Stay updated with breaking news from Shooting somebody. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
instead, it is, what is the legal basis? with -- the court could very well conclude whether there is immunity or not without even touching the underlying facts of the case. the legal question is, does a president have absolute immunity that they cannot be prosecuted for anything to do while they were in office? did -- that is not what he engaged insurrection, that is, do you have absolute immunity? for that, trump will be very disappointed when he finds himself trying to wonder if they will actually say i committed -- or not. >> he's arguing that he needed to be told that his actions were illegal. is that true? >> no. >> would any of the defendants need to have been told explicitly that shooting somebody is illegal? >> ignorant of the law is not a defense for breaking the law, number one. the claim in jack smith's indictment is about knowingly making these false statements.
>> john henry brown close with a powerful -- of esteem that mark stover was the bad guy. but even so he said oakes did not want or plan to kill him. >> you don't premeditate up to the point of shooting somebody, you premeditated the entire scenario. and what happened after this tragic event is absurd. he has absolutely no plan. and there's no plan afterwards i think that this leads to the conclusion that there is no plan beforehand. >> really? hair was the prosecutions closing. >> i will say the more charitable view of motive would be that miss opdyke and mr. oakes feared for their safety for some reason. but the evidence does not support it. the less charitable view is that the defendant said that on the path of cold calculated execution because there are
>> i wasn't in there for more than five minutes and i heard this loud noise. >> he said he thought it might be a gun shot. so he jumped out of the shower to check on lisa, heard her moaning and said he grabbed his handgun from the night stand by the bed. >> i'll be honest i had every intention of shooting somebody. i ran back inside and said lisa, lisa, are you okay? and she's not breathing. >> during the interview, seth sometimes seemed overcome by emotion. [ bleep] >> why can't they still be alive? why? why? why couldn't i have done something to protect the woman that i love? >> the agent asks seth what he
wind. ainsley: remember the marine shot in times square recently graduate of the citadel or attending the citadel. and a 16-year-old was charged with that. the guy in this video he is 16 years old charged with shooting and the stray bullet went into the back of that marine. brian: ricocheted off the building and hit him in the back. they were able to pull the bullet out and run him to the hospital for precautions. that happen in times square and these two felt totally comfortable shooting at each other. ainsley: about break dancing right over my turf it's not yours? brian: great reason. certainly worth shooting somebody that took place in new york city. i hate to tell you it wasn't flat out happening and it's not a new york story. that's a national story if you look at the numbers. they are stunning. ainsley: look at chicago. pete: another national story is whether or not our schools would reopen and when they did. state by state, city by city. it was very hamstrung by big powerful national unions who in many ways were collaborating
>> and the witness left the stand. "dateline" wanted to talk to linda opdycke, but she did not respond to our interview requests. and as for her father wally opdycke, his lawyer e-mailed this statement. "wallace opdycke had absolutely no involvement or prior knowledge of michiel oakes'murder of mark stover. rumors and innuendo to the contrary are baseless and unfair." >> mark stover was a domestic violence terrorist. >> john henry browne closed with a powerful recitation of his theme, that mark stover was the bad guy. but even so, he said, oakes didn't want or plan to kill him. >> you don't premeditate up just to the point of shooting somebody. you premeditate the entire scenario. and what happened after this tragic event is absurd.
florida has been a very vocal supporter of donald trump, the voters have come out in droves when he has had his rallies down here. so it is not a surprise, but legally speaking, you know, we do have pretty decent laws down here as well, so if he does things when he is down here that he does not escape liability just because he decided to change his domicile to florida. >> i want to jump into those laws in florida, specifically, in a second, but i want to give glenn a chance in talking about the president's legal team whos had a argued authorities cannot investigate a sitting president for anything, they always use that example including shooting somebody on fifth avenue. in all the book learning do you see any way that that argument is backed by the courts? >> no, and i think when these cases make their way through the courts these positions are going to be exposed as the sort of folly that they are, but, frances, if we go back to the basics let's remember on the campaign trail donald trump told us over and over again i want to release my tax returns as soon
and if he didn't think in his heart and soul that it was a quid pro quo, then it wasn't, which is really a brilliant defense, because you could apply it to shooting somebody on fifth avenue. and if in his heart and his soul, we don't know where he intended that bullet to go, then he couldn't have shot those people. so, i think it would get him off the hook for anything. >> hey, what is next in your impeachment diary? because i just love reading them. what's coming? >> thank you, alex. the mystery is i don't even know. it's just whatever the next day brings, but it's guaranteed to be some sort of bizarre scene. who would have thought we'd be talking about pizza deliveries to a scif this week? >> all right. in other words, stay tuned to dana milbank. we appreciate that. thanks, dana. >> thanks, alex. >> good to see you. next hour, details on the mueller report previously kept secret are ruled fair game for democrats' eyes, and at the same time, an impeachment inquiry is granted legitimacy. we dig into what kind of information house democrats could be getting their hands on now. d be getting their hands on now. ♪ limu emu & doug
tactics, he means what he says there yesterday. >> he means what he says, he also has really proven this idea that he can do anything clean shooting somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it. he was joking and has joked about his ability to run wild in the presidency, and do what he wants. i think, though, the thing that the president is going to run into, is the idea millions of people today are going to hear robert mueller say step by step, instructing people to lie, trying to stop the investigation, and that may or may not impact some people's views of the presidency. i think the courts have also be a reminder to this president he can't do whatever he wants to do, especially on the immigration front. he complains about the 9th circuit. he does that because he realizes with the census question, the travel ban being watered down a bit, he has run up into what he considers to be frustrating parts of the government but the founders call that checks and
nothing further. keith morrison: and the witness left the stand. "dateline" wanted to talk to linda opdycke. but she did not respond to our interview request. and as for her father, wally opdycke, his lawyer e-mailed this statement. "wallace opdycke had absolutely no involvement or prior knowledge of michiel oakes' murder of mark stover. rumors and innuendo to the contrary are baseless and unfair." mark stover was a domestic violence terrorist. john henry browne closed with a powerful recitation of his theme, that mark stover was the bad guy. but even so, he said, oakes didn't want or plan to kill him. you don't premeditate up just to the point of shooting somebody. you premeditate the entire scenario. and what happened after this tragic event is absurd.
he jokingly uses the example of shooting somebody on fifth avenue, that would put him out of the reach of a murder charge. >> i don't think you need to be a lawyer to figure out that th >> whew. >> -- does not add up. there's a fundamental tenet of our democracy, which is that no person can be the judge of his own case. that is what really runs through the constitution, and that will ultimately be the sort of saving grace for our nation if someone like president trump were to actually try to pardon himself. i think the much bigger and more realistic risk is that he does try to pardon either co-conspirators or family members and that he uses his pardon power for what many would perceive to be improper personal purposes.