MUST-SEE: Jamie Raskin drops WORST NEWS on Trump

Class with Jamie Raskin
30 Apr 202441:59

Summary

TLDRIn this episode of 'Class with Jamie Rasin,' Congressman Jamie Rasin and co-host Brian Teller Cohen delve into the constitutional debate surrounding presidential immunity, particularly in the case of Donald Trump. They refute the claim that a president, as commander-in-chief, has absolute immunity and the power to act without legal consequences. Rasin emphasizes the importance of the Constitution's structure, where Congress holds the primary law-making power, and the president's duty is to ensure laws are faithfully executed. The discussion highlights the Supreme Court's role in reviewing presidential actions for constitutionality and the potential dangers of exempting a president from criminal prosecution. Rasin also touches on the historical precedent that former presidents can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office. The conversation is part of Democracy Summer, an initiative to educate and engage young people in democratic processes and campaigns.

Takeaways

  • 📜 The Supreme Court is currently considering the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump, which is a case of first impression due to the unprecedented nature of his actions.
  • 🛡️ The Constitution does not grant the president absolute immunity or the power to do whatever they want, contrary to the claims made by some right-wing factions.
  • 🎓 The president's title as 'commander-in-chief' is often misinterpreted; it refers to the president's role over the Army and Navy during times of conflict, not an all-encompassing authority.
  • ⚖️ The structure of the U.S. Constitution is designed to prevent monarchical power, with Congress holding significant law-making authority, and the president's role is to ensure laws are faithfully executed.
  • 🚫 The idea that a president could violate laws and then be exempt from federal criminal laws is a paradox and goes against the principles of the Constitution.
  • 🚨 Donald Trump's actions, particularly around January 6th, were an assault on the constitutional provisions governing succession in office, aiming to undermine the electoral process.
  • 🤔 The claim that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts is a novel argument that has no precedent in U.S. history and is considered dangerous by legal scholars.
  • 👮‍♂️ The rule of law is fundamental to a democratic society, and it applies to everyone, including the president, who is not above the law and can be subject to impeachment, conviction, and prosecution.
  • 🏛️ The Supreme Court's decision to review Trump's claim of immunity and the subsequent delay could potentially have significant implications for the rule of law and the timing of Trump's trial.
  • 🤝 Democracy Summer is an initiative to educate and engage young people in democratic politics, involving seminars and practical campaign work to foster the next generation of political leaders.
  • 🚀 The upcoming episode of 'Class with Jamie Raskin' will discuss the Emoluments Clause, addressing claims that presidents can accept payments from foreign governments without consequence.

Q & A

  • What is the main topic of discussion in the provided transcript?

    -The main topic of discussion is the constitutionality and implications of presidential immunity, particularly in the context of Donald Trump's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

  • What is the fallacy that Congressman Jamie Rasin aims to debunk in the episode?

    -Congressman Jamie Rasin aims to debunk the fallacy that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the power to do whatever he wants and is absolutely immune from any legal consequences for criminal actions.

  • What is the significance of the Supreme Court considering the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump?

    -The significance is that it presents a case of first impression, meaning no other president has acted in such a manner to necessitate a legal precedent. The outcome could set a precedent for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, and the potential for a president to be above the law.

  • What is the correct interpretation of the president's title as 'commander-in-chief' according to the Constitution?

    -The president is not the commander-in-chief of the nation as a whole. Rather, the title refers to the president being the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy during times of actual conflict and of the militias when they are called into actual service, as stated in Article Two of the Constitution.

  • What is the role of the president under Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution?

    -The president's role under Article 2, Section 3 is to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' which means implementing the laws of Congress, not violating or departing from them.

  • What is the argument made by Trump's lawyers regarding the president's immunity from criminal prosecution?

    -Trump's lawyers argue that the president is categorically immune from any criminal prosecution, asserting that official acts undertaken by the president while in office cannot be subject to criminal prosecution, even after leaving office.

  • What is the historical precedent regarding the prosecution of former U.S. presidents?

    -Historically, it has been assumed that former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for offenses committed while in office. Examples include Richard Nixon, who was pardoned before prosecution could occur, and Bill Clinton, who entered into a plea bargain to avoid criminal prosecution.

  • What is the potential danger if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump's claim to absolute immunity?

    -If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of absolute immunity, it could set a dangerous precedent where a president could potentially commit crimes without fear of legal repercussions, undermining the rule of law and the balance of powers within the U.S. government.

  • What is the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing presidential actions for their constitutionality?

    -The Supreme Court has the power and duty to declare what the law is, as established in Marbury v. Madison. This includes reviewing presidential actions to ensure they are in accordance with the Constitution, and can declare actions unconstitutional if they violate the law.

  • What is the 'Democracy Summer' initiative mentioned by Congressman Jamie Rasin?

    -Democracy Summer is an initiative that gathers high school and college students to participate in democratic politics through seminars and practical work with democratic campaigns. It aims to educate young people about the Constitution, the political system, and current issues, and to build the future of the Democratic Party.

  • What is the argument made by Trump regarding the acceptance of money from foreign governments and the emoluments clause?

    -Trump has claimed that he can accept money from foreign governments and kings, and that waving his federal salary or returning the profits of such payments to the U.S. government is sufficient to comply with the emoluments clause, which is a topic for the next episode of the series.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Debunking Presidential Immunity Claims

The video discusses the misconception that the President of the United States, as commander-in-chief, has the power to act without legal consequences. Congressman Jamie Rasin addresses the Supreme Court's consideration of presidential immunity for Donald Trump and counters the right-wing fallacy that the president is above the law. Rasin emphasizes the importance of the Constitution and the system of checks and balances, highlighting that the president's primary duty is to ensure laws are faithfully executed, not violated.

05:01

🏛️ The Structure of the U.S. Constitution

This paragraph delves into the structure and intent of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the distribution of powers among the branches of government. It underscores the principle that Congress, as outlined in Article One, holds significant law-making authority. The president's role, as stipulated in Article Two, is to execute the laws, not to act with absolute power. The paragraph also discusses the impeachment process and the potential consequences for a president who violates the law, including criminal prosecution.

