We will hear the argument is next in case 19635 donald trump versus cyrus vance. Nno County District attorney and that history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and fortit good reason, e constitution doesnt allow it. Temporary president ial immunity is constitutionally required by article two and accordingly, the supremacy clause to face any authority they have under that state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weaponizeon is 2300 local and or an overwhelming number of them are elected and thereby accountable to the local constituencies. The decision would allow any two giraffes, distract or interfere with the sitting president to the local prejudice that could influence prosecutorial decisions and those who can then utilize the criminal process in the form of subpoena targeting the president. This isnt speculation. It is what is taking place in the subpoena of the chall
Up next, live coverage as the d. C. Appeals Court Hearings argument via teleconference, will they should vote on the case of michael flynn, National Security advisor. 5143 in re michael flynn. And the honorable emma g sullivan. Good morning, well hear first from miss powell. Good morning, may it please the court. This is sydney powell for petitioner michael flynn. We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution weighing as it all of those factors that go into that, including the exculpatory evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jenson who know the only had 10 Years Experience as an if ib fbi agent, but 10 years before mr. Barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessen
Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome.
Is the only institution in america chartered by congress to disseminate information about the constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people. And that is what they are trying to do in collaboration with cspan as we invite you to join us in listening to these oral arguments and then convening afterwards with some of americas most thoughtful scholars who filed briefs in our taking positions on both sidesof of the case to help us unpack the arguments we just heard. For an and this has been an extraordinary morning and weve heard three cases involving the president s power to resist the subpoena in the first cases from congress in the second case from the state District Attorney. There are two great scholars and two of americas leading experts on the law of the presidency especially as it relates to the subpoena. Andrew is the professor of law at Joseph Rosenfeld is a lowball at iowa law where he focuses on
Versus vance. Mr. Sekulow. No County District in the history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and for good reason. Accordingly the supremacy clause that beats any authority under the state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and shall be reversed and if not reversed, the decision weaponize is 2300 local djs and an overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow anyone to harass, distract and interfere with a sitting president. Subject to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and at the same grand juries that can then utilize the process in the form of a subpoena targeting the president. This isnt mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in the case and with a subpoena that we challenge. In thand the argument we assertd that a subpoena didnt serve a legitimate legislative purpose and they were burdensome.