in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. but established legal safeguards provide layers of protections with the article iii courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. i welcome the court's questions. >> does the president have immunity or are you saying there is no immunity even for official acts? >> yes, justice thomas. but i think it is important to put in perspective the position that we are offering the court today. the president, as the head of the article ii branch can assert article ii objections to criminal laws that interfere with an exclusive power possessed by the president or that prevent the president from accomplishing his constitutionally assigned functions. that's the constitutional doctrine that currently governs the separation of po

petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunize presidents for treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do to wrong. they devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statute and seeking accountability for petitioners' alleged misuse of official power to convert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses, but established legal safeguards provide layers of protection with the article three court providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of linkage criminal immu

in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it.

did petitioner obstruct, influence, or impede a joint session of congress? the answer is equally straightforward. yes. he obstructed that proceeding. the terms of the statute unambiguously encompasses conduct. petitioner does not really argue that his actions fall outside the plain meaning of what it is to obstruct. instead he asks the court to apply and a textual limit. in his view because it covers tampering with documents and other physical evidence. the second prohibition should be limited to acts of evidence impairment. that limit has no basis in the text or tools of construction. the reading hinges on the word otherwise but that means in a different manner not in the same manner. the prohibitions in section 1512 c2 are not unified items on the list we could apply associate words. they are separate provisions that have their own sets of verbs and nouns. they prohibit attempts which should be duplication that makes no sense on the reading. congress included a distinct mental state that it chose not to repeat. section 1512 c2 is not limited to evidence im

in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses. but established legal safeguards provide layers of protections with the article 3 courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing, through watergate, and up to today. this court should preserve it. i welcome the court's questions. >> mr. dreeben, does the president have immunity? are you saying there is no immunity, presidential immunity, even for official acts? >> yes, justice thomas, but i think that it is important to put in perspective the position that we are offering the court today. the president, as the head of the article 2 branch, can assert as applied article 2 objections to criminal laws that interfere with an exclusive power possessed by the president, or that prevent the president from accomplishing his constitutionally assigned functions. that is the constitutional

those cows do not require that petitioner acted and obviously the petitioner committed other crimes that we are seeking to hold them accountable for. one of the root problems with petitioner's conduct is he knew about that proceeding. he said he was prepared to storm the capital, prepared to use violence. he wanted to intimidate congress. he said they can't don't if they can't breathe. he went to the capital on january 6 with that intent in mind and took action including assaulting a law enforcement officer. that did impede the ability of the officers to regain control of the capital. it is entirely appropriate for the government. quest the statutory maximum is higher but after a recent decision on the d.c. circuit judge which helped with a particular sentencing enhancement, that is the broad case i believe the sentencing range, the guidelines range would actually be higher guidelines range. someone who does not have a prior criminal history. this is the range that would yield. we have looked at the average sentences here. i think that is the best way to gauge it. this is when the senten

between petitioner and a state official, petitioner is alleged to have sal i need you to find me 11,000 votes. ange. i think if you look at that content, it's pretty clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity as office seeot as president, and we would look at that content. >> ok. but the tests, but i am just focused on the legal tests. i'm not hearing any exceptions to it. >> other than the d.c. circuit judge a's to more content consideration off-limits than i would. >> ok. and i want to understand on the core immunithatever word we use, it seems to me we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably. do we look at motives, the president's motives for his actions? i mean, for example, he has lots but he might use them in order to enhance his perna interests. his election. is that a relevant consideration when we are looking at core powers? >> so, i am thinking of this more as looking at the objective of the activities as oppos t the kind of subjective motive in the sense that your hor suggests. i think there is l of concern about saying electoral -- and electoral modem to b

it is undisputed the petitioners realize nothing from their stock investment. they were taxed not because they had income but because in 2017 they happened to own shares in a corporation. this is a tax on the ownership of property. dispensing with the need for realization, the framers regarded this as the essential check on the power of congress to tax property. the government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax its income under its position realization is unnecessary. without realization there is no limiting principle. accepting the government position on income would make a cap -- hash of the current law. gateway definition of gross income asserts congresses taxing power under the 16th amendment through reaching all income from whatever source derived. if the government possession -- position in this case is right the current law already requires taxpayers to pay on the valuation of bother assets, corporate earnings, any stocks they own, and any paper gains from contracts and loans. going back to 1913 that is how it has worked. the reason th

