54
54
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 54
favorite 0
quote 1
supreme court and this is it's unfortunate. that's a summary for you, gillian, as we move along with our show now. >> gillian: thank you. let's bring in criminal defense attorney jonna spilbor to talk more about this very important case in new york supreme court. the jury will decide whether trump is guilty or innocent. he is well aware of the fact that he is on trial before the nation and that's why we saw him do some campaigning outside the court today and why we saw him do more campaigning now inside the court. he opened by talking about the ways in which he thinks president biden has fallen short. >> it really is genius the way he is using a felony criminal trial to continue to campaign despite in particular this judge trying to shut him up and keep him off the campaign trail with all of the decisions that he has made so far that he has to be sitting at defense table, he can't go to the supreme court, etc. the gag order, the invalid, unconstitutional gag order which is the first order of business today. i don't mean to be f
supreme court and this is it's unfortunate. that's a summary for you, gillian, as we move along with our show now. >> gillian: thank you. let's bring in criminal defense attorney jonna spilbor to talk more about this very important case in new york supreme court. the jury will decide whether trump is guilty or innocent. he is well aware of the fact that he is on trial before the nation and that's why we saw him do some campaigning outside the court today and why we saw him do more...
0
0.0
Apr 6, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and the supreme court in particular. and that every year through the eighties, even through the nineties, under chief justice rehnquist and it continues for four years under john roberts and in thousand and nine, roberts stops he stops asking congress for anything because if you ask congress for stuff you, convey the message that actually congress give and congress can take away. and so to me, again, like the notion that the supreme court has the power of judicial review is not new. the notion that the court might abuse that power in ways that are deeply unpopular is not new. what is missing today are the bricks that actually used to keep the court not completely in line with public, but at least loosely in line with public opinion. and i think that's the real problem, that if we just look at the decisions the courts handed down, we tend to miss. i just want to add an anecdote of my own that supports what you said when chief justice warren got the court together to decide brown versus the board, he said no dissents and i
and the supreme court in particular. and that every year through the eighties, even through the nineties, under chief justice rehnquist and it continues for four years under john roberts and in thousand and nine, roberts stops he stops asking congress for anything because if you ask congress for stuff you, convey the message that actually congress give and congress can take away. and so to me, again, like the notion that the supreme court has the power of judicial review is not new. the notion...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the supreme court. so what do i mean by that? right i mean, so look at sort of some of the big things that have happened with the supreme in the last couple of years. you might have noticed there have been some ethical questions about behavior. some of the justices, many of the most sincere issues that have arisen related behavior that was in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago. why are we only learning about it now? because there's an entire press corps that covers the supreme court that never thought this was part of their job. right. to actually look at the justices personal behavior and that it took propublica and its reporting. when we look at sort of the supreme decisions. i suspect you guys have been following some of them lately. this is a it's relatively new for the court to be in the headlines every. right. and yet is. how did that happen? well, that actually happened because quietly. but gradually over the 20th century, congress gave and the court took more and more power over stuff no one cares a
the supreme court. so what do i mean by that? right i mean, so look at sort of some of the big things that have happened with the supreme in the last couple of years. you might have noticed there have been some ethical questions about behavior. some of the justices, many of the most sincere issues that have arisen related behavior that was in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago. why are we only learning about it now? because there's an entire press corps that covers the supreme court that never...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 6
supreme court. just yesterday, the folks of the nation at the supreme court yesterday. will be back there again today. and we're hearing your thoughts on the immunity case that will be argued in three hours from now. don in california, a republican, good morning. caller: hi. good morning. thanks for the call tell supreme court should not even taken up this case. two courts who have already turned down the immunity clause. clarence thomas should be excused. his wife was involved in overthrowing the 2020 election. he shouldn't even be involved. but donald trump, this is -- you know, they're just playing his fate but i wish his base would listen to the court transcript in new york. david becker, "national inquirer," "the globe," american media enterprise, he intentionally said they intentionally produce fake news. this is what donald trump runs ground on. everybody else is fake news and all of his forcing is fake news. david becker admitted. it was all fake. fox news in -- we've got to stop these guys.
