Did justices contradict themselves with Trump's immunity? POLITICO explains

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
  • The Supreme Court’s decision on Donald Trump’s claim to be immune from prosecution may go down as one of the most brazenly political decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
    The opinion will have far-reaching consequences for the presidency, but the immediate effect will be to exponentially shrink the odds of a trial before November on Trump’s effort to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election. Indeed, the opinion might come to be known as Bush v. Gore 2.0 - a stunning intervention that could plausibly swing the presidential election to Trump.
    Read the full story: www.politico.com/news/magazin...
    -----------------------------------------
    Subscribe to our channel! / @politico
    Check out our video catalog: www.politico.com/video
    Follow POLITICO here:
    ➤ X: x.com/politico
    ➤ Instagram: / politico
    ➤ Facebook: / politico

КОМЕНТАРІ • 37

  • @user-zi6vb6sq6i
    @user-zi6vb6sq6i 3 дні тому +5

    All this six judges should step down from the bench of the Supreme Court 🤔🤔🤔🤔

  • @JackieOo
    @JackieOo 3 дні тому +8

    They did not contradict themselves, THEY LIED.

  • @NoNonsenseKindaGal
    @NoNonsenseKindaGal 3 дні тому +5

    They lied 😢 simply stated they're liar's 😢

  • @matkins6813
    @matkins6813 3 дні тому +9

    Good evidence that show the justices acted in contrary to their promises to uphold Disappointed in the justices that made this ruling.

  • @Aria-Invictus
    @Aria-Invictus 2 дні тому +2

    If it is the law that a president is immune from prosecustion for official acts, why would a president be granted immunity in the first place and why has had this idea is news to judges, lawyers, including Trump and his lawyers who stated it should be true, rather than saying it is already true.
    The idea that a president is immune from the law implies the law did in fact apply to the president but not anymore.
    That the president is not above the law simply because you are saying the law doesn't apply to him is a contradiction.

  • @rireland5254
    @rireland5254 День тому +2

    were they under oath ??

  • @nancykurtz7333
    @nancykurtz7333 3 дні тому +8

    It’s called impeachment…da…

  • @evilish888
    @evilish888 3 дні тому +3

    Contradict? Ah, fk no, it's called lying

  • @Michael-lq8is
    @Michael-lq8is 3 дні тому +1

    What Robespierre said after approving the guillotine and death penalty after once being against it:. "Times have changed".

    • @PaoloMarinelli-sl2xu
      @PaoloMarinelli-sl2xu День тому

      What does Robespierre have to do with Trump? In Robespierre's time there was a monarchy which he (along with cronies) overthrew. Here, we are in the time of democracy, with it's rules. Having a coup d'ètat because you lose the elections is not comparable. Biden is not an absolutistic monarch, he was elected as Trump was elected before.

  • @billieg826
    @billieg826 День тому

    Can we call this perjury ?

  • @juiceman_3
    @juiceman_3 День тому

    They did what majority of people do in job interviews

  • @TheTheory-zi3nf
    @TheTheory-zi3nf День тому

    THEY LIED - DON’T SUGARCOAT IT

  • @juneabfalter7361
    @juneabfalter7361 3 дні тому

    😂😂😂😂

  • @angeleyes7417
    @angeleyes7417 3 дні тому +1

    nope. actually it would be treason for them to disgree. what does that mean for the judges that did not agree, how corrupt..treasonous? he is safe accordimg to the constitution

  • @omarfierros4973
    @omarfierros4973 3 дні тому

    Obama:
    Black not for Donald J Trump Vote Maga 2024!!