What Happens To The Criminal Cases Now That Trump Is Immune?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- How bad is this for Trump's prosecutions? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.lin... ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin...
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.lin...
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.lin...
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.lin...
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.lin...
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.lin...
Facebook: legaleagle.lin...
Tik Tok: legaleagle.lin...
Instagram: legaleagle.lin...
Reddit: legaleagle.lin...
Podcast: legaleagle.lin...
OnlyFans legaleagle.lin...
Patreon legaleagle.lin...
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 the other cases end up like the Florida case? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Bro, I haven't watched the video yet, but can you cover the tossing out of the classified documents case? That judge's decision didn't cite immunity but rather something to do with the constitutionality of special prosecutors, which is interesting.
There is a lot going on now, so I know it's hard to keep up - when something _crazy_ is happening _every_ day.
This channel started out as a light hearted channel reviewing things like Always Sunny, to Devin's never ending quest to try to explain the unexplainable. Godspeed, my man.
Oh, I also just remembered that I wanted to ask you to cover the dismissal of the Alec Baldwin case.
Cannon dismissed the docs case over the congressional purse power. This is embarassing for Joe Biden.
' The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump : 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Experts Assess a President . ' UA-cam Ck out
Okay as a Dutch person I want to say that my believe that The USA actually exists and is not some elaborate tv show is dwindling by the minute. This stuff is way to insane.
The writers have gone on strike, and we actors are winging it the best we can.
The part you see on TV is definitely a show. Unfortunately, life on set is all too real.
Methinks they're pulling out all the crazy plot twists now, cause they don't think we're getting renewed
As an American person, same.
it’s unfortunately all too real, and most of us american alternative lgbt crowd are shaking in our boots
It's wild to me that we have zero mechanisms in place to address such a court. They're literally telling these younger generations that our laws mean nothing.
They do have a mechanism. Congress can impeach a judge. Good luck though.
@@Kyle899Yep. The house only needs a simple majority but the senate needs 2/3 and that will be very difficult to achieve.
To be fair, they're telling everyone that the laws mean nothing for people with power and influence, money, and it doesn't hurt to be white also, which is true and always has been. Laws are for the poor to keep them beholden and powerless.
In theory, Congress can undo this with a Constitutional amendment.
In theory, the Executive could order all Federal judges to ignore the SCOTUS and promise to pardon them of any charges.
@@gamelairtimso in theory to combat having a king president, we need the president to act like a king?
The fact that this wasn't immediately laughed out of court as blatant favoritism is beyond pathetic
Elaborate
@@GreyCrowe Allow me: DEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
@@frankcooke1692 I don't know if he'll be able to read that.
Truly, serious lawyers and judges need to reject the premise. Scotus only has as much power that we as a society allow it to have, this video feels like its normalizing this behavior even though Devin clearly thinks its nonsense, but discussing it like its now the new norm instead of rejecting it on its face normalizes it.
@@GreyCrowe Lol, you want people to elaborate on a political point on UA-cam? Have you not paid attention to how the auto-delete filter has been working lately?
Gotta love the flip flop that's happened. "Oh, we can't impeach him, if he did anything wrong, we can always just hold him accountable in court, that's what it's for!" (3 years later) "Actually the president can't be held accountable in court, he'd need to be impeached first". :(
I dont understand anything cause I thought he was "impeached" twice.
It's the same thing they did with Obama by refusing to even try to confirm a Supreme Court Justice he nominated for an entire year because they were saying something like, "a President shouldn't be appointing Supreme Court Justices in an election year". But then confirmed one for Trump less than 2 weeks before an election.
@@rayers1000 To clarify, he was impeached by the House of Representatives twice. These cases go to the Senate, where they are adjudicated on the floor. Both time they failed to convict. Disclaimer: this is my non-expert, totally lay person understanding thus far. Happy to be corrected.
By the exact same lawyer too!
We need several new amendments to the Constitution.
Someone said, "America has a LEGAL system, not a JUSTICE system." At this point, even "legal" seems pretty sketchy.
IIRC Alan Arkin's judge character in 100 Center St says: "What's the law got to do with justice?"
It's the "court industry" by now
Nah its definitely still a LEGAL system. Anything can be legal if you're able to change the laws to whatever you want.
Common law empowers the judges to make broader judgements rather than relying strictly on the codex.
Criminal justice = justice for criminals but not the innocent
The Eagle Team ad rings hollow. What I have learnt from this video is that I don't need a good legal team, I need a below average legal team and a corrupt supreme court. Where do I get one of those?
You need coin, connections, crews, clout, computer code, control, corporate communities, and opulent opportunities. Without 'em, you ain't SHEET. 😂
Well Trump had a bad legal team and lost in NY. What you mean is, you need to be rich
@@Novastar.SaberCombatbars
What you really need is a cult of personality centered around you 😂
Being a reality TV star can get you far.
In another reality, Kardashians are presidents.
As an Iranian who spent most of his life dreaming about one day moving to the US, I think I'll pass for now.
Good, we’re full
That's fair.
not all of us are bad people. Like any place on earth there will always be those unwelcoming to strangers. Iran is your home, but if you are set on leaving it for the US, then I wish to express my respect for your resolve. Not many can say they left their homeland for another willingly.
@@GeldUndKokaine-kc1hp Lmao, is that why there's 15.1 million vacant homes in your country?
As an American, there are nicer places than here. I'd even recommend Canada before I recommended the US.
A great place to visit and spend money, and maybe start a business but that's about it.
