Libraries dating back to herbert hoover. All of which, on thursday, released a joint statement calling for a recommitment to the countrys bedrock principles, including the rule of law and respecting a diversity of beliefs. Cant save us enough. This is an unprecedented move from the group. Never before had the president ial libraries engaged so directly in political affairs. While the joint message stopped short of calling out individuals by name, the subject of the warning was clear. The declaration read, in part, americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and respect for human rights around the world, because free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home. But that interest is undermined when others see our own house in disarray. Our elected officials must lead by example and govern effectively in ways that deliver for the american people. This, in turn, will help to restore trust in public service. Maybe your thinking this
We begin tonight with a rare warning about our democracy. It is in dire straits, and that is not according to just one or two, but rather 13 president ial libraries dating back to herbert hoover. All of which, on thursday, released a joint statement calling for a recommitment to the countrys bedrock principles, including the rule of law and respecting a diversity of beliefs. Cant save us enough. This is an unprecedented move from the group. Never before had the president ial libraries engaged so directly in political affairs. While the joint message stopped short of calling out individuals by name, the subject of the warning was clear. The declaration read, in part, americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and respect for human rights around the world, because free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home. But that interest is undermined when others see our own house in disarray. Our elected officials must lead by example
barr s down playing of the trump s obstruction of the mueller investigation. this committee was looking into the emoluments clause violation of the trump hotel and see reports. the d.o.j. appealed. do you believe the transparency those 2w0 situations are ones where transparency was not per misted as well as the mueller report that hasn t been redacted. with respect to judge jackson s ruling i respect her very much. we just have a difference of opinion with respect to the freedom of informations act privilege exception and we believe that in that circumstance, the memorandum that was given to attorney general barr is protected by that so that all attorneys general can receive honest advice from their subordinates. that matter is before the d.c. circuit now. everything i ve just said is in our papers. it will be resolved by the d.c.
0 jurisdiction? any understanding is the judge i he held the warden in contempt but we haven t seen improvement. he asked for a review and the justice department is conducting a review. the marshals did an inspection the other day that was reported in the news and the civil rights division is examining the circumstances. this is the district of columbia jail not the prison system. as i explained to members i view the wearing of facemasks as a safety issue and important matter of order and decorum because i m responsible for preserving order and decorum in this committee i am requiring members of staff attending this hearing to wear facemasks. i came to this decision after the office of the attending physician released its guidance requiring masks in committee hearings some time ago. i note that some members are still not wearing masks. the requirement is that members wear masks at all times when not speaking. i will take members in compliance with this ruling to consideration
this. so as to let people know it s not just this. it s it s a lot of other stuff. sure. it absolutely undercuts the republican argument this is just one phone call. this is just one thing. although, the house intelligence committee report shows it s a long-lasting conspiracy. i completely agree with liz, who was obviously a member of the committee that i was a lawyer for. back at the time, we treated the obstruction of justice two ways. we treated it as part of an obstruction of justice claim. that was article one. but we also treated it as a separate article of defying congress. one thing it allowed us to do. and there were five articles of impeachment that the house judiciary committee actually voted on. and there were other topics that we investigated and never came to an official vote. and two of those were voted down. there was an article about the secret bombing of cambodia. some of the democratic members pressed very hard and there was an article that was a combined article