and so and sunday night you were with the same family members, your brother and brooklyn and buster and that s right. and liz. and lizzie, and lizzie s mom and dad and i believe donny and paula was still there, but i can t remember when they left. and then you went to somerville with whom? i believe i went to somerville by myself, but i know in the car by myself. i can t remember if buster and i rode together, but i think we might have had separate cars. we probably did ride together that first day. i don t remember, but i know i went to somerville and buster was in somerville with me and grandma and papa t. and somerville is where maggie s parents live? that s right. that s maggie s mom and dad, maggie s mom is grandma and maggie s dad is papa t. did you stay with them for a few days in somerville? i stayed with them longer in somerville? yeah, i stayed with them we stayed in somerville monday night, tuesday night, wednesday night, and then we w
Evening. You can hear the famous play from the bugle then we will see the Kentucky Derby begin and we will watch to see the Track Conditions because of the weather yesterday. It is clear and sunny now. Clouds in the distance. Hopefully we will have clear skies for a milestone moment here at Churchill Downs. Less than four hours away for that. In your perfectly attired pink linen shirt for the occasion. Moments we have Steve Kornacki at the big board with his take on the derby favorites and the new trouble in texas. Damage left by severe flooding and the risk that lies ahead tomorrow. And the testimony of hope hicks. What she were helpful to the prosecution or the defense . A good day to all of you from msnbc World Headquarters in new york. Welcome to alex witt reports. We will take you to george solis. He is standing by the University Of Pennsylvania campus in philadelphia. Keep an eye not only on activities there for what we are getting from virginia, specifically charlotte sphere, th
Admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements. Please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial, we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is absolute immunity. Yes. But absolute immunity just for a president s official acts in office. I think thats a crucial distinction. And
Im period in question. I thought in many what we did a concession at all was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpret for his statements at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the
Concession at all. Was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with Justice Barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements, at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is ab