Justice Kagan: "How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup? "
During the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument on presidential immunity, Justice Elena Kagan asks a hypothetical question about a president ordering the military to stage a coup.
Justice Kagan: "He's gone. Let's say this president who ordered the military to stage a coup. He's no longer president, he wasn't impeached, he couldn't be impeached, but he ordered the military to stage a coup. You're saying that's an official act. That's immune?
D. John Sauer, Attorney for former President Trump: "I think it would depend in the circumstances..."
Full oral argument here: www.c-span.org/video/?534673-...
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App. www.c-span.org/c-spanNow/
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at www.c-span.org/quickguide/
Explore C-SPAN's Free Educational Resources at www.c-span.org/classroom/
C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service.
Support C-SPAN by Donating Today: donorbox.org/support-c-span?u...
Subscribe to our KZhead channel: / cspan
Follow us:
Facebook: / cspan
Twitter: / cspan
Instagram: / cspan
Subscribe:
C-SPAN Podcasts: www.c-span.org/podcasts/
Newsletters: www.c-span.org/connect/
Visit the C-SPAN Shop: c-spanshop.org/
#cspan
The simple answer is no. The President is not immune.
In this hypothetical that Kagan is introducing, the military coup would be unsuccessful. In this case , the House would quickly impeach and the Senate would quickly convict. Then once the person serving as POTUS is stripped of his title, he is then criminally charged.
@@gamemediafan1714 Let's say the President(or ex president)was not constrained by criminal laws, only impeachment. If they could prevent their impeachment through any means legal or illegal , they could never be held accountable for anything. If for example, as part of the coup the President had members of the house that are likely to impeach him(or even all members of the house) killed. It would be impossible to impeach him for that action. If the President simply had a majority of house members that were in league with the coup attempt it would be impossible to impeach him. What this lawyer is arguing completely undermines the rule of law.
@gamemediafan1714 what if they aren't impeached, what then?
@lordenma8 Please explain how a POTUS that directly tells his generals that he wants to achieve a military coup, won't be impeached. Evidence will be overwhelming.
It's not a simple question though. They are trying to determine where a President has immunity. I don't think the framers meant for it to be determined by who has the most powerful media narrative.
Dawg what is WRONG with that man's voice 😭
He's representing Trump here, but planning on voting for RFK!
Is it just me or does everyone who work for Trump sound like cartoon villains
He's not wrong though
Considering that he and presidential candidate Kennedy sound the same. You might want to look up the fact that they both have an ailment that causes them to speak that way, and then maybe you won't bother making fun of them.
The fact this is being heard is unreal.
This guy is doing his best in dancing around the questions.
Trump's attorney did not dance around any questions. In fact, he was better prepared than special counsel. I sat and listened to the entirety of the arguments, which I will do again on Thursday. But Trump's attorney answered every question perfectly.
thats crazy theres nothing official about whispering in your generals ear to stage a coup
There is nothing official about whispering in a Governors ear "Find me x number of votes" , yet here we are. Note: x= the exact number of votes he needed to win the state
She tore him to pieces!
Pure Alice in Wonderland. Why did the court take this case? Stall for Trump!
Justice Kagan, we appreciate your efforts on behalf of the citizens in this nation who still believe in the law. However, from past performance experiences we know that the MAGA justices are going to rule on the side of the Orange Traitor.
Because TRUMPS RIGHT.
There’s too much risk to them siding with trump from a political standpoint. Trumps poll numbers aren’t looking stellar and if the court says the president is immune from crimes they commit in office, and Trump *loses*, then the democrats can deliver a swift and devastating reckoning to the Republican Party as a whole. There’s too much at stake for them to side with trump rn. They will either ride this out until he wins the election or until there’s no more stalling to do
Geez, staging a coup to stay in power is NOT an official act. Period.
That's kind of the point of his responses though. She's asking an impossible to answer question because she's not providing any details that led up to it. He's simply saying that it depends on whether or not it's an official act, in accordance with those rules. Since she's not offering whether or not it's a legitimate official act, it can't be answered. It's a literal straw man argument. Of course a coup can't be an official act, at least not how she's framed it with no details, so it's something that couldn't happen in the first place. Chicken and the Egg. ...but I'll bite. President A is leaving office due to a loss, and the new President B is taking over. It comes to light that President B is a Russian mole getting paid millions, who allows through his policies, for Russia to begin taking over neighboring countries. Let's say this happens after nov 4 but before the jan handoff. President A, having realized this, organizes a coup against President B to stop the transition. That would be an example of an official act to stage a coup. So I guess it really depends on the answer of whether or not it's an official act, as the scratchy voice dude is saying.
@@oll1998 A coup is an illegal action under any context, under any circumstances. There is no constitutional mechanism that legitimizes a coup. There certainly is no constitutional mechanism that allows for a president who has lost an election to extend their term beyond inauguration day. It doesn't matter if it was done on official stationary; it's illegal. The most a military can do under the scenario you mentioned would be to not obey the commands of President B were it to be ruled that President B committed treason by being an agent of a hostile foreign government. At this point, President B can be subject to impeachment.
@@323guiltyspark Then that goes back to their original argument doesn't it? ...that the president has immunity, and at the impeachment process is the proper method for which to handle crimes?
And considering that President Trump did not stage a coup that leaves nothing to talk about here then.
@@AwesomeBabyBoomer Yeh but that argument is for the trial, not this particular aspect.
Democracy. Not Monarchy.
Wow. Treason much?
'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal' -Richard Nixon
Him and RFK Jr need a cough drop…
I wonder if they are dating each other....
