0 i don't know, it's definitely gremlins. this is always been a backup plan, and cases studio goes kaput. tonight it did, so here we are. again, nothing to worry about. other than the fact nothing to . other than the fac nothing the matter with it except that my lighting makes my head look like richard nixon or the great pumpkin. as you know, president biden held a conference on the start of the second year in office he took questions for almost a at his press conference he warned president putin he'll regret the consequences, but provocatively biden said he thinks putin will try it in ukraine. again, he said putin will regret it if he does it, but if he had to guess, he thinks he will. president biden said he's not giving up on voting rights. he said it was unthinkable effectively that zero republicans support voting rights puanymore, something tha at least until recently had been a fairly bipartisan thing. he said what republicans are trying to do with election subversion efforts, he said that absolutely poses a riske of delegitimiing future elections onin purpose. interestingly he also said this about the recent reporting on republicans in multiple states, forging fake m certificates of electors, trying to get them the electoral college. this is something we've been reporting on a lot recently. the president referred to it today in his press conference. >> i never thought we'd get a new place where we were talking about what they tried to do the last time out, send different electors to the state legislative bodies to represent the election, saying that i didn't win, but republican candidate won. i doubt anybody ever thought that would happen in america in the 21st century, but it's happening. >> but it's happening. president biden today saying in effect nobody would have believed they would try to do this stuff to our elections, sending in fake state of ee lengths to try to cast college votes for the losing candidate. hevo said it's unimaginable tha they would have tried this. but, hey, as unimaginable that they would have tried very recently, they did, and that is where we are. debate on voting rights has been frenetic including this sort of interesting decision, interesting spectacle in which democratic senator joe manchin got up and made his anantivotin rights speech while bind was giving his conference. i'm sure that was purely co-ins den stall. i don't know. we're going go check on the progress in just a moment. we had to make a late adjustment to the show in addition to me broadcasting from hometo becaus when it rains, it pours. tonight we did get a big cannon bawl of news from the united states supreme court. an 8 to 1 ruling against donald trump in trying to prevent the january 6th committee from gathering documents. eight to one. only justice clarence thomas would have sided with trump. the other three that trump supported to the court, they came down against himhe on this. this d is a pretty straightforwd saying. i don't want you to trust me entirely on this. i'm going to get an expert who you can absolutely trust. as far as i can see, the straight throughline is pretty straightforward.li ipr will happily stand correcte ifwi i'm oversimplifying this, t as i understand it, it basically started this past summer, august last year, the january 6th investigators started to make not enormous but pretty wide, significant requests from the trump white house. not millions of pages but hundreds of pages, potentially thousands of pages. we know from court filings that the documents they wanted to see included things like draft speeches and talking points for communicating to the public about the election. one of their requested documents that always seemed particularly worrying to me is this one, a, quote, draft executive order concerning election integrity. also this one, quote, a document containing presidential findings concerning the security of the 2020 election after it occurred and ordering various actions. i haveri no idea what that mean. ordering various actions? but i would love to see it or actually more accurately i would love for the january 6th investigators to see it. so we do have these in some cases fairly specific descriptions of court documents that the investigators have been trying to seek. former president trump, you know what happened next. he invoked the concept of executivece privilege. he said these documents the committee was looking for should not be handed over to them. that's it. he's no longer the sitting president. president biden is. it's only thees sitting preside who gets to wield that privilege. he said, no, it's not privileged. it can be handed over to the january 6th investigators. it was then trump sued, last october, to stop the documents from being give on the the investigation, and on a timeline that was remoorkably quick moving for the federal court system, he sued in october. in november, the first federal court judge ruled against him, ruled that