Samuel Alito Explores Major Hypothetical Situation During Questions On Trump Presidential Immunity
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 кві 2024
- Justice Samuel Alito questions Special Counsel Jack Smith's attorney Michael Dreeben in oral arguments for Trump v. United States.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
So, based on this lawyer, Myorkas totally refusing to enforce existing immigration laws is something he can be charged for right now..
No, you are wrong in the most basic and obvious way. The case being argued before the court is about Presidential immunity. Myorkas is not President, nor has he ever been President.
Spot on
Not just Myorkas. There is a laundry list of criminals in the justice department and Congress. Our government is filthy with criminals!!
Then let's get the ball rolling baby! 💯💯💯
great comment
The entire DOJ needs to be prosecuted
Thank god for Alito he basically snuffs this idea out. That as former us attorney himself he know just how corrupt the DOJ can be. Hopefully is able to persuade his colleagues of the same.
Explain to my how a 77 year old man went his entire life never being accused or charged with a crime, suddenly has been charged in 4 separate criminal cases with 96 charges and over a dozen civil cases, all after leaving office. If that is not political persecution and lawfare, nothing is.
If you want proof read the indictments! Read the constitution! Ever-heard-of-it 😮?
@@danielwebb7454 I have. And they are hogwash. And don't you dare try to ivoke our beloved constitution to justify this communist shit-show. I swore to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will keep my oath!
Actually before 2016 Trump was involved in over 3500 legal actions. Some were cases he filed, others filed against him. Some he won, some he lost, and sometimes he had fall guys go to jail in his place, like Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg. Often Trump used his wealth to screw over people who he defrauded, but who didn't have enough money to fight him. In a few cases however he did have to pay. As was the case with students he defrauded with his bogus, defunct Trump University. And of course let's not forget his infamous Trump Charities scam. This is the first time Trump may have to actually face jail time for his actions, but that's only because he's a rich man with unscrupulous lawyers who've known how to manipulate and muck up the wheels of justice, not because he hasn't deserved to see the inside of a cell.
@@danielwebb7454 Turns out you can't read.
@@danielwebb7454you me the made up indictments because Joe knows all of his high crimes are coming out, and he wants to remain resident so he doesn’t go to prison, and so the rest of his and this administrations crimes come out. For the past 3 1/2 years we have watched all of the criminal acts Biden has done to this country, the citizens, plus it was the Dems plans to remain in power with this election from here on in. Plus they know Trump will win this election so they are creating crimes, trying to brainwash their base into thinking Trumps the criminal when the whole world sees Bidens crimes, his sons, brothers. Please people can’t be that stupid.
How is a President not expected to make sure that we have free and fair elections? Is it not his duty?
Not the job of the president to be the arbiture of an election a d be a candidate...have you ever seen an athelete judge his performance?
@@dwaynejordan5898 I believe he was trying to wake people. Questioning the oddities of the 2020 election should be normal, under the circumstances. I do not believe he tried to overturn the results but only posed the questions.
@@islanddream0032He is on tape😅😅
@@tracyturner7257 I listened to the the recording. Correct me, if I am wrong, but he said count the legal votes.
@@islanddream0032That’s all he did. Listen to the phone call and you’ll realize how stupid these trolls are just spewing every lie coming out of the DNC.
It's NOT the actions they dislike, it's the PERSON doing it they dislike.
Riiiiight. That's why HW pardoned reagan and his posse for Iran Contra.
Sam Alito made up his mind weeks ago on this subject and is clearly trying to reverse engineer a descending opinion. He did not need to today's testimony to come up with the words to make TRUMP a KING. not a President. He as believes that even a CRIMINAL Republican is better than a LIBERAL. Oh and... every REPUBLICAN on the court today had to LIE to to get their seat. They are all in cahoots to take our country back to the 1800's.
Bingo!!!!
That isn’t true at all.
@Ken-fh4jc ok... so either you have blue kool-aid in your eyes or you are blissfully BLIND. Pick one.
The Government's whole case is "Trust us, we won't come after you unfairly".
Right. That Smith attorney says "trust us, we work at DOJ". 😂😅. He was on the Mueller team. All political. If Trump wasn't running, all these cases would not exist. Period
what a joke
Yep
Cough ***b**#llsh**&t*** Cough.
I found out today that Presidents can't Pardon themselves. That was a tough 3 hours of blablabla.
Alito points out exactly what's being perpetrated by DOJ against Trump as we watched this exchange
Yes, it terrible holding someone who tried to overthrow the last election
At least 4 supreme court judges should be impeached
It's all about getting Trump whether legalities are followed or not.