Question: America's founding was cause you guys were sick of listening to an old guy with near-absolute power, and wanted a fairer system. When did that change?
Mostly around Ronald Reagan's term
With the Citizens United case.
When our education system and work ethic went down the shitter.
It didn't .... they didn't want to re do the Revolution every time a new party took office so they made acts of the President immune to contemporary scrutiny....
When the old gained all the money and power
When people said the president has to be held to a higher standard, they didn't mean 'above the law'.
No matter what political belief you have, this is not something you should want.
And as I'm watching this, I get a news notification about Biden's announcement for a scotus reform. Which sounds long overdue...
Someone correct me if I’m wrong:
My understanding is the president of the United States is immune to any prosecution for things they do acting as the president. Plus any such actions cannot even be used as evidence. So basically “I was being the president so it’s not actually a crime lol” is a valid defense for any presidential acts. Plus even if the president is impeached for such acts, they STILL cannot be used as evidence or prosecuted for. Like basically the president has free rein to do what they want with any extensions of the executive branch because any extension of the executive branch is presidential by nature. So the president can just order the FBI to do whatever he wants (say he orders Joey Bill to go murder Sally McSally from Wisconsin) and the president cannot be charged criminally for orchestrating a murder because ordering the FBI to do things is a presidential duty and thus the president is criminally immune for that. Is this a fair summary of the ruling?
This seems like an obvious imbalance of power among the branches yeah? Kinda like the exact opposite of what the country was built for?
Correct.
Yep, that's pretty much it.
Without exaggeration, yes.
The final check is impeachment and removal. Impeachment is a political process, we pretend that it's a legal trial with testimony and subpoenas and such, but really any senator can vote for or against removal regardless of the evidence before them.
This means that although senators are able to completely ignore damning evidence and vote against removal purely for political reasons (as Republicans did in both of Trump's impeachments), it also means that senators can vote to remove a president without any evidence whatsoever.
So if a president can keep most of his party happy, he's essentially immune to impeachment due to the 2/3rds majority needed to remove. But if he pisses off enough friendly senators, it doesn't matter how much power the Supreme Court gives him to control evidence, the Senate can vote to remove him with no evidence whatsoever.
This means that Trump's power is largely restrained by his popularity in the Republican party, specifically Republican senators and the people that vote for those Republican senators. If he loses enough support with Republicans then it becomes a possibility that enough Republicans will join with Democrats to reach the critical 2/3rds of the Senate needed to remove him in an impeachment process.
What will it take to get that many Republican senators to turn against Trump? 🤷♂️ Hopefully we never find out, because it probably wouldn't be good.
Ok and one last follow up- the Supreme Court is supposed to be an unbiased check on the other branches of government. Surely they realize that giving presidents kind powers also gives Democrat presidents king powers..?
So hang on... You can claim something to be a personal matter and thus not part of your president role to avoid congress investigations and impeachment while at the same time avoiding any criminal litigation by stating that because you were president all private matters are the outer perimeter of your duties and as such are immune? Did I understand that right?
If your party has more people on the Supreme Court, then yes.
@@Icanhasautomaticcheeseburger Do you really think that if the situation were reversed, Democrats would have done the same thing?
Yes. The Supreme Court made up new rules to make presidents above the law.
So sad 😢
@Icanhasautomaticcheeseburger And once one side starts operating that way - as the (R)s are right now - scotus will make custom-fitted rulings for the needs of the moment. The fix is in.
The fact that Judges went ahead with "Official acts" vs "Within the powers and exceptions, granted to him by our laws and constitution" is just absolutely bonkers to me.
How else could Trump get away with Electorate fraud?
Because if the official acts were outside of those powers and exceptions they still want him to get away with it
The whole point was to leave it broad. Lawmakers are the best at leaving everything vague for lawyers to use
@@cherriberri8373judges aren't lawmakers.
Or at least they shouldn't be..
Making super special snowflake rules requires a lot of work
I guess this means Biden is immune, too, so that failed impeachment inquiry was completely pointless
It already had no point as there was nothing there to base any points on.
Technically, no. Impeachment is a completely separate process; it's political in nature, not judicial. It wouldn't be covered by this ruling. (Not saying the Impeachment should have gone through, just that this ruling has no direct impact on the Impeachment process.)
Not really to impeachment, but this does create some more immunity to the idea of what can be considered in line with a president's job
@Treyast I meant in terms of optics. Republicans wanted Biden not only impeached but put in prison for supposedly running the "Biden Crime Family " Meanwhile, their runner up is a convicted felon
Like all the trump impeachments?
In the USA, laws are only for the working class.
I wish I could cheat and lie on my taxes and be praised and supported by millions of people who would be immediately fined to bankruptcy and jailed if they did the same thing. 😌
To be fair, it's true in most places.
Or against the working class.
I’m Irish. And am watching all this unfold with horror. If Trumps case in New York get thrown out I will completely giving up following American news and the news about Trump. It will be too corrupt for my brain to handle!! He deserves to be in prison and seeing him twist the justice system to quash his trials is so sickening. If he becomes president everything will be quashed. It’s so shocking to see it unfolding before our eyes. To think he’ll never go to prison after all his serious crimes and all the chaos he has caused is appalling.
Tbh I'd recommend still keeping tabs here and there. As a world superpower involved in so many foreign affairs, whatever happens in the US over the coming years is going to have rippling effects across international politics.
I'm Canadian and I don't know how a lot of Americans are handling what is going on right now. It seems like a horror movie. I know they say every generation thought they'd be the last (although who knows if that's really true or not) but everything that's happening right now feels like the prequel before some Handmaids Tale style dystopia unravels. But it's happening all over the world now, and much of the mentality that has spurred this appetite for extremely regressive politics has already made it on this side of the border.
