Comments by "Mike W" (@MikeW165) on "Clarence Thomas Asks Jack Smith’s Lawyer If There’s No Presidential Immunity— Even For Official Acts" video.

  1.  @16viperdriverf  Nixon wasn't granted immunity, he was pardoned from any potential wrongdoing. Big difference
    9
  2.  @notnek202  28 600.1 -Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel "The Attorney General will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" Too easy
    8
  3.  @DaveL188  They haven't broken any laws lol
    7
  4.  @williamwangard295  Nixon resigned, that was to avoided the trial. The pardon was about the inevitable prosecution
    6
  5.  @54WantingMore  Actually federal elections are the responsibility of the states
    6
  6.  @54WantingMore  Fani is prosecuting STATE crimes. Not federal ones
    6
  7.  @notnek202  The office of the special counsel was established under FOUR statues. the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
    6
  8.  @DaveL188  Cant have an international trial unless an international court sees a crime, which none clearly have
    6
  9.  @IcOmEiNpEaCe333  "The Attorney General will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" Thats what the law says. Nothing in it about senate confirmation
    6
  10. literal nothing burger
    5
  11. Yes he has.
    5
  12.  @notnek202  attorney general has literally every authority under the law.
    5
  13.  @TruthOverAgenda-u7o  Because the president doesn't have immunity lol
    5
  14.  @stevegodfrey44  I literally just quoted the law saying Attorney General has the authority , not congress.
    5
  15.  @54WantingMore  Article 1 section 4 makes it very clearly that states run national elections. This is why each state has different election laws and procedures
    4
  16.  @stevegodfrey44  What law says only congress can authorize a special conuncl. Cite it for us please
    4
  17.  @IcOmEiNpEaCe333  Nowhere does it say the senate has to confirm the appointment
    4
  18.  @IcOmEiNpEaCe333  Except that didn't happen
    4
  19.  @williamwangard295  How is this not a valid argument?
    3
  20. Smith was appointed legally. This is not in dispute
    3
  21.  @tammyscott3706  There is no corruption. You're just biased
    3
  22.  @bmass0828  The appointment doesn't need confirmation by anybody. You clearly have no idea what the law says or how it works
    3
  23.  @Time4Project2025  I think only presidents who have actually broken the law should be held accountable under the law
    3
  24.  @Time4Project2025  You cant even name an actual statute to charge anyone with
    3
  25.  @Time4Project2025  You're literally making stuff up that didn't happen
    3
  26.  @Time4Project2025  Just embarrassing yourself
    3
  27. This is false
    3
  28.  @mikelacey9753  a republic is a type of democracy
    2
  29.  @mikelacey9753  every government that holds elections for its leaders is a type of democracy
    2
  30.  @bmass0828  What legal body gave permission? Federal law. THAT legal body lol
    2
  31.  @bmass0828  This has literally nothing to do with the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clauses. Neither of those say anything about the special council
    2
  32.  @bmass0828  The appointments clause deals only with POTUS. Garlind is not POTUS.
    2
  33.  @bmass0828  "The Attorney General will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" You lose
    2
  34. Only if it survived all the inevitable court challenges if a POTUS ever tried to actually do that
    2
  35.  @Dwade6894  The current administration hasn't violated any laws
    2
  36.  @Time4Project2025  Nobody has knowingly or willfully conconceal something from or make a false statement to Congress so whats the problem ?
    2
  37.  @DaveL188  This is false
    2
  38.  @Time4Project2025  projecting eh?
