Panelists react to Trump's appeal to the US Supreme Court
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 січ 2024
- Panelists join CNN’s Anderson Cooper to discuss Trump’s appeal to the US Supreme Court in the Colorado ballot ban case arguing that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist clause” doesn’t apply to the presidency. #CNN #News
Im tired of his s***. Send him to jail
I am actually surprised Satan has not cashed in yet.
Then I remember how many souls he gets from the creep.
He may be around for a long time sadly.
Easy ... let's give Joe and Hunter due process first. Calm down
OMG so true!!
On what charge,... oh to satisfy your TDS
I am too! Maggie looks as if she were at a funeral, poor thing.
What about the aid or comfort part, he has publicly said he will pardon them & calls them patriots.
Why does everyone look over this part Chump is recording songs to raise money for the insurrectionist legal fund isn't that aiding and abetting giving comfort.
Trump allowed the insurrection to go on for 3 hours before asking them politely to go home. He did not cooperate with the DOJ to bring any of them to justice. He helped fundraise for Rudy Guliani who has been fighting fake legal battles for election fraud.
@@darrelledison7180 great point, but I'll do you even better than that - instead of arguing about the CLEAR language of the Constitution, the CLEAR definition of insurrection and the CLEAR EVIDENCE that Trump did participate in the insurrection (he was in fact the ringleader of it), NO ONE is asking Trump or his lawyers WHY he did all of this to begin with - that question will put them in a hole they can't get out of and here's why: All of Trump's legal challenges to the election failed, such as the numerous recounts and audits that confirmed his loss; the DHS head of election security (Chris Krebbs) finding no evidence of fraud; Ken Block, a fraud expert who the Trump campaign hired found no fraud; the Bill Barr fraud investigation that turned up nothing and last but not least the 60 times he lost in court. With the failure of all of these legal challenges WHY didn't Trump just tell his supporters he will run again in 2024 and leave 2020 alone? Why do all this? In my opinion, THAT is the question we should be focused on.
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
Yeah, I'm not sure that's the way it works. All of that stuff you mentioned happened, kind of after the fact. You would need to show comfort and support for the insurrection before or during the actions that could be considered part of the insurrection.
just lock him up already and throw away the key
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
The question as to whether or not Trump incited an insurrection can easily be answered by the vast majority of Jan 6th defendants who plead guilty to multiple counts of law breaking, when they said they “went to the capital and engaged in lawlessness because Trump told us to”. That is a strong case against Trump.
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
Make a sens 👏👏
How about the video of him (along with his family) watching the insurrection on a big screen and Trump anxiously saying "come on" when the crowd was not yet forcing their way into the bdg. Eric and his girlfriend and Meadows saying Fight! Fight! to the camera!
I have a copy of that video proving his involvement. Why is it not being used to prove his role?
Very good question!
Exactly, speaks to intent, anyone else would have done everything to stop the chaos, he just stood there and watched!
Old man afraid of prison
It wasn’t just the speech, he was part of the planning, “it will be wild”
This is alleged, but it’s been said that Former Failed Guy and Bannon started working on his acceptance speech, despite the actual count, in July of the same year.
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
((((☠️toDT)))))
((((JFK ((((((DT))))
Trump planned the protest. He tweeted that the protestors should "go home peacefully".
Hardly the words of an insurrectionist.
Trump wanted Pence removed from the certification process because he had an alternate ready to take over the certification process who would accept the fake illegal ballots, but Pence stayed to finish the certification. What is so egregious to me is that Pence didn't have Trump removed from office immediately following this when he had the chance.
@@ardentynekent2099 "It will be wild" is a quote from a tweet he sent inviting people to come to Washington on January 6.
Presidents do take an oath to the constitution.
Yes, in the constitution says that you can run for president if you’re in prison for murder
The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency - the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
right you are
"President's oath to the constitution
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
@@mrmacq-jk4td Which Donald Trump proceeded to violate.
Right!
I'm confused. I thought the GOP was in favour of states rights
Only when it benefits themselves…🤔🤷🏾♂️😏
Wrong GOP. That was the old GOP. The new one supports calling people names and being as close to a mean 7th grade boy as possible!
Sadly, you will find yourself confused alot and not educated constantly. Just be or try my dude
@@shanan1124 just like the Constitution for the Democrats. Great observation.
It’s not that simple , the constitution clearly puts congress in charge of the insurrection clause
I have no idea why this "officer" question is so hard...
14th amendment: "...or hold any office, civil or military..."
Presidential oath: "...I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..."
This doesn't seem all that complicated of a question. It just requires actually READING.
If Trump establishes that Presidents are immune, then I have a few interesting suggestions for Joe Biden that he can immediately begin implementing.
Donald is making a strong case for Joe to lock him up until the election is over.
It's "criminal defendant Trump"
@@heemlo649that’s right, deflect. God forbid the party of personal accountability actually take personal accountability.
