Apr 25, 2024
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor grilled Donald Trump's lawyer John Sauer about his claim that the president can order the assassination of political rivals.
- 16 minutes
If the president decides that his rival
is a corrupt person and he orders the
military or orders someone to assassinate
him, is that within his official acts
that for which he can get immunity?
[00:00:20]
Justice Sonia Sotomayor grilled Trump's
attorney, John Sawyer, on the notion
of granting presidents absolute immunity,
even in instances when the president
is not engaged in executive actions
or carrying out duties.
[00:00:38]
Official duties as president.
Now, previously, Sawyer had argued that
the president could order Seal Team Six
to assassinate one of his political rivals
and not face any consequences for it.
[00:00:53]
Sotomayor wanted to revisit that argument,
maybe give him a chance to change gears
in regard to that argument.
But here's how Sawyer responded.
It would depend on
the hypothetical that we can see.
That could well be an official.
He could. And why?
Because he's doing it
for personal reasons.
[00:01:09]
He's not doing it like President Obama
is alleged to have done it
to protect the country from a terrorist.
He's doing it for personal gain.
Now, to give you further context
in regard to why the Supreme Court
[00:01:25]
is hearing this case.
It all has to do with Trump's defense
in the election interference cases,
where he argues and his lawyers argue that
he enjoys executive privilege or immunity,
and because of the fact that he was
a sitting president at the time that the
[00:01:42]
fake elector scheme was implemented, at
the time the January 6th riots took place.
Well, then that means that he has the
immunity that presidents typically enjoy.
However, Sawyer Sawyer's argument
is not only unhinged because it has to do
[00:01:57]
with the president's ability
to assassinate political opponents.
He also kind of fails to answer,
what Sotomayor is asking about
in a way that makes her pleased.
Let's pleased with his, take. Right.
So in response to what Sotomayor said
in that last clip, he says, I agree with
[00:02:17]
that characterization of the indictment,
and that confirms immunity, because
the characterization is that there's
a series of official acts that were done,
for honorable for an honorable purpose.
Right.
And so, Jake, I want you to weigh in here.
[00:02:32]
Right.
Because all day today, what the Supreme
Court justices were asking about
is what is and isn't protected.
And what what does give
the president immunity
and what doesn't give him immunity.
There are private acts
which typically do not enjoy immunity.
[00:02:47]
And then there are acts that the president
engages in as official duty, which
happened to be protected under immunity.
Pausing here to deliver some honest truth,
as we do in our news coverage as well.
TYT is facing challenges, guys,
as the entire industry is.
You know who could make the difference?
You.
[00:03:03]
If you hit the join button below,
it's going to make all the difference
and keep us in business.
We appreciate you. Thank you.
All right.
This is several different layers to it
as a lot of Supreme Court cases do.
So first of all, does the president
enjoy absolute immunity
about anything and everything he does?
No. The Supreme Court
has already ruled he doesn't.
[00:03:21]
Okay, so Trump is still making that case
because he's not making a genuine case.
He's just making a case to delay the trial
until he can win the presidency
and pardon himself.
This one is a federal case.
He can pardon himself
if he gets into office before.
And he could actually forget
pardoning himself.
[00:03:37]
If he gets a delayed long enough,
he could just end the case
as the leader of the executive branch
right before they even reach a decision.
They could be in the middle of the case,
and he could say the US government
is withdrawing from the case,
so he's just trying to delay it.
His arguments are,
in my opinion, ridiculous.
[00:03:54]
Now, it doesn't mean that every
immunity argument is ridiculous
and there's legitimate issues here.
So I'll give you an example
with a Democratic president where you go,
oh, that one's kind of tough.
So with Obama, he ordered,
an American citizen to be executed abroad
[00:04:10]
with no judicial review.
So that's an extrajudicial
judicial killing, in my opinion.
That is illegal.
And it is a very, very serious crime.
But you would really
I mean, that would I'd be I'd love to see
an impartial Supreme Court.
I know it doesn't exist.
Tackle that subject.
[00:04:28]
Is that his official duty
or did he go beyond the law in killing an
American citizen without a trial? Right.
