rights that you and i would never ever receive. also tonight, how families are coping in the grief-stricken community of uvalde, texas, as they accepted their kids back to school for the first time since the massacre at robb elementary. we begin tonight with the 1974 supreme court case that was credited with ending richard nixon s presidency. good evening. president nixon has not yet responded to the sledgehammer decision of the supreme court today which ruled that he must immediately turn over tapes of 64 presidential conversations. in a unanimous decision written by chief justice warren berger the court rejected 8-0 mr. nixon s claim of absolute privilege on those tapes. the case, united states versus nixon, was all about the watergate prosecutor s demand following a subpoena for those audio tapes of conversations recorded by nixon in the oval office. chief justice warren berger, who by the way was nominated by nixon wrote, we conclude that when the ground for asserting
proof matters because this process stinks and it s made in high dujon, as we see here. the opening statement says very clearly this is the opening statement doesn t make any difference. let me fin, my question. you should not be relying on it. why should i not be relying on public testimony? if you were in a court of law, would you rely on the opening statement of attorney? i m asking about the substance of what he said. that doesn t matter because of the sham process being used. facts first, okay? this isn t a prosecution. this isn t even a trial. that may come later. it s not even a hearing. it s a deposition. so this isn t about it being an open thing. it s not an opening statement. it s a sworn statement by a republican. republicans are present at this deposition and they were allowed to question. nevertheless, the republicans decided to storm the gates,
constitution. so my question is this. if the law matters so much, why do you act in ways that respect it so little? that s my argument. now, tonight we have a good bolo for you. the call between president trump and ukraine s leader that is not at the center of the impeachment inquiry. that s next. like job. when he was diagnosed with cancer, his team at ctca created a personalized care plan to treat his cancer and side effects. so job could continue to work and stay strong for his family. this is how we inspire hope. this is how we heal. we love you, daddy. good night. i love you guys. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.
he knew where he was in helsinki on the international stage with a camera in his face next to putin when he said he believed putin and not his own intelligence agencies. so your idea he s way too smart to do something like this, we ve seen him do worse in front of the world. i also think the news media and democrats here are you going to talk over me asha or let me fin, ish my point? go ahead. the news media and democrats here, once again, the sky is falling. the president of the united states is all of a sudden committing high crimes and misdemeanors and they don t have any facts to back it up at this point. they don t have facts but they don t have the proof they need. they don t have the proof they need. because you won t turn it over. you won t comply with the investigations, you won t give them any of this. so what s the everybody just says it s a forgone conclusion that this thing needs to be turned over. that s not a forgone conclusion. not for you. this was a
100%. he doesn t understand what he s baffled by, mika, he s baffled that cohen told the truth yesterday. he s like, wait a second i guess he thinking that mabb could i had say, though, his argument about the timing of the hearing, i think you would have heard that from any commander in chief. they would have said, hey, you never what, have your hearings but let me fin, my summit first. the thought of the rez united states at is pathetic at best well, that s who he is. and that s the reality that we re confronting. and what we saw yesterday is some evidence that might back up