supreme court. just yesterday, the folks of the nation at the supreme court yesterday. will be back there again today. and we're hearing your thoughts on the immunity case that will be argued in three hours from now. don in california, a republican, good morning. caller: hi. good morning. thanks for the call tell supreme court should not even taken up this case. two courts who have already turned down the immunity clause. clarence thomas should be excused. his wife was involved in overthrowing...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
to the supreme court. first off, supreme court justice thomas should behind anything near anything like this. we all know his wife backed the insurrection and it is just disgraceful. but that court, the lower court said that he is not -- that he cannot get presidential immunity. >> there is not absolute immunity. >> absolutely not. and there shouldn't be absolute immunity when they were discussing how it is personal or presidential. nothing he is doing is presidential. there is -- i keep hearing the word unprecedented. everything is unprecedented. i'm really tired of hearing that word. to me, that is an excuse, and there is no excuse for anything this man has done. he has treated the united states like it's his own personal bank account. i am so tired of hearing from anything from him and i told my husband, my worst nightmare is when he does not get elected this time because he still didn't get a second term, is he still going to run his mouth for the next four years, four more years of campaigning until g
to the supreme court. first off, supreme court justice thomas should behind anything near anything like this. we all know his wife backed the insurrection and it is just disgraceful. but that court, the lower court said that he is not -- that he cannot get presidential immunity. >> there is not absolute immunity. >> absolutely not. and there shouldn't be absolute immunity when they were discussing how it is personal or presidential. nothing he is doing is presidential. there is -- i...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
now i do think the supreme court can take them seriously. particularly when they are as well done as this brief is. they destroy this presidential claim and they say it is. this is a claim that the president is not an elected official. he is a king. and he is above the law. and there is no principle in our constitution that is more anathema than that. they explained a president could be criminally indicted. that person was donald trump's own lawyer who said don't impeach him. you can indict him after he leaves office. that was one of the few times donald trump's lawyer got the constitution right. >> neil, let's do jump back to this issue of how voting affects who the supreme court justices are. both of us have been trying to make this point and this happens in human experience. sometimes the lesson has to be learned the hard way. and it does seem like some voters have learned this lesson the hard way. in the turnouts we have seen when they are voting on constitutional amendments in their own state to preserve essentially the protections of r
now i do think the supreme court can take them seriously. particularly when they are as well done as this brief is. they destroy this presidential claim and they say it is. this is a claim that the president is not an elected official. he is a king. and he is above the law. and there is no principle in our constitution that is more anathema than that. they explained a president could be criminally indicted. that person was donald trump's own lawyer who said don't impeach him. you can indict him...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court? or was george w. bush just playing the game of abortion politics? just like every republican did before him. the game was never to win. the game was to keep the game going. if you are antiabortion, you have to vote republican as long as they kept the game going. because they were the only ones who were at least pretending they wanted to stop it. equally, republican politicians didn't want abortion to stop, because then you wouldn't have to vote for them anymore to stop abortion. you wouldn't have to contribute money to their campaigns. you couldn't ask for a more powerful lesson in how much your vote matters, and how long your vote matters. your vote lives after you. long after you. millions of people who voted for george h.w. bush, and who therefore voted for clarence thomas to be on the supreme court to overturn roe versus wade, are now dead. millions of those voters have been dead for decades. their vote continues to live after them in the hands of clarence thomas on the united sta
supreme court? or was george w. bush just playing the game of abortion politics? just like every republican did before him. the game was never to win. the game was to keep the game going. if you are antiabortion, you have to vote republican as long as they kept the game going. because they were the only ones who were at least pretending they wanted to stop it. equally, republican politicians didn't want abortion to stop, because then you wouldn't have to vote for them anymore to stop abortion....