. >> in one of the interactions between petitioner and a state official, petitioner is alleged to have said, i need you to find me 11,000 votes and change. i think if you look at that content, it's clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity as office seeker, not as president. we would look at that content. >> okay. the test -- i'm focused on the legal test. i'm not hearing any objections to it. >> other than, i think that the d.c. circuit placed more content consideration off limits than i would. >> all right. i wanted to understand, on the core immunity or whatever word we use, that it seems to me we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably, do we look at motives, the president's motives for his actions? for example, he has more power as we discussed, but he might use them to enhance his election, his personal interests. is that a relevant consideration when we're looking at core powers? >> i am thinking of this more as looking at the objective of the activity as opposed to the subjective motive in the sense that your honor is talking about. i think there's a lot of

battle at the us supreme court about an hour from now, oral arguments will begin in donald trump, petitioner versus the united states and the nation's highest court will confront landmark questions that issue trump's claim that he has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for his conduct on january sex and other efforts to stay in power because he contends those were official acts as president, as our arguments, the lower courts have rejected the state's of this case are enormous, not only for mr. trump and the current presidential race, but for american democracy moving forward, the nine justices, including three justices appointed by mr. trump, have the power to set constitutional precedent but could have a lasting impact on the ability to hold sitting and former presidents accountable to the rule of law. or in donald trump's view, the court's ruling could potentially please clear the way for presidents to conduct official business without the fear of frivolous prosecution. let's check in with cnn's senior supreme court analyst, joan biskupic, outside the high court right now. and joa

two sounds private petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge. >> sounds private three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above& a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification jim proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you write it quickly. i believe that it's private that's seems to answer a lot. >> there it does, casey and that is the genesis of the concern, right? you have to now parse out. is they have private conduct from presidential conduct and then, you know, this sort of, this how the ambiguity right, is what i'm searching for. and so if you have that ambiguity, do you take it down to the lower court and does because the lower court make factual determinations as the justice did in her questioning as to what can be deemed to be private such that it can be prosecuted. and what could be deemed in the outer per

. >> in one of the interactions between petitioner and a state official, and the state official, petitioner is alleged to have said all i need you to do is to find me 11,000 votes unchanged. i think if you look at that context it is pretty clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity of office seeker, not as president >> i am focus on the legal test. i am not hearing any objections to it. >> other than i think the d.c. circuit place more content consideration off limit then i went. >> i want to understand on the court immunity, or whatever word we use, it seems to me that we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably. do we look at motives? the president's motives for his actions? for example, he has lots of power as we've discussed, but he might use them to enhance his election in his personal interest. it is not a relevant consideration when we look at core powers? >> i think of this more as looking at the objectives of the activity as opposed to the subjective motives in the sense that you are -- i think there is concern about seeing a electoral motive to be reelected as su

in response, petitioner raises concerns aboential abuses. establhelegal safeguards provide layers of protections with thele three crts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a refully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understandg of every psident from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. i welcome the court's ons. >> does the president have immunity or are you saying that there is no presidential munity even for official act >> yes, justice thomas, but it is important to puin perspective the position that we are offeri court today. the pre as the head of the arclto bnc can assert as applied article two objections to criminal laws that interfere with an excluse wer possessed by the president or that prevent the preside fm accomplishing h cstitutional he assigned functions. at is the constitutional doctrine that currently governs the separation of powers. what petitioner is asking for is a

. >> a verification signed by a petitioner that contained false statements. >> private. >> three private actors and a consultant helped implement a plan to submit private slates of presidential electors. >> i believe that is private. >> so those acts he would not dispute. those are private and you would not raise a claim they are official. >> what would -- what we would say is official is meeting with the department of justice to deliberate about who will be

