Live Breaking News & Updates on Nixon supreme court

Stay informed with the latest breaking news from Nixon supreme court on our comprehensive webpage. Get up-to-the-minute updates on local events, politics, business, entertainment, and more. Our dedicated team of journalists delivers timely and reliable news, ensuring you're always in the know. Discover firsthand accounts, expert analysis, and exclusive interviews, all in one convenient destination. Don't miss a beat — visit our webpage for real-time breaking news in Nixon supreme court and stay connected to the pulse of your community

All In With Chris Hayes

it seems unlikely that they would say yes, we are going to hear it. but judge chutkan wants to move forward. >> then it would be on them, then the timeframe goes on them. >> exactly. >> now, they could do this month long process the way they did the colorado case. not, just remember, judge chutkan has still kept the march 4th trial date. if the supreme court takes it, that trial date is off. in the manhattan district attorney's office is going to go forward at the end of march, because that is the date that they have. there's no reason for them to delay it, they will be free to go forward. if the supreme court doesn't take it, then there's a really good chance that what is going to happen is, maybe not march 4th, but around then. maybe a couple more weeks. >> you think the arguments were so -- again, i'm a lay person here, i found the impeachment think so -- they just seem so trapped in that argument. it seems manifestly preposterous. it just doesn't work with anything. there's no reason for the pardon of nixon, there's people

Big-pharma , Judge , Case , Timeframe , Chutkan , Colorado , Supreme-court-doesn-t-take-it , Supreme-court , Office , March-4th-trial , The-end , Manhattan-district-attorney

The Weekend

that's their position. now, the trap that they set for themselves and the judge pan close was the fact that trump was arguing to different things in favor of not being prosecutable. one was that there is this inherent presidential immunity, which for the reasons that i just expressed, is wrong. and then resisting called the impeachment judgment cause. in the constitution that basically says that if you've been impeached and removed, if there's a federal officers didn't impeach him removed for office, convicted by the senate, you could still be tried in a court of law. so, in order to try and soften the concept of, the, he can never be prosecuted, the, said well, he could be prosecuted. he's definitely, he'd be impeached and removed. if he ever use seal team six to assassinate an opponent. of course, the problem with that is, well, what if the president resigned before he was impeached -- like nixon. or what if the evidence that he did that never came out until after he was gone? or, you know, what if the

Judge , Things , Fact , One , Position , Trump , Trap , Immunity , Prosecutable , Pan-close , Favor , Senate

Leon Wildes, Immigration Lawyer Who Defended John Lennon, Dies at 90

Battling the government for more than three years, he was able to prove that the Nixon White House was trying to deport the former Beatle for political reasons.

Manhattan , New-york , United-states , Lenox-hill-hospital , Upper-west-side , Vietnam , Republic-of , Greenwich-village , Israel , South-carolina , New-york-university , London

Edmonton mayor planning to declare housing and homelessness emergency

Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi says he plans to declare housing and homelessness emergency

Danielle-smith , Jason-nixon , Sean-fraser , Mike-ellis , Amarjeet-sohi , Cody-thomas , Alberta-health-services , Coalition-for-justice , Log-increate-free , Human-rights , Social-services-minister-jason-nixon

All In With Chris Hayes

seemed appropriately skeptical of trump's arguments. >> all of your other arguments seem to fall away. your separation of powers arguments fall away. your policy arguments fall away. if you concede that a president can be criminally prosecuted under some circumstances. >> even under clinton, where there's a deal cut, under president nixon, where there's a pardon given, there's an assumption that you could be prosecuted because why enter into those particular acts? >> i think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws to be faithfully executed, allows him violate criminal laws. >> yes, judge, respectfully, i agree. i do think it's paradoxical. the lawyer for special counsel jack smith's office did an admirable job, just outlining the ever shifting legal

President , Don-trump , Arguments , All , Powers , Separation , Policy-arguments , Circumstances , Assumption , Pardon-given , Deal-cut , Clinton

