Rachel Maddow is so upset, her Adams apple is showing through.
@VuongNguyen-cg6yo6 ай бұрын
I still remember her when Russia collusion was debunked as hoax.
@Derideo6 ай бұрын
randy madcow
@joinjen38546 ай бұрын
She hasn't had time to shave down the apple lately.
@torablack6 ай бұрын
ikr..
@santiagoabalos75646 ай бұрын
Raymond Madcow is really Comrade Colbert ... in drag.
@jessietucker93426 ай бұрын
So, accuse your advisory of your own crime. That is now the strategy.
@Adrian-yi8fl6 ай бұрын
Ever since they impeached Trump for what Biden did.
@gen-xboomer6 ай бұрын
Now? It's rules for radicals, their bible. Obama was the first to really follow it and now it's Bid...... Never mind it's still Obama.
@BlitzenSpeaks6 ай бұрын
Professionally known as _"Narcissistic Projection"._ That's been the tactic of Leftys for decades. Mostly because they ARE Narcs! As was Alinsky; the author of their guide book. We're dealing with extremely Toxic People here!
@georgewagner77876 ай бұрын
It has been for a long time
@BlitzenSpeaks6 ай бұрын
@@jessietucker9342 YTCCP deleted my comment.🤷
@joeszymanski35406 ай бұрын
Anyone with a little common sense knew what was up YEARS ago.
@Dewayne-k5n6 ай бұрын
Yeah like during the 2020 election 😂😅
@liljoe51396 ай бұрын
I’m voting for the innocent man convicted of a felony… Not the guilty man who’s immune to prosecution.. Maga Baby 🇺🇸
@keithhoss49906 ай бұрын
Trump has committed numerous crimes in his life. You better be thankful he has only been convicted of this relatively mundane one.
@KurtLeroy-mx1xi6 ай бұрын
@@keithhoss4990And Joe committed so many crimes but lucky for you he has been found to be mentality unfit to stand trial.
@brianmason18496 ай бұрын
Rfk Jr, claim your Independence!
@carlson95306 ай бұрын
"Impeach the President and her husband too".
@terinn71156 ай бұрын
@@carlson9530 Hmmm...that takes me back. To the '90s, right? But, accurate as hell right now, too.
@NeutronStar-r7r6 ай бұрын
Why does Joy Reid look like that. She must really hate herself.
@karens86336 ай бұрын
Joyless
@poutine576 ай бұрын
why do you look like you do? you must really hate yourself.
@netdoctor16 ай бұрын
She's not alone...
@knightstemplar64206 ай бұрын
It should buy some hair from Temu.
@nobodyspecial1156 ай бұрын
😂 she took it personal when everyone kept saying she had a Trump hairdo 😂
@TheRealJoeMama16 ай бұрын
It's really hard for me to believe that Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid have any viewers other than their parents and siblings.
@Darthdoodoo6 ай бұрын
I think we're at the point where everything is propaganda and almost nothing is real and all of the media and government is working against us to propagandize us heavily
@billcunningham6346 ай бұрын
Sadly there are a good # of useless Liberal assholes that tune in to them. Same with the pigs of the View.
@andybeckett43406 ай бұрын
Yes their Butch wives…..
@davidcosta22446 ай бұрын
@@TheRealJoeMama1 What about all of the family of the crew as well?
@Dewayne-k5n6 ай бұрын
They don't 😂l😂😂p
@edwardcalabrese78906 ай бұрын
How unprofessional Sotomayor is, very disappointing to have her in a position of importance.
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
Do you believe Obama should have been prosecuted for drone striking a US citizen? If yes then you agree with Sotomayor. Do you think that Joe Biden should be criminally prosecuted for something? If yes then you are with Sotomayor. This ruling isn't about a specific president, it was about ALL presidents whether you voted for them or not.
@HuongBui-cy5rg6 ай бұрын
Obama right hand personal supreme helper
@charleshumphrey24436 ай бұрын
Obummer is still running the circus
@robwlosiak73986 ай бұрын
Remember ‘ what they speak “ accuse “ they do !!! They blame first , is them saying what they are up to .
@virginiahunt3576 ай бұрын
Exactly
@Microtonal_CatsАй бұрын
"Every accusation a confession."
@Peter-ge9oi6 ай бұрын
PLEASE . No more camera close ups of Joy Reid . Repulsive!
@davidcosta22446 ай бұрын
Well, that discredited my theory that she actually shows up on a camera.
@steelionx92556 ай бұрын
You know for a while that someone being an idiot doesn't make them ugly and in Joy's case, she looks decent but she is still crap! I'm giving your stupid comment thumbs down!
@boaz7846 ай бұрын
I know right ?!🤪🤪
@Shawn-gz8sw6 ай бұрын
The Klu Klux Clan warned in the 1960s
@fredc35436 ай бұрын
Never forget who lied to you.
@TWOofEACH6 ай бұрын
That's why we are voting for Trump!
@MichaelKingsfordGray6 ай бұрын
The flying car folk?
@benbedell29446 ай бұрын
Yep, and that's why I'll be voting for Trump.
@rickpicone97516 ай бұрын
And has been for fifty yrs.
@CarolOwen-cj4sq6 ай бұрын
This ruling will work for for Joe in the future then the Democrats will be like giddy school girls.
@i.marchand46556 ай бұрын
Maybe everyone reporting on our government should be required to learn about that thing we call the Constitution.
