Reacting to Oral Arguments in the SCOTUS Trump Immunity Case

Does a president have immunity from the law? Probably not, but let's see what the Supreme Court has to say in oral arguments.
For the full oral arguments: • U.S. Supreme Court Ora...
More information about this case: www.scotusblog...
#supremecourt #scotus #trump

[@iammrbeat]

How do you predict the Court will decide in this case?

[@strangekid35]

Probably let them argue case by case whether Trump was acting as President or personally. Along with making a new test to determine that.

[@paendamonium]

Not complete immunity, but it seems like they’ll remand and delay the trial further so that if Trump wins the election it won’t matter.

[@justindoucette9242]

@@strangekid35really interesting, but it’s so illusory that if the ruling bled into other cases about personal authority it could be dangerous. Like how liable is the business owner of an oil company for a spill. I know government is different, but I mean I think it’s unlikely that they can put something like that into law right?

[@SadSadSadSquishSquishSquish]

8-1 Against DT with Thomas voting in favor of DT

[@MrKeychange]

After hearing this and the fact they're allowing it to be public, there's no way they allow this

[@ECKohns]

Arguing for immunity isn’t “I didn’t do it.” It’s “I did do it but I should be allowed to.”

[@therrydicule]

Technically, he did plea non-guilty. So it's more: I didn't do it, but if I did, I should be allowed to... And it's all a conspiracy anyway, and if you disagree you are deranged - TDS - and you should see a psychiatrist. At this point, it just sounds oddly suspicious - to say the least.

[@lovestein92]

this needs to be pinned

[@thedirtydizzler]

Do you not know how court cases work? They're arguing specifically immunity because that's the question at hand. Once that is decided the case goes to different questions like "did he break the law"

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

​@lovestein92 It doesn't need pinned, it's a true but misleading statement

[@goaway9977]

No it's an argument about whether or not the State has standing to prosecute. It is in no way an admission of the alleged facts of the case.

[@drexeldragon1723]

I love how the lawyer's like "but presidents break laws all the time!" Right...and that's a problem.

[@TrekBeatTK]

That’s what impeachment is for.

[@drexeldragon1723]

@@TrekBeatTK don't be naive. We can't have other crooks in the Senate holding the president accountable. A Republican Senate would NEVER convict Trump no matter what he did.

[@rickwiles8835]

@@TrekBeatTK How can you impeach someone who is no longer in office? Also, Trump's claim of immunity goes beyond his time in office.

[@GOODYGOODGOOD789]

I'm glad he's not my defense lawyer, "Your honor you can't punish my client for committing crimes, because other people commit crimes." This has led me to believe that the lawyer is Candace Owens in disguise because she is the queen of whataboutism.

[@MrMango-fz6uf]

@TrekBeatTK no, are you suggesting that if a president commits murder in open daylight they would need an impeachment before any action in taken? What if they have a massive majority in congress and it is decided not to impeach? You can still be president from prison technically.

[@friendlybane]

Can Joe Biden send Seal Team 6 to mow Mr Beat's lawn for 2 weeks because he's a great American citizen?

[@iammrbeat]

Aw shucks

[@gradykinn]

I second this notion

[@LoganJeffers]

We have a motion on the floor and a second. The motion has been unanimously passed.

[@CityGamer1337]

This always felt like the most bad faith argument… The president already can’t use the military on American soil outside of national guard without congressional authorization…

[@joedapro1118]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@CityGamer1337I mean, the president also “can’t” attempt to coerce the vice president to go along with a scheme to overturn an election by creating false elector slates. But Donald Trump did, so he should be able to be charged for it, since he was doing something obviously outside of his authority as president. If Joe Biden ordered seal team 6 to just drone strike a Donald Trump rally, unaliving everyone there, including Donald Trump, then obviously Joe Biden should be able to be charged for it. Even though he (legally) “can’t” do something like that. The “can’t” has to (at least in part) come from legal repercussions if a president does do something that they “can’t” do.

[@ayenul]

Mr. Beat is the only person who could get me to listen to full Supreme Court arguments

[@slricksy]

He is great at explaing and educating as we watched..loved this!