thet documents coul be give on theru the investigators. again, he sued in october. the district court judge in d.c. ruling in november. trump appealed that to the d.c. court of appeals am three-seat panel of judges from the appeals court ruled unanimously against him. this is incredibly quick for the federal court system these days. now, trumphe then had a choice after that three-judge panel of the d.c. circuit court of appeals turned him down. he could have appealed en banc, which means he could have asked not just that three-seat judge panel but the whole d.c. court to take another look, but he skipped that step and decided to go straight to the united states supreme court. hest appealed to the united stas supreme court. he also filed an emergency application with them to get them to -- before they handled the substance of the matter, tried to get them to weigh in to block this. it's that emergency application in to the united states supreme court that we got the 8 to 1 supreme court ruling. one who writes quickly about these is josh gerstein. i want to know why they think the ruling may be the most significant moment yet for the january 6th select committee investigating the attack on the capitol. i'm no law year here. the title of the document is "an application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review." those are all words that i understand individually and alone, but i do not necessarily understand them when they're all put in that order. said, i think the basics here are fairly straightforward, but i do have some questions, for which i think weue need some expert hel. the first question i have, probably the same one you have, is this it? is this it? i mean trump was waiting -- he filed a supreme court order. what we just got tonight from the court is a clear 8 to 1 no to trump, but it's also a ruling in response to his emergency application for a stay, right?a which is a different thing than just a ruling on his case. so how should we understand that, particularly us nonlawyers. maybe to nonlawyers, not so. does that mean his impact is more limited either in terms of duration or in terms of what documents it applies to? bottom line, is this going to be the last word from the united states supreme court on this issue or is there something else we're going to wait to hear from him on? that, i feel like, is the basic question we needed advice on. ised this it? the january 6th investigatoret put out a statement tonight saying, quote, the select committee has already begun to receive records that they had hoped to keep hidden. they say in response -- in a very - short amount of time -- very short amount of time having elapsed, they're already getting documents. does this mean they're going to get them all? does this mean they're ohm going to get some selection of them and gthere's ruling yet to be made on the rest of them? if they are going to get them all, when? howm fast does this happen? especially since it looks like it's starting to happen tonight. joining us now to help sort me out t on some of these issues i linda greenhouse. she's a long time court reporter and an intellectualist as well. her book is "justice on the brink." linda greenhouse, i'm always grateful when you can be here and for being here on short nigh it is. thank you. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> let me just ask -- >> please. >> the document artist of the united states who took issue that said, yes, this stuff is releasable but i'm not going to release it until i can make sure the court is not going to stop me. that's why they were all coming out tonight.me this isin it for that bunch of documents. i think it's 700-some-odd pages. there are a bunch of documents that the archivalist hasn't gone through, but certainly the opinion that came down, the unsigned opinion is just one paragraph. one paragraph long. it could be one of the most important one paragraphs that we've seen in a very long time from the court. >> and as you mentioned, this would appear to apply to about 700-some-odd pages that the archivist had come to handling it. the types of claims that he has made with the courts in trying to block the handing over of these documents, does this ruling settle them all? i mean the archivist may have something else as to the privilege claims trump is making, but wille this apply t all the documents? >> well, i think that's a fair guess, although, the technical matter, not yet. but what a court does when it asks for an emergency action like this is stay an injunction. it balances the two sides, the need that the app can't is putting forward, and trump says it's my right as president to have this executive privilege claim and the compelling need on the circuit side. there's a compelling need on the other side as shown by the fact that congress is asking for this material, and president, the incumbent president has weighed any kind of executive privilege. so it was a combination. in