Trump is Not Immune from Prosecution, Duh.

[@LegalEagle]

What will the Supreme Court do with Trump's appeal? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Get a great lawyer with EagleTeam! legaleagle.link/eagleteam

[@osmosisjones4912]

Democrats are planing ordering seal team 6 to assisanate Donald Trump

[@michaelmayhem350]

He already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

[@dee_dee_place]

Devin- Thank you for explaining this matter from only a legal perspective. All the other channels are explaining it with their opinions thrown in. I can make my own decisions on matters; I don't want anyone else to try & sway me with their opinions. Just give me the facts, & I will use my critical thinking mind to come to my own conclusions. Thanks, again.

[@andiralosh2173]

How does one appeal a bonk?

[@mdj.6179]

Hasn't Trump, like Clinton and Johnson, been impeached but not convicted in the Senate?

[@SurlyHannah]

The whole point of the Constitution was keeping any one person or group from having ultimate power. How this immunity bs is even a question is bizarre at best, and dangerous.

[@NiteshadeX2]

Easy. They just want a dictatorship

[@derpeth2101]

Not really, the US constitution endorsed slavery.

[@prismpyre7653]

and then fasciset appointees to the courts can just drag out 'deliberations' of such absurd made up questions for years and years until election time so it becomes a totally moot point anyway anyone counting on courts to save us in this country is a fool- courts in this country were designed to *shield* wealthy men from justice, not bring it to them

[@mitchconner403]

I love how the entire purpose of the Judiciary system is the determine if something the President or congress does is constitutional or unconstitutional But Trump is all like. “Actually the judiciary department is corrupt, and I can determine what is constitutional.”😂 it is funny that he doesn’t understand the irony of that. That is exactly what I would say if I was trying to do something unconstitutional

[@bobhanson1037]

Constitution is just a means to the end they want. They will shit on it like they have so many times.

[@chairmanmeow9110]

Well ...the "for now" line came back to bite us, didn't it?

[@jacobshipman5579]

Yuuupp 🤣

[@Alister222222]

What citizen would EVER support a constitution that either said or implied that 'whoever is in charge can commit an infinite number of crimes against anybody in the country without consequence'? That is, frankly, a non-functioning constitution, or an authoritarian one. I can only assume that those wishing the president was allowed to commit crimes at will basically expect that the president will commit those crimes against people they don't like. Which is, you know, deplorable.

[@Meamery]

They can’t be republicans and want monarchy they have to pick

[@Chiefs_fan1595]

Great point. These same people who feel that way are incapable of realizing Donald Trump can and DEFINITELY will turn on them. As he has shown time and time again.

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@@Chiefs_fan1595 Every time and he's pretty blatantly obvious about it. Somebody turns against him and all the sudden they're just the coffee boy that he doesn't know. He'd find a way for his own kids under the bus if he could.

[@isabelmcgaugh711]

@@youdontneedtoknow7548 I mean, he already did in the case about his New York businesses. He blamed his kids for the mismanagement of his company and tried to say he wasn’t aware of any of the illegal activity his company had taken, it was all under the direction of his kids.

[@86fifty]

Yup, just like that meme - "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face!" says woman who voted for the Leopards-Eating-Faces Party. I don't know the origin of it (possibly The Onion), but it's a really succinct indictment of the choices of the vengeful who want to cause harm.

[@gnohms]

Grant was pulled over twice while having horse-drawn wagon races through the streets of DC during his term, and he did try to say he couldn't be ticketed because he was President. The same cop pulled him over both times, and basically said "no you don't" and Grant paid the fine.

[@mitchellenderson7194]

Now this is a story I need to know more about. Do you have a source I can start my search at?

[@steeb3778]

​@mitchellenderson7194 They're documented in Wikipedia's "Arrests of Ulysees S. Grant" article. I'm not an expert on historicity or whatever, but it seems like the narrative of Grant getting arrested is based on newspaper articles publishing things people said around that time and they don't have actual documentation or evidence of any arrests actually happening. But thats just what I got from Wikipedia, idk

[@moo123wat]

@@mitchellenderson7194 "When President Ulysses S. Grant Was Arrested for Speeding in a Horse-Drawn Carriage" by the Smithsonian Magazine, of the Smithsonian Institute. The title you can find online with google. Very recent article with pictures of the time talking about the only office who arrested a president, there's also a link right below that picture to the newspaper clipping host website.

[@AlexVanDover]

Whenever I hear this story, it's always Grant that was the one who asked the officer to fine him like everyone else?

[@WJS774]

Yeah, because having races in the street is _totally_ part of the duties of a president, right?

[@mafuletrekkie]

I mean, Trump's argument seems to be that if Biden can get 34 Democratic Senators to sign off on it then Biden can walk a team into a courtroom, find Trump, remove his head, stick it on a pike to post on the Courts steps and there is nothing that the Court could do about it. The level of arrogance that that argument takes is just mind-boggling.

[@YourMajesty733]

This. AND Biden could get all the conservative SC justices "removed" and lead an insurrection after his 8yrs to remain in power. The democratic party would become a one party dictatorship.

[@mattf5935]

It is because he knows Democrats would never do that but he has all kinds of things planned if he gets a second term. No need to go small here where you have big ambitions and you already stacked the Supreme Court. So it is now a bet on how far his appointed justices + 1 will bend for him. (You know he already has Thomas.)

[@kray3883]

Remember he also thinks that it's OK to invade a country if they don't pay a fair share.... If we extend that to individuals.............

[@MrBeetsGaming]

@@mattf5935 You people are so ridiculous.... God you will literally believe anything the democrats say, this is absolute nonsense.

[@jaelwyn]

@@mattf5935 I've seen this stated repeatedly. I honestly have to wonder if Biden might not have all SCOTUS members who voted in favor of it immediately locked up and simply be willing to take the hit when the court eventually reversed itself into sanity. Heck, he could simply say it was for their own protection, and probably not even be lying. There would be a whole lot of unhappy people, and some of them would almost certainly decide it was worth it to make a point. Biden may seem easy-going, but I really don't think he would let that kind of "malarkey" slide without demonstrating exactly why it was such a problem… in the nicest possible way.

[@daiakunin]

Let's take a moment to reflect on the former president's legal strategy. He's not saying he's innocent. He's not saying he didn't break the law. He's saying he can commit any crime he wants to because he has 'presidential immunity'.

[@Techydad]

Without realizing that he's arguing in court that Biden could assassinate him legally. Would Biden that? No. Should Biden do that? Definitely not. But the mere fact that Trump is saying that would be legal is extremely worrying for many reasons.

[@jordansweet8054]

That's like me breaking my parents rules as a kid and saying I'm to special to be punished or have to follow the rules. Yuck.

[@Rawnblade13]

Reminds me of his defenses against E. Jean Carroll. He rarely actually denied doing what he was accused of, he just said things like "She's not my type".

[@HopefulCanadian]

AND if he didn’t commit any crimes why is he fighting so hard for complete immunity. Also how many pardons did he give out to his friends before leaving office (if they hadn’t committed any crimes either, why did they need pardons?)

[@warlordofbritannia]

It's like his musing on whether to pardon himself. Why would you need to pardon yourself if you're innocent?

[@Grimmtoof]

The irony is by the time America became independent it had already been established that even the king of Britain wasn't above the law. The last king that tried got beheaded!

