"You Support This?" Conservative Lawyer Gets Confronted On Trump's Ruling
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 07. 2024
- Destiny reacts to Trump's ruling ft. Uncivil Law, Pisco and Jessiah...
Date: 1 Jul, 2024
Pisco
►x.com/PiscoLitty
Uncivil Law
►x.com/UncivilLaw
► / @uncivillaw
Pondering Politics
►x.com/ponderpolitic
► / @ponderingpolitics
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / theomniliberal
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
00:00:00 Teasers / Intro
00:00:47 Trump ruling (SKIP INTRO)
00:05:57 "It's not full immunity..."
00:15:28 What about Joe Biden!? What About Hilary Clinton!?
00:32:04 Doesn't this ruling maintain status quo...?
00:42:44 Destiny asks Uncivil Law about his feelings on the ruling
00:52:48 Pisco gives his thoughts
00:55:33 SCOTUS gave Trump more immunity than he asked for
01:07:49 Pisco asks Uncivil Law a question
01:25:24 "It's worse than what ppl worried about initially"
01:29:06 Trump's threats to fire AG are now off the table
01:32:02 Destiny debates Michael Knowles, Tomi Lahren and more
01:42:39 Looking into the camera
#destiny
#politics
#debate
Vaush Confronts Dave Smith For Using Cowardly Argument
►czcams.com/video/k7jiTjNB6PI/video.html
its funny because joe biden is actually doing what destiny says he fears but he's ok with biden abusing the law.
It's hilarious to think this might be someone's first Destiny video. The juxtaposition between Destiny carefully reading the document and the chat spamming:
"BLADDER IS FULL PISS ON ME"
Nah that's perfectly on brand
The dualism of man.
I know Destiny wants rich discussion and debate and I do too but it is so hard to resist shitting up chat on live streams. I feel like I can take his edited final clips a little more seriously as this is the final end product.
Hello brother
It is and I'm thoroughly confused, anyone care to explain?
So if Biden did what Trump tried to do, will Conservatives be okay with it? 🤔
Good one because he already is dip shit.
That’s not a direct comparison. The question would be “if Biden did what Trump did, would Liberals be okay with it?” Who cares if supporters of the ruling would support Biden in that situation, would those who oppose the ruling hold the same standard for their candidate & we can’t know that answer unless it actually happens.
Sure why not.
@@krissi_b You're missing the point of the question
@@krissi_bboth matter but one matters more because conservatives are very hypocritical. One example being Obama not being able to have Garland cause of election year but Trump being able to even though it was election year
Is it just me or is Destiny learning how to dress himself
I'd be shocked if he's picking stuff out and not just paying for it. Be probably has people like husband of the stream, Lycan, help pick stuff out
He has mentioned trying to work on his fashion on stream
Just you
He has to, since he gaining access to more mainstream shows, which is fine, but imagine him on cnn or fox news in sweats, it would be amazing, like he was L in death note
Meds do weird stuff to people
All this because Trump said “Destiny is a woman’s name” while in office???
Calling Destiny far-right is WILD
not sure if you're talking about the start where the guy was talking about hasan and said "you've drifted so far right that he calls you out for basically being a republican" or some other part of the video
but that part is NOT calling destiny far right
What your brain is hearing is "He drifted *far right* "
what is actually being said is "He drifted far *right* "
you wouldn't call someone you believe to be far right "basically a republican," the "basically" implies center right. I disagree with all points though destiny is clearly a left leaning liberal
we would save a lot of time if we just realized left/right don't actually mean anything.
@@woodsmand yeah left and right don't actually mean anything if you have no fucking idea what left/right means, which is the situation the average person (in america at least) is in. But when you know what they mean they actually mean a LOT and can predict the positions you will take on things.
Uncivil Law after finishing his review today concluded he doesn't agree with the ruling, so please don't hate on him too much
well he is right. only problem here is August making ragebait titles
I’ll hate on him for being weird and misogynistic and transphobic tho
@@meandtheveggies1234He's definitely not that though. You're either entirely unfamiliar with him or just plain internet-brained.
You want somebody like that to be mad at? Try Rekieta or Robert Barnes.
The latter was literally the origin of LawTube's take on the 2020 election btw. The guy's a content gold mine
@@meandtheveggies1234 Why? Let people have their views. Stop caring.
@@austin3853 I literally just made your same point in comparing Uncivil Law to crazy conservative lawyers like Robert Barnes, Nick Rekieta, Lin Wood, etc. Say what you want about Uncivil, but the guy at least appears to put quite a bit of thought into his analysis of SCOTUS rulings.
Instead, I'm met with such profound replies as "But he's a Republican!" or "Seek therapy" dude! People are simply incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Under this rule Nixon would be in the clear....
Nixon was never charged with anything lol, they impeached him but that's it. And then he was immediately given immunity by Ford.
American Presidents have already been operating under the assumption that they have criminal immunity because in practice they already did.
Nixon was set up. Go educate yourself and stop believing what your government tells you.
He sadly was pardoned anyway… we should’ve jailed the guy to give precedent but our system pussied out and didn’t think to the possible and now real ramifications…
Nixon wasn't charged. He was literally cleared...?
We've had president's literally murder people and never get convicted, trying to lock up a president over increasingly more and more minor crimes is a recent meme (last century)
Destiny try to make an analogy that doesn’t involve rape challenge: impossible
The analogies are extreme on purpose, you go to an extreme because you want to test only the logical consistency and skip dancing around the question.
@@MonoxideTF2 it’s ALWAYS rape with destiny’s analogies though.
