'Let's Say A President Leads A Mostly Peaceful Protest': Neil Gorsuch Grills Lawyer In Immunity Case
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2024
- Justice Neil Gorsuch questions Special Counsel Jack Smith's attorney Michael Dreeben in oral arguments for Trump v. United States.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
What if someone pulls a fire alarm to delay proceedings
Exactly
What if someone commits the premeditated first degree murder of an innocent child with a drone strike?
Come on. Rules don’t apply to some 🤷♂️😂 (Sarcasm)
OMG - you did it! Comparing pulling a fire alarm to a full on coup! That so insane....
Great call! I forgot this. Well done.
A bunch of people here who aren't judges trying to tell a judge at the highest bench how to do their job.... But those same people can't tell you what a woman and a man is because they aren't biologist. Hypocrisy is funny
They are just people. No more, no less. They are merely there to ask probative questions of Petitioners.
@@robertcarr272 I ment the people in these comments
Yes, i know. And 'i' was referring to men and women on the bench.
A black robe on anybody does not impress me. Especially when merely 'interpreting' statutory commercial codes. But that's just me...
what about AOC's sit ins? What about a member of Congress setting off the fire alarm to slow a vote? Should these actions be prosecuted as a crime?
The "D" in front of their names means dismissed...as in any crimes.
@@saveamerica423 yup. Unfortunately.
Oh, well, no, of course not. The President has LESS rights and power than other members of the Gov! See also: Classified Documents retention and declassification.
@saveamerica423 and on Covfefe the sky is orange cup cake??
Not in a 2 tiered justice system.
What about Schumer's protest and threatening remarks in front of the Supreme Court?
Do you really think he meant it? If so, contact the FBI, so they can laugh in your face.
@@douglemay7989 The FBI is compromised, also!!!!!!!
Schumer not president.
@@douglemay7989He must have cause someone showed up to off a Supreme Court judge based off it.
That was the hypothetical Gorsuch was presenting. The lesson here is: If not for double standards, Democrats would have none.
His entire argument comes down to essentially "no, but Trump!! It's TRUMP, therefore..."
Bingo!
He actually had the balls to say, and I quote, "This once in history case". He's telling the court just to let them do this becuase it's Trump man, C'mon, and they pinky swear it'll never happen again.
No. His argument comes down to, "Official Act" does not include things that serve the personal interests of the president. There are acts that are clearly illegal; a president should not be immune from prosecution for criminal acts. For example, official acts do not include killing ones political rival or attempts to prevent a rightful successor -- somebody that won the election -- from taking their seat in the Oval Office or, tacit ordering people to attack the capital of the United States.
I see you are happy with high inflation, high prices, war, demented president. You certainly are special.
Exactly!
What about smashing cell phones after a court order to hand them over ?
If hammers are used it's OK, otherwise it's forbidden.
Depends, did a Democrat or a Republican do it?
@@mikemelina7395its a reference towards Hillary Clinton.
@@rjharris1960 That's why they used hammers; they leave AOL messages alone. Without the hammers the phones wouldn't work.
@@dutchreagan3676 still crying over Hillary??
It depends if we agree with the protest or not - DOJ stooge
"agree" or not, win a single case in court before expecting the nation to believe your blatant lies. This maga skid mark in history is so embarrassing...
Exactly
@ZexOclock Also the DOJ is NOT part of the constitution , yet they think they rule over the 3 branches of government. Time for DOJ to get put in its place.
It's clear that you are listening as a biased, right-wing Trump supporter; try listening with an open mind.
@@timparker5246 That's so ironic.
Neil Gorsuch provided the best argument that fit the case in question.
No he didn't
Big difference between a peaceful protest and what Trump did. He lied about losing an election and then incited a crowd to intimidate and use violence to try and stop certification of the people's vote. Not to mention his fake electors scheme and pressuring state officials to overturn election results where he lost in swing states. Gorsuch is playing partisan politics not administering or enforcing the law. If this court succeeds in whitewashing trumps criminal acts our country will pay a heavy
price.
