1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:01,200
Speaker 1: Well, well, come.

2
00:00:01,000 --> 00:00:02,800
Speaker 2: In you.

3
00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:08,360
Speaker 3: A confidence.

4
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:10,119
Speaker 4: Will be.

5
00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:17,720
Speaker 5: And if you want a little may I come along.

6
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:24,880
Speaker 5: Trump was like, you know, just gaga over Putin because

7
00:00:24,920 --> 00:00:26,360
Speaker 5: Putin does what he would.

8
00:00:26,079 --> 00:00:26,480
Speaker 6: Like to do.

9
00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:30,760
Speaker 3: Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition. It's just about the

10
00:00:30,800 --> 00:00:33,680
Speaker 3: American brand, where I bring capital from all around the

11
00:00:33,680 --> 00:00:34,519
Speaker 3: world to invest here.

12
00:00:34,800 --> 00:00:36,240
Speaker 7: We look like clowns.

13
00:00:36,640 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 2: What did you mean when you said the border was secure?

14
00:00:38,960 --> 00:00:39,720
Speaker 4: Is that not a lie?

15
00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:43,239
Speaker 1: With the resources and authorities that we have, it is

16
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:44,400
Speaker 1: as secure as it can be.

17
00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:53,240
Speaker 4: Team minus one hundred and ninety three days left.

18
00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:55,840
Speaker 2: Till you get to vote.

19
00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:58,440
Speaker 6: Coming to your.

20
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:03,600
Speaker 1: Don't you a conscious song?

21
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:12,040
Speaker 2: From coast to coast, from border to border, from c

22
00:01:12,520 --> 00:01:17,039
Speaker 2: to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is.

23
00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:21,640
Speaker 8: On all right hour to Sean Hennedy Show, toll free.

24
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:24,000
Speaker 8: It's eight hundred and nine to four one Sean if

25
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:26,160
Speaker 8: you want to be a part of the program. A

26
00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:28,640
Speaker 8: lot of legal stuff, as we've been telling you, going

27
00:01:28,680 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 8: on all day. The issue of absolute versus a limited

28
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:37,400
Speaker 8: immunity and the Supreme Court arguments today got very interesting

29
00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:41,039
Speaker 8: on a lot of fronts. And then of course the

30
00:01:41,319 --> 00:01:45,039
Speaker 8: Trump witch on trial in New York with a bias

31
00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:50,920
Speaker 8: judge who donated to Donald Trump's opponent, That would be

32
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:55,680
Speaker 8: Joe Biden, possible conflict statute of limitations eight years later.

33
00:01:56,640 --> 00:01:59,320
Speaker 8: I mean, you just can't make this up. But anyway,

34
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:02,120
Speaker 8: here to help us through all of this, we have

35
00:02:02,200 --> 00:02:05,920
Speaker 8: Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analysts, best selling author, David Jones,

36
00:02:05,960 --> 00:02:10,560
Speaker 8: civil rights attorney, previously represented President Trump. Let's start with

37
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:15,280
Speaker 8: the Trump Community Supreme Court oral arguments that took place today. Greg,

38
00:02:15,360 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 8: let's get your take.

39
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:21,120
Speaker 4: Well, it went exactly as I've discussed and predicted with you.

40
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:25,960
Speaker 4: Presidents already have immunity from civil lawsuits as long as

41
00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:30,760
Speaker 4: their actions fall within the outer perimeter of official duties,

42
00:02:30,960 --> 00:02:35,760
Speaker 4: and it looks as though the justices will extend that

43
00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:42,160
Speaker 4: civil immunity protection to criminal prosecutions, because, as the discussion

44
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:47,600
Speaker 4: and the arguments revealed, the same reasoning applies. Without some

45
00:02:47,760 --> 00:02:53,200
Speaker 4: kind of immunity, the chilling effect on presidential decision making

46
00:02:53,560 --> 00:02:58,239
Speaker 4: would trigger paralysis. Instead of a chief executive, America would

47
00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:01,000
Speaker 4: be ruled by committee of lawyers afraid to do anything

48
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:06,960
Speaker 4: out of fear of future prosecutions. So, you know, it

49
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:09,639
Speaker 4: appears that there are at least four justices who want

50
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:12,000
Speaker 4: to send this back to the lower courts. It's called

51
00:03:12,040 --> 00:03:17,079
Speaker 4: remanding the case to sort of figure it out, and

52
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:20,000
Speaker 4: one or two things will happen. The Supreme Court will

53
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:24,519
Speaker 4: either give them guidance to do that along the lines

54
00:03:24,720 --> 00:03:28,440
Speaker 4: of the immunity in civil cases, or the Supreme Court

55
00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:34,720
Speaker 4: will just outright say we hereby extend the same official

56
00:03:34,840 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 4: duties protection that was identified in the Nixon versus Fitzgerald

57
00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:43,440
Speaker 4: case in nineteen eighty two. So but this is I mean,

58
00:03:43,600 --> 00:03:45,680
Speaker 4: it's going to have to, one way or another go

59
00:03:45,760 --> 00:03:50,680
Speaker 4: back to the lower court, which means, you know, hearings

60
00:03:50,720 --> 00:03:54,400
Speaker 4: and briefs, and there's no way that this case would

61
00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:55,960
Speaker 4: be tried before the election.