No it's about following the truth, the facts and the law.
Nobody is above the law, no matter how you try and twist the evidence.
@@ottoandhanzblack2175it's all about stopping him from running again so they can continue the destruction of America. Wake up before it's too late.
@@ottoandhanzblack2175 Good. Then hold Joe Biden and his crime family accountable. I know you don't believe in that.
@@ottoandhanzblack2175 Nobody should be above the law, but have we seen equal application of the law? No, and that's the problem
@@MichaelRhoden-ie4jvcould both Biden and Trump families be criminals? Is that possible?
Has a constitutional obligation to be faithful to laws of the constitution? So this will apply to Joe, Bush, and Obama?
yes thats why trump was impeached twice, because he wasn't faithful to the constitution.
Yes, it applies to all. Only one will will disrespect it though.Hint, it's the one with over 80 indictments.
But it won’t!!
well no because they will control all the unelected zealots in the DOJ
@@MrRollie51but it should !
Is it wrong doing by a president to pay off student loans, after the supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional?
I've been doing it all wrong. I've been paying off my student loans instead of whining about how everyone else should pay my student loans off for me.
Absolutely!
The current administration seems to be using the tactic because there is still political benefit since it will take a while for the courts to rule his actions illegal.
@@charlesharris9965 Where the restitution for my daughter who paid her own way all the way through?
The court rules the method used was unconstitutional, not the actual forgiving of the laws. So, Biden pivoted and used a different law and a different forgiveness program that is legal. And it doesn’t forgive the entire loan. You have e to have paid the loan, and be in good standing, for 20 years, at which point all that is forgiven is the interest (the principle was paid back li f ago).
My god the Uniparty is completely falling apart at the seams! How embarrassing is this? Life long liberal here, voted for Trump and will do it again, I will never vote blue again ever!
A DOJ lawyer talking about oaths and upholding the constitution is funny is a sad lying way. Biden, Wray, Garland, Mayorkas democrats….. not one has done either.
It's funny hearing these people talk like the DOJ is not a rotting cesspool of bias!
It's even funnier reading how maga thinks Trump is an innocent man. 😂
It’s funny that you think your opinion counts 😂😂
@@Article95he is innocent, the swamp is guilty of everything they've accused him of,do your homework
That’s exactly what it was under the Trump admin!
This lawyer doesn't want the President to be a King. This SCOTUS, in particular, Alito, are the most corrupt in US history...by far.
So let’s get this straight you’re arguing that the president did not have the right to ensure all voting laws were followed
I believe that is the crux of it. That government lawyer is a real crafty weasel for sure.
Hard to see the stupidity
Especially the one where he needed to find 11,780 votes. So he requested someone "find" them for him to win (wink, wink).
@@janetkriegl6720knowing that there were 300,000 more votes than registered voters in Georgia. His only mistake was he should have asked to have votes thrown out. Not counted.
@@DBMorris That myth was debunked long ago. That you hang onto it isn't surprising. Repubs would have ridden that fallacy to the edge of tomorrow, but there proved not a smidgen of truth to it. Remember, Dump lost 60 out of 61 court cases, most with a similar claim. This particular "alternate" fact you refer to was NOT taken seriously by the court. But thanks for playing...
The special councils position is that we can't rely on the office of the president to make lawful decisions and the president should trust in the legal counsel of the justice department to make official decisions. If we go by that standard then "who" is really the president? The second half of the special counsel's argument is that we should only trust the justice department to make ethical decisions. Which of course by the special councel's first argument the justice department already has a thumb over the decisions of the president? How is that not a conflict of interest and highly unethical because it leaves every president's hands tied for making decisions based on what the AG advises. This is a conflict of the separation of powers and exactly why impeachment is the governing power over illegal presidential actions.
Funny that, until Trump, I assumed the executive branch actually worked for the chief executive officer of the land, POTUS.....
If one thing comes from all this:
We need 100% Positive ID and verification of every single voter and ballot. We need to make certain that all absentee ballots are witnessed and notarized. We need bipartisan inspectors and auditors working together to verify all phases of ballot acceptance and counting.
Exactly, but democrats seem to think mailing millions of ballots across the country to people that never requested one, ensures the most safe and fair election of our time.
What?! Like most things democrats say, it doesn't make any sense.
But that would make it harder for democrats to win!
Are you on the biometric data train or do you mean just checking for legitimate government issued photo ID on the way in to polls? If it involves a finger print, retina scan etc then I'll be chucking election integrity tea into the harbor.