He got a chuckle out of Justice Thomas too hehe.
@@nakiawashington7520How old are you?
@@indonesiaamerica7050: CCP trolls can be any age .
It's hilarious listening to this DoJ lawyer trying to define certain lines for Trump, but they wouldn't apply to Biden or Obama.
You actually didn't listen to the hearing, huh?
or the detestable Chuck Schumer who I believe Gorsuch is referring to.
@@Article95You clearly weren’t.
@@brandoncortezemmanuel357 I listened to the entire session. maga's simply parrot what maga media took from it.
@@Article95Oh great anonymous person, what do you think this guy is doing? He can't fight for official acts to be prosecutable because then they can nail Obama for drone strikes.
Why don't they stop being cowards and say it out loud: "He's guilty if the administration in charge wants him to be. We're going to leave everything ambiguous on purpose so that the hammer can come down on anybody the current regime chooses to go after."
Really? You think all presidents should have absolute immunity?
Biden didn’t indict Trump, Grand juries recommended indictment after reviewing testimony and evidence, since the indictments, even more evidence and testimony is available.
If any person believes that their political leader is innocent and infallible, they follow a pillar of fascists, fascism begins by fascinating the fools and detaching them from reality
Ah I see Gorsuch is talking about Schumer yelling at the Supreme Court, I'm telling you . . . you will feel the whirlwind! This lawyer should shut up before they drag Schumer into the court. I would love to see that.
The man is essentially indicting at least 1/3 of the Democrats especially the ones that protested with BLM.
If we had any justice system remaining in the USA, instead of JUST-US system, schumer would be in prison where he belongs for death threats against USSC justices.
f schumer
Me too
On what actual legal grounds? Schumer hurt their feelings? What is this whirlwind you so emphatically refer to? Such drama.
That lawyer is just making stuff up
"Mostly peaceful protests"? We saw lots of them in 2020 like the BLM riots and arson. 😂
And they are being prosecuted too.
Barely any BLM types were prosecuted. 😂
@@douglasturner6153 Like over 300 you mean? Yeah...barely any...
That's why the Justice said it----taking a jab at CNN.
@@dallasburgess5329, the "protesters" aren't what we're talking about though. It's the politicians who incited them like Maxine Waters, AOC, etc.... If they weren't charged, then Trump shouldn't be.
The more I listen to our HIGH COURT I am grateful Justice Gorsuch is there. He doesn't seem to be lost in the fog of legalese and still has his common sense in tact.
He asked a very stupid question. Pretending he can't tell the distinction between a peaceful protest or sit-in and a violent mob stabbing cops with flagpoles. Pathetic.
@@harveywilkinson2432 What delusion are you living where cops were stabbed by flag poles. One 18yo girl was murdered by a security guard during Jan 6th and barely anything else happened. There was no destruction of property. The security staff removed barricades and let them in and courts have ruled that created an invitation to enter.
@@shannonbarber6161 The stabbing of cops with flag poles by the rioters was literally caught on tape. Do I need to post a link? OANN and Newsmax are rotting your brain. Seek help.
@@shannonbarber6161what courts said that?!!! None
@@harveywilkinson2432Stabbed by flagpoles??? No. What about the day rioters tried to storm the White House and burned down the church? Was anyone punished?
This is not Trump versus United States. It’s Trump versus the Democrats.
Excuse me but it's the Democrat MARXIST Party now.
No, it's Trump's SCOTUS vs the Democrats!
Democrats versus We, The People.
@@mweb1 right
@@mweb1 Trump, grasping at straws in his bid to remain a free man.
Basically...,
... "No justice Gorsich. We would only apply this law to Trump. Any other president is safe".
This is like the definition of the most pointless conversation ever.
This is a guy being forced to defend a position that he knows is incorrect but doesn't want to admit. This is the kind of position you find yourself in when you stretch the law and try to use it in a way that it was never intended to be used.
On those grounds alone, this case should be dismissed.
If something was done that Congress thinks is wrong, then they should pass a new law that criminalizes that. Because then it will be up to Congress to make sure that it fits within the framework of the existing laws.
