The fact that The Supreme Court even looked at this destroys their credibility.

@cherylb6755

9 күн бұрын

That assumes they had credibility before they decided to take this up....

@Jbo2000

9 күн бұрын

Biden destroyed America's credibility

@Talisonchan

9 күн бұрын

@@cherylb6755 Exactly. They lost all credibility some time ago.

@stanleymoreau7061

7 күн бұрын

@@Talisonchan once Kavanuagh got in it was a wrap

@Borvo1

6 күн бұрын

@@Talisonchan That is for sure I can think of a few examples from the Roberts court: 1. Shelby County v. Holder. The Roberts Court's evisceration of important civil-rights legislation 2. NFIB v. Sebelius. The Roberts Court re-wrote the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act to make it much easier for states to opt-out 3. Connick v. Thompson. The Roberts Court held that nobody in the prosecutor's office could be held accountable for illegally suppressing exculpatory evidence that resulted in an innocent man spending 18 years in prison 4. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. The Court held that federal law preempted California's limits on forced arbitration agreements. This decision makes it much harder for consumers to get effective remedies when companies rip them off. 5. Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. The Roberts Court struck down an Arizona law that gave matching funds to candidates based on the money raised by their opponents. 6. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Roberts Court ruled corporations are people and as such their political donations are speech protected by the First Amendment 7. District of Columbia v. Heller. The Roberts Court held that bans on the possession of handguns for self-defense violated the Second Amendment 8. West Virginia v. EPA. The Roberts Court ruled that Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate emissions from existing plants even though Congress, back in 1963, passed the Clean Air Act which gave the EPA the authority to protect the environment by regulating air emissions using the best system of emission reduction. and let's not forget the court's most recent travesties, 9. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The Roberts Court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. 10. Sackett v. EPA. Limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands and address water pollution. 11. Trump v. Anderson. The Roberts Court ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not mean what it says. And it does look like we will have more to add to this list in the coming years.

A president is the one person in America who should uphold the laws, not the one person who is entitled to break them...

“In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law” -Trump August 16, 2016

@fifermcgee5971

9 күн бұрын

Just more hot air from this unqualified and horrible person.

@AM-fs1je

9 күн бұрын

A known, proven liar.

@Owen.Michaels

9 күн бұрын

When a liar speaks the fools often gather in support. Sadly, the nation has suffered through the support of fools that believe Trump's lies.

@micheleconner5083

8 күн бұрын

But he wasn't talking about himself. He never means for anything to apply to him!

Is it sad or is it funny that the USA in 2024 needs a supreme court to find out something OBVIOUS?

@RobBCactive

9 күн бұрын

It doesn't, but enough appointees want to slow roll justice, to risk dictatorship

@gardens4good

9 күн бұрын

Worse. Should never have risen to this level after the excellent previous ruling and now isn’t treated fairly and consistently with other logic and arguments used by the most conservative justices. How are even they all blind to criminality when it comes to Trump?

@priscillamoore5736

9 күн бұрын

@@RobBCactive ikr? To even *risk* a dictatorship!!

@piewackete

9 күн бұрын

When an alarming portion of the population wants and sees nothing wrong with having a failed businessman become a dictator and that same dictator put a few of the judges in their positions….im sad for this country if they rule in his favor

@RobBCactive

9 күн бұрын

@@priscillamoore5736 it is simply incredible how complacent Americans are, if you have studied countries who flirted with populists and experienced dictatorship you are NOT laughing,

i have absolutely no faith in the SCOTUS to do the right thing on this case

@mentat1341

9 күн бұрын

The longest serving member has been owned by a rich white guy the entire time! Selling out for money and a white wife decade after decade.

@markphillips898

9 күн бұрын

Me neither, Remember that Roberts is afraid of riots

@user-dc4uo2sh1t

9 күн бұрын

Just think if it wasn't an election year they let this one go.

@apolloorosco6852

9 күн бұрын

They will delay his trail until after the election. Book it

@markkozlowski3674

9 күн бұрын

You might reflect that the Supreme Court rebuffed every lawsuit brought by Trump and his allies which sought to challenge the result of the 2020 election.

