weissmann, professor laurence tribe from harvard law school, glenn kirschner, who so valuable eat was in the room today during this argument, during which, i think even donald trump knows, the whole thing collapsed. the defense that could save him, the immunity defense collapsed before his eyes. when you re arguing about navy seal commandoes being able to assassinate your political rivals, i think you are not winning. i m a lay person, i can t wait to talk some more in your hour, but my layman s opinion is that that s not a winning strategy. you re halfway through law school, based on what you ve just said. i m learning from the best professors there. i will be watching tonight. have a good show. ight have donald trump endured the worst day of his life as a criminal defendant today. was donald trump s first time in a courtroom as a criminal defendants for anything other than his arrangements. donald trump was not allowed to speak, and we can only imagine the intensit
condemning the same comments and rants, increasing the art odds prosecutors ask for prison time and that odds that judge merchan would send him to prison for a period of time. i don t want to say more likely than not but this is not helping him. let me have you read more tea leaves, judge merchan put cfo allen weisselberg behind bars despite him being a first- time offender and in the 70s, does that signal anything to you about the trump potential sentence? it does, it suggests to me the prosecutors are prepared to ask for prison time. i don t think it is entirely an accident the prosecutors secured two different prison terms for weisselberg. if they wanted to see prison time for trump, one argument they could make, perfectly fair and in my mind, resident argument, wesley
appellate lawyer james pierce arguing for jack smith in the appeals court used the word frightening repeatedly to describe the world we live in would live in at the courts except on trump s claim of presidential immunity for any crime including those committed by a president who is than not convicted of that same crime in the senate impeachment trial. the condition president argument there is only liability, criminal liability for former president, if that president has been impeached and convicted. that is wrong for textual, structural, historical reasons and a host of practical ones, one of which i ll start with, to amplify the point. it would mean that if a former
happen you are on there is what is going to happen you are on there is what is going to happen. whatever side of the argument happen. whatever side of the argument you are on. happen. whatever side of the argument you are on. happen. whatever side of the argument you are on. moving on, who should be the argument you are on. moving on, who should be the next argument you are on. moving on, who should be the next president - argument you are on. moving on, who should be the next president of - should be the next president of number 10? should be the next president of number10? ~ ., ., . ., , ., number 10? we ve got a mechanism for that. we number 10? we ve got a mechanism for that- we will number 10? we ve got a mechanism for that. we will have number 10? we ve got a mechanism for that. we will have nominations - number 10? we ve got a mechanism for that. we will have nominations and - that. we will have nominations and parliament, the parliamentary party it