DC Circuit Court of Appeals Oral Argument: U.S. v. Trump

[@patriciawilson2013]

Wish these up coming court proceedings were being televised. At least for future education purposes and for the public knowledge.

[@ghtbl]

Use the audio over a cartoon?!

[@HayCorvus]

Can you not hear?

[@lokossi9707]

😂😂😂

[@symptomoftheuniverse4149]

@@HayCorvusCan you not read? She said ”Up coming court proceedings “

[@HayCorvus]

@@symptomoftheuniverse4149 I guess you don't understand satire. The point is you don't watch people speak; you listen.

[@evil_dave]

thanks for the pics of who’s talking. makes it SO much better than just audio. big hug

[@trruthawareness]

if you cannot resolve it thru the moral or legal law, just talk as fast as you can.

[@Ms.Prairie]

That’s what I said to my partner. 😂😂

[@photocath]

Boy, this voice grates. Chalk on board.

[@DeeWeber]

💯

[@robertward8035]

I thought I was hearing that whack job Bobby Kennedy Jr for a moment 😂😂😂😂

[@paulfranku2b]

that makes him sound more conservative/MAGA

[@signalfire6]

This is the best Trump could get to give oral arguments...

[@patriciawilson2013]

Screech.€€€€€€€€£

[@RichardDoak-t7n]

LAW OVER POLITICS 👍

[@davidbosworth4751]

WHAT IF THE CRIME IS DISCOVERED AFTER THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE SUCH AS TRUMPS THEFT OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS?

[@goodsign7139]

Ignorant statement

[@MrDockett67]

I believe the Judges were kind of hinting towards that during this hearing.

[@ardentynekent2099]

That’s interesting.

[@armastat]

You can be impeached even after leaving office.

[@geraldford9973]

Yeah or how about bidens thefts of classified docs or Hillary’s illegal server. How you libatard scum bags always seem to forget that

[@THE-X-Force]

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW !

[@johnhernandez6511]

Including Joe Biden

[@AndreVasque-s6v]

Including bill clinton and geroge bush

[@jeaninelopez373]

Including HRC, Bill, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, the list is endless

[@Juntyyy]

Including EVERYONE!!!

[@cheesus9512]

​@@johnhernandez6511 you guys don't get it. If Biden broke the law were fine with him being brought to justice. But the best you can do is fixate on his son with a drug problem and then scream BIDEN CRIME FAMILY! Now we can't expect the same out of you with Trump. Because while he riles you all up in the short term, the GOP is doing it at the cost of dying in the next 20 years.

[@MTMgrand0316]

Ever since the Pardon of Nixon, that Party feel that THEY are ABOVE THE LAW, and can do exactly what they are doing this very day 💔🇺🇸

[@Glow_Up_like_A_Boss]

Well, because to use Nixon’s own words, the president is above the law. I don’t agree with that, but that was his own words. Of course they think that.

[@Happydayz-2025]

President Ford and Obama set bad precedent by not having their DOJs explore the possibility of criminal prosecution of their predecessors.

[@Canoga_Knuckles]

So then, you believe potus should not pardon his son ?

[@edajungck]

Yes.

[@GokulOnFire]

You really don't believe that do you. Trump is the only politician who actually works for YOUR benefit. He's the people's president.

[@HostileRespite]

This case is whether Presidents are kings. I'd argue that even a sitting president should be held accountable for criminal behavior. At the very least, we need a much faster method of accountability than the impeachment process, such as a confidential vote of no confidence. We the people should not have to wait 4 years to get rid of corruption in our most powerful position of authority. Doing so could mean our democracy won't last the 4 years.

[@armastat]

an impeachment can take as little as 1 hour if properly motivated. Consider a president who says he is going to give our launch codes to Mexico, the Vp would instantly invoke the 25th amendment, the cabinet would affirm it, a call to the house floor would get the ball rolling by writing up an impeachment paper with the words 'tried to sell our nuclear launch codes to Mexico.' the house could take its famous 5 minute votes, walk the paper over to the senate, where the VP and cabinet would stand up and say 'he did it' and the senate would vote and the deed would be done. The REASON the last two impeachments took so long is because the left was not doing it to try to get Trump out of office, they knew that would never happen, it was to drag it out - for the political theater - to try to hurt him and the GOP.

[@GaryFord-ib7oz]

? What or who gets to say its a criminal behavior ?? Biden is telling the attorney general garland to stop any charges being filed on hunter from comming to trial ; example tax fraud,, gun charges , so who Is the constituial boss over the whole dam thing ?? Pelosie schumer shifft . No its the president untill he gets impeached and !! Found ((G U I L T Y )) IN THE SENAT ?? THAT WHO

[@Jrsygirl28]

This lawyer is just reaching for anything.

[@robertward8035]

Trumpys lawyers are like Jack, freezing and sliding into the depths.....😂😂😂

[@signalfire6]

That's his job as a defense lawyer but he's REALLY bad at it. They all are. Habba is the worst.

