Bombshell New Evidence Unsealed Against Trump

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

[whypothetical]

Nuts that this is about 100x worse than Watergate and half the country simply doesn't care.

[CollinMcLean]

So if I'm understanding this right Jack Smith is basically putting the Supreme Court in the position of having to make an outline of what constitutes a presidential act immune from prosecution?
Dang that is ballsy!

[apjtv]

Jack Smith feels like the sort of attorney who will write the entire indictment with quill and ink if he is forced to. He's that committed.

[CB]

As a Malaysian, we had put away our former PM in far less time for him stealing from the rakyat compared to how long Trump has been allowed to drag this out.

Our legal processes are far from perfect but goddamn the US really needs to resolve theirs if one person can get away from justice for so long.

[WM-grqi]

The supreme court really said "nah" to checks and balances.

[wiizaever]

"we should expect their decision sometime in 2031" is either the most straight-faced reading of a joke or a very very sad fact about the US justice system

[IrishMonks]

When the argument isn't even "I didn't do it, " but "I should be allowed to do it, " you know you're not dealing with the most honest of people.

[IanCanada-nbdy]

A judge should not be allowed to rule on anything related to the person who appointed them.

[CloneMalone]

The fact that anyone had to even consider whether commiting crimes in order to stay in office is illegal is pure dystopian

[Wild_Card]

At this point, you may as well throw out the entire constitution and replace it with a piece of paper with the quote "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" written sloppily with a blue Sharpie.

[deathsyth]

Supreme Court: We declare that the president is "immune" to prosecution when doing "presidential duties".
Jack Smith: Can you define what these "presidential duties" are?
SC: No... (shrugs)
JS: Fine. I'll do it myself.

[RookMeAmadeus]

Smith is making a very risky play here. This holds a very real possibility of being pushed back up to the Supreme Court, and holds a risk they may decide to say Presidents have absolute immunity on EVERYTHING they do in office. If that happens, we're basically done for as a nation no matter who ends up as President.

[zeckemyro]

Leaders should be held to higher standards, not made immune to the consequences of their actions.

[kevinbetts]

"We can expect SCOTUS to rule on this by 2031". Too funny. I am convinced that all of us will have passed from old age before Trump faces any accountability for his crimes.

[kingsfan]

4 years post crime and it's still not in the courts? Something is broken.

[peterlongprong]

FYI: for everyone questioning: there are two legal points I would make:
(1) Trump solely had a permit for a static 'rally', he DID NOT have a permit for a march (especially to the capital a mile away)
this is why the Capital / security was not prepared for a rioting mob suddenly arriving at their doorstep
(2) There was NO PURPOSE to Trumps Jan 6th Rally (other than) to incite violence - he lost the election, US presidents do not have 'departure' rallies and gather armed mobs to do so ~
IE: beyond any shadow of doubt, Trump was NOT acting in a presidential capacity - he gathered, inflamed, and directed a KNOWN ARMED MOB to the Capital (w/o any legal permits) to trespass on a Federal Facility in order to interfere with its duties. THAT IS THE ACT OF A TRAITOR.

... the DoJ has every means to slap Trump with the 14th Amd, and bar him from office ~ this is a slam-dunk case, beyond any recourse,
wtf is wrong with America's justice system that allows utter criminal savagery that harms every US Citizen to fester without dealing JUSTICE !???

[nathanielreichert]

“When I get reelected president, the first thing I will do is pardon myself.”

Said every decent public servant… never.

[jackwells]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Did SCOTUS explain how one can preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution while violating it, or how violations of their sworn oath can be an official duty?

[luigi]

The Supreme Court is keeping its options open on how to help Trump.

[annikki]

Possible Star Trek reference - "Dammit, I'm a dictator, not a president!"