62
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:00,400
Speaker 8: I think that's a part of this one of the

63
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:03,960
Speaker 8: big arguments that I think came out here and going

64
00:04:04,000 --> 00:04:07,240
Speaker 8: into this, David Showan, I thought that maybe the better

65
00:04:07,360 --> 00:04:10,960
Speaker 8: argument would be limited immunity, because they keep bringing up

66
00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:15,280
Speaker 8: these absurd hypotheticals. You know, well, if a president decides

67
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:19,840
Speaker 8: that their opponent and an official act is a danger

68
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:22,559
Speaker 8: to the country in orders their assassination, are you saying

69
00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:26,800
Speaker 8: that they would be immune from that. That's why I

70
00:04:26,839 --> 00:04:30,320
Speaker 8: think you would have an argument for limited immunity, but

71
00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:34,440
Speaker 8: criminal immunity and civil immunity as Greg is talking about.

72
00:04:35,279 --> 00:04:36,720
Speaker 7: I think you're right, and I think you and Greg

73
00:04:36,720 --> 00:04:39,479
Speaker 7: are saying the same thing. Actually, I think that in

74
00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:41,800
Speaker 7: this case they're going to do something they should do.

75
00:04:41,880 --> 00:04:43,640
Speaker 7: You know, look, I'm not in the prediction business. But

76
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:46,040
Speaker 7: what's clearly, oh what clearly ought to be the result

77
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,240
Speaker 7: here and what the arguments indicate, as Greg said, and

78
00:04:49,279 --> 00:04:52,520
Speaker 7: as you've indicated, Sean, is something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald

79
00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:55,279
Speaker 7: in nineteen eighty two case. It says a president must

80
00:04:55,360 --> 00:04:59,240
Speaker 7: enjoy immunity for actions taken within the outer perimeter of

81
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:03,279
Speaker 7: his official ASTs authority, official acts. I've said it before,

82
00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:05,520
Speaker 7: you know, I hate to say it, but President Trump's

83
00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:07,599
Speaker 7: going to win this one. In spite of his lawyers.

84
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:09,839
Speaker 7: The positions they take and took again today hit the

85
00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:13,719
Speaker 7: Supreme Court are just wrong. They were asked today, for example,

86
00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:16,320
Speaker 7: what if a president ordered a coup, would that be

87
00:05:16,320 --> 00:05:18,880
Speaker 7: considered an official act? The lawyer said, it depends, it

88
00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:21,880
Speaker 7: doesn't depend. That's not an official act. Nor is having

89
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:25,719
Speaker 7: sealed Team six hit your opponent. That would not be

90
00:05:25,720 --> 00:05:28,679
Speaker 7: an official act. And that's why it's a relatively easy case.

91
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:31,640
Speaker 7: We must give presidents the community to act within their

92
00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:34,200
Speaker 7: official acts, or we would have prosecuted Abraham Lincoln and

93
00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:39,080
Speaker 7: Abrock Obama and Bill Clinton and many others along the line.

94
00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:41,560
Speaker 7: But they have to be able to act in the

95
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:44,000
Speaker 7: appropriate manner when it comes to an official act for

96
00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:47,799
Speaker 7: national security, for the integrity of an election, or otherwise.

97
00:05:48,760 --> 00:05:51,080
Speaker 8: I thought that sam Alito kind of blew the one

98
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 8: big argument in terms of the case against President Trump's arguments.

99
00:05:57,400 --> 00:06:01,679
Speaker 8: And he's asking the the attorney goes, if the president

100
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:04,680
Speaker 8: gets advice from an Attorney general that something is lawful,

101
00:06:05,760 --> 00:06:09,120
Speaker 8: is that an absolute defense? The answer, yes, Well, wouldn't

102
00:06:09,120 --> 00:06:11,240
Speaker 8: the president just pick an AG who will let him

103
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:15,400
Speaker 8: do whatever he wants? I mean, the guy seems stunned

104
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:18,919
Speaker 8: just listening to this. According to court observers, he looks stunned,

105
00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:23,040
Speaker 8: And apparently the AG can provide absolute immunity, but the president,

106
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:26,159
Speaker 8: who is the boss, can't. I mean, that kind of

107
00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:28,480
Speaker 8: is an obscene, isn't it.

108
00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:32,560
Speaker 4: It is obscene. It's absurd. I thought some of the

109
00:06:32,560 --> 00:06:39,000
Speaker 4: most important questions came from Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

110
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:43,599
Speaker 4: Kavanaugh ask a very potent question, wants to stop a

111
00:06:43,800 --> 00:06:49,520
Speaker 4: creative prosecutor from using a vague statute to prosecute a president,

112
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:53,839
Speaker 4: especially a prosecutor from the opposing party. And the answer,

113
00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 4: of course is nothing. That's exactly what DA Alvin Bragg

114
00:06:58,640 --> 00:07:03,000
Speaker 4: is doing in Orful County, DA Fanny Willison and Georgia,

115
00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:06,040
Speaker 4: and of course Special Counsel Jack Smith in both Washington

116
00:07:06,200 --> 00:07:11,520
Speaker 4: and Florida. And then Neil Gorshich is sort of chimed

117
00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:17,840
Speaker 4: in and he said, you know, I worry about the

118
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:22,040
Speaker 4: misuse of the criminal law to target political opponents based

119
00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:28,360
Speaker 4: on accusations about their motives. Now that really goes to

120
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:32,640
Speaker 4: the heart of all four of the criminal indictments against

121
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:36,040
Speaker 4: Donald Trump, and the Alvin bradcase ongoing right now in

122
00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 4: Manhattan is the most egregious example of this nightmare scenario.

123
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 4: A politically motivated case conjured up by unscrupulous prosecutor to

124
00:07:47,080 --> 00:07:50,720
Speaker 4: fulfill a campaign promise to get Trump, and Bragg is

125
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:56,120
Speaker 4: not just using vague statutes but expired ones that do

126
00:07:56,200 --> 00:08:00,440
Speaker 4: not support the conduct charge. And yet so far he's

127
00:08:00,440 --> 00:08:01,560
Speaker 4: getting away with it.