10:02

🚫 No Immunity for Criminal Acts

The speaker refutes the idea that a U.S. president, even a former one, has immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed during their term. It contrasts the U.S. Constitution with those of other countries that may provide such immunity. The paragraph also references the case of Donald Trump, where his claim to immunity is being challenged legally. The discussion includes the importance of judicial review and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the law.

15:02

📜 The Constitution Binds All

The video emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution is designed to hold those in power accountable, including the president. It discusses the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law. The paragraph highlights a Supreme Court decision that reinforces this principle and the potential dangers of granting criminal immunity to a president. It also touches on historical precedents, such as the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, where the assumption was that a former president could face criminal prosecution.

20:03

🚨 The Dangers of Unchecked Presidential Power

This section of the script highlights the potential risks of a president acting without the check of criminal prosecution. It presents hypothetical scenarios where a president could abuse power, such as ordering the assassination of political rivals with impunity. The paragraph argues against the notion that presidential immunity would prevent such abuses of power and stresses the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society.

25:05

🗳️ Democracy Summer and Political Engagement

Congressman Jamie Rasin discusses Democracy Summer, an initiative aimed at educating and engaging young people in democratic politics. The program involves seminars with experts and practical work with Democratic campaigns. The goal is to educate participants about the Constitution, the political system, and to prepare them for active involvement in politics, including efforts to restore abortion rights through federal law.

30:07

⚖️ The Supreme Court's Role in Presidential Accountability

The video addresses concerns about the Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's claim of immunity and the potential implications of such a ruling. It discusses the potential for the Court to delay proceedings, which could affect the timing of Trump's trial. The speaker criticizes the Court for considering what they view as an obvious question and for the potential impact on the integrity of the U.S. legal system.

35:07

💵 The Emoluments Clause and Presidential Conduct

The final paragraph outlines plans for the next episode, which will focus on the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. It will explore claims that foreign governments and individuals can provide financial benefits to the president without consequence, provided the president waives their federal salary or returns such profits to the U.S. government. The episode will delve into the history and purpose of the Emoluments Clause and its significance for presidential conduct.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Commander-in-Chief

The term 'Commander-in-Chief' refers to the person who holds the highest military authority in a country. In the context of the video, it is discussed that the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy during times of actual conflict, not a dictator with unlimited power. The video emphasizes that any claim of the president having the power to do whatever he wants is a fallacy.

💡Constitutional Fallacies

This phrase describes misconceptions or false claims about the U.S. Constitution. The video aims to debunk such fallacies, particularly those related to presidential powers and immunity. The discussion focuses on the erroneous belief that the president, as Commander-in-Chief, is above the law.

💡Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity refers to the legal protection a sitting president might have from certain legal proceedings. The video discusses the Supreme Court's consideration of whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution. It is a central issue because it questions the balance of power and the rule of law.

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and has the final say on matters of national law. In the video, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court is considering the question of presidential immunity, which is a significant moment for the rule of law and the Constitution.

💡Rule of Law

The rule of law is the principle that every individual is subject to the law, including those who govern. The video emphasizes that no one, not even the president, is above the law. It is a foundational aspect of democratic societies and is central to the discussion about presidential powers and accountability.

💡Impeachment

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body brings charges against a high official of government. The video discusses the constitutional provision for impeaching and convicting the president for 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,' which contradicts the claim of absolute immunity.

💡Conspiracy

In the legal context, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act. The video mentions conspiracy charges against Donald Trump related to his actions to overturn the election results, which are argued to be unrelated to any official acts of the president.

💡Separation of Powers

The separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state, wherein the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The video argues that the claim of presidential immunity undermines this principle by suggesting the president is not bound by the laws made by Congress or accountable through the judiciary.

💡Electoral College

The Electoral College is the process by which the president and vice president of the United States are elected. The video discusses fraudulent claims related to the Electoral College slates and the president's alleged attempts to interfere with the legitimate process, which are central to the criminal charges against him.

💡Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of a court to review and strike down laws or executive actions which violate the provisions of a constitution. The video references Marbury v. Madison to illustrate that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the constitutionality of presidential actions, including claims of immunity.

💡Democracy Summer

Democracy Summer is an initiative aimed at engaging young people in democratic politics through education and involvement in campaigns. The video mentions this program as a way to build the future of the Democratic Party and educate participants about the Constitution and political processes.

Highlights

The Supreme Court is currently considering the question of presidential immunity for Donald Trump.

Jamie Rasin, a congressman, refutes the right-wing fallacy that a president has absolute immunity and can do whatever he wants.

The claim of presidential immunity is a 'case of first impression', with no direct precedents from previous presidents' behavior.

The Constitution grants the president the title of 'commander-in-chief' of the Army and Navy, not of the nation.

The president's duty is to ensure laws are faithfully executed, not to violate them.

The impeachment power and the ability to prosecute a president are constitutional checks on the executive branch.

Judges in the DC Circuit unanimously rejected Trump's claim to immunity, emphasizing the rule of law.

The structure of the U.S. Constitution prioritizes Congress and the people over the presidency.

Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6th, 2021, were an assault on the constitutional provisions governing succession in office.

The Supreme Court decision in U.S. versus Lee establishes that no one is above the law, including the president.

Trump's lawyers argue a tortured interpretation of the impeachment clause to suggest he has immunity from prosecution.

Historically, it has been assumed that former presidents can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while in office.

The DC Circuit questioned the dangerous implications of Trump's immunity argument, including the potential for political assassinations.

Granting immunity to a president undermines the separation of powers and the ability of Congress to legislate and the executive to prosecute.

The concept of Democracy Summer involves educating young people about the Constitution, political systems, and issues, then engaging them in Democratic campaigns.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump's immunity, it could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

Trump's claim that a president needs immunity to get things done contradicts historical precedent and the foundational principles of the U.S. government.

The difference between civil immunity for official acts and criminal immunity is significant, with the latter not protecting a president from prosecution for criminal behavior.

