0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
because john sauer did make a big concession today and saying that some of that in the indictment is private x i've never heard them say that before. >> well, you know, he's conceding the flavoring of the private acts provided by hey barrett's questions, which he's saying shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like a did an elector a replacement elector, feel like they were defrauding or were they actually thinking this is the backup plan if we went in court, which has a lot of things that have been said by that other side. so look, the reality and what we're kind of struggling with. i think collectively is the court is likely to try to create a line, but that line is going to be a difficult line to define precisely. so when you talk about an official act, is it this particular minute action or comment or conversation, or is it within the broader? for category of defending the country or safeguarding elections and we're not going to really know where they come out on that until they do, but that's going to that's going to
because john sauer did make a big concession today and saying that some of that in the indictment is private x i've never heard them say that before. >> well, you know, he's conceding the flavoring of the private acts provided by hey barrett's questions, which he's saying shimming the criminal intent within the actions which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like a did an elector a replacement elector, feel like they were defrauding or were they actually thinking this is the...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i thought i thought john sauer did a great job in making that case at the supreme court so i think that was that was clear that the court has been clear in the past that they want to make sure a president, i think the words they used and the nixon case was fearlessly and in be able to conduct the duties of his office. and you can't have this idea that you're going to get charged with some, some decision you make in your official capacity as president and so i think that is clear. president trump was president. he was engaged in his official conduct. his official duties, i think it's real clear what congressman on that point, and i think that was raised there is this dynamic at play on the one hand, we can be free to do what you'd like to do as the president without thing you're gonna get prosecuted by your successor. and the flip side of that coin though, is feeling so embolden that you don't think if there is any criminal liability ahead of you. so you might go beyond what your otherwise able to do. do you have that concern as a member of another and coequal branch of government that a
i thought i thought john sauer did a great job in making that case at the supreme court so i think that was that was clear that the court has been clear in the past that they want to make sure a president, i think the words they used and the nixon case was fearlessly and in be able to conduct the duties of his office. and you can't have this idea that you're going to get charged with some, some decision you make in your official capacity as president and so i think that is clear. president...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
amy coney barrett trying to suss out and pin down john sauer with respect to the actual allegations in this indictment were both helpful and surprising, nobody had her on the bingo card as the swing vote here.>> i certainly didn't, it sounds like most of you didn't either. i'm going to play a moment from justice alito.>> if an incumbent loses a very close, hotly contested election and knows a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but the president will be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a duck democracy and he seems to be arguing in plain english that immunity is necessary, because otherwise presidents will feel fear prosecution and be incentivized to hold onto power unlawfully. would you make of that statement?>> i thought it missed two really important things, one, the over 200 year history of this country in which that's and literally never happened even though we've always thought that presid
amy coney barrett trying to suss out and pin down john sauer with respect to the actual allegations in this indictment were both helpful and surprising, nobody had her on the bingo card as the swing vote here.>> i certainly didn't, it sounds like most of you didn't either. i'm going to play a moment from justice alito.>> if an incumbent loses a very close, hotly contested election and knows a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go...