128
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:04,280
Speaker 8: But again, now you're back to the point where a

129
00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:08,120
Speaker 8: president will will then in the future, only appoint in

130
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:11,239
Speaker 8: an attorney general that's going to say yes to anything

131
00:08:11,240 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 8: that they want them to say yes to when in

132
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:18,280
Speaker 8: reality they're supposed to be independent. But we know people

133
00:08:18,320 --> 00:08:20,200
Speaker 8: like Merrick Garland and Eric Holder or not.

134
00:08:20,920 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 7: Yeah. The other undercurrent, by the way, in this case is,

135
00:08:24,240 --> 00:08:26,720
Speaker 7: remember the Supreme Court just took up the question of

136
00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:30,440
Speaker 7: whether the obstruction of justice subsection that was applied to

137
00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:35,520
Speaker 7: the January sixth demonstrators applies in this case can be

138
00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:37,560
Speaker 7: applied one of the charges that you know President Trump

139
00:08:37,679 --> 00:08:40,200
Speaker 7: is facing. And so the undercurrent during the argument was, well,

140
00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:42,800
Speaker 7: it seemed to imply at least that they're going to

141
00:08:43,280 --> 00:08:46,319
Speaker 7: go in the defendant's direction on that question. But listen,

142
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 7: at the end of the day, there's an important win

143
00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:51,480
Speaker 7: for the law. The question is ultimately as President Trump

144
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 7: when it if they send it back to Judge Chudkin,

145
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:56,640
Speaker 7: you know, if it comes out something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald,

146
00:08:56,880 --> 00:08:59,280
Speaker 7: you can be just about sure. I think dollars the

147
00:08:59,280 --> 00:09:00,960
Speaker 7: donuts that she's going to find, well, this was not

148
00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:03,760
Speaker 7: within the outer perimeters of official acts. And then it'll

149
00:09:03,800 --> 00:09:07,640
Speaker 7: go back up to the DC Circuit on that factual question.

150
00:09:07,880 --> 00:09:09,840
Speaker 7: Or they could say, well, we're going to present this

151
00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:12,839
Speaker 7: to a jury the factual question that's more problematic.

152
00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:16,640
Speaker 8: I think that's a lot more problematic. But I tend

153
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:19,000
Speaker 8: to think I agree with Greg on this that they're

154
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:21,080
Speaker 8: going to come down and they're going to offer guidance

155
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:25,040
Speaker 8: on this in a specific way, knowing that ultimately it

156
00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:27,240
Speaker 8: would end up back in front of them, Wouldn't Wouldn't

157
00:09:27,240 --> 00:09:28,199
Speaker 8: that be the case, Greg?

158
00:09:28,559 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And you know, the

159
00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:37,640
Speaker 4: other interesting part is these justices did talk about all

160
00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:41,960
Speaker 4: of the other comparable situations in which former presidents have

161
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:48,640
Speaker 4: made controversial decisions that arguably could have produced prosecutions after

162
00:09:48,679 --> 00:09:53,280
Speaker 4: they left office. George Bush, you know, could he have

163
00:09:53,320 --> 00:09:58,359
Speaker 4: been charged for obstructing an official preceding when he allegedly

164
00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:02,680
Speaker 4: lied to Congress of the reasons for the Iraq invasion.

165
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:06,959
Speaker 4: Could Bomba be charged with murdering US citizens in a

166
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:12,000
Speaker 4: drone strike? Could Biden some day be charged with unlawfully

167
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:19,000
Speaker 4: inducing immigrants to enter the company country illegally? You know what?

168
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:22,120
Speaker 4: What you know all of these foreign indictments have done

169
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:26,880
Speaker 4: is open to can of worms that threatens the future presidency,

170
00:10:26,920 --> 00:10:30,360
Speaker 4: and the Supreme Court is finally, after sort of avoiding

171
00:10:30,400 --> 00:10:34,120
Speaker 4: the issue of immunity for decades, is now confronted with

172
00:10:34,480 --> 00:10:38,720
Speaker 4: addressing it because of the Trump prosecutions. And if you

173
00:10:38,920 --> 00:10:43,520
Speaker 4: listen to the conservative justices questions, they don't worry about

174
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:51,400
Speaker 4: Donald Trump, they worry about future presidents being handcuffed by

175
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:55,199
Speaker 4: the concern over future criminal prosecutions.

176
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:59,400
Speaker 8: Well, you're you're you're absolutely right, because you're you're basically

177
00:10:59,480 --> 00:11:01,959
Speaker 8: quoting I'll say, and I'm not focused on the here

178
00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:04,800
Speaker 8: and now of this case. I'm concerned about the future.

179
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:06,319
Speaker 8: He actually used your words.

180
00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:11,559
Speaker 4: Yeah, he said, our decision is a decision for the ages,

181
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:14,880
Speaker 4: which means to me also, they're going to take their.

182
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:15,800
Speaker 1: Time on this now.

183
00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:18,680
Speaker 4: They'll probably have a vote on Friday, as they normally do,

184
00:11:20,320 --> 00:11:23,800
Speaker 4: but you know, they realize the historic nature of this

185
00:11:23,920 --> 00:11:28,160
Speaker 4: and they are going to carefully craft their ruling in

186
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:28,760
Speaker 4: this case.