? He makes a lot of non-rape analogies.
Gigachad
@@debrachambers1304 no, he really doesn’t
These people are bending over so much to help Trump they broke their spine.
You kidding me?! Liberals are just mad because they didn’t get their far left justices in the supreme court.
As if the whole demo party would be so unpartisan in the same situation.
Let’s face it! Partisan from state to federal.
Do you know people in Congress have immunity for their job? So does judges and prosecutors… police… I mean… is that really bending over so much to allow the head of our executive branch to have immunity that even a cop has? lol. Salty tears.
@@chrisdryerNo. They do not have immunity. They can be investigated and prosecuted for illegal actions relating to things they can do within their power. Now, it seems the president can’t even be investigated for these things based on a “perceived immunity”. This comparison is so incredibly disanalogous.
@@Abnormal_Childwell its nice to see even Destiny fans can be completely wrong.
Ben Shapiro did a good job of breaking down this decision on his show today.
To summarize it, no the president can't do whatever the he pleases. Which is why all the charges against Trump weren't dropped, he still has to go to court. Did Destiny mention that?
Also wouldn't you guys be a little suspicious of whatever the Democrats say after the debate considering the only thing Democrats have left is Orange Hitler man bad?
@@chrisdryerI don’t even know what to say to this, this is in no way similar to any of those immunities in scope. And no, I would say it’s a perfectly reasonable position to think that the person in charge of the country should be held to the utmost standards and scrutiny.
Being on Pisco's side in an argument doesn't make me like him any more.
Yah he is way too unnecessarily aggressive especially to people who are just trying to have a good faith conversation.
Yeah. I wish he were capable of reasonable, good faith argument, rather than just accusing everyone of hating America.
@@daymar3 sounds like you hate america pal!
@@gallavanting2041 I hate everyone so hating America is just a side-effect lol
Pisco made me like Mrgirl in arguments lol. I respect Pisco as a person and think he is a great orbiter for D to have good convos with. But he is so unbelievably pedantic and aggressive it makes it hard to ever want to take his side.
In 8th grade we were assigned an essay on the genius of the checks and balances laid out in the constitution. I wrote mine on how a rogue president could theoretically appoint loyalists to the SCOTUS and in doing so would essentially have complete unchecked control of the government. I got a D and had to rewrite it for a better grade because teacher said that it could never realistically happen :)
Sure you did...
I agree with the teacher, there's a difference between hypothetically possible and realistically likely when applied in a pragmatic way
@@maverick9708 agreed, how many kids in how many classrooms have made crazy predictions. At least a few must've been correct, but it isn't a justified as a belief without further evidence, it is a simple possibility.
Additionally, it seems like this commenter misunderstood the point of the assignment. It was about checks and balances, not the subversion of such. I would be clear about this in a rubric to be fair.
Yeah, shows why.
If in any way you think they are loyalists or controlling the country, I can see how bad it was.
That's all? They should have sent you to a psych ward. lol
I think I dont care for Pisco in debate mode for the same reasons as I dont care for Kelly in general. If he is arguing with someone, it feels like he suddenly becomes big bro and talks down to the other person constantly. I may completely agree with Pisco, but god it is hard to hear him say it in such a condescending way especially so someone who was being very respectful (whether they were wrong or right).
even got the 59 year old maga bro at my work rethinking trump this shit is wild
He saw it first? Or did you show him and made the connection
Nothing really changed though, the court just re-interpreted the law in the same way that it always has been. President has always been immune to prosecution. Turns out modern leftists really like prosecuting people in power to sway votes. This way the votes won't be swayed by force, only opinion. Everything is just fine and nothing changed.
Lol nah. They would have jumped the ship after his conviction. We won't be waking any of them up!
He’ll be back to supporting trump 100%. They just fake ‘rethinking’ to avoid confrontation.
Guy at my work is happy about it. Plenty of dumbasses still around. We’re fucked
God even when I agree with him Pisco can be really annoying
@@DJ-wl5qo XD
I mean, he is a lawyer.
He is not right tho. Impeachment is still valid.
More annoying than Dan?
@@uUuWolf16uUu sure impeachment is valid but that would be after damage is done. Could theoretically murder political opponents for your party then be impeached and live a semi-normal life. Imagine deporting a large amount of US immigrants then being impeached after the fact. The damage is done at that point so an impeachment just prevents further damage with 0 repercussions aside from losing your job. So many scenarios you can run through, imagine pocketing a bunch of US tax payer money and saying its needed for specific defense purposes then losing your job and living out your life with money.
Destiny is finally worried about democracy. This definately means it's too late.
During his 2016 debates he said he's not even sure ppl should have the right to vote bc it led to Trump and every Trumper he debated didn't even believe environments were relevant to development.
@goddessrick8734 kinda funny you mentioned that when destiny literally says at the start of the video. That you can't find things to contradict things even though there quite a few.
He’s only worried now because he sees he’ll be personally affected by a Trump presidency.
Your first mistake is believing we're a Democracy. A Representative Democracy, coupled with a bicameral Legistlature forms a Republic.
@@SeanSauvageauah yes the Roman republic, much famed for its bicameral legislature
I have a law degree and I had the exact same reaction. I went from no big deal when I read the holding to okay a big deal when I read the dissent but I still thought Sotamayor was being dramatic then I read the majority and saw what they suggest will be considered official acts 🤯
She is melodramatic. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent isn't an official act. Sotomayor** its embarrassing you don't know how to spell her name. There are literally 9 of them. I have more cousins.
