Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsMSFwBF-4SWD5msARwYkdw/join
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
Hey, ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Zabio4, Explain America, and guys, I'm about to show you the funniest montage video you've seen in a long time
0:11
Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share, and subscribe
0:15
Those little things really help us out, and they help our channel continue to grow
0:20
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that it would take Donald Trump's appeal on his immunity case
0:26
The appeal is to say, hey, look, because I was president, I'm immune from this prosecution
0:32
So this is a really tricky case. I don't think Trump's actually going to win it on the merits
0:37
but the Supreme Court taking the case, hearing it at the end of April, then taking time to decide it probably in June
0:44
it's not going to bode well for Jack Smith. It probably kills Jack Smith's chances
0:48
of having this case before the election. It's probably over for him. And if Trump wins the election, the case has gone forever
0:55
Liberals are, heads are exploding. The heads are exploding. I can say it. Watch this video and then please leave your comments when you like, comment
1:05
share, and subscribe. I'm Carmite Sabia for Explained America. We love you guys. God bless you
1:11
Take care, everybody. So many Democrats reached out to me yesterday. I was just like
1:15
I can't believe he's going to get away with it again. There's this sense of frustration that
1:18
Trump always seems to escape, to slip the hook. People in the media, people at home
1:24
and people sitting in the White House have to stop pretending. that the Supreme Court is some kind of benign trying to do its best institution and start to realize
1:36
that there are six Republicans, not conservatives, Republicans on the Supreme Court, who view it as their job
1:44
to help the Republican Party. And until we do something about that, until we take away that power
1:50
until we draw the line on them there, they will continue to do this. They will help Trump
1:55
they will take away abortion rights they will end affirmative action they will liberalize gun rights They will do all of it until we stop them And somebody somebody needs to start listening in the higher echelons of the Democratic Party because we will keep losing every day We allow these
2:13
six Republicans in robes to rule over all of us. Clarence Thomas doesn't want to die on that court
2:20
and he's getting old, and he's never going to retire during a Democratic president. So Clarence Thomas
2:24
one of the reasons why he's not recusing himself, is that Clarence Thomas needs
2:29
Trump to win again so Clarence Thomas can retire. And most likely, Sam Alito needs Trump to win again so Alito can retire instead of having to die on the bench
2:42
It's really hard to understand the decision, Wolf, except that it is likely some of the justices simply want to assist Donald Trump in delaying the resolution of this case in the hope of pushing his trial off past the election
2:55
If that were to happen, then of course Donald Trump would try to, if successful in the election
2:59
make the whole case go away. And I say that as a very likely motivation for some of these justices
3:06
because there's no reason to take this case. The legal and constitutional issues are not difficult
3:12
If a president was immunized in trying to overturn a presidential election, that would mean that any
3:18
subsequent president could call out the military, could seize ballot boxes, and if they were ever
3:22
prosecuted for it, they would be held immune. That would be the end of our constitutional system
3:28
The ultimate check on a president's power is the ability to vote them out of office
3:32
You take away voters' ability to do that by saying you're immune from essentially trying to overturn the election and it's chaos
3:40
To move forward in the preliminary stages and also heard arguments and rendered a decision to affirm that the trial could move forward in the summer
3:49
The court had other options. And I really do think that the justices on the left were struggling to find something, salvage something out of this
3:58
over the last few weeks that would make it anything less than a disaster
4:01
But frankly, it appears that they have failed. And I cannot come up with any other justification for what the court has done here Delaying delaying over and over again allowing Trump to run out the clock
4:15
And I am, to be honest with you, a bit dejected by this ruling because I'm not a lawyer
4:22
I'm the non-lawyer on this panel. But I read the district court ruling, and it seemed very thorough
4:28
I had you on. I've had all of you all on. And I think we've all agreed that it was thorough and that it didn't
4:34
necessarily need the Supreme Court to jump in. But now they have
4:38
But the fact that they delayed even this order, this order that basically just says we're going
4:42
to take it up, that they delayed it for two weeks, suggests that they certainly did not
4:48
embrace the urgency that special counsel Jack Smith tried to impose upon them way back in
4:54
December when Jack Smith went to the Supreme Court and said, justices, please take up this case
5:00
now so that we can get a clear answer. This is yours to answer
5:04
And then, you know, once the D.C. Circuit, once the Supreme Court said, no, we're not coming in
5:09
And the D.C. Circuit ruled. You know, that was another several weeks. So President Trump's, former President Trump's effort to run the clock has a partner in the Supreme Court at this point
5:21
Is really presidential immunity an open question? Because what's the most famous pardon in American history
5:27
Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon once he had resigned and was a former president
5:31
Why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon? Quote, as a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation as president
5:39
meaning as a result of stuff he did while president, quote, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment in fire
5:46
Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury
5:51
and the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. So the idea that this is an open question, that it might be that a former president can never be tried
6:01
for something that he did because he was president when he did it, is disproven by a plain
6:06
reading of American history and the whole justification for Richard Nixon being pardoned in the first place So the idea that this has to be taken up is them saying the sky is green Right And I think even for the non among us to be able to say you know what the sky is not green
6:22
even on our worst day. This is BS. You are doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron
6:31
And for you to say that this is something that the court needs to decide because it's something
6:35
that's unclear in the law is just flagrant. flagrant bullpucky, and they know it, and they don't care that we know it, and that's disturbing
6:43
about the future legitimacy of the court. Elise, it is maddening because the Supreme Court knows that there's a consequential election in November
6:52
yet they showed no urgency in setting the date of oral argument for April 22nd
6:57
Now, a more cynical view to answer your question is to interpret the Supreme Court decision
7:00
as a nefarious act of putting their thumb on the scale to benefit their favorite candidate
7:06
I'm not sure I want to go that far, but it's just a very far. disturbing. I mean, when Trump needed an exudited oral argument for his Colorado case, the Supreme
7:14
Court complied. And then when Trump wanted to delay the D.C. case to avoid facing the music
7:20
the Supreme Court here complied. First, back in December, the court blocked Jack Smith's
7:25
attempt to skip over the D.C.'s Court of Appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court
7:30
Then when the Supreme Court finally got the case, they sat on their decision for two weeks
7:34
And then when they ruled, not only did they grant the review, they also granted a stay, which
7:38
they didn't have to. And then they rejected Jack Smith's proposal of an oral argument in March
7:44
Instead, they settled on this April 22nd date, which is the last week that the court is scheduled
7:49
to hear arguments this term. My favorite drummer in the world, the late great Neil Pert
7:53
once said, if you choose not to decide, you'll still have made a choice. Well, delay is a choice
7:59
And when the Supreme Court wants to move quickly, it does. Like in Bush v. Gore in 2000
8:03
they consciously chose the opposite here. So it's abundantly clear that there is no cavalry coming to
8:08
save our democracy. Only the voters can do that
#Politics
#Constitutional Law & Civil Rights
#Other