Americans don't care if you're good or bad just so long as you are a celebrity
The US constitution has been successful largely because of the system of checks and balances. We all learned this in grade school. None of the 3 branches can over-reach, because they are held in balance by the other 2. When 1 branch literally resigns its abiity to check another branch, our whole system gets thrown out of balance.
The Judiciary relinquishing the ability to charge a sitting president with crimes for "official acts" is a VERY serious undermining of the the structure of power in the federal government.
Welcome to *reality*, pal. 😂
The idea that "checks and balances" system works *well* to prevent overreach that everyone in the US is taught as a kid is mostly a convenient lie. It blatantly fails in a lot of ways to the point that you often just have to hope it will cause enough squabbling that parties who know how to exploit the system won't have the will or political favor to bother.
It's been a very imperfect aspiration from the very start that neoliberalism (from at least Nixon - Bush, and especially Reagan) only further dismantled over the past half century. When government relinquishes its power (or forces its other agencies to do as such) to private interests and lobbyists and demagogues, it becomes less about checks and balances and more about squabbling to be the loudest, richest, and most politically influential voice in the room.
A serious undermining, indeed.
💯 This is a DISASTROUSLY short-sighted decision.
Talk about checks and balances... The Judiciary does not charge anyone with anything. The Executive Branch does.
And, the Supreme Court just came out with a three-tier framework to decide how to apply the laws. I am not sure why you think this is undermining the structure of power in the federal government. A President is immune for official acts but liable for unofficial acts. What's the confusion?
@@manlyhallresearch9785 so the executive branch will charge themselves for something? Does that really make sense to you?
I hate this timeline
I blame the Large Hadron Collider for warping us into this timeline.
What time traveler stepped on a rock to get this timeline?
We all do. It’s bloody terrifying 😂
It's still better that the the timeline with the flying spiders
@@Fibonochos we could invent better bug sappers I’d rather that timeline
reforming this court will be a lifelong project for those of us willing to stay the course
You mean like when Harry Reid (a Dem)changed the way SCOTUS judges were confirmed ? You people cry about how important democracy is but don’t remember the 50+1 standard (straight democracy) is what let the republicans take over the court. All republicans should be praising Harry Reid
This SC should be seen as an embarrassing blemish on American history....
So unlikely it might as well be impossible.
@@mistake1197 I have a feeling this election will have the highest turnout in recent history when America overwhelming refutes Trump. I refuse to believe most American's are okay with this.
I regard it as impossible because of how rapidly living in America is becoming actually unfeasible for any non-cis white man.
4:57 "Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a Presidential Act"
Glad we cleared that mystery up
Don't know... seems like treaty negotiations to me.
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS DEMAAAANDED /sarcasm
Bill Clinton may have something to say about that.
Until they decide it isn't!
@@Mr.MasterOfTheMonsters The Ruling is retroactive so Clinton getting sucked off WAS a Presidental Act. Why? Because it took place in the White House and if it happens in there it's automatically covered.
Jesus, what a mess.
They'll just argue that the hush money was to help his election campaign and thus an official act as presidents are allowed to campaign.
The Judicial Power in the U.S.A. is in dire need of reform.
Just take note that the defense, "I was acting as President when I asked a Governor to "find" 12,000 votes", is now MORE sound than, "I was acting as a private citizen when I asked the Governor to "find" 12,000 votes".
I rest my case.
I don’t agree and I’ll tell you why. The 11th circuit court of appeals ruled that when mark meadows was involved in the phone call that he was acting as a member of the Trump campaign not in his official capacity as chief of staff and the Supreme Court held that decision.
@@blakekaveny true. the real danger from the decision is the creation of stupid garbage rules to shield Trump like that whatever happens in the oval office or said using the official channels (e.g. POTUS Twatter account) has a nexus to official duties and can't be used as evidence in any criminal trial of anyone for anything
@@blakekaveny Sure, but this is an argument for a sitting President to argue over. And that decision precedes this one.
There's a clear standard. Official Acts are all those acts a president engages on while having an (R) next to their name. Unofficial acts are all those a president engages on while having a (D) next to their name.
Just like a legitimate election is one that elects someone with an (R) next to their name, and an illegitimate election is one with a (D) next to their name.
TRU!
That sums up every argument Republicans have made so far
I've only seen one president charged with anything ever, and they have a R next to their name, so not even close.
@@weirdo911aw2?
You really think that the term limit wouldn't be changed during that time?
Im so scared for the rest of the world if this guy gets in. I fear for the people of Ukraine and Palestine. I fear for all the countries where right-wing demagoguery has taken hold. I'm so fed up of being anxious all the time. I want this guy to face some justice, some comeuppance. So many of the things he did, we thought "Okay _this_ has to be the career-ender," but he's like teflon, nothing sticks to him. He's escaped so much justice, and everything that goes wrong just makes him a martyr to his people. And it's baffling that he's so popular with the party of "law and order" and "small government" when he's setting himself up as a lawless dictator. It's ridiculous that some people are like "Yeah, this guy wants to destroy democracy, tear up the constitution and all the laws we've built up, establishing himself as the supreme authority... but the other guy stumbled over his words a couple of times, so he's just as bad,"
I despair, and i hate that i feel so small and powerless to do anything about it. All we can do is hope that _enough_ Americans see sense in November to keep him out
Although i dont trust that there wont be another attempted coup even if that happens. Project 2025 is only the stuff they're showing us, and they've already had a practice run.