Thomas should have recused himself. Considering his wife’s actions with January 6.

Immunity is a Mob Boss Fantasy.

Why are we bending over backwards for this man? He gives nothing back, only takes, only destroys. He's not worth it yet norms are getting reconstructed to protect him.

@AM-fs1je

9 күн бұрын

Billionaire-owned Extreme Court will rule in favor of the guy who owns them. $ & power.

@JohnPublic-dk7zd

9 күн бұрын

Amazing that we are willing to vote for him a third time, huh...the communist democrats are so bad it is driving voters to DJT...

@gethers1

9 күн бұрын

It’s call witchcraft! Whatever Fump ascribes to someone that is exactly what he is doing! What also did Hitler tried to do besides trying to make the A bomb to change the outcome of WWII. Dump ain’t nothing but warlock with his master Putin!

@Jbo2000

9 күн бұрын

The democrats raise taxes and start wars

@DemoCatMan

9 күн бұрын

Very good comment. Like your kitty picture.

In England we once had a leader who insisted he should be above the law. He caused a civil war that lasted 7 years, which he lost. Finally he was beheaded on 30 January 1649. Just sayin` ...

@micheleconner5083

8 күн бұрын

Can we borrow your guiliteen?😂😂

@colingrant8401

8 күн бұрын

@@micheleconner5083 The Guillotine was prefered by the French, England used the good old-fashioned axe,but hey, anything to help! 😇

@Borvo1

6 күн бұрын

@@colingrant8401 Actually I believe Charles I was beheaded using a sword rather than an axe as in the seventeenth century beheading with a sword was regarded as more honorable and less brutal.

@colingrant8401

6 күн бұрын

@@Borvo1 The historical records say an axe was used.

@Borvo1

6 күн бұрын

@@colingrant8401 Yes, I see that I am surprised that they would use an axe on the king.

They are going to do the wrong thing. Because they can and they don't care what we think. Total political animals.

@ferryseegers9246

9 күн бұрын

in that case... Biden will be immune for any prosecution now and after his presidency. I'm thinking about "Seal Team 6" and a trip to Mag-A-Lardo

@portiawilcox3120

9 күн бұрын

Nope,exactly opposite! That’s what the Supreme Court is there for,to ensure people like you all,stay in line!!! Was 💯Trump’s day,today!!!🎉🎉🎉

@Mr.H-zu1jc

9 күн бұрын

@@portiawilcox3120do you think I’m more or less likely to continue following the law if the SCOTUS delegitimizes itself?

@ughwhyn0w

9 күн бұрын

@@portiawilcox3120 "stay in line" sounds mighty fascist of you.

@janetkriegl6720

9 күн бұрын

@@portiawilcox3120 Those Arizona indictments in today's news hardly favor the 'Nodfather'.

Why is it no other western democracies find it necessary to give their presidents immunity from prosecution? In fact, most if not all even allow prosecution of a sitting president.

@mentat1341

9 күн бұрын

Netenyahoooo is doing the same thing Trump is doing while at the same time waging apartheid against the Palestinians. There are far worse people than Trumpty dumpty

@jillionairess

9 күн бұрын

We're supposed to be leader of democracy in the world and we can't even get our own act together.

@rack9458

9 күн бұрын

​@@jillionairess hurting liberal feelings has nothing to do with our "act"

@janetkriegl6720

9 күн бұрын

@@rack9458 What a STUPID remark you've made.!!

@JohnPublic-dk7zd

9 күн бұрын

That is not disputing the truth...

Peaceful or not, if it disrupts the proceedings of Congress, then it's not legal.

@AM-fs1je

9 күн бұрын

Exactly!

@priscillamoore5736

9 күн бұрын

@ShevieMine ~ Don't confuse the supreme (?) court with LOGIC !! /s

@BlakeLyon-xw7of

9 күн бұрын

Like pulling an fire alarm? Or protesting the confirmation of a SCOTUS judge?

