Why does it feel like we’re just being gaslit here?

@helenpatterson3858

3 ай бұрын

Because these guys are only presenting enough argument to APPEAR unbiased. They imagine themselves to be, like the Supreme Court, with the ability to set aside the Constitution when it doesn't 100% agree with their personal beliefs.

3:40 As a European I am in shock. How is it not wrong to start a storm on the parlament in your country? That is just crazy.

Men built America in blue jeans Men in suites tore it down..

Well this was a waste of time having two guys on that would circle jerk themselves with the same opinion on the case.

"Insurrection", "genocide", "racism" - these words have lost their meaning.

We’re toast. Right vs wrong isn’t this complicated.

@NUCJESUS

4 ай бұрын

As succinct as that statement is, it doesn't get at the heart of the question, who is right and who is wrong?

@terrygain1343

4 ай бұрын

You are burnt toast. It’s not a question of right vs wrong. It’s a question of law, which will be decided in favor of free election.

@brisonmondry712

3 ай бұрын

Hahahahahahahahaaaaa Wait you were joking right?

@ILGLY

3 ай бұрын

Said Moses to the Jews 😂😂

@helenpatterson3858

3 ай бұрын

This is a problem with "State's Rights." What happens when some state decides the Constitution isn't applicable in their state ? What if it's a different amendment, like civil rights? How about things decided like the rights of women and blacks, and nonlandowner's to cast a vote ? to cast a vote @terrygain1343

All comments made by a lot of famous, infamous judges, professors of law, all legal minds seem to be very subjective. In the processes, the legal minds are insulting each other. The conclusion is that the laws and constitution have grey areas and that is why they can get away with their comments. They don't help the public.

Always love watching Yoo and Epstein. Two amazingly brilliant minds who are humble and lighthearted enough to be able to joke and disagree vehemently while still having fun

@loopylare

4 ай бұрын

First time seeing them ... and I couldn't agree more! Depressing topics, but the video left me with a smile on my face.

@mountainrambler7926

3 ай бұрын

Great talk here, and Yoo was right about the Boomer gerontocracy but wrong about what follows. How can he say the upcoming Democrats will be better than Biden? That almost made me sick.

@bearowen5480

3 ай бұрын

Don't forget Peter Robinson, one of the finest interviewers alive today. I would love to see these three magnificent, thoroughly American minds engaged on this forum much more frequently. God speed, Gentlemen!

@bill7956

3 ай бұрын

No bill is smart...read it..

@HamishBanish

3 ай бұрын

"...lighthearted enough to be able to joke and disagree vehemently while still having fun" Well said but sadly in the leftist America poisoned by the Democrat voter base amiable disagreement is considered bad form and hate speech

It's really fascinating to me that the same arguments are not proffered when the person running was not born in the US or is 25. If that individual was popular among voters, then why not apply the same logic that section 3 of the 14th ammendment intonates. It's picking cherries.

Isn't the torture memo a life-time disqualification?

I love how you disscuss law and the constitution as if all that mattered in the case of an individual who wants to tear it all down, when you start to choose if a law must be abided on political terms you already lost all respect for it, just keep that orchestra playing.

What planet is Yoo living on.

Role of punishment is to discourage and interdict future transgressions So.... Who and how much should you dispense punishments ?

C’mon, how on earth can it ever be ok to try to overthrow the government? This cannot stand no matter how you read the 14th Amendment.

Fantastic discussion - as an avid con law enthusiast from across the pond, I wish we would hear more from leading American jurists on private and public law issues. Economic and social norms often have legal origins and it would be a valuable contribution by Hoover to engage in legal topics

@RaGinGnonSToP

3 ай бұрын

Social Norms.... Architect of the treasonous "Patriot Act". Get real.

@ceejay4284

3 ай бұрын

Indeed, well said. I just found myself reverted to this discussion. The legal issues discussed are very well elucidated.

Now I get this ... These lawyers who are politically biased! These are 'right-wing' justices. At first, I thought this was going to be a legitimate conversation. How sad!

Fyi: There cannot be obstruction if there is no underlying crime.

Really great and interesting conversation, thank you. I find it hard to agree with John Yoo's optimism about the resilience of American institutions and culture given the deep political corruption that now seems to pervade the whole system. I wish that he is right but I just can't see how you can dial the madness back.

So the congress will say what happened on January 6 2021 is the contrary of an insurrection

Reasonable Term Limits Please!

Ricky from the proud boys wasn't in DC on Jan 6th... Godzilla is a joke. King Kong won this one.

You lost me when one of your guests called prosecutor Smith a “Hack”! His emotionality proves to me that his objectivity, judgement and conclusions can’t be trusted as far as the trump cases are concerned!