@haroldharris78186 ай бұрын
@@i.marchand4655 absolutely agree with you 👍🇺🇸🇺🇸
@fishyclouds6 ай бұрын
Absolutely should be a requirement!🎉
@stephaniehampton35256 ай бұрын
Amen!😉
@TheBatPunkRises6 ай бұрын
I think it would them good to have to pass a 5th grade civics exam too. Put their lack of intellect in perspective
@i.marchand46556 ай бұрын
@@TheBatPunkRises Think Jeff Foxworthy would host a TV show with them taking their final exam?
@nathanielbohner28596 ай бұрын
Trump's security team needs to stay on top of it now.
@williamskrainski84076 ай бұрын
3:58 Joy Reid is NOT the media.....she just plays one on the dumbest show on TV
@georgewagner77876 ай бұрын
Fortunately I can't afford cable
@RM-lk1so6 ай бұрын
Just ignorance
@vvvbbbbcccc6 ай бұрын
If I was Donald Trump I'd be ramping up my security.
@RedddPilll6 ай бұрын
I’m sure he is.
@Sal-gh1se6 ай бұрын
Yep. It’s the only move they have left. “I’m on it!” - Hilary Clinton
@CRAIG58356 ай бұрын
Ever seen the size of his motorcade, it is more than double Bidens Secret Service wagons, anybody would think that Trump is actually still the POTUS, I wonder if there is any relation to when he has often extolled, "We caught them folks, We CAUGHT THEM ALL!" and when Mar-a-Largo was raided they were frantically searching for any of the evidence that Trumps team has on them. How silly they must be in these times of 'Clouds' and portable hard drives and thumb drives to think Trump had the Grand Jury or Military Tribunal evidence just idylly laying about in the First Lady's undies drawer. Pervert Rat Finks!
@chuckwilson41866 ай бұрын
Dude that sounds like a threat …,,
@intractablemaskvpmGy6 ай бұрын
It's almost like they are trying to suggest Biden take such action!
@libertycowboy24956 ай бұрын
Sotomayor is incompetent...another DEI jusice
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
Another DEI hiring? Justice Sotomayor graduated Cum Laude from Princeton and then graduated from Yale. She has been a judge since the early nineties and was first nominated by President Bush. She is far more qualified than other Supreme Court Justices. What’s eating you up is that she’s Hispanic and a women and has reached the peak of her profession.
@turnerification1236 ай бұрын
She should be removed the supreme court is supposed to be non biased
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
So you think she’s a DEI Justice? She graduated top of her class from Princeton and Yale and has been nominated by Bush, Clinton and Obama . She’s been a judge for 30 years and is one of the most highly qualified justices on the Supreme Court. What eats you up inside is that she’s a women and Hispanic
@vld78505 ай бұрын
TRUE!
@Struieboy5 ай бұрын
Justice Sotomayor graduated Cum Laude from Princeton and later graduated from Yale . She has been a judge for almost 30 years and is more qualified than most of the other justices.
@Alexinytown6 ай бұрын
Joy Reid is mistaken. If anyone would pull a SEAL Team 6 maneuver, it'd be her own party.
@matthewkuhl796 ай бұрын
Like Obama did.
@billcunningham6346 ай бұрын
Joyless Reid..
@Angry_Squirrel5556 ай бұрын
Sotamayor should be thrown off the Supreme Court for her inflammatory comments. They go far beyond a dissent opinion. They border on suggestion.
@chuckinhouston99526 ай бұрын
But..but…she’s such a WISE Latina. 🤮
@ohmeowzer16 ай бұрын
Truth ❤
@edcurtis76406 ай бұрын
Her evil will be shown to America
@jancoley90516 ай бұрын
She really showed her true nasty colors. That is another obama failure that cannot be forgiven. If only they could be fired- lifetime job is ridiculous. No one else has that. They should not either.
@jancoley90516 ай бұрын
Her statements showed she is very unprofessional and she has no class. Sounds like a thug from the hood.
@mombeaubob6 ай бұрын
We war not against flesh and blood but, against principalities and powers in high places.
@sylvia4alvarez6 ай бұрын
These liberals need to go. Dangerous.
@randywl89256 ай бұрын
Sotomayor doesn't even attempt to be a radical far leftist. I thought judges for the supreme court were supposed to be relatively balanced.
@BettyR-qd2zr6 ай бұрын
They are supposed to be unbiased.
@NopeOnARope_6 ай бұрын
I think the word you are looking for is "objective" like the media is also supposed to be.
@barbaraquinlan50806 ай бұрын
This is disgusting. You have no idea what you're talking about. So disgusting.
@barbaraquinlan50806 ай бұрын
Wow! So sick. This is what fox does. I'm blown away. Such cruelty.
@Btdenn1236 ай бұрын
Sotomayor is being pressured to step down for health issues by Democrats who are worried she might exit while Trump is President.
@MichaelGross-t8f6 ай бұрын
Those two guys stating seal teams will be used for wrong doing by a Pres. are nuts .
@603storm6 ай бұрын
Sotomayor’s opinion is not worthy of a Supreme Court justice.
@briansandefur57126 ай бұрын
Remember President Obama put her in the Supreme Court she's a liberal
@wrongturnVfor6 ай бұрын
True, but understand why she wrote that. They are scared of the JFK files being released. maybe we'll find out a dem president was involved, So they are already making it clear in the SCOTUS ruling that the said president would have immunity for it.
@rosedevincenzo88476 ай бұрын
There are three on the Supreme Count that are controlled by these demons in both parties and she is one of them.
