April 25, 2024
31,040
248
230
1.54%
Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
1:26Now PlayingThe Supreme Court justices tried to strike a balance Thursday between honoring former President Donald Trump’s bid for absolute immunity in the 2020 election subversion case against him and opening up future presidents to frivolous, politically motivated prosecution.
“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,” Justice Neil Gorsuch stressed at one point.
Trump attorney John Sauer kicked off more than two and a half hours of oral arguments by pointing to historical precedents in which US presidents took official acts that could have led to criminal charges.
Allowing Trump to face the four-count indictment secured this past August by special counsel Jack Smith, Sauer argued, would open up both George W. Bush and Barack Obama to prosecution for their handling of the war on terror — with the attorney citing the latter’s authorization of drone strikes against US-born terror suspects in Yemen.
Read more at
#supremecourt #donaldtrump #government
The New York Post is your source for breaking news, news about New York, sports, business, entertainment, opinion, real estate, culture, fashion, and more.
Subscribe to New York Post Sports
Catch the latest news here
Follow The New York Post on:
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.