Trump's Rights Have Been Violated - Stunning Report Threatens Case

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and it looks like former

President Donald Trump's rights have been violated and that could really end all these

cases against him. Before we get started please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

I think you know Alvin Bragg and Fannie Willis and Letitia James. They've just politicized their

cases against former President Donald Trump to a ridiculous point and they're you know they say

nobody's above the law but they're treating this man like he's below the law like he doesn't have

the same rights as everybody else. Well this week oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court

about Trump's immunity claims that Trump claims that he's immune from any criminal prosecution

as President of the United States or former President when he was President. Things that

were committed during or things that might have been done during the course of doing business

as President. Jack Smith's team argues that no such immunity exists and a lot of people I mean

not a lot of people the fact of the matter is Trump should have been allowed to attend those

hearings but the way these cases have been positioned to hit him bang bang bang one after

the other right into the lead-up to the election smacks of political opportunism. This is politics

folks and one legal expert is saying Trump's rights have been violated because he should have

been allowed to be at those Supreme Court arguments and he wasn't. If you violate somebody's rights

well that puts the whole case in jeopardy and those cases they can die just like that because

you violated the rights of the defendant as it appears has happened here. Now I want you to

listen to this expert and let me know what you think. As always please remember to like, comment

share and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care everybody. Dark mistake the argument here amounts to that the judge in New York is

stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court so therefore pushing these untested

legal boundaries. What do you make of that? That that I guess even a blind squirrel finds a

acorn now and then. You know yes it's true. It was even true before the New York Times

or someone in the New York Times said it. This is the most patently obviously politicized

prosecution in memory and I think that it's so outrageous that sometimes we look at these cases

as they come up in tandem and what we fail to take note of is the cumulative effect of all of this

on Trump's due process rights which he has whether these democratic prosecutors want to acknowledge

that or not. For example and probably this is the clearest example he has a right to be present

at the Supreme Court today completely apart from tactically whether it's a good idea for him to be

there and whether his lawyers would actually want him there whether the court would want him there

he has a right to be there. A criminal defendant has a right to be present at all of the critical

stages of his prosecution. If this argument today was being taken it was happening in front of Judge

Chutkan that would be in some ways more obvious than it is even though the stakes are higher

with the argument before the Supreme Court. He's not being permitted to be there because of the

trial in New York and the fact that the judge in New York would not let him go to the Supreme Court

because he's also got a right to be present at the trial and the point I want to make is

these prosecutors brought these cases tactically. Bragg waited five years to bring this case

so that it could be teed up for trial in the months before the 2024 election. All this haste to get the

immunity issue decided is because they're saying it's important that this take place before the

election. There's no rule of law reason for that. There's no law enforcement reason for that. It's

entirely blatantly political. John I have a question for you. So in you know in politics

you have something I would call it you know sort of can't