0
0.0
Apr 29, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
amy coney barrett trying to suss out and pin down john sauer with respect to the actual allegations in this indictment were both helpful and surprising because no one had amy coney barrett on their bingo card as the swing vote. >> i didn't and it sounded like most of you didn't, either. let me play a moment from justice alito. >> if an incumbent, who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponents, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? >> he seems to be arguing in plain english that immunity is necessary because otherwise, presidents fear prosecution and will be incentivized to attempt to hold power unlawfully. what did you make of that statement? >> i thought it missed two important things. in the 200 year history of this country, it's never happened because we always thought that presidents were subject to crimi
amy coney barrett trying to suss out and pin down john sauer with respect to the actual allegations in this indictment were both helpful and surprising because no one had amy coney barrett on their bingo card as the swing vote. >> i didn't and it sounded like most of you didn't, either. let me play a moment from justice alito. >> if an incumbent, who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
john sauer at the trump attorney who argued before the court today hack here he is talking about the historical framework for this. >> could present obama be charged with murder for killing u.s. citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? the answer to all these questions is no. prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. >> to those strike you as parallel to a president trump is accused of doing in terms of -- >> i mean i understand why the argument was made martha but again listen to what he said, he said these official acts can't be prosecuted for his official acts. the justices kept coming back to that across the spectrum. natasha jackson said she was acutely aware of the repercussions of this. brett cavanagh was on the historic nature and the effects of this decision which are going to be what our children and grandchildren are reading about years
john sauer at the trump attorney who argued before the court today hack here he is talking about the historical framework for this. >> could present obama be charged with murder for killing u.s. citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? the answer to all these questions is no. prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
now, in terms of that concession of yes, we understand john sauer saying there are private acts here i think that's really just an acknowledgment of what judge chutkan, the trial court judge, had already said. and frankly, what we can all see, which is not everything that forms the basis of this indictment can possibly be seen as an official act all right. >> professor jessica, 11s and thanks so much for your insight there. we appreciate it thank you protests that began at new york's columbia university of quickly expanded to more schools across the country with some closing their campuses to prevent anymore or unsafe conditions. and the cnn newsroom the sinking of the titanic. how would really happen, especially to our premier r0 would nine on cnn amelia turn off alarm. emilia, whether reason send emilia unlocked the door. >> i'm afraid i can't do that. can why not? did you forget sampling i approaching shake? the future isn't scary. >> not investing in it is. >> so dramatic. emilia by jim, 100 innovative companies, one etf before invested carefully read and consider fund investment
now, in terms of that concession of yes, we understand john sauer saying there are private acts here i think that's really just an acknowledgment of what judge chutkan, the trial court judge, had already said. and frankly, what we can all see, which is not everything that forms the basis of this indictment can possibly be seen as an official act all right. >> professor jessica, 11s and thanks so much for your insight there. we appreciate it thank you protests that began at new york's...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and john sauer said yes of course. then you go to the other justice, and then you open the possibility of further proceedings. and that is for people who bought a potentially remanding, but there's also the possibility of allowing litigation to play with the official acts and allowing jack smith to continue forward on the private acts. all of this is to say why is this so important? the issue of remanding to a lower court. there was a case called the vance versus trump, trying to get documents for the stormy daniels case and trump said he had immunity but the court said no but they were mandated to a lower court for further proceedings, july and 2020, and the outcome did not come until eight months later february of 2021. so if you get a remanned, you could g get a smart delay. >> of course a delay as a defeat for the political chase that this has been for democrats. >> emily: so much. there is two things that stuck out to me, and i want to break it down for the viewers. number one is about intent, a few of the justice
and john sauer said yes of course. then you go to the other justice, and then you open the possibility of further proceedings. and that is for people who bought a potentially remanding, but there's also the possibility of allowing litigation to play with the official acts and allowing jack smith to continue forward on the private acts. all of this is to say why is this so important? the issue of remanding to a lower court. there was a case called the vance versus trump, trying to get documents...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> here's conservative justice amy coney barrett questioning the president's attorney, john sauer you can see the private acts don't get immunity. we do. okay. i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts is private. petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results private, dining, we dispute the allegation but private two sounds but petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge. >> sounds private three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready to quickly i believe that's private so of today's arguments also focused on for president richard nixon and his legal entanglements and held
