specific system that holds the powerte to indict him, to potentially arrest him, to put him in court, to put him on trail. what do you do when the court compels you to do something indo you attack that system with the same vuhemmance and with the same willingness to burn down one of the pillars of our democracy? i mean all around the world we know what itun looks like when far-right leaders try to disassemble those kinds of systems in order to assert and maintain power for themselves. we've never had to contend with that here. we have a lot to learn quickly how to shore those things up. stay with us tonight. we've got lots to come. stay witt we've got lots to come
detroit. the highway is racist, t.cording to transport secretary woodridge. >> therepo is racismrt physicaly built into some of highway our highways. >> so thiss. rolling actual demolition, okay, is startingfii onwith i three seventy five to the tune of one hundred and four million dollars. itun a all comes out of thate bt bipartisan trillion dollar infrastructure bill . so this is just the beginning of writing racial wrongsf by taking down your interstate system. >> so this is the environment, racism that kamala and people have talke laurad about. as and i know it was last yearthat that you went to the streets ofe new orleans. you ask people whetheropler th they wanted this overpasey wans and their community removed. let's watch. >> how would you take down the global expressway? that's the only way people keep beggin that's th g for food.k. we're saying now, are you trying to say, could you stop those traffic? traff it'shey know traffic, right? people get together and get to work. so we see each other.ld you
like would call i don't know,ec managed decline orli managed scarcity, engineered scarcity perhaps it's time we start taking this issue of food s security in the united states very seriously t and no amount f elite sneering can mask ing that reality. joining us now is rosenbaum, who's a reporter for the times and host of the show facts matter who's been covering sos this storyel closely. >> roman , what do we need to know here ?o ehey, laura , thank you so much for having me on . so about last week, my team and i started to a look into all these disparate fires happening across the country because about a week and a half ago p there was a very large poultryar plant in howardd lake, minnesota that burned down. that was a very large planter, supplied aboutut three million every single day to local supermarkets there. and so what weso w did is we had two different teams here at the other times. one team was lookingoch at the publicly available information at all these different food processors while the other it one was actually calling them to see what was up. and what we foundwe was at the very least, fortunately itun
and byle the way, she even tweeted this about me and there's me and says, oh , glenn beck actually glenn beck. why does hannity support unprincipled donald trump? and itun gets worse more resurfaced tweets or evens more disturbing one from her twitter account in twenty sixteen reads, quote,e,e don't e get it? obama is a muslim and there are lots of these tweets from another 2013. she says please pray for my babies to me or about to board the plane to california and there's a homosex female and linking out to a facebook post moments ago on one of ourem producers spoke to kathy barnett. she claims she cannot recall the context of the tweet about s obama or in any of the other a controversial quotes. and when we askedon her abouttre the tweet about a boardingrd the plane, she said to our producer, quote, i would never say that those are notd my words. i don't know ifth she's claiming that her twitter account was hacked, but." it's on her official twitter account. so with only six days b left in this campaign, there areai serious real open questions
of work to do on this courtju tomorrow morning.st the chief justice of the united states is going to have toonve convene the justices. he's going to havee to convene the clerks and all employees of the courtt and he's going to have to say that the leaker needs to come forward. and this is very, very i serious.n itun is an unprecedented breach of the court's confidentiality and it is t plainly meant too corrupthin the process within the court. i it's an assault on the courts, john, and it's got to be taken seriously. and the chiefng justice is now going to be the one who has ton: do this inside the court. let'ssk ask you, senator , one last question as conservativesn, as constitutionalists, we believe and i've argued foreve years that this is bad law and enumerated right. not in the constitution and according to part the draft, it addresses that question by saying the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating of or prohibiting abortion. roe and casey abrogated that authority. we now overrule those decisions, return
0 naturall constituency, the pictures of the internet. you'll noticee the servants of color in the background had to remain mass . cover your face, sir, if that's seems hypocritical view, what's your science? that's it forence. us tonight.. we'll be back eight pm following every weeknight upsilon and welcome to hannity. all right.we we begin with news just this minuteht nowow and we start with a fox newsew alert now according to a breaking news report from politico, the u.s. supreme court has in fact voted to overturn roe versus wade. if this report turns out to be true, abortion will now be regulated at the state level, meaning it is not going to be illegal probably in most states in the united states they'll be very restrictions. o one of the biggest issues involving this case has to do with whether or not whether ore not roe v. wade and this is what conservatives often believed constitutionalists have believed originaliststu hae believed is that it enumerated a right that did not exist within the constitution. what's interesting aboutn. this is the draft opinion, unflinching repudiation of the seventy three decision guaranteeing a federaler constitutional protection on abortionalon rights as they report in politico, planned parenthood versus caseyca that largely maintainn that right. s report i if this report is true , justice alito writes roe washe egregiously wrong from the start and we hold that roehe and casey must be overruled. he writes in the documentt labeled quote opinion of the court it is time to heed the constitution, return the issue of abortion to the people's the elected representatives. that's where the issue of th comes intoosophy play. do you enumerate a right? not specifically enumerate spelt in the constitution or should it be up tohe the states which s what conservatives have always argued deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. justices t can sometimes do change their votes and opinionsa as opinions are circulated among the different supremereur court justices. major decisionsma can be subject to multiple draftsti training sometimes until just days before the decision is unveiled . but the real heart of alito's words if in fact this remains the final decision would be roe was egregiously wrong fromre the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decisionpt has had damaging consequences. and far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, roert ioand casey have inflamed debate and deepened division in this countryy. ify we look at what they were reporting, a person familiar t with the deliberations, according to politico, said that four othero republican appointed justices clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, amy coni berrett voted with alito in the conference and held among the justices after hearingal oral arguments. this is back in december. we, a don'trgument,ck i expect i decision sometime in june, maybe july, even usually in mayy or june. but the three b democratic appointed justices breyer, sotomayor, kagan, a working on one or more dissents that would be part of any final decisionf that comes out. but it's going to be interesting to watch this absolutely be demagogued by the left in the country. but