Trump Makes DANGEROUS CLAIM to SUPREME COURT

Donald Trump's lawyers argued to the

United States Supreme Court earlier in

the day that Donald Trump could steal

nuclear secrets and sell them that

Donald Trump could launch a coup against

the United States that Donald Trump

could accept bribes from foreign

officials and that Donald Trump could

order the military to assassinate his

political Rivals Donald Trump's lawyers

were making that argument in the United

States Supreme Court folks I never

thought as someone living in the United

States of America that it would get to

this the very fact that those arguments

are being made before the United States

Supreme Court by a former president by

the Republican leader this is a travesty

and don't take my word for it let me

show you the key moments during the oral

argument I'm only going to break it down

so you can just see the key moments from

this oral argument where Donald Trump

was arguing for

absolute presidential immunity for his

conduct and trying to overthrow the

results of the 2020 election after

losing in the lower courts Trump lost in

December before a federal court in

Washington DC Trump appealed it to the

next level Court which is the DC Circuit

Court of Appeals a 30 decision against

Donald Trump including from a

conservative judge ruling against Donald

Trump trump then appealed that to the

United States Supreme Court here during

the oral arguments Justice Soto mayor

asked Donald Trump's lawyer is it

plausible to you that creating a

fraudulent electoral slate would

constitute an official act that you

could have immunity for play the clip

apply it to the allegations here what is

plausible about the

president assisting in

creating a uh a fraudulent slate of

electoral candidates assuming you accept

the facts of the complaint on their

face um is that plausible that that

would be within his right to do

absolutely RoR we have the historical

President we site in the lower courts of

President Grant sending federal troops

to Louisiana and Mississippi in 1876 to

make sure that the Republican electors

got certified in those two cases which

deliver the election to Ruther for be

Hayes the notion that it's completely

implausible I just can't be supported in

the face of this indictment or even

knowing that the Slate is fake knowing

that the Slate is fake that they weren't

actually elected that they weren't

certified by the state he knows all

those things the indictment itself

alleges I dispute that characterization

the the indictment fixes the word label

to the so-called fraudulent lectures it

fixes the word fraudulent but that's a

complete mischaracterization on the face

of the indictment it appears that there

was no deceit about who had emerged from

the relevant State Convention iions and

this was being done as an alternative

basis but I want next up Justice Kagan

asks Donald Trump's lawyer John sour

what about if a president orders the

military to Stage a coup is that an

official act for which a president

should receive immunity play the clip

How about if a president um orders the

military to Stage a

coup I think that as the Chief Justice

pointed out earlier where there is whole

series of you know sort

of guidelines against that so to speak

like the UCMJ prohibits the military

from following a plainly unlawful act if

one adopted Justice alito's test that

would fall outside now if one adopts for

example the Fitzgerald test that we

advance that might well be an official

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

in response to all these kinds of

hypotheticals uh has to be impeached and

convicted before he can be criminally

prosecuted but I emphasize to the court

well he's gone let's say this president

who ordered the military to jaku he's no

longer president he wasn't impeached he

couldn't be impeached um but but he

ordered the military to stage jaku and

you're saying that's an official act uh

I think it would depend on IM I think it

would depend on the circumstances

whether it was an official act if it

were an official act again he would have

to be imp what does that mean depend on

the circumstances he was the president

he um uh is the Commander in Chief um he

talks to his generals all the time and

he told the generals I don't feel like

leaving office I want to Stage a coup is

is is that immune if if it's an official

act there needs to be impeachment and

conviction beforehand because the

framers viewed the RI that that kind of

it's an official Act is it an official

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

it an official act on on the way you

described that hypothetical it could

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

to again it's a fact specific context

specific determination that answer

sounds to me as though it's like yeah

under my test it's an official act but

that sure sounds bad doesn't it well it

certainly sounds very bad and that's why

the framers have and that's why the

framers have a whole series of

structural checks that have successfully

for the last 234 years prevented that

very kind of extreme hypothetical and

next up Justice Kagan says well what if

a president sells nuclear secrets you're

Donald Trump's lawyer do you believe

that selling nuclear secrets to a

foreign adversary do you get immunity

for that is that the position that

Donald Trump is taking right now before

the United States Supreme Court play the

clip uh if a president sells nuclear

secrets to a foreign adversary is that

immune that sounds like similar to the

bribery example likely not immune now if

it's structured as an official act he

would have to be impeached and convicted

first before what does that mean if it's

structured as an official act well I

don't know in the hypothetical whether

or not that would be an official act you

probably have to have more details to

apply the Blazing game uh analysis or

even the Fitzgerald analysis that we've

been talking talking about what about if

a president decides to use the military

to assassinate political Rivals are you

saying that that is allowed are you

saying that President should get

absolute presidential immunity for that

is that Donald Trump's argument is that

what you are asking us to uh hold today

as the United States Supreme Court play

the clip can be alleged but it has to be

proven mum in say is a concept

um viewed as appropriate in law that

there's some things that are so

fundamentally evil that they have to be

protected

against now I

think and and your uh answer uh below

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

you stay by it 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 that for which

