Trump Supreme Court Victory - Clarence Thomas Destroys Government Case

Hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine Zebia for Explain America and former President Donald

Trump just got some fantastic news from 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 former President Donald Trump's attorneys and Jack

Smith's attorneys, the special counsel who's prosecuting him, were before the Supreme Court

today arguing over presidential immunity. Now the good news for Trump is Jack Smith's team is

arguing against you know immunity for criminal acts they say or acts that could be deemed criminal

However Justice Clarence Thomas kind of gobsmacked him mentioning cases where presidents could have

been charged criminally if immunity was not a thing and he specifically mentioned

Operation Mongoose. But there's a series of operations, Obama's drone strikes for example

where these things you know could have happened and people could have been charged criminally

That's very unfortunate for Jack Smith but it's very good news for President Trump because it

shows that at least one Supreme Court justice is on his side. Now while I do not believe the

president will get blanket immunity nor should he because we'd have a dictator then, you have to

think beyond President Trump. It's a very dangerous precedent. I think you could have a couple of

options here. One, this case gets kicked back and kicked back to just you know decide if the

president was involved in official acts here then goes back to the Supreme Court. This is going to

delay the case well past the presidential election which is not what Jack Smith wants. Or the Supreme

Court can decide on a narrow ruling of immunity which would affect Trump here, declare these to

be official acts and end Jack Smith's case and end a lot of cases including Fannie Willis

and you know other cases that are against him right now and stop Arizona from maybe indicting him

So a lot of cases on the line here, a lot of things. I want you to hear this exchange with

Justice Thomas and 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

All of the important tasks that the Constitution reposes in him. Over in not so distant past, the presidents or certain presidents have engaged in

various activity, coups or operations like Operation Mongoose when I was a teenager

uh and yet there were no prosecutions. Why? If what you're saying is right

it would seem that that would have been ripe for criminal prosecution of someone

So Justice Thomas, I think this is a central question. The reason why there have not been

prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes and I want to explain why there are

layers of safeguards that assure that former presidents do not have to lightly assume criminal

liability for any of their official acts. At the outset, there is a statutory construction

principle that is applicable here. It arises when there is a serious constitutional question

about applying a criminal statute to the president's acts. It is not, and I'm sure that

we will discuss this, that no statute can apply to the president in his official capacity absent

a designation of the president in it. But there is a principle that if there is a serious

constitutional question, courts will strive to construe the statute so that it does not apply

to the president. In addition to that, the president, I think has been mentioned earlier

has access to advice from the Attorney General and it would be a due process problem to prosecute

a president who received advice from the Attorney General that his actions were lawful absent the

kind of collusion or conspiracy that itself represented a criminal violation, which I don't

really see as being a realistic option. And then if I could say one more thing, because you raised

the question about..