single sentence that favors or even slightly sympathizes with donald trump s argument for presidential immunity. instead, the d.c. appeals court stands up trump s defenses only to knock them down one by one. the judges reached back through history citing case law from the early 1800s along with founders themselves on how they envisioned the power and limitations of the presidency. the court concludes quote, for the purposes of h criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. on trump s argument that the separation of powers doctrine bars judicial review of executive actions, the court cited presidents nixon and truman, both of whom were found to have exceeded their authority by the supreme court. nixon on trying to shield his tapes and truman on trying to seize steel mills. they also cited an 1882 supreme court ruling that said officers of the government can be sued pulling directly from the decision, q
that s going to do it for me today. deadline: white house starts now. hi everyone. it s 4:00 in new york. i m ali velshi in for nicolle wallace. an incredibly important question looming over democracy, can presidents be held accountable for crimes committed in office. a unanimous ruling by the d.c. court of appeals rejected donald trump s claims of immunitity in the federal election case. the decision by the judges is a stinging rebuke of the ex-president in what has become a months long push to get the charges against him dismissed. in their ruling, the judges make the point that while donald trump is a former president of the united states, he is in the eyes of the law, just another criminal defendant. for the purposes of this criminal case, frp has become citizen trump with all the any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him in this prosecution. prosecuting presidents for things they did in office would have
californians are under a flood watch as they are tonight, that s 10% of the whole u.s. population n this succession of extremely wet storms, the north central coast of california has been particularly hard hit cu already. but now with additional storms, still coming, there are all kinds of northern california rivers that don t usually flood that are looking now luke they are going to flood. these are places where there just are not a lot of flood mitigation systems because they re rivers that don t usually flood. there is not a lt of local inland flooding. so it is bad tonight in a lot of california with more rain and more storms set to arrive over the next few days. keeping eyes on that as everybody else in the country. in new mexico tonight, this is interesting story. albuquerque police just held a press conference tonightce to announce a development in the recent shootings that have targeted the homes and offices of at least a half dozen new mexicolf elected officials all
A fundamental strength of our democracy is the rule of law. We aspire to have the laws and enforcement be blind to race, gender, or standing in the community. I
first, let me ask if i explained that correctly. the special grand jury, the aim of their investigation over the past eight months has been the report that they have submitted as of today. their work is done. they re dissolved as an entity and the juries go home? that s exactly right. remember this grand jury had no authority to issue an indictment even if the d.a. had asked for one. this was simply a chance for her to use the grand jury process a little different than we typically do in state grand juries here in georgia but it allowed her to use the grand jury process to subpoena witnesses and evidence to get folks on the record, witness who s may be reluctant to get their testimony to investigate the case more fully. you just don t see the cases very often. that s what really separates federal grand jury who s have, you know, inherently investigated powers with the state grand jury system. so now she ll make a decision whether or not she thinks that there s sufficient evidence a