Page 386 - Arguing News Today

If youre government official, you cant use your position to plaug private business interest. thats exactly what she did. its hard to imagine a clearer instance of that. thats why you had the buy partisan leadership of the house oversight committee calling for action here. more over, it comes against the backdrop of a pattern of this administration and this president using the white house to plug the presidents familys business interests, supporters business interests. hes continuing to hold owne...

Work with democrats to come up with new executive order, thats a long-term, no not a pause and answer for the long-term. >> you realize youre talking about the trump administration right? >> pass muster. >> youre absolutely right the president has the prerogative to decide national security but not without checks and balances and could be perhaps compelling argument in favor why we cant return to the pretravel ban vetting procedures but the responsibility of the court is not pull those justifica...

On february 9, 2017, on the 20th evening of the trump presidency, a federal appeals court unanimously blocking the presidents travel ban. there are three major reasons this court ruled against trump. first, the judges rejected his argument that his power over immigration is so broad judges couldnt review it. that may sound like the sweeping argument of a king which might be why trumps lawyers left that long pause when conceding it was their position when questioned by these judges earlier this w...

Evening of the trump presidency, a federal appeals court unanimously blocking the presidents travel ban. there are three major reasons this court ruled against trump. first, the judges rejected his argument that his power over immigration is so broad judges couldnt review it. that may sound like the sweeping argument of a king which might be why trumps lawyers left that long pause when conceding it was their position when questioned by these judges earlier this week. >> are you arguing then that...

I was there, chairman of the california republican party at the time. >> democrats werent energized in this election earring. >> making my point. >> the democratic base was very fired up in the most recent election in 2016 because donald trump is a one man nuclear reactor charging up democratic base. no one is going to say the base is more charged up more than on election day and hillary clinton was blown out in the electoral college. politics is about addition. dont see anything coming from the...

For time spent arguing has held up work on repealing and replacing obamacare and tax reform, top priorities of president trump and the g.o.p. congress. >> good tax reform, we believe we can get the kind of talking them of growth we need which will solve so many problems in the country. tax reform is critical because now we have the worst tax code in the industrialized world bar none. >> republicans set a 200-day goal of repealing and replacing obamacare and finishing tax reform by august. that w...

A muslim ban? that did seem to come up. there were even questions about whether there had been evidence submitted, previous articles or previous quotations from the president from rudy giuliani, his adviser and friend, saying it was a muslim ban. do they have to prove its not per se a muslim ban to prevail? >> great question. this came up in two ways in the hearing. first it came up over whether this is even reviewable, thats just legal jargon for do you get into court or not? there are certain ...

Just legal jargon for do you get into court or not? there are certain things, by the way, the president does, drone attacks being an example, where the courts dont consider that reviewable in the normal course. you could imagine a bad faith use of drones that might make it to court but generally no. so what doj is arguing is this isnt reviewable, you dont get to the look at this. and the judges were what incredulous in their own judgy way were saying well, what would we get to look at this? what...

Judges were extremely inclined to maintain this day by the district court. we are in the middle but we are talking about it. its unfolding as we speak. it is rather speculative. that was a pretty hostile bench, the federal government was facing. i am not sure it was appropriat appropriate. what they were arguing was the merits of the case and i think they were sort of doing whats not in their purview. they are supposed to judge whether or not the president exceeded his authority. its a very hard...

Restrictions by the president. okay, now, this is not just me. this is for obama, for ronald reagan, for the president. and this was done, very importantly, for security, something you people know more about than all of us. it was done for the security of our nation. the security of our citizens so that people come in that arent going to do us harm. and thats why it was done. and it couldnt have been written anymore precisely. its not like, oh, gee, we wish it were written better. it was written...