because the court of appeals heard a major concession, see what i did there, from the lawyer from a former president who has refused to concede that he lost the election, and he did lose that election. before today trump s lawyers were absolutely, what s the word, adamant, totally convinced that the president has absolute immunity from trump s conduct while of course he was in office. they wouldn t even budge on this point. well, first they wouldn t budge. right out of the gate with question from one of the judges in the federal court, they were forced to make a powerful concession, that of course there is not absolute immunity meaning, you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise? they could see that you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that after the judge gave them a whole string of hypotheticals, there s only one legitimate truthful answer could a president who ordered sealed
president that refuses to concede that he lost the election. and he did lose that election. before today, trump s lawyers were absolutely what s the word -e eadamant. that the president had immunity for his conduct while in office. they wouldn t budge on this point. at first they wouldn t budge. right out of the gate, from questioning of one of the judges, they were forced to make a powerful confession, that of course, there is not absolute immunity, meaning you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise. they could you can. you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that, after the judge gave him a whole string of hypotheticals that can really only have one legitimate, truthful answer. could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team 6, be subject to prosecution? if he were impeached and convicted first. the answer is no? my answer is qualified yes. a qualified what? a qualified y
because the court of appeals heard a major concession, see what i did there, from the lawyer from a former president who has refused to concede that he lost the election, and he did lose that election. before today trump s lawyers were absolutely, what s the word, adamant, totally convinced that the president has absolute immunity from trump s conduct while of course he was in office. they wouldn t even budge on this point. well, first they wouldn t budge. right out of the gate with question from one of the judges in the federal court, they were forced to make a powerful concession, that of course there is not absolute immunity meaning, you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise? they could see that you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that after the judge gave them a whole string of hypotheticals,
president that refuses to concede that he lost the election. and he did lose that election. before today, trump s lawyers were absolutely what s the word -e eadamant. that the president had immunity for his conduct while in office. they wouldn t budge on this point. at first they wouldn t budge. right out of the gate, from questioning of one of the judges, they were forced to make a powerful confession, that of course, there is not absolute immunity, meaning you can never charge a former president for action taken while in office, if it was criminal or otherwise. they could you can. you can prosecute under certain circumstances. and they only admitted that, after the judge gave him a whole string of hypotheticals that can really only have one legitimate, truthful answer. could a president who ordered