At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on pending judicial nominees, Sen. Adam Schiff asks whether a president who enriches himself, takes bribes to change Gulf policy or demands money from a media organization to approve a merger is immune. The nominee cites the Brewster bribery case and the tests in Trump v. United States, and Schiff says the president "has immunity now thanks to your work in part." Schiff ends: "So you're not going to answer the question."
The receipt
- Who
- Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
- Where
- hearing - Senate Judiciary Committee, nomination of Justin Smith to the Eighth C
- Original footage
- Forbes Breaking News · watch the full video from this moment
- Length
- 58 seconds, unedited within the cut
Read the transcript
Don't refer me. Just answer the question in your view if the president enriches himself through his office Is he immune or is that purely personal conduct? Yeah, so I think the United States versus Brewster decisions Okay, you're not in your answer me in question. Let me ask you a different one see if you'll answer that If a president took bribes To change the country's policy in the Gulf purely personal or subject to immunity. Brewster dealt with bribes and in that case the court said that a legislature could be a legislator could be prosecuted for bribery. When we talk about a legislator we're talking about the president of the United States who has immunity now thanks to your work in part. So let me ask you another question if a president demanded money from a media organization in order to approve a merger, immune or purely personal conduct subject to prosecution? Every hypothetical situation will be addressed by the tests in Trump versus United States on what type of immunity would apply. So you're not going to answer the question.
Machine transcript of the clip's audio; names are checked, small words may differ.