To access this clip without audiomarks, please purchase it, or upgrade your account.
Date
Summary
Turley on Supreme Court’s Ruling on Presidential Immunity: ‘This Is Obviously a Win’ for Trump
Subjects
Source
Fox News Channel (FNC)
, NewsBusters

Name: Fox News Channel (FNC)
URL: https://www.foxnews.com

Name: NewsBusters
URL: http://www.newsbusters.org
Show
America’s Newsroom

Name: America’s Newsroom
URL: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/index.html
Persons
Dana Perino
, Jonathan Turley

Name: Dana Perino
Employment: Fox News
Position: Host

Name: Jonathan Turley
Employment: George Washington University Law School
Position: Professor
Event
Event location
–
Link
–
Original recording
Uploaded
07/01/2024 09:41 am
Owner
Alex (staff)
Type
Video
Format
MP4 (720x406)
Use clipper to adjust file type
Duration
0:01:52
Views
28
Purchases
6
Social views
0
Transcript
PERINO You know I ░░░░░░░░ sure if you re ░░░░░░░░ Biden White House you ░░░░░░░░ paying close attention to ░░░░░░░░ as well Because in ░░░░░░░░ situation that we find ░░░░░░░░ in in the utilization ░░░░░░░░ the justices in politics ░░░░░░░░ me go to you ░░░░░░░░ Turley for a reaction ░░░░░░░░ this decision so far ░░░░░░░░ Well this is along ░░░░░░░░ lines of what many ░░░░░░░░ us anticipated that the ░░░░░░░░ did not go with ░░░░░░░░ immunity on everything but ░░░░░░░░ say that there s ░░░░░░░░ immunity when it comes ░░░░░░░░ court constitutional powers We ░░░░░░░░ still going through the ░░░░░░░░ to see if there ░░░░░░░░ any assistance on where ░░░░░░░░ line is to be ░░░░░░░░ This case is going ░░░░░░░░ have to go back ░░░░░░░░ the district court which ░░░░░░░░ going to have to ░░░░░░░░ to sort of thread ░░░░░░░░ needle to determine what ░░░░░░░░ the case would not ░░░░░░░░ under these protections But ░░░░░░░░ is obviously a win ░░░░░░░░ President Trump in the ░░░░░░░░ that the special counsel ░░░░░░░░ arguing as with the ░░░░░░░░ court that there was ░░░░░░░░ little immunity here to ░░░░░░░░ concerned with The the ░░░░░░░░ for the government was ░░░░░░░░ the court that they ░░░░░░░░ didn t have much ░░░░░░░░ be concerned with here ░░░░░░░░ terms of any changes ░░░░░░░░ the status of the ░░░░░░░░ That s clearly not ░░░░░░░░ won the day The ░░░░░░░░ here is saying that ░░░░░░░░ do need lines here ░░░░░░░░ to protect presidents So ░░░░░░░░ have some breathing room ░░░░░░░░ you have to sort ░░░░░░░░ wonder how the context ░░░░░░░░ the justices I mean ░░░░░░░░ they want to look ░░░░░░░░ the implications of leaving ░░░░░░░░ without protection they just ░░░░░░░░ to look around the ░░░░░░░░ Even though Manhattan was ░░░░░░░░ a federal case it ░░░░░░░░ a political prosecution in ░░░░░░░░ view of many of ░░░░░░░░ that was rather raw ░░░░░░░░ open And so this ░░░░░░░░ a context that must ░░░░░░░░ concentrated the minds of ░░░░░░░░ justices as they did ░░░░░░░░ Justice Gorsuch said and ░░░░░░░░ to write for the ░░░░░░░░ to have something not ░░░░░░░░ this case but for ░░░░░░░░ cases and future presidents.”
To view this clip's transcript, log into your Grabien account.