@liberalshaveitallbackwards4667

9 күн бұрын

Like when the Democrats did their protest/insurrection? Or do you mean when Rep Bowmen pulled the fire alarm?

@bianca-sg8zq

9 күн бұрын

How can something that is "peaceful" be "disruptive"? The question goes against the meanings of the words as they are antonyms. If something transitions from peaceful to disruptive, it is no longer "peaceful." 😑

Where in the Constitution does it say that the POTUS is free to commit criminal acts under any circumstance?

@user-xu6bv7yh2j

9 күн бұрын

Nowhere - this is cronyism - America has become a banana republic thanks to to the morons who elected Trump

@dennisheaverlo228

9 күн бұрын

If that were the case then why do you think Biden is above the law. You hate Trump because you were told to hate Trump, are you capable of thinking for yourself?

@anabengalinha4049

9 күн бұрын

@@dennisheaverlo228😭😭😭

@gailhall6283

9 күн бұрын

It doesn't.

@liberalshaveitallbackwards4667

9 күн бұрын

What criminal acts do you think Biden committed?

Expand the court already!

@RDC_Autosports

9 күн бұрын

for what? always gonna be an odd number

@petermartell568

9 күн бұрын

@@RDC_Autosports 13 is a great number as it covers all of the circuits

@PatrickinCorpus

9 күн бұрын

Agree. I’d like to see it stacked with 4 or 6 more Justices appointed by President Biden.

@brandon3525

9 күн бұрын

so, change the rules until democrats can have the majority? got it.

@user-xu6bv7yh2j

9 күн бұрын

Term limits!

The primary question is: What Trump did on Janurary 6th was for the protection of the United States? or for his personal presidency? An high school kid would know the difference.

@markphillips898

9 күн бұрын

the protection of the US, a fraudulent election is a threat to democracy and no person on this planet with more than two brain cells to rub together believes that Joe got 81 million Constitutionally qualified votes

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

If people think it was for the protection of the U.S. they believe the election was stolen from him, so you open up a can of worms.

@Leoluvesadmira

9 күн бұрын

You know the senate held an impeachment trial over that and he came as not guilty sonone could agrue that it is double jeopardy. Basically congress has ruled it was not a crime.

When Justice Gorsuch mentioned if a "peaceful" protest could disrupt a Congressional vote, the Solicitor should have asked hiw could something "peaceful " disrupt anything!

@denillefleming2942

9 күн бұрын

Members of Congress have staged a sit in on the floor. The 3 branches of government are distinctly separate.

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

We know how they will vote: Trump can commit crimes and be a dictator.

@AM-fs1je

9 күн бұрын

The key thing is the disruption itself. That is unlawful.

@36MeTHoD

9 күн бұрын

You have to be kidding, right? What are protests for? So those idiots you see gluing themselves to streets aren't peaceful, or they aren't disrupting bud? Come on Free Man..

@Monotremata

9 күн бұрын

​@@AM-fs1je : especially if it is a time-sensitive official proceeding. The protest could cause a disruption of such consequence as to push past the deadline that the proceeding must be completed by. The organizers of the protest could then challenge the official proceeding - "It wasn't completed by the date mandated by law, so it is therefore invalid!" I believe that was the intent behind the Jan. 6 insurrection : to delay the electoral count and create enough doubt & confusion to ( they hoped ) resolve the election in the House of Representatives.

Thank you Justice Brown Jackson for cutting through the chaff and stating the simple point that if there is total immunity then there is nothing to stop the President from becoming emboldened to commit crimes with abandon, and that the fact that previous Presidents believing that there was a possibility of criminal liability has been what has kept the office of the President from turning into crime central!

If absolute immunity wins this case.... does this mean the current administration can activate Seal Team Six? Is this where we are heading?

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

Hopefully if this goes into effect Biden locks up Trump for life.

@spacenerd9499

9 күн бұрын

Yes absolutely.

@paulgibbon5991

9 күн бұрын

The maggats would genuinely regard that as cheating. Rules For Thee, But Not For Me.

imo, anyone in public office, including the president, should be held to a higher standard of accountability. There should be no immunity for anything.

