Trump Makes DANGEROUS CLAIM to SUPREME COURT

MeidasTouch
25 Apr 202419:08

Summary

TLDRThe video script details a contentious debate before the United States Supreme Court, where Donald Trump's lawyers argue for absolute presidential immunity, even in extreme hypotheticals such as selling nuclear secrets, staging a coup, accepting bribes, or ordering military assassinations of political rivals. The justices press the lawyer on the implications of such immunity, questioning how it would not undermine the rule of law and the foundational principles of the United States. Justice Jackson powerfully challenges the notion that the president is above the law, emphasizing the importance of accountability for the highest office in the land. The discussion underscores the balance between the need for a president to act decisively and the potential for unchecked power to corrupt, reflecting on the historical context of the U.S. Constitution and the intent of its framers to prevent absolute immunity for the chief executive.

Takeaways

  • 📚 Donald Trump's lawyers argued for absolute presidential immunity in the United States Supreme Court, claiming that Trump could theoretically engage in illegal activities such as stealing nuclear secrets, launching a coup, accepting bribes, or ordering military assassinations of political rivals without immediate legal consequences.
  • 🏛 The Supreme Court justices questioned the plausibility of a president engaging in such activities and whether they would be considered 'official acts' protected by immunity.
  • 🎓 Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan posed hypotheticals to Trump's lawyer, including creating a fraudulent electoral slate and staging a coup, to explore the boundaries of presidential immunity.
  • 🤔 Trump's lawyer argued that certain actions, even if they were illegal, could be considered 'official acts' and thus insulated by immunity, requiring impeachment and conviction before criminal prosecution.
  • 🚫 Justice Jackson expressed concern about the implications of such immunity, questioning whether it could lead to the president committing crimes with abandon, and emphasizing the importance of the rule of law.
  • 🇺🇸 The discussion touched on the historical context of the United States, founded on the rejection of absolute power and the principle that no one is above the law.
  • 🧐 Justice Alito's test and the Fitzgerald test were mentioned as frameworks for determining whether an act is an 'official act' and thus potentially immune from legal repercussions.
  • 🤨 The lawyer for Trump emphasized the structural checks and balances in place, such as impeachment and oversight by Congress, as safeguards against presidential misconduct.
  • 📉 Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court followed losses in lower courts, including a decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • 📺 The video script is from a podcast by Ben Meis, who provided commentary and context to the oral arguments, highlighting the significance of the case and the potential consequences for the presidency and the rule of law.
  • 🛒 The script also included a commercial for 3-Day Blinds, a company offering custom window treatments, which was unrelated to the main discussion about presidential immunity.

Q & A

  • What arguments were presented by Donald Trump's lawyers in the United States Supreme Court?

    -Donald Trump's lawyers argued that he could commit acts such as stealing nuclear secrets, launching a coup, accepting bribes from foreign officials, and ordering the assassination of political rivals, while still claiming presidential immunity.

  • What legal concept did Donald Trump's lawyers use to defend his actions?

    -Donald Trump's lawyers defended his actions using the concept of 'absolute presidential immunity,' which asserts that the President cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while in office.

  • What was the outcome of Donald Trump's case in the lower courts?

    -Donald Trump lost his case in the lower courts. The Federal Court in Washington D.C. and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled against him, the latter with a 3-0 decision including from a conservative judge.

  • What specific question did Justice Sotomayor ask during the oral arguments?

    -Justice Sotomayor asked if creating a fraudulent electoral slate would be considered an official act that a president could have immunity for.

  • What was the response to Justice Sotomayor's question about electoral fraud?

    -Donald Trump's lawyer argued that the president's involvement in creating a fraudulent electoral slate could be seen as an official act, drawing a parallel with historical precedents such as President Grant's actions in the 1876 election.

  • How did Justice Kagan challenge the concept of absolute presidential immunity?

    -Justice Kagan questioned whether ordering a military coup would fall under an official act for which a president could receive immunity, challenging the bounds of presidential powers and responsibilities.

  • What hypothetical scenario did Justice Kagan propose, and what was the lawyer's response?

    -Justice Kagan proposed a hypothetical scenario where a president orders the assassination of a political rival. The lawyer responded that it would depend on the context and could possibly be considered an official act.

  • What stance did the lawyer take on the president selling nuclear secrets?