[@seewhativescene]

​@@signalfire6habba is on the path towards disbarment

[@SamtheIrishexan]

He is literally reading basic constitutional law and seperation of powers. Did they teach yall nothing about civics? Do you know if this case goes ahead every president will be charged by partisans. Biden could be prosecuted by Texas AG Paxton for the border. But we dont do that because a President absolutely MUST be able to execute his actions without fear of judicial retribution. They made you hate Trump so you would ignore how flatly unconstitutional this case is. Blatantly trying to end seperation of powers. Thats what this is, an attempt to take power over the executive branch. And clearly with "judges" like 90% of DC judges will be your new president. Sounds awful and like no president will be able to act decisively.

[@paigemprice]

It's the throw pasta at the all defense

[@shanedyer3230]

Judge Pan is trying a get a straight answer outta Trump's attorney and he keeps going round and round. Pathetic.

[@patriciawilson2013]

The path of the crooked. Sounds like the one who hired him. The Orange Deplorable.

[@SenatorTacos]

Stick to ur day job.

[@rodgens1195]

That is what happens when you are trying to stretch the law out of shape to make it fit with your own idea of what it should be, and not what it is.

[@iamhudsdent2759]

@@rodgens1195 Right, that's what liberal judges do. It's all about them.

[@iamhudsdent2759]

@@patriciawilson2013 All the allegations against Trump are politically motivated. Serious people get that. Which means, you're not a serious person.

[@allthewayonehunnid879]

This is history in real time. Wow. What a time to live.

[@robertward8035]

​@@HarryF-tz5fono, you're seeing a traitor getting consequences....😂😂😂😂😂

[@Mr.Monta77]

Trump is not a King. He is not above the law. He must and will be held accountable for his crimes.

[@seewhativescene]

You're in another comment arguing that three Women are in power to decide this case, your agenda is invalid and impotent ​@@HarryF-tz5fo

[@seewhativescene]

trump screamed about locking Hillary up for years and years @@HarryF-tz5fo

[@seewhativescene]

@@robertward8035 these cult followers can't afford to donate to daddy, so they troll online instead

[@Jrsygirl28]

Those were NOT official acts! It was inciting an insurrection!

[@jaimesolis8362]

Lol. Shut up! There was no insurrection. You obviously dont know the meaning of the word.

[@signalfire6]

MONTHS before the day he posted 'it'll be wild' he planned this. And the proof he wanted a riot was the fact he did nothing to quell the violence for more than 3 hours. The idiots wearing Trump flags like capes (Ashli Babbitt and the rest of them) were his little army and he wanted them to kill as many Congress people as possible and to heck with the VP. This is not only treason, it's murder. He murdered people, on purpose, to get his own way.

[@seewhativescene]

Deleted comments reveal the extent of delusional responses from maga cult followers desperately defending their daddy trump

[@armastat]

its kind of hard to have an insurrection if you are already in charge. and he did not incite an insurrection, not a single prosecutor has even tried to accuse him of that. Only a handful of people at the riot have been charged with insurrection and THEY were at the capital building - never being at the rally - causing issues BEFORE trump even started speaking at the rally. Its really bizarre you guys are so convinced he resurrected when prosecutors you KNOW would charge him with it if they could DONT.

[@platinum_cadence]

No Court has made this distinction yet I believe. What the judges are wrangling with is whether any official act of a sitting President precludes criminal prosecution. What Judge Pan is pointing at is the HUGE problem with Trump’s argument. Namely that IF the former President is right, then President Biden could order the murder of his political opponents in the Senate and prevent a quorum for an impeachment trial to take place

[@manspike44]

I a literate non lawyer. I EVEN KNOW that Impeachment by the LEGISLATIVE branch is NOT a court filing, not civil or criminal. It is a attempt to remove a President from OFFICE. The JUDICIAL branch is the one that charges, Indict, arrest, judges and convicts and/or fines. DUH. We have no KING...NO ONE is above the law....If a President commits a crime he can be charged, tried and convicted. Granted the DOJ may also defend him claiming that the act in question was part of his official duties. Trumps attorney tried to polish a turd. It stinks and shines but its still a turd.

[@keltonscott734]

💯‼️🎯 💯

[@Glow_Up_like_A_Boss]

If complete immunity while in office were a true thing, then why would Nixon have to have been pardon if he was not at risk of being convicted later on down the road I believe is what the justices argued in the beginning now?

[@willriordan]

His voice is a violation!

[@Myers70]

I'm voting TRUMP too

[@GokulOnFire]

Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, Trump. Long live the legacy of freedom fighters.

[@iambrightkwame]

joke@@GokulOnFire

[@chrissampson7569]

Judge Pan really made that lawyer sweat. Correction: They all did.

[@davidbosworth4751]

THE SECOND TRUMPS LAWYER TRIED TO USE THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT THEY TUNED HIM RIGHT OUT! THEY AINT HEARING THAT CRAP!

