so what has congress given up? i'd like to get your sense of one what has congress given up? two is it problem what congress has given up? is that a problem for the american people and what would you do about it? go ahead. >> i'm happy to start. again, thinking about the convergence discussion, i think, yes, it is a problem. and congress has given up some of its institutional authority in all of this. for many of the reasons you just said in your question, at the end of the day we do have -- congress not frankly taking ownership of some of it oversight responsibilities and funding the government. and digging deeper. just in my limited career of little over 20 plus years i have seen that erosion time and after time where i used to be called in and talk with committee staff about what's going on in these programs for student financial aid. those conversations don't happen nearly as often as they used to by the appropriators or -- especially there isn't time because they are too busy fighting about what's going to be the next allocation, what the appropriation will be and that w

in writing frameworks congress is used regulate. number consecutive would medications the building block. it's information about legislative activity for members of constituencies. joint policy judgments and professional action and budget was about members. likewise, the constituents cannot easily communicate preference to members and congressional action is less likely to reflect a public opinion. for most of the 19th century, postage free frank now can only be semi- members, but to congress by constituents. the frank privilege dates to the 17th century england and has existed tenuously in the united states. so for a brief period in the 1870s when it was temporarily abolished. the water system basic comprehensive forum passed in 1973. subsequent reforms m when reforms were made in the 1980s including many familiar restrictions, using private money, limits on overall frank expenditures, public disclosure individual member costs and be election band on mass mailing. the past 20 years house regulation of email and other electronic com

when members of congress make speeches before congress, they usually don't show a graphic. they say sally in my district was affected by this policy in this way. we try and make sure we're using machine learning in a lot of ways to try and process that overall view and give you a good view of what constituents feel in your district but also giving your staff the ability to identify those important stories. as you know, probably a lot -- half of the communications that come to congress are all templated, and their constituent clicks on, yes, i support this measure somewhere and you get kind of a templated message. you don't need your staff to eyeball those. that's where a machine can look at that and say, yes, we'll put that into the overall sentiment tally. when somebody writes in saying, i'm having trouble with getting case work, i'm a vet, i'm not getting the support that i need, and that needs to be handed off to caseworkers, that's where you don't want that to get lost in the mix and you want to make those personal connections. >> so you're talking about kind of taking

, this congress, previous congresses, to get information and witness testimony and documents from the executive branch about what the executive branch is doing, that's one of congress' chief responsibilities under the constitution in our separation of powers system. and part of what we're seeing now in the impeachment inquiry is a sort of advancing of that goal. in this case, the house may decide that this rises to the level of impeachable conduct, but at the end of the day, a lot of what's important about this is uncovering the information and sharing it with the public. host: let's get one more quick call here. we go to elizabeth in turner falls -- turners falls, massachusetts. caller: good morning. my question is about what to do about ignoring the subpoenas. it seems the general consensus of opinion, and you confirmed it yourself this morning, is that to turn to the courts would take too long. but ever since this has started, i've been wondering about susan macdougal and the white water hearings. she went to jail right away, if i remember correctly, and i was wondering what proces

congress, not just the house, congress said absolutely not. i think your honor again a commonsense reading against the backdrop of what cocounsel said remember section 8005 in which you are quoting was meant by congress as a restriction on the ability of the executive ranks to reprogram and transfer money. under those circumstances when it's absolutely clear to everybody we are talking about a border wall and indeed your honor why would the administration shut down the government portal along period is a dead. if it knew all of this is just theater because we can and will move the money from dod. they can't possibly be what was meant. it's just impossible to believe that congress decided to provide a statute whereby the president can't be denied so publicly and specifically in a way where congress said ultimately we will give you a certain amount of money but we don't think what you want the money for is not accused -- good use of taxpayer funds, absolutely clear their. if i may want to add one item on the gao report and the expert major the g