    -The lawyer suggested that if a president structured the sale of nuclear secrets as an official act, he might still require impeachment and conviction before any criminal prosecution could proceed.

  • How did Justice Jackson challenge the distinction between private acts and official acts of a president?

    -Justice Jackson explored the underlying assumption that official acts should receive immunity while private acts do not, questioning why the president should be exempt from following the law during official acts.

  • What concerns were raised about the potential consequences of granting absolute presidential immunity?

    -The concern raised was that granting absolute presidential immunity could potentially embolden future presidents to commit crimes with impunity, turning the presidency into a seat of criminal activity without fear of legal repercussions.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Trump's Supreme Court Defense of Absolute Presidential Immunity

Donald Trump's lawyers argued at the Supreme Court that he should have absolute immunity for acts such as stealing nuclear secrets, accepting foreign bribes, or even assassinating political rivals. They presented their defense by comparing historical precedents and interpreting them as supporting absolute immunity. The argument unfolds through a series of hypothetical questions from Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, probing the limits of such immunity. The lawyers contended that even egregious acts could be protected under presidential immunity if deemed 'official acts.'

05:00

👨‍⚖️ Legal and Ethical Challenges of Presidential Actions

The focus shifts to the theoretical immunity for selling nuclear secrets and using the military for personal gains. Trump’s lawyer argues that if these actions are structured as official acts, they might be immune, requiring impeachment before prosecution. This part includes an advertisement for 3-Day Blinds, highlighting their current sales promotion and the convenience of their in-home consultation service.

10:02

📜 Supreme Court Deliberations on the Scope of Presidential Immunity

Justice Jackson challenges the distinction between private and public acts, questioning why a president performing official duties should not be held accountable like other citizens. The lawyer insists that the president must follow the law in official capacities, but the remedy for violations remains impeachment rather than criminal prosecution. The debate explores the balance between presidential authority and accountability, and the potential consequences of absolute immunity.

15:03

⚖️ Potential Risks of Unchecked Presidential Power

The discussion concludes with concerns about the risks of unchecked presidential power. It addresses historical perspectives on presidential immunity and the implications of allowing presidents to act without fear of criminal prosecution. The narrator expresses concerns about the erosion of democratic principles if presidents believe they can act with impunity, emphasizing the foundational American values of accountability and rule of law.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, as mentioned in the video, refers to the highest federal court in the United States, responsible for interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding on cases that involve states or the federal government. In the video, the Supreme Court is the arena where Donald Trump's lawyers argue for presidential immunity regarding various alleged actions during his presidency. This illustrates the court's critical role in addressing issues of national importance and constitutional law.

💡presidential immunity

Presidential immunity refers to the legal doctrine suggesting that the President of the United States has certain protections against criminal prosecution and civil suits during their time in office. This concept is central to the video as Trump's lawyers argue that he should be granted absolute immunity for actions taken while president, including extreme scenarios like staging a coup or selling nuclear secrets. This raises significant constitutional questions about the limits of presidential power and accountability.

💡official act

An 'official act' in the context of presidential duties refers to actions taken by the president as part of their official functions. In the video, the discussion revolves around whether extreme actions, such as staging a coup or committing bribery, could be considered official acts. This distinction is crucial as it impacts the application of presidential immunity and the legal accountability of the president.

💡constitutional checks

Constitutional checks refer to the mechanisms within the U.S. Constitution designed to balance the powers of the different branches of government and prevent abuse. In the video, Trump's lawyer mentions these checks as safeguards against presidential misconduct, highlighting how the Constitution aims to maintain governance integrity and prevent tyranny.

💡impeachment

Impeachment is a formal process by which government officials can be charged and possibly removed for misconduct. It is mentioned several times in the video as a crucial remedy for presidential wrongdoing. The debate in the Supreme Court includes whether a president should face criminal charges only after impeachment and conviction, emphasizing the role of impeachment in upholding legal and ethical standards within the highest office.

💡Fitzgerald test

The Fitzgerald test likely refers to a legal standard stemming from Supreme Court precedent concerning the scope of presidential immunity. While not explicitly detailed in the video, the discussion implies that this test helps determine whether certain presidential actions fall within the bounds of official duties, affecting whether immunity applies. This test is pivotal in evaluating Trump's claim to immunity from various alleged illegal acts.