    2
  39.  @dilgaf  This is false
    1
  40.  @stancatalin4272  This is false. You clearly have no idea how the law works
    1
  41.  @stancatalin4272  Nobody is above the law, even when you're POTUS
    1
  42. Nobody has immunity
    1
  43. Biden hasn't broken any laws. cope
    1
  44. Please explain how this is treason. Start by citing the legal definition
    1
  45. This is false
    1
  46. Only trump since hes the only one whos broken the law
    1
  47. Nobody else has broken any laws
    1
  48.  @elizabethroselle9807  There is no election interference
    1
  49. JB has not taken any money from foreign countries whatsoever
    1
  50. You dont even know what treason is
    1
  51.  @ronnievarnet5489  no he doesn't
    1
  52.  @loulou007eddie2  This is false
    1
  53. Name the crime that you think you can charge biden with. Be specific lol
    1
  54. You have literally no idea what the law says or how it works
    1
  55. Nothing she did was illegal. You just dont have a clue what you're talking about
    1
  56. There is no election interference. Trump is not above the law
    1
  57.  @bmass0828  Appropriations Clause deals with money and the treaty. Not appointments. Swing and a miss
    1
  58.  @bmass0828  28 600.1 -Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel "The Attorney General will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" Too easy
    1
  59.  @bmass0828  28 CFR 600.1
    1
  60. Not even close to what it means. Civil immunity has been long established in the constitution
    1
  61. He was appointed in November 2022 lol
    1
  62. Neither of those three broke any laws soo
    1
  63. trump is not the president
    1
  64. You really need to try and remember that hes not the president anymore lol
    1
  65.  @nightwork63  He has no immunity from criminal actions he took while president. We just can prosecute while hes still in office. Which is the point
    1
  66.  @nightwork63  Joe hasn't broken any laws so you cant charge him with anything lol
    1
  67. Obama hasn't broken any laws
    1
  68.  @Dwade6894  Because they used the proper legal process with the courts lol
    1
  69.  @Dwade6894  Wont have any impact on any other past potus as nobody else has broken any laws lol
    1
  70.  @Dwade6894  Nothing about the case is fabricated
    1
  71.  @Dwade6894  You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Your bias couldn't be more obvious
    1
  72.  @FKCENSORSHIP  Never said that. But Nixon was pardoned. Further demonstrating that immunity doesn't exist.
    1
  73.  @TuhljinTampergauge  trying to overturn one is. Hence the prosecutions
    1
  74.  @utah_koidragon7117  This is false
    1
  75.  @utah_koidragon7117  The difference is one is a legal process and the other isn't
    1
  76.  @utah_koidragon7117  You're bias couldn't be more obvious
    1
  77.  @utah_koidragon7117  There is a huge difference.
    1
  78.  @utah_koidragon7117  One method is legal the other isn't. Thats the difference.
    1
  79.  @utah_koidragon7117  Calling up election officials and telling them to find you the exact number of votes yo need to win is not a legal contestation
    1
  80. No president has ever wilfully tried to keep government documents after leaving office before
    1
  81. All border laws are being enforced
    1
  82. Nothing about that was illegal
    1
  83. Obama lives rent free in your head
    1
  84.  @Time4Project2025  Just embarrassing yourself lol
    1
  85.  @arcanewyrm6295  Thats not illegal
    1
  86.  @arcanewyrm6295  We have no statute for "starting a war with false claims" sorry
    1
  87.  @DaveL188  Nowhere does it say they have to be a federal employee or the need for senate confirmation
    1
  88.  @DaveL188  Durham wasn't a federal employee when he acted as special counsel so already you have lost this argument
    1
  89.  @stickcheck3045  so you’re admitting partisan Republicans using the law to try and influence the election. Got it
    1
  90.  @FooshNick064  can’t handle the truth, huh?
    1
  91.  @stickcheck3045  nowhere does it say that authorization is required by Congress
    1
  92.  @stickcheck3045  the law authorize the attorney general to make the appointment. No other authorization needed.
    1
  93. Biden hasn't broken any laws
    1
  94. nothing unfair about it. You just cant handle the fact you lost
    1
  95. You're just biased
    1
  96. You have no evidence of wrongdoing by biden whatsoever
    1
  97. What treason? You dont even know what is lol
    1
  98. this is trumps lawsuit lol
    1
  99. How is this insane? Why should they be above the law?
    1
  100. What you said makes no sense
    1
  101. Not even close to what it means
    1
  102. Not was he was doing so this is a moot post
    1
  103. HRC lives rent free in your head
    1
  104. crossfire was investigated under trumps admin. Found NO wrongdoing. Lost both cases remember?
    1
  105. Smith was born in NY state and is a citizen.
    1
  106. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about
    1
  107. Except they never did that
    1
  108. Why would any past POTUS be charged when they haven't broken any laws
    1
  109. Trump is the only POTUS to ever do this so why would others be charged?
    1