“You Support This?” Conservative Lawyer Gets Confronted On Trump’s Ruling

30 thoughts on ““You Support This?” Conservative Lawyer Gets Confronted On Trump’s Ruling”

1. Vaush Confronts Dave Smith For Using Cowardly Argument
   ►https://youtu.be/k7jiTjNB6PI

2. 1:34:05 dude described Trump. Biden is just old. He doesn't make the same mistakes Trump does. Constantly using wrong names, rambling stores about nothing, glitching mid word, saidi ew ah buh 😂🎉

3. 1:33:56 didn't Biden say he had that handicap when he was Vp?

4. I’m confused, so now democrats DONT trust the legal system? Since the ruling didn’t go their way? How about you trust that the Supreme Court knows a little about law.

5. Wtf was going on with Lahren's eyes when Destiny brought up the Supreme Court ruling??

6. I think the courts opinion can be summed up like this, "We will ultimately decide when you can prosecute the President, this will never happen when its a Republican president. If its a Democrat, we will carve out an exception to broad immunity to ensure we are always in power." This is how all 1 party dictatorship states, from Russia to China operate.

7. WHATS INSANE IS YOU THINK YOURE DEFENDING DEMOCRACY WHEN AN ARISTOCRACY IS GOING TO TO REPLACE THE CANIDATE YOU CHOOSE WITHOUT YOUR INPUT, AND "YOUR DEMOCRACY" IS YOU GET TO VOTE FOR WHO EVER THEY TELL YOU TO.

8. 1:16:22 "if you assume the premise, the correct legal answer is this." But this paper says its unprecedented, so why are you just accepting their poins on their face?

9. 45:05 Yes we do. When a pretextual stop is proven, it hurts the officers case. Especially if its a 1st amendment retaliation

10. No one is more happy about this than Obama

11. proportional representation

12. @5:55 was about to ask if this was before or after he made an ass out of himself on piers regarding this topic…

    It appears he did make an ass of himself without having read the actual text

13. Pisco didn't read the opinion. His example re: the president telling the FBI to assassinate an American was actually cited in the opinion…as HELD PRECEDENT. Obama did this already: he ordered the assassination of an American citizen abroad (Anwar Al-Awlaki) without trial, without making evidence of the claim that he was a terrorist public (national security reasons), and claimed his decision was completely unreviewable by any court. He claimed it was doable under the AUMF and his presidential powers. The ACLU made a big stink about this (but, because he was on "their team," didn't file suit).

14. On that neurologist bit: Pakman has had two reputable neurologists on that used almost the exact littany of dementia symptoms to describe Trump's behavior. And they did it without then destroying their bonifides or objectivity by calling Trump a "bumbling idiot" like this true professional did Biden.

15. Source is trust me 😂😂😂

    Micheal Knowles cooked u

16. They use the language from Fitzgerald, this guy needs to go back and read more. You should do another video when people have time to actually understand this.

17. Read footnote 3 on page 32 for details on the evidentiary ruling. I agree with ACB on that issue, but it does seem that Roberts leaves the door open for evidence that is not about "the official act" itself. Plus, he says they can introduce public record of the acts that were taken.

18. Conservative dude just gotta admit that the President ordering FBI agents to do stuff would not be reviewable. If that shit starts happening and we don't impeach him and stop him from doing it, we're not going to have an election and replace him to prosecute him in the next administration.

    That's why all of these hypos are pointless and crazy.

    Now, let me tell you what the court is actually afraid of.

    If orders to the justice department are reviewable, EVERY PRESIDENT WILL BE PROSECUTED. Look at the language in the statue Trump is being prosecuted under. Conspiracy against rights!

    This court ruling is not opening the door to tyranny!!! If our political processes break down, they break down. Post hoc prosecutions aren't going to save it!!!

    But, allowing these prosecutions will quickly break down our political processes because no holds will be barred!!!

19. Presumption of immunity is very different from immunity, seems to cheap to claim or act like there's no difference.

20. The conservative should have pointed out that Destiny does think the President should have civil immunity for his acts, does Pisco agree with or accept that or think that also makes him above the law or is (has long been) enabling tyranny.

21. With Watergate there is no evidence that Nixon ordered or authorized the bugging however there is and long has been plentiful evidence that he directly ordered and engaged in trying to cover it up.

22. This ruling combined with the Patriot act is going to be fun. Good luck americans

23. Saying this from the outside, as a foreigner, this judgment surely can't be seen as anything other than disgustingly corrupt and just enormously counter to the spirit of the constitution. It must feel terrifying to be a US citizen now.

24. All people who like America, and like the Constitution, should always want a conservative Supreme Court. Theyre the only ones who care about the Constitution.

25. Whos the conspiracy theorist now

26. The supreme court doesn't want every administration prosecuting the one before it. This is what happens when you break norms.

27. If Pisco isn’t bad faith who is?

28. I'm ambivalent about Pisco, but I think it's easy to see that Pisco dog-walked this guy.

29. Dude murica is a joke. As a german this is just crazy to unfold

30. Destiny is either mentally challenged or taking serious drugs either way may his wicked name be erased

Comments are closed.