@cielitagarcia64896 ай бұрын
It is sad that she went that far!!!
@Seaker246 ай бұрын
Sad she is on the court. She is very amateurish. People need to understand the Supreme Court is not a legislature. The policy is an outcome of constitutionality not to shape constitutionality as an outcome of policy.
@gregschneider45666 ай бұрын
Remember, eat your vegetables do NOT vote for one
@suemullins52136 ай бұрын
I like my vegetable raw not cooked till mush 😂😂
@Lightning6136 ай бұрын
😂🤣
@Zoe-c9z6 ай бұрын
DON'T EAT CRACKERS 😂🎉
@meredithbenjamin60576 ай бұрын
😅😅😅😅
@amrox99236 ай бұрын
Cute.
@lewisbolman78626 ай бұрын
Maddow talking hypotheticals, like Russian collusion, how many times, did i miss her apology????
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
The Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee stated that a number of Trump’s campaign team DID collude with the Russians. The Mueller report said the same thing. They couldn’t prove Trump himself colluded. Trump is far too smart to make such a rookie mistake when he has minions to take all the risk and consequences.
@ronaldhol91756 ай бұрын
If she's not going to apologize for the kind of human being she is , she's not going to apologize for anything. !
@PiratePrincessYuki6 ай бұрын
I’m shocked the world is just finding this out now… Us conspiracy theorists have been screaming it for 4 years…
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
People who only watch TV haven't seen what the rest of us have.
@rationalistssj65406 ай бұрын
folks saying he had a bad night. No! He had a horrific presidency!
@sheilastanaland6 ай бұрын
To him it was wonderful. To us it was horrific....
@melissasmess27736 ай бұрын
Um, horrific career🤨
@georgewagner77876 ай бұрын
From day 1. Whatever you think about environment issues, it was an insult to American taxpayers to shut down the pipeline after we already paid for it. Nonsense
@N0Sheeple6 ай бұрын
He's a political toxic waste dump.... from JUMP!
@andybeckett43406 ай бұрын
50 years of Grift, deceit, incompetence and corruption 😢
@ralphpeterson26456 ай бұрын
Diversion from Hunter and all Brandon's foreign dealings..... all that Treason !!!!!
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
So then you agree with Sotomayor, that if a President commits an act of treason they should be criminally prosecuted
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
All those Biden crimes and yet the Republicans still can’t produce a shred of evidence against Joe Biden despite years of investigations.
@flywesleybyrd6 ай бұрын
Sotomayor's comments are actually quite frightening and expose her lack of judicial intellect. She's way out of her league and doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.
@joinjen38546 ай бұрын
Sotomayor is a diversity hire. She checked boxes.
@wilburrrrr7426 ай бұрын
I had no idea that she was that dumb. 😮
@mandyC0re76 ай бұрын
She Bein paid realllllllll good to act that ignorant 😂
@FlyingDragonGarden6 ай бұрын
She’s there for life !
@imskar49906 ай бұрын
a typical bias Democrat.
@RkyMtnWay16 ай бұрын
3:56 Reid may have buzzed off her Trump wig, but she is still guilty of cultural appropriation with that blond fuzz.
@rosssouthwell86786 ай бұрын
Y put an idiot on the screen ,y r we interested on what that mutt thinks ,because she doesn't think .
@facelessqueenie88736 ай бұрын
😂😂have you forgotten, according to them, only white people can be guilty of cultural appropriation.
@joinjen38546 ай бұрын
They/them.
@santiagoabalos75646 ай бұрын
Repulsive Reid ... Blah, blah, blah. Trump, Trump, Trump, race, race, race, rah, rah, rah ... Another rich and whinging DEI victim.
@TheBatPunkRises6 ай бұрын
Honestly, I was not aware that frosting or bleaching pubs / bush was an actual thing.
@Bobcat96 ай бұрын
Reminder, the SC ruling didn't invest the office of president with any new immunity, it merely upheld existing immunity.
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
False, the office of the president has never held an immunity from CRIMINAL prosecution. The office of the president has had an immunity from CIVIL prosecution due to a supreme court ruling in a civil case brought against Nixon. There has never been any office or position in the United States of America that has ever been immune from CRIMINAL prosecution. As wrote Alexander Hamilton in the 69th federalist paper: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon no worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware."
@Bobcat96 ай бұрын
@@dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?
@Bobcat96 ай бұрын
@@dbob132 @dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. The entire 22 pages of the decision are replete with the distinction between _official_ and _non-official_ acts - not _civil_ versus _criminal_ charges. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?
@Bobcat96 ай бұрын
@@dbob132 @dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?
@Bobcat96 ай бұрын
@dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?
@adampigott87206 ай бұрын
The media scaremongering is off the scale ridiculous and pathetic!
@JRRLewis6 ай бұрын
Especially when one remembers it was Obama who killed an American citizen in a drone attack without due process of law. And of course the current Dems are the only ones who have unethically gone after their political opponents with extreme distortions of how the laws are normally applied. Apparently they assume everyone else is as crooked as they are and become afraid.
@leondouglas48876 ай бұрын
Who is that black man that looks & sounds like Joy Reid?
@johnanderson12456 ай бұрын
😂
@robd.56406 ай бұрын
Dennis Rodman
@tessaducek56016 ай бұрын
I was wondering about the white guy. Looks like C Hunters crooked mouth face but the lack of facial hair threw me!
