>> WE LEARNED TODAY THAT THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS 2 DIFFERENT KINDS OF JUSTICES
JUSTICES WHO ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE LAW AND JUSTICES WHO APPEAR TO BE
TRYING TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT. SPECIFICALLY THE FORMER PRESIDENT NAMED
TRUMP. THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL
DIVIDING LINE THAT SEEMED TO EMERGE ON THE COURT TODAY WITH
JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO AS USUAL, RUNNING AWAY WITH WILD FLIGHTS
OF FANCY ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO PRESIDENTS OF THE
SUPREME COURT. DOESN'T PROVIDE THEM WITH SOME FORM OF NEW
PROTECTION THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED BEFORE
JUSTICE ALITO WAS PLACED ON THE SUPREME COURT IN EFFECT BY THE
SUPREME COURT ON THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN THE 2000
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN FAVOR OF GEORGE W BUSH WHO CAME IN
SECOND IN THE VOTING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT CAME IN
FIRST IN A 5, 4, DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE GEORGE W BUSH WHO LOST
THE POPULAR VOTE AND WAS AWARDED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
BY THE SUPREME COURT BECAME PRESIDENT. HE WAS THEN ABLE TO
PUT SAMUEL ALITO ON THE SUPREME COURT, SAMUEL ALITO, AS OPINION
OVERTURNING ROE VERSUS WADE QUOTED JUDGES IN ENGLAND LONG
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EXISTED, WHO WERE
PROSECUTORS OF WHICH IS BEFORE THEY BECAME JUDGES WHO WERE
THEN IN THE BUSINESS OF SENTENCING, WHICH IS TO DEATH
AS JUDGES, SAMUEL ALITO, FOOT. THEY WERE WORTHY OF
QUOTING, IN HIS OPINION, REMOVING THE RIGHT TO SAFE
HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN THIS COUNTRY FOR ONE TODAY, SAMUEL ALITO. IMAGINE, BUT WITHOUT SOME NEW FORM OF
IMMUNITY WRITTEN BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, EVERY
FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL BE PROSECUTED BY THE NEW JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT TAKES OVER AFTER THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE IN
MAKING THAT PREDICTION, SAMUEL ALITO WAS ABLE TO IGNORE THE
ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. PRIOR TO THE
CRIMINAL RAMPAGING OF DONALD TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH WHO SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT WAS
PROCEDURALLY STOLEN BY REPUBLICAN SENATOR MITCH
MCCONNELL WHO STOLE IT AWAY FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPOINT A JUSTICE HELD THE SEAT OPEN LONG ENOUGH
SO THAT DONALD TRUMP COULD PUT NEIL GORSUCH IN THAT CITY FIELD
ARE SUCH WHO SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED EVERY TIME HE TAKES
A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, JOINED IN THE INVENTED SCENARIO
OF EVERY PRESIDENT BEING PROSECUTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION OF HIS OR HER SUCCESSOR FOREVER IN THE
FUTURE, EVEN THOUGH THAT HAS ONLY
HAPPENED TO ONE PRESIDENT, WHICH PROVES THAT THE ONE
PRESIDENT THOSE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES CARE ABOUT IS DONALD
TRUMP. THEY REPEATEDLY TRIED TO SAY, BUT THEIR ENTIRE CONCERN
IS FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE. IMAGINARY PRESIDENTS, ALL OF
WHOM WOULD APPOINT ATTORNEYS GENERAL WHO WOULD BECOME
PROSECUTORIAL ABUSERS OF FORMER PRESS SAMUEL ALITO DECLARED
FROM THE BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM IN
AMERICA DOES NOT WORK. IT'S ONE THING FOR FLIPPANT,
PUNDITS ON TV TO USE THE OVERDONE CLICHED PHRASE ABOUT
GRAND JURIES WHO WILL INDICT A HAM SANDWICH IF PROSECUTORS
WANT THEM TO. IT IS ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO SAY THAT SAME THING TO USE
THAT PORNOGRAPHIC LEGALLY HAM SANDWICH EXAMPLE IN THE SUPREME
COURT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT SOUND YOU'RE LATE. NOTICE
GRACEFULLY DID FROM THE BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT. TODAY HE
WILLFULLY INSULTED EVERY MEMBER OF EVERY TRUMP
GRAND JURY HAS RETURNED EVERY INDICTMENT AGAINST DONALD
TRUMP. THE TEAM OF JUDGES TRYING TO
PROTECT DONALD TRUMP. TODAY CAME UP AGAINST THE NEWEST
MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WHO WAS TRYING TO
PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
INTERRUPTED THE QUESTIONING OF DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER EARLY IN
THE HEARING WITH THIS. >> YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE LACK
OF IMMUNITY AND THE POSSIBILITY OF PROSECUTION IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL CONTEXT IS LIKE AN INNOVATION. AND I UNDERSTOOD IT
TO BE THE STATUS QUO. I MEAN THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT EVERY
PRESIDENT FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME ESSENTIALLY HAS UNDERSTOOD
THAT THERE WAS A THREAT OF PROSECUTION, IF FOR NO OTHER
REASON THAN THE THE CONSTITUTION SUGGEST THAT THEY
CAN BE PROSECUTED AFTER IMPEACHMENT. THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL HAS SAID FOREVER, THE PRESIDENTS
ARE IMMUNE ABLE TO A THREAT OF PROSECUTION AND THEY HAVE
CONTINUED TO FUNCTION AND DO THEIR JOBS AND DO ALL THE
THINGS THAT PRESIDENTS DO. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE
ASKING NOW FOR A CHANGE IN WHAT THE LAW IS RELATED TO IMMUNITY.
