Destiny Reacts to (LegalEagle, Trump Is Immune)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- Subscribe & like for daily Destiny clips
Chapters
[00:00] Presidential immunity
- 01:58 How to fix this?
- 05:08 Executive authority
- 07:32 The constitution
- 10:15 What if it was Biden?, Vegan Gains
►Date: 5 July, 2024
Follow Destiny : / theomniliberal
Trade DGG stocks (it is a game) :manifold.markets/group/destinygg
I love you（｀・ω・）ゞ
---------------------------------------------------
This channel is a fan-made channel and not affiliated with Destiny
#Destiny
---------------------------------------------------
please consider donating ^-^
Feeding America:secure.feedingamerica.org/sit...
Find your local food bank: findfoodsupport.withgoogle.com/
Find more charities to help: www.givewell.org/ - เกม
I wish Dark Brandon would have provided a little demonstration why such immunity is a bad idea.
He's too much of a fucking coward.
@@mikhailryzhov9419 you think its ok for a president to be immune from prosecution?
@@mariomario1462Well tbh, if thats the law now Biden should show republicans how much of a good ruling this really was 🎊
@@BestMeme2031 unfortunately they won't because he's not an authoritatian like most Republicans are.
@@mariomario1462 I don’t think presidents should have the level of immunity that SCOTUS gave them. They clearly did not learn the lesson why USA does not a king.
It's not trump I'm afraid of. It's someone smarter, more evil than him to take advantage of the SC ruling.
Really just someone smarter
I am afraid of Trump, because he potentially now has an army of loyalists ready to do his bidding. The first term he did not have such power.
@@AceofDlamonds true but I feel the same about Biden / the democrats as well. Lose lose tbh
@@AceofDlamonds youre lying to yourself to make yourself scared, next level gaslighting
@@3self
Really? Dont be paranoid there is no equivalent to project 2025 or agenda 47 on the D side. There's no need to be reflexively "bothsides" in 2024. That died in the late 1990s imo.
I don't understand how the Supreme Court can grant immunity to ANY citizen/office, including the president without overruling the 14th amendment that makes all citizens equal. It seems in violation of that Amendment .
The 14th Amendment does not "Make all people Equal." Just look at the fact that there was a 15ths, 19th, and 26th amendment. It's not "Illegal" to be Unequal. XIV was mainly about the ramifications of the civil war and XIII's abolition of slavery:
Amendment XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. _But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._
Section 3.
_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.
Section 4.
_The validity of the public debt_ of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, _shall not be questioned_. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It has nothing to do with that. The Presidency is the executive branch of the US at the federal level. It is ridiculous that any politician in any corner of the country can prosecute unfairly the President because he's of the opposite political party. The underpinning of the Supreme Court decision by all justices, liberal and conservative, is that the appropriate check to the President is the Supreme Court and Congress, as the Constitution intended. If you want to prosecute the President for a statute that isn't something included in an official act or something as a private citizen before or after that is the appropriate use of state and local governments. All of these cases against Trump had several deep flaws and flouting of the law even without this decision.
@@masoodvoon8999It’s pretty disingenuous to state that all of the cases were flouted. mar-a-lago is pretty clear cut, it’s one thing to keep sensitive documents after your time in office is over, it’s a definitively illegal thing to intentionally try to hide said documents from being retrieved by officials. And last I checked falsifying financial records in order to pay hush money to a mistress is a felony. Since we also have an under oath, guilty plea from Cohen concerning the loan he used to pay the mistress to stay quiet during the election, yeah, violates campaign finance laws.
Unless you have direct, counter evidence to dispute these things and the evidence we have confirming them, you’re just jumping through mental hoops to arrive at your current conclusion.
@@Awaken_To_0 Under 14th Amendment Section 1: "... nor deny any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Seems pretty explicit that no one is immune/able to do things to another person that are illegal.
@@tropicalpenguin8446 "What you can do to someone" and "what you can be prosecuted for" are completely different questions.
Equal protection under the law means that a person must be treated the same as a different person in the same circumstances and condition. For example something can't be a crime only for black people but not for whites. It has nothing to do with everyone being treated the same way. A first time offender getting off with a warning and a repeat offender being sent to prison is not a violation of XIV.
