Trump Is Immune
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- This is one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Will this ruling kill Trump's criminal trials? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Please also cover project 2025
The media has turned against democracy in favor of outrage and ratings. Please cover that too after the 2025 project.
A great lawyer? Nah bro I need a plane ticket. Get me tf outa here.
It is so much WORSE than simply Presidential immunity. It is extended to shielding the office from the investigation. All of the evidence the prosecutor gathered against Nixon would NOT be available according to this ruling. The president can quid-pro-quo accept monetary compensation for pardons and they can't even be investigated because that is an official act. It is stupefying. Even if the President doesn't do it - he can convince someone to do it on his behalf and then immediately pardon them. Perform criminal acts on a widespread scale to allow for the invocation of marshal law, suspension of elections and extending the term indefinitely ... it's all permissible.
its basically like time bound dictatorship , it makes separation of power a joke.
I find it hilarious that the same people who have been SCREAMING for years for a weaker Federal Government are now cheering this on.
It would be funnier if it weren't so sad
@@travis1240I used to feel sad for Trump supporters because they are getting duped by someone wouldn't think twice about throwing any one of them in front of a bus if it made him a dollar. (Kinda similar to how Homelander in the newest season of The Boys ordered Black Noir and The Deep and A-Train to kill those 3 fans of Himelander, despite them being his most loyal followers, all as a way to assert his dominance over Noir and Deep and A-Train, and also to use their corpses as a way to try to frame Starlight supporters for murdering Homelander supporters).
But.... Now that I have seen Trump supporters continue to defend him and double down on everything he does, I have come to realize that these people don't deserve pity because this is who they really are deep down in the core. They WANT this. So my sadness and pity has now turned into fury and intense disdain and judgment.
They weren't screaming because they actually wanted a smaller government. They just didn't like that the past government was headed towards a more "woke" route.
Now that it's headed down a more far right path they want the government to have their hands in everything.
They never believed in freedom for America. Only for themselves. If they see their neighbor losing rights then to them it means they're winning.
@@badwolf3618 “Deep thoughts with The Deep”
They only want it to be small government when they can't oppress others.
When they're in charge then suddenly they want government hands in everything.
1. Immune for official acts.
2. Unrestricted ability to pardon.
Damn, USA, you are BEGGING for a dictator!
That gun law starts making sense now, will this finally lead to the civil war they have been preparing for 🤔
I mean... not just begging. As of that ruling, they *have* a dictator. The current one just happens to have been elected.
The moment a republican gets into office somehow is the moment democracy permanenlty dies there, if nothing is done quickly.
Ever heard of impeachment?
@@KurisNiZai HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED! That'd require evidence of the act for which an impeachment is being putforward....and it's likely an official presidential act...which is inadmissible.
That's why we have checks and balances but yes it is a problem
POV: You're an Italian citizen in the early 1920s
We have way more immunities than these in Italy in 2024...
They had blackshirts, we have red caps
@@IforgetMypassword BASED
@@IforgetMypasswordRed caps are the new white hoods
@@coolestbro202 The left is the side always bring up race.
The most egregious part of this ruling is the small part they slipped in at the end.
The fact that you cannot use official acts as evidence against unofficial acts is ludicrous. It effectively shields any President from ever being prosecuted. Because the evidence that you would need to convict a President for unofficial acts, while President, would almost certainly be in the realm of official acts.
I'll give you an example: If a President ordered Seal Team Six to take out his political opponent AND a court ruled that it was an unofficial act, it would still be virtually impossible to prosecute that President. Why? Because the evidence you would use would be:
1)Meetings the President had with his administration
2) Conversations the President had with the military
3) Official documents this may have been written down on
4) Presidential Notes
5) Etc...
And all that evidence would undoubtedly be classified as official acts.
So someone please tell me even if you COULD get a court to say a President committed unofficial acts, how are we gonna prosecute them if we can't use official acts as evidence? 🤦🏾♂
You don't even mention what I think is the most dangerous part about this.
The reason presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts is most likely because it's hard to get a standing official to betray their country when they are held liable for it.
If they are asked to perform official acts that are treasonous, for example, and in support of, say, a shell organization operated by a geopolitical rival, then even threats of violence against your family are tough, because of the threat of prosecution in the US. As the American people, we must say, "tough shit if they will kill you're whole family, we will do worse." And instead, we just decided to role over assuming they will, what, pet our stomach?
Now, the president is able to be a sell out without any repercussions. The damage any president does to the people of the US is going to be basically intangible.
And of course, they do all of this under the guise of helping Trump avoid a farcical prosecution which they fabricated just for this legislation. But this doesn't actually have to do with him at all.
Remember, they always have a scapegoat.
@@johnhunt1813even if all evidence would indicate that the recent attempt was ordered by biden, he wouldn't spend a single day in jail. And if Trump wanted to take revenge he could do it aswell without any legal repercussions.
Impeachment and Senate conviction strips off the immunity.
You don't have to be a sitting official to go through that process.
@@jmkqfnvyl87 Ok but what if the senate is held by the president's party? As we've seen in basically every impeachment in history, the president's party will overwhelmingly vote in his favor.
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy easy.
never vote for any rep or senator that is a party schill. We have direct election of senators. It's actually on you and other individuals to engage and make voices heard and get stuff done. Stop leaving it to others or parties. It's the democratic process not the political party process.
It's actually really straightforward to recall reps and senators but you have to actually get up and do it and fight and campaign and communicate consistently and relentlessly to win the votes. I've pushed for those things and seen fruit.
If the parties are too powerful then it's only cause people are lazy and want other people to do the work of running a country for them instead of active participation.
But for sure that legislative process is the intended check against the executive. . .and the judiciary for that matter.
The idea being that if anything is too outrageous then the representatives of the people will vote according to majority to decry the action as unbecoming of an official. If they don't then get new reps. But people would rather complain than do any work for change. If people have ceded thier political influence to a party then for sure the party system will steamroll them. It has. So don't do it anymore. Force those politicians to pull to the center by competing for those independent swing votes.
Democratic republic. That's the system.
"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" -Thomas Jefferson
Good luck fighing the American army.
“Democracy rests on three boxes: the jury box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box” -Frederick Douglass
@@friedrichjunztFine by me. Some of military friends already said they ditch if trump/ a dictator came to power🤷♂️
When peaceful reform is impossible, violence is inevitable.
I sometimes make a videogame reference in the form of Super Smash Bros, which doesn't give characters a "health meter" (hit points) but instead a "damage meter". So you never know how much you "have left" before a KO, or whether the next attack you take will _actually_ KO, you only know that it's more _likely_ to KO.