187
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:31,040
Speaker 8: All right, quick break, We'll come right back more with

188
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:33,360
Speaker 8: David Showan Greg Jarrett on the other side. Eight hundred

189
00:11:33,400 --> 00:11:35,559
Speaker 8: and ninety four one Seawan is our number if you

190
00:11:35,600 --> 00:11:36,959
Speaker 8: want to be a part of the program, And we

191
00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:40,400
Speaker 8: continue with the attorneys David Shoan and Greg Jared are

192
00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:42,280
Speaker 8: with us. Eight hundred and nine to four one Shawn

193
00:11:42,360 --> 00:11:43,600
Speaker 8: is a number if you want to be a part

194
00:11:43,600 --> 00:11:46,680
Speaker 8: of the program, and there's certainly skepticism on the part

195
00:11:46,679 --> 00:11:48,920
Speaker 8: of some of the justices. So do I say, well,

196
00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:51,880
Speaker 8: we would be creating a situation in which we'd be saying,

197
00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:57,280
Speaker 8: is this is what you're asking us to say, which

198
00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:00,600
Speaker 8: is that a president is entitled not to make them a stake,

199
00:12:00,440 --> 00:12:05,000
Speaker 8: but more than that, a president is entitled, for a

200
00:12:05,040 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 8: total person personal gain, to use the trappings of his

201
00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:12,080
Speaker 8: office that you're trying to get us to hold without

202
00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:14,920
Speaker 8: facing criminal liability. I'm having a hard time, she said,

203
00:12:14,960 --> 00:12:19,280
Speaker 8: thinking of creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that

204
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:23,160
Speaker 8: ordering the assassination of a rival, which again, I just

205
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:27,280
Speaker 8: hate the whole analogy because I think it's absurd. You

206
00:12:27,320 --> 00:12:30,640
Speaker 8: know that accepting a bribe and countless laws could be

207
00:12:30,679 --> 00:12:34,960
Speaker 8: broken for personal gain. David, your take on that part, well, no,

208
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 8: I mean.

209
00:12:35,280 --> 00:12:37,600
Speaker 7: But I think again, I think the formula for mix

210
00:12:37,640 --> 00:12:40,000
Speaker 7: and versus Fitzgerald that I think they're likely to send

211
00:12:40,000 --> 00:12:42,720
Speaker 7: it back with the guidance for really deals with that.

212
00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:45,480
Speaker 7: Each one has an answer. It's not an official act.

213
00:12:45,640 --> 00:12:48,000
Speaker 7: It may be the person's holding office the time, but

214
00:12:48,080 --> 00:12:51,040
Speaker 7: it's not within what we think of as official acts.

215
00:12:51,120 --> 00:12:53,920
Speaker 7: Something like ensuring the integrity of an election when you

216
00:12:54,000 --> 00:12:57,480
Speaker 7: have advice about that election that you believe needs to

217
00:12:57,520 --> 00:12:59,839
Speaker 7: be acted on to insure its integrity would be within

218
00:12:59,840 --> 00:13:03,360
Speaker 7: the official Act doctrine. But something like you know, doing

219
00:13:03,400 --> 00:13:05,839
Speaker 7: something for personal gain or what we saw in the

220
00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:10,280
Speaker 7: case of you know, Bill Clinton with the Paula Jones

221
00:13:10,559 --> 00:13:13,960
Speaker 7: situation and so on, these are outside the realm. And

222
00:13:14,040 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 7: certainly the hit Seal Team sixth kind of thing. And

223
00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:19,360
Speaker 7: by the way, you know, I know everyone was offended

224
00:13:19,400 --> 00:13:22,599
Speaker 7: by the hypothetical, but that's a kind of hypothetical a

225
00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:25,640
Speaker 7: lawyer has to be prepared to answer to fit within

226
00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:27,600
Speaker 7: your formula. But he had a different take on it.

227
00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:30,120
Speaker 7: His take is, now you have to be impeached first

228
00:13:30,200 --> 00:13:32,360
Speaker 7: and convicted, and then you can only be tried. And

229
00:13:32,400 --> 00:13:35,080
Speaker 7: they cited to Judge Cavin on that, but just Justice

230
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:37,920
Speaker 7: Kavanaugh actually wrote the exact opposite. He said that when

231
00:13:37,920 --> 00:13:40,000
Speaker 7: a person's out of office, then if they if you

232
00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:42,040
Speaker 7: first presented it to Congress and they didn't do anything

233
00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:43,800
Speaker 7: with it, when the person's out of office, they could be

234
00:13:43,840 --> 00:13:46,640
Speaker 7: prosecuted if it were the right kind of act to prosecute.

235
00:13:46,800 --> 00:13:49,960
Speaker 8: What's your take on what's going on in this New

236
00:13:50,040 --> 00:13:54,880
Speaker 8: York City kangaroo court where you have a judge that

237
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:59,400
Speaker 8: donated to Joe Biden presiding and then potential family conflicts.

238
00:13:59,400 --> 00:14:01,360
Speaker 8: And it's eight year years later and the statute of

239
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:04,520
Speaker 8: limitations have passed. But what does your take on the

240
00:14:04,600 --> 00:14:08,480
Speaker 8: testimony of this guy David Pecker who is with the

241
00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:09,480
Speaker 8: National Inquirer.

242
00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:16,959
Speaker 4: Greg, Well, you know, Pecker's testimony is immaterial and incompetent.

243
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:20,080
Speaker 4: He knows nothing about the thirty four criminal charges of

244
00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:23,680
Speaker 4: falsifying business records. But you know, no matter to Alvin

245
00:14:23,760 --> 00:14:28,000
Speaker 4: Bragg because his objective is to tie Trump to the

246
00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:32,560
Speaker 4: sort of sleazy dealings of a notorious tabloid. It's really

247
00:14:32,680 --> 00:14:40,040
Speaker 4: filth by association here. Look, the entire case is a farce.

