Alert: Trump’s ‘license to kill or coup’ hits SCOTUS - See Ari Melber’s critical breakdown

>> WE HAVE A LOT TO GET TO.

I WILL SEE YOU AT 8.

>> WELCOME TO THE BEAT.

I'M ARI MELBER.

THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES.

WE'RE WATCHING HISTORY UNFOLD AT

THE SUPREME COURT WHICH HEARD

ARGUMENTS ABOUT PUTTING A

PRESIDENT ON TRIAL.

HISTORIC, UNPRECEDENTED, ALL THE

WORDS ARE TRUE ABOUT THIS ONE.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS BEEN

INDICTED LIKE THIS.

TRUMP'S LAWYERS ARGUING HE

SHOULD BE IMMUNE, BASICALLY

TOTALLY IMMUNE BECAUSE HE WAS

PRESIDENT DURING THOSE EFFORTS.

THAT IS A NEW RELATIVELY MADE UP

CLAIM WHICH THEY LOST

UNANIMOUSLY BEFORE THE RESPECTED

D.C. COURT OF APPEALS.

KEEP THAT IN MIND.

THAT IS THE RECENT PRECEDENT AND

CONTEXT FOR TODAY, AND YOU MAY

REMEMBER THAT WAS THE NOW

INFAMOUS HEARING WHERE THE TRUMP

LAWYER OPENLY CLAIMED THAT AS

PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD HAVE A

LICENSE TO KILL AMERICAN

OPPONENTS

OPPONENTS.

THAT WAS THE KIND OF CHILLING

TALK THAT MANY, MANY PEOPLE

ACROSS THE SPECTRUM REBUKED

THEN.

THAT KIND OF TALK WAS BACK TODAY

WITH GRAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT

MURDER AND COUPS AND TRUMP'S

LAWYER SAYING IT'S OKAY OR IT

ALL DEPENDS.

>> LET'S SAY THIS PRESIDENT, WHO

ORDERED THE MILITARY TO STAGE A

COUP.

>> ORDERS THE MILITARY OR ORDERS

SOMEONE TO ASSASSINATE HIM, IS

THAT WITHIN HIS OFFICIAL ACTS.

>> I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON

THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE

HYPOTHETICAL.

>> IT RAISES QUESTIONS.

>> ONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT IT ISN'T

PLAUSIBLY LEGAL TO ORDER SEAL

TEAM SIX YET THE PRESIDENT USES

IT IN AN ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS

MANNER.

>> THE COURT HAS TO MAKE

DECISIONS NOT JUST APPLYING TO

PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT ALSO

DECISIONS THAT WILL APPLY TO

FUTURE PRESIDENTS.

>> A PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED FOR

TOTAL PERSONAL GAIN TO USE THE

TRAPPINGS OF HIS OFFICE WITHOUT

FACING CRIMINAL LIABILITY?

>> HIS NOVEL THEORY WOULD

IMMUNIZE FORMER PRESIDENTS FOR

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR BRIBERY,

TREASON, SEDITION, MURDER.

>> HERE'S WHAT THAT MEANS IN

PLAIN ENGLISH.

I, DONALD TRUMP, CAN DO ANYTHING

I WANT.

>> THERE'S NOTHING TO SUGGEST

THAT PRESIDENTS NEED IMMUNITY

BECAUSE THEY'VE MANAGED TO DO

JUST FINE FOR OVER 200 YEARS.

>> THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE

HIGH POINTS TODAY.

CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY

EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE IMMUNITY.

NEVER HAS.

BEFORE TRUMP NO ONE EVEN CLAIMED

THAT.

AFTER TRUMP THE COURTS NOW ARE

FULL OF PROSECUTIONS OF HIS

SUPPORTERS AND HIS AIDES.

MORE INDICTMENTS CAME JUST LAST

NIGHT.

AND THIS IS THE OBVIOUS FACT

HERE.

THE INSURRECTION WAS A PUBLIC

CRIME SPREE.

IT WAS TELEVISED.

