That testimony. This is a mandate. This document is just a mandate from the Supreme Court. They ordered this. They said go back and prove that you can construct an indictment that fits within this new immunity we have just invented. The last professor describes if Jack Smith pulled it off. What a night. And when we are finished with that, Cassidy Hutcheson will join us. She was part of what got this story moving to where it is today. I envy you, that is an awesome lineup. Have a great show. Vice president of the united states was taking notes. Donald trump always hated seeing people take notes in the White House when he was speaking. But taking notes was the least of Donald Trumps problems with Mike Pence in a meeting with which the president of the united states was trying to get the Vice President of the united states to join what Jack Smith calls a Criminal Conspiracy and commit a crime against the united states of america. A crime that special prosecutor Jack Smith in a 165 Page Mo
As well it should be, my friend. Enjoy the show, i will be watching. The stock market closed at a new record high today. Yet another stock market time during the biden presidency, which has been full of stockmarket highs. The stock market is happy in the afterglow of Kamala Harris is Democratic Convention and her rising in the polls indicating donald trump will not be allowed to ruin the economy with the stupidest terrorist proposals in history. Instead of being president trumps next year, the stock market seems to believe he will just be Defendant Trump Next year. Donald trump spent the day ranting on social medium about a new Superseding Indictment voted on by a new grand jury in washington, d. C. The new indictment in the case of the United States of america versus donald j trump, defendant, replaces a previous indictment with the same title and the same list of four crimes, Conspiracy To Defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and co
There is a possibility they may see some opportunity for some immunity for some president ial decisions. If they decide it that way, it may have to go back down to the District Court which could cause further delay. I appreciate you not being sidetracked by somebody who apparently wants to scream louder than anybody else. Catherine, the lower courts have been unanimous that trump cannot claim immunity. Does that tell you something . I cant imagine theyre going to say a former president has absolute immunity for criminal acts. What will be a win for donald trump is if theyre saying were sending it back to judge chutkan to determine which, if any he would have immunity for and which he would not. Thats a win because that would delay the trial, which is already delayed. So what of course obviously jack smith and Special Counsel is hoping for, a majority of the court will just say, no, absolute immunity from Criminal Prosecution for a former president and clearly jack smith would say this
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
To have said all i need you to do is to find me 11,000 votes unchanged. I think if you look at that context it is pretty clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity of office seeker, not as president i am focus on the legal test. I am not hearing any objections to it. Other than i think the d. C. Circuit place more Content Consideration off limit then i went. I want to understand on the court immunity, or whatever word we use, it seems to me that we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably. Do we look at motives . The president s motives for his actions . For example, he has lots of power as weve discussed, but he might use them to enhance his election in his personal interest. It is not a relevant consideration when we look at core powers . I think of this more as looking at the objectives of the activity as opposed to the subjective motives in the sense that you are i think there is concern about seeing a electoral motive to be reelected as such. Every firstterm pres