0
0.0
Apr 2, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
and sadly again, a, it's a blow against the supreme court. the supreme court said, oh, this stuff is too complicated. it's non justice viable, which we can't adjudicated, we can't determine it and. in my view, that was not true. and in my view it had been proven by all courts below that had already just associate it. and if that's the word successfully at the trial level and then at the circuit court level. so they came into an array of cases and precedent decisions that had no trouble at all adjudicate justice creating whatever you want to call it. this and then are the clear blue sky. they said nope, not justiciable. we wash our hands of go for it republicans. and that's the dark money. and the dark money poured in. the dark money was red map. yeah. fine mess we got. yeah. how, where. i mean do think amy coney barrett and kavanaugh are they were bought in. uh, for sure. kavanaugh is for sure. i don't know enough amy coney barrett to know whether she lives a bubble of her own views and has just the bubble just happens to be exactly the kind
and sadly again, a, it's a blow against the supreme court. the supreme court said, oh, this stuff is too complicated. it's non justice viable, which we can't adjudicated, we can't determine it and. in my view, that was not true. and in my view it had been proven by all courts below that had already just associate it. and if that's the word successfully at the trial level and then at the circuit court level. so they came into an array of cases and precedent decisions that had no trouble at all...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
jimmy hoover, supreme talked abe argument at the supreme court today.
jimmy hoover, supreme talked abe argument at the supreme court today.
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice samuel alito was placed on the supreme court, in effect, by the supreme court when the supreme court decided in the 2000 presidential election in favor of george w. bush, who came in second in the voting of the american people that came in first in a 5-4 decision of the supreme court because george w. bush, who lost the popular vote and was awarded the electoral college by the supreme court became president, he was then able to put samuel alito on the supreme court. samuel alito and his opinion overturning roe versus wade quoted judges in england long before the united states of america existed who were prosecutors of witches, before they became judges who were then in the business of sentencing which is to death as judges. samuel alito thought they were worthy of quoting in his opinion removing the right to save health care services in this country for women. today, samuel alito imagined that without some new form of immunity, written by the united states supreme court, every future president will be prosecuted by the new justice department that takes over after the president
justice samuel alito was placed on the supreme court, in effect, by the supreme court when the supreme court decided in the 2000 presidential election in favor of george w. bush, who came in second in the voting of the american people that came in first in a 5-4 decision of the supreme court because george w. bush, who lost the popular vote and was awarded the electoral college by the supreme court became president, he was then able to put samuel alito on the supreme court. samuel alito and his...
50
50
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 50
favorite 0
quote 1
supreme court had a monumental hearing on immunity. the immunity having to do with presidential him in it he. i think it was made clear, i hope it was made clear that a president has to have immunity. you don't have a president, at most he could say a ceremonial president, that's not what the founders had in mind. we want presidents that can get things done and bring people together. so i her the meeting was quite amazing. and the justices were on their game. so let's see how it all turns up but again i say presidential inanity very powerful. presidential immunity is imperative or you practically won't have a country anymore. >> sandra: looks like he was told it was a good day at the supreme court, jonathan. >> i think it was a fairly good day quite friendly. first of all it does appear you've got 4 may be 5 justices client to send the case back to perfect this record. that alone would be a tactical benefit to the former president. it would make any trial before the election much less likely. if at all possible. there is also a lot of
supreme court had a monumental hearing on immunity. the immunity having to do with presidential him in it he. i think it was made clear, i hope it was made clear that a president has to have immunity. you don't have a president, at most he could say a ceremonial president, that's not what the founders had in mind. we want presidents that can get things done and bring people together. so i her the meeting was quite amazing. and the justices were on their game. so let's see how it all turns up...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
RUSSIA24
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court participated in a meeting of the chairmen of the supreme courts of the sco member countries, which was held. in india this year in may is already planned and we will definitely take part in a similar meeting that will be held in tashkent in... well, at the end of our conversation, i can’t help but ask you, irina lyaginovna, reading your biography, when i was preparing for interview, i asked one question: could you yourself imagine that you would become the head of the supreme court of russia? of course, i couldn’t imagine this, i never aspired to this i never thought about such a career. coincidentally, april of this year marked exactly 34 years since the start of my judicial work. in the district court, and this was the luga city court of the leningrad region, it was a fourteen-member court, i tried criminal cases, then for 10 years i headed this court and continued to consider criminal cases, because i liked this work, then i was offered a position, and i agreed, because the second term of office as chairman of the district court was expiring, it must... deputy chairman of th
court participated in a meeting of the chairmen of the supreme courts of the sco member countries, which was held. in india this year in may is already planned and we will definitely take part in a similar meeting that will be held in tashkent in... well, at the end of our conversation, i can’t help but ask you, irina lyaginovna, reading your biography, when i was preparing for interview, i asked one question: could you yourself imagine that you would become the head of the supreme court of...
