Breaking down the Supreme Court hearing on Trump presidential immunity claim
The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Trump v. United States, a case weighing whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from federal prosecution for his actions while serving in the White House. CBS News' Jessica Levinson, Jan Crawford and Scott MacFarlane break down the historic arguments that played out in court.
#trump #news #politics
CBS News 24/7 is the premier anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations that is available free to everyone with access to the internet and is the destination for breaking news, live events, original reporting and storytelling, and programs from CBS News and Stations' top anchors and correspondents working locally, nationally and around the globe. It is available on more than 30 platforms across mobile, desktop and connected TVs for free, as well as CBSNews.com and Paramount+ and live in 91 countries.
Subscribe to the CBS News KZhead channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News 24/7: cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
At least we once had a government that knew the President had no such immunity when Nixon was pardoned.
We have a government that interprets it to fit their narrative. Full stop. Obama never got in trouble for spying in his political opponents. He never got in trouble for illegally using drones to assassinate American teenagers overseas.
Nixon had the same immunity, Ford pardoned him to prevent an unlawful prosecution
...but he was pardoned. so your point is what?
This was done proactively to move on. Nixon wasn’t in trial or anything
@@dauferm Nixon wasn’t on trial at that point, but he certainly would’ve been. That’s why he accepted the pardon, which is an admission of guilt.
Justice delayed is justice denied
Hasty justice breeds oversights. And politically infused justice is not justice at all.
Tell that to the J6 prisoners. 😢
@@alivewithhemp4989Crying over traitors? Sheesh
@@libbytaylor84 Traitors? They are innocent until proven guilty.
@@alivewithhemp4989 They HAVE been proven guilty. Also, we saw them being traitors with our own eyes live on TV
The Supreme Court has caused major grief to this case by sitting on it like fools
Power corrupts the weak. The President has the most power in our country why would we allow them to be immune from their actions? If anything they should be held to the highest standard. With great power comes great responsibility.
Sotomayor’s comment on presidential immunity with regard to an impeachment was quite strong. She implies that If the president has immunity and thus exempt from crimes, then the president could not be impeached because he would be exempt from all “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
No, your reading that wrong. The impeachment of a president is to break his oath to this country and the American people. Like flooding illegals into this country. Give them credit cards so the vote will be there in the future. The crime is allowing criminals to stay in the u.s. without deportation. They're not citizens. The oath is to protect the nation. In that regard that impeachment would remove him from office by vote in the house or senate. I forget which one that voted in.
Excellent. A very sound argument against absolute immunity.
😂
That's Right! Woot~!
once again the "Wise Latina" shows that she is not too wise,....nobody is claiming that a president is exempt from high crimes but rather as the Constitution mandates, that unless and until he is impeached, convicted and removed from office he cannot be subject to prosecution under the law
If you can not follow the law you should not be president
there a reason behind him doing this and it isnt going to be for the good ...
Then Biden, Obama, Bush, and numerous other Presidents should not have been Presidents.
It's unreal that we are having this conversation. EVERY president is a person like everyone else and we are ALL accountable for criminal activity. Period. Why is this so hard to grasp? Anyone who thinks the president should have immunity is not interested in freedom or what it means to be an American.
What are you going to say when SCOTUS rules against Trump on the immunity issue and Trump wins the damn election and uses that ruling to start REVENGE prosecutions of Biden and every other Democrat who ever served in public office? To a great extent, I believe that this is part of what the Court is struggling with. Even they can see the potential weaponization of the federal judiciary and wish to afford some protections against it though those protections will obviously fall well short of the blank check Trump hopes to cash. This goes way beyond Trump as well as way beyond the minimalist decision rendered by the DC Court of Appeals.
Joe and his son they are not above the law; but they are😮
Justin beiber loves diddy
@@magalymendoza9653👈🏼🤡
every president is not a person like everyone else,...just try going to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom and you will be enlightened
Oh BS this sht should of NEVER came before the Court.
The ONLY reason to hear this at all is to delay Trump's trials and obstruct justice on his behalf.