members of congress already know a lot about history and a member of congress here - right here. we have a member of congress, a member of the smithsonian board, please stand up. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for coming, a great supporter of the smithsonian, thank you for coming as well, former chair of the smithsonian. the idea was this, that i would try to find an appropriate person to interview about american history and invite members of congress and ask them to bring one of their guests if they wanted to so we have been doing this for -- since 2013. once a month when congress is in session, we have a dinner at the library of congress, a reception where members can come and this is an interesting thing about it. members of congress do not generally socialize that much with people at the office party, not something they do as much as they used to but this is a chance where they can mingle with the opposite party in the opposite house and because they don't have as much legislation, we don't have conference committees, there's not as much interchange between the

and he cannot without oversight from congress and with respect for legislation passed by the congress. and so as the court stated, contrary to the president's arguments, the committee possesses authority under both the house rules and the constitution to issue the subpoena, and majors must comply. majors is the accounting firm that has the president's records. we will see how that goes. accommodations back and forth in the next few days. but according to the decision, supposed to release the information in seven days. it may be that we extend an accommodation to them for longer, but that remains to be seen by the committee and our lawyers. on the investigation front, yesterday was a very somber, prayerful day. i thought it was a successful day for truth. truth coming from the president's men, people he appointed, a person that he appointed most recently, to the state department. again, none of us has come to congress to impeach a president. we've come here to do the work of the american people, to make the future better, for them to try to do so in the most bipartisan way possible. fi

congress about history and as a member of congress there's one here. we have a member of congress or the smithsonian board. please stand up. [applause] thank you very much for coming you're a great supporter of the smithsonian. roger thank you. so the idea is i would find an appropriate person to interview we would ask them to bring one of their guests so we have been doing this more or less once a month when congress was in session we have a dinner, a reception where members can come and this is the interesting thing. members of congress do not generally socialize with those of the opposite party. occasionally but generally they don't. not as much as they used to. so without the press being there they can mingle with the opposite party because we don't have as much legislation as we use to there is not as much interchange so they look at documents that relate to the author and then we come down and have a dinner members are encouraged to sit with the opposite house and party that i will interview like david mccullough or people like that now we have h

it is a fascinating story than the author of the gerrymander which help to get rid of in this congress he makes a number of appearances in the book. and then to be part of the architect of the big compromise and those that were represented according to population in the senate and each state would get two senators. there are a lot of fascinating details about our political history is called the first congress. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you for having me. >> now we have the main event. have the pleasure of introducing who needs no introduction but we will do this anyway. the last time david was a featured speaker june 2004 senator george mitchell was presidt

congress was the usurping legislature. it was definitely not a legal body in british political discourse. a dull, melancholy silence for some time succeeded to this speech, reported the annual register in the house of commons when lord north announced the peace initiative. even the government supporters seemed stunned. in the words of one observer, to treat with those who denied and took up arms in opposition to the authority of parliament had long been out of the question, yet that was exactly what britain was prepared to do. one can certainly see why the proposal caused such consternation. by repealing the hated impost on tea and giving up the right to tax and revenue, parliament abandoned what lord jermaine and other hardliners had insisted was the government's central war aim. and here we see hardest hardliner of them all, lord germain, on my right, your left. and another british cartoon in the center. of even greater moment, the royal instructions that carlisle carried with him to america envisioned a union where parl

as you know there are bills to establish latino pending for congress. as deemed in the public interest to move forward with these proposals it's important that the smithsonian is considered in light at the priorities. a new museum will need funds for the creation and long-term operation of the facilities, the care of our collections and the ongoing success of the museum. our work is also increase knowledge and never ending. as we continue to make new discoveries we have future generations and therefore i plan to reimagine the smithsonian role and lifelong learning by making the institution a leader in k-12 education. finally, what i want i want people to see the smithsonian as a resource and help them understand their lives, their universe, their history and our shared future. his for us to be a more universal voice, when the earned the american people and trust in us in a convenient power to increase our relevance and research. we want to be the place that matters for all americans. and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, i'm happy to a

