JD Vance mops the floor with smirking Kaitlan Collins over Trump’s ‘immunity’ in TENSE interview

J.D. Vance confronted CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on her own turf and obliterated her over the fraudulent trials against former President Trump.

A sneering Collins evidently thought she would level Vance since she had the home-court advantage. It didn’t play that way, with Vance handling her questions on presidential immunity like an expert, and ignoring her disdain for him and Trump.

“You’re a Yale-educated attorney and I want to get your take on what we saw happen last week – those immunity arguments before the Supreme Court where Trump’s team, his attorney argued that a president could order the military to stage a coup and to have their political opponent assassinated and be immune from prosecution unless this theory that they were impeached and then convicted by the Senate. Do you share the view that presidents are basically above the law?” Collins asked Vance taking the favored leftist tack on the issue.

“Look, Kaitlan, I think we need to be careful about imputing words into the president’s attorneys that they didn’t actually say,” Vance warned her.

(Video Credit: CNN)

Collins proceeded to charge ahead with the false narrative, exhibiting a stunning lack of understanding concerning constitutional law.

He agreed with it,” she informed Vance.

“What the president’s attorney said, Kaitlan, to be clear, is that there is a checks and balances system in our Constitution. Now, some things the president does – private acts – are liable to criminal penalties, but most of the things that the president does in their official duties, we have a system of impeachment. We have a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch that I’m a member of, the judicial branch. I did not read the president’s attorneys as saying that the president could order a coup. The president’s attorneys are saying that the constitutional checks and balances system–” Vance stated before being interrupted by a flustered Collins.

“No, no,” she insisted.

“–would address that problem. And I think–” he started again.

“Let me stop you right there,” she said to Vance trying to cut him off.

“–it’s an important distinction,” he said finishing his thought.

Collins then attempted to claim that Trump and his attorney were defending a presidential coup.

“But let me stop you right there because I listened to this. It’s John Sauer, Trump’s attorney. And when he was asked by one of the justices if the president could order the military to stage a coup, and would it count as an official act – meaning he couldn’t be prosecuted for it – he said it would depend on the circumstances. I mean, what circumstances warrant a president ordering the military to stage a coup?” Collins dishonestly asked.

“Well, first of all, he did say it depends on the circumstances. That opens up a whole lot of avenues for contexts there. But more importantly, Kaitlan, he’s just saying that would count–” Vance began again before being interrupted.

“But that’s an official act in your view too?!” Collins charged.

Vance, who is a patient man, finally made it clear he wanted to finish a sentence.

“Could I finish the answer to the question, Kaitlan? An official act, there are a number of checks and balances in our system. There’s the impeachment process, there’s the budgeting authority that Congress has. There are a number of ways where Congress has a check and balance control over the president of the United States. All he’s saying is that the criminal liability procedures that exist in this country don’t cover the president’s official acts,” he explained.

“And by the way, how could anybody disagree with that? Kaitlin? Should Barack Obama be prosecuted for killing an American citizen via a drone strike? There are a number of examples in American history where if you apply the standard, the lawfare standard of the Biden administration against Donald Trump, it would make the presidency impossible to actually execute the law. So, in the name of taking down their political opponent, Kaitlan, these guys are really pushing a legal theory that I think would destroy the presidency, whether a Democrat or Republican is in charge,” Vance responded, absolutely demolishing Collins’ line of argument.

Collins naturally deflected at that point because evidently her argument only applies to Trump.

“Well, I don’t think Jack Smith is running for office. But on what you’re saying, you’re basically saying that if the president orders the military to stage a coup, you believe the only remediation for that is that he can be impeached or that Congress can restrict the budget?” she pressed forward.

“Well, Kaitlan, first of all, you’re dealing with hypotheticals here that are completely outside the bounds of this particular situation. Donald Trump did not order a coup despite the fact that a lot of media people say that he did on January the 6th. He encouraged people to protest peacefully. And of course, most people on January 6 did protest peacefully. What I’m saying is that you have to have some measure of liability for the official acts of the presidency of the United States,” Vance hit back.

“And the way to create a check and balance on that system is what the Constitution prescribes here. You can have prosecutors, many of whom of course are deeply embedded with the Democratic Party trying to destroy the life of a former president who is now running for president because they think that they have a better argument for what that president should’ve done. You can have a political disagreement with Donald Trump and that’s totally reasonable. You shouldn’t destroy the presidency in the process. And I think that’s what a lot of what the Biden administration and the Department of Justice is trying to do,” he said hammering Collins with logic.

Like a dog with a bone, Collins wouldn’t let it go even though she was proven wrong because her one talking point was all she had in her arsenal.

“But you essentially are agreeing that presidents should not be able to be prosecuted?” she said lamely ending off on the subject and moving on.

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles