Alert: Trump’s ‘license to kill or coup’ hits SCOTUS - See Ari Melber’s critical breakdown
Summary
TLDRThe transcript captures a critical discussion on the Supreme Court's examination of a case involving a former president's immunity from prosecution. The dialogue delves into the unprecedented nature of the case, with references to historical precedents and the potential implications for future presidencies. The speaker, Ari Melber, highlights the gravity of the situation, emphasizing the court's responsibility to consider not just the immediate case but also the broader constitutional principles at stake. The summary underscores the tension between the legal arguments presented, the court's role in upholding democratic norms, and the chilling hypotheticals that were raised during the hearing, including discussions on presidential authority to order military coups or assassinations. The narrative also touches on the public's reaction to such claims, the importance of a peaceful transfer of power, and the potential for the court's decision to set a new legal standard regarding presidential immunity.
Takeaways
- 📚 The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the prosecution of a former president, which is a historic and unprecedented event.
- 🚫 Trump's lawyers have argued for presidential immunity, claiming he should be immune from indictment due to his position during the alleged efforts, a claim that was unanimously rejected by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
- 🗣️ During the hearing, there were discussions about extreme scenarios, including a president ordering a military coup or the assassination of an opponent, and the implications for legal immunity.
- 🤔 The Court considered the broader implications of its decisions, not just for Trump but also for future presidents, questioning the extent of presidential powers and immunity.
- 🚨 Concerns were raised about the potential for a president to use their office for personal gain without facing criminal liability, including for serious crimes like bribery, treason, sedition, and murder.
- 🈚️ The Constitution does not provide immunity for ex-presidents, and historically, no one has claimed such immunity until now.
- 📉 There is an ongoing issue with prosecutions of Trump's supporters and aides, with more indictments coming as recently as the night before the hearing.
- 📺 The insurrection was a public crime spree, televised and streamed live by some participants, leading to many being imprisoned or awaiting trial.
- 👥 Some justices appeared almost oblivious to the reality and threat of the insurrection and the related election plots.
- 🤨 The Supreme Court's conservative majority seems poised to narrow the scope of the criminal case against Trump, potentially delaying the trial past the next election.
- ⚖️ The Court's focus on hypothetical future cases and the lack of emphasis on the specific insurrection at the center of the case has raised concerns about the Court's ability to address the current legal and constitutional challenges.
Q & A
What is the main topic of discussion in the provided transcript?
-The main topic of discussion is the historic and unprecedented arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the potential for a sitting president to be indicted and the implications of presidential immunity.
Who is the speaker in the transcript?
-The speaker is Ari Melber, the host of the show 'The Beat' on MSNBC.
What is the significance of the Supreme Court hearing mentioned in the transcript?
-The significance is that it addresses the question of whether a president can be tried for criminal acts, and it is the first time such a case has been brought before the Supreme Court.
What claim did Trump's lawyers make regarding presidential immunity?
-Trump's lawyers claimed that he should be immune from prosecution due to his position as president during the alleged efforts to indict him, a claim that was unanimously rejected by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
What controversial statement was made by a Trump lawyer during a hearing?
-A Trump lawyer claimed that as president, Trump could have a license to kill American opponents, a statement that was widely rebuked.
What is the context for the discussion about a president ordering a military coup?
-The context is a hypothetical scenario raised during the Supreme Court hearing to explore the limits of presidential power and whether such an act could be considered an 'official act' that would grant the president immunity.
What is the argument against the novel theory of presidential immunity proposed by Trump's lawyers?
-The argument against it is that such immunity would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for serious crimes like bribery, treason, sedition, and murder, and that there is no constitutional foundation for such immunity.
What does the transcript suggest about the current state of the Supreme Court?
-The transcript suggests that the Supreme Court is deeply divided on the issue of presidential immunity, with some justices appearing to be oblivious to the current political reality and the threat posed by the insurrection.
What is the significance of the mention of President Nixon in the transcript?
-The mention of President Nixon is significant because it draws a comparison to the situation with President Trump. Nixon was not immune from prosecution and had to take a pardon to avoid indictment, which is used as a point of historical context in the debate.
What is the role of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the context of this transcript?
-The DOJ is mentioned in relation to its successful sedition convictions and the ongoing prosecutions of Trump's supporters and aides. The DOJ is also central to the case against Trump, which is the first-ever federal prosecution of a president.
What is the main concern expressed by the speaker about the Supreme Court's handling of the case?