To apply that here: We don't know how many peaceful alternatives we have left before someone, somewhere, breaks that ice -- we only know that due to political climate change that ice is getting increasingly thinner.
@@friedrichjunztAs if many of them wouldn't oppose Trump, too.
After all, I remember a certain guy who keeps being honored despite his reasons for fighting the US Army, who was formerly a member of that army... now what was his name... Bob, right?
My Con Law professor told my class on day one: “The Constitution is whatever 5 out of the 9 justices say it is.” I thought he was being dramatic, but I soon learned otherwise. Now look….
Time to pack the court then
Yeah, well all presidents have immunity but nobody ever talked about. You know how many civilians obama killed, why wasnt he charged for it
@@christianbech4426 send em to a blacksite. But that's what our enemies want. To undermine our security.
Well, yeah because that's exactly their job, to interpret the constitution, and they're the final arbiters so they can't be corrected by anyone other than themselves or their successors, barring an obvious constitutional amendment.
The constitution should, in fact, be whatever 7 out of the 13 justices agree. Four years ago. The fact that Biden refused to balance the courts is probably his greatest blunder.
"with fear for our democracy i dissent" has got to be one of the most horrifying bonechilling sentences from the supreme court.
I giggled like a six year old upon hearing “Judge Burgers”
I was taught in law school that one of the core pillars of democracy is that everyone is equal under the law, no matter how powerful. Not that's this has ever been completely true, but the US supreme court just threw this principle of democracy completely out of the window.
No they haven't, nothing has changed, and Presidents have been immune for decades
It's a constitutional republic, not a democracy though.
@@aquicklad972 That is a form of democracy genius
The classic example that people use to emphasize this point is that "even if the president of the United States did something wrong, he would be punished!" Now we need a new example, I suppose.
@@aquicklad972Republic and Democracy are basically the same word but one comes from Latin and the other comes from Greek.
President Nixon once said “if the president does it, it isn’t illegal.” And we collectively agreed that’s an insane precedent and now here we are 🫠
...and it only took less than 10 years.
This ruling would have ZERO impact on the charges against Nixon so just stop. LEARN TO READ
Would Watergate be illegal today?
You want a future for your kids and grandkids VOTE blue 💙 all the way 💙 🇺🇸
it's almost as if the whole "we're just going with a gentlemen's agreement not to stack the supreme Court with corrupt nitwits" has always been a bad idea
I find it very troublesome that some lawyers stood in front of the supreme court and basically said "we need the president to have legal immunity because otherwise he can't do his job" because that implies that the job is just, all crime. And apparently the majority of the justices didn't have a problem with that reasoning.
If the president's job is just crime, then maybe it needs to be a different job.
I think these lawyers are confusing the president with the Godfather.
But yeah, the implication that a president _has_ to commit criminal acts in order to be effective is staggering.
Only if you're a political hack dont recommend this channel
I do not for a second think trump thought this up on his own.
There’s a script, he’s just the ass following directions.
The president has to make war decisions, if the president didn’t have immunity, Obama would have to be charged for the children in the botched Syria attack too, think through the full scope.
This is what happens when the GOP is allowed to game the system.
It was a ruling made simply because they had the power to do so. It had no basis in the Constitution, law, precedent or logic. Pure power.
You could say... UNLIMITED power.
@@TheNemesis432this would be a more fun comment in any other conversation
Crazy how this was pushed through when Trump had no power or say in anything, almost like it was designed to give immunity to our other previous war ciminal(s) still pulling the strings of our legal system.
The biggest issue is, with this SC
If Trump gets elected he would be able to do what he wants.
If Harris gets elected and were to make use of this the SC would interject and say that isn't part of the President's core powers.
@@yannicklarafunez4768 As if the latter option is bad. Any president being able to do what he wants (I.e. Congress and SC both on his side) has always led to all kinds of power abuse.
This aged faster than expected 💀
Edit: there is a debate up ahead. Proceed with caution.
thats what im saying
Wdym?
@@portalwalker_ maybe its something to do with "immunity from assassinating your political rival"
@@306316 Yeah, I just read about it. It's insane
@@306316 the shootet was a registered republican so no, not from rival
What people don't seem to understand is this goes well beyond Trump and Biden. This is horrible for all of us.
oh yes, every election (if they exist in the future) we have to pray that the person elected is less corrupt and less of a tyrant than their opponent
@@angie-gz4ygIf Trump wins, we will have fake elections just like in Russia. The people did not continuously vote for Putin.
It was a bad ruling by the Supreme Court. But if a president did something crazy-bad, wouldn't congress still be able to impeach him?
Not really Supreme Court can always change the decision too much fear mongering. The Congress and Supreme Court still can impeach and for Supreme Court create new precedent. Nothing really new.
@@angie-gz4yg A proper president would maliciously comply. Send in Seal Team 6 to every treasonous court justice, select new ones and have them reverse the decision. There should be absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Examples need to be made.
As someone who isnt even an american, this is terrifying. I would remind everyone that the Nazis did everything within the laws of germany thanks to loopholes like this.
This isn't even a loophole.
This IS (for now) *THE* law.
@@DarkonFullPowertrue, loophole implies unintended. The ones in Germany's constitution were unintended, this is pretty clearly intentional
This is definitely the enabling act lmao
We're aware. This is genuinely terrifying. We have A LOT of weapons...
The thing is Hitler had to use various forms of terrorism to get this kind of power.
SCOTUS just had to go “Okay!” And we sold our soul.
The algorithm's timing is insane
IKR
Yep 😂
yep
Right!
Yep
The suggestion that the President has the powers of a King is actually understating it.
If we’re basing it on the monarchy up to 1776, the notion that the “King can do no wrong” was rejected in English Law in 1215 under the Magna Carta, and the UK had been a Constitutional Monarchy since the Bill of Rights 1689, which restricts the the Sovereign from ignoring laws outlined by parliament without explicit parliamentary exception. That means the Sovereign had NO RIGHT, by law, to order the death of anyone unless mandated by the British judiciary via laws passed by parliament - aka, a normal system of law. This too has since gone since the abolition of capital punishment in the UK
I know Americans on both political wings love to use King George III as the symbol of the big bad tyrant, but the truth is, he never had the level of power or lack of accountability that the modern office of President of the United States has. The only factor the King has over the President is that the position is hereditary.
The President has had those powers for years, they are trying to make a thing of it to whip up hysteria against Trump
@@sadaasdafa8635 Monarchy in Europe took different forms. The French Sun King is my example of absolute monarchy. He concentrated huge amounts of the state into the crown.
Others were often a wonky balance. Definitely not democracies but a balance between low and high nobility, the church, independent farmers, town mayors, city-leagues and other actors. And a royal household with different people.
