Page 7 - Executive Immunity News Today

Again, i am not going to rat my republican colleagues off. this is an opportunity for them to get serious. i understand they saw themselves as the presidents public defenders in these closed depositions. now the lights are on, the american people are watching and they want to know for the sake of our children is this acceptable in our country? >> i mean, it is a question they have to answer because if the next president is a democrat and they pick up the phone and ask the french to dig up dirt o...

Weekend, i believe, in an answer to a question from kelly odonnell of nbc suggesting that he knew there was some negative information thats going to be coming out soon about lieutenant colonel vindman. so i think as the hearings become more public, there is a real desire by the president himself and his allies to discredit these witnesses and make them appear to be partisan actors. >> unbelievable. phil rucker, thank you so much for spending some time with us. after the break, the white house gi...

Democrats do not want republicans and the white house to have a chance to move -- you know, to gather their notes and compare notes, plan testimony of these witnesses. democrats know theres some strategic value in inviting people or subpoenaing them and then having them show up rather quickly before the administration can either move to block their testimony or try to coordinate wit other witnesses. >> great point. and hans, im going to repeat something that house intelligence chairman adam schi...

So theyre sitting in a court just one level below the supreme court, 10:00 a.m. eastern time streaming live on c-span and nbcnews.com. this is an appeal of this federal court ruling calling the presidents claim to executive immunity from crimes he committed while in office or before, calling that, quote, repugnant to the nations governmental structure. i wonder how the appeals going to go. if you are able to check it out, i will say the thing to listen for is not only whether the subject of this...

The president but relatives and persons and business entities associated with him in potentially unlawful private activities are in fact above the law. this court finds aspects of such a doctrine repugnant to the nations governmental structure and constitutional values." repugnant. so that was the somewhat clarion ruling of the federal district court that is getting reviewed on appeal tomorrow. its going to be an hour-long argument before a panel of three federal judges. this is a federal appeal...

Just executive privilege, but executive immunity, saying not only might he decline to answer some specific questions designed to promote candor in providing advice to the president, but he is not even going to show up. you know, that alone is problematic, and we saw it in the nixon administration, that refusal to comply with legitimate inquiries from the congress is an impeachable offense. and so even if they dont get relief in the courts, maybe at some point members of congress will say, this r...

Constitution. maybe you give him a pass when he doesnt understand what the rules are. hes already been on notice that this is a violation of the law and to use the platform of the g7 to tout his bungalows in the form as you say of an infomercial is absolutely a blatant violation of the constitution. >> so there was a mention today about the subpoenas. for rob porter that were issued by the house judiciary committee. this gets to the crux of one of the issues here. its a longstanding pattern and ...

>> the help of very government friendly policies, not taking away your work but the rich have gotten richer for 40 years and corporations of america pay nothing in taxes. >> not sure this interview will help or hurt him but he is bottoming out at 1% in most polls so the only way is to go up. >> thank you so much, appreciate it, house democrats are suing former white house counsel don mcgann to force him to testify. there laws it calling him the most important witness other than the president on ...

Compelled to testify before congress with with respect to matters related to her service as a senior adviser to the president. the house oversight committee promised to hold her in contempt with congress if she refused to testify. with us, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, barbara mcquade, and barb, as you listen to kellyanne, can she hide behind what that thing is she was talking about legally? >> not at all. we heard of the white house invoking this doctrine of executi...

>> not at all. we heard of the white house invoking this doctrine of executive immunity which doesnt exist. there is only one court that has ever addressed it. it came up when harriet meyers was subpoenaed to testify during the bush administration, and the court said it doesnt exist. if an aide to the president is subpoenaed to testify, they must appear. they may invoke executive privilege, that is a legitimate doctrine, but it has to be invoked on a question-by-question basis when it gets into ...