@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.

[@jaywallin]

Justice Jackson 👍👏 did a great job of cutting through the BS

[@ada-yw1bb]

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.

[@SCWynne-ie1ey]

Excellent. She's fantastic.

[@emilyjanssen4295]

she's trash

[@MrRjsnowden]

If only she could tell us what a woman is.

[@gman8177]

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

[@dlcs1406]

Alito is a serious problem here

[@cheryldemasio746]

With 45, the lines between private conduct and presidential acts would BLEND.. There would be NO differentiation between what personal act 45 would decide to do like take revenge against a enemy or rival, and his thinking he would be justified to do so because according to the way he THINKS about it, that would not ever be a personal crime because he is performing the offense as a presidential act and as president ( Dictator) 45 can do whatever the HELL he wants to. 45 has already stated as his agenda the things that he would do that are breaking state and federal laws... and act with violent aberrant behavior committing criminal acts and calling it presidential. 😢 💔

[@mgsschuback1004]

I only want that justices do their work with honesty!

[@davidkeita1178]

❤❤❤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 !❤❤❤❤

[@joshdaniel-fk2rw]

No market like the black market

[@curtisleeyork1978]

you got em lol

[@williamwatts5687]

This is a simple situation that the supreme court should have never took up. No one is above the law and should have said no immunity for anyone that breaks the law. Not Trump, Not Biden not anyone. Presidents are government workers and are paid by the tax payer. If we your employer has to obey the law so do you.

[@theresaharrell9043]

🤚👏👏👏👏👏👏 comment of the day!!!

[@gamemediafan1714]

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.

[@stevenarcher9824]

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.

[@JarrodFrates]

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.

[@SandraHulse]

Awesome, we can get Biden for breaking immigration law!

[@tomh4769]

Where did Trump get this ridiculous lawyer

[@anfauglir6834]

Gorsuch is far too in love with his own unlettered voice.

[@Playtechy]

Sounds like you fell in love with it a bit.

[@ggjohnson5754]

Ridiculous argument

[@yednekachewgeremew1886]

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

[@PositiveMommaLife]

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

[@ggjohnson5754]

@@yednekachewgeremew1886 ? Huh?

[@sethblank3139]

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

[@legally.malaysian]

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

[@engineered-mind]

Total immunity - be careful what you wish for

[@MrRjsnowden]

Have you ever heard of impeachment???

[@charlesvancella524]

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!

[@deborahbeltz718]

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?

[@Ulysses.S.Grant.For.The.Union.]

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

[@raynardbuckner901]

@@MrRjsnowden with total immunity you have no impeachment

[@srercrcr]

Nixon, Trump......all in my adult life. Tighten up!!

[@DavidRivera-jk5hx]

To be honestly honest with this Supreme Court Justices you make me sick 🤢 period

[@gene4094]

The federalist Society Supreme Court

[@angelainamarie9656]

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

[@sethblank3139]

​@@angelainamarie9656says the minimum wage employee

[@angelainamarie9656]

@@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.

[@MimiLovesHerBlessings]

@@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!!

[@dayoftherope6591]

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

[@Pagan_Rites]

Imagine the precedent this would set.

[@melodys74]

That’s exactly the world the GOP wants.

[@isabellemogadam]

Is going to become the USA doomsday.

[@uptick888]

Dictators that’s what the wealthy want

[@BluSkyOne1]

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

[@sethblank3139]

Hilary wasnt prosecuted for illegally smuggling weapons into Syria George Bush wasn't charged for a war started over wmds that didn't exist Obama wasn't prosecuted for murdering American born citizens without due process via drones Bill wasn't prosecuted for lying to congress Nixon wasnt prosecuted for Watergate Biden wasn't prosecuted for raping Tara Reade

[@MrKockabilly]

The judges are simply having a hard time. They simply cannot think rationally and save Trump at the same time.

[@nancyjo1957]

What nonsense.

[@rebeccabeal4378]

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

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@Stryyder1]

this is getting sent back down to the lower court....