“If the president isn’t immune to the law he might hesitate to perform his duties”
Well good! Isn’t that why we have laws? To curb unwanted behavior??
"If the parent isn't immune to child abuse laws they couldn't raise their kid."
"If the player isn't allowed to cheat he might not want to play"
It reminds me of that one American politician that talked about how the fact they killed an innocent puppy meant they can make tough decisions.
@@shonklebonkle324That one politician you're referring to would sing a hell of a different tune if someone who murders that same politician's son or daughter argues that if they aren't immune from facing criminal charges, they can't be a regular contributor to society.
@@shonklebonkle324 Kristi Noem.
That sentiment is used as a lazy excuse throughout government, such as for qualified immunity.
Obama killed a US citizien with a drone strike without a court. Why isnt he in jail for murder?
This cannot be further from what our founding fathers would’ve wanted. No matter what you want to say, they did not want a leader who was immune from the law.
Yes.
And this time, you don't have a new land to flee to to start anew.
that is not what the Trump-owned SCOTUS says. And what THEY say matters and not what you say.
@@n484l3iehugtilIf Trump wins we'll have a King Henry IX
Not even modern day Kings have immunity from prosecution. The English, nearly 400 years ago executed their monarch for excercising powers beyond his prerogative
Long ago, I thought that the way the federal government was structured was a good check and balance against each branch. For the past several years, I've learned more and more how naive I was.
how could you have EVER thought that, man
From "I think we're screwed" to
"We're officially screwed"
Nah don't worry. I'm sure chancellor Palpatine will use the emergency power for good
In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first American Empire! For a safe and secure society!
Courts : It's an official act! Sorry guys.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
😂
He's Vader, not Palpatine.
@@nickmodawar821 Eh, Trump is more like a Darth Jar Jar Binks :/
July 4, 1776: No more kings!
July 1, 2024 : No, more kings!
Commas ruin lives
@@h8GWjust like grandma's fate at dinner, the last words she heard were "let's eat grandma!"
@@brandonstone2754 "duties 'granted' to him" cmon you are not a child. You extend the duty you extend the protection. You extend the definition of the duty you extend the protection. Devon even says this.
Then: Impeachment is how you do it.
Now: Impeachment is how you do it.
Here endeth the lesson.🙄
god, i love the comma
This title aged weirdly
Ikr but it fits in perfectly lol
What happened I am not from US
@@reiskoryphae Are you for real? 5 days ago there was an assassination attempt on Trump while he was giving a public speech. I am also not from the US, but where do you live that this has not been covered by your media?
@@reiskoryphae someone tried to "unalive" Trump during a campaign speech a few days ago
@@reiskoryphaethere was a public assassination attempt
How did the Supreme Court even get this kind of power? Someone should have been able to block this kind of insanity. The need to have someone keeping them in check and term limits needs to be a thing.
I could have sworn that at some point we collectively revolted against the idea of a king.
Tbh it was more about taxes they felt unjustified than a king in and of itself. It was less just "there is a king" and more "the king is treating us poorly and we have no other recourse." Not to say a lot of the Founding Fathers didn't have a very unique and mostly-gone-in-modern times view on government office as a duty to your countrymen and such. They definitely weren't fans of kings. Just that the big catalyst was a specific abuse that they likely would've rebelled against even if it came from an elected official.
Killjoy
@@Dabordilol
Noope it wasn’t over the king since the king didn’t have much power it was over representation that the England parliament had
Considering our Congress is just an oligarchy at this point, I'd take a king that over throws the system when he thinks he's upholding the ideals of old presidents. At least then the power that The People actually have might finally get to reform the government.
The idea that a man who serves a country for 4 years can appoint someone who oversees the laws of a country for 30-50 years is insane.
So only NOW do you voice a problem?
@@n484l3iehugtilHow do you know this is their first time bringing it up? How about the merits of the point?
@@n484l3iehugtil stop barking at the wrong people. One of the reasons we are in this and could get out of it is if we unite, especially since they WANT us to fight and comments like this only are detrimental to the discussion. You are achieving nothing with this kind of blame and you also have no idea what OP does or does not using just one sentence...
@@n484l3iehugtil It was less of a problem when the appointment system actually had checks and balances and wasn't just bypassed by the hyper-partisan politicians we have today...
@@vespuccini n484l3iehugtil has extensively stalked and followed mikelxanadu for over 20 years and have detailed notes of all of their opinions and public statements. I thought everyone knew about the rivalry between these two UA-cam commenters? Its astounding you can be here on the internet and not know this! /s
Its insane that our highest courts are arguing over anyone should be immune to the law at any time for any reason
In Europe that's pretty much the norm, the argument being that being liable for political decisions would make a lame duck out of government, because unpopular but necessary steps could not be taken if the politician behind it has to fear prison or financial ruin. Obviously, if a politician here were to straight up murder someone, that immunity would be lifted by parliament.
@@CidVeldoril But democracy demands they obey the public no?
@@Lynn.-_-. Well yes, but actually no. Politicians here are quite good at the "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" game.
It’s political; make sure u change ur affiliated party to whoever is in power in your area so u have a better chance to win in court 😂
@@CidVeldoril Well at least there is an investigation....
My god the algorithm is cursed
Giving the President almost monarchical levels of power on Independence Day has to be one of the most ironic things America has ever done.
Plenty of us in the US agree
If they could have announced it on the 4th of July I'm pretty sure they would have.
This does feel very much like a middle finger to the people.
monarchs don't have immunity, at all.
@@Scribe-cd5xb even in Spain, where the King barely has power, is inmune
“I have investigated myself and determined I have done nothing wrong” has been written into law.
hey, if the police can do it! 🤣😂🥲😭
Holy smokes... you people are so lost in your bubble it's ridiculous. I'm going to bookmark this thread specifically so I can comeback in 4 1/2 years and point out how poorly this video is going to age. 🤣🤣
@@Ranger1PresentsVirtualRealms That's a great idea.
@@corpsehandler5321 It *is* consistent with the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Which should be abolished.
@@Ranger1PresentsVirtualRealms I don't think there'll be an internet to come back to in 4 and a half years if a Trump presidency takes advantage of this in the extreme ways they could.
I was only 16 (not old enough to vote) in 2016, but I accompanied my mom and sister while my sister voted for the first time (she was freshly 18). We were devastated by the results. I cannot put my disappointment in my fellow americans into words. I had no choice but to trust the adults around me to do the right thing - to make educated, informed, and rational choices. That trust has been shattered.
That is proof of your intelligence. Thank you from a Boomer. Sadly it may be up to your generation to clean up the mess we have created. May God have mercy on your generation.