other words, it was the entire w architecture of the government and the current white house saying, yes, this is releasable. the supreme court did something kind of interesting in his unsigned opinion. interpreted detective took one took one way of reading it in saying it doesn't matter that trump is theformer president, being the incumbent. it doesn't matter that president biden, they incumbent has waved any kind of privilege. in what way either an incumbent or former president was making this claim or privilege, it wouldn't hold up. it's not strong enough, good enough to overcome the c compelling public need to get this material. the supreme court said we're not deciding whether trump had a more orng less of a right. that's not the case. we leave intact the d.c. circuit's finding that he didn't have a right to get it, no matter what title he was cloaked in when he made the claim. >> and, linda, one of the other things wene have watched unfold over the past few months, a lot of people have received s&ps from the january 6th investigation. most people have complied. but a bunch of them have sued the january 6th committee, some of themh echoing the privilege claims that trumpth was pursuin in thetr courts that as you kno appear to have been cut off at the knees by the supreme court's unsigned ruling tonight. do you expect that this rule willing have sort of cascaing implications for the other people who have sued the committee to try w to avoid testifying or handing over documents? >> iha would certainly think so. i mean if i were any of those people, i would not be sleeping very easily tonight. now, i suppose someone could make a claim that, well, there was a compelling public need for the kind of documents, rachel, that you showed on the screen earlier, but, you know, i'm just a little fish, and there's nothing compelling with my role in this, so the subpoenas overthrow the s&ps unjustified, that kind of thing. certainly we've seen subpoenas from the court all the way up, the justices taking a very dim view of any kind of claim of privilege here.y so i think this will really kind of turn on the faucet of being able to t find out more about wt happened on january 6th. >> wow. linda greenhouse, supreme court reporter and analyst for "the new york times,"st lecture ter yale law school.rk linda, again, i really appreciate you agreeing to be here on short notice, this momentous short ruling. thanks for being here. all right. you know, all day long yesterday and all day long today and live right now as we speak, the united states senate has been debating, democratic legislation, on protection of voting rights and block unanimous results. the question at hand is whether democrats as they say would go nuclear and allow themselves to pass these voting rights protections with a simple majority vote. and i'll tell you. i was just looking back today when republicans were the majority in the senate and trump was inna office. during that time, right, republican senator mitch mcconnell is running the senate, trump is in the white house, during that time, mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans went nuclear and decided it would be a majority vote only, 50 votes only to confirm supreme court nominees. then mitch mcconnell went nuclear another time and said it would be 50 votes needed for lower executive branch nominees. then he went nuclear a third time and decided he would change the filibuster rule and there would only have to be a majority vote 50rks-vote threshold for federal district court judges. even since biden has been president, the united states has decided to go nuclear to require a majority vote on a bill to fund the government last year. they also g did it, went nuclea decided majority, 50 votes, for aot random vote that didn't go anywhere about vaccine requirements. we use the phrase "go nuclear" because it's like end of the world, terms of destruction. it turns out they go nuclear all the time. it turns out they feel 50-vote majority is enough that we can't have a 60-vote majority for a particular amendment or vote. they do that all the time now, teen snarkts even when republicans wererk in control wh trump in there white house. it happens all the time. butns democratic senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema keep saying that this wouldky be an unprecedented thing to do even thoughen that's absolutely not true. they justte keep saying that wot do it for voting rights. tonight in the senate, they're not even voting to go nuclear like they have on so many other issues in ther recent past. tonightes they're vote tong narrowest possible way to do this, ana rule to require a talking filibuster, a physical effort to speak and hold the floor for a long time if you want a voting righting specifically, and v presumably senator manchin and cinema will vote making that change, too, but just in case, vice president kamala harris is presiding over it right now and she is