[@savantGK3]

As kids we all learned "with great power comes great responsibility." It's absurd to me that Trump's lawyers and some Justices are arguing that the president being criminally liable imposes too large of a burden on him, when really, every decision he makes should be under more scrutiny than the average person. This should be understood to be a part of the job, if you can't handle the burden of being president without committing crimes, then don't run for president.

[@honoviglobalnetwork1423]

Impeachment is the remedy and as per constitution Article 1 section 3 clause 7, President can only be held criminally liable AFTER an IMPEACHMENT. And liable ONLY for the crimes indicted!

[@trevinbeattie4888]

​@@honoviglobalnetwork1423Read the Constitution and provide citations before giving a response that reveals your lack of understanding.

[@lostbutfreesoul]

​@@honoviglobalnetwork1423 Oh, and the only punishment is removal from an office not currently filled? /sarcasm Please go back and look over Article 3, it isn't long and it highlights clearly whom has jurisdiction where.

[@honoviglobalnetwork1423]

@trevinbeattie4888 Yeah, right, I'm not the one without understanding! Did you even look at the parts of the constitution I referenced? If you did, you wouldn't be talking nonsense! It is crystal clear. Only after an impeachment trial and conviction for the high crimes and misdemeanor alleged, then and only then, can you be held criminally liable for those crimes. These sham trials are not looking for conviction because they know it would have detrimental legal implications for future presidents democrats or Republicans. But the aim is harassment, stigmatization, diversion from the campaign trail, and to politically tarnish Trump, ultimately making him an unviable candidate! Now you have been schooled!

[@honoviglobalnetwork1423]

@lostbutfreesoul Removal from office if convicted by two-thirds majority of Senate and then and ONLY then the presidents can be held criminally liable for the crimes of which he or she was convicted!

[@raphym.3666]

How is this even a question, a political office is to serve the people, not to be above the law. Politicians seem to forget this fact a lot recently.

[@markb3786]

MAGA has "forgotten" Moscow Agents Governing America

[@darthbahnsen3832]

The attitude you're describing has leaked its way into everything. Economys make profit, not serve people!

[@honoviglobalnetwork1423]

There are remedies under the constitution by impeachment when they "act above the law."

[@darthbahnsen3832]

@@honoviglobalnetwork1423 why did mitch mcconnel say he voted not to impeach because it's up to the justice system?

[@honoviglobalnetwork1423]

@@darthbahnsen3832 Mitch can say what even he wants. The constitution is clear! The remedy for bribety, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors IS the IMPEACHMENT TRIAL! Which in this case has already been litigated! Any further liability under the law, can ONLY subsequently be pursued after a two thirds majority of congress vote. If not, then any court can bring frivolous cases against the President that will hamper, harass or divert from performance of duties!

[@shabmaster7128]

These last 15 years have only exemplified how vulnerable our system is to faithless actors.

[@Kieranpokemonsisliterallyme]

If they allow immunity, Biden has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever

[@45HatesOurVets]

I know right!!! They would be the first ones to cry when the tables get turned 😅but... they know Democrats are sane people and they would never do something so irrational and stupid as Trump gas done.

[@Kaisercomplete]

If I was president and they decided the president had immunity i'd go from a man trying my best to a monster doing my worst. It is crazy important that we be able to hold people with that much power accountable

[@googane7755]

As soon they rule that trump has immunity he can drone strike the courthouse😂

[@nooneofconsequence1251]

@@googane7755 He will. Metaphorically if not literally. These Republican enablers of Trump are pathetic. Especially those on the Supreme Court. If they succeed in elevating him to president again, completely unrestrained and unchecked, even if all they do to that end is delay his criminal cases... of course the first thing he will do is gut and hobble the judiciary any way and every way he possibly can.

[@Black_Caucus]

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS. He would win in a FDR style landslide if he did it, too.

[@AcevedoDMA]

Lawyer isn’t trying to win. He is trying to delay.

[@iammrbeat]

This makes sense

[@Pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

Delete Account bet, but I think their hope is to delay the trial past the election. And honestly, I think it’s going to happen.

[@Baseballcheetah11]

@Pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Their goal is definitely to delay past the election, because then Trump could pardon himself if he wins.

