Capitol Report Full Broadcast (April 25)

Good evening and welcome to the Capitol Report on Entity Television. I'm Steve Lance. Here's a look at what's coming up. The Supreme Court weighing arguments in former President Trump's claim of presidential immunity. The justices appear divided. Entity's Washington correspondent Jack Bradley is at the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court today, hearing oral arguments over whether former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution. This for his decisions while in office. An appeals court in Washington previously rejecting his immunity claim. Entity's Washington correspondent Jack Bradley has more from the Supreme Court. The nine justices heard oral arguments on Thursday over whether former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his actions in 2020. This case all boils down to special counsel Jack Smith of the DOJ who charged Trump with interfering with the 2020 election results. Trump has pled not guilty and said that he was acting in his official capacity as president at the time. He said that presidential immunity is important because future presidents without this immunity would not act on anything out of fear of prosecution when they left office. Here are some highlights from the hearing. The defendant asked the Arizona House speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud. Absolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on a matter of enormous federal interest and concern attempting to defend the integrity of a federal election to communicate with state officials and urge them to view what he views as their job under state law and federal law. That's an official act. What petitioner is asking for is a broad blanket immunity that would protect the president, a former president, from any criminal exposure absent impeachment and conviction which has never happened in our history. The Supreme Court could send this case back to a district court for further consideration. They could also rule in Trump's favor or in the Justice Department's favor. If they rule in Trump's favor, then this entire prosecution goes away and it could even impact his Georgia RICO case. If they rule in the Justice Department's favor, then this presidential immunity no longer applies to Trump and he would be tried as a regular defendant. If re-elected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the case. Now, justices are expected to rule on this case by the end of June, but it's unclear if the entire case will come to fruition by the November election. Reporting from Washington, D.C., Jack Bradley, NTD News. Meanwhile, outside of the Supreme Court, protesters gathering behind the barricades. NTD's Sam Wong was in the crowd to find out what they had to say about former President Trump's immunity case. And what are you here for today? Just a lot of reasons. I like to bring peace. I get people singing and dancing together, except I'm being bombarded by this lady. But I just want to show support for Donald Trump. He's going to win this case. He's going to win all four cases. And I see you got Jack Smith on your beanie right now. Tell us what that's about. Merrick Garland, the patriarchy, is responsible for this delay in this state. So, finally, after all that time, nearly two years, Jack Smith is the person responsible, and I'm all here for it. Do you think the president should be immune from prosecution? All presidents are. But there is a process called impeachment. They made two attempts. He was acquitted both times. There should not be complete immunity. If there was, then we basically would be like Russia. The man, his entire life, from when he was a five-year-old, he was throwing rocks at a baby. He's evaded responsibility throughout his 77 years. I see on your sign here, it says, on your sign, it says, cuckoo, toxic loser. So what's that all about? Cuckoo. You know that colloquialism? If Trump won and he started attacking Biden, you watch them get how mad they'll get if the tables are turned. Trump won't do that. It's obvious that the American people really do love Donald Trump. And it'll be a landslide as he puts it. And to discuss the legal implications of former President Trump's immunity case, we're happy to have Professor William Jacobson. He's the director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. William Jacobson, thank you so much for joining. Thanks for having me on. Of course, William. Quite an historic day today. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments regarding former President Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution. Trump's attorney argued that such immunity is crucial for a president to be able to act boldly and without fear of political retribution. What do you make of his arguments here? How will the court ultimately see this based on what you heard today in terms of the line of questioning and the attorney's responses? Well, the argument was close to two and a half hours, so the justices obviously are taking it very seriously. And it's hard to know how it's going to parse out, but people need to keep in mind the issue here, the legal issue which the court took, is whether the president has immunity for official acts. There's no dispute that purely private acts do not have presidential immunity. And I think that was the issue. And there was a lot of discussion during this two and a half hours as to how you draw that distinction and what happens when you have a mix of official and unofficial or official and private acts going on. And that's what I think is going to be the really tough part for the court to sort out here. William, with regard to a statute interpretation dispute, could you give us an idea of the exchange between Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson and Trump's attorney Sauer regarding the, I guess, quote, clear statement requirement in the statute, which Sauer is said to have forfeited by not stating it initially? Well, right. The argument from the justice was that this was not raised below, and therefore you can't raise issues for the first time in the Supreme Court. That's not the nature of the court. And