They both have the same affliction, and if you'll look it up, you will find it is something beyond their control. Maybe then you'll grow up a little bit and quit making fun of them.
This guy sounds as much a lost cause as at the lower court. But scares me how the conservatives on the bench seem to vote entirely politically and not on logic or lack thereof.
WTF. Get rid of the Supreme Court
Trumps lawyer should be ordered to use a digital voice changer in public court.
As far as concern Justice Robert's should have never let this Clown show go on!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉😂🎉🎉🎉
I am not a crook (but I wouldn't mind a pardon from Jerry Ford) - Dick Nixon Yeah, I'm a crook. (but I should be treated like a king)- Trump
I loved it when I heard this question get asked more importantly I love the answer that was given by Trump's attorney, because anybody who has served in the military knows that we are required to follow every order given unless we feel it is an unlawful order, at which time we can refuse to follow it. So, any military man would refuse to follow an unlawful order given by anybody, even a president.
Sauer is a flat out BSer!! Lock him up!! 🇺🇸
I thought these people were all constitutionalists? Isn’t the whole point of the constitution to not have a tyrannical concentration of power on one individual? Should that document alone be the governing principle that deems their immunity argument invalid or flawed? Am I missing something?
The Constitution is what should govern this nation. What the Constitution states is the law. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Amazing the lawyer actually defends these "official acts" as something to go through a process (impeachment and convection) and above the law. Fortunately it looks as though the Supreme Court might be wise to the dancing around a circle.
Idiots like you are what make me laugh. The attorney is telling the courts what it takes to deal with something like that when dealing with a president. First, they have to be impeached, and then they can try them to convict them.That's what the constitution already states.
Does he have a sore throat?
They have addressed this already the military would not have to follow that order
The military is not obligated to follow that order, and they would be prosecuted for following it, but that does not excuse the President for issuing it.
@@reasonablegentleman The President would already know he couldn't do it so why ask. It is a specific limitation that's listed.
@@thisisshaun1 I am not sure I follow your point. It seems as if you are saying, why would a President knowingly overstep their authority, but people overstepping their authority is so common that I am tempted to conclude that it is human nature. The point of asking the question is to find the limitation of the complainants argument.
@@reasonablegentleman I'm saying if everyone (The President, Military and The Justices) already know this then why ask
@@thisisshaun1at :58 this lawyer claims that ordering a coup may be an official act and Presidential immunity may apply. He also states that once out of office it might be unconstitutional to impeach an expresident so there would be no legal recourse for the coup attempt.
The President can't just assinate people for no reason. He also can't order or have the military stage a coup. We need to prosecute the former president for any crimes he committed, and turn him over to the International Criminal Court for any international violations he ordered while in office. We must have justice for Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, justice for the Ukrainian people in the Midan, justice for the people of Niger, justice for the people of Libya, and justice for the people of Iraq.
In the US, which follows the Rule of Law, or is at least supposed to follow the Rule of Law, attempted military coups are dumb ideas. Law enforcement, following positive law, is not a dumb idea. One hopes that members of a regime obey positive law.
The number one defense against an individual of questionable credibility and character was the American voter. And trump and MAGA proved that that too can fail.😎
This is a can of worms that would make anybody that ran for president insane
The president should be very careful or stay out of office! Incentive to have real lawyers around them and not yes men.
The alternative is even more insane. The argument seems to be that 1. A sitting president absolutely can not be criminally prosecuted while in office. 2. An ex President is immune from prosecution for any act that he can superficially disguise as an official act. 3. The President can claim any act that uses, their presidential power, Cabinet or resources as an official act and that can't even be challenged at trial. I'm not sure if it is touched on in this clip or another clip, but this lawyer claimed that if an ex President had accepted a bribe to perform an official act (Pardon some one, or appoint someone) the ex president would be immune to prosecution because Pardoning and appointing is an official act of the President.
While I encourage public discussions on Constitutional policies, I want to remind everyone that the Jewish Talmud is not recognized by the US Government as an alternative to constitutional law. Any oral arguments are just political debates and are not legally binding as law.
How are hypotheticals worthy of response? That's the big point - they are ALL hypotheticals, and her response tacitly acknowledges as such
Creative LLC v. Elenis was a court case that made it to the US supreme court that was centered around a hypothetical/something that didn't even happen. Pandora's box has already been opened. Sorry.
(1) Did you listen to the entire argument? Both liberal and conservative members of the court posed hypotheticals, and in fact Justice Barrett re-posed Kagan’s coup hypo in her questioning of Trump’s attorney and (2) if you knew anything about the Supreme Court, you would be aware that hypothetical questions are common and necessary in virtually all SCOTUS arguments because the court is engaged in asserting holdings of constitutional law with general applicability not just to the facts of the case. (3) finally, yes whenever a Justice poses a question to a member of the bar during arguments, it is worthy of a response.
If he expects his sorry ass to be heard they certainly are.
@@kittysagan2203 Hypotheticals can be a useful tool; but, hers were illogical
president orders the military to stage a coup? " LIKE what Happened on Sept 11, 2001 YEAP!!
Gibberish
Becoming more obvious what likely happened after every passing year
November 1964
@@dpalmer1557
Put the tinfoil hat away
The line of questioning was clear out of bounds as far as I'm concerned. That's the liberals on the court .
Then you're not concerned that far.
You mean like Biden already did?
Kagan is reaching here
No, not at all actually.
...by stating the obvious??
You may want to let the grownups speak while remaining quiet.
You may want to let the grownups speak while keeping quiet.
Don't breed
Immunity from prosecution is Unconstitutional. The argument is asinine 🙄. ✌️📜🇺🇸🫡 🪖