@@alexcannon9364 did you miss the part where to make it an official act pretty much all you need to do is provide a 'plausible' justification. Such as: "I designate this person a terrorist/enemy of the state, an exigent threat, and exercise my executive power to order the agencies under my purview to kill this person".
Then the official act is immunized and evidence related to the execution of the order as it relates to the president is now inadmissible.
@@alexcannon9364 Ordering fake electors to void the legitmate election is? Or sending in people to stop the count is? Please don't kid yourself. You know you can make up anything into a presidential act. The entire defense of this is to stop all the cases of the criminal acts Trump has done.
Listened to a reading of some of her dissent and it sounded like a tweet from an MSNBC host
Think about it longer... can you say any living President wouldn't be in prison if they didn't have that immunity? Obama deemed a 16 year old US citizen a threat without a trial and ordered the military to kill him, which they did away from conflict at a restaurant. If he didn't have immunity he obviously would have faced trial for ordering it, or for the things he ordered in Yemen, etc. I don't think Obama should face a criminal trial for those actions and would be a horrible action
The problem with 2 party system is the feeling of getting stuck without any practical alternative if both parties or candidates seem not adequate. In multiple party system in situations like this there's usually a new party created or small party is strengthened and can negotiate a government with any of the other parties.
There are primaries that offer a huge range of candidates. Americans chose Trump and Biden. They did not have to have these two as their candidates, but that’s what they wanted.
The system isn't 2 party, its just people vote for 2 parties.
@@PantifaximileThe system is first past the post. Therefore, by definition, it's two party. When people talk about a two-party system, they don't mean it's literally illegal to run as a third-party candidate. They just mean that the electoral system has a built-in spoiler effect that means if you run as a far left candidate, you make it more likely a right-wing candidate will get in, and vice versa.
ask Canada how it feels to have your leader elected with 30% of the vote. that’s what multiple parties get you.
@@tiznip yea so? :D
You know ive been so starved for content, I watched this all live. Despair.
I always watch live lol
@@noterrormanagement I usually dont have that strict of a free-time schedule where I can watch live stuff, well, live. a 6hour live stream is usually split on 3 - 4 separate occasions for me.
I would load the hypotheticals the opposite way:
It shouldn't be "So Trump can just Seal Team 6 Pelosi?"
It should be "So Biden can Seal Team 6 Trump before the election?"
He can *try.*
But here's how that chat would go down.
"Guys, there's a target living in maralago."
US NorthCom pulls out the list of targets.
"Sir, there are no known targets in there."
"No, it's an executive order as commander in chief of the armed forces."
"Well, sir, in order to deploy within the Continental United States you'd need Congress to declare a state of emergency. Should we contact Ron DeSantis?"
"No! forget it, I'll go tell the local FBI to do it..."
*Biden goes to the FBI*
"Sir, we don't have any targets in the area."
Checks and balances, fam.
@@dfmrcv862then the President is immediately impeached and will be tried as this would constitute an act that violates his absolute immunity. The decision lays out that prosecutors can make a case that presumptive immunity even for official acts can be denied under circumstances.
@@sheridan891 yeah, Destiny and co here are panicking for no reason.
@@dfmrcv862The president can't designate targets? Really?
@@roycampbell586 No.
"Impeach and remove" basically means the president only needs the undying loyalty of a minority of either house.
Cause that's so easy to pull off and all....
Trump had it. Only needs 34% of one of either side of the legislature to believe his orders or actions are unimpeachable. He literally solicited personal aid for his elction from a foreign government and it was not seen as conduct outside the scope of his office and outside the scope of proper balehavior of the president by the majority of his party. @@badazzmuffin5781
@@badazzmuffin5781it is… have you not seen our congress over the last like 20+ years??? The president has had at least that minority through that entire period
@@badazzmuffin5781It's a two party system. If you don't have the support of the minority, it's because you've reached the higher threshold of majority support. What's hard about only needing to lose?
You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. Impeachment is incredibly easy and can be done with a one person majority in the House. Removal is much harder, which was intended.
20:14 the fact that ANYONE has immunity to crimes is fucking insane
Every single journalist has immunity, they can say whatever the fuck they want whenever the fuck they want and there is no real legal consequences. If i work for CNN and i have a random third party act as a witness that wants be kept private (because thats how we set it up) and "they tell me" that Hillary Clinton, Trump or Biden molested them as a child. I can now go full stop "---- Molested by president, former president X according to first hand witness account". When they sue me because it is obviously untrue well i got the information from a credible source on an encoded platform as to keep them anonymous. I have just done slander and defamation, but it cannot be proven. Because "i did not know" it was false. 50 million people see the original story 5 million see the correction, this persons life can now be ruined. On top of it every president in the history has had the same immunity, it just has not been realized until it was Trump. Look at Nixon..
You're not crazy. It's not a big deal. Overturning Chevron is much more important.
In Spain we have multiple parties, it doesn't really make a difference, they make a coalition and no one wins since the people didn't really vote nether of the parties and everyone actually informed of what the party promised to do feel betrayed.
Wow, so what do you think is the solution? The only thing I can think of is more people getting involved. Just the other day I was listening to the stream and it felt like I was listening to radio, I felt that I had that in common with the boomers, to be excited about “ news” and opinions or day time television shows. I heard about people going to the same bars they watch sports games at but instead watched the debate. Or for me personally, being the simp that I am, I think faces like Tommy and Francesca make all of this that much more enjoyable.