IT WAS LIVE STREAMED BY SOME OF

ITS PARTICIPANTS AND NOW MANY OF

THEM ARE SITTING IN PRISON OR

WAITING IN TRIAL.

THE RELATED ELECTION PLOTS ARE

JUST THE SAME.

MANY JUSTICES SEEMED ALMOST

OBLIVIOUS TO THAT CURRENT

REALITY AND THREAT.

TODAY WAS A HISTORIC DAY FOR THE

SUPREME COURT IN THE SENSE THAT

WE WILL BE READING ABOUT THIS IN

HISTORY BOOKS.

OFF THE TOP TONIGHT I'M GOING TO

SHOW YOU WHY AND GIVE YOU THE

BREAKDOWN.

TODAY WAS ALSO A DEPRESSING DAY

AT THIS SUPREME COURT AS ITS

TRUMP APPOINTEES AND SOME OTHER

MEMBERS SEEMED OBLIVIOUS TO THIS

REALITY OF THIS INSURRECTION

ERA.

OBLIVIOUS TO THE DOJ'S

VICTORIOUS SEDITION CONVICTIONS

WHICH NOT EVERYONE MAY FOLLOW

BUT JUDGES AND SUPREME COURT

JUSTICES ARE SUPPOSED TO TRACK

THAT.

THOSE PEOPLE WHO STORMED THE

CAPITOL GOT THEIR DAY IN COURT

AND MANY OF THEM WERE CONVICTED

BY JURIES OF THEIR PEER.

OTHER JUSTICES DID SAY HOW SHALL

THEY SUPPOSED TO PUNISH A COUP.

>> LET'S SAY THIS PRESIDENT WHO

ORDERED THE MILITARY TO STAGE A

COUP.

HE'S NO LONGER PRESIDENT, HE

WASN'T IMPEACHED, HE COULDN'T BE

IMPEACHED, BUT HE ORDERED THE

MILITARY TO STAGE A COUP AND

YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S AN OFFICIAL

ACT.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD DEPEND --

>> THAT'S IMMUNE?

>> IT WOULD DEPEND.

>> OFFICIAL ACT IS A STAND IN

FOR THEM SAYING IT'S OKAY.

IT DEPENDS.

BRING DEFINITION IT'S NOT OKAY.

A MILITARY COUP WOULD BE AGAINST

THE OFFICIAL GOVERNANCE OF A

NATION.

IF YOU CAN DO COUP, CAN YOU DO

MURDER?

TODAY OBAMA APPOINTEE JUSTICE

SOTOMAYOR PUSHED ON THAT

VIOLENT, GRIM AUTHORITARIAN

LOGIC.

>> IF THE PRESIDENT DECIDES THAT

HIS RIVAL IS A CORRUPT PERSON

AND HE ORDERS THE MILITARY OR

ORDERS SOMEONE TO ASSASSINATE

HIM, IS THAT WITHIN HIS OFFICIAL

ACTS FOR WHICH HE CAN GET

IMMUNITY?

>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE

HYPOTHETICAL.

WE COULD WELL SEE THAT COULD BE

AN OFFICIAL --

>> THERE YOU HAVE IT OUT IN THE

OPEN.

THE CURRENT REPUBLICAN PARTY'S

NOMINEE LAWYER DEFENDS MURDER

AND THEY DEFEND IT WHEN THEY SAY

IT'S AN OFFICIAL ACT.

SAYS THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING

THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO.

LICENSE TO KILL.

TOTAL IMMUNITY.

SO HERE WE ARE.

DON'T SAY THEY DIDN'T WARN YOU.

WE ARE HEARING SOME OF THE MOST

EXTREME AUTHORITARIAN ARGUMENTS

EVER PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME

COURT IN THE MODERN ERA.

YOU COULD SCORE ONE FOR

TRANSPARENCY SAYING THEY'RE

BEING PRETTY CLEAR AND

TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE

DEFENDING IN THE PAST AND WHAT

THEY WOULD DO IN THE FUTURE.

