Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump cases by teleconference - 5/12 (FULL LIVE STREAM)
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 05. 2020
- The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for two cases involving President Trump by teleconference line on May 12. Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutche Bank have been consolidated into one hearing, while Trump v. Vance remains separate. The coronavirus pandemic has forced arguments to take place remotely.
The court will first consider Trump’s battle to keep his financial records from being turned over to congressional committees. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform, the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Intelligence are seeking records from financial organizations Mazars and Deutsche Bank, rather than from Trump himself. Mazars and Deutsche Bank are not taking part in the lawsuits and say they will abide by court decisions.
The second hearing involves Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. He has requested records for his own investigation into whether alleged hush-money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, and to former Playboy model Karen McDougal violated state laws. Read more: wapo.st/2Ak7FoL. SPECIAL OFFER: To thank you for your support, here’s a deal on a Washington Post digital subscription: $29 for one year washingtonpost.com/youtubeoffer.
Subscribe to The Washington Post on CZcams: wapo.st/2QOdcqK
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
I would argue that the "Norm" is critical. Since Watergate, the "Norm" has only been challenged by President Donald J. Trump. "Norms" matter. If the Chairman of the Committee asks the I.R.S. for a tax return. It shall be provided. This law was passed after Nixon & Watergate for good reason.
"IF" President Trump is so innocent, then why is he acting so guilty? "IF" President Trump is so innocent, then the documents requested would only prove so. Actions speak louder than words. President Trump's actions seem to indicate that he is hiding what he does not want others to see, kind of like his NDA's. What even is the purpose of an NDA but to hide others from seeing what occurred, when, and by whom? And the actual history of Trump lying so much since becoming President of the USA (as recorded by numerous news agencies), only seems to add to his guilt. But, considering President Trump being innocent until proven guilty, authorize the release of the requested documents that will either prove President Trump's innocence, or the alternative. Let the scales of justice balance as they may.
@@charlesbrightman4237 Oh yes, those numerous, highly reliable and truthful "new agencies" . As for "let the scales of justice balance as they may", yes indeed. I'll wait on Mr Durham in that other matter.
@@richardverrall534 Trump's supporters among whom Sean Hannity were all over the place claiming that the findings would be damning. The Horowitz report concluded that there was no wrongdoing and that the investigation of James Comey was lawful. William Barr said that he disagreed, which somehow suggests that he was hoping for a certain conclusion. So it won't be a stretch to draw the conclusion that the Trump administration is not looking for the truth but for a narrative they might use as political amunition.
@@henning439 The findings by Horowitz were shocking and extremely damning, as everyone knows. It was not his job to take the matter any further, as he said. We now have criminal referrals on the FISA abuse (among other things), the Flynn frame-up and Durham + other prosecutors. Let's wait and see. What I find amusing is that those on the left have suddenly become such huge fans of the spy agencies and their oppressive activities against the citizen.
@@richardverrall534 You don't believe that the Legislative Branch of the US Government is a co-equal branch of the US Government and has oversight responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the US Government, (which includes oversight of the US President too)? Where is President Trump's claim of 'Executive Privilege' or 'Burden' in this specific matter? None has been made by President Trump because no such claim can be made in this matter. Release the financial documents. If President Trump is truly innocent, the documents will only prove his claim of innocence. If not, well .............
I would argue that the President spends most of his time tweeting...I don't think he could be burdened by these subpoenas to banking instituttions...
That's not a legal argument though. I personally agree, BUT...
@@hutchfromba what is the legal reason?
Let's not forget how much time Orange man spends on the golf course.
@@michaelbglovier1116 “shall furnish” the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee with any tax return or return information requested in writing.
@Rhys Poppe what does Jimmy K. has to do with legal arguments ?
If he is so worried about being distracted why does he waste so much time like other ordinary citizens in watching TV and tweeting
You mean why doesn't he just shut up and give in to the abuse.. I'll just leave that lay there.
@@havoc092 He could make up lies like Obama-Gate to deal with the abuse. Oh wait that is Trump abusing Obama not the other way around.