@@gusp1456 style? Like his dancing?
@@gusp1456"style" doesn't make you a good leader.
@@V3lv3n But it wins elections...like it or not.
@@gusp1456 Some people's support - the billionaires who just want to rip off the country a bit more, and those of let's say a less educated background who really don't know what's going on.
@@gusp1456 I highly dispute the notion that he "already won".
So basically a president can do whatever he wants with immunity? You mean like a king?
Yes.
That ex-president seems to have more immunity than any king nowadays.
Are you my five yr old. The decision clearly outlined wherein immunity lies. Give the hyperbole a rest.
Even kings are restricted by the Magna Carta
Even Kings were held accountable by the church. Basically, the president has dictator powers.
It's insane that we even have to have this conversation. The Federalist Society lawyers and judges, who like to frame themselves as "originalists and textualists" of the US Constitution, have framed that the Founding Fathers desired broad, absolute presidential immunity.
...the very same US Constitution that features not a single mention of immunity for presidential conduct or actions, but DOES implicitly states "...and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
It's like they clothed their judicial activism in twisting the words of the Founding Fathers who were clearly fighting against replicating the reign of King George III of Great Britain. It's a fun house mirror interpretation of our executive branch and founding principles.
Supreme Court just threw out its entire capability to check or balance
They still have the ability to interpret laws
@@kekistani_meme_farmer7242 They can do that, but if they are ignored, then what’s the remedy?
@@kekistani_meme_farmer7242 thats neither a check nor balance.
@@ardenthebibliophile
Balances out the executive enforcing laws and the legislative creating them, no?
@@kekistani_meme_farmer7242 they cannot balance the executive branch; this is the subject of the video.
I need to know, seriously. Why/how are so many people still voting for Trump? Seriously, why do they love him so much? I just don't get it.
Its a Cult of Personality
@@arandommechanicus828not to mention Biden didn’t know the head of the secret service was woman he kept referring to her as a man, call us crazy but I’m saying things you can fact check me on.
Project 2025
I forgot who said it but basically, "Trump gives them the power to be the worst version of themselves". I don't know if that's exactly what was said but that's the general description. He gives them leave to do what they want, say what they want with little to know consequence. In other words, they don't have to be afraid to be who they actually are.
There's also the constant narrative pushed that White Christians are losing a majority of their way of life and political power. They want a return to the old days culturally, the old days being if I had to guess between 1940s and 1960s.
Sunk cost fallacy?🤷♂️🤷♂️
The executive, legislative, and judicial branches were separated for a reason. I don't understand how the executive branch can just blatantly corrupt the judicial branch with impunity! What's the recourse here?!
Completely unrelated to what you're saying, but I love your profile picture.
@@looktothenorthstar Thanks. I update it every 4 years.
Money equals power. Power means immunity.
Impeachment. Which requires Congress to actually do its job.
Congress has barely limped on since the 90s. It certainly isn't functioning well enough to actually do a hard task like Impeachment.
@@Novastar.SaberCombat which is why I've been screaming for the last 20 years about the threat of money in politics. We normalized bribery by calling it "lobbying", and gave a disproportionate amount of power to special interests. After four decades of being screwed over, the people are angry, populists and grifters are harvesting and manipulating that anger for personal benefit, and power is being consolidated by sociopaths.
So when does Nixon get his post-mortem reinstatement and apology?
Yeah, the guy was clearly ahead of his time.
Remember when the Supreme court was asked to weigh in on this subject back in 2023 and refused saying it wasn't their job, only to turn around in 2024 to give him a golden "Get out of Jail Free" card?
Nope, nothing sketchy going on here. /s
Our country is at a crossroads moving from a Representative Democracy to a Monarchical / Oligarchy
(think Ferdinand Marcos 1965-86). .
1. Full presidential immunity (No Criminal sanction - Loss of Rule of Law)
2. No Public corruption safeguards ("Gratuity" functionally indistinguishable from taking a bribe)
3. Loss of federal agency oversight (judicial opinion replacing Federal expert oversight).
If you think these changes by the current Conservative majority Supreme Court are positive for regular American citizens and our democracy you are being naive.
I think it’s a little naive to think this isn’t just a lifting of the veil.
@@drugsdelaney2907 True
if the supreme court is going to blatantly ignore the constitution then why should anyone else?
Shouldn’t
@jeffslote9671 A century of precident that the president is immune from criminal prosecution? Uh, the Nixon/watergate scandal proves just how ridiculous your assertion is.
@@jeffslote9671 Do you mean precedent? Because if you do you're just objectively wrong. But thanks for making up nonsense.
@@jeffslote9671 There was zero precedent for Presidents having legal immunity. In fact, the precedent very much showed the opposite with Nixon alone, with the only thing saving him being a pardon.
Weirdly they claim to support the constitution, see "originalism".
It's unfortunate that it takes you guys a few days to make your videos because of their quality, research, and editting. At the pace of politics and judicial upheaval recently, your videos are always 1-2 Batshit Insane Events behind. Can't keep up with the insanity
The comment below yours is "I hate this timeline", which is ironically exactly what I'd thought after reading yours before even reading the one below it.
I think there was probably time from the weekend until 1 hour ago do re-edit this video...
There's a saying that "a lie gets around the world by the time the truth has put on its pants". And boy has that been proven true.
Oh right, because Laws and research doesn’t take time lol 🤦♀️
@@rosenia5409 I think that was the point. It's nearly impossible to keep up because of the time investment needed. Sounds like you agree.