comes before congress and says there was a quid pro quo. he's a republican operative. kurt volker, arguably tried to finesse and manage a very difficult situation. didn't exactly cover himself in glory, has also delivered a verdict that, yes, there was something very dodgey going on here. john bolton in a record to the press -- i don't want any part of this drug deal. john bolton, nobody's idea of a progressive liberal democratic operative. republicans are the ones coming forward and basically providing the noose of which this president is going to hang himself. the devin nunes jim jordan line this whole thing is political conspiracy, it's nonsense. it's nonsense on stilts. i've known fiona hill for several years. i've followed her work for a very long time. this is one of the most professional scholarly russia analysts there is. by the way, she's described often in the u.s. news cycle as a kremlin hawk. not exactly. very nuanced in her appraisal. her biography, which is one of the more insightful biographies of vladimir putin, very cleverly it's almost a post-modern a

there is no foi-- what is it foia, foia for congress and the courts. yet, congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the executive branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to public size the executive internal deliberations. that process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people. in recent years, we have seen substantial encroachment by congress in the area of executive privilege. the executive branch and the supreme court have long recognized that the need for confidentiality in the executive branch necessarily means that some communications must remain private. there was a time when congress respected this important principle as well. but today, congress is increasingly quick to dismiss good faith attempts to perspective executive branch equities, labeling such efforts obstruction of c

it is not surprising congress said that is what we thought. the support the mission received in ireland was a different matter. there is a lot of reporting on the carlisle peace commission and ireland during the late 1770's. during the late 1770's, the revolutionary war imposed economic costs on irish men and women, plunging the kingdom into a recession. patriots, as the government opponents called themselves, placed much of the blame on britain's 1776 and bargo and bargo on the irish provisioning trade with america. i haven't had a flourishing trade with america, heavily involved in trade throughout the 18th century. the revolutionary war disrupts this. it creates economic hardship. invoking the example of their fellow patriots in america, opposition leaders like henry flood focused on the and bargo embargo. free-trade became one of the patriots great rallying cries. i would have put a picture in here there is a picture of the gratin flag in the exhibit downstairs you can see. it says, free-trade, at the top and, legislative rights, at the bo

said to congress, you did not do nough. so he instituted family fairness which protected-- gave protection to a higher percentage of people than president obama did with the daca order. highest. president reagan. vice president george herbert walker bush. and then the continuation of that presidency going on with president clinton, president george w. bush, obama, all, all supportive of that point of view until this president. ery sad. so we hope the court would-- president reagan's decisions will be upheld by the court. i would hope that this court would use that as precedence. we will see. we don't know. i heard different versions of how people interpreted what one judge said, another judge said, and the rest. but i do know one thing. that is if the court supports president trump on this, they will be doing great harm to hundreds of thousands of people and families in our country, and i hope that pain will be a part of their consideration, because they have to consider the mpact. and i hope they will understand the blessi

things >> we've started to work more of actively with the library of congress. i partner with them when i was the director of the museum. we are sitting down to begin to look at the things we can do in common. >> the national archives does have an exhibit on ratification of the 19th amendment that is very good. i know they put a lot of resources into that. i'm not going to ask you a resource question, because that's the big question. you can do anything if you have enough time and resources. i appreciate what you are doing with the resources that you half, and thank you so much for being here. >> senator udall? >> thank you for the recognition and welcome again. i'm going to focus and follow up on the question on the latino museum. letting us have played an important role in the history of our nation for over 500 years. in my home state of new mexico it is celebrated, to recognize the important contributions of latinos and latinos in our country. self identified hispanics and latino's make up one fifth of our population and represent the largest ethnic group in

much like i did as a member of congress. i will make sure we hold at least one meeting every month to check on issues that we are working on. we will try to resolve differences that we have so that we can actually move forward in passing legislation that will serve the best interests of all americans. i will bring this same culture of leadership to my cabinet. making sure that all of those focusedpoint are solely on serving the interest of american people. not their own selfish interests or lining their pockets or getting a good bullet on their resume by doing the job of the people in this country. taking this oath of office to heart. together, by coming only by treating each other with aspect, not seeing each other as deplorables, not seeing each other as i am on one team and you are on another team and therefore we must oppose each other. what is thinking about -- whatge of allegiance does our pledge of allegiance say? this pledge we have taken throughout our lives. that we are one nation, under god, indivisible -- indivis