@@sexybob9766 Lies? There's a paper trail, dude. They have something the Obama admin didn't - solid evidence. So it isn't about abusing Obama. It's about holding people to account. I get that you see no difference.. that's the problem with you shits subscribing to a guru to the point that facts don't matter to your worldview.
@@havoc092 they have Nothing. Trump could not even say what they are accusing Obama for, when asked during a press conference. There is nothing! It is just like the so called "caravan of immigrants " that was talked about by the Republicans right before the midterm election and forgotten right after they lost the House of Representatives.
@ You mean texting in support of people protesting their governors for being all dictator like... This Republic is founded on a contract that the President represents and agrees with. Standing with people who are defending their rights is called doing his job.
Why does the Department of Justice have a dog in this race? Trump's attorney should be the one talking, DOJ needs to abstain if only because they would potentially need to take up prosecution for the findings possibly resulting from allowance of the subpoena.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
I wondered that myself.. likely AG Barr's typical partisan butinsky style.
I think it's because, as president, the DoJ provides an attorney to defend those interests. It's one of the many ways Trump abuses the government for his personal benefit.
Trump's attorney is representing Trump's personal interests. DOJ is there to advocate for the interests of the office of the President.
The Presidents lawyers protect the President as a person ,personal interest in office or not.The dept protects the institution of the Presidency
I have seen delivery platforms from other coverage ptoviders. I liked yours the best. I found it really easy to follow and graphically engaging. Next time I will turn my captions on to help as well! Kudos ❣️
At the 45' mark, I think Trump's lawyers are saying that subpoenas can be served on the President only for matters related to legislative reasons, that anything else (like the President's conduct or for that matter no specific reason given in the subpoena itself) should be off limits, that it would open a Pandora's box, unlimited in scope. The individual Justices are also asking questions that lead to defining some scope of a subpoena. Unsaid in what I'm hearing is that this is in clear contradiction of the Constitution itself which grants the House investigative (and potentially Impeachment) power not just to legislate but also the full responsibility of Oversight. Since Oversight is not defined in detail, will SCOTUS very actively create limitations where the Founding Fathers might have intentionally left out?
I was wondering what this argument would be the first time Trump's advocates floated this publicly.
I wonder if there should be any limit to the investigative purpose of a subpoena, all the subpoena's function is, is to discover and acquire information.
This should not be confused with whether further action like Impeachment is required.
Simply acquiring information should not be restricted in way beyond the few established as a result of the Paula Jones case (eg interfering with a President's ability to function), and in those cases might a case be brought before SCOTUS for a decision.
Revisiting the scope of a subpoena should not have been heard unless a truly valid reason in the submission was made that wasn't heard in the Paula Jones case.
IMO
By the 1:35' mark and about a half hour of questioning the House lawyer, thee discussion appears to have continued on a theory relying on legislative purpose. House lawyer has confirmed my earlier interpretation that potentially spurious responses like harassment can and would be decided by SCOTUS. Alito response is that is why they are listening to arguments today. Further examination of scope, integrity of House procedure to produce a subpoena, and whether prior precedents should be followed.
By the 2:13' mark, since the midpoint break, the President's other personal lawyer Jay Sekulow has been in discussion (with another Justice Dept lawyer). Sekulow attacks the subpoena more directly as one with a purpose of investigating possible criminal conduct rather than for legislative purposes. Again, issues of harassment or discussed. Justice saying that courts less than SCOTUS are not sufficiently capable of making such a decision. Again, trying to make a case that this SCOTUS must carve out new limitations of a subpoena that doesn't already exist. Although comparing to a Grand Jury was made earlier and noted that a prior SCOTUS had declared they are not the same, this SCOTUS is revisiting the reasons and circumstances for that decision, possibly to consider if the current case is similar enough or not. So far, it seems this court is considering precedents set in the Nixon tape case and the Paula Jones case.
A possibly important point that Sekulow and Justice Dept lawyer Francisco is trying to make is that a subpoena issued to investigate a crime by the President cannot be valid because the President cannot be indicted, which in turn likely relies on Justice Dept policy (not law) not to indict a President. SCOTUS is not following up on whether this is judicially valid... yet. Believe that argument is that everyone recognizes this is not codified yet, but should be instituted as part of a "Special Needs" provision.