>> petitioner turn to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results. private, as i want to jamming, we do speed the allegation, but sounds private. >> sounds private petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations this is support a challenge. so sounds brian three private actors to attorneys including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready quickly. i believe that private with b now is jack ray code. so that surprise winning author, historian and professor at stanford, he also signed onto an amicus briefs is court rejecting trump's immunity claim. thank you for joining us this evening. >> it sounds like this immunity question may not be close to being resolved completely and could actually go bac

what struck me is many of the justices were really tough on the petitioner. the solicitor general. it's one of those cases where they were going hard against each side. first i thought they were going hard on the petitioners, but they are coming at this from both sides? >> and that is what you would want. asking the tough questions to both sides. i do think that it is like a little interesting if they were to step backwards. how many times have justice alito and justice thomas asked questions about the fairness of a prosecution when it comes to the criminal defendant. they are not particularly known for that. so it is a little striking to hear so many of those concerns today, coming out of that segment of the court. when you think of the dominant methodology of the court right now is reading the statute, that it is just what the plain text says. here is the plain text that's so good for the government, lawrence. it says it is a crime to otherwise obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. it sure seems like dollars to donuts, not just what trump

. >> one of the root problems with petitioner's conduct is that he knew about the proceeding.n advance of january 6 that he was prepared to storm the capitol, prepared to use violence. you wanted to intimidate congress. he said they can't vote if they can't breathe and he went to the capitol on january 6 with that intent in mind and took action including assaulting a law enforcement officer. that did appear the ability of the officers to regain control of the capitol. i think it is entirely appropriate for the government to seek to hold the petitioner accountable for that content with that intent. >> joining us now is katie porter who was a harvard law school student of professor elizabeth warren and was a professor of law herself. congressman porter, you were in the supreme court chamber today listening to that argument. i feel i should be addressing u.s. professor porter tonight in your law professor role. he spent years as a law student studying supreme court cases and here's as a law professor. what do you make of today's. >> it was incredibly impressive to see the way tha

petitioners effort to remain in power by fraud. of private misconduct are more than sufficient to support the indictment. joining our discussion now is judge vance and she is cohost of the podcast, hashtag sisters in law and in msnbc analyst. just when we think we've heard all the arguments already on this issue, jack smith comes through with another brief, with new ways of saying these things, that become ever more powerful every time he's forced to restate >> i think that's right, you know, this is a technical legal brief and smith is making arguments predicated on what he hopes the supreme court will do, ruling that there's no immunity, and what he's afraid the court might do, ruling that there's limited immunity in which case, smith says to the court, no matter what you decide about what immunity might exist, donald trump isn't entitled to any immunity. you should send this case back to the district court for trial because his conduct involves a purely personal conspiracy and although we are entitled to use evidence of his offi

petitioners acknowledge congress can expressly delegate to agencies the authority to define terms and fill gaps. and imagine if the statute said they were asked to define the administrator. i take both petitioners to give that up and recognize that is a delegation and courts should respect that. the role of the court in that circumstance is to make sure the agency has followed the procedures and stated within whatever outer bounds congress has set. and all of that complies with the constitution, of course, because congress has the authority to delegate the gap authority to agencies and the executive has core article ii authority to fill in those gaps. that's the core exercise of the executive power. then the article three courts are just fulfilling their judicial role when they will give affects to what congress has done and their choice to rely on the agency in that regards. but i think what all of this shows is the constitutional attacks on chevron and the suggestion that it is egregiously wrong, lacks merit. because there's no constitutional distinction between that kind of express

. >> we disputed the allegations but it sounds private. >> petitioner conspired with another private attorney to get a violation which was false allegations to support a challenge. >> that also sounds private. >> three private actors and two attorneys and a political attorney implemented plan to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and co-conspirator directed that effort. >> you read it quickly, believe that is private. >> and then later he says trump's phone call with that infamous secretary of state where he says you'll find 11,780 votes i just need one more is not an official act. how big a big concessions on this. >> those are all huge concessions to the extent this does get ultimately remanded to the judge for additional findings that will fill her hand in terms of her ability to move the case forward. i don't think the supreme court is focused so much on the actual trump indictment as they are concerned about hamstringing future presidents in terms of restraints on their ability to act officially without fear of retribution by their successors. >> it sounds like