Transcripts

00:00

we've got a hugely topical episode today

00:02

I have the incredible honor as always of

00:04

being joined by my co-host for our

00:05

series class with Jamie Rasin where the

00:08

congressman debunks right-wing

00:09

constitutional fallacies and fever

00:11

dreams today's episode could not come at

00:13

a more opportune moment as the Supreme

00:15

Court now considers the question of

00:17

presidential immunity for Donald Trump

00:19

and while there's a lot of spin out

00:20

there no one to better counter that

00:22

disinformation than Jamie Rasin so I'll

00:24

hand it over to the congressman who will

00:26

take on the right-wing fallacy that as

00:28

commander-in-chief the president has

00:30

both the power to do whatever he wants

00:32

and absolute immunity from any legal

00:34

consequences for criminal actions Brian

00:36

thank you so much I'm delighted to be

00:38

with everybody uh today we're taking on

00:40

a fallacy that's so obvious so glaring

00:43

and so striking but what's interesting

00:45

is um that sometimes it's the most

00:48

obvious fallacies that are the trickiest

00:51

ones to debunk and refute I remember uh

00:54

Sherlock Holmes once saying that there's

00:57

nothing more deceptive than an obvious

01:00

is fact and that's definitely true in

01:02

the age of Donald Trump because um this

01:04

is a case of first impression like so

01:07

many of the other issues that are raised

01:09

by Donald Trump because no other

01:11

president has acted in such extreme and

01:14

explosive and incendiary ways so it's

01:17

not like there's a bunch of precedents

01:19

that map out how to respond to it and so

01:21

we have to uh search through the

01:24

Constitution to explain why his actions

01:26

are completely in derogation of the

01:30

Constitutional fabric itself the case

01:32

that is being considered by the Supreme

01:34

Court Donald Trump's claim that he's

01:36

absolutely immune is indeed a case of

01:39

first impression um just like many of

01:41

the other uh fallacies that he has

01:44

floated during this period but what

01:45

we're going to look at is this one as

01:47

commanderin-chief of the nation the

01:49

president has both the power to do

01:51

whatever he wants and absolute immunity

01:54

from any legal consequences for his

01:56

criminal actions now there are actually

01:59

multiple fallacies tucked in here I've

02:01

snuck in like a a law professor on a

02:05

final exam the first is as

02:06

commander-in-chief of the nation which

02:08

the president is not that is not his

02:10

title he's commander-in-chief of the

02:13

Army and Navy during times of actual

02:16

conflict from article two of the

02:18

Constitution and uh of the militias when

02:21

they're called up into actual service so

02:24

any president who walks around saying

02:25

I'm the commanderin-chief like he's the

02:27

dictator of the country is just

02:30

absolutely wrong um but the central

02:32

fallacies here are that the president

02:34

can do whatever he wants something that

02:35

we heard repeatedly from Donald Trump

02:38

when he was in president he says and

02:39

then there's the article two which

02:41

allows me to do whatever I want of

02:43

course the central job of the president

02:45

under Article 2 is to take care that the

02:48

laws are Faithfully executed not that

02:51

the laws are violated or the laws are

02:53

departed from but the laws are

02:55

Faithfully executed and if the president

02:57

could do whatever he wants then why do

02:59

we have have the power to impeach and

03:02

convict the president for treason

03:04

bribery and other high crimes and

03:07

misdemeanors um and then why do we have

03:09

the power to prosecute him or do we

03:12

because that's what this case is really

03:14

about that has gone up to the Supreme

03:16

Court United States versus Trump that

03:18

was found against the president um in

03:22

District Court by judge chuckin against

03:24

the president by the DC circuit panel an

03:27

excellent panel made up of judges pan

03:31

Henderson and Childs two Democratic uh

03:34

nominees to the bench one Republican

03:36

nominee to the bench but all unanimously

03:38

rejecting Trump's claim what does he say

03:41

he says a former president cannot be

03:43

prosecuted criminally for anything that

03:46

he did while he was in office pursuant

03:50

to his office and again no president has

03:52

ever alleged that before which is why

03:54

it's so foreign and so strange to our

03:57

experience um the judges in the DC

04:00

circuit do a great job of leading us

04:02

through this and I'll kind of follow

04:04

their lead and embellish a little bit on

04:07

um several different points but the the

04:10

first point I want to make is generally

04:12

about the structure of the Constitution

04:15

um article one puts Congress in the

04:20

first article for a reason which is that

04:23

we overthrew a king we wanted to get

04:25

away from monarchical government and we

04:27

wanted to vest power not not in a

04:31

monarch a lord in a zar or an emperor

04:35

but in we the people and the House of

04:38

Representatives and the Senators and the

04:41

Senate are the representatives of the

04:43

people and we are the law making branch

04:46

and if you look at the Constitution as I

04:48

hope you will you will see that article

04:50

one goes on for a long time setting

04:53

forth all of the powers that Congress

04:56

has to regulate commerce among the

04:58

states to regulate commerce between

05:00

America and other nations to uh coin

05:06

money to govern naturalization to govern

05:09

the district that's to become the seat

05:12

of government um and on and on and then

05:16

in article one section 8 Clause 18 and

05:20

all other powers that are necessary and

05:23

proper to the execution of the foregoing

05:26

power so it's very expansive then you

05:28

get to article two section three and

05:31

look at that last phrase there this is

05:33

really the core of it you know it's

05:34

about naming ambassadors and so on

05:37

giving a State of the Union Address he

05:39

shall take care that the laws be

05:41

Faithfully executed um and shall

05:43

commission all the officers of the

05:45

United States that's it and then you get

05:48

right into section four after stating

05:50

that the president shall Faithfully

05:53

execute the laws um setting forth how

05:56

the president can be impeached the

05:58

president VP and all civil officers

06:00

shall be removed from office on

06:01

impeachment for and conviction of

06:04

treason bribery or other high crimes um

06:07

and misdemeanors but I just want you to

06:09

keep that design structurally generally

06:12

in mind as we get into this issue

06:14

because Congress has put first and the

06:17

president's job under section two is to

06:19

take care that the laws are Faithfully

06:21

executed to implement the laws of the

06:24

Congress all right now um Trump uh

06:29

attempted to bypass and

06:33

overthrow the Constitution of the United

06:35

States when he tried to stay in office