0
0.0
Apr 1, 2024
04/24
by
RUSSIA24
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
; her candidacy was supported by the supreme court and the council of judges. the opening of a vacant position was announced after the death of vyacheslav lebedev, who had held his post since ten years. what is known? egor grigoriev has all the details. the vacancy for the post of chairman of the supreme court, the highest qualification board of judges, opened on march 1. today, a month later , irina podnosova’s candidacy was considered for this position. she holds the post of deputy chairman of the supreme court of the russian federation and heads the judicial panel for economic disputes. she is also co-chair of the scientific advisory council at the supreme court of the russian federation. experts call. podnosova initiated the development of a number of bills aimed at mitigating the system of punishment for entrepreneurs, decriminalizing crimes of an economic nature, her total legal experience is almost 50 years, and her judicial experience is 35. in the supreme court , podnosova began as deputy chairman to work in 2020, before that she headed the second co
; her candidacy was supported by the supreme court and the council of judges. the opening of a vacant position was announced after the death of vyacheslav lebedev, who had held his post since ten years. what is known? egor grigoriev has all the details. the vacancy for the post of chairman of the supreme court, the highest qualification board of judges, opened on march 1. today, a month later , irina podnosova’s candidacy was considered for this position. she holds the post of deputy chairman...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN2
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court and up to the united states supreme court. but darrow nevertheless, is going to put up a little bit of questioning of these jurors, who largely come from the countryside around dayton. almost all of them are men who are fundamentalists. and he's going to use up his peremptory challenges and then turn to ralston occasionally to try to dismiss some juries for cause. because of their really pronounced fundamentalist views. and ralston will reject those challenges under the theory as put forward by the attorney general in trying to argue against darrow. he says, look, if a man is subject to challenge by the defendant because he believes the bible conflicts with the theory of evolution, then for the converse reason, the state would have grounds to challenge for cause. anyone who believe the theory of evolution and the result would be that everyone on earth who could be brought here would be challenged. and darrow was like, yeah, i don't we haven't had too many of these jurors who are believe in the theory of evolution. and he says,
court and up to the united states supreme court. but darrow nevertheless, is going to put up a little bit of questioning of these jurors, who largely come from the countryside around dayton. almost all of them are men who are fundamentalists. and he's going to use up his peremptory challenges and then turn to ralston occasionally to try to dismiss some juries for cause. because of their really pronounced fundamentalist views. and ralston will reject those challenges under the theory as put...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
about the supreme court. >> i know. >> i am riled up about the supreme court. because they are poised, they are literally poised. jamal head the nail on head. they are poised to make him king. didn't the people that helped -- that started this country with the revolution didn't threat they want to get away from the monarchy. why are we trying to go back. >> they weren't by fans. >> i love the brits but come on. >> one of the things that's fascinate something watching roberts paying attention and knowing how low the approval ratings are, knowing how people feel about the court, and knowing that people on both sides of the aisle, have concerns about the legitimacy of the court moving forward. that's his legacy and part of when you talk to people who know him shall sits around and thinks about this all the time. and what he can do to fix it. the problem is, he is outnumbered way too much if he is going to change that. conservatives are not interested in that. and the way they were talking about it and you said t
about the supreme court. >> i know. >> i am riled up about the supreme court. because they are poised, they are literally poised. jamal head the nail on head. they are poised to make him king. didn't the people that helped -- that started this country with the revolution didn't threat they want to get away from the monarchy. why are we trying to go back. >> they weren't by fans. >> i love the brits but come on. >> one of the things that's fascinate something...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
ESPRESO