available if she has to weigh in. all night they've been going back and forth. republican senator tom cotton of arkansas at one point tried to say democrats were hypocriting because he read a letter from 2017 in which several democratic senators said they supported keeping the filibuster as it is. one of the senators who signed that letter is new hampshire democratic senator maggie hassett who's talked on our show a few times including last night. after senator cottonud invoked r and the other democratic senators who signed that letter, senator hassan actually got up for an impromptu response. this is really interesting. watch. >> i know i was not scheduled to speak, but i do want to respond as one of the signatories of the letter. i associate myself with the have talked about in terms of wanting to restore the senate's tradition of extended debate on issues of grave importance to the american people, but let me be clear about the reason that i now support an adjustment to the long-standing rules of the senate. it's because i never imagined when i signed that letter that not a single member of the republican party would stand up for our democracy since january 6th when we saw an acceleration of state laws that would allow partisans to overturn the impartial count of an election, but if we do not have a functioning democracy where people know that when they vote, that vote will be impartially upheld and people will accept a defeat so they can have an accountable elected representation in washington, then there is no democracy. and when i signed that letter, i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. >> new hampshire senator maggie hassan with impassioned remarks today in the united states senate. i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. when president biden was giving his press conference this afternoon as i mentioned earlier, democratic senator joe manchin chose that moment to get up on the senate floor to defend his decision to block voting rights with t republicans. gave that ly he speech in front ofic a big sign that he and his staff made that said the united states senate has neverha been able to end debate with a simple majority, implying that what democrats are trying to do in terms of having a majority vote on voting rights is implying, stating there that it's completely unheard of. thisit kind of thing has never been done before. that is deeply, deeply wrong. deeply epahistorical and wrong. it's just not true. but don't take it from me. here was senator amy klobuchar of minnesota speaking in part in response. >> there are 160 exceptions, 160 exceptions to the filibuster rule. things have been changed to benefit my colleague from the other side offi the aisle. somehow it only takes 51 votes to put in place the trump tax cuts or the bush tax cuts. somehow it only took 51 votes to put amy coney barrett on the supreme court of the united states, a change by them, made by them. somehow it only takes 51 votes to try to overturn a regulation or try to mess around with the affordable care act. but then when it comes to something like voting rights, suddenly everyone on the other side of the aisle is hugging that filibuster tight, knowing that so many times in history, including most recently with the debt ceiling, changes have been made to allow a vote with less than 60 votes. the national gas policy act in 1977, in 1995, the endangered species act, in 1996, a change to the reconciliation process. 160 times. >> i think by voting this down, by not allowing us to even debate this to get to the conclusion of a vote, that is silencing the people of america all in the name of an archaic senate rule that isn't've anyone the constitution. that's just wrong. i yield the floor. >> all ini the name of an archc senate rule that isn't even in the constitution. joining us now live is the senior senator from the great state of minnesota, senator amy klobuchar. senator, i know you're in the think of it.of thanks for giving us a moment, giving us your perspective. >> thank you, rachel. >> tell us what happened tonight? >> first of all, thank you for playing that clip of maggie hassan. i love maggie hassan. she stood up and made the case like no one else could. first we made a vote to get on the mbill, and both manchin an sinema whobo are co-sponsors of the bill that we worked with them all summer on t freedom to vote act they've been leading, they did vote for that, because they do support the bill. i think it's important for people to know. now there's going to be the second vote, and that is where the argument really pivots because to me if you're serious about voting rights and you so well pointed out, rachel, how many times there's been exceptions, and i note 160 times we've changed the process. i could even add to that compensation for victims of space accidents that we changed the numbers for. >> wow. >>e you can go through history and it's replete with examples. why? because