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
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.
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.
Am very grateful to every soldier, and their work, their contribution for more than 39 months, the facts or 27 months, it is invaluable, i think that Ukrainian Society will find an opportunity to thank the soldiers for this contribution, definitely, here with you absolutely agree that we should be grateful to our soldiers and help them, as much as possible, which is what we do every day. You also mentioned motivational norms, right . Motivation, it must be there, because we see that certain such processes, disputes, i would say, and perhaps even the reluctance of some part of society to join the Defense Forces, the armed forces of ukraine, are taking place in society. In your opinion, the motivational norms in this draft law. There is, do you need to add some more, here you, as, by the way, a former, including a legislator, i think in this case you could advise the current legislators as well, and in principle, i should also give my assessment of these motivational norms, which in my o
Were prepared among peoples deputies of ukraine. Mr. Pavle, what is your overall assessment of this draft law, which was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of ukraine. What is your assessment from a Military Point of view, yes, was he necessary in that the form in which it was adopted, and perhaps you have any comments on what should have been adopted to make it better . Thank you andrew for the question, indeed. The importance of the adoption of this law is not discussed, society demanded to vote on such a bill, but in my opinion this voted bill is a half measure, and in the future there will be changes and individual decisions of the president regarding the improvement of this system, in my deep conviction, we have not changed the soviet system, nor accounting , no draft, we did not prioritize. The possibility of involvement people for voluntary mobilization, we did not motivate people, we did not prescribe motivation tools, in fact, the changes that are prescribed in the current draft la