When Rome transitioned from a republic to an empire, complete with emperor, it must have been painful for citizens. I would think about them from time to time. How could they put that stuff aside and live their lives? Could they?
The part that crushes me is the failure of the American people to protect their republic. Sulla and Caesar had armies; you could say the took the republic. We are just giving it away.
I do sometimes think of the US as the modern Rome, and europe as the new "citystates of ancient greece". And Russia with its allies as a modern Persian empire.
Check out:
"The Storm Before the Storm" by Mike Duncan, a Roman historian.
The parallels between Rome and America are terrifying
Well american presidents have their army too - i doubt actual armed forces would be on citizens side, and there isnt much you can do with a gun against artillery, tanks and planes.
So he won, again, he slipped through facing responsibility and justice yet again. I have no hope in this system anymore.
The system was made by the rich for the rich.
I am Black, so I have never had hope in the system even though I've been in Law over 30 years. 😔
I’d like to point out that C.J. Roberts also fed Obama the wrong oath of office in 2009. Obama did not say the wrong words and prompted Roberts to correct himself (which he did).
youhadonejob.jpg
🤡
As a Chinese I'm totally amazed. There are tons of countries, most of them id argue, where normal folks have not even a token say in politics, and here you guys are voting away your checks and balances. Bravo guys.
Special, thanks for letting us know that you have no clue what you are talking about!
To be fair, we didn't vote for this. Trump didn't even win the majority vote. He only was elected because people decided a couple hundred years ago that some people's votes are worth more than others. I happen to be from the area where my vote counts for the least. The vote of 193,000 people in Wyoming is worth the same as over 700,000 votes from California.
@@Werevampiwolf Yeah rip
@@pathevermore3683 I've been living in the US for 7 years. Won't claim myself as an expert in US law and politics, but I definitely know how easy it is for institutions to have loopholes, and how hard to get rid of a bad actor that's determined to exploit it. I wager you're the kind of American that doesn't care or know what's happened in the rest of the world, and I have 3 words for you, lol good luck.
@vandarkholme4745 then, how did you not know something as simple as people don't vote for Supreme Court decisions?
My law teacher: The Constitution means whatever 5 out of 9 judges in Scotus say what it means.
Futurama made a joke about it.
Richard Nixon: "The Constitution? Where we are going, the Constitution doesn't mean squad" *Next scene is Scotus Building*
In a rare double whammy ruling we also hold polygamy as Constitutional.
@@glenmorrison8080 The Framers never expressed an intention that the government should have the power to infringe upon the freedom of The People to submit themselves to multiple forms of the same purgatory
@@glenmorrison8080 Any laws against polygamy would be an inherent violation of the first amendment. Marriage being an explicitly religious contract, and the first amendment prohibiting any respect for or impediment toward the free exercise of any religion.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 Except there are laws against polygamy both on the federal and state level, in some cases even in state constitutions, that have been deemed constitutional for about 150 years now.
@@masterofdesaster8 A law existing does not make it constitutional. Nor does a court declaring it constitutional make it constitutional. The ability to read isn't determined by election or appointment, nor does reality magically warp at the will of a judge.
We all know the standard is that the current president isn't immune and the former president is immune.
Until the current president becomes the former president and the former president becomes the current president. Which is a horrific possibility at this point.
Sounds so upside down; just like Justice, Alito's house flag.🤔
He's immune, which means we have a country of men, not of laws. Thanks SCOTUS.
The founders would be soooo proud.
I feel like I wasted years fighting for this country....
Of all the comments I've read online opposing the immunity ruling, gotta say this one makes me the saddest.
I'm so sorry.
Don't trust everything you see in the internet.
Man, this hit me hard. Thank you for your service, and I’m so very sorry.
Sadly, you did. So did I, so did many of us. We can only learn and change and keep doing our little parts for justice.
So, does this mean presidents can "eliminate" their rivals during elections and gloat about it on television without going to jail?
Yes.
No
@@nonya6540yes. Thr president can claim his rival is a terrorist.
@@nonya6540 What legal basis do you have for that?
Pretty much yes. It's a terrifying decision. It basically makes the president immune from the constitution.
He does whatever he wants and people will still vote for him for some reason...
I think that's actually a huge part of why he is so popular with his fans.
@Cadwerx1 And how does Biden do what he want and in what way will people still vote for him? Because neither of those things are happening.
@@dominoepbiden does whatever the people who are actually running the country tell him to.
I just think it’s questionable that the Supreme Court can rule on a President’s immunity when the President is also responsible for appointing Justices in the first place.
It’s such an obvious conflict of interest when a President being convicted of alleged crimes is also responsible for appointing several Justices that are in favor of him while also being shown to have corruption. Same conflict of interest when a judge in Florida just happens to be doing everything in their power to postpone and eventually dismiss a trial involving the very politician they are clearly in support of. Sure, members of the court are expected to be impartial…but that’s just it, it’s an expectation that is clearly compromised.
I think the Eagle Team is perfectly positioned to significantly increase their profits by offering dual citizenship claims assistance for Americans with recent ancestors who were immigrants. My husband is in the midst of filing for dual citizenship in a European country as we speak.
It can take a couple of years to complete this kind of claim, so by the time it becomes evident that you need to do it, it will already be too late.
So if he defames, threatens, and/or doxxes someone on a social media account he happens to also use for "official" statements, then he argues he should be free and clear? How is this a good idea for ANYONE?
