object to that, and they could say, listen, he has to hire outside counsel as mr. clinton did and proceed that way and not this doesn t go on the taxpayers dollar. there are all kinds of things they can do and hopefully they will do. do we have time for this? this is alan dershowitz. he is expected to handle the constitutional piece of this. he was on cnn earlier, for a senate trial. this is the argument he s making. watch this. particularly after today, the supreme court today granted cert in three cases, indicating that they re going to review the subpoena power of both congress and the prosecutor, and it seems to me that substantially undercuts the second article of impeachment that basically says you obstruct congress if you refuse to comply with subpoenas absent a court order. so i think the president s constitutional arguments were strengthened today, and he d be well advised, i believe, to limit himself to those constitutional arguments. that s his impeachment
it does seem odd. so then is there any sort of recourse? i mean the chief justice is going to preside. can the chief justice go, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute? is there any sort of recourse? there are motions that can be filed, and that s something that did not happen, but there was an opportunity to do it in the clinton proceedings. the rules provided for motions. for example, one of the motions that occurred to me, what has changed about the white house counsel today is they no longer represent the president himself. they represent the office of the president. right. and if they re stacking up and the taxpayers are paying for this defense, the house could object to that, and they could say, listen, he has to hire outside counsel as mr. clinton did and proceed that way and not this doesn t go on the taxpayers dollar. there are all kinds of things they can do and hopefully they will do. do we have time for this?
the responsibility to protect our constitution, democracy and nobody is above the rule of the law. i m not going to prejudge, i ve seen things, i m worried about the direction this country is going but i think as a congress we have to come together and act together for what s right for america. so you have not made up your mind that president trump should be impeached, are you still have you made up your mind? i want to see what comes out of the hearings and what the judiciary committee recommends, that s what a fair process does, you look at the facts. and these public hearings, we heard big picture, sometime within the month of november, do you have any more guidance on when exactly the public hearings might start? you will probably see them in the next couple of weeks but also fair and just process means you follow the facts, you don t let hurry up and get this done before the end of the year drag, i hope this doesn t go on for too long, but i do think that we ve got to ma
this doesn t go on without a few things. one informing the secretary. people are not writing text messages. they know they are memorializing it, papering it. this is so beyond the pale, it is why they are getting caught every step of the way. by the way, there is so much more than this. this will document itself up to pompeo. there is no doubt in my mind. as someone who had tens of thousands of their email out in the public and having to explain what it means if i m telling hillary clinton that homeland is on showtime at 10:00. it is crazy to look at these texts and interpret them.
westerhaut may have signed one herself. we know that she was sitting outside of the oval office for two and a half years. she was surely privy to a number of sensitive discussions, whether it s about the president s family or about goings on at the white house, and definitely privy to the president s moods day in and day out, and so what we see here is the president on the one hand suggesting that he has forgiven westerhaut trying to curry favor with her perhaps so she doesn t go on to bad mouth him in the future, but also issuing a fairly thinly veiled threat here when he references other lawsuits he has carried out against individuals with confidentiality agreements. that doesn t really seem to smack of forgiveness, particularly after the president forced westerhaut to resign. so david, thinly veiled or, you know, pretty blatant? i mean the president makes reference to a confidential agreement, a, i mean, is this an agreement that may be typical when working for the trump organizat