Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Shapiro Doesn't Realize This Big Mistake & Gets It All WRONG
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- SCOTUS Makes A Decision & The Left Goes INSANE
► • SCOTUS Makes A Decisio...
Trump Is Immune
► • Trump Is Immune
Date: 4 Jul, 2024
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / theomniliberal
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
00:00:00 Teasers / Intro
00:00:45 Destiny summarizes the supreme court ruling
00:23:22 NoahPinion cited thread
00:36:28 Ben Shapiro "SCOTUS Makes A Decision & The Left Goes INSANE"
01:12:11 Legal Eagle "Trump is immune"
#destiny
#politics
#debate
THIS IS INSANE! Trump Says False Elector Scheme Was An Official Act
►ua-cam.com/video/uPAsnuj8CNQ/v-deo.html
This is easier than people are making it. If the president uses S6 to eliminate everyone he needs to eliminate to create a SCOTUS of his choosing, then he has whatever rights he wants, because SCOTUS makes that determination per the constitution.
This question is - and always has been - a question about what orders a hypothetical S6 would obey, not about what the president can do. He could have always given such orders.
If you think S6 is a magic wand the president can wave to get rid of people in his way then he could just take out prosecutors or whatever as well. It obviously doesn't work this way.
This is basically bluanon. For it to actually happen it requires WAY too many people to conspire and cooperate.
Love you 🤟
Alitos wife called it, theyre all having a laugh, lets hope enough people vote 💙
BTW tell Dan to pay for my trip to Miami. I wanna go I'm just scared of gators. Merica. BBls and fake boobs.... lesssgoooo. I heard Florida is the Kentucky of the far east.. I'm joking.... I'm joking
@@scotchbarrel4429 Biden is done. If any democrat "wins" everyone knows American democracy is a farce, No democrat has high enough international polling. CNN faked a poll saying kamala is right behind Trump. That is ridiculous. When she ran no one backed her. It's Trump or no one believes elections are real. Even big Mike Obama can't beat Trump. "Her" polling is ridiculous. No one gives a shit about the wife of a president. In 2016 CNN would have Trump - 10 to 14 points to drag him in the aggregate. It's not real. Biden is low 20's and trump hit the high 60's. Steal it again and see what happens.
For the first 10ish seconds of this video I thought they were having a back and forth conversation lol
Same, even though I watched part of it live, it still fooled me.
Why don't they actually debate about this issue
@@seanmurphy2365 They have!
@@ActuallyEvil not on this
@@ActuallyEvil the actual debate they had was disappointing for those of us who had been wanting them to debate for years. There needs to be a heated debate like on this subject
Justicetiny arc now in full swing
i miss the jewlumni😢
@@aSSGoblin1488 miss the lion of zion arc 😔
@@aSSGoblin1488
one weird trickstiny
He's on the Supreme Court along side count dankula
The problem with this decision should be so simple. The president shouldn’t be protected from scrutiny he should be subjected to intense scrutiny in every regard.
Unless their names are Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Right wingers read this ruling like they read the Bible. They point to the parts they like and ignore everything else.
Left wingers read the ruling and think…how can i get away with this using it as a weapon
Right-wingers are not the ones who cherry pick the Bible.
And that’s assuming they even read either in the first place so yeah that tracks lol.
@@stephybabs3233 They do when it comes to slavery, genocide, and anything that contradicts science.
@@AFR0PR1NC3 The Bible never says anything positive about Genocide or slavery
oh shit, Nebraska Steve is now Lawyer Steve.
Vyvanse Steve
He should just study hard and take a bar exam to see if he can pass just to prove the doubters wrong that he's not a lawyer and his opinion is not valid according to constitutional law
@@steveng6704You can’t just study for the bar exam and pass if you have zero legal background lol. I’m not denying Steven is intelligent enough to obtain a JD if he really wanted to, but no shot he would ever pass the bar without a multi-year formal education program.
@@alexd4566 never watched catch me if you can? 😂
@@steveng6704 Its a fictional movie, inspired by the tales of a guy that ironically FOOLED everyone he came across that he was this giant fraudster. none of the things he did were substantiated by anyone but himself.
Why people in comments keep treating lawyers as sacred cows? I'm a lawyer, there's nothing wrong with Destiny's analysis right here. It's just a proffession where you read stuff and you arm a puzzle of laws here and there and just make sense out of it. It's not sacred or obscure knowledge. Words and interpretations reveal themselves quite easily for anyone that can read
Wait til they hear about paralegals.
It's honestly so bizarre that people think that non-lawyers are just some cavemen walking around with the inability to understand law. And either way, Pisco agrees with destiny, and more importantly, the dissent hold the same opinions as destiny. Obviously there is some merit to these arguments lmao
What about Tax law?
Im a lawyer, and i put it to you that you are not a lawyer, because stating "im a lawyer" at the start of what you say may be enough for idiots on the internet but its not enough for me an actual lawyer (you know i am because i said at the start) You pretending to be a lawyer in order to make idiots further believe what you are defending, as a fully qualified psychiatrist i have to say this is a classic classic case of Onset GBN (Giant Brown Noser). Thats my expert opinion anyway.......ya know speaking as an Astronaught.
That sort of applies to any profession.
"I give Trump slack because he's like a child" - Ben Shapiro, just remember that guys.