@@deepzone31 You don't want any system to prevent voter fraud, is what you are saying?
@@dcorman No. I do want photo IDs. I do NOT want biometric domestic spying that could be tied to an actual ballot. The moment you tie a voter to a ballot and backtrack it to a database the actual vote cast is no longer confidential. You have to draw a distinction between a voter and a vote. You should be able to validate a number of votes cast based on voters you validated on the way into the door. Absentee votes should only be for military members.
_"There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election."_
Which Trump and his supporters _tried_ to use but were denied.
_"...petitioner and his allies filed dozens of electoral challenges...and has lost all but one..."_
Yes, dozens of challenges _were_ filed (proof they _tried_ to use the "lawful mechanisms"), but they didn't "lose" those challenges in the conventional way (in which you actually get to _play_ the game). They lost them all due to alleged lack of _standing,_ not lack of _evidence._ Trump and his allies were never given the opportunity to present or even collect the evidence which would have supported their cases.
_"... you need evidence, you need proof."_
Agreed. But you also need the opportunity to _present_ any evidence and dismissing a case based _not_ on evidence (or even lack thereof), but on "lack of standing" (either "wrong" petitioner or "wrong" jurisdiction) does not support your argument. There was not one single trial, as I recall, where either Trump or his supporters were allowed to present any evidence they may have had.
Why do we STILL have liars claiming that Trump had his day in court even though all cases of any significance were dismissed for Lack of Standing. Until the January 6 certification, there is no way a court can interfere with the decision of Congress. This lawyer just lied in front of the Supreme Court.
It seems likely the the justices are aware of this, as well as the most recent prosecutions of election fraud in various counties.
Bingo! Exactly what half the country feels.
Correct and this is where most reasonable people take issue. The rest don't care because "their guy won".
The courts did everything possible to make sure that the EVIDENCE was never given a chance to see the inside of a Court Room.
They didn't want the World to see how the Democrats stole an ELECTION.
This lawyer keeps referring to the former Trump Administration as a regime, is that proper decorum at the SCOTUS?
OBiden is the regime bringing communism into our country.
He could have called it a criminal enterprise.
@@Article95 Like this current Biden Administration? 10% for the big guy.
@@johnwayne2103 lollll still quoting Smirnov's fables?
@@Article95
Is there anyway to block your drivel???
Thank you Justice Alito. I believe that our country is still a country of check and balance with the Supreme Court watching over our laws and Constitution.
NO ITS DONALDS PUPPETS TRYING TO SAVE HIM PAYING HIM BACK FOR THEIR BIG SALARIES
They should have discussed the D.C. grand jury process, and the D.C. Federal Judges! THEY cannot be trusted to do the right thing----and we've ALL seen that!
Right. The argument that the DOJ and district attorneys can be relied upon for ethical and professional judgment and behavior now seems rather quaint given the history of the last 3+ years.
The lawyer wants us to trust the bureaucracy, the government, and the AG… but somehow the president that the people voted for has no power
Doj and AG provides advice the president can choose to accept or ignore and secondly if the doj brings a charge against a president, they are require tonpresent facts in court,, thr court can decide it its frivilous....the issue i see is one of the supreme court wants to prevent a presisent from frivilous political prosecution in the courts by allowing the president total immunity to actually pursue political avenues to pervert democracy....
The argument that the DOJ and district attorneys can be relied upon for ethical and professional judgment and behavior now seems rather quaint given the history of the last 3+ years.
It's discuting uh?
Democrats...you need to trust the process when we do it but not when the other side does.
DOJ wants to be above the law. They want to decide what a President can do and can’t do.
Attempted coup by the DoJ. If this goes through they run the country.
Sounds about right.
So you're saying a President can order someone to murder and be immune because a Government lawyer has brought forth the criminal charges. How you guys don't see the hypocrisy of your own statements is amazing.
You spelled DJT wrong.
@@knkonwd3374 Department of Justice, or Donald John Trump.
Alito is a genius.
The lawyer is arguing the AG can be trusted, and prosecutions won't be used politically at the exact moment in history where that very this is happening. BOLD
Al Gore was allowed to challenge the election in Florida.
Did Al Gore send his supporters to invade and stop the count of votes or certification?