@@israelgarcia7801 Unironically anarcho-capitalism, or systems close to that. Spain is 100 times smaller than USA and yet the political system is to complex already to find "the good people that actually want to make things better" and keep out all the sociopaths.
Is Biden now permitted to add Justices to the Courts unilaterally? 13 Circuits, so let’s have 13 SC Justices and make it so no new seats can be added, just replaced for whatever reason is deemed necessary.
frd tried to expand the supreme court.
Biden should go on an anticorruption campain. He can now.
No. He'd need to actually change laws.
@TheKnizzine only if he puts the AG and several others that ignored senate sepeanas. And his own son, and Hillary. Till then it won't every happen.
"guys let's just stack the court now that things aren't going our way due to losing that one election!"
so now the supremes courts job is just "how can we spin this." also its super cool that the only form of protest you have against the supreme court is to pray every night to your favorite deity that the ones not elected by your political party keels over
Great statement
Yeah it's always been this way is the thing it's just unheard of that I'm a single term a president gets 3 draft picks. And of course it's the fascist one who does.
@@fvw1187 100%. Also I feel like judges always were careful to at least appear impartial. SC Justices need to be an elected position with term limits at this point.
At least we know destinys god is the government.
@obsidiancrow450 there's a funny Futurama bit where the professor goes "it's time to take this to the only place where the constitution doesn't matter." Then it flashes to the supreme court. I can't find the bit but it's perfect.
I like how much Piers seems to like Destiny. Brings good jokes, makes strong arguments (quality content), acts respectfully on the show, makes coherent arguments - the perfect combination for a repeat Piers Morgan guest.
What app is he using to view pdf?
How hilarious is it that during destiny‘s talk with Ben Shapiro, Ben said the guard rails would keep Trump from doing anything crazy again and here we are removing guard rails. Ready for the wild ride.
Muh guard rails. Who talks like they are on msnbc?
People said Trump was the second coming of Hitler for 4 years. Its getting numb at this point.
@@WinstonSmithe What's with people constantly bringing up msnbc? A whole 10 people watch that channel
@WinstonSmithe why are you so upset over two words?
What guard rails got removed???
Maturing is agreeing with Pisco but realizing that he went full soy in this convo and made it completely unproductive
i would normally agree but idk... i feel like his soy is justified here
Agreeing with Pisco has nothing to do with maturity...and also you're wrong 99% of the time you agree with him. Perhaps even 100%
@@vegasnotthecity he can have whatever feelings he wants but I'd have just hoped he would have a little bit more proficiency in attempting to actually win over the other dude, especially bc he was fairly on the fence. Rather than just whining about how he felt about it
No, the other guy was soy. He sperged about being interrupted, while going back to dumb disingenuous hypotheticals that would only excuse very niche situations (kept going back to the attorney general, for example, never proving anything.)
What tool is destiny using to keep notes?
It's called Obsidian.
Great video! Loved every second of it!
How can i access 200x speed like you?
@@Lewisx6 by watching it when it was originally streamed
Thanks chatgpt
This is absolutely madness
TRUMP 47th president.
@@alexcannon9364Are you getting ready for the detention camps? Ideological screening? Loyalty oaths? State run press?
@@StinkCabbage based, based, based, gay
@@trugeld 37 notebooks
@@trugeld It's a package deal Neanderthal...Project 2025
The problem with the ruling is that it does follow precedent, but the the precedent is bad.
Yeah destiny doesnt understand that this is the way its always been. You'll have an easier time getting a popular vote off then getting immunity dropped for elected officials. He's just butthurt and big mad, he didnt research this enough and went reactionary.
The problem also is, it's the cart leading the horse. The precedent is set because presidents never knew they had full immunity. We see a lot of bad actions by police because they know they are immune, or at the very least just need to do a bare minimum to guarantee they are immune.
Unbelievable that this came from the Larry that has been crying about a tyrannical government out of control for the better part of a decade.
Maybe they can go the route of using information gained through impeachment to criminally prosecute? Or even if it's been officially reviewed by the congress and the senate the SCOTUS still won't review it? Can information from impeachment be use in a prosecution of a president or ex-president?
Presumably yes. If Nixon was never impeached, the DoJ would really have no basis for charges
No they flatly cannot. So long as it is part of official powers, it cannot be reviewed by the courts, or even be used to prosecute.
America might actually be finished. Like anything short of a democratic route and we’re basically done.
Didn't you listen to Destiny. This isn't as bad as people think it is. But maybe it is but we don't know until something bad happens.
@@Fjaloeat1 omg just like my hecking tno superevent!!1!
God this is asinine. It’s an official act if it’s an act that is supported by law.
There is a legal process for labeling someone a terrorist threat. There is a process for approving the state-sanctioned homicide of someone.
That process doesn’t include killing someone just because they are a political opponent. If the president were to do that, he couldn’t claim it was an official act.
An official act is an act that is done pursuant to fulfilling a duty of the president that is supported by law, whether that be statute or the constitution.
It great you believe that, where does the supreme court ruling say this?
You don't need immunity when abiding by the law, so I can only assume your interpretation is stupid...
@@Juryoku_
Clearly didn’t read the opinion.
Quotes:
If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582-589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.
* * *
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clintonv. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19. The “ ‘justifying purposes’ ” of the immunity we recognized in Fitzgerald, and the one we recognize today, are not that the President must be immune because he is the President; rather, they are to ensure that the President can undertake his constitutionally designated functions effectively, free from undue pressures or distortions. 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 755). “[I]t [is] the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who perform[s] it, that inform[s] our immunity analysis.” Forrester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 229 (1988). The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.2
* * *
Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. We offer guidance on those issues below. Certain allegations-such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General-are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations-such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public-present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.