Trying to pigeonhole a set of events into an existing statute that doesn't apply is despicable.
Trump made it clear January 6 for a peaceful March on January 6 , but mainstream media is silent on that
Imagine being the president and you are accused of an insurrection against yourself.
Stop hitting yourself.
Gorsuch is on the ball too.
What if someone destroys a sever to hide criminal activity??
Or smashes a smartphone to bits to hide evidence.
That’s not something that would ever happen! /sarcasm
Or creates a Russian hoax to impeach a President and to spy on someone running for President illegally. We could go on and on.
Totally cool.
Trump can't do that though. He's not allowed to.
Or take classifed documents to his house and store them .. when they were a civillian/senator/vice president .. then let someone else read them and write a book about what they read.???
What about classified emails on an illegal server ?
For a statute that says INTENT IS NOT A CRITERIA FOR IT TO BE A FELONY.
@@trumanhw funny how that works in democrats favor ONLY
Justice in this country died July 6th, 2016 when James Comer stepped up to the podium at the DoJ.
Then they blame Trump for Russia hacking Hillary's non government, non secured server😅
The server wasn't illegal. What they did it with was.
So the Attorney General is the real President.
Or that dude....what's his name....Michelle Obama
Or whoever is the Communist Party chief.
According to Deeben yes.
He just admitted, in court, that the Deep State shadow government exists, and it's the DOJ.
J. Edgar Hoover just rooled in in grave with glee, his wet dream come true.
Yep.
No Mitch McConnell has been from the time republicans took majority of the senate until it was recently lost again.
Why do lawyers at the DOJ get to decide frameworks of “harassing” prosecution? Why cant the President sue them for harassment, fine them, or cost them personally.
Ex-President Stinky?
Only lifelong politicians get a free pass from the looks of it.
In other words if it had been Obama, who was holding a civil rights protest with the same results as Jan 6th, would you have prosecuted him?
Nope . He's their master. 😈
No need to speculate about Obama other than sheer hatred. Obama didn't commit any such act, so why drag his name into this lunacy? In fact, if Obama had done even a tiny bit of the alleged crimes, all hell would have broken loose crying for his blood!
As a young law student, I used think the USA was a leading example of democracy, the rule of law and constitutionalism! I have now learn't it is the opposite. The USA has one of the worst systems at permitting judges to operate under the influence of partisan politics.
At first it was a serving President could not be indicted; understood. Now it is a former President cannot be indicted at all for crimes committed while in office (not lawful acts done in execution of official duties). Even those in banana republics cringe at this level of anarchy! What a shame!
@@enesschiyenge3981 then what do you think when the supreme court says to BIDEN you cant do the school bailout ... but he borrows 7.4 billion anyways and does it... to me that makes BIDEN a dictator .. because he says NO ONE is above the law except for him.... to Me that is what a KING/DICTATOR does the highest court says its against the constitution...but he does it anyways .. Dictatory Biden is also protected by his standing 3 letter Army
@@enesschiyenge3981but if you believe the system is so inherently corrupt, how can you separate the Sainted Obama from the corruption?
ANSWER : a resounding NO !
This sick mentality only applies to Trump 🙄
The basic point that Mr. Dreeben is making is that you should trust us. Of course, we cannot.
they want specific laws just for Trump.
You said it, and it was a stupid thing g to say.
The biggest question actually Justice Thomas asked, who appointed special council Jack Smith? Did sitting president appointed him or the Congress appointed him? If not what's the legitimatecy of his appointment? When these lawyers are referring government, who's the government here? Attorney General is the government? If no elected officials appointed this special council to prosecute a former president for any official acts performed during his tenure then there is no legitimacy of this special council and supreme court allowing this to happen means the country can no longer be called democracy.
In short this special council operation itself is threat to democracy as there are only 3 branches of government and there is no 4th branch.
Absolutely. This is a huge conflict of interest having the Biden administration appoint Smith to prosecute Bidens political opponent. There was no coup. Case should be thrown out. If Congress appointed a special counsel, I think that would at least look fair.
