Video

Trump Immunity ON TRIAL: Trump v. United States | Attorney React

En

Trump Immunity ON TRIAL: Trump v. United States | Attorney React


#Trump #Immunity #TRIAL #Trump #United #States #Attorney #React

Facts of the case

Former President Donald Trump was indicted in August 2023 on four counts arising from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the January 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Trump claimed that he cannot be prosecuted for his official acts as president and that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he has first been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan initially set Trump’s trial for March 4, 2024, but later vacated this date pending resolution of Trump’s immunity claims. Judge Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, and Smith asked the Supreme Court directly to expedite review and bypass a decision by the D.C. Circuit. The Court declined, deferring instead to the D.C. Circuit’s judgment. On February 6, the D.C. Circuit upheld Chutkan’s decision, and Trump requested a stay of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided to expedite the case.

Question Presented

Does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent?

Produced by Uncivil Law LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Become an UNCIVILIAN for 99 cents!:
★☆★ CONTACT ME ★☆★ :
★☆★ Equipment I use ★☆★:
🚨 Donate to uncivil law at ➜
🚨 Email uncivil law at ➜ [email protected]

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

SwuM, Ben Belial – Reflect
criminal lawyer , Trump Immunity ON TRIAL: Trump v. United States | Attorney React, uncivil law,big law,law advice,legal analysis,criminal law,political news,supreme court,trial,reaction,scotus,politics news,lsat,lsat prep,court case,law school,lawyer,attorney,politics,US Supreme Court,government accountability,news,congress,law firm,common law,court,current events,real lawyer,lawtube,law,legal news

21 thoughts on “Trump Immunity ON TRIAL: Trump v. United States | Attorney React”

  1. 3:40:00 McCulloch vs Maryland opinion was abjectly corrupt, it fundamentally wasn't a states rights case and it was a central bank case. (There was more than enough money and power involved to "influence" the outcome. It directly affected the existance of the monopoly central bank and ability to manipulate the entire US economy and control the Fed gov via debts and intrest rates.)
    Referencing article 1 section 8 of the constitution, the opinion dares to say "necessary doesn't really mean necessary", as if there aren't records of the writers of the constitution fussing over every last word. That opinion basically took all limits off of congress and the role and size of the federal government. (Which was a well known goal of the Hamiltonians backing the central bank.)

  2. the narcissist cannot even imagine the current (and future? if any) president can also do all he demand to be excused from, all the alleged crimes and misdemeanors he done.. lol?

  3. for your audio issues i think it might be a plugin on the OBS side, if you go into OBS advanced settings for audio you can check the output from OBS to help see if it is before or after OBS.

  4. If we are to look at president's motives when deciding is something official act or act to enhance president's possibility to get re-elected, what about president forgiving student loans – would that be official or unofficial act? Just asking abstractly.

  5. Enforcing all the laws – There was a nice speech in one of the youtube videos how you can incriminate yourself without knowing it. You buy a fish in country A, that is declared rare fish and criminal to buy in country B, you have committed a crime in count C which is US.

    I like to listen these streams but I skip all the Sotomayor and Jackson parts. They are just dumb and hurts my human rights to have a brain without a tumor.

  6. You've got over 7,000 views and only over 400 likes. Today is Saturday 4/27/24 under 10 comments.

  7. Thank you so much for explaining why this has been taken up by the Supreme Court and your coverage. I appreciate your lead in explanation of how this could be a slippery slope and the possibility of criminal prosecution for numerous criminal acts that you may not even know you have violated. I had a discussion with a democratic friend earlier and he played me a you tube video from a democrat that only put forth the points that were made that makes it look like why is the Supreme Court even taking this up. Thank you Kurt.

  8. KBJ seems to be unaware that judges generally act with immunity for actions taken in the course of their jobs. I say that because she sounds like she's freaking out over the idea of the President having that same immunity. Hard to imagine how someone could get to the highest court in the land and not know something that they've benefitted from since they started.

  9. Well at least Trump's lawyers look able to convince the conservative justices that Biden can assassinate his opponents and be immune.

Comments are closed.