INSIDE THE COURTROOM JACK SMITH

WATCHED A VETERAN LIT GATOR HE

PICKED AND SENT IN FOR THIS

PIVOTAL CASE, PROBABLY THE MOST

PIVOTAL CASE SINCE U.S./PHOENIX.

HE TOOK A 2X4 TO THIS TRUMP

DEFENSIVE' BEEN TELLING YOU

ABOUT SAYING THIS MADE UP

IMMUNITY IF YOU DID IT WOULD

PROTECT AND THEREFORE ENCOURAGE

MURDER, TREASON, SEDITION AND,

AGAIN, SEDITION IS, OF COURSE,

WHAT THOSE JAN 6 ATTACKERS WERE

CONVICTED OF.

>> HIS NOVEL THEORY WOULD

IMMUNIZE FORMER PRESIDENTS FOR

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR BRIBERY,

TREASON, SEDITION, MURDER AND

HERE, CONSPIRING TO USE FRAUD TO

OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF AN

ELECTION AND PERPETUATE HIMSELF

IN POWER.

SUCH PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY HAS

NO FOUNDATION IN THE

CONSTITUTION.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

THE JUSTICES KNOW IF THEY SAY

THERE'S AN IMMUNITY HERE IT WILL

BE A NEW THING.

NOT AN ORIGINALIST THING FROM

THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF

THE CONSTITUTION.

I MENTIONED THOSE CONSERVATIVE

VIEWS EXCEPT FOR APPARENTLY WHEN

THEY DON'T.

IT WAS NO IMMUNITY UNDER THE LAW

FOR NIXON.

HE TOOK A PARDON TO AVOID

INDICTMENT, A BASIC SORT OF HIGH

SCHOOL HISTORY CLASS POINT

AGAINST TRUMP THAT MANY PEOPLE

HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT.

JUSTICE JACKSON RAISED IT VERY

BLUNTLY AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO

LISTEN HERE WHILE OTHER JUSTICES

APPEARED TO ROOT FOR TRUMP AND

MUSED ABOUT THEIR OPINION THAT

PARDONING NIXON MAY HAVE TURNED

OUT TO BE A GOOD THING.

REMEMBER, YOUR PERSONAL OPINION

ABOUT A THING THAT A PRESIDENT

COULD DO, FORD CHOSE TO PARDON

NIXON, HE COULD HAVE NOT CHOSEN

TO PARDON NIXON, THAT OPINION IS

NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HOW THE COURT

RESOLVES THE NARROW LEGAL

QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DOJ PUTS

TRUMP ON LEGAL TRIAL OR NOT.

>> WHAT WAS UP WITH THE PARDON

FOR PRESIDENT NIXON?

>> I THINK IT --

>> IF EVERYBODY THOUGHT

PRESIDENTS COULDN'T BE

PROSECUTED, WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT?

>> GOSH, NIXON VERSUS

FITZGERALD, THAT'S SOMETHING

COURTS SHOULDN'T GET ENGAGED IN

BECAUSE PRESIDENTS HAVE ALL

MANNER OF MOTIVES.

>> PRESIDENT FORD'S PARDON VERY

CONTROVERSIAL IN THE MOMENT.

THE BETTER DECISIONS IN

PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY.

>> WON'T THE PREDICTABLE RESULT

BE THAT PRESIDENTS IN THE LAST

COUPLE OF DAYS OF OFFICE ARE

GOING TO PARDON THEMSELVES?

>> THE LAST QUESTION IS PRETTY

CYNICAL.

ALITO SAYING IF YOU ALLOWED

PRESIDENTS TO PARDON THEMSELVES,

WOULDN'T THEY DO IT?

PARDONS ARE FOR CRIMINALS.

NO PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO PARDON

HIMSELF SO IT IS ODD FOR A

SITTING JUSTICE TO ASK IF THAT

WOULD BE THE NORM.

ODD IS A DIPLOMATIC WORD.

IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE YOGA LEVEL

BACKBENDING TO FIND SOME WAY TO

GET TRUMP OFF THE HOOK AGAIN.