congress is very late to the game on this one. there has been a few champions on capitol hill but this is sort of the first time they have really listened to the voters. the marijuana policy project for 25 years now has run ballot initiatives, efforts and states to legalize marijuana for medical purposes and adult use purposes. there are 11 states that have full-blown retail marijuana, and 33 have medical. them, all but a few, have some cbd oil, low thc, sort of like hemp, medical him for children with epilepsy. if states regulation, have approved it for full-blown legalization, and i expect more in the 2020 cycle, 33 for medical marijuana, what does the federal government need to do or what proponents -- or what would proponents need to do to move forward on legalizing marijuana? >> the problem was federal prohibition, even though most people don't get arrested at the federal level, is it causes problems for those people who are providers of the product, the medicine, or of cannabis in some form or fashion. take a colorado, for e

if the president abuses his power, congress has to check the president's actions. it's the only branch with that authority and responsibility, and that's what the impeachment process is fundamentally for. and the constitution will fail. >> in other words, for feldman, democracy may depend on impeaching the president. for others, it is congress that is overreaching. >> this is un-american. >> to understand today's crisis, we need to go back to the last time america debated these issues. we now think of watergate as a time when america came together and forced a crooked president out of office. but to richard nixon and the republican party, the watergate scandal was a partisan war. >> it was a five-front war with a fifth column. i had a partisan senate committee staff, special prosecutor staff, media. we had a partisan judiciary committee staff, and a fifth column. i gave them a sword, and they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish. >> the real story of the war nixon describes is one that few americans know. it's a story of a small group of men who turned impe

and congress is free to use them. by the way, if they get the full grand jury information that the mueller team assembled, they will have the unredacted memos and can fill in all the details that we cannot yet see. >> former ambassador to russia michael mcfaul, thank you for joining our discussion tonight. and chuck rosenberg, please stay with us. when we come back, we'll talk about rudy giuliani's pal, lev parnas, who now says he's willing to cooperate with the house impeachment investigation. that cannot be good for rudy giuliani or the president of the united states. united states. at bayer, we make aspirin to help save lives during a heart attack... so it never stops the heart of a family. at bayer, this is why we science. i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. libert

are you working with the library of congress? it's got to be a lot of intersection there of all kinds of not just history but documentations and other things. >> we started to work more effectively with the library of congress. i partnered with them when i was the director of the museum. tomorrow i think the librarian of congress and others are sitting down to begin to look at what are the things we can do. >> right. the national archives does have an exhibit on the ratification of the 19th amendment that's very good, and i know they've put a lot of resources into that. i'm not going to ask you the resource question. i know that's the big question. you can do anything if you have enough full-time, money, and resources. so i appreciate what you're doing with the resources you have. thank you for being here today. >> thank you. thank you for the recognition, and welcome, again. i'm going to focus and follow up a little bit on senator cortez-mastos question in the a latino museum question. they've played an important role in over 50

in that context, congress allocated the $391 million in a bipartisan fashion. in february, the administration, they wrote to congress and said the aid is on the way. but it never showed up. and then in may, the trump department of defense wrote to congress again and said the aid is on the way. and in that letter said, all necessary pre-conditions have been met by the new ukranian government, including the implementation of anti-corruption protocols. that was in the letter that was sent by trump's department of defense in may. and yet the aid never showed up. twice during the summer, mitch mcconnell called up the trump administration and said where's the aid? mitch mcconnell couldn't get a good answer. and then on july 18 at the white house, the office of management and budget holds a meeting and mulvaney is there and said the reason that the aid hasn't been released is at the explicit direction of the president of the united states of america. july 25, we understand why, do us a favor, though. pressuring a foreign government to target an american citizen for po

it doesn't get around the factt social media has had a tremendous impact on how congress communicates with its constituents. ten years ago they didn't even havet a digital media staff and today almost every committee has won including hours and given these changes in the way congress and the american people communicate, today's hearing is important. if history is any indicator, the platforms will continue to rapidly evolve, and congress needs n to adapt so that members can communicate as effectively as possible with the people they represent, and i know representative susan davis put a lot of thought into these issues and have ideas about how to modernize it carried members need to understand the differences between the platforms so that they can make smart choices about how to best communicate. it comes with a geographical constraints in some social media platforms, advertising the frank male doesn't. so the bottom line is communicating is a lot easier today but also a lot more complicated. i look forward to what the witnesses have to say about these issues and it's important to unde