[@janemarinelli7843]

Sauer talks in un ending circles. His arguments make no sense in this proceeding.

[@f0xh0nd51]

Jackson says it too 57:00

[@aarone5181]

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

[@cheetah4054]

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

[@legally.malaysian]

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

[@kerred]

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

[@altonmassson]

Alito is a complete TYRANT! Just awful

[@nancyjo1957]

Oh please. Your hysteria is ridiculous.

[@fredzep01]

sauer's voice should be the type of voice coming from Mitch McConnell when he glitches

[@WOLFM0THER]

“My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing to get what I’m after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want.”

[@careyrowland]

Thank you for providing this audio. . . so that We the People can continue in a clear and present comprehension of the Constitutional backbone that provides integrity and strength for our Rule of Law. Keep up the good work!

[@theresaharrell9043]

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

[@kjellvb1979]

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

[@pierce4026]

“What if someone appointed an ambassador in exchange for money”…..ummm most ambassadors are donors…that’s literally what happens in the open

[@lukeharris3949]

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

[@kevinwatkins6615]

Right on

[@nateo200]

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

[@Playtechy]

@@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.

[@mygills3050]

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

[@AdelWilliams-sz7nt]

Praying for peace

[@wordragon]

It is surprising to me that some Justices seem to forget the structure of checks and balances when positing their hypotheticals. It is as if they assume they don’t exist, so they can raise false flags to call attention to an implausible scenario and the counsel has to keep reminding them that there is a Constitutional path to investigate and prosecute.

[@williamcesario1579]

Sauer--what in hell are you talking about, and what "brave, etc." actions has Trump performed, other than those that are open to valid legal scrutiny. Total disregard for National Security, in the manner in which he handled Top Secret Documents!!! Is/was that 'brave action????" A list of hundreds of similar actions, basically makes your argument emptyheaded!!!!!

[@ShogunHull]

You are a buffoon.

[@rebeccasmith8567]

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?

[@jeannettesoto2335]

You're kidding right?

[@williamcesario1579]

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

[@lindacline1428]

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.

[@jenniferflores3335]

This attorney is literally talking in circles. Like the laws in place just "beat around the bush" of issues.

[@aaronjennings8385]

This case is on a short chain.

[@user-rz7rv2so5l]

His lawyers use totally different types of presidential times that have nothing to do with this case

[@davekolp4552]

250 years, the president's didn't need it. Now we need it? How dumb do they think we are? It is insulting!

[@ShogunHull]

I find it so incredibly sad that some of the population are traitorous to our very well being & secure existence.😮 Sighhh.

[@briannguyen6248]

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

[@Shichard2006]

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

[@JarrodFrates]

​@@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.

[@MrRjsnowden]

@@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.

[@gman8177]

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

[@gobindanand5914]

No One is above the Law.

[@peace-yv4qd]

Except Biden.

[@legally.malaysian]

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

[@rickybobby7276]

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

[@DakotaBecker-wg1gp]

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

[@franke.8583]

Except the Biden crime family

[@maxsmart8954]

ALLOWING IMMUNITY IS ALLOWING A COUP. ANY THIRD GRADER KNOWS THAT!!!!

[@mrsdsparky]

So let me get this straight. Trump’s legal team is arguing that the remedy to presidential abuse of power and violation of the law and such is through congressional action. That in order to hold a president at all legally responsible that we first need to impeach them in the house and convict them in the senate. Justice Gorsuch asks around 1:20:16 About a hypothetical that if a president leads a “peaceful” demonstration-and that causes some delay in congressional vote-could he later be arrested. The assumption or tone of the question assumes that it’s silly that a president would be arrested or subject to arrest for doing this. Doesn’t anyone see the huge problem? if it’s silly to arrest a president for illegally stopping congressional voting- when congressional action would be the only way of holding a president accountable- then there is no possibility of really ever holding a president accountable even with the constitutional mechanisms of impeachment or removal of office. The Supreme Court would be endorsing the president stopping that as well.

[@Al-gv5uw]

The question isn’t if a president has immunity it’s what that immunity looks like

[@MrRjsnowden]

Yes exactly!!!