Not does immunity have anything to do with XIV. XIV deals with deprivation of justice or the abridgements of rights and privileges of the citizenry. It cannot be legal to violate a person's rights because under the Constitution those rights are guaranteed. It does not mean that people in different circumstances or conditions must be treated the same way.
We already see this with police officers who have qualified immunity to perform their duties in good faith. If a police officer kills someone -even mistakenly- as a part of the reasonable performance of their duty they cannot be held liable. The prosecution must overcome that presumption, proving their actions were not a reasonable discharge to that duty.
If I did the same as a normal citizen I can be held liable because my circumstances are different. I am not charged with or responsible for enforcing the law or defending the public. Thus treating me differently is not a violation of a XIV. If I was a cop and did the same thing in the same circumstances but got held liable anyway because I'm black that WOULD be a violation.
lmao.
Still havent even seen a video of trump talking about a single issue where he knows what hes talking about
not one
trump.supoorts are by definition npcs that care more about flash than substance
no no, that's democrats. Remember guys only focus on "policy" and not why things went to hell. illegal immigrants came over in massive numbers because of rhetoric by democrats. But instead of focusing on why something became a problem, you want us to look at oh look biden policy removed x amount at the end his of presidency instead of just saying "illegal immigrants aren't welcome over here" and not having the problem to begin with. Electing a weak leader like Biden has empowered countries like Russia to invade Ukraine, Palestine to attack Israel. Destiny fools his viewers when he tells them they should only look at "policy" to determine if someone is a good president or not
Says a biden worshipper. Dude cant finish a thought lmao 😂
@@Wi_Gong_Dye troll somewhere else or come back with your main account
@@TheLumberjack1987 whose trolling? Is it not true? Did u watch the debate? All the dems did. Thats y they wanted him gone for a wk.
Stay sheltered sheep! Do wat the dems tell u to do. They r the best. California is a paradise. Oregon, washington and NY too 😂.
@@Wi_Gong_Dye I love every time someone gets called out for worshiping biden. it shows so much projection "i dick ride so hard for trump that the only alternative is the other side is all lubed up for biden"
LMAO NO! NO ONE THINKS LIKE THAT BIDEN IS AN OLD FUCK WERE FORCED TO VOTE FOR.
We just all agree trump is infinitely worse.
why are all the comments right wing? who are you people?
Muh echo chamber has been destroyed reeeeeeee
@@shiiswii4136 I don’t care about that so much. I’m just wondering why this popped up on your feed considering it has like no views. Are you a regular viewer?
@@blondeenosauce9935 destiny is entertaining to listen to, regardless of anyone's political view (shocking we know, lefties are unable to listen to the other side).
@@blondeenosauce9935 ive been watching destiny since the scuffed podcast days, he's always been an argumentive petulant sjw and now I'm gloating at his misfortune. And I'm not gonna stop
Maybe people on the right also watch destiny...
7:32 So yeah this isn’t even a point worth arguing. It’s like when republicans say “The ATF can create their own federal laws overnight without approval from anyone” and democrats say “Well they don’t make laws, they make policies.” If a government agency makes a “policy” and I must follow it under threat of imprisonment, it might as well be a law. Bringing it back to what destiny is saying here, saying “Well the constitution isn’t federal law” might be, in the most restrictive light, technically correct but it’s practically false. The government and everyone under it must follow its established literature and anything less is illegal. So yes it’s a law and questioning that doesn’t get us anywhere.
@@Damacles1776 i mean it’s obviously an important distinction if you think about what a law is. Constitutional amendments are not laws, they are guidelines that laws must follow. That’s why laws are either constitutional or unconstitutional.
@@elijahdonb7553 The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and has been since 1787. That's why all other laws must be either constitutional or unconstitutional. In any conflict of law the Constitution always trumps all other laws of the United States.
The Constitution isn't Federal Law in the same way the President isn't a military or law enforcement officer.