EVERYBODY HAS THOUGHT INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT WHO HELD THE
OFFICE THAT THEY WERE TAKING THIS OFFICE SUBJECT TO
POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. KNOW. >> I DO. I SEE THE OPPOSITE.
I SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE GOING THE OTHER WAY. ARBERY AGAINST
MADISON, MISSISSIPPI AGAINST JOHNSON DISCUSSED THIS BROAD
IMMUNITY PRINCIPLE. THAT NATIONAL WAS A PART OF WHAT WAS
UP WITH THE PARDON FOR PRESIDENT NIXON. I THINK IT
IT'S EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT PRESIDENTS COULDN'T BE
PROSECUTED THAN WHAT WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? HE WAS UNDER
INVESTIGATION FOR MOST PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CONDUCT AT THE TIME
OFFICIAL ACTS AND PRIVATE CONDUCT. >> SAME WITH DONALD TRUMP. EXACTLY THE SAME LATER IN THE HEARING, JUSTICE
JACKSON IMAGINED WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THE SUPREME COURT
GIVES PRESIDENTS EVEN MORE LEGAL PROTECTION THAN THEY HAVE
NOW. >> IT'S SOMEONE WITH THOSE
KINDS OF POWERS, THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD
WITH THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF AUTHORITY COULD GO INTO OFFICE
KNOWING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO POTENTIAL PENALTY FOR
COMMITTING CRIMES. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
DISINCENTIVE IS FROM TURNING THE OVAL OFFICE INTO, YOU KNOW,
THAT THAT THIS THE SEAT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THIS
COUNTRY, IF THE POTENTIAL FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS TAKEN OFF
THE TABLE, WOULDN'T THERE BE A SIGNIFICANT
RISK THAT FUTURE PRESIDENTS WOULD BE EMBOLDENED TO COMMIT
CRIMES WITH ABANDON WHILE THEY'RE IN OFFICE? PRESIDENTS
FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT'S A
POSSIBILITY THAT MIGHT BE WHAT HAS KEPT THIS OFFICE FROM
TURNING INTO THE KIND OF CRIME CENTER THAT I'M ENVISIONING.