[@lesalbro8880]

Good thing for him I guess, because I have a better chance to be the next Supreme Court Justice, than he has of winning this ridiculous case.

[@honoviglobalnetwork1423]

Just like the prosecutors know, there isn't a possibility of conviction. They are just trying to harass, stigmatize, and politically tarnish Trump's image, especially close to election making him look unviable!

[@savantGK3]

In the drone strike example, Obama did not direct the military to attack a civilian, he directed them to attack a terrorist and civilians were harmed in the process. It'd be like if the director of a bus company sent his fleet of busses out to do their daily routes and one of them hit a pedestrian. Should the company be held liable, yes. Should the driver of the bus be held criminally responsible, possibly. Should the director of the bus company be held criminally responsible, only if you can show that they either directed their drivers to hit pedestrians, or they established conditions that directly led to the accident (hiring a blind person to drive a bus, for example). I think Obama himself is reasonably shielded from liability, but the US itself should have to pay the family hefty compensation.

[@troubledsole9104]

In the act of his presidential duties. Does that include staying in power? NFW!

[@beybladeguru101]

If the bus director said to his/her drivers “the routes need to be finished as soon as possible, drive fast,” then yes the director and company would be in large part liable for damages caused by the drivers. Ditto Obama. My parents are bus drivers; they are told to drive as slowly and cautiously as necessary despite the official time tables because of this. I don’t see bus drivers bombing and killing hospitals full of doctors and Medicins San Frontier staff…

[@theches53]

John Sauer sounds like a robot who chain smokes

[@Kaisercomplete]

Tha I God it's not just me who thinks so lol. His voice is terrible!

[@aztecwrrior1997]

Is his microphone broken

[@benjamincarlson6994]

@@aztecwrrior1997 it's probably a microphone issue, but he might also be a smoker. Hard to tell

[@thinkinaboutpolitics]

Of course the President has immunity from certain lawsuits. But, that's not the question before the Court. The question put forward by Mr. Trump is whether the president has absolute immunity from all prosecutions no matter what (unless or until he is impeached). This is an open and shut case.

[@LostLightAstrophotography7]

I feel as the courts will give trump immunity because they seemed skepetical

[@2639theboss]

@@LostLightAstrophotography7 I mean other courts have already considered the question and they did not. This isnt exactly a new question or idea. It is however the first time its been relevant with a Supreme Court thats aggressively corrupt and incompetent.

[@LostLightAstrophotography7]

​@@2639thebossi would hope they follow the other courts but im not gonna get my.hopes up

[@ravagetalon]

It could not be further from Open-and-Shut

[@donkey7921]

@@2639theboss how are they "aggressively corrupt and incompetent?" The only one that you can say that about is Thomas Clearance imo. correct me if Im wrong ig.

[@jmwild1]

There are so many decent lawyers out there who dream of being able to make an argument before the Supreme Court, while this wacky legal team is getting that opportunity before them.

[@RaysGuide]

I can't beleive that some of the justices are asking questions as if they are actually considering opening loopholes for the President to violate laws at will.

[@charleskramer8995]

Both sides agree that there are some things that a President can do that Congress cannot criminalize. For example, a president be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for pre-emptively pardoning an individual. Likewise, a president cannot be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for telling his AG or a USA not to prosecute an individual.

[@dustinglynn8721]

@@charleskramer8995 the power of the pardon is darn near impenetrable. I don't see how it could rise to obstruction when its word for word in the constitution as a power granted to the executive. They're grasping at straws, and trying to decide future cases(the justices said so), where a criminally corrupt DOJ goes rogue, in doing so, they may very well destroy our democracy. The criminal justice system is there for a reason, let it determine if Trump was guilty of a crime, not take away the entire process.

[@M.A.C.01]

Is it just me or does the SCOTUS just trying to stall for Trump with this one?

[@rorypaul153]

A strong decision from the Supreme Court would have a stronger impact than an Appeals court decision.

[@ws6002]

​@rorypaul153 Do I want a strong impact? No. All I want is for this court to make the obvious finding that defrauding the US government and the people of a free and fair ekection is not covered by immunity and the case can go forward, tomorrow.