It was the same for the Nam generation, welcome to Real America :/
Funny they should mention Federalist 70, as I actually read that for an essay once. While it did argue that an executive should be able to act without restraint, Hamilton, aware of the peoples’ wariness of having too strong an executive that could become a “king”, was sure to painstakingly explain that the executive was still to be liable for his actions. He stated that since the executive acts alone, it should be easy to “…[discover] with with faculty and clearness the misconduct of [the executive], in order either to their removal from office or their actual punishment in cases which admit of it.” While Hamilton did not specify to what degree the president may or should be restrained, it still implies that the President should be liable to punishment for his actions.
seriously man their clause is taken out of context even worse than the synthesis essays that I wrote
I love how [we found out] Roe v Wade was [going to be] overturned just before Mother's Day [even though the final ruling was in June] and now the president was ruled a king above the law just before Independence Day.
[Edits for technical correctness added in the square brackets.]
what's the next holiday?
They can think of something for Thanksgiving, surely! @@eljanrimsa5843
@@eljanrimsa5843first amendment removal (and establishing christianity as the only legal religion) on Christmas eve
@@eljanrimsa5843 Labor day. Oh boy. Probably about to legalize indentured servitude.
@@NavarroRefugee The children crave the mines
This is not poor judgement . It's not Judgment at all. It's corruption.
Word.
Blatantly obvious. They did this to protect Donald Trump and hope he gets elected so they can turn the country into a fascist Christian theocracy.
It's laying the groundwork for Project 2025.
The best SCOTUS money could buy!!!
PURPOSEFUL CORRUPTION!
What i dont get is why these people can't see that each time they give a new level of power of a president they like, they also give that power to the next president they dont like. Seems like every few years a new presidential power is granted, then the people who created that power get upset and spend years griping about the next guy using it
What if these laws give them the power so there is never a next president or a next president they don't like?
it's because of Project 2025. They are confident they will win this next election and then prevent any other party from becoming president.
@@MXarcx
Please don't give them more ideas.. America is already pretty screwed, no need to drop it into the Mariana trench with something like that.
Sooo, if my president doesn't have to follow the law... Why should we?
cause the President said so I guess, and he Got ALLL the military! Good luck Friend! wanna start a new Country together?
It is messed up that a bunch of lower courts ruled differently and unanimously but 6 people get to just completely change the law. 6 people that are completely unaccountable.
Not if Biden arrests them and throwe them in jail for corrupting the Constitution
Republicans
Six people, who were put in office for life by the president, have overruled several lower courts, whose judges are elected for a limited term, and changed the law to make the president immune to basically ANY legal liability!
The system is so insanely rigged!
We're way past overdue on the chop chop, French-style. It's only going to get worse from here. I wish it wasn't so difficult to immigrate to another country... But also I don't want to wait until we're forced to run to escape and the borders become sealed off. "It Can't Happen Here" is such a bogus notion, American exceptionalism has been our self-inflicted kryptonite from day one.
It's as difficult to feel empathy for you as it is to not look at the current political landscape and consider this country a (very bad) joke and the laughing stock of the world.
Everything we've been taught in school has been rendered null & void. We were always taught the Supreme Court was a group of unbiased judges that protect the land....Boy was that ever wrong.
and the last 2 judges selected by Trump shouldn't even have been pick, Trump made sure they favored him by selecting judges that in no other way would have been chosen
What's wild to me is -- Thomas especially has been on a knee-jerk rut, pulling things out of thin air to chastise. But he's as old as dirt. Why now object and rush to unset everything? He's answering questions nobody asked just to get gears moving in a different direction. I am no conspiracy nut but I think it's healthy to wonder why the same things he says are so wildly bad weren't bad the other millions of decades he's had a chance to say anything about it. May God have mercy on his soul.
@@vincentjohnflorio he's been caught accepting huge bribes for years, so they also made bribes legal now and he is looking to not get in trouble in any way
@@vincentjohnflorio There's more scrutiny than ever, and whenever he feels scrutiny, like Trump, he lashes wildly. Also KBJ is now sitting up there with him, and he don't like black people. The Uncle Ruckus of the Judiciary.
well all judges will have a moral bias, however, they are letting their political biases in way to much here. I don't think any judge 50 years ago would think the president should have immunity, but now look at it, they have a bias an are now saying a bunch of baloney to help out who they have a bias for.
A President SHOULD hesitate when they are about to do something that they are afraid they might be prosecuted for later! In what world wpuld ANYONE think otherwise, let alone the supreme court justices!!?!? This is difficult to believe this is real.
This is the most un-republican take from republicans
Going by that logic:
1. The president sends the national guard to arrest and dispatch the current sitting SCOTUS justices.
2. The President can now install new military justices to the SCOTUS benches because
3. If any congressmen objects to these actions, the President can arrest and dispatch them with military power.
Immune, immune, immune.
All three branches are now under the executive branch.
But still keep the 25th Amendment . Unless your President has Dementia
people say its unfair that the president is above the law, but the law (constitution) has only been in place for just over 200 years. everyone who lived and died b4 that were also above the constitution since it didnt apply to them (not yet written). so it isnt far fetched to give president full imunity.
on the topic of your logic. sure, maybe he can do your 3 step model. but also remember, it can take 1 bullet to be unalived from 1 military person. president is never immune from death (no one is).
Sounds familiar, somewhere in Europe in 1933
Yeah, but those "conservative" judges know that a democratic president would never do that.
Indeed. My thought was "go arrest them all and then see what their opinion is....."
They'd all happily sit in jail and sit by watching the Prez deprive them of due process. Because they love such an energetic Executive. Madness.
Imagine fighting tooth and nail to leave an empire run by a king with legal immunities just to form a country run by an elected President with the same immunities. That’s tough.
also Religion:
Trump litteraly wants to force children to do so
You've summarized George Orwell's "Animal Farm" !
You also forget that you sacrificed the life of several people to achieve this, the natives that are gone, the slaves that perished...all this was done in the name of freedom, sacrifices some insist were worth the cost...
That cost, it was mourned. Now you are turning on your own.
Ironically we would now have a less king-like leader then had we never revolted from the UK!
Idk if it was run per say then. The king had some power but it was a constitional monarchy so alot of the running of the empire would have been from the king
Biden has the chance to do something real funny rn
"I'm going to do what's called a pro gamer move"
And they could argue that he did it because he was "senile" and "out of his mind"...
@@user-vz4gg6cs4l nah he doesnt even need to, cuz presidents apparently have total immunity now 💀
Except he stated that he wouldn’t, he’d just leave it to the next guy to do the right thing. more or less…
It's Joever
I swear you guys are about two years away from a night of long knives
Drump doesn't like "antishemites" and supports ""the chosen people"" all the way. I just viewed an image of him wearing a kippa in jerusalem or tell aviv while standing next to the president of that country. My wording is specific so this reply does not get removed. Please do your research, even just the bare minimum. Antishemitism is necessary for nahtsism
But freedom of without having laws!!!!! 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
/sarcasm
Here it’ll be night of the long guns 😆
@@oliverdelaenfield2criminally underrated comment
From Europe: The US never had a French Revoloution, because for that you need a king. Finally you can repeat what you missed out on!
