WATCH LIVE | Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump immunity case
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 เม.ย. 2024
- Join The Washington Post as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments to determine whether former president Donald Trump is immune from being prosecuted on charges of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to remain in power. The court’s decision to take up this case will allow it to shape the scope of presidential power and will also impact when the trial can begin. Trump is the first former president to face criminal charges.
Trump’s claim of immunity has been so far unsuccessful. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, rejected Trump’s lawyers’ requests to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity grounds. An appeals court in February upheld that decision.
Special counsel Jack Smith has petitioned the court to reject Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution, arguing presidents are not above the law and that the charges Trump faces do not fall within the realm of a president’s official duties.
Libby Casey anchors live coverage from The Washington Post newsroom with analysis from James Hohmann, Rhonda Colvin and JM Rieger. Jorge Ribas is live from outside the Supreme Court. Read more: wapo.st/3xO3Eqm. Subscribe to The Washington Post on TH-cam: wapo.st/2QOdcqK
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
Save your brain cells from the stupid commentary and skip to 1 hr in for the actual arguments.
Thanks...
Why should I? This argument is stupid, for starters. Look at the origins of the "arguments." What I said makes perfect sense. Don't be upset because a simple layman can argue something you can't and because I thought of something you didn't. 😂🤣😂
@@RenzieWilsonPrice
Thanks for the not so subtle,
TDS laced, tirade...👈🤔
great video no political commentary just straight to the court room thank you washington post
I am well aware that our Supreme Court leans more right than left. I believe that in order for the justices to reach a fair presidential "absolute immunity" conclusion, they should more closely evaluate the balance of power of the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of U. S. Government. If any one president is granted legal, absolute immunity, that opens up a tsunami of flood gates that we have never seen before, and it will surely imbalance the powers that presently govern the United States because the president could, and would, do whatever he pleases because he/she would have more power than the other 2 branches of government. Therefore, I believe that the president is NOT above the laws of the land. I am not a lawyer, but I am voicing my 2 cents as a concerned citizen. USA 🇺🇸 It does not take legal scholars to understand this issue. The argument of "absolute immunity" is most definitely a no-brainer, and it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
So based on your opinion that no POTUS has absolute immunity. Would a lawsuit naming President Obama brought forth by families of war crimes during Obama’s presidency be valid? If yes please explain how in a two party system a duly elected President does not have multiple cases waiting for him/her from the opposition party immediately following his/her end of term?
“Absolute Immunity” for official acts, not for all acts. I think it does take a legal scholar to decide this issue.
@@matthewpresley9983 justice Kavanaugh said it well when he said that the official act under article 2 are walled off and they’re not what’s in dispute here, but there are other official acts that should not have absolutely it’s too dangerous as the original comment said it put too much power in one person’s hands.
Furthermore, Thomas shouldn’t even be listening to this case right now. He’s so corrupt.
Thanks for the TDS laced, 👈🤔
(albeit, subtle) "analysis"....
@@matthewpresley9983 By who's standards? (Tapping fingers and waiting)
Why does Sotomayor always coach the government? It seems so unethical. Every Justice tees up arguments they agree with, but I don't recall any Justice ever blatantly coaching a side, and she does it in almost every case.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the way sotomayor tries to get a clear position from the counsel. Barrett sometimes does the same too. At the end of the day, counsel has to convince the justices, and you have to play ball.
@@Pyrrhic. Her trying to get a clear position isn't my complaint. My complaint is when she rebuts arguments for counsel, usually after the counsel rebuts it poorly. I can't see another reason to do that except for the public. There's a reason deliberations aren't public. Congressmen do this in hearings constantly when other congressmen make their witnesses look bad. It's political as she is advocating.
Lincoln appointed Salmon P Chase
to the SCOTUS Chief Justice, after
he had served in Lincoln's cabinet,
at least partially, because he was
favorable to both abolition of
slavery, AND 👈🤔favorable to
greenbacks...