LBH it's the dems in cities like new york that literally pushed this. Alvin Bragg was known for letting criminals go yet for trump he focused on getting trump guilty on any and all charges he could find. The election case was strong but the one with bragg was just document BS.
And a child who occupies possibly the most powerful position in the world should definitely be immune against criminal prosecution
Imagine going into a degree and the professor goes, "well you're kind of an idiot, so I'll bump your grade up to a B."
Damn, I missed that. Where did he say that?
@@-47-it's only the Dems who use the gov to go after their opps
Can't wait for people to say Destiny either didn't read the Supreme Court Decision or that he only got the Wiki version..
Hasanabi said that
So he read it him self with no training or understanding of constitutional law
@@gavincotter9326 Should you need special training to be able to understand the criminal immunity of your nation's leader?
the vyvanse is undefeated!
@@KonoGufo I believe those are called lawyers
Ben shapiro was mr "I'm against expanding power of the executive branch and Obama should be indicted." 😂
Fucking true, now the snake flips
When did he say obama should be indicted? I could believe it but leftists tend to lie..... every time.
What has Shapiro called on Obama to be indicted for? I have only heard far lefties and Dave Smiths saying Obama should be indicted for "bombing an American with no trial" but I heard bennyboy say that that was part of his official duties. I don't doubt that I totally missed an Arrest Obama thing from Shapiro but it would be interesting to hear what he said about it
How does the Supreme Court ruling expand the power of the executive? It doesn't grant any new powers does it?
@@ImHeywood it doesn't. It just formalized what was unwritten in the past since before now we used to not try to imprison our opponents
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Edit:
Ben is a conservative's conservative.
Ben's core value is being a conservative.
Currently conservatives have sold out to Trump.
Conservatives' other self proclaimed values are easily dropped in support of Trump, always.
Judeo-Christian values
Facts over feelings
Rationality
Morality
Logic
The constitution
....etc.
This is why Trump distorts everything!
This is why people shamelessly defend Trump regardless of how bad Trump contradicts even their own "conservative" values.
Most conservatives left a cult for another, currently the Trump cult is in full force.
We are NOT dealing with rational and moral people, we are dealing with dogmatic cultists loyal to Trump.
Look at the criticism coming from Trump supporters.
All style, no substance....just like Trump.
This is a personality cult and must be treated as such.
We must keep pointing out their blind allegiance to Trump.
@@RubenO.-tz5vv true, when applied to destiny.
And it's so depressing because Shapiro is so capable and could actually heal conservatism if he wasn't so audience captured.
@@yayorandel6048wanna elaborate on that bit, cuz destiny has many times taken positions that the left doesn’t agree with at all, like the rittenhouse case for example
@@yayorandel6048 like when destiny earns from streaming drama leage of legends watching tiktok fighting his own community ? yeah all those really require not understing stuff
Do you have any original thoughts on the matter? Or are you just going to parrot others words?
Destiny's chat is even far too charitable to Ben Shapiro. He's not just wrong on a lot of things, he's flat out pandering.
It’s a tough world out there for intelligent republicans rn. Either throw away every principle you ever stood for and shill for Trump or lose your entire base and trash your career disavowing him.
I disagree, even as a big destiny watcher
@@Amick2003
Yes, in particular I admire libertarians who haven't strayed after the Trump movement.
Funny how they are called RINOs or accused of having TDS while the real RINOs are people following an authoritarian personality cult.
@@Amick2003 didn't Destiny say he'd vote for Bidens ashes in an urn? Thats real integrity 👍 the shameless blind loyalty to a party is just as reasonable as shameless blind loyalty to a candidate. Who's accountable when the ashes aren't fulfilling their duties? Oh right, Trump probably...
Ben Shapiro is 100% correct
Insert Lethal Weapon 2 clip "Diplomatic Immunity!" *shot in head* "It's just been revoked!"
BASED?????
I love how this title is supposed to surprise me but I'm well accustomed to Ben Shapiro making mistakes and getting it all wrong.
It’s not even that he makes mistakes. Let’s not pretend Ben Shapiro doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
Yeah Destiny 100% isn’t a Biden shill no matter how incompetent.. he totally wouldn’t still vote for him if he was an Urn…
@@willygene829fr he’s so annoying, he is so obviously a shill I don’t like how destiny pretends he isn’t
Hasanabi should debate
Misrepresenting facts intentionally so your base doesn't turn on you is not "making mistakes"
how is it even humanly possible to be this locked in to a completely different reality from the one we live in
Idk ask a progressive.
@@-__Shadow__-37 comments
You guys are delusional lmfao. Think men can be women and other ret^rd stuff.
@@-__Shadow__- lets ask you?
It’s a great comment because you could be referring to either person 😉
Ben's never met Nebraska Steve. And it's akshully so sad.
"Criminal immunity" is not a phrase that should ever leave a human being's mouth or be entered into a document under any circumstances, from now till the end of time. Period.
Immunity is applied constantly in RICO cases. But not prior absolute immunity.
Destiny literally admits that presidential immunity needs to exist to some degree here (37:52). He spends the rest of the video being a liberal shill.
@@AroundTheBest “liberal shill,” huh? I find it fascinating how MAGAtards, who are so clued-in on identifying instances of politically biased arguments and actions by liberals, somehow fail to acknowledge that it is esteemed Republican Constitutional scholars like Michael Luttig who are standing MOST firmly against this ruling. Not to mention that it was Republican lawyers who brought the suit in Colorado and other states to remove Trump from the ballot and blasted SCOTUS’s ruling on that, too.