💡UCMJ

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of military law in the United States. In the video, it is cited as containing provisions that might prevent military personnel from following unlawful orders, such as participating in a coup staged by a president. This highlights the UCMJ's role in maintaining lawful conduct within the military, even under presidential command.

💡rule of law

The rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. In the video, this principle is central to the arguments against granting Trump absolute immunity for actions that undermine legal norms, emphasizing the foundational belief that no one, not even the president, is above the law.

💡bribery

Bribery involves offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing the actions of an official in discharge of their public or legal duties. The video explores whether a president could be immune from charges of bribery, debating if such actions could ever be considered within the scope of official presidential acts.

💡political rivals

Political rivals refer to individuals or groups who oppose or compete against one another in the political arena. The video discusses hypothetical scenarios where a president might order the assassination of political rivals, questioning whether such extreme actions could be shielded by presidential immunity and whether they should ever be considered part of a president's official duties.

Highlights

Donald Trump's lawyers argued that he could commit acts such as stealing nuclear secrets and launching a coup without legal consequence, claiming absolute presidential immunity.

The arguments were made in the United States Supreme Court, representing a critical moment in the legal history surrounding presidential powers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the plausibility of a president creating a fraudulent electoral slate and being immune from prosecution.

Trump's lawyer compared the situation to historical precedents like President Grant's intervention in the 1876 elections, but faced skepticism about the legitimacy and comparability of those actions.

Justice Elena Kagan inquired about the legality and immunity concerning a president ordering the military to stage a coup, highlighting the tension between presidential authority and unlawful orders.

The discussion included whether actions taken for personal gain, such as selling nuclear secrets or assassinating political rivals, could be considered official acts protected by immunity.

The debate extended to whether past actions by presidents, such as alleged assassinations ordered by President Obama for national security, compare to hypothetical criminal acts by a president for personal benefit.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about the implications of distinguishing between private and official acts of a president, questioning the underlying assumptions of absolute immunity.

The potential chilling effects on presidential decision-making were contrasted with the dangers of a president feeling emboldened to commit crimes if immune from prosecution.

The argument touched on historical perspectives from figures like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin on the prosecution of a chief executive, discussing the constitutional and philosophical foundations of presidential accountability.

The importance of structural checks like impeachment and public oversight was debated as safeguards against presidential misconduct.

The Supreme Court's handling of the case was positioned as pivotal for defining the scope of presidential power and its limits under U.S. law.

The transcript concluded with a call to action, emphasizing the societal and legal stakes involved in the Supreme Court's decision regarding Donald Trump's claims of immunity.

The discussion underscored a fundamental tension in American democracy: the balance between robust executive power and the need to curtail potential abuses of that power.

The legal discourse surrounding the case could potentially reshape the understanding and application of executive immunity in the United States.