. >> here's conservative justice amy coney barrett questioning the president's attorney, john sauer you can see the private acts don't get immunity. we do. okay. i want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts is private. petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results private, dining, we dispute the allegation but private two sounds but petitioner...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
you know, the normal process what john sauer it -- if we decided there was some official acts of immunity and to let that be sorted out below. another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private contact and drop the official conduct? >> is it an option to proceed just on some of the stuff trump did and not all the stuff he did. the lawyer for special counsel jack smith said in response that they would rather try him on everything. thank you very much. he did also concede that if they had to follow this approach she was suggesting, there might be ways to try trump enters the purportedly private acts and not the other stuff. maybe.'s lawyer said oh, no, the whole case would have to be thrown out. we couldn't possibly proceed like that. they would have to be a long, long, long, very long, very long , deliberate sequence of litigation and he rings and test in proceedings before anything like that could get near trial. many further proceedings. how about we schedule that for the 45th of december 150 years from now. [ laughter ] her justices like alito or kavanaugh and d
you know, the normal process what john sauer it -- if we decided there was some official acts of immunity and to let that be sorted out below. another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private contact and drop the official conduct? >> is it an option to proceed just on some of the stuff trump did and not all the stuff he did. the lawyer for special counsel jack smith said in response that they would rather try him on everything. thank you very much. he did also...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
telling john sauer the framers did not put an immunity clause into the constitution. they were reacting against a monarchy who claimed to be above the law adding, wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and that the president was not supposed to be above the law? the president's team says there should be immunity. a sitting president or former president should not be prosecuted. what takeaway do you have of these justices' comments on immunity? >> well, i think, julie, they pinned down dreeben, making the argument for jack smith team. they pinned him down to a concession there is a bit of presidential immunity that goes around the core of the president's duties. justice kagan is correct they didn't use the word immunity. trump's team pushes back the vesting of executive power in the president itself imply indicates immunity because congress cannot enact a law that criminalizes the president's performance with his core responsibilities. so i think what will happen here is two-fold. one is you have to decide how far outside the core of the president'
telling john sauer the framers did not put an immunity clause into the constitution. they were reacting against a monarchy who claimed to be above the law adding, wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and that the president was not supposed to be above the law? the president's team says there should be immunity. a sitting president or former president should not be prosecuted. what takeaway do you have of these justices' comments on immunity? >> well, i think, julie,...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
KTVU
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> donald trump's attorney, d john sauer, began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts, sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. >> but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability, for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grill
. >> donald trump's attorney, d john sauer, began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts, sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice kagan with trump counsel john sauer. what he is saying there is the idea of anyone actually trying a coup to stay in power, that's crazy. that is crazy. that is so extreme, we don't have to worry about a hypothetical like that. it is really partisan strife. it is really conflict between political parties. that's the biggest risk to the country. not this crazy idea of a potential coup. justice kagan responding by saying yeah, okay, also, but maybe tyranny. maybe a tyrant unbound by law running the country with immunity. maybe that would be bad for us too, maybe that is why we were actually formed as a constitutional republic. >>> as a general matter, it is folly to extrapolate from oral arguments and say you know how the ruling will come down based on the comments by the justices when the case was heard. with that caveat though, it seemed clear today that the most conservative justices were inclined to side with trump, not just on a technicality but possibly on the substance. justice clarence thomas suggesting today that
justice kagan with trump counsel john sauer. what he is saying there is the idea of anyone actually trying a coup to stay in power, that's crazy. that is crazy. that is so extreme, we don't have to worry about a hypothetical like that. it is really partisan strife. it is really conflict between political parties. that's the biggest risk to the country. not this crazy idea of a potential coup. justice kagan responding by saying yeah, okay, also, but maybe tyranny. maybe a tyrant unbound by law...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