petitioner turn to a private attorney was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead is challenges to the election results. >> private shining, we dispute the allegation by the sounds private jet sounds private petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing& court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge. >> so sounds private. >> three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates it's a presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you really quickly. >> i believe dr.. it then later he says trump's phone call with the infamous one with the georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger, where he says, you know, find 11,708 votes. >> i just need one more. was not an official act. >> how big of a concession is all of this? >> those are all huge concessions and to the extent that this does get ultimately rema

trump, petitioner versus united states. but many of the justices, if not most of them, seemed very, very focused on the precedent this case could set for future presidents, right? >> and just, just because they kept going back to that point, i think it's a it's a big win, frankly for the former president because that's one of the things his, his lawyers kept arguing. they kept saying that if you allow this to go forward this way, that other presidents could face prosecution for any acts they committed in office. and so you'll hear, justice gorsuch describing what he says he sees at play here. listen i'm not concerned about this case, but i am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives whether it's reelection or who knows what corrupt means in 15, 12 right? >> we don't know what that means maybe we'll find out sometime soon. but the dangerousness of accusing europe political opponent of having bad motives and if that's enough to overcome your core po

as petitioners, but has this voted law brought more justice ... in relation to the people in the troopse current people in the troops, it was in the troops that they hoped for 36 months, as a certain, well, the term of such a cut-off, when a person who has stayed in total, well, with coefficients, accumulates 36 months of being in combat operations and at the front, he must, well , at least a year rest, otherwise he will simply and professionally slouch, and... he gets tired as much , that human psychology cannot withstand all this, but the fact that this norm on demobilization was not included in this law is also, in principle, the absence of this, well, conditional gingerbread, that is, for those who have already been mobilized and for those who are going to mobilize because it is unclear, mobilization continues, but no one... sets these terms, those who are already at the front do not understand when their service will end, when they will be able to demobilize, and those whom they are trying to mobilize also do not understand how they go either for life, or to some injury or some sta

with another private attorney who caused the filing and court of a verification signed by petitioner that contain false allegations to support a challenge. >> so sounds private. >> three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of president shall electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready to quickly i believe that dr. so of today's arguments also focused on for president richard nixon and his legal entanglements and held that precedent reflects on today and what that means. i'm joined tonight by the former counsel to form president trump, jim trusty, former federal prosecutor, elliot williams, georgetown law professor victoria nurse, and former federal prosecutors chan woo, and also someone very familiar with the legal legacy left behind by richard nixon, the former president's onetime white house counsel, john dean and john, let me start with you, given how watergate i think we all knew it was going to c

we're still trying to confirm if the petitioners are connected to any of these three campaigns. the registrar's office says they'll be ready to start the recount by monday. this is so rare, they're still working out the details. >> it's all contingent to whether or not the voter will make a deposit for the recount, the cost of the recount. this is a very rare event. yeah, we're still, like, working on it on a day by day basis and doing the proper research. >> the question now is who called for the recount? we reached out to all three campaigns. sam liccardo's campaign responded to us a short while ago saying that more than 100 ballots were not included in the final tally due to issues like unverified signatures, and they, quote, understand why there would be an effort to make sure the voters are fully considered. evan low's campaign is accusing liccardo of dirty tricks. this is his statement, saying sam liccardo, who does not live in the district, did not file the recount himself. instead, he had his former staffer do it for him. what's he afraid of? let's bring in melinda jacks

you were one of the petitioners in the effort to overturn this law.or the most part decided to uphold this anti—lgbto law? thank you so much for having me. i was very disappointed, not only as a petitioner but also as a ugandan. and as a ugandan lgbtq activist, i was disappointed in the judiciary, the judges in my country, that they upheld the majority of this anti—gay legislation based on people's reactions. it was totally based on conspiracy theories. they say they were doing this because of the ugandan public. imaginejudges ruling in favour of the public and forgetting about the law. so i was very disappointed that the judges decided to go on the side of the majority and punish the minority. i want to talk about the effects of this law, potentially, and this is something you recently said. you said it's likejudges have told ugandans, go and get violent towards the lgbtq community. what do you think this law means, and how is it already affecting people there in uganda? this law has already been enacted. prior to the introduction of this legislation