at the end of the day, the document labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, c it would indicate they may be leaning as of tonight to overruling roe v. wade. that is considered a precedent . the inescapable, inescapable conclusion is the right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history or tradition.s the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion, the draft concludes.rt in other words, abortion willl not be made not illegal by the federal government.st it willates be up to to the stao decidee.. d roe and casey abrogated that authority. we now overrule these a decisior and return our authority to the people and their elected representatives of a lot more inpresav this breaking news straight ahead tonight .tonigh but this is this is pretty interesting just to be very clear here, evenen though this s a draft, sounds like the likelihood that's where their their decision is headed toward. so we'll watch this very closely. also tonight , coming up,htin a bombshell new development from the durham probe. we also have disturbingo have dt new video showing alleged antifa rioting attackingnt republicans in portland. by the way, policee, took forevr to get there. ce the bidenle administration is celebrating a looming food shortagemi that would force america's farmers to quote, go green . really? re that's the next that's the next inflation. that's the nextal ition? hike o nowfo the food prices aren't hio enough anyway. we'll also weigh in on joe's big weekend in washington, d.c. by the way, my record is intact in all the years i've been on radio. thirty five years twenty six and a half years at foxar. i've never been to a single white house correspondents dinner and i did not break that record and show up this weekend. and i never will. particu i know they don't like me.la ply i don't particularly like them so let's not play games anyway. they did have some fun. s good at our expense. that's also good.at's also and saturday's white house correspondents dinner will give you an update. now we want to introduce you to a not so bright msnbc and c host who's having a really hard time coping with twitter's new ownership. now we go to one of their hosts. i don't really know this guy meti hassan. h his dangerous neo-nazis are now poised to takeou over the county all because elon musk bought twitter and elon musk is saying stay on twitter. all my critics feel free to attack me because that's what free speech is all about. atthat upset. ta take a look.ke we are living through an unspin koblin dangerous moment. the pro killing on pro neo-nazi faction of the republican party is poised to expand dramatically come the midterms with just two years away from donald trump, very possibly seizing executive power. if that happens p, we may lookot back on this past week as a pivotal moment when a petulant and not so bright billionaire casually bought one of the world's most influential messaging machines and just handed ithid to the far right. now today elon musk, he responded tweeting quote nbc is basically saying republicans are. w by theay way, elon, i don't know if you've ever watched the show. are you watching tonight ? every single day used to be every two years, every four years. now it's pretty much every day.o republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic. now transphobia, they want dirty air, water. they want grandma and grandpa only to eat dog a and cat food and then they want some prominent republican lookalike to take granny and grandpaalee in a wheelchair and throw them over a cliff. welcome to my world. welcome to the world of conservatism. this is the same organization that covered up hunter biden laptop. he goes on and had the harvey i weinstein story early and they killed it and they built matt lauer. his he wrote his office, wolf, and he's talking about that lock thing that had been reported.w as i don't know if that was ever ee verifiedr. lovely people, he writes. anyway, i'll add this is the same network that brings you joy read conspiracy theoristngscy t of all time, rachel maddow and until recently lione brian williams, you know the guy that saw dead bodies floating during katrina in front of his hotel that wasn't flooded and needless to say, nbc news doesn't exactly value truth neither does fake news.ns cnn for that matter, both organizations are only propagandaanda arms for the dnc. they peddle on lies, conspiracyl theories always to advanceda the socialist agenda hate on conservative everything conservative and trump and all trump supporters t. ca and on sunday, one cnn guest called for the federal government to step s in regulate discourse on twitter before it's too latetwit. want -- take a look. musk doesn't want you know, he's upset with see how dare they question him, you know what i'm saying? this is dangerous.this we can't think anymore in this country. we don't have people. no, i'm serious. we don't have people in congress who can make regulations that can make it work. i think we l can look to the western countries in europe for how they areit trying to limit it. but you need you need controls on this. you need regulation. you cannot let these guys o control discourse in this country or we are headedr we tod we are there. tll trump opened the gates of .. now they're chasing now whereer were these people when donald trump conservatives banned, suspended, canceledve shadow band? you t know, this is a common theme on the left. it's called hypocrisy. unlike many of my so-called competitorset, i've never called for any show or any host or any guest to be canceled or boycotted or censored. ori believe in free speech and e don't like what they say. i hope you tune them out. most americans already are. but according to theman the american people, you can't be trusted't. only big mother government knows right from wrong. for example, all msnbc and fakec news cnnnn freak out about ellen usque and free speech on twitter. all of a sudden they ignoredbu all this time they're allt but applauding the homeland security secretaryec and his announcement or pronouncement of creepy new disinformed a governance. s florida, as we call it on thisit show, the socialist democrats minister of leftist truth.r this here in the u.s.he there's been an uproarme in recent days about the department of homeland securitynte setting up what they call a disinformation governance board. this has beenis mostly a foxwell story and it could come upy. earlier today on cnn's state of the union. but i don't think people know what it is and what it isn't. and there's just been a lot of right wing uproar withouts. knowing what it is. so now keep in mind the dhs, they were founded after 9/11. we lost nearly three thousand of our fellow americans. they were designed to prevent another 9/11, another attack on the homeland a. butt under secretary mayorkas,ur what the department is now turne their focus inward, a complete dereliction of duty, a complete retreat from a post 9/11 world and policies to keep every american and this country safe from terrorists. t by the way, how many terrorists encounters that they have at the border ? how m forty one . we don'tmi even know how many people might have snuck in that we don't know about.ti and according to mayorkas, this and climate change, they are the crises of the day and apparently we have no one to blame but ourselves. in other words,ev the administration the greatesteves threat to this great country are we the american people not to look into domestic terrorism. thosek scary mommies and daddies at school board meetingsed that will be investigated for domestic terrorism if they dare to raise f i their voice against crt or age inappropriate . ucation and counter to this grave threat matrix announced a newth ministry of truth to be led by a far left lunatic who ironically spreads a ton ofn disinformation all the time. for example, in april 2020, nina jankowicz referred to the covid-19 lab leak theory as baseless rumor spread by trump supporters false chinese state run media frequently cited her fictitious claims using them in their own disinformation campaign and janco it's