06:37

in the weeks leading up to January 6th

06:39

and then on January 6th itself uh that's

06:42

what this case is about uh this case

06:45

comes from the criminal trial of Donald

06:48

Trump on four charges that have been

06:51

brought by special counsel Jack Smith

06:54

the first is a conspiracy to defraud the

06:56

United States of America by collecting

06:59

all of these fraudulent Electoral

07:01

College slates from different states and

07:04

then asserting that these are the

07:06

Bonafide honest electors determined by

07:11

the states in their presidential

07:12

election which they most assuredly were

07:15

not the second is the conspiracy to

07:18

obstruct a federal proceeding here the

07:21

joint session of Congress called under

07:24

the 12th Amendment to receive the

07:26

Electoral College votes sent in by the

07:29

governor ERS through their certificates

07:31

of ascertainment sent to uh the house

07:34

and the Senate and to the archist of the

07:37

United States um third is actual

07:41

interference with the federal proceeding

07:44

um and then the fourth is violation of

07:47

the voting rights of the people a

07:50

conspiracy to deprive uh persons of the

07:53

United States of their right to vote

07:56

okay so those are the four criminal

07:58

charges Donald Trump asserts against all

08:01

of them that he's absolutely immune uh

08:05

from Criminal prosecution for official

08:08

acts he undertook as president now one

08:11

of the amusing things about that is

08:13

asserting that the attempt to overthrow

08:16

the presidential election was an

08:17

official Act of course His official

08:20

responsibility there was to leave office

08:24

after four years um and to take care

08:27

that the laws were F Faithfully exec

08:29

uted including all of the laws passed

08:32

under the Electoral College Provisions

08:35

in the Constitution that's what he was

08:36

supposed to do but he's saying no he

08:38

undertook these official acts to try to

08:41

get the state legislator to set aside

08:43

the Electoral College votes uh by trying

08:45

to get state election officials like

08:47

Secretary of State Brad raffensberger in

08:49

Georgia just to find him

08:52

11,780 votes um and then by trying to

08:55

get the Department of Justice to falsely

08:58

declare it a corrupt and fraudulent

09:00

election and then finally by trying to

09:03

get vice president Pence to step outside

09:06

of His official constitutional role um

09:10

administering the uh counting of the

09:12

Electoral College votes the idea was to

09:14

try to get Pence to force it into a

09:18

contingent election or just to go ahead

09:20

and announce that Trump was president

09:21

and then Trump was prepared to ride over

09:24

on the shoulders of the mob um like

09:27

musolini and come in and simp

09:29

declare himself uh uh Emperor excuse me

09:33

president uh again and then um invoke

09:36

the Insurrection act and call in the

09:38

National Guard to come and put down the

09:40

insurrectionary chaos that he had

09:42

Unleashed against us all right that was

09:45

basically um the plan well um he says uh

09:52

you can't charge me for any of these

09:54

things I'm absolutely immune from

09:57

Criminal prosecution as a former

09:58

president now now um on behalf of uh

10:01

Trump's argument let's say uh let's

10:04

stipulate this there are some

10:07

constitutions in other countries which

10:09

make former presidents immune from

10:13

Criminal prosecution uh for things like

10:16

coups and insurrections uh one of them

10:19

for a while anyway was Chile which said

10:22

that

10:23

Pino um could not be prosecuted and this

10:26

was part of an arrangement they made

10:28

with the new con stion he would have

10:30

immunity from Criminal prosecution very

10:32

explicitly set forth in that

10:35

Constitution there's a couple other

10:36

examples there's nothing like that in

10:39

the US Constitution and of course as

10:41

we'll come to see it cuts against

10:43

everything we believe about our

10:45

Constitution and its entire uh

10:47

constitutional design so um and in fact

10:52

that Common Sense uh intuition was

10:54

articulated by the Republican judge in

10:56

the DC Circuit Judge uh Henderson

10:59

um who said that it would be a striking

11:02

Paradox if the one person in the country

11:05

charged with taking care that the laws

11:07

be Faithfully executed could defy and

11:10

violate the laws and then be exempt for

11:14

his violation of federal criminal laws

11:16

um in the process all right so how do we

11:19

go about looking at this claim well um

11:22

Trump says first of all the he's so

11:25

immune from prosecution it's not even up

11:27

to the courts to determine whether he's

11:30

uh immune from prosecution or not uh

11:32

that of course is ridiculous under

11:34

Marbury versus Madison the uh famous

11:37

Supreme Court decision rendered by Chief

11:39

Justice John Marshall proclaiming the

11:42

doctrine of judicial review that the

11:43

Supreme Court um uh has the right the

11:46

power and the duty to declare what the

11:48

law is it's emphatically the provin and

11:50

duty of the court to say what the law is

11:54

and to sort out you know precisely these

11:56

kinds of uh these kinds of conf

11:59

conflicts we've got Supreme Court

12:02

decisions um that stand for the

12:05

proposition in fact that the Supreme

12:08

Court can review presidential actions

12:11

for their constitutionality and here's a

12:14

great one everybody can remember it's

12:15

called the steel seizure case in this

12:18

case um President Truman faced a series

12:23

of strikes around the country and was

12:26

nervous along with Congress that the

12:29

shutdown of the steel industry would

12:30

interfere with necessary production of

12:33

Weaponry during the Korean War and

12:38

Congress attempted to give uh President

12:41

Truman the power to intervene to reopen

12:47

the steel plants by seizing the steel

12:49

plants taking government possession of

12:51

them and then um commanding uh

12:55

production of Steel that failed in

12:57

Congress Congress rejected that effort

13:00

but then the president uh Truman just

13:03

went ahead and did that anyway and he

13:05

said we're going to take possession of

13:06

the steel plants in order to keep the

13:09

war effort going and I'm going to invoke

13:11

my War Powers my Powers as

13:14

commanderin-chief during a a time of

13:16

actual conflict in order to do this and

13:19

the Supreme Court said well wait a

13:20

second here um the president of the

13:23

United stat has the job of enforcing the

13:25

laws and Justice Jackson set it out

13:29

nicely in his concurring opinion where

13:32

he said think of it kind of like a stop

13:34

light um either you've got a green light

13:37

where the Constitution specifically

13:39

gives the president the power to do

13:41

something like to appoint the officers

13:44

in the in the uh cabinet subject um to

13:48

the advice and consent of the senate or

13:50

to name ambassadors subject to advice

