PROFESSOR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL AND HE WON 39 CASES IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND HES WON EVERY CASE ON THIS SHOW. PROFESSOR TRIBE, GO AHEAD, DONALD TRUMPS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LAWSUIT BECAUSE OF JANUARY 6th. >> ITS A REMARKABLE CLAIM, LAWRENCE. ITS A CLAIM THAT IM NOT EVEN SURE RICHARD NIXON WOULD HAVE MADE. NIXON ACTUALLY INVOKED THE CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CERTAIN KINDS OF CERTAIN LAWSUITS. THERE WAS ONE BROUGHT BY A GUY NAMED ERNIE FITZGERALD AFTER NIXONS EXECUTIVE ORDER REORGANIZING THE AIR FORCE AND AFTER NIXON HAD LEFT OFFICE, FITZGERALD SUES NIXON SAYING WEIGHS REORGANIZED OUT OF A JOB AND THE REAL REASON THE PRESIDENT DID IT WAS HE DIDNT LIKE THE WAY FITZGERALD TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN 1982, IN NIXON V. FITZGERALD HELD WHEN THE EXERCISE HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES HE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE COURT SAID THE DESIRE TO BE REELECTED WILL DETER THE PRESIDENT FROM ABUSING HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES. THATS A GOOD ONE IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT YOU COULD RELY ON CONGRESS TO CHECK THE PRESIDENT. THATS A REALLY GOOD ONE IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED BY CONGRESSMEN SWADWELL OF AIMING AN ANGRY MOB AT THE CAPITOL AT CONGRESS TO PREVENT IT FROM PERFORMING ITS FUNCTION.FUNCTION FUNCTIONLFUNCTION FUNCTION, THE PRESIDENTS CLAIM TO STAY IN AFTER BEING VOTED OUT BY THE PEOPLE AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TAKES IT TO A NEW LEVEL. SAYING I HAVE A DUTY TO YOU MY SUBJECTS, I CAN HEAR THE PLAY
"HAMILTON OWNERSHIP " "HAMILTON OWNERSHIP "TON OWNERSH "HAMILTON "HAMILTON" --
-- IF I PRESIDENT HAD IF I PRESIDENT HAD AN OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WAS PART OF HIS JOB DESCRIPTION TO HOLD ON TO THAT OFFICE EVEN AFTER HES VOTED OUT OF IT, AND TO DO IT EVEN BY TRYING TO HAVE HIS OWN VICE PRESIDENT HUNG IN FRONT OF THE CAPITOL CAPITOL BY STORMING THE CAPITOL, BY KILLING CAPITOL POLICE, IF THAT WAS PART OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION THEN THE JOB THAT WOULD BE DESCRIBED IS DICTATOR, NOT PRESIDENT, SO ITS NOT A CLAIM LIKELY TO FIND FAVOR, TO PUT IT MILDLY, WITH THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. >> A POSSIBLE ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF OFFICIAL DUTIES HERE IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN, SAY, DONALD TRUMP ON THAT DAY AND SENATORS HOLLEY ON THAT DAY. ONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT SENATORS HOLLEY HELPED TO PROVOKE AN INSURRECTION AT THE CAPITOL BY CHALLENGING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, HOWEVER, THERE IS AN OFFICIAL PROCEDURE THAT SENATORS HOLLEY WAS WORKING WITHIN WHEN HE DID THAT AND IT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING TO MIGHT HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING TO PEOPLE BUT HE WAS WORKING IN AN OFFICIAL PREEDOCEDURE WHEN HE DI THAT. >> RIGHT. HE WAS EXERCISING HIS ROLE AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, HOWEVER DISGUSTINGLY HE WAS DOING IT. THERES A SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE THAT SAYS ANY SPEECH YOU MAKE ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS AND FOR EXERCISING YOUR OFFICIAL DUTIES YOU CANT BE QUESTIONED IN ANY OTHER PLACE. THERE IS NO SUCH PROSIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE PRESIDENT FOR THE PRESIDEN PRECISION FOR THE PRESIDENT PRECISION FOR THE PRESIDENT THERE IS IMMUNITY IN THE CASE OF FITZGERALD THAT SAID IT IS PART OF ACCEPT REAGAN
OF OF ACCEPT REAGAN OF ACCEPT REAGAN OF -- ACCEPTATION OF POWERS THAT YOU DONT HOLD THE PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE AS DUTIES AS PRESIDENT.
AND IMPEACHMENT POWER AND IMPEACHMENT POWER IS IN THIS IS IN THIS VOTED TO ACQUIT HIM, MITCH McCONNELL SAID HE WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, THE LAW WILL FOLLOW HIM. TO USE THAT QUOTATION FROM THE TWEET THAT YOU BEGAN WITH. THE LAW WILL FOLLOW HIM. HE WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THATS WHY WE DONT HAVE TO CONVICT HIM. WELL, THIS IS THE LAW HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE. AND HE SAYS, NOT ME, I WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE JUST HAS MADE A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SOVEREIGN, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE KING OF US, HES NOT -- HES NOT GEORGE III, HE IS NOT EVEN GEORGE WASHINGTON. HE IS EXERCISING POWER AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. HE ANSWERS TO THE PEOPLE, AND ONE OF THE WAYS YOU ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE IS BY BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DAMAGES THAT YOU DO WHEN YOU AIM AN ANGRY MOB AT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHERS WHO GET SEVERELY INJURED AS A RESULT. ERIC SWALWELL IN THIS LAWSUIT TALKS ABOUT HOW HE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO DIE. HE BASICALLY SAID GOOD-BYE TO HIS WIFE AND TO HIS CHILDREN BECAUSE HE WAS AMONG THE TARGETS OF THIS SUPPOSED EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL POWER. THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS AND EVERY WAY. HES TRYING IN FACT ALSO TO SAY HE HAD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID, A RIGHT THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS, THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS FOR HIM TO SAY HE WAS BEING THE GOVERNMENT, DOING THE GOVERNMENTS DUTY, DOING HIS DUTY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS WHEN HE VIOLENT INSURRECTION TRYING TO HOLD OFFICE PUSHES IT WAY BEYOND THE LIMIT. ITS LIKE AT 13th CHIME OF A CLOCK, WHATEVER OTHER DEFENSES YOU MIGHT HAVE IN A LAWSUIT LIKE THIS REALLY BECOME ALMOST LAUGHABLE WHEN HIS BASIC DEFENSE IS, YOU CANT TOUCH ME, I WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND FOR ALL WE KNOW HES AMONG THOSE OF HIS FOLLOWERS WHO SAYS IM STILL PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. IT WONT WASH.