The fact is that the conservatives on this SCOTUS bench are out of line with the Constitution, period. They were put their by an incredibly sophisticated dark-money funnel (Federalist Society) whose goal is to help corporations and special interest groups keep their money and avoid regulation (see:Chevron), not to fairly and soberly interpret the Constitution.
It’s really difficult to argue with MAGAtards and other conservatives who claim not to be MAGAtards who endlessly support whatever the GOP does. At what point do we need to get to before you acknowledge the reality of what is actually happening right now? Before you realize it was a big mistake for our society? We don’t trust you because we have seen that you are delusional and do not have good judgement when it comes to politics and law.
just wait until bro realizes most countries right now and almost all throughout history have been autocratic, with the autocrat having full legal immunity
@@jeremias-serusSo? We’re supposed to be better than that. We proved that autocracy is barbarism
In a discussion with the Ambasador to Russia, the president says he will end aid to Ukraine if certain Democrats became unalive. In a dinner with the Russian Ambassador, the US Ambassador brings up the discussion with the President as ridiculous, a bad idea. Democrates become unalive. Ukraine aid stops. Prove this was soliciting a foriegn country to assassinate political rivals without examimining any part of the President's discussion with the ambassador.
No girls name comment in 3 minutes? Fell off
They were trump supporters who were trying to degrade him, they’ve now left
Those kinds of comments are being banned now there was a community post about it
Destiny? That's an armchair Wikipedia lawyer's name.
@@KingAwesomeOutputs fr? 1984 Destiny changed...
august is being a cringer and banning commenters commenting that
dude, nixon literally tried to argue "well if the president does it, that means it is NOT illegal"
Crazy to think if Hillary won we would never be having this conversation
ngl the world would be completely different if Hillary won
And if the rebels lost the revolutionary war we wouldn't either. If a trillion different things happened this wouldn't be happening.
I can't believe people didn't pokemon go to the polls smh
You have to be a huge weetard to want that outcome
@@johnno8586 Why? Please tell me how Hillary becoming the president would be worse than having an insurrectionist ex-president with almost full immunity.
I hate how Ben primes his audience to believe he's the only one who understood the supreme court ruling
At what point do people realize Ben Shapiro is basically like a right wing Hasan. He's a propagandist
Bruh, I can understand Jesse Lee Peterson being compared to Hasan, but Ben Shapiro? Ben actually has, ya know, a brain. Also principles.
@@wakkablockablaw6025 Ben has a brain? Lolz!!!
@@s1002546 At least when Ben makes an argument, you feel like he put more thought into it than "America bad, capitalism bad"
@@bartoszkrawczyk5921 But Ben has equally ridiculous arguments about socialism and Israel/Gaza. So it's basically comes down to the subject he is talking about, that makes him look smart or a complete moron.
Even Destiny is too dense to tell that Ben is a grifter.
Destiny talking about the safeguards of the judicial system like we just haven’t watched the NY asset valuation trial
Close down the WH legal dept... who needs it. nothing is illegal... I mean at least let's save some money there
I wish Ben wasn’t a coward and would stop trying in his echo chamber and join the stream and talk about the decision. Wishful thinking…. Most of these dudes are spineless cowards
I don’t think it’s cowardice, with Ben it’s always $$$$
@@noahjwhite How much more money does he need to make at this point? He established his platform and audience and should be reaching out and having conversations with people
Ben already debated destiny and embarrassed him
@@antonioiniguez1615 How did Ben embarrass Destiny?
@@antonioiniguez1615
It was literally a one hour chat. Hardly a debate at all
The troll comments make me not want to live on this planet anymore
Your life is so hard. Opposing views are so hard to stomach, I know 😢
So what planet would you like to live on? Maybe try the "dont read the comments" planet. No one is forcing you to read them so you just have a tendency for self harm. It's just not that serious cuz, watch a disney movie and eat some popcorn 🎉
@@samanthasmith733If those “opposing views” weren’t based on perversions of reality and completely made-up facts, it sure would be a lot less nauseating to counter them.
@@samanthasmith733Living in a country where 40% of the people have blindly decided they want facisim is hard.
The real plot twist: at least half of them, probably arent even trolling. 😬
Ben Shapiro simping for Trump? Who would've thought...
Mans didn't even vote for him the first time around.
FUN FACT!:
A Giant Black Hole Hurls Through Space At Five Million Miles Per Hour
Yes please
And earth is flying through expanding space at 5 mil mph… how soon do we collide?
Fun Fact:
The Appalachian mountains have been on earth for longer than trees!
Fun Fact:
The sun is hot
@@PigPissBeUponThemDo you think black holes don't exist or smth?
1:11:00 he's soooo short sighted this isn't just about Trump and Biden JFC
Thank you for taking the time to break it all down for us Stevie.
thanks for the update vg, really rounded out the video
Better call Steve
Legit these intros are really effective in making me watch this shit.
This kind of content is exactly why I like to watch/listen to destiny.