[@exoZelia]

We should take the opportunity to bring that back

[@mrchambers31]

Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy in the 18th century. And they got rid of slavery 30 years before the US. So what Patrick Henry should have said is «Give some of us liberty or give some of us death»

[@midwinter78]

Nah, that was the one before. After that there was the Glorious Revolution where the King was driven off and replaced by one who promised to be a good boy and do as he was told. Either that, or we arranged to be conquered by The Netherlands. Take your pick. Anyway there was the original Bill of Rights, some clauses of which were, err... creatively... interpreted by American revolutionaries.

[@mrchambers31]

Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy in the 18th century

[@davidlloyd1526]

Compare the dates of the Declaration of Independence with the dates that Britain first had legal cases declaring that Slavery was illegal. Just saying.

[@Tamizushi]

The more power someone has, the more accountable they should be held. Always be suspicious of anybody who seeks power whilst also seeking immunity from accountability. That's the sign of a horrible leader.

[@grayoso1828]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the people who cry about "big gubment" coming in and stamping on your rights are also now arguing that the president should be able to do whatever they whenever they want, and can never face legal consequences from that.

[@TheRogueWolf]

It's because to those people, "big gubment" is only a problem when it affects _them._ They want "daddy Fed" to make those _other_ people live how they want.

[@seankrake4776]

they don't like big government,[in trump voice] they like the biggest government that has ever existed, you know other governments wish they could be that big, but no, he is the biggest government that has ever existed.

[@dense_and_dull]

They're not intelligent. It is a well documented phenomenon. It is exactly what I expect from individuals who are easily susceptible to conspiracy theories and hoaxes.

[@deykuzor]

Because it's not about rights, it's about rights that put "THOSE PEOPLE" in their "Rightful Place". It's a bigotry issue at its core that has managed to reach beyond bigots by preying upon moderates with half truths.

[@GaganSingh-nx2yv]

They are only against big government when it helps the poor and minorities.

[@chegeny]

Why on Earth would anyone support a candidate who wants absolute immunity to commit any crime? It's absolute insanity.

[@arturoaguilar6002]

My guess is that they expect his crimes to be against the people they hate...

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@@arturoaguilar6002 Until they run out of those people and he goes after them, it happens every time.

[@Spuzaw]

​@@arturoaguilar6002Exactly. They want a dictator that will enforce all of the policies that they agree with. Republicans no longer care about democracy or the constitution. They want to destroy the whole system and empower the man that agrees with them.

[@Dan55888]

Trump voters are not voting with any sort of brain power behind them...

[@gregorturner9421]

@@youdontneedtoknow7548 or those people get in the way of him making phat profit.

[@tomlawrence1335]

The fact we even had to debate this question shows how far we have fallen.

[@LBCAndrew]

The fact you think he doesn't have immunity shows how stupid people actually are. The President is given immunity from prosecution for actions taken fulfilling their role as President so they can make tough decisions without idiots dragging him into court the moment he's out of office. The legal remedy for illegal actions taken by a president is IMPEACHMENT. Which in this case had already been done and he was acquitted by the Senate. If this wasn't the case, then when will we be seeing first degree murder charges on Barack Obama for the murder of two US citizens in 2011. Anwar Al Awlaki and his teenage son were killed at the direct order Obama, via a hellfire missile fired from a predator drone. Obama made a public statement admitting to the killing. It's a slam dunk win.

[@thorodinson3597]

Just be happy the majority questioned it so ferociously. We didn't let the vocal minority get away with obvious extremist ideology based terror & laws. Other empires, commonwealths, and nations have collapsed under far less political pressure, from far less cultists/beliebers /ideological-simpltons/etc..., and some before the debate could even occur.

[@tomlawrence1335]

@thorodinson3597 The majority never questioned it, most of us already knew none of them are above the law. Our founding fathers were pretty adamant about not wanting a king. The only ones that questioned it were the ones claiming he had immunity to do what ever he wanted.

[@tomlawrence1335]

@joonasmukala8208 I bet not, the rational and sane among us have no idea what's going wrong here besides russian influence. It's like half the country just forgot 200 years of our history and will do whatever they are told without questioning it, even if it means abandoning our allies and everything we have stood for.

[@TincMetals]

You have fallen quite well. Mxist will be sure to deal with useful Idts.

[@jasonrodenbeck5064]

The most absurd circular reasoning of "we can't convict him on the impeachment because that's up to the DOJ to arrest him" then "you can only indict him criminally if he is convicted on impeachment."

[@pridelander06]

"Now the average American probably thought they already had the answer to this question because, like, duh." I'm afraid the 45th President has raised a lot of questions I thought the answers were painfully obvious only for me to be sadly mistaken.

[@ajlichty7399]

There’s a podcast called “What Roman Mars can learn about con law” where a constitutional scholar outlines the constitutional questions that Trump has brought up. It’s quite good and I do suggest it because it’s absolutely brought down to the average person’s ability to grasp the questions.

[@pikapowns]

​@@ajlichty7399 If we are just recommending law podcasts, I like the 5-4 podcast.

[@Rawnblade13]

Unfortunately a significant chunk of the American population would love nothing more than to have Trump as a dictator in power...

[@PeterAlanA1234567890]

If you vote blue then your mistake mn.

[@longforgotten4823]

We have seem to have evolved into a society where simple questions require very lengthy processes to now confirm. I have noticed this in scientific journals, public understanding of civics, education, and other disciplines.

[@iceofwolf]

That this has gone so far is amazing and terrifying. "Don't convict him during impeachment, go after him when he's not president" followed by, "you can't go after me because you didn't convict me during impeachment." And during the impeachment, there were so many "it's not an actual court of law" excuses to blow off the whole thing, but now they're trying to treat it as one.

[@bobbolan4672]

Hypocrisy has become a way of life for the GOP.

[@guadalupeestrada410]

Sounds like we are in a toxic relationship with the former president tbh, feels like Trump and his followers are using narcissistic tactics to avoid any and all forms of accountability

[@LBCAndrew]

He wasn't convicted during impeachment because he didn't commit a crime.

[@znail4675]

​@joonasmukala8208In most modern nations so are politicians held to a higher standard rather then the reverse.

[@WyvernYT]

Trump trolls don't care what words mean, they just use them as weapons to defend their Orange Jesus.

[@mastercadillactus]

That we have to specify WHICH criminal investigation we're referring to when discussing Trump without batting an eye really shows how far the office has fallen.

[@kubaGR8]

Best part is, even if he goes to prison, he can still run for president WHILE INCARCERATED.

[@Blokewood3]

The average president gets charged with two felonies. Before trump, the average was zero.

[@lukasg4807]

​@@Blokewood3the majority are pretty goofy

[@TheGrumbliestPuppy]

@@lukasg4807 I don't think we can really judge how credible they are until they go to trial. The media from both sides spins this stuff so hard that you can't really believe what anyone has to say about it, but in court only evidence talks.

[@lyndsaybrown8471]

Not the office, just him.

[@SaiyanHeretic]

It's crazy to me that this is even up for debate. *Nobody is above the law, period.*

[@geoffok]

Unless you're rich, famous, and powerful. Then you can do whatever the hell you want.

[@5267w]

@@LBCAndrew that was done under the AUMF if he had done it randomly or on US soil it likely would have been a crime but it wasnt

[@julianemery718]

​@@geoffok Which is obviously insane, but it's unfortunate that's how it seems to work currently. But ideally, no one should be above the law, period.