The final participant, NY County DA Dunne opened by describing his filed case for Trump's tax returns, but Justice Roberts quickly steers the discussion into establishing need and inspecting the integrity of a case not filed in Federal Court against the President, and whether any existing rules exist for such a filing. Response has largely been to describe the State interest and jurisdiction because of Trump HQ, and that regardless whether different subpoena standards might exist, all Federal requirements had been met. Unfortunately the video stream breaks up repeatedly for the last 20 minutes or so, and it's too bad since it's hard to evaluate something where words are so important and aren't available. Sekulow appears to wrap up repeating points he made earlier.
Thank you for this
Well, a luxury (read: silver lining) afforded by Covid and my subsequent unemployment, I've never actually heard a case argued before the Supreme Court. Fascinating, if a little lack-luster.
another reason you've never heard one is that they almost never make the audio available. I think Bush v Gore is the only other time that the argument was broadcast in real time. they usually make you wait until the end of the week.
They do release the transcripts after a long while. And sometimes (big sometimes) a bored retired lawyer will put them to audio.
I think this audio is fascinating, I am not a lawyer, but find a lot of these arguments understandable and not lack luster at all.
@@NopeUghUghAbsolutelyNot The supreme Court automatically uploads audio of previous cases to their website. They just normally don't do it live.
@@jacoblee9455 You're right! I've been listening to oral arguments for years, and there is usually a week between the live argument and the taped recording on the Supreme court website.
Justice Breyer is so eloquent and intellectual.
How many hours a week does trump spend curating his social media accounts?
How's that any of your business.. you now his personal secretary?
Given timestamps, isn't that self-answering? Suffice to say, it's definitely too much.
@@sneaky6ix He only sleeps 4 hours a day, managed to do his job so well he has don 8 years of work in 4 easily and we're gonna get 4 more. If you're bitchy now, just wait till Obama admin folks start getting perp walked. Kid gloves are off if you hadn't noticed. Now he's gonna eat their lunch!
havoc092 Thats funny! Just proves Fox News viewers are less informed than those that don’t watch any news.
@@helenpauls1496 But how come CNN's rating to a skydive. Because everyone knows its fake news, same with washington post
the division and separation of piwers is ethically and statutory. however, publicly the Mr Trump has businesses that may ethically and morally cross those while in office, ie. piblic found out privately Mr Trump has 151million dollar loan from China , perhaps limiting his deciscions for his actions againsy a communist state, he also has huge investment in his drug hydrochlotiquine that adversely causes heartattacks, so his taxes and skirting off , such as using capital gains as a loophole , that while in office hes pushing congress to pass. so as Potus to profit to when hes a private Citizen again , and offshore accounts.
Which is why the businesses were Turned over to the family, though I see no reason they should have to be. The congressmen going after him on the left aren't even restrained from insider trading.. yet you want to pretend the President should be held to some standard these congresspeople won't constrain themselves to. At the same time, when the businesses are in the control of the Family now, not in his own control, you want to pretend that somehow this presents some conflict of his interest in controlling businesses he is no longer controlling. It's just a bunch of BS and doublespeak because none of it has to do with any legitimate point of redress. It'd be one thing if there was evidence he'd done anything wrong. This is just a search for the possibility that he could do something wrong and if they look far enough, they might find it - totally unacceptable in any other judicial forum. It'd actually be grounds for mistrial in any judicial forum. 'We think he could be dirty' isn't even grounds for a subpoena.
@@havoc092 Although, we know congress wants his tax return because they think he "can be dirty", they are not arguing that in the supreme court. It's congressional branch vs executive privileges.
@@Scarsofevil No kidding. Schiff, Nadler and the others didn't tell you they just want Trump gone, they lied for 3 years cause they have motivations they don't want exposed to the public. And they've been willing to engage in a coup attempt to stop that from happening. What's so bad you'd commit a capital crime as a group to cover up... Lie a little to the court for public propaganda - just another day for evil shits...