Much thanks for mentioning the notes. I had no idea you had such a useful thing available for free. 👩🍳's 💋
I do have to admit I find it funny that the people I see most celebrating it are also those who a few years ago were most condemning the idea of policy by judge. What I find most striking, though, is not the adventurous policy nature of the decision, but the rank amateur capacity with which the decision was constructed. Even if one is of the opinion that rules such as these should exist, the form in which they are conveyed is absolutely childish. It presumes endless goodwill on the behalf of the president, and countenances no possibility that the powers might be abused. It is at best arguable whether a decision such as this should exist, but even if you think it should then you should be outraged with the terrible quality of the decision itself.
...oh my god i forgot, you are right. Around when Roe v Wade was struck down, conservatives were doing victory laps, saying "Yeah, no more legislation from the bench!"
I guess legislation from the bench is fine as long as it benefits me.
when you realize that the Conservatives on the court are partisan hacks (and admit it) with no care for how they appear you will realize they are exactly like the rest of the conservative base.
What do you think the US Constitution allows a POTUS to do?
Because these people were never against that principle. They're about what they can gain from it. This is like states rights with the civil war, except now they want to ignore those rights vis a vis planned parenthood
@@charliegordon-qh2llthe constitution in its original text nowhere outlines that POTUS has these immunities, nor was it ever amended to say so, _even though_ various state constitutions did contain such language. Clearly, they knew they could have included such a stipulation if they so desired.
49:18 here is a time stamp to skip Shapiro's ad.
I think one of the challenges with this is that until you really sit down and dig into it, people will default to what they think it SHOULD say. They’ll say “No it can’t possibly say X, that would be crazy” when it does say X.
Lmao president Vaush really wanted to steal that horse
" Science is a Pagan faith " - Candace Owens
Science is heresy.
For the greater good.
I want a Shapiro debate on this. I honestly don’t believe he believes what he’s saying here
Destiny refuses to actually debate Shapiro. Destiny knows half of his audience loves Shapiro and he can't go hard on him.
@@Prometheus4096he debated Shapiro, what are you talking about
@@Prometheus4096 The latter part is true, but what about the recent Lex debate?
@@Prometheus4096 lmao so you're as ignorant as shapiro, I get it. Otherwise you wouldnt make these super obvious false claims. Destiny did debate shapiro one or 2 months ago and Im sure he would do it again
We need a term for people who reference the status quo as proof that nothing bad can happen
Ngl he had us in the first 10 seconds😂
Destiny takes the LSAT to law school to judge to Supreme Court justice arc????
Damn, I ain’t ever been this early.
Your girlfriend would disagree
God I love the horse example ! “Deliver this horse to my backyard! I want to ride the horse around. Do it or I’ll fire you!”
As an actual lawyer - unlike Ben who practiced for about 5 minutes - I can confidently say that he has an elementary understanding of law. His understanding of the immunity case, which is a simple case to understand, is astounding given a Harvard law education.
Isnt shapiro a harvard law grad?
Yup interesting which side Destiny fans are taking when Destiny himself said Ben knows more about this stuff
IDK if Shapiro would be up for it but I would really appreciate if you could discuss or debate this with him. He was anti trump in 2016 so it's weird to see him shift to full defense mode on Trump
You realize more than 70% of conservative voters support Trump, right? Ben would absolutely tank the Dailywire's viewership if he doesn't defend Trump.
@@intermediate212 sadly true
Its called audience capture.
The republican base has been captured by trump so you cannot be a bitch and disagree.
The snowflakes cant take criticism of their god king.
He was against Trump during the primaries, he just supports him against the democrats
2016 is a long time ago, you've never heard of people changing there minds? Shapiro is a dedantis supporter but he hasn't been never trump since Trump was elected. He has openly said for years now that Trump has great policy but horrendous rhetoric. I don't think you listen to Shapiro much.
This country is slowly but surely turning into the Handmaids Tales.
How so? What has changed in your life as a result of this
The scarier part is the many times they use "absolute".
Destiny acting like he knows how any of this works is priceless.
Especially more than a Harvard educated lawyer he himself admitted knows more?
@@killcount4750a harvard failure who didnt reach further than assistant after graduating, and then became a youtuber.
Wtf is with these thumbnails lol
What are the definitions of immunity currently and what are the conditions that break immunity. It seems like they're using the idea of "acting within" with a presumption of acting in the interests of the people. But the condition is the interests of the people. Could it be argued that if the president is acting in self interest eliminates official acts since the oath is to the Office and not themself?
The office of the President can just say it was an official act. Now you can't investigate. You'll have to go to court to even ask questions.
We spend so much time worrying about Trump and not enough worrying about a supreme Court so crooked they're falling behind the Magna Carta
Glad I got this group of gamers to explain how the Supreme Court got it wrong. Where would we be without you guys?
I guess the sky wizard worshippers on the supreme Court are more credible.
There is an army of law professors as well, and 3 Supreme Court justices and even partial dissents from Barrett. At least be honest that this ruling is super controversial even among experts.
so you think every expert agrees that the ruling is nothing to worry about.
Destiny, the court has always said what the law is. The legislature can make a law, and the court will decide if that law is constitutional as applied to the president. That is not new. Sotomayor tried to make some argument that the majority was expanding the power of the court but you can go back to marbury versus Madison on judicial review. Go to law school.
I don't see how that applies here. Can you explain?
@@DeusEx_Machina It was in response to Destiny reiterating Sotomayor's claim that the Majority ruling is expanding the powers of the court. The court has had the power to "say what the law is" since Marbury v. Madison. The legislature has no more power to unconstitutionally apply a criminal law to the president before this ruling than they do after.