@@Awaken_To_0 yes exactly no one would call them that cause the definition doesn’t fit what they are. Even the way they are written is as guidelines for the creation of laws. As I said it’s an important distinction
Well, yes and no. Was it worth exploring, absolutely. It's technically Federal Common Law, the U.S. Constitution and while it deals with more fundamental questions than most other laws, it's important to note down just in case the distinction is made down the line that this would not fall under official executive immunity. You would agree that either the ruling should be reversed by SCOTUS, otherwise it'll be fleshed out into more and more detailed distinctions. It would have to, thus the minor point, does common law fit the immunity. It's an important question.
7:30 The constitution is Federal COMMON Law. Along with the guaranteed basic rights, setting up of gov't, it's also for the distribution of power within said gov't, fleshing out the fundamental questions with established precedence. Idk, this "decision" wasn't really one and needs to be either reversed or refined into something that makes sense.
DGGX is sick
Thinking back to when Destiny smugly made fun of people who wanted SCOTUS reform after RBG died.
I'm really not worried about an American president over stepping their boundaries for their own sake. what worries me is the fact that foreign espionage can lead to a foreign controlled president doing something that would benefit another country and we'd never be able to hold them accountable. .
Talk about a conspiracy theorist. My guy is talking about a spy for a president lmaoooooo y'all wild af
@@BusterScruggs-p6r "a spy for a president"? what does that sentence (that i never said) even mean?
@@lscizml do you have a brain. Are you older than 18. Infer a little 🤡
@@lscizml as an aside (regardless of whether it was said). Do you really not understand the sentence . "We have a spy for president". Did you graduate high school.
@@lscizml I guess I should've said "as" so the slow people didn't trip lololololol
bench press dude was a decent thing
vegan gains wasn't put in the title 😢
I guarantee you Vegan Gains would be a much happier, less angry, and much healthier if he would just eat some damn chicken wings.
I agree
I guarantee you would be happier healthier and less angry if you absolved yourself of all material possessions and became a Buddhist monk living in the Himalayas
He's almost definitely healthier than a random youtube commenter with an anime profile pic lol.
@@lemonheadkw2493 Nah, I think he would find a reason to hate it.
@@bito2041 Wow, very inciteful. Your argument seems so true, that's why you targeted my PFP.
At least we know who the real intellectual titans are here.
Vegan Gains is definitely healthier than I am, I broke my back at 16 while training for a body building competition. More than 50% of the population is likely healthier than myself.
But that has nothing to do with my meme comment.
The profile picture has been my PSN avatar since 2011. I'm not changing it any time soon and I don't make comments from my business page which has a different picture.
I guess we can hail Brandon the Dark King.
7:33 : The Constitution is considered federal law - it is in fact the supreme law of the land and overrides all other conflicting state and federal laws. Federal Statutes are not at the same level as the Constitution, but the Constitution is still technically a listing of laws (proscribing certain permissible and impermissible actions, etc.)
@@actualGolem no it isnt.
@@mariomario1462yes it is
@@actualGolem it's not. Which is why there are amendments. There are concepts and frameworks of how the United states should be run but there is no single law that makes it superior to anything. That's why we have federal laws and Supreme court
Quick reminder guys, make sure you wash your hands because clean hands are happy hands.
None of the comments actually prove anything destiny said was wrong. Funny.
the comments get deleted by youtube/channel. I will try one more time. Obviously Destiny/democrats don't even believe what they are saying right now. If so they would be pushing for Obama to be charged, you know for the strike on a citizen. Can you tell me why he wouldn't be charged? oh right for the same exact reason the supreme court just stated. Obviously presidents have some immunity when it comes to official actions as it always been.
Yea bc smart ppl like you know TH-cam comment section is perfect for discourse and not reactionary emotional outburst. Another common democrat l lolololol
@@BusterScruggs-p6r actually it's pretty easy to articulate what he said that was wrong. If you had anything you'd bring it up. You don't 😊
@@mariomario1462 its more that the comments are being deleted. Either by youtube or the channel. I've had atleast 10 comments deleted on this video.
@@michaelbreaux-tj6mx youtube has bizarre and broken bot system to deal with spam. It isnt a conspiracy and there are plenty of comments that just throw around insults without offering any actual criticism
I'm kinda surprised how even headed Destiny is in this clip. The MASSIVE problem with any left leaning commentary on this ruling is that they focus almost completely on the dissenting opinions and don't discuss the actual ruling. He clearly watched Uncivil law's 6 hour video reviewing the entire case. (at least a good portion if not all of it)
Sotomayor has several straw man arguments in the ruling, and several statements she makes lead to the idea of making special rules just for this one case because Trump is so bad, without considering that if you make an exception for one man, then that exception still exists for every future president.
