did you hear any part of the phone calls? yeah, i remember hearing the word wimp. and i remember he said, you are a wimp. new information today on the danger the vice president faced as a result of the threats to his life, and the president know that that s what he s done. i am betrayed by the united states of america. new evidence today showing that people working with the president to enact the scheme. they knew what they were doing was illegal. dr. eastman s emails stated, quote, i ve decided that i should be on the departments list, if that s still in the works. and a crucial warning about the enduring threat to the country. donald trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to american democracy. tonight, the member of the investigation who led today s hearings, congressman pete aguilar. plus, nicole wallace, joy reid, chris hayes, lawrence o donnell, ari melber, stephanie ruhle, in our special primetime recap of the third day of
his full throttle attempt to overturn the presidential election. by taking the precious time on this case, the justices have actually halted donald trump s federal election interference trial. that means that a deverdict is less likely before november s election. beyond justice delayed this case could reshape the presidency also and axios explains. quote, the next week may redefine the limits of presidential power for generations to come. andrew weissman and melissa murray are kicking off another hour back with us. i would just like to ask how how is this even a thing, melissa? if anyone listened to the oral arguments, donald trump asked his his lawyers are asking the justices to say you know, they gave examples of you can shoot someone and assassinate someone and a president could order an assassination and that should be covered because he needs immunity. that s a crime. so first of all, that s exactly right. some of the arguments that were made at that oral argument
Democrats. Members of congress here here from both sides of the aisle to talk about wa happened today. Lets turn back to the breaking news, the Washington Post explosive report that the president of the United States is currently under a Criminal Investigation for the Obstruction Of Justice. Responding in a statement, a spokesman for the president s attorney did not dispute the post report, saying only the fbi leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable, and illegal. Joining me now, the Washington Posts sari horwitz, one of the reporters who broke this tire. Sari, this would seem to confirm what james comey appeared to indicate, what many have been sort of hinting at, but squarely you guys have nailed down that apparently Robert Mueller is looking at Obstruction Of Justice. Yes. Youre right, chris, that the former fbi director in his testimony did seem to be laying out a case of possible obstruction. But what we found out that, indeed, the special counsel, Ro
can stay in power. one. and one of the ways that i prepped for today s hearing is i read the depositions of all of the people who might have been, the piece of the depositions that had been released by the investigation in terms of people related to this story, and mark short who is the bald guy who is mike pence s chief of staff, they showed a few little clips from this deposition today, if you read the selections from the deposition that they released to the public, he includes this argument, he represented the president, he talked about the president as my client, we had to meet with him, he was there on the president s behalf and that was both implicit and explicit, and so we had to take all of these meetings. short made it clear in his deposition, they to take them, and they didn t show it. and the pattern here, we all covered the impeachment is zelenskyy is having to deal with this guy named rudy, and neither the state department or the pentagon. before barr is the a. g., he
value in the form of investigations or announcement of investigations and he did so corruptly for personal gain, then that would constitute bribery under the meaning of the constitution. and it would not be lawless. it would be bribery under the law. so the supreme court case and mcdonald interpreting the statute would not be relevant? the constitution is the supreme law and the constitution specifies what bribery means. federal statutes can t defeat what s in the constitution. thank you. professi p propre propre professor gerhardt? it s obstruction of any lawful proceeding. so that obstruction isn t limited to whatever is happening on the courts and obviously here