to be recognized as petitioners, but did this voted law bring more justice to the people in the militarye current people in the troops, it was in the troops that they hoped for 36 months, as a certain, well, the term of such a cut-off when... she should rest for at least a year, otherwise she simply and professionally collapses and is exhausted to the extent that, well , human psychology, she can't stand all this, but the fact that this norm about demobilization was not included in this law, that's what. well, in principle, there is the absence of this, well, conditional gingerbread, that is, for those who have already mobilized and for those who are going to mobilize, because it is not clear, mobilization continues, but no one sets these terms, those who are already at the front do not understand when their service will end, when they will be able to demobilize, and those whom they are trying to mobilize, they also don't understand for... how long they go, or for the rest of their lives, or until some injury or some statue, mr. serhiu, the most embarrassing thing in this whole story is

to be recognized as petitioners, but did this ... naked law bring more justice to the people in they, the current people in the army, it was in the army that they hoped for 36 months, as a certain well, the term of such a cut-off, when a person who has spent a total of 36 months of being in combat operations and at the front, she must rest for at least a year, otherwise she will simply... professionally collapse and exhaust herself to the extent that, well, human psychology , she cannot stand all this, but the fact that this norm on demobilization was not included in this law is also, in principle, the absence of this, well , conditional gingerbread, that is, for those who have already been mobilized and for those who is going to mobilize because it is unclear mobilization continues... but no one sets these terms, those who are already at the front do not understand when their service will end, when they will be able to demobilize, and those whom they are trying to mobilize also do not understand how far they are going or at whole life or there until some injury or some statue, mr.

however, the petitioners have said that they will take the matter to the supreme court, and they areajority of lawmakers voted for it. what are some of the punishments for being gay in uganda? well, so, one of the punishments is that someone can get up to life imprisonment, basically, for homosexual acts. and then there's also up to ten years, up to 14 years' imprisonment, for what they are calling aggravated homosexual acts, which involves rape which involves rape of minors, vulnerable groups, spreading of hiv and aids. spreading of hiv and aids. at the time, it caused quite a global outrage, and indeed the us imposed visa restrictions on some officials there in uganda. has that had any effect on other lawmakers and what they feel about this? well, so far, because they say that the public sentiment is that the law upholds the cultural rights and the cultural beliefs of the ugandan people. there is still strong support for the law to remain in place. however, activists and human rights bodies are still calling for it to be overturned. there has been a lot of dismay, a lot of them hav

it instead underscores the unprecedented nature of petitioners alleged conduct.e case, jack smith wrote first, of presidents alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor is the. dramatic example of conduct that should not be immunized, even if other contact should be. second, at the core of the charged conspiracies is a private scheme with private actors to achieve a private and -- petitioner's effort to remain in power by fraud. those allegations of private misconduct are more than sufficient to support the indictment. joining our discussion of is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. she has cohost of the podcast "hash text sisters-in-law," and nbc legal analyst. just when we think we've heard all the arguments already on this issue, jack smith comes through with another brief with new ways of saying these things that become ever more powerful every time he is forced to restate them. >> i think that is right. you know, this is a t

petitioner in turned to a private attorney he was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results private. >> as alleged we dispute the allegation but a it sounds private. >> petitioner conspired with another private attorney who signed filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegation to. >> that sound private. >> they want to draw a distinction between official conduct tying to the president's constitutional responsibilities and so-called private conduct which is unrelated to that. to draw a distinction between the two in the immunity setting. so that you can get immunity for official acts, but not immunity for private acts. it sounds very clever and useful but it's an artificial construct. and the concern of justices, a lot of arguments are disingenuous. and think they know better. the problem with this argument, which i thought justice jackson arctic lathed jack articulated this well. we have a president who wants to assassinate someone hire a private hitman, if this doctrine is in p

however, the petitioners have said they will take the matter to the supreme court and they are hopingned in its entirety-— its entirety. an overwhelming ma'ori its entirety. an overwhelming majority of — its entirety. an overwhelming majority of lawmakers - its entirety. an overwhelming majority of lawmakers voted l its entirety. an overwhelming l majority of lawmakers voted for its entirety. an overwhelming - majority of lawmakers voted for it. what are some of the punishments for being gay in uganda? weill. what are some of the punishments for being gay in uganda?— being gay in uganda? well, one of the punishments _ being gay in uganda? well, one of the punishments is _ being gay in uganda? well, one of the punishments is that _ being gay in uganda? well, one of the punishments is that one - being gay in uganda? well, one of the punishments is that one can i being gay in uganda? well, one of. the punishments is that one can get up the punishments is that one can get up to life imprisonment, basically, for homosexual acts. and then there is also up to ten years imprisonment for what