Well, technically they did when they were British. Way way back.
@@c0mpu73rguy No. The US fought for independence, they didn't try to take down the English Monarchy.
@@doctornick17 But they used to have a king.
@@c0mpu73rguya king that was never deposed
Holy shit.
SCOTUS: "Presidents must has criminal immunity, or they could not possibly function as the President."
The Rest of Us: "If that's the case, how did we go 250 years without Presidential immunity, and the Presidency still function?"
They are lying through their teeth, entirely aware that we know it's all a lie. Mechanisms to hold the Supreme Court accountable are woefully lacking though, so I don't think they're that worried about being caught in a lie.
We haven't. Presidents have been effectively immune from prosecution for decades with the Supreme Court refusing to hear unconstitutional cases and precedent has been set through Qualified Immunity for representatives of the Judicial Branch, including judges and police.
Because we always acted as though they had it. That changed when Biden's people went after Trump. The left caused this.
“These days, illegality is a MUST otherwise we Republicans will lose power” ~ Republican SCOTUS lifetime unelected Political Party kings.
@@willfrankunsubscribed The last time we came close to a prosecution, a pardon ended it. The other time before that, the President died first. It hasn't come up much.
Ngl this kinda aged well if we’re talking also about trump’s physical and luck immunity cause goddamn he just survived an assassination
Its impossible for this to age well because this is a contortion of the ruling. The president has a presumption of immunity for official acts, not absolute and can be IMPEACHED like always.
I mean maybe it gave someone ideas. 😬
It's really funny to think the majority quote Federalist 70 in the decision, but Federalist 69 says that "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." Both 69 and 70 were written by Hamilton, and it's safe to say that "absolute immunity" does not constitute the intended message. There's also the fact that the Federalist papers aren't really law either and just opinion, but who's counting.
"If a president is afraid of breaking the law, he can't do his job." Is one hell of an argument.
I know right... Like yeah sure Trump is bold enough to break the law basically all the time, so a criminal is the best to be president? Like.. what? Lol. Their mental gymnastics knows no bounds.
The punchline is that the president takes an oath to uphold the law. I don't recognize this country anymore.
Especially when that is what every president up until now has done, apparently none of them were able to do their job and we're only now getting around to changing it? Unlikely.
It's one hell of a confession
The argument of a child.
"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause."
Our country is now on an inexorable countdown toward dictatorship.
I love democracy.
Just what I thought. Star Wars really shows how a democratic becomes a dictatorship, but boy the US seems like it really wants an emperor nowadays
@@ivanvikalo4995 It's insanity, what was the point of the founding fathers breaking up the government so that the president wouldn't be able to amass power?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
But who's the dictator? Trump promises to attack Biden and his family if elected, but if Trump is elected Biden has two months in office before Trump takes over.
He is not campaigning to be 47th "president" of the US, he's campaigning to be the 1st "God emperor king" of the US.
"The Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire"
A.K.A. dictator. It's easier to spell.
Try thinking for yourself instead of just parroting CNN and 'the view'.
@@notpoliticallycorrect4774 Idk what either of those are. Your username, lack of content, and join date make me suspect you're a bot though. Perhaps it's you who should think for yourself instead of assuming that people who think differently just blindly follow shows they watch
Nothing Trump did is out of ordinary for a president. You may take that to mean "he's not that bad". What I actually mean is that "every president is a war criminal, and Trump isn't very remarkable in that".
The Prequel Trilogy is looking more of grim parody of reality. 1000 years of democracy? Please, just give us around 250 years.
Nixon once said, "No, I'm saying that when the President does it, it's not illegal!" That statement ruined him. Now it appears the Supreme Court has decided to officially agree with him.
Lol I wrote that just before seeing that clip.
Roger stone is dancing on the American founding fathers' graves as their occupants spin uncontrollably.
The majority judges of this Supreme Court are setting a slow-motion coup and the officials that were actually elected by the people are just letting it happen.
Apparently, Nixion was just ahead of his time.
Nixon committed a personal act not an official one
This absolutely scares me. Seriously. I'm a combat veteran and served in the US Army and fought for this country and now I'm looking to find a way to move out of it and never look back, because if this is the reality we're about to completely destroy this country in a way you can't possibly imagine. Only the worst of the worst will run for president because it's a get out of jail free card and right to do criminal activity without consequence.
And here we tried to remove a president for getting head in the oval office. Now we're going to sanction and criminalize the office of the president? You have to understand and believe that the president is a human and often times driven by political motivation. If we put someone like Trump into that position with this protection in place there is absolutely nothing stopping him from doing everything he wants as a complete dictator. And yes, he would.
I agree! It would be tragic if your service was in vain. I, too, fear it might be time to get out. It's not going to be easy, but I'm going to be looking. Good luck, friend. 💙
I'm also extremely shocked that people of this country are willing to vote in a convicted felon. I may not agree with how the conviction went, but if I was convicted I wouldn't be able to argue the how or the judgement and then join the state troopers or the military, but I could apparently run for president? Have we completely forgotten what the difference is between right and wrong?
Agree my army brother. Agree.
@@bulwulffcristole3235he is convicted of fraud. Essentially abuse of power. People want to the man with a list of abuses of power and now criminal conviction of such acts, more power. Insane.
It's been about money since the first European set foot in America.
Ah yes, the newest Julius Caeser
More like Julius Seizure...
Wtf is going on with the US, dude
More like Nero
“Honey! Our Julius Caesar from Wish just arrived!”
You literally don't live in reality.
Little did he know what would happen 9 days later lol.
Imagine showing this court ruling to a founding father.
Imagine them showing to the founding fathers how they used lawfare
Washington reloading his musket: "Here we f*cking go again!"
@TriIIiianbro is not him 😭
To quote a Jacobin article by Seth Ackerman:
It stands to reason that a document drafted by a coterie of gilded gentry, openly contemptuous of “democracy” and panicked by what they saw as the mob rule of the 1780s, would seek to constrict popular sovereignty to the point of strangulation.