@@taravanova
You have it backwards. If someone, without proper justification like self-defense, engages in the negligent killing of another, that’s manslaughter.
However, if the president does it in a time of war and goes through the necessary channels to order a strike, that’s the killing of Al-Awlaki, a 16 year old US citizen who had no confirmed terrorist ties.
How do you even investigate the killing when the moment it implicates the president the evidentiary standard makes prosecution impossible.
1:16:10 Impeachment is intended for sitting president's, however, impeachment is important for exactly what is being argued now, for a conviction hy congress essentially rubber stamping the act that may or may not have been an official duty as certainly not.
So, while an impeachment conviction isn't necessary per se, the roadblocks without it are now apparent
Additionally impeachment can allow banning from holding future office. The excuse that impeachment couldn’t be done to someone who once held office but no longer does is so stupid and the fact republicans got away with that excuse is already incredible ridiculous
@bulldozer8950 indeed, this is, however, to say, Destiny is incorrect on this, and you can't disregard a co equal branch because they made a perfectly justifiable ruling when the other branch sh!t the bed making it an undesirable one, if we accept they should have impeached and convicted, setting the precedent on the actions as not within official duties, opening the door for criminal prosecution and conviction. Be mad at congress, not the supreme court, this video is just cringy griping
As a Magic: The Gathering player, I'd like to point out that what Destiny doesn't understand is that Impeachment can be done IN RESPONSE to a presidential action, which places the impeachment on the stack. If Impeachment is allowed to resolve, it renders the president not-the-president by the time the act resolves, rendering the now-ex-president liable to criminal charges.
Source: M:tG Judge Rules and Federal Code
I mean... you wrote this as a joke, but this is basically accurate.
I don't think this ruling is getting enough traction. This is the first time I'm actually freaking out about Trump and his ability to do literally whatever he wants under the guise of "official business."
Didn't you listen to destiny. This isn't as bad as people think, but at the same time maybe it is bad, but we won't know until something bad happens.
@@Suddenlystan728 he cannot do anything he wants, he is still accountable to congress with the impeachment process, and Supreme Court ruling any his act’s constitutional or not. Congress can impeach and convict/remove a sitting president even for something as dumb as wearing the wrong colored socks.
bro idk anymore... this ain't funny anymore can we just make sure orange man doesn't ever touch the presidency for all time? I'd vote for a vegetable against him at this point.
Aren't you already voting for a vegetable?
@@anthony2930 yes
I’m not voting for a man in a round orange 🍊 suit
Uh. He was already president, dummy.
@@anthony2930TDS man. There is no vaccine for it.
Bro really pissed on this one 🥶
Uncivil Law seems unable to get to the heart of a problem. D asks pointed questions, Uncivil doesn't see the problem, D clarifies how this is scary and Uncivil backs down and agrees.
You don't have to have multiple parties in a parliamentary system just like you could have multiple parties in the US presidential system. In Canada for example, there are multiple parties but only two have ever formed a federal government. Most people would still consider this a two party system. It's because FPTP incentivizes the formation of two major parties just like it does in the US. It mainly has to do with the voting system whether more than two parties can be viable at the same time. Just like the NDP or Green Party or Bloc Quebecois could theoretically form a federal Canadian government, the voting system makes this totally unlikely. Just like a third party could rise in the US but the voting system makes this totally unlikely.
I'm canadian it's basicly npd plus the liberals vs conservatives on all policy issues this undermines this conservative party
@@lootangshellhouse2506 I am Canadian, I don't think the NDP having some effect on policy in this current government means the average person believes we don't live under a two party system.
I'd invest in alcohol rn
Can really see that getting people a few bucks.
“Panem et circenses” but without the bread, and the circus is your entire system of government
1:06:30
The answer is that the trial court will have to make a determination, as a matter of law, whether the alleged act is, in fact, part of an official duty..
If the alleged act is bribery, for example, the judge will deny the defendants motion to dismiss based on immunity..
"what do they hate?" Representative government and rights for people they don't like. It's fascist shit at this point, and pretending otherwise is just done to peoples detriment.
😂😂 Why do you constantly live in victim world? Everyone in America has the same rights. What you are fighting for isn’t equal rights it’s special privileges.
@@alexharper7645are you lost? None of what you said has any bearing on the original commenter’s statement.
@@nikoniortnike “and rights for people they don’t like”. My comment very much has to do with the original comment.
@@alexharper7645 the last line of your comment certainly doesn’t relate. We are discussing how certain people’s rights can be trampled by the government, not “special privileges”. I don’t understand how that’s a valid response to the original commenter’s assertion.
@@alexharper7645I mean before 2015 it was perfectly legal to prevent gay people from getting married… you would have sat there calling them ‘victims’ too. If people don’t advocate for a better society then idiots like you keep us from progressing.
Americans, how did it come to this?
Absolute Immunity.
Doesn't that churn up your stomach? In the land of the free? What the fuck is going on
remember when Obama killed an American citizen overseas and nothing happened... remember when Bush lied to take America into a war and nothing happened...
It was voted on 6-3 and was given to a lower court to decide what he SPECIFICALLY has immunity to and what he does not have immunity to, this is still not decided on. Im guessing you only read thumbnails and titles. Did you know there is a star witness in the Young Thug trial in Atlanta right now who was granted immunity for testimony who literally M*UDERED people
presidents all my life have been doing things I thought they should go to jail for, and people on the left and right never questioned their immunity. What is going on is what has always been going on. People on the left are just upset about it currently because the power isn't on their end, not because they won't want to hold the power. Be shocked to discover centralized power has always been disturbing.