and now not even congress. now, nixon, it's important to know, was told by the supreme court as you say, ari and unanimously that he had to turn over the tapes. but there were other subpoenas that he had his administration deny and papers that he didn't turn over. and that became article three of the articles of impeachment. the judiciary committee didn't want to have more court battles. it had enough. that's, i think, what adam schiff is recognizing now. he's got enough. the congress now knows that the president has committed impeachable offenses and adam schiff, a very brilliant former student of mine, clearly has decided not to play rope-a-dope and let the courts drag matters out. >> you mentioned the past precedent. it's very important as we come into this. andrew johnson did face articles on denying congress, much of that fight was about what they viewed as him flauting his tenure of his office. nixon denying congressional subpoenas. in the clinton case, lying to congress was both put forward by the house

i didn't really lie to congress. when you're on trial for lying, using the defense you're a liar is probably not the strongest defense. >> that's a great point. although maybe the one honest thing stone has ever said. glenn kirschner, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chris. >>> when we get back the first election of the impeachment era is in the books. there's a lot to learn how america is voting in this moment, and steve kornacki has the most important results for us. he will be with us right after this. after this great presentation, tim. could you email me the part about geico making it easy to switch and save hundreds? oh yeah, sure. um. you don't know my name, do you? (laughs nervously) of course i know your name. i just get you mixed up with the other guy. what's his name? what's your name? switch to geico®. you could save 15% or more on car insurance. could you just tell me? i want this to be over. only one thing's more exciting than getting a lexus... ahhhh! giving one. the lexus december to rembember

the congress approves. and congress could start saying, hey you know what you don't have any money for the white house counsel's office. >> it's interesting to think of both those things as sort of the next step in escalation. thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> don't go anywhere. we've got a special announcement and rachel maddow is coming up next. so just stay right there. dow isp next so just stay right there when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. whether your beauty routine is 3or 57,... make nature's bounty hair skin and nails step one. it's the number one brand uniquely formulated for silky hair, glowing skin and healthy nails. nature's bounty, because you're better off healthy. and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i sa

where congress has not has declined to provide a remedy and congress is telling, they've addressed this issue in that a ftca which bars foreign claim. they've addressed it again in the tort statute and they addressed it again in westfall that carved out an exception for bivens. the new context in this case is not only the transnational aspect but also the utilization of the fifth amendment's newprocess clause . the new context itself fails in the argument that there's a lack of a remedy, fails when the court takes into consideration the special factors in this case. intruding on the separation of powers where congress and the executive, that is their domain and national security and the border patrol is national security. the border patrol is the forefront of our national security. the border patrol much like the military is a parent paramilitary organization charged with protecting our borders. congress has chosen and not inadvertently to create a damages remedy and if the remedy is appropriate it's the unique domain of congress to consider the public policy, the balance, the projected

ask me every single member of congress who has the transcript of the phone call. what is the impeachable offense? so i'll make you this one promise. republicans believe in the constitution. we believe in the rule of law and that's why we are standing here today and that's why the bipartisan vote in the u.s. house of representatives was no. thank you very much. [applause] >> now, we will hear from house democrats who also spoke to reporters after the house voted to move forward with additional impeachment inquiry procedures. this conference included the .hairs of all committees mr. mcgovern: are we ready? so, this is a sad and somber time in the history of the united states of america. for the fourth time in our history, we are compelled by allegations of presidential wrongdoing, so serious we are engaged in an impeachment inquiry. none of us ran for impeachment inquiry, but we have put into place a fair series of .rocedures these procedures are guided by the precedent congress set under previous impeachments and guarantee protections for the president and his coun