[@henrybrant-z4l]

It is just astonishing that these most fundamental ideas of right and wrong require our highest court's consideration. Of course this is all about wasting time so there you go.

[@MrKeychange]

Ironically the court itself has no checks.

[@TheJevardo]

The check is that they can’t enforce their own rulings. They just stand as justifications for Congress to pass certain laws and how the President enforced certain laws

[@PedroTheChickenn]

They could be impeached by the House. It has happened before, but Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted by the Senate.

[@djalex8080]

They do. It’s Congress

[@iammrbeat]

Technically they can be impeached...it probably doesn't happen enough.

[@rickwiles8835]

What are you talking about they can be impeached Samuel Chase in 1805

[@staticsoul69]

this is gonna be one hell of a supreme court brief

[@tuxtitan780]

I feel bad for all of the AP Gov students in the future who are gonna have to study all of these cases about trump which are making it to the supreme court lol

[@UncleRuckus7600]

​@@tuxtitan780it's fun for them especially since it's present day

[@JJsabenada]

Thanks, Mr. Beat, for educating all of us willing to watch and listen.

[@fatproduce]

Trump's lawyer sounds like Palpatine when his voice changed in Revenge of the Sith.

[@svenrio8521]

Might be a smoker

[@joshstevens2779]

I know it's petty and shallow because I dislike the guy, but man that voice is grating

[@tuxtitan780]

It sounds like he has permanent strep tgroat or something. I kinda feel bad for him in that reguard

[@knotical689]

How cool is it that we get to listen to such an important case live? Regardless of the verdict, this is going to be very important for the future of your country.

[@MrKeychange]

Good lawyers must be seething over this clown getting to argue before the Supreme Court. lol

[@Avogadros_number]

He seems like a decent lawyer, it’s just an impossible position to defend.

[@MrKeychange]

@@Avogadros_number I imagine good lawyers want to be paid and don't want to end up in prison or disbarred like his previous ones. Regardless, I was more talking about the dream of arguing a case in front of the court.

[@zsand90]

He is getting paid though ​@@MrKeychange

[@MrKeychange]

@@zsand90 Is he?

[@zsand90]

@@MrKeychange obviously

[@slricksy]

Yes! Mr. Beat! "It was Presidents themselves who prevented this from ever happening Trump went into uncharted territory"! Well said! 😊

[@TheMINDL3SSGamers]

Meanwhile biden put forth an executive action directly violating your rights. That isn’t to far? And to push the point further, biden killed 7 children. Should he be immune from prosecution? Because nobody is charging him… and do you actually believe anybody ever will?

[@JennyRoses1975]

you are officially my favorite history youtuber. I've finally put my money where my mouth is and joined.

[@LadyPapaMayodora]

THANK YOU mr beat for the attention you are bringing to this. Compared to the hush money case, the media did nothing to bring attention to this! Our society is so backwards. SMH . Scotus must do the right thing to this or we may as well be living in turkey and experiencing a coup during every election 😤

[@4thNebula]

We have had 44 out of 46 President able to do their jobs very effectively including functioning well with 2 World Wars. Now we have one guy that wants to use the Presidency to do whatever he wants.

[@sudafedup]

Who's the other? I'm not understanding.

[@imperiumgrim4717]

​@@sudafedup trump since he is a con man

[@cravenpizzadude110]

James Buchanan pretending he didn’t sit there and watch the Civil War start:

[@4thNebula]

Nixon and Trump.@@sudafedup

[@sudafedup]

@@4thNebula Ah. Yeah I went brain dead there.

[@SloneKyle]

Trumps lawyer sounds like Saul Goodman chugged a liter of radiation

[@anoemuser310]

Radiation or radioactive materials?

[@BluntforceJ]

@@anoemuser310 Yes.

[@blakekaveny]

I’m suprised Nixon v United hasn’t been brought up . In 1993 the Supreme Court ruled that impeachment is solely a political question .

[@alonkatz4633]

It might have been brought up in the briefings, and no one felt the need to explore it further in the oral arguments

[@blakekaveny]

@@alonkatz4633 I don’t see why they wouldn’t bring it up. It seems like it completely demolishes trumps argument

[@alonkatz4633]

@@blakekaveny Because it's so obvious. The Justices might not need to hear more about this issue because of it. Then again, it's just a theory of mine, I haven't heard the briefings.