That’s true because of the time zone . That sure was a long drawn out election.
after the count. not during,
The count in Florida was stopped by bussed in Republicans and if it had proceeded Gore would have been declared the winner. Bush did not win …He should not have been president and allowed to fool the world with claims of WMD’s and go on to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan …
That's right. He challenged legally. trump didn't. He sent fake electors. Get a clue
This lawyer wants us to think the president can always trust lawyers or AGs
The lawyer needs to be president and thus liable
The governments lawyer is a lying worm.
Exactly‼️
Right, like we can't see communist alive & operating in New York, California & DC... And both have had recent communist parades, waving communist flags.
Both New York and California
@@icebergs411 says a siberian husky
Presidents do the best they can with the information at the time given to them. If the President believe what they do is honest and truthful, that lets them off the hook. The key word here is believe. Trump believes he was doing the right thing for America.
They didn’t lose. The courts used standing to keep a trial from happening.
True .
Except there was one where Rudy was under oath and a judge asked if he was alleging fraud. His answer was "no, your honor". Did you forget about that? Weird how he said fraud a lot outside the courtroom, but wouldn't put his money where his mouth was once he was held liable for perjury. It should make you uncomfortable that you ignored that fact, but if you didn't know, it's excusable. I'll find the exact case and let you find out more if you are curious. If you want to go "nuh uh!", though, I won't bother. Do be curious, otherwise you're just a useful idiot.
@@joeymac4302 That was Rudy. Please find the one you are referring to. Election irregularities don't have to be Fraud by the way. When a court rules that the petitioner doesn't have standing, the case is never heard. That isn't a win or loss.
@@joeymac4302 what judge ? What state . The case was not heard and no evidence was admitted. There were plenty of state hearings under oath ( Pennsylvania, Arizona ) where the cheating / fraud evidence was presented by Rudy and others . Facebook blocked the posting of those hearings and UA-cam removed those links . So your statement holds no merit .
@@thumbob Yeah, both Rudy and Goldstein both were directly questioned in two separate PA cases, and both backed off fraud claims. Search for Time magazine "Donald Trump and his lawyers are making sweeping allegations of voter fraud in public." It's a pretty good read, and shows how pretty much none of the cases (excepting one or two by crazy Sydney Powell) actually alleged fraud. Suggesting they were dismissed on standing implies there was any merit to the suites, when in fact it was a smoke and mirrors publicity stunt, trying to get simpletons riled up over something they didn't have the capacity to understand. And I know irregularities do not mean fraud necessarily. The problem is that every single irregularity has been meticulously reviewed by investigators searching for any sign of wrongdoing, and have come up completely empty handed. How did that cyberninjas audit in AZ go again? I think they found an extra 200 votes for Joe Biden, if I'm not mistaken. Or maybe that was the one by the GOP in Milwaukee. And yes, lack of standing in a pending suite is a loss. It means your case had no merit. If you want to claim that's a draw, fine, but I'm not going to entertain that fantasy, lol.
OH PLEASE YOU BETTER GO AFTER THE CLINTONS THEN
Why?
@@Jose-gj8hv Idk what he's talking about, but there was that incident where she retained classified information and it ended up on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Meanwhile, I keep hearing democrats make a big deal about Trump's documents being in a bathroom and not mentioning the fact that mar a lago has secret service all around it.
@@Jose-gj8hvmurder
Riiiight. Then we can go back and revisit all of those pardoned for Iran Contra, right? How about any war crimes committed by W? You know, the whole torture thing?
Uhhh...they did...remember Lewinsky?
Amazing point not considered as to "motive" of the president following the election, the unexplained events regarding ballots amazingly appearing during the night late in the counting process.
Millions of Americans were both stunned and left questioning what the hell was going on.
The president would within his official duties be duly bound to bring about an investigation to determine what may have occurred.
Recently in Georgia alone 90k votes have come into question.
Therefore how would one determine whether the motive of the president to challenge results can be either solely personal or professional?
Simply answer - you can't!
Somewhere in all the discussion, motive does come up. As I understand it, motive cannot be used to establish legal guidelines. Objectively observed actions alone can be evaluated for legal or illegal status. Sure, motive is an ethical or moral consideration, but the justices will need to specify which _actions_ are constitutional or not, regardless of motive.
Loop
What about the bigger elephant in the room such as applying this standand TO ALL CIVIL SERVANTS not just the president. Hold all Federal and State and local politicians to the same standand. Have any district attorney in any jurisdiction criminally prosecute any politician or civil servant criminally including Michael Dreeban while carrying out their official duties for conduct in office.
Having access to legal advice is not the cloak of invincibility against prosecution the government lawyer tries to claim it is.
