that essentially says the president invoking a national emergency to try to do what he s going to do with the border wall is unprecedented and improper. why did you decide to sign on to this? in my discussions with former colleagues, we decided to do so this for several reasons. one is that the claims mr. trump is making about an emergency on the southern border is specious. there s no basis for him to make that climb. and so as we talked about it and as we worked these issues for so many years including border security, even the trump administration s statistics and assessments do not support his claim. we decided we were going to speak together in unison, several dozen of us that are going to take issue with it. number two, it s a clear circumvention of the congress s budgetary authority. he went to congress, tried to get the money for his wall, was denied it. and so this is undermining the checks and balances system that we have within our government. it is congress purview.
Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - MSNBC - 20190226:02:52:15
archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
look the numbers. an opponent of historic lows, poverty levels in this community is at historic lows. gallup poll to every american say now is the best time to find a job. these are working. she can complain have a ruthless bloviating, but is org because it doesn t comport with how americans are feeling. harris: let s talk about the shutdown on the wall per the border barrier. kamala harris has part of the border structure in her state of california. we notice because nancy pelosi has it to concede the fact that she wouldn t give that up. i want to ask the question of kamala harris and where we go forth. she went after the president particularly over the border wall and border barrier. what do you make of it? is it genuine to say that some of the senators particularly her would be able to do a deal? it s not genuine. it s a very similar question that the president asked. he said, hey, where s the legislation to tear down the barriers that exist? if barriers are immoral, if
what this lawsuit is saying is that it has to be replaced with somebody who can actually be an attorney general, otherwise, whatever actions this person takes in the course of the lawsuit are meaningless, that ultimately this person, whitaker, cannot act as attorney general because it s a violation of the constitution. he s a principal officer that has to be approved by the u.s. senate. it also doesn t comport with the attorney general the u.s. justice department vacancy law, that the next person in line would have to be rosenstein. isn t this suit unlikely to prevail in the end in federal court? i m not so sure about that. i ve read this brief. and it s it sits some pretty sound law. i think the question is, who substitutes for jeff sessions? he was the prior party in this lawsuit, the defendant.
earlier said we were experts. experts in what, gentleman i can? i meant drinking. i drank a fair amount as an adolescent. i didn t black out in college. some people don t black out. did you ever have any was there ever can you say that i don t mean to probe. i m sorry. i ll do myself first. absolutely, i had memory loss. of course. you re foggy. but blank hours where you turn into this zombie who is sexually assaulting someone. but that s not the question. the question is did he have memory loss. the core allegation is sexual assault. and so far there is no core ran legislation of a 36-year-old memory that hasn t been properly interrogated, in my view. there is intentional blurring right now. and it s because kavanaugh chose a tact to present himself as a choir boy and football player, primarily. and that probably doesn t comport with the way he acted in college or high school all of the time, or indeed most folks. and i think there is a sense that maybe frat
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.