[@johndoe6032]

This has never been about Trump believing and eventually receiving total immunity. Doing so would mean he's implying Biden can kill him and get away with it. This has always been about delaying his trial until he can go hide in the oval office again. The crazy thing will be if the SCOTUS doesn't just immediately say the lower court is right and allow Trump the prosecution delays he is really looking for in all of this.

[@wensiangfong]

Lol Biden, his son and hilary seems to be above the law.

[@TheAceAdventurer80]

Isn't this, in theory, also a ruling on whether or not Joe Biden can just wack Trump and solve all our problems? Or am I understanding wrong?

[@RHCole]

Nah, you're right.

[@JohnDoe-jh5yr]

According to Trump's argument, yes.

[@magpie_jazz]

Logically, yes, but you must understand that Trump (and the GOP in general for that matter) is always striving to operate on "Rules for thee, not for me."

[@RFDN0]

Trump will try to have it pushed to after the Election.

[@thefourshowflip]

Yes. We’ve been warned about this for centuries …just as one example: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”-Thomas Paine (1795)

[@ianroscablu]

I'm starting to realize how terrible our system is. These nearly 250 years we rrally have been operating on the honor system.

[@warlordofbritannia]

All forms of government ultimately reside on that. Even authoritarian regimes take it for granted that the people are cowed enough not to try anything and the dictator's right hand men are truly loyal

[@nathanharvey8570]

Laws don't enforce themselves, everything runs to some degree on norms and traditions. It's the kind of thing that you don't think about, because it's always surrounded you, until enough momentum against those prevailing norms builds up.

[@rickb.4168]

We don’t have this problem in Britain… 😂

[@snowingwolves606]

@@rickb.4168 is your favorite pastime making fun of everything wrong in America over there?

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@@snowingwolves606 To be fair my favorite thing to do is to make fun of everything they do over there, I mean brexit? Come on!

[@FoxGaming00]

Things went from "i dident break the law" to "i broke the law but im allowed to"

[@bluecoffeecancergirl8589]

Exactly!! 😆 🤣 lol

[@thatjillgirl]

It's just Nixon again. "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

[@michaelgreenwood3413]

Actually, he never said said "I didn't break the law." Ever. it was always "I'm allowed to break the law because I'm the president."

[@GerryRR]

​@@michaelgreenwood3413he claims both, he says he did everything "perfectly legal".

[@philmienus2382]

​@@GerryRRits a circular diffence bro. He claims he is innocent because all his action is legal(immunity). He never claims his innocent (did not do it) of doing what he was alleged to have done

[@danimartin818]

Republicans during impeachment: It is not approriate for us to hold him responsible, put him through a criminal trail after he gets out of office. Republicans now: It is not appropriate for him to be put through a criminal trail now that he is out of office, he should have been held responsible during impeachment.

[@0ctopusComp1etely]

Ha ha So true

[@AH-64EApacheGuardianHelicopter]

Pepople who are not from Us: 🤣

[@JimDandy49]

What a catch 22 they have invented.

[@fourierbird]

@@AH-64EApacheGuardianHelicopterpeople from US who have functional frontal lobes: 😭

[@Rugelacharugula]

@@fourierbirdpeople anywhere with family trees that fork…

[@itsd0nk]

Trump’s lawyers: “You shouldn’t impeach trump here... You should convict him in criminal court!” Also Trump’s lawyers: “You can’t convict Trump in criminal court... You have to impeach him first!” So, basically their legal defense strategy is being that really annoying friend that ruined every game you tried to play as a group.

[@wta1518]

It's like when you ask your dad for something, and he says "go ask your mom". Then you ask your mom, and she says "go ask your dad". Except usually the thing I'm asking for doesn't involve overthrowing the government of the United States.

[@TheBunnyodeath]

Lol

[@ebnertra0004]

This is the time-honored 20 GOTO 10 strategy

[@markg.7865]

Exactly, now they are even arguing the president isn't a officer of the U.S.

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

you don't know my life@@wta1518

[@zdrusse11]

His argument is akin to "All dogs are mammals. Cats are not dogs, therefore cats must not be mammals."

[@emw8386]

look if cats were mammals the framers of the constitution surely would have included them in a list of like four mammals

[@sitfish1113]

Clearly cats aren't mammals because the constitution said all hair covered animals are mammals. They didn't say cat once!

[@ToEuropa]

No, his argument is more like, "I'm Donald Trump and I'm an ex-president. Therefore, I'm above the law. And once I'm president again, I'm going to prosecute ex-president Joe Biden."

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

Too high brow. This case is more about the precedent set in I Know You Are v What Am I, the landmark ruling upheld after I Am Rubber v You Are Glue

[@ZombiePepperoni]

@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThingrubber v glue was a landmark case.

[@erinodonnell386]

Am I the only one who still genuinely believes that our leaders should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, not a lower one?

[@ianrau6373]

You and me may think that, but those in power are clearly still on the fence.

[@warlordofbritannia]

With great power comes great responsibility

[@Rawnblade13]

​@@ianrau6373Unfortunately many of our fellow citizens don't think as such either. All Republican voters want to put this wanna-be dictator back in power and make him our absolute ruler.

[@jhemp]

​@@warlordofbritanniawith great power comes great disappointment more like it.

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@@jhemp Every time.

[@IceWolfLoki]

What sort of constitution would give someone legal immunity from trying to overthrow the government? It's pretty much the one thing it absolutely wouldn't give immunity to.

[@IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl.]

Giorgio Agamben’s book “State of Exception” is kind of about that

[@dielaughing73]

You know that, and I know that, but tens of millions of American voters don't care to think about it

[@bud4121]

The constitution is there to tell the government what they can not do to citizens, also read the bill of rights about what duty the citizens have regarding the government

[@antaresthirdeldenlord4840]

bruh he didnt try to "overthrow the government"

[@adamwheelerproductions1607]

@@antaresthirdeldenlord4840 He literally did though.

[@christiangibbs8534]

This should have never been a question, and definitely should not have been reviewed in court. The only reasonable action for SCOTUS to take is to reject this appeal without review or comment. The very notion of absolute presidential immunity is an affront to everything that the U.S. Constitution stands for and everything that the founding fathers fought and died for.

[@UpYourArsenal]

Mayhaps you don't actually understand the Founding Father's intent at all, if you think prosecuting Trump for not committing crimes is a legitimate plan.

[@RHCole]

​@@UpYourArsenalTrump has done many crimes on and off camera.

[@SatansSimgma]

How do you feed yourself?​@@UpYourArsenal

[@JasonBoyce]

The issue here, as plain as it may be, is that the question has never been asked before. Ford helped Nixon dodge that bullet by pardoning him in advance, which led *directly* to Trump doing this, as Trump was friends with Nixon and took away the lesson that the President was above the law. Had Ford allowed Nixon to face accountability, we would likely not be in this position at all. Now, the DC Circuit got this answer right, and it is an excellent opinion. But it is a landmark ruling that clarifies directly what the judiciary can do regarding the executive, and so it’s likely SCOTUS will take the case up so that they can make this ruling themselves.

[@UpYourArsenal]

@@SatansSimgma My brain works, and unlike you I use it instead of just parroting lies told to me by handlers.

