It is saturday april 27th. Today, Trump On Trial twice. Over the next two hours, our legal and reporting team help us break town the Supreme Court Immunity Arguments and jaw dropping revelations from the 2016 election interference case. Plus, calling his bluff. President biden is happy to debate trump. The expresident s grasp on the base weekends. Congressman garcia joins us. And the joke is on us, we will preview d. C. s big night White House Correspondent din perp grab your coffee, settle in and welcome to the weekend. Donald trump keeps coming back to one strategy to avoid accountability and delay, delay, delay. The Supreme Court now seems poised to help the efforts. Indicating that it could further stall the election federal election interference trial. This week the justices heard arguments on the president ial immunity claims although they are skeptical he has total immunity, several conservative justices indicated an openness to kick the case to the lower courts. Meaning we like
Imal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know. For 234 years ofmecan history, no president was ever prosecuted for h oicial act. The framers of our constitution viedn energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. If a president can be charged, put on trial and in prison f his most controversial decision as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president s decisionmaking precisely when bold and fearless action is mo nded. Every currt esident will face de facto blackmail and tortion by his political rivals while he is still i office. E implications of the courts decision here extend fareyd the facts of this case. Could president george w. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceedi oallegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq . Could president obama be charged with murder for killinu. Citizens abroad by drone strike . Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigran tenter the country illega
The Us Supreme Court or historic arguments are about to unfold testing former president Donald Trumps unprecedented claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The hub couldnt determine if the Presumptive Republican president ial nominees federal election subversion trial happens before this year is 2024. Election or at all . Im Kaitlan Collins outside of the high court and im Anderson Cooper over looking at Manhattan Criminal Courthouse while the Supreme Court hears trumps Immunity Case the former president is here in New York City in the midst of His First Criminal Trial For Hush Money Scheme allegedly aimed at helping his 2016 president ial campaign the leadoff witness, former National Enquirer executive david pecker resumes his testimony soon, recovering. Both of these monumental cases in the hours ahead. Im jake tapper in washington and this is cnn Special Coverage, the trump Immunity Battle at the Us Supreme Court ab
Right now on Andrea Mitchell reports, crossing the line. The judge in Donald Trumps Hush Money Trial Admonishing the former president s legal team during a hearing today to determine whether mr. Trump repeatedly violated a gag order when attacking witnesses and jurors. The judge has not yet ruled on whether to fine the former president as prosecutors are requesting. Plus, back on the stand. The first witness answering more questions today as prosecutors try to establish the timeline of what they call Donald Trumps orchestrated Criminal Scheme to turn the 2016 election. How mr. Trump is reacting while sitting just feet away. And the u. S. Supreme court preparing to hear mr. Trumps claims of president ial immunity. Retired Justice Stephen breyer joins me on his new book Reading The Constitution as well as the conflicting legal philosophies now dividing the court. Good day, everyone. Im Andrea Mitchell in washington. At the Hush Money Trial in new york today, judge juan merchan coming dow
Would like to purchase it for the celebration of our marriage. The colorado law would prohibit that but you claim that you are entitled to an exception . Absolutely not. The compelled speech doctrine is triggered by compelled speech and in the context of a premade cake, that is not compelled speech. Mr. Phillips is happy to sell anything in his store. Didnt he express himself when he made it . Yes. He did express himself when he made it. The purpose for which he expressed it is important to the compelled speech doctrine and how it applies. Can i get the answer . If you agree, why can he not refuse to sell the cake in the window according to the hypothetical . It has already been placed in the stream of commerce. His speech has been completed. He intended to speak through the cake with the purpose of whatever it was when he created it. When he has a different purpose and is expressing a message through the cake, it would render a different result. Didnt he refused to sell cupcakes that