[@trevinbeattie4888]

Impeachment yes, criminal liability no. The problem with the Watergate scandal is that after Nixon resigned his successor, President Ford, pardoned him which rendered the question of criminal liability moot.

[@blakekaveny]

@@trevinbeattie4888 I’m not talking about president Nixon. The case Nixon v United States has to do with judge Walter Nixon. He was arguing his impeachment conviction was invalid since the senate used a committee that he didn’t get a proper trial. The Supreme Court ruled in 2 ways. One they said that since the constitution says the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment that means they can basically do it however they want. They also ruled that since the courts can be checked by impeachment the courts have no jurisdiction since it would violate the separation of powers. Lastly they said matters of impeachment couldn’t be heard before the courts since they were solely political.

[@papamurrth1]

Thank you for the stream, appreciate your work, big day in US history

[@StainedGlassStories]

Thank you for covering this, Mr. Beat!

[@iammrbeat]

Heck yeah. Thanks for watching!

[@MrKeychange]

Really well done broadcasting this. You're amazing.

[@jonathon5075]

I've never heard oral arguments for the SC before, and it was remarkable to listen to, and thanks for the context and commentary!

[@glenmorrison8080]

Mr Beat, as a fan of the channel and as someone who listens to the duration of many SCOTUS arguments, I encourage you to do many more videos like this. Would love to see more of these.

[@TheNicgannon]

Is his attorney tying to argue for or against? Because every example he gave was a act of overreach and should of been impeached.

[@TrekBeatTK]

But that’s EXACTLY HIS POINT. Impeachment is the process dealing with Presidential acts. Unless impeachment leads to conviction, the President has immunity from criminal prosecution by the DOJ.

[@sarak.1742]

Sotomayor and Brown Jackson doing God's work, can't believe even Thomas seems to be against Trump here

[@DanielKolbin]

the fact that this is taking so long and reached this far is an embarrassment. it truly is trump vs the united states.

[@mossyproductions7451]

This should be a very easy case ruling because of US v Nixon

[@Riokaii]

the right wing members of the supreme court would not pass a high schools civics government exam, let alone a constitutional law course at any college or law school in the country

[@jeffslote9671]

They are better than the affirmative action wing of the court

[@BearShare69]

Thank you for reacting to/streaming this. It's important that people hear these thought exercises, understand how this works - and realize just how crucial these decisions are.

[@marie-andreec5164]

If the ruler was exempt from laws, wouldn't that him the equal of a monarch in some ways? And isn't that what the whole was founded to get away from? So just on the logic of that, there can't be blanket immunity, because that would be an affront to all the US was built on.

[@MrKeychange]

This sounds like RFK Jr.

[@rolewis13]

You know what’s crazy is Trump isn't saying he's innocent. He's saying he should be immune, directly telling us "I did it, but it shouldn't matter!"

[@goaway9977]

You really have no idea how the justice system works. An argument from standing is not an admission of the facts.

[@davergent1521]

No. The Constitution does not explicitly give the President immunity. It was tacitly accepted that once ANY government official is removed from office, they should be held accountable for any crimes committed while in office.

[@TrekBeatTK]

There is a world of difference between “leaves office” and “is removed from office”.

[@dispergosum]

I just noticed you almost have a million subs! Super glad to have watched the channel grow so much!

[@knewledge8626]

How hard would it be to conduct criminal acts in such a way as to have them be classified as "official acts"? I can not see any set of guidelines that would come close to covering all actions that a president could take. Any future prosecution would require proof, not only of the actual crime, but also proof that it was a private act which, in my opinion, could prove to be impossible in many cases.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

The problem here is Congress failing to impeach and the Senate failing to convict these horrendous presidents. Every president for so long has deserved conviction. To say "have his political opponent's justice department charge him in criminal courts" is a stupid solution. Congress has forsaken its duties.