13:54

and consent those are clear uh

13:57

delegations to the president to be able

13:58

to do something there you got a green

14:00

light and nobody can say oh no the

14:03

president you nominated the wrong person

14:05

that's not the best qualified person

14:06

that is totally within Presidential

14:09

Power to decide that okay um a red light

14:14

would be something where a power is

14:17

vested by the Constitution in another

14:20

branch of the government take for

14:22

example the power to declare war that

14:26

power is given to Congress but let's say

14:28

the President says this is such an

14:31

important matter such an important

14:33

foreign policy conflict I'm going to

14:35

take away from Congress the power to

14:37

declare war and I am going to declare

14:39

war right now for the country that's a

14:42

red light that would clearly be um

14:46

unconstitutional and uh under Marbury

14:48

versus Madison the Supreme Court would

14:50

have the power to revoke that but then

14:52

there's the yellow light situation and

14:54

this is where um a particular power is

14:57

not specifically

14:59

enumerated either under article two for

15:02

the executive branch or under article

15:04

one for the legislative branch and

15:06

Congress has not said anything about it

15:09

it's neither delegated that power

15:11

explicitly to the president nor has it

15:13

attempted to delegate that power to the

15:16

president but been thwarted in the

15:18

effort to do so um and there's a yellow

15:20

light situation and that's where the

15:22

court says it's very fact-based

15:25

intensive analysis but the court said in

15:27

the steel seizure case this is an easy

15:30

one because there's nothing in the uh

15:35

the power of Commander in Chief that

15:38

explicitly sets forth the power to seize

15:42

steel mills or seize any uh instrument

15:46

of the economy or Commerce to keep

15:48

things going um and Congress might have

15:52

been able to delegate this to the

15:54

president to give him this power but it

15:57

did not do so there was a bill put in to

16:00

try to say the president has the power

16:02

over steel mills and can open them up

16:04

but it chose not to do that that becomes

16:06

a red light at that point um he

16:10

essentially has been specifically

16:12

foreclosed to undertake that action all

16:15

right all of which is to say um the DC

16:19

Circuit Court was very clear that this

16:23

matter is indeed going to be up to uh

16:27

the Judiciary to decide and in the

16:30

course of finding that the court cited

16:34

this uh significant passage that has

16:36

been uh absorbed into the bloodstream of

16:39

America over the decades it comes from a

16:41

Supreme Court decision called us versus

16:43

Lee in which the court wrote no man in

16:46

this country is so high that he is above

16:48

the law no officer of the law May set

16:51

that law at Defiance with impunity all

16:54

the officers of the government from the

16:55

highest to the lowest are creatures of

16:58

the law and are bound to obey it it is

17:00

the only supreme power in our system of

17:02

government and every man who by

17:04

accepting office participates in its

17:06

functions is only the more strongly

17:08

bound to submit to that Supremacy and to

17:11

observe the limitations which it imposes

17:13

upon the exercise of the authority which

17:15

it gives in other words in this passage

17:18

which has been you know recycled over

17:20

the centuries the Supreme Court is

17:23

saying not only is it wrong that you as

17:26

president somehow are not bound by the

17:29

law if anything you are more Bound by

17:31

the law than everybody else I like to

17:34

say that those of us who Aspire and

17:38

attain to public office are nothing but

17:40

the Servants of the people in the moment

17:42

that we think we're somehow above the

17:44

people and acting as kings and queens

17:46

and Lords and Zars and Emperors that is

17:49

um the moment certainly to evict and

17:52

eject and reject and impeach and convict

17:54

and get rid of that person um and the

17:56

Constitution gives us a lot of

17:58

mechanisms to to do so all right so now

18:02

we're looking at the question we know

18:03

that the court is in the right place to

18:05

be checking this out um now we get into

18:09

um the really the heart of Donald

18:13

Trump's claim where he says all right

18:16

you can hear my case you're going to

18:18

look at it um but I am categorically

18:23

immune from any criminal prosecution why

18:27

and here's the argument if you go to

18:29

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 okay and uh

18:34

bear with me because it is an extremely

18:36

tortured pinched and really comical

18:38

reading of uh this um Judgment of

18:42

impeachment Clause but what it says is

18:45

this judgment in cases of impeachment

18:48

shall not extend further than to removal

18:51

from office and disqualification to hold

18:55

and enjoy any office of Honor trust or

18:58

profit under the United States but the

19:01

party convicted shall

19:03

nevertheless key word here shall

19:05

nevertheless be liable and subject to

19:08

indictment trial judgment and Punishment

19:11

according to law now if you read that

19:15

whole thing in context and give it a

19:18

common sense read it is certain to lead

19:21

you to the conclusion that any president

19:25

or former president can be subject to

19:28

indict statement trial judgment and

19:31

Punishment now if the president is also

19:35

impeached first and removed from office

19:38

by the Senate and if the Senate decides

19:40

to disqualify that person from holding

19:42

an office

19:43

again still that convicted president can

19:48

nevertheless be liable and subject to

19:50

indictment and trial and judgment and

19:53

Punishment and you could add in

19:55

parenthesis because this is what the

19:57

Constitution is really saying just like

19:59

all the other presidents even though

20:01

they haven't been impeached or convicted

20:03

but if they committed a crime they can

20:05

but now Trump's

20:07

lawyers um somewhat cleverly I must

20:10

concede flip the entire thing upside

20:12

down and what they read it to mean is

20:15

that only presidents who have been

20:19

impeached and

20:20

convicted can be subject to indictment

20:23

trial judgment and

20:24

Punishment now look at that for a second

20:27

they read it to

20:29

say um that

20:32

basically um you know the only thing

20:34

that can happen to you if you're

20:35

impeached and convicted is removal from

20:37

office in

20:39

disqualification but you also could be

20:41

subject to indictment trial judgment and

20:43

punishment but no other president could

20:45

well that's of course not what it says

20:48

it violates any Common Sense grammatical

20:51

construction um of the terms of it um

20:55

and it is completely at odds with all

20:58

other kinds of text within the

21:00

Constitution the structure of the

21:02

Constitution and the history of it so

21:04

let's start with this it is always been

21:06