[@davidbosworth4751]

SHE TALKED RIGHT OVER HIM LIKE 'YA RIGHT DUDE ,WHATEVER!'

[@AlwaysAware559]

Yes, Judge Pan did a phenomenal job with her questioning and her overall argument.

[@brendahogan5779]

Judge Pan is a Bully!IMO

[@chrissampson7569]

@@brendahogan5779 Interesting. Why?

[@ashtonhamm309]

bruhh, she blew me away with that question about whether the President could use the Seal Team 6 to EXECUTE A POLITICAL OPPONENT! IT'S ABOUT TO GET REAL FOLKS!

[@jessicaarmstrong5035]

That's what I'm talking about. How can we live in a world where a President can execute people, get his buddies in the Senate or the House to refuse to indict him, and he gets away scot free? All because someone insists that a process has to occur? It's ludicrous.

[@SamtheIrishexan]

Thats a stupid hypothetical. The case in front of her is Trump legally challenging an election.

[@shanedyer3230]

​@@SamtheIrishexan Wrong. He is arguing immunity from prosecution for anything unless the president is first successfully impeached. It's an imbecilic argument, but then, normal people know that Trump is an imbecile.

[@shanedyer3230]

​@@SamtheIrishexanAnd if you bothered to pay attention, you would notice that he said, yes, the president could not be prosecuted for assassinating a political opponent.

[@AttyIkiesha1972]

They do not sound convinced.

[@seewhativescene]

this is equivalent to a spoiled child demanding a council for immunity from doing homework and chores around the house

[@johnstallings4049]

Greetings from Washington DC the city where Trump is no longer welcome unless he's being indicted or going to court after being indicted!

[@armastat]

That say more about the city than it does about Trump.

[@armastat]

@Ooops.0 Did you think that through before writing it? lol.

[@64moondreamer]

DC stands for Demonic Control

[@PaulWhitcomb-ty6md]

Trump visits the Capitol in 2024: Capitol Police: Oh! Are you alone this time, Mr. Trump.., or do we need to call our wives and break out the machine guns?"

[@armastat]

@@PaulWhitcomb-ty6md You do know that there are some promising medications to treat Trump Derangement Syndrome?

[@BrandondoodGames]

thank you C-span for editing this in a very great way to help us know who is speaking (other than the troll)

[@davidbosworth4751]

DOUBLE JEOPARDY ONLY APPLIES 2 BEING TRIED TWICE IN COURT FOR THE SAME CRIME.

[@blakekaveny]

That’s correct. The senate has also ruled before someone being convicted in a court of law doesn’t always require impeachment and someone being acquitted in a court of law doesn’t mean they can’t be or shouldn’t be impeached.

[@seewhativescene]

​@@blakekavenyMcConnell himself said that on National television on The Senate floor

[@blakekaveny]

@@seewhativescene Yes but they had ruled on that even before that. They decided that in 1986 in the impeachment trial of judge Harry Claiborne.

[@ccbcco]

The interest of the Republic in preserving democracy and rule of law FAR outweigh the interest of the Republic's Executive branch in maintaining it's alleged unique criminal discretionary power and alleged resulting immunity. Even if such unique Executive discretionary power existed - which is highly debatable. Presidential executive interests, by definition, cannot exceed or somehow be privileged over interests foundational to the constitution and the Constitution of the Republic.

[@robertward8035]

Yeppers!! Trumpy is done 😂😂😂

[@ashtonhamm309]

@@robertward8035 😂😂😂

[@SlinkyTWF]

"Double jeopardy" would be what happens to the US if Trump isn't thrown under the jail for his crimes.

[@PaulWhitcomb-ty6md]

Good one. Too true.

[@rolltide2798]

There were no crimes doofuss.....😅

[@RobertCampuzano]

This person clearly voted for Biden and loves the deep state

[@RobertCampuzano]

They probably believe everything CNN and fox feed them to like dumbasses

[@SamtheIrishexan]

Wow how many of you are they paying to make these comments. This case will end seperation of powers. They made you hate Trump so you would be willing to ignore that. Luckily most the nation understands and America First is unstoppable at this point. People supporting this persecution against their neighbors (j6ers) and Trump are on the wrong side of history and remind me alot of brownshirts.

[@jollyranch8384]

He didn’t use the official twitter account for POTUS, he used his personal account so I think that shouldn’t be considered a Presidential Act.

[@jonathanmitchell9478]

On January 6th he stood behind a podium with the presidential seal on it and encouraged people to march on the Capitol.

[@davidbosworth4751]

EVERY ONE OF TRUMPS ARGUMENTS MAKE NO SENSE!

[@blakekaveny]

He also contradicted himself at several points. Even judge Henderson the conservative judge and most likely to rule in trumps favor couldn’t follow their argument.

[@seewhativescene]

ANYONE that grants trump absolute immunity invalidates ANY argument to remove Biden ​@@blakekaveny

[@armastat]

I think you not being able to make sense of the arguments speaks more about you than the arguments, lol.

