people, it doesn t go that far. it doesn t go that far, start. i look at what president biden said today and think, 0k, biden said today and think, ok, this is a good start, but we need to do a lot more. and i also agree with the argument that the at menstruation has done a good job on variety of fronts, but testing is not one of them. the administration. they didn t stockpile in the spring and summer, evenin stockpile in the spring and summer, even in fall they didn t take it as seriously as they should have. that leaves us caught behind the eight ball saw what he was asked a question about whether he was considering a reversal of the travel ban, and he said he considering a reversal of the travel ban, and he sai ban, and he said he would discuss that in the ban, and he said he would discuss that in the next ban, and he said he would discuss that in the next few ban, and he said he would discuss that in the next few days, - ban, and he said he would discuss that in the ne
his accounting firm, to stop his banks from producing his personal records not relating to the presidency, even justice kavanaugh, the newest justice, conservative justice on the court at that point said, no, executive privilege doesn t go that far. honestly, don, if the court were to waver or even be split on this issue if they did take it, that s one more nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of this u.s. supreme court because this should be a slam dunk. yeah. elie, the court is calling the insurrection a singular event in the nation s history and that trump s advisers played a key role. are the judges saying there may be evidence of the former president s involvement in the insurrection? how did you read that? yeah. the opinion, don, goes beyond what it has to say about what the committee is doing here. they could have just said, look, the committee has a legitimate legislative purpose. that s good enough for us. but they spent pages and very strong language saying that january 6
they can actually expedite it. i think because it involves dueling presidents, a former president and the sitting president, and it is critical to the separation of powers and other issues. executive privilege does not have a lot of law around it. i think they will take it. it would be unlikely that they wouldn t. i am not so sure that the court is going to rule in favor of donald trump. i say this because, remember, when donald trump tried to float the executive privilege flag to stop his accounting firm, to stop his banks from producing his personal records, not relating to the presidency, even justice kavanaugh the newest justice, conservative justice on the court at that point said, no, executive privilege doesn t go that far. honestly, don, if the court were to waiver or even be split on this issue if they did take it that is yet one more nail in the coffin of the legitimacy of this u.s. supreme court because this should be a slam dunk.
ivanka, ivanka being in the white house raises other issues of executive privilege. if they want to talk about the campaign period, executive privilege doesn t go that far. we know elijah cummings, the chairman of the committee, has told reporters he s interested in talking to everyone in the trump administration, there have been letters going back and forth on exactly that topic. some democrats yesterday were expressing a little bit of concern about going after the children, at least trying to talk to them, knowing that will ignite the president in ways that, you know, who knows where that would go. there s also federal prosecutors interested. we know they have been wanting to, they ve been circling around the trump business, that means wanting to talk to donald trump jr., eric trump, ivanka trump. they want to interview them and see if their statements square up with what michael cohen said. we ve had inconsistencies, we ve seen it before, over and over
congressman gaetz said before we came on. the suggestion that he s making is that perhaps the president doesn t go that far. and instead moves this money around. as you were describing. and that s a different kettle of fish. he won t get as much money. this whole thing is about circumventing congress. this doesn t buy him as much trouble. it depends on the pot. there s no national emergency. national emergency gives him more legal authority. but more political jeopardy in terms of what pots he taking from projects around the country. that were meant for people hit by disaster. someone like you, rick, should have the same argument. no matter what he does. which is we don t like the executive going around congress. i repeatedly express concern about using this emergency like a declaration. he does have flexibility.