we re going to listen to members of congress right now. the house of representatives what this is about we can t decide for sure, but it certainly is not about eric holder or holding back documents. and so, we did not want to participate in something that we re having a slight problem with our feed from washington at this moment.รง members of congress are speaking into microphones. we ll bring you that as soon as we can. if i can go back to you, david corn, ron christie says that in this case, the president should never have invoked his privilege. is that fair and reasonable? you know, i think there s an argument to be made that maybe he shouldn t have, but on the other side, i don t think it s a slam dunk for either side, but i think it distracts from the big
whether to hold attorney general of the united states, eric holder, in contempt of congress. that vote expected this hour. i m wolf blitzer. you re in the situation room. it s the most anticipated supreme court decision in more than a decade. and one that impacts the lives of almost every american as well as the presidential campaign. in a 5 to 4 split, the supreme court upheld the affordable care act, a law so tightly bound to president obama that both critics and supporters call it and i m calling it now what they are calling it, obama care. behind the historic ruling and meticulous legal reasoning that caught many observers offguard as well as the surprise split that saw the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, siding with the courts four liberal justices. kate bolduan begins outside. reporter: absolutely, wolf. a bombshell ruling. the individual mandate, the centerpiece, but getting to that conclusion was a surprising revelation. the chief justice wr
but rather opposes u.s. policy in afghanistan. i wonder if you could explain how that s relevant to the accuracy of the documents. i think the founder of wikileaks, i read his interview today, comparing troops in afghanistan to the secret east german police as certainly something that we would fundamentally disagree with, and something that has somebody that clearly has an agenda. that may be the case, but does that in any way impact accuracy of these documents? for example, are you suggesting they selectively held back documents that would be more favorable savannah, i don t i m not afforded nobody in this government was afforded the opportunity to see what they do or don t have. i don t know that that question is relevant for me as much as it is for him. i just wondered if by making this point you re trying to i guess attack the credibility of the documents that are out
referral. the president can t disclose more than he knows. we are very comfortable with it and mueller should bring this to a close. it s been a year. 1.4-million documents and interviewed 28 witnesses and he has nothing. which is why he wants to bring the president to an interview. we demand: tell us what you have to get from an interview that you don t already have? he has all of the facts to make a decision. laura: why would you agree to an interview now? a lot of former criminal defense attorneys have mulled this for sometime. given everything discovered about holding back documents, why would you agree under any circumstances to allow president trump to go there? there would be a narrow area where we might agree if they could tell us why they need it. they have his explanations of everything and 1.4 million documents and witnesses. if they are going to disbelieve