[@oppa.24]

If a president is immune and can commit any crime without any consequences, then he can abolish the whole election, the 8 year limit and the whole constitution. One of the arguments for immunity is that the will of the voter outweighs any crime. But this is a fundamental contradiction, as the president with immunity can then abolish free elections and the pillars of democracy. Separation of powers is one of the three pillars of a democracy, in order to prevent the system from destroying itself.

[@AlexTangBang]

@iammrbeat - I missed the live stream so watched it as a rerun. Great video commentary as there's not enough react videos on court cases. You should do more of these or with a lawyer if you are not familiar with the case. Maybe a law perspective (lawyer) and a history perspective (you!)? Also a video idea - not really supreme court briefs per se - talk about the history of the "Independent Counsel Act" and relating to Morrison V. Olson and affecting investigations of the president. The case was discussed briefly as a potential "mirror" to the immunity if ruled incorrectly I think from the discussion from Kavanaugh during the oral arguments. Scalia was the only dissenter. Anyways, thanks for this video! I always enjoy your videos on the supreme court as I feel there's not enough discussion of historical context along with the case that are put in front of the courts.

[@Thecheeseman420]

“Bister meat” coming in clutch rn.

[@joakos1122]

Thanks for being a principled historian and not letting political parties supersede country

[@millenniumvintage9726]

I can’t wait to the Supreme Court briefs episode on this in 2034

[@liquidmark5081]

Trumps lawyers argued that a president has to be criminally convicted in order to be impeached. Now they want to argue that a former president has to be impeached in order to be brought up on criminal charges.

[@thevenussociety5017]

The nature and palatable/perceived power of US Presidents has grown over time. Would this immunity argument apply to Supreme Court Justices or members of Congress as well? If not, checks and balances become askew, no? This is a very scary case.

[@rickwiles8835]

7-2 against DJT.. I honestly don't see why it wouldn't be 9-0 after all the Constitution was written to limit the power of the president. If absolute presidential immunity is decided to be Constitutional then the president can disband Congress and the Supreme Court without repercussions. For that matter, if the president has absolute immunity he isn't constrained by the Constitution. Who wants that?

[@TrekBeatTK]

No he can’t. He has all the power of the Executive, but that doesn’t extend to dismantling the entire government. He has only the broad power to execute granted by the Constitution. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to grasp.

[@rickwiles8835]

@@TrekBeatTK The president grants himself/herself emergency powers to do so. Lincoln, jailed newspapermen and abolished newspapers and FDR jailed American citizens without due process certainly those powers were beyond the scope of the Constitution. For those who say we were at war, the president was granted extraordinary powers. Nixon set prices for products and wages, that's pure socialism and beyond the scope of presidential powers but it happened. Presidents of the past granted themselves extortionary powers way beyond the boundaries set in the Constitution. I think with absolute immunity those types of abuses of power will not only become more frequent but more magnified. If is granted absolute immunity what can be done to hold him accountable? Nothing.. Presently if a president breaks the law or oversteps the bounds of the Constitution, they will be held accountable under the law. Once a president is given absolute immunity accountability simply disappears. It is no longer part of the process. I grant you I am using an extreme example but if a president is ruled to have absolute immunity that means the law simply cannot be applied to the president. Or at least any punishments prescribed by the law cannot be applied to the president. To paraphrase power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. Immunity lessens restraint absolute immunity removes all restraint.

[@dustinglynn8721]

@@TrekBeatTK The issue here is congress has no enforcement capabilities besides impeachment. They can't order the sergeant at arms to arrest the president. They can't do anything to stop him, besides letting the courts decide, but if there is no repercussion for disobeying congress, and the courts can't enforce anything either, so what stops a president from disobeying a court? There is a lot here in our system that relies on good-faith actors. Good luck getting a 2/3 majority in the senate to convict.

[@hombuswacuracao]

Thank you for your content. Genuinely enjoy hearing your opinions and sharing your ideas. Thank you and keep it coming as long as you enjoy it 👍

[@jaydee975]

Dear Mr. Beat, it occurred to me that on November 5 Donald Trump could make history a second time in two ways. He could win a second nonconsecutive term like Grover Cleveland and be in jail and get over 1 million votes like Eugene Debs of the American socialist party did in 1920. So November 5 will definitely be interesting from a historical perspective.