to congress -- assigned to congress. arelegislative and judicial responsible for encroaching on the president's authority. as i said, the framers fully expected intense pulling and hauling through congress and the executive. unfortunately, from the past few years, we have seen these conflicts take on an entirely new character. immediately after president opponentselection, inaugurated what they called the resistance. around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch. resistance is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. it obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. this is a very dangerous and indeed, incendiary notion to import into the politics of the democratic republic. [applause] attorney general barr: what it means is that instead of viewing themselves as the loyal opposition as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in

just what we will see on a congress as. well big barri yes the congress men and women not really trying to negotiate something with jenny or her party and what we will see will be a really conflictive scenario and you ask a simply what right my big concern is is that the left believe is going to. it will it will have like a big work in the next years to reconstitute itself so it's very concerning because a democracy right now democracy as we can see it like the constitution and everything it is only justifying one side of politics and believe yeah indeed one site is right wing politics with bibles which religions and putting in danger for example the secular state and believe you're so it's really concerning what is going to happen in the next years because we are going to be to see like a competition between only lived sort. only the right wing parties don't really concerning what will happen to the left wing parties then i won the katherine our is the suggestion on this show that they're going to be generated from parliam

congress knew they did then something illegal. that by collecting all of your metadata and all of your phone call data, that went out the permission of thet judge, they pviolated the fourth amendment. they knew that he had probably become the greatest whistleblower of all time. and yet where are the voices defending edward snowden now. not one of these people who say outrage over this whistleblower president trump and the impeachment, not one of them will stay on up for edward snowden, they would still put them in jail for life if they could. in the end we did and collection because edward snowden bravely came forward and said that the government was lying to us. james clapper, now the president trump pater, came before the senate and he lied directly to senator wyden and he said we are not collecting your data. yet where is it bestowing all of this is these great defenders of the whistleblower statute are. not a word for edward snowden. he said himself that he didn't have adequate protection to bring in his flames internally beca

these procedures are guided by underecedent congress set previous impeachment. they guarantee protection for the president, his counsel, that not expressly provided during prior impeachments, and a full path forward so the american people can hear firsthand the alarming allegations about president trump's abuse of power. i'm proud of the resolution we put together. it will stand the test of time. i'm proud of the work of the rules committee. and even though it got somewhat contentious last night, i want way all'm proud of the members, democrats and republicans, conducted themselves. there was no live streaming during the markup. nobody stormed the committee. microphone.d a people behaved, i think, in a way that is respectful of this i appreciateand the cooperation of ranking member tom cole, the other republicans as well. i want to thank all the committee chairs here for their uncover the truth on behalf of the american people. this vote is a victory not -- victory not for any of us but on behalf of the us hereents who sent and who demand that we follow the fact

and if he comes and tells that story for free under oath to congress, it's not worth that much. so i hate to say it but i think part of this is greed. part of this is financial greed. the notion that he has to get permission from a court is nonsense. fiona hill didn't get permission. gordon sondland didn't get permission, and all of these people knew any order from the white house not to testify was based on a bogus absolute immunity defense. and they came up and did their patriotic duty. so why is john bolton hiding behind fiona hill's skirts? well, part of it is money and he lives behind this right wing echo sphere. these are his supporters and they donate to his super pac. he's trying to be very cute and stay in the public eye, but at the same time he's not doing his patriotic duty. he's not helping to get to the bottom of this. so in that case he's really enabling donald trump and indirectly vladimir putin. >> his lawyer seems to be helping him as well. john bolton's lawyer in on november 8th said bolton was personally involved in many of the events, meetings and conversatio

when it was created it didn't have a charter and congress didn't say this is what it should do. it had always been operated through executive fiat the president told the fbi what to do and they did it. there is limitations on the fbi and they did not exist until after j edgar hoover died when the church committee did the only comprehensive examination of our intelligence agencies to find widespread abuse, the effort was for congress to write a charter to limit the fbi powers instead the attorney general step forward to say i will issue guidelines and those reforms were not to be an indication of illegal activities so to restore its function as a law enforcement agency that because the attorney general guidelines every attorney general can modify them and most do and incrementally they move stronger or less and then john ashcroft significantly loosened the guidelines and then again they were extensively rewritten to the point now under the fbi guidelines they conducted an investigation called the assessment with no factual basis to believe anybody has committed a crime and these