SCOTUS is changing the rules to ensure that their orange emperor gets to be an authoritarian, and will be immune from consequences for his actions. SCOTUS is a political entity now - and isn't ashamed to rub our noses in it.
You mean what liberals do every day?
When the terms of service of the social media platform provide a better defence of liberty than the constitution does...
...ya kinda have to worry.
@@Asha2820 And when social media platforms have a better understanding of the constitutional rights of their users than the Supreme Court... Big worried.
President already immured from civil case long ago
Here in Europe, the US is usually a mere preview of what's gonna happen here in a few years.
Needless to say, that I am frightened
It's the other way around, the USA is about 10 years behind everyone else. They don't even use chip and pin or contactless.
It's already happening in Europe
@@timothyrussell4445 , we know. it's just that it takes longer for such changes to come here, though they are nonetheless scary
I've seen the corruption that has happened on your side of the pond. As an American who hates this corruption and wants to keep it from happening, I wish all of you over there all the best.
I'm out of the loop for Europe, the hell's going on over there that's almost as bad as this?
How far can this Supreme Court nonsense be allowed to continued?
Trump in 2016 said "there's nothing you can do. Maybe you second ammendment people, I don't know..."
blame ruth, old lady should have known when it was time to step down but she decided to selfishly keep her position and now look at the results.
We'd MAYBE have a 5-4 ruling instead of 6-3
@@tamusdarmody5744you’re kidding me, blame ruth instead of the people who actually packed the court with these justices?
well there are no laws or procdedures that allow sc justices to be ousted. Those rules would need to be created by congress passing a bill or an amendment. and since the repubs WANT the sc to be corrupt to bring about a king, they will vote against it. so at the moment we got nothing cept voting downballot against conservatives
why did America get rid of a King again? if they just want one again.
Ignorance causes mankind to repeat the errors of its past quite often.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
They wanted their own king
It was for a spot in parliament. If we'd gotten a voice in parliament in 1776, who's to say if we'd have rebelled?
@@raeoverhere923 We wouldn't have. No one wanted independence at the beginning.
Can we talk about the breach in ethics as it relates to a judge appoint by Trump failing to recuse herself while hearing a trump case…like tell me the system is cooked without telling me the system is cooked.
Especially when she has been rebuked and had her decisions reversed before for this kind of nonsense BY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES NO LESS!
there was no breach of ethics if there is no code of ethics they have to follow. there is a guideline...but it has no punishments. meaning a justice can do whatever and there is no ethical violation or violation of the law.
@@briannelson27 excuse me? No code of ethics…every professional field that requires a degree to fulfill has an ethical base of operations.
Judges are not appointed shleps from the street. I may not know 100% the requirements for being a judge, but I do believe that it requires a knowledge of law, which generally requires an education (degree in law) and a license. Judges don’t get to be called “honorable” with out some code of ethics with which they operate.
A quick search of “judge ethics” will yield a search of the American Bar Association, the association that establishes “rules” (read: ethics) of conduct. Cannon #1 speaks specifically about upholding integrity and impartiality. Tell me exactly how this judge upheld the integrity/impartiality of the position?
I understand these are “guidelines” and not laws, so there is no legal repercussions; however there certainly can be professional repercussions in the form a judge being removed by judicial councils or the Judicial Conference of the United States for “Judicial Misconduct - such as ‘ethical violations’ or abuse of power”. So yeah there is the possibility of professional ramifications for violating ethics.
Now, whether or not these two bodies ever get involved is knowledge I do not possess, and I didn’t feel like diving any deeper into this, as there is seemingly no news about this judge facing any professional discipline.
@@briannelson27 There does not need to be an official code of ethics in order for there to be a breach of ethics. Ethics are not laws or rules with clearly laid out parameters.
kinda nuts to me how in the US there is a commonly heald belief that a head of state could not properly act in their capacity of president if they were beholdent to the law while in office.
you know like, almost every other democratically elected head of state? presidential immunity as a concept seems insane to me.
America is F’d
Correct.
Where have you been the last few decades? The writing has been on the wall for a long time. This isn't a Trump issue, it's the US political system that's the issue.
He's still better than Bush
@@kekistani_meme_farmer7242Unbelievably... no he isn't.
@@TheValeyard92
Patriot act is worse than 1/6 imo
At this point I only think of the frase "No empire last more than 250 years" and the USA is 248
Plenty have lasted longer...rome, egypt, sumer, maya, inca. But i do agree that the US has been in decline for a while, basically since the fall of the soviet union and the loss of an outside enemy
Yikes!!
@@theskullkid421 It's decline started around the 1970s tho
When the President/executive branch acts unconstitutionally, the Supreme court can overrule it. When the Congress/legislative branch passes a law that is unconstitutional, the court can overrule it. But what happens when the court hands down a ruling that is blatantly unconstitutional? I know, people will say that if the Court says it, it cannot be unconstitutional by definition - the Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution says. But that is absurd. The Constitution does not give the Court that power. The Constitution may be changed by Amendment, not by fiat. If the framers had wanted to give the President immunity, they would have included it in the Constitution, as they did with legislative immunity. Indeed the, Court cited Federalist 70 in their decision, while ignoring Federalist 69, which clearly states a President would be subject to criminal prosecution once out of office.
Robert Mueller clearly stated what Federalist 69 says during the Collusion trial so SCOTUS and congress know about it, but you have to remember the majority of SCOTUS judges are either Trump supporters or were appointed by Trump so they're leaving out things because they think all Americans are stupid and don't read.
It is like all the judges in the US have suddenly realised that they don't want to loose their jobs in 2025. Just how impartial is the judiciary in the US? To be clear, judges should NEVER be political appointments.