@nhmooytis70586 ай бұрын
Harambe.
@edwardallen98666 ай бұрын
I believe the taunts about her culturally miappropriating the blond white woman image finally got to her, so now what she's left with is grey stubble.
@joycerodriguez45056 ай бұрын
I could listen to TYRUS all day. He talks so much sense.
@curiouscat27226 ай бұрын
Joy was too close to the camera. That was just scary.
@VuongNguyen-cg6yo6 ай бұрын
Don't watch those scenes at night if you want to have a peaceful sleep. LOL!!!!
@BadassDrummer6 ай бұрын
RIGHT??!! I SURPRISED THAT POOR CAMERA SURVIVED THAT 😅
@BadassDrummer6 ай бұрын
POOR UNCLE TOUCHY FEELY HAD BEEN DOING THAT SINCE HE ",STOLE" THE LAST ELECTION
@bernievillanera5756 ай бұрын
😂😅😂
@bernievillanera5756 ай бұрын
@@VuongNguyen-cg6yo😂😅😂
@heidiwilliams5986 ай бұрын
Joy Reid should NEVER go on any camera including Tik Tok, without makeup! It hurt my eyes and I'll never be able to unsee that!
@eddie-g-64526 ай бұрын
I feel your pain ~ I've just had something to eat .....!! 🤢🤢🤢 🤮
@jerryhorton57086 ай бұрын
How about just ‘never go on camera’?
@paulacarson1576 ай бұрын
😂😂😂
@paulinehogness10786 ай бұрын
I was wondering who that old blk man was.
@Governor_William_J_Lepetomane6 ай бұрын
I thought it was illegal and criminal to speak of the assassination of this person?
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
Typically there is an extremely high bar when it comes to threats against the president. See Watts v. United States as an example
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
@@dbob132 For conviction, but talking can result in a visit from the Secret Service to clear things up. And to scare the crap out of stupid people.
@chrisket29816 ай бұрын
@@dbob132This was the most insightful comment I’ve read all day. Also, I spent way too many hours reading comments online today 😂
@oahuhawaii21416 ай бұрын
@bite-sizedshorts9635: During a public speech, Madonna stated how she wants to blow up the White House; Kathy Griffin posted an ISIS-style picture of her holding the decapitated head of the President. Both of these TDS-afflicted folks were investigated by the Secret Service. Griffin was put on the international No Fly List for a while.
@jeffreyarnold26266 ай бұрын
to date, I've only heard one president threaten military force against US citizens. (hint) it wasn't Trump. do F15s remind you of anyone?
@dabears21ful6 ай бұрын
Seriously, it's very revealing and scary that he keeps bringing up that ☝️🤔🤫
@johnsmithers89136 ай бұрын
Funny, Obama used the military to specifically assassinate a US Citizen who was not charged with any crime. Sounds like Obama should be in jail for life, according to Joy.
@marthakratz78776 ай бұрын
Biden is a wannabe mafia thug dictator!
@paulsweeney29596 ай бұрын
The third term president not only threatened to do it, but actually did it with a drone strike.
@BlitzenSpeaks6 ай бұрын
Obarry did as well, but no one called him on it. Joe's his marionette. I'm certain that F15 remark began in Obarry's mouth.
@LloydDrepaul6 ай бұрын
This is why Gutfeld is my favorite conservative KZbin show. Rita's lefties losing it comes in a close second. Thank you guy's and every other conservative platform for your service.
@ps6036 ай бұрын
If these were Trump supporters making these statements, the FBI would have already SWATTED them.
@jasonmurdock64956 ай бұрын
The fact they keep saying assasinating a rival makes me think thats what they are willing to do
@Gene_Cali6 ай бұрын
They would take out their own to further their hold on Power. Put nothing past the side that chose anarchy because DJT won the Presidency.
@BlitzenSpeaks6 ай бұрын
Same here! If they do, it WILL be the flashpoint of the next rev 0h Lou shun.🤷
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
They are the dissenting opinion, meaning they disagree. That is the entire point of dissenting. They are bringing up the fact that assassinating a rival is possible to showcase the implications of the conservative justices' decision. That is the entire point of disagreeing, that they do not want something to happen, how do you not understand this?
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
@@dbob132 Nope. They are bringing up something that would still be illegal. But there are other things they want to do that the decision would allow. How do you not understand that?
@TheBatPunkRises6 ай бұрын
Exactly.... When was the last attempted presidential assassination? Reagan, and it failed. Yet now it's a new leftist talking point with no merit in factual execution(pun intended).. but oh it sounds so scary and alarming!
@mongolloyd83106 ай бұрын
If you were surprised by anything that we saw at the debate, you haven't been paying attention for the last 4 years. Welcome to the puppet show.
@ivareskesner20196 ай бұрын
The marionette strings tore during the debate, that's why he went limp and crashed. They hooked them back up for that teleprompter speech right after that, so he actually looked alive...half alive...concious..
@hollygolightly74756 ай бұрын
It’s all there for everyone to see
@louisameoqui73136 ай бұрын
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. ❤❤❤
@sherrya34746 ай бұрын
Exactly 💯
@Adrian-yi8fl6 ай бұрын
exactly
@lycanthrope89796 ай бұрын
Again, Tyrus is spot on and accurate.
@angelinarosario72796 ай бұрын
This is so sad😮 ELDERLY ABUSE...FIRST LADY...SHAME ON YOU! THIS NEEDS TO STOP!!!!
