testify in an investigation into a hush money scheme involving stormy daniels. that s believed to be a precursor to an indictment. potential defendants are required to be notified and invited to appear before a grand jury weigh anything charges. it charged, trump would become the first former president to be indicted. but would it slow his current presidential quest? i say not a chance, at least not based opt this case alone. any charges here would stem from the $130,000 in payments made to daniels during the 2016 campaign. apparently she had been ready to share her story with the national inquirer. but the tabloid s publisher was a trump friend who instead h helped broker a deal with the lawyer. i long thought it was the weakness of the trump investigations. first the events of january 6th. the mishandling of documents, the election interference including the so-called perfect phone call to secretary of state and fourth, this, the stormy daniels hush money. merrick garland a
two secret service sources have confirmed to cnn that donald trump did angrily demand to be taken to the u.s. capitol as rioters, may i say, armed rioters, approached capitol hill and he berated his protective detail when he did not get his way. this is significant because it corroborates some of the testimony from cassidy hutchinson on tuesday which trump and his allies have been trying to discredit. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. mr. engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we re going back to the west wing. we re not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge towards bob by engel and when he recounted this story to me he had motioned towards his clavicles. let s start with the new reporting. cnn congressional correspondent ryan nobles has it. what are you learning? yeah, that s right, victor. this comes from two different sources within the se
recent data from gal up on shows that confidence in american institutions on the whole is in decline. small siness is the u.s. institution in which we have the most faith, followed by the american military. but even faith in the military is on the wane. today 60% of americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. that s down 4% in the last year. a new book argues that even that level of support is actually hollow. peter fever is a political science professor at duke university. he s the author of thanks for your service, the causes and consequences of public confidence in the u.s. military . peter, welcome back. if public confidence in the military is high, but it s hollow, does that suggest that some don t mean it when they say thank you for your service? i think that s the case. it s what political psychologists call social desirability bias, where you give the answer you think is the politically correct answer, but
forget residency and what the requirements and give me a name, and i struggled with this name, the former raven, the super bowl champion, sent me the name that could do it. arnold. a better name than schwarzenegger? nobody else that i can think of. more social media reaction. what have we got? because right wing shows like smerconish spreading fake news. this is such right wing and fake news that i hit you with polling data from, you know, cnn, and from gal up, and from the 538 compendium because i m sharing fake news, i m sure that s the answer. what else came in? to me, it s his record. and you need only look at one metric. his administration s performance at the border. rawhide. the border has been pourous, no doubt about it but the numbers of crossings, fact check me on this but i want to say they re
they vary across the country. some states would accept those votes. some states would say the sore loser law apollutes. we re not going to count those. i haven t done a separate study, but that would be harder. the number of candidates who get elect ed using a write-in campaign for major national office is slim to none. why do we have sore loser laws? sore loser laws are designed about 100 years ago or so, and they kind of protect the party nominees from somebody who lost this a political party primary and says, you want to run in the general any way. the idea if you lost, you lost. you don t get a second bite of the aptal and won a primary. i would argue they are outdated to the extent they served a useful purpose. where gal up says 42% of the count truss regards themselves as independent, they are a lot of us who get shut out of the