this okay, the people that love trump say x and the people that can t stand trump say y. or democrats say x and republicans say y. and i think we lose sight of what this is fundamentally about which is the integral nation of our democracy that losers who lose accept the loss. i mean that is as necessary in preserving a democracy as almost anything you could imagine in our society. for 240 years. the second part is this debate really should be in all regard, mike pence should think about this way, is the power of one more important than the will of the people? that s really what this it s not about whether who can t stand donald trump or who loves donald trump or whatever else it is. does the will of the people matter more than the interests and power of the one? and to me, mike pence ought to choose the path of the will of the people and i imagine in that case he s not going to benefit no matter how much he tries to
so if they want to bring him in and have him talk all about the criminal activityq donald trump has undertaken that wasn t charged, we re happy to have that conversation. speaking of that,xdñr q■ me actually play for you something that mark pomerantz told nicolle on thise1 program last month abt guilt and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. watch. we thought all of those thingsqxd pointed in the direct of prosecution. but there s açó real debate abo what are the standards to apply. i feel very strongly, as i wrote in the book, that it has to be the same standards. the decisions whether to bring criminal charges is notñr a political decision. it s a law enforcement decision. and it needs to be made by the same criteria that prosecutors use ayiq we go about our busine day to day in case after case. where do you think this case ist( headed, congressman? well, i think what s really important to underscore here is that mr. braggok by all account isó[■ i know okhim.
your brother has landed in the dark lands. they re under bowser s control. hang on, luigi. yes! fire! only in theaters april 5th. rated pg. hey there, everybody. it is 4:00 in new york. i m ayman nicolle wallace. sitting where we are today on the precipice of a generational moment in american history, one could be excused for thinking but this afternoon s developments in donald trump s
pattern of illegality. and it was accused of juste1 beg a personal checkbook for donald trump. it was eventually as part of a civil matter in this case, it was forced to dissolve and to pay $2 million out to charities. ande1 separately, alvinçó bragg ran he s a politician andxd ran for public office that he has now.3w■ and when he was running he ran and mentioned many times that a key thing would be bringing, you know, justice to donald trump if it was deserved. but he definitely ran on that sort of platform. he even said as a point of pride at times, he mentioned even once that new york attorney geneu>&, he was in the office when the new york attorney general brought more than 100 cases against thei] trump administration. and it s everything from migrants at the border to the m5)frs travel ban. but you know, he s been very clear in saying ie1 know donald trump but i know what he s capable of and that he wanted to bring him to justice.
you. even republicans in the senate are critical of this effort by of john cornyn telling access he prefers they, quote, work on thi agenda they ran onk whatxd do you make of what is happening on the house republican side with jim jordan and hisçó colleagues going afte alvin bragg so aggressively before an indictment has even been rendered? well,q it s clearly anr to defend donald trump and use and abuse the power of congress in order to intervene, interfere, and potentially obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation and potential prosecution. it s far outside the bounds of anything that congress has jurisdiction over, and i thought that district attorney bragg s letter today really made that so clear and plain as to why it is so off base for these three sáá an accusatory, inflammatory and