Argument Stand News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Federal official, does it stand? >> i think it will be pretty difficult to have that argument stand. in the law, there are clear cut distinctions between political activity and the scope of the official duties. but let's remember, jim, that the trump administration had a rather unique view of that separation. this was the administration that found it was okay to have the republican national convention on white house grounds. so that the scope that mark med he meadows may bring to this is different where certainly the norms have been and also i believe the law. >> jumps ahead a bit to trump's c...

Brian: just came up with it. i wrote it on my hand. i need to wash it off. >> try to tell local police federal law enforcement you must enforce federal law. the supreme court says you can't do it. they may if they want but they do have to. the feds can't come in and say to no, your police will help the fbi enforce this law. it's a good thing when that happens, but it's got to be voluntary. it can't be compelled. otherwise, you destroy the sovereignty of the states u is that good enough response? brian: not really. i will let your argument stand. i have a follow-up. ainsley: rahm emanuel cares ...

Administration and they're saying no, we're not going to let that kind of argument stand. and i think the other thing that's not in the text but i have to believe was in the judges' mind for a long time will be the president's attacks on the judiciary, going to far as to blame them for future terrorist attacks. judges notice that and they will want to show they need a put a box around this president's power early. >> betsy, there's a traditional way of thinking about political capital, particularly someone newly elected and particularly a newly elected president which is is that it's the reser...

>> well you're right. he was elected president by showing how so many institutions could fail. the republican party, in some ways the press and tonight was a big example of the court saying at least we are not going to it is idly by and let the president make whatever claims about executive power he wants to make. there were two things the court was pushing back on, one was the words of the order, the president made claims very similar to the claims you saw in the bush administration that some of the national security policies of the president can't be reviewed by courts. and it took really ti...