Page 154 - Arguing News Today

Probably a losing argument in the court of appeals and perhaps beyond. its important to understand what he is arguing here. he is not arguing he is immune from prosecution for everything he did during every minute of his four-year presidency. what his team is arguing is hes immune from prosecution for anything he did within the outer scope of his job as president. the problem for donald trump, though, is the facts. donald trumps team claims he was making calls from the white house to legislative...

And then the president, said, ok, im naming her that, and im giving her security clearance and then shortly before we left was when cipollone and/or herschmann and whoever the other young man was said you can name her whatever you want to name her and no ones going to pay any attention to it. speaker: how did he respond? how did the president respond to that? sidney powell: something like, you see what i deal with? i deal with this all the time. jake tapper: the meeting was extremely heated with...

You get a panel. theres gonna be a three judge panel. then, if you dont like the outcome, you can ask for the on bunk review. you can say, hey, we heard from three of the judges, but we want everybody to weigh in. you might have the entire court of appeals weigh in. and from there, it could go up to the supreme court. by the time you are at the supreme court, a lot of this is discretionary. lets get real. the court is almost certainly going to take this case up, as opposed to other cases, it pro...

Not legal argument. that is not a factual arguments. anymore than if you say the election was stolen. you need to have facts, adjectives and adverbs is not a way of arguing, especially for someone who has been the leader of the free world, let alone anyone else. and i think thats really important on the substance which is to suggest that somehow i am jack smiths boss. again, where are the facts of that? ive had zero communications with jack smith or his team. they are independents, both within t...

Him, but not because he went through hell for kavanaugh but because he cares about the law. >> yeah. well, the law here -- there are some questions, i think, that the supreme court will have to grapple with. one of them is, does the 14th amendment apply to the president? in other words, is the president an officer? because its not named. hes not named as a title or a job description in that amendment. i think its pretty clear it does apply to the presidency. another question that i think he also...

>> i wouldnt fire heninger. i want that for the record. she is right. there is a bigger debate here, she gets the wrong end of the stick. this proceeds october 7th and anti-semitism, having a big debate about deer i as part of our culture whether is academia or the workplace or government and the question of whether or not this country will return to race-based standards in hiring and firing, and makeup in the department, something i think is terrible, the supreme court is getting involved in, s...

We to see this chance now, when people are paying attention, for them to see the difference that he has made. >> you too have worked together for a little bit, speaker emerita nancy pelosi of california. thank you very much for your time tonight. >> thank you, my pleasure. congratulations to you on another year. >> thank you very much. >> happy new year to everyone. >> you too. >> thank you. >> coming, up as donald trump banks the supreme court to keep him on the ballot, what trump is arguing in...

Thursday calling for the special koum to be held in cob tempt for what they called an unlawful production of discovery accusing prosecutors of partisan-driven misconduct. any merit here? >> lets just step back for a moment and just take a focus on what they are arguing. a defendant is arguing that they are upset that they are getting too much discovery too soon. what defendant in the world has ever made that argument? i mean, this is a motion that is sort of dead on arrival, and its written for ...

Special counsel jack smith trying to try president trump for what he did on january 6th, and the trump people have been arguing, hey, i have presidential immunity for anything i did as president. and jack smith says no and asked the supreme court to weigh in. they said no. but trump has also filed another court filing on this presidential immunity claim? >> its going to be all roads lead to the supreme court. the supreme court has opted to not weigh in there. next tuesday, there are org argument...

Criminal conspiracy to thwart the very foundation of democracy. the transfer of power. we heard this argument with the select committee again and again and again. witnesses who would say, this is executive privilege. its part of my official responsibility. you, congress, cant reach it. and the consistent response that we made is the same response that jack smith is making to the supreme court. that is not everything that you do is connected to your official responsibility. it just cant be that a...