All In With Chris Hayes

fundraising email by a low level staffer. it was not an off the cuff answer on a tarmac. it was not a campaign speech at a rally where he goes off the teleprompter, playing to the crowd. this was the considered argument of the lawyer for the man who wants to wield the office of the presidency again. thankfully, the three judges seemed appropriately skeptical of trump's arguments. >> all of your other arguments seem to fall away. your separation of powers arguments fall away. your policy arguments fall away. if you concede that a president can be criminally prosecuted under some circumstances. >> even under clinton, where there's a deal cut, under president nixon, where there's a pardon given, there's an assumption that you could be prosecuted, because why enter into those particular acts? >> i think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional

Impeachment-hearing-making-literally-the-opposite-argument , Lawyer , Answer , Presidency , Office , Man , Level , Crowd , Rally , Campaign-speech , Staffer , Fundraising-email

The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer

thescopy of president uses immunity. now, trump has reacted to that. he wrote this on his truth social site. he said, if a president does not have immunity, the court will be opening the floodgates to prosecuting former presidents. an opposing hostile party will be doing it for any reason all of the time. do you think there's any merit to that? >> no. the reason why he's been charged between 91 counts in four different jurisdictions is that he's a criminal. we haven't had a president with -- nixon committed crimes, but we have not had someone with criminality ever. nixon would have been prosecuted if he had not been pardoned. we won't see floodgates. this is an extreme case, an unusual case. we've had a run of good luck until now, having presidents not as attempted to overthrow the government and try to retain

President , Supreme-court , Immunity , Floodgates , Donald-trump , Truth , Thescopy , Site , The-party , Reason , Presidents , Counts

CNN NewsNight With Abby Phillip

wherever i am, whatever i'm doing, there is immunity there. that is a king, not a president. that is essentially what jack smith is saying. that's essentially what judge chutkan said. we don't have kings. you can't have absolute immunity. even if there were some immunity to carve out for presidents for their official duties, this isn't it. trying to defraud the american public, essentially, of an election is not something that we should give immunity for. >> here is the absurdity of it. somebody such as a candidate, i could shoot someone out offense avenue and get away with. that his argument now is, as long as i ever lived on pennsylvania avenue, that's it. everything is fair game now. that will be tested to the logical conclusion that whatever president is doing, it's not be legal. who does that remind us of? president nixon. we already rejected that claim. >> that seems like the exact opposite thing that the founders wanted to point out. nina, do you think there's any strategy here in trump showing

Joe-biden , Immunity , Doing , Jack-smith , Chutkan , King , We-don-t-have-kings , Something , Isn-t-it , Election , Presidents , American

CNN NewsNight With Abby Phillip

duties, this is not it. trying to defraud the american public essentially of an election is not something that we should give immunity for. >> here is the absurdity of it. remember when he said, i could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it. his argument is as long as i live on pennsylvania avenue, that's, it everything is fair game. that should be tested to the logical conclusion that whatever a president is doing is not illegal. who is there to remind us of? oh, president nixon. we already rejected that claim. >> that's in the exact opposite thing the founders wanted to point out. do you think there is any strategy here in trump showing up in person at this washington d. c. here tomorrow? is there anything, legal, is it pr -- >> definitely not legal. it derives from him doing this kind of successfully, he did use the attorney general's case

Election , Something , Immunity , It , Duties , American , Absurdity , Public , Michelle-obama , President , U-s- , Someone

CNN This Morning

appeals below the supreme court. the way we got here, of course, is this started out in the district court. the trial level court where donald trump argued he was immune from prosecution because the conduct falls within his scope of the presidency. the district judge tanya chutkan ruled against that. there is no divine right of kings. when we go into court today, these will be the judges who are sitting. judge henderson was put on the bench by george h.w. bush in 1990. judges childs and pan were put on the bench by president biden. there's no tv broadcast of what's going to happen, but there will be a live audio feed, so we'll be able to hear the questioning and oftentimes having done a bunch of these arguments in a three-judge panel, you can tell pretty strongly where they're leaning by the number and the tone of the questions that they're asking. >> so talk to us about the argument here because trump's team is trying to essentially extend one of the nixon rulings and say, no, that immunity

On-donald-trump , Federal-court , Way , Supreme-court , Course , Presidency , Scope , Conduct , Tanya-chutkan , Prosecution , Trial-level-court , Judges