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
court informed about it on the basis of this letter to the supreme court, the head of the supreme court at the time, vsevolod knyazum, terminated the authority of lviv, in fact fulfilling a direct provision of the law. instead, the judge of the first instance, on her conviction of these evidences obtained from the security service of ukraine, they were not... sufficient for the vsevolotnyaz to make such a decision, thus, the decision in the first instance was made, lviv was reinstated in his post, but the supreme the court filed an appeal and today was already the second the meeting, at which the representative of the security service of ukraine, perhaps, had the greatest attention, the greatest role, and it was he who firmly informed at this meeting that bohdan lviv is a citizen of the russian federation, listed. various databases and so on, but again, the meeting concerned exactly that, the very finding out whether lviv is really a citizen of the russian federation, whether his powers were really legally terminated with him, they referred to the norm of article 126 of the constitution
court informed about it on the basis of this letter to the supreme court, the head of the supreme court at the time, vsevolod knyazum, terminated the authority of lviv, in fact fulfilling a direct provision of the law. instead, the judge of the first instance, on her conviction of these evidences obtained from the security service of ukraine, they were not... sufficient for the vsevolotnyaz to make such a decision, thus, the decision in the first instance was made, lviv was reinstated in his...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court goes on vacation for the summer. they don't come back until the first monday of october. if you think they're going to hear this case before then us giving them their jack smith, any opportunity to bring trump to trial before the election. i would like to have some of what you're drinking strong. ellie two things here. one i think there were some other things we'll get into this in a second, but there were some other things that happened, including the admission from trump's lawyers that a lot of the things he's charged with are not in fact official acts, but i want to bring in tim parlatore here because tim, you and i've talked about this before and you said to me weeks ago that you believed that the justices were setting up to send this back to the lower courts, correct. was that confirmed today? we i think so. >> i mean, both sides came in with their extreme positions of absolute immunity versus no immunity. >> and the truth is going to end up somewhere in the middle is going to be some kind of qualified immunity.
supreme court goes on vacation for the summer. they don't come back until the first monday of october. if you think they're going to hear this case before then us giving them their jack smith, any opportunity to bring trump to trial before the election. i would like to have some of what you're drinking strong. ellie two things here. one i think there were some other things we'll get into this in a second, but there were some other things that happened, including the admission from trump's...
28
28
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 28
favorite 0
quote 1
this ruling could have the most impact by the supreme court, ana, presidential election since the court decided bush v. gore back in 2000 decided that election. there's really three possible outcomes here, and two of them arguably are favorable to donald trump. one potential outcome is that the supreme court rules that presidents do have absolute immunity including on the outer perimeter of their acts, and therefore, donald trump can't be prosecuted in this election case and the case is dismissed. most legal experts think that's a remote possibility. but a second potential outcome that might be favorable to mr. trump is that the court decides it disagrees with the appeals court. it finds there are some instances where a president could be deemed immune for certain official acts particularly around foreign policy and national security. then the court raises questions about whether anything that donald trump is accused of in this case would qualify as an official act. in that case it may throw the case back to judge tanya chutkan and say, judge, you need to decide which, if any of these a
this ruling could have the most impact by the supreme court, ana, presidential election since the court decided bush v. gore back in 2000 decided that election. there's really three possible outcomes here, and two of them arguably are favorable to donald trump. one potential outcome is that the supreme court rules that presidents do have absolute immunity including on the outer perimeter of their acts, and therefore, donald trump can't be prosecuted in this election case and the case is...