NOW, THE KOURTCOURT'S REPUBLICAN

MAJORITY WAS WARMER TO TRUMP'S

ARGUMENTS WHICH UNANIMOUSLY

REJECTED THEM.

CRITICS SAY THAT SHOWS THE

PARTISANSHIP IN THE MAGA COURT

OVERSEEN BY JUSTICE ROB WERTS

THAT IS UNABLE TO CURB THIS RED

PARTISANSHIP.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE NO

GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR THE LEGAL

CLAIM OF SOME KIND OF IMMUNITY,

LIMITED PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY,

AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, IT

WAS 2 1/2 HOURS, ONE OF THE

STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR THAT

SIDE CAME FROM A QUESTION ALSO

BY JUSTICE A LET TOEMPT HE ASKED

IF A PRESIDENT'S BAD IDEAS AND

ACTS CAN BE PROSECUTED, THAT'S

WHAT JACK SMITH IS SAYING, IT

SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE PART OF THE

CASE, THEN WHAT ABOUT WAR TIME

ACTS, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT

INTURNING JAPANESE.

THEY WERE FIGHTING THE NAZIS,

FIGHTING THE JAPANESE,

EVERYTHING WAS ON THE LINE BUT

LATER IT WAS FOUND TO BE

UNLAWFUL BY THE SUPREME COURT

ITSELF.

AS THE WAR TEMPERS COOLED IT'S

WIDELY VIEWED AS A RACIST AND

GRAVE INJUSTICE.

SO ALITO ASKS GIVEN THAT

HISTORY, WOULDN'T THE DOOR BE

OPEN TO PROSECUTING FDR OR

VIRTUALLY ANY PRESIDENT FOR SUCH

OFFICIAL ACTS?

>> PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOS

DEVELOPMENTS DECISION TO INTERN

JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING WORLD

WAR II?

COULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED

UNDER 18 USC 241 CONSPIRACY

AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS?

>> TODAY, YES.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT MADE THAT

DECISION WITH THE ADVICE OF HIS

ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT'S A

LAYER --

>> IS THAT REALLY TRUE?

I THOUGHT ATTORNEY GENERAL

BEDELL THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS

REALLY NO THREAT OF SABOTAGE AS

DID J. EDGAR HOOVER.

>> LAWYERS LOVE TO NERD OUT.

OF COURSE, THE POINT'S NOT WHAT

THE AG SAID AT THE TIME OR WHAT

HOOVER SAID, THE POINT IS NOT

WHETHER HE -- IT WAS SIGNED OFF

BUT WHETHER THERE IS SOME OUTER

LIMIT, HOWEVER FAR, ON

PROSECUTING A PRESIDENT FOR

THOSE OFFICIAL ACTS WHICH MIGHT

HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN WAR TIME GOOD

FAITH IN ONE MOMENT AND LATER

LOOK LIKE A WAR CRIME OR A CIVIL

RIGHTS VIOLATION.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

NOW THE JACK SMITH REBUTTAL IS

THIS AIN'T WORLD WAR II AND

DONALD TRUMP'S EFFORTS WERE NOT

ON BEHALF OF THE U.S., NOT EVEN

A GOOD FAITH BUT MISTAKEN EFFORT

AT NATIONAL SECURITY, THEY WERE

AGAINST THE U.S. AND ITS LAWFUL

ELECTION AND ITS PRESIDENT-ELECT

AND HIS INCOMING ADMINISTRATION

AT THE TIME.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

NOW ONE OF THE LOWEST MOMENTS

TODAY ALSO CAME FROM JUSTICE

ALITO WHO ASKED A QUESTION

SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE AMERICA

SHOULD JUST APPEASE COUP

LEADERS.

DON'T UPSET THEM BECAUSE IF YOU

DO OR THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT

BEING PROSECUTED FOR ACTUAL

CRIMES, THEY MIGHT TRY TO STAY

IN POWER, STAGE A COUP, END

DEMOCRACY.

