Up Sigh Down News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana
Stay updated with breaking news from Up sigh down. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Top News In Up Sigh Down Today - Breaking & Trending Today
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 ....
We re not even you asking you to prejudge the rule this car refuses to apply the rule let s see how it goes please remand to diss report so they can follow common sense. let s hear from counsel for the government, we ll have you play that role harry, you ve been attorney before what s the argument? with respect my friends, stridency its lack of confidence. we have the as the rules, we ve never had occasion to do this one, because presidents haven t broken the law before. but the difference between a republic, that punishes its highest officials after they left office, this is not while he is in office, which could be a problem that after they left office, not only is there no reason to withhold the criminal process there s every reason because that is, the delineation between a rule of law in a rule person a rule of autocracy as my friends client would want to establish. you want to rebuttal? you are honor we don t ....
Never actually had them for longer periods of time. when you look at what trump is saying about, be careful what you wish for, it s happening to me now. it could be biden next for the border and beyond. do you have concerns that if immunity is not granted here, and say the election goes trumps way, what s next is biden under the microscope? i don t think it matters for donald trump he will do whatever he wants to do regardless of the presidents, we saw this the first term, he was willing to break with history, tradition, norms in the law repeatedly. i don t think that s the right way to draw the line. the difference though is, if you are doing something, for example the mayorkas case, there the has to do with their policy at the border, there s no allegations of bribery, treason high crimes, anything like that. same thing with president ....
Object to that, there is a rule. the supreme court has set official acts protected unofficial, is crazy seal team six assassination, not protected. i reject those hypotheticals, i simply want the law to apply to have that balance for the normal functioning of the presidency. tell me, now we ve heard both the sides quickly, what do you really believe harry? i believe my position, no one believes my position but the main thing is, nobody is talking about the civil law and now we re talking about something was really something great in the other side, a criminal violation. but that is the standard for the civil up, but we re talking about crimes. we re talking about double jeopardy, let s go down there. i think it s important. is your phone on? you might get a call from the president. i don t know if you have it on? should i give you number. you know laura, i practice law was john morell who is a a criminal defense lawyers we have to make those impossible ....
Counsel for president former president trump, is turning the facts and in this case the law up sigh down. there is no such thing and frankly, it is frivolous it is not worthy of this distinguished advocate the even try to make this argument. rebuttal of? course he misconstrue what i m saying, it s not the logical point it s the political policy point of having some threshold judgment, it s a very serious thing to indict a president, by the quality is a whole. it s not the nevertheless argument, that someone else did make today. let s have big pitcher gentlemen, it takes a great and brilliant legal mind to both do what you have done, devil advocacy to think about it, the reason we did this is because there are reasons to have and know the legitimacy of the underlying argument. we can t dismiss them all right, the court is grappling with this. big picture, what does you take away from today, knowing the concession has been made, and they are doing under review? ....