Assault on reproductive freedom that has been under way for decades in this country. it finally came to a head this week as the conservative wing of the supreme court allowed a draconian texas law to stand. one that will effectively outlaw abortion in the lone star state and open definitions by the precedent set by roe v. wade. this development is a violation of the bodily autonomy of millions of texans, and it will disproportionately hurt women of color and poor folks. i ll leave the details of the law for someone else to parse. it s been covered very well on this network. instead, i want to address i want to really get to the hypocrisy of the party that calls itself, quote, pro-life. but only when it comes to
TV Programm Mo, 07.06. - tvheute.at tvheute.at - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from tvheute.at Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Everything you said. i would say there is also an argument that it will help republicans in some states and help democrats in other states. the idea that these cases, especially i have to say, especially i think the abortion case. there really does seem to be a majority on the court, at the very least the fact they are taking up the case suggests there are five justices willing to reconsider the precedent set by roe v wade. i think it s pretty clear five justices are ready to do that right now. it s also possible that this will be good to motivate democrats in, for example, virginia, to get the women and young voters and progressives out to vote in virginia. and in other places, it might be good for republicans. it does reaffirm, for example, this is probably the longest lasting legacy of the trump
The inside scoop about what trump was doing. they tonight want that to come out. he wants to focus on the phone call and leave it at that. as the public goes so the senate republicans will go and people start to think. what does it mean to behave like this? eventually, yes. people know just as part of their everyday lives when someone acts this way it s because they have something to hide. the same president who said when running i can walk down fifth avenue and shoot anyone and nothing s going to happen to me. right. he got elected. lawyers made that argument in one procedure around this. exactly. but that indicates real problem. right? on one hand the president is calling it a hoax saying i have to defend myself for future presidents. this is about the precedent set. just a second. here is senator schumer. anyone in america watching this would draw the same logical conclusion. that the president has something to hide and republican senators, too many of them are intent on
Impeached over it. but i do think that it remains somewhat unsettled as a matter of principle. what do we do going forward. can the white house just say, hey, you know what, we re being impeached, but we re not going to respond at all. and i think that s the lesson that the president s taking away. and i suspect that future presidents might very well take a page out of that book, as well. that s the basis of the obstruction of congress article of kbleechimpeachment. i would love to hear what the lawyers over here think about this, but one of the questions i asked the chairman jerry nadler last sunday is why they didn t take away the time, which is maybe the bulk of it, but why they didn t take the white house to court. because there is some theory that they didn t take the white house to court, not because the courts are slow, but because they didn t want the precedent set. because there isn t a real precedent about how much executive power or privilege can be asked for, can be granted in
Get me. that s the strategy. it s been the strategy the entire presidency. and it has prevented him and i think will prevent him ultimately from being removed from office. neal katyal, just reality check this for us. would mitch mcconnell have to decide that he wants it on him and on his legacy to out a whistle-blower? and what happens if the next president is not in his party? what sorts of precedence do you worry about when you hear a white house fantasy for a senate trial? yeah. i worry about the whistle-blower, one, in particular, nicole, because since 1777 our nations relied on whistle-blowers to come forward and give information. and if a whistle-blower, by giving information exposes herself or himself to a congressional testimony and public discussion and the like, the next whistle-blower s not going to come forward. these are really important people, you know, for our national security. so that s one thing. then more generally i really do worry about the precedent set,
bill: this is live lindsey graham on one of the senate might or might not do. examination is fundamentally unfair. i don t want to legitimize this and democrats may like it today but if there is a democratic president you cut a small majority of republicans in the house here basically going to destroy the presidency over time if you continue this and how would you as a member of congress like to be on the receiving end of something like this. somebody said he did something wrong, the whistle-blower complaint but you can find out who they are and all the accusations against your based on hearsay. this is a danger as precedent set for the country. lindsey graham making his feelings known he has been rather public about his lack of support for what s happening in the house side. i very much doubt that he would support it if it ever came to the senate side but we shall see. 21 past fox news report now the tech giant amazon and facebook and google are back on the hill
So that was the pitch. tillerson said we can t do that. this is something that s already in a criminal proceeding and not to mention the, the precedent set. right? the idea putting americans in danger, the fact they could be held hostage in order to do prisoner swaps. tillerson refused. the president said, could jeff sessions do this? the same answer. so in the end what the president said was for the two men to essentially try to work it out s in the end that prisoner swap did not happen. got you. it s, we re going to talk about the law and procedures here with these lawyers. evan, thank you for the reporting. harry whitman out of the gate to you so we re all crystal clear. this ask to rex tillerson from the president would have been 1,000% illegal. yes? 1,000% improper, inappropriate and we know
Watchdog briefing. what would you tell me about what is expected there? i think it s a series of interviews we can expect over the next little bit. you listen to all this, harris, everything of listen to in the few minutes i ve been able to listen to your reporters and the president, there s an awful lot of fury in the democrats. and the accusations. there s very little reason and no appearance of fairness to this process. i just think at the end of the day the american people are going to roll their eyes that much of what they are seeing. harris: will you have staff there? oh, yeah. we take these very seriously. i think it s a great example i ve no idea what we will learn from this. i don t think the democrats have any idea what they will learn. but it s a real illustration they are desperate to find something. they are desperate to find anything. there are two reasons and i will make this point quickly number one, with the precedent set is very true. they ve literally been trying to impeach him from the day he was elected. the second thing is they know
Issues in favor of these witnesses being required to testify and then when they get back into that congressional hearing, they re going to have to tell the truth just like they told it to bob mueller. that s going to implicate the president. all right. eugene, perhaps the most chilling part of robert mueller s testimony was his concerns, his comments about the precedent set by trump s campaign s ties with russia and the overall concern about russian interference. please watch this. if we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us running for the u.s. house, any candidate for the u.s. senate, any candidate for the presidency to the united states, aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election has no duty to report that to the fbi or other authorities i hope this is not the new normal but i fear it is.