BONKERS, BUT I'M GOING TO PLAY

FOR YOU THE EXTREME PREMISE OF

THIS QUESTION WHERE JUSTICE

ALITO ASKED IF A PRESIDENT

WORRIED ABOUT PROSECUTION MIGHT

BE MORE LIKELY TO CLING TO POWER

ILLEGALLY.

HE SAID A STABLE DEMOCRATIC

SOCIETY REQUIRES THAT A

CANDIDATE WHO LOSES AN ELECTION,

EVEN A CLOSE ONE, EVEN A HOTLY

CONTESTED ONE, LEAVE OFFICE

PEACEFULLY IF THAT CANDIDATE IS

THE INCUMBENT.

LET'S TAKE A LISTEN.

>> IF AN INCUMBENT WHO LOSES A

VERY CLOSE HOTLY CONTESTED

ELECTION, KNOWS THAT A REAL

POSSIBILITY AFTER LEAVING OFFICE

IS NOT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS

GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO OFF INTO

A PEACEFUL RETIREMENT, BUT THAT

THE PRESIDENT MAY BE CRIMINALLY

PROSECUTED BY A BITTER POLITICAL

OPPONENT, WILL THAT NOT LEAD US

INTO A CYCLE THAT DESTABILIZES

THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR COUNTRY

AS A DEMOCRACY?

>> NO, IT WILL NOT.

JUSTICE ALITO'S VERY INTELLIGENT

SO BASED ON MY OBSERVATION IT'S

MORE LIKELY THAT HE IS TRYING TO

FLOAT THIS WILD IDEA RATHER THAN

REALLY EMBRACING IT, BECAUSE TO

EMBRACE THE PREMISE OF THAT

QUESTION, THEY ASK ALL KINDS OF

QUESTIONS, BUT THE PREMISE OF

THAT QUESTION IS, GOSH, WE

BETTER BE REALLY AFRAID OF

PEOPLE WHO MIGHT CLING TO POWER

IF THEY DON'T LIKE BEING HELD

ACCOUNTABLE AFTER THEY LEAVE

OFFICE AFTER LOSING A LAWFUL

ELECTION SO LET'S NOT GO DOWN

THIS ROAD.

IT'S CALLED APPEASEMENT.

IT'S DANGEROUS WHEN YOU DO IT TO

ENEMIES FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

WHY JUSTICE ALITO IS USING HIS

PERCH ON THE SUPREME COURT TO

RAISE THAT TODAY ONLY HE CAN

ANSWER.

BUT IT IS LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE

OF THE OATH JUDGES TAKE TO TALK

LIKE THAT.

NOW WHERE IS THE COURT HEADED?

I JUST WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THE

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARGUMENT.

SUPREME COURT'S CONSERVATIVE

MAJORITY DOES SEEM POISED TO

NARROW THE SCOPE OF THE WHOLE

CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST TRUMP.

THAT'S HOW "THE NEW YORK TIMES"

VIEWED IT TODAY REPORTING ON

WHAT HAPPENED AND BASICALLY MAKE

IT HARD TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL

BEFORE THE '24 ELECTION.

THEY ALSO NOTED TRUMP'S LAWYER

PRESSED AN EXTREME VERSION OF

THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT

TO STAGE A COUP COULD WELL BE

IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION.

I QUOTE THAT JUST TO GIVE YOU A

SENSE OF HOW THIS IS PLAYING.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE IN AMERICA

RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE JUST ALMOST NORMALIZED OR

CASUALLY DISCUSSING THE TALK OF

MURDER AND COUPS.

THERE ARE MANY PLACES IN THE

WORLD, IN HISTORY AND RIGHT NOW,

IF YOU WERE IN RUSSIA WHERE

THAT'S JUST PART OF LIFE.

YOU GO ON, SOLDIER THROUGH LIFE

AND KNOW PUTIN DOES MURDER

RUSSIANS.

THAT'S WHAT HE DOES.

BUT IS THAT WHERE WE WANT TO BE

HERE?

