MUST-SEE: Jamie Raskin drops WORST NEWS on Trump
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
📜 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.
🏛️ 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.
🚫 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.
📜 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.
🚨 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.
🗳️ 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.
⚖️ 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.
💵 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
💡Constitutional Fallacies
💡Presidential Immunity
💡Supreme Court
💡Rule of Law
💡Impeachment
💡Conspiracy
💡Separation of Powers
💡Electoral College
💡Judicial Review
💡Democracy Summer
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
we've got a hugely topical episode today
I have the incredible honor as always of
being joined by my co-host for our
series class with Jamie Rasin where the
congressman debunks right-wing
constitutional fallacies and fever
dreams today's episode could not come at
a more opportune moment as the Supreme
Court now considers the question of
presidential immunity for Donald Trump
and while there's a lot of spin out
there no one to better counter that
disinformation than Jamie Rasin so I'll
hand it over to the congressman who will
take on the right-wing fallacy that as
commander-in-chief the president has
both the power to do whatever he wants
and absolute immunity from any legal
consequences for criminal actions Brian
thank you so much I'm delighted to be
with everybody uh today we're taking on
a fallacy that's so obvious so glaring
and so striking but what's interesting
is um that sometimes it's the most
obvious fallacies that are the trickiest
ones to debunk and refute I remember uh
Sherlock Holmes once saying that there's
nothing more deceptive than an obvious
is fact and that's definitely true in
the age of Donald Trump because um this
is a case of first impression like so
many of the other issues that are raised
by Donald Trump because no other
president has acted in such extreme and
explosive and incendiary ways so it's
not like there's a bunch of precedents
that map out how to respond to it and so
we have to uh search through the
Constitution to explain why his actions
are completely in derogation of the
Constitutional fabric itself the case
that is being considered by the Supreme
Court Donald Trump's claim that he's
absolutely immune is indeed a case of
first impression um just like many of
the other uh fallacies that he has
floated during this period but what
we're going to look at is this one as
commanderin-chief of the nation the
president has both the power to do
whatever he wants and absolute immunity
from any legal consequences for his
criminal actions now there are actually
multiple fallacies tucked in here I've
snuck in like a a law professor on a
final exam the first is as
commander-in-chief of the nation which
the president is not that is not his
title he's commander-in-chief of the
Army and Navy during times of actual
conflict from article two of the
Constitution and uh of the militias when
they're called up into actual service so
any president who walks around saying
I'm the commanderin-chief like he's the
dictator of the country is just
absolutely wrong um but the central
fallacies here are that the president
can do whatever he wants something that
we heard repeatedly from Donald Trump
when he was in president he says and
then there's the article two which
allows me to do whatever I want of
course the central job of the president
under Article 2 is to take care that the
laws are Faithfully executed not that
the laws are violated or the laws are
departed from but the laws are
Faithfully executed and if the president
could do whatever he wants then why do
we have have the power to impeach and
convict the president for treason
bribery and other high crimes and
misdemeanors um and then why do we have
the power to prosecute him or do we
because that's what this case is really
about that has gone up to the Supreme
Court United States versus Trump that
was found against the president um in
District Court by judge chuckin against
the president by the DC circuit panel an
excellent panel made up of judges pan
Henderson and Childs two Democratic uh
nominees to the bench one Republican
nominee to the bench but all unanimously
rejecting Trump's claim what does he say
he says a former president cannot be
prosecuted criminally for anything that
he did while he was in office pursuant
to his office and again no president has
ever alleged that before which is why
it's so foreign and so strange to our
experience um the judges in the DC
circuit do a great job of leading us
through this and I'll kind of follow
their lead and embellish a little bit on
um several different points but the the
first point I want to make is generally
about the structure of the Constitution
um article one puts Congress in the
first article for a reason which is that
we overthrew a king we wanted to get
away from monarchical government and we
wanted to vest power not not in a
monarch a lord in a zar or an emperor
but in we the people and the House of
Representatives and the Senators and the
Senate are the representatives of the
people and we are the law making branch