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@gollymissholly8791]

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.

[@geelee1977]

@@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.

[@prettyhot1]

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

[@user-wb9vj2qq8z]

Gorsuch is attempting to interject immunity as "shorthand." No. Definitely, no. Once you interject a word into a discussion, it becomes part of the discussion. You cannot do an end run around the middle to rename stuff just because you want to do so. It should be MORE than obvious to anyone with half a brain the difference between an "official" and "personal" act. This is a circus! Alito has clearly chosen his position, as has Gorsuch. There is a presuposition that this is a strictly "political oppositional" case.

[@geelee1977]

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.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@blazewinters2593]

The ads have made this almost impossible to listen to. 9 minutes in and I've had 5 ads that ran for over 3 minutes EACH TIME. Please reconsider how you use ads on this channel. Getting to hear the oral arguments before the Supreme Court are too important to be sidelined by ads. Note: Just got another one at 12:11 minutes in; for arguments that are almost 3 hours long that's just nuts to have that many ads. I'll find a way to listen to this elsewhere. C-SPAN, do better!

[@laurenopferman7278]

As Dreeben pointed out, relying on both impeachment and conviction in order to criminally prosecute would essentially nullify the checks and balances system.

[@MrRjsnowden]

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

[@laurenopferman7278]

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

[@skaughtsman]

​@@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.

[@Playtechy]

@@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.

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@theresaharrell9043]

Was there a deal made by these judges when 45 nominated them??🤔 otherwise they should do the job.

[@madelynflores7625]

So if they aren't loyal they better look out

[@hyacinthsutherland1177]

Hey we never know ❤

[@Rmc3591]

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

[@theresaharrell9043]

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

[@gman8177]

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

[@arcticthundergamer113]

how is Sauer even an attorney he is as Dumb as Rudy

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@acommon1]

Very informative

[@jenniferszarek4818]

Justice Gorsuch another disappointment

[@bonniemilstead7296]

You're surprised????

[@makeitsimple9990]

No one is above the law.

[@sancho8441]

Shut up lol. If u think that trump is only politician who has broken then law then u really are just dumb. Open ur eyes. Don't be a sheep. Drain the swamp.

[@Gladness2023]

Yes, Biden dynasty and his administration will be aware of that in days ahead !

[@carlspencer6753]

@@sancho8441No you shut up fascist. 😂

[@ireneshafer4821]

Oh good, so that means BIDEN, right?

[@FakeNews135]

​@@Gladness2023yes... JOE BIDEN has committed TREASON he should be arrested.. For Intentionally opening the border

[@randallcasteel1243]

A president has responsibilities to obey US laws plus international.

[@gman8177]

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

[@imperiumgrim4717]

​@gman8177 you're retarded

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@catheerineflannigan3321]

nato

[@Playtechy]

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

[@trufflesrheaven]

I think attorneys love to hear themselves talk.

[@ileac7122]

The scotus KNOWS THAT EX 45 is GUILTY of all the charges brought against him in these cases. So the only thing they will do to further help him, after all the delaying, is to say he has immunity in… the world is watching & waiting to see how they frame it. SMH

[@anthonylongobardi294]

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.

[@user-kp8tx6zv4r]

It sounds like the judges have already decided by their statements and questions.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@carbeme33]

@@Playtechyand this is where the problem lies. The judges should not be making decisions based on party lines period.

[@Playtechy]

@@carbeme33 I agree, The republicans seem to break rank often. They rarely vote together. So for me, that is each of them thinking independently and not worrying about party-lines. The 3 Democrat Justices almost always vote along party lines. I had to laugh when someone suggested the Conservative justices will vote pro-Trump because of party lines, when the history of the voting of the Justices would indicate that the Democrats would vote against Immunity due only to party lines. Jackson did however admit afterwards that immunity should exist because if Trump gets back in office he could go after Obama and Biden.