The president asks for legal “advice” not direction. Ultimately the president is the one who must act or not act. If the only way to shield the president from prosecution is to follow the attorney general’s advice, then the president is not the president, the attorney general is.
Nice
BOOM
Ironically that's an excellent and obvious point.
Good point
What Alito failed to address, is the office of the office of the Presidency has legal counsel in the OLC for advice.
But thats not what Trump used was it? Instead when the OLC told him he didn't have any legal paths forward...he turned to the quack law firm of Powell, Guiliani, and Ellis.
Does the justice truly believe Merit Garland is an honest Attorney General. What’s he smoking.
no one believes marrick garland is honest. this is the reason the left loves him and the conservatives hate him. if he was honest, it would be the other way around.
Merit Garland merited a vote for his nomination to the Supreme Court. But Mitch McConnell vetoed that, he and Trump and the MAGA republicans got their wish for a consecrative majority... and THIS case - it should be about trump's indictment for instigating an insurrection, but no no no! It's all about immunity in the abstract. The evidence in this indictment is too damning, so those Alito won' touch it.
He did not @@stanrapp4834
Merrit Garland couldn’t be more corrupt than Alito or Thomas if he tried.
@@stanrapp4834 Please learn to spell. It's Merrick Garand. There was NO insurrection.
What is the CHECK on the AG and the DOJ????? THEY CANNOT BE ABSOLUTE!
There should be no law to protect the government ,only laws that protect the people from the government ! That's the whole damn problem now ! It's not We the Government it's We The People ! That law should be unconstitutional !
Biden should have charges with respect to the border at least.
But you want Trump immunized?
@@Article95 what did Trump do? Did he murder Americans with drones? Did he open the southern border to allow an invasion of other countries unwanted criminals?
Why didn’t Trump fix the border? It was broken then too, even worse.
Dont you think he should get charges too?
Biden clearly using his position to subvert Federal Law.
@@Article95absolutely everyone knows this is a political witch-hunt. TDS is real . Not to mention lobbyists and politicians no longer getting $$ if Trump gets re elected which he will . That’s why this sham of doj is a political weapon
10,000,000 illegal immigrants allowed to vote in the American election is not under Trump's watch, does the Supreme Court agree???
well no one but MAGA agrees. ask AZ, how many did they find after counting them 4 times.
Do you have any concrete proves for that? Because your dear leader couldn't show not even one in 60 courts.
@@Jose-gj8hv Oh it will happen!
Why would they bother. We're not as important as we think what horse shit.
FALSE‼️
"for instance, after impeachment and conviction" CASE CLOSED!
Alito asked some great questions. Yes other countries arrest political opponents. They are called banana republics or Russia. Courts dismissed on technicalities, not lack of evidence.
Under the Biden Usurpation we have sunk lower than a banana republic. We are now a plantain republic.
None of the 2020 challenges were ever heard fully on the merits. They were blocked procedurally - many for things like standing and/or timing, not on evidence.
What does he mean they were defeated? It’s like saying “you lost a game that you never played.”
Lies!!!
@@dwaynejordan5898you wouldn't know a lie if it slapped you down.
What is more: one of those cases was Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. (2021), a case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court itself based on Lack of Standing.
IIRC, It was based on understanding that a state which violated its own national election laws (and included an injection by Alito, which was ignored) negatively has repercussions on the citizens of other states.
You are correct. The Dem argument is that the fraud remains unproven, which they support by pointing to Trump's "loss" of 60+ cases. Ignored is the fact that fraud was proven to the satisfaction of every state legislature that examined the issue. Under the Constitution, the state legislatures organize elections, not the Congress or the courts, the constitutionally dubious 1887 Electoral Count Act notwithstanding. Trump did not lose those cases. The courts' refusal to hear Trump's case does not mean Trump lost the case. It means he was denied the opportunity to make his case. As the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case." In none of the 60+ cases Democrats cite was the Trump team allowed to present all evidence of Democrat election fraud. They now habitually claim that Trump has no evidence of fraud but only after fighting tooth and nail to prevent him from airing his evidence. They "castrate and then bid the gelding be fruitful."
Yup that’s absolutely correct the cases were never judged on the merits
Is every democrat gay? Listening to this lawyer, tell me he's not.
@MeaThreattoDemocracy I could. But, I'd be lying. He speaks in the manner of a confused 14 y/o girl.
Yay!
@@RudolphDocCampos i think this atty swallowed too many times.😜
I think it's a requirement.
@@patriot4life262 that would explain the 14 y/o theory. Let's hope he wears a bib.
WTF? And your point is???