also spread misinformation playing down the hunter biden laptop. she called that a trump campaign product. another disinformed lie. she placed this information dossier author christopher steele and on twitter she enthusiastically voiced her support for hillary clinton and echoed hillary's insane claim that trump would wouldol embolden isis. no trump actually wiped them o off the planet and sent them straight to where they belongbu . butrr don't worry, let not your heart be troubled. according to mayorkas, new dis information minister is totally neutral with no bias at allll who will only act in the best interest of americans on a government disinformation board that will never abuse its power? dn't t what he's saying. and they tellhey tel sat with fa warrants. yeah, i think they didsa take a look at american citizens being monitored. no guaranteecan citiz that whato with the department of homeland security don't monitor americanu citizens who don't, but we border, change that . no, no, no. the board does not have any operational otho or capability. what it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries from the cartels and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing for years. g oh , so we're supposed to take his word for then the federal government also tell us that the fisa program. that's right. would never be used against americans. tell that to carter page and donald trump. and what about this shocking. t. report from late last week detailing how the fbide actually was caught searching millions of emails and texts and other electronic communications of americans without any warrantnini whatsoe. now the last thing this country needs is yet another government program that gets used and abused to monitor americans communication. i live this life every day.ve it's a great joy. try it one day. now to first back to tonight's g breaking newss fr from the supre court.cour here ist. what wewe know and that is the host here with what she knows. the host of fox news at night trying to bring him alongni without no co-host kayleigh mcenanyng w chaton becauseo, as politico they do have a degree of credibilityof and i read through all of this and it was breaking literallyte 10 minutes before we came on the air, shannon, and used to cover the supreme t court for fox. so you know the supreme court well, i cannot think of a single instance that i recall where there's ever been a leak at the court. so so part of me is suspicious. the specificity of it makes me think it would not w at all surprised me if this is real. yeah..ea and i have been i will say this very carefully. i have been not wai waved off that this is actually real. now remember, this is a draft dated in february. , these drafts go back and forth. they can change votes can change until it actually is signed off by the nine justices or whoever if there are people recuse all of the justices hearing the case until it's signedere off and it's issued fm the court's office officially as an opinion of the court has. it's not the real deal . so this is a draft if it is legit, as i've been led to believe it is from february, which means a lot off things could have changed.d there are there could be justices who would read this and say, wow, this is sweeping . i'm not prepared to sign up to something this sweeping or you could have five justices who've already saids this is something i will sign onto. and basically what it does if u this ends up being the opinion in some form or fashion, if it w uses this wording, it's essentially sending the idea of abortion back to the states and saying they will decide at the people there decide itss upholds the mississippi law and says roe and casey got it completely wrong. it's over 100 hundred pages. i am still reading, buttu the conclusions are there, sean, if it turns out to be what ends up as thereta the final draft. i want toy y stay with the pros for one second because it'sop very common that drafts of opinions are circulatedin for four notes from the other justices that seem to be inclined to vote a certain way. my understanding my sources at the time told me that up to the last minute that chiefe justice roberts was going to a put an end to obamacare and changed his mind at the last momentt. so i want i want our viewers to be very careful here. this is not final. this is not a final decision. decisions drastic change and change dramatically. it doesge have a little bit of credibility as i read it, as a possibility. e but it's certainly not definitive. and you've watched that process all troou the years you covered the supreme court, correct? yeah. and right>> . and you're absolutely rightaf about what happened with the affordable care act. there were essentially two opinionsing to that were being written written by the conservative wing, the more liberal wing and at times both wings thought that the chief justice john roberts was a vote with them.tt there wasem an attempt at one point when he decided to go with the liberal wing, with the among the conservatives to bring him back in to their side. they had this meeting.g. ca back together to get together and when he showed up and they realized he was noti with them, they thought there's t nothing else we can do. we've lost him at this point. f, so there a wasnd some backpe and forth and that clearly could have happened in this believe ce this februaryince dr. and like i said, i've been led to believe that this was legitimate as a february draft . a lot could have happened between now and then. i have never as you said, seen a leak like this at the court in the years that i've covered it. itvet. is astonishing that somey would release a draft opinionon outsidee the court. ifey are very tightly held. there are almost never any leaks from this one place in washington. every place else leaks like a sieve l around here, not s the court. and this is shocking actually .f you know and let me go to the political side of this . if if true , it would not surprise me as a conservano and you as somebody that knows the law as well. ll. have often argued that roe is bad law. it had enumerated rights to people that were not in the constitution and it shouldf, be noted very, very clearly that if in fact it were to be true and again, we're saying this very cautiously. this is on politico tonight and this is a pretty bombshell report. i did havet. i one person write mead and says this is likely true and i had somebody else writet me and say it's likely not true . but what it would mean for i the people in this country ist it doesn't mean abortion would be outlawed or illegal. it would be sent back to the states and the state representatives would decide within their state what the law should be , correct? rig >> that's right. and it wouldd mean that we areh no longer one of eight country son . and yes, you heard me correctly eight countries in the world that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks. exactly right. go back to the states, a state like texas or a state like mississippi could say after 15 weeks no elective abortions, whereas a state like new york or new jersey coulde take a different path. it would also mean, shawn, we're not among the good company. as justice roberts said during oral arguments of the people's republic of china in north korea because right now that is exactly where the united states stands with our abortion laws. we know 60 million children, 62 million have perishedly because of this law. o state that's nearlys one fifth of the united states population. and you're exactly right tos note that from the beginning sean roe was wronglywr decided.a even laurence tribe, a liberal jurist, said that this is a verbal smokescreen. that's what he called roe, the substantive judgment of which was nowhere to be found.ht ruth baderer ginsburg, she thought that it was better left althou states. she was a critic ofgh roe, thouh she was a proponent of abortion rights generally, she thoughtth the democratic process was the way at least she made one or two comments intimating that this was badad law. this would put us on the side of life would allow states like mississippi