Stay updated with breaking news from Pete william. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
still contemplating its next move in the night over a citizens question on the census but just received a major legal victory. a federal peas court threw out a lawsuit that claimed the president's d.c. hotel violated the so-called oh mol upts is clause in the united states constitution. well, if we're talking legal, pete william and robert cy a law professor at american university. good to see you both. mr. williams, this lawsuit was tossed out not on the merits but on standing. >> right, they said they don't have a good case for this reason. the clause says a president can't take benefits, gifts cash from either state governments or foreign governments and the claim of d.c. and maryland was when the officials stay at the hotel, this benefits the president. that's an emolument and takes business away from their convention centers. what the three-judge panel said
kind of judgment on whether this person should be the chief federal law enforcement officer of the country. now, one thing that is a little bit tricky about the suit though is that it is exactly as pete says in the context of obama care, but all that is happening here is that the substitution of sessions of whitaker for sessions. that happens everyday when there's a turnover in the administration or the officials move on, and it seems to me like a probably dubious occasion for the district court to weigh in on such a weighty constitutional matter. there is a real possibility that he will not be, and she will not look at the merits and just say, that is not where we take up this consequential constitutional issue. >> all right. harry litman and nbc's pete williams. thank you. >> you bet. and now coming up "in her
federal officials including jeff sessions, and now maryland says that you have to take him off and put the attorney general on, and that should be rod rosenstein and not matt whitaker. >> interesting. mr. litman, can you walk us through the importance of that senate confirmation and the importance of the roles that he has made about the mueller investigation that he now oversees. >> two points. pete nails it exactly, and it is a very intricate argument involving a couple of the statutes and the constitution. the basic constitutional argument is that the senate has a right to weigh in, in order to give its input to the sort of the political judgment of the incoming attorney general. and it is very salient here, because whitaker has expressed some really wacky views, and the notion is that you want a politically accountable body, and he is not politically accountable, and he has never the been confirmed to pass some
joining me to talk about this is pete william, and also, harry litman who was the ag in the clinton edadministration. and so, pete, clarity of how this is to play out? >> they have filed this challenge to an existing lawsuit and i will come back to that in a second, but they are saying that the appointment of matt whitaker as the acting attorney general is illegal and violates a statue and also violating the constitution, and the statutory argument goes like this. the president used a vacancy reform act to give him three options according to that law to fill a job like this, and the third option is the one he chose picking someone who is a senior official already at that department who has been on the job at least 90 days and makes a certain amount of money on the pay skill and is a senior person. maryland says that law is trumped if you pardon the expression, and that law is oovershadowed, if you will by a
pacific northwest whose been known in the past to law enforcement authorities. it's still not clear to us whether any of these devices actually were fully working bombs. apparently 7 of them did not contain fully working bombs. we don't know whether any single one of them did. one official has told us they seem to be more intended to scare than to actual injury or kill. many of them were accompanied by letters described as rambling and disturbed. i think we'll fine out more shortly about the person that was detained obviously whenever something like this happens, there's a question of whether this person had any help or anyone else was aware of what this person was up to. i guess i could say this is a man. but we're waiting to hear more and be able to report the name. but it does seem like this is for the most part over. >> all right pete william.
alexey and besty. is the problem there's not enough loyalist inside the white house? >> the president likes to be surrounded by people who are friend with limon and encourage him. >> we want to bring you an update to a story we talked about at the top of the show. investigator investigating those suspicious packages in d.c. pete william joining us now on the phone with a new.com on this. what's going on? >> we're told now that one person is in custody, suspected of being behind all these mailings of these suspicious packages to the eastern seaboard around the washington, d.c. area. we're told now that there were 12 devices in all. some are still being found this morning. another one turned up at a secret service mail sorting facility in suburban washington. we've been asked not to report this person's name. this is a person from the
let go first to you kent, and the report that "the washington post" says about general flynn. >> well greta, nbc news pete william is reporting that fbi agent who conducting interview said he did not lie to them. i wen back to the interview that he gave a few days ago "it wasn't about sanction it was 35 guys thrown it." it was look i know this happened. we'll review everything. i never said anything we going to review sanction or anything like that. it may turn on interpretation of
the ban. who gets hurt most? is the government hurt the most by keeping the stay in effect that stops them from enforcing the travel restrictions, or are the states hurt more by keeping the ruling in place? that's the immediate question before the court but as you heard, craig, they got into a lot of other questions that touch on it, such as did the president act legally, did he act under the constitution? is this a discrimination against muslims. bottom line the question is, is this temporary stay on enforc g enforcing -- whether it's legal and constitutional. >> pete it also seemed as if, one of the judges was especially interested in some of the things that the president has said, and some of the things that his surrogate has, some of his surrogates have said as well on the campaign trail. >> right that, goes to the question whether it's
3-0 or 2-vot1 vote. the bottom line a decision has probably been made. we don't know what it is. >> pete williams we'll let you get back to looking at the that website i guess that's how we'll find out when it's posted. former spokesman for eric holder former director of the office of affairs for the department of justice. always good to have you matt. president trump this morning really tore into the court action on his travel ban. this is just part of what he said before that group of law enforcement leaders. >> if these judges wanted to, in my opinion, help the court in terms of respect for the court, they'd do what they should be doing. i mean, it's so sad. when you read something so perfectly written and so clear to anybody, and then you have lawyers and you watched last
panel today is considering whether president trump's executive order banning travelers from certain countries should be allowed to stand. this morning, the president told a group of the nation's police chiefs that his power in this matter is clear. >> could be a lawyer or you don't have to be a lawyer. if you are a good student in high school or a bad student in high school, you can understand this, and it's really incredible to me that we have a court case that's going on so long. >> nbc news justice correspondent pete williams in washington for us this afternoon following the twists and turns. pete, let's just start with the main arguments made on this very interesting, first time i've listened to a conference call with three judges on live television. it was quite fascinating. >> the basic claim here is the government says this appeals court or this district court judge's order should be lifted so the government can enforce