Supreme Court Blockbuster - Massive Victory For Trump

Hey, ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and the Supreme Court of the United States

is about to give President Trump exactly what he needs, exactly what he wants

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

So one legal expert, and actually several legal experts, are weighing in here on Trump's case before the Supreme Court about

immunity. Well, the argument Trump is making is that he has total immunity

from the charges and from criminal prosecution. Now, the other side of the coin is Jack Smith's team saying

well, the president has no immunity at all. Both of these are likely wrong and they're both

extreme cases. The president likely does have some criminal immunity, but not complete criminal

immunity. And this would be for official acts. Like when former President Obama

drone strikes on American citizens who were terrorists overseas where they didn't get their due

process. He wasn't prosecuted criminally for that, but under the statutes they're trying to get

Trump on, a district attorney that's Republican could bring that case back and say, all right

well now we going to prosecute Obama And this is where the gray area lies But what this legal expert is saying is that look he not going to get total immunity but he probably going to get partial and it probably going to get kicked back to the lower courts first

which means there's almost no chance this case happens before the election

and that's where Jack Smith is trying to fast track it for. And it looks like that, that's never going to happen

And that is a big problem for not only Jack Smith, but for, you know, Joe Biden

who probably wants this case before the American people and really damage Trump as much as he

Ken, and it looks like all he's going to get is that weak bragged case in New York

I want you to take a list of this and let me know what you think when you like, comment, share, and subscribe

I'm Carmine Sabia 4 Explained America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care, everybody. Okay, thank you,후, Julian. Jonathan, Trump obviously wanted to be here today at the Supreme Court

He's not. He's at New York Supreme Court facing criminal charges in his trial there

Do you think his presence here? today would have made an impact, any kind of difference on the judge's mindset coming into these oral arguments

I don't think it would change the judge's mindset. In some ways, having him in New York is the best argument he could put in front of the justices

because Alvin Bragg is making the case for him. I mean as the court considers the implications of not extending immunity to presidents Alvin Bragg is showing what that means I mean this is a highly political in my view legally absurd case in Manhattan and it playing out as the court considers the implications of this type of prosecution

And so for the court, I think it's only going to reinforce this idea that we don't necessarily want to go to either extreme

but perhaps there's a nuanced or middle road here where we can afford some protection to a president

for actions taken related to their office. All right, Andy McCarthy, let me get you in here

So what do you think the court will do here? Sometimes they like to move incrementally, right

Like, well, I'll send it back to the lower courts and we'll wait and see if it comes back up again

Do you think they're inclined to do that in this case because time is of the essence, the election is just a few months away

Well, Dana, here's part of the problem, though. Why is time of the essence

There's no importance from a rule of law standpoint and from a law enforcement standpoint

there's no importance in this case being tried before election day. That's the agenda of the Democratic prosecutors who have brought these cases

The fact that there seems like there's a crisis and this criticism of the court

that they didn't get to this fast enough is not over a legal imperative

it's over a political imperative, where you have Democratic prosecutors. The one in New York it an elected Democratic prosecutor who decided that they wanted to get Trump on trial and by their lives hopefully convicted in the run to the election

To my mind, if I'm the court, I'm actually put off by that

I don't feel like a pressure to accelerate my consideration of the case

I resent the fact that I've been thrown gratuitously into a political context

This is a complicated question. The problem with it is everybody knows that a president does have to have immunity for the acts that he takes within the authority of the presidency, within the ambit of his constitutional responsibility

We've gone almost a quarter of a millennium without having to spell that out because it's totally obvious

But it's one of those obvious things that's hard to write without inviting illegal activity by the president

So unfortunately you have Trump and his opposition, which essentially, you know, between the two of them, they destroy every norm that we've ever had before where we didn't have to have a court pronounce something that's so obvious

And it becomes a fraught question if you have to try to write what the immunity is

Carrie, the two trials, New York and at the Supreme Court today, obviously taken place more than 200 miles apart