@@heemlo649 Don doesn't nap. He's 24/7 on untruthful social whining over injustice and eating KfC at the same time
Republicans have even been arguing that Biden can use fake electors and even pressure States to overturn the results.
If I am not mistaken the question of Presidents no taking an oath to actually support the Constitution has been brought up by Republicans as well.
Republicans for Biden 2024 baby😍😍
Why isn't he already in jail? Then we wouldn't be dealing with all the BS from this indicted criminal?
oh because he didn't commit any crimes, -- dah.
and u support ur democrats associated with epstein?
@@markb7303 he's admitted to committing the crimes he's been charged with.
that kinda means he did commit crimes.
Because he wasn’t convicted of Insurrection
From Belgium, how can anyone say he is not an insurrectionist
And a TRAITOR
You got your own problem in Belgium too worry about
How long now too you become a Muslim country 😂👋
Leave America too the big boys
Hi, Belgium! ! I think so. Five people killed, many harmed, and many charges of “guilty" that followed suggest otherwise..
It's called a$$ hats want to support and defend other a$$ hats... welcome to democracy
Belgium needs to right the wrongs of Leopold before they comment on US politics! Congo is waiting! The family of Patrice Lumumba is waiting!
@@baroncircleclassiccarsdean6083
He’s a democrat bot he won’t reply too you
90 percent of comments on CNN are fake
Ask them questions or challenge them about democrats being attracted to kids
Silence
Everything about democrats is fake
In his Elipse speech Donald Trump said “peacefully” once, and said “fight” over twenty times. Sounds to me this is a question for a jury to decide what he meant.
With America in the state, it presently finds itself, are you that confident in 12 jurors?
@@francoisbouvier7861the grand jury in Georgia did alright.
No jury has EVER decided whether a candidate is qualified to run for office. Stop trying to change the laws for Trump. Trump did an insurrection and disqualified himself.
When talking about the SCOTUS review of the CO Supreme Court ruling, there is no jury.
@@stlsensimilla did trump have anything to do with selecting the Grand Jury? Did the GJ convict and sentence trump? Just asking
Presidential immunity is an absolute joke. No one should have that.
So should we charge Obama for bombing an American in a foreign country 🤔
It's beyond ridiculous the coward avoiding delaying accountability
Tump is arguing for presidential ABSOLUTE immunity.. which is a complete joke. But Presidential immunity itself is actually a good thing. It allows the president to make tough decisions. Like if a plane was going to crash into a building and the president ordered it shot down, but in doing so part of the plane broke off and killed someone. Presidential immunity says he can’t be charged with murder for that.
@@jimako6 Trump has always been a coward.
@@Cme684Biden will get it if he invokes it. And you only get it if you invoke it correctly as in in writing or verbally with it recorded.
Not just ban him from the ballot. Send him to Russia. please.
A nice toasty place like Kenya. Wouldn’t that freak his tiny brain out. But no .. wouldn’t want to do that the Kenyans. How about China? He’d fold in a week.
😂😂😂
Holy shit... this is the single most important issue that SCOTUS is going to have to decide on. If the 14th is anything to go by, and Democracy is something they are willing to defend, or they are just going to bow out to their perceived Master.
Biden is afraid as always; isn’t he??
This is easy genius
I hope they rule that the President has unlimited immunity and that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to him. With those kind of powers Democrats can keep the office of President from now to forever.
@@toddr2265 Interesting.
@@toddr2265 They could but unfortunately Biden isn't that kind of man. I think he'd do the right thing and step down if he lost the election. Something that orange pos hasn't and will never do.
If he didn't incite with the speech he definately did with the "mike pence didn't have the courage tweet"
That *could be really important, as after VP Pence signed off on the electors, he no longer held any office from which to seek immunity. *Probably. Maybe?
Yep. The one he sent AS the mob was attacking cops and breaking in through windows. The one that got him banned from all social media .
@@ardentynekent2099 no, he held office until Jan 20.
It says that he is not allowed to support insurrectionists and telling them he loved them seems fairly supportive to me. DUH!!!
He may use the psycho'sl defense.-- ‘I’m a congenital liar !” .again,. Still baffled.
I'll be voting for the only one of the two major candidates who was NOT on the Jeffrey Epstein list. 🇺🇸🇺🇸Biden 2024🇺🇸🇺🇸
Q had a point about the Elites abusing children. MAGA just didn't realize their favorite orange candidate was involved.
Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, August 18, 2000. ‘The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.’
No double jeopardy, No immunity.
Another strange example of an intelligent person defending the indefensible! I just seriously don’t understand it! Did Fox News brainwash all these people?
Why aren't all the Blue States doing the same thing...???
@@Fatdog-Dakind I can’t really answer your question other than I think that people that watch Fox News as their only news source, believe a different truth than the rest of the world! It seems to me that hard-core Trump followers are a radicalized cult without hope
@@Fatdog-Dakind-- It's not a red state vs blue state issue. So far, he's been excluded in two states, and in both cases, the action was initiated by republicans. More than a dozen other states are looking at the same process.