The attorney for the DoJ sounds like a worm. It’s amusing that when questioned about the protections, his response is “trust us, bro”.
The Department of Justice is not omniscient. Human emotion and prejudice will always be present.
The lawfare going on right now blows the governments attorney argument
FJB and his Gestapo...
You mean gazpacho. Fdjt and mtg.
@@Jose-gj8hv Maybe djt will get his in prison.
FU2
Is fjb mom
@@Jose-gj8hv Is this Hunter?
If you thought DC bureaucrats were deceptive slithering lispy eunuchs, you were not wrong. It’s not a trope. 😂
Judges and prosecutors have every law at their disposal.
Dropping immunity for the president of the united states, means every single judge, prosecutor ect.. shouldn't be able to have qualified immunity at all, because they should know better before even needing it.
Excellent point that sums up the core issue. The real problem is Trump is the problem they have, not Presulidential immunity.
no id ... no vote ... no citizenship ... no rights
no citizenship ... no rights
Still counted in the census, still given representation in the house.
@@forevergogowhich definitely needs to stop
Rights are given to us by God, not by our government or the constitution. All men (and women) are created with certain inalienable rights. The constitution enumerating those rights is only a restriction on the government to prevent them from taking those rights away. Thus, non citizens have the same rights.
..... and that's why biden has opened the border.
Just listening to J Smith makes me ill.
k smith isn't arguing someone e from the solicitor generals office is
I think that’s his strategy.
voice is still annoying. @@Stryyder1
Must admit my sintements exactly
he sounds like he takes it hard
Um, this kind of 'dystopian regime' has in fact come to power
She even said it is after impeachment and conviction. Since only half was done against Trump he should be free from any other court cases.
If we rely upon the inherent honesty of judicial officers and lawyers, we're bound to have every future Republican President wearing orange jumpsuits after serving their terms.
Mankind is inherently devious no one is so upright that they would never manipulate in their own favour
@douglaskriever6904 Then Democrats would have won every election with the majority of votes and Electoral College votes, not like Republicans who haven't won an election with the majority of votes in a long, long time.
I think the justices are concerned that that may become a risk for every future POTUS, from any party.
I've seen prosecutors who'd rather send an innocent man to jail before they lose a case or admit they were wrong.
Right. The argument that the DOJ and district attorneys can be relied upon for ethical and professional judgment and behavior now seems rather quaint given the history of the last 3+ years.
Malignant narcissists!!!
So in other words, we only go after the ones we don't like... if we like you, mainly, if you are a democrat, whatever you do... you need not worry.
In one court they havent even told him the charge?
The lawyer is soooooo dishonest
How?
@@dwaynejordan5898 just look at the other comments and you have your answer - trust us, we’re the government, we would never abuse our powers ….come on
It's what they do. Show me an Honest lawyer!
Alito's last point is his best one and it is absolutely true. No matter how much this lawyer tries to tap dance over it.
Well, Robert, I disagree with Alito's last point: "What is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want... a candidate who loses a very close hotly contested election, knows that he can't go off into a peaceful retirement...." hahahaha!!! This is too funny. Do you notice how Alito and his conservative colleagues don't want to ahce anything to do with the evidence of THIS case?! "I don't want to discuss the facts of this case. I am interested in the abstract argument." It's so bad for democracy that they won't even touch it, because it would expose their support for Trumpy. Robert, did you hear about the fake electors in Arizona?
@@stanrapp4834 They are arguing on the premise not the facts. This is implicitly overruled at this level of the courts.
So, when your stench Hillary called Trump an illegitimate President for 7 years, you’re all good.
@@wyldeman0O7 OK, I'll buy that. But you have to admit that all of the details of the supreme court taking up this case are very suspicious - pushing the oral arguments out to the last possible date and now, instead of putting their supreme stamp on the notion that a president is not entitled to immunity in this case, sending it back down to the lower court with instructions on what kind of immunity a president DOES have. Let's just make sure this case doesn't get heard before the election, right?
@@stanrapp4834You appear to be listening to the discussion with extreme bias.
The layers of protection are wishful thinking and can disappear at any moment. Depending on someone to be professional or fair minded is a whimsical thought in the mind of a lawyer.
Given the conduct of this maladministration over the past 3+ years, an expectation of fairness is very quaint indeed.
Did Janet Reno as AG allow flame throwers and tanks get qualified immunity?
So ten percent for the big guy is a “public official acting for private ends” right counselor?
Thank god for the Supreme Court Justice. The VOICE OF REASON and JUSTICE!
