And this budget is an example. Nick watt reports. We havent quite heard the first cuckoo, but spring will soon be upon us. As the buds slowly sprout, its time to prepare for future climates, both sunny and chilly. That was the spirit Philip Hammond invoked in the lead up to the budget. Expect to prepare for troubled times as the uk leads the eu. It actually turned out that spreadsheet phil is so comfortable in his dream job that we witnessed gag a minute phil as he cracked a joke about the last chancellor, who announced the demise of the Spring Budget. The treasury has helpfully reminded me that i am not the first chancellor to announce the last Spring Budget. 2a years ago, Norman Lamont also presented what was billed then as the last Spring Budget. What they fail to remind me, mr deputy speaker, was that ten weeks later he was sacked laughter so wish me luck today ah, a chancellor who thinks he can deliver a deadly serious budget whilst lightening the mood with some gags at the expens
prosecutors to include the potential charges, that the former president may be sort of accused of violating. and so, i think this line, likely was in the letter, and i think there s been some reporting recently this afternoon. indicating what those. we re gonna walk through what those capacities will be, but the notion is they re gonna have some advanced notice. the third part, you think about these bite size pieces of course, is telling you a little bit about what might be the sort of law and order moment of what you can say, or what you will say. may be used against. you. the notion that you have the right to refuse to answer questions. that might surprise people. well, that s exactly, right which is the point of the target letter. if i take a step back. it s a fairness point, again in the department of justice s own internal guidelines, it, quote, encourages prosecutors to send this letter to individuals who are about to be indicted, and maybe indicted. and what it is saying is,
so, i think this line likely was in the letter. i think there s been some reporting recently, this afternoon, indicating with those potential violations were. let s walk through with those could possibly be. but the notion that could have some advanced notice. the third party think about these bite size pieces, of course, telling you a little bit about what might be the law and order moment of what you can say or what you will say. may be used against you, the notion of right to refuse to answer a question, that might surprise people. that s exactly right. the point of the target letter may be taking a step back, it s a fairness point. again, in the department of justice s own internal guidelines, it, quote, encourages prosecutors to send this letter to individuals who are about to be indicted and maybe indicted. what it saying is, again, this is i think language like this would when you hear from the former president, an invitation to testify. you do have right. you re not compell
will republicans go ahead and subpoena anyone they want because there is no process in their impeachment preparation, refusing to interview monica lewinsky. are republicans being hypocritical here? everybody is a hypocrite. this is all about politics but i think republicans have a fairness point in terms of when you prepare the two processes, impeachment of bill clinton and this process the democratic minority had more rights and as i read the resolution and see how it was applied maybe it will be applied fair and square but as i read this resolution adam schiff continues with more deadlines to have enormous power. when it switches to the house judiciary committee as seems
whistle-blower is essential because the information he or she presented as been corroborated by other sources. the sources also say coming forward could affect the whistle bl blower s safety. with me now, ari melber. host of the beat and jonathan alan. ari melber, put your hat on. your legal hat on for me and tell me about this. if somebody provides information that leads to an investigation in which the facts are otherwise corroborated, what does i know that it s not exactly the same thing in congress. but what would the law suggest should be done? well, the law in congress suggests that as long as people are blowing the whistle and they re found credible, and we all remember that was the case here, that they re actually protected. that is to say they get to remain anonymous. that s a core part of these whistle-blower protection laws. republican chuck has talked about that. now, the folks on the trump side have a point. it s not a legal point. it s more of a broader fairness point