Are you kidding me? Now you are suggesting state cases should not be brought for crimes committed?!

During the Cold War, competent, motivated people had a reason to enter public service--because the US government was actually engaged in something important on a global scale. It was a high stakes game and politicians had something to gain by way of legacy in taking part in it. The problem is the orientation/structure of our government hasn't changed since the Cold War ended, but the the quality of people willing to take part in it has drastically fallen. There is no unifying mission to direct American policy, the US government is this weird zombie regime that just keep going on, apparently, with no clear purpose. It's no wonder our politicians are so awful, what competent, ambitious person would want to have anything to do with government? There's literally nothing to do there but complain about how bad x minority is being treated or complain about the people complaining about those things.

@KatyYoder-cq1kc

4 ай бұрын

How about if we take a look at the zombie state and artificial intelligence? There's a huge correlation and the public needs to know what's going on

This program is absolutely stellar! Thank you to Peter Robinson for bringing such wonderful guests and airing this publicly. It is such a breath of fresh air!

@williamhuang2976

3 ай бұрын

On this topic, Peter should bring judge Luttig in the discussion. So for laymen like me, we can have a fair understanding from their legal arguments.

Section 3 lists the person whom the bar applies to: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military..." If they wanted the President and Vice President to be barred to insurrectionists, they could have easily said so. They didn't. It applies to the Congress and to electors of the President and Vice President, not to the President and Vice President nor to Justices on the Supreme Court. Congress carefully and fully debated the specific language of the 14th Amendment. Then in the State Conventions did so. The State's leaders debated the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. They all obviously saw that the President, Vice President, and Justices to the Supreme Court were not named along with the Senators, Congressmen, and electors of the President and Vice President. They didn't miss that. They all agreed that they should not be included in the ban, which is why they are not specifically named but Congressmen and Senators are.

Trump was not tried at the Senate. Mitchell McConnell said let the courts do it

The Americans are odd. They rebelled against their monarch, and then follow a grifter as if he is a king...😂

So, it is yet so far from over.. wow.. we are not guided as wise as we think..

I’m not from the USA but I really appreciated the concluding comments which leave me with greater confidence in the future of the US legal system.

The Epstein, Yoo, and Robinson podcast is always a joy. Conviviality has become an endangered virtue, which makes this podcast even more important. The legal insights are equally dazzling.

@RaGinGnonSToP

3 ай бұрын

Yoo did more to destroy your rights than arguably any American in History. Keep fawning over him.

Are they bought by the heritage center?

Frankly, the comments at the end about how there are no smart democrats completely negated the discussion. The clear Republican bias skews interpretation of the law.

It doesn't matter to originalists how much chaos 50 states would bring separate rulings section 3 article 14. What's the counterargument? The Gee it's too hard defense? The states were SUPPOSED to have such power.

I found this video very interesting. It is despite the fact that I think the two scholars were not 100% impartial

Every time I watch one of these, I'm amazed by how good Peter's questions are. It doesn't matter if he's interviewing the Nobel prize winner in economics, a philosopher, a pair of law professors, or a scientist. The questioning always leads to brilliant exposition at a level that's easy to follow as a layperson.

When Richard said “You keep writing it, and I’ll sign it.” 😂

This was an intelectual discussion of important issues without the anger and malice that has permeated politics in the media and social media, where unfortunately the masses are getting their world views....

They don’t acknowledge that 14.3 does say “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States”. No common understanding of that verbiage could suggest that it doesn’t apply to the presidency. Also, it says an insurrection “against the constitution”, that is important to understand. At a minimum he gave “aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists. Weak arguments from these gentlemen in my opinion.

@gedonckers

4 ай бұрын

They were referring to whom 14.3. applies to, as the Constitution lists those who have taken oaths as 1) members of Congress, 2) officer of the US, 3) member of state legislature, 4) executive or judicial officer of any state. They think President is none of the four. Then, the question also is what it means to engage in insurrection or rebellion, do you need to be previously convicted of it (Epstein even thinks Trump was acquitted by the Senate). Tough questions, but I am not sure why there haven't been formal charges of insurrection immediately after Biden took office. If Trump was convicted, then all of this would be moot.

@sixpackchad

3 ай бұрын

Your whole argument is based on the notion that there was an insurrection. And there wasn’t.

No matter what the. Court, the voter is now the court.

It is always good to see debate with humor and seriousness and no fighting.

Fair and balanced discussions from one viewpoint are not possible or informative. We have seen professors lawyers and former judges giving opposite views. It would not have been hard to get one to argue the opposing view, instead of a circle jerk.

Kinda like a cherry grove; Hoover, why so partisan? And 20% is just questions.

