79 at cardia cardia. Com or amazon im Arlette Saenz in rehoboth beach, delaware and this is cnn good morning. You are live in the cnn newsroom. Im Jim Acosta in washington again, this morning with special Counsel Jack Smith not backing down and bringing a retooled January 6 case against former President Donald Trump in a new indictment, federal prosecutor theres made some tweaks after the Supreme Courts controversial ruling giving for president s Donald Trump immunity from prosecution for official actions he took while in office. But all four of the Felony Charges remain accusing trump of attempting to defraud the government by obstructing the certification of the 20 in 20 election and trying to strip voters of their rights. Trump calling smiths action quote, An Act Of Desperation and ridiculous. And hes demanding that the case be immediately dismissed. The new indictment underscores the immense personal significance of a Trump Victory come this november, if he returns to the white hou
because the court of appeals heard a major concession, see what i did there, from the lawyer from a former president who has refused to concede that he lost the election, and he did lose that election. before today trump s lawyers were absolutely, what s the word, adamant, totally convinced that the president has absolute immunity from trump s conduct while of course he was in office. they wouldn t even budge on this point. well, first they wouldn t budge. right out of the gate with question from one of the judges in the federal court, they were forced to make a powerful concession, that of course there is not absolute immunity meaning, you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise? they could see that you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that after the judge gave them a whole string of hypotheticals, there s only one legitimate truthful answer could a president who ordered sealed
president that refuses to concede that he lost the election. and he did lose that election. before today, trump s lawyers were absolutely what s the word -e eadamant. that the president had immunity for his conduct while in office. they wouldn t budge on this point. at first they wouldn t budge. right out of the gate, from questioning of one of the judges, they were forced to make a powerful confession, that of course, there is not absolute immunity, meaning you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise. they could you can. you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that, after the judge gave him a whole string of hypotheticals that can really only have one legitimate, truthful answer. could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team 6, be subject to prosecution? if he were impeached and convicted first. the answer is no? my answer is qualified yes. a qualified what? a qualified y
Fox news alert. We begin with continuing moment by moment coverage of day eight of former President Trumps New York Criminal Trial. This is the faulkner focus. Hello. Happy friday. We have a lot of news packed in for you this hour. Court got underway last hour. A loss hat gone on so far. David pecker ends how he started on the witness stand. Right now trumps Team Continues their Cross Examination. Pecker to remind you is the former ceo of american media. His testimony this week mostly focusing on a quote, catch and kill scheme to buy stories about his then friend donald trump without publishing them effectively keeping them hidden. Atactic he used for other celebrities, too. Separately braggs team accused former President Trump of violating his gag order four more times. Thats in addition to the ten claims already made, by the way. Prosecutors meantime want the judge to fine trump and hold him in contempt for every one of those. A hearing on the gag order is set for thursday, may two,
Check abuses of power especially the use of official power for private gain. Here the Executive Branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioners alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. That is a compelling public interest. In response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. But established legal safeguards provide layers of protections with the Article Iii Courts providing the ultimate check. The existing system is a carefully balanced framework. It protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. That has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. This court should preserve it. I welcome the courts questions. Does the president have immunity or are you saying there is no immunity even for official acts . Yes, justice thomas. But i think it is important to put in perspective the position that we are offering the court today. The