Podcast Summary
Presidential Immunity: Former President Trump's argument for absolute presidential immunity may prevent evidence from a criminal case against him, including statements to senior aides and White House meetings, from being used in his trial.
Former President Donald Trump is attempting to use absolute presidential immunity to challenge the criminal case against him in Manhattan, which includes 34 felony counts. The Supreme Court ruling grants immunity for core presidential functions and official conduct, preventing its use as evidence in a criminal trial. Trump argues that evidence introduced in the case, such as a White House meeting about suppressing hush money tapes and statements from senior aide Hope Hicks, should not be admissible due to presidential immunity. Trump's statements to Hicks about the outcome had they not suppressed the stories were used to demonstrate his intent, but this evidence may now be in question due to the immunity argument. Trump's sentencing was scheduled 10 days after this argument was made to Justice Mershan.
Presidential power and unofficial conduct: The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential power prevents the use of evidence related to a president's unofficial conduct during their term in office for unofficial acts.
Former President Donald Trump is arguing before the court that certain evidence related to his habits and procedures in the White House, which were introduced during his criminal trial, should not have been admitted due to the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential power. Although the criminal charges against him involved conduct before he was in office, Trump is claiming that the evidence of his White House activities should be barred as it pertains to unofficial conduct. This argument is based on the Supreme Court's decision that even unofficial conduct engaged in during the presidency cannot be used as evidence against the president for unofficial acts. Trump's team is currently seeking a retrial or a vacated jury verdict, delaying the sentencing process.
Presidential Immunity: The Supreme Court case could set a precedent for granting presidents immunity from criminal convictions, potentially undermining the principle that no one is above the law.
The United States Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could potentially grant former President Trump immunity from a Manhattan criminal conviction. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, expressed concern that this decision could undermine the principle that no one is above the law and give the president excessive immunity. The case hinges on whether certain evidence presented in the case is permissible under current rulings. Meanwhile, Zbiotics offers a pre-alcohol probiotic to help mitigate the rough mornings after drinking, which is caused by a toxic byproduct in the gut rather than dehydration.
Gut health supplement, alcohol: Taking Zibiotics, a gut health supplement before drinking alcohol, can help improve how you feel afterwards. It comes with a 100% money-back guarantee.
Zibiotics, a gut health supplement, can help improve how you feel after drinking alcohol. The supplement is designed to work in your gut and should be taken before drinking. I personally tried it during an anniversary celebration and was impressed with the results. Zibiotics offers a 100% money-back guarantee, so there's no risk in giving it a try. Meanwhile, in other news, the Supreme Court is facing a historic question regarding a former president's immunity from criminal prosecution. The majority's decision to grant absolute immunity to a president's exercise of core constitutional powers and all official acts, regardless of their purpose, is controversial and lacks a solid legal basis. This expansive immunity could potentially shield a president from prosecution for even corrupt actions.
Presidential Immunity: The Supreme Court's decision grants a sitting president immunity for any acts committed in office that could potentially be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions against them, allowing former President Trump to challenge his recent conviction using this ruling.
The Supreme Court's decision grants a sitting president immunity for any acts committed in office that could potentially be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions against them. Former President Trump, who received this immunity hours after the ruling, has already begun the process of using this decision to challenge his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan. Evidence related to communications with top aides and events at the White House, which could have been used to prove intent for unofficial acts, will now be excluded from such prosecutions. Trump's legal team is capitalizing on this ruling to argue for dismissal or a new trial.
Trump's immunity: Trump's broad immunity from prosecution for official actions may lead to lengthy delays, dismissed cases, and exclusion of key evidence in his criminal cases, including those related to the Capitol riot
The Supreme Court's recent ruling granting former President Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official actions taken during his presidency has significant implications for all of his criminal cases. Trump's lawyers have already sought to use this ruling to dismiss the verdict in one case and will likely make similar arguments in others, including those related to the January 6 Capitol riot. This could result in lengthy delays and the exclusion of key evidence in these cases. The determination of what constitutes official versus unofficial conduct is also expected to be appealed, potentially taking years to resolve. Biden and many others have expressed dissent over this ruling, viewing it as a fundamental attack on the Constitution.
Supreme Court power vs Constitution: The recent Supreme Court ruling prioritizes monarchy power over US Constitution text, potentially delaying Trump sentencing, highlighting the need for public engagement and advocacy for accountability.
The recent Supreme Court ruling, which some claim is based on originalism and textualism, appears to prioritize preserving the power of the monarchy over the text of the US Constitution. This interpretation could potentially delay the sentencing of Donald Trump and underscores the need for the public to stay informed and engaged in the political process. It's crucial to recognize that the Supreme Court's actions may not align with the intentions of the founding fathers regarding "we the people" and our declaration of independence. The speaker encourages viewers to share this information, emphasizing the importance of taking back our power and advocating for accountability.