worked for and we can go back to clinton but i do think things have changed since the 1990s, what would happen? what would it do to their candidacies? is it because the numbers are so big. where he got away with access hollywood. we assumed that would be the end of his presidency and make it impossible for him to win? and yet he still did it. it s that i can shoot somebody on fifth avenue argument that he seems to have because people in his base, whatever he is accused of, and of course this has to go through trial. every person accuses somebody of rape should be questioned. the facts should be established to the extent that it is possible. that is what the law demands. it s fair and right that it should happen but there are a lot of cases, as we said, as you said earlier, when it came to me, too, there is a pattern of rape and accusers and in the case of donald trump, there is a pattern. there certainly is. i m happy to be corrected from
keep this program going saying, no, you have to either detain them or send them back to mexico. this paroling into the u.s. thing can only be done on a limited case-by-case basis. and that s what the court was struggling with today. and there were you know some tough questions from both sides, but the government seemed to recognize, the court, rather, the dilemma here and said the law does allow for the benefit of the public for the administration to release people into the u.s. that may be what it all comes down to. does the supreme court think that that is enough of a wiggle room for the admin straition to end this remain in mexico program and go back to what it was doing before. which the government told the supreme court today is what all the past administrations have done. no administration, including the trump administration has ever taken the view that the law demands, requires them to send
witness telling the truth. i think the truth came through on his testimony, and i think he was very credible. greg, i want to ask you one last question. the former attorney for rittenhouse says that there should be disciplinary action against the prosecutor, do you agree? i do agree it s such a clubby group of people, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys that occupy the courthouses i m not optimistic that the prosecutor should be sanctions for four violations. they failed to turn over to the defense evidence that the law demands. second of all, they deliberately violated a court order, not to comment on a particular area. the defendant s previous statements about his gun. finally, they egregiously violated two sacred constitutional rights that the accused has the right to remain
had any, any illusion that they were just going to get complete cooperation with witnesses, because it just is what the law demands. so, of course, they knew they week in a situation like this, where they were going to have to go to the u.s. attorney s office and say, hey, look. we have a situation we needed to enfours our subpoena power. we ve got it under the constitution, we re asking you to do it. it s very hard for me to imagine a u.s. attorney s office doesn t say, you got it. gene? yeah. i think what needs to happening is a criminal referral followed by a prosecution of these potential witnesses defying these subpoenas. congress has the right to