Supreme Court Stunner - Trump Is 'Vindicated'

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and Supreme Court Stunner

Trump's attorneys, very happy. 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 Trump's attorneys were on Fox News last night and they were very happy with their

appearance before the Supreme Court and a lot of people are saying the same thing. The Supreme Court, at least the conservative justices in the Supreme Court, maybe except

for Amy Coney Barrett, seemed really receptive to the arguments for Trump's immunity from

the criminal prosecution of one Jack Smith and that can extend all the way to the Fannie

Willis case in Georgia as well. And so they have reason to celebrate

They are celebrating. They're very happy with what's going on. Trump just today at his New York trial was talking about how happy he is with how things

went yesterday. So things are looking great for Trump. Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again

I think that some immunity here is okay. I think you have to toe a very fine line and make a very narrow ruling because you don't

want to give blanket immunity to a president. You create an emperor. And while we're not worried about Trump, we might not even be worried about Biden, but

some president we don't know about far in the future, if given total immunity, could

wreak havoc and become a dictator in this country. We can't have that either

So we have to be very careful. Going to be a narrow ruling, I predict

And I think Trump is going to be ahead of the game on this. And I think Jack Smith is going to be licking his wounds

I want you to listen to what Trump's attorneys had to say and then let me know what you think

when you like, comment, share and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America

We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody. Will Scharf joins me now, an attorney representing former President Trump in this case

He's running as a Republican for Missouri attorney general as well. Will, thank you very much for for being here today

You heard that back and forth between the justices. I think it was quite clear just based on the tone and questions that they do not appear

to be in favor of blanket immunity for any president of the United States

Did you see it that way? Look, we felt this morning's arguments went really well

And I say that primarily because it was clear that the justices were deeply concerned about

the future of the office of the president, about the future of the American presidency

If they didn't provide some sort of legal safeguard against exactly the sort of political

prosecutions we're now seeing brought against President Trump. So we were heartened by the fact that the justices were taking these core constitutional

questions very seriously. And we're excited to see what they come down with probably before the end of the term at

the end of June. You know, it was interesting. There was a back and forth with Justice Brown Jackson

And she she said to the attorney, are you looking for us to tell you how to divide private

acts from public acts of a presidency? Is that is that what you're hoping we will determine as a court

Because it's very clear that they that they believe that there is a separation, that private

acts can be punished. And before you answer that, I just want to play this interesting Amy Coney Barrett, Justice

Barrett response on this. Listen to this. So you concede that private acts don't get immunity

We do. Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant

helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct

the certification proceeding. And petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort

You read it quickly. I believe that's private. I don't want to. So those acts you would not dispute

Those were private and you wouldn't raise a claim that they were official as characterized

So well, that one's pretty descriptive and sounds quite similar to what happened after

the 2020 election. What did you make of what Justice Barrett was getting at there

It seemed that she believed I mean, I would interpret that she believed we'll see what

she says, that she sees all of that as a private act, not an official act

So to be clear, we've never made the argument that a president should have any sort of immunity

for his private acts after he leaves office. Our argument has always focused on a president's official acts

That's a really important distinction under the law. And what we're really arguing for here is protection for a president for their official

acts in office after they leave office. Obviously, no president has ever been prosecuted before in the history of the United States

for their official acts in office. And notably, both the district court and the D.C. circuit in this case said that absolutely

no immunity applies even to a president's core official acts, core presidential responsibilities

That's the radical legal ruling that's on appeal before the court. And it seemed that the justices were deeply skeptical of that point, at least, that a

president should have no immunity at all, even for the exercise of their core presidential functions

So we feel as though our arguments were largely vindicated by what transpired in front of

the Supreme Court today. OK, so based on what you heard today, what do you expect is going to happen

I don't like making predictions like that, but it certainly seems that the Supreme Court

wants to ensure that the system we end up with is a system that preserves presidential

prerogatives, that preserves the ability of the president to respond decisively to

the situations that arise during the course of a presidency. And we think that ultimately will favor our side of the coin versus versus the special counsel

So, Will, one quickie. So do you think that they will push that to either a lower court or to Congress to decide

what those are, how to make that distinction between public, between official duties and

private actions? If any scope of immunity is recognized, I think the most natural course would be a remand

back to the lower courts for further fact finding and decision making to implement that

scope of immunity. That's what the D.C. Circuit did actually in a civil case called Blazing Aim that also

touches on presidential responsibilities last year. We think that would be a natural result of an opinion recognizing presidential immunity

in this case. Very interesting. Thank you so much, Will. Good to have you here

Great to be with you. Thank you.