248
00:14:40,080 --> 00:14:43,920
Speaker 4: It's a sham. Any fair and impartial judge knowledgeable in

249
00:14:44,000 --> 00:14:48,960
Speaker 4: the law would have long ago dismissed Bragg's sham charges. Instead,

250
00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:52,120
Speaker 4: you know, this case went to Judge Juan Versant, whose

251
00:14:52,160 --> 00:14:56,400
Speaker 4: anti Trump bias is on conspicuous display whenever he takes

252
00:14:56,440 --> 00:15:01,640
Speaker 4: the bench. His unconstitutional gag order on the leading candidate

253
00:15:01,680 --> 00:15:04,680
Speaker 4: for president is one in a string of sort of

254
00:15:04,760 --> 00:15:09,600
Speaker 4: headbanging pronouncements. So you know, I worry about a hyper

255
00:15:09,720 --> 00:15:15,800
Speaker 4: biased judge, and also a venue in which the jurors

256
00:15:15,840 --> 00:15:20,200
Speaker 4: were selected from the pool. That's a pool that hates

257
00:15:20,240 --> 00:15:24,960
Speaker 4: Donald Trump. And so it's it undermines to me the

258
00:15:24,960 --> 00:15:29,640
Speaker 4: Bill of Rights, an impartial jury. I could have been

259
00:15:29,680 --> 00:15:32,680
Speaker 4: moved elsewhere, should have been moved else where. Marshawn wouldn't

260
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:33,000
Speaker 4: do it.

261
00:15:33,840 --> 00:15:36,640
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's going to be interesting. Your take? Has this

262
00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:38,000
Speaker 8: going to play out? Thirty seconds?

263
00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:40,960
Speaker 2: David Show Well, Greg one hundred.

264
00:15:40,720 --> 00:15:43,320
Speaker 7: Percent right again? So are you and this judge should

265
00:15:43,320 --> 00:15:45,320
Speaker 7: not be sitting on the case. They've got teed up

266
00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:47,440
Speaker 7: issues for appeal. I don't love the way they raised

267
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:49,080
Speaker 7: some of them, but I still think the record is

268
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:51,520
Speaker 7: clear enough the judge. There are many cases saying this

269
00:15:51,600 --> 00:15:54,520
Speaker 7: judge had to be disqualified and then it's reversible error.

270
00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:57,840
Speaker 7: They haven't ever charged identified the target charge. We saw

271
00:15:57,840 --> 00:15:59,960
Speaker 7: that even in the opening. We saw in the judges denial,

272
00:16:00,080 --> 00:16:02,760
Speaker 7: the motion to dismiss. It's a farce and it's going

273
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:05,200
Speaker 7: to just send President Trump up higher and higher in

274
00:16:05,240 --> 00:16:07,640
Speaker 7: the polls because unfortunately everyone sees.

275
00:16:07,400 --> 00:16:08,560
Speaker 5: It for what it is.

276
00:16:09,840 --> 00:16:11,840
Speaker 8: If we can hang on to you guys, I just

277
00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:13,720
Speaker 8: have too much that I want to ask both of you,

278
00:16:13,800 --> 00:16:15,120
Speaker 8: and I think a lot of people want to have

279
00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:18,320
Speaker 8: a deeper understanding of this. We'll continue with David Shoan

280
00:16:18,520 --> 00:16:20,560
Speaker 8: and with Greg Jarrett on the other side. We'll get

281
00:16:20,560 --> 00:16:22,960
Speaker 8: to your calls coming up straight ahead as well. Eight

282
00:16:23,000 --> 00:16:25,000
Speaker 8: hundred ninety four one. Shawn is on number. If you

283
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:26,800
Speaker 8: want to be a part of the program, I have

284
00:16:26,840 --> 00:16:28,640
Speaker 8: twenty five down to the top of the hour, our

285
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:31,680
Speaker 8: toll free numbers eight hundred nine four one. Sean, If

286
00:16:31,720 --> 00:16:33,600
Speaker 8: you want to be a part of the program, let

287
00:16:33,600 --> 00:16:35,600
Speaker 8: me tell you about a case. A guy named Michael

288
00:16:35,680 --> 00:16:38,840
Speaker 8: his wife out for a walk in their neighborhood. Right,

289
00:16:38,960 --> 00:16:41,480
Speaker 8: all of a sudden, their life gets flipped upside down.

290
00:16:41,960 --> 00:16:45,000
Speaker 8: Why Michael was attacked by a homeless woman, stabbed him

291
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:49,840
Speaker 8: multiple times before he was able to restrain her, thankfully,

292
00:16:50,080 --> 00:16:53,320
Speaker 8: and then waited for law enforcement to arrive. Now, what

293
00:16:53,560 --> 00:16:56,240
Speaker 8: happened next is why I am a proud member of

294
00:16:56,280 --> 00:17:00,320
Speaker 8: the USCCA, Because when Michael was in the hospital, well

295
00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:03,560
Speaker 8: guess what, a detective came in and charged him with

296
00:17:03,680 --> 00:17:07,800
Speaker 8: assault for protecting himself. Well, welcome to the all new

297
00:17:07,840 --> 00:17:13,160
Speaker 8: America of defund dismantle no bail laws, reimagining police right anyway,

298
00:17:13,320 --> 00:17:15,920
Speaker 8: that's now the America we live in. You go to jail,

299
00:17:16,000 --> 00:17:18,560
Speaker 8: what for defending yourself? You could be forced to spend

300
00:17:18,600 --> 00:17:22,240
Speaker 8: what tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars to

301
00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:25,679
Speaker 8: maintain your innocence. Well, if you want to learn proven

302
00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:30,640
Speaker 8: ways to deter criminals, defend your family, and avoid legal trouble,

303
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:32,840
Speaker 8: well you want to be a part of the us

304
00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:35,800
Speaker 8: CCA also. Now they're going to give you their free