BUT ONCE WE SAY NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY, MISTER PRESIDENT,
YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. I'M WORRIED THAT WE WOULD HAVE
A WORSE PROBLEM THAN THE PROBLEM OF THE PRESIDENT
FEELING CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE LAW WHILE HE'S IN OFFICE. >> PROFESSOR TRIBE, JUSTICE
JACKSON SEEMED TO BE GETTING AT THE POINT THAT THE SUPREME
COURT ACTUALLY DOESN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS CASE
OTHER THAN TO SIMPLY SAY THERE'S NOTHING PRESENTED HERE
FOR WHICH DONALD TRUMP CANNOT BE PROSECUTED. >> SHE'S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND
THAT WAS FOR ME, THE PIVOTAL MOMENT. ME MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT
WAS QUITE DEPRESSING IN THE SENSE THAT IT REALLY AMOUNT TO
4 JUSTICES, KAVANAUGH, ALEDO GORSUCH, THOMAS, IN SEARCH OF A
LIFELINE FOR DONALD TRUMP. THAT WAS EMBARRASSING AND MUCH
OF IT SEEMED TO BE KIND OF LIKE A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE. THEY JUST WONDER THE
SPIN MOVE HYPOTHETICALS IN THE ERROR AND ALMOST GRAFTON, NEW
LAW FOR SOME KIND OF IMMUNITY. BUT JACKSON GOT TO THE POINT.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS OUR JOB AND OUR JOB IS TO DECIDE THE
CASE BEFORE US AND ON THE FACTS BEFORE US. THERE IS NO
PLAUSIBLE CASE FOR IMMUNITY. AND IF WE TAKE A STEP BACK,
THAT'S SOMETHING THE COURT COULD AND SHOULD HAVE DONE BACK
IN DECEMBER. SO WE COULD NOW BE MAY BE IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN
THIS TRIAL. SO IT IS A SHAMEFUL PERFORMANCE BY THE COURT
BASICALLY BUYING THE VERY TIME THAT DONALD TRUMP WANTED. I DO THINK I'M JUST GOING TO
ADD MORE AS I DO THINGS THAT MOVE TO KNEEL. AND ANDREW ARE
RIGHT THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SILVER LINING FOR AT LEAST A AT
LEAST A HALF SILVER LINING. THAT IS IF JUSTICE BARENTS
REPEATING POINT THAT WE COULDN'T THE SITE OF THIS IMMEDIATELY
AND HAVE A HEARING QUICKLY, THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE LINE
BETWEEN OFFICIAL ACTS AND PRIVATE CAMPAIGN THAT SAYS
DRAWN AND THAT KIND OF HEARING WOULD BE ONE IN WHICH THEY
WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT 88 DAYS AS JUDGE TRUCK AND SAID SHE WOULD.
IF THE CASE IS SET BACK FOR TRIAL SOMEDAY, THEY COULD GO
RIGHT AWAY. AND THAT HEARING AND AT LEAST THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BEFORE THE ELECTION WOULD SEE ALL KINDS OF
EVIDENCE. THAT IS LIZ CHENEY POINTED OUT THE JANUARY 6
COMMITTEE WAS UNABLE TO GET. SO THAT'S A SLIGHT CONSOLATION. >> I WANT TO LISTEN. ONE THING
THAT JUSTICE GORSUCH SUGGESTED IN HIS WILD IMAGININGS OF THIS
WORLD IN WHICH EVERY PRESIDENT IS WORRIED ABOUT BEING
PROSECUTED AND HE HE WONDERED, WOULDN'T THEY ALL JUST PARDON
THEMSELVES? LET LET'S LISTEN TO THIS. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE
PRESIDENT'S WERE UNDER A FEAR FEAR THAT THEIR SUCCESSORS WITH CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE THEM
FOR THEIR ACTS IN OFFICE, WHETHER IT'S WHETHER THEY ARE
ENGAGED IN A DRONE STRIKE THAT YOU ALL THE HYPOTHETICALS ON?
NOT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE ONE OF THE
INCENTIVES THAT MIGHT BE CREATED IS FOR PRESIDENTS TO FRIDAY PARDON THEMSELVES. GIVE ME THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. >> THAT IS DIDN'T THINK OF THAT
AND SHOW YOUR HONOR ACID. THAT IS CERTAINLY AND ONE IN 7
MIGHT BE CREATIVE. >> OF COURSE, THERE WAS NO
REASON FOR ANYONE TO THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE JUSTICE GORSUCH
IMAGINED IT. >> WELL, DONALD TRUMP US
IMAGINE THAT. NO DOUBT THAT HE'S PROBABLY SURPRISED THAT
HIS LAWYER PRETENDED NOT TO IMAGINE THAT. YEAH, THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF LITERATURE ABOUT IT AS JUSTICE JACKSON SAID AT
THAT POINT. COME ON. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THERE'S A PRINCIPLE HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD THAT
NOBODY CAN BE A JUDGE IN HIS OR HER OWN CASE. THE COURT HAS
NEVER HELD THAT A SELF PARDON WOULD BE THE LEGITIMATE, BUT
THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. BUT THE VERY IDEA THAT GORSUCH AND
ACTUALLY LEADER WAS WELL, WE'RE KIND OF IMAGINING THE
PRESIDENCY IS A BUNCH OF CROOKS, A TYPICAL, YOU KNOW,
THE THINKING THE WAY THE MOB THINK. SO THAT'S PART OF MYSELF
ON THE WAY OUT. I MEAN, THAT JUST SHOWS HOW PATHETIC IT'S
ALL GOTTEN. THE SO-CALLED LIBERAL JUSTICES WERE
TAKING THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY. SO WAS JUSTICE BARRETT. BUT
LOOK, GUYS ON THE COURT, WHEN LEE EXCEPTION OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE FOR WHOM LIKE NEIL, I ALWAYS HOLD OUT SOME HOPE.