0
0.0
Apr 22, 2024
04/24
by
ALJAZ
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
he prays tech tyco. eli mosque will lashed out at both and i was arch enemy supreme court judge, and to show them what i most cause the courage to defend freedom of expression. let's have a round of applause for him. don't spam, i presently still have the support of many voters here, but his political future hangs in the balance investigations and to bring so novels . a ledger grew in parting a crime under way and expected to rob that's by july. analysts hear say, is imprisonment is likely, my dear must ask them before the people are most and that is using these rallies to show is political might on the streets, hoping it will protect him during all the legal battles shall be facing in the upcoming weeks. and he's also leading the opposition against the will also now to may have been banned from running for office, but his supporters say he can still help elect his allies in october as municipal elections. monica, you're not give all just 0. we have to narrow ramesh sort of us and as a professor at u. c. l, a is department of information studies. he joins us live from ventura in cali
he prays tech tyco. eli mosque will lashed out at both and i was arch enemy supreme court judge, and to show them what i most cause the courage to defend freedom of expression. let's have a round of applause for him. don't spam, i presently still have the support of many voters here, but his political future hangs in the balance investigations and to bring so novels . a ledger grew in parting a crime under way and expected to rob that's by july. analysts hear say, is imprisonment is likely, my...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
the supreme court or presidential immunity. a president has stab immunity if you don't have you just have a ceremonial president john in kate that those remarks right there from donald trump is something we've heard from him repeatedly that a president has to have immunity that he was protected because he was president at the time from his federal indictments. >> and look, this is something that is very crucial to donald trump's legal battles, particularly in these federal cases. the argument that his attorneys have consistently made and something that i know that donald trump has repeatedly complained about in private. is that he really does believe that he had immunity because he was president at the time. and this is something that he really is hoping he can continue to drill into voters minds that he essentially did nothing wrong because he was immune. of course, we're going to hear how that plays out today. and obviously there's a lot of people who argue that a president doesn't have total immunity. he can't just do anythi
the supreme court or presidential immunity. a president has stab immunity if you don't have you just have a ceremonial president john in kate that those remarks right there from donald trump is something we've heard from him repeatedly that a president has to have immunity that he was protected because he was president at the time from his federal indictments. >> and look, this is something that is very crucial to donald trump's legal battles, particularly in these federal cases. the...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
did the idea the supreme court very rarely just rolls up and down on things. it's almost not what you say, it's how you say it. and they write these long opinions explaining the nuances of these issues. it's not somebody wins and somebody loses. and i think we're going to see an opinion here where there's winners and it seemed like they barely addressed the question that they set out to address, which was, does the president enjoyed immunity? and if so, to what extent? they basically to your point, the conservatives largely it seemed like ignored that question. >> they almost made clear they didn't want to answer it. yeah. that they wanted to send it back down. they didn't want to question what's the question sent to them by the appellate court, but it's could they want to send it back to the trial court and hope it doesn't come back, but it's probably literally the most supreme court thing i know. >> i mean, that to avoid boyd making factual, definitive findings and send it back down to lower courts to sort things out, though, they could delay delay, delay. t
did the idea the supreme court very rarely just rolls up and down on things. it's almost not what you say, it's how you say it. and they write these long opinions explaining the nuances of these issues. it's not somebody wins and somebody loses. and i think we're going to see an opinion here where there's winners and it seemed like they barely addressed the question that they set out to address, which was, does the president enjoyed immunity? and if so, to what extent? they basically to your...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
it's the same courthouse, same supreme court. was he cautioned by the excessive prejudicial evidence the supreme court said was permitted in in the weinstein case? >> it's an interesting convergence of legal events. in the weinstein case, the court of appeals said what you can't do is bring in, in that case, testimony from other women who were victims, alleged victims. but against whom weinstein was not charged. it was an abuse to let that in. it's a good flag for judge merchan not to run too far afield. trial judges are permitted to use their discretion to admit evidence. if they go too far, they do risk this reversal. it's a warning to all of the parties in this case to tread lightly. >> one of the questions on redirect, catherine, that's just been asking is, is it true, mr. pecker, that your purpose in lob -- locking up the karen mcdougal story is to influence the election? that's trying to bring it back to the connection to the elections since during cross-examination he was certainly acknowledging he had a longstanding relat
it's the same courthouse, same supreme court. was he cautioned by the excessive prejudicial evidence the supreme court said was permitted in in the weinstein case? >> it's an interesting convergence of legal events. in the weinstein case, the court of appeals said what you can't do is bring in, in that case, testimony from other women who were victims, alleged victims. but against whom weinstein was not charged. it was an abuse to let that in. it's a good flag for judge merchan not to run...
