What the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's immunity case means

CNN
CNN
151,870
0
Published 2024-07-01
Catch up on the Supreme Court’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s immunity case and what it may mean for Trump and the presidency.

00:00 CNN’s Paula Reid breaks down the historic ruling.
04:02 CNN’s Jake Tapper discusses with Trump’s former attorney Tim Parlatore and Victoria Nourse, former chief counsel for then-Vice President Joe Biden.
09:50 CNN’s Pamela Brown describes Trump’s response to the ruling and discusses with Trump’s former Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
18:23 Brown discusses the political and legal repercussions of the ruling with an expert panel, including CNN legal analysts Elie Honig and Elliot Williams, CNN political director David Chalian, and CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins. #CNN #news

Want to stay up to date on the day’s top stories? Sign up for CNN’s 5 Things newsletter, and we’ll give you the 5 biggest stories you need to know, videos people are watching, and more!

Sign up here: www.cnn.com/newsletters/5-things?source=nl-acq_soc…
All Comments (21)
  • @claudiabarros5625
    I'm not from America, but it's hard to see the United States getting further and further away from a civilized country. This all seems unreal in a democracy
  • @lkfs55
    Yeah now he’s not crying that it’s a rigged system. I say it’s rigged system and rigged for him.
  • @helanna9843
    ROI - the Federalist Society is getting a " return on investment" for their purchase of the Supreme Court.
  • @edwardj.7007
    The Supreme Court is supposed to follow 3 main paths to reach a ruling. 1). The Constitution. 2). Congressional legislation and/or precedent. 3). The intent of the Founders based on the writings and the clues they left behind. (In that order). In other words...if there is nothing to apply from the Constitution...they move to option 2 - Congress and any relevant legislation. They can also look at precedent. When none of these things apply because they don't exist, then they are supposed to base rulings on the intent of the Founders, based on evidence from the time period. That being said....there is nothing in the Constitution granting the President these sweeping powers of immunity. It doesn't exist. There is also no legislation giving this kind of sweeping power to the President. There is no historical precedent for this. This egregious ruling means that Richard Nixon's crimes would have been just fine. He would have been immune. The 6 member majority on the court are not legitimate justices. They are 6 corrupt politicians in robes...nothing more. They need to be referred to as such from this point forward until they are gone. What these 6 politicians did was create constitutional law and an interpretation of law out of thin air. They did it with no legal basis. They literally just made it up to satisfy their own personal ideological and political biases and to help their political ally. An absolutely disgraceful move. What they were supposed to do in the absence of text addressing this issue in the Constitution, and in the absence of Congressional legislation....was make a finding based on the intent of the Founders. While the Founders didn't really address immunity in the Constitution, they very clearly made it known that a President must follow laws and is subject to the law. They clearly stated that a President is answerable to high crimes and misdemeanors. If The Founding Father's thought a President has the sweeping immunity that these 6 Supreme politicians came up with out of thin air, then they would not have put that clause in the Constitution. Secondly, we know that the Founders were very leery of giving an executive too much power. In fact, we know that The Founders themselves were vehemently opposed to this, because they were dealing with an oppressive and intrusive King of England who tried to impose his will on the Colonies. Does anyone really believe that the Founders would have wanted to create a King? This is obvious. So if these 6 Supreme corrupt politicians would have followed normal protocols for reaching a ruling, they would have had to look at the intent of the authors of the Constitution and would have had to come to the conclusion that a President shouldn't have this kind of sweeping immunity. They could have only come up with a narrow scope (that wouldn't apply to Trump) that a President is immune from prosecution for orders or mistakes during a time of grave national emergency, like a war on American soil. Something of that sort that would very narrow in scope could be seen as legitimate. But not the lunacy that we saw today on July 1st, 2024.
  • @Yup2024
    Of no significance. Get yourselves out there and vote. Plain and simple. Don’t get distracted by the side shows. This is not about Trump it’s about not sleeping on voting!
  • @user-cj7dv2kc6d
    Not some... all official acts. And they can clearly claim anything is official using any corrupt logic tjey come up with. Time to take those judges out of power.
  • @michellebaldwin5736
    January 6th was a private endeavor therefore he should be indicted to the fullest extent of the law for his actions on that day. There was nothing presidential about that!
  • @bigsby3398
    The start of this video is the sort of news report you'd see at the beginning of a disaster movie. We all should be very worried, Trump and his followers are a danger to the free world, not just America.
  • @PHANAUER76
    I don’t care if he was sitting president or not. His actions caused what happened on January 6th.
  • @danpease8395
    A conversation with Hope Hicks about paying off a porn star while in the White House cannot possibly be called an official act
  • @DavidJ222
    Our Constitution I was here long before Trump, and it will be here long after he's gone, because this isn’t a sprint, it's a marathon. Our US Constitution is the world's longest surviving written charter of government. Our Constitution's first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens, and NOT one self-serving individual." 🇺🇸 Semper Fi..
  • @texwebb
    Since I was a young child in history class, I have wondered how fascist leaders where allowed by their citizens to wield such unchecked power. How did an entire country not only stand by but join in the mass murder of jews? Why do the masses learn to hate each other based on differences such as race or religion? It still goes on in many countrys. But America has evolved; very imperfectly; to use the power of law to help prevent such atrocities from happening here. Like I said I have always wondered and still do today. Something tells me fascists first take over courts claiming it is in the peoples interest. Although it is really to serve their own lust for power and brutally force their views on others. To say this decision is being over blown is nonsensical. It starts here. It may be too late to turn back. We must try anyway. Vote in every election no matter how big or small. Vote!