have told you in past, he had two major defeats with public corru corruption cases. over at department of justice. he flblew the cases, supreme court identify turns bob mcdonald corruption decision, from politico in 2016, it it says: so he takes a brib bribery statutes and expand its that supreme court says you cannot do, that. they set f forth a straight forward rule, setting up a meeting, d does not qualify as an official act in return for a favor like a trip. so they destroyed mcdonald s career. bankrupted the man. ruined his marriage. then oops, 8 to 0 supreme court says this outrage out, who is behind it? jack the ripper smith, another one abc news, 2012. saying: a case in which john edwards or his people asked donors to contribute money to put up his pregnant girlfriend at a apartment. to try to cover it up during the course of his election. and what did joc jack the r ripper conclude, that is a crime under federal election code, how? it contributed positively to th
fox news alert. supreme court court, majority ruled that presidents have limited immunity from prosecution and they can be criminally prosecuted for unofficial acts. trump claiming he had presidential immunity from four felony charges in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. i m sandra smith in for harris faulkner. a big news day. the supreme court has thrown the case back to a federal judge to decide if trump s felony january 6th charges meet the criteria for prosecution. a trump campaign senior advisor with this moments ago. they basically have said sorry, jack smith, you don t get to just impede and intrude on the executive branch. we get to have protections for presidents who are doing things while they are in office so they don t come out and get targeted and criminally and civilly sued. it is very important. a good decision. obviously i believe absolute immunity should exist for the executive branch but they did recognize it. sandra: shannon bream is all over t
what did the jury say: so he brings a frivolous case on 6 charges, takes a statute, dialing with elections, and pulls it out. he is rebrigh rewriting statutes because he wants to do injustice. he is has the wrong mind set, he targets people, and hunts them and destroys them, they shipped him off to the hague to chase town genocidal maniacs, but
we need more time to get through the thousands of pages of briefs and information before we make a decision, so like the continuing resolutions on capitol hill and funding for 3 or 5 days, it s possible the court could say give us a breather for a minute to make a decision. but as for the actual stay that s what the parties challenging are asking for, this is not going to be a matter of months, it could be weeks, it could be days in getting a decision here. sandra: i think the wall street journal editorial, they write the ruling will echo beyond the pandemic. taking it to how far the executive branch can go in rewriting statutes. some justices will be tempted to defer to the executive given the pandemic emergencies but presidents are increasingly eager to find emergencies whenever they are politically convenient. that was the editorial board
the arguments continue. we thought they would wrap around noon. this will probably be closer to 1:00 or 2:00 at this point. we ll keep on it. harris: shannon, thank you very much for updating us. tom dupree assistant attorney general are in focus now. i m looking at notes that have to do with really what is at stake. before we start, wall street journal op-ed lays it out this way. it is more than just today s decision, tom. it has to do with the power of presidents. i will ask my team to pop that up if they would. there it is. wall street journal now. the court s ruling in this case will echo into the future about how far the executive branch can go in rewriting statutes. some justices will be tempted to defer to the executive given the pandemic emergencies but presidents have been eager the find emergencies whenever they re politically convenient.