Stay updated with breaking news from Got norm isn t. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
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 ....
Quadruple, why does he does it again? because we re only six days from the iowa caucus. because he knows, of course he knows, that taking his campaign to court makes this polls go up. quite the inverse relationship. remember, how he fundraised offers mugshot in georgia? i know. does he genuine believe he s entitled to immunity? i ll tell you what, he s entitled to knowing what the court will find here, and what they will decide. does every member of the electorate deserve to have an answer as well? i want to bring into brilliant legal minds to help again out the arguments that we heard today, the ones that we did not hear today. i ve got norm isn t, senior house judges or a special counsel, at the first impeachment higher. harry lippman, former federal prosecutor. i m glad you re both here to help us understand what simply into making the case for both sides. yes gentlemen, it s time for ....
After he lost an election, that his lawyers were forced to back away from the kind of reasonable common sense answers, and defend a completely untenable position, because only by distorting law can you justify, what donald trump is alleged to have done and what i believe there is strong proof of so they couldn t take a reasonable position because if they had it would result in a concession when they get back to the district court and they get in front of the trial judge and ultimately the george-y. look gentlemen, i will take at both under review. i love being called your honor, thank you both it s been a pleasure. you heard donald trump lawyer say that could open what, pandora s box. but isn t the box already open? i will talk to a democratic congressman about what the political consequences, of all ....
You to do some devil advocacy in my mind, we only heard the arguments my mind. i m gonna have both of you, walk me through in the audience, what the best arguments, maybe ought to have been? the strong points? the weaknesses as well? and i ll have you flip, i like the game play. i begin with you norm, i want you to take the side eye i paint you a little bit trump lawyers. if you don t mind? how do you respond to this doj argument, on what presidential immunity when me? listen to this. it would mean that if a former president engages in, assassination, selling pardons, these kinds of things in isn t impeached, and convicted there is no accountability for that individual. that is frightening. that is the doj argument, what is this response from the ....