[@eldibs]

The Republican party is stuck in a Prisoner's Dilemma - They could be rid of Trump and free of him if they cooperated and decided to be rid of him. However, they can't trust each other to not turn on the rest of them and support Trump for cheap political points, so they all default to supporting them. They can't trust each other. As an aside, one day I hope my Windsor knot is as good and consistent as Devin's. I'm practicing though!

[@WyvernYT]

Did you see his tailor sponsor? Those are nice suits; I hope I remember to try them the next time I need some new suits.

[@chanterelle483]

Or, you know, they could be brave and take a stand for justice no matter the price they'll pay for it. Since they are all about that traditional morality and stuff.

[@cristyablad]

Let me be clear: I don't really support Mitt Romney, but I present this to demonstrate your comment. Around the very beginning of this debacle, he was one of the very few Republicans that did support 'hearing evidence' on Trump. He didn't say he wanted Trump impeached or anything explicitly anti-Trump, but rather that if a trial was going to happen, which he rationally thought it was (and it did) that all evidence should be presented. For that alone he was viewed as a dissenter to the Republican party. They wanted him not only to be kicked out of the party but also to be fined, legally penalized, stripped of office, and some Republicans wanted harsher punishments still. For saying he agreed that evidence should be heard. People were often gathered outside of his house. I don't know if he received personal threats, but I would feel it isn't outlandish to think so. I would love it if other Republicans were able to take a stand within their party about corruption within their party. But I believe your comment to be spot on. Because of all the threats which came from something as routine as agreeing to hear evidence they would either have to have literally nothing to lose or just off-the-scale chutzpah.

[@rickchatham4333]

It literally came down to, what, 10 Republican senators standing up and saying, "Yeah he's guilty" and we would have been done with all this.

[@WyvernYT]

@@chanterelle483 Liz Cheney stood on conservative principles, and got formally kicked out of the GOP for it. That's a lesson to any other Republican who's tempted to have principles.

[@zklpr4661]

It's hilarious how Trump's legal defense went from "I didn't do it" to "I should be allowed to get away with it" after being confronted with hard evidence.

[@stephbenson7340]

It gives the game away that these goons don't have a case, that one of Trump's representatives argued "he shouldn't be convicted by this impeachment because you can prosecute him now" and now his lawyer is saying "you can't prosecute him because he wasn't convicted at impeachment".

[@boondoggle4820]

Trump is like one big walking, talking stress test for the entire legal and political system of this country.

[@LeonardTavast]

Not only the country. America's allies are severely stressed about his disruptive behavior.

[@troubadour723]

One positive from the Trump era is the definitive illustration of whether our entire legal system has any credibility or not.

[@exeggcutertimur6091]

He's done a very good job of showing how bad the corruption currently is. He might not be draining the swamping, but at least showing who lives in it!

[@charlieangkor8649]

I feel ▇▇▇▇▇ towards the US legal system. I feel ▇▇▇▇▇ towards the US government.

[@lasagnahog7695]

Yup, that's always been his silver lining. He's forcing many of us (americans) to actually confront the state of our union. If he becomes president again it turns out that the system has been irrevocably destroyed. Right now is a weird time because either the system is in the process of collapsing or not and we won't know for most of a year.

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

@OP I'm from the future: it doesn't.

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@@BatkoNashBandera774 I'm from the present : it never did.

[@ericdculver]

Thank you for pointing out the logical fallacy! I feel like so many people think "If P, then Q" is the same as "If not P, then not Q" when they are not.

[@seankrake4776]

I love when people use logical terms to show fallacious arguments.

[@RepChris]

yup, a material conditional does not imply its own converse, but it does imply its contraposition. If P then Q =||= if not Q, then not P

[@paultapping9510]

Taking a pardon while claiming innocence is somewhat like asking for an extension for a paper whilst claiming you've finished writing it.

[@BaronSengir1008]

Technically, accepting a pardon does NOT automatically mean they were guilty of it in the first place...

[@Xeonerable]

It's just crazy to me that this is even a discussion. Nobody should be above the law.

[@BredaKyran]

hey hey buddy, if trump isn't above the law then nethier is biden or any other previous president.

[@MylesLocken]

The fact that anyone would even entertain giving one man the ability to commit any crime he so chooses with no reprocussions is ridiculous beyond belief.

[@Xfhcgnjffhjmjvfg]

"Poorly educated"

[@binnad7091]

The part that fascinates me is this: *He claims his indictments are a political attack from the Biden administration *He also claims that presidents can do whatever they want *He ALSO claims he's immune because he was president -- so WHY would Biden prosecute him rather than have him "disappeared"?

[@WJS774]

Who exactly do you think Trump had "disappeared"? When you make absurd comparisons, you shouldn't be surprised that you get absurd answers.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

​@@WJS774 Way to miss the whole point.

[@TheGrumbliestPuppy]

@@WJS774 ...What? The comment you're replying to is saying "if Trump is claiming a president can break any laws with no punishment, then why would Biden prosecute him instead of just executing him?"

[@dragonflye4561]

@@WJS774 Jeffrey Epstein . i know he was not disappeared but come on look at it he had him offed

[@Rugelacharugula]

@@WJS774take your own advice.

[@verdebusterAP]

God forbid , we actually hold someone accountable by law

[@Desertphile]

It apparently depends on political party when it comes to being punished for crimes.

[@RunTheEmpire]

@@Desertphileor it’s like one political party likes to break the law more than the other

[@UpYourArsenal]

Accountable for what? How about your Democrat friends, intend to ever hold them accountable for *actual* crimes and violence as opposed to the fake crimes and fake violence the media blames on Trump?

[@arshdeepchauhan4275]

@@RunTheEmpire yes, and unfortunately they are in charge right now

[@RunTheEmpire]

@@arshdeepchauhan4275 indictments and prosecutions say otherwise

[@MartyWoodcock]

In my opinion, anyone who represents the law in any fassion must be held at a much greater level of accountability than regular citizens. This includes but is not limited to; law inforcement, lawyers, politiciens and heads of state. (The last one is redondant because that position must be held at the most accountable of them all).

[@geoffsmith82]

Yet all those sorts of people listed get various forms of immunity!

[@jlev1028]

That's not an opinion, that's a matter of fact.

[@scootergirl3662]

The amount of people I see on social media screaming about freedom and then defending trump for acting like a 1700s king is the darkest irony there is.

[@stingerjohnny9951]

MAGArs and Trumpites: FREEDOM Me: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[@christfriedrodeyns5300]

I live in Europe. And I am stunned by the idea that you can be candidate for president even when you have legal cases against you or when you in jail.

[@Maladjester]

Disclaimer, I have no formal legal knowledge. Seems to me it would be possible to derail an election by throwing a frivolous lawsuit on the other guy at the last second. Your opponent won the vote but, oh look, there's "a legal case against him." He's ineligible. That means you win! Except he also would have done it to you. Complete clusterfuck.

[@blakekaveny]

You have to be allowed to run when you have legal cases going on. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

[@michaelgreenwood3413]

@@blakekavenyWhich he has. Repeatedly.

[@lolilollolilol7773]

@@blakekaveny This holds only before he is convicted. He has been convicted, meaning he is guilty. The fact that he is appealing doesn't make him 'innocent until proven guilty". It makes him guilty of rape until that conviction is reverted. That's how the law works.