The idea that politics doesn't go
on in all court cases, including
SCOTUS cases is naive..👈🤔..
There's power in the majority,
and in the SCOTUS, they,
(Sotamayer, and her ilk) have
to be content to whine, whilst
having little power to further
their personal agenda...
But they WILL whine...👈🤔
Because she's a flaming liberal 😊
Trump even talked about dismissing cases against him. Which country these Justices live in?
Trumpland of kickbacks.
When the doesn’t apply to everyone equally, then there is no law
Impeachment and conviction before a criminal trial? He made that up. How stupid.
It's likely incorrect, but it's not stupid. It's reasonable to think that if Congress, the people who write the statutes, assess an action and determine it did not violate the statute, the executive branch can not then decide the actions do violate the statutes, disagreeing with people who wrote the statutes. Saying it is stupid makes me wonder if you understand the argument.
If he's still in office, it's required.
@@michaelrandall7667 It's not incorrect it's in the Constitution impeachment from the House, conviction from the Senate to remove them from office, then criminal trial. Schumer dismissed the Mayorkas impeachment last week in an unprecedented move to protect someone flagrantly in violation of many laws putting the Nation into what really should be declared a national emergency.
@@chrisalley9718conviction before a criminal trial is required?
Conviction in the impeachment trial.
The lawyer said if his argument clashed with the Constitution it is valid
Nobody has immunity from criminal acts!! Whoever heard of such? Yes, even self-called "geniuses" can be stupid!
Why is that you believe immunity from criminal acts is different from immunity from civil acts?
Cops do??
@@yplittleone Good point. Cops do, Congress does, and the president already does in certain situations (as the DOJ just admitted in this argument).
Hopefully the attorney has quit smoking.
D J T is immune! Against honesty, fairness, remorse, empathy, self-criticism and mental fitness.
Blessing❤❤❤❤
I truly believe that no matter what the decision by the Supreme Court is on Trumps immunity case, we will see serious repercussions across the country. Either way there are going to be a lot of unhappy Americans and news medias. This is a no win situation for America.
The only unhappy people are the elites and the fake media. Americans who paid their bills everyday, prefer a life with tump. With NO immigrants invasion. Crime in America rose to a different level. Trump 2024 / Vivek 2028
The more power the court gives the Executive Branch....the less to their own Judicial Branch. A SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THREE BRANCHES. A President with full immunity unbalances all that our founders intended.
This is exactly what I said (in so many words).
Why did the most conservative justices not want to discuss the alleged crimes committed by the former president? They wanted to discuss the what if’s hypothetical crimes but did not want to listen to the answers that Dreeben gave regarding what the former president did. I thought a case brought before the Supreme Court was the case they would be arguing not a hypothetical what if case
That fool said he’s honorable. Alito
This was utter trash and the Leo Leonard 6 wants a new monarch
Don't expect the high court to uphold the law when it comes to Mr Trump bottom line
Trump placed those three Justices knowing they will protect him when the time comes.
If you really want to trigger the guy with the fake news board, just tell him the truth about Stinky. That should do it every time.
1:54:05 this right here! Exactly!
History disagrees with this argument
I used to be a republican since I was a kid
This is not what I grew up with..Now I'm a Democrat, I joined the Marines when was 17 in 1976
If you were 17 right now would you join the Service?
I would rather read a certified transcript. The dialogue is too subjective and rigorous (to my tortured ears). Also, it tries my patience to bear the time sitting while this proceeds. Reading excuses the personalities traits.
Dreeben’s voice annoy you too?
This was great to hear, but just a speed bump for this court case. Only Thomas and Alito will vote in tDump favor.
I am very interested in Barrett, she's, surprisingly, become the swing vote.
Nope I disagree it will work in favour for Trump. despite the appearance of disagreement, the Supreme Court justiceswill ultimately favor Trump in these cases due to underlying strategic considerations.They are only playing the game so they don't get abused by the other parties
Dreeben arguing that if a AG gives a president an unlawful order only then is the POTUS allowed immunity is wild and totally swayed my opinion on the matter.