[@blakekaveny]

@@armastat The judges also seemed to be having a hard time following. Whenever judges have to ask multiple time what your argument is that’s never good.

[@armastat]

@@blakekaveny Well thats not what was happening - they asked him multiple times to AGREE to what THEY were saying. and usually thats not a good thing if the answer is the opposite of your stance on the case. BUT i would agree that he seemed to miss what they were doing. He should of just said yes or no, because mostly they supported his case.

[@CoachHayes100]

Why is it hard to answer a YES or NO QUESTION?!

[@estobz]

because they are not YES or NO responses lol

[@jamesmyers4133]

What a joke our country has become...no justice for crimminal acts.....we all should claim immunity

[@seewhativescene]

Apparently a maga cult follower vehemently disagreed with disrespectful language and was deleted

[@RobertCampuzano]

Bro, did you forget who the president is? We’re allowed to commit all the crimes in the world fuck it I’ma go bribe a prosecutor in Ukraine.

[@RobertCampuzano]

And use your own tax dollars just because he looked into my sons business oh, and I’m also gonna protect a bunch of pedophiles and not release Epstein’s list

[@NoGoingBack2024]

It hurts to hear you say it, but I understand your point. I would just say that in America all are considered innocent until proven guilty. No matter how clear trump's guilt is to our country he is entitled to his day in court. He has always used the courts to delay paying any price for his crimes. He has filed so many bogus claims that it is astounding that the courts are not so angry with him that they would shut this stuff down immediately, but they believe in the letter of the law and will endure him until they no longer have to.

[@goldenalt3166]

That's what the sovereign citizens are doing.

[@takeittodabank998]

Sauer's voice was used at CIA Black Sites as enhanced interrogation technique.

[@wrylife57]

[@Rummy73]

Britain decided the king must follow the law and made him sign the Magna Carta. I guess we need the Maga Carta

[@peterjennings5942]

Well Trump would be satisfied if we just reverted (Make America Great Again by making this a true plutocracy) to a monarchy.

[@steveablet4041]

This is the United States. Your your argument is null and void

[@paigemprice]

The Constitution is based on the Magna Carta

[@jeanhendersonharley3228]

Good morning

[@sandrasweeb8863]

They've accomplished 1 thing though....and that's delay

[@seewhativescene]

Delaying the inevitable, he'll be lucky to survive the stress of his multiple court appearances

[@armastat]

Operational Success.

[@ericbenjamin487]

Let's Cut to the Chase: "IMMUNITY DENIED!" - ADJOURNED!

[@seewhativescene]

We need a tally of the total expenditures for ALL of his court appearances, trump's actively costing taxpayers money

[@rodgens1195]

I had to laugh. Trump's lawyer just blew one of his points about the 14th amendment out of the water when he called the President the "PRINCIPAL OFFICER" vs subordinate officers. Well, I guess the question of if the President isn't an officer was just thrown out the door! I also laughed when listening to his lawyer's arguments, it struck me that he was trying to say that "POLITICS IS ABOVE THE LAW". That's quite different to No one is above the law. And it's definitely wrong! Though I'm sure Trump wishes it was. When it comes to the impeachment clause: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." His lawyer is misreading the line that says, "but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law". He's reading it as if it is a must that the President has to be convicted to be prosecuted. It actually means that despite the conviction in the impeachment process, it is not double jeopardy to prosecute the president in court afterwards. Think of it more like a job in a big business. HR gets a complaint about an employee breaking a law on the job, they can review the evidence and decide to fire and disqualify that employee from ever working in that business again. (That would be the impeachment process). Of course, Law enforcement can prosecute them. That's not double jeopardy. HR had no judicial powers and neither does Congress. As far as being acquitted by Congress. Despite Congress not being a judicial body with no judicial powers, what if congress doesn't have the time or ability to find enough evidence to convict but law enforcement can because they have more time and resources to find it? Of course, he can be held responsible! Then there was the issue of a president who sells military secrets to an enemy. I can think of no defense for this action, it is flat out treason! Impeachable, and violates the espionage act so prosecutable! How about selling pardons? Violates the emoluments clause if I'm not mistaken. Pardons belong to the people, not the man who sits in the office of president. Who keeps the money? It rightly belongs to the people, but beyond that, it's amoral, and violates the spirit of that power. (By the way, Trump also did this). But there was one question that did hit home, though is not exactly Un prosecutable. What if a president ordered a drone strike on a US citizen in another country, or even on US soil? I would say it is exactly like a police officer would confront if a US citizen were shot on the streets. That officer/president must show a reasonable belief that by not killing that person, it would be a significant danger to innocent third parties. If they can't show reasonable belief, just like a police officer, then yes, He can be prosecuted. But impeached to remove him from office first. So, No! He's not immune! Trump's lawyer simply twisted all the facts trying to make it fit Trump's narrative that he is immune. He is not, and I would be surprised if these judges don't come to the same conclusion. As was apparent by their questions. The one point that is concerning, was their bringing up the Amicus brief. I can see that being an issue, and in a way, would let them with an out for now. The problem and why I think the government wanted it to proceed is that after the trial is over, they will have to go through this argument again. I think they want it decided now to sidestep that problem since they are in court now anyway.