senators wanted to get things e done, because they cam to washington d to do things. and when they saw an obstacle in their path, still allowing the filibuster to stay in place, they made practical changes to get things done. sometimes on small things, but sometimes onll really, really b things like r supreme court justices, which mitch mcconnell did, like the bush and trump tax cuts, the trump tax cuts, the recent ones for the wealthy, all on 51-vote margins. >> senator klobuchar, you have beenbu telling this history in various waysen throughout the debate and particularly as the debate has p become more and mo heated and focused on this point. i find myself frustrated by the assertion from senator manchin and from senator sinema that it would be unprecedented that it's never been done ntbefore, that there's nothing in history that can have a 50-vote threshold for voting on a bill like this. like it would be something that you would need to be able to move mountains. i wonder if you have any perspective on. this clearlyu you know the history. clearly senator manchin didn't just say it. he put up a board on the floor giving a statement about this. i wonder how you and your colleagues are handling this. >> we keep making case. i think we're pretty sure how this is going to end tonight. but what's been important for me is that we have every other senator on board. you know, your viewers should know, we have an election coming up. neither of those two are coming up, but there are strong possibilities forth taking over senate seats across the country. if we get to 52, that's a whole different ball game when it comes to the senate rules and getting this done. your viewers should know that we have a justice department filled with people like anita gupta and christa clark who are committed to supporting the voting rights act and the bills that are right now on the books. we're going to be mobilizing in state legislatures across the country. we're going to a be working to fund elections, something we can do with mail-in ballots and the like. there is so much work we can do including fixing the electoral clnl. none of it, i want to make clear, , rachel, why we worked hard this year, up in of it would have related to the freedom ofd right act. that would havee put the standards in the law. everyone knows what's happening here. get writ of same-day registration in montana. it's been in place for 15 years. get rid of registration during the last month, the runoff period in georgia. 70,000 people registered that time. those thingspl were put into la with what one court described as another voting rights suppression law as surgical precision. we're going to continue to see that, and i will not give up this fight. >> minnesota senator amy klobuchar. a busy night for you and your colleagues. thank you for helping us understand it and other things. >>de rachel, martin luther king jr. once said disappointment is fine night but hope is not. let's not forget that. >> thank you. good luck tonight. we've got much more to get to on this busy night again. i apologize for the set here looking a little different than it usually does. it's not a set.it it's my house. technical gremlins. nothing weird going on other than technical gremlins am full show going on tonight. late-breaking decisions. huge filing overnight in the trump family business case that's being pursued as a civil matter in new york state. there's lots going on. big show. still lots to come. stay with us. big show still lots to come still lots to come stay with us and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.
Related Keywords
New York , United States , Georgia , Montana , New Hampshire , Texas , Washington , Minnesota , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Togo , America , Suzanne Craig , Amy Coney Barrett , Maggie Hassan , Leticia James , Kyrsten Sinema , Mitch Mcconnell , Martin Luther , Josh Gerstein , Richard Nixon , John Jr , Henny Cuellar , Vanita Gupta , Nothing , Cases , Gremlins , Studio , Backup Plan , Kaput , Take It From Me , Matter , Fact , Head , Fac , Lighting , The Great Pumpkin , Biden , Questions , Conference , Office , Press Conference , Start , Putin , Consequences , President Putin , Voting Rights , Ukraine , Thing , Pit Republicans , Election Subversion Efforts , Least , Friske , Something Tha , Voting Rights Puanymore , Zero , Electors , Reporting , States , Certificates , Delegitimiing Future Elections Onin Purpose , Fake M , Something , Lot , Electoral College , Place , Estate , Election , Time Out , Bodies , Didnt Win , Saying , Nobody , Happening , Republican , Candidate , Anybody , Effect , 21 , Stuff , Elections , College Votes , Tha , Ee Lengths , Thevo , Decision , Sort , Debate On Voting Rights , Senator Manchin , Spectacle , Anantivotin , Rights , Adjustment , Speech , Progress , Bind , Rego Check , Den Stall , I Dont Know , Show , United States Supreme Court , When It Rains , Addition , News , Hometo , Big Cannon Bawl , Donald Trump , Trump , Ruling , Clarence Thomas , January 6th Committee From Gathering Documents , Eight , 6 , 1 , January 6th , One , 8 , D , Straightforwd , Himhe , Three , Expert , Ipr , Straight Throughline , Correcte Ifwi , Pages , Investigators , Millions , Requests , White House , Documents , Things , Court Filings , Public , Draft Speeches , Points , Hundreds , Quote , Draft Executive Order , Document , Actions , Election Integrity , Findings , Security , Idea , 2020 , President Trump , Committee , Court Documents , Concept , Executivece Privilege , Descriptions , Privilege , Sitting , Investigation , Timeline , Remoorkably , Federal Court , Judge , Court System , District Court Judge , Dc , October , November , Thet , Motheru , Court Of Appeals , Panel , Appeals Court , Judges , Circuit Court Of Appeals , Trumphe , Choice , Look , En Banc , Step , Emergency Application , Chest , Substance , Supreme Court Ruling , Stay , Title , Law , Attack , Application , Capitol , Mandate , January 6th Select Committee , Order , Words , Basics , Put , Injunction Pending Review , Question , Waiting , Expert Hel , Weue , Supreme Court Order , Case , Response , Terms , Nonlawyers , Impact , Bottom Line , Issue , Word , January 6th Investigatoret , Arised , Records , Statement , Amount , Selection , Brest , Gthere , Showm , Some , Linda Greenhouse , Issues , Court Reporter , Justice , Book , Intellectualist , Brink , Rachel , Document Artist , Pleasure , Bunch , Yes , 700 , Paragraph , Opinion , Archivalist Hasn T , Paragraphs , Archivist , Types , Courts , Claims , Handing , Privilege Claims Trump , Making , Nwille , Action , Emergency , Sides , Guess , Injunction , Two , Need , Right , Executive Privilege Claim , Forward , App , Material , Side , Circuit Side , Congress , Kind , President , Government , Executive Privilege , Architecture , Few , Combination , Interesting , Releasable , Way , It , It Doesn T , Incumbent , Detective , Theformer , Reading , Claim , Enough , It Wouldn T , C , Hold Up , Tworng , Finding , People , Trumpth , January 6th Investigation , January 6th Committee , Pursuin , Themh , Rule , Supreme Courts Unsigned Ruling , Knees , Implications , Othetr , Cascaing , Someone , Wiha , Subpoenas , Screen , Role , Little Fish , Justices , View , All The Way Up , Privilege Here Y , The New York Times , Faucet , Analyst , Yale Law School Rk Linda , Lwt , St Lecture Ter , Thanks , United States Senate , Democratic , Debating , Legislation , Protection , T Freedom To Vote Act , Majority , Hand , Voting Rights Protections , Results , Votes , Majority Vote , Nominees , 50 , Filibuster Rule , Threshold , Executive Branch , Federal District Court Judges , Bill , Nuclea , Go Nuclear , Aot Random Vote , Vaccine Requirements , Destruction , Anywhere , Didnt Go , End Of The World , Amendment , 60 , Wouldky , Wh , Butns , Floor , Talking Filibuster , Voting Righting , Tonightes , Effort , Tv , Tong , Kamala Harris , Change , Just In Case , Cinema , Tom Cotton , Point , Forth , Arkansas , Hypocriting , Senators , Letter , Maggie Hassett , Filibuster , 2017 , Senator , Cottonud , Times , Dr , Signatories , Watch , Debate , Reason , Grave , Importance , Tradition , Democracy , Rules , Member , Partisans , Count , Acceleration , State Laws , Defeat , Representation , Remarks , Ly He Speech , Big Sign , Front Ofic , Staff , Democrats , Of , Thisit , Part , Senator Klobuchar , Exceptions , Don T , 160 , The Other Side , Tax Cuts , Colleague , Bush Tax Cuts , 51 , Regulation , History , Everyone , Hugging , Affordable Care Act , Changes , Debt Ceiling , Gas Policy Act , Endangered Species Act , 1995 , 1977 , Reconciliation , 1996 , Anyone , Constitution , America All In The Name Of , Isn T , Conclusion , Think , Name , Mini , Archc , Wall , Perspective , Clip , Co Sponsors , Summer , No One Else , Gambill , Sinema Whobo , Vote , Leading , Argument , Compensation , Process , Victims , Space Accidents , Examples , Numbers , Obstacle , Path , Bush , Wealthy , Margins , Ones , Waysen , Assertion , Mo Heated , Ntbefore , Voting , Senator Manchin Didn T , Board , Mountains , Clearlyu , Colleagues , Viewers , Country , Seats , Ball Game , Done , Coming Up , Possibilities , 52 , Voting Rights Act , Bills , Books , Department , Christa Clark , Ballots , State Legislatures , Like , None , Electoral Clnl , Registration , Standards , Writ , Freedom Ofd Right Act , Court , Voting Rights Suppression Law , La , Thingspl , 15 , 70000 , Precision , Fight , Jr , Hope , Disappointment , De Rachel , Its My House , Luck , Set , Filing , New York State , Family Business Case , Lots , Decisions , Big Show , Life Insurance , Budget , Ups , Price , Increase , 54 , Coverage , Medications , 65 , 95 , 9 95 , 80 , Rate , Program , Colonial Penn , 85 , Information , Beneficiary Planner , Plan , Health Questions , Exam , Lifetime Rate Lock , Acceptance , Calling ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.