So those are legitimate,
interesting issues.
Trump is saying,
well, when I use the fake electors,
because that's what the charges are.
They're not deciding
whether the charges are true.
[00:04:43]
They're deciding whether he can even face
trial, even if the charges are true.
Okay.
So in this case, using fake electors
to basically plot a coup,
he's like, that's within my official duty.
Now you see why that's absurd.
It's absurd on two counts.
[00:04:59]
Number one, when he's asking for recounts,
that's perfectly legitimate.
But he's doing that as a candidate,
not as a president.
The president can't interfere
with anything that's, electoral.
Right. There's a Hatch Act.
There's all these different rules that
say, don't use the power of the presidency
[00:05:16]
to help yourself get reelected.
Right.
So if the election's already happening,
he's challenging the results.
That's definitely as a candidate.
That's already clear enough.
But on top of that,
he's saying he's not saying,
oh, I want to challenge the results.
He's saying, basically saying I get
to use fake electors
[00:05:31]
to overturn the actual Democratic results,
and I'm immune to do that.
I have immunity to do that
because it's my official duty
to do a coup against America.
It is an absurd, ridiculous argument,
and that is why we're having conversations
[00:05:47]
about, well, if you can do that,
can you execute your political opponents?
Because we're in La La land
right now, right?
But guys, unfortunately, the last layer is
the most important because these justices,
two of them are gone.
They're they're rogue.
They're like, they're never,
ever going to rule against the right wing
[00:06:05]
under any circumstance.
They're not listening.
They violated their own so-called
principles a hundreds of times.
Can I guess which two
you're talking about, Alito and Thomas.
- Exactly.
- Yeah.
Alito and Thomas.
I mean, to give you a sense
of how absurd Alito is on this one.
In the middle of this one,
he's like, well, if you.
[00:06:21]
You, if you arrest someone
for trying to steal an election,
that's just going to give them incentive
to steal more elections.
And he's like, that's
why it would be against democracy
to try to protect democracy.
Okay, you're not even trying, brother.
That doesn't even make
any sense on its face.
[00:06:38]
Absurdity. So those two are goners.
So the question is, are the other
conservative justices going to be fair and
say, let's finish up this trial because
this is an absurd case, or are they going
to do the thing that is way more likely
and almost certain at this point?
[00:06:54]
There's one conservative exception, but,
they're going to say, oh, golly gee, there
are a lot of facts to determine here.
I think we should remand this case
to a lower court,
which on average takes eight months.
All right. The election would be over.
[00:07:10]
And so afterwards,
then you could have the real trial,
you know, after we adjudicate this issue.
And so, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, it looks like
Roberts are all heading in that direction.
It's perfect for them because they want
to support the Republican, but they don't.
[00:07:26]
They're not in the Alito Thomas camp
where they don't care
about the laws and principles
and Constitution at all anymore.
They're not actively supporting
a coup like those two are.
Right.
So that so that way they get to punt on
on what would have to be
a horrific decision to support Trump.
[00:07:42]
But they help Trump
avoid responsibility completely.
So that's a perfect Roberts move.
Interestingly, Amy Coney Barrett's
the only one that seems to be saying
let's go straight ahead.
Yeah, Amy Coney Barrett actually did
something devastating in regard
[00:07:57]
to Donald Trump and his coconspirators
in the election interference cases.
In fact, let's cue up the
very final video, because that's the video
in which she asks a line of questions
to Trump's attorney.
This is Sawyer,
where essentially Sawyer ends up conceding
[00:08:15]
that Trump's coconspirators had committed
the crimes that they have been accused of
and are not protected under immunity.
Let's take a look.
You concede
that private acts don't get immunity.
We do. Okay.
And I want to know if you agree
or disagree about the characterization
of these acts as private.
[00:08:32]
Petitioner turned to a private attorney.
He was willing to spread knowingly false
claims of election fraud to spearhead
his challenges to the election results.
Private as at large.
I mean, we dispute the allegation,
but that sounds.
Private to me. Sounds private.
Petitioner conspired with another private
attorney who caused the filing in court
[00:08:47]
of a verification signed by petitioner
that contained false allegations
to support a challenge that.