[@blakekaveny]

@@lolilollolilol7773 That was a civil case not criminal. So it’s not the same thing. If it were criminal he’d be in prison.

[@MaybeAnnatar]

So, his argument was that he had to be impeached and indicted to be prosecuted but that if he was impeached and or indicted prosecution is double jeopardy? His argument is "I couldn't be prosecuted unless I could be then if I could be I couldn't be."

[@mauricemusician7636]

During impeachment "I can't be impeached because I haven't been found guilty in court." During trial "I can't be found guilty because I haven't been impeached."

[@margaretwordnerd5210]

Well said. I'm waiting for Dolt 45 to try the Sovereign Citizen defense, but with the qualifier that only a true sovereign like himself can claim unlimited rights and no responsibility.

[@rakshithanand8262]

Now, I'm no Trump fan and think that he should very much be tried, but you ARE misrepresenting his statement. What he says is not that indicted prosecution is double jeopardy. Rather, he is framing a prosecution WITHOUT an impeachment conviction as double jeopardy that the impeachment clause specifically works around by explicitly stating that a convicted official is open to prosecution.

[@haxie4516]

​@@rakshithanand8262 What? That makes even less sense. It can't be double jeopardy if it's not been in court before...

[@BogeyTheBear]

Same circular logic of Catch 22: Only a crazy man loves to kill, so the fact you hate to fight in a war proves your sanity and your Section 8 claim is hereby dismissed.

[@grimcatnip]

i honestly think Trump watched Lethal Weapon. And saw how the bad guy was like "you can't do anything to me. I have diplomatic immunity."

[@SYH653]

He must've stopped watching just before Murtaugh revoked said immunity.

[@Maladjester]

Getting my nerd point for the day: In the Star Wars universe, this is how Hutts think. "He who can, may" is their entire moral philosophy. Laws are for beings too weak to take what they want, thus the Hutts regard laws as convenient shields at best, trivial obstacles at worst.

[@chriswarr641]

@@MaladjesterIn a sense they are not wrong. if the only punishment for breaking a law is a fine then for a set of rich individuals that law is more like a suggestion that has a cost for not following. If they can make more money by ignoring that law and paying the fine then they will...

[@andiralosh2173]

How are we going to commit all these crimes and retire without immunity? -- every president, apparently

[@PositiveOnly-dm3rx]

Power corrupts...

[@pdcdesign9632]

No, just the most corrupt one.

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@@pdcdesign9632 So basically every Republican candidate ever from here on out. Assuming the party doesn't get disbanded first which it really should be.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Except no President before Trump tried this novel legal strategy-even Nixon made sure Ford would pardon him

[@noakinn]

​@@youdontneedtoknow7548Arguably it started with Reagan

[@cujomiller]

Both average Americans and legal experts thought this was a “duh” question. Supreme Court’s sure made me feel like a real duh-mmy.

[@nonsuch9301]

To anyone from Seal Team Six who maybe reading this. There have been soldiers in the past who tried to use the argument they were only following orders. It didn't go well for them, something to keep in mind.

[@Redactedlllllllllllll]

Who is going to punish the seal team? A bunch of overweight guys who've not run a lap in 15 years?

[@JargonMadjin]

@@Redactedlllllllllllll Resisting arrest will just make it worse

[@wta1518]

@@Redactedlllllllllllll Seal Team 7.

[@paulcruz168]

​@@Redactedlllllllllllllthe units that don't need ghostwriters I guess

[@robertclarahan2766]

Thinking trump would actually order them to do an assassination on a political rival is hilariously stupid

[@thecharlieramirez]

The mental gymnastics these people have to perform to defend the former president are astounding.

[@titaneum9243]

The mental gymnastics these people have to perform to defend president Bidens own ongoing crimes are astounding

[@UpYourArsenal]

The only gymnastics involved are the media continuing to feed you lies and believe their fake b.s. about Trump. Name a crime - name a single time the media didn't lie to you (oh wait, you can't - you believed every word they said)

[@harvbegal6868]

Gold medal level Olympic gymnastics.

[@haxie4516]

​@@titaneum9243 What crimes?

[@haxie4516]

​@@UpYourArsenal So you haven't checked the indictments? Well, to start with the ones that have been proven in court: He's a rapist. He's a sexual abuser. He committed many counts of Tax fraud. He violates the civil rights act. He's a racist. Etc etc. Then there's the many indictments, so there's conspiracy to defraud the United States, there's Obstructing an official proceeding, there's conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, there's conspiracy against rights, there's 30+ counts of violating the espionage act, there's perjury, there's evidence tampering, there's witness tampering, there's conspiracy to obstruct justice, there's withholding documents & records, there's 30+ felony counts of falsifying business records, And then there's the indictments that came in Georgia, and then any others in other states for his election interference...

[@girlintraining]

I suppose we still can't talk about the elephant in the room which is a significant chunk of the population doesn't believe in a rule of law society and apparently insurrection earns you less time in jail than being declared depressed by your doctor and put on a hold. So yeah, it's more of a crime to say you're sad than that you want to end the government apparently... I'm sure there are no consequences to this. Forgive and forget right?

[@stevelarry3870]

Being depressed isn’t a crime and doesn’t have any jail sentence attached.

[@prismpyre7653]

correct. a third of the population at *least* are basically nazis. and that's true everywhere in the world, alas

[@renatatostada3318]

Mate wtf are you on about???? Im gonna go out on a limb and say no one has ever been imprisoned just for being depressed

[@tfkdandsvkc]

​​@@stevelarry3870 that wasnt the point the op was talking about how insurrection is not taken as serious offence and that his followers dont even know or respect the rule of law so many volatile people lacking in not understanding basic stuff its infuriating,,trumpism extremism has caused many people to loose their sanity,,he should have been banned from vying for breaking the law

[@starbishop4916]

@@renatatostada3318 I believe they're referring when you get put on a psychiatric hold because you're considered a danger to yourself or others because of mental illness. You can be held for a significant period of time until the doctors consider you safe to be on your own/interact with society.

[@altortugas5979]

I can’t, even having to have this conversation is too heartbreaking.

[@TheFreeBro]

Then figure out how to register to vote and vote!

[@Brasswatchman]

Meh. It's like hearing the mathematical proof for a problem you've known the answer to since day 1.

[@OmynysFence]

Man, i hope your channel is experiencing significant growth from all of these Trump legal cases. Not enough people are well enough informed about these processes, and you do a very good job at presenting these facts without any considerable political slant. Godspeed to you and your whole team. Keep up the fantastic work.

[@randomaxe662]

You know at least 3 of the conservative judges will dissent or abstain from striking down this insane immunity argument.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Ironically, not the ones he appointed though

[@sotek2784]

All they have to do is not get involved and it stays struck down - they don't have to take his appeal up.

[@johndoe6032]

Trump doesn't care what they say. All he cares about is WHEN they say it... preferably after November or as close to it as possible. And then he probably just hopes he'll die before anyone else can eventually prosecute him after another term in office.

[@L3x4Pr0ne]

@@sotek2784the issue I have with that is that they SHOULD. This should be upheld by the highest court in our nation, so there is no more question. If they abstain and it stays lower, someone will always argue otherwise. I could never see the USSC upholding this though. By that logic, one of the strongest powers in the US would then be weakened, ruining one of the fundamental balance of powers. That is to say, trump could order the assassination of one or more of the judges he disagrees with and say he’s acting in the best interest of the nation. That is literally a dictatorship.