305
00:17:35,800 --> 00:17:40,520
Speaker 8: Concealed Carried Defense Guide. They put it together USCCA. They

306
00:17:40,680 --> 00:17:43,359
Speaker 8: joined forces with the former head of trading for the FBI,

307
00:17:43,440 --> 00:17:46,840
Speaker 8: I Quantico, And just go to their website. You'll get

308
00:17:46,840 --> 00:17:51,919
Speaker 8: this free. You know, proven defend your family, deter criminals,

309
00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:57,320
Speaker 8: and their Concealed Carried Defense Guide absolutely free. They also

310
00:17:57,359 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 8: have classes, by the way, around the country, situational self

311
00:18:00,320 --> 00:18:04,200
Speaker 8: defense classes. Just go to their website. It's USCCA dot

312
00:18:04,240 --> 00:18:09,280
Speaker 8: com slash hannityus CCA dot com slash Hannity. All right,

313
00:18:09,640 --> 00:18:11,840
Speaker 8: let's go to a couple of moments that took place

314
00:18:12,040 --> 00:18:14,880
Speaker 8: in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today. I want

315
00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:19,560
Speaker 8: to start with Neil Gorsich. You know, he's getting exasperated

316
00:18:19,600 --> 00:18:24,240
Speaker 8: at the lawyer for the Special Prosecutor. His name is

317
00:18:24,240 --> 00:18:29,280
Speaker 8: Michael Drabin, and anyway, over the semantics over the word immunity,

318
00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:32,920
Speaker 8: and I want to get reaction from David Shoon and

319
00:18:33,040 --> 00:18:37,680
Speaker 8: Greg Jarrett who continue with us, but listen to this exchange.

320
00:18:37,800 --> 00:18:40,200
Speaker 1: Did you agree that there are some core functions of

321
00:18:40,280 --> 00:18:46,000
Speaker 1: the executive that present conduct that Congress cannot criminalize? Yes,

322
00:18:46,320 --> 00:18:48,320
Speaker 1: we is that a form. I mean, we can call

323
00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:50,199
Speaker 1: it immunity, or you can call it. They can't do it.

324
00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:51,200
Speaker 1: But what's the difference.

325
00:18:51,560 --> 00:18:55,360
Speaker 3: We call it as applied Article two challenge, and.

326
00:18:55,359 --> 00:18:59,679
Speaker 1: That's okay, okay, we am all it immunity just for shorthandsake.

327
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:02,920
Speaker 1: So I think we are kind of narrowing the ground

328
00:19:03,080 --> 00:19:05,200
Speaker 1: of dispute here. It seems to me there is some

329
00:19:05,800 --> 00:19:10,960
Speaker 1: area you concede that an official acts that Congress cannot criminalize,

330
00:19:11,040 --> 00:19:12,880
Speaker 1: and now we're just talking about the scope.

331
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:15,280
Speaker 5: Well, I don't think it's a just but I think

332
00:19:15,320 --> 00:19:19,159
Speaker 5: it's a very significant gap between any official act and

333
00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:21,680
Speaker 5: the small core of exclusive official act.

334
00:19:21,880 --> 00:19:24,720
Speaker 8: I thought that was a checkmate moment, David Cholm, what

335
00:19:24,760 --> 00:19:25,320
Speaker 8: do you think?

336
00:19:26,000 --> 00:19:26,399
Speaker 5: I think so.

337
00:19:26,560 --> 00:19:30,800
Speaker 7: And I also think mister Grieban is not accurately relaying

338
00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:33,800
Speaker 7: what Nixon versus Fitzgerald held by the way, it's not

339
00:19:33,840 --> 00:19:34,400
Speaker 7: such a narrow.

340
00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:36,760
Speaker 8: By the way, why don't you explain for people Nixon

341
00:19:36,840 --> 00:19:39,080
Speaker 8: and Fitzgerald because we've been talking about it all day.

342
00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:42,359
Speaker 7: Yeah, Nixon versus. Fitzgerald's in nineteen eighty two case was

343
00:19:42,400 --> 00:19:46,200
Speaker 7: brought against for the Nixon after he was out of office,

344
00:19:46,440 --> 00:19:51,840
Speaker 7: a claim that he made an unfair, inappropriate, illegal employment decision.

345
00:19:52,960 --> 00:19:56,000
Speaker 7: And the court said that we're not going to subject

346
00:19:56,200 --> 00:20:00,280
Speaker 7: a president, even out of office, to civiliability or she

347
00:20:00,359 --> 00:20:04,200
Speaker 7: is going to have immunity for actions taken within the

348
00:20:04,240 --> 00:20:08,399
Speaker 7: outer perimeters of his official authority as president. And so

349
00:20:08,440 --> 00:20:10,360
Speaker 7: we call it refer to, you know, as an official

350
00:20:10,440 --> 00:20:13,920
Speaker 7: acts immunity. And it's quite broad. That's why they said

351
00:20:14,080 --> 00:20:18,080
Speaker 7: the outer perimeter. Many examples are given, but essentially, you know,

352
00:20:18,560 --> 00:20:23,280
Speaker 7: official act has been defined in McDonald versus us A

353
00:20:23,320 --> 00:20:26,440
Speaker 7: twenty sixteen case to say, any official act on any

354
00:20:26,480 --> 00:20:29,720
Speaker 7: matter that's pending before a public official and includes the

355
00:20:29,720 --> 00:20:33,119
Speaker 7: president using his official position to exert pressure on another

356
00:20:33,160 --> 00:20:36,960
Speaker 7: official nowhere intending such advice will form the basis for

357
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:40,600
Speaker 7: an official act of another official. And so my view,

358
00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:43,480
Speaker 7: at least it puts what happened here squarely within the

359
00:20:43,480 --> 00:20:47,560
Speaker 7: official act it's not a narrow exception. President stands apart

360
00:20:47,680 --> 00:20:50,360
Speaker 7: from every other official. And by the way, other officials

361
00:20:50,440 --> 00:20:54,240
Speaker 7: have immunity too, judges, prosecutors in their realm.