Also sounds private.
Three private actors, two attorneys,
including those mentioned above
and a political consultant,
helped implement a plan to submit
fraudulent slates of presidential electors
to obstruct the certification proceeding.
[00:09:04]
And petitioner and a Coconspirator
attorney directed that effort.
You write it quickly.
I believe that's private.
Petitioner is Donald Trump, by the way.
So when she says petitioner
and coconspirator, she's referring
to Donald Trump and his coconspirator.
[00:09:19]
And there you have Sawyer essentially
conceding that immunity would not protect
those acts because of the private nature
in which they were carried out.
So it's clear that it wouldn't protect
anyone outside of the president.
And what they're saying is, well,
but when it comes to the president,
[00:09:35]
even if it's a private act,
it isn't because there isn't anything
the president can do that's illegal.
That's the Richard Nixon line
that got him in so much trouble,
during and after Watergate.
But now Trump is going back and saying,
yeah, I want to be king.
[00:09:52]
So declare when I'm president.
Or, by the way, that also applies to Biden
and everybody, every other president, when
they're president, they get to break any
law, private, public, it doesn't matter.
Like he literally
that's why he literally argued he can
assassinate his political opponents.
[00:10:07]
The his lawyer did
because we get it, guys.
It's an extreme situation, by the way.
A coup is also an extreme situation.
And so but they're saying, yeah,
no period above the law.
That's why it's absurd.
That's why the seven justices
are not going to say okay to that.
[00:10:22]
Right.
But mission accomplished
when they kick it down to a lower court.
If they kick it down.
Yeah, but they're going to they're almost
definitely going to guys, the reason why
the six three margin is so monumentally
important there's two reasons.
One is they have such a comfortable margin
they could lose
[00:10:39]
a conservative justice on principle.
So what they still
wouldn't fire for so easy.
You got to flip two conservative justices.
And the second reason why that margin is
so important
is because it allows them to do rotating
below villain slash rotating hero.
[00:10:55]
Okay, so oh, and this one,
Amy Coney Barrett's the hero for a,
saying principled things,
but golly gee, the right wing won again.
Five four. And another case.
Gorsuch is the hero
for being principled in Kavanaugh.
And this is literally happened in a lot
of the cases where one of them goes,
[00:11:13]
well, on principle,
I'll tell you what, I'm going to do this.
But they keep rotating,
rotating, rotating,
and they always win five 4 or 6 three.
So bye bye.
And finally, Anna, that's why I told you.
What do you bring in the case two
and a half years in for.
[00:11:28]
Are you nuts?
You know how many delays there are
in a normal case, let alone a case
that involves a president with a Supreme
Court stacked to try to help him?
Merrick Garland is the worst
attorney general we have ever had.
He sat on his hands for two and a half
years when a guy, Trump did a coup attempt
[00:11:45]
and refused to prosecute him
because he's one of the elites.
And then when they panicked
when they found out he's running,
they run this case way too late.
Now, when they remand this,
which I have at about a 90% chance.
No no, no, no.
If Trump wins,
the coup never even gets adjudicated.
[00:12:02]
And so not only does that.
Say that, that's Jake,
you're being way too cynical here.
And keep in mind that sure,
he might be able if he gets reelected,
which his chances are very good
at getting reelected.
I agree with you on that.
Yeah, he would be able to pardon himself
in the federal case, but he wouldn't
[00:12:19]
be able to do so in the Georgia case.
And the Georgia interference case, matters
greatly or the Supreme Court's decision.
And yes, if they kick it back to the lower
courts, the lower courts decision,
which almost guaranteed
will not grant him the immunity
[00:12:34]
that he wants, is important because he
wouldn't be able to claim immunity
when it comes to the Georgia case.
And you're right about Georgia,
no question.
And you're and Arizona
also just launched a case.
They didn't charge Trump yet,
but he's won an unindicted coconspirator.
[00:12:49]
So you'll have those.
But guys it's a federal case.
He did a federal coup.
And so when you and remember it's not just
that he could pardon himself.
They they might go eight months
just discussing the law part.
