states supreme court have to say when a state goes rogue. and decides to completely defy the courts precedence. yeah, that was a lot of the argumentation, yet if you have a constitutional right and you come up with some crafty scheme to deny it, we can still see what you re doing. this was the and, amy for you, the kind of novel jurisdictional question here, relates directly to the work you do. because the whole thing was crafted in this way to avoid an injunction, to shut down abortion providers in the state of texas, and keep them shut down as long as possible to basically bleed you drive. to make you impossible for you to stay in business and continue providing health care for women. what effect has it had? you know, the effect has been devastating, chris. it s right you re right, is there to block access, to make it more difficult for us to provide, it s their or to threaten and intimidate and
who have found meaning and purpose in the face of great personal difficulty through solidarity. lastly, what is your message to senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema the two democrats who are holding up the budget reconciliation bill saying we don t need to spend so much on health care or education or child care and the rest? well, that is an important and difficult question because the two of them have seemed so impervious to actionable argumentation and emotional appeals. i guess i might try to persuade them they could be much more popular and powerful if they took a different approach. joe manchin would win many more supporters in west virginia if he showed them he was taxing the from wall street and sill convalley and used the money to create thousands of new jobs for his constituents. imagine how many joe manchin child care centers and community health care clinics we could build in west virginia. wouldn t that be a better way to
that ended up leaking and killing us. what i m concerned is there was something intentional. jesse: you think the chinese intentionally leaked this virus? i m glad you said and i didn t say it. the reason i say this, they won t let us in and the presumption has to be if they won t let us in to investigate, you end up thinking the worse. i could be wrong, but that is why we arrived at that point. i say and i declare it. dana: ebeling that senator paul and dr. fauci both want the best for their constituents and so i think it s very important that the argumentation has gotten to be like a political lightning rod to move people one way or another from a very good to get to the bottom of it. would love more focus on the china piece and whatever was happening in the lab, it could
purpose, not just overly broad requests documents, including campaign data, what does congress hope to learn from all of this. this all does seem more political argumentation than legal? that s right. you know, i just had a chance to read the complaint and i was not overwhelmed by its crafting. let s put it that way. we ll see what a court will say, but as they say, the law does not appear to be on the former president s side. the statute is not on his side. the judgment has already been made by the real president, and the committee needs this information and a lot more to reach conclusions about what happened and then what we need to recommend legislatively so that this never can happen again. so steve bannon s another individual who s essentially thumbing his nose at the committee s jurisdiction. we have the ap obtained a letter
provides. you know, i remember when there was richard nixon who had tried to keep the tapes from the public. that case rocketed up to the supreme court and was decided very promptly, there was no need to allow this to go on forever. especially since the legal basis for this is all very weak. yes there s a little question for the judges that they feel some sense of piecing imperative here. or as a later language, that s probably gonna be on later, and up to the supreme court the members who were appointed by donald. trump their argument here is that your point about frivolous is that the legislative committee fails to meet the basic requirements, that to request documents in campaign polling data, what does congress hope to learn from all of this? this all the seem more political argumentation than legal. that is right. i just had a chance to read the