'Absolute Immunity' - Supreme Court Bombshell Rocks Jack Smith

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and special prosecutor

Jack Smith and his team of anti-Trump prosecutors, they've just been gobsmacked at the Supreme Court

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 this whole time on Trump's immunity appeal, we didn't know exactly what his argument was

going to be. Was he going to narrow the scope? Was he going to say he's immune from XYZ

Or was he going to go full board? Well, Trump's attorneys have filed their brief with the Supreme Court and the people on CNN

who were reporting this, they may as well have set their hair on fire, they were going

so crazy. Trump has argued for absolute immunity for what he did regarding presidential actions

during his time as president. Now, this narrow scope of absolute immunity, I can get behind

If it's about presidential actions, because otherwise you would have Obama being prosecuted

for drone strikes that targeted American citizens in the Middle East, that they were terrorist

American citizens, but still it's an extrajudicial killing. Imagine if he was prosecuted for that

Imagine if presidents were prosecuted for decisions they make in the heat of war

You can't have that. It would cripple the presidency. The same token, you can't have absolute immunity from everything because then you'd have a

dictator and not a president. So it's a narrow scope actually of absolute immunity, but that's not how CNN treated it

when they reported on it. I want you to watch this video and let me know what you think

Should Trump win this case at the Supreme Court? Do you think it's dangerous if he does

Do you think it's dangerous if he doesn't? Let me know. Also, as always and ever, please remember to like, comment, share and subscribe

I'm Carmine Savia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care, everybody. Today, the former president of the United States asked the Supreme Court for absolute

immunity from charges connected to his attempt to overturn the election he lost

Not granting him that, he warned, would be, quote, the end of the presidency as we know it

Continuing from his brief, quote, as the recent history of impeachment demonstrates, once

our nation crosses this Rubicon, every future president will face de facto blackmail and

extortion while in office and will be harassed by politically motivated prosecution after

leaving office over his most sensitive and controversial decisions. Now, we should point out here that this has never happened to a former president before

this one, and there's no evidence it's happening now to him. Yet that dubious idea, which a lower court unanimously rejected, is now central to a

sweeping invitation for the court to set precedent for generations to come

A call for overturning the common sense notion that no president is beyond accountability

something the founders certainly believed in two centuries later, Senate Minority Leader

Mitch McConnell gave as his reason for not holding the former president accountable after

January 6th. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation

And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one

Unless, of course, this former president gets what he wants from the Supreme Court

More on all this now from CNN's Evan Perez, who joins us now. So what stands out in this filing, Evan

Well, Anderson, this is designed to appeal to the conservative justices who have this

expansive view of the power of the presidency. I'll read you just a part of what the Trump lawyers say in this filing

They say a former president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his

official acts. Criminal immunity arises directly from the executive vesting clause and the separation

of powers. They go on to say that the impeachment judgment clause reflects the founders' understanding

that only a president convicted by the Senate after impeachment could be criminally prosecuted

Of course, obviously, Anderson, that is referring directly to that