Thus, brilliantly and subtly, the system they built rendered it virtually impossible for the electorate to obtain a concerted change in national policy by a collective act of political will. The Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity in which 84 percent of the population can be outvoted by the 16 percent living in the smallest states. The passage of legislation requires the simultaneous assent of three separate entities - the presidency, House, and Senate - that voters are purposely denied the opportunity to choose at one time, with two-thirds of the Senate membership left in place after each election. The illogical electoral college gears the whole combat of presidential elections around a few, almost randomly determined, swing states that happen to contain evenly balanced numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And the entire system is frozen in amber by an amendment process of almost comical complexity. Whereas France can change its constitution anytime with a three-fifths vote of its Congress and Britain could recently mandate a referendum on instant runoff voting by a simple parliamentary majority, an amendment to the US Constitution requires the consent of no less than thirty-nine different legislatures comprising roughly seventy-eight separately elected chambers.
@TriIIiianbro is delusional
As a citizen of an ex totalitarian country: I’m absolutely terrified. American folks, demand a change while you still have the rights to do so. I’m dumbfounded that apparently no one has learned from our mistakes. Open a history book and look at what we had to endure and just how hard it was to fight for our freedom: we paid for it in blood. And if you are so fond of freedom, don’t let the same thing happen to you
Tell that to our current president. Without it being illegal, Biden now has the authority to keep chump off the ballot.
This is terrifying and should terrify the world... No other dictator or totalitarian ruler has had a Military of the US's magnitude behind them. A Military that has bases all over the world. What is to stop our president from annexing whatever he wants?
There are massive structural problems with large scale protests in the United States, starting with the fact that we are a huge nation, physically separated from each other. Vast rural sections of this country have enormous political power, enough that Donald Trump may win after losing the popular vote by tens of millions of votes.
Furthermore, in the urban centers which are largely democratic and pro-democracy, Pro-Diversity, and pro Liberty, the police forces are largely made up of fascists from the suburban outskirts, making large-scale protest in the city both dangerous and rather pointless. Telling everyone who agrees with you that you are mad doesn't change anything.
A sizeable fraction of Americans want nothing more than the freedom of giving their freedom away.
I’m Canadian, and I’m worried.
I simply find it terrifying that after two weeks, I haven’t heard another human being even mention this let alone be scared about…
Most news media is owned by the same people who own the politicians and judges…
Because that's how it always was, otherwise Obama and other past presidents would be charged for a lot of stuff.
@@PandaWarriorTT That's a reason to *charge those presidents*; not to give the president unlimited rights to do whatever he wants.
@anon9469 they are not charged because they have presumed immunity. It has always been the case. To be charged, they must be impeached first.
Kafka has not only entered the chat, but has slowly sprinted in, gun in hand hidden by a cooking mitt, screaming vague undetermined threats.
Come on, if it's Kafka, it's a Hammer, not a gun. :P
Even future presidents should be afraid of this change.
Being able to take them to court was the *least* violent way to deal with presidential crimes.
This isn't a change.
Every president has always had this.
Its been that way for over 200 years. you can google it yourself Just type in Presidential immunity and its the second link.
ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct
If Trump gets in there will be no future Presidents.
There will be no future president after trump. Trump will be the last for the USA as we know it.
“Future presidents”? Oh, that’s adorable.
Sounds like Seal Team 6 might become the new Praetorian Guard...
The founding fathers did NOT fight for independence for this ruling to be passed
The founding fathers died long ago. Their legacy is whatever their descendants want it to be.
@@jimsouthlondon7061💀💀
@@jimsouthlondon7061This is the problem, partisan BS bots in all the comments. Democrats and Republicans should both be disgusted by the dismantling of democracy and all anyone can do is yell "Ha, my team is winning" as it all burns around them.
@@jimsouthlondon7061 Yea i'm more afraid of a dementia patient than an actual kiddie fiddler.
@@jimsouthlondon7061maybe you do if that's the conclusion you draw
I was taught all throughout my schooling that the three branches exist to balance out the power of the others, and to keep them in check. That was just violated horribly not once, but twice. Once for the ruling itself, and a second time because why are 6 people able to decide that the entire power structure of the government gets to just change? They were never in check, and they always had all of the power if they were able to make this ruling on a whim. I mean they've been abusing their power since always, but now its just stupid.
It's so weird how intelligent and educated people all are against this Trump guy. There must be some preposterous reason for this! Let me go read a QAnon article about it.
When someone mentions the horror of project 2025 and 4chan user # 1234567523 walks in like "I'd rather have a president who does something than a president who does nothing! Project 2025 doesn't affect everyone (read: me) so it's actually fair and cool"
@@arson7012 Have you read project 2025?
@@voidmusicpromo a thing that Trump Disavowed and would likely only take the Economic ideas from and fix them to be better for the American people.
As an Eastern European, I can say with absolute certainty this is the type of stuff you get right before becoming the next Russia. Please, people of the US, don't let your country fall to the corrupt, the zealous, and the numb. The world is in your hands, voters.
It all comes down to November. We'll try our best. If not, I'm sorry for your country and mine.
Oh half the nation actually DO want to become Russia, without knowing what it actually is like. And when US BECOMES like Russia, they will realize their mistake too late. And ALL the world will suffer for it.
100% agreed. This is now an existential struggle.
We're trying our best
We are trying, my brother. Its just that those who refuse to use logic and reason outnumber us.
6 justices lied when they testified that no one is above the law. 6 justices shat on the grave of every soldier who died defending our freedom.
They lied under oath. They took bribes. One is a rapist. One is a cult member. One took more than $4 million from a billionaire and failed to disclose these gifts.
There are more than enough reasons to depose the Supreme Court.
You do realize that without presidential immunity, the presidents at the time those soldiers died could be charged with 1st degree murder.
@@kdog2646 …Are you people being paid to be insane, or, like, what?
@@cameronellis7210Same goes for you.
@@gramioerie_xi133 are you being paid to be insane?
We should immediately give emergency powers to the supreme chancellor
Why is no one commenting on the fact the majority mentioned no prior president had faced criminal charges as part of theie justification? If your argument relies on the idea that being bound by the law could prevent president from exercizing their duties, how come every other president was able to do so until now?
We need two new Constitutional Ammendments:
No member or officer of the government either elected or appointed is immune from criminal prosecution.
Supreme Court members shall serve a term no longer than 10 years.
A potential solution. Let’s focus the conversation on this. Complaining about a disaster doesn’t make it go away.
Bad ideas. Here's some better ones.
No officer or agent of the United States, or any of the several States, shall have special immunity for criminal behavior except as minimally necessary to protect proper and good-faith execution of their duties.
Explanation: If congress were to try to pass a law that criminalized a proper and necessary action of the president as granted to the president by the constitution, then the constitution should win.