and texas to decide one way states like new jersey and new york, decide another. pt so put me down as very skeptic shot and only because i've been doing this a longg time. i have never seen anything like. this ever leak froms. the u.s. supreme court. not a single time. the way it reads at points its reads like itli might be partly an opinion. at other points i read it and i'm like this doesn't read like a supremem courtin decision to me.g and you know, having covered the court as extensively as youc have, i'm curious if you feel the same way. o i really if i had to say what the odds are, i would say i'm leaning heavily against. t i do think we have to be , as you've told your viewers, very cautious about this .s again, i have not been waved off of this as being a legitimate draft att some point. who knows how much if itma is legit, it may have changed in weeks since it was written. there are flourishes and thereio are expressions. and the wayns that this is written that sounds like justice alito to me and some of his other writings. so think we hav i think we have tt with a grain of salt and again, until it comes out officiallys from the court, this means nothing votes could change. i and even if this is a legitimate draft, both couldll have changed and this could be flipped. way and we just don't know. but there are things in the writing that sound alitoesque to me not that somebody couldn't, you know, draft that of their own award and would have to believet that this was legit. but let me throw this to kelly. why would politico run the risk of basically let me run through the headline that they haveve the the supreme court has voted to overturn abortion rights draft opinion shows they're saying definitivelyy i have again, i've never seenmy that in my life and i'm skeptical. well, sometimes the headline overstates what is actually and the rest of the article. cas i think this may be the casee. o shannon's point as shannon that she has not been waved off the fact that this was a draft from februaryft, which i think f absolutely the case ifta they obtain this draft, it's was a len w one hundred pages. it likely was a legitimate draft. whether that changes, we will know. but i think it's too juicy of a story not to run with . i mean, w how consequential this reporting is, john, if true , never in the history of the supreme court in modern history to have an opinion like this leak h and it makes you wonder how it leaked. was it a clerk and maybe disagreed with the opinion p and took this unprecedented step to put public pressure on justices? they're still making their decisions. i don't know. but someone it would know, but with a motive clearly leak this in a way that is very unusual for the supreme court. alll right.ill be thank you both, shannon bream. we'll be watching you tonight and as always, we'll be watching you tomorrow.y so thank you both for with us. all right.he here with more on the breaking developments from the supremero court, harvard law professor alan dershowitz along with fox news legal analyst gregg ly gray. we'll begin with you tonight . i want to stay a little bitfo focused on we've not confirmed this .a pol this is a political reportitico the, the writing what you think ,but what you read into it. draftsd are sent around many, o many times in the process of forming the final opinion before it's released usuallyre in june.ll and i guessy my mainin j quest, you, greg, is does this seem legitimate to you? does this sound alitoesque to you? do you believe that this is tha likely where the decision goes and what would be theat ramifications for people? becauseio they know it will be demagogued and meanwhile it only would mean that the statesa would decide, not the federal. government. >> well, it is a rough draft so it is not as let's say, elegantf in its prose as the final draft would be . yo and i'm skeptical too, along with you for example, let me just read one portion of this alleged draft opinion. roe was egregiously wrong from the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak. the decision has had a damaging circumstance or consequencesng far from bringing aboutinal a national settlement s of abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debatero and deepened division.i i must tell youmust tel that so very much like a politician wrote it. not that i disagree with it. in fact, i have long argued those very sentences that roeve was wrongly decided inventing out of thin air this right of privacy and abortion. it was thenit. it's been wrong over the last 50 years and i think it's stilll wrong. and i do suspect that the supreme court may in the endot have enough votes to overturn roe vs. wadees. but right now i'm in i the skeptical category. votes can change as the drafts go around. people have further c conferences, privateon. sometimes minds are changed. there havemi been some very famous cases in which powerfulce supreme court justice have beenr the arms of their colleagues on the high court c c and managd to shift completely decisions that went one way and eventually turned the other way. so i'd be very cautious and skeptical. i think you're right, sean doesn't seem to me that portion doesn't seem to be written by an eloquent supreme court justice. maybe it's a clerk. yeah,rk professor, i'm reallyug curious your thoughts on this because we might actually disagree. i'm not sure where youhe stand on roe v. wade whether you think it's good law or a bad law. constitutionalistad conservativs have argued it'ss bad law that this is a right not. enumerated in the constitution and that actually is the rolehas of states to go to make their own laws here.own' and it wasn't the right of the federal government. i'm curious on your position. i stronglyion. oppose overrulinn roe versus wade after 50 years,g but i think itt will be overruled. i am less skeptical than you are.e.ow j i know justiceustice ali alito. wr i know his writings. this sounds like a decisionitou a majority decision of the supreme court overruling roe versus wade. and i have a theory and it's only a theory. i think this was leaked by aas liberal law clerk who is trying. to change the outcome of the case either by putting pressureress on some of the justices to change their mind or by gettingourt congress to back the court even before june, which is very unlikely, or to get congress to pass a national right to abortion law which would apply to all the states and thatco would have to come to the supreme court to see whether that could be upheld under the commerce clause. but i think this is real and i think that my theory is that it was leaked by somebodych who wants to changean the outcome. look, i've beenrt watching the supreme court for 55 years and this has all the hallmarks of reality and itt does not have the hallmark of a decision that'sat likely to be changed.ma maybe justice chief justice roberts will go with the minority. but i think they seem to have five votes at this point to overrule roe vs. wade. >> it was always. let me interrupt you fors a second. let'sstith stay with your theory because it's a fascinatinghe one in all the time that you'vev been a constitutional professor at harvard, i may add, and you a have taught some of the besto y and brightest people, do you? i've never i can't think of an instance, not one that a leak like this ever occurred. can you has it never has and itd can only be done if somebody thinks this is an act of civil disobedience, an act which might get him disbarred, fired suom the supreme court or clerk it's the law and yet they want to go to the mat because they think there's one chance to try to t preserve roe versus wade a and that's by leaking this decisionndndle to politicot they didn't leak l it to fox. they leaked it to politico. and so it fits together. it's just a theory. i have no information to s support it. but it seems to me the most plausible theory as toea who leaked it, whyke it was leaked and how this does sound like it's extremely realistic. greg, if in fact somebody did leak it,co what would the consequences be ? oh , disbarment. you know, the professor has more courage than i