@@Fatdog-Dakind Blue states? Is everything political to you?
His actions include so much more than just that speech
An increasing number of voters are frustrated, angry, and exhausted. Does anyone care?
Wait, so letting States decide this is "chaos", yet "abortion is murder" and we should let States decide if murder is ok?
Even the dumb ones on Supreme will vote this down. Its insane.
How can you be so confident? There is a reason why trust in the supreme Court is record low... Because they act as political actors.
Have you read this amendment? Sane as it gets.
0:18 ‘I’m so freakin’ happy to be here" -Maggie Haberman. (does she EVER smile?)
Within his whole speech he only said peacefully once at the very beginning and never said it again at all within the rest of the speech that he gave. He did state several times that they were going to have to fight! Even Ruddy said that they should have trial by combat!
The fact that these laws are open to interpretation and clear cut is ridiculous!!! We need laws that are straight forward and not having to rely on a judge’s view of what the law meant!
*straightforward
The 14th Amendment is crystal clear.
@@RBS314 disgraceful traitor Scott Perry is currently in the finding out phase from his own 6 Jan FAFO. Thank you SC Jack Smith!
it is straight forward... trump is a liar and con man...he's trying to change the narrative to his game instead of playing by the rules...people get on the defensive... and he's the only one that should be on the defensive... he's a felony defendant out on bail
until it doesnt work in their favor!
An amicus brief is being submitted by two highly regarded law firms addressing the issue to SCOTUS about presidential immunity which is clearly substantiated by the Constitution as well as documents preserved by the authors of the 14th Amendment, Johnson and Morrill. The Amendments clearly state anyone, rather than listing all the positions in government. It is definitive.
I'm so tired of these panelists addressing Frump as "President". Correction "FORMER PRESIDENT"
I prefer Defendant Trump, Mark. Even better, later this year, Convict Trump.
If anything he was former «president «. He had help to win by the Russians. Besides, he was not fit for office, is uneducated and scaringly naive. No wonder he is in over his head regarding Putin.
It's common practice - you hear "President Obama" and "President Clinton" a fair bit as well.
I’ll remember to call biden former president and Clinton I’ll just call pedo island bill and Obama will be obama
Treating Trump differently shall send wrong signal to the public unless he's above the law
Ok, When Dems leave office, we will block and arrest all of the also for breaking actual laws. Stupid idie, but Dems open that Pandora's box constantly.
He has been treated differently and it has been sending the wrong signal for years.
They have sadly already shown that he is on and in multiple instances. a perfect example is when he made that idiotic twitter post of him buying and holding that Glock 9 and holding it. Ok for the sake of it let's split hairs even IF he didn't buy it as someone going through federal level court proceedings he legally can't even touch a gun, and that law is still in place country wide to my knowledge.
@@johnnygolden2914 what on earth are you talking about?
@@johnnygolden2914 ???? Confused? You talking about Hunter Biden maybe?
Can a state exclude someone from the primary ballot? Of course they can. Every candidate must meet the state's qualifications to appear on the ballot. For example, each candidate must submit a document with a specified minimum number of signatures on it, from registered voters of that state, supporting the person's candidacy. Fail in this, and the candidate won't be on the ballot, even if they are on the ballot in 49 other states.
Actually he is not disqualified until Congress says he is which would occur on Noon January 20, 2025 if Congress chooses not to vote or votes but fails to get 2/3 vote to lift. Until that happens, Trump's disqualification has no force and States cannot keep him off the ballot as a disqualified candidate. It's pretty simple to understand.
Trump doesn't hold the office of the Presidenct until Noon on January 2025. It's right in the Constitution:
Article II
Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,
His term of office is 4 years exactly. From Noon on January 20, 2025 to Noon on January 20, 2029
Even if Trump is disqualified under 14C3, he's not disqualified until January 20, 2025. 14C3 refers to holding office not running for office. 14C3 says Congress can lift the disqualification by a 2/3 vote. Trump has until January 20, 2025 to convince Congress to lift or he will be a President Elect who has failed to qualify as governed by the 20th Amendment. Trump CANNOT be denied access to the Ballot even if they are right (Which they are not.)
20th Amendment Section 3
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Trump is NOT disqualified until Noon on January 20, 2025 if Congress does not vote or votes but fails to get 2/3 to lift his disqualification.
In other words, the 14C3 imposed upon the President does come into effect until Noon of January 20, 2025 when Trump must take the Oath to hold and serve his term. At any time before that time, if Congress votes 2/3 to lift, Trump can take the oath and hold and serve his term. However, if Congress chooses not to act or if Congress votes and fails to get 2/3, then Trump's disqualification goes into effect at Noon on January 20, 2025. Trump will be classified as a President Elect who failed to qualify under the 20th Amendment. Trump's VP will serve the term of POTUS until Congress lifts (Which they may never do.) At this point Trump will be stuck in President Elect Limbo unable to hold and serve his term for a period of 4 years until Noon on January 20, 2029 when his term ends.