assumed in our history that a former

21:08

president could be criminally prosecuted

21:12

for offenses undertaken an office that

21:14

come to light later take the case of uh

21:18

Richard Nixon who we'll never know

21:20

because he was pardon but who at least

21:22

allegedly um ordered a number of

21:24

criminal Acts including the Breakin at

21:27

the Watergate other kinds of uh criminal

21:31

uh Espionage The Taking of bribes um

21:36

hush money all kinds of stuff um and

21:40

when he resigned from Office rather than

21:42

face um what would have been an almost

21:46

certain um impeachment and conviction

21:47

when he resigned his Vice President

21:50

Gerald Ford became president and the new

21:52

president Ford pardoned him gave him a

21:55

pardon because he did not want to see

21:57

Richard Nixon being criminally

21:59

prosecuted and having the country

22:01

dragged through that he said but

22:03

everybody assumed from Gerald Ford to

22:05

Richard Nixon to Congress to the country

22:08

that he could be prosecuted the same

22:10

thing happened with Bill Clinton who

22:13

actually entered into a uh plea bargain

22:17

with the uh independent counsil in his

22:20

case Robert Ray was his name um who

22:24

agreed not to bring charges against

22:26

Clinton if Clinton would resign resign

22:29

voluntarily resigned from the bar for a

22:31

5-year period and in order to avoid

22:34

criminal prosecution um The Bill Clinton

22:37

entered into that uh that agreement okay

22:42

so it's always been assumed that the

22:45

presid that a former president could be

22:47

criminally prosecuted um the DC circuit

22:51

says uh that it would create an

22:53

extremely dangerous precedent to say

22:56

that a former president cannot be Pro

22:58

uted for crimes undertaken while in

23:00

office because that would be an

23:02

invitation to do things like this and

23:04

this was asked uh aggressively of

23:07

Trump's lawyers in the oral argument in

23:09

DC circuit could the president order

23:12

assassination of his political Rivals

23:15

and opponents um pursuant to his power

23:20

as commanderin-chief

23:22

um or some other power that he invokes

23:26

and the answer was yes

23:29

that the president could order a

23:31

political assassination but there was

23:32

this check he could be impeached and

23:34

convicted but if he were not impeached

23:36

and

23:37

convicted uh Trump's lawyer said then he

23:40

could not be prosecuted now think about

23:42

the implications of that for a second it

23:44

means the president could order his uh

23:48

political party Rival assassinated and

23:51

the vice president for the Rival party

23:54

assassinated and their friends um and

23:57

then if he's about to face impeachment

24:00

he could just go ahead and order the

24:01

assassination

24:03

of enough members of the opposite party

24:06

for example um to prevent him from being

24:09

impeached or to prevent him from being

24:11

convicted in the Senate so as long as he

24:13

can defeat impeachment and trial then he

24:16

can get away with assassination I mean

24:17

come on I mean we are uh in la la land

24:20

at this point and I think that's when

24:23

Trump's lawyers lost uh even the

24:25

Republican judge on the DC circuit and

24:26

really lost um the interest of the

24:29

country in this argument so everybody

24:32

can see what a dangerous proposition

24:36

this is It's especially dangerous in a

24:39

case exactly like this because Donald

24:43

Trump's crimes were all directed at

24:46

destroying the Constitutional Provisions

24:49

governing succession in office look at

24:52

um the 20th Amendment the Constitution

24:56

is very clear about this uh you're term

24:59

of office as president and vice

25:00

president ends at noon on the 20th day

25:04

of January um it's over at that point

25:09

and um the procedures for election of

25:11

the president are set forth in the 12th

25:15

Amendment um which the president has a

25:18

constitutional obligation to execute and

25:21

to defend and not uh to overthrow and so

25:25

everything Donald Trump did was uh a

25:28

recipe for Insurrection and rebellion

25:32

and I think as we looked at in our last

25:34

class about the Second Amendment and

25:37

insurrectionism we have an anti-

25:39

Insurrection Constitution there are half

25:41

dozen Provisions that are set up in the

25:44

Constitution to block Insurrection and

25:47

political coups and precisely the kind

25:49

of thing that Donald Trump attempted to

25:51

do on January 6 2021 um

25:56

the uh DC circuit called Donald Trump's

26:00

efforts uh in those days an

26:02

unprecedented assault um on the

26:07

structure of our government and indeed

26:09

it was um and if you think about

26:14

it rather than being protected by the

26:17

separation of powers which is what

26:19

Donald Trump claims um his argument is a

26:23

direct affront to the separation of

26:26

powers it would collapse the separation

26:29

of powers why well Congress sets forth

26:32

in federal law what you can't do for

26:35

example you cannot violate the voting

26:39

rights of the people you cannot

26:40

interfere with a federal proceeding

26:43

although now that statute has been

26:45

challenged in court in the fiser case

26:47

and I hope we'll get a chance to talk

26:48

about that at another Point um but you

26:52

as uh president cannot attempt to

26:55

defraud the government of the United

26:57

States as he did okay so if the

27:00

president is exempt from prosecution for

27:04

violating clear federal laws that denies

27:07

Congress the ability to legislate it

27:10

also denies the executive branch itself

27:13

the ability to prosecute which is an

27:15

executive branch function and the

27:18

President should be taking care that the

27:20

laws are Faithfully executed in priding

27:23

over the prosecution of violations of

27:26

law not thwarting them

27:29

especially when it relates to him as

27:31

Madison put it nobody can be a judge in

27:34

his own case that's a cardinal principle

27:37

of anglo-american law um and similarly

27:40

with the courts if the

27:43

president absolutely immune from

27:46

Criminal prosecution for acts undertaken

27:49

in office well then the courts are not

27:53

able to uh take up an actual case or

27:57

controversy and adjudicate the merits of

27:59

them to determine whether or not a law

28:02

has actually been violated so um the Dy

28:07

circuit I think did a beautiful job of

28:10

walking through the different parts of

28:12

Trump's argument which is kind of catch

28:15

Cannon all over the place um but

28:19

exploits the fact that we don't have

28:21

cases directly on point because again no

28:23

president in our history uh has

28:26

committed so many crimes in office and

28:28

then gone on to claim um absolute

28:32

immunity from being prosecuted um for

28:36

them and um all of it comes back

28:40

to uh the idea that we have a

28:43

constitution that's put in place in

28:45

order to hold people who have state

28:48

power accountable to the rest of us I

28:51

