Liberals Have Absolute Meltdown After Supreme Court Decides To Take Trump Case

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

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

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that it would take Donald Trump's appeal on his immunity case

The appeal is to say, hey, look, because I was president, I'm immune from this prosecution

So this is a really tricky case. I don't think Trump's actually going to win it on the merits

but the Supreme Court taking the case, hearing it at the end of April, then taking time to decide it probably in June

it's not going to bode well for Jack Smith. It probably kills Jack Smith's chances

of having this case before the election. It's probably over for him. And if Trump wins the election, the case has gone forever

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

share, and subscribe. I'm Carmite Sabia for Explained America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care, everybody. So many Democrats reached out to me yesterday. I was just like

I can't believe he's going to get away with it again. There's this sense of frustration that

Trump always seems to escape, to slip the hook. People in the media, people at home

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

that there are six Republicans, not conservatives, Republicans on the Supreme Court, who view it as their job

to help the Republican Party. And until we do something about that, until we take away that power

until we draw the line on them there, they will continue to do this. They will help Trump

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

six Republicans in robes to rule over all of us. Clarence Thomas doesn't want to die on that court

and he's getting old, and he's never going to retire during a Democratic president. So Clarence Thomas

one of the reasons why he's not recusing himself, is that Clarence Thomas needs

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

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

If that were to happen, then of course Donald Trump would try to, if successful in the election

make the whole case go away. And I say that as a very likely motivation for some of these justices

because there's no reason to take this case. The legal and constitutional issues are not difficult

If a president was immunized in trying to overturn a presidential election, that would mean that any

subsequent president could call out the military, could seize ballot boxes, and if they were ever

prosecuted for it, they would be held immune. That would be the end of our constitutional system

The ultimate check on a president's power is the ability to vote them out of office

You take away voters' ability to do that by saying you're immune from essentially trying to overturn the election and it's chaos

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

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

over the last few weeks that would make it anything less than a disaster

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

And I am, to be honest with you, a bit dejected by this ruling because I'm not a lawyer

I'm the non-lawyer on this panel. But I read the district court ruling, and it seemed very thorough

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

necessarily need the Supreme Court to jump in. But now they have

But the fact that they delayed even this order, this order that basically just says we're going

to take it up, that they delayed it for two weeks, suggests that they certainly did not

embrace the urgency that special counsel Jack Smith tried to impose upon them way back in

December when Jack Smith went to the Supreme Court and said, justices, please take up this case

now so that we can get a clear answer. This is yours to answer

And then, you know, once the D.C. Circuit, once the Supreme Court said, no, we're not coming in

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

Is really presidential immunity an open question? Because what's the most famous pardon in American history

Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon once he had resigned and was a former president

Why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon? Quote, as a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation as president

meaning as a result of stuff he did while president, quote, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment in fire

Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury

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

for something that he did because he was president when he did it, is disproven by a plain

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

even on our worst day. This is BS. You are doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend, your partisan patron

And for you to say that this is something that the court needs to decide because it's something

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

about the future legitimacy of the court. Elise, it is maddening because the Supreme Court knows that there's a consequential election in November

yet they showed no urgency in setting the date of oral argument for April 22nd

Now, a more cynical view to answer your question is to interpret the Supreme Court decision

as a nefarious act of putting their thumb on the scale to benefit their favorite candidate

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

Court complied. And then when Trump wanted to delay the D.C. case to avoid facing the music

the Supreme Court here complied. First, back in December, the court blocked Jack Smith's

attempt to skip over the D.C.'s Court of Appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court

Then when the Supreme Court finally got the case, they sat on their decision for two weeks

And then when they ruled, not only did they grant the review, they also granted a stay, which

they didn't have to. And then they rejected Jack Smith's proposal of an oral argument in March

Instead, they settled on this April 22nd date, which is the last week that the court is scheduled

to hear arguments this term. My favorite drummer in the world, the late great Neil Pert

once said, if you choose not to decide, you'll still have made a choice. Well, delay is a choice

And when the Supreme Court wants to move quickly, it does. Like in Bush v. Gore in 2000

they consciously chose the opposite here. So it's abundantly clear that there is no cavalry coming to

save our democracy. Only the voters can do that