The Congressional Lift acts as a fail-safe. On January 06, 2025, after the Joint Session of Congress certifies Trump as President Elect, the Joint Session would have to take a vote to lift Trump's disqualification. If Congress chooses not to vote (they don't have to.) or they vote but fail to get a 2/3 vote, Trump will a President Elect WHO HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY under the 20th Amendment. Come Noon on January 20, 2025, Trump will not be allowed to take the oath to hold and serve as POTUS. Trump's VP will take that oath.
What you're saying is mostly true, but there are enough procedural ambiguities, unanswered legal questions, and jurisdictional matters that can only be settled by the Supreme Court.
This case is of national importance, but the court could ultimately rule this is a political question for Congress and state governments.
LOL. Let me know how it turns out!
@@Jackie-wn5hx and by pucking it to the state governments would mean Trump is going to be off the ballot in numerous states- passing the responsibility will guarantee a very tumultuous election cycle, even moreso that what people are bracing for.
@@PolarisAb let me know how it works out in the end! You’re about to get an education on how the Supreme Court determine what happens in regards to the Constitution! LOL
How do you peacefully and patriotically fighr like hell at the same time? Leave it up to a jury.
You would think common sense,seems a jury needs to adjudicate that,THAT is worrying?
Unarmed I guess.
Do you like how the argument was his speech did not inspire his supporters to fight like hell and take their Country back , but they argue some random dude they claim was a undercover FBI agent named Ray was able to do it. 😂😂
"but dad, he told me to do it"....😂😂
Why is he saying that he offered up 10,000 troops. Why would he say that? Because he knew the mob he called was going to riot. Now he’s too stupid to know that his lie tells on him.
Interesting. It’s tragic that we’re playing semantics with fine minds. If all if this requires common sense and a reasonable standard, isn’t the Commander-in-Chief, by definition an office holder? Did they have an “unhinged argument in the president’s office? Some attorneys are playing “loophole of the day! Aren’t I clever!” Unfortunate.
"hey i got you a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Can you do me a favor?"
“Yeah. ... I just need 5 votes just you know five. Five zero. “ “the main thing y’all should know is: he wants you to do him a “favour” though. What a fraud the guy is. It is so weird that these small town and Midwest and southern states loooove this New York City grifter. And he’s got Marks aplenty just thrilled to give him their hard-earned money. Bee-Zara!!
Yes, Trump used the word “peacefully” once, but he used the word “fight” repetitively in his speech. Most importantly, he didn’t say anything to quell the riot for 3 hours after it began! That fact is far more damning. He wanted an insurrection!
Trump arguing against the potential for chaos, is rich. If it weren’t for Trump, we, as a country, wouldn’t currently be in a state of chaos now.
Trump said he’s an officer… February 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, LLC, 951 F. 3d 503, concluded, at President Trump's request, that the U.S. President is a federal officer, when they wrote: “President Trump removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).”
Interesting. Problem may be his veracity and reliability.
Praying SCOTUS allows states to DQ this. Dave the USA from a soon to be convicted of at least 91 felony crimes dementia patient. 😮😢
"Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances," - United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
How could one guy be above the Law .. it’s just UNREAL… #LOCKTRUMP2024
It would be great if trump fired his lawyers and argued all of his own cases. His knowledge on the law is the same as his knowledge on string theory. 0
And I bet he still knows more than you do
Trump has proven time and time again that he knows absolutely nothing apart from the art of the grift.
Conning the gullible is his only talent
@@cellycell8970from Belgium, i don't think he knows even more than a todler of 4years old
Windmills causing cancer
Windmills killing whales
Windmills killing birds by the hundreds
Flushing toilets 10 times in your country, suggesting, you are living in a third world country
Asking to nuke a hurricane ( for real🤪)
Changing the weather card with a sharpy
He is a narcissist dangerous psychopath
Living in his own fantasy world
@@cellycell8970 Doubtful.
Why waste time on a theory no one can prove?
Bill Clinton was on the Lolita Express 55 times😢
And what about Orangesama bin Chaos? With Ivanka!
@@rathertiredofthemess2841 get out of here you fraud
Epstein introduced Melania to Donald.
Billy lived a productive life!
@@rathertiredofthemess2841
Tell me about Ashley Biden and her allegations her father Joe is a child molester
Serious allegations are they not and from his own child
Elliott Williams is spot on: "This is why we have a Supreme Court. It exists for the purpose of sorting out these complicated legal questions... precipitated by the mess the framers left us... in their wisdom, there are ambiguities in the Constitution and they have to be sorted out and this is precisely one of them."
