i learned some things about federal government standing in this case, by reading this judgment tonight. it s really such an important turn, we have we have daniel social richards. we are going to get some expert legal analysis, of where the stands tonight. right on, can t wait. thanks lawrence. thank you rachel. page one, of his 113 page opinion, in order tonight, texas federal judge robert pittman. says, a person s right under the constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established. fully aware, that poor private citizens of this right, by direct state, action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the state contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that. , a judge pittman issued an injunction, barring the
absurdities that she did not go in the opinion. i am not a potted plant. that defense was not mentioned. thank you rachel. thank you lawrence. rudy giuliani is not alone, he is not the only trump lawyer, who has now been sanctioned, rudy giuliani has lost his right to practice law in new york state, in the district of columbia, and we will be joined in a moment, by the attorney general for the state of michigan, where a federal judge, delivered the breaking news of the night. in that 110 page opinion and order, not just sanctioning all nine lawyers, who put their names on in fraudulent collection lost two in michigan, but also as rachel just mentioned, quote, referring the matter for investigation and possible suspension, or disbarment. for every one of the lawyers,
it s a 120 page opinion. it seems to be very, very solidly reasoned. as i said, the judge, at least this judge thought doj s arguments were baseless. i just don t think there s a good chance or much of a chance that an appellate court will overrule it. this comes down to the timing. there is an appeal. he thinks this ruling will hold. nonetheless, you go through this process. even if mcgahn comes in, he can still cite executive privilege. i m forced to be here. michael, how does this impact democrat s time line on impeachment? in an odd way although this was a huge victory for the house democrats, it does put them in a bit of a bind because they re now wrestling with this decision. do they rapidly move forward with the articles of impeachment solely on the ukraine janish use or do they expand it to include obstruction in the mueller
i think while this strategy of saying we re not going to comply with any subpoenas, we re going to force the democrats to fight all of this in court, while it may ultimately fail, you may get a court of appeals and ultimately the supreme court to say no, this is not a proper basis. they may win in the shortterm just by matter of timing. because as we already saw, even this one court opinion took about seven months to come out. even though, you know, this was a 120-something page opinion, very well reasoned so one can imagine it took some time for this judge to come up with all the rationale, it was seven months that the democrats just don t have right now. so while the strategy may fail, ultimately, and they may get a court of appeals to issue an opinion saying this is not a valid legal basis, they may win just by the delay. the delay, exactly. charlie, hearing pompeo today adding to the many republicans who have posed that debunked narrative that ukraine was responsible for the hack
it s not for doj to say we don t believe you. if that s the case doj will take over the legislative function from congress. i think congress is going to prevail if they take this to court. elie, another question, the office of legal counsel, their argument is 33 pages, okay, but then you look at the tax code, at least on this, is written, and it s very plainly written, upon written request from the chairman of the committee on ways and means of the house of representatives the secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request. i mean, i m not a lawyer. yeah. but it seems pretty clear. you don t have to be. it s common sense. look, doj could have written a 330 page opinion but none of it overcomes the two words you said, shall furnish. that s not optional. there s plenty of ways when our laws say something is optional.