petitioner turned to a private attorney. spread false claims of election fraud to spearhead challenges to the election results. private? >> we dispute the allegation. that sounds private. >> petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification that contained false allegations to support a challenge. >> sounds private. >> private actors to attorneys thought mentioned about and political consultant to obstruct the certification proceedings and attorney directed that effort. >> you read it quickly. i believe that's private. >> those acts you would not dispute. those were private and you wouldn't raise the claim they were official. >> what we would say is official is meeting with the department of justice to deliberate who will be the acting attorney general of the united states. communicating with the american public, communicating with congress with matters. >> thank you. >> and what is the consequence in terms of going forward with your acknowledgement that those are private acts

by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. >> that also sounds private.n had that same kind of line of questioning with trump's attorney. glen, how do you see that line of questioning and what does it tell you about the possible decisions that both coney barrett and kagan could have on this? >> yeah, great question, jose. that was an important concession by donald trump's attorney. and what it means is that there is an opportunity for the trial to move forward, even if only on those things that the attorney conceded were not official acts. so, even under donald trump's theory, as articulated through his attorney, the prosecution could proceed on those nonofficial acts. of course, that would only be giving jack smith half a loaf with respect to the crimes that he has indicted and the crimes that should be resolved with a trial. but here is the challenge. all of these discussions are purely academic because even if donald trump's defense attorney agreed, yeah, the charges with -- relating to these nonofficial acts could move forward, they can't move forward

you were one of the petitioners in the effort to overturn this law. to uphold this anti— lgbtq law? most part decided to uphold this anti- lgbtq law? thank you so much for— this anti- lgbtq law? thank you so much for having _ this anti- lgbtq law? thank you so much for having me. - this anti- lgbtq law? thank you so much for having me. i- this anti- lgbtq law? thank you so much for having me. i was i so much for having me. i was very disappointed, not only as a petitioner, but also as a ugandan, and as a ugandan lgbtq activist, i was disappointed in thejudiciary, thejudges in my country, that they upheld the majority of this anti—gay legislation based on people's reactions. it was totally based on conspiracy theories. they say they were doing this because of the ugandan public. imaginejudges ruling in favour of the public and forgetting about the law. so i was very disappointed that the judges decided to go on the side of the majority and punish the minority. the majority and punish the minori . ., the majority and punish the minority-— the majority a

in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. host: we are taking your calls on the question of former president trump's presidential immunity. beverly is first in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. president trump needs immunity and the right to have no one take his in -- his election interference away from him. he did a good job in the four years. we are all in fear of a war with president biden in place. the reason president trump did question the election for president biden is because when we went to bed the night before we were supposed to get the totals. president biden was not in the lead in georgia. it was president trump. then

and instead underscores the unprecedented nature of petitioners alleged conduct is essentially saying there just hasn't been a former president like trump exactly. and the fact back that no other president has tried to overturn an election in which he lost doesn't mean that you get a free pass when you actually do try to overturn the i mean, the idea that donald trump is different, that this conduct is different from any other president, former president is at the heart of this case. and the idea that because trump has done something so novel and so awful that he gets away with it is something that i don't think the supreme court is really going to buy. >> and congressman your former january >> 6 colleague, liz cheney said, are your january 6 committee i'll said recently that is very important. members of the supreme court recognized trump is just trying to run out the clock and not allow them to do that. do you think the court should take the timeline of the case into account? >> what really think they do? they should personally because look, this is going to be obviously very import

oral argument of roman martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation. it should be overruled for three reasons. first, chevron violates the constitution. article iii empowers judges to say what the law is. it requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. chevron undermines that duty. it reallocates interpretive authority from courts to agencies, and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. in doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. it mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. and by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens individual liberty. chevron also violates the apa. the most straightforward reading of section 706 requires de novo review of legal questions. congress put constitutional and statutory interpretation on equal footing, and it requi