so I don't know what the record is, whether it's clear enough. And the issue there, the legal issue, is whether a generalized criminal statute, one which does not expressly purport to apply to the president, can be a basis for prosecuting the president. And again, that was another issue that came up. It was raised by Justice Jackson. And I don't know whether it will enter into the court's view at all on this. I think the court's going to rule on the immunity issue and leave everything else for the lower courts to sort out. To your previous point, much of the debate centered on differentiating between official and private acts in the charges against Trump. His attorney argued that official acts should be removed from the indictment. How would this distinction ultimately impact the case's prosecution? Well, it depends how far it goes. Again, you get into this murky area where someone may have a partial official, partial private, and the Trump team wants the official act immunity to be fairly expansive, really anything touching on official acts, anything within the orbit of official acts. So I think it would gut much of the prosecution case. I don't know how much would be left because really it was things that he did while he was president that are the alleged basis for the crimes. Lastly, special counsel appointment regarding Jack Smith. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith, noting that he was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Is such an appointment necessary? And does this suggest a potential basis for an appeal? Well, that's an issue that's coming up in the Florida case particularly and can be raised. I don't think the Supreme Court has it in front of it right now on this matter of immunity, but that may be a signal that there's at least one justice on that court who wants somebody to come to the court to question the appointment. And that the argument is that this is an unlawful appointment of the special prosecutor and special counsel. And so it's not in front of the court there. I can't imagine they're going to rule on it, but it's clearly on the mind of Clarence Thomas. William Jacobs, as always, really appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And coming up just moments ago, former President Trump speaking out after day seven of his criminal trial in Manhattan. We'll have the latest on witness testimony in the gag order and how Trump plans to make a play to win New York in 2024. And Secretary of State Antony Blinken visiting China. This to meet with top CCP officials. Former Senator Doug Jones will join us to assess that and more after the break here on NTV News. How'd it happen? She showed up dead on arrival. This never gets easier. It does when you call car shield before your car breaks down. Look at these prices. The camshaft, transmission, engine. Don't people know a plan through car shield could protect up to 5000 parts and systems. You hate to see it. An out of warranty car is going to break down eventually. Right. Which is why they need a plan through car shield. Those expensive repair bills get paid and at the mechanic of their choice. They're notifying the family. Poor guy. He doesn't even know what's coming. Another victim of senselessly expensive repair bills. Can't save them all, but we can keep trying. Didn't have to end this way. If he did just call car shield before his car broke down. Exactly. Protect yourself from the unprecedented rise in cost for parts and repairs. Call now to save money with your price lock guarantee. Call 800-429-5128. I go by Jackie. I'm 44 years old. I had three kids at the time and a single mother. I was working 60 hours a week. Still couldn't pay the bills and skip meals so that they could eat. It's been hard because one thing falls into place. Ten things fall out of place. You know, I just can't do this alone and make it work. One in five children face hunger in America. And food costs are rising. But everyone needs nourishing food to thrive. And they can when we work together so our neighbors can feed their families. Call or go online right now to join feeding America with your gift of just $19 a month. Only 63 cents a day. Together, thanks to a nationwide network of food banks, dedicated volunteers, and the monthly support of people like you. We can fill plates with nutritious food for families across America. One day my mother came over to my house and said, there's a meeting at the pantry. I said, okay. And I went. There were some ladies in there. They were from the food bank. They had several questions. Some of those were about me and my story. But it helped me to open up a little bit. We're getting closer to the day when no one in America faces hunger. But we can't do it without you. Call or go online now. Visit helpfeedingamerica.org and give $19 a month. Just 63 cents a day. 98% of donations go directly to help millions of people facing hunger. From coast to coast and in your own community. And when you give my credit card, we'll send you this exclusive canvas grocery bag to show you are a part of a movement of supporters working together to help end hunger. I have people that I can trust. I have hope. Please call now or make your monthly donation at helpfeedingamerica.org. Working together, we can end hunger in America. And welcome back to the Capitol Report. I'm Steve Lance. Former President Trump has just finished day seven of his alleged campaign finance violation trial in Manhattan. His team seeking to prove that Trump committed no crime as they cross-examined the prosecution's first witness. Joining us now live is NTD's White House correspondent, Iris Tao, who's outside of the New York City courthouse. Good evening, Iris. Tell us, what's the latest on the trial there in New York today? And what is Trump saying about it? Good evening to you, Steve. So for the past few days, Trump's been voicing frustration over a New York justice decision that made him stay here in New York for this trial instead of letting him attend the oral arguments at the Supreme Court today. But just now, on his way out of the courtroom, he said that he's actually glad to be forced to be here because it was