A new movement hopes to counter the threat posed by not just a second term of a Trump presidency, but the authoritarian movement the ex-president has made the centre of GOP politics and legal thought
A new movement hopes to counter the threat posed by not just a second term of a Trump presidency, but the authoritarian movement the ex-president has made the centre of GOP politics and legal thought
you know, no sort of legal basis to avoid these things as a result of being in that office. now, the court, in 2019, in this case, ordered that he had to appear for trial testimony in new york, notwithstanding the fact that he was the president at that time. the court gave him the accommodation of giving his testimony by video deposition, but it was very clear, as has been established by the supreme court going back, again, like to clinton v. jones in this case, there is no such thing as presidential immunity, but even if there were, that s really no longer an issue. i think that what this case does for other litigants that are litigating with mr. trump is set an example and assure them that our institutions still work and that no one is above the law, including mr. trump, and the civil processes of the court system of bronx county supreme court in this case, they still apply to him. this case involved the former president s security guards.
One of the most baffling legal questions confronting the judiciary in most constitutional democracies, the world over, is how to balance the increasing demands of the political Executive for.
certainly not from the constitution. i think you don t have basis and you don t have an application. you re going to lose. what s your argument? i think it s exactly in the constitution, the supremacy clause, the whole idea of separation of powers. i this i we nk we going to win. we re going to win this. here s why. you cannot have a president subject to 5,000 local district courts w district attorneys wo have a problem with the president of the united states. i saw the district court s opinion. i think he s wrong and he s going to be reversed. they re asking for documents that could be relevant to you mentioned clinton v. jones. they say it did not raise that issue of clinton versus jones, the idea of a state proceeding