Federal judges including supreme court justices shall serve for life while on good behavior, subject to impeachment and removal. The senate must have a three-fourths majority to approve an appointment of any federal judge, including supreme court justices. At the start of every new 4 year presidential term, and at the halfway point of each 4 year presidential term, the president shall choose one new supreme court justice. The size of the supreme court is not fixed and will vary according to this procedure. If the president and the senate cannot agree on a new supreme court justice within 3 months, then one new supreme court justice shall be picked by lottery among all serving federal judges.
Explanation: First, we should have a 3/4 supermajority requirement for senate approval to help reduce partisanship in choosing federal judges. Second, to reduce the random factor of how many SCOTUS judges a president might get, set it to exactly two per 4 year term. Third, to avoid the possibility of a minority party deadlocking the situation (like we've seen many times from the Republicans), I added the "pick by lottery" clause to force compromise.
No, we need an entirely new Constitution.
@@TheEnterthedreaming Let's not get too carried away now. There is something to be said for gradual change vs radical revolutions. Revolutions often have a chance of producing something worse. With gradual change, it's safer and more likely to result in something better.
@@hewdelfewijfe "good-faith execution of their duties" is a dangerous wording, as it puts the definition of "good faith" into the hands of the courts which leaves us where we are now.
So this is how democracy dies, with blasé apathy.
You need to get out more.
Not a Democracy, we are the states, the United States.
Well said
@@SenorDesmadre At least he wasn't dropped on his head as a child.
@@SenorDesmadreany reason why you thinking that? Instead of just insulting you should provide your opinion
This aged VERY well in only 2 weeks
What I find most disturbing is the failure to work in the clip from Star Wars: A New Hope, where an Imperial officer says, "The last vestiges of the Old Republic have been stripped away."
I mean, C'mon!
At this rate, our constitution is nothing more than toilet paper.
Cap
It's been that since the 1800s.
Time for the states to take the homes of the SCOTUS Justices via eminent domain for public memorials for the defunct Constitution. The justification for site selections is obvious.
Nonsense. The Constitution isn't written on paper.
It's nothing more than a dog's chew toy now.
Always has been
Does anyone else remember when Mitch McConnell voted against impeaching Trump for Jan 6 despite saying he was obviously guilty but that the legal system was in place to prosecute him? Me neither.
Mitch McConnell ran the most successful coup d'etat in American history by filibustering Obama appointees then granting the appointments of Felon Trump. It contributed to this disaster.
Ah good ol' Mitch. Mr. "We shouldn't impeach him because these are clearly criminal acts" one day, then Mr. "You can't indict without an impeachment conviction" the next.
Interesting how the justices that Mitch put in power disagree with that. Big oof
J6 gas was $1.68 who was guilty ? no one overthrew the installed moronic government and no one was charged. watch the video tapes
Well it was. And Mitch McConnell isn't a supreme court justice. So nothing about that was hypocritical (wrong of him, because you should also impeach him as well, but not hypocritical). He didn't even know about this case at the time, because it didn't exist, so he couldn't have had a secret conversation about this ruling before saying that.
The title aged like fine wine
The Supreme Court ensured that they would be involved in deciding what is immune, making only Trump immune from all laws.
Yeah that basically means that it's for trump and trump only
I thought we had a revolution to get rid of kings.
Now you need a revolution to get rid of a criminal president AND SCOTUS.
If we're not careful, there's going to have to be another one...
Those who don’t learn history are bound to repeat it.
Kevin Roberts just said, "we are in the midst of the second revolution". How is this not a declaration of War by the entire GOP? They use that word "war" constantly, publicly. They attempted to assassinate the Speaker of the House TWICE. Solomon Peña shot at people when he lost his election. How are we not discussing the 14th amendment and invoking the insurrection act declaring the ENTIRE GOP to be in open rebellion?
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure George III had more restrictions on his power than POTUS does now.
🐸🍵
They really said: "The president shouldn't be afraid of or hesitate to commit crimes." How can anyone think this could possibly be a good idea?! 🤦
Well see there is a lot of lead paint on the windows.....
This is a bad dream. I want to wake up now.
Because they are just as corrupt as he is. He put them there for this reason. They don't give any fcks about anything else, their power resides with him, so they will give him unlimited power, and he will return the favor.
Methinks the president SHOULD hesitate.
Does the ruling apply to what POTUS does *himself only*?
E.g. POTUS cannot be prosecuted for ordering an assassination, but whoever carries it out CAN be prosecuted?
thats an incredibly unbiased thumbnail
for an obviously unbiased and totally factual video
The craziest part of this ruling for me was the "no court may review" language. They said no court can review these decisions, so you can't even rule whether an act is official or not. And they said no future SCOTUS may review this decision, which is an insane thing to claim.
LegalEagle at 23:24 "No president should have this immunity. No president should have this power."
Me from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: "No country should have 9 non-elected officials decide everything about its Constitution, laws, and institutions with zero recourse (no appeal process, no term limits, no way to impeach)"
Fortunately, congress can impeach the justices. AOC has stated she will be drawing up articles when congress is back in session. Unfortunately, ain't no way it'll actually happen...
Trust me. Everyone with a brain is saying that here.
There is a way to impeach and remove Justices from the Supreme Court. One of our Representatives is introducing articles of impeachment. The problem is that it will never happen because half the Congress is controlled by the same corporate money that controls the court.
Unfortunately, horrifyingly, the only way to fix this is for Biden to use these monarch powers he was just given to remove the threats to our republic by any means necessary. The fascists in the Republican party are correct when they say we're in the midst of a second American Revolution... and they're the redcoats.
We have impeachment processes here for the Supreme Court but… I doubt they would go through with it.
its because americans choices have sucked for so long that we dont care about politics.. so the majority of citizens dont ACTUALLY care about it at all
Motive is the most important evidence "I assassinated my political rival because he was selling nukes to russia" and "I assassinated my political rival because he called me a meany poop head" now carry the exact same weight in court
Your delusions and legal eagles lack of reading comprehention for consistutional matters is why there will be no middle lmao
Any proof of nuke sales?
@@kawkasaurouswhat are you talking about. This is literally the exact opinion of the majority 6 SCOTUS members in which motive can play no role in a criminal prosecution.
At the end of the day they still murdered someone.
@@kawkasaurous there is no middle to be had, either you're completely against all aspects of conservatism or you are wrong.
It's absolutely insane that the same court that handed down this decision is the one that reversed the Chevron decision.
They are conservatives. They preserve things, interpret the law the way it was written. The courts are written to have power over interpretation of law, not federal agencies, so they struck down Chevron. The president is the executive, he is a dictator who has immunity to prosecution so that he can commit war crimes in our "national interest" like drone striking hospitals in countries we aren't at war with or ordering the assassination of American citizens. That's the way the law is written. Don't like it? Go ahead and vote, it won't change anything. No government will give up their power, only redistribute it.
A holocaust survivor told me: “If Trump gets reelected, we may never have another election in this country.”