@keyoncovington4119

9 күн бұрын

Thank you

I'm absolutely stunned and mortified we're even at this point. I'm also confused. The question before the court is whether a former president has presidential immunity... Not what is an offcial or unofficial act. Just look at AZ indictments last night. I mean like I'm speechless. It's a 58 pg freaking indictment.

@JohnPublic-dk7zd

9 күн бұрын

If it had been 59 pages it would be even better, huh...

@markkozlowski3674

9 күн бұрын

Well, that is in fact the question. Although the Court has never addressed the scope of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, a plausible argument can be made that a president should have some immunity for acts relating to the undoubted functions of the presidential office. Thus, if a president orders the assassination of a foreign leader, there is at least an argument that such an act relates to the foreign policy powers of the president. With Trump, however, attempting to overthrow an election result has no relation to any legitimate function of the president.

@JohnPublic-dk7zd

9 күн бұрын

@@markkozlowski3674 you actually believe the '20 election was honest...?? no soup for you...

@markkozlowski3674

9 күн бұрын

@@JohnPublic-dk7zd Can you convince me that it was not?

@projectaccountability2024

9 күн бұрын

@@markkozlowski3674 There are 10 hearings, 800+ congressional report, DEFECTED REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS all said it wasn't... HIS KIDS... HIS VP! What more proof it wasn't>

Trump calls Nikki Haley voters “birdbrains” because they continue to vote for her in protest against him. He doesn’t get it! 😂

@DemoCatMan

9 күн бұрын

Doesn't he call her that too..? Like your kitty picture.

Our SC is a disgrace, disaster, and demolished..... Stupid Court might be the better acronym.... that Thomas is even sitting in on it speaks volumes.

@Richard-od7yd

9 күн бұрын

SUPINE COURT 😡🇺🇸

If Trump does win this case he will certainly lose in November. The people don’t want that.

@sandtrapwarrior

9 күн бұрын

Are you sure about that? 🤣

@ARichardP

9 күн бұрын

It’s about as popular as a national abortion ban.

@franklintrujillo3296

9 күн бұрын

@@sandtrapwarriorvery, even without this

@deekang6244

9 күн бұрын

This isn’t about Trump, it’s not his case. The Supreme Court does not give opinions on individual cases. It’s about interpretation of the law. How it later applied is up to the lower courts.

@patriots6552

9 күн бұрын

Only the leftist 😂

It's maddening. It's genuinely maddening that this is how these members of the Supreme Court are going to play this.

@Michelle-vu3fe

9 күн бұрын

😂

@AH-he2xw

9 күн бұрын

They seem to be tripping over their robes to comes out on trump's side

@user-xu6bv7yh2j

9 күн бұрын

Americans should not obey this ruling - no one is above the law - they will regret this

@liberalshaveitallbackwards4667

9 күн бұрын

Are you literally shaking right now?

@liberalshaveitallbackwards4667

9 күн бұрын

​@@user-xu6bv7yh2j Calm down Karen

No one have 100% immunity Donald Trump.

@mr.m4853

9 күн бұрын

I guess Obama and Biden are fair game then. Obama, with his drone strikes and Bidens' current invasion at the border. I guess they're all guilty of treason.

@markphillips898

9 күн бұрын

a president does unless and until he is impeached and removed

@dennisheaverlo228

9 күн бұрын

Then why do you think Biden is above the law? You cannot have it both ways

👉No 1s above the Law NO 1 🇺🇸

@brandon3525

9 күн бұрын

except for democrats and illegal immigrants.

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

WE see that Trump is, no type of punishment whatsoever will come to him.

@spacenerd9499

9 күн бұрын

​@@brandon3525you must have been dropped on your head when you were a child.

Thomas should recuse. It’s ridiculous he’s in this hearing.

He knows he's losing, and he wants to make the Supreme Court pay up for all of his appointments😮

So how can you say that Trump was threatening to make a decision to cause a riot to the Capital was for the COUNTRY or for his personal interests. We know the answer to that question. Personally

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

They will lie for Trump and destroy the Constitution.