362
00:20:54,760 --> 00:20:57,439
Speaker 8: Yeah, what's your take on that, Greg got because I

363
00:20:57,440 --> 00:20:58,920
Speaker 8: think David niled it.

364
00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:02,840
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's a mistake to try to bicker over semantics

365
00:21:02,920 --> 00:21:05,280
Speaker 4: with the Supreme Court justice and Dreaming.

366
00:21:05,600 --> 00:21:05,840
Speaker 6: Yeah.

367
00:21:05,880 --> 00:21:08,439
Speaker 8: By the way, that should be one on one in

368
00:21:08,560 --> 00:21:11,080
Speaker 8: terms of being dumb. You know, when you get an

369
00:21:11,200 --> 00:21:14,720
Speaker 8: when you get a justice exasperated like that, can we

370
00:21:14,880 --> 00:21:18,680
Speaker 8: just say immunity because that's what you're saying, you know. Yeah,

371
00:21:18,760 --> 00:21:20,480
Speaker 8: And they're trying to come up with a creative way

372
00:21:20,520 --> 00:21:23,520
Speaker 8: to get out of the immunity that he's basically being

373
00:21:23,600 --> 00:21:25,640
Speaker 8: forced into a corner to acknowledge.

374
00:21:26,280 --> 00:21:30,679
Speaker 4: Yeah, but Dreamin is striking and he, you know, he

375
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:33,240
Speaker 4: won't give an inch. And part of the problem here

376
00:21:33,320 --> 00:21:37,360
Speaker 4: is both sides are guilty of that. You know. Dreamn

377
00:21:37,640 --> 00:21:43,440
Speaker 4: and the Special Counsel argued there should be no immunity whatsoever,

378
00:21:43,720 --> 00:21:47,119
Speaker 4: and of course the other side on behalf of Donald

379
00:21:47,119 --> 00:21:52,720
Speaker 4: Trump argued wrongfly, I think that there should be absolute

380
00:21:52,760 --> 00:21:55,920
Speaker 4: immunity for everything. Part of the problem arises.

381
00:21:55,400 --> 00:21:59,119
Speaker 6: From the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case in which Supreme Court,

382
00:21:59,480 --> 00:22:02,760
Speaker 6: in their rule, referred to absolute immunity, and then they

383
00:22:02,800 --> 00:22:06,200
Speaker 6: set conditions, as David described, within the outer perimeter of

384
00:22:06,200 --> 00:22:07,119
Speaker 6: official acts.

385
00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:12,040
Speaker 4: So it wasn't absolute immunity at all. The immediately contradicted themselves.

386
00:22:12,080 --> 00:22:17,520
Speaker 4: It's really limited immunity, or let's call it immunity with conditions.

387
00:22:18,280 --> 00:22:23,720
Speaker 4: And you know, I'll reiterate that listening to these arguments today.

388
00:22:23,920 --> 00:22:27,439
Speaker 4: That's where the Supreme Court majority is heading here to

389
00:22:27,560 --> 00:22:34,520
Speaker 4: simply adopt the Fitzgerald principles and apply them to a

390
00:22:34,600 --> 00:22:38,800
Speaker 4: criminal case because it makes sense. I mean, you've got

391
00:22:38,840 --> 00:22:44,320
Speaker 4: to offer some sort of immunity. And you know, this

392
00:22:44,480 --> 00:22:46,720
Speaker 4: was a very different court in nineteen eighty two, but

393
00:22:46,960 --> 00:22:50,760
Speaker 4: it was a smart court and the justices there had

394
00:22:50,800 --> 00:22:53,800
Speaker 4: spent a lot of time trying to figure it out,

395
00:22:53,880 --> 00:22:57,639
Speaker 4: and they came up with a immunity solution that has

396
00:22:57,680 --> 00:23:01,240
Speaker 4: stood the test of time civilly. It should now be

397
00:23:01,280 --> 00:23:02,320
Speaker 4: extended criminally.

398
00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:06,560
Speaker 8: I mean, that's the fascinating part of this. Let's stay

399
00:23:06,600 --> 00:23:12,439
Speaker 8: with Gorsic and he's asking the same attorney for the

400
00:23:12,560 --> 00:23:17,040
Speaker 8: special prosecutor if a president can be prosecuted after leaving

401
00:23:17,160 --> 00:23:21,320
Speaker 8: office for leading a protest that would delay Congress, which

402
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:23,520
Speaker 8: kind of goes to the heart of a lot of

403
00:23:23,520 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 8: the arguments that the Special Council is making.

404
00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:29,919
Speaker 1: Listen, for example, let's say a president leads a mostly

405
00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:34,760
Speaker 1: peaceful protest sit in in front of Congress because he

406
00:23:34,840 --> 00:23:40,080
Speaker 1: objects to a piece of legislation that's going through, and

407
00:23:40,320 --> 00:23:45,120
Speaker 1: it in fact delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under

408
00:23:45,119 --> 00:23:51,680
Speaker 1: fifteen twelve C. Two, that might be correctly impeding an

409
00:23:51,680 --> 00:23:56,439
Speaker 1: official proceeding? Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever

410
00:23:56,480 --> 00:23:59,560
Speaker 1: word euphemism you want to use for that is not

411
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:04,000
Speaker 1: core and therefore prosecutable. Well, without a clear statement that

412
00:24:04,040 --> 00:24:07,240
Speaker 1: applies to the president, it's not core.

