Primetime tonight. Donald trump lost. Two debate s to me in 2020, but now hes acting like he wants to debate me again. Ill makhee my day, pal. I hear your free on wednesdays trump biden. The debate is on any time, anywhere, at any place. Have you ever seen this much . Caine in your life thats got to be worth, what, ten, 15,000 . I blew it. In cocaine foune found in the capi. Oh, oh, oh, its a deepa de burn. Oh, i could barely lifep burn ti my right arm because i did so many. Welcome to wellness wednesdays. Plus, theres a ring. Holy. Is that real, ladies and gentlemen, we have a debate. Suddenly out of the blue, suddn says hes ready to take on trump. Donald trump lovesince two debates to me in 2020. Said he hadnt shown up forn he debate. Not w hes acting like he wantsto to debate me again. Del. E. My day, pa ill even do it twice. He first, pick the dates. Donald, i hear, do you free on wednesdays. I hear youre free on wednesdays. Why now . The day the democrats arent tying him down in c
Week three of Donald Trumps Hush Money Criminal Trial. I, wolf blitzer in washington, Kaitlan Collins is outside the courthouse in new york, right . Now, the prosecution is questioning Keith Davidson, the former attorney for Stormy Daniels, and Karen Mcdougal to women who say they had affairs with trump anywhere paid to keep quiet. Jurors also heard from the banker who processed the Stormy Daniels payment. He said he was misled about that transaction caitlin yeah. Wolf, its been fascinating inside that courtroom because also remember at the start of today, the judge ruled that trump violated his gag order in this case nine times. He find trump the max its a mum of 1,000 per violation and even floated the possibility of jail time for future ones. Cnns paula reid and Phil Mattingly are here covering all of this with me. I should note that the court has just taken a break for lunch, which means Keith Davidson is off the witness stand. Donald trump is leaving the courtroom, so as the judge
Admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements. Please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial, we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is absolute immunity. Yes. But absolute immunity just for a president s official acts in office. I think thats a crucial distinction. And
Im period in question. I thought in many what we did a concession at all was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpret for his statements at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the
Concession at all. Was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with Justice Barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements, at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is ab