Trump Is Immune
yt.artemislena.eu
This is one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: https://legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! https://legaleagle.link/eagleteam Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets. 🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! https://legaleagle.link/watchnebula 👔 Suits by Indochino! https://legaleagle.link/indochino GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME! ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Send me an email: [email protected] MY COURSES ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! https://legaleagle.link/lawguide Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! https://legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Twitter: https://legaleagle.link/twitter Facebook: https://legaleagle.link/facebook Tik Tok: https://legaleagle.link/tiktok Instagram: https://legaleagle.link/instagram Reddit: https://legaleagle.link/reddit Podcast: https://legaleagle.link/podcast OnlyFans https://legaleagle.link/onlyfans Patreon https://legaleagle.link/patreon BUSINESS INQUIRIES ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Please email my agent & manager at [email protected] LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Special thanks: Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives Music provided by Epidemic Sound Short links by pixelme.me (https://pxle.me/eagle) Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
  • voracitude@lemmy.world
    3·
    4 months ago

    Maybe you’re partially remembering the opinion (and it was just an opinion, not legal precedent) that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted for crimes? But the whole basis for that idea was that the proper remedy is impeachment to remove them from office, and upon being removed from office they can be charged with crimes by the DOJ (which they would no longer be the head of). This is what shielded Trump while he was in office, as his DOJ declined to prosecute him citing this logic as the reason.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      31·
      4 months ago

      Yeah that’s probably what I was thinking of. I didn’t realize it was specific to sitting presidents. But then again any criminal trial would be heavily dependant on who the next president is. Like this very well could have played out in the 80s except that Ford pardoned Nixon. I appreciate you helping to refresh my memory.