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.