[@NoGoingBack2024]

I think you have discovered AI.

[@SamtheIrishexan]

Yeah despite what you find funny that case is going nowhere.

[@rodgens1195]

@@NoGoingBack2024 Hahaha! Only if you think common sense is AI.

[@rodgens1195]

@@SamtheIrishexan If the Supreme court is unbiased and really make decisions according to the Constitution, then its Trump who's going nowhere!

[@jmcc5877]

Immunity from criminal prosecution for any OFFICIAL ACTS OF OFFICE. What about acts that are outside the SCOPE of the office of the president of the United States? Which is what an ACT insurrection would or should be considered, that been: Is enagaging in a act that is considered insurrection outside the scope of office of the President of the United States therefore is not a official Presidental act. By describing the the position of president as ' the office of President..... ' Trump's lawyer confirms the nature of the presidental position as been an Official office sworn to uphold the constitution therefore their argument that section 3 of the 14 amendment doesn't apply is legally mute. You can't hold to both arguments, it is either one position or the other.

[@blakekaveny]

Also the 11th circuit ruled against mark meadows. They said when you hold an office it doesn’t mean everything you do is an official duty of that office.

[@seewhativescene]

It's adorably hilarious and utterly depressing at the same time, it's wild how they don't realize their immunity would extend onto Biden

[@jimmythetout109]

So ...lets try a Trumpian analogy . If you were hiring a new bookkeeper .....and a candidate asked you ..." If any money goes missing ,you're not gonna blame me , are you " ? No different that an ex president claiming .." Any crimes I might have committed ....I have immunity for , right ? "

[@robertward8035]

I'm surprised that Trump's lawyer isn't referencing Belarus president giving himself immunity.... It's as stupid as Trump's defense here.

[@ethelbernal8938]

Presidential immunity has been in play for a long long time. If it weren’t, Obama would have been charged for killing innocent Americans along with Biden.

[@armastat]

@@robertward8035 Trump isn't giving himself any immunity, the constitution does. And only the Congress can take that away. One thing people don't think of often is that even after the president leaves office, he can be impeached. There are two political consequences of impeachment 1) removal from office and 2) being barred from holding any office in the future. Of course the 1st can't be applied to someone who left office, but the 2nd one can be.

[@marcofelix5694]

⁠@@armastatI find it hard to believe the constitution would allow someone to try to subvert an election. He wasn’t acting within his duty by lying about the election🤨

[@By_Rant_Or_Ruin]

It is critical that our leaders and most emphatically, our presidents be held to the highest level of the law - not the lowest. He is arguing the latter and this is a misuse of power. Presidents were never supposed to be untouchable for things they do in office. This idea is only useful for kings and in deed only expected from people who are mentally unable to determine that they must be held to the law. Everyday people are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sometimes to an unjust outcome. And here he is arguing that specific ideal does not apply to the president. The whole reason for law is that we no longer wanted Kings to rule forever and with impunity. The constitution does intentionally allow for laws to be made against the President. And these people choose to accept the role of President and it's accountability. To then demand in a cloud that the rules don't exist or simply don't apply is pointless. The public en mass of the United States has never sided with the idea that braking the law excludes our leadership. Indeed and in writ, our justice specifically requires them to act with complete regard to our laws and that no law can be made to circumvent the calls for that, thereby delivering justice while allowing the rule of law to take precedence as apposed to mob rule or the need for a civil war every time we demand new leadership. The last 6 US Presidents are guilty of what the rest of the world demands and most of the US citizenry agrees, are war crimes and illegal wars. Our current President just ignored the congress to send more money and supplies to a country that is killing innocent civilians in a foreign land. Our own government from congress to president, to courts and military beings, have agreed to do the same thing in several nations. Those actions specifically undermine the constitutional system any US President is required to accept and swear to uphold. When a president breaks a law they must be held accountable and the congress must hold them thus. This is true in any understanding of law in a developed society. The belief and expectation in that is so much so, that our constitution calls for us to form militias to take our government should they become unresponsive to the needs of it's citizens. They made it illegal for existing armies to interfere with that thus avoiding a coup every year. If these people are outside of the law then our country will fall apart as it decides, in factions, what to agree too. It can't be allowed. If our leaders are generally untouchable, how are we any different from France before their revolution or our beginning nation before the war for independence? there will be no need for Judges or law or any of it. At that point whoever has the most guns wins and we have been through that in history enough times to know it doesn't ever work out for the best.

[@Citizen-qb6ql]

reallY>?

[@kyunbhai49]

And here I thought the US was a democracy. If it were upto that clown, Sauer, Drumpf would be monarch for life.

[@armastat]

see that's where you go wrong. its a republic

[@kyunbhai49]

@@armastat with a King as the ruler ?