Jackson actually said that Congress should have the power to pass laws that take away constitutional power from the president, which is firmly against precedence established in U.S. vs. Klein.
Yeah this is where I'm at, if we looked at the dissenting opinions of Roe v. Wade, they were also suggesting that the ruling was the end of democracy and a massive federal overstep. Like of course the dissent is going to be impassioned and suggest it's gonna be bad, but this particular dissent went completely off the rails.
Here's how I see it. We can be as even headed as possible on the internet. What Trump and his circle have consistently done is find any loophole to push the boundaries as much as possible. Trump is not the type of person, particularly with institutional support like a cabinet and Executive branch filled entirely with loyalists, to stay within boundaries.
@@newspin2477 no it isnt and it isnt a "straw man" when the president can be immune from anything due to the fact that "intent" cannot be investigated and "unofficial acts" are not defined.
I'm more of a Raven person
The collective noun for ravens is an unkindness.
His ecw run was legendary
she a baddie ong
Destiny is a black woman. Just like Raven
@@robertcampomizzi7988 ah, a fellow 'from' watcher, howdy
The primary basis of this ruling is to preserve the balance of powers. Executive power either comes from the constitution or it comes from laws passed by congress.
All the supreme court requires in this ruling is that the charges overcome a test to ensure they won't diminish the power of the executive branch as a whole.
If we look at this particular case - The executive branch has both the authority and responsibility to ensure a fair election. There are aspects of his actions that definitely should qualify for presidential immunity, but other actions where you could make an argument that he crossed a line.
Like this "fake electors" idea is probably not illegal. The process of changing the votes of a state's electoral college is for a state to either decide to accept different electors or for a state to submit 2 different sets of electors and have the senate vote on which electors to take... preparing for that possibility is an executive power.
However, you could make the argument that his conversations with state officials were in appropriate and crossed a line beyond the scope of presidential power and became criminal.
They just have to lay out a case that explains why some alleged actions crossed the line, and they did a crap job of putting this case together because they didn't even consider immunity even though police and judges have it, and there are historic rulings where SCOTUS sided with executive power that went directly against laws passed by congress.
First off thank you for a genuinely thoughtful comment. My main concern is, unless I misunderstand something you already said; is not whether an act is a legitimate or illegitimate presidential power, but whether a president can bake a crime directly into or in parallel with a presidential act where it's impossible to review as evidence for anything. Like with the fake electors thing, the problem could be you can't even review whether they commit perjury with documents or conspire, or even gather and show evidence to the court because it was a part of a presidential act.
Hey I'm sending a second reply because I don't know if the first one sent. But thank you for your thoughtful comment. My main concern is, unless I misunderstand or misread your answer, is not about whether a presidential act is legitimate or a crime. It's whether the courts can even gather evidence or even review if there was a crime baked into or in-parallel with a presidential duty. For example with the fake electors, which this ruling, you may no longer be able to review whether document perjury or conspiring took place because electors is a presidential duty.
cope and seethe
@@Bruhngus420 If it's cope then it should be easy to answer my question.
@Bruhngus420 the adults are talking lil bro, go back to the kids table
5:35 legal eagle forgets that in law, you generally don’t define things that are extremely broad in scope so as to ensure boundaries are not accidentally imposed on such definitions. That is why unofficial acts aren’t defined. It can be basically assumed everything not listed as an official act is considered an unofficial act.
This guy is a political hack. He ignores most of the important legal arguments when he "reviews" the law.
If all the official acts are not defined there is no "everything else" wtf are you talking about?
@@sathrielsatanson666 then they are presumed unofficial until a ruling says otherwise.
@@yelnatsch517 lol, no. The ruling was made and it should enlist all the core powers (even tho it's a novel legal idea and not something that constitution recognizes). Bottom line is SCOTUS is pulling out laws out of their collective ass and lretend they do not stink.
This is the second time I'm seeing something from Destiny and oh my god.