an interesting day in court. Watch. Amazing testimony. This is a trial that should have never happened. This is a case that should have never been filed. And it was really an incredible, an incredible day. Open your eyes. And during today's court proceeding, former tabloid executive David Pecker was testifying about an alleged scheme involving Trump and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. And to buy and then bury negative stories about Trump that he said would hurt Trump But Trump's lawyers, when questioning Pecker, suggested that these so-called catch and kill deals are just standard practice at the publisher and were not criminal. And Pecker himself also admitted during his response that Pecker, that he was doing the same thing for a lot of celebrities, adding to Trump's defense that it's not a conspiracy or a crime directly only related to Trump. And meanwhile, Biden's campaign has been continuing to target Trump, saying that he was not able to continue his campaign because he was stuck in this courthouse. But Trump has actually been using his court appearances to talk to voters and campaigns, such as this morning when he was addressing the latest GDP news, interviewing his rallies here in New York City, and also after talking to some construction workers here in Manhattan at around 6 a.m. this morning. Let's take a look. New York, we have a good chance of winning New York, in my opinion. But we're going to give it a shot. The GDP just announces all the way down to 1.6 percent and it's heading south. The numbers are very bad. This is Bidenomics. And tomorrow, on Friday, we're going to see a big split screen moment as President Biden will also be in New York City as Trump continues day eight of his trial here. Steve. Certainly a lot to watch for there, Iris, in New York City tomorrow, where you'll continue to be covering the ongoing proceedings. But more importantly right now was the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments today. What did the former president have to say about that upon leaving the courthouse earlier today? So just now, Trump did give his latest reaction to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court, saying those were monumental and, again, emphasizing the importance of having presidential immunity. And that's also in our development today. The prosecutors in this New York trial are actually accusing Trump of violating the gag order for four more times. And that hearing on that is set for next Wednesday. So a lot to watch for in the coming days on these Trump legal battles. Back to you, Steve. NTV's Iris Tao reporting live from New York City. Thank you, Iris. And joining me now to assess the testimony in Trump's New York criminal trial is CEO of New Journey PAC, Archie Pruitt. Hi. Thank you so much for having me on board. It's great to have you here, Archie. In the New York trial today, David Pecker, the former top publisher there at the National Enquirer, testified about his involvement with former President Trump in suppressing stories detrimental to his 2016 campaign. How persuasive do you think Pecker's testimony in proving Trump's criminal actions were? Well, I don't believe the testimony was that persuasive from what I know. I wasn't in the courtroom. But the facts on the ground are you're in New York. You have a New York jury. It might be sort of heavily slanted to the left. So what the average American would deem effective may be far different than what those jurors in that box do. And to your point, I mean, Pecker admitted to cover up efforts aimed at benefiting Trump's presidential campaign. Given this, if in fact this is a crime, should Pecker also face charges for election interference? Yeah, I think there's two options. One, if it's a crime, is it a state-level crime or a federal crime, which the feds, if you remember, the federal government declined to prosecute on several occasions. As far as we know, I believe even the state level declined to prosecute originally on several occasions. They kept searching and searching and searching until they find someone to do so. It shouldn't be a crime. It shouldn't be prosecuted at all. If it is prosecuted, it's not just him. But should Hillary Clinton be prosecuted? Should Bill Clinton be prosecuted? How many politicians have had a newspaper search out bad things or write good stories to push a particular narrative on a campaign? In fact, we just left a series of campaigns, both with Biden in 2024. I mean, I'm sorry, Biden in 2020 and Trump, where this was done by one of the biggest news platforms, Facebook. Remember, Facebook actually put people on the ground in Georgia. They put people on the ground in Wisconsin to push a particular narrative that was pro-Biden and anti-Trump. Now, with ongoing requests from prosecutors to hold Trump in contempt for violating a gag order and Judge Juan Marchand's stern warnings to Trump's attorney, how might the public perceive the judge's handling of this case, especially if Trump winds up being held in contempt? I think the polls are clear, right? Everybody can come out and say anything about Trump, anything they want. They can castigate him. They can call him the devil beyond reproach. Trump comes out to defend himself and all of a sudden he is the devil incarnate, right? I think it's going to go badly. I think the polls are showing that because we're not talking about small margins. We're talking about big gaps where even Democrats are saying, reasonable Democrats are saying, listen, this sounds like it's a setup. It sounds like a setup. The prosecutors are inevitably going to ensure the election of Donald Trump. Now, I'll be happy about that, but I'm sure there's plenty of Democrats who will not be. Autry Pruitt, really appreciate you joining us. Thank you so much. Thank you. Today marks the 25th anniversary of a historic peaceful appeal that took place inside of communist China. On April 25th, 1999, tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners gathered outside of the Chinese Communist Party's central headquarters in Beijing. This to protest the unjust arrest of dozens of their fellow practitioners. We try to follow that spirit to continue to let people know that we can, through the peaceful dialogue, to communicate. The appeal wrapped up after a high-ranking official met face-to-face with practitioners outside of Zhongnanhai. He agreed to release those who had been detained. But in July 1999, then-Chinese leader Jiang Zemin launched a nationwide persecution against Falun Gong. Millions have since been detained and hundreds of thousands have been tortured and abused in custody and even murdered, even including forced live organ harvesting. