Trump Is Immune

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

[joko]

My Con Law professor told my class on day one: “The Constitution is whatever 5 out of the 9 justices say it is.” I thought he was being dramatic, but I soon learned otherwise. Now look….

[ZenSolipsist]

President Nixon once said “if the president does it, it isn’t illegal.” And we collectively agreed that’s an insane precedent and now here we are 🫠

[TheRealLange]

What people don't seem to understand is this goes well beyond Trump and Biden. This is horrible for all of us.

[asoldierstwocentsrawuncut]

The most egregious part of this ruling is the small part they slipped in at the end.

The fact that you cannot use official acts as evidence against unofficial acts is ludicrous. It effectively shields any President from ever being prosecuted. Because the evidence that you would need to convict a President for unofficial acts, while President, would almost certainly be in the realm of official acts.

I'll give you an example: If a President ordered Seal Team Six to take out his political opponent AND a court ruled that it was an unofficial act, it would still be virtually impossible to prosecute that President. Why? Because the evidence you would use would be: 
1)Meetings the President had with his administration
2) Conversations the President had with the military
3) Official documents this may have been written down on
4) Presidential Notes
5) Etc... 

And all that evidence would undoubtedly be classified as official acts.

So someone please tell me even if you COULD get a court to say a President committed unofficial acts, how are we gonna prosecute them if we can't use official acts as evidence? 🤦🏾‍♂

[mattsme]

I find it hilarious that the same people who have been SCREAMING for years for a weaker Federal Government are now cheering this on.

[g.ricepad]

“If the president isn’t immune to the law he might hesitate to perform his duties”
Well good! Isn’t that why we have laws? To curb unwanted behavior??

[scalylayde]

I find it very troublesome that some lawyers stood in front of the supreme court and basically said "we need the president to have legal immunity because otherwise he can't do his job" because that implies that the job is just, all crime. And apparently the majority of the justices didn't have a problem with that reasoning.
If the president's job is just crime, then maybe it needs to be a different job.

[JaheimWilliamsforpresident]

"with fear for our democracy i dissent" has got to be one of the most horrifying bonechilling sentences from the supreme court.

[gorgthesalty]

1. Immune for official acts.
2. Unrestricted ability to pardon.

Damn, USA, you are BEGGING for a dictator!

[LemonJackRazer]

This cannot be further from what our founding fathers would’ve wanted. No matter what you want to say, they did not want a leader who was immune from the law.

[VinhNguyen-whjs]

"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty" -Thomas Jefferson

[sadaasdafa]

The suggestion that the President has the powers of a King is actually understating it.

If we’re basing it on the monarchy up to 1776, the notion that the “King can do no wrong” was rejected in English Law in 1215 under the Magna Carta, and the UK had been a Constitutional Monarchy since the Bill of Rights 1689, which restricts the the Sovereign from ignoring laws outlined by parliament without explicit parliamentary exception. That means the Sovereign had NO RIGHT, by law, to order the death of anyone unless mandated by the British judiciary via laws passed by parliament - aka, a normal system of law. This too has since gone since the abolition of capital punishment in the UK

I know Americans on both political wings love to use King George III as the symbol of the big bad tyrant, but the truth is, he never had the level of power or lack of accountability that the modern office of President of the United States has. The only factor the King has over the President is that the position is hereditary.

[Albinojackrussel]

As someone who isnt even an american, this is terrifying. I would remind everyone that the Nazis did everything within the laws of germany thanks to loopholes like this.

[nxnxgex]

Nixon once said, "No, I'm saying that when the President does it, it's not illegal!" That statement ruined him. Now it appears the Supreme Court has decided to officially agree with him.

[mikelxanadu]

The idea that a man who serves a country for 4 years can appoint someone who oversees the laws of a country for 30-50 years is insane.

[AC-ywdu]

It was a ruling made simply because they had the power to do so. It had no basis in the Constitution, law, precedent or logic. Pure power.

[dennisthegreat]

Nah don't worry. I'm sure chancellor Palpatine will use the emergency power for good

[Devyn]

It is messed up that a bunch of lower courts ruled differently and unanimously but 6 people get to just completely change the law. 6 people that are completely unaccountable.

[bulwulffcristole]

This absolutely scares me. Seriously. I'm a combat veteran and served in the US Army and fought for this country and now I'm looking to find a way to move out of it and never look back, because if this is the reality we're about to completely destroy this country in a way you can't possibly imagine. Only the worst of the worst will run for president because it's a get out of jail free card and right to do criminal activity without consequence.

And here we tried to remove a president for getting head in the oval office. Now we're going to sanction and criminalize the office of the president? You have to understand and believe that the president is a human and often times driven by political motivation. If we put someone like Trump into that position with this protection in place there is absolutely nothing stopping him from doing everything he wants as a complete dictator. And yes, he would.

[Itchy__]

POV: You're an Italian citizen in the early 1920s