had this sexual relationship with a white house intern, but it s not high crimes and misdemeanors. i m curious are you willing to say what the president s conduct here on the call, on this rogue foreign policy and attempting to pressure ukraine into manufacturing dirt or digging up dirt on his political opponent, that was not cool, that was not good even if it s impeachable. how i view the evidence, me personally is he was raising the issue of corruption with the sitting vice president joe biden. that s a legitimate exercise of executive discretion using taxpayer dollars in a way that doesn t go to corrupt country let me ask you a question. how many times does he say corruption in that call? you re asking where do i see corruption and i don t see that here. how many times did president trump use the word corruption in talking about corruption on the phone call? when you re looking at the issue of joe biden and his son hunter biden get a $50,000 a month salary for a job he c
it said he declined to act on congressional committees request. your response? it isn t an informal committee request. the law requires when the chafrm and the ranking member of the foreign relations asked to make a finding he has to respond. he has to respond. that s what the law says. he doesn t have an option here. i understand why he doesn t want to make this determination. intelligence services are telling them that he was responsible and because either of a personal relationship he has or a business relationship he has with saudi arabia he is declining to make that finding to congress. it isn t his general executive discretion. he has to under the law. he didn t. make a determination and he didn t. so what now? i assume we can go to court to make the president comply with this law. question raise political pressure or we can move forward
this isn t an informal committee request. the law requires that when the chairman and the rankin member of the foreign relations committee ask the president to make a finding as to a human rights violation overseas, he has to respond. he has to respond. that s what the law says. he doesn t have an option here. i understand why he doesn t want to make this determination. his intelligence services are telling him that mohammad bin salman was responsible and because either of a personal relationship he has or a business relationship he has with saudi arabia, he is declining to make that finding to congress. but this isn t his general executive discretion. he has to, under the law. he didn t. and he didn t. so what now? listen, i assume we can go to court to try to make the president comply with this law. we can raise political pressure as we will this year. or we can move forward with sanctions. and i think that s probably the most appropriate step. congress doesn t have to wait
so this is an abuse of power, it is out side the realm of normal procedures to revoke someone s clearance. and i m here to tell you the sad prediction that we ll come soon to the day where someone in active service of our government, employed by our government, is going to have their clearance revoked simply because the president doesn t like them. but look, the constitution makes the president of the united states a very powerful individual. if the president s actions fall under executive discretion, where, how should the checks and balances come to prevent this kind of abuse of the power? first of all, you ve mentioned the phrase checks and balances. we re not seeing any checks and balances. we re not seeing congress step up and say wait a minute, this is wrong, this can t happen. we re not even seeing the cia director, an appointee of the president step up and offer her opinion on what should have happened to john brennan. her former cia boss. so there are no checks and balances
author of the road not taken and michael d antonio, the author of the truth about trump. good evening, gentlemen. i want to ask you about this breaking news about this federal judge in california. this federal judge in california is now saying they re giving the government really 14 days, we said 30 days, to reunify these families. some within 14 days, some within 30 days. what s your reaction to that? it s a great move from a humanitarian standpoint. you have to wonder about what is the long-term future of these kind of judicial interventions in light of the supreme court ruling today in trump versus hawaii in which the court basically gave trump a lot of leeway in terms of immigration law, saying there s a lot of executive discretion to act as he sees fit. and they essentially bought what i think is his bogus justification for the travel ban that was concocted by his lawyers when he was clearly