A nonsensical question by Gorsuch. A peaceful demonstration on Capitol grounds, led by the president or anyone else, by definition would not disrupt any legislative proceeding by Congress going on inside the building. So, no, not liable for prosecution. If the gathering got to the point where it was disruptive to the proceeding inside, virtually certain no longer peaceful, or even confined outside the building. At that point, becomes liable for prosecution. What are we even talking about here.

@sclogse1

9 күн бұрын

MOTIVE.

@mikeythompson7777

9 күн бұрын

@@sclogse1 Not regarding the hypothetical posed by Gorsuch, we're not.

9-0 No 100% immunity inc.

@ianmcgrath4170

9 күн бұрын

There will be NO immunity 100%

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

Unfortunately you're wrong or they wouldn't have even taken this case.

@markmierzejewski9534

9 күн бұрын

@@horatioalbert1363 The case was taken to stall for Trump. Other wise the lower court ruling is air tight. It doesn't take 6 months to say No. We all know that. It was to stall for him.

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

@@markmierzejewski9534 If they stall for him they will also let him have immunity.

@spacenerd9499

9 күн бұрын

🤞🤞

I feel that SCOTUS could decide by end of day if they really werent beholding to Trump.

People in White House told to him to stop the riot but he did nothing!…No accident!

---- < My understanding is that the SCOTUS doesn't make rulings for hypothetical situations outside the issues of a case. How does drone strikes relate to the immunity case?

Complete immunity for a president is a concept that Trump's trying to install even as he's not president now. As has been said we've never had this problem before.

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

He would say he had immunity to cause the Jan. 6 riot and to ask for fake voters and fake extra votes.

@Leoluvesadmira

9 күн бұрын

No one has ever put a former president on trial even Nixion (granted Ford paradoned him). Andrew Johnson who escaped impeachment by one vote was never tried for any criminal violations. Also all of what Trump did in regards to the silly criminal trial in New York is completely legal

If you are honest, you wouldn't ask for immunity let alone total immunity even for crimes.

He could have the Supreme Court judges eliminated if he had total immunity, let that sink in!

Innocent people dont need the supreme court

@patriots6552

9 күн бұрын

😂 yes when the corrupt Biden in control in election interference

@patriots6552

9 күн бұрын

😂keep your librals tears trust me democrats will pay for what they put trump through

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

Someone who is not a criminal does not need immunity.

@Leoluvesadmira

9 күн бұрын

​@@horatioalbert1363well the i hope you never use your 5th amendment either

So glad Jackson is on the court! ❤🎉😊

@JohnPublic-dk7zd

9 күн бұрын

She's just a tool...

@AM-fs1je

9 күн бұрын

So we'll still lose 8 to 1.

The headline to this clip says it all. The conservative justices focussing on hypotheticals while avoiding the real and immediate issue at hand. The Court itself has become the ultimate impediment to justice. How ironic.

nothing in the constitution says they have any immunity

Lock him up

He stacked the SCROTUS for a reason and that reason is treason

SCOTUS’s job is not to create new law, but it seems like that’s what Kavanagh is suggesting.

Weissman in the house

If this is about the future, not Trump's appeal, then WHY is the case stalled as this esoteric conversation is being held?

@deekang6244

9 күн бұрын

The case is being stalled until the Supreme Court can give interpretation of the law. Then the lower courts can use that interpretation as it applies to individual cases.

@rondaniels9974

9 күн бұрын

@@deekang6244 But what is Trump appealing that could possibly be interpreted as an actual Presidential duty? Plus... if this is such a grey area, how did the country make it centuries before this needed to be clarified?

@paulgibbon5991

9 күн бұрын

They;re trying to stall till November and hope that they can steal the election for Trump, after which he'll declare himself king and forgive everyone.

How ironic that the constitutional by-the-booker justices are in this case overlooking all of constitutional readings and history to say well, things may different now. Disgusting lack of moral and legal consistency when it comes to Trump.

Replace all of SCOTUS!!!