Let's say a guy pulls a fire alarm to delay a vote. Would that be a crime?
Recently prosecuted as such. But did not have presidential immunity.
Again, that depends; If a Republican does it, it's a federal felony and obstruction of an official proceding. If a Democrat does it, it's a violation of a municipal ordinance.
@@donaldclifford5763 Charges have just been filed and they are not pressing a felony against him.
Way to keep up there Nimrod
That dude Bowman should lose his rights to be in any part of the government bc of his antics with the fire alarm. what a snake
everyone has the freedom of speach
Not really. I'm censored heavily on this platform. Banned from Twitter for life , yeah only certain people have that privilege
@@Penelopesyoutube UA-cam isn't a public platform. It's privately owned, and you're here only by permission of the owner. How can you not know that? You're MAGA, right?
@@k311ydcart3r the constitution is the law of the land. That stands in America . They have 0 right to silence anyone speaking on any platform or don't operate in usa
Unless you reveal the truth.
The prosecutions argument is that Congress has authority above the Executive Branch, and also the Judicial Branch.. So Rashida Tlaib who coordinated a protest inside the capitol, didnt obstruct an official proceeding so she wasn't prosecuted. and when they protested at SCOTUS justices homes and threatened their families while they were in deliberations ( for a conveniently leaked draft) This wasnt obstructing an official proceeding because Judicial branch doesnt count unless has Liberal Majority. And therefore it's not currently a co-equal branch.
This explains why Dick Durban wants to deny Secret Service protection only for Conservative justices families and not the Liberal justices. In fact shortly after Durban announced Justice Kavanaughs family wouldnt have any secret service protection, it was a dog whistle for a person to try to get to Justice Kavanaugh. ( notice how that person dissappeared, hasnt been charged and the news media is silent)
I don’t think you need to be a lawyer or a judge to know that this whole thing is nonsense. If you don’t like Trump, I can understand that, but this is ridiculous. I hope Trump’s team wins this argument.
Dreeban cannot string a continuous cogent argument past one sentence. He darts around incoherently saying, "Trump bad;)"
Guess you've never heard Trump speak incoherently.
Must be the bottom surgery messing with him.
The DOJ stooge lawyer has been before the SCOTUS in many cases. Would be interesting to see his win score against the SCOTUS.
I googled it. They do not tell you how many cases he won, they just say he's achieved a lot from his experience going to the SCOTUS. They know, they're just not telling. They knew how many times Jack Smith has been over-turned by SCOTUS!!!!!
Listen with an open mind, not as a Trump supporter.
I agree. A lawyer's resume/expertise matters. I am wondering right now the same thing. Might explain why HE is standing there? Then again.. may just open more questions as to WHY IS HE STANDING THERE?
@@timparker5246yeah and the DOJ lawyer was really bad at presenting his case before his dissenters. It’s pretty obvious. 5-4, 6-3 ruling based on the questions presented by each dissenting side. Just a question of water ACB shows she’s actually liberal again…
@@ponderrosie4975because he hasn’t seen the paper boy… 😂
The court should be asked what if Biden did these things, rather than Trump. They would change their answers.
Here's my question for the SC: If a president acting outside his official duties violates classified documents security protocols and a special counsel then deems him guilty of multiple felonies, does that same president then have the pardon power that would allow him to pardon himself from these felonies?
Didn't Biden almost get in trouble for wrongfully storing secret documents? And he was not charged for it because he is a senile man with good intentions?
Here my question does a congressman or vice president have immunity?
@@donaldclifford5763what felonies has trump committed?
Shouldn’t the only relevant question be, did trump do the things he is accused of?
This clown is crazy. He's saying a President is subordinate to the advice and opinions of his own beaurocrats 😂
Not a surprise since Biden is their leader and he only does as he is told by the party bureaucrats.
Which appears to be the MO of the Biden admin.
When unelected bureaucrats run the president, then what you have is an executive dictatorship.
Exactly. The AG is president. Or Presidents are subordinate to prosecutors & judges.