Sorry, Elliot Williams also thinks whether POTUS, who takes a constitutional oath to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States", is an officer of the United States is a hard question. And the framers of the 14th Amendment didn't leave us a "mess", at least as far as whether section 3 includes the President. As Senator Lot Morrill of Maine said during the debate over ratifying the 14th in 1866, "Let me call the Senator's attention to the words 'or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.'"
Perhaps Mr. Williams could explain why the framers of the 14th would've excluded POTUS. Then again, it's "a hard legal question", or at least one that Mr. Williams seems incapable of answering.
@@tomc8888 I don't think it's Elliot Williams who is struggling with the question of whether or not the POTUS is an officer but he is rather reporting the case that's going to the Supreme Court because at least one of the states, I think Colorado, is grappling with this translation in the Constitution. It seems pretty clear to me that a POTUS cannot be allowed to engage in insurrection because therefore, we'd have no democracy. It's crazy that we had a POTUS instigating an insurrection or giving aid and comfort to those involved so it's just never come up in the past. Saying whether or not the POTUS is an officer should be an easy determine for SCOTUS but whether or not Trump's actions fit the description of insurrection seems to be the challenge. And whether or not states have the right to remove the traitor from the ballot is another challenge. I personally think they do have the right to make that determination without Congress.
The President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. That role, in and of itself, is clearly an 'Office' in the President's role as head of the Executive branch as defined by the constitution. If that doesn't qualify the President as an 'officer' in the context of the 4th amendment what in God's name does? In his official capacity as Commander In Chief, he ordered the military to forcefully disband a peaceful protest for the sole purpose of conducting a morally and ethically reprehensible photo op. The idea of incontrovertible Presidential immunity is logically inconsistent with the idea of separate but equal branches of government enshrined in the DNA of our democratic republic as envisioned by the founders.
Trump will try to intimidate his way into a win.
As always but he’s such a looser he, again, will Invent whatever to try and win
Biden is perpetually afraid of President Trump and lives his life around him as do the cult of democrats.
He's going to intimidate the Supreme Court justices?
@@Jackie-wn5hxhe's going to try.
@@Jackie-wn5hxnope, he’s hoping that the 6 Republican appointed justices will side with him! We’ll never know if he contacts any of the justices and tries to influence them, but there is definitely a precedence that he has set to try and strong arm justices!
Two things we will never know, how the universe was created, and how Trump can evade any legal jeopardy for an insurrection.
He was the president the head of the government. How could he be accused of trying to overthrow himself?
@@Lucas-ix8bg 😂 No, he was trying to overthrow the government of the United States of America.
@@Lucas-ix8bg called a self coup.
look it up.
@@vforwombat9915 you seem uncertain about your accusation. Was it an insurrection or a coup?
@@michaelthompson9548 its impossible to overthrow the neocons and the elites. How dare he? Away with him😠
States have authority or they would have not announced the news of Trump off the ballot!
I can't understand why they need to go to the supreme court because they will all keep appealing this. Just let the states vote or let the governors vote. Its only 2 states that said no 2/50 is like nothing I know it will influence other states but probably no more that 5 more so lets say at its worse 9/50 states remove Trump off the ballot.
He is still the leading candidate and no Red state will take him off so realistically it will only hurt like 15% of his voters.
Moronic logic, Because they did it makes it legal?
Not in a federal election genius...it is the Democrat fascists at work
@@markb7303 - The supreme court ruled that only the states have the right to allow abortions. The Constitution gives states the only right to run their elections the way they see fit. What's the difference? States have absolute rights in what you want but they do not have rights in what you don't like.
Yes they would it's called a political stunt.
He wants to try to intimidate the judge.
The Colorado court got nothing wrong. Trump is off the 2024 ballots based on the 14th amendment. Honor the constitution the most sacred law.
Trump said he was bring the constitution back. I guess to torch it for his self serving favor.
No immunity.
He was never convicted of insurrection. I was never a trump supporter, but after witnessing the gestapo crap the democrats are pulling, I support him now.
Absolutely agree Donald Trump is off the ballot because our constitution says so! He disqualified himself because he’s an idiot
The States that haven't removed him from the ballot are guilty parties. They should all be scrambling to do the same, according to law, he's not eligible.
When he says walk up to the capital and peacefully protest he’s being cute. In Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony he knew that this crowd was armed and most were not able to get through the magnetometers and they were angry after being lied to that the election was stolen. It’s like telling someone that this person vandalized your house and ruined your life but here is a gun go and talk to them nicely.
On Trump's Muslim ban. I lost touch with some close family members. They were mostly agnostic, atheist, or Jewish. Some might have been Muslim but I'm not sure because we never talked about Islam. But they were banned from entry to the US because of the country where they were born. We used to visit on a regular basis, but they stopped trying to visit because of Trump's ban on Muslims entering the country. Even though they probably weren't Muslim.
Good they're not wanted here. 🥴 🤡 🤤
Your not well mentally 🤣
What a load off rubbish you just wrote.
