Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Hear what legal expert found ‘curious’ about Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump" video.

  1. That isn't how the Court ruled. It is in the purview of Congress to disqualify a candidate who engaged in insurrection -- the 14th Amendment is FEDERAL law. That can be done by enacting a statute implementing that clause of the Amendment. That would then remove a disqualification action for that offense to FEDERAL court.
    2
  2. That's not how it works. The all-or-nothing catastrophizing solves nothing.
    1
  3. Perhaps you should READ THE DECISON for how your question is answered. Instead of jumping to irrelevant conclusions.
    1
  4. The question that the Court is focused on in the immunity claim case is complex. The question is not about "ALLEGED crimes"; it is about "ALLEGED official acts" and whether they can be crimes. There is no way, based on the fact that the Court did not overturn the FINDINGS of the Colorado (and Maine and Illinois) court that Trump engaged in insurrection, that they are going to uphold his claim of absolute immunity -- that a president can commit any crime he wants but can't be prosecuted for it.
    1
  5.  @ScottGrammer  I have an education in law, and I don't overlook the fact that this Court has held against him in crucial instances: he tried to protect his tax records from prosecutors, and they held against him. Thus the civil fraud trial was successful on holding him to account. And Weisselberg is going to jail again for committing perjury, to which charges he pled guilty today. It i not either/or, black/white. In this case they DO NOT overturn the Colorado courts FINDING that Trump engaged in insurrection. Rather, they addressed the legal process -- that it is Congresses role to disqualify. They only overturned the conclusion based on the evidence; they did not invalidate the evidence. That same evidence is the basis for the January 6th case in DC, concerning which Trump is claiming the impossible: absolute immunity. So they have not ruled out him being criminally prosecuted for engaging in insurrection. Most cynically: they have their seats; they don't need Trump anymore. And they would rather any association with him be forgot. So they are going to CYA in relation to his rejection of the rule of law.
    1
  6.  @AndrewBurbo-zw6pf  Or any official act that violates a law is likely a criminal act.
    1
  7. The question placed before the prosecution and defense in accepting the "immunity" case did not use the words "ALLEGED crimes". It used the words "ALLEGED official acts". Ordering assassinations would be an official act; but ordering assassinations of domestic political opponents would be a prosecutable crime. So if the decision on the Colorado case DID NOT overturn the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection, then the two appear to be consistent: the Court appears to agree that Trump engaged in insurrection; their only question seems to be whether an official act can also be a crime, or a crime can be said to (also) be an official act and therefore not a crime. So they are focused on the complex area between legitimate presidential immunity, and where to draw the line between that and criminal acts that fall outside that immunity (even if characterized as "official acts").
    1
  8. The Colorado decision came out of a two week trial in which Trump's side of the issue was represented.
    1
  9.  @Acccountable  You'd need EVIDENCE for that, of which there is NONE. The Republican tradition of the Politics of Fear and Smear is not a legal principle. And it turns out that the two "witnesses" for the "impeachment inquiry" against Biden were assets of Chinese and Russian intelligence services. The first is still on the lam, and the second is arrested for lying to the gov't on the matter, and is incarcerated because a flight risk. So as there are no grounds for indicting, let alone trying, Biden, what's your next anti-American move, Comrade?
    1