lying to congress. but they did not come and say, we believe we have testimony in front of us that is undermined by testimony of another witness. they set other people have lied to congress, and though we think we should get to everything, just to make sure no one else did. you would never accept that in a criminal case or a civil case. that is not normal. that is exactly the error. i think there is a criminal antitrust investigation and antitrust proceedings, and a party came in and said, well, we would like the same information in order to establish -- judge: i have to take a step back and ask about our jurisdiction in this case. the court has an obligation to assure we have jurisdiction, so with the supreme court decision, the supreme court held they could not review and impeachment decision of the senate in the nixon case, and they also suggest it would be inappropriate for the court to assist or interfere with impeachment proceedings. if our involvement in this is interpreting the judicial proceedi

it's congress place to determine what should be made to u.s. law governing those who serve desperate last week that sharon mentioned he and i along with other colleagues from across the political spectrum introduced hr 4803, citizenship for children. [inaudible] this exposed a loophole. some children were not automatic acquire citizenship because of their parents deployment prohibited them from eating the statute. this would fix this unfortunate loophole. it is important to remember that immigrants wear the uniform and have since the founding of our nation. historically the average number of foreign nationals have been around 5000 a year and that number jumped to 7000 in 2019. many will go on to be naturalized for their service and from fiscal year 2001-members in the military including more than 11000 deployed overbroad. our immigration laws organize the immigrant layout provisions of the expedited naturalization of foreign nationals. in foreign national who serves in hostilities is a level eligible to apply for naturalization for honorable se

body hanging on the edge of government pretending to be a congress of the united states? would you trust the army to someone like that? would you feel safe with someone like that? most republicans did not. that was one reason why in 1867, they tried to protect the secretary of war stanton was dismissed from the war department by andrew johnson, sending acting general lorenzo thomas to have him vacate the premises so that the defense department would be put in andrew johnson's hands. in the course of three days, the house of representatives overwhelmingly, by more than a two thirds vote, voted to impeach andrew johnson. it is a striking and remarkable moment and you have to ask yourself why. nobody thinks of a present president firing his secretary of state or the like, there would be impeachment resolutions brought. nobody in the past has occurred on this. why would this happen in the case of stanton of all people especially when you consider with a thoroughly unpleasant person he is? we have to understand that the only way we can understand the impeachment trial. that is

of comprehensive bipartisan bill that passed the congress, signed reagan, he then said to congress, you did not do enough. instituted family fairness which protected -- gave a higher to percentage of people than resident obama did with the daca order. highest. president reagan. george herbert walker bush. and then the continuation of on with idency going president clinton, president bush, obama, all, all supportive of that point of view president. very sad. would -- the court president reagan's decisions court. upheld by the i would hope that this court would use that as precedence. see.ll we don't know. i heard different versions of one eople interpreted what judge said, another judge said, and the rest. but i do know one thing. that is if the court supports president trump on this, they harm to oing great hundreds of thousands of people country, andin our i hope that pain will be a part because consideration, they have to consider the impact. they will understand the blessing to america that our newcomers are, and i hope the senate will pass h.r. 6. thank you. [captions copyright

that would be for congress but if congress were to act exception of rule 60 fort lawn bit alike would not put the court in a position of policing that. so rule 6e a lust for one federal grand jury to give information to another federal grand jury without going through -- >> was at the position at the department of justice in 1985 that 60 60 would add exception would because additional or would it infringe on the control over grand jury material? >> i'm not aware of whether that's the case. >> 1985 opinion. >> i think that the reasons why one might ask about the constitutional scope of grand jury information under rule 6e for the same reasons that we were just discussing, about whether we ought to be in this bucket at all of whether the district court ought to be in this business at all. if there is to be -- that rational would call into doubt the casa del ship of the application of rule 6e today industry case -- >> yes, it would. that you want comes to amend the rule in the way the department has said may race x series constitutional problem. >> on suggesting as the court knows congre