Alina Habba Brags About Court Ruling While Admitting She Didn't Read It

Following the Supreme Court's immunity ruling on Monday, Alina Habba ran to Fox News to declare victory for her client, Donald Trump. But then she made an admission that throws her entire boast into question: She admitted that she hadn't actually read the ruling while she was bragging about it. If she had read it, she would know that it doesn't say what she claims it says, and that it actually doesn't exonerate Trump at all. Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Listen to our videos in an audio format by subscribing to our podcast

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

Alina Haba decided to go ahead and shoot her mouth off before she even knew what she was talking about. This week. On Monday, shortly after the United States Supreme Court issued their immunity ruling, uh, in favor of Donald Trump. I guess, uh, Alina Haba was immediately on Fox News within minutes of that decision coming down and offered up her opinion, even though she freely admitted, she didn't even read it yet. In fact, even if she had wanted to read it, she didn't have time to do it. But of course, that didn't stop her from completely misrepresenting what is actually in that opinion. Here's what Haba said. She started off by saying, obviously, I haven't read the decision as it just came out, and I've read little parts of it. Here's what I think. I think that the justices made the right decision. Now, before I continue, let me, let me just put into context what just happened.

She's called on the air like, Hey, immediately talk about this decision and what's in it. And she's like, well, I haven't read it, but here's everything. I think like at that point, Fox News should be like, well, just hold up then stop. Like, no, why? Why? Why do we want to hear from you when you don't even know what's in it? And as I said, she then went on to completely misrepresent what is in the ruling. She said, this absolute immunity is important for all presidents. I I, I've said it time and time again, I've argued on immunity for President Trump, and I think they did get it right, uh, that they recognize absolute immunity exists. Another thing that I do think needs to be pointed out is that they said presumptive immunity exists for acts within the outer perimeter of his official acts. So what's going to happen now is that they basically have said, sorry, Jack Smith, you don't get to just impede and intrude on the executive branch.

We get to have protections for presidents who are doing things while they're in office so that they don't come out and get targeted and cri criminally and civilly sued. It's incredibly important. It was a good decision, but you're misrepresenting what that presumptive immunity means. Even John Roberts writing in his decision, specifically talking about Donald Trump trying to influence Mike Pence to reject the electoral college votes, he even said that that goes back to the lower courts, even though he has the presumption of immunity that will be for the courts to decide. So no, that was not the Supreme Court telling us, sorry Jack Smith. You don't get to do this. And, and that's honestly, like I talked about this at Ring of Fire kind of angers me. I'll admit, um, that everybody, even the legal scholars that I routinely quote here, um, have, have told us like, oh my God, this is like the end of the world basically. It,

It's not, it, it genuinely is not. Folks, this might be like the best thing we could have hoped that this particular Supreme Court would hand down because the presumption of immunity is left for the courts to determine, including, as I mentioned, Trump trying to get Pence to overturn the results. Do you know what that means? That means that the court, the appellate court in DC that already told Trump, you're not immune, they get to have the final decision on whether the presumption of immunity exists there. And if they say it doesn't, then he can be prosecuted for it. Okay, that doesn't sound like the end of the world to me. Does it sound like it to you? Does it sound like the court said Jack Smith go, you know, sit on it and rotate? No, not, that's not how I'm reading. That kind of sounds like the court says, Hey, that court that already screwed Trump over once they get to make the final decision, okay, something not exactly too worried about that.