It is not absolute immunity.
Read the fucking document.
Impeachment is still valid. And impeachment has always been the only way to affect a sitting president.
Same thing I thought when they indicted a former president for political reasons over a NDA and standard real estate practices 🙄
Read footnote 3 on page 32 for details on the evidentiary ruling. I agree with ACB on that issue, but it does seem that Roberts leaves the door open for evidence that is not about "the official act" itself. Plus, he says they can introduce public record of the acts that were taken.
We're cooked
It's a huge fucking deal. A supreme Court Justice said how serious this is. As a centrist I can say there's a time where you say this is a complete danger. The problem is people like you saying "it's not that big a deal."
Imagine, if the left wasn't so politically driven to jail their political enemy who they thinks gonna win the presidency. This would never have happened.
What about the six Supreme Court Justices who say its not?
@@alansnyder9They’re compromised.
@@Maelstromme ah, of course. Eveything makes sense when you are completly uncharitable to the other side.
@@dant1386 no such thing as “centrism”
What I’m hearing is that the SC is leaving it open for THEM to decide who is acting outside the immunity determination.
They got paid by the bribe class to do that.
Well not them specifically but in the courts by trial. I don't think they specified whether it can be state and federal court, but I think it's implied it can be either.
It's not a bribe, it's a gratuity, lol! They ruled that, themselves.
Clarence Thomas definitely got a new RV after this ruling lol
We call those gratuities now
As if they didn't already have enough power
Presidential system does not require two party system per se. If the election has some sort of preferential/rank choice voting rule or run-off election, then third party can survive, for instance France.
What a time to be alive
Not actually that big of a deal imagine walking down the road and seeing people skewered on a 20 foot wood pole.
@@ScreamVOXScream bro thinks he’s two minute papers 💀
Haha let the unhingedness begin
I mean Biden is POTUS right now and Dems hate this and GOP loves it. Proving GOP actually doesn't think Dems and Biden are dictatorial.
@@howdareyou41 :)
@@howdareyou41or... and bare with me...we aren't alarmist idiots that think the president is going to start killing people, or that he ain't be held accountable if he did such a thing. That's not what the Supreme Court said.
@@MRGoods89reds have never held past presidents accountable tho
@@MRGoods89
If Biden were to lose this election but enacted a scheme to gather fake electors and tell his VP to throw out electors from states he lost in favor of his fake electors that say he won, he’d be totally within his legal right to do so according to this Supreme Court ruling.
This SCROTUS will go down as one of the worst in history.
The Supreme Court sent the decision on Trump’s immunity case back down to the district court… so that itself has set the precedent that not all actions are considered immune.
It was sent back because no court in these’s cases did the leg work. We’ll have to wait and see really.
@@breyor1 my point here is that if it was so clear based on the ruling that Trump could do whatever he wanted, they wouldn’t have sent it back or giving that “middle area” guidance.
@@luiscardona9628 They are a court of final review, the process wasn’t followed, they sent it back so it can be. It’s really god damn simple that even if the end results the same, Due process requires we follow the rules and procedures
I think Destiny (an independent woman) has uniquely cultivated a fan base of people who actually break down the nuance of issues, have relatively open discussion, and don’t entirely fall under either of the 2 major political ideologies.
I was fully expecting ‘ a girls name’ meme at the end of that
Destiny is my favorite black female streamer
Destiny is a full on Democrat. Democrats aren't progressives
Glad to hear he came back out as a woman after his stint as a 35 yr old man
Yall are wild and for sure dont think things through. You all base your morality on what D man decides you shouldnt say om the fly.
34s ago is mad work
"If it turns out to be true" is not how Piers is acting
Presumption of immunity is very different from immunity, seems to cheap to claim or act like there's no difference.
So, as a Democrat, I'm supposed to want Biden to drop the race because he fumbled his words in one shitty debate? And I'm supposed to completely ignore everytime Trump fumbled, lied, and gave unhinged rants/speeches for 8 years? Okay, yea, that totally makes sense.
Well the person who replaces him would still be running against Trump. So you don’t have to ignore all of trumps lies, etc,
Yeah, that's all it was. He just fumbled his words. He just misspeaks sometimes, y'know. It's definitely not because he looked like a sundowning corpse who had no control over his mental faculties.
@@Wenderlywave
Yea, but replacing Biden this late in the game? Biden has already beat Trump once. Putting someone else in now would be too risky. Especially if they decided to switch Biden for Newsom. Yea Newsom's younger but all Trump's team would have to do is show videos of skid row and high gas/housing prices in California. It would be disastrous for democrats, which is exactly what Republicans are hoping for. Biden 2024 all the way
@@switch3784
I will gladly vote for a sundowner corpse than a wanna be dictator with Project 2025 to back him up.
@@switch3784 The choice is between an old guy with memory problems and an authoritarian rapist who tried to illegally throw out MY vote in the last election
Pisco detected, discussion over.
The conservative should have pointed out that Destiny does think the President should have civil immunity for his acts, does Pisco agree with or accept that or think that also makes him above the law or is (has long been) enabling tyranny.
I'm ambivalent about Pisco, but I think it's easy to see that Pisco dog-walked this guy.
Conservatives: big win for Trump.
Also Conservatives: this isnt that crazy and changes nothing.
Huh? Wtf?
It reaffirmed the obvious. It didnt change anything, but it did stop the Dems from changing it to persecute Trump.