I finally understand why so many people dislike him.
Like omg, like yes
Like so much, yas, he's like, so annoying and like, short
Oh my god yass queen 💅
Cope and seethe
Dude, no one is intereted in your problems
Seethe*
What a substantive comment, nice commentary, very nuanced, gj lil buddy
going to legal eagle for legal advice is like going to Nancy Grace for child care advice
He was good before he got political... but on the more political rulings he's kinda of presenting his case on why his opinion is right instead of trying to educate people. This was super clear in the Disney vs. Desantis case which ruled completely against everything he said because he was looking at it from general contract law when it was a case based firmly in local government laws in Florida.
@@newspin2477he literally explains judges reasoning, what the official acts can be, and why this is not good precedent and has not been dome before and gives reason to why it's not good for America. why are you lying? did you watch the video? you sound dumb saying this when you haven't watched the video
@@newspin2477 Agreed
@@newspin2477 The video educates on the implications of rulings and how a ruling brings ambiguity and uncertainty for future cases though.
@@justinevans2060 Through the lense of his politics, sure. It's actually pretty normal for SCOTUS rulings to be somewhat vague because if they get too specific and lock themselves into something that can be abused that's a big problem.
That's why this ruling was primarily focused on maintaining the balance of powers within the branches and creating a test to show that any criminal charges brought against a president must also show that the charges won't diminish the authority of the executive branch (because the president IS the executve branch)
All these hypotheticals that Legal brought up, like poisoning and stuff are just totally off base. Being able to fire someone in the executive branch doesn't mean you can poison them to do it... it's kinda ridiculous.
Yes? Impeachment is how you would do it that's what was ruled? Am I wrong?
Impeachment is to remove a president not criminally charged them. If we have no tools to deal with corruption we are lost.
You're wrong. Impeachment is a political remedy.
Nope not even impeachment can result into a criminal conviction
Impeachment only means they can't take office anymore, it does not do anything to hold them criminally responsible.
It was not what was ruled. I fact, they ruled that even past impeachment, no charges can be brought and no motive may be interrogated. Trump's team argued that impeachment should be the bar - impeach then immunity is overcome. SCOTUS went even farther - impeach and still immune for official acts.
First Pisco. Now Legal Eagle. Destiny really values civil litigators opinions higher than the SCOTUS.
@@Jordan123151 destiny values the opinions of those who support his
Okay so scotus have made some great points! So why didn’t one of the Supreme Court justices that for was for the immunity think of justice sotomayor’s hypothetical of using the immunity to possibly indict a political opponent or to kill a political opponent? Because at that point we basically have a new way of having a dictatorship and this means that Biden can do the same thing which is wild!
@@shiiswii4136 legal eagle is a joke, has everyone forgotten what he said about the Rittenhouse case?
Interesting how 3 members of SCOTUS also agree with this take and a 4th while they agree the president should have immunity to criminal liability, doesn't go as far as the other 5
Weird. Did all of the justices agree with this? Or were there some that dissented?
Legal eagle is a very biased liberal 😂😂
Disagrees with me = ‘very biased’
who the fuck writes like that what are you a fkn 12 year old?
@@thecringesaltawardcompany1818 I actually agree with his take on this matter, but he's just grossly fear mongering it imo 🤡😭 and he is a liberal, u can clearly tell that by the way he covers news
@@jacobisweird280 it doesn’t bother that you just said you agree with his assessment of the scotus ruling , yet still tried to mitigate its severity by just calling him a biased liberal
I used to watch legal eagle all the time, then realized how retardedly liberal he is. He misinterprets and misunderstands so many things so often. This time included.
Hahahhaha the copium is genuinely delicious
classic NPC talking points.
If you try hard enough you can make a counter argument unlike your parents I belive in u
@@brumalh5548 take deep deep breaths the copium will make everything better soon
@@shiiswii4136I’m wondering if you know your r3tarded or if you are legitimately unaware
@@shiiswii4136please tell me are u okay with Biden having seal team six going in and killing ex president trump?
what copium? is it just him not liking the ruling?