They wouldn’t lose their jobs in 2025 I don’t know what you’re talking about
Hey Devin: I hate to say that I have basically stopped watching your videos. I enjoyed keeping up with your intelligent review of the cases and staying informed so that I can effectively articulate my views on these political and legal developments. I am sure they are still well-informed and well-produced videos, but unfortunately I've learned that the legal system is now a total sham where precedence and competence are after-thoughts. I'm sure you are as saddened as I am by the recent developments, but now it feels like staying informed is simply a tortuous exercise in misery. Best of luck with everything mate
Had me in the first half not gonna lie
doesnt this mean BIDEN is also immune as well? if so, he can do some amazing stuff right about now...
He is but none of his staff is, much like Trump and his counselors.
He can yes, and you know why he doesnt, because yes im sure biden would have trump taken out if it was perfectly legal to do so but im sorry to have to tell you that IT ISNT! And it wont be for trump either.
Its so funny watching libs say "oh no trump will have the power to take out his opponents" and 10 seconds later saying "biden should take trump out" lmao. I mean if you lot didnt have double standards, you would have no standards at all lol.
Yes, but he has ethics and a respect for the country Trump does not have.
@@NichoTBE Trump would just pardon any of his cronies if they did something illegal
@@NichoTBEWhy would it not be legal for Biden? If he declares Trump a "danger to the states" because of his treason case, he can order whatever he wants to Trump because... Well, it would be an official act.
You say you'll see me in court but I actually watched this at work so you can't touch me, Mr Eagle.
“So you’re saying there’s a chance “…
That the judge in the concluded ‘hush money’ case could very well decide that the disallowed evidence would not have changed the verdict, and proceed to give Trump the maximum allowable sentence for every count…
… since they know their decision will be appealed regardless?
Interesting.
I wonder how long American citizen will tolerate this
-4 days?
This makes Watergate look like nothing! No, really ...it makes it look like nothing at all.
Poor Nixon.
I am really concerned about the future of our country. Trump is always talking about how if certain this happen, we won't have a country any more. Every time one of his cronies help him evade justice, we get one step closer to that Banana republic. Today I hear he wants them to reverse his convictions in New York. Convictions that were based on very real evidence.
People in 2024: you're telling me the laws are unjust?????
Black slaves in 1824: always have been
According to this ruling, Nixon would be innocent if watergate happened in modern times
Nixon was never impeached or charged with anything.
Wouldn't keeping classified documents be "manifestly or palpably beyond his authority" since it violates the Presidential Records Act. As well as sharing those documents with others who don't have security clearance, especially since he wasn't president when he did that?
no, that case got yeeted. president is immune. courts say so
Makes Cannon’s dismissal of the case even more blatantly favoritist.
No one should be above the law.
then the entire bail system needs to be replaced or rid of..
Fr its beyond disturbing
My guess is people who are shocked by this are relatively young. Rich and powerful people are and were above the law for the whole of human history. Should it be different? Yes. Will anything change in near future? No.
Joe Biden is above the law, they made a ruling that Joe Biden is too old to try for the stolen documents Joe Biden stole while being a senator, another pass for the democrats.
Just so we’re clear here… When you all talk about getting a king, you need to know we’re not talking mild, placid King Charles as we have here in the UK… Yeah, more akin to Vlad the Impaler or Henry VIII.
Do I need to note this is not good news…
Vlad didn't whine about bone spurs instead of risking his life many times until it finally ended. Henry was actually very athletic in his younger years. The latter only had a long reign because he didn't go too far, and there were people who could rein him in to an extent. The reality TV has-been would make an ailing Henry VIII look healthy as a bull.
Yeaah current monarchy of britain is mainly just in name only.
Any power is purely theorectical and if attemteped would lead to the tories turning republican...
Does that means that Nixon was immune during the watergate scandal? could someone else do the same and not be prosecuted as long as they win? wouldn't that be a breach in the system? like they could accept forreign aid for their campaign?
By this legal theory, yes, Nixon would likely have never faced consequences.
On our way to having a King! Just as the Founding Fathers intended!
...right?
so Nixon...was not a crook? Looking forward for Futurama's apologies
arooooooooooooo
Wow it's great how they're making all of their determinations almost as if they're SPECIFICALLY for Trump. It's great when the entire legal system caters to ONE individual. That's definitely how it's supposed to work.
'Liberty and justice for all.'
Fail.
Trump: "You know, I have an Article II, that basically means I can do whatever I want."
SCOTUS: "A well argued point, Mr. President!"
Wouldn't the Supreme court ruling mean that Nixon's actions in Watergate were immune from prosecution?
No because he got impeached for it. He was also never criminally prosecuted for watergate in the first place
Nixon was not impeached or charged with anything.
“This is a mess.” Most accurate description of the current state of this country.
The Appeals Court needs to let this go through assuming that everything involved was an unofficial act. Let the Supreme Court put their money where their mouth is and define exactly what makes any of this crap official without leaving it to this vague nonsense of their immunity ruling.
Well, if you want sanity restored to the Supreme Court, vote blue in November and push for Supreme Court reform.
There are times that I am glad that my Mom didn't live to see this lawlessness. She was so very distressed over this nonsense and thankfully she didn't have to see the complete unraveling of Democracy.
The opinion on The President's interaction with a VP not being able to be used against him based only on need to have a good working relationship is wild.
That's like saying a CEO of a company is immune for fraud cases they have with a CTO, because, I mean, they need to work together, so of course they should be able to talk about crimes.