[@sciencenate]

They won’t - they already were gifted lifelong power - PROVIDED America doesn’t drastically have its government changed, they have lifelong power and money.

[@Wingsaber]

For people who worship the founding fathers so much and their intentions for the country as laid out in the constitution, they really seem to love having a monarch-like figure above the law...

[@brooklyn5755]

This is such an underrated comment

[@dolly.gwendolyn]

And they are certainly stuck in that time period as well with their ideas

[@Tranchelevent]

Genuine question; which specific leaders or ideologies from the late 18th and early 19th centuries do you deride less?

[@sauron1427]

Imagine arguing that presidents can kill their political rivals while your own political rival is president

[@VisibleNoises]

Genius strategy 😅

[@lyndsaybrown8471]

He knows Biden won't do it because Biden has morals and a country to run.

[@mobiusflammel9372]

@@lyndsaybrown8471 Biden also views Trump as the greatest domestic threat in the country, and if the court did argue presidents have the kind of immunity Trump is saying they do I could see a scenario where he decides Trump has to go.

[@TrueMohax]

@@lyndsaybrown8471 What morals?

[@BaronSengir1008]

​@@TrueMohaxThe morals that Trump clearly lacks...

[@Joppi1992]

Whenever Trump is active in the news, South Park receives years of content for free.

[@kahn04]

And every other form of comedy really

[@itsd0nk]

It actually makes writing comedy really difficult when the actual person is crazier than the exaggerated comedy you wrote for them.

[@Joppi1992]

@@itsd0nk Needing to try harder isn't a bad thing though. It's what often tends to lead to better results.

[@davidchristie6003]

There is a character in the UK tv show Ghosts that is a scandal ridden, privileged 1980s politician who died from drugs during an affair with his secretary. Basically an extreme caricature of the worst right wing politicians in the UK. Then Boris Johnson was elected Prime minister (tbf after a couple years of political chaos) and ushered in years of scandal, shame and other ridiculous characters disguised as politicians. A team of talented comedy writers could no longer outdo the government. Sadly it had real consequences and it makes the character a lot less funny now, more an infuriating reminder

[@Joppi1992]

@@davidchristie6003 True, but it's kind of hard to make an extreme parody out of something regular and uneventful, so with an even more extreme reality to base it off of, it gives room for even more imaginative comedy that'll still feel relatable to reality. A parody will lose something if it pushes it past the point of what can be relatable to what it's based on, after all.

[@michaelcoward1902]

By claiming immunity...isn't he basically admitting to it?

[@ArDeeMee]

Yes.

[@jdotoz]

No, that's not how it works. He's claiming that the matter can't even be tried, guilty or not.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Tacitly, yes. Legally no.

[@dolfuny]

Not necessarily

[@kylenguyen7371]

What warlordofbritannia said. He is implicating himself as guilty in the court of public opinion, while also claiming that it can't be proven in a court of law because of said immunity; ergo, he must be presumed innocent at a legal level, even if we have substantial evidence to demonstrate/prove his guilt.

[@BeardyBaldyBob]

It annoyed me beyond belief that the judge kept letting the lawyer re-frame the question before answering his different version of it. She should have been MUCH stricter and ORDERING him to answer the question she was ACTUALLY asking.

[@andrewharrison8436]

It would be nice to think that this was just a judicial tactic to reveal how much of a slime he was.

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

Yeah but that's the case with interviews or legal proceedings or whatever. You ask somebody to answer a yes or no question and they just talk for hours without saying yes or no if you let them.

[@skeetsmcgrew3282]

@@youdontneedtoknow7548 So you say "Answer yes or no or be removed from court until you can come up with an answer." They have that power

[@schris3]

Nixon would have been dragged to hell if he tried to pull the presidential immunity crap himself. Is nauseating that Trump is receiving some sort of preferential treatment.

[@Phoenix_flying]

I don’t EVER want to hear Trump’s attorney talk again. It’s like nails on a chalkboard.

[@Boots_293]

He voice is awful! I avoided all those legal proceedings because his voice made me agitated lol

[@frostyrobot7689]

He sounds like a malfunctioning Cylon.

[@pearlimagines1040]

He sounds AI generated lol

[@LBCAndrew]

Then stop threating every attorney in the country with disbarment, firing from lawfirms, etc who takes him as a client.

[@KingBobXVI]

He sounds almost exactly like Robert Kennedy Jr.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:30 - Chapter 1 - How did we get here ? 7:35 - Chapter 2 - Separation of powers 10:45 - Chapter 3 - What about "functional policy considerations ?" 14:05 - Chapter 4 - The impeachment judgment clause 19:45 - Chapter 5 - What happens next 21:05 - End roll ads

[@willparkin]

great but you missed the self promo that I almost closed the video because I thought it was done

[@viscountslappy5085]

"when we all have access to the same information, its easier to bridge the gap" except that one party/preference will see the facts and data - indisputable though they may be - and still cry foul because they think everything they disagree with is a conspiracy.

[@GregPrice-ep2dk]

By claiming immunity for the Insurrection as an "official act", isn't that a direct admission that he DID intend to incite an insurrection? Can that be used by Jack Smith, the state of GA, et al?

[@jtcmk]

the fact we need to have this conversation, in AMERICA, is beyond me.

[@LBCAndrew]

And that's the problem. It's beyond most people because they are inherently stupid and only listen to viewpoints they agree with. The President is given immunity from prosecution for actions taken fulfilling their role as President so they can make tough decisions without idiots dragging him into court the moment he's out of office. The legal remedy for illegal actions taken by a president is IMPEACHMENT. Which in this case had already been done and he was acquitted by the Senate. If this wasn't the case, then when will we be seeing first degree murder charges on Barack Obama for the murder of two US citizens in 2011. Anwar Al Awlaki and his teenage son were killed at the direct order Obama, via a hellfire missile fired from a predator drone. Obama made a public statement admitting to the killing. It's a slam dunk win.

[@MirrorYen2]

this didn't age well

[@eazy_hub2804]

Legal eagle punching air 😂

[@nate_storm]

boy this one did NOT age well

[@Night_Hawk_475]

In the opening audio clip, I think a key part to highlight was that the judges question specifically said "if he was not impeached", and the lawyer responded "[yes, but only] if he was impeached" which is why the judge simplified his answer to "no", since other than the actual word "yes" everything else he said definitely meant "no". It'd be like if your car broke down and you asked me if I could come give you a ride with my car, and I responded "if I can drive your car to do it with". the fact I responded in the positive doesn't change the fact that the actual answer is definitely a no.

[@LollipopKnight2]

The judge did an excellent job of cutting through the BS, aye.

[@WJS774]

@@LollipopKnight2 The judge asked an absurd question. Any president who would do that would be impeached. Asking insane trick questions is what lawyers are supposed to do, not judges. Good on Trump's lawyer for not falling for the trick.

[@jackprice4959]

I'm looking for my middle school teacher to let her know that checks-and-balances crap wasn't true.

[@themanhimself3]

Get the math teacher too. "You won't have a calculator in your pocket in real life."

[@PxThucydides]

Not that it wasn't true so much as in the end it didn't work.