Yep/
Ÿup
Says the 7 month bot account
@@wp8218 Yes, everyone that speaks truth while contradicting what "They" tell you must be a bot in your alternate reality
@@wp8218 Says the 7 month bot account who is 100% correct.
During my life, it has always been clear, NO one is above the law. Even Nixon understood this concept. A crime is a crime. And anyone should have to answer for their criminal acts. Period. Full Stop.
Not true, though: Nixon said "if the president does it, it's not illegal." So, Nixon had some fuzzy ideas about that, too.
Fake news depends on your last name that will determine if you are or not above the law. Hilary clinton should have gone to jail. Many military personnel have gone to jail for the same act.
Ask Joe Biden n the Clinton’s disgusting 🤮
Unless you're a Bush, Clinton, Obama, or a Biden, or 90% of Congress
@@thiscorrosion900 Indeed, and he made that statement BEFORE he was forced to give up the tapes and the full force of his crimes were exposed and his criminal culpability was apparent. And what do we think Trump will do if SCOTUS rules against him but his trial is not completed prior to the election and HE SHOULD WIN THAT ELECTION?! He will most certainly attempt to pardon himself which will present yet another spurious self-serving legal issue that will make it's way up to the Supreme Court. There is a long way to go on this issue no matter what the Court decides.
A country who seriously is contemplating whether a president should be able to indulge in (some types of) criminal behavior - without any possibility of accountability - is on a steep downwards slope. No one should be given the right to do criminal acts - without legal consequences.
No country in the history of mankind that allows a sitting ruler to jail his political opponents has ever turned out good for the people.
Why have a Supreme Court if they can not rule in a timely manner.
Hey, collecting blatant bribes is a good gig if you can get it.
Exactly, why do they get to pick and choose which cases to be heard??? They should hear them all, or get rid of them 🤦🏻♀️
"Trump v. United States" .. really says it all.
This court is some bull💩
The people should not listen to this - the court is not legitimate
Presidents should NOT HAVE IMMUNITY For ACTS TO SUBVERT THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER. No immunity for acts to overthrow the government and become a dictator No immunity for high crimes and misdemeanors.
and justice jackson did an EXCELLENT job of breaking that down. damn, she's a rockstar.
Biden and Obama should go too.
That includes Obama then for obstruction of honest transfer of government.
A President but not a king.
Interesting I don’t remember Trump taken 270 bucks out of every Americans pocket man woman child, regardless of age to support another country by Russia, where he’s accused of laundering billions of dollars. Since you’re so rich, do you want to pay my 270 that I didn’t agree to or vote for? A family of four has to pay over $1000 in a family of five is over 1300. And you’re OK with this? Why because orange man is bad?
Donald Trump is a fake billionaire, a fake president, and a fake king but a real dangerous criminal. Trump must be locked up to deep clean America and make it great again.
He is trying to make himself a king or an autocrat.
@@noa2374he is and it’s unAmerican.
Sure, it sounds like you are in an echo chamber.
It's almost as if these justices aren't old enough to remember Nixon and WaterGate. It's unfathomable that this would be such a DIFFICULT decision for them when any average citizen with basic common sense could make that call.
They’re old enough. But Trump’s cult-like influence runs deep
It really is UFB
FROM FRANCE: World Democracy in the hands of the Supreme Court... some of whose members do not inspire confidence. Will they be courageous, simply honest?
Jinny will make Clarence sleep on the couch if he doesn't defend her orange god.
Absolute immunity? Does this mean that the president can basically do whatever he wants while in office, knowing that he's immune from prosecution? Insane!
Time for Joe to call up Seal Team 6!
The president then becomes king.
44 presidents before him have NEVER needed immunity, nor have even asked for it. There's your answer right there. This is so simple a child of 7 should even be able to comprehend it.
no,immunity is reviewed on a case by case bases,as of right now if a president does something that is not considered an official act they are not granted immunity and can face civil repercussions
You just described Biden!