[@armastat]

@@kyunbhai49 No, we have a president. what school did you go to where they failed to teach you that?

[@SlinkyTWF]

@@armastat Time to play "Spot the Libertarian!"

[@markb3786]

​@@armastatstop with the Putin inspired nonsense. A Republic is a representative democracy

[@bloopgoesdonald6045]

This is just spewing word salads

[@goodsign7139]

Welcome to the US legal system under the B.A.R.

[@bloopgoesdonald6045]

@@goodsign7139 I'm talking about the lawyer

[@timatkinson9291]

Exactly. That’s what I hear!!!

[@BarefootBill]

What a bunch of absolute BS this attorney is throwung at the Court. How embarrassing!

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Judge Pan is a very attract woman. Also intelligent it seems. Trumps lawyer is doing the best he can but the argument is insane.

[@pointofnoreturn4804]

And the removal of immunity of the president also justify the removal of immunity from judges and lawyers. Also from politicians.

[@Laura4p0]

I've seen judges lose their job and even jail time, for illegal actions the judge took during a trial. DAs don't have total immunity either.

[@thaijen]

And former President’s 😅

[@Kynk]

Trump supporters: "I fully agree with the non-sensical word salad that came out of Trump's lawyers mouths. I don't know why I agree with it, I just do because they are for trump!"

[@bonnierobinson9993]

That is a dangerous road to go down.

[@christies9534]

It's obviously necessary. We don't need a traitor in the Presidency again.

[@RichardDoak-t7n]

He's A MENACE TO SOCIETY AND THE COUNTRY AND WORLD NOW WE HAVE TO VOTE BLUE FOR DEMOCRACY 👍 ACROSS THE BALLOT PERIOD WAKE UP AMERICA

[@armastat]

They are waking up. but its not to what you think.

[@armastat]

@@roennemmetrail9215 The Whole Country Lost, even democrats are admitting that.

[@armastat]

@@roennemmetrail9215 All I can say is that One of us is going to be needing medication after November I have have allot of stock in mental institutions. I would also point out that your view of reality is being shared by a smaller and smaller group as time goes on. Which is good because otherwise you won't all fit into these institutions.

[@valerie20112]

I am positive that Sauer was picked to argue today so that we would not listen. His voice is horrible and just a crime

[@ryanmathison3608]

Does Sauer drink acid and eat glass? It’s either that or he has a two packs a day smoking along with a daily bottle of Johnnie Walker habits. That voice is the truest definition of gravelly. Like nails on a chalkboard.

[@ByteSizedSociety]

All that lyin', does a number on yer throat, I'd say

[@sandyarmacost2248]

Historically showing ignorance

[@Glow_Up_like_A_Boss]

It can’t be both was his Twitter and official feet or was it his free speech? Which is it? Was he working an official capacity or was he working as his public citizen exercising his free speech because I’ve heard it or argued both ways can’t be both at the same time

[@lokossi9707]

The lawyer does not know the word " explicitly"

[@Grant918Tulsa]

29:15 You would think the oath of office would bind him to execute the laws faithfully.

[@SamtheIrishexan]

He did to the best of his knowledge and ability. Whether he was correct or not is irrelevant.

[@Grant918Tulsa]

@@SamtheIrishexan Are you making excuses for 80 year old man he's no child.

[@santyclause8034]

I don't get why D. John Sauer (defence counsel) talks so fast. What is his urgency?

[@Josh-ux3yc]

Gravel voice makes this almost unlistenable

[@dimimegesis]

separation of powers? what about checks and balances?

[@kazexmoug705]

First time I've heard a robot gish-gallop

[@3zObafouzr]

presumably sauer ate a carton of marlboro's in preparation for these arguments

[@Kentrc11]

Sauer strategy: Bamboozle the judges as a groggy fast-talker

[@stgenterprisesinc.7143]

He exhales cigar fumes.

[@Hdc2390]

Covid

[@seewhativescene]

It's COVID voice, he probably refused to accept the reality there as well

[@J5L5M6]

🤣

[@HayCorvus]

Why is RFK Jr. representing his opponent?

[@keltonscott734]

😂

[@donaldwuerlmke]

There is no such thing as Absolute Presidential Immunity.

[@kenlandon6130]

5:26 Yes. Who wouldn't want that?

[@robertramirez733]

"I'm asking you a yes or no question " but... but... whatabout..... whatabout... Always looneyness with these 🤡's. SMH....

[@jamesmorton7881]

It is not multiple choice. He continues offering this, or that, or how about this. All BS.

[@FromJennysGarden]

D. John Sauer is not convincing me.

[@forexed8948]

Sauer sounds like a serious hardcore smoker

[@Glow_Up_like_A_Boss]

I kind of feel like they’re missing the point of intent in regards to immunity so a drone strike the intent was not too harm civilians that was just a casualty in Trump‘s intent was to stay in power, and to circumvent the system intentionally.

[@NoGoingBack2024]

Good point. They did not discuss intent.