@FamilyMembersOnly6 ай бұрын
I could not care less about the old MFer. He showered with his teenage daughter!!! She waited until late at night to bathe to avoid his sexual abuse. AND Jill ignored it.
@BadassDrummer6 ай бұрын
PREACH IT 🙏
@katielyles46576 ай бұрын
Why not blame the entire Democratic Party for elder abuse not just Jill.
@Juliet4756 ай бұрын
@@katielyles4657 What the HELL Joy Reid, Rachel. Maddow. Paranoia of the left because of their own guilt.
@angelinarosario72796 ай бұрын
@katielyles4657 yes they're all guilty of it... but she has the power to stop it...she told Obama that she will not let him step down!
@UniversalPatriots6 ай бұрын
KJP needs to be held accountable for her lies about Joe's cognitive decline.
@reensure6 ай бұрын
She set Joe up ... to fail
@sonialelii90386 ай бұрын
She still is sticking with 'he had a cold and a bad night.' And she stands by her cheap fakes accusation.
@tessaducek56016 ай бұрын
That is what she is paid to do.
@tessaducek56016 ай бұрын
@@sonialelii9038He got over that cold quickly. The next day he was amped up.
@hollygolightly74756 ай бұрын
She won’t have a job come Jan
@teresarehbein98396 ай бұрын
I wish you had three or four shows each day!! You're hilarious!! I love you, the guests, and the banter. I can't get enough of your show. Being a conservative, it boggles my mind that the liberals in our country can't see what Biden has become. It's crazy. Keep up the great work!! ❤❤❤
@Fljeep186 ай бұрын
We need to fix the countries problems and vote straight Republican!
@truthhurtswilky77856 ай бұрын
You better read Project 2025 fool.
@dannyburleigh16 ай бұрын
I hold all of that power! And my party is The United UTOPIAN Party!!
@dannyburleigh16 ай бұрын
Only I can actually Unite the United States!
@tomdooley42266 ай бұрын
@@dannyburleigh1then run for political office
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
That won't do it. Most of the Republicans in Congress are just as bad as the Democrats. Most incumbents of both parties need to be replaced with real conservatives.
@scott44826 ай бұрын
Can we use Seal team to get Joy Reid ?
@marco477utep6 ай бұрын
Doe 174 Dole 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174
@GeorgeBowling-te2xk6 ай бұрын
No, we ain,t democrats. Seal team stand down.
@Lightning6136 ай бұрын
The military rank and file are only required to follow legal orders . . . . but post-Millie and 16 years if gutting the ranks, who knows . . . . .
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
@@Lightning613 But how do you know if it is a legal order if the courts are forbidden to rule on the order's legality? That is the entire point
@TheBatPunkRises6 ай бұрын
Sorry, but team 6 has monumentally more important tasks.. relegate that Muppet to team 2 or 3. Give them something to do.
@MikeMcAuliffe-g2f6 ай бұрын
One code of conduct that all service members take is to not follow an illlegal order. That justice should know that.
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
She doesn't even know as much actual law as she should.
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
@@bite-sizedshorts9635 Really??? She’s been nominated by 3 presidents. Bush, Clinton and Obama and 3 diffent Congresses.She graduated top of her class at Princeton and Yale and has been a judge for 30 years. But if you say she’s incompetent then I guess she’s incompetent
@RM-lk1so6 ай бұрын
That's legal Presidence(?)
@Sal-gh1se6 ай бұрын
This horrible president needs to go. And she needs to take her husband with her.
@davidbrant62896 ай бұрын
😂Good one, I had to think about it but 👍
@JohnAtkinson-rb4kd6 ай бұрын
He's doing the job. recall Trump lies non stop, sells Pardons to felons, is a felon, is stealing money out of your wallet right now and you don't even realize it.
@emerobo6 ай бұрын
Reminds me of Reagan in that way
@MattBaker-zd8nq6 ай бұрын
Obama is telling them what to do
@ronniereddix52006 ай бұрын
You guys are so gullible! You'll believe whales speak French at the bottom of the ocean if the right person told you!😅
@Happyharold6666 ай бұрын
THEY ARE DOING FOR REAL WHAT THEY ARE ACCUSING HIM of! 🤣🤣🤣
@fittobetiedyed53156 ай бұрын
Yep. Why are Biden, and the media operatives talking about assassination?
@melissasmess27736 ай бұрын
"Hypocrisy"
@ericdrage28916 ай бұрын
Only a hoax if you haven't been paying attention! We all knew this before the debate.
@ronaldhol91756 ай бұрын
We can't expect people who are dead from the neck up to know anything
@janharper39636 ай бұрын
They can not scare US we have been living with JOE for the last 3 years 🎉
@gregoryuschold38706 ай бұрын
Joy says POTUS could use drones to assassinate Americans overseas? Doesn’t she realize did that? And was not even impeached.
@Happyharold6666 ай бұрын
Sotomayor just revealed her immense bias. She should be REMOVED
@Exduper8086 ай бұрын
After Trump takes over in January. Maybe she’ll retire after the election in protest?
@lifarasad89316 ай бұрын
Thomas and kavanough should be removed. Corrupt and and a sexual abuser.
@noahhyde87696 ай бұрын
@@lifarasad8931 Translation: u don't like conservatives on the court. Sorry but that's not an impeachable offense.
@tbachman88306 ай бұрын
I found the Cult rabbit hole. F OFF Bitches!