no one is above the law, but john sauer's answer was it depends on whether he was impeached and convicted. at that point, my jaw is on the floor. that's like an insane reading of the impeachment clause, but it's also like a very, very weird, you know, response that goes right to the right most edge of political extremism. i thought he's going to clean it up when he gets to the supreme court. he's going to practice this over and over again. justice sotomayor asked exactly the same question of what happens and he said, you know, the same answer. like the president would have to be impeached and convicted first. basically, at that point, we were talking about this before. i thought this guy has made a bet. he's made a bet that if he just survives in the district court and the appellate court, he's going to be in front of a much more friendly audience and he can make that argument and they'll buy it or/or throw him a life line. justice alito says that hypothetical is complicated biez s.e.a.l. team six has to obey the law. so that was what was alarming to me, you have the highest court in the
no one is above the law, but john sauer's answer was it depends on whether he was impeached and convicted. at that point, my jaw is on the floor. that's like an insane reading of the impeachment clause, but it's also like a very, very weird, you know, response that goes right to the right most edge of political extremism. i thought he's going to clean it up when he gets to the supreme court. he's going to practice this over and over again. justice sotomayor asked exactly the same question of...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
KTVU
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> donald trump's attorney, d john sauer, began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grille
. >> donald trump's attorney, d john sauer, began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
KTVU
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> donald trump's attorney d john sauer began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor. trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office, but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official . his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they grill
. >> donald trump's attorney d john sauer began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor. trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
KNTV
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
yes, in certain cases, said trump's lawyer, john sauer, because his legal theory is set up in such a way he really can't answer otherwise. just in, kagan pointed out that the whole point of the american revolution was a fight between americans who wrote down that it was self-evident that all men were created equal, and a king who thought he was above the law, justice jackson said. a president who could do anything would be dangerous if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, he could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. i'm trying to understand what the difference incentive is from turning the oval office into the, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. defense secretary austin will pay announce rather the purchase plan for new weapons to ukraine today, including patriot batteries and other weapons that will be built here in america. there are two types of weapons that go to ukraine. one comes from drawdown. these are the weapons that can be lo
yes, in certain cases, said trump's lawyer, john sauer, because his legal theory is set up in such a way he really can't answer otherwise. just in, kagan pointed out that the whole point of the american revolution was a fight between americans who wrote down that it was self-evident that all men were created equal, and a king who thought he was above the law, justice jackson said. a president who could do anything would be dangerous if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 2
sauer, who was a solicitor general of one of our states. by putting these hypotheticals forward, you cause supreme court justices to discuss them and you cause us to cover them. they are outrageous ideas. >> yeah and i'm looking at this from the point of view of threats to democracy and information warfare. because republicans are waging legal warfare on our democracy, but they are waging a parallel information warfare. what that does is try to change the way that people think, but also move the needle on what they will accept as possible in society. so you introduce extremist ideas and give them legitimacy and you have discussions on things that should be settled. and i believe that is what the supreme court did in hearing this case. we heard it in your clips. they took the most prestigious platform, the most legitimate platform, the supreme court, and had hearings and aired arguments that should be settled in a democracy. of course the head of state should not be immune from prosecution in assassinating a political rival or having a milit
sauer, who was a solicitor general of one of our states. by putting these hypotheticals forward, you cause supreme court justices to discuss them and you cause us to cover them. they are outrageous ideas. >> yeah and i'm looking at this from the point of view of threats to democracy and information warfare. because republicans are waging legal warfare on our democracy, but they are waging a parallel information warfare. what that does is try to change the way that people think, but also...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
KTVU
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> donald trump's attorney, d john sauer, began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed. donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office, but the government's attorney, michael dreeben, said such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution or the supreme court's history. >> this court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official . his novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. >> the supreme court justices acknowledged the magnitude of the hearing, and for more than 2.5 hours wednesday, they gril