DELAYS ALONE WILL GIVE TRUMP

MOST OF WHAT HE WANTED IN THIS

CASE BECAUSE HE CAN PUNT THIS

PAST THIS ELECTION YEAR AND

BASED ON WHAT THE COURT SAID ON

THE BENCH TODAY, LOOKS LIKE HE'S

GOING TO GET AT LEAST THAT,

BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID.

BUT BEFORE WE BRING IN OUR GUEST

TONIGHT, I'M GOING LONGER THAN

USUAL, I HOPE THAT'S OKAY WITH

YOU, I DO WANT TO PUT THIS IN

THE WIDER FRAMEWORK OF THE

PROBLEMS WE'RE FACING BECAUSE

TODAY IS LEGALLY A DARK DAY FOR

THIS SUPREME COURT IN WHAT THE

JUSTICES DIDN'T SAY AND DIDN'T

DEAL WITH AND DIDN'T FOCUS ON.

VERY LITTLE OF TODAY'S ARGUMENTS

DEALT DIRECTLY WITH THE HORRIFIC

INSURRECTION AT THE CENTER OF

THIS CASE, WHICH IS THE DOJ,

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH'S

CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT TRUMP,

WHICH RELATES TO A NOW CONVICTED

SEDITION.

SO THE LONGER YOU LISTEN TO

THESE ARGUMENTS TODAY THE MORE

YOU KIND OF GOT TURNED AROUND

FROM THIS CASE AND THIS REALITY.

FOR ALL THE HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT

THE FUTURE OR WHAT WOULD HAPPEN

WITH FUTURE PRESIDENTS, ALL THE

HISTORY ABOUT PRESIDENTS NOT

NAMED DEFENDANT TRUMP THE

JUSTICES DIDN'T FOCUS MUCH ON

THE KOREAN THERE IS A FIRST EVER

FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF A

PRESIDENT.

HE IS THE FIRST ONE TO TRY TO

STEAL AN ELECTION AND STOP THE

PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER.

YOU KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE DID IT

IN PUBLIC.

HE IS LEGALLY PRESUMED INNOCENT.

HE DESERVES A TRIAL.

HE MIGHT BEAT THE TRIAL.

THAT'S HOW WE DO IT HERE UNDER

THE RULE OF LAW, BUT THAT'S HOW

WE GOT HERE.

NOT ABOUT HYPOTHETICALS AND WAR

TIME OVERREACH DONE ON BEHALF OF

THE UNITED STATES HOWEVER

WRONGLY.

NOT A PRESIDENT IN THE MIDDLE OF

THEIR TERM TRYING TO GOVERN, BUT

A DEFEATED PRESIDENT AWAITING A

PRESIDENT-ELECT AND FOR THE

FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY, DON'T

FORGET IT, VIOLENTLY STOPPING A

PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER

WITH A SEDITION THAT'S NOW BEEN

CONVICTED.

THAT'S SOME FACTS THAT I'VE PUT

TOGETHER FOR YOU, BUT I'M ALSO

GOING TO QUOTE FROM A LONG-TIME

REPUBLICAN JUDGE LUTTIG.

HE TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS AND

HE FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION

WHEN HE WAS DEALING WITH

OUTGOING PRESIDENT PENCE.

HE OBSERVES HOW THE COURT

LARGELY AVOIDED THESE POINTS I'M

MENTIONING TODAY WITH ARGUMENTS

THAT DISCUSSED EVERYTHING BUT

THE SPECIFIC QUESTION PRESENTED.

IF A FORMER PRESIDENT MAY BE

PROSECUTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO

REMAIN IN POWER NOTWITHSTANDING

THE ELECTION OF HIS SUCCESSOR BY

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND, THUS,

DEPRIVING HIS LAWFULLY ELECTED

SUCCESSOR OF THE POWERS OF THE

PRESIDENCY AND PREVENTING THE

PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER FOR

THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN

HISTORY.

TRUE.