I am sure that happened. Why would someone who has strong Jewish support in his circle, who is very pro-Israel have those feelings about Trump unless you are lying or they are too stoopid to vote anyway?
@@lastrolo What do you mean strong Jewish support? He has had meetings with many antisemites in the past.
They would know.
Sounds legit that a 95 year old from Germany would have the inside scoop.
Wasn't he already elected and voted out? Why would next time be different?
If the president has immunity, what the hell does “high crimes” for impeachment even refer to?
Nothing lmao
They would dishonestly argue that its for unofficial acts
I think , but I am unsure that they would argue that impeachment is a extra-legal way of stripping office from officers, potentially stripping immunity as well, but probably not.
Well that’s separate from criminal charges. Impeachment means that congress has voted to hold a trial to remove the president from office. Not send them to jail. That is still within their power.
Things that aren't official acts and don't get immunity. I.e. Drunk driving isn't an official act.
This is how dictators rise to power, this is the road to fascism.
Scares me. Scares me more for the nephews and niece who will grow into adulthood on this fascist road.
Oh, until the Supreme Court decision, it was assumed the president was bound by the law. But apparently they’ve read back into history using their original ism to determine this is how our founding fathers behaved they all believe they were above the law so therefore Trump is too.
This isn't the road. This is the end result. You're there _now_.
When you let it! Get busy America.
This IS fascism! What "road to"? Smh and people wonder "how we got here".
Well that aged well
lol fr
After the events of 7/13/24 6:11 EDT i can confirm he lives for another season
Welp. I just have one thing to say to all those people who say that the Second Amendment is for dealing with tyrants: ANY TIME NOW WOULD BE GREAT.
He's not a tyrant to all of them. He's their leader. Good luck with your country!
This!
...I suggest people get prepared in all manner of ways, including organizing, and setting up mutual aid networks.
He’s not even the president right now. You’re advocating for the murder of a civilian by the government.
You first. Seriously, don't ask someone else to risk their life and sacrifice their own freedom to save you when you aren't willing to do the same yourself.
You 100% know that “official presidential actions” will be anything Trump does, and “unofficial presidential actions” will be anything his opponents do.
Exactly the point
Rules for thee, not for mee is the way of Republicans
Willful ignorance. The decision says the courts have to decide what is official, based on the president's constitutional powers.
@@dw1419 Oh you mean the courts that Trump stacked in his favor?
That very clearly aligned with him and his goals?
Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
@@dw1419 99% of the cases will be thrown out in pretrial because they'll argue that there is no clear indication as to how said bad action was NOT an official act and it will be thrown out due to having no standing
With the sympathy he got today, he will be truly untouchable from now on.
I like it how Americans compare tyrants to kings lmao. Most kings today are bound by constitutions. While in UK, ever since the Magna Carta and execution of Charles I, it is understood that even monarchs aren't above the law. We should update our vocabulary and use the term "president" to refer to a tyrant, because nearly all tyrants of recent memory went with that title.
This ruling is the most dangerous ruling in the history of the court. These judges need to be removed from the bench immediately.
Biden has the opportunity to become the greatest President ever by threatening the Supreme Court majority with sicking SEAL teams on their asses if they don’t revoke their decision and remove his immunity to do so.
if biden had any balls he'd send seal team six to wipe out the majority justices and stack the courts with his own guys. they literally told him it was fine to do that. he got permission first and everything.
Obama was prevented from even having a hearing on a justice nominee in the whole final year of his second term because the founders obviously didn't intend for a President to have that kind of influence when he was nearly out of office.
Instead they intended for a President to put three justices on the Supreme Court in a single term, throwing back civil rights for generations. Meanwhile longtime members are emboldened to publicly signify support for insurrection, and enthusiastically discuss overturning more civil rights.
Secondly, we need a better system of inaugurating these justices. Trump tipped the edge of the iceberg towards the most insane and baseless ideology by being allowed to appoint a third of the whole, current, supreme court.
@@Phenobarbidoll. Dont forget that the last one was appointed like a month before the new elections, LOL.
..... this is definitely the bad timeline.
I think it’s worse.
no it's great
I have to remind myself that the cold war did not lead to nuclear annihilation. This is the second worst timeline at most
We gotta wait until 2077 for that one@@Ramschat
@@Ramschat The more I see, the less I find a _Fallout_ timeline to be the _bad_ one...
Nixon must be so pissed right now from the grave.
Nixon: Immunity from everything? Well, that's one way to keep things hush-hush! If only I'd known, I might've skipped the whole resignation drama.
Got an ad of eric trump asking for money during this vid lmao
I hate to be that guy, but this is like Star Wars when they ask "but sir, is this legal?" And Palpatine responds "I will make it legal".
It may be protecting them from "official acts", but what the hell is an official act? And what stops a president from making something an official act?
May The Force be with you 🎉
@@emanym and also with you 🙌
Also "this is how democracy dies" is just ringing in my head.
Like assassinations of american citizens in countries were not at war with for who they are related too?
Thanks Obama
When did that happen i agree but no one said that
For nearly 250 years we haven’t needed to carve out this level of immunity for Presidents and they seemed to be able to function in their role. What changed?
Fox news and the GOP abandoning reason and civility for fascism.
Democrats deciding to prosecute the president is what changed. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arguably the most unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) acts in presidential history. Who prosecuted him? No one.
I think for all the hubbub about this, the D's neglect one fact: Trump left. Sure, he whined about it, called it unfair, biased, etc. But in the end, no one had to remove him from office physically. Had he been a true dictator, we'd be living in the US of Trump right now, as we speak. He can't proclaim himself dictator unless he has full support of the military and law enforcement behind him. He doesn't have that. The military takes loyalty oaths to the US Constitution, not the President. If he orders or performs an unconstitutional act, officers have the right and duty to refuse to comply with the order.
And if he DOES have the full support of the military and law enforcement, then we're screwed regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
Trump
Human shit made it into the office in 2016
@@AshesOwOAshes Bush, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, the other Bush the whole to the presidential cabinets.
The only thing this does is reaffirm the status quo want change? Have the legislature perform that. The job of government is to govern. Roe Vs. Wade that's able to be legislated by the legislature named congress in the now before the election. Except nobody cares they're making too much money. Avarice corrodes one nation under fraud.
Don't be a knucklehead
How sad. If the history of governments around the world has proven anything it's that putting too much power in the hands of too few will end badly. I have, over the course of my lifetime, maintained respect of the Supreme Court no matter which way they ruled because I believed they would maintain a dispassionate and *balanced* view of the law. I guess I'm left with only the hope that lower courts in the future will interpret this ruling sensibly and the Supreme Court will let it stand.