They are making this too complicated "Was a crime committed by a president?" is sufficient.
And the answer is NO
But it was by previous presidents, obozo, both bush’s, clinton kept going, all of them except Trump ✊🏼💞🇺🇸
Give presidents absolute immunity and then hand over the ruling to President Biden together with a Postit note of the number to call for Seal Team 6...
100% agree.....and then they can visit the GQP nest🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
The concept of absolutism in the U.S. died 350 years ago. The founding fathers wanted no kings, and the capability for one's rulers to face charges for crimes they committed is inherently a part of this rejection of absolute immunity.
And Joey, the leftist king corruption ?
@@BarryHalls-uu9mx Well for starters, your immediate response being an blatant attempt at deflection says a lot. And second: look, if you folks can actually provide any evidence of this alleged corruption by BIden then go ahead and try it, but otherwise it's just not happening. It's the same deal with the impeachment attempts.
@@BarryHalls-uu9mxIf he commits a crime he will be held accountable
@@libbytaylor84 Border invasion should be a crime, Burisma is a crime, his day in court is coming soon .
Easy: We the people do not have immunity therefore the president does not have immunity.
Sauer is in over his head. His argument is DOA.
It is important to acknowledge that no individual possesses absolute immunity, including the President of the United States of America. Our nation is not a dictatorship, which is one of the reasons we gained independence from Britain.
exactly - they don't understand the Constitution
It is a sickness that this is even being discussed. SCOTUS is demanding to determine if pigs can really fly by hearing from aviation experts. 😂
Presidential Immunity would give the President more power than an evil man should have or a decent man should want. 😑⚖️🇺🇸
Don't give this an inch, no immunity!
SCOTUS can take all the time they need. Years if need be. In the meantime, let Trump go to trial and be judged.
No - no one is above the law - not even SCOTUS - defnitely not POTUS - they do not have the right to hold anyone above the law - it's an abuse of power
scotus currently has this case on a stay, meaning a hold. if they do not release that hold, this whole j6 case is doable, and even if scotus ends up ruling that presidents are not immune, tfg will be if he gets reinstalled.
@@nonya.bizness Scotus is not legitimate - Kavanaugh lied on the stand - he should be impeached - SCOTUS is nothing but cronyism - money for votes - disgusting
@@nonya.bizness AI should replace SCOTUS - it would do a better job
supreme court better get it right ✅️ NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!
Dragging their heels. While we are at it, could we please place limits for service on these judges?
Why don't they just tear up the Constitution
seems its coming to that !!
This is happening. Geezus😮
Trump will if he's elected.
Can we get this over with? Hasn't America suffered enough? The GOP has dug itself into such a deep hole over the last 7-8 years and they just keep digging. My former party is unsavable at this point, and it will take at least a generation to overcome. Quite possibly two generations.
i like how the basic reasons that america was founded is under question now even though we all learned this in the 4th grade
If you make your president totally immune, you free yanks will have a king again. 😂😂😂😂😂. Why? LOL because you allow politicians to appoint judges. Well done you.
If they rule him immune, they should grant EVERY PRISONER a release in the USA. Every ticket, ruling, child support, weed charge... GONE! *HANDCLAP*
If all those prisoners are ex presidents yes.
its called "Checks and Balances" The constitutional convention wrote that into the constitution. the President can be held accountable for their actions as president. both private and public
No immunity. Break the law pay up. Presidents, as examples, are held to the highest standard. Not the lowest! For crying out loud!
BUT it seems laws except for JBiden
@@CheerfulAzaleaFlower-vd6nhWhat law dod Biden break?
@@CheerfulAzaleaFlower-vd6nh J Biden? You’re nuts.
What a crock! Nine co-conspiritors.😡
No immunity for him or anyone.
They should provide judgement on Trump, not ducking saying this would apply to all future presidents. Trump was not a typical President.
The scope of the SCOTUS in this legal quandary is on the presidency in general, not any individual president.
yeah, scotus doesn't decide individual cases. they decide disputes about what laws should be used by the lower courts to decide the case.