[@gatb4387]

King George III would've been proud of Trump.

[@imperiumgrim4717]

LOL don't say that shit in America bruh

[@anttibjorklund1869]

Both equally mentally unstable.

[@gatb4387]

@@imperiumgrim4717 Bruh, it's totes necessary, bruh. Bruh, he literally is trying to trash the constitution, bruh. Like, bruh!

[@Davis-q1s]

Delay is the only reason for this nonsense!

[@darthbahnsen3832]

Thank you for doing this.

[@chickensya]

When they go down the line of logic about doing unlawful acts like sending seal team 6 for personal gain etc, and then compare it to the current situation and response is to say ‘but this is all alleged.’ Speaks volumes. If it turns out to be true and you think he should be immune from that, that’s crazy. And comparing it to some older cases doesn’t change a whole lot in this situation because they are usually judged in a case by case basis. Trying to change the law is really crazy in this situation.

[@KyleMatt11]

When I die, I hope I come back as smart (and rich) as Mr Beat.

[@grimmpickens5766]

I think an important question that needs to be asked is, if a president commits a potentially criminal act, given that congress is responsible for handling impeachment and prosecution of a sitting president, if congress, being the law makers, does not move forward with impeachment and prosecution, has congress implicity said the act is not illegal. ****At least when committed by the office of the president.

[@adramaqueen73able]

What did we get out of this.....VOTE!!!!

[@robertfreitag687]

I just don't see Alito's point of view on this case. Given the interdependence with the legislature, and a two-year election cycle, there is absolutely no point in purely politically motivated prosecutions unless the crimes are absolutely dire. In most cases, you'll be at least two cycles deep before you even go to trial, and the outcome can never be certain. I don't see any point in limiting presidential liability.

[@malafunkshun8086]

After listening to the entire hearing (and the rest of it covered specific matters relating to the Government’s Brief), I agree with your assessment, Beat. And CSPAN has the entire hearing available. The transcripts are also available. Aloha 🇺🇸⚖️🙏🏼🤙🏼

[@jaynesager3049]

There’s a difference between a “bad” decision and an illegal decision. Go Justice Brown!

[@stevenschwartzhoff1703]

To make a fair comparison, Diplomatic personnel are obliged to follow the local laws but can not be prosicuted while they represent their state. It is an issue of jurisdiction of the courts over them. Of course,, they are subject to their home state and may be prosicuted after leaving their office.

[@HelgeKS]

Question: what constitutes the checks and balances on SCOTUS?

[@aab4219]

He has created a cult

[@bigtrajik1]

The cult is the Left who don't think that they are the one in the cult...

[@designsonq1]

45:35 Yes. Justice shall exist to ONLY hold underlings to account! Good work, Scotus! For, who would be dumb enough to commit crimes for those determined to be above the law? It's not like the president has some sort of absolute pardon power that he could waive in front of those breaking the law on his behalf, that he could further use to keep them loyal... But who would be dumb enough to give that sort of absolution power to the same person that was above the... Fk is wrong with all yall!!

[@bobblueford]

5:27 Except for the G. W. Bush part, those examples are not even remotely the same.

[@nishapurohit5185]

Thank you Mr. Beat!

[@JennyRoses1975]

I'm trying but Sauers voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard

[@SloneKyle]

I know. I want to hear this, but I just can't 💀

[@3x157]

There is such a thing as Parliamentary Immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system in which political leadership position holders such as president, vice president, minister, governor, lieutenant governor, speaker, deputy speaker, member of parliament, member of legislative assembly, member of legislative council, senator, member of congress, corporator, councilor etc. are granted full immunity from legal prosecution, both civil prosecution and criminal prosecution, in the course of the execution of their official duties.

[@PoeticProphetic]

Mr. Beat, how were you able to watch this live? Shouldn’t you have been in school?

[@drexeldragon1723]

Is he still an active teacher? His channel is big enough that he can definitely make a good living as a full-time KZbinr.

[@trevinbeattie4888]

He stopped teaching a few years ago as I recall.

[@jacoh11]

Congrats on 1 million subs!!