413
00:24:07,480 --> 00:24:11,040
Speaker 3: The core kinds of activities that the Court has acknowledged

414
00:24:11,560 --> 00:24:14,880
Speaker 3: are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis,

415
00:24:14,960 --> 00:24:18,119
Speaker 3: and it's a pretty small set, but things like the

416
00:24:18,200 --> 00:24:21,520
Speaker 3: pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power

417
00:24:21,520 --> 00:24:25,240
Speaker 3: to veto legislation, the power to make appointments, these are

418
00:24:25,359 --> 00:24:30,440
Speaker 3: things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president.

419
00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:34,400
Speaker 1: Once you get a president, then could be prosecuted for

420
00:24:34,480 --> 00:24:37,760
Speaker 1: the conduct I described after leaves office.

421
00:24:38,280 --> 00:24:41,680
Speaker 5: Probably not, but I want to explain the framework of

422
00:24:42,359 --> 00:24:46,719
Speaker 5: why I don't think that that would be prosecution, that

423
00:24:46,760 --> 00:24:50,600
Speaker 5: would be valid your reaction, Greg.

424
00:24:50,480 --> 00:24:54,840
Speaker 4: Jarrett, you know, this is really getting into the weeds,

425
00:24:54,880 --> 00:24:59,960
Speaker 4: into the Youngstown case and so forth. But this was

426
00:25:00,200 --> 00:25:00,800
Speaker 4: really one of them.

427
00:25:00,800 --> 00:25:03,080
Speaker 8: By the way, you say the Youngstown case. People don't

428
00:25:03,119 --> 00:25:03,800
Speaker 8: know what you're saying.

429
00:25:04,040 --> 00:25:06,639
Speaker 4: Well, I don't remember the Youngstown case.

430
00:25:07,560 --> 00:25:10,199
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, do you do study a lot of

431
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:13,800
Speaker 8: cases in law school. I'm sure you know Marlboro versus Madison,

432
00:25:14,200 --> 00:25:17,679
Speaker 8: and Brown versus Board of Education, and and and all

433
00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:20,080
Speaker 8: the all the important ones. I'm not expecting you to

434
00:25:20,160 --> 00:25:21,280
Speaker 8: remember everyone.

435
00:25:21,560 --> 00:25:23,959
Speaker 6: Yeah, I appreciate it.

436
00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 4: But this was one of the few times in which

437
00:25:25,880 --> 00:25:29,720
Speaker 4: they actually drew an analogy that is very close to

438
00:25:30,480 --> 00:25:34,679
Speaker 4: their own case, the J six Trump case, which of

439
00:25:34,720 --> 00:25:38,679
Speaker 4: course led to the immunity claim which they're now trying

440
00:25:38,720 --> 00:25:43,240
Speaker 4: to decide. Some of the other analogies I thought were

441
00:25:43,760 --> 00:25:49,960
Speaker 4: quite instructive and useful in going forth with an immunity

442
00:25:50,800 --> 00:25:54,679
Speaker 4: protection of some sort, And you know, this was this

443
00:25:54,920 --> 00:25:58,160
Speaker 4: was one that was both direct to the Trump case

444
00:25:58,200 --> 00:25:59,560
Speaker 4: but a little bit in the weeds.

445
00:25:59,720 --> 00:26:05,200
Speaker 9: Lea your take, David shown Yeah, I mean, first of all,

446
00:26:05,359 --> 00:26:08,240
Speaker 9: Greg will remember the Youngstown case in a second Youngstown

447
00:26:08,280 --> 00:26:12,040
Speaker 9: sheet from two versus Sawyer nineteen fifty two case Truman seized.

448
00:26:12,600 --> 00:26:15,920
Speaker 4: Ah, yes, yes, now I remember the seizure.

449
00:26:16,640 --> 00:26:19,000
Speaker 7: Plans during the Korean War. There is a question was

450
00:26:19,520 --> 00:26:22,280
Speaker 7: illegal because it probably violated statute when you can seize

451
00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:26,480
Speaker 7: private property under very narrow circumstances, But they didn't prosecute

452
00:26:26,520 --> 00:26:28,240
Speaker 7: with the point some people suggest it's one of the

453
00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:32,000
Speaker 7: best Supreme Court written decisions ever and so on, but

454
00:26:32,080 --> 00:26:35,480
Speaker 7: it lays out factors on when it's appropriate prosecution and

455
00:26:35,520 --> 00:26:39,080
Speaker 7: that sort of thing. But anyway, yeah, I just think

456
00:26:39,119 --> 00:26:42,679
Speaker 7: that you know, what Gorsa and the others are getting

457
00:26:42,680 --> 00:26:45,360
Speaker 7: to is very reminiscent of the argument the other day

458
00:26:45,560 --> 00:26:48,399
Speaker 7: on the obstruction statue, and in fact, it's very cute

459
00:26:48,400 --> 00:26:50,760
Speaker 7: and clever. I think some of the examples they're using

460
00:26:51,040 --> 00:26:54,040
Speaker 7: the other day they said, well, what if a congressman,

461
00:26:54,080 --> 00:26:57,800
Speaker 7: for example, pulled the fire alarm falsely on his way

462
00:26:57,880 --> 00:27:01,280
Speaker 7: to a vote to obstruct that vote? Is that something

463
00:27:01,320 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 7: we can prosecute under the obstruction statute? And they have

464
00:27:03,840 --> 00:27:06,520
Speaker 7: the same kind of thing going during the repartee today.

465
00:27:06,600 --> 00:27:09,200
Speaker 8: Actually, all right, quick break a our final moments with

466
00:27:09,320 --> 00:27:11,520
Speaker 8: Greg Jared David shown on the other side