he can get immunity it would depend on

the hypothetical but we can see that

could well be an official act it could

and why because he's doing it for

personal reasons he's not doing it at

like President Obama is alleged to have

done it to protect the country from a

terrorist he's doing it for personal

gain and isn't that the nature of the

allegations here that he's not doing

them doing these acts in

furtherance of an

official responsibility he's doing it

for personal gain I I agree with that

characterization of the indictment and

that confirms immunity because the

characterization is that there's a

series of official acts that were done

for an on immunity says even if you did

it for personal gain we won't hold you

responsible what do you how could that

be that's an extremely strong Doctrine

in this Court's case law in cases like

Fitzgerald well we go back to Justice

Thomas's question which okay there's

nothing worse than light pouring in the

house when you're trying to catch up on

some rest having good blinds in your

home may just be the most underrated

addition that you could make there's a

better way to buy blinds in window

treatments and it's called 3-day blinds

they are the leading manufacturer of

custom window treatments in the US and

right now they are running a buy one get

one 50% off deal we could shop for

almost anything at home why not shop for

blinds at home too 3-day blinds has

local professionally trained Design

Consultants who have an average of 10

plus years of experience that provide

expert guidance on the right blinds for

you in the comfort of your home just set

up an appointment and you'll get a free

no obligation quote the same day not

very handy the expert team at 3-day

blinds handles all the heavy lifting

they design measure install so you could

sit back relax and leave it to the pros

I've been using 3-day blinds since way

before they were even a sponsor of the

mightest touch podcast my friend had

redone his entire home with 3-day blinds

he got the smart blinds installed where

you just ask Alexa to open your blinds

and it happens automatically I thought

it was the coolest thing ever I asked

him where did he get this how did this

happen he told me all about three-day

blinds and how easy the process was and

I ended up getting all the blinds and

buy home from 3-day blinds and I am so

glad that I did they had so many options

to choose from and they were so helpful

in guiding me to pick the perfect blinds

for my home it's no surprise that 3day

blinds has been in business for over 45

years and is the highest rated blinds

company on trust pilot at 4.7 out of

five stars right now you could get 3-day

blinds buy one get one 50% off deal on

custom blinds Shades shutters and

drapery for a free no charge no

obligation consultation just head to

3dayblinds.com

mitas that's buy one get one 50% off

when you head to 3dayblinds.com

Midas one last time that's the number

three Dy blinds.com

Midas and here katoni Brown Jackson

Justice Jackson I think really lays it

out here and says if the most powerful

person in the world can get away with

anything isn't that the most

anti-American concept like wasn't our

entire country founded on a

rejection of that principle watch This

brilliant uh argument by Justice katangi

Brown Jackson here play this clip okay

thank you justice Jackson so I think I

Now understand better your position um

in in your discussions with Justice

Kavanaugh became clear that you are

saying that for the private acts of a

president there's no immunity

but for the official acts the president

there is immunity is that your position

I agree with that all right um so one

thing that occurs to me is that this

sort of difficult line drawing problem

that we're having with all of these

hypotheticals is this a private act or a

Public Act um is being necessitated by

that assumption because of course if

official acts didn't get absolute

immunity then it wouldn't matter we

wouldn't have to identify which are

private and which are public correct

that in fact is the approach of the DC

circuit there's no determination that

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

so to the extent we're worried about

like how do we figure out whether it's

private or public we have to we have to

understand that we're only doing that

because of an underlying assumption that

the public acts get immunity so let me

explore that assumption um why is it as

a matter of theory and I'm hoping you

can sort of Zoom way out here that the

president um would not be required to

follow the law when he is performing his

official acts everyone else everyone

else there are lots of folks who have

very uh high-powered jobs who make a lot

of consequential decisions and they do

so against the backdrop of potential

criminal prosecution if they should uh

break the law in that um capacity and we

understand and we know as a matter of

fact that the president of the United

States has the best loyal in the world

when he's making a decision he can

consult with pretty much anybody as to

whether or not this thing is criminal or

not so why would we have a situation in

which we would say that the President

should be making official acts without

any uh responsibility for following the

law I respectfully disagree with that

characterization the president

absolutely does have responsibility he

absolutely is required to follow the law

in all of his official Acts but the

remedy for that is the question could he

be subject to personal vulnerability