Muslims and democrats should get along fine as both like young children
Do they not ?
Astonishingly believable!
@@heemlo649 You have no idea what you're talking about.
@@heemlo649 Don't criticize someone until you've walked a mile and their shoes. Because then you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.
If presidents can be above the law, then it's not democracy.
It makes the president a King, a Sultan, a Emperor or a God
@@janejones8672 So very true.
Many girls came forward and said that Bill Clinton likes them young 🤔
This will be shut down. These people are absolutely out of control.
“Those people”?
@@hillaryallen8423 You heard me, Hillary.
Someone who was innocent would not need complete immunity; would they?
The Colorado ruling will be quickly knocked down.
SCOTUS may also have to review the matter in a federal challenge to the qualifications of the three Washington, D.C. presidential electors that must be adjudicated administratively by the DC Mayor. It could be appealed for judicial review before the DC courts all the way to SCOTUS. The National Archivist and President of the Senate may be considered indispensable parties in these federal jurisdictions and then SCOTUS can refine the issues of law and fact considered for the entire national set of DJT electors along with the 3 D.C. electors and the DJT ballot appearances. A supermajority of 2/3 of both Houses is now required to remove the disqualification reached in Co. and Me., but the ORDERs are temporarily stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS.
It’s too bad SCOTUS isn’t pragmatic, because disqualifying Trump right now would surely make many problems go away with the wind. All these trials fade into the background, you might actually get a free and fair election in November, and Americans can begin debating real issues to help real people. Instead, I fear they’ll side with Trump or kick it back to the states like they did with abortion
Yeah, they'll probably kick it back to the states. The Constitution says that it's up to the states to handle elections so they'll probably use that as their justification.
Did Criminal Man recuse? If not, why?
I hope he gets totally defeated and humiliated by voters in the general election. If he doesn’t burst from telling nonsense every hour of the day. He’s off his malignant, narcissistic rocker. Gonzo.
Yeah... And now the Colorado judges decision is stayed indefinitely. It literally means nothing. It was all for this media show.
LOL….the Dump is a Hoot!! He always gives us a good laugh
Trumps appeal are the rantings of a psychopath
How’s the weather up you demented hero bidens Az?🤔
No that would be the CNN comments section
Home to the mentally unstable 😂
First CNN episode in decades that feels like the old Walter Kronkite days, of just reporting the FACTS!
(Sorry, Your typo: It’s Cronkite, but yes!)
"Commander in Chief" sounds like an officer to me.
If you argue that states should stay out of national elections, you basically argue against the electoral college and in favor of a normal democracy where every vote counts the same, as it exists in most other countries. That would have prevented Trump from winning in 2016, and in fact every other Republican president in the past few decades. Great.
They don’t want to handle this because the law is the law and if they judge in his favor it will be the end of their ability to judge
Spot on. No one can be “supremer” than don the con. If mister bull hockey doesn’t like the way one of them smiles it’s off with his or her robe. Yup. Not a good idea if they want to remain.
The modern usage of the term president to designate a single person who is the head of state of a republic can be traced directly to the United States Constitution of 1787, which created the Office of President of the United States.
Understand this, the first line begins; "Any person who..." No who is excluded from that?
The bs argument over the word officer. To throw that horse apple into the pot, you have to argue why they wanted a president NOT be included. You KNOW they would've mentioned it.
THAT Ladies and Gentlemen, is this preposterous assumption. He's an Officer. Did he not serve the "Office" of the President? Did he not have a desk and chair, a phone and a door?
He took the oath, and opened the office door and helped himself to the goodies. Yes it includes the President
Tom Hanks is on the list😢
And if they need to go to prison…we are okay with that! You’re the one who doesn’t care Orangesama was his best client!
Huh? Forest Gump?
@@rathertiredofthemess2841 President Trump never went to Epstein Island.
@@jeffhampton2767 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 yeah and I have ocean front property in Arizona going cheap…interested.
@@rathertiredofthemess2841
That would be Bill Clinton
50 times he was on the flights
26 times too Epsteins island
Why are democrats never far away from allegations of child sexual abuse
Anderson Cooper is on the list😢
You do realize that Mr Cooper isn’t straight? Jeffrey Epstein would need to sex traffic teen boys to make your claims true…. He didn’t. Epstein only trafficked in underaged girls and he got the idea from Trump.
lol! Are you worried you’re on it?
Our wonderful country is so divided.
I have absolute immunity and there’s nothing anyone can do about it!
😂😂😂😂
He wasn't scared its always been his plan get into S C how many judges he appointed 😮
He is not intelligent enough. Mitch McConnells Primary Mission completed during the 🍊 imbeciles Reign 😮!!!
