orders that donald trump gave employees before the fbi searched his florida country club. plus, what we re learning about today s january 6 hearing and whether it will be the final one for the committee. and a massive verdict against conspiracy theorist alex jones for the lies that he told about the sandy hook shooting. good morning. welcome to way too early. thanks for starting your day with us. an employee of donald trump has told federal agents that the former president specifically directed workers to move boxes of documents at mar-a-lago after receiving a subpoena from the fbi earlier this year before federal agents searched the property. it was according to a source familiar with the matter. federal agents have security camera footage corroborating the account showing people moving boxes out of storage room at the ex-president s palm beach club. the story first reported by the washington post. this witness account suggests that the boxes were moved to trump s priv
pence as the rioters approached. thanks to all of you for getting up way too early with us on this thursday. big day, morning joe starts right now. tonight i come to you with a spring in my step, a song in my heart, emotionally and spiritually refreshed because you know how as humans we have to accept the fact that sometimes bad things happen to good people. well, by the grace of god, sometimes bad things happen to alex jones, and that s a good thing. oh, yes, conspiracy theorist alex jones ordered to pay nearly a billion dollars to sandy hook families for lying about the 2012 massacre being a hoax. we will speak with one of the plaintiffs in the case, a sandy hook mother. and you know, mika, we were watching this live, got breaking news. and as the verdicts were coming in, it was so painful. it was so painful. looking at the parents. you know, they re talking about, you know, basically a billion dollars in civic awards, and you just couldn t, you still looked at
incorporation of information in there, we ought to have access to the whole report. so i respectfully request we be given access to the reports that have been made by a member of the committee in reliance on information we haven t had access to and i think we need to be given those. you can t senator, i d like to draw this to a conclusion. i can tell you what i know. well, so would i. here is the point. most of this information was published the washington post five days ago. all right? this is not confidential information. when the attack on the judge started, we requested more information, the white house did and shared it with us today and now you have the same copy we have. end of story. is it fair for you to characterize senator hawley s questions or the questions raised by us as an attack?
circuit court that was on point to your mcgahn situation, yes, you would have had to follow that precedent. but there wasn t. so you followed a reasoning by another district judge that made a lot of sense to me. and that certainly makes sense to me. you discussed the importance of precedent in your opinion. this is what you wrote. it is interesting to know that the doctrine performs a limiting function that reflects the foundational principles that undergird the federal government s tripartate institutional system. this nudges the court outside of its established domain of saying what the law is, and into the realm of legislating what the law should be. i know that you ve been asked questions about the importance of precedent before.
ruling. you can t ignore the fact that there is precedent in your district that handles a case in a particular way. and with respect to the mcgahn case, the precedent wasn t just close, it was nearly identical. the myers case involved the former white house counsel and the argument by the executive that the former white house counsel had absolute immunity with respect to a request by the legislature that she provide testimony. my case involved a former white house counsel who was claiming absolute immunity at the request of the executive in response to a legislaive subpoena. in both cases, not only was the immunity at issue, but in both