Transcripts

00:00

Donald Trump's lawyers argued to the

00:02

United States Supreme Court earlier in

00:04

the day that Donald Trump could steal

00:07

nuclear secrets and sell them that

00:09

Donald Trump could launch a coup against

00:12

the United States that Donald Trump

00:14

could accept bribes from foreign

00:17

officials and that Donald Trump could

00:19

order the military to assassinate his

00:22

political Rivals Donald Trump's lawyers

00:25

were making that argument in the United

00:27

States Supreme Court folks I never

00:30

thought as someone living in the United

00:32

States of America that it would get to

00:34

this the very fact that those arguments

00:37

are being made before the United States

00:40

Supreme Court by a former president by

00:44

the Republican leader this is a travesty

00:48

and don't take my word for it let me

00:50

show you the key moments during the oral

00:53

argument I'm only going to break it down

00:55

so you can just see the key moments from

00:56

this oral argument where Donald Trump

00:59

was arguing for

01:00

absolute presidential immunity for his

01:02

conduct and trying to overthrow the

01:04

results of the 2020 election after

01:07

losing in the lower courts Trump lost in

01:10

December before a federal court in

01:12

Washington DC Trump appealed it to the

01:15

next level Court which is the DC Circuit

01:17

Court of Appeals a 30 decision against

01:21

Donald Trump including from a

01:23

conservative judge ruling against Donald

01:25

Trump trump then appealed that to the

01:27

United States Supreme Court here during

01:30

the oral arguments Justice Soto mayor

01:33

asked Donald Trump's lawyer is it

01:36

plausible to you that creating a

01:39

fraudulent electoral slate would

01:43

constitute an official act that you

01:44

could have immunity for play the clip

01:47

apply it to the allegations here what is

01:50

plausible about the

01:52

president assisting in

01:55

creating a uh a fraudulent slate of

02:00

electoral candidates assuming you accept

02:03

the facts of the complaint on their

02:05

face um is that plausible that that

02:09

would be within his right to do

02:12

absolutely RoR we have the historical

02:14

President we site in the lower courts of

02:15

President Grant sending federal troops

02:17

to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to

02:20

make sure that the Republican electors

02:22

got certified in those two cases which

02:23

deliver the election to Ruther for be

02:25

Hayes the notion that it's completely

02:27

implausible I just can't be supported in

02:30

the face of this indictment or even

02:31

knowing that the Slate is fake knowing

02:34

that the Slate is fake that they weren't

02:37

actually elected that they weren't

02:40

certified by the state he knows all

02:42

those things the indictment itself

02:44

alleges I dispute that characterization

02:46

the the indictment fixes the word label

02:49

to the so-called fraudulent lectures it

02:52

fixes the word fraudulent but that's a

02:53

complete mischaracterization on the face

02:55

of the indictment it appears that there

02:56

was no deceit about who had emerged from

02:58

the relevant State Convention iions and

03:00

this was being done as an alternative

03:02

basis but I want next up Justice Kagan

03:05

asks Donald Trump's lawyer John sour

03:08

what about if a president orders the

03:11

military to Stage a coup is that an

03:14

official act for which a president

03:16

should receive immunity play the clip

03:18

How about if a president um orders the

03:21

military to Stage a

03:25

coup I think that as the Chief Justice

03:28

pointed out earlier where there is whole

03:30

series of you know sort

03:32

of guidelines against that so to speak

03:34

like the UCMJ prohibits the military

03:37

from following a plainly unlawful act if

03:39

one adopted Justice alito's test that

03:41

would fall outside now if one adopts for

03:44

example the Fitzgerald test that we

03:45

advance that might well be an official

03:46

act and he would have to be as I'll say

03:48

in response to all these kinds of

03:50

hypotheticals uh has to be impeached and

03:52

convicted before he can be criminally

03:53

prosecuted but I emphasize to the court

03:55

well he's gone let's say this president

03:58

who ordered the military to jaku he's no

04:01

longer president he wasn't impeached he

04:03

couldn't be impeached um but but he

04:06

ordered the military to stage jaku and

04:08

you're saying that's an official act uh

04:10

I think it would depend on IM I think it

04:12

would depend on the circumstances

04:14

whether it was an official act if it

04:16

were an official act again he would have

04:17

to be imp what does that mean depend on

04:19

the circumstances he was the president

04:21

he um uh is the Commander in Chief um he

04:25

talks to his generals all the time and

04:28

he told the generals I don't feel like

04:29

leaving office I want to Stage a coup is

04:32

is is that immune if if it's an official

04:34

act there needs to be impeachment and

04:36

conviction beforehand because the

04:38

framers viewed the RI that that kind of

04:41

it's an official Act is it an official

