and to show that they can act like real justices and the in that is the supreme court. it should not be difficult because the language of section three of the 14th amendment is perfectly clear and unambiguous. the original purposes are completely clear. you know, when the radical republicans who added this to the constitution in the 19th century first started on the house side, it was far broader. they wanted to disenfranchise for life anybody who had participated in insurrection or rebellion. and on a got over to the senate, they said that is far too broad. we want to zero in on the most culpable offenders, the people actually public officials at the time, who sworn an oath to support the constitution but then violated the oath by engaging in succession and sedition and a rebellion. even then, we won't disenfranchise them. somebody like jefferson davis or donald trump can still vote. it suggests that they can never be trusted in public office
completely clear. you know, when the radical republicans who added this to the constitution in the 19th century first started on the house side, it was far broader. they wanted to disenfranchise for life anybody who had participated in insurrection or rebellion. and on a got over to the senate, they said that is far too broad. we want to zero in on the most culpable offenders, the people actually public officials at the time, who sworn an oath to support the constitution but then violated the oath by engaging in succession and sedition and a rebellion. even then, we won't disenfranchise them. somebody like jefferson davis or donald trump can still vote. it suggests that they can never be trusted in public office again, which makes a lot of sense. it's a very clear in the four corners, essentially section three at the 14th amendment, what they meant. the basic question that the justices have to answer is, who can we actually believe in constitutionalism? are we going to follow the
one of the things he did not do was drain the swamp. the swamp got worse in his four years. you had people like christopher wray and people in power who were not getting the job done. you've got to take very swift action and make it happen. >> no, the gop strategists, a piece on the hill, that are predicting on the senate side and on the house side, a turnout disaster if somehow trump doesn't become the nominee saying that many of his core supporters who are estimated to make up 25% or 35% of the party base will take their ball and go home. we saw this somewhat in georgia during the runoff elections, governor. are you concerned about that? how will you spur turnout if indeed you win the nomination? >> i would also say 2022 in georgia you saw governor brian kemp win a thumping reelection better than a lot of people were really of electing.
crossings are going down, inflation is going down, unemployment is going down. so at the end of the day, they can continue their infighting, they can continue fighting about who is more loyal to trump. and they can continue under the shadow of trumpism. what we've talked about at the beginning of the segment. who really has power over them? but outside? the country keeps moving. and outside it's looking a lot better for joe biden. so long as it continues. as it well. >> eugene, we often talk about how kevin mccarthy has lost control of his block. of the extreme far wing of the maga way if you will, on the house side. but i don't feel we talk about mitch mcconnell enough in the same context. because when you look at what tommy tuberville is doing, what j.d. vance is doing, and what others are doing. it seems very odd that he is unable to rein them in.
he is cautiously feeling his way now. >> bringing it back to home. let me take you to alabama and senator tuberville's stand against the pentagon's policies on reproductive care for military to go off base and get paid for abortions and other reproductive health care. that has been adapted. it's embedded as an amendment in the just passed defense authorization bill on the house side. it's going over to the senate. this debate will be broadened with other issues. what do you say to the senators and house members who put social policy demands, requirements into the defense bill? >> they know exactly what they are doing. in past decades, literally, we never held up the defense bill. it got sorted out in the house armed services committee. they get to vote on it. we should not involve the
for instance, usually the justice department will not give them anything regarding an ongoing or active case. but they can try to make jack smith's life miserable. they can condemn him publicly, inundate him with subpoenas or demands for records, and they canner could try to restrict funding it the justice department or the fbi in retaliation. so there are some things congress can do to fight on behalf for trump, but they cannot stop this case from moving forward. that is well outside their power. >> we heard from jim jordan, matt gaetz, and those house republicans that one typically hears from in defense of the former president. how representative of the broader republican conference are these outspoken members? are there some whom typically you would expect to hear from that you are not now? >> right. on the house side, it's correct
Transcripts for MSNBC The Katie Phang Show 20240604 12:16:15 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
president to indict the leading opponents facing him. he says i and every other american who believes in the rule of law stand with president trump against this grave injustice. house republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable. so, suggesting they are going to use their power to do something, to look into this investigation. now, just a couple things to point out. he says president biden indicted donald trump. it wasn't president biden, it's a federal grand jury led by a special counsel. he said that joe biden kept classified documents for decades, trying to compare the two, but we know from what we heard about trump's own attorney on our air that this -- charges stem beyond just holding classified documents. and also, anderson, there is a divide within the top republican leaders, on the house side, mccarthy, steve scalise, rushing to trump's defense, attacking the justice department, even before seeing any of the facts and evidence. on the republican side in the senate, silent from mitch
if it's part of that and look into this investigation. now just a couple things to point out here anderson. he says president biden indicted donald trump. it wasn't present, biden was a federal grand jury led by a special counsel. he said that joe biden kept classified documents for decades, trying to compare the two. but we know from what we heard from trump's own attorney on air just a few minutes ago, that the least discharge dates beyond just holding classified documents dealing with obstruction and other issues as well. and also anderson, to point out to you, there has a divide within the top of republican leaders. on the house side, mccarthy steve scalise, the number two republican, rushing to trump's defense and packing the justice department even before seeing any of the facts. on the republican side the senate, silence for mitch mcconnell, the main one leading the, and the number two republican john thune, yet to comment so far. >> manu raju, thanks very much. back now with our panel. should we be surprised to hear
he has to deliver at least half the house majority. they feel confident about that. they do know that conservatives don't like the bill. you have groups like freedom works, others out there pummelling it. there's a group called aan, they're a pro mccarthy group. the next 48 hours are going to be pretty frantic on the house side. >> there's going to need to be democrats who support this. we heard some up happiness from congressman jayapal and others on the left. how are they going to approach the vote? >> there's a very short amount of time to get this complicated legislation through the house and the senate. if the house rules committee does clear this, it tees it up