It’s a big win that our checks and balances are reaffirmed and not reinterpreted to have courts do what was delegated to congress to do: hold presidents accountable
@@jessefer26 you're delusional if you think our current Congress is going to hold a president from their own party accountable. The Democrats might but Republicans not a chance in hell that's happening ever. This is an absolutely abuse of power and blatantly partisan. There's a reason this wasn't an intended function until corruption took hold. Cute though.
@@jessefer26 yeah thats why the partisan supreme court did something completely against any historical precedent. If you think Republicans would do that nowadays I dunno what to tell ya. Even Democrats the likelihood that would happen would probably be a stretch but it's 200% more likely Dems would hold their own party accountable for crimes.
@@jessefer26congress is too polarized to do anything like that
Sometimes we need a mute pisco button. He can be great but when Destiny and X are having a decent talk, he tends to jump in and aggravate the situation.
40:00 Stamp off Destiny double checking the terms conclusive and preclusive on your bingo cards
The voice cracks 🤣
Wtf was going on with Lahren's eyes when Destiny brought up the Supreme Court ruling??
@1:04:45 no it's not an official act. All orders of the executive are not law under the umbrella of the executive being charged with the faithful enforcement of the law. The executive does not make law. CONGRESS makes law. So if the executive orders his branch agents to do things that are not enforcing the laws of CONGRESS then that act is not an official act of the president. If the president orders the FBI to rape anyone, that order is not an official act because he has no authority under law to rape. The same goes for the seal team 6 hypothetical. While we cannot examine the presidents motives or reasons for ordering his political opponent murdered, we can still examine the action itself and the motives and reasons of seal team 6 for executing the order. If seal team 6 acted purely on an order with no evidence presented to them for why the political opponent was a threat to the country, then it's reasonable to infer a court could deem that order as not an official act of the executive and then charge the president for that crime. No examination of the president's motives or intentions need be given.
@1:08:08 the same goes for this Nancy Pelosi as a terrorist hypothetical. It is not "unreviewable". The supreme court deliberates over the interaction of Trump and Pence and while they say Trump pressuring Pence has presumptive immunity, they contemplate that an examination of the factual circumstances and provide an argument for how you could remove that immunity, stating that the president has no role in the counting of the electoral votes and therefore there is no risk of intrusion into the presidents authority." Similarly, terrorism is defined in law and indeed the presidents power to order the death of terrorists is provided by the laws of congress. A lower court can quite easily be trusted to determine whether the accusation of terrorism is based in sufficient facts that a determination can be made of whether this was an official or unofficial act.
The FBI, seal team 6, any agent or agency under the president is not a mindless, order-following automaton. They will internally make determinations for whether the order is lawful and are empowered to obey unlawful orders. Trumps presidential term was full of examples of executive branch agents defying or hindering the agenda of the president. The idea that a president will just get to murder and rape with impunity is absurd.
The definition of impeach conflicts with your explanation.
Impeach is to CHARGE. It IS a court proceeding. At the conclusion, they could convict and sentence. That the power hasn't been used doesn't mean it isn't present.
This supreme court decision is just clarifying for the slower in the group.
Best part is... the more you talk about it the funnier it is.
And... what are the consequences for impeachment?
@athloner detailed by the constitution.
There are options. Watch the video. You wouldn't believe me if I told you.
Edit: if you want a pres to be subject to civilian law... your question is for congress. You failed to CONVICT where you have the authority. It solves for all the obvious bias involved. Trump probably did do an insurrection... but liberals failed to prove that to the degree required by the constitution. And barring congress the constitution blatantly says no go. You don't like it? Change it. But after the fact these bullshit charges are closer to double jeopardy than legitimate. The classified docs case... 2 of those may need to be brought... real unfortunate dems decided on more. It makes them look weak.
@athloner I tried to edit the last comment and it's been removed.
Just watch the video. Impeachment explicit gives congress authority to say what is official or not AND grant civil law to prosecute.
Impeachment failed. Equivalent to securing an indictment but failing to convict. Trump already stood for these crimes.
@athloner and that one was too. I'd be terrified of this too. It's really embarrassing stuff what has transpired on streams... and this is one way to deal with it.
Hide. And that is why you fail.
I keep responding. They keep "disappearing". Chicken shit stuff for sure.
This ruling combined with the Patriot act is going to be fun. Good luck americans
The the U.S. goes facist or under dictatorship, the world will feel it, and soon it will be good luck world
@5:55 was about to ask if this was before or after he made an ass out of himself on piers regarding this topic...
It appears he did make an ass of himself without having read the actual text
WHATS INSANE IS YOU THINK YOURE DEFENDING DEMOCRACY WHEN AN ARISTOCRACY IS GOING TO TO REPLACE THE CANIDATE YOU CHOOSE WITHOUT YOUR INPUT, AND "YOUR DEMOCRACY" IS YOU GET TO VOTE FOR WHO EVER THEY TELL YOU TO.
We don't have a 2 party system, we have a 2 party populace.
Is this end of American democracy?
No. Relax 😂
No. Touch grass.
i seriously cant tell you r being serious or being sarcastic 😂
@@sirdoobiehowzer3888 mind elaborate? Isn’t “rule of law” absolute?
@@kevinw4267 TDS is amazing lol
The supreme court doesn't want every administration prosecuting the one before it. This is what happens when you break norms.
I dont have a problem with a multi-party system. However, it rarely makes sense because the 2 parties currently encapsulate almost all issues. Third parties tend to focus smaller (like the Green Party). What is the Green Party's stance on the Israel-Palestine situation? What is the People's Party's stance on AI development? If they do have stances, how do they differ from Democrat/Republican stances?