[@jordancarson]

Is it just me or is Sauer’s voice at 2x speed or he just can’t speak clearly?

[@Crosswyred8000]

You can almost hear the Judges sigh with relief when the prosecutor started to speak.

[@brandonguthrie4924]

Lock him up!

[@SandraRotella-cj7yl]

You really haven't clue what's going on do u

[@bloopgoesdonald6045]

@@SandraRotella-cj7yl educate them Sandra???!!

[@bloopgoesdonald6045]

@@SandraRotella-cj7yl what do you know that we don't?

[@robertward8035]

​@@SandraRotella-cj7ylLoL, gurl, you are lost 😂😂😂😂

[@seewhativescene]

As a devoted maga cult follower it's your duty to cough up $370 Million for trump's NYC legal bills ​@@SandraRotella-cj7yl

[@raymcneal7601]

We have no kings and that opposing arguments give the president the same power as a king , not what the framers intended

[@qsw-1228]

Well I know somebody needs a deep glass of water! 😩

[@shimmerglittershinesparkle]

The press will take these hypothetical scenarios that judge lays out and will go to town saying that the president does not have total immunity

[@paigemprice]

Because he doesn't have total immunity

[@peterjennings5942]

Your whole argument is moot, "Yes it is but hear me out!!!! What a jerk.

[@J5L5M6]

Sauer is the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics.

[@kippawah]

RFK Jr's voice coach here defending the Orange. Yikes.

[@johnstallings4049]

😅

[@seewhativescene]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually rfk Jr pitching in for rump's deranged defense strategy

[@johnstallings4049]

@@seewhativescene sounds like a cross between Alex Jones and RFK Jr to me!

[@symptomoftheuniverse4149]

My throat hurts.

[@charlottevarney7268]

this lawyer doesn't know what he's talking about...

[@keltonscott734]

Con Artists Only Have Loyalists.

[@davidbosworth4751]

ACTS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF MIGHT BE THE ONLY THING HE CAN BE IMMUNE FROM.

[@seewhativescene]

It's wild how similar your "opinion" is with the maga cult followers, seek help before it's too late

[@not_THAT_karen]

The gymnastics by trump attorney are beyond. No wonder his voice is failing him

[@desigirlBea]

“PEACEFULLY and PATRIOTICALLY”

[@jannmutube]

---- < If the Removal clause precludes criminal prosecution unless there is Impeachment conviction by the Senate, then why is Removal included as a Judgement along with criminal punishment in statute18 U.S. § 2383 ? If a President can only be removed by Congress under Article 1, Section 3, clause 7, why did Amendment 14, Section 3 provide another provision for Removal? ... seemingly, not only by ballot disqualification but by the legislation passed by Congress (statute18 U.S. § 2383) under Section 5 of Amendment 14?

[@USA1776-9]

There is no such thing as Presidential Immunity. Presidents swear an oath to protect, preserve and defend the US Constitution when they take office. That means they must comply with the US Constitution and US law. There is nothing to discuss here. Move along.

[@shimmerglittershinesparkle]

The prosecution lawyer if you heat carefully mentions a few times about relating to prosecution of future Presidents. Trying to lay out a premise for Biden et al. And the way he is talking to Judge Pan is almost like pronouncing what sentence should be given to president trump rather than arguing the merits of the case like president trumps lawyer and not pronouncing any judgements. Prosecution is trying to push a result.

[@primrosed2338]

His voice got more scratchy as he lied and lied more.

[@yrbuddy77]

this guys voice is gone something with such importance and he shows up with a 3 pack a day voice wth.

[@NoGoingBack2024]

She is single-handedly destroying his argument! It’s beautiful! Very intelligent woman!

[@jannmutube]

---- < In my view, "The President shall be vested with the Executive power" only means he is the Chief Executive Officer.. A civil Officer as designated in Article II, Section 4.. . And, Unitary Executive only means there can only be one President at a time, .... Our Federalist system is about separation of powers, checks and balances, equal justice under the law NOT special privilege. ..... Deference to Article II duties in U.S. v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, page 715, 716 is only about protecting sensitive national defense documents, government records, or privileged information under a Presidents lawful official duties not immunity against criminal prosecution. A President can't "faithfully execute the office of the Presidency" or "protect and defend the Constitution" by commuting crimes. The meaning and purpose of any Constitutional provision can't be to place any public servant or individual above the law or empower them with king-like powers. ... Article I, Section 9, clause 8, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States;" ..

[@JozeeFella]

Fascinating.

[@mellowseller9762]

Sauer argues all over the place. He should take up juggling and join a circus 🎪

[@lokossi9707]

He respectfully disagrees with everything 😂

[@amfear41]

Dt certainly did try to withold presidential power from the lawfully elected incoming Potus.

[@adamrussell658]

They should have asked the hypothetical: "If Biden sent seal team 6 out to kill Trump would Biden be immune from prosecution"?

[@NoGoingBack2024]

If they grant absolute immunity, I am sure he not only could do that, but that he could also hush it up!