@truthhurtswilky77856 ай бұрын
@@noahhyde8769 They are not conservatives. We left the party in 2016.
@StevenSegalFu6 ай бұрын
Joy Reid should never ever appear on camera without makeup. Oh. My. God...
@joannmoore40406 ай бұрын
What is wrong with some people, look what they done to Trump and anyone who backed Trump…we all watched this for the last seven years ..twisting the truth again….God help our country
@sabaha46376 ай бұрын
Evil Dims EXPOSED 😊
@brando72666 ай бұрын
No God would approve of a rapist grifter like trump, r u mentally ill, or just stupid?
@chewytowel6 ай бұрын
Both dems and republicans are a complete trainwreck that's how bad off our country is. Both are ruining our nation with their constant childish bickering and holding up issues in congress for ages while depleting our nations credit score.
@pedrorodriguez29146 ай бұрын
Great win for the Republic,America is the winner.😎🌴🐊
@terrybradley31616 ай бұрын
It's amazing how many, and how ridiculous lies can be when enough money is behind them!
@opinion8ed6 ай бұрын
Try to sue Sotomayor or AOC for their official acts and see how long it takes for the word "immunity' to pop up.
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
Civil and criminal trials are very different in the US. The primary difference focuses on the burden of proof which for criminal trials is beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest legal standard) but for civil trials is a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not). The supreme court threw out the civil case brought against Nixon due to the lower barrier of entry faced against civil cases combined with the possible "chilling effect" those cases could have. Criminal cases do not suffer from this, since the requirement to begin a criminal case is a higher standard (depending on case/court) than to begin a civil case. Finally, Sotomayor and AOC are both not immune in criminal prosecution, even the debate clause does not protect AOC from criminal prosecution.
@opinion8ed6 ай бұрын
Thanks Perry Mason. That's why I said "sue" i.e. civil not criminal.
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
The Supreme Court passed a law years ago that stated that no judge can be sued by a defendant .
@opinion8ed6 ай бұрын
@@Struieboy So you're saying that Trump isn't the only person "above the law'?
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
@@opinion8ed No one is above the law including Trump and Biden. A judge can be charged with corruption or any other crime but they can’t be sued by a defendant. Otherwise every convicted criminal would sue their judge. If a defendant believes the judge committed judicial misconduct he can appeal to the Appeal Courts .
@ohmeowzer16 ай бұрын
FJB FJB
@kennethpriestman42556 ай бұрын
I tried translating this comment but it comes out the same
@tomdooley42266 ай бұрын
@@kennethpriestman4255and the feelings of most Americans
@danielhenry1776 ай бұрын
Short bus has to repeat things I see
@ajalvarez31116 ай бұрын
@@kennethpriestman4255 Let me help. “Chinga Jose Biden!”
@barbaragaona77856 ай бұрын
Don't these crazies listen to themselves? Whatever they say is what THEY are doing to people they don't like. Hypocrisy at its finest. 🤔
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
If you don't want Seal Team 6 to be ordered by a President of the United States to assassinate people, then you agree with Sotomayor
@ronaldhol91756 ай бұрын
I think the Democrats INVENTED hypocrisy !
@albingotti6 ай бұрын
These democrats are ridiculous
@complexity55456 ай бұрын
It tells you how all consuming their thoughts and existence are to evil. They're butchering "words."
@leonIdas0026 ай бұрын
AND YET NONE OF THEIR CHILDISH LYING RHETORIC WILL SAVE THEM.. THE EVIDENCE OF TREASON WILL NOT BE DENIED....
@ohmeowzer16 ай бұрын
Truth
@Openthemeyes6 ай бұрын
It's always the rich, a attack on democracy means attack on their wealth. They will be taxed unlike what joe did, joe is for the rich.
@cnnothingburgerletsgobrand63816 ай бұрын
Fire Marshal Brandon 😂
@cnnothingburgerletsgobrand63816 ай бұрын
*I Own A Pawn Shop TV From The 80's That Gets Better Reception Than Brandon.*
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
It gets zero reception. But it will still work with an Atari 2600. I know because I have the TV and the game, also a stack of cartridges.
@gregbrown31616 ай бұрын
I'm surprised Hilary isn't jumping back on the presidency train because she has already done most of this and could now hide it as a president.
@oahuhawaii21416 ай бұрын
Hillary isn't immune from prosecution in the US. Her crimes have been done 1) not while acting as President, 2) not as part of the duty of the President, and 3) she's never been President. Thus, Presidential Immunity cannot apply, even if she somehow becomes POTUS; at most, any prosecution can be delayed until after her term. (I hope she never gets put in a position of power again.)
@BrokeDadProductions6 ай бұрын
Who else thinks Sotomayor, Joy and that dude is suggesting to Biden to use Seal Team 6 to take out Trump…now that they think it is ok?
@melissasmess27736 ай бұрын
Ww3 will stop any election but wish for a peaceful power change
@nobodyspecial1156 ай бұрын
They're the only ones bringing that up, an remember all they do is project
@julesleg6 ай бұрын
Exactly 💯 @@nobodyspecial115
@maidenminnesota16 ай бұрын
Whatever they accuse their opponents of doing, they are either doing or planning on doing themselves.
@jacksonmarshallkramer50876 ай бұрын
They're are all melting because they know that they are on the way out.
@Tamara616226 ай бұрын
@@jacksonmarshallkramer5087 oooooooohhhhhhhhh.