In order for a multi-party system to develop effectively, both big ticket parties would need to break up. They are both currently an amalgam of different parties that agree with each other enough to lend each other their power. Nobody who hopes to win will willingly give up that collective power.
piss corporation stocks are up big with this one
The only corporation where it "trickles down".
Bro reading an entire ruling sounds so long
This is why there are so many uneducated people. They refuse to read. Even here, listen to someone spoon feed you the information and people still complain.
Sorry you can’t handle reading.
@@StankyTheKlown stop lieing lol we know you didn't read that shit either.
Parliamentary =/= Multiparty
Usually the term “parliamentary system” is contrasted with “presidential system”, and has to do with the degree to which the the legislative branch and the executive branch are independent from each other, and whether they are elected separately.
What you refer to as a “two party system” might be better described as first-past-the-post elections - like in the US and the UK.
Israel, on the other hand, has a proportional representation election system (if 10% of the public votes for a particular party, then they get 10% of the seats in the legislature - more or less, it’s a bit more messy in practice). This naturally manifests as a multiparty legislature and a coalition-based executive. Germany has a complicated variation on that which tries to combine the direct election of legislators by local constituencies AND proportional national representation.
Whereas, France has a system which is more similar to first past the post but requires run-off elections if the candidate didn’t win an outright majority in the first round. (The system of who gets to run in the run-offs is kinda arcane though. It usually results in a runoff between the two top candidates, but it can result in more, and in this current wacky legislative election season in France there are hundreds of seats that may see runoffs between the top 3, and even top 4, candidates).
It's not a 2 party system. It's a winner take all system that results in a two party system. A parliamentary system is proportional representation, so it results in a multi-party system.
Canada is a parliamentary system and we do not have proportional representation. We, like the US, us first past the post. We have had referendums on implementing proportional representation and we have had bills put forward as well. Conservative fight against it tooth and nail simply because the other three (kinda four) parties can and do work with each other but NONE of them will work with the conservatives.
Holy fuck Pisco is impossible to listen to. It's like listening to white noise whenever he talks.
conservative: "we don't like big government"
also conservatives: "let's consolidate all this power and immunity in 1 office"
Leftists: "I can't believe they gave presidents immunity"
Obama and biden spy on trumps campaign worse than Watergate in 2016 and kill americans overseas without trial.
Also leftists: "crickets".😊.
That's what happens when the end is the priority instead of the means to get there.
@@mr-h6x CZcams can keep deleting facts but it won't change the fact that obama and biden would be in prison if they didn't have this immunity.
Now it's just fairly distributed to both parties
Immunity yes but the chevron deference ruling took power away from the federal govt
Leftists: Strawman are sexy AF
Also leftists: "Nevermind the lube! I'm taking this one raw-n-straw!"
parlamentary doesn't assume more than 1 party, amount ofparties depends on the citizens and how they divide politics wise
If something is a crime but it falls under the responsibility of the president, then it shouldn’t be a crime in that case, not that he is immune from said crime. Like it’s illegal to print money but if your the fed it’s fine right? This is such a weird precedent to set.
8:30 That’s not what impeachment is. It has nothing to do with people not liking the president (or official being impeached)
Explain how his posited definition was wrong instead of just saying “nun-uh”
@@Josh-ml8ho google or Websters dictionary can help.
@@Josh-ml8ho nun-uh.
@@MyHomeboyGoose dang it
Watching this in 2029, Trump is still president.
How is it so far?
@@lordkingbomb if I say too much seal team 6 might show up and kigdhshagvsbdjxgvsb
@@Raydie99 crazy that ppl unironically believe this lmfao
@@lowserver2 It's a joke, but yeah. You have an anime pfp.
@@vidzorko4492Damn bro 😂
175k views, 3k likes. Why does DGG hate the algorithm so much. 😢
Damn, SCOTUS giving the president that Wallfacer power.
Is it fascist now destiny?
He says trump is a fascist all the time
@coocoo3336 no he hasn't, in fact he bitched vaush out for calling him a fascist
No we need to over analyze and find some nuance on why this is bad but maybe not bad.
Hearing Destiny read this decision reminds me of those dudes in undergrad who thought they were already constitutional scholars.😂 "You need other things for a court to review a case, like probable cause..." lol no PC is proven during that review.
1:16:22 "if you assume the premise, the correct legal answer is this." But this paper says its unprecedented, so why are you just accepting their poins on their face?
Pisco is spot on.
Piscos an idiot lol. Quote where in the constitution it says the FBI, CIA, or DoJ can arrest presidents for their official duties
Lol. It is quite funny watching Democrats humiliating themselves by showing everybody how illiterate they are about this ruling. No, the ruling does not suggest you will be able to legally assassinate your political opponents, and anybody peddling this obvious bullshit should be ridiculed and shamed from public discourse for being a deeply unserious partisan hack.
1:09:20 Quick, Pisco, tell me what qualified immunity means for cops. And I'll wait for you to extrapolate that and how a court might play it out in a real world test.
1:36:22 like they talk about sundowning and s*** but they literally don't have a thing to point to to say this was bad and it might even be because he's senile and bad at braining, nothing to point to besides how he sort of seems like an old man when he talks and moves
Is this a podcast where his listeners hate on him? I’ve never seen a podcast like that. What would be the point for having one? 😵💫
'Hate on him' don't you mean where viewers can offer critique and challenge his opinions. Why wouldn't you want that?