I disagree with the framing of what Trump is accused of with his DoJ as part of his powers to choose what the AG investigates. He didn't ask them to investigate, he asked them to write letters saying they had found evidence which they had not. That's asking to conclude an investigation in a certain way not asking to investigate.
Thanks destiny
I love how Destiny acts like he’s owning Ben Shapiro when he’s not face-to-face with him because we have all seen how that goes
Yeah pretty badly for Ben.
@@florida12341000even destiny didn’t think that 😂
Destiny, you are my fave debate person.
I’m interested in viewing this video edited by August and made by Tiny B.
Ben actually did get this one right, Destiny. Reason being is that you could reasonably project that Trump truly believed the election was being stolen from not him, but the American people (even if I think he's wrong). So SOME of the actions he took (not others) could be covered by the presumed immunity, given his role as President.
HOWEVER, activating the military to eliminate political opponents is not the same thing. I'm not sure how 1 could reasonably project that Trump would be taking out his opposition within the duties of his oath of office.
Its an outrageous example and one that would cause the Supreme Court to revise the ruling if it were ever challenged in such a stupid way. But we all know that's not the jurisprudence being set here.
So, your argument is, that Trump is delusional?
@@po5283 My argument is based on the law, not my opinion on the law. If Trump truly believes that election fraud is going on (and I believe he reasonably could), it is within his duty as President to challenge the electorate. Which makes it covered by presidential immunity.
There is no reason one could reasonably believe that killing their political opponent is within their duty as President. If you can present me w/evidence to the contrary, happy to hear it. Destiny has not met that threshold, thus Ben is right on this one.
@@libertyaboveall3368 You and I have very different definitions of what constitutes, reasonably! How is it reasonable to disregard what every advisor. appointee. cabinet member, expert and investigator is telling you, in favor of a few political hacks and opportunists, and some guy who makes and sells pillows?
To say nothing of the statements made by staff and recorded phone calls, showing the only fraud being committed was the one he was trying to perpetrate.
Destiny doesn’t understand that he himself doesn’t understand the ruling
Exactly 💯
Damn gottem 😂😂 what a thoughtful and well crafted rebuttal 👍
@@JustAPriapism I had a full on discussion with Anthony quigley somewhere in the comments if you want a substantive discussion
Around 12:14 Destiny says that Roberts never addresses the "the public interest of not having a crime committing president," but Roberts does do this on page 21 in the last paragraph which concludes: "The President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them."
Read the full paragraph for details.
That statement by Roberts doesn't conflict with what Destiny said. Nobody is saying that this ruling places the President above the law in any explicit sense. The concern is that this decision gives a strategically clever President opportunities to cloak some criminal activity within this new immunity.
I’m looking for this page 21, I looked at the Opinion and the Dissenting and I couldn’t find this statement. Could you cite the page with the paragraph number so I can find it?
The bottom of page 21 focuses on the nature of the relationship between the president and vice president thus begging the observation of the trump case in particular. Where is this statement?
Yeah I mean this doesn’t address the public interest of not having a crime committing president.
I think the main issue here is that republicans are just not very smart on average. I keep reading the rebuttals, but the arguments rely on people having grade-school levels of reading comprehension.
@@sjwright2Would you be so kind as to describe how a POTUS could use this ruling to "cloak some criminal activity within this new immunity?"
August is a God King editor!
I really hope you could talk with Destiny again about this ruling, if there's one conservative figurehead we could save it would be Ben Shapiro, since clearly his Daily Wire crew is lost
Destiny is cute.
hes very cute
@Destiny HEY AUGUST. I hate Shapiro so much that I almost skipped the video. I had no clue there was an explanation of the entire case by Destiny, which WE ALL WANT. FIX YOUR DAMN TITLES! REE
Destiny underestimates the level of “corruption” in the federal judicial process.
We can't even consider motive. Think about that. One of the key things you need to investigate a crime or find someone guilty of a crime is not allowed.
1:06:42 _He doesn't understand the ruling,,,_
He knows he's lying.
He knows you know he's lying.
His audience knows he's lying.
His audience knows you know they're lying when they say they believe him.
We've been here before a thousands times.
I don’t think most of his audience thinks he’s lying. Maybe 50% deep down know there’s something wrong and like being lied to, but we can’t know
2 people id never debate. They both talk too fast.
Don’t think they care to debate you either tbf
@@cenunix you don't fucking say!?
@@tetrasphere8165 hey man, I’m really sorry
@@cenunix I love you
There's another angle I've been thinking about. How could this ever be appealed or changed? Isn't the only way for this to come back up to the supreme court by someone with standing presenting a case?......but like, if the president is committing a crime against a citizen using presidential authority, what are the odds that that person could ever pursue legal action?
I don't think it can
Legal Eagle is my go to when I want to know more about a legal decision/action! Cool to see you watching him 😂
Has Destiny said anything about that Project 2025 thing or nah.
Lol you mean that fake crap that only leftists are talking about and promoting? Hahahahaha
1 view in 1 minute, bro fell off
People are afraid of thinking.