[@carbeme33]

@@Playtechy it’s just a mess and just like church should be separate from state, politics should be separate from the judicial system. And there shouldn’t be immunity for anyone who committed a crime for personal gain or malicious intent. For any president current or later, if you did something along those lines you must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law period. The presidency is not a get out of jail free card.

[@Playtechy]

@@carbeme33 But who is going to preside and judge over the President? That's the whole point of it really. Is a president's subordinates more powerful than the president (their own commander in-chief)? That's why Impeachment needs to happen first, because it is a high bar to pass to get 2/3rds of politicians to vote on it - and when convicted (When the president's right to due process and a fair trial is honored) it removes immunity and the president can be formally charged. But not impeaching, or failing at impeaching renders the ability to charge mute. No president should have to look over their shoulder for the next administrations to relitigate everything they ever did in office to find a crime - the remedy is impeachment, not sending political hacks after a president when they're out of office. Raegan solved the Cuban Missile Crisis and he likely broke some law somewhere to do it. He made a backroom deal to end that threat and if all the communications and documents were released, there could very well have been a crime there - does that mean he should be charged because he handled a tough situation and weighed up the pros and cons for it? That's why they get elected President; because we trust that they will do what is needed in the interest of the nation and not need to worry about strict legal codes that can be used decades later to relitigate their weighing of the situation. Hell, Obama sent a pallet of random cash to Iran in contravention of Financial Sanctions. That's a crime if anyone else did it. But as president Obama weighed the human lives involved and decided to pay the ransom - skirting the sanctions. Republicans didn't go after him for that, though they did politically criticize the decision. And yes, each of the "prosecutors" going after Trump are indeed political creatures, two of whom ran political campaigns on the promise to "Get Trump" due to political differences.

[@aussie807]

The Constitution is founded on the Rule of Law that includes no person is above the law, and all are equal before the law. This dates back to Magna Carta, so this whole concept of immunity is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@kn9ioutom]

Justice Delayed IS JUSTICE DENIED !!!

[@Rmc3591]

much respect for Dreeban. He concedes public acts aren’t up for discussion. Strong ethics to upholding the law.

[@nancyjo1957]

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.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@Rmc3591]

@@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.

[@Playtechy]

@@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.

[@arkzbh]

Some of the judges just made my blood boil, the prosecutor should have just ask a counter question "your honour, if a sitting president just happens to unalive some innocent American children with a firearm by firing a gun a middle school for no reason, do you still think we can't charge him because he has immunity " presidential immunity has to have a limit

[@Wallcraft_Official]

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.

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@mormril]

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.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@hi-kt3qr]

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.

[@tibs3745]

I am still waiting for Thomas to recuse himself from the case

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@jojodress]

NO ONE, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! AND TRUMP SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR EVEN TRYING

[@williamfingerhut5891]

Biden, Obama, Clinton, Bush, all murderers! You should be ashamed!!!!!!!

[@stevev.8779]

And Biden???

[@denzilriley9837]

So y isn’t hoe biden not in jail ?

[@anaisrosso]

@@stevev.8779 Biden isn’t above the law just like Trump isn’t above the law. Biden also hasn’t committed any crimes. We know this because House Republicans have been digging for almost a year and haven’t found a scintilla of evidence that points to a crime. If Biden were to commit a crime, then he too should be ashamed and held accountable just like the Department of Justice and prosecutors in NY, GA and other states are trying to do with Trump and his band of criminals.

[@yrp237]

But he has no shame, that's the problem

[@Sundown-777]

We cry for this..

[@williamscott9459]

If this is not the time then a time will come when a former President goes too far and asks too much of the law and must be held accountable.

[@marke.sherman8321]

This government argument seems like Garland's acting like a SCOTUS, lol.

[@Sundown-777]

This is a Democracy System Not a Dictatorship.. it is not up to president to go after Judicial, Executive and Legislative..

[@ram76921]

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

[@BB-rh2ml]

@@ram76921The founders made us a Representative Democracy

[@wandajohnson8225]

​@@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.

[@BB-rh2ml]

@@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.

[@wandajohnson8225]

@@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.