Biden's an "Elderly man with a poor memory & fading faculties no jury would convict."
Maybe in DC!!! Bring him over here. Let's test that theory in my town, HUR!
Hillary was "extremely careless," but "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
Then the SAME DOJ that said POTUS has unreviewable rights to personal docs, prosecutes DJT.
No, he's not. He's saying if you ignore the advice of your legal experts on cases of law, you do so at your own risk.
@@dallasburgess5329 How is that different?
Telling a Supreme Court justice what to do , the Hyde of this man
Smh. Yea, he's telling the Supreme Court what do, from a powerless position. Ok
It’s not hypothetical. This is reality.
In areas of law let’s avoid “probably not” or “maybe not” counselor. Let’s tighten this up.
This was the perfect line of questioning. Gorsuch might be my favorite justice
Gorsuch is a phony! He is an activist judge who claims to be a textualist and originalist, but wants to legislate from the bench!!
Love hearing this socialist democrat doing a dance because he knows Gorsuch is talking about the loathsome Schumer. Brilliant!!
@@Sarah-im3lpyou just gave a perfect definition of the leftist judges on the bench.
@@cryingleftists2290 ANY judge can be an activist, right or left!
@@Dan-sc7us I was just pointing out the fact that just because she thought he was, doesn't make a difference because the others on the left will do the samething. So why even mention it? Because feelings are being hurt?
Good for thee but not for mee.
What if the President set off a fire alarm to delay a proceeding?
I can’t believe we are tying up the Supreme Court over a case that was never charged or convicted!
What are you talking about? The former president has been charged 85+ times and is claiming he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Seems reasonable that the Supreme Court would take that question on.
I don't think you get it. This case will determine whether he CAN be charged with it.
And that would be the first issue...
@@gavin2870 already brought - the Smith case...
I think the Supreme Court thinks the same way
What about possesion of stolen classified materials from the whitehouse in your garage ?
Donald thought the documents would be safe in his crapper. No one told him that the lock only works on the inside.
@@douglemay7989 Here's my question for the SC: If a president acting outside his official duties violates classified documents security protocols and a special counsel then deems him guilty of multiple felonies, does that same president then have the pardon power that would allow him to pardon himself from these felonies?
@@douglemay7989 That was proven to be a lie. Keep failing.
Or in the bathroom at mar a lago
@@josephgraziano2139 That never was the case. Catch up. The bathroom pic was already proven to be a fake. That's why they won't show the video showing the FBI removing it from the way he was suggested to store them.
SO the special counsel lawyer said if the president got word from an attorney general that what he wanted to do was legal, he can't be charged, but if the AG said it was illegal or he didn't ask an AG, then he CAN be charged. What a joke! Are these even real lawyers?
But they wanted Trump indicted for asking counsel on whether or not Mueller could be removed. That was part of his "obstruction" theorized in the Mueller appendix.
Not what he said...what the hell are you listening to?
What about insider trading, you know like Congress does.
Especially PELOSI and her husband.
All government is corrupt it doesn't matter which side you're indoctrinated to. People are so dumb these days. They don't give a sh*t about you, just your vote...😉🫡✌️
They are not the pres.
@@donaldclifford5763That makes zero sense. You cant hold a double standard. Rules for the.
That is so far down the line, who even cares. Democrats weaponized the IRS, DHS, and DOJ Obama and Wattts tried to kill the American Dream by ending our mortgage system.
Dreeben Needs to Retire and Just Take His Gov't Retirement With Him! No BS'ing Judge Gorsuch!
The Justices see right through him, I guarantee it.
Quit listening as a Trumpster and open your mind!
@@timparker5246 I have opened my mind as a Realist/Commonsense/Not a Trumpster! Dreeben is a 70 y/o Lawyer knowing better! No Immunity, Open Season on All Future Outgoing Presidents, especially if replaced by the Opposite Party President! Give a Few Republican State AG's the Opportunity to Play Hardball and Watch Dem/Libs Scream, never admitting what they started with trying to carve out new precedence against their hatred of Trump and all these questionable Trials!