sent to prison for making a bad decision

after he leaves office but but other

people who have consequential jobs and

who are required to follow the law make

those determinations against the

backdrop of that same kind of risk so

what is it about the president um I mean

I've heard you say it's because the

president has to be able to act boldly

do you know make kind of consequential

decisions I mean sure but again there

are lots of people who have to make life

and death kinds of decisions and yet

they still have to follow the law and if

they don't they could be sent to prison

etc etc so I say two things in response

to that both from Fitzgerald that's the

very uh uh sort of inference or

reasoning that this court rejected in

Fitzgerald no but let me just Fitzgerald

was a civil situation in which the

president actually was in a different

position than other people because of

the nature of his job the high profile

nature and the fact that he touches so

many different things when you're

talking about private civil liability

you know anybody on the street can sue

him we could see that the president was

sort of different than the ordinary

person when you say should he be immune

from civil liability from anybody who

wants to sue him but when we're talking

about criminal liability I don't

understand how the president stands in

any different position with respect to

the need to follow the law as he is

doing his job than anyone else he he is

required to follow the law and what not

if there's no criminal prose if there's

no threat of criminal prosecution what

prevents the president from just doing

whatever he wants all the structural

checks that are identified in Fitzgerald

and a whole series of this Court's cases

that go back to Martin against mot for

example impeachment oversight by

Congress uh public oversight there's a

long series of them Fitzgerald directly

addresses this in the Civil context and

we think that langage naturally PS I'm

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

a back stop and what I'm I guess more

worried about you seem to be worried

worried about the president being

chilled I think that we would have a

really significant opposite problem if

the president wasn't chilled if someone

with those kinds of powers the most

powerful person in the world with the

greatest amount of authority um could go

into office knowing that there would be

no potential penalty for committing

crimes I'm trying to understand what the

disincentive is from turning the Oval

Office into um you know the the the the

seat of criminal activity in this

country uh I don't think there's any

allegation of that in this case and what

George Washington said is what Benjamin

Franklin said is we view the prosecution

of a chief executive as something that

everybody cried out against as

unconstitutional and what George

Washington said is we're worried about

factional Strife which will no I'm Al

let me let me let me put this worry on

the table if the potential for criminal

liability is taken off the table

wouldn't there be a significant risk

that future presidents would be

emboldened to commit crimes with abandon

while they're in office it's right now

the fact that we're having this debate

because olc has said that presidents

might be prosecuted um presidents from

the beginning of time have understood

that that's a possibility that might be

what has kept this office from turning

into the kind of uh crime Center that

I'm envisioning but once we say no

criminal liability Mr President you can

do whatever you want

I'm worried that we would have a worse

problem than the problem of the

president feeling constrained to follow

the law while he's in office yeah I

respect and folks that gets to the heart

of the matter for me you know we can

talk about complex legal doctrines and

you could watch Donald Trump's lawyer

trying to you know make comments about

well there are structural safeguards in

place it's just a bunch of word salad

are we a nation of law

are we a country of Law and Order are we

a country where no one is above the law

how was our country founded this is

simple stuff I like how Donald Trump

laer goes well there was a conversation

where Benjamin Franklin one said this

there was a another conversation where

Benjamin Franklin was speaking to this

person and are you aware that uh in page

20 two of George Washington's diary that

George Washington had mentioned

look basic history the United States of

America was founded on the concept of We

the People not the king we were founded

on the rejection of absolute immunity

it's very simple a rejection of the

arbitrary and Limitless power of of

Kings that's what our country was

founded on and that's why our country

had been a beacon for the rest of the

world Donald Trump has spent his life

breaking things Donald Trump has spent

his life destroying things and his final

Act is to destroy our constitution to

destroy the presidency to destroy Common

Sense the case is now with the United

States Supreme Court will'll see what

they do but I hope showing you what

Donald Trump's lawyer said just you

hearing it on your own crystallized for

you at the very least what's at stake

I'm Ben melis from the midest touch

Network hit subscribe let's get to 3

million subscribers together thanks for

watching hit subscribe right now enough

send him to the big house not the White

House get the new exclusive te's mugs

and stickers right now at store. mitch.

that's store. mitch.