do. i do. i was thinking the same thing i was thinking the same thing. this was leaked for a purpose, but i hesitated to say ite i because it is so serious, such an egregious violation of the solemnity and theat confidentiality of the united states supreme courtes proceedings. i mean, this is this was a terrible, terrible breach . but the only explanation i can offerr is consistent with the professor that this is someone who is angry or upset atay the way this is moving to eliminate roe vs. wade as the law of the land and has decidedi that they are going ton try to gin up opposition to it publicly in order to put p pressure on supreme courtdon' justices. i don't think that would weigh might work with someone like john roberts who may be on the fence here, according toasn' politico hasn't yet committed f to which side he'll be on. but as for the other, you know, solid five justices, you know, public pressure will have the opposite effect. ithe will only steel weir resolve to remain consistent with fidelity to their initial decision if indeed this is real and again, i still remain skeptical. maybema that's the journalist and you may be right that there's some history here. do you remember the switchsa in time that saved nineve back during the roosevelt time when there was the threat to t pack the court? the court shifted its approach and upheld new deal legislation, in order to avoid being packed. and i could imagine that there could be that kind of pressure on justice, not so much fear ofo anything, recriminations orl anything or c political consequences, but that they don't want court packing. nobody on that court wants courthat t wa packing. and i t think the fear i do thie that tomorrow we're going to see people proposing legislation to to pack the cour. i think that's going to be the immediate impact of this week. i got to be honest because m professor, you make one ak ofome a compelling argument. youu really do. and i think a very viable one . and i think there is a greatn chance you might be right on the money on this. -- we don't want harvey. >> i let my judgments interfere with how i predict the outcomean or analyze a case i won roe versus wade to be upheld. but i am yellow and wender understand you are very'r clear your parents were losinge your picture. professor. thank you . thank you , greg.ank you. here on the phone now here on the latest breaking news about roe v. wade isakroe senator josh hawley. senator , i'm i want to go back to this one more timear and what they're saying in this political articles that theio supreme court hasn voted to overturn abortion rights according to a draft opinion, . roe was egregiously wrong from the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak. its decision has had damaging consequences. and far from bringing about an a national settlement on the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate,i and deepened division. we holdsi that role. casey must be overruled. this time to heed the constitution, return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. there's been i have a lot of skepticism, although i do find professor dershowitz his theory very fascinating, interesting,l, plausible all the above. so i really don't know what to tell this audience, but i don't think anybody does know. what's your reaction too the? the political article? >> my reaction is, is that the draft sean, is a lot like justice alito. clerks at that court have litigateded at thatt that courtg this leaked opinion tonight . and i think t legitimate this to me and there are details in this that would be very hardr to know details in the reporting about when the justices votedep, how they voted at conference. it's pretty hard to makeut of that up out of whole cloth. di and there areca all kinds of indicators here that it sounds like somebody who who reallyl does know and i could tellyo you there's a small universe of people who would knowde the details that areta in that report. basically we're talking about a justice for clerks or maybe maybe an employee, you know, e someone who works in one of the justices offices. but it's not very big, sean. and i tove tell you, it a sounds real to men and i think this is plainly an attempt by the left to try and change the outcome in this case and corruptt the process and thet court must not allow that to a happen. senator , this has never happened in the history of the court, certainly not in myrs lifetime. professor dershowitz can't remember a single instance't . what does that mean if somebody would leak what is only a draft, it's notno a completed document to potentially alter court tome of a supreme case.o ht well, i've got to imagine laws might apply there for the person responsible. now we'll certainly the ethicsho rules for lawyers if this is, a lawyer who did this , a cleric or anyone who practices law, who is currently a member of the bar, at. sthould be disbarredbe and iic have to say i think the chief justice tomorrow morning is going to have a lot of work to do on this courtju tomorrow morning.st the chief justice of the united states is going to have toonve convene the justices. he's going to havee to convene the clerks and all employees of the courtt and he's going to have to say that the leaker needs to come forward. and this is very, very i serious.n itun is an unprecedented breach of the court's confidentiality and it is t plainly meant too corrupthin the process within the court. i it's an assault on the courts, john, and it's got to be taken seriously. and the chiefng justice is now going to be the one who has ton: do this inside the court. let'ssk ask you, senator , one last question as conservativesn, as constitutionalists, we believe and i've argued foreve years that this is bad law and enumerated right. not in the constitution and according to part the draft, it addresses that question by saying the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating of or prohibiting abortion. roe and casey abrogated that authority. we now overrule those decisions, return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. isn't that the argument conservativesent made for a long time? because i would anticipate if this were the final decision d that this would be an issue that would be demagogued to death and we'd hear things like back alley abortions and coathangers. you h things, for example, that the late senator ted kennedy tried to say about justice bork, which were not true about him at the time. you with this draft opinion is that this is an issue for voters and that's exactly right. the constitution is silent the his issue. resid that means that it ise up to the people to decide and the ise that sho 50 states and it's really an issue that should be debated in the democratic processul in the states. and that's whereion, this opini, if indeed this becomes the majorityth opinion, that's where it would leave it. and that is exactly right. under the constitution, the peopleget who get to decide not nine justices wearing robeso who are unaccountable but. >> all right. weia really appreciate it. senator daschle, thank you for joining us . thank you . appreciate iter all right.e offer here with more author of the big new book suppression, deception, snobbery and biasd why the press gets so muche, wrong and just doesn't care. arir fleischer is with us along with former arkansas governor mike huckabee and fox contributor joe concha. well, i know wea. got a lot goig on with this story breaking are here and you guys are free to talk about one of the thingse that america is dealing with , especially with what we call the ministry of truth issue, which seems too be a big part of the topic of your book. ari fleischercher, your new book that's coming out soon people can get a first edition copy at amazon or hannity .com. but the fact is the media getset it wrong constantly. they get it, wrong on purpose. they get it wrong because they have an agenda. they get itery wrong the very things they accuse talk showk sh host members of the press that do straight news investigative reporting and say they give the opinion they do themselves, don't they ? >> yeah, they did.g and particularly during the trump era they when they mae the decision that their job as objective reporters was to tu get donald trump and that the american people erred by electing him and he wast a threat to the republic. so to they thought their job was to fix what the american peoplet did instead of t leaving it to i us . you know, i think in this instance, though, sean, i don't put this leak from the supreme court in that category. what really troubles me, not about the ruling itself, if that's the ruling itself, i accept and respect that ruling. but the leaker make no mistake,n, sean, this is an insurrection i againsts the supreme court. i've already seen people on the left celebrating this leak are calling him brave, trying to throw a hail mary to stop the ruling from being issued. who atat the supreme court willh trust eacher other now if they know that their drafts are going to be leaked just like everything else els in washingt the supreme court seems to be the last institution standinging that had internal integrity. this is an insurrection againstg the court and it needs to be found who did itl and whatever legal means can be. taken against them needs to be taken. that's a powerful statement. t. >> i'd like your reaction to that . yeah, well, first of all, i can't wait to read ari's book. i know it's going to be amazinglyma good, but i am so glad that our used the termte insurrection and that's exactly what it is. but let's take it one step further. isthis is an insurrection not by some guy from some state who got hot under the collar a and went to dc and got overheated at a rally. this is insurrection by a person who is paid for p by the taxpayers and who has a duty a under his particular jobhu and employment to keep his mouth shut and he didn't do it. so it's an egregious form, if you will, of insurrection and ia hope that everyone will use that term because if what happened january six was an insurrectionappe, this absolutely is an insurrection. well,th that's a powerful statement. joe concha, youuat cover the mea ,you understand the mediaik as well like r.e. and it'sha interesting that this came out p of politico. what doess that say to you>> and tells me that there are no t accidents and there are no consequences. they went to politico obviously a reason here and documentsts and drafts like this , seanre and guys are leaked because p and greg pointed out before and professor dershowitz and ari and the governor this was leaked to setet off death one among liberals that this could happen and you better start mobilizing if you hope to stop. in so for this toto come out now in an election year, no less, this will also mobilize liberal voters that may have thought i'm not going to go to the polls, i'm going to have to hang on to the way we knew this . this will mobilize them. d sean, we knew this decision waso coming one way or the other, but i think it would mobilize both sides when it both faces those that have very strong opinions. latest polls that i've been seeing on this show, america still is fairly split downn the middle on the issue. issue.? nott and again, this would not end or make abortion illegal.o it would return that decision to the states and let the people and their elected representatives decide. i think that's a very important distinction they have to make out right now. absolutely. and yeah. and yeah. and gallup i looked at i this nt too long ago and it's something like forty six forty six right now as far as pro-life and pro-choice in this countryp- .e they think when you listen to many in the media that we are an overwhelmingly pro-choiceel country. t t that number has stayedtu incredibly stubborn and staticbb over many, many years as far as pro-life versus pro-choice. but to your point, yes, g this was going tooi happen befoe the election for this to come out now, though, it's very interesting. and skoda'sctio blog, which is n independent source in terms of covering the supreme court,rt they said that this will be devastating,e in terms of within the supreme court no one's going to trust each other and it's just something that is a complete dereliction of duty. whoeveron o did this to greg gerard's point will be disbarred and probably worsep once that person is discoverede if he or she is discovered. sean, governor d, i saw you shaking your head. go ahead. on weigh in on your comment. y >> i think we need to reminds everybody that the liberals have used the bigig lie. we've heard that term before apply to conservatives. here's the big lie. the overturning of roe v. wade does not end abortion. that's what they have said.d and it i and it's a big lie.g lie. it simply takes it out of the hands of nine people wearing robes appointed for life and itr puts it in theeo hands of the american people through their elected representatives wherepl it shoud have been all along. some states will have more abortion. ik like my home state won't have any. that's what it will do and it'si unfair to say it ends abortion.. i wish it did, but it won't. it simply gives it back to youhe . you don't believe the state ofy arkansas would have any exceptions at all?? >> we passed the constitution amendment in nineteen eighty six that made life from conception as part of our constitution. so the reason that we haveou waited is tort see a court rulig from the supreme court f that gave us the capacity toulct fulfill that . so that's exactly what it would be . yeah. i'llil give you the last wordst on this, ari w fleischer. >> yeah, i think it was wrongly decided.ng i don't see what in the constitution created a so-called right to privacyle that extends to the right to have an abortion. ab like everything, these arehe matters that belong tog the people and therefore tore your state representatives. that's where health care, these type ofpr issues are regularlyre settled and that's the healthy way republics breathe r. that's the way we solve our disputes and we arrive at solutions. it never should have been decided by the supreme court in the first place. and i thinknk c that's the real message. t i know it will get demagogued to death and i know well, there are probably a lot of echoing the themes of the late senator ted kennedy against robertte bork lies that he told about robert bork in the days ahead, especially if this decision does come down this way. rn ari, lookingor forward, g toood your book. j a governor good to see you, joe . always good tooe have., tod joining us now, former n secretary of state mike pompeomp is with us. you went to west point. you graduated one or twor in your class. . i don't remember. i forget. forgive me. i still love you. also but but you're also an attorney and some people might not a know that . so add that to a list of incredible credentialsed and secretary of state, i'd love to get your thoughts generally on number one , the report. do youse take it seriously? do you think does it seem legitimate to you and what it would mean if in fact this were the final decision which i've read about the first two thirds of it now it reads liket a writing of a first draft from someone who believes deeply in the united states dtes constitution in the very wayay that i know justice alito does.i song i i'm going to give you a short odds that it's likelyg his writing from a first draft doesn't mean that's how it ends a second a decision that reflected largely what is in that draft would be aar glorious thing forgedr the unitd states ofst america. it was in the first instance be a return to constitutional judging. right. we s have a series of justices returning to our foundational rootss, wiping off the books, something that even liberal justices understooddus made no real sense. they had to defend it because of their own views on abortionie .ce j but this is a good piece ofonstl judging, a good piece of constitutional work if it isn't the way that this draft appears to be heading a second state, we'll get to sort this out.at that's the right place for this to be sorted out. but i am also optimisticre that when these rights are returned to people all across america that we will save lives, save