If your fuhrer is given immunity, that means that Biden can do whatever he wants, right?
…🤔 JS attorney …’To prevent the kinds of abuses of Law being blatantly professed/hailed by the current DOJ’ is what he meant to say 🤣🤣🤣
I love justice Alito
Trust lawyers and DA's and AG's because they are almost always honest. Give me a break! So many have already shown themselves to be otherwise!🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Yeah, their only argument is "trust us. We would never prosecute in bad faith over political animus" as they hand out 91 indictments against Trump and even his lawyers.
Alito should say to arrogant lawyless hypocritical lawyer: AAHH shut up! Stop wasting my time!
🤣👍🤣🙏🤣👍CANADA,UK.GBY PRESIDENT TRUMR.
Better to let this lawyer persuade the other Justices that he is talking through his hat.
??
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
WHY IS BIDEN NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW?
Because OBiden regime is a COUP to destroy America 🇺🇸
Bidens committed treason several times as president beginning in Afghanistan, money laundering and federal felonies with presidential records taken as a vice president and senator.... His a$$ is still there.
Explain?
Proof ?
@@davidgiles9651 southern border
This was outstanding 👏
State electors have no laws saying that they have to vote for the person who got the most votes in their states. They can cast their vote for whomever they want
Yeah Hillary tried that one.
The prosecutor is a snake!
Imagine being the guy who convinced the last line of defense to give it all up...
That's a really stupid argument. We don't have kings in America.
@@danabrown6341 you live in a nation that kills millions globally
nothing can be fair against a man that wants to slow down the amerikan war machine killing
The global south loved trump bc he appeared to want to slow down your warmongering
I don't recall this much scrutiny over the Bush vs Gore case. I wonder what the difference is?
Main difference here is the court has clearly become hyper partisan instead of being comprised of objective justices. At least 4 of the justices now care little about the actual constitution.
Crimes!!!!!!!
1. The Club
2. Who's in it
@@JZFire84the FBI let it go the FBI was after Obama wanting to start war with North Korea... Real deep state bs right there
The difference is Trump is hated for his words, not his actions.
And what is also true is that there are likely dozens of attorney’s general who have done illegal things and were never convicted or even caught.
“Unwarranted legal cases”. It’s up to the jury, the judicial has no decisions authority over a jury. The Supreme Court should know this.
Smith's attorney has a tendency to use generic terms and generalizations rather than citing case law. The answer "I don't think so" isn't much of an answer from a high-power attorney.
So what I hear is only lawyers can determine what is right or wrong. A President must rely on lawyers to tell them what they can do. Has anyone ever known a shady lawyer?
One would hope the president would function with some kind of moral fortitude. But here we are where one of the candidates for the presidency is arguing he cant do the job if he's not completely immune.
Yet after Trump relied on the advice of his attorney, Michael Cohen, now he is sitting all day in the docket, unable to campaign, while Cohen is the prosecution's main star witness against him!
The argument that the DOJ and district attorneys can be relied upon for ethical and professional judgment and behavior now seems rather quaint given the history of the last 3+ years.
All presidents have played this game and the court is trying to keep Pandora’s box closed from prosecuting each other into history.
Great comments by the SC justices
I'm confused 😕. I thought that the President of the United States is the Head of the Executive Branch, not his subordinate Attorney General. The AG can advise the President, but the President is not under any obligation to take his advice 🙄.
Trump after going to the AG and his OLC and hearing from them what he didnt want. Turned to Clown law fim of Guiliani, Powell, and Ellis
Thats why he is where he is now.
That's right. The notion that misinformation provided by any AG would be a sufficient defense is obviously nonsense.
Correct and whatever decision the president makes will be subject to judicial scrutiny...simple....
@dwaynejordan5898 Nope. The Judicial Branch cannot sit in judgment of a president for anything unless the Senate has convicted him of something first. They cannot judge him for even as much as farting in the Oval Office. The President is an entirely separate Branch of Government that is Co-Equal to the other two Branches. He cannot be charged for anything he does as President without an impeachment trial and conviction first. And the Senate trial has to be a real trial, not that farce that just happened, or there will be hell to pay.
Only the constitutionalty of the act the the criminalty of it.
Alito is going to vote for Trump.
And these government attorneys and 90% of the judges will vote for Biden. (your statement is nonsensical)
@@lamp-stand575 Yes because the Globalists are paying them!
Alito is pathetically trying to make a point and he looks very weak and very much already decided. So I challenge his real unbiased fair opinion. He's a corrupted Judge
@@paulanovelli258 And Engoron is an esteemed and unbiased jurist, I suppose.
