Stay updated with breaking news from Way out of line. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
the gentleman from california. >> way out of line >> ralph nader, wow. directly outside of the hearin room, which had a limite audience, as you saw there there is a group of protesters who did not take too kindly to the republican surface including the number of sign jim jordan trader and it die jim jordan the manhattan office alvin bragg, who's shooting -- over their attempts to wease their way into his investigation, issued statement today and in par will be red, for outside politicians to now appear in new york city on the taxpaye dime for a political stunt is a slap in the face to the dedicated and pd officers, prosecutors, and other publi servants who worked tirelessly every day with facts and dat to keep our homes safe in a proposed amicus brief t
this is all because of alvin bragg! alvin bragg at those, -- >> get the gentleman from th audience of zion, we gotta go >> utterly disgraceful you're a disgrace. i love you, tim jordan >> order the committee will be an order the gentleman from california. >> way out of line >> ralph nader, wow. directly outside of the hearin room, which had a limite audience, as you saw there there is a group of protesters who did not take too kindly to the republican surface including the number of sign jim jordan trader and it die jim jordan the manhattan office alvin bragg, who's shooting -- over their attempts to wease their way into his investigation, issued statement today and in par will be red, for outside politicians to now appear in new york city on the taxpaye dime for a political stunt is a slap in the face to the dedicated and pd officers, prosecutors, and other publi servants who worked tirelessly every day with facts and dat to keep our homes safe
so he's also leaving the opportunity that he might have to call witnesses. he said that. he said -- i think we have reported in politico that he might depending on how the trial goes call witnesses at the end. he is leaving himself a lot of leeway. i imagine you are going to hear a lot of this come january. it was a bad call, it was not how i would have conducted myself, a senator saying that, not me, but we don't believe it's impeachable. we don't believe it rises to the level of throwing him out of office. i think you are going to hear that from a lot of people. the senators, as we all know, tend to ring their hands a lot more than members of the house. i think you are going to hear some measure of that. and by the way phil could attest to this. the president is not going to like that. the president has lashed out against people who have said this is not a perfect phone call, but we need to -- we're not going to impeach him over that. i think mack thornberry republican of texas said that. and the president was very angry and tweeted about it. >> but i do think that the
because, remember that bill clinton sat for a civil grand jury. if a president can be forced to sit for a civil grand jury and yet the trump administration comes along and says but a criminal one, you know, i can shoot someone in the street and not be held accountable. and by the way, the department of justice at the federal level cannot hold me accountable for federal crimes either. that is literally an argument that says i am above the law as long as i am president. >> is jake sherman still with us? jake, this is something, and i'm sure you've got a lot more reporting from this than i, do but i've heard from sources that this is what awaits us as a country on the other side of impeachment however it goes. a conversation, a debate, it would appear now a supreme court decision about whether or not the powers of congress are worth fighting for, worth enforcing and worth bolstering.
we are all used to this by now, me reading from my phone because if it's the 4:00 hour we have breaking news from the supreme court. here's the "new york times" take on the news that has just come down. the supreme court agreed to friday to decide whether president trump can block the release of his financial records setting the stage for a blockbuster ruling on the power of presidents to resist demands for information. the court's ruling expected by june. that's before the next presidential election. i don't have to tell any of you could give the public a look at information the president has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect or the justices could rule that mr. trump's financial affairs are not legitimate subjects of inquiry, so long as he remains in office. either way, the court is now poised to produce a once in a generation statement on presidential accountability. lucky for us, we are joined from
news that the u.s. supreme court is going to take up cases that may -- may -- result in the public knowing a whole lot more about donald trump's finances than it did before it voted for him the first time. here's the way "the washington post" writes this up. the supreme court's decision to get involved represents a historic moment that will test the justices and the constitution's separation of powers design. it's the first time the president's personal conduct has become -- has come before the court and marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged this presidency. cue the tweets. >> when you look at this, this clearly is going to be about separations of power. >> yeah. >> this is way beyond just this president. this is separation of powers because if they say that the congress does not have the right to decide what it needs for oversight. because that's really what you're saying. they're telling us where the
transferred onto his allies. i mean, whatever you think of either side's arguments, the democrats had a strategy to stick to the fact pattern as revealed in the house intelligence committee's investigative process. they kept going back to the witness testimony, people like fiona hill who quoted john bolton describing the ukraine scandal as a drug deal. they went back to colonel vindman. they kept trying to bring this back to the most compelling moments of witness testimony. the republicans were acting almost the way phil rucker describes donald trump as feeling, angry, hot-headed and red-faced. your thoughts? >> yeah. i mean, the republicans decided early on they weren't going to engage in facts. this is not me saying it, this is what they say. they would engage in both process and muddying the waters. i had a republican tell me once if they could get people to change the channel that's a big enough victory for them and that
defense in any way, who did not want his counsel to appear in the hearings. now he wants a big fullblown trial and lots of opportunity. but as you heard him say, not to talk about the facts that are before the american people but to try to tell the maximum publ -- american public to pay attention to something else. if i can call who i want to call like a whistle-blower who never claimed to be a fact witness. the whistle-blower's job was not to be a fact witness. the whistle-blower's job was to say, hey, over here, something that deserves your attention through official channels, not even prejudging what the outcome of that investigation would be. now we've heard from the folks who had direct knowledge. and by the way, some of the folks that the democrats would like to call, little dangerous, i would argue as a lawyer, but
there will be a manic episode. there will be what we have seen with the tweets which really is a thing that's like a borderline kind of manic episode of someone sitting on their phone kind of lost from reality in some way to send that many tweets requires you to become absorbed in a different head space than the rest of us live in and that you live in normally. but the other thing that bannon said is this will have an effect on his re-election that he will likely get impeached, he will likely get acquitted. but on the back side of that, the decision that he makes, he is very involved in his own campaign. in terms of the message, in terms of the travel, in terms of some big things he is very involved. and when he is and the way that you just described him, people will laugh when i say this. whatever donald trump's right mind is or the rightest version of his mind at least when it comes to politics, this will not be the place where he's in his rightest mind. i think you will see over the course of the spring and the winter when the democratic race
they say, violating trump's rights to due process. and while democrats have reminded their colleagues that this is a process, trump and his allies have complained about the way it's been different from a court of law. that's why mitch mcconnell's appearance on sean hannity was so notable because in the court of law this would represent a major scandal. >> everything i do during this i am coordinating with white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. there is no chance the president's going to be removed from office. my hope is that there won't be a single republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment. >> mcconnell is saying there is akin to an impartial juror, somebody who is supposed to be announcing his cooperation. he met with white house counsel