[@kathyjones274]

Bieden would never do anything Trump and Maga do.

[@temesgen2257]

I’m done ✅

[@huntingtonbeachanthony4957]

Their state Bar should summon them to appear. Wow!

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Trumps lawyer? Nah he's making an insane and dumb argument but it's not nearly to the level deserving of that. The FEDERAL judges? Bah! Your ignorance is showing.

[@SylviaMeed]

So if Trump is immune to be charged why was Nixon not be immed?

[@Crosswyred8000]

Sauer says Nixon’s actions were entirely personal so therefore not immune as part of prez act

[@Catcher814]

Sounds the Gov of NY when she told the business owners not to worry. They werent Trump. Lol

[@kitkinchen3485]

I would have loved to hear about the amici brief from the US.

[@kayperkayful]

Get ready Biden….! We find out what YOU can do here real soon. This is a win/win for democrats, either way .

[@nickzaccheo9294]

What a bias and ignorant comment. 😂

[@seewhativescene]

??????????? Speak with a therapist immediately

[@goodsign7139]

So you are in favor of opposing candidates for office removing that opponent by means of "illegal" actions? Great welcome to your future fascist government

[@seewhativescene]

Look into a mirror and repeat your comment to the reflection @@nickzaccheo9294

[@HayCorvus]

@@seewhativescene Says the moron who thinks Biden is a bad candidate. You'll let anyone tell you what to think before you stop to look at numbers and data. Read a book.

[@jessicaarmstrong5035]

Does anyone else notice how his voice gets high-pitched when he's scrambling? Man you can tell he's nervous. They also raise a good point. Trump wasn't acquitted in his second impeachment based on the merits of the case. He was acquitted because he argued that the courts could decide his guilt or innocence in a court of law. And now they want to say that because he was acquitted of impeachment, no matter the reason why, that he can't be prosecuted because he insists that it has to be impeachment THEN prosecution. But I don't think those two things are synonymous with each other. I think it can be impeachment OR prosecution (as Trump argued in the impeachment trial) as well as impeachment AND prosecution. Or it could be prosecution WITHOUT impeachment. They're right that impeachment only deals with specific crimes, not all of them. It's supposed to be treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Murder is not included in that list. Theft is not included in that list. There are a whole slew of other crimes that wouldn't qualify for impeachment. So are we than saying that presidents can commit those crimes and because of immunity they can't be prosecuted because they don't qualify for impeachment? I mean, by that notion, the president could snort coke on the White House lawn in full view of the public and never be prosecuted for it. That's ridiculous as all hell. And then the end part concerns me. What the one justice is asking is if impeachment proceedings and conviction never happened for a crime that a president committed while in office and America misses the deadline so to speak, does that mean that the president should not be prosecuted? And Sauer said no he shouldn't be prosecuted. That's ridiculous. You can't just snap your fingers and bring impeachment proceedings. You need to investigate, have evidence, etc. It takes time for legal proceedings, even impeachment. In Trump's first impeachment, it took almost two months from the time when the articles were brought to when he was acquitted. That doesn't even count the investigation to bring together all of the evidence, the presentation of that evidence to the House of Representatives, and the time it took for the House of Representatives to decide. In his second impeachment, it took a month from when the articles were submitted to when he was acquitted again. And I'll bet that was the fastest goddamn impeachment trial ever. That means at minimum it takes a month just for the proceedings, let alone the investigation. Now people seem to think that "acquittal" means "not guilty". This is not the case. The reason that the second impeachment proceedings ended in an acquittal is because the proceedings were happening after he left office and thus Trump argued that since he was no longer in office that he could not be impeached and actually argued that he could be prosecuted instead. His own lawyer's words. And now he's trying to get out of being prosecuted. Every excuse not to take responsibility for his actions. By Sauer's notion, a president cannot be impeached because he can be prosecuted and cannot be prosecuted if they aren't impeached. It's ridiculous. It's like saying that you can't sue someone in civil court after having been criminally prosecuted. It's entirely incorrect and any person can be tried twice for the same crime in different kinds of courts. It's even worse for him. By his notion if Trump has a judgment made against him, appellate courts cannot intervene because the judgment was already made in the original court. It goes both ways sweetheart. Is he then now saying he doesn't have the right to appeal? Because it works on both sides of the line. Clearly none of that is the case.

[@sstarkey1695]

This guy is a professional smoke blower.

[@raymcneal7601]

It's the decision of the Judicial branch to decide when it's a former president

[@bonnierobinson9993]

I wonder how Trump is going to twist this in his favour should he lose.

[@robertperez357]

I really really really wanted to hear this argument,I was deterred by that horrid voice, now I believe that trump put this guy to deter all who might want to get informed, his voice equals or surpass the nails on blackboard screeching,therefore I left, trump wins!!

[@NoGoingBack2024]

Is trump that smart? In an Iowa speech he told the people that he would build a dome around America. Google it. He really did say that.