camouflage at a states right so they we can nullity federal law too this has gone full circumstance what will left has said is we can nullify federal now the left likes lots of federal laws. they like centralized government and so forth. they don t really have their logic figured out. but this nullification is a huge issue from a constitutional perspective as far as i m concerned. the president tried early on at want did of justice is tried early on to enforce federal law in these sanctuary areas. by withholding grant money and courts couldn t do it which was shocking so now you re able toll subsidize sanctuary cities the federal government should be able to withhold funds from communities that are run by these leftist qhor harming their community who are violatings the federal law. they should be able to withhold federal funds like they would from a contract or anybody else. well that is under doj appeal to
there needs to be a reckoning for all of their dishonesty. will wil there be a reckonin. those are new clips, the last 24 to 48 hours. no two years ago. two years ago they say they have evidence of collusion. two years later they re still going forward. they claim to be the party in favor of democracy, they love democracy but they really hof power. that s what they re about. causing the election of 2016 to become a nullity. they don t believe the president is a legitimate and they re going to do everything they can to undermine. him. there needs to be a reckoning for the never trumper idiots who gave power to the left, bill
precedent in other arguments? why did the judge choose to write these 55 pages, make a decision? there are political undertones or overtones that obama is reacting to the judge as a well-known, go-to judge for conservative causes and obama probably put this in the broader political dough bait. legally, is it precedent? yes, for the next 20 minutes, until the fifth circuit enters a stay. it freezes the backers. the severability analysis they will strike it down probably and it will be a nullity. quick question before we go. is it possible that the state attorney generals who pursued this case went a bit too far to some degree? you took it so far that it s likely this challenge gets struck down? they bit off more than they could chew legally? do you know what i m saying?
draw? first of all, i start with the constitution which says he shouldn t be there to begin with. there s a fundamental issue that goes beyond the russia probe to simply his appointment. we have a constitution that provides for advice and consent by the senate. he picked a guy out. you, in the blue shirt, come on. be my attorney general. you re not allowed to do that. when you remove someone you can have someone in an acting position who is in the line of succession. that would be mr. rosenstein. but he doesn t have the right without senate approval to stick his crony in there. and if he does, virtually everything he would do is a legal nullity. he would be suspect. so people who are being prosecuted, any documents he is signing, any appointments he makes. all of that is invalid in essence. so you have to start there. and what s interesting now is you have seen republican, conservative lawyers, including george conway and kellyanne s husband, come forward to make this case.
what do you think, if you look at everything he said as a cnn correspondent and look at his positions and how much they echo trump, what conclusions do you draw? first of all, i start with the constitution which says he shouldn t be there to begin with. there s a fundamental issue that goes beyond the russia probe to simply his appointment. we have a constitution that provides for advice and consent by the senate. he picked a guy out. you, in the blue shirt, come on. be my attorney general. you re not allowed to do that. when you remove someone you can have someone in an acting position who is in the line of succession. that would be mr. rosenstein. but he doesn t have the right without senate approval to stick his crony in there. and if he does, virtually everything he would do is a legal nullity. he would be suspect. so people who are being prosecuted, any documents he is signing, any appointments he makes. all of that is invalid in essence. so you have to start there. and what s i