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a spiritual discipline that consists of five gentle, slow-moving exercises. The core teachings of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance are at the center of the practice. Falun Gong practitioners continue to hold rallies around the world to call for an end to the ongoing persecution. And Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in China right now to meet with top CCP officials. He's expected to discuss a wide range of issues, including China's human rights abuses. To discuss, we have former Democratic Senator from Alabama, Doug Jones. Former Senator Doug Jones, thank you so much for joining. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. It's great to have you. Rather historic day. Before we talk about Antony Blinken, Secretary Blinken's trip to China, I have to get your thoughts, oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, this historic case, former President Trump's presidential immunity claim. What are some of your takeaways? You know, first of all, I think the court will not, in my view, buy into an argument that a president has total and complete immunity for everything that happens when he or she is President of the United States. I don't think the court is going to buy into that at all. I also don't think they will buy into an argument that a president has to be impeached before. That's clearly not anything the way the Constitution says. That said, they appear to be distinguishing between official acts and unofficial acts, and certainly unofficial acts, even the former president's lawyer conceded that unofficial acts, personal acts are not, you know, there is no immunity for those. I think the question that the court's going to have to grapple with is trying to delineate official acts and whether or not there is some immunity in some cases. And so where I think that this case is going, quite frankly, seems to be that they're going to kick this back to either the Court of Appeals or the District Court for additional findings about this particular indictment and how it pertains and the facts surrounding that. That's, at least the tea leaves that I'm seeing show that, but who knows? It's going to be fascinating to watch it play out. For sure. Nobody really knows where it's going to land. With regard to Secretary of State Antony Blinken in China, he's meeting with high-level officials over there to discuss China's trade policies, various economic practices. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen hinted that nothing is off the table in response to China's, I guess you would call them, non-market practices. Does this suggest potential trade sanctions? And what outcomes are expected if these talks, sanctions are not implemented? Well, you know, look, I think when the secretary says nothing is off the table, she just really means that there is a lot of issues, I think, that exist currently between China and the United States. You've got trade. You've also got fentanyl issues. The TikTok ban may be a part of that now as well. So I think that all, everything is on the table in terms of what will be discussed. I think the fentanyl issue is going to be really big for them to talk about. But I also believe that what will happen is that there will be a myriad of discussions. You know, right now, things have kind of, they're not as tense with China as they have been in the last year or so. I think that Russia and Ukraine will be on the table to talk about. That's a really big point right now, as well as the fentanyl issue. So I think everything is going to be discussed. And then once those discussions take place, I think they'll come back and make some decisions. And that's when sanctions and other things may be on the table to discuss the reaction from the Chinese and where they'll go. And to your point, so many important things on the table right now. And given the complex trade and geopolitical interests between the U.S. and China, how can the United States effectively balance these with the urgent need to address China's human rights track record in abuses without just paying lip service? Well, I think that that's always difficult for any administration to do. I think this administration, though, is committed to human rights issues around the world. They're committed to anti-corruption around the world. And I think you've got to be tough. You've got to look at the situation. But at the same time, when you recognize the bigger picture, the geopolitical picture, you've got to take a lot more into account and knowing that everything that the United States does will have some type of effect, maybe positive, maybe negative. But it's one of those diplomatic things that it's not easy when you've got a player as big as China, big on the world stage as China is right now, getting bigger. It's a difficult situation to do those kind of things that are in our interest and in our core beliefs, but try to balance that with where they are in the world and trying to keep our national security is important. And keeping our national security at the forefront with China, Iran, Russia is always important. And that's the balance I think that this president's got to make. Former Alabama Senator Doug Jones, thank you so much for joining us today. It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me. And for around the clock original news coverage, visit us at NTD.com and download our NTD app. That's all we have for you this evening on the Capitol Report. Thank you for watching. From the nation's Capitol, I'm Steve Lance. Have a nice evening. We'll see you back here tomorrow.