Engoron is just a judge. No more, no less. But he did give Trump more leeway than any other defendant would get similarly in that situation.@@lamp-stand575
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" run!!!!!
Thank you Justice Alito for speaking common sense.
The biggest problem is no former president can get a fair trial, especially if tried in part of the country who supports the other party. Obama would not get a fair trial in Texas for example.
what is a woman, I’m not a biologist
Are you a historian then? Did we have airports in the 1700s?
@@Jose-gj8hv No, but we had men and women, you know...adult male and female human beings.
P U S S Y I N B I O L O G I S T
Wormy. Self righteous.
Geez, I'm so glad my parents sent me to a speech therapist when I was young. I might be talking like this guy.
What will go for Trump will go forward for the rest of the USA Presidents.
Kinda. If the DOJ is on the side
Don’t forget the juicy part: the rest of the USA presidents must also do what Trump did: engaged in an insurrection to stop the votes to remain in power after losing the election after losing all courts litigations because there are no evidence to support voter frauds that can change the outcome of the election.
@@jasondominick6602presidents will have to ensure they nominate malleable AGs in the future if this becomes an option as all you need is a rubber stamp from your AG to be covered.
I guess Biden can murder Trump, huh!? This is so corrupt! If Trump gets immunity, then America is screwed. So much for law and order 😂 so much for the constitution so much for our four fathers who were smart enough to know there will be a corrupt president. Trump is just that! A destroyer of the constitution. Corrupt Supreme Court. We don't trust the Supreme Court anymore if they give that so called ex president immunity! We will be lost in America!
Absolutely,and though they can't prove Trump has any wrongdoing they can easily prove it with the last 3 presidents. Lock them up!
let me correct this "they are 2 in a long line of AGs" that got caught, it doesnt meant he rest were saints, it means 2 got caught which means others could have been abusing powers too and just never got busted for it...
"No I won't talk about the facts of this case, I want to deal with it in the abstract"
So, if the president has to implement the advice given to him by his attorneys, any deviation from that advice could be prosecuted by the next administration. Wouldn't that make those attorneys the president? What's the point of even having a president if that's the case? Those prosecutors weren't elected by a democratic process. The people don't even know who these people are. What if the advice they give to the president is wrong? Does the president still get indicted, or do those attorneys get indicted? If its the president, then that would effectively mean that they enjoy immunity and the president does not. What this guy is arguing is absolutely insane and absurd
Look who's calling the kettle black !!!
All one has to do is look at what they blsme others doing there doing !!!
Good, good, Justice Alito
It is interesting to learn how easily a prosecutor can get an indictment, even though it sounds like a guilty verdict.
Almost spit my coffee out at about 5:55 when he said "Mister" Dreeban. Mister??? Ok 😂😂😂 I had no idea.
He didn’t lose cases he wasn't allowed to even push the cases, they consistently denied trials and wouldn't seek evidence this guy just lied to the court
Correct. The Dem argument is that the fraud remains unproven, which they support by pointing to Trump's "loss" of 60+ cases. Ignored is the fact that fraud was proven to the satisfaction of every state legislature that examined the issue. Under the Constitution, the state legislatures organize elections, not the Congress or the courts, the constitutionally dubious 1887 Electoral Count Act notwithstanding. Trump did not lose those cases. The courts' refusal to hear Trump's case does not mean Trump lost the case. It means he was denied the opportunity to make his case. As the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case." In none of the 60+ cases Democrats cite was the Trump team allowed to present all evidence of Democrat election fraud. They now habitually claim that Trump has no evidence of fraud but only after fighting tooth and nail to prevent him from airing his evidence. They "castrate and then bid the gelding be fruitful."
"Once in awhile, there is an eclipse too"😂😂😂😂😂
"If you lose you accept the result"... unless you're Al Gore.
Though it doesn't always work....Laws are passed to define limits and put into print limitations on prosecutors, judges and government.
this Justice Dept lawyer is a absolute 🤡!! 💯
I hear alot of "slam dunk guilty" on the government's side of the argument. Yet where is the trial that has convicted the charges? Innocent until proven guilty is a law of what country?
I love how the Prosecution lists the President's obligations in THEIR order:
• Laws of the US
• then The Constitution
🤦🏻
You’d think there would be more that 2 of 46 presidents charged or attempted to be charged if Alito’s take were valid & the safeguards mentioned by the government’s attorney were ineffective… 🤦♂️🤷♂️