The 2 professors keep mentioning the acquittal of Trump in Congress. Is impeachment a political process, not a legal process under the court of law, right? Oh, just wondering what they would say if Biden was doing Trump's deed, and stuck in Trump's shoes now.

Really enjoyed this discussion. Jon gives me hope. He is a breath of fresh air. He is very articulate and an excellent attorney. I always listen when he speaks, even if I may disagree with his comments.

The show would be more interesting by adding a law expert from the other side of the political arena instead of just right wing inclined people.

I’m thrilled to still be watching Uncommon Knowledge with Mr. Peter Robinson himself. Always a pleasure and I always come away more educated.

The rule of law applies for everyone

Yoo lost me at the end, with loosing the Boomers for the younger generation, the names mentioned have already proven to be a disaster, and he would be fine with unleashing them upon our entire Nation?!👎👎👎

Interesting. I wish Peter would do an interview with Luttig after this. Maybe it will happen.

I think these guys are just trying to protect Trump. Trump was disqualified in Colorado. It was argued. These guys are just arguing the loosing sides point.

Jack Smith has seen the evidence, these men have not. Smith might be aggressive but he’s a smart attorney.

Absolutely excellent session. Please have them back.

Impeachment is a JOB ACTION, To invoke it as double jeopardy in an ensuing trial is REDICULOUS.

Any U.S. Citizen by birth, who has attained the age of 35 years, has the Constitutional Right to run for the Office of the President. There is no specified method in the Constitution to examine IF a person running for the Presidency is Native-born and 35 or over. So how does someone who wishes to challenge someone who runs for the Presidency on those grounds or on other disqualifying grounds do so if there is no specific method established to do so? Since the person seeking disqualification wishes to take from someone the Right to Run for the Presidency, and there is no specific method of examining the question and possibly taking from a person the right to run for the Presidency, then the task falls to the Federal Courts to determine if federal laws disqualify that person, and so strip that person of the right to run for the Office of President. But it must be done in a Due Process Hearing wherein all Parties to the suit are given their legal rights and protections. This is the guarantee of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Pres. Trump has not been given this or any due process hearing and so his rights are fully intact.

Any suggestions on halting the onset of Fascism, other than the rickety process of voting?

Supreme Court case United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882): "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative review of the legal system

He did start an insurrection with his words

Our Government has turned into one big neighborhood HOA. The board members are the most power-hungry/hateful neighbors you will ever meet. And somehow we allow them to control how we live. It's sad, and there is no escaping it.

Thank you Peter

was the jack smith appointment illegal? is he a legitimately appointed special prosecutor?

@helenpatterson3858

3 ай бұрын

Isn't it within the duties of the Attorney General and the Dept. Of Justice ?

@chunwong7205

3 ай бұрын

If he was, then the Supreme Court would dismiss the case and Trump's lawyers wouldve raised this already.

👏👏👏 - Thank you Peter, Richard and John. That was fun and educational, as always, gentlemen

A Arizona sheriff who participated in Jan 6, was disqualified, and, that was upheld. If individual states can determine things like abortiion, why not their own election laws. After all we have state laws that govern elections.

Great conversation. It gave me HOPE!

So glad to see these smart and reasonable people talking about all this. The main stream media has only done a good job of making up for the loss of Jerry Spinger…

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Ed Meese amicus brief?

Excellent & Timely Discussion. I learned a lot.

I love the depth of knowledge of the constitution by the panel members.

@eddieseward1649

3 ай бұрын

Depth of knowledge? That’s laughable.

Peter Robinson is the best interviewer I have ever heard.

@garyrussell5373

4 ай бұрын

Beg to disagree. I have listened to him for a long time. He spends too long setting up his questions.

@NoelFallstrom

4 ай бұрын

While I wouldn't attempt to grant the title of best, I do agree that he is great. I enjoy how he sets up the questions while actually being interested in the answer. Too many interviewers ask questions with no intent to listen. Any interviewer that tries to learn along with the audience is someone who I'll watch repeatedly.

@JaviEngineer

4 ай бұрын

​@garyrussell5373 when you have very intelligent people. And complicated issues, it's VERY good to prevent the discussion from derailing

What's the point having two person with the same opinions?

The question I would like to ask these gentlemen is: What recourse do Americans have in the event that a candidate for president, whom they do not support, openly states his or her intention to perform illegal acts if and when elected? Are there any extremes of behavior that rightly should be decided by the courts and not left to the opinions of low-information voters?

Do the six Republican Pius XII Supreme Court Justices have to give the whole of their bribes back if they decide not to take the case? Do they get to keep some of it as a down payment for future Federalist Society decisions?

Apparently these gentlemen believe the good old days were in the 1970's. I guess in 30 years they enter the 21st century.