so called aggravated homosexuality. activists say them all violates their constitutional rights. petitioners say they will appeal to ruling at the supreme authorities in taiwan say, dozens of people are still missing or stranded. following the strongest earthquake to hit the on into more than 25 years. at least 9 people were killed in 1000 injured when the quake struck quad again city. on wednesday morning, emergency crews are working to clear roads and secure damaged buildings. the earthquake ship all of the taiwan. but the city of quality inn on the east coast was the worst hit. rescuers had managed to save all residents from partially collapsed buildings. and from under rubble and down departments, survivors and damaged homes are being moved to temporary shelters. now it's time to prepare for the aftershocks keith and not that i'm afraid of after shocks, and i don't know how bad the shaking will be. and then the house is already mess. okay, how do you get in that? but there's no way to get in. didn't you post quick, major roads are still blocked off in other areas. taiwan, president elect

i think that's actually a virtue of our reading as compared to petitioners because i have not heard him articulate anything that would fall within c1 that wouldn't also come within c2. so on his reading, c2 really does just swallow c1 whole. >> i mean, in a way you're reading it c1, c2 almost exist in isolation, certainly not affected by c1 we don't deny it all that there is a relationship between the two provisions. justice thomas, does that relationship? the relationship is the one congress specified in the text. it's what follows the word. otherwise that is the relevant degree of similarity. what both c1 and c2 have in common is that they, they are aimed at conduct that obstructs an official proceeding. c1 does so when one way tampering with records and documents, s2 does so with respect to all other conduct that in a different manner, does that i think that this has to be the road the court goes down to look at what congress actually prescribed with respect to similarity, because in contrast, if you take up petitioners invitation to come up with some a textual gloss from c1 to port

. >> the tourney because the verification by petitioner that cause false allegations to support a challengete actors to attorneys including those mentioned above and a political consultant help to implement a plan to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and co-conspirator attorney directed that effort. >> you read it quickly i believe that is private. >> some of today's arguments also focus on richard nixon and his entanglements and how that reflects on today and what that means. i'm joined tonight by counsel and former federal prosecutor, law professor, and former federal prosecutor. also someone very familiar with the legal legacy left behind by nixon's one-time white house counsel john dean. let me start with you given how watergate, and think we knew was going to come up but this is how trump's attorney responded when justice raise this question about nixon. >> what was up with the parting for president nixon. if everybody thought that presidents couldn't be prosecuted then what was that about. >> he was under investigation for private and public conduct at the time. >>

so called aggravated homosexuality. activists say the low violates their constitutional rights. petitioners say they will appeal the ruling of the supreme court. the former president of the spanish spitball federation, louise through the atlas was briefly detained by spanish police as part of a corruption investigation to be alice was returning from the dominican republic. i'm it approved into a business deal to hold the, the spanish supercop inside to your ravia. he was questioned by police at madrid airport before being released and i will forward, he's in taiwan said dozens of people are still missing or stranded. following the strongest earthquake to hit the island in more than 25 years, at least 9 people were killed and a 1000 injured when the quick struck during rush hour on wednesday morning. emergency crews are now working to clear roads and secure damage. buildings. quick ship all of the taiwan but the city of quality inn on the east coast was the worst hit. rescuers have managed to save all residents from partially collapsed buildings and from under rubble and down departments. su

people, petitioners say they will appeal the ruling of the supreme court. their lawyers spoke to the press following the verdict. this is the quote. you did decide that it is legal law for to discriminate against the court to decide that it is legal to community in participating the country simply on the basis of public sentiments and alleged cartoon, i think, is said that the court could play to public sentiments. another flight of extends, i've seen before. it is not finally berlin or bavaria might not be the 1st place you think off when it comes to elephants, but they could soon be as boat swan as president has his way. luckily it's the most easy, has dressed him to send $20000.00 elephants to germany after berlin warrant, but it might limit the import of hunting trophies plus water is home to one of the world's largest ellison and populations and conservation efforts have caused their numbers to swell to more than a 100 and their 2000 in recent years, the government has issued a limited number of hunting permits to keep their populations in check and ra