Your* lol laughs in republican
Do you think this is a win for republicans? It’s only a win for a POTUS that wishes to exploit this leap in power. Whether that’s a win for republicans depends on whether that POTUS ideals are aligned with republicans. Guess what, even all republicans don’t agree on everything. So necessarily, POTUS will be able to do things that go straight against what you want, and there’s _nothing_ you can do about it.
Cry more
"My version of Hitler is winning, so I don't care" - you.
Soy
Unhinged
Do you really think it's a good thing to give more power to the executive branch?
Legal eagle isn't a real lawyer.
Can you elaborate? Proof maybe? Anything?
He’s a law professor BTW. Also how is his analysis wrong.
tell that to his law firm and his law professorship at georgetown.
How people can just blatantly lie without feeling a deep sense of guilt or embarrassment is beyond me.
So we are just going to openly lie. Cool
cope and seethe
braindead comment ^
Joe can literally order the killing of Trump right now and be 100% immune from any repercussions. And *you* say "cope and seethe". Lmfao
Wait. So Biden has immunity? He can put in fake electors and Camilla can read off of fraudulent pieces of paper that have a replica of any particular state's seal and don't have the endorsement of the governor's signature and call the election however they want? Sweet!!!! Oh, wait. not sweet, I meant seethe....😂
@@namenome3680 cope and seethe until the other guy uses this in a way you don't like.
@@FromTheAshes0762only gotta win this election then we've won forever
Democrats when trying to weaponize the courts against a former president critically fails.
Legal eagle isn't a political channel and you're insane if you think giving president permission to do whatever he wants is a good thing
@BrandonSorenson-fb3gg welp if we didn't have literal war criminals as presidents and they are running around free maybe you would have point
What a bad take imagine thinking this is ever a good thing
What happens to "Lock her up"?
@@BrandonSorenson-fb3gg Legal Eagle isn't a political channel but he invites on Liz Dye who is very political. This makes me question his objectivity. I much prefer Nate The Lawyer.
10:06 'this is horrifying'
bro just shut up
Did u not pay attention to the ruling or?
I know it must be really frustrating.Never to have an actual argument and just say t.D.S or yell bullshit
But you're gonna need to actually make a substantive argument.
We're just admit you're in NPC that.Once king trump to make you feel better
@@thehylian6984 Why would he all he knows is team sports and that team trump is winning Why would he give a shit about the long term health of our country. his team has more points!
It's not like youhe cares about policy lmao
@@FirstLast-dh8ks if u disagree with destiny ur "just wrong and rettarted"
@@brumalh5548 ah yes, let's ignore the fact that the rhetoric democrats used towards illegal immigration caused massive migration to our border. Let's ignore how weak biden looks to the rest of the world so countries took advantage (Russia invading Ukraine, Palestine attacking israel). But yeah let's focus on the "policy" instead of what actually caused these problems.
The question of "would you be okay with Biden or Hillary Clinton doing this?"
Is easily answered. No, they wouldnt. However, that is the wrong question. The right question is, "would you expect the Democrats to do the same if Biden was in Trumps position and support it?"
To which the answer is yes, undoubtedly, and therefor we're not going to hold Trump to a standard we know you wouldnt hold your camp to.
Biden isn't in Trump's position because he didn't get impeached for denying the election + knowingly creating false receipts to try and overturn the election. I don't know how you can defend this given Trump admitted to it on video - go look at his audio recordings.
so youre saying you want trump to get away with things that he shouldnt, just because the other side would also want that? you dont believe in any higher standard for the oval office? ridiculous
@@elijahdonb7553 Yes, that is what I'm saying. There is no scenario where your side gets to do whatever it wants but the other side is shackled by "higher standards", that's a rigged game. You can't appeal to higher standards from your lowered ones.
@@uh-ohspaghettio7826that’s a pretty insane argument to make from the side whose guy ACTUALLY committed these crimes and is defending him and this immunity ruling by saying “you guys would do the same”. That’s irrelevant, and incorrect. Of course I have the higher standards to speak from, your side is LITERALLY doing this right now and mine is not.
We have to think long term. Whatever you believe in, whatever partisan stuff you want your president to represent will no longer matter if a president (Trump, Biden, or any future one) is no longer accountable because we undermine democracy just to get what we want now.
I think that's a fair thing to care about. Not everyone is willing to burn the house down to get what they want.