Imma touch you j._blitz
Applying porn ratios to non porn is little boy shit
@@ianmccarty990 what the fuck are you on about
Destiny, this really isn't that difficult. Ben didn't say that the president wouldn't be immune from assassinating his political opponent because it's "really really bad", he said the president wouldn't be immune because it's obviously an act intended for self-gain. The president can't just declare his political opponent an enemy of the state and then have him killed just because.
"any judicial review is technically crossing separation of powers" do you really want to overturn marberry versus Madison? Go to law school dude Jesus Christ
You may be shocked to learn that every justice on the court went to law school already.
Judicial review is completely different from personally charging someone with a crime. Striking down an executive order does not send the President to jail. It just nullifies the executive order. Striking down a law doesn't send Congress to prison.
How to be a dictator in a democracy... Basically. Scary how unfunny american that is. A concept only a democracy like america can entertain. The freedom to seriously consider such immunity... Nothing wrong there, just USA being USA doing USA things the USA way 👍🏻
Muricans doing murican things. As a german this is extremely weird to watch
it's like the US looks at history and actively refuses to learn from it, truly the dumbest developed country
What do you think this ruling allows the POTUS to do? What do you think the US Constitution allows a POTUS to do?
America has a new king, but only if the Supreme Court likes him. They get to decide.
2 things I would add:
1. The USSC was only supposed to rule on the question of immunity. They aren’t going to preempt a decision by a lower court while there is an ongoing case. So it’s totally normal in my mind that they didn’t define unofficial acts. They’ll allow the special counsel and Trumps lawyers to argue about it.
2. None of this affects the way impeachment inquiries are conducted. And once impeached, they then become open to criminal prosecution. I expect these inquiries to become to standard way to hold a president accountable for any kind of questionable behaviors. Not sure that’s a good thing…
1. If the USSC was supposed to only rule on the question of immunity, why did the Roberts court also rule the conversations between Trump and his acting AG are part of the President's core Constitutional duties? This was a novel ruling that was NOT being asked nor had any prior court an initial review of this question to ascertain the facts. USSC should have remanded that to the lowest court then upon appeal evaluated if the conversations are a part of the President's core Constitutional duties.
2. Impeachments are effected because during the trail portion of the Impeachment all the President has to say is that I was exercising my core Constitutional duties. According to Trump v US, the courts cannot review such acts nor can Congress act on such acts. The Dictator-in-Chief then walks back to the White House continuing his reign. You'll never be able to disprove his initial claim since: a) the court never lists the President's core Constitutional duties b) the court never states how we might determine the difference between official/unofficial acts (therefore, determine immunity or lack thereof) c) any action or conversations as part of his core duties cannot be used as evidence in criminal prosecution.
@@robertblue4630
For #1, I really don’t think this is strange that the presidents motivations aren’t to be used to determine criminality. Intent and motivation aren’t the same thing. They already have executive privilege. This is not a new concept. Having private conversations with advisers, even if discussing doing something illegal, is already privileged. They aren’t ruling on the case itself. Just how criminality works for the president.
For #2, you seem to be confused between being immune from criminal prosecution and being able to suppress evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Just because they’re immune from criminal prosecution doesn’t mean that congress can’t investigate what those conversations were. Yes, the president will try to claim executive privilege and stonewall any investigation. But none of this is different from the status quo before the ruling. Ask yourself “how would this have changed Trumps impeachment trials?” The answer is it wouldn’t.
@@roz9315 1 - NO. The courts remanded the question of what was the President's official duties and what was unofficial relating to the, what I would call, insurrection. Why not send the conversations with the acting AG to the lower court for similar 1st review? After first review, which the USSC doesn't do, the losing sides appeal. The Supreme Court could then rule such conversations are criminally immune. Again the criticism is why did the Supreme Court engage in FIRST REVIEW and grant immunity regarding the conversations with the acting AG? They remanded the conversations with the VP about the fake elector scheme to lower courts for 1st review. If the conversations with the AG don't need 1st review, then why do the conversations with the VP. Also, stretching executive privilege to criminal immunity is a novel/made up explanation. Why didn't the founding fathers write immunity for the executive into the Constitution? They wrote immunity for members of Congress giving speeches on the floor so why not also the executive? The only logic answer is the they didn't want to give immunity to the Executive for fear of making a de-facto king. You and I enjoy attorney client privilege, but that doesn't give us criminal immunity. In fact, if a lawyer is engaging in criminal behavior for their client, attorney client privilege is lost for those parties.
2 - You're the one that's confused. The Roberts opinion explicitly states that if the President is engaging in is core Constitutional duties, the Courts cannot review and Congress cannot act. How can Congress impeach if, legally, "congress cannot act?" [Pg. 7 of Roberts' Opinion: "The exclusive constitutional authority of the President “disables the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637-638. And the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution. Marbury v Madison] Impeachment, therefore, can only be used for President's going outside their Constitutional duties to the detriment of the country. Remember impeachment charges against Clinton were for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. They were not for official Constitutional duties Clinton exercised. Impeachment against Trump was for High Crimes and Misdemeanors regarding the exchange of aid for "dirt" on his political opponents during his call with Zulinsky. The PROBLEM we have is that this ruling would neuter impeachment as a check on Executive abuse. The neutering takes place because the court does NOT list what the President's actual core Constitutional duties are nor how far they extend. Couldn't both Clinton & Trump stretch their core Constitutional duties to significantly hamper investigations into what happened in their respective Impeachments? It would be harder for Clinton than Trump, however, we could see Clinton claim this immunity to neuter the thrust of the investigation. Finally, couldn't a future President claim absolute immunity for actions such as sending in the FBI to arrest DJT as a domestic terrorist? Couldn't a future President accept a bribe for an appointment with NO Congressional impeachment nor criminal punishment since the Roberts court lists a few of the President's core Constitutional duties as making appointments? Justice Barrett makes this exact point in her opinion.