@@havoc092 I'm not taking any sides. It's just a matter of what precedent it's going to set between congressional and executive. Over the past couple of decades, we see executive having more and more power.
This is a pretty awesome format I like listening
please consider editing out the first 7 minutes that have no accompanying audio
Who argued their case best, in your opinion?
thanks for sharing... hope to see more soon
Such a beautiful justice system, I wish every country should have open hearings!
what the first family eats is already public , that hypithetical is a stretch in argument and doesnt dtsy on the face of the request .
The argument should be that the records are only valid if the president alone provides further investigatory proposes. The presidents financial records are unique upon legislation in a way medical records are not
“shall furnish” the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee with any tax return or return information requested in writing.
The Supreme Court is our last hope.
What were the names of the attorneys who represented each side please?
Wow I listened to the whole thing. President needs to be accountable like any other.
there is a separation of powers concern
After seeing his Trumps lawyer argue before the senate and Schiff calling him his double standard bullshit, I can say Trump has a very good lawyer
@@Scarsofevil honestly at this level they are all excellent... But don't worry the SCOTUS decision will be political (as always)
Great stuff
Questions: Cannot the FBI investigate one or more members of the Legislative Branch without charges being filed yet? (Basically the Executive branch investigating the co-equal Legislative Branch). So, why couldn't the Legislative Branch investigate the co-equal Executive branch without charges being filed yet? Isn't even an investigation by the Legislative branch of the President basically should be accomplished BEFORE impeachment charges might or might not be charged? How else could they build their potential case for impeachment without investigation? Either our US Government has 'co-equal' branches of Government, or it does not. Release the documents to the co-equal Legislative branch so they can do their respective investigations.
Its not legal to investigate someone without a charge. Just look at General Flynn
“shall furnish” the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee with any tax return or return information requested in writing.
Interesting.. Strawbridge was consistently interrupted (and cut short) by all justices, but Dunn was left to complete long clarifications (the exception of course being Justice Kavanaugh). Their disgust seems obvious.
Not at all. Each justice gets the same amount of time to question counsel. It's the Justice's prerogative to cut short the answer if they'd like to ask something else. The Chief Justice cuts off the counsel when it's the next Justice's time/turn.
If we have to see his we should see all in Congress tax returns so we know they are not doing criminal behavior.
Trump's lawyer must have went to Trump's college.
When did Milhouse grow up and get a law degree?
They're talking like Trump had some specific objection to a particular aspect of this or that subpoena when he's refused to comply with every subpeona, with any and every request and extended that refusal to other people he doesn't technically have any right to interfere with. And his lofty legal reasoning that justifies his blanket refusal? *Just cuz!*
Do not shield Trumps tax returns from us the American people. We need to know he's not a crook
Duh did you forget about the CHARITY he and his family ran that was used as if the donations were intended to be part of his own personal bank account ??? WE ALREADY KNOW HE IS A CROOK.
Same with Hillary's emails.
@@thelegochannel3387 Wow are stupid Mrs. Clinton is not President u moron . Trump has been laundering Russian money through his property's for years . don't you as citizens want to know that.
@Rhys Poppe Stop trying to deflect the inevitable
@@bubbaclark4355 But she ran. Also, when communist Obama was president, she collected money from guests to go into her charity. How else would you explain this: As secretary of state, her salary is 210 700 and yet she cleared 300 million dollars in ONE year
Notice how there's barely any trump supporters in the comments. I think the legal jargon in the video may be a little too much for them to comprehend lol
This is a legislative matter as emolument clauses allow the oversight in order to allow for fair proper elections. Any funds that were funneled prior or after elections are directly connected to why presidents should relive all connections to outside interests. Also funds used to allow for improper election finance should be criticized. All branches are co-equal branches, therefore the legislative branch can investigate the president as other citizens. In this case, the president is not above the law, he is more so under the scrutiny of the people, who are represented by the legislative leadership. They’re asking the court to make up a law that has not been made.