-The main concern is that the Supreme Court is not focusing enough on the specific facts of the case related to the insurrection and instead is engaging in hypothetical discussions that may not be directly relevant to the current situation.
Outlines
😀 Introduction to the Supreme Court's Unprecedented Hearing
The video segment begins with the host, Ari Melber, introducing the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court's hearing on the trial of a sitting president, which is a historic and unprecedented event. Melber discusses the arguments presented by Trump's lawyers, who claimed that Trump should be immune from indictment due to his presidential status during the alleged efforts, a claim that was unanimously rejected by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The segment also touches on the infamous hearing where a Trump lawyer suggested the president could kill opponents without consequence. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the court's decisions, not just for Trump, but for future presidents as well.
😳 Extreme Authoritarian Arguments in the Supreme Court
This paragraph delves into the extreme positions taken by the current Republican nominee's lawyer, defending the concept of a president having a 'license to kill' and being granted total immunity for acts such as murder and treason. The video script outlines the chilling nature of these arguments and the transparency with which they are presented. It also highlights the potential implications of such arguments, suggesting that they could encourage criminal behavior by future presidents. The segment further discusses the lack of constitutional foundation for presidential immunity and contrasts the current situation with historical precedents, such as President Nixon's pardon.
🤔 Analyzing the Legality of Presidential Actions During War
The focus of this paragraph is on the legal implications of presidential actions, particularly in times of war. It references a hypothetical situation where President Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during WWII is considered from a modern legal perspective. The discussion explores the idea that such actions, while potentially unlawful at the time, could be even more problematic if prosecuted under contemporary laws. The segment also addresses the broader question of whether any limits should exist on prosecuting a president for their official acts, even if those acts are later deemed to be war crimes or civil rights violations.
😠 The Court's Conservative Majority and the Future of Presidential Prosecution
This section of the script addresses the potential leanings of the Supreme Court's conservative majority towards Trump's arguments. It suggests that the court may be preparing to narrow the scope of the criminal case against Trump, making it difficult to conduct the trial before the next election. The paragraph also highlights the court's focus on hypothetical situations and the potential for future cases, rather than the specific circumstances of the current case. The discussion includes critical views on the court's approach, suggesting that it is avoiding直面 (directly addressing) the insurrection at the heart of the case.
😤 The Supreme Court's Avoidance of the Insurrection and the Rule of Law
The final paragraph emphasizes the court's apparent avoidance of the insurrection that serves as the backdrop for the case. It stresses that while the justices spent considerable time discussing hypothetical scenarios and the potential for future cases, they did not focus on the actual events that led to the first-ever federal prosecution of a president. The segment argues that the legal task at hand should be about prosecuting the insurrection rather than preventing potential prosecutorial overreach. It concludes with a critique of the court's logic and a call for acknowledgment of the facts surrounding the insurrection.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Supreme Court
💡Indictment
💡Immunity
💡Insurrection
💡Precedent
💡Sedition
💡Pardon
💡Coup
💡Conspiracy
💡Rule of Law
💡Peaceful Transfer of Power
Highlights
The Supreme Court heard arguments about putting a president on trial, marking a historic and unprecedented event.
Trump's lawyers argued for presidential immunity, claiming he should be immune due to his position during the efforts in question.
The D.C. Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the claim of presidential immunity.
Discussions included extreme hypotheticals, such as a president ordering a military coup or the assassination of an opponent.
Concerns raised about the potential for a president to use their office for total personal gain without facing criminal liability.
The court considered decisions that would apply not just to President Trump but also to future presidents.
The Constitution does not grant immunity to ex-presidents, a fact that was emphasized during the hearing.
The insurrection was characterized as a public crime spree, televised and live-streamed by participants.
Many participants of the insurrection are now facing prison sentences or trials.
The court seemed almost oblivious to the reality and threat of the insurrection.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the logic of providing immunity for violent acts, such as murder, being considered official acts.
The court's discussion included the potential for future cases involving presidential immunity and the prosecution of official acts.
Concerns were raised about the possibility of presidents pardoning themselves, a notion that has not been tested.
The court's conservative majority appeared open to Trump's arguments, which were unanimously rejected in the past.
The Supreme Court's handling of the case was seen as a dark day for the legal system due to the avoidance of直面 the insurrection at the center of the case.
Long-time Republican Judge Luttig criticized the court for avoiding key points about the first-ever federal prosecution of a president.
The court's focus on hypothetical future cases rather than the specific insurrection was highlighted as a concern.
Transcripts
>> 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