HE WAS A STUDENT OF MINE AND I AM SORT OF PREDICTED THAT HE WOULD
BE THE FINAL VOTE, TOO, UPHOLD THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
A LITTLE LESS SAYING WE'RE HERE BECAUSE HE MADE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS DURING THE ARGUMENT SUGGESTING THAT HE THOUGHT THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAD NOT DONE A GREAT JOB, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS
UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN DECISION, QUITE BRILLIANT THING. AND HE
SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE CIRCULAR. SO HE CLEARLY WANTS
TO DO SOMETHING MORE HENRI MAN. BUT THE MAIN POINT HERE IS THAT
COULD HAVE DECIDED IT ALL BACK IN DECEMBER. IF THEY FELT THE NEED TO WEIGH
IN. THEY DIDN'T NEED TO WAIT FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS AT
ALL. IN CASE AFTER CASE THE COURT HAS SIMPLY TAKE THE CASE
AND DECIDED AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT. THEY DID THAT IN THE
NIXON TAPES CASE. THEY DID IN PENTAGON PAPERS CASE IT'S
BECOMING MORE COMMON PRACTICE. BUT INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, THEY
STRETCHED OUT THEY RE PHRASE THE QUESTION TO MAKE IT VERY
BROAD, ABSTRACT ACADEMIC ALMOST AND THEN THEY SET THE ARGUMENT
FOR THE LAST POSSIBLE DAY. THIS TERM. IT'S REALLY SHAMEFUL BECAUSE
EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE 9 JUSTICES COULD WITH A STRAIGHT
FACE, AND NONE OF THEM INDICATED THEY WOULD SAY THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE
EXTREME PROPOSITION THAT THESE
ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM ANY PROSECUTION FOR WHAT HE DOES,
HOWEVER, CRIMINAL WHILE HE'S IN OFFICE. NONETHELESS, EVEN
THOUGH THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BOTTOM LINE DOWN THE ROAD FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES,
HE'S RE-ELECTED AND PICKS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DOES IS
BETTING THE MORNING THEN HAVE TO DO THIS CRAZY SELF PARTNERED
A BUSINESS. HE WILL SIMPLY GET RID OF THE CASE BY HIRING AN
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO FIRES AND THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHO
WOULD KEEP THE CASE GOING. AND THEN FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES, THE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR EVERYTHING THAT HE MIGHT
DO. AND AS JUSTICE JACKSON POINTS OUT, WE HAVE A NEW CRIME
CENTER IN THE OVAL OFFICE. ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO BASICALLY
MET LAUREN ARE ALL OF THESE ARE CRIMES BECOMES PRESIDENT
PROBABLY BY HIDING. THAT'S EMBARRASSING INFORMATION OF THE
KIND OF THING THAT'S GOING ON IN THE TRIAL IN MANHATTAN
BECOMES PRESIDENT AND THEN BASICALLY AS A GET OUT OF JAIL
FREE CARD FOR EVER. >> I GUESS SO. CLARENCE THOMAS'S IDEA OF
RECUSAL IS TO JUST BE THE ONE WHO SAYS THE LEAST, WHICH IS
WHAT HE DID TODAY. HE VERY FEW WORDS THAT 3 QUESTIONS I
NOTICED DIDN'T TAKE UP MORE THAN A MINUTE OF THE COURT'S
TIME EACH TIME. >> WELL, IT'S NOT SO MUCH WHAT
HE'S FAILED TO SAY IN THE COURTROOM. THAT'S WHAT HE'S
FAILED TO SAY TO ANY INVESTIGATOR TO HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE COURT
OR TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE RELATED TO HIS RECUSAL. AND THERE'S NO PLACE IN THE
COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW WHERE DUE PROCESS NEVER ACTUALLY GET TO THE FACTS EXCEPT AS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND HIS OWN INDISCRETIONS AND