All or none. We don't have kings here. If the highest of us are not held to the same standard as the lowest of us then we are not a free country.
Roberts did address the hypotheticals. “He accused Sotomayor and the other two dissenters of “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.””
-Politico
That's not addressing them, that's a hand-wave. The opposite in fact
12:00 The public elects the president, they don't elect the courts. That's why the courts should leave the public concerns to the public and focus on not violating the office. You can always vote for a better candidate, pressure congress for an impeachment. The public has no control over courts. A sitting president can always be impeached. A former president shouldn't be hostage to partisan parts of the executive, bot local and federal. The fact that we went this far on such weak "crimes" tells us all we need to know about who is wrong here.
Do you realize how powerful the president is? Just because this doesn't quite literally allow a fascist president to start his rule, it still takes the US one step closer to such a disaster. And if such a disaster were to befall the US, do you really think the world could stop them? You talk of "weak" crimes when the crime alleged is literally an attempted coup/insurrection.
Its funny how libs think conservatives give a fuk about Ben Shapiro 😅
Ben Shapiro is one of the most popular political commentators in the world, he happens to be a conservative. I'd say conservatives are interested in what he has to say. There is no singular political commentator on UA-cam more popular. He has 9 million subscribers and the DW is one of the biggest political forces out there. You are confused.
@tmsibley that doesn't mean shit. I'm heavily into this shit and NO ONE I speak with brings him up. Same thing for fox news....sure they get views but it's from basically NPC conservatives. They just eat up the stories and post about on FB.
The people that are actually involved and thinking aren't paying attention to Ben. He's doesn't break any news, he doesn't take any risks.....he's worthless 9m views? Who carss....81 mil votes....just numbers
@@tmsibley lol..merp merp. Boomer take. Keep listening to Ben👍🤣
He brings up objective facts and your response is “merp keep boomer take”? Wow you guys are adorable.
@jackgamble5413 breath taking review 👏👏👏👏
I would argue that, if anything, the Constitution is the most federalist law of all. It requires two thirds of both legislative cameras to approve any reform, AND two thirds of State legislatures.
This guys destiny was in middle school politics and now hes stick in that mode
Bro why the hell are these videos so long? Can we get like a 20 minute explanation that isn’t just drag and dropped from a steam ??
look at the video -> click the Cog -> click Playback Speed -> select 1.5
If you cant be bothered and actually care so little about whats happening in your country to invest the time to be educated on it, why care at all? Just close your eyes and ears and live blindly happily like the rest! No ones forcing you to pay attention
Roberts doesnt address different scenarios because that's not what they are ruling on. Those questions are kicked back down to lower courts to decide. This is cringe, Destiny pretending to be a constitutional lawyer.
Yet, Roberts conveniently claims that trumps actions in trying to steal the vote is immune. Weird how it is only ok when you agree w it 🤔
So the Supreme Court up and implements a history defining law and isn’t even expected to address basic potential risks it could pose to citizens?
Okay, so you're going to be happy when the lower court rules that Trump was acting unofficially, right? He's criminally liable for those unofficial acts, right?
@@spacetoast7783 If they find that he was acting outside of his official duties, then yes, bring it to trial. I am not against holding Trump accountable. I do have a problem with the selective prosecutions and the rewriting of laws in order to get him. All this heartburn about a ruling that everyone already presumed to be true about presidential immunity is ridiculous. Would you be happy with a ruling where Obama could be brought up on charges for killing a US citizen? I wouldn't. I understand there are certain decisions that the president needs to make without the burden of worrying about whether or not he's going to end up in Leavenworth.
@@spacetoast7783 Buddy nobody cares about any fake crimes you made up. Lmfao. He's gonna be president again.
It’s so disingenuous that the guy crying on tv that he needs his guns to fend off tyranny is giving the benefit of the doubt in an equivocal ruling.
Watching through the full video, but I’m at the 20 minute mark where the topic of Nixon came up and Destiny makes the point of Nixon not believing he was above being criminally liable….
Famously in the Frost/Nixon interviews, Nixon is quoted as saying “when a President does it that means it’s not illegal” so with this ruling, Roberts is basically saying that Nixon was correct.
One would think that if he thought he could or would be criminally investigated, he wouldn’t have set up a recording system in the White House (the subpoena if which was what led to him resigning if I recall correctly).
My understanding is that the pardon was offered in order to prevent a lengthy trial which Ford felt was not in the public’s interest, as well as to get Nixon to accept guilt. Something that has been established by the judiciary is that accepting a pardon is an acceptance of guilt, and as such if Biden had offered a pardon to Trump specifically for insurrection and Trump had accepted, then a different conversation would be being had in terms of his eligibility for office under the fourteenth amendment.
Just as Destiny says there would have to be corruption throughout the legal system, so too would there have to be corruption throughout the military for illegal orders to violate the Constitution. See generals have a long history of evaluating the outcome of military actions. Therefore, they are not idiots. Everyone in the military understands orders are secondary to upholding the Constitution. While Legal Eagle is selling this as the worst, his history of reviewing movies, shows he understands it is illegal to follow orders of a crime. A perfect example is A Few Good Men.