04:42

act if it's an official act it's Impe is

04:45

it an official act on on the way you

04:46

described that hypothetical it could

04:49

well be I I just don't know you'd have

04:50

to again it's a fact specific context

04:52

specific determination that answer

04:54

sounds to me as though it's like yeah

04:56

under my test it's an official act but

04:58

that sure sounds bad doesn't it well it

05:00

certainly sounds very bad and that's why

05:02

the framers have and that's why the

05:03

framers have a whole series of

05:05

structural checks that have successfully

05:07

for the last 234 years prevented that

05:11

very kind of extreme hypothetical and

05:13

next up Justice Kagan says well what if

05:16

a president sells nuclear secrets you're

05:19

Donald Trump's lawyer do you believe

05:21

that selling nuclear secrets to a

05:24

foreign adversary do you get immunity

05:26

for that is that the position that

05:28

Donald Trump is taking right now before

05:30

the United States Supreme Court play the

05:32

clip uh if a president sells nuclear

05:35

secrets to a foreign adversary is that

05:38

immune that sounds like similar to the

05:41

bribery example likely not immune now if

05:43

it's structured as an official act he

05:44

would have to be impeached and convicted

05:46

first before what does that mean if it's

05:48

structured as an official act well I

05:50

don't know in the hypothetical whether

05:51

or not that would be an official act you

05:52

probably have to have more details to

05:54

apply the Blazing game uh analysis or

05:57

even the Fitzgerald analysis that we've

05:59

been talking talking about what about if

06:01

a president decides to use the military

06:05

to assassinate political Rivals are you

06:08

saying that that is allowed are you

06:11

saying that President should get

06:12

absolute presidential immunity for that

06:15

is that Donald Trump's argument is that

06:17

what you are asking us to uh hold today

06:20

as the United States Supreme Court play

06:22

the clip can be alleged but it has to be

06:26

proven mum in say is a concept

06:30

um viewed as appropriate in law that

06:33

there's some things that are so

06:34

fundamentally evil that they have to be

06:37

protected

06:39

against now I

06:42

think and and your uh answer uh below

06:47

I'm going to give you a chance to say if

06:49

you stay by it if the president

06:53

decides that his

06:55

rival is a corrupt person

07:00

and he orders the military or orders

07:03

someone to assassinate him is that

07:06

within His official acts that for which

07:08

he can get immunity it would depend on

07:11

the hypothetical but we can see that

07:12

could well be an official act it could

07:14

and why because he's doing it for

07:16

personal reasons he's not doing it at

07:21

like President Obama is alleged to have

07:23

done it to protect the country from a

07:26

terrorist he's doing it for personal

07:28

gain and isn't that the nature of the

07:31

allegations here that he's not doing

07:34

them doing these acts in

07:37

furtherance of an

07:40

official responsibility he's doing it

07:43

for personal gain I I agree with that

07:45

characterization of the indictment and

07:47

that confirms immunity because the

07:49

characterization is that there's a

07:50

series of official acts that were done

07:52

for an on immunity says even if you did

07:56

it for personal gain we won't hold you

08:01

responsible what do you how could that

08:04

be that's an extremely strong Doctrine

08:07

in this Court's case law in cases like

08:09

Fitzgerald well we go back to Justice

08:11

Thomas's question which okay there's

08:13

nothing worse than light pouring in the

08:15

house when you're trying to catch up on

08:16

some rest having good blinds in your

08:18

home may just be the most underrated

08:20

addition that you could make there's a

08:22

better way to buy blinds in window

08:23

treatments and it's called 3-day blinds

08:25

they are the leading manufacturer of

08:27

custom window treatments in the US and

08:29

right now they are running a buy one get

08:31

one 50% off deal we could shop for

08:33

almost anything at home why not shop for

08:35

blinds at home too 3-day blinds has

08:38

local professionally trained Design

08:39

Consultants who have an average of 10

08:41

plus years of experience that provide

08:43

expert guidance on the right blinds for

08:45

you in the comfort of your home just set

08:47

up an appointment and you'll get a free

08:49

no obligation quote the same day not

08:52

very handy the expert team at 3-day

08:54

blinds handles all the heavy lifting

08:56

they design measure install so you could

08:58

sit back relax and leave it to the pros

09:01

I've been using 3-day blinds since way

09:03

before they were even a sponsor of the

09:04

mightest touch podcast my friend had

09:06

redone his entire home with 3-day blinds

09:09

he got the smart blinds installed where

09:10

you just ask Alexa to open your blinds

09:13

and it happens automatically I thought

09:14

it was the coolest thing ever I asked

09:16

him where did he get this how did this

09:18

happen he told me all about three-day

09:20