Fact, any member of Congress is protected from any limits on their Free Speech for anything they may say in the Halls of Congress where they do their work. The President's certainly MUST have equal protection of his/her free speech in their place of work, which is the entire country. In the case of Chuck Schumer his death threats spoken outside of his work place should be prosecuted.
Inciting violence is not protected speech under S&D clause---- pressuring state officials to overturn their results is not also. These are crimes.
@@Article95 So what, the President NEVER incited violence only in the treasonous lying minds of democrats who get their information from ABC [hid Epstein information for 3 years], NBC[ hid the Harvey Weinstein information for over 5 years], CBS [who with all the others engaged in a 4 year coup d'etat of Trump/Russia collusion which was PROVEN to be a Hillary created and funded hoax.]
@@Article95feel free to describe what he did and said to incite violence, take your sweet time, we'll gladly wait for you to try and make as much up as you possibly can. Dont forget to cite when, where, and the related videos showing such.
@@Article95 What if someone destroys a sever, cell phones and 33,000 emails to hide criminal activity? Asking for a friend. Also, Trump has never been charged with "Inciting Violence." Simply claiming he did and therefore guilty of "something" is as weak of a legal argument as one gets.
@rushfan9thcmd Read the charging documents, the J6 report....do you have any defense beyond, "hoax?"
It is so painful to listen to jack smith ‘s lawyer’s twist and bend argument 😢
Thinking about and listening to our courts debate will help the people understand what decisions you make.
This Lawyer thinks he can advise and direct the supreme court.?? Throw him out on his ass. Trump 2024. FJB
You want a king trump? Stop calling yourself a patriot then please.
We want fair treatment. Get over your bias. You are not holy. You are just regular person. Take your meds.
@@doresearchstopwhining Did you say that to the justices at the Supreme Court? Just wondering.
@@fastfreddyrealty5317 maybe I should take yours instead.
Advise to the article .it is a judicial rule ,hold the judge to the rule ,
"A mostly peaceful protest."
That's hysterical! 🤣
Mr Gorsuch really had this guy squirming and sweating. I really love that.
Last time I checked, my elevator, still went to the top floor and I’m retired
That lawyer is floundering just stop talking.
Dreeben doesnt even believe what he is arguing here.
Dreeben sounds like a real squirrelly individual.
He sounds very "special".
I’m imagining him as a squirrel when he talks.
Of all the supreme court hearings this one's my favorite.
Omg. This so-called lawyer is a master at word salad.
love the "intent" part of law....as if anyone knows what is going through another persons mind at any given time
Comey claimed to know the Hildabeast's intent when he let her off the hook for violating the Espionage Act.
minority report rings a bell
Well it's Trump they're going after, so the intent is "Orange Man is Bad!"
Liberals can read minds. It's not what you heard with your own ears that is correct, it is what the liberal tells you the person meant.
Wow, you'd be a horrible juror. Because we can't read minds, intent can never be proved. WOW. The ignorance I see in these comments.
they basically saying the AG is higher than the President. How dumb is this lawyer?
...as a stump? "Like Jethro"? ...as a bag of hammers?
No he didn't..he said the president can be subject to prosecution..he said at the very end.
he said if he used advice of council and that council is the AG; then the DoJ wouldn't have grounds to prosecute. hmmmm. what's that mean? 🤔
@@unclebriskets he didn't say that...
Highly respected lawyer? I don't think so!
The ultimate oxymoron, "respected lawyer". America's most dishonest and despicable professionals have always been lawyers, lawyer/politicians, lawyer justices. If these were good honorable people of character who abides by their oath to defend the Constitution of the USA, then it would never matter who occupied the WH or held the majority in the Senate when a USSC or any judicial appointment was made. Can anyone left or right say this is the case? Do we have laws or do we have political biased opinions to rule us?
What is the action that delays the proceedings? Leading a civil rights protest would not delay proceedings. Leading a protest isn’t a crime in and of itself.
Capital police letting protestors in the capital did more to disrupt any proceeding than anything Trump did.
