Mcgann Question News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Question whether it geese beyond don mcgann. it goes on to john bolton and some people in the administration claim even if you make don mcgann. she is saying absolutely not. and then, of course, as you pointed out, she's saying that the president is himself not immune. what does this mean when don mcgann does show up if he does show up? it means that he may still, however, refuse to answer certain questions because of executive privilege. we don't know, erin, how long it will be before this all gets resolved. we know the justice department says they're going to appeal the ruling. we're looking...

Skepticism. >> that will be argued. >> who knows. who knows. you know, so, greg, what does this mean in terms of you take this ruling. obviously it's a different judge but the same court as another case, right, for national security advisor john bolton, right? what's it mean for him? is he going to end up having to testify? obviously that would be specifically related to ukraine. >> well, what i think this means is that at least as you say one judge has said, and i think it will be affirmed on appeal, that there is no absolute immunity that the white house can assert to prevent senior official...

Bolton. all of them could be forced. three men who could incriminate the president. according to a letter from adam schiff. now this judge also ruling in mcgann's case that trump himself may not be immune from testimony. that crucial lie is here. the president himself has been with testimonial immunity. they found combineding supreme court cases that compelled the opposite conclusion. i want to go straight to evan perez who's "out front" live. obviously a lot in this ruling but some crucial developments tonight. what's the bottom line? >> reporter: erin, some very hard words from this judge wh...

>> i don't think there's any question they were trying to cover up their rear end on an action that there were a lot of questions in their mind about the legality of suddenly holding up 400 million in military aid to the ukraine. they were basically trying to backfill and see if they could find any kind of legal justification. so, you know, i think all this really points out that based on the judge's decision today with regards to the consul, i think it opens up the possibility that all of these individuals were part of the ukrainian affair, whether it was the chief of staff, whether it was th...