Clarence Thomas: "Don't forget to, in our Fascist overtake of America, to challenge the appt. of Special Council, wink wink, my new vaction home depends on it"
What did Trump do that was fascist?
😢?
Mr. Sauer sounds like a veteran fast talking used car salesman.
Snake oil selling con man.
Alito: "Make sure to try to preclude even the opportunity to even bring up the Coup Klux Clan Jan 6th Plan "official acts" for the trial"
It was a coup that’s for sure
Michael Dreeben is an absolutely brilliant litigation attorney
His arguments are laughable 😅 If you'd paid attention you'd have heard the Judges snickering tones when he put his own labels on longstanding terms in order to fit them into his scheme of BS. What a joke 🤣
2:12:14 They're supposed to be extremely difficult to achieve because, he is and was The President Of The United States of America!!!
Trump's lawyer sounds 1:03:01 like an ignorant rabid squirrel smoking SMOMETHING😂
3:05:33
sniffing
Sauer ruined his legacy for Trump.
He'll be a great attorney for Vladimir Putin
Sauer’s arguments and responses were very well composed in my opinion.
@@billmohrsuperpool5364 Especially when he said the immunity proposition is unconstitutional. at least he's honest. I'll give him that.
Thought bubble 3 SCOUTUS Trumps appointees --we have to thank Trump🤡 for our job.
Can we say the quiet part out loud? What if the President is being prosecuted strictly to keep him from being elected for a second term. These trials have extreme bias and obviously no adult in the room.
Have you not been watching? They're proposing immunity for any president.
Regardless who are you're for. This should not pass. America will not be America. No one should be above the law not even a Dem or a Rep president.
This former lawyer Sauer is ridiculous!!!!! His twisting and lying is so obvious.
To be fair, they may want to analyze all the small government entities and private citizens who volunteered at the polls and said there were illegal ballots cast, before they go straight to a conviction or even give attention to this matter.
If you’ve seen any of the dozens of people saying they know there was election fraud, in a number of states (even democrats), this would be a non issue.
KBJ doesn't understand much of anything.
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.”
I object to Uncle Thomas
These conservative judges are terrible.
Thank god for them.
bought and paid for by trump.
Hey Alito, it was NOT hotley contested, it was hottley lied about.
Shame on you, Alito and Thomas. So freaking corrupt, I could vomit. 🤮
Hitler had total immunity - have we come so far right????
I can't even listen to Michael Dreeben speak. He sounds so cringy.
Dreeben’s voice defines the current status quo on the left.
Dreeben is really fruity. The troops are out in force.
I’m sorry. Why is Trump able keep the Supreme Court so busy? Why is this crook able to have so many cases in front of the Supreme Court?
Sauer is a MAGAt. His double-standard is clear, while his answers to questions lean on word salad rather than articulate reasoning. 'nuff said!
What double standard are you referring to specifically?
He’s a disgrace!
🇺🇸 TRUMP 2024🇺🇸
Yes, here to laugh at all the trump haters
Not haters; truth and justice warriors for democracy
Here to laugh at all the trump inbreds that have never been in the military. 😅..
Yes trump loves you
When this country loses its democracy will you laugh then?
You are anti-American as hell! Anyone with a conscience can see right through Trump. He’s a blaring red flag! You have no conscience and are blinded by your huge ego, that you primarily live from. I feel sorry for you.
@@sandymcpartlon9972 The only way we're gonna lose our democracy is if the democrats stay in control.. Trump is not the.
Boogie, man.
Washington Post, You're awesome! Let's be friends and play together!
TRUMP 2024!!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
To the surprime court NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW the president has no immunity NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
Hell they think THEY are above the law!
When will we see the Joe Biden Family Influence peddling scheme case? 🤷
Well if the Supreme court gives presidents absolute immunity, then there would be no case anymore. It would be completely legal for presidents to influence peddle and to actually just directly take bribes. This dude was literally arguing in the video that presidents could just straight up take bribes.