Amazing how much he tried to avoid answering the question
They are opening Pandora's box. Getting to the point where if they do, the hailstorm will be felt by all those guilty of the things they accuse.
Only if THEY choose to prosecute.
@@stephengould2232Red states have AGs too. This really should have been let go. You all basically forced him to run again with your ridiculous crusade agaisnt him. I remember Biden running on being a uniter yet the only things he's done is drive us further apart. He had the power to let this pass and bring us together but he choose the low road. I dont think you understand the ramifications this will have on our country if this goes through.
Gorsuch here demonstrates that he is a genius jurist, while the prosecutor demonstrates himself to be an intellectual lightweight.
“WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!”
CORRUPTION is always the FIRST ONE to cry about the other person doing wrong... Here we get to see this in all it's shameful throws of evil exercise. The most DAMAGING thing about this is, it leaves irreparable scars and begins to tear away the fabric of TRUST, PROCESS and PRECEDENCE which in laymen turns will destroy the judicial structure and the trust the people used to have in it.
Even Jack Smith side knows this is all BS n waste of time n money.
When you fear integrity and accountability, you are no longer the good guys.
The supreme court thinks the Americans are stupid. They seem to think we don't know that they are in Trump's pocket..
@@marthacartwwright9976 They know we know they sold their souls and the American people out. I imagine if any were to tell the actual truth, they'd be blubbering like a Rittenhouse.
You mean SELECTIVE accountability? Yes, THAT I fear.
@@GillAgainsIsland12 Trump, Harvey, it's the "Let them eat cake" party on full display.
@@michaelccopelandsr7120That doesn't make any sense at all. You just took a line with negative connotations and asserted it's applicable when it isn't. It doesn't even fit the context in your imaginary idea of what he supposedly did. It's like you don't even know what that phrase means.
It’s only “illegal” when it involves the opposition.
Justice for Jan 6 Patriots. FJB
Said if the attorney general gives bad advice the president cannot be held accountable I'm done
That has ALWAYS been the case since the founding of the country. A president is not expected be an expert in the law, so he relies on the advice of his attorneys. If they screw up, the president is not accountable IF he listened to them in good faith.
The problem is that we citizens cannot use that (“my lawyer said it was okay”) as a defense when our own actions violate the law. From other parts of the oral argument, I interpreted that because the government has sovereign immunity, the Attorney General has no criminal responsibility for bad advice, and the President can act on that advice with impunity.
So what is stopping an AG and a President from colluding? The AG is the President’s appointment so why can’t the President instruct the AG to give him advice that gives him cover for an act that may be prosecutable? If we go down that path, the top of the American justice system is instantly corrupted (beyond what it is today).
@@charlestatum2511 The President isn't just some regular, everyday person----I believe it was also Gorsuch that said that. And he's correct.
@@GillAgainsIsland12 The President has so many firewalls of counsel advice, that if he takes an illegal action nonetheless, it's his accountability that is on trial. Remember Truman's resolve while President, "The buck stops here."
If they rule against Trump, then all past and current presidents should be held to the same ruling . This is political prosecution for one man .
Yup, prosecute obama for murder.
Absolutely!
Maxs.waters every time you see a Republican senator or congressman or women in public you get in their faces and let them know you don't want them here and fight them every way you can
Does this sound innocent?
This is why I made the choice not to become a lawyer. Absolutely horrible people
The Democrats look crazy right now😂
The former guy tries to overthrow our election, democracy and Constitution through several illegal means, including summoning his followers to the Capitol and having them attack...but, sure, the Democrats look "crazy" -- yeah, right.
Yea? But your side is arguing Trump is a king.
@@Article95he is the king if his house tho, and the leader of the citizens of morals and values in the US
@@emilianopimentel4076 Which means US morals and values don't exist anymore. He doesn't OWN the United States.
Uh...that's because they ARE crazy. These past 5 years have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
A president should have 100% immunity for anything he does whilein office except for anything he gets removed from office for by the Congress.
If it's a heinous crime with many witnesses Congress can act within just a few days and have that president out of office and in jail awaiting trial.
