Stay updated with breaking news from State official. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
todd: secretary of state antony blinken landing back in israel to meet with prime minister netanyahu as 30 americans are confirmed dead in the war, 13 others unaccounted for. the israeli military says 199 innocent people are being held hostage in gaza. you are watching fox and friends, i m todd piro. carley: i m carley shimkus. you are looking live at the rafah crossing between gaza and is israel. the crossing is closed and hundreds are crowded at the gate at this moment. trey yingst is live with the very latest. good morning. trey: good morning, right now we are in the town ofst ofsterofsterot, next to the gaza border. we found another car that was shot by hamas militants last weekend. this car belonged to an arab israeli taxi driver. the militants that entered gaza took no mercy on the people here. did not matter if they spoke their language or had similar background, they slaughtered everyone in sight. some people were taken back into gaza from this town when ....
there is a possibility they may see some opportunity for some immunity for some presidential decisions. if they decide it that way, it may have to go back down to the district court which could cause further delay. i appreciate you not being sidetracked by somebody who apparently wants to scream louder than anybody else. catherine, the lower courts have been unanimous that trump cannot claim immunity. does that tell you something? i can t imagine they re going to say a former president has absolute immunity for criminal acts. what will be a win for donald trump is if they re saying we re sending it back to judge chutkan to determine which, if any he would have immunity for and which he would not. that s a win because that would delay the trial, which is already delayed. so what of course obviously jack smith and special counsel is hoping for, a majority of the court will just say, no, absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for a former president and clearly jac ....
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 petitioner s 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 court s 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 ....
to have said all i need you to do is to find me 11,000 votes unchanged. i think if you look at that context it is pretty clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity of office seeker, not as president i am focus on the legal test. i am not hearing any objections to it. other than i think the d.c. circuit place more content consideration off limit then i went. i want to understand on the court immunity, or whatever word we use, it seems to me that we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably. do we look at motives? the president s motives for his actions? for example, he has lots of power as we ve discussed, but he might use them to enhance his election in his personal interest. it is not a relevant consideration when we look at core powers? i think of this more as looking at the objectives of the activity as opposed to the subjective motives in the sense that you are i think there is concern about seeing a electoral motive to be reelected as suc ....
content, it s clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity as office seeker, not as president. we would look at that content. okay. the test i m focused on the legal test. i m not hearing any objections to it. other than, i think that the d.c. circuit placed more content consideration off limits than i would. all right. i wanted to understand, on the core immunity or whatever word we use, that it seems to me we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably, do we look at motives, the president s motives for his actions? for example, he has more power as we discussed, but he might use them to enhance his election, his personal interests. is that a relevant consideration when we re looking at core powers? i am thinking of this more as looking at the objective of the activity as opposed to the subjective motive in the sense that your honor is talking about. i think there s a lot of concern about saying an electoral motive to be re-elected. right. eve ....