[@philliplust8059]

How was Thomas not forced to recuse when his wife took part in the activities at question before the court in this case?

[@markkozlowski3674]

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

[@dianehesketh8279]

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!

[@hefoxed]

Because he's bought and paid for by trump fans

[@stevenweikert7062]

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

[@jimmaupin6721]

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

[@bijoux9318]

And this didn’t need to take this long, SCOTUS

[@archielea1200]

Pray

[@michaelstraughn6625]

Trump's lawyer argues that without immunity, no president can perform their duties...yet in the next breath he states that for over 200 years American presidents have performed their duties. Hes a joke! 😕

[@stevev.8779]

And you voted for Biden, right?

[@kinneybaughman4172]

@@stevev.8779 And your point?

[@Playaflydre]

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

[@ada-yw1bb]

​@@Playaflydre: Unfortunately, yes .

[@GigaChadley]

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

[@DocLockridge]

The impeachment scenario is incredibly dangerous. The historic flip flop of partisan members in Congress would make the possibility of an unbiased impeachment laughable. We've already seen this in action.

[@eleandgigs]

No person is immune from the law if you're not Sovereign.

[@nancyjo1957]

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

[@rebeccabeal4378]

except the President ...read he constitution

[@glenmorrison8080]

27:38 He very nearly said "elector scheme".... 😂

[@TenderLumpling76]

Where is the check on power if we allow for absolute presidential immunity?

[@MasterofSFL]

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

[@deborahbeltz718]

It's the law?

[@poisoninthemwaters3422]

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

[@JordanCorkins]

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

[@deborahbeltz718]

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

[@user-qy9wh2ld8b]

"It would depend on the circumstances," Sauer argued. The fact that no justice asked what circumstance would allow it shows how morally deficient they are, while trying to do legal gymnastics.

[@IAmALawyerToo]

The rule of law is a moral principle.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@edward11762]

Funny how cops get qualified immunity, but not the president

[@sail1999]

If the president is granted immunity, he could throw the constitution in the trash and we would kiss our democracy good-bye. The idea of granting immunity is illogical. If the vote is not unanimous against immunity, the president should consider packing the court to protect our democracy. Adding more justices is constitutional.

[@camille9803]

Alito, the poor man's Scalia. My God, what have we done? What have we unleashed on the world. Keep gobbling down those Big Macs, Don, coat them in oil, deep-fry and deep-fry again.

[@rebeccasmith8567]

Intelligent post.

[@Playtechy]

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.

[@franke.8583]

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

[@camille9803]

@@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)

[@tonyladokguy8985]

Do we really need the Supreme Court to tell us that Trump can't shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it?

[@Wallcraft_Official]

Trump shot someone? When?

[@BB-rh2ml]

@@Wallcraft_OfficialWhere did they state trump actually shot someone?

[@Power_to_the_people567]

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

[@BB-rh2ml]

@@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

[@Power_to_the_people567]

@@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.

[@kjellvb1979]

Really sucks watching/hearing our democracy crumbling before us. Unbelievable, it is ridiculous we are even here.

[@lakshmicostello900]

It’s a sad and sorry state of affairs.

[@hi-kt3qr]

Presidential immunity has always existed, you can hear the justices getting sceptical after the DOJ lawyer claimed it did not exist so he started backpedaling on his argument. Since you have selective hearing, the argument is that for a sitting president to be held criminally liable, they have to first be impeached and convicted.

[@Whateverjudy]

The founding Fathers didn't envision the clowning of today. (Find me 7,600 votes)

[@kimcleven9387]

What if. Congress is corrupt and does not convict

[@carloelie4360]

That would be the peoples fault

[@SCWynne-ie1ey]

Not what if. When.

[@SafariBroadcasting]

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

[@gman8177]

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

[@MrRjsnowden]

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.

[@kimcleven9387]

Justice Jackson is great

[@gman8177]

She doesn't even know what a woman is. You think she's great because she panders to your side. There are 8 other Justices, thankfully!

[@mortvid]

diversity hire is a joke. Still doesn't know what a woman is