[@JebeckyGranjola]

@christianseibold3369 Is there any way to delay it? It's weird that Devin argued that they might "want to have final say on it", when this ruling was explicitly because they declined to hear it. My opinion is that they know they can't say the president is immune, but they don't want to say No to Trump. So they would rather not decide anything and hope that he will win the election and pardon himself.

[@themanhimself3]

@@JebeckyGranjola Hopefully the 91 felonies will take care of him before that.

[@macmcleod1188]

Thing is, ruling the president is immune would apply to illegal acts against disliked Supreme Court justices. It's in their self interest to rule against this level of presidential immunity

[@paulastiles5507]

Yep. They are in a pickle. If they rule that Trump is not immune and can't be on the ballot, their rich and shadowy backers will be quite cross with them. But if they rule that he is immune and can be on the ballot, they're basically giving away all of their power to him if he wins in November. But even worse, they'd basically be giving away all of their power to Biden *until* November. Either way, they lose power.

[@coder0xff]

Spicy

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

I mean that's not even a theory, Texas is kind of doing it right now just because they can apparently.

[@paolovantassel1989]

Unfortunately, Trump has a deeply unsettling ability to convince people to act against their own best interests. It's how he destroyed the USFL for no reason other than his own ego, and it's how he turned over a thousand random followers into an army that attempted to take over the US Capitol.

[@chrisbeer5685]

Yeah until they go "If we allow the face-rating leopard to eat a few faces, surely they won't eat MY face"

[@Maladjester]

Was listening rather than watching. When I heard "on bonk," I imagined a legal defense consisting of chasing the opposition around the courtroom with a club, trying to bonk them, the whole thing happening at high speed while "Yakety Sax" played.

[@Afish8me2china]

The fact that the question of “is the president a dictator” is even happening is disgraceful to America.

[@supernenechi]

It's incredible, isn't it? The first time in the entire history that we have to answer the question "is the president immune from treason?" is now, because what sort of president let's a rally storm the capitol? What a time!

[@watchm4ker]

Not quite. It actually goes back to an earlier point in English law: Can the King be tried for Treason? In the wake of the English Civil Wars against Charles I, he was arrested, and put on a trial by the House of Commons. The problem was, the definition of 'Treason' at that time was threats or harm against *the King.* There was barely any concept of a King being subject to any law, let alone insurrection against his own government. It was a farce of a trial, but the principle it established stands today: The King was bound by the decisions of Parliament, and could not take up arms to depose it. And this was over a century before the American Revolution, let alone the subsequent revolutions in France and elsewhere.

[@supernenechi]

@@watchm4ker History sure is fascinating! Thanks for telling more.

[@watchm4ker]

@@supernenechi What's funny about it is, this may have been the key factor in why the British Crown *survived* the 19th and 20th centuries. As weak monarchs, they weren't held liable for the ills and misfortunes of Britain the way the French, German, or Russian crowns would be. The blame was focussed on Parliament, and an election would take care of that.

[@TincMetals]

Only treason is your patient puppet pres. lol

[@MarshallWorkman]

Biden is literally immune from treason lol they keep trying to throw the book at Trump cause he's a political enemy.

[@rosemariebredahl9519]

Further delays re Trump's trials would be a huge disservice to the people's faith in justice, informed voting, and our democracy.

[@warlordofbritannia]

What makes you think judges appointed for life care about any of that?

[@uooooooooh]

We already live in a kleptocratic capitalist oligarchy, not a democracy.

[@youdontneedtoknow7548]

@ypp0p Right! People still believe in that fantasy?

[@tara2944]

Imagine the president making a joke about getting away with shooting someone in a busy street and people finding that funny. I'm really worried about those people. What a country we live in

[@TheEXGamemaster]

@MDNyx EXACTLY!

[@geoffok]

Cultists

[@LBCAndrew]

Biden was joking about murdering Americans with F16's just a week ago.

[@Sercotani]

​@MDNyxwould love if they actually write a scene like that for Homelander in the new season. Watch as the point totally goes over some people's heads anyway 😂

[@Brc-kg1mg]

​@MDNyxold lander

[@chrise8275]

Trump’s lawyers are the type of lawyers to talk their clients down from a speeding ticket to the death penalty.

[@cobrasys]

9:29 - That quote from the Supreme Court's opinion on United States v. Lee should be the *only* required reply to anyone claiming a President (or any other official, elected or appointed) should be exempt from the law. On the contrary: as the quote says, "every man who by accepting office participates in [the United States' system of government's] functions is _only the more strongly bound_ to submit to [the law's] supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives." The people who are selected for and charged with leading a democratic society are the ones to whom the law should apply the most.

[@Qdobafett]

I love how everyone involved with this hearing with Sauro is like exasperated trying to even make his argument make sense let alone be strong. Even Sauro sounds like he’s not even able to make his argument but knows he has to try. It’s pretty scary that any of this is even happening. Scotus should have rejected outright. What scouts doesn’t seem to understand yet is if they go with trump on these cases they will give him so much power he won’t need them for anything and they will be at risk of being replaced or lose their power. A future trump presidency could look like executive orders are just at his whim and there’s no overriding them. He could just eliminate the court.

[@PxThucydides]

Risk being replaced? They risk being gunned down by Seal Team Six.

[@portmantologist]

This claim is meritless on so many levels that it's infuriating that it's even being heard by courts.

[@kubaGR8]

Funny thing is, it will likely change nothing. Trump will go to prison, and he'll still run for president from prison, and people will still vote for him.

[@86fifty]

The third part of the argument puts me in mind of a 12 year old tryna explain that since he got sent to the principal's office and got detention, he can't ALSO have his Xbox taken away at home because that's "double jeopardy" because that's two punishments for the same action. Like, honey no... Two different bodies CAN impose two different punishments.

[@ZevVeli]

You know, seeing this whole debacle made me realize a pretty significant flaw in the argument that Trump's Lawyers have raised in the argument about the President not being mentioned in Amendment XIV Section 3. The reason the writers didn't include the President in that list is because they assumed it would be obvious that this was already in place in Article II section 5...

[@tomshepherd4901]

The Supreme Court would not grant absolute immunity to any president because that would put targets on their backs as well...

[@RHCole]

Let's hope they are forward thinking enough to understand that.

[@MikeBrin96]

@@RHCole I don't, supreme court needs to modernise

[@tbryan5437]

Right???

[@haxie4516]

I thought that too, but justice Thomas is in favour of repealing the racial segregation ban, so....

[@Techydad]

Exactly. Say tomorrow they decided that the President could do anything and avoid any prosecution. What, except for his basic decency and respect for the rule of law, would prevent Biden from "relocating some Supreme Court Justices to a farm upstate"? After all, they would have declared that 100% legal. The Supreme Court might opt to weigh in on this to delay the trial for Trump, but I don't see them deciding that a President can do anything and avoid criminal prosecution.

[@Kanner111]

It's like playing Monopoly with nine year olds who try to make up a new rule anytime they're losing. (Quite aside from anything else, it's very funny to watch people from the party that went relentlessly hard for *years* on Bill Clinton, trying to find anything at all, have to try to make arguments about how the presidency is, like, *super* important and can't possibly be distracted by little things like law suits and constitutionality.)

[@jfantis]

Like when they bring endless lawfare against their primary political rival after 234 years of precedent.