and if you look at the Constitution as I
hope you will you will see that article
one goes on for a long time setting
forth all of the powers that Congress
has to regulate commerce among the
states to regulate commerce between
America and other nations to uh coin
money to govern naturalization to govern
the district that's to become the seat
of government um and on and on and then
in article one section 8 Clause 18 and
all other powers that are necessary and
proper to the execution of the foregoing
power so it's very expansive then you
get to article two section three and
look at that last phrase there this is
really the core of it you know it's
about naming ambassadors and so on
giving a State of the Union Address he
shall take care that the laws be
Faithfully executed um and shall
commission all the officers of the
United States that's it and then you get
right into section four after stating
that the president shall Faithfully
execute the laws um setting forth how
the president can be impeached the
president VP and all civil officers
shall be removed from office on
impeachment for and conviction of
treason bribery or other high crimes um
and misdemeanors but I just want you to
keep that design structurally generally
in mind as we get into this issue
because Congress has put first and the
president's job under section two is to
take care that the laws are Faithfully
executed to implement the laws of the
Congress all right now um Trump uh
attempted to bypass and
overthrow the Constitution of the United
States when he tried to stay in office
in the weeks leading up to January 6th
and then on January 6th itself uh that's
what this case is about uh this case
comes from the criminal trial of Donald
Trump on four charges that have been
brought by special counsel Jack Smith
the first is a conspiracy to defraud the
United States of America by collecting
all of these fraudulent Electoral
College slates from different states and
then asserting that these are the
Bonafide honest electors determined by
the states in their presidential
election which they most assuredly were
not the second is the conspiracy to
obstruct a federal proceeding here the
joint session of Congress called under
the 12th Amendment to receive the
Electoral College votes sent in by the
governor ERS through their certificates
of ascertainment sent to uh the house
and the Senate and to the archist of the
United States um third is actual
interference with the federal proceeding
um and then the fourth is violation of
the voting rights of the people a
conspiracy to deprive uh persons of the
United States of their right to vote
okay so those are the four criminal
charges Donald Trump asserts against all
of them that he's absolutely immune uh
from Criminal prosecution for official
acts he undertook as president now one
of the amusing things about that is
asserting that the attempt to overthrow
the presidential election was an
official Act of course His official
responsibility there was to leave office
after four years um and to take care
that the laws were F Faithfully exec
uted including all of the laws passed
under the Electoral College Provisions
in the Constitution that's what he was
supposed to do but he's saying no he
undertook these official acts to try to
get the state legislator to set aside
the Electoral College votes uh by trying
to get state election officials like
Secretary of State Brad raffensberger in
Georgia just to find him
11,780 votes um and then by trying to
get the Department of Justice to falsely
declare it a corrupt and fraudulent
election and then finally by trying to
get vice president Pence to step outside
of His official constitutional role um
administering the uh counting of the
Electoral College votes the idea was to
try to get Pence to force it into a
contingent election or just to go ahead
and announce that Trump was president
and then Trump was prepared to ride over
on the shoulders of the mob um like
musolini and come in and simp
declare himself uh uh Emperor excuse me
president uh again and then um invoke
the Insurrection act and call in the
National Guard to come and put down the
insurrectionary chaos that he had
Unleashed against us all right that was
basically um the plan well um he says uh
you can't charge me for any of these
things I'm absolutely immune from
Criminal prosecution as a former
president now now um on behalf of uh
Trump's argument let's say uh let's
stipulate this there are some
constitutions in other countries which
make former presidents immune from
Criminal prosecution uh for things like
coups and insurrections uh one of them
for a while anyway was Chile which said
that
Pino um could not be prosecuted and this
was part of an arrangement they made
with the new con stion he would have
immunity from Criminal prosecution very
explicitly set forth in that
Constitution there's a couple other
examples there's nothing like that in
the US Constitution and of course as
we'll come to see it cuts against
everything we believe about our
Constitution and its entire uh
constitutional design so um and in fact
that Common Sense uh intuition was
articulated by the Republican judge in
the DC Circuit Judge uh Henderson
um who said that it would be a striking
Paradox if the one person in the country
charged with taking care that the laws