In Federalist #57 Madison argued that the legislature “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates that communion of interest and sympathy of sentiment of which few governments have furnished examples, but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. “

It is important to acknowledge that no individual possesses absolute immunity, including the President of the United States of America. Our nation is not a dictatorship, which is one of the reasons we gained independence from Britain.

Upholding the law and the highest standards, before, while, and after office everywhere in government, is what we the people expect from all our public servants and representatives

Holds no weight like a deadly courtroom fart

The Constitution says in (Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7) to Indict, Try, Judge, and Punish all government officials according to law NEVERTHELESS of Impeachment. The President must faithfully execute the law!

Absolute immunity means the end of democracy and return to absolutism, like the absolute monarchs in Europe before the 1789 French Revolution.

What this should tell everyone witnessing this debacle is that they should get out and vote!!! There should be NO mistake about which direction the American people want to go in! So, let's send a resounding message! Then let the courts take care of this trump cancer! Then begin the process of fixing this broken system that would allow lifetime appointments, no more secret service for felonies; and apply term limits so that people can't be bought by ensconcing themselves in a certain position without ethical applications or accountability.

What's to prevent a corrupt president from using the court system to go after your political rivals

@paulgibbon5991

9 күн бұрын

Nothing. Taking out the courts is generally step one for the modern dictator.

It proves justice is NOT blind

So then all federal and state judges, prosecutors need to have their absolute immunity removed too. RIGHT.... Come on now

There is such a huge difference between criminal intent as compared with a decision meant to be in service to the American people.

What about people that work in our judicial system various branches government, and other highly sensitive sectors??? Are they eligible for full immunity??? I think not! It’s absurd that we are having a discussion about Presidential immunity. Presidents do not work in a sylo!

Katy Tur! You look gorgeous today-- and classy. The whole panel is delightful and insightful. Thanks.

I don't know why they are bothering to hear arguements. I think most of us already know how each Justice will vote.

Why would the executive branch need any lawyers if the president was immune? Isn’t everyone acting on the behalf of the president?

Campaign v presidential duties

Do these conservative clown justices not recognize the danger that Trump poses?

@horatioalbert1363

9 күн бұрын

He's not a danger to them personally, they wouldn't keep getting luxury vacations for free if they didn't let him crime all that he wants.

@alexsteiner3385

9 күн бұрын

@@horatioalbert1363 Really, what if they claim he has absolute immunity and wants them either 1) removed from the court 2) assassinated. Wouldn't he then be a danger to them personally? You do realize some of them are liberal justices and any of the so called conservative ones who don't rule in his favor will be good as dead if hey had his way. These are the implications. Open your eyes.

They shouldn’t have absolute immunity and anyone that carries out an unlawful command shouldn’t have immunity either. What it comes down to is what is lawful discussion of scope of authority and lawful enforcement of authority.

We gotta make it right for the future posibi8llities, Theses people change their minds all the time.

Thank you for eliminating the Velshi app ad at the end of the videos. Love Velshi but the ad was over the top.

We've had 40+ presidents without needing presidential immunity. Why does one need one now?

@aidenfisher5679

9 күн бұрын

Bcuz trump wants to commit crimes

Sounds like they're trying to kick the can down the road.

Incompetency hires incompetency

Good discussion. Andrew is a gem.

The Supreme court needs historians to help their law clerks with researching materials for writing opinions.

Things aren’t going our way, change the system already! 😡

I already know what the rulings gonna be so nothing to be excited about.

I like Katy, but I wish she would stop interrupting. Why bother to ask Mr Weissmann a question, if you're going to continually interrupt him when he's in the middle of explaining a point. He's the legal expert, Katy, not you.

As a legal scholar said in an interview, if you want to know if SCOTUS is in the tank for Trump, see if they ask a question where the answer is, "Well, yes, in THAT case the President would be immune." I think we have it.

Justice Thomas needs to go.

I hope the Supreme Court gives Trump the total immunity that he wants, but while Biden is President. Then Biden can just do whatever he wants to Trump with total immunity, right? I'm drooling at that thought!