@kimwallace51446 ай бұрын
Well said, and that includes main stream media anything
@nancywisdom86846 ай бұрын
I absolutely loved the monologue. Thank you Gutfeld show.
@goodlookingman44896 ай бұрын
Joe’s well known for plagiarising but this is going too far
@donaldpump88826 ай бұрын
Trump is known for his 34 felony convictions
@mcbillygoat6 ай бұрын
The Supreme Court just gave king Joe Biden immunity for official acts.
@robd.56406 ай бұрын
He's finished, there's no coming back from this.
@BC195726 ай бұрын
Joey has learned how to lie very well since he has been a politician for 50 worthless years. Go Trump 2024 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
@anthonybrinker99386 ай бұрын
C
@maureenomeara59366 ай бұрын
He is listening to an earpiece, giving him the answers. The autocues aren't good enough any more. So so sad.
@kurtgandenberger61396 ай бұрын
we have been saying for the last two years resident bribeme would be replaced. he was only in the primaries to collect the delegates and prevent someone like RFK from getting the nomination. they want one of the "insiders" and the super-delegates will choose the lucky candidate at the convention. sounds so democratic, does it not?
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
But the deadline for changing ballots has passed in a number of states. No matter what the DNC does, Biden will still be the candidate in those states. So changing horses will guarantee a loss.
@rude15276 ай бұрын
Millennials and Gen Z have a hard time trolling the baby boomers because unlike them we have thicker skin and grew up talking smack to each other.
@keithhoss49906 ай бұрын
You also destroyed the country and gave us the three worst presidents in human history. Carter, Trump, and Biden.
@keithhoss49906 ай бұрын
And unlike them, you destroyed the country
@adamschrader3286 ай бұрын
It's hard to find a pen with any ink left in it.
@VioletEvans-yt2fd6 ай бұрын
‘Your mama”. 😂😂Remember when those were fighting words?
@davidsonowski4146 ай бұрын
Yep their no match for GEN X either
@allenstewart56246 ай бұрын
Why are Carville, Clooney, Obama, Peter Buttgig, and Lindsey Graham all geniuses but unable to distinguish between an exit and an entrance?
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
That's an illogical question, as none of them are even close to being geniuses. I hate Carville, but he's the only one among that group that has more than an average IQ.
@netdoctor16 ай бұрын
Such bull chit. Carry Potatohead until such time that the voters cannot choose a candidate themselves, then appoint their own at the Convention. Like we're too stupid to figure this out.
@KenNickelson6 ай бұрын
In the next publishing of the dictionary... Replace the definition of liar, cheater and political thug with the word "DEMOCRAT"
@laurawright74776 ай бұрын
Demonrat
@TheBatPunkRises6 ай бұрын
Or at the very least, it better be included in the synonym listing after the definition. That "see also" portion👍🇺🇸
@UniversalPatriots6 ай бұрын
Who else is sick of Jill running the country ?
@barrettkettle1336 ай бұрын
It's obamma
@timothylopez85726 ай бұрын
RUSHIN BOT ON LITERALLY EVERY FOX POST although gop is just their american military branch
@derjoh19866 ай бұрын
Why are you asking us? Hunting for those likes, eh?
@eurodiaz37126 ай бұрын
@@derjoh1986no need to hunt, lol
@wadekaplan93796 ай бұрын
@@marco477utepHave you noticed NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR CONSPIRACY.
@sherryporsch93496 ай бұрын
So sick of these hypocrites
@CharlesTurk-c9x6 ай бұрын
He can't answer the questions cuz he doesn't know what's going on in his own White House
@amrox99236 ай бұрын
Seems plausable.
@Tamara616226 ай бұрын
@@CharlesTurk-c9x I am glad you recognize how Trump didn’t know anything about his WH.
@thundershadow6 ай бұрын
@@Tamara61622 What a stupid way to dialogue.
@CharlesTurk-c9x6 ай бұрын
Just like a true Lefty lie lie lie
@Tamara616226 ай бұрын
@@CharlesTurk-c9x Please name one lie?
@AdamLouisVanlifeTV6 ай бұрын
These democrats are out of their freaking minds!
@RonnieBarholm6 ай бұрын
These people are sick!
@A.Kanters6 ай бұрын
I even take it as an insult to Seal Team 6 to assume they are a robotic banana republic deathsquad that mindlessly let themselves be used. These ae highly intelligent, hand picked, extreemely well trained operatives that have honor and integrety. I doubt they would carry out orders like these without a very very very thorough briefing why it would be nessary. In hindsight these suggestions by Sotomayor are extremely insulting.
@santiagoabalos75646 ай бұрын
Paranoid
@dbob1326 ай бұрын
Obama killed a US citizen with a drone strike and there was a trial for that. Now any investigation can never lead to consequences that involve criminal prosecution of the President. If you believe that Obama killing a US citizen with a drone strike without due process should warrant a trial then you agree with Sotomayor
@katielyles46576 ай бұрын
Can a Supreme Court justice be removed from the court for not telling the truth?
@BigHunt2066 ай бұрын
Can you prove they lied ?
@katielyles46576 ай бұрын
@@BigHunt206 that is not what I asked, it was a simple question.
@Struieboy6 ай бұрын
No. Also they can’t be removed for accepting millions of dollars of vacations, school fees and private jet flights from a conservative Oligarch.
@BigHunt2066 ай бұрын
@@katielyles4657 Ok no, unless you can prove they lied and the lie affected the outcome.
@TheBatPunkRises6 ай бұрын
Via Senate impeachment hearing.