Oh. Yeah. Right. Of course. 5 dimensional chess and Mexico will pay for it and failed fake university lousy steaks failed casino botched the pandemic by spouting a lot of garbage and thousands upon thousands died needlessly called nazis fine people and broke law after law after law. Sleazy grifter from where?oh yeah. New York City! Love it. Send yer money while he’s out there losing what’s left of his mind. It’s all funds for Donny .. nothing for the losers in jail that he doesn’t give a hoot about. Talks cheap. Proof. He ain’t into that much. Gee didn’t you notice that? To busy being conned. By a well-known cheat (in New York City that was well-known). And now look. He shoulda stayed in tv. He might have gotten away with it. But his bloated malignant ego just had to grab more and more and... whoops! Don’t look up.
As I’m reading the petition. It bothers me them stating “President Trump” they should correct that and say “former president”. He’s not president right now
YOU Always refer to a former president as "President".. It's a title YOU NEVER lose. Stupid.
Office, or officer is not the only word mentioned in section 3 of the 14th amendment. The word military is also mentioned. Since the president is commander-in-chief of the military, why would that not apply?
On the question about whether or not the president is an officer of the US… Didn’t the CO Supreme Court quote records of conversations, from when the amendment was written, where they said it does apply to the president?
Former President Donald Trump is appealing a ruling that found he is not immune from criminal prosecution as he runs out of opportunities to delay or even derail an upcoming trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Lawyers for the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner filed a notice of appeal Thursday indicating that they will challenge U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision rejecting Trump’s bid to dismiss the case headed to trial in Washington, D.C., in March.
The one-page filing, the first step in a process that could potentially reach the Supreme Court in the months ahead, was accompanied by a request from the Trump team to freeze deadlines in the case while the appeals court considers the matter.
The appeal had been expected given that Trump’s lawyers had earlier signaled their plans to pursue all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, what they say is a legally untested question of a former president’s immunity from prosecution. It’s part of a broader strategy by him and his lawyers to try to postpone the criminal cases against him until after next year’s presidential election, averting trials that could unfold in the heat of the presidential campaign.
The appeals court is expected to schedule dates for written briefs and oral arguments, though it’s not clear when those would be.
The argument that Trump is immune from prosecution for actions taken within his role as president has for months been seen as perhaps the most weighty and legally consequential objection to the case made by the Trump lawyers ahead of trial. No former president has ever been prosecuted before, a lack of historical precedent Trump’s team has seized on in trying to get the indictment tossed out.
Now that the immunity argument has already been rejected by Chutkan, Trump’s best hope at delaying the trial appears to be convincing the D.C. appeals court or ultimately the Supreme Court to pause the case while the higher courts consider his prosecutorial immunity claim.
However, the rejection last week by a three-judge panel of the appeals court of Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity in civil cases accusing him of inciting the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, suggest he likely faces an uphill battle. While it’s possible the Supreme Court may feel compelled to step in to address an unprecedented legal question, there’s also no guarantee the justices will take the case up at this stage.
Though it typically takes months for appeals to wind their way through higher courts, the appeals court and the Supreme Court could quickly resolve the question of immunity if the judges want to, said Jessica Roth, a Cardozo School of Law professor who has been following the case.
Trump’s lawyers have asserted that he cannot face criminal charges because the actions spelled out in the indictment fell within his duties as president.
But Chutkan said that nothing in the Constitution nor American history justifies cloaking former presidents with immunity from prosecution for actions they took while in office.
While the Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions within the scope of their their official duties, courts have never before had to grapple with the question of whether that immunity extends to criminal prosecution.
Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor, said she believes the immunity argument will be a losing battle for Trump, even before the conservative-majority Supreme Court.
The case charges Trump with conspiring to subvert the will of voters in a desperate bid to cling to power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden. It is the first of four criminal cases Trump is facing that’s scheduled to go to trial, though it’s possible the appeal could delay the case.
Special counsel Jack Smith has separately charged Trump in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. That case is currently set for trial next May, though the judge has signaled that that date might be postponed.
Trump is also charged in Georgia with conspiring to overturn his election loss to Biden. And he faces charges in New York related to hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Trump dragging out his big lie is just intensifying his guilt.
It's going to be one his downfalls on election day.
Come on. Of course he’s going to appeal. EVERYONE would appeal in this situation. It’s not remotely unusual or surprising.
No but In This case it is audacious he has no shame like Nixon.
@@rathertiredofthemess2841 true. He’s a malignant narcissist. Doesn’t change the fact he’s allowed to (and honestly has to) appeal this ruling. I didn’t not think he’s going to like the result but it’s not at all surprising he’s doing it.
Yeah and take the 5th hundreds of times and try bogus delay after delay - cause if you’re not guilty you wanna stalk, right sparky. Sure. Yea yea. That’s the ticket. Stall. Yeah. Uh huh. Oh please. Give your own SELF a break!! You wanna keep deluding your own eyes and ears? Okay then. Have a chat with the toaster oven. I hear Alex Jones and tucker Carlson are big believers in burnt stuff that tastes awful. Chew hearty and stay with that party. Or don’t. Whatever. Mexico will pay for it and your legal défense. Like he’s done so many times. Uh huh. Toaster worship.
