SCOTUS FATAL BLOW To Trump Jan 6 Prosecution

Krystal and Saagar discuss SCOTUS dealing a potentially fatal blow to the Jan 6 case against Trump.

To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify





#news #politics #youtube

[jayff]

I hope to someday live in a time where we don't have to talk about Trump 40 times a day.

[grahameida]

Bit of a click bait title been no decisions yet

[WaluigiMangione]

Was Sotormayor trying to say "do you REALLY want a President to be immune from prosecution? Think about how this could backfire...."

[Kyle-wovd]

So if you don't have immunity to assinate your political opponent with Seal Team 6, what about knee cappin him with law suits from your justice department?

[SublimeWanderers]

This is nuts. How can those be the arguments. Of course, we should have gone back and looked at FDR's internment of Japanese citizens. Obama's assassination of Al-Awlaki was my biggest complaint about him. I would love to see thay kind of action deterred by the fear of prosecution. No one should be above the law.

[Michelt]

It seems that the only crime punishable by law is to be poor. Be wealthy and do whatever you want, it is all all right.

[fireinthesky]

What if you go after your political opponent through the court system???

[nateuhrich]

I’m im being honest, as someone who voted for trump twice, I don’t think any government employee should have immunity. Police get away with crimes using qualified immunity, corrupt judges get away with crimes using judicial immunity, presidents and politicians are protected with immunity…crimes are crimes regardless of who you work for. I don’t have immunity if I commit a crime during my job duties…just my respectful opinion. I’m not saying trump did or didn’t commit crimes, but everyone should be subject to the same scrutiny…the Bush’s, the Clinton’s, Obama, FDR, Reagan, etc…

[zwatwashdc]

The only thing we have learned from all of this is why the democrats have been breathlessly promoting DEI candidates. They do what they are told.

[Likwidfox]

SCOTUS knows we can't just start holding people in the government "Accountable" for things they do in office. The whole thing would crumble.

[jbo]

Imagine a system where to be the head of state requires blanket immunity from prosecution. I imagine such a system is pretty corrupt.

[SaltySeabee]

I hope SCOTUS knocks this down, so YouTube has to remove the CONTEXT block explaining to us what Jan 6 was about.

[sayrebonifield]

SCOTUS toying with the concept of the Royal “We”? Truly pathetic.

[ponchupeechu]

Having immunity for assassinating a political opponent under certain conditions blew my mind. There should be no scenario where the answer is "That depends".

[williambrock]

It only goes to show our legal system is too slow tbh. The legal maneuvering is ridiculous

[Paetaor]

You can’t have all these lawfare advocates throwing out charges.

[greyaliien]

Trump isn't going to prison. The whole thing is a last ditch act of desperation that wastes everyone's time and detracts from the real issues

[dougf]

So what about a president sending our troops to fight in another country without a declaration of war? Official act or violation of the War Powers Act?

[TheLaughingMustache-ohff]

It's really a lot simpler, if the Senate convicts you with an impeachment, then if it's a private act you can be taken to trial and stood in front of a jury, otherwise the president has immunity. This rule exists so the president of the united states doesn't hesitate to make a decision thinking if his decision could see him on trial. It is an important distinction whether some want to agree or not.

[TreySmith_]

You guys probably should’ve had a lawyer come on to discuss this one. I felt like you guys struggled with the arguments and gave a superficial analysis.