@mikeschafer89926 ай бұрын
Go Greg Go
@HUFORIC6 ай бұрын
It's not who votes it's who's counting the votes in the cities where most Americans live! Now tens of millions of new people voting on who will give them free stuff and you have a repeat of 2020!!
@cnnothingburgerletsgobrand63816 ай бұрын
*My 1982 DeLorean runs better than Brandon.*
@keithhoss49906 ай бұрын
We know Johnny. You still think Back to the Future is real
@drewdrew79686 ай бұрын
@@keithhoss4990 We know who the real John Balnis is.. YOU.
@johnfury64816 ай бұрын
And my ‘52 XK120.
@willbart12366 ай бұрын
Great monologue! Nothing Democrats hate more than being mocked. ‘Rules for Radicals’ by Saul Alinsky Rule #5 - "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
@thalesofmiletus29666 ай бұрын
Military bases should always be on high alert.
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
They are always on alert. But there are different levels. You certainly wouldn't want our pilots sitting in their planes 100% of the time just in case, would you? Read some.
@harrison3906 ай бұрын
Why is the only thing Dems can talk about is TRUMP? Winning 😊
@MichaelKingsfordGray6 ай бұрын
The nearer you get to the target, the more flak.
@kareypope23256 ай бұрын
Cause trump is their BIG O that they can't achieve 😂😂😂
@kennethpriestman42556 ай бұрын
I think it's called deflection.
@tomdooley42266 ай бұрын
@@kennethpriestman4255and projection
@Tamara616226 ай бұрын
@@harrison390 You mean whining. You misspelled
@HonestAbe-k9s6 ай бұрын
Joe's such a big boy he answered all the questions in the debate.🤣🤣🤣🤣
@patsygodfrey95656 ай бұрын
The democratic first lady, jill biden, to come and say that he answered all the guestions, made her and him look stupid and ridiculous. So Childress.
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
And got ice cream afterwards. :)
@mickeric45896 ай бұрын
What she suggests is what 'They' Dream of.
@peggyford38016 ай бұрын
We need to start calling HIM orange man!
@AllenFrost-r1c6 ай бұрын
They painted Joe so he doesn't look dead.
@melissasmess27736 ай бұрын
Exactly 👍🏻
@BlitzenSpeaks6 ай бұрын
Too late!
@Tamara616226 ай бұрын
@@AllenFrost-r1c At least he isn’t orange
@stevelyons27446 ай бұрын
"There has been some movement." 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩
@tessaducek56016 ай бұрын
That's what I was thinking... The quiet concentration.....😅😂😅😂😅😂😅 Great minds.. 😉
@Dana194436 ай бұрын
😂
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
Bowel movement is the first thing I thought of. :)
@melbea036 ай бұрын
Which is always good news
@stevelyons27446 ай бұрын
There's a T-shirt waiting to be made.
@DelFamDII6 ай бұрын
It is ready hard to watch this 2:25. This is the President of the United States?
@chuckselvage31576 ай бұрын
Gutfeld savage with the jokes about Brandon and Kackala keep em up.
@donsemo48046 ай бұрын
The most unresponsible thing a SCJ ever said.
@BadassDrummer6 ай бұрын
ARE YOU SERIOUS
@kennethpriestman42556 ай бұрын
Agreed The Constitution already details a way to prosecute a President for the acts she described.
@Lake-ec4vi6 ай бұрын
What do you expect from a communist DUMBOCRAP'S useless idiot with 💩💩💩 for brains! All 3 of the liberal scj are just in it for the overthrow of the American way of life. They are rooting for a totalitarian government and they want the potato joke bribems as the supreme dicktaster! FJB FSS and FDUMBOCRAPS
@suciojay16046 ай бұрын
The MOST irresponsible?! We really have no concept of history anymore.
@youn8e6 ай бұрын
🤣🤣🤣‼️some folks are permanently 🧠💀‼️'unresponsible' 🙄⁉️ yeah here some FOO that doesn't know how to spell irresponsible feels it necessary to Dis the Supreme Court ‼️🤣🤣🤣
@lauraknight72586 ай бұрын
Presidential immunity is not new. Have these idiots ever cracked open a history book?
@Smitty-td7pi6 ай бұрын
Joy said it the other day. Democrats always over react. I hope they can't sleep.
@lou62546 ай бұрын
I'm surprised nobody brought up the authorization of deadly force on the Mar-A-Lago raid
@thundershadow6 ай бұрын
Has that been established or is that the wishful ravings of James Comey?
@bite-sizedshorts96356 ай бұрын
Correct. But Trump has the Secret Service and his own private security. There have been a number of attempts on his life, including a missile launch that Air Force One had to turn to avoid.
@rickshupe84266 ай бұрын
Heather is on point and all dems should listen to her.
@katherinejackson95866 ай бұрын
Why are they worried about Trump. They need to worry about us. We saw how far we let you go. NO MORE.
@jonathansanders77566 ай бұрын
@@mrtaxi204Um…paranoid much? You should probably report me too since I’m nonconsentually reading your mind and you forgot to put your aluminum tin foil hat on! 😂
@chadhenderson55146 ай бұрын
What? You gonna cry for yet another 4 yrs? Go put on your big boy pants, and deal with it.
@mrtaxi2046 ай бұрын
@@jonathansanders7756 no it's threats or hints at another J-6
@brando72666 ай бұрын
Donald " the rapist grifter " thanks u ,for supporting him,