blinds and how easy the process was and

09:22

I ended up getting all the blinds and

09:23

buy home from 3-day blinds and I am so

09:25

glad that I did they had so many options

09:28

to choose from and they were so helpful

09:29

in guiding me to pick the perfect blinds

09:31

for my home it's no surprise that 3day

09:34

blinds has been in business for over 45

09:36

years and is the highest rated blinds

09:39

company on trust pilot at 4.7 out of

09:42

five stars right now you could get 3-day

09:45

blinds buy one get one 50% off deal on

09:47

custom blinds Shades shutters and

09:50

drapery for a free no charge no

09:53

obligation consultation just head to

09:55

3dayblinds.com

09:57

mitas that's buy one get one 50% off

10:01

when you head to 3dayblinds.com

10:04

Midas one last time that's the number

10:07

three Dy blinds.com

10:11

Midas and here katoni Brown Jackson

10:15

Justice Jackson I think really lays it

10:18

out here and says if the most powerful

10:21

person in the world can get away with

10:24

anything isn't that the most

10:27

anti-American concept like wasn't our

10:30

entire country founded on a

10:33

rejection of that principle watch This

10:37

brilliant uh argument by Justice katangi

10:41

Brown Jackson here play this clip okay

10:44

thank you justice Jackson so I think I

10:47

Now understand better your position um

10:51

in in your discussions with Justice

10:53

Kavanaugh became clear that you are

10:55

saying that for the private acts of a

10:58

president there's no immunity

10:59

but for the official acts the president

11:01

there is immunity is that your position

11:04

I agree with that all right um so one

11:08

thing that occurs to me is that this

11:10

sort of difficult line drawing problem

11:12

that we're having with all of these

11:13

hypotheticals is this a private act or a

11:16

Public Act um is being necessitated by

11:20

that assumption because of course if

11:23

official acts didn't get absolute

11:25

immunity then it wouldn't matter we

11:27

wouldn't have to identify which are

11:29

private and which are public correct

11:31

that in fact is the approach of the DC

11:33

circuit there's no determination that

11:34

needs to be but I'm just I'm just making

11:36

so to the extent we're worried about

11:38

like how do we figure out whether it's

11:39

private or public we have to we have to

11:41

understand that we're only doing that

11:43

because of an underlying assumption that

11:46

the public acts get immunity so let me

11:48

explore that assumption um why is it as

11:52

a matter of theory and I'm hoping you

11:54

can sort of Zoom way out here that the

11:57

president um would not be required to

12:00

follow the law when he is performing his

12:03

official acts everyone else everyone

12:06

else there are lots of folks who have

12:08

very uh high-powered jobs who make a lot

12:11

of consequential decisions and they do

12:13

so against the backdrop of potential

12:17

criminal prosecution if they should uh

12:19

break the law in that um capacity and we

12:24

understand and we know as a matter of

12:25

fact that the president of the United

12:27

States has the best loyal in the world

12:30

when he's making a decision he can

12:33

consult with pretty much anybody as to

12:36

whether or not this thing is criminal or

12:38

not so why would we have a situation in

12:42

which we would say that the President

12:44

should be making official acts without

12:46

any uh responsibility for following the

12:49

law I respectfully disagree with that

12:51

characterization the president

12:52

absolutely does have responsibility he

12:55

absolutely is required to follow the law

12:57

in all of his official Acts but the

12:59

remedy for that is the question could he

13:02

be subject to personal vulnerability

13:04

sent to prison for making a bad decision

13:06

after he leaves office but but other

13:07

people who have consequential jobs and

13:10

who are required to follow the law make

13:13

those determinations against the

13:16

backdrop of that same kind of risk so

13:18

what is it about the president um I mean

13:21

I've heard you say it's because the

13:23

president has to be able to act boldly

13:25

do you know make kind of consequential

13:29

decisions I mean sure but again there

13:32

are lots of people who have to make life

13:33

and death kinds of decisions and yet

13:35

they still have to follow the law and if

13:38

they don't they could be sent to prison

13:40

etc etc so I say two things in response

13:43

to that both from Fitzgerald that's the

13:44

very uh uh sort of inference or

13:46

reasoning that this court rejected in

13:48

Fitzgerald no but let me just Fitzgerald

13:50

was a civil situation in which the

13:52

president actually was in a different

13:54

position than other people because of

13:57

the nature of his job the high profile

13:59

nature and the fact that he touches so

14:01

many different things when you're

14:03

talking about private civil liability

14:05

you know anybody on the street can sue

14:07

him we could see that the president was

14:09

sort of different than the ordinary

14:11

person when you say should he be immune

14:13

from civil liability from anybody who