I wish the host wouldn’t interrupt his two guest so much!

Actually, the southern states were not insurrectionists in that they did not seek to overthrow the gov in Wash DC. They were seceding just as the 13 colonies had seceded and as Nw England states had contemplated doing decades earlier

@southbell

3 ай бұрын

Bravo!

50 States doing Something Independent. Roe vs Wade was overturned and each State was told to do what they want and that was precedence (sp).

14 sec 3 also says that the person in insurrection is......... INELIGIBLE TO HOLD OFFICE

As a long time viewer and chronic enjoyer of UK, I can say with some certainty that this particular configuration stands out as my favorite. While I could easily gobble up 9 hours of this discourse I'm nevertheless truly grateful to the three of you choosing to gift us this 1. I also wasn't aware they had a podcast together so now I'm looking forward to learning whether they're able to make it work without Peter ;)

High-level debate! Great!

Absolutely absurd!! Appeal to have this thrown out !

Very informative, with clear logic and explanation of all those cases. Thank you for all of you.

@TournamentPlayer

3 ай бұрын

There is almost no logic in their arguments.

America was not created by Constitution but by Declaration of Independence. And in Declaration is said 'created equal' and what one human can't do because s/he wants to do. So you can endlessly argue that according to Constitution you can reject Declaration of Independence or do what most probably Washington would do. Otherwise you can be just a part of British Empire.

Lol from Canada 🇨🇦 but worried since we always get the backdrafts

I love listening to Yoo and Epstein. I've learned so much from them over the years. Again, they did not disappoint.

Wow, a great discussion on law and the constitution and matters that matter in this current national debate. May it clear up some difficult matters of law and order in America.

Thank You.

Very sad now knowing what Henry Kissinger said before his death.

Their politics dictate their law. They say the people should judge They won't say that if Obama were to stand again in spite of serving two terms and therefore disqualified.

Boy, that older legal analyst spews some really high quality bovine waste.

So these three learned men are saying a dangerous man like this can walk on all counts and has nothing to answer for? this would seem to answer why democracy is in such a fragile state criminals can do as they wish and the citizen isn't protected.

Who's exactly is violating the norms?

The constitution is meant to be understood by The People and should not require legal gymnastics to be understood. What normal person thinks that a person who has been involved in an insurrection should be able to hold the highest office in the land. Yoo and Epstein omit mentioning all the places where the President is called an office, and common understanding is that a person holding an office is an officer. These two are engaging in legal gymnastics that many other constitutional scholars disagree with. I suggest the Lawfare channel here on YT as a good starting point for more reasonable analysis, and they agree that SCOTUS will try to find a way out, but not the reasons suggested here.

@TerminallyLogikal

4 ай бұрын

No matter how many times you say it doesn’t make it right. The constitution was written by folks who studied law. Not some Reddit debater who’s never put in the time.

What an eye opening and enjoyable discussion on the dumpster fire political situation of our day! I learned a lot where I actually feel comfortable saying I know "something" of what is going on. Thank you gentlemen and thank you Hoover.

Perhaps this is something this case doesn't address, but it just couldn't be clearer that Trump tried to overturn a legal election through illegal means, which is sufficient reason to keep him from running for office. The constitution does not say that we will hold people to the law only if they aren't wealthy and popular. The supreme court decided, in a 5 to 4 decision, for Bush against Gore rather than letting that clearly flawed election be fairly recounted, and I don't remember conservatives being up in arms then about whether states or the federal courts have jurisdiction. This discussion wasn't about originalism or the constitution, it was about giving the Republican party more power.

I am personally,waiting for the panel to recommend Trump, be given the medal of Honour,for his services on January 6th!!!

As other comments have echoed, I absolutely love seeing Richard Epstein and John Yoo, and of course the chemistry of the segments would not be the same without the brilliant Peter Robinson

13:33 Is this consistent with originalist theory that words mean what the authors of amendment intended?

@matthewdrews

3 ай бұрын

Can you imagine going back in time and asking the writers of the amendment "so, let me give you a theoretical about a President who refuses to leave office". Pretty sure we know how they would respond. Also love the political gymnastics Yoo goes through at this point to explain how it wasn't an insurrection and congress acquitted Trump while failing to mention the house DID impeach/convict him of insurrection, and that the Senate still voted in majority to convict (just not two thirds).

Double jeopardy for the political theater called impeachment? The legal gymnastics continue...

@TerminallyLogikal

4 ай бұрын

That’s law. You wouldn’t understand it unless you study it. It’s not something you get to just opine on Willy-nilly, sry.

@slytherin3034

4 ай бұрын

What was your class rank in law school and what area of law are you practicing now?