AND WHILE THE COURT SPENT HOURS,

I MEAN LITERALLY HOURS PONDERING

HOW A COUP MIGHT INVOLVE

OFFICIAL ACTS, LUTTIG NOTES

THAT -- HE KNOWS IT, TOO, I

SHOULD SAY, BUT HE NOTES, HE

WROTE THIS TODAY THAT ATTACKING

CONGRESS IS NOT PART OF THE

PRESIDENT'S JOB, TO WHICH WE

SAY, DUH.

AND ALSO, SAD THAT WE HAVE TO DO

THIS KIND OF CONSTITUTIONAL

MATH.

BUT HE WROTE, IT IS NOT A CORE

POWER OR FUNCTION OF THE

PRESIDENT TO ENSURE THE PROPER

CERTIFICATION OF THE NEXT

PRESIDENT, THE ONE IN THIS CASE

WHO BEAT HIM, PRESIDENT-ELECT

BIDEN, BY THE CONGRESS.

THAT CORE POINT IS NOT VERY

COMPLICATED.

LET ME SAY IT IN ENGLISH AS I

ROUND OUT MY REPORTING ON

TODAY'S CASE.

BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT

ENFORCING IT.

STEALING ELECTIONS IS NOT

PROTECTING THEM.

COMMITTING VOTER FRAUD AND

ELECTOR FRAUD IS NOT ELECTION

INTEGRITY.

DUH, AGAIN.

NOW SOME DAY THERE COULD BE A

TOUGH CASE WHERE THE COURT DOES

WEIGH POTENTIAL PROSECUTORIAL

OVERREACH AGAINST A PRESIDENT

WHO WAS JUST DOING THEIR JOB OR

PROSECUTING A DIFFICULT WAR WITH

SECOND GUESSING AFTERWARD, BUT

NO DISINTERESTED EXPERT

SERIOUSLY THINKS THAT'S THE CASE

HERE.

TODAY SOME CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES

CLAIM THEY HAVE TO STEP IN

THOUGH BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE

A RULE FOR THE FUTURE, NOT ABOUT

DEFENDANT TRUMP, THEY SAID, BUT

FOR THE FUTURE LATER

HYPOTHETICAL CASES.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE GOT TO DO.

WELL, AS A LONG-TIME COURT

WATCHER, I CALL BULL.

THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN

INSURRECTION LIKE THIS BEFORE.

THE LEGAL TASK AT HAND IS HOW TO

PROSECUTE IT, NOT TO ANXIOUSLY,

NEUROTICALLY COGUTATE HOW TO

PREVENT AN OVERREACH.

SOME DAY THERE MIGHT BE ONE.

WITHOUT DEALING WITH THIS

SEDITION, LET'S WORRY ABOUT THE

FUTURE OVERREACH.

THE PEOPLE WORRIED ABOUT IT ARE

THE PEOPLE WHO WERE APPOINTED BY

THE GUY WHO DID THIS.

THEY KEPT INSISTING THIS ISN'T

ABOUT HIM.

WHEN YOU SAY THIS ISN'T ABOUT

THE MONEY, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S

ABOUT THE MONEY.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE GUY WHO

APPOINTED ME AND OUR ALLIANCE

AND WE MIGHT HELP HIM GET OUT OF

HIS JAM AND HE MIGHT BECOME

PRESIDENT AGAIN SO HE CAN GET

MORE APPOINTEES ON THE COURT,

WELL, YOU SOUND PRETTY GUILTY IN

YOUR MIND.

NOW IF THERE IS A LATER CASE,

THIS IS THE KIND OF COURT THAT

WOULD PROBABLY TAKE THAT CASE

ANYWAY SO THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE

STUCK WITH SOME OLD RULE, LIKE

OKAY TO THE COUP PROSECUTION BUT

THE NEXT ONE IS OUT OF BOUNDS.

OH, BUT WE ALREADY MADE THIS

RULE.

DOES ANYONE THINK THEY'RE

SITTING OUT FUTURE BIG

PRESIDENTIAL CASES?

THEY'LL SAY WHAT THEY SAID IN