Live Breaking News & Updates on Constitution Vests
Stay updated with breaking news from Constitution vests. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
on the supreme court s ruling. it gives donald trump s some immunity in the january 6, as we re going to bring you the president s remarks live plus tone deaf, new cnn reporting that that s exactly how some democrats for describing the biden campaign s response to calls for the president to drop out of the 2024 race. i ll speak with the top democratic donor about whether he plans to stick by the president and trump s take does a former president believes he s better off facing off against joe biden in november or someone else. we have new reporting tonight. let s go out for and good evening, america hill in for erin burnett outfront tonight, breaking news, president biden, about a break his silence on that major support supreme court decision, which gives donald trump sweeping immunity for official actions during his presidency. and that may include some of trump s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. biden speech from the white house expected to take place. this ho ....
they were not going to issue that statement that rudy giuliani wanted to include burisma and the 2016 elections there was no white house meeting. it soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. well, following the 25th call, the july 25th call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. wasn t that right? yes. and the report say they were closely and then also there were phone calls with the white house around the same time they were working closely do you know what that statement was supposed to say, according to mr. giuliani and the u.s. officials. the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the biden investigation and the 2016 ukraine interference. was there concern about doing the investigations or what? ju ....
president zelensky decided that they were not going to issue thatt statement that rudy giuliani wanted to include burisma in the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. it soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk. and that took on a renewed importance for them. well, following the 25th call, the t july 25th call, ambassador sondland and volker worked closely with mr. giuliani and the ukrainians to help draft a statement that the president could make, president zelensky. wasn t that right? yes. and the report said they worked closely and there were also phone calls with the white house around the same time that they werear working closely. do you know what that statement was supposed tou say according to mr. giuliani and the u.s. officials? well, the key difference is that it had to include that ukraine would do the investigations of burisma which equalled theic biden investigatn in the 2016 ukraine interference. but was there ....
were not going to issue that statement that rudy giuliani wanted to include burisma in the 2016 elections, there was no white house meeting. soon became clear to them that the security assistance was also at risk and that took on a renewed importance for them. following the july 25th call, it had to include that they would do the investigations of burisma which equaled the biden investigation into the ukraine interference. was their concern about doing the investigations or what? where they supposed to make a statement about it? ambassador sondland very clearly testified that all he ever heard mr. giuliani or anyone say is that they only needed the public announcement of the investigation. without that public statement that there would be no white house meeting. yes. i was struck by how clear the evidence seems to be on this point and i d like to play another example. was they were a quid pro quo? as i testified previously with regard to the requested white hou ....
Lawyers who are arguing, making additional arguments such as the fact that it would violate the executive vesting clause of the constitution to provide criminal immunity for a former president who when president committed crimes in order to remain in office after his four-year term that the constitution vests in the president for four years and only four years, unless re-elected, that it would directly violate that. it s a powerful, powerful brief, and also makes arguments that if he can commit crimes like that, to stay in office, he could use the military to stay in office, right? which would violate criminal offenses and certainly could not have ever been what the founders anticipated. so i am optimistic on immunity. on the 14th amendment section 3 disqualification for having engaged in insurrection, it s interesting because right now, president trump, former president trump still has not ....