. >> donald trump's attorney, d john sauer, began the hearing with his opening statements without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. >> for 234 years of american history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. >> sauer claimed. donald trump's actions were official when trump tried to switch the 2020 election results to his favor, trump's attorney argued that a former president should qualify for immunity...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice barrett in particular made clear her questioning of john sauer, counsel for donald trump, that there's nothing in the constitution that prevents prosecuting the president for those private acts, but when it comes to the pressure he put on the vice president and his communications to congress, there seems to be a view on the part of four justices -- we don't know if it's five -- but there seems to be a view on the part of four justices that that information either can only be used as evidence to round out the picture or can't be used at all, and as mr. dreeben who represented the special counsel made clear, that turns the constitution upside down. what made donald trump's actions at the end of his presidency so dangerous that and indeed the most serious of possible crimes against the constitution is that he was using the powers of the presidency, his power to lean on congress and other powers in order to violate the constitution's provisions for ending the term when you lose the election. it's the hallmark of emperor's and dictators and kings and monarchs that they don't have to
justice barrett in particular made clear her questioning of john sauer, counsel for donald trump, that there's nothing in the constitution that prevents prosecuting the president for those private acts, but when it comes to the pressure he put on the vice president and his communications to congress, there seems to be a view on the part of four justices -- we don't know if it's five -- but there seems to be a view on the part of four justices that that information either can only be used as...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
john sauer made before the court. take a listen. >> the implications of the court's decision here, extend far beyond the facts of this case could president george w bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq could president obama be charged with murder for killing us citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies the answer to all these questions is no prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition. and incompatible with our constitutional structure. >> so joshua, what's your reaction to that argument maria x of his own case. >> and that he's really trying to paint the picture of some kind of dystopian future where former presidents or prosecuted with abandoned for all sorts of partisan reasons. the problem with his example is that i kind of agree with him. know, tho
john sauer made before the court. take a listen. >> the implications of the court's decision here, extend far beyond the facts of this case could president george w bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to congress to induce war in iraq could president obama be charged with murder for killing us citizens abroad by drone strike? could president biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
. >> but they also sounded skeptical about trump's blanket immunity defense trump lawyer john sauer, argued that trump's actions were official acts of the office. >> but in one exchange, that trump appointed to justice amy coney barrett. question was actually wasn't official act and what was a private act to benefit trump? >> petitioner turn to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results. private, as i want to jamming, we do speed the allegation, but sounds private. >> sounds private petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations this is support a challenge. so sounds brian three private actors to attorneys including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready quickly. i believe that private w
. >> but they also sounded skeptical about trump's blanket immunity defense trump lawyer john sauer, argued that trump's actions were official acts of the office. >> but in one exchange, that trump appointed to justice amy coney barrett. question was actually wasn't official act and what was a private act to benefit trump? >> petitioner turn to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results....
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in fact, justices barrett and kagan were really pinning down john sauer on trying to say, this is a private act right? you would agree this is a private act? using allegations in the indictment. i think they couldn't pin him down to avoid further delay. certainly, there are some justices, who think further delay is necessary. i think the real linchpin here will be chief justice, roberts, who, on one hand, did suggest this idea that it would be a one legged stool to allow only the private acts and not have any reference to the official acts. so, there's a little room, i think, for arguing that the crimes here are not official acts, but you need some evidence of official acts to understand the context. and the example chief justice roberts used was bribery. it might be an official act to appoint an ambassador, but if you do that in exchange for money, a bribe, that could still be a crime. but i think, as lisa said, at the end of the day it seems necessary to probably sort out what is and what is not an official act here. and most notably, the conduct relating to the department of justice and
in fact, justices barrett and kagan were really pinning down john sauer on trying to say, this is a private act right? you would agree this is a private act? using allegations in the indictment. i think they couldn't pin him down to avoid further delay. certainly, there are some justices, who think further delay is necessary. i think the real linchpin here will be chief justice, roberts, who, on one hand, did suggest this idea that it would be a one legged stool to allow only the private acts...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