We should be able to fix everything. But we can't fix anything.
That's how I feel. It's so shameful and disgusting
The decision that the Supreme Court must make here affects not only the USA but also has implications for the entire world. Nothing less than democracy and its values are at stake. I sincerely hope they are aware of this.
The court is trying to deal with immunity for a former irrational president. Trump geared the presidential office for himself
No one is above the law! Not even former or sitting president.
Kim Jong Trump
You're thinking of traitor joe
Ya really and he's in love. Omg what an embarrassment for the country
Biden 2024!!!
What's with the voice problem This guy and Kennedy has voices difficult to listen to speak.
It's what happens when you lie too much.
They shouldn't have taken this case at all, we are not practicing autocracy, and dictatorship.
The Grifter Court should not even be debating this. Embarrassing.
There is nothing presidential about this man. He is already being held to a different standard because anyone else would be jailed by now. Where is the line???? It keeps moving and it's not ok!!
I didn't watch it all but I did hear Neal Katyal basically say this case is silly. As a taxpayer I think SCOTUS should have stopped this and just leave it to the Appellate Court. Now more delays.
I think it’s a simple question: Do we want a president that swears to uphold the constitution and follows the laws of the land or do we want a dictator that creates a global crime syndicate?
Too many breaks for the ex- president already
Please president Biden nominate more democratic judges to the scotus to equal out the right wing partisanship
A nation's Supreme Court must be completely impartial and reflect the overall aspirations and general will of the majority of that nation's people and not the will and aspirations of those who appointed them to their position! Also, Here in Australia, judges and magistrates are not political appointees and must retire at age 70...
NONE! No Criminal immunity! But the conservatives and the chief justice did their best at delaying the trial(s).
Dude needs to clear his throat! I could not listen to that
This is not a difficult case. Presidents should not have absolute presidential immunity for criminal activity.
Beautifully done Lana.
The real problem here is that our forefathers wrote our laws with the assumption that our presidents would have the maturity of an adult. Unfortunately, Donald Trump's presidency did not rise to that given assumption.
"Did I understand you to say... if [the president] makes a mistake... He's subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else?" Justice Samuel Alito asked. "You don't think he's in a special, peculiarly precarious position?" he continued. Mr Dreeben responded that "making a mistake" would not land someone under criminal prosecution. I would add '' ask Kavanaugh siting next to you''
Such bs.
An official criminal act is still a criminal act.
Private criminal activity is sooooo different than on the job 🥴. What the Hell is so hard in this?!?!?
This immunity stuff is atrocious!! No one in this country is above the law.
I think they'll place it on congress. You need an act of congress to break down the line of immunity vs. no immunity
Please- set a precedent for a predator ex president
Haven't you been paying attention? SCOTUS doesn't give AF about precedent. ie: Roe v Wade
They were not 'struggling' They were FLOUNDERING. #cowards.
Is it REALLY that difficult??? No elected person has absolute immunity for acts, in their personal or professional life. The person elected to the highest office should be a person of the highest integrity. If a President and their advisors feel that a decision may be ‘illegal’… THEY are the lawmakers and should change the law… this can happen quickly and in times of crisis or, for example, War. The President or indeed ANY elected official should uphold the law of the land at all times. Period.
THIS SNAKE IS GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT... GOD HELP US ALL......................
No one is above the law in a democratic country.
Sauer is wrong and extremely hard to listen to! Just nuts!
No send it back to Appels court
Ben Franklin wasn’t a lawmaker, nor a judge.
Shameless conservative religious zealots of the highest court.
What makes him think he deserves immunity? Nixon was not granted any immunity. !
How completely unimpressed I am by the drivel flowing in this court. The essence of sophomoronic. Nothing *supreme* at all. A cataclysmic failure in slow motion.
Brown-Jackson got it the most right - the risk of an unconstrained president is far greater than putting constraints on the president that can be adjusted over time. For this case it seems to me that the arguments should be heard at trial and the appellate process can make appropriate corrections. The justices are putting the horse before the cart.