[@jesurenbnb]

So trump's arguement now is "i did not do it" to "i did do it but i should get away with it"?

[@CharBearBlbpmassagestherapy]

It does seem like so far the supreme court is not buying the arguments.

[@glasssawsslipperstraws7410]

Man, it is is a scary time to be an American.

[@paolochicco7200]

It’s so difficult to listen to Mr. Sauer…

[@zombusshankus9589]

The Supreme Court has been edging an awful lot recently... 💀

[@wagenrage]

I like Mr.Beat but “because no presidents broken the law” is bs 😂

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you (and good luck).

[@aztecwrrior1997]

Sonia Sotomayor is really good at her job shes hitting him with good questions and hes floundering

[@MrKeychange]

"Communicating with the American public" = His tweets

[@thequietpoet]

Dreeben has been before the court about 100 times. He is an encyclopedia.

[@shigekax]

Let's say the president can shoot me with intent to kill, can I defend myself with equal force ? According to the argument made by his lawyer

[@handy-fy1bn]

Thanks for your cover of this.

[@fatronjones]

Wait so doesn't that mean Biden would also have thses immunities in place!?!

[@nathansimpson5721]

Yes, and every other future president

[@KristoferOlafsson]

@@nathansimpson5721 Biden just says he is president for forever even past death… lol. I’m kidding but that’s the end result I guess eventually.

[@TrekBeatTK]

@@KristoferOlafsson no, because the President’s term is limited. So that would not fall under immunity.

[@KristoferOlafsson]

@@TrekBeatTK so your saying it’s a crime not to accept term limits, and a crime to arrest anyone running against you. It’s the same path that lots of those countries we look down on have gone.

[@TrekBeatTK]

@@KristoferOlafsson no, immunity only extends to the limits of his acts as President. When the term is up, he is no longer lawfully president and therefore he could be prosecuted after that. Again, this is not complicated.

[@justindoucette9242]

Can you put family guy on the other side of the screen please

[@cellmitsolos9467]

And subway surfers

[@iammrbeat]

Brilliant idea

[@uranussmasher]

and slime

[@Y0ur_M0th3r]

And pink fluffy unicorns 🦄 dancing on rainbows

[@goodnessthentruth]

VOTE BLUE ***SAVE DEMOCRACY

[@wasswadd]

No

[@zombusshankus9589]

Yes 💙

[@goodnessthentruth]

@@wasswadd sad that you’re wiling to trash the 250 year old experiment in self-rule to have your king

[@rudolfivonhabsburgkingofth601]

I would argue that there must be a certain degree of immunity because the president must be the nominal sovreign. However, in a democracy, the people are supposed to be sovereign (however that is supposed to work), so there would be a conflict of interest between the nominal soverign (the president) and the people or society if the president were to commit a crime. But the people or society cannot speak for itself, and so cannot accuse the president of violating its sovereignty. The courts must be the ones to prosecute the crimes of the president. Does that not mean, however, that the supreme court is the soverign of America? The only way to resolve this contradiction, in my opinion is for a law to be passed specifically detailing the limitations or lack thereof with respect to presidential immunity. Which creates another conflict of interest, as the president decides what he can be jailed for.

[@Danielle_1234]

Great video and topic to cover, but that audio normalization is pretty rough. Next time Mr. Beat please check audio levels live and turn down yourself (or turn the video up) as needed. I would greatly appreciate it.

[@joshstevens2779]

Thanks for posting Mr. Beat. I get all my news from the internet or talking heads who put a spin on things. I guess technically you're a talking head here, but doing it live with the proceedings to provide context is a step up from network news coverage.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Don’t worry Mr. Beat I can’t pronounce *irregularities* either lol

[@historysuit9418]

Trumps lawyer needs some Halls cough drops

[@Randys_Channel]

Thanks for doing this, Mr. Beat!

[@cirrus1682]

The age of the surpeme court needing to remind everyone we cant destroy our entire system just to get one guy

[@slricksy]

Thanks!

[@slricksy]

Of course! One of your biggest fans here! Have learned so much! Congrats on your 1 million subscribers! I know you and Mrs. Beat have worked very hard ! Looking forward to the day I congrats y'all on 2 million!