mean that's really what the rule of law

28:53

is all about um people without power

28:56

people without wealth have always been

28:58

subject to the law but what's different

29:00

about the Constitution for a Democratic

29:03

Society is the Constitution binds even

29:06

people who have a lot of wealth and

29:08

power and that's really what the rule of

29:11

law is all about so uh we reject the

29:14

fallacy that the commander-in-chief of

29:16

the nation who is not that but that the

29:18

president of the United States can do

29:20

whatever he wants we know that's not

29:22

true uh the job is to be bound by the

29:25

law to take care the laws are Faithfully

29:26

executed not to trample the laws and

29:28

violate them and if the president does

29:30

violate the laws um is subject not only

29:33

to the impeachment Clauses of the

29:35

Constitution but also to the criminal

29:38

law and the civil law including criminal

29:40

prosecution for everything that he or

29:43

she did when in office all right so that

29:46

was excellent I I've got some questions

29:48

but first it's important to note that

29:49

we're making this series to support

29:51

democracy summer so briefly Congressman

29:53

can can you uh explain what democracy

29:55

summer is and how people can help well

29:57

we we're Gathering right now um hundreds

30:00

and hundreds of high school kids and

30:02

college kids across the country to come

30:04

and get involved uh in Democratic

30:07

politics um we do seminars um in the

30:11

morning with the greatest uh historians

30:13

and uh lawyers and elected officials and

30:17

campaign tacticians and strategists and

30:20

pollsters and you name it uh over zoom

30:22

and everybody will be participating

30:24

together in seminars and discussion I

30:26

should say the the kinds of seminars

30:29

that we've been doing Brian are

30:30

definitely a lot longer than the ones

30:32

our people do they talk for five or 10

30:34

minutes and this is for um the real

30:36

constitutional nerds out there who want

30:38

to get into this stuff in a a deeper way

30:40

but the people go for 5 10 15 20 minutes

30:43

and then engage in dialogue with our

30:45

democracy summer fellows with the young

30:47

people but then the key part is for the

30:49

rest of the week they're assigned to

30:51

work with a democratic campaign um in

30:55

their area so they're going to be

30:56

working for member of Congress it could

30:59

be uh my friend Mike Levan out in

31:01

California it could be uh Maxwell Frost

31:05

uh it could be Mary gay scanlin in

31:09

Pennsylvania um you name it all over the

31:12

place but what we're trying to say here

31:14

is that politics is all about education

31:17

at its best it's just about educating

31:20

people about the Constitution about the

31:22

political system and about the issues

31:24

and then how we are going to get

31:26

together in order to make progress for

31:28

example on restoring Row versus Wade as

31:31

the law of the land by passing a

31:34

national federal law to give Every Woman

31:37

the choice of whether or not to have an

31:40

abortion so we're going to explain how

31:42

we're going to make progress um once we

31:46

elect concurrent Democratic majorities

31:48

in the house and the Senate with a

31:49

Democratic president in

31:51

2024 and this is basically building the

31:53

future of the democratic party so if you

31:55

want to if you want to help if you know

31:56

somebody who might be interested

31:58

definitely sign up I'll put the link

31:59

right here on the screen and also in the

32:00

post description of this video okay

32:03

Congressman first question here if the

32:05

Supreme Court rules that Trump does have

32:08

immunity to commit criminal acts with

32:09

impunity does that then mean that Joe

32:11

Biden um has immunity to do the same

32:14

like I've heard people say why wouldn't

32:16

Joe Biden just cancel the election then

32:18

since there's no punishment for

32:19

constitutional violations anyway yeah

32:21

and this claim is so outlandish and

32:24

freakish that it cannot survive even in

32:27

this Supreme Court um they should have

32:30

done the right thing and just um

32:33

summarily affirmed the DC circet Court

32:36

opinion which is

32:37

magisterial um just denied C you know C

32:41

is denied in 99% of the cases most cases

32:45

that come up come up at the circuit

32:47

level stop there even when people try to

32:50

appeal to the Supreme Court so there

32:52

would have been nothing strange about it

32:54

but uh in their wisdom the Roberts Court

32:56

decided uh to Grant C which has

32:59

tremendously slowed down the

33:03

prosecution um of United States of

33:05

America versus Trump in judge chuckin

33:09

courtroom so who knows where it goes I

33:11

mean you know at best they'll just um

33:14

imitate what the DC circuit court has

33:16

done at worst they wait to the very last

33:19

day they wait till June and then they

33:22

remand it for findings about whether you

33:25

know there was anything official about

33:28

what he was doing and create a different

33:30

test for official versus unofficial acts

33:33

versus uh acts on the perimeter in the

33:36

gry zone or what have you I mean they

33:38

can slice the baloney a thousand

33:40

different ways here in order to make it

33:42

complicated for the trial to continue

33:44

and I think that's really the way

33:46

they'll throw a monkey wrench into it

33:49

but the EXT the the claims are so

33:52

extreme that I don't think even this

33:55

trumpist court can go along with them to

33:58

the point you had just brought up can

33:59

you speak on the complicity of this

34:01

Supreme Court to not only take up this

34:03

absurd question in the first place but

34:05

to do it with such a gratuitous delay

34:08

that would then only serve to push back

34:10

Donald Trump's DC trial yeah I mean

34:12

don't get me wrong the the criminal

34:15

courts in DC are on a time schedule that

34:18

really shouldn't have anything to do

34:20

with the elections I mean they can take

34:22

it into account to make sure they're not

34:24

too close to the election which seems to

34:26

be a pretty well established kind of

34:29

common law you know judicial principle

34:32

but basically they're just following the

34:35

normal law um of the timing and

34:38

scheduling of the conferences and the

34:41

pre-trial motions and the trials um it's

34:44

the Supreme Court which is throwing a

34:46

monkey wrench into the whole thing by

34:48

needlessly taking up completely obvious

34:51

questions like this one um and then

34:53

making everybody wait several months

34:56

before it's argued and before it's

34:58

decided and so we are pressing

35:00

increasingly closer to the election and

35:03

of course we're in right now as we speak

35:07

Brian another one of Trump's trials

35:10

which is uh his trial in New York um by

35:15

uh the prosecutor brag for cooking the

35:19

books essentially in order to engage in

35:21

his hush money scheme to suppress um

35:26

facts from out before the election so