In case you missed it: Listen to what Associate Justice Breyer, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has to say about The Burdens of a President right here on youtube..
Hello
How can Strawbridge assume to know the limits and limit the extent of the Houses power to legislate with what it can discover via subpoaena? What if they were to use that information to create laws on any number of requirements for the presidency? This is going to be ruled for Congress and it is an egregious waste of the high courts time and resources to as one Justice brilliantly said “put a giant weight on the separation of powers.
I think they are will rule for Congress, you could sense the justices contempt for this
I always imagined the Supreme Court would be even more pro forma and with fanciful language and formalities. This sounds like a bunch of people having a legal brain storm.
What is modern congress .when did it change.? Same congress I've always known.
. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part:
No person shall be * * * deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
2. Section 1226(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code provides:
Horrible quality of the broadcast, the second half of the Vance arguments could hardly be made out due to dropped audio. So disappointed in the Washington Post.
John Hart
There aren’t Washington Post reporters in these people’s homes recording what they say. If someone isn’t speaking into their mic, that’s really not WaPo’s fault. They’re just broadcasting the audio they get. It’s going to take a bit before attorneys and justices get used to doing oral arguments over the computer. Technical difficulties are going to happen.
Elijah Culper , this want an issue with the speakers, rather an issue with the transmission. The audio was cutting out as well as the WaAPo video screen on CZcams. Maybe it was CZcams and not WaPos steam of it.
Elijah Culper I hope it wasn’t the home recording issue. That would suggest that the SCOTUS didn’t hear the audio either
Chandelier C
Between you and me, I doubt many of the justices care much about what is said in oral arguments. They’ve been given 100+ pages from each side outlining their arguments in detail. Very little of what is said in oral arguments isn’t said in those briefs. The justices are basing their opinion off of the case law and the arguments that have been given to the Court. In their opinions, they cite those briefs way more often than they reference something that was said in oral arguments. I think most of them already have their mind made up when they walk in. They aren’t likely to be swayed by an attorney’s performance in oral arguments. And that’s probably for the best. I wouldn’t want the fact that an individual lawyer had a brain fart during one argument to have an impact on how we interpret the constitution going forward. Oral arguments are more for our benefit than for the Justices. They let people with day jobs who don’t have the time or staff to go through hundreds of pages of precedents to understand what case is being made by both sides, so when we read an opinion we aren’t completely lost.
1:19:48 Mentions 9/11, cuts Douglas off.
One note, to the justices themselves..... The President of the United States has threatened he can do whatever he want and that the constitution grants him incredible power, and he has not acknowledged any of Congress's check on that power. Isn't that a threat to the constitutional bindings of each of the branches and their ability to "check" executive power? Of course Congress has the right to see Trump's records, if as a legislative body, they deem his actions as threatening to our established democracy and several of those actions show favorable to a enemy state, they should have access, and those connections could be revealed in those tax records. Follow the money. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise. From organized crime to military coups, to crooked government it's always about the money. The Trump organization fell apart as far back as 1991 where he lost up to a billion dollars is why records going back that far are necessary, then there were the bankruptcies once his Casinos failed. Who put humpty dumpty back together again? where did that money come from? There are already known connections between Trump and Russian Oligarchs on real estate deals....Congress should be able to see what it wants to
Was president trump impeached or not
1,2 million subscribers ...... 6 comments ???? sad so sad
Russian bots interfering.
All i know is that the president have a lots of time watching late night shows .
What he's hiding?
He's going to jail:D
Obama by every metric of measurement was our worst president, and im not a trump supporter....
And those metrics being
0 0 spare us your bullshit post
Trump's daily activities: Tweets for hours, watches Fox News for 2 hours, watches TV for another 2 hours, plays with Ivanka for (nevermind), golfs for an hour, yells at reporters and tell lies as long as he can then repeats, repeats, repeats. So the argument of it impedes on his duties as President is not a case.
you forgot eats junkfood for breakfast then pops uppers and rage tweets. Just had to add that ;)
💀trump💀
fake subscribers
Maybe you should check other videos, before drawing conclusions about so called fake subscribers.