Exactly. Almost like that is written down somewhere already.
Waiting for the lawyer to say…’but orange man bad’!
If its NOT clear to the US Supreme Court then it should be considered void for vagueness, and not hold people responsible for following an unclear law.
We cant bring down the whole system just to get out of one president who a lot of people seem to want to vote for. You either support our system or you dont. You cant change things just to take out one guy who the people actually want to vote for.
TRUMP WON THAT ELECTION NO 0NE WANTED A DEAD MAN IN HIS BASEMENT HIDDING .
34 RICO felonies committed by Trump. No way around it, he is a felon.
Liberalism will end this country
Trump LITERALLY tried to end our country by overthrowing our election, democracy and Constitution to secure Authoritarian power.
The president having the military kill his rivals - is that Liberalism? I think not.
Just like Ronald Reagan warned us.. you nailed it
This is a dangerous line of questioning.
It seems impossible to logically reconcile this question - when viewed in the context of actual, other presidents' actions.
The lawyer's word salad makes me think of Kamalah...
So rude the way he talked over the justice
This lawyer needs a vacation...uhm 365 days vacation....ie(never come back)...cannot listen to this again!!! I feel sorry that these Supreme Court justices need to listen to this...
I’m not a fan of an Attorney General directing the president on what he can and cannot do.
The last time the Stars and Stripes were waved in Congress was on January 6th!!!
You mean the Confederate Flag, right?
@@douglemay7989 nope!
But I've seen many Democrats wave Ukrainian flags in Congress
I find the prosecutor's voice annoying, sounds like someone out of the Simpsons.
Sounds a little light in the loafers to me. Another diversity hire?
@@lilzabug LOL!
That character is Artie Ziff.
...or on his way to a vacation in Thailand where they sell little boys cheap (or so I hear).
This giy is stupid. Hypothetically depends whos in office.
@@douglaskriever6904 Like cousin IT from The Adams Family?
My question is was the F.B.I. involved in encouraging and leading the group to go in the Capital?
Looked like the security people were M.I.A. in the videos. Who did that Mrs. P?
The Supreme Court Justices are amazingly patient. He’s literally walking this guy, using his own argument against him, to explain that president do in fact have immunity!!
The government is utterly incoherent. The guy's answer to everything is, "It's prosecutable when I say it is and not prosecutable when I say it's not."
So, if Trump did it, it's prosecutable. If a Uniparty president did the exact same thing, it's not.
I'm a Democrat but I'm an American first. We cannot be steamrolling government action based on one man; it must be consistent and fair. This shouldn't be about Trump no matter how much they're making it about him while pretending they're not.
Excellent. You share Alan Dershowitz' view which is very coherent and critically important.
Why would a president lead a sit in when they can just veto it when it hits their desk?
What if you were a congressional leader doing it? Congressional leaders don't have veto power. Are you starting to see what analogy Gorsuch was using, or would you like another hint?
It might be for political theater to gain or show disapproval from the general people about a act. Or it could be about a area that he has no control on. Such as a Senate impeachment trial, he has no veto if they decide to not conduct the trial.
What about presidential decree to postphone the election or inaguration of new president till clear judicial ruling of absolute immunity?
FJB rules for me but not for thee enough of the BS
Trump 2024
Trump 2024! fjb
That voice is atrocious. His argument is despicable - he’s making arbitrary distinctions within Gorsuch’s example in order to avoid the hypothetical which could very well occur. Gorsuch makes an excellent point. Any future administration can criminally harass a past president if they are corrupt enough, and it can all be from a mischaracterization, blunder or really any subjective opinion of a future administration at all. The idea that the council of an attorney general changes anything is a total distraction from the original point. A corrupt administration like the current one can scheme and hire thugs to harass a former president, and the law should protect a former president from that occurring.
Nicely stated. Well done.
Rules for thee but not for me……
Why is everyone ignoring the word "corruptly"? That word means that the person knowingly attempted to undermine to change or delay the outcome for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. Delaying this particular meeting does not delay or change the outcome because he leaves office on the 20th either way.