35:29

like so many of Trump's cases it's based

35:32

on interference with the election um and

35:35

crimes committed along the way in order

35:38

to uh withhold information suppress

35:41

information um uh try to get people to

35:46

um fraudulently count votes create votes

35:50

uh or you know in the case of uh vice

35:53

president Pence trying to force people

35:56

to um go against the Constitution of the

35:59

United States just humor me on this one

36:01

because I think we all expect what the

36:03

outcome of this case is going to be but

36:04

what would it mean if Trump is granted

36:06

immunity if he were to win again in

36:08

November like what does a president

36:10

completely unconstrained by the threat

36:11

of prosecution for criminal behavior in

36:14

the White House mean practically

36:15

speaking well I mean this goes to the

36:18

very heart of the American experiment

36:20

like the whole idea was we would become

36:23

the first self-governing Democratic

36:26

Nation in history because the founders

36:30

rebelled against centuries of kings and

36:35

queens and merged church and state

36:40

and autocrats and Emperors and so on the

36:43

whole idea is the president would have

36:46

the job of enforcing laws not writing

36:49

laws on a whim or trampling laws on a

36:52

whim the president would work for the

36:54

people the people would be in charge

36:57

with

36:58

uh elect our representatives and those

37:00

Representatives would write the laws and

37:02

the president would go and enforce the

37:04

laws and if there were confusion about

37:06

who's supposed to be doing what or what

37:07

the law is meant the Supreme Court would

37:10

have the power to annunciate what the

37:12

law is that's how the system works but

37:15

Trump wants to go back to a monarchical

37:19

system he wants to be royal where he can

37:22

literally do anything he can grab

37:25

anybody by anybody part uh that he wants

37:28

he can sexually assault people he can

37:30

steal other people's money he can hire

37:33

people and then not pay them their money

37:37

he can flagrantly violate the foreign

37:39

emoluments Clause by taking millions of

37:42

dollars in office from Kings princes and

37:45

foreign States he's not bound by the law

37:48

because he's the president and there's

37:50

no mechanism of accountability on his

37:52

rendition by which you could hold him

37:55

responsible for what he does do so it

37:57

basically is to vaporize the entire

38:01

Constitution Trump has recently taken to

38:03

claiming that a president wouldn't be

38:04

able to get anything done if he didn't

38:06

have immunity uh what's your response to

38:08

that well just look at our history no

38:10

other president has even thought to

38:12

assert immunity or to operate on the

38:16

basis that he's got categorical immunity

38:19

for criminal offenses conducted in

38:21

office that's ridiculous and he says yes

38:24

if we get rid of this then every

38:26

president will be deterred from doing

38:28

whatever he or she wants and all they

38:30

will do is spend their uh their poor

38:33

retirement of you know hundreds of

38:35

thousands of dollars a year when they

38:37

want to be playing uh golf um uh

38:41

unprosecuted and uninvestigated for

38:43

crimes undertaken um but look no

38:47

president has ever been in this

38:48

situation before I guess Richard Nixon

38:50

came closest but Ford pardoned him um

38:54

but no other president has dealt with

38:56

this and he said says well if you don't

38:58

allow me get out of jail free card then

39:02

it will always be PR former presidents

39:05

getting prosecuted by the next

39:06

Administration it never happened before

39:09

right I think the best one is him trying

39:11

to kind of uh negotiate with Democrats

39:13

by saying if you take immunity away from

39:15

me then Joe Biden shouldn't get immunity

39:17

either and all of us are like that's

39:19

fine he doesn't need immunity that's the

39:21

whole point president shouldn't enjoy

39:23

immunity from Criminal prosecution I

39:25

mean after spending a year and a half on

39:27

the over site committee as the ranking

39:29

member and having seen all of the

39:31

Republican evidence up close uh I know

39:34

that Joe Biden has nothing to worry

39:36

about they can't even identify a crime

39:38

that they think he's committed right

39:40

much less prove it uh to any degree uh

39:43

Congressman can you speak on the

39:44

difference between civil immunity and

39:46

criminal immunity as it relates to a

39:48

presidency because I think Trump is

39:49

purposefully conflating the two in an

39:52

effort to manipulate his base generally

39:55

um members of Congress and judges and

39:57

the president um when they leave office

40:01

are civil immune for official acts that

40:04

they undertook while they were in office

40:07

um somebody doesn't like uh a law that

40:10

the president signed into being or that

40:12

members of Congress voted for you can't

40:14

sue them for having done that of course

40:18

there are some kinds of actions

40:20

undertaken uh while you're in office

40:23

that are not of an official nature if

40:25

you sexually harass somebody or sexually

40:28

assault somebody and it's still within

40:30

the statute of limitations then you can

40:33

be civil sued for that and this I hope

40:37

will be the case which establishes

40:39

that's the exact same thing for criminal

40:41

prosecution as well you are not going to

40:43

be able to escape investigation and

40:46

prosecution simply because you were

40:48

president at the time all right well

40:51

we'll leave it there Congressman what

40:52

should we expect for the next episode of

40:54

class well look um we've been talking

40:56

about the mum Clause so I thought now is

40:59

the time to get into the iments clause

41:02

and the specific felicious claim that

41:05

foreign governments and kings and

41:07

princes can actually give you money and

41:09

you as the president can accept that

41:11

money if you wave your federal salary or

41:15

if you're willing to give what you deem

41:17

to be the profits of such payments back

41:20

to the US government we're going to look

41:22

at those claims made by Donald Trump and

41:25

his family and we're going to uh unearth

41:28

the history of the ents Clauses and look

41:30

at why they're in the Constitution and

41:33

of course to watch that episode please

41:34

make sure to subscribe to this channel

41:36

the link to subscribe and the link to

41:37

support democracy summer are right here

41:39

on the screen and they're also in the

41:40

post description of this video I'm Brian

41:42

teller Cohen and I'm Congressman Jamie

41:44

Raskin from Maryland's beautiful e8th

41:45

congressional district this is class

41:47

with Jamie Rasin

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Связанные теги
Constitutional LawPresidential PowerLegal ImmunitySupreme CourtDonald TrumpJamie RasinDemocracy SummerCon Law DebateSeparation of PowersRule of LawPolitical Analysis
Вам нужно реферат на русском языке?