@ProulxS

9 күн бұрын

Sadly Biden would never order seal team 6 to get rid of Trump even if he's given total immunity by the court. Having power and abusing it is two very different things. Not just for the precedent it would cause but because it's just plain wrong he would never do it.

@spacenerd9499

9 күн бұрын

That's correct

Let’s hope/ absolute immunity would become a nightmare of epic proportions.

This is a much more complex and nuanced question than people realize. Most people have never studied and do not understand the constitution. These are very serious questions that require serious study and consideration apart from politics or likes / dislikes of particular presidents. Most people who hate Trump just automatically go against his claim without any real legal consideration which is a huge mistake. 1) should FDR have been liable to criminal prosecution for Japanese internment camps? 2) Should Bush and Obama have been criminally liable for The Program which collected US communications data without warrants? 3) Should Clinton have been prosecuted for perjury? 4) Most importantly, should a president who leaves office be subject to criminal prosecution by the US Attorney appointed by their opponent? In other words, a lack of immunity implies that any outgoing president can be politically targeted by opponents. These are very serious questions. Simply saying “I hate Trump” as an answer to these questions is a huge mistake. They need careful nuanced consideration. Either choice has far reaching positive and negative consequences that go far beyond our lifetime. In fact, in most nations with serious histories of power grabs, it was a lack of immunity that caused an incoming leader to persecute the outgoing through criminal prosecution.

These are the reasons why the US declared independence from the English - He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. - So why would immunity apply to its own body of governance. Excuse me for being Dutch and being less articulate in English.

That is right , BUT IF YOU SLEEP THRU THE MORNING BRIEFINGS , or just can't muster the concentration , You miss out on all that GOOD ADVICE .

Of course not. Every decision they make should be within the law. There’s no reason not to. Ever..

this is the most ridiculous waste of time ive ever seen

Justice Jackson was spot on with her immunity assessment.

Sadly, after how today’s hearing went, it’s obvious a trial won’t happen before the election.

Where would Nixon be without his Ford getaway car?

Excuse me. How can any judge that was appointed by trump weigh in on and decide issues that are DIRECTLY RELATED to trump???!!! Talk about conflict of interest. All the judges appointed by trump should recuse themselves from any cases INVOLVING trump. Come on!

if you don't do anything wrong then you don't need IMMUNITY!.

even battle plans developed in a war time scenario go under a law review as part of the planning process to make sure that international laws are not violated.

A question posed to Trump's team should have been, "Could a President be charged for organizing a disruption of *_A SCOTUS HEARING_* that explores the possibility of curtailing the power of the executive branch?" Make it personal. Frame the hypothetical in their, metaphorical, home.

When President Trump took office and McConnell served as Senate majority leader, Trump had more than 100 vacancies to fill in the lower courts, including 17 in the U.S. courts of appeals - all of them lifetime appointments. The Supreme Court hears around 80 cases a year, while the courts of appeals handle tens of thousands of cases annually - often making them the last word in most cases that impact the lives of Americans. “[McConnell] has calculated, correctly, that most of the most contentious issues in our society eventually wind up in the courts,” conservative columnist and author Mona Charen told FRONTLINE in a 2023 interview for McConnell, the GOP & the Court. “It is critical, if you want certain outcomes, to be sure that you have the right mix of judges.” We must vote NO to Trump.

As if the SCOTUS is going to do the right thing! Let’s see it!! Maybe if they had the balls to do anything!!

The SCOTUS is in this mess because THEY CAUSED this mess! Their challenge is not coming out the backend looking like they are biased.

The cameraman immediately turned the camera away from the fake news sign 😂😂😂😂

Henry Kissinger: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

No, the President would not need additional immunity, I want the President to know that if he or she is doing things that are not appropriate that there will be consequences. If anything it make everyone in a position of power stop and think carefully about what they’re doing and what the motivation for their action is.

Shout out to the shouty "No Fake News" guy, he's been at it for hours and his voice hasn't cracked yet

This is a waste of time. The billionaire-owned Extreme Court will rule in favor of the guy who owns them.