0
0.0
Apr 9, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
by the supreme court. and it is a testament to how reckless this supreme court has become, how unpredictable, how far out of the mainstream it has become that the special counsel felt it was incumbent upon him to create backstops, to create secondary and tertiary positions because he could not trust that a majority of this supreme court would do what every other clear, saying jurist action, not in a political contest but acting in a pure legal contest with no had to be true, that our system of government was not created to ensure that one man would lack accountability, could rise to the highest level of government in our country and that would then constitute a cloak of impunity. this is just simply not, at odds with the very concept of our country. that is king george. and so this should have been a slam dunk, the fact that even jack smith clearly is concerned that given the supreme court, it might not be a slamdunk, made me very uneasy reading this filing. >> that is such an important point. this is a th
by the supreme court. and it is a testament to how reckless this supreme court has become, how unpredictable, how far out of the mainstream it has become that the special counsel felt it was incumbent upon him to create backstops, to create secondary and tertiary positions because he could not trust that a majority of this supreme court would do what every other clear, saying jurist action, not in a political contest but acting in a pure legal contest with no had to be true, that our system of...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
oral arguments at the supreme court, of course. the testimony of david pecker and much more with special coverage beginning at 8 p.m. eastern. rachel maddow and all of our primetime friends will be here for the coverage. i'll be back. now the beat with ari melber. hi, ari. >> we have a lot to get to. i will see you at 8. >> welcome to the beat. i'm ari melber. these are extraordinary times. we're watching history unfold at the supreme court which heard arguments about putting a president on trial. historic, unprecedented, all the words are true about this one. no other president has been indicted like this. trump's lawyers arguing he should be immune, basically totally immune because he was president during those efforts. that is a new relatively made up claim which they lost unanimously before the respected d.c. court of appeals. keep that in mind. that is the recent precedent and context for today, and you may remember that was the now infamous hearing where the trump lawyer openly claimed that as president trump could have a lic
oral arguments at the supreme court, of course. the testimony of david pecker and much more with special coverage beginning at 8 p.m. eastern. rachel maddow and all of our primetime friends will be here for the coverage. i'll be back. now the beat with ari melber. hi, ari. >> we have a lot to get to. i will see you at 8. >> welcome to the beat. i'm ari melber. these are extraordinary times. we're watching history unfold at the supreme court which heard arguments about putting a...
0
0.0
Apr 24, 2024
04/24
by
KPIX
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court today. justices are considering whether doctors should be able to provide abortions in medical emergencies even in states with near-total bans on abortion. joining me now live is san jose state university associate professor grace howard. thank you for joining us today. >> thank you for having me. >> how do you think the outcome of the court's decision will impact abortion access in this country? is it possible that if they do rule a woman can get an abortion if it is a matter of life and death, could have potentially open the door to soft in the restrictions in the states with the strictest laws? >> it would only soften restrictions in terms of the exception that have been put in place. for example, in idaho, they have exceptions if your life is in peril but not of your help is in peril. that is something that they were debating today. the court ruled that impala does supersede state law. people in idaho would be able to have abortions if their health is in peril. they don't necessarily nee
supreme court today. justices are considering whether doctors should be able to provide abortions in medical emergencies even in states with near-total bans on abortion. joining me now live is san jose state university associate professor grace howard. thank you for joining us today. >> thank you for having me. >> how do you think the outcome of the court's decision will impact abortion access in this country? is it possible that if they do rule a woman can get an abortion if it is...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
KPIX
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 1
trump wasn't at today's oral arguments at the supreme court. he was in a courtroom in lower manhattan, where he has mandated to appear for his trial for falsifying business records to hide an alleged affair. in addition, trump is facing criminal trials in georgia and florida, and in just the last 24 hours, trump was named as an unindicted coconspirator in arizona and michigan over fake electric schemes. we have team coverage of tod today's -- and jan crawford will start us off from the supreme court. >> reporter: in nearly three hours of historic arguments, the judges emphasized their decision will go beyond former president donald trump. >> whatever we decide is going to apply to all future presidents. >> reporter: no president has ever faced criminal prosecution, and some justices, while emphasizing a president is not above the law, focused on what precedent the case will set. >> the history tells us it is not going to stop. it's going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president, or the next president after t
trump wasn't at today's oral arguments at the supreme court. he was in a courtroom in lower manhattan, where he has mandated to appear for his trial for falsifying business records to hide an alleged affair. in addition, trump is facing criminal trials in georgia and florida, and in just the last 24 hours, trump was named as an unindicted coconspirator in arizona and michigan over fake electric schemes. we have team coverage of tod today's -- and jan crawford will start us off from the supreme...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
