Trump Gets Crushed Twice In One Day By Judge Chutkan

Donald Trump suffered two devastating legal blows on Friday evening, when Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed BOTH of his motions to dismiss the charges against him for trying to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump's lawyers had offered weak arguments claiming that the case violated Trump's Constitutional rights, and Chutkan wasted no time letting his legal team know that arguments like this aren't going to make it far. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what happened.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Donald Trump got struck down, not just once, but twice by Judge Tanya Chuin on Friday evening. In both of his attempts to get the loss, uh, or the charges against him, dismissed for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, his lawyers had filed two motions. The first one argued that, hey, he was president at the time. And as we all know, presidents can do whatever the hell they want. So you know, you can't try him for the crimes he did because he has total immunity. The second argument was that, okay, if you don't buy the immunity argument, then how about a First Amendment argument, right? He has a right as a citizen of the United States President or not to, uh, voice his concerns about the 2020 election. Two separate motions, both simultaneously, if you will, struck down by Chuck. And on Friday night for the first one that he is immune from all of this.

This is what Chuck can had to say. The constitution's text structure and history do not support that contention. No court or any other branch of government has ever accepted it, and this court will not so hold whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy. The United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong get outta jail free pass. So not only did she say, Hey, you don't have immunity, the courts say you don't have immunity. Congress says you don't have immunity, but you're also, if I need to remind you, not the president of the United States right now, so go suck an egg. That's, that's pretty good. I like that. And uh, for the second one, the first Amendment argument, right, here's what Chut can ruled on that one. It is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.

And consequently, the indictment, which charges defendant with, among other things, making statements and furtherance of a crime, does not violate defendant's First Amendment rights. You know, it's been really interesting watching Donald Trump's lawyers in, in literally all of the trials that he's either currently going through or facing, they have always tried to argue the First Amendment thing, right? I mean, in every single case, he's like, I have a right to it's First Amendment. I can do whatever I want. Like, do you even know what's in the first? Do you even know what it says? Somebody needs to hand Donald Trump a copy of the Constitution, not a real one. He'll get catch upon it. But you know, a, a, a copy of it, the text of the First Amendment, and just tell 'em, like, read this. And then when you're done reading it, read it again. And then after that, do it like five more times till you can commit it to memory. Because you keep trying to argue that everything you do is protected by the First Amendment. When the First Amendment doesn't apply to literally anything that you are trying to do. Maybe actually, instead of giving it to him, maybe give it to his lawyers, because you would think these people who I know had to have taken

A, a First Amendment class, not just a constitutional law class, a class specifically on the First Amendment. I know that. 'cause at one point I was a pre-law student and there was a class First Amendment freedoms that you have to take. Maybe they need to retake that class and remember what's in the First Amendment because the arguments they're trying to make on behalf of the First Amendment are some of the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life.