Destiny was commenting on the decision prior to having gone over the full ruling. Thus, he is guilty of cognitive dissonance, forming a strong opinion and not wanting to change regardless of new information.
What you’re coming close to outlining is probably the best refutation of Destiny’s concerns here; I think it’s hard to argue with his critique of the decision from a legal perspective. But from a practical perspective, a lot of other organizational structures would have to “break” for things like the assisination of political opponents to happen. Only time will tell how much this will actually change presidential behavior in practice
Setting aside that A Few Good Men is a play/movie loosely based on a real court case, it is therefore a rather poor real life example... the source Seal Team 6 gets trotted out because of the notoriety they have. But you're right that relying on the military to execute such an order is likely to rely on multiple layers of authority and the actual soldiers being willing to follow an unlawful order to commit murder. But the military is not the only institution the president has core powers over that has capable killers, and those other agencies can have fewer layers of leadership. The President could likely get access to a corruptly loyal spook willing to pull a trigger for him.
But let's leave aside something as drastic as the President murdering people through his core powers. Let's say a new president comes to power who has never ever made any mention of pardons, but someone in federal prison wants to test whether or not that president is willing to take bribes. So they wire the president a bunch of money. If that prisoner is pardoned after that fact, you cannot charge the president for accepting the bribe, because there is not any of the public record that Chief Roberts described.
The majority just fails to address these cases, and even worse, just dismisses them as melodrama.
@@matthewcino5728 I don't think our institutions are very far from that, The military is pretty far right and I wouldn't be surprised if a small team (like SEAL team 6) would be completely willing to do it.
I do believe the president should have immunities, but take issue when they say about official acts that "Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine it" so it cannot be used as evidence for other crimes!!...
Could a president be bribed to sell a pardon? It is a core duty and so "courts cannot examine it"
It could be argued that a president talking with the vice president to discuss / convince him what to do about accepting election results is an official act, so that conversation cannot be used to establish other crimes!
In fact that is exactly what Trump's legal team is arguing right now so...
@@lumayne8829 60+% of military members voted for Biden > Trump last election.
Let's all watch a video game player disagree with a Harvard law educated lawyer
In fairness, a Lawyer whose livelihood depends on towing the party line
@DeusEx_Machina no, he owns a media company. He has criticized Republicans often and loudly, he has complimented democrats. If he becomes more centrist he would gain more centrist viewers and lose further right viewers. Intelligent well spoken people will have people watch them regardless of their opinion, because people who agree will enjoy their explanations and even those who disagree are will watch to attack him. Look, destiny, a left leaning person is watching him to disagree. If ben ended up left wing, right leaning commentators would still watch to disagree
1:22:26 I don’t know if anyone else had considered this directly with the impeachment on the right but to be honest this was my first thought when people said the deal about using seal team six that the president would be impeached and those would be public records. I honestly was having a hard time understanding why everyone was so up in arms on that point. Also I’m honestly wondering why people are so up in arms on this being brought now - frankly the bipartisan government is maybe the most divided it’s ever been so reprisal suits are more possible than ever. The idea that if Trump wins he would attempt to find anything possible to charge Biden with is near 100% so while I disagree with this immunity and scope the timing is pretty understandable
“Her reading is VASTLY superior”. Mainly because I like it. Vibez are baaaaazzzzzed
Gaystiny
Destiny also misread the ruling and thinks that the random shit Sotomayor made up.
Ordering the military to eliminate a political rival under the guise of a counter-terrorism operation would likely be viewed as an abuse of power and a clear violation of law. Such an act would be considered outside the scope of legitimate executive authority.
If it can be demonstrated that the President's action was motivated by personal or political gain rather than national security interests, this would further support the argument that the act was not an official duty but an abuse of power.
Historical and legal precedents where similar abuses of power have been prosecuted could be cited. There is no precedent that would protect a President from prosecution for ordering the illegal killing of a political rival.
The government would need to argue that prosecuting the former President for this action would not impede the necessary functions of the Executive Branch. Given the severity and illegality of the act, it is unlikely that a prosecution in this case would be seen as intruding on executive authority.
The ruling grants absolute immunity for actions within the President's exclusive constitutional authority. However, ordering the assassination of a political rival would not fall under the legitimate use of executive power or any constitutional authority.
Reading anything else is being dishonest
You should tell Trump this because I don't think that guy cares. He's going full dictator mode as soon he's able to.
How would a prosecutor prove that an assassination was politically motivated, they're not allowed to examine the motives of an official act.
@@ErnestoGluecksmann Hyperbolic catastrophizing just like 2016
@@OfficialCrashnet
How would the Courts be able to look into it? Being the Commander-in-Chief is, to my understanding, a core power of being the President. Therefore, the Courts, according to this decision, cannot "adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions" (top of pg. 9). If they cannot adjudicate said action, there's no case.
That’s the argument, now they can argue that this thing they did for personal gain was official. If a court accepts it than it is no?
You can't get a warrant just because someone has motive. Is that not pretty much what they're saying? A supposed motive is not enough to warrant further investigation. Now if you had a whistleblower that said they saw something, that's not motive but evidence in the form of a witness leading to further investigation.