lives off the unborn all across this country and that would make a decision along the lines of what's in this potential draft that a really glorious thing for the united states. glorious constitutional law and protecting unborn children isng u a really good outcome sh. okay,ea and the thing is it woud go back to the states i doubt very much, mr. secretary, that new york, california, oregon, washington state, illinois are going to change o the law in any way, shape or form. i mean, we now have states where the infamous comments offa governor northam well, first ofb baby will be born and then we'll givell g the baby care and then we'll let the mother talk to the doctoril and then they decide whether the baby lives or dies at that point that's that's called infanticide. >>ly oh , that's certainly true, sean. they'll be states s that have already put themselves in the business of doing precisely what governorpr northam described. they're not likely to change in the short run. i'm convinced over time when people all acrosss america have the opportunity to see the goodt it can come from changing that maybe not new york , maybe not california, but a state that's now got governor youngkin a state like virginia and some of the states that are much closer calls overall. i think this will have a really net positive effectt on america's capacity not only to have our rightty to privacy o find it the right way, but alsoh protect more children. how do you respond to professor dershowitz, his theory and he said it's only a theory that this was leaked on purposes to to instigate a packing of the court, which we know the left in this country wants to do badly. i think it's a really, really w well thought out theory. i was a student of professor dershowitz a handful of yearseo i wa i learned his feets and we didn't always agree on everything, certainly politically. but it almost certainly seems like this was a decision by someone inside that court toc undermine the integrity of a court with an effort tot substantively change how justices madetoto their decision. i think that willbt fail, but there's no doubt that was likely the intentth the person who leaked this if in fact there was a leakas from this court, i hope that justice roberts gets his handsal on the individual or individuals who worked on this and makes makes it very clear this is unacceptable when they pay a real price. the times have w changed certainly in washington, the issue of privacy interestingly i don't i wouldrg argue doesn't exist in america ,especially for conservatives. mr. secretary, always good to have you. thank you for being with us.. the all right. thank you for the very latest from the u.s. supreme court. isis fox news at night host our own shannon bream. ng that may shannon, i'm sensing that maybe you talk tobe a few people since you were just on . >> what did you learn?h. i am increasingly convinced that at some point this was a draft that was circulated within the court again, what eventually ends up being voted on , signed off on release from a court official opinion could be wildly different than what i'm holdingldin my hands rt now. being but at some point this was being circulated at the court for consideration. and as we talked about,abou this what justices do.he they trade this stuff back and forth. they modify opinions. they try to gain votes, o get more people to sign on .y so my gut says and what i'm being told is that this was at some point a legit draft that circulated at the court. now here'sw, the thing. if this is still in process, they're still running concurrences, dissents. people are making decisions about their votes and where they're going to land. take a this could still take a while. but nowwh the chief justice has a real problem on his hands because this is floating around out there. howho knows what the final opinion is goingng to look likeg he is never going to rush something especially as important as this case which could be potentially landmark. to he's going to have get something done. he cares very much aboutur the integrity of the of the court. i can only imagine how furious he is about this because you'lle hear him repeatedly when he does speak publicly about the institution of the court, how important it is for him,pe especially as the chief to protect the court. i so i gotma to imagine at this point he is not a happy about this at all and will very much do what no of your guestsut have suggested ferret down, put the pressure on figure where this came from. somebody had a motivation. people will have their theories about whether it. was on the left or the right. somebody had a motivation to doo this and he is most assuredly going to expend whatever time or energy he has to to get toea the bottom of that . it's interesting becausecl they both acknowledged earlier that disclaimer that you had you had been our reporter atme the supreme court for many yearssye and you never saw't this type of leak ever before. i can't think of an instance alan dershowitz couldn't think of an instancehink and then he t forth his theory that this might have been done by an activist to change the decision or to begin the process of proposing and following through on the idea of packingof the court, whichor we now know we've known for some time democrats want to do any thoughts on that? yeah, listen, there are very few people who would have access to something like this .r no clerk in their right mindta would leak it certainly withoutn the knowledge or consent in some way of the justice they serve. it would t s be almost unimagine because they wouldn't be employable. our would probably lose license and i can't imagine they would ever be able to find a job again. i can't believe a justice would do this . they have such great honor and integrity and commitment to the court. sot, that leaves very fewe options. the chief is going to spendnd time getting down to that . but again, you'ree suggesting that to damage that you'rein suggesting that the clerk would never do this without the blessing of the justice w that would takeou it to another level, wouldn't it? yeah, right.. i have to it would. but i have to wonder because you if you decided to do this on your own as a clerk, you know, you're blowing up your legal career because it's almost a impossible that someboy will not get tagged with thisth at some point. t and i have too wonder whether you would do that on your own. i mean, your legal career is over . maybe you can go do other things or the things youou do. i used to be a lawyer. you can go to other things, but there's just so much speculation we have atld this point about why you would ever dare to do something this dangerous and it really chips away aty the integrity of the courthe and somebody in washington institutions if assume that this isav true and i have the political report here on camera assuming that it's true and somebody did do that , i can't imagine political would ever give up their sources. m look, i'm i'm a talk show host . i do the straight news. straight i do investigative reporting. i do opinion. i do culture. i do sports . i'm like a whole newspaper. , ah although people don't really seem to understand what my job e is, which cracks me upse a little bit. i say i'm a conservative. g i give my opinion, i tell you who i support politically and i'm very, very outspoken about it. but in this case i would never s give up a source.e. you'd never give upneve a sourcr i can't imagine political would ever give the source do and ito bet they had to have more one before going with it, right? yeah, i agree with you. i don't think politico would be the place we would get the name. but what happensnss is there is that very tiny universe of people who would have had if this turns to be a real draft and we've been led to believe it, is there be a very small universe of people who have access to that and i wouldn't put it past the chiefou justice to sit down office by office, clerk by clerk, justice c by justice and say we're going t to get an answer to this and i'm not going to let this go. bn this is not going to be anun unresolved investigation. we are