ken dilanian live outside the supreme court. also with us, ari melber, and state attorney for palm beach county, florida, dave aronberg is with us. >> what are you expecting to hear at the court today? >> reporter: good morning. it's important to point out that the court has already made a decision that's affected the presidential election. by not agreeing to take it up when jack smith first asked them to do so on an emergency basis and by not taking it on an expedited basis, they've already created a significant delay here that means that this election case, however they rule, can't go to trial probably before the fall. now the question of whether a president has absolute immunity and then there's a second question that whether anything donald trump is accused of would constitute a presidential act. >> just making sure you're okay. is everything okay. we hear someone yelling. >> reporter: it's fine. we have a heckler here. >> i've got to say they obviously have been following the david pecker testimony. they're yelling "fake ne
ken dilanian live outside the supreme court. also with us, ari melber, and state attorney for palm beach county, florida, dave aronberg is with us. >> what are you expecting to hear at the court today? >> reporter: good morning. it's important to point out that the court has already made a decision that's affected the presidential election. by not agreeing to take it up when jack smith first asked them to do so on an emergency basis and by not taking it on an expedited basis,...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
KQED
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
supreme court today. did you get a sense from the line of questioning there is a view that some level of presidential immunity might be required? >> the first thing i noticed was the gravity of the day. it felt a lot like the january 6 hearings where you just had to get it right. we knew on the committee we had to get the facts right. you could feel from the justices today they really wanted to not just create a rule for today but create a rule for future misconduct as well. there is competing interests going on. you can see it from the justices. one of a ruling that would have a chilling effect on the president being able to act in practice. on the other side, whether a president really should think about not violent criminal statutes. that is really what's going on here today. it will be interesting to see what the court comes down within its ruling. caitriona: given the gravity you are talking about, there seem to be a suggestion the whole issue needs a deeper examination and perhaps needs to go back t
supreme court today. did you get a sense from the line of questioning there is a view that some level of presidential immunity might be required? >> the first thing i noticed was the gravity of the day. it felt a lot like the january 6 hearings where you just had to get it right. we knew on the committee we had to get the facts right. you could feel from the justices today they really wanted to not just create a rule for today but create a rule for future misconduct as well. there is...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CNNW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
i want to focus first on the supreme court. and the court case and the arguments that are about to be heard. >> to me. do you submitted an amicus brief to the court on this case? >> in any you argue against immunity for the president, for trump for a variety of reasons. what do you say is the most important reason? so i think the most important reason is that if there's going to be a finding of immunity, it's going to be premised upon the importance of protecting the presidency itself. that article to power but if there's any space where the courts should not incentivize a present to take bold action, it will be in efforts to stay in power. and that's exactly the facts that we have here. it's a very different fact pattern to have a president of thinking about military action, thinking about other policy considerations versus what we have here, which is post-election, bold, and unlawful action to stay in power and to protect that kind of behavior. we are only incentivize it because presidents really, they should not be having im
i want to focus first on the supreme court. and the court case and the arguments that are about to be heard. >> to me. do you submitted an amicus brief to the court on this case? >> in any you argue against immunity for the president, for trump for a variety of reasons. what do you say is the most important reason? so i think the most important reason is that if there's going to be a finding of immunity, it's going to be premised upon the importance of protecting the presidency...
0
0.0
Apr 28, 2024
04/24
by
FOXNEWSW
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
everyone it's about the supreme court one of the going to be doing about immunity the supreme court is never here a case like this because no president and the history of the republic has tried to prosecute one of his predecessors. that is crossing a rubicon and it creates a terrible incentive for future presidents. because they have to always be worried. thehave to be looking over their shoulder a future presidents going to go after them. what you have is the absence of statesmanship, leadership, common sense there are no doubt presidents in the past you might've done things other people might've thought would be criminal. future presidents always i was a best interest of our country to pardon a nixon. to get past controversies and look to the future and do its best for the american people. unfortunately it is joe biden has triggered this crisis by continuing to press the special counsel investigation. that is where the fault lies on this. >> listing to some of these injustices and they have been sucked into this world. i'm listening is that private conduct is that official conduct? d
everyone it's about the supreme court one of the going to be doing about immunity the supreme court is never here a case like this because no president and the history of the republic has tried to prosecute one of his predecessors. that is crossing a rubicon and it creates a terrible incentive for future presidents. because they have to always be worried. thehave to be looking over their shoulder a future presidents going to go after them. what you have is the absence of statesmanship,...