sauer, the attorney for donald trump, was, well, what if a president appoints an ambassador and then takes a bribe from them, so the appointment of the ambassador is part of a presidential act. taking the bribe is a clearly criminal act. how do you separate those two things? >> yeah, and i think the answer to that really revealed the difference in styles and i think maybe even impact the outcome. so what the trump lawyer said basically was, hey, that's an official act. the president can take a bribe. can't really prosecute him, and the chief and then also other justices on the court jumped on that, including even justice gorsuch and said that can't really be right that a president can be bribed for the performance of his official duties and get off scot-free. by contrast, michael dreeben, the lawyer for the special counsel took the opposite approach always acknowledging the harm to the other side from his position. at one point, he even said to the court, look, i'm as concerned about executive privilege and undermining the office of the president as anyone. here's why we're striking
sauer, the attorney for donald trump, was, well, what if a president appoints an ambassador and then takes a bribe from them, so the appointment of the ambassador is part of a presidential act. taking the bribe is a clearly criminal act. how do you separate those two things? >> yeah, and i think the answer to that really revealed the difference in styles and i think maybe even impact the outcome. so what the trump lawyer said basically was, hey, that's an official act. the president can...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justices barrett and kagan were really pinning down john sauer on trying to say, you would agree this is a private act, right? and you would agree this is a private act, right? uing allegations in the indictment, and i think to pin him down to afford further delay, there are some justices who think further delay is necessary. i think the real lynch pin here is going to be chief justice roberts who on the one hand did suggest this idea that it would be a one-legged stool to allow only the private acts and not have any reference to the official acts. so there's a little room, i think, for arguing that the crimes here are not official acts, but you need some evidence of official acts to understand the context, and the example chief justice roberts used was bribery. it might be an official act to appoint an ambassador, but if you do that in exchange for money, a bribe, that could still be a crime, but i think as lisa said, i agree that at the end of the day. >>> -- it seems necessary to sort out what is not an official act here and most notably the conduct relating to the department of ju
justices barrett and kagan were really pinning down john sauer on trying to say, you would agree this is a private act, right? and you would agree this is a private act, right? uing allegations in the indictment, and i think to pin him down to afford further delay, there are some justices who think further delay is necessary. i think the real lynch pin here is going to be chief justice roberts who on the one hand did suggest this idea that it would be a one-legged stool to allow only the...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
sauer, defending president trump. jane roberts, one, chief justices, wife, their patrick jackson, husband newest judges justice ketanji brown, jackson room was filled with many dignitaries just trying to hear all this. and what they heard was an argument from the justices that went more in the favor of donald trump than i think some people were anticipating. he he might have to win on the whole shebang of absolute immunity here. but the questions really showed how sympathetic they were to his position and how skeptical they were to jack smith's sayyed as articulated by government lawyer michael driven. and i'll tell you the surest sign of that nature of the questions and then the fact that john sour didn't even not even offer a rebuttal. i mean, he had a free five minutes at the end or close to that to reinforce his points. and i thinking heard most of the justices themselves make those points first of all, the kinds of, i wouldn't call them quite off ramps, but detours before& trial would be something that we weren't
sauer, defending president trump. jane roberts, one, chief justices, wife, their patrick jackson, husband newest judges justice ketanji brown, jackson room was filled with many dignitaries just trying to hear all this. and what they heard was an argument from the justices that went more in the favor of donald trump than i think some people were anticipating. he he might have to win on the whole shebang of absolute immunity here. but the questions really showed how sympathetic they were to his...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
argue the other side can say this delay is influenced so again yeah, it's going to be a notable and john sauer will be the one jake inside that courtroom are inside the supreme court arguing on trump's behalf. some of his allies didn't think that he did a great job arguing before the dc appeals court. we'll see what they make of how he argues this case today. >> all right, caitlin, thanks so much out. let's break down the key elements of the trump immunity fight with cnn senior legal analyst elie honig le how did the case reach the nation's highest court? >> jake, it's a split-screen de this supreme court argument comes out of jack smith's federal 2020 election interference case. here in washington dc. now, as you said, we've had to go through several for all steps of the legal process to reach the supreme court. it started in the federal district court, the trial court, donald trump claimed he was immune based on his status as a former president. the district court judge judge tanya chutkan, she quickly and swiftly rejected that. she ruled that there is no divine right of kings in this
argue the other side can say this delay is influenced so again yeah, it's going to be a notable and john sauer will be the one jake inside that courtroom are inside the supreme court arguing on trump's behalf. some of his allies didn't think that he did a great job arguing before the dc appeals court. we'll see what they make of how he argues this case today. >> all right, caitlin, thanks so much out. let's break down the key elements of the trump immunity fight with cnn senior legal...