be Faithfully executed could defy and
violate the laws and then be exempt for
his violation of federal criminal laws
um in the process all right so how do we
go about looking at this claim well um
Trump says first of all the he's so
immune from prosecution it's not even up
to the courts to determine whether he's
uh immune from prosecution or not uh
that of course is ridiculous under
Marbury versus Madison the uh famous
Supreme Court decision rendered by Chief
Justice John Marshall proclaiming the
doctrine of judicial review that the
Supreme Court um uh has the right the
power and the duty to declare what the
law is it's emphatically the provin and
duty of the court to say what the law is
and to sort out you know precisely these
kinds of uh these kinds of conf
conflicts we've got Supreme Court
decisions um that stand for the
proposition in fact that the Supreme
Court can review presidential actions
for their constitutionality and here's a
great one everybody can remember it's
called the steel seizure case in this
case um President Truman faced a series
of strikes around the country and was
nervous along with Congress that the
shutdown of the steel industry would
interfere with necessary production of
Weaponry during the Korean War and
Congress attempted to give uh President
Truman the power to intervene to reopen
the steel plants by seizing the steel
plants taking government possession of
them and then um commanding uh
production of Steel that failed in
Congress Congress rejected that effort
but then the president uh Truman just
went ahead and did that anyway and he
said we're going to take possession of
the steel plants in order to keep the
war effort going and I'm going to invoke
my War Powers my Powers as
commanderin-chief during a a time of
actual conflict in order to do this and
the Supreme Court said well wait a
second here um the president of the
United stat has the job of enforcing the
laws and Justice Jackson set it out
nicely in his concurring opinion where
he said think of it kind of like a stop
light um either you've got a green light
where the Constitution specifically
gives the president the power to do
something like to appoint the officers
in the in the uh cabinet subject um to
the advice and consent of the senate or
to name ambassadors subject to advice
and consent those are clear uh
delegations to the president to be able
to do something there you got a green
light and nobody can say oh no the
president you nominated the wrong person
that's not the best qualified person
that is totally within Presidential
Power to decide that okay um a red light
would be something where a power is
vested by the Constitution in another
branch of the government take for
example the power to declare war that
power is given to Congress but let's say
the President says this is such an
important matter such an important
foreign policy conflict I'm going to
take away from Congress the power to
declare war and I am going to declare
war right now for the country that's a
red light that would clearly be um
unconstitutional and uh under Marbury
versus Madison the Supreme Court would
have the power to revoke that but then
there's the yellow light situation and
this is where um a particular power is
not specifically
enumerated either under article two for
the executive branch or under article
one for the legislative branch and
Congress has not said anything about it
it's neither delegated that power
explicitly to the president nor has it
attempted to delegate that power to the
president but been thwarted in the
effort to do so um and there's a yellow
light situation and that's where the
court says it's very fact-based
intensive analysis but the court said in
the steel seizure case this is an easy
one because there's nothing in the uh
the power of Commander in Chief that
explicitly sets forth the power to seize
steel mills or seize any uh instrument
of the economy or Commerce to keep
things going um and Congress might have
been able to delegate this to the
president to give him this power but it
did not do so there was a bill put in to
try to say the president has the power
over steel mills and can open them up
but it chose not to do that that becomes
a red light at that point um he
essentially has been specifically
foreclosed to undertake that action all
right all of which is to say um the DC
Circuit Court was very clear that this
matter is indeed going to be up to uh
the Judiciary to decide and in the
course of finding that the court cited
this uh significant passage that has
been uh absorbed into the bloodstream of
America over the decades it comes from a
Supreme Court decision called us versus
Lee in which the court wrote no man in
this country is so high that he is above
the law no officer of the law May set
that law at Defiance with impunity all
the officers of the government from the
highest to the lowest are creatures of
the law and are bound to obey it it is
the only supreme power in our system of
government and every man who by
accepting office participates in its
functions is only the more strongly
bound to submit to that Supremacy and to
observe the limitations which it imposes
upon the exercise of the authority which
it gives in other words in this passage
which has been you know recycled over
the centuries the Supreme Court is