going to get an answer and a name. th i mean the very integrity of the courtis is at stake and that is one of the top things that he cares about and he'sbl talked about publicly and privately since he took on that mantle as chief justice . that's been one of my criticisms of chief justice. i feel ofe at times he's too political . you how will the roberts courtrt be viewed through the prism ofis history? and i thinknk that might have weighed i believe it'si or my theory that might havey, impacted his decisionn on obamacare. but shannon, we'll be watching you tonight as always,we w thank you for being with us. wewe kind of put you backwards back to your old job. back your new job. all right. here m with more analysis, formr florida attorney general pam bondi along with fox news contributor leo to point outut preroe both attorneys in their own right. first your thoughts. pam bondi, do you believe this is real? believe pos do you believe possiblysi that there might be someme political motives behind it, maybe one of which as professor dershowitzne o is saying, could be the idea of pushing forward the idea court packing? do you think this is real? first of all, sean, i do think it's real because it's political . i've never seen pol political . i can't believe that politico would ever print something so important without checking or sources. they know who the leak is and the leak is credible. and to your second point, i firmly agree with what professor dershowitz said. i believe this is the liberals.. i believe this is something that i believe this is someone as shannon said, he's risking their career, riskingnki her career because of this opinion. i think it's a draft. d >>ra it's clearly a draft. it's not finalized. but hopefully it is true . you know, there is no constitutional right to s abortion. this should go back to the statesac where i should have been. and so i think this is w a liberal who is againstho this and they are throwing away their entire career to leak a this opinion and they will be able to findbl out who it is. i've been trying quickly to s look through the federal statute and seeta if i can find any crime that would be attached to it and i can't so far there may be , but at that level of practicing law,a as a supreme court law clerk, it's unbelievable that someone is throwing their career out t the windowow ashanti's that they will be disbarred and i believe justice roberts and the rest of the justices will find out who it is. it's so easy to track things now, especially that opinion was not out there publiclyll, very closely held and someone got itt and someone leaked it and they will be heldco accountable. and the only thing the i don't h agree with i think the final opinion may come out sooner rather and later because ofd, this because this was leaked, i believe i, to pressuree the conservative justices to scare them into not issuing. this opinion. and remember, this would gowo back to the states. it would not outlaw abortion,ul although i guarantee that demagogery is next to follow. that's very predictable. y leo, you've been a lawyer,ou'v a civile been rights lawyer fort of your career. now you're a tv star which took you away from your law practice. butbu in all seriousness, let's put your legal hat on tonight. the leo 2.0 legal hat. get your analysis of this . let me tal to you? yeah, let me tell you right now, 30 years of practicing civil rights law, constitutional law. sona i was shocked when i heardi it is a real i think it is very real. do i think there's a motivation behind it? yes, i think it'sk political motivation. i think this is the type ofth draft to get the left fired up to change the current nerit for him to focus on women and sayap look what's going to happen. ot. so i think there's a political motivation, not a core packie but to change the disastrous liberal agenda completelyib. i also don't rule out the fact that somebody in the higher up- allowed this to happen. they got this you know, we want to believe that the supremehe court is the last bastion of integrity. they're political animals, so i donlyth p the left. and so i don't rule it out that bay badly occurred with the blessing of somewhat. to guess who , but i think there's the blessing of someone because co the supreme court, like it or not, is a political branch ofnt government and this is a a unfortunate, unfortunate situation. for pantaleo criminal statute. leo, if in fact that word that turns out to be true and somebody maybe a clerk on the left, the slant solidlyt to the left, what do you w imagine that person will be glorified and held up as a h hero being, you know, w your heroic. oh , yeah. and it will then of course reignite this ridiculous debate about court packing. >> so i think that could be a very real political motivation as well as long as as long as the current tenure of the current senate leadership is 50 50. you got joe manchin.50anchin --t i'm worried about court packing. i worry about trying too change the narrative of the upcoming midterm election. and you're rightnd y, that leakg will be glorified by the left, but he'll get employmentet. he may not be a he or she mayba not be a lawyer.ill ge he'll be disbarred but they'lltl get it from the left. find but i just find this totally motivate to changeat the narrative right now that doesn't look good forsn't the democrats. i mentioned earlier the late senator ted kennedy m demagoging robert bork during his nomination. you know, robert bork's america is going to be in america or back alley abortions take placei . we can go back . it wasn't that long ago when the coat hanger analogies were used, left and right. pam bondi, in spite of the fact that we all know that if this decision comes down this way that the law would b then be made by the states, by the people and they are elected representatives if in fact that language is accuraterere, which by the way, would be constitutional, which is why conservative i have argud for years that this is bad law and it's a right not that giveng that it was not enumerated in the constitutiond. so but it would be demagogued. i believe leo's rightbeli on tht point. ourse it >> of course it would. but the law, the law and if this opinion is accurate to which i think it is, it will go back to the states, which is where it always belonged. we know thatt is bad law from the beginning. and if you want to liveted in florida s t carolina, georgi, texas where it's going toe be outlawed especially laten, term abortions, then don't live in our state.ne well, let me go to california, new york , new jersey. the liberal states where the families have the option. it's not an outlaw overall of an abortion ban, but it'sba headed in the rightn direction for the states to be handling it. we have i about 30 seconds lefts how many states would likely ban all abortions under all circumstances? i would sayould not many if any. leo. real quick , i would say ife i was if i was given estimates anywhere between zero to three. all right. and all and pam, which your what your estimates say, i would say three. but again, remember sean, h
On April 25, Taichung residents can, if they’re so inclined, celebrate the first anniversary of the opening of the city’s metro system.
Taichung Mass Rapid Transit Corp’s Green Line — which is currently the system’s only line — connects 18 stations over a distance of 16.71km, serving the districts of Wuri (烏日), South (南), Nantun (南屯), Situn (西屯), North (北) and Beitun (北屯).
The southernmost station may be just a few minutes walk from Taichung High-Speed Railway Station, but the Green Line isn’t especially convenient for travelers who fly in, or for those who arrive by conventional express at Taichung’s
Business representatives and government officials are showered with confetti yesterday at an opening ceremony for the Taiwan Stationery Exhibition at the World Trade Center Taichung in the city’s Situn District. The exhibition, which runs run through Monday, features a variety of stationery from nearly 100 companies, and the first 500 people who enter the venue each day during the exhibition can receive free anti-epidemic stationery.