Chairman on what the landscape could look like. Its wednesday, march 25, 2020 cnbc special coverage of the coronavirus begins right now good morning and welcome, im Courtney Reagan live at the nasdaq marketsite. Breaking news, the senate makes a deal with Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell promising a vote today. This is a wartime level of investment into our nation im thrilled we are finally going to deliver into our country that has been waiting for us to step up. Treasury second mnuchin adding that the president will sign the bill as it goes through both chambers of congress. Good morning this is a big deal. The thing both sides have been working on for five days straight wrapping up with a deal that we are told includes four months of extended Unemployment Insurance for americans. So getting those schechecks rol out as soon as possible. It will include disaster aid for state and local governments for hospitals and Health Systems and Small Business loans and other relief lawmakers have
Morning in case 20 39 39, trump versus United States. Mr. Sour . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, without president ial immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. For 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official act. The framers of our constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. If a president can be charged, put on trial and in prison for 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 most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the courts decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could president george w. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq . Co
Prosecuted for his official act. The framers of our constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty. If a president can be ard, put on trial and in prison for his most controversi dision as soon as he leaves office, that looming teawill distort the president s decisionmaking precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackml d extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the courts decision here extend far beyond the facts of ts se. Could esent george w. Bush have been sent to prison for stcting an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war iir . Could president obama be charged with murder for killing u. S. Citizens abroad by drone strike . Could President Biden someday be chgewith unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border poly. The answer to all the questions is no. Prosecuting the esent for official acts is
Check abuses of power especially the use of official power for private gain. Here the Executive Branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for petitioners alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. That is a compelling public interest. In response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. But established legal safeguards provide layers of protections with the Article Iii Courts providing the ultimate check. The existing system is a carefully balanced framework. It protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. That has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. This court should preserve it. I welcome the courts questions. Does the president have immunity or are you saying there is no immunity even for official acts . Yes, justice thomas. But i think it is important to put in perspective the position that we are offering the court today. The
specifically calling for the genocide of jews, does that constitute bullying harassment? if it is directed and severe, it is harassment. so the answer is yes. it is a context dependent decision. it is a context-dependent decision? that s your testimony? it is depending upon the consteks? that s not bullying or harassment? this is the easiest question to answer yes, miss magill. so is your testimony that you will not answer yes? if it is if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes. conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? the speech is not harassment? after facing widespread back lash after those remarks, magill attempted to clarify her remarks the following day. in that moment, i was focused on our university s longstanding policies aligned with the u.s. constitution which say that speech alone is not punishable. these policies need to be clarified and evaluated. but in the end, that was not enough and polo sandoval is live. magill is