have you written this letter and why do you think this sets a dangerous precedent? the do you think this sets a dangerous precedent? precedent? the problem with the online safety precedent? the problem with the online safety bill precedent? the problem with the online safety bill is precedent? the problem with the online safety bill is that - precedent? the problem with the online safety bill is that it - precedent? the problem with the online safety bill is that it makes the situation worse, it allows ofcom to mandate some kind of standing technology to be embedded in every single encrypted messaging app in order to detect this particularly obnoxious abusive content. however, by doing this, it s going to expose an entire range of different content and go to allow bad actors and ex filtrate data, look these scanned messages and offensively be the equivalent to putting a cctv camera into the bedroom of every house in the countryjust in case something bad happens. fundamentally it
here, and as i said before, we re looking at the numbers right now that says voters in florida are like, okay, yeah, desantis, more of that. and we see this in other races around the country. you mentioned your personal views. people have religious views. there s a lot of pro life people in kansas. what they rejected was thee i don t care ra si. what they rejected was alito and others sitting in d.c., and and justice roberts was clashing with somebody this week saying, is it law? is it precedent? is it what you swore under oath to the senate? or is that all just a useful fiction who are gullible enough to believe judges would tell the truth under oath? when they re the last line to administer that. you change the people around and suddenly your rights disappear. we ve hit more than one important thing. because we have both chairs. i want to get in people say, wait, what about the other stuff? biden administration had a breakthrough on the rail workers
i know she had some very harsh words, obviously mentioned justice thomas to you, but also about supreme court justices gorsich and kavanaugh, what did she say about them? she was a united states senator when both of them were confirmed and she wasn t on the judiciary committee for gorsich but was for kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing when he talked about roe and called it precedent on precedent and some of her former colleague senators have said that they think the two of them just flat-out lied during their confirmation hearing in order to get their votes. her answer, she, again, voted no on both of those, was i never believed them. i didn t believe them. that s why i voted against them. very interesting. all right, dana, thank you so much, and of course, throughout the evening we ll hear more from dana s exclusive interview with the vice-president. thanks again to dana. and next, illinois, when you hear the vice-president talk
right? and what that police officer or that official sees is that the person in charge is not doing anything, and that people are dying. is it precedent, acceptable, for some other officer who comes in later to say, you know what, this guy is not doing anything, i m going to take charge? is that each possible? well, it certainly is possible, right? it s not it s not common. you know, i think to start from the beginning, right. the rule is that the first guy on the scene is the incident command. he s in charge. here you have a chief, it s his school district, his department. you always defer to the local guy whose jurisdiction it is. and then you come in as the other departments come in. it is not necessarily their purview to step in and say oh, okay i am in charge. that s not the way it happens. you heard that i think you heard the dps chief yesterday saying hey we don t want to
the transcript of nancy pelosi s remarks there. she stepped out, talked to reporters after this closed door meeting concluded and talked about it being mareking a lot of progress in the making. different presentations from different people. she also said jerry nadler spoke. we know as the wall street journal put it this morning democrats are fuming after don mcgahn, former white house counsel to the president, did not show at that hearing. since then jerry nadler has issued two more subpoenas. how far do you think democrats are going to go here? i don t know. i could see them taking it all the way to court. the question comes down to executive privilege. the president has a right to invoke that. it is a time-tested, established legal whatever you call it precedent in this country. and so the president has a right to invoke executive privilege. nadler s view is you didn t invoke it during the mueller report, how can you invoke it now? i think the president will