racking saying. this today michael cohen s attorney confirmed that democratic staff traveled on taxpayers dime four times to new york and met with a convicted felon to prepare him for his congressional appearances. alan dershowitz harvard law professor emeritus author of the book the democratic house impeaching trump joins us now. professor, thank you for being here. good morning. sandra: what can you tell us about the legality of what may or may not have happened here about what we know so far? well certainly it s perfectly lawful for democratic staffs to travel to prepare a witness. that happens every day. i don t know what the fuss is about that. it really depends on what the nature of the preparation was, obviously. no lawyers is a loued to encourage a client to exaggerate a story. if they are just preparing them it sounds like me it s a way exaggeration it s on the dime of the government to paying for a couple of train fes to prepare a witness doesn t sound to me like anyth
is worried about. over the next few years, americans may be buying billions of dollars in goods and services through the internet. and that s a market too important, the government says, for one company to act as gatekeeper. the u.s. justice department asked a federal court today to fine microsoft corporation a record $1 million a day. the complaint against microsoft came from executives at netscape, a fast-growing software company that struck gold with its web browser, but microsoft began giving away its own browser and required computer manufacturers to offer it with windows. what they re able to do is they re able to, illegally, we believe, use that monopoly power to block the competition. they re able to pay people to not use our software and do other things that monopolists are legally not other loued to do. a lot of people were saying the antitrust laws are outmoded. technology will enforce competition on its own. the counterargument is that when you begin to get lots of
of leadership. are you concerned about voting against her this could hurt you in et going committee assignmentes? i guess, to be totally objective, i would have to say yes. however, i am very hopeful we all rise above that and this is america and we re pay loued to have different viewpoints and still move forward. reporter: jeff andrew was more firm about his no, intention to vote no on the house floor of noeancy pelosi. he says he stands by voters and he would oppose pelosi. but other candidates, incoming freshmen, would not go that far, including mikey sheryl of new jersey. right now, kate, no candidate yet. thanks to see you. thanks, so much. we bring in senior correspondent dana bash for more on this. nancy pelosi has faced the leadership challenge before the
say something doesn t mean you should. professors out there, hassle a concern what is going on on the hill and judge kavanaugh, that is fine, she is allowed to have her concerned. talk about people being murdered, being castrated. people talk about the tone in washington and all these beefs, they point the finger of the president. yet, here we are and you can t be critical was professor fair because she say loued to use that tone. ir am critical of her. you were, that s to be fair. thank you. we have a situation on campus, i want to focus on thatness where conservative students feel under staged. alan you have written fascinating stuff and you are a really good professor and this is not any type of criticism of your particular teaching, but this was an interesting piece written just a couple months ago, spring of this year, by brad shober, the president of
they are going to get the ruling by the judge will be affirmed. but you know, as ben said, this is the way to challenge it if they want to get it up on appeal. and you know, it is risky in the sense that if they lose that, he has to then either go to the grand jury or go to jail. they don t have to, but the judge has every right to do that. i had many cases in the district court where i was involved in usually organized crime cases where they didn t want to go to the grand jury because it is against their religion i guess. and they were put in jail. and you could be put in jail until you agree to testify or you know, i think there is a maximum of two years that you ar loued to be in jail. he says i don t know anything about collusion or obstruction, i don t know why they want to talk to me.