One of the wild things about this decision is what it says about morality. By claiming that the President, the highest office of the execution of American Law, must be granted immunity to prosecution to avoid "intrusions on the authority or functions of the Executive Branch," that implies that:
1) It is possible for our government to illegalize its own functioning, since the Executive Branch is meant to Execute and Enforce law, and the prosecution of that action would only happen if the execution or enforcement of a law was illegal UNDER the law. So granting immunity to Presidential acts implies that scenario can happen.
2) If our President is meant to be the pinnacle an example of a good, just, and honorable American, then all Presidential acts must be considered good, just, and honorable by nature. If the President could be prosecuted for actions taken in office, that implies that the actions of a good, just, and honorable person were illegal under American law, which immediately puts the morality of the President and the Law in opposition. Either the President is good, just and honorable, or the Law is good, just and honorable; it can't be both.
3) Conversely, if the law mandates an action be taken by the President (or any citizen) and the President refuses to do so, that either implies a good, just, and honorable person would not follow that law, or that the President is not a good, just, or honorable person. The same could be said of the President refusing to ENFORCE a law passed by the Legislation, which further calls into question other areas of the Executive Branch who would or HAVE enforced said law, such as the Police, Military, or agencies like the FBI.
4) The President swears an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which include the Bill of Rights outlining the rights of citizens. If any law would hamper the "authority of the President," then such a law would jeopardize or illegalize the protection, preservation, and defense of both our Constitution and our Rights...which is treasonous. And any President who would not fight back against such a law due to fear of legal repercussions would be both in violation of their Presidential Oath and not be the "bold and fearless leader" the Supreme Court claims the President is supposed to be.
So Tl;Dr: what need is there to give immunity from prosecution to the President if both they and the Law are good, just, and honorable, and any "bold and fearless leader" would carry out their Presidential Duties regardless of their legality, so long as it meant upholding their oath of office? The answer is none, and it's why we've made it through 46 presidents and 235 years before such an immunity was granted to the office. Granting such an immunity implies necessarily that one or more aspects or offices in our government are not functioning as intended.
The SCOTUS ruling on immunity is utterly terrifying.
The core of my being officially hurts.
The fact that we even have to have this conversation about someone running for president while being the focal point of three separate criminal trials is insane to me.
Four criminal trials.
How to become a theocracy or dictatorship speedrun. I'm scared welp
Civil lol it won’t let me edited it
I hear the CCP is accepting applications for citizenship
Someone correct me if my interpretation is wrong, but from this ruling I’m envisioning a future scenario where a reelected Trump is literally selling presidential pardons.
He literally sold presidential pardons his ENTIRE FIRST TERM.
According to trump: election only fair if I win.
And archeologists in the future will forever refer to this period as 'The Dumb Ages'.
I always despaired every time a new charge for What's-his-Face would be announced, and liberals online would post things like "This is it! Trump's goin' down!" I wanted to scream at them, Do you even know what country you live in? You still think America's institutions are strong and that justice is fair and everyone is equal under the law? 😞
I think Trump has proven by now that to win a case, you don't need a great lawyer. You need a "great" judge.
"If the President could be held accountable for anything worse than a parking ticket, that's bad, m'kay?" - the Supreme Court, basically.
But getting place to place us a core part of enacting presidential duties, they don't have time to consider whether the car is parked correctly! That might prevent them from parking fearlessly!
The whole "president needs to be immune from laws so they can lead fearlessly" is so memeable...
Cute. Parking is also part of official acts of the Presidency. They have to go places on official business after all. So they'd also be immune to parking tickets and traffic violations.
Honestly, i feel bad for the younger generations that'll have to deal with this disgraceful decision by the courts.
So if the president posts on official social media channels is an official act; even if it is libel?
Yep, that's the least of his powers
Oh, please. You expect the President to have the time to concern himself over a little thing like false accusations or incitement? /s
@@blackshard641 after all, if they have to concern themselves with what is true or legal, they won't be able to conduct themselves with disregard for the consequences of their actions
Who needs checks and balances, absolute power has never had problems before.
I love that this already feels like 20 catastrophes ago.
Jack Smith (or someone else) should present the case on TV. The public absolutely has a right to know who they voting for or against.
No one should have this kind of power. Want me to put it in easy to understand terms?
Say you're driving on a road with a 45mph speed limit. How fast are you driving? Gonna drive at 30 to be safe, or are you gonna gun it straight to the limit?
Now imagine you're on a road with no listed speed limit. How faster are you driving?
So... studies have been done on this. Roads with no speed limits rather consistently are safer than roads with speed limits. Not only that... they seem to on average go SLOWER than we'd expect from similar roads with speed limits. Yes, speed limits tend to make people go FASTER, not slower.
well what does the road say?
is it long wide and straight? you paid for the whole speedometer so use it.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I'm not sure the US could officially and loudly just switch off of speed limits right now and have things be okay, if only because a lot of very stupid people will take it as a sign to start speed-racing everywhere because "it's allowed now!!!"
@@FarremShamist Nope, we couldn't. At least not in cities. But those already struggle with traffic.
In reality a court can not ask the unofficial thing, that’s for Congress to decide. Not doj
But what's the logic behind making _evidence_ immune as well? Surely, if crimes are committed before or after one's term in office, seeking evidence from the period of office - especially when investigation is _post_ term - can't possibly hinder the functions of the president in any way, shape or form.
This is the type of thing voters should be aware of.
Bet Nixion would have loved to have had this ruling when he was in office.