HIS OWN ETHICS PROBLEMS. AND SO THAT REMAINS A REAL
PROBLEM. THIS IS NOT A 3RD CASE THAT JUSTICE THOMAS HAS TIME
WHERE HE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO MAKE ANY POSITIVE CASE FOR
HIMSELF AS TO WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE RECUSED. AND THE COURT
ITSELF AS AN INSTITUTION, HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO
INQUIRE INTO THOSE FACTS. AND THERE IS NO OTHER PARTY
WORKING FOR THE COURT LIKE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL OR STAFF
ATTORNEYS OR ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAVE MADE ANY EFFORT TO
INTERVIEW HIM AND FIND OUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE. AND THAT IS
REALLY INEXCUSABLE IN A COUNTRY OF LAWS. AND THANK YOU, BY THE WAY, FOR
MENTIONING MY ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO JOIN
THE FUN, COME TO A WHITE HOUSE FOR SENATE DOT COM. >> SENATOR, WHAT ELSE DID YOU
HEAR IN THE IT IN THE SUPREME COURT HEARING TODAY THAT THAT
THAT WE EITHER HAVE OR HAVE NOT YET RECOVERED THAT YOU THINK
ACTUALLY SHOULD BE THE WAY THE COURT LOOKS AT THIS. >> THE PART THAT AGGRAVATED DAY
TO GO OUT COME OUT FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION, IT WAS JUSTICE
GORSUCH. VERY POMPOUS. WE SAYING THAT WE
ARE WRITING A RULE FOR THE AGES HERE AS IF HE'S SOME HIGH
PRIEST OF POLICY WAS GOING TO BE MAKING AGE LONG
DETERMINATIONS KNOW THERE'S A CONSTITUTION. IT SAYS THAT THE COURT IS
CONFINED TO DECIDING INDIVIDUAL CASES OR CONTROVERSY. THE CASE
OR CONTROVERSY HERE IS DOES THIS IN THE 8 MONTHS VIOLATE
ANY KIND OF IMMUNITY PROTECTION, THIS INDICTMENT? AND INSTEAD, AS YOU POINTED OUT
ON THE SHOW, LAWRENCE, THEY WENT ON THIS LONG EXPEDITION TO
HYPOTHETICALS AND THROUGH A LOT OF NONSENSE WITH THE RESULTS
AND PERHAPS HORRIBLY TO SAY THE INTENT OF DELAY. AND WE'LL SEE HOW QUICKLY THEY
RESPONDED TO REMEMBER. AND BUSH V GORE, THEY DECIDED THAT CASE THE DAY
AFTER ALL ARGUMENT, WHEN IT WAS PUTTING A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT
POWER DIDN'T WASTE A MINUTE NOW THAT THEY'RE PROTECTING A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT BY DELAY. WE'LL SEE HOW QUICKLY THEY
RESPOND TO THIS. BUT THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE HERE. AND JUST THE
ARROGANCE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY THAT THEIR ORIGINAL
LESS, BUT THEY TALK ABOUT POLICY IS IF THEIR LEGISLATORS,
THEY SAY THEIR MINIMALIST, BUT THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE
LANGUAGE OR NARROW TO THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY. THIS ARGUMENT
HAS EXPLODED SO MANY OF THE PET SERIES OF THESE JUSTICES THAT
IT'S ALMOST COMICAL. >> AND THEY ARE WILLING TO
COMPLETELY IGNORE 234 YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY. >> YEAH, THAT WAS THE GREAT
POINT THAT JUSTICE JACKSON MADE FOR. AS LONG AS THERE'S BEEN IN
AMERICA, THERE HAVE BEEN PRESIDENTS WHO DID NOT ENJOY
IMMUNITY AND WHO DID NOT BREAK THE LAW. IF THE JUSTICES WHO
WON'T ADMIT THAT THE NOVELTY HERE, AS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
HISTORY, A PRESIDENT WHO IS LIKELY A CRIMINAL, THAT'S WHAT'S NEW HERE. NOT A
NEW IDEA. AND THE IDEA THAT THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY
OTHER PRESIDENT SEE A FUTURE PRESIDENT SEES AS POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS. WE HAVE ONE PRESIDENCY THAT WAS A PROBLEM.
THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE OF CRIMES HE LIKELY
COMMITTED IN OFFICE.