Then they have to actually
actually have the trial itself
[00:13:05]
where they do an adjudication of facts.
Did he do it or didn't he do it?
That's definitely going
to stretch past the election.
So he could just end it and go.
Nobody at the federal level,
nobody ever ruled that I did a coup.
Nobody ever said there was fake electors,
the bias people in Georgia
[00:13:21]
and the bias people in Arizona, they have
their nonsense, but blah blah blah, right.
So yeah, there would be some adjudication,
but he would get to avoid responsibility
at the federal level.
And right now that seems. Very likely.
So, Merrick Garland, thanks a lot
for betraying not just all of us,
[00:13:40]
and definitely not just Democratic voters,
but the country.
And the reason he did it
wasn't to punish Trump.
It was to protect Trump for two and a half
years when he thought, well, I mean,
if we prosecute Trump, then people
might prosecute Democrats or other elites.
And so he wanted to protect
the establishment,
[00:13:57]
and now we're all screwed because of it.
All right.
I mean, look, my interpretation
of all of this isn't as negative.
Listening to the line of questions that
were asked by the conservative Supreme
Court justices was kind of shocking
because they were asking good questions.
[00:14:14]
And it seems like the way they frame the
questions, they've had their mind made up
about Donald Trump's argument of immunity,
but they are concerned about
how the way they rule on this case
is going to impact cases moving forward.
Right. So I'll give you an example.
[00:14:31]
Justice Gorsuch, who, yes,
was appointed by Trump, he seemed to have
his mind made up about Trump, but he
was concerned about applying a standard
that has to do with the motivation
or motive of a sitting president.
Right.
So every sitting first term president
is focused on getting reelected.
[00:14:50]
So if that individual does something
like Obama is a good example, right.
So you could argue that Obama
carried out a war crime in killing an
American citizen without due process.
Now the argument is that he did it
not for himself, but in the best interest
[00:15:06]
of Americans because of terrorism.
Right. This was a suspected terrorist.
So Gorsuch is concerned that if you
apply a motive having to do with, oh,
the president just wants to get reelected,
and that is why they did this act.
[00:15:22]
Well, then, if there's a case
like the Obama case, couldn't you argue
that that individual Obama would not be
protected by presidential immunity and
should face charges for his war crimes?
And but you see what I'm saying?
Those are good questions.
And I think that those seven justices
are worried about setting precedent.
[00:15:38]
Yeah, but they're not worried about
protecting Trump and punting the case.
They're worried
about setting bad precedent.
So that's same.
Gorsuch later said, well, look, we're not
deciding these things on temporary basis.
So we, you know, implying we have
a lot of time to do this, he said.
[00:15:57]
We're doing this for history,
and this has to be a general ruling
that is so important.
That is a perfect, you know,
pitch for romantic case.
Let's take our time. Yeah.
Then Trump gets to walk.
We're super happy
pretending to be principled.
[00:16:13]
Later we'll say,
of course he couldn't have done it.
That's absurd.
But by that time it'll be too late.
Yeah.
His exact quote Gorsuch's was we're
writing a rule for the ages, and I do
agree with him on that, but I don't.
Write it now.
Why do you need to write it
eight months from now?
No, the whole remand thing is garbage.
[00:16:30]
They're definitely doing it
to protect Trump.
And I would be shocked
if they didn't do it so well.
Let's see.
We're going to find out, all together.
But it doesn't in my opinion.
It doesn't look good at all.
So there goes one of the cases,
in my opinion.
Well played, Merrick Garland. Moron.
[00:16:47]
Thanks for watching The Young Turks.
Really appreciate it.
Another way to show support
is through YouTube memberships.
You'll get to interact with us more.
There's live chat emojis, badges.
You've got emojis of me
Anna John Jr. So those are super fun.
But you also get playback
of our exclusive member only shows
[00:17:06]
and specials right after they air.
So all that, all you got
to do is click that join button
right underneath the video.
Thank you.
Now Playing (Clips)
Episode
Podcast
The Young Turks: April 25, 2024
Hosts: Cenk UygurAna Kasparian
- 16 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 18 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 10 minutes
- 9 minutes
- 7 minutes