14:15

wants to sue him but when we're talking

14:17

about criminal liability I don't

14:19

understand how the president stands in

14:21

any different position with respect to

14:23

the need to follow the law as he is

14:26

doing his job than anyone else he he is

14:28

required to follow the law and what not

14:31

if there's no criminal prose if there's

14:32

no threat of criminal prosecution what

14:34

prevents the president from just doing

14:36

whatever he wants all the structural

14:37

checks that are identified in Fitzgerald

14:39

and a whole series of this Court's cases

14:41

that go back to Martin against mot for

14:42

example impeachment oversight by

14:44

Congress uh public oversight there's a

14:47

long series of them Fitzgerald directly

14:48

addresses this in the Civil context and

14:51

we think that langage naturally PS I'm

14:53

not sure that's that that that's much of

14:54

a back stop and what I'm I guess more

14:57

worried about you seem to be worried

14:59

worried about the president being

15:00

chilled I think that we would have a

15:02

really significant opposite problem if

15:05

the president wasn't chilled if someone

15:07

with those kinds of powers the most

15:10

powerful person in the world with the

15:13

greatest amount of authority um could go

15:16

into office knowing that there would be

15:18

no potential penalty for committing

15:22

crimes I'm trying to understand what the

15:24

disincentive is from turning the Oval

15:27

Office into um you know the the the the

15:30

seat of criminal activity in this

15:32

country uh I don't think there's any

15:34

allegation of that in this case and what

15:36

George Washington said is what Benjamin

15:38

Franklin said is we view the prosecution

15:40

of a chief executive as something that

15:41

everybody cried out against as

15:42

unconstitutional and what George

15:44

Washington said is we're worried about

15:46

factional Strife which will no I'm Al

15:49

let me let me let me put this worry on

15:51

the table if the potential for criminal

15:53

liability is taken off the table

15:55

wouldn't there be a significant risk

15:57

that future presidents would be

15:59

emboldened to commit crimes with abandon

16:03

while they're in office it's right now

16:05

the fact that we're having this debate

16:08

because olc has said that presidents

16:10

might be prosecuted um presidents from

16:13

the beginning of time have understood

16:15

that that's a possibility that might be

16:17

what has kept this office from turning

16:19

into the kind of uh crime Center that

16:22

I'm envisioning but once we say no

16:25

criminal liability Mr President you can

16:27

do whatever you want

16:29

I'm worried that we would have a worse

16:32

problem than the problem of the

16:33

president feeling constrained to follow

16:35

the law while he's in office yeah I

16:37

respect and folks that gets to the heart

16:39

of the matter for me you know we can

16:42

talk about complex legal doctrines and

16:46

you could watch Donald Trump's lawyer

16:48

trying to you know make comments about

16:51

well there are structural safeguards in

16:53

place it's just a bunch of word salad

16:56

are we a nation of law

16:59

are we a country of Law and Order are we

17:03

a country where no one is above the law

17:08

how was our country founded this is

17:11

simple stuff I like how Donald Trump

17:14

laer goes well there was a conversation

17:16

where Benjamin Franklin one said this

17:19

there was a another conversation where

17:22

Benjamin Franklin was speaking to this

17:25

person and are you aware that uh in page

17:28

20 two of George Washington's diary that

17:32

George Washington had mentioned

17:35

look basic history the United States of

17:39

America was founded on the concept of We

17:43

the People not the king we were founded

17:47

on the rejection of absolute immunity

17:51

it's very simple a rejection of the

17:56

arbitrary and Limitless power of of

17:59

Kings that's what our country was

18:01

founded on and that's why our country

18:05

had been a beacon for the rest of the

18:09

world Donald Trump has spent his life

18:12

breaking things Donald Trump has spent

18:15

his life destroying things and his final

18:18

Act is to destroy our constitution to

18:22

destroy the presidency to destroy Common

18:25

Sense the case is now with the United

18:28

States Supreme Court will'll see what

18:30

they do but I hope showing you what

18:33

Donald Trump's lawyer said just you

18:36

hearing it on your own crystallized for

18:39

you at the very least what's at stake

18:43

I'm Ben melis from the midest touch

18:45

Network hit subscribe let's get to 3

18:47

million subscribers together thanks for

18:50

watching hit subscribe right now enough

18:53

send him to the big house not the White

18:56

House get the new exclusive te's mugs

18:58

and stickers right now at store. mitch.

19:02

that's store. mitch.

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

العلامات ذات الصلة
Supreme CourtPresidential ImmunityDonald TrumpLegal BattleConstitutional LawU.S. PoliticsJudicial ProceedingsPolitical RivalsNuclear SecretsCoup Attempt
هل تحتاج إلى ملخص باللغة العربية؟