We cannot allow state courts to decide who we can vote for.
No. We should don the con tell us what’s real and what’s fake and all about them good ol’ alternative facts like bleach and sheep medicine and rule us rather than represent us. Yupper. That’s a real republic democracy man person tv camera mexico’s Gonna pay for it and no I never said that (video playing exactly that). Oh boy yummy fun. Yee haw and get yer hate-on for the less fortunate. And for pity’s sake NEVER EVER LOOK UP.
So why didn't people speak up when each state was making different voter suppression and voter purge laws for federal elections to keep certain people off the ballot then it was all about states rights so it should be states rights now.
AS DEFENDERS OF THE CONSTITUTION: THEY CAN'T, BACK HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE'S GONE, TOO FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm so sick of hearing about the Constitution, we have a very good understanding of right and wrong and we are so allowing the writings of dead men to run this country. The people of this country really deserve better.
You can move if that helps.
What about the aiding and the abedding?
So if all the other insurrectionists are serving prison sentences. But the guy that started the whole thing gets a pass. Justice for all. I call BS on that.
Bill Gates is on the list😢
We all knew this
That’s why his wife divorced him
FACT !!!
The biggest question is why an ex president called Bill Clinton was on the flights 50 times
Bill Gates isn't running for president.
Get over it, he we was never convicted criminally of an insurrection...
Read the 14th Amendment. It specifically states you don't need to be convicted.
As a COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he is indeed an Officer; The highest officer.
Does Maggie Haberman smile? Love analysis though
She smiled once but didn't like it.
It's arguments like this that leads me to question. Why hasn't the american constitution been rewritten. To leave out all this possible doubt about b.s reason why DTJ may not be prosecuted.
My understanding is that the framers of the 14th amendment had some questions as to the language thereof. Did this apply to presidents, even thought that office was not specifically named? Did the amendment apply to the situation at hand (the civil war) or to any occasion of insurrection in the future? Excerpts I have seen from those debates make clear that the framers of the 14th amendment did indeed intend for it to apply to presidents and to any future cases of insurrection. So, for folks who are concerned with the intentions of the frames, that should be clarifying. I would like to see the appropriate excerpts mentioned more regularly in the news than they have been.
I understand the importance, but the fact that they are having these discussions is kind of ridiculous.
Was there an insurrection? Yes. Look up the definition... it's to a T.
Did he incite the insurrection? Yes...
Was there an insurrection based on his speech and events leading up to it that he directly caused? Yup. Several courts looking at evidence have already determined this and even Mitch McConnell says he did.
Is he an officer of the U.S.? Yes, the chief one.
Should he be ineligible for office under the 14th amendment? Yes, no question about it.
How that process happens I can see being a legitimate question.
Would someone PLEASE explain what the chaos is about each state determining for themselves if Donny is qualified to be on the ballot. We don't think we have chaos if some people vote for the democratic nominee and others vote for the republican nominee. We don't think there is chaos for each state to decide if abortion is legal in their state or not. No one sees any chaos that each state has their own laws which may not be the same laws in the surrounding states. I just don't get what the chaos is.
Surely the interpretation of the constitution is the job of the US Supreme Court. That being so where would they look for guidance in that task? Well to the recorded debates by the lawmakers amending the constitution of course. These show clearly they DID intend the provisions to apply to the President and Vice President. In the UK there is a record of Parliamentary debates called Hansard and every time a senior judge wishes to know what the lawmakers intended they read what was said in the debates. It is then often very clear what interpretation they need to apply in a given case. Same here I would have thought.
holding office makes you and officer
In 2023 an estimated 6.3 million children under five died, 2.9 million of them in the WHO African Region. This is equivalent to five children under 5 years of age dying every minute. Two thirds of these deaths can be attributed to preventable causes. A third of all these deaths are in the neonatal period. 0:23
Justices are there for the country.
Not those 9, they are there for the money.
@@KGershkoffthat part
Judge Luttig answered the question clearer than any of the 3 guests you've had on the show. He's the expert on Constitutional law.
So is Dershowitz and he takes opposite view of Luttig
@mrjerzheel I'll look it up thanks. The important thing is to not shoot each other
Why is there no mention of the deliberations made during the authoring of the 14th amendment? Those senators made it clear that the language in section 3 was intended to apply to the office of the president... like really clear. Why are you talking about the commas in the paragraph, when originalist interpretations are based on the intent of the original authors, which is well documented in national records? Can you just talk about them for like a few minutes?
How are ratings???
The defendant has no chance on immunity beyond a miscarriage of law. i.e. not much at all. On disqualification, he has some kind of an argument, but he doesn't have a good argument. The court made a finding of fact. That is very hard to challenge.
1. He has no immunity
2. Every state can decide who goes on the ballot but only based on a actual conviction in court.