challenge that in court. officials maintain the move is necessary to stem the flow of migration and say congress needs to act. but republicans argue the action is too little, too late. the only question anyone should ask is, why didn t you do this in 2021? why didn t you do this in 2022? why didn t you do this in 2023? why didn t you do this last month or the month before or the month before now, the trump campaign is already criticizing this move by president biden, but it is the same authority that former president donald trump used in 2018 to clamp down on the border. and it was eventually the court s that stopped him. now, today, the president drawing stark contrast between him and donald trump naming some of trump s most controversial moves on immigration. but will this move today amounts to one of the most significant policy shifts for this white house on a very difficult issue for them priscilla alvarez at the white house for us. thank you very much. let s go to see you. c
subject of sex trafficking case so they understand how the system works, but they wish to mislead the public they want. us somehow obscured the fact that they re about to be nominee is now a convicted felon and they re willing to tear down the justice system and do what ever is necessary in the service of that deeply flawed human being. you said that in the hearing that s what you think is at the heart of this, that they re freaked out essentially over trump s conviction and are trying to figure out how to deal with it absolutely. and not just in committee, but so many of them in fact when they were holding merrick garland and contempt, a couple of weeks ago they had many members absence, some of which were absent because they weren t manhattan standing outside the courthouse, essentially paying field t once again to donald trump. they hope to avert a conviction now that there are multiple, multiple convictions they re
publishing world to make it easy for you, call 80563 0741 there s breaking news. we re following right now, attorneys for donald trump, if just asked judge juan merchan to terminate the gag order in his hush money case. now that the trial is over as bringing cnn s kara scannell like cara, tell us about this new request. yeah. well, so trump s lawyers are saying that since his gag order was put in place to protect the proceedings, now that those proceedings to trial is over, they re asking the judge to terminate it. they wrote in a letter that was sent to the judge yesterday and made public today. now that the trial is concluded, the concerns articulated by the government and the court do not justify continued instructions on the first amendment rights of president trump, who remains the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election. and the american people, they said that the reasons are even stronger now for lifting it because some of these witnesses in the case, michael coh
the code now and ask about the bosley guarantee. i m gustavo valdes in mexico city and this is cnn on capitol hill today, attorney general merrick garland fiercely defended the us justice department in the face of republican attacks. garland directly taking on lawmakers who accuse him of weaponizing federal law enforcement against donald trump our chief congressional correspondent amount of raju has the latest you swear or affirm under penalty of per attorney general merrick garland, if he facing off with his loudest critics on capitol hill. i will not be intimidated and the justice department will not be intimidated and calling out gop attacks that his department was behind the new york hush money case that may donald trump, the first ever x president to become a convicted felon. that conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself. republicans firing
i don t i think that they would be much better off to focus on the constitutionality of it. that gag orders, any any order that restricts your free speech is presumptively unconstitutional, except in very narrow circumstances. to protect the integrity of the proceeding in defamation cases, once something has already been proven false, you can have an injunction against repeating the same statement but to try to do this because of politics or the campaign. i don t think that that s a great argument. they should really focus on exactly what it just said the proceedings are done. most gag orders expired the moment that the jury is sworn in because as soon as the jury is sworn in, then they have been ordered not to review the media. therefore, public statements can no longer affect them the same way that it would prospective jurors. so most gag orders and there this gag order went on further because of the intimidation of witnesses which would impair their ability to testify at the trial