[@WyvernYT]

I hope you try repeating their position back to them like that. "So, no matter what evidence we might find, there's no prosecuting Clinton or Obama for anything they did...?"

[@Maladjester]

When YOU do it, it's patriotism. When THEY do it, it's treason. Everybody just wants Their Guy™. By any means, at any cost, with precisely zero regard for legal realities or moral arguments. EDIT: Side note, my favorite house rule in Monopoly is you can do anything you can get away with. Other players look away, snatch a $500, or sneak a third house onto that property. Creates a wonderful paranoia.

[@WJS774]

@@WyvernYT You expect consistency from these people? Of course, they _know_ that the leftist controlled establishment will only ever go after conservatives. They didn't do this to Obama.

[@MS-jp3op]

It's almost like being president doesn't make you godking, weird...

[@BaronSengir1008]

The President isn't Leto II...

[@juances]

Some americans are just weird, they cry freedom and democracy but want their leader to be treated like a king with absolute power.

[@necordektox879]

The Republicans are outright anti-democracy now. Look at what's happening in Ohio, they're trying to stop people from voting on abortion rights directly without their interference. They openly hate democracy.

[@Redactedlllllllllllll]

Double think. But you know tribalism is trumping the ideals people pretend to have,even the founding fathers were full of shit elitists.

[@purplelibraryguy8729]

On the double jeopardy, surely there's an even stronger point to be made: The constitutional impeachment language SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT'S OK! It goes out of its way to note that someone successfully impeached can still be criminally charged for the crimes they were impeached for. Why would that be different just because the impeachment was unsuccessful?

[@Spaatz77]

This is the best, most complete analysis of the ins and outs of the current presidential immunity decision facing the upper courts. I've sent the link to my friends who are most interested in these fundamental constitutional questions. Thanks for the great analysis. For me, despite all the complex arguments being cited, the president simply cannot be immune from criminal prosecution because the Constitution (Article II Faithful Execution Clause) specifically requires the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws of the land. Ergo, he or she cannot violate those laws without facing legal justice. It could not be more clear. You nailed it. Duh.

[@dlp1750]

We are very close to the point where this whole mess ceases to be a question of law and becomes a question of politics..., if we're not there already. If that weren't frightening enough, the bigger issue is there's a large, vocal, and highly loyal swath of U.S. voters who just don't care.

[@megalonoobiacinc4863]

its still ridicules that a leader of a country can pardon a criminal and bypass the legal system if they feel like it

[@lilymarinovic1644]

Many elected officials (eg State Governors) can issue pardons. In some cases it is a good thing. It enables, for example, people who were convicted of homosexual behaviour when it was illegal to be pardoned and the ongoing effects of a criminal record avoided. Sometimes the courts do, sadly, get it wrong.

[@richardpurves]

The pardon process is effectively a guilty plea with the sentence waived. Guilt has to be admitted. Not a get out of jail free card.

[@SurelyYewJest]

The public treats it as a get-out-of-jail-free card, but it's not. a pardoned person can still be prosecuted for crimes after the pardon, and they have to admit guilt to get the pardon in the first place.

[@dr_edward_richtofen69]

This whole thing is just ridiculous. How about a president just DOESNT BREAK THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY THEY'RE RUNNING!!!!

[@gerrybennett2820]

Lock him up for his own safety what he said about Europe

[@kikaku2501]

The fact that "on bonk" is a legal term explains why judges have gavels.

[@luiseneas]

How can anyone argue double jeopardy if there wasn't the first jeopardy?

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

RIP Trebek

[@ypw510]

They're claiming that the impeachment trial was the first part of being in jeopardy, while also claiming that criminal prosecution can only proceed upon conviction in Congress. However, the Constitution says double jeopardy is about "life or limb" - meaning proceedings with the possibility of criminal punishments. Obviously life means freedom (possibility of jail time or execution) although I'm not sure about limb since I haven't heard of chopping off anyone's hand like criminal punishments in some countries. The impeachment trial doesn't come with any criminal punishment - only removal from office.

[@vedikabhatnagar335]

This....aged well.

[@JasonChinniansoulmod1]

Love the Cilla Black 'Surprise Surprise' 😂😂😂 hilarious 😂😂 How did you even know about that UK TV programme?

[@turbokadett]

Popped down to check the comments to ensure our Cilla recieved a mention! Worra-lorra-laffs!

[@davidchristie6003]

If it is established that the president can commit no crime then I think it is probably time for some kind of legal update. I always find it odd when people talk about founding documents or intentions as though law is not allowed to develop past that

[@Redactedlllllllllllll]

It's a holy document, kind of bizarre way to make decisions, but humans are bizarre animals.

[@davidchristie6003]

​​@@RedactedlllllllllllllIt does seem to get treated that way. I am not denying that it was truly revolutionary at the time. But I would like to think that after over 200 years things have changed enough that some rexamining needs to happen. The again Holy texts are way older and are still seen as valuable sources of info so who knows. Edit: still seen as a source of info that does not need updating or at least questioning

[@lahdaydah]

Like they didn't immediately start slapping amendments onto the constitution as soon as they noticed gaps....

[@Malorn0]

@@davidchristie6003 It is meant to be updated, it has been updated 27 times. What you mean, I suspect, is that you think it should be easier to update. A weak constitution has problems as well, please see every country where a president has 'updated' term limits to stay in power.

[@davidchristie6003]

​@@Malorn0By update I mean more of a total reevaluation rather than just adding to. Also only 27 times in so long seems very low, though I'm from the UK so do not fully undertsand federal vs state law. It seems like a bad idea to me to apply a modern problem to such old rules though. Like it seems very religiously adhered to rather than just rough guiding principles. I do not really know any solution or even enough about American law, but it feels inherently wrong to watch people argue about the intention of people 2 centuries ago when they could just decide for themselves.

[@AlexanderEriksen-hb3wg]

Hahahaha oh man, this aged like milk.

[@eazy_hub2804]

Legal eagle punching air 😂

[@trancandy1]

i love that the argument isn't even about whether or not he violated the law. it's about whether or not he's above the law. love that, love this country

[@brainstewX]

Trump has argued both many times

[@blitzwinters5687]

I usually apply this to the police, but I find it's even more important here: If you're going to be an enforcer (or executor) of the law, you must also be exemplar of the law.

[@DrSeuss-sf3cn]

yet Biden is doing coke in the white house as we speak

[@SonsOfLorgar]

​@@DrSeuss-sf3cn prove it, traitor.

[@mrgoober6320]

I actually miss the time when we thought Nixon or Jackson were the lowest that the presidency have ever sunk.

[@iainamurray]

I never expected Cilla Black singing would appear in an American legal channel. Consider me surprised surprised.

[@fredcat9080]

Surprise Surprise Cilla was a surprise.

[@frostyrobot7689]

No one expects the Cilla Black

[@john_michael_white]

Trump's in a lorra lorra trouble chuck.

[@heatheryyy]

I was looking for this comment!

[@nassirahmad4873]

The idea that anyone is America is above the law is absurd. We elect a President, not a king or dictator.

[@albea1695]

Thank God you're the lawyer. The bureaucracy and legal jargon that, not only do you have to search-out and find in all of those documents to help state your case, but then decipher their meaning.... Woof... Lawyers deserve their pay. 🤙

[@picklesquasher5151]

This did not age well