L'etat c'est moi. Haven't these judges ever taken a history class?
Trump is just beyond ridiculous.
Trumpy thinks he can do no wrong
There is so much bull crap with the stupid issue on immunity. Will someone in his right mind after seeing what this traitor is capable of would seriously in their f ing mind give him immunity? Definitely, the END is near.
totally disagree with jessica's analysis. scotus absolutely does NOT need to decide the entire scope of how the whole concept of immunity will apply to all future presidents. it became very clear over the course of the hearing that the issues presented in this case can- and must- be decided without trying to do the impossible by trying to nail down a rule that would work for all future cases of presidential immunity.
The question if a president has immunity, can do what he wants, is absurd. It's merely brought up to delay Trump's many court cases until after the elections.
Why aren’t they showing the Supreme Court the computer analysis? The errors and taking way longer than it should to count votes? Why did they let them keep counting and why was there more voters than registered voters? Why did they find people deceased for years votes?
It's about public property and private property rights.
We Americans don’t have time to ponder this matter now 😢we need to unlock our lower Courts
The conditional is whether the president is a Republican or not. If yes, there is immunity. If not, straight to jail.
That whole Seal Team 6 assassination stuff is stupid. Even the Supreme Court felt that that was a reach. You could tell on the way that they were asking the questions and discussing it. Nobody in their right mind takes that as a possibility
If only Eric Mays were here. POINT OF ORDER!!!
Hahahaha he's a G....
@@choco.es.unlimited Yes he is
@@zeusteriyakijiizasutairyok5695 is he still in office?
@@choco.es.unlimited He passed away😞
@@zeusteriyakijiizasutairyok5695 dam that's sad. He was awesome.
Justice Brown is right on point
Lock him up,vote blue
Managed democracy
Suppream court shouldn't even been in this
We need a whole new court
You think the Supreme Court could make better use of their time
The case could still get going shortly after the election. There are about two months between the election and the ballot certification, and then another couple of weeks before inauguration. What happens if Trump wins, but is in the midst of such a momentous trial, or even awaiting sentencing?
he won't win. simple
Here is the deal ... there shouldn't be absolute immunity regardless whether official or private acts. If say he has immunity w/ official acts then we could well have a president that commits war crimes w/ impunity. That is ridiculous. That is no better than a dictator.
Trump's lawyer's voice is pure nails on chalk board... oh god make it stop!
We The People love Alina 😍 she’s representing Trump Brilliantly, he’ll get off Scott free ✊🏼🇺🇸💞😂
As a foreigner, from a nation where the executive branch powers and limits seems to be way more specified in laws (written about 100-50 years ago, may I recommend that someone takes a look at other democratic nations laws in this matter… Not to “cut and paste”, but as a map showing what routes can be taken in different types of executive acts. I suppose many democracies have already “stolen” ideas from the US Constitution, so no one would be upset 🙂. I doubt individual laws are copyrighted. It seems like the US has been successful in managing without having such specified laws for 250 years. Possibly thanks to an idea that the POTUS and other politicians are supposed to be gentlemen. Great! But from my perspective it seems like that now is something of the past. And I would assume there either has to be a massive work for the SCOTUS to accomplish, or-as in the case of the 14:3 amendment-the SCOTUS refers it to the lawmakers to make laws regulating the POTUS limits. But would either the SCOTUS or Congress have a Constitutional right to limit another branch of the Government? Alternatively must the POTUS then regulate the boundaries of his own powers? Or perhaps the three branches of Government will have to sit down and together figure this out in an unanimous way? Or perhaps an idea is to resolve only the specific instances of immunity this case is about. Then hope that the POTUSes of the future are gentlemen/-ladies, and resolve other Presidential immunity issues when and if they arise? Although I understand this is quite an annoying issue, it is rather interesting to see how such Constitutional work will play out. And I hope it will be a relatively smooth process. But again… some democracies seem to have figured much of this out already. Although the executive branch is then often selected by (and among) the lawmakers, and hence has less power on its own.