Bill police are saying the suspect is likely behind five explosions in Central Texas going back to march 2. Three died and four seriously injured in the blasts. Sandra Police Warning other Package Bombs cowl still be out there. We dont know where the suspect has spent his last 24 hours and therefore we still need to remain vigilant to ensure that no other packages or devices have been left in the community. So as we go through the day today, we want the community to remain vigilant. We need your community to remain vigilant and if you see something that looks suspicious or out of place or something that gives you concern, call 911. Bill that Press Conference happened three hours ago and now
other bombs and where they may be because this individual may have by mail or placement put other bombs out there so Everyone Needs to remain vigilant to make sure they dont pick up a package reporter and that is the strongest message were getting from pretty much every official here. They dont know
and what this appears to be is the most detailed version of his finances that have been made public to date. and particularly noticeable or notable, excuse me, is the access that this committee got. you have to keep in mind here, a lot of this information is stuff congress was chasing for years when president trump was in office and never got their hands on. this is an in depth look at some of those finances. i want to take you to the top line about the trump hotel, these are claims that trump made that the hotel in d.c. was making money when it was actually losing money. you take a look here, it shows from the documents, that the trump hotel reported more than $156 million in annual employment income. that was not the reality. actually they were losing more than $70 million over this time period, and had to be loaned more than $24 million from one of trump s other holdings. now, take a look at the big umbrella picture here. you touched on some of this, this is what the committee says
renewed discussion of executive privilege since we re having it a lot. in this specific instance, right, because the former president is no longer in office, joe biden is now, we talk about executive privilege, does that work here? so, the exact parameters of executive privilege aren t completely clear. but it is generally accepted that the privilege is held by the sitting president. so, you know, trump is on very weak ground as a former president trying to invoke this. there is a lot of precedent for sitting administrations to hand over documents or get permission for prior administration officials to testify, so going back to the church hearings in the 1970s with ford and nixon, after 9/11, the bush administration gave over documents from the clinton administration, and then the obama administration, of course, cooperated with congress about torture. so there is a lot of precedent here, but, you know, normally these are negotiated between congress and the executive
january 6th. and the subpoena also points out that these two people were involved with stop the steal rally. the subpoena says that there was no indication on the permit that this event that was supposed to happen on the capitol complex grounds in the stop the steal movement were connected. further the subpoena points out that ali alexander had been claiming to work with multiple members of congress, biggs, brooks, gosar, so i think what they re trying to drill down on here is in what way were these members communicating with these organizers of the stop the steal rally. what did they know, what did they intend to do with this stop the steal movement and then subsequently what connection that may have had to the events that eventually played out on capitol complex grounds. back to you. search for answers continues. whitney wile, appreciate it, thank you. let s bring in asha rangappa. i want to go back to this
branch, these instances didn t go to litigation. trump claimed executive privilege for everything under the sun. i suppose we shouldn t be surprised. but on the issue of potential criminal activity, it does not cover that, does it? it does not. it does not. if he were to take this to litigation, he s already on shaky ground, this is a separation of powers principle. this is the tug of war between congress and the executive branch, so what a court would look at is what are the needs being balanced here, and congress need for oversight in this particular instance is great. also, these concerns, the justice department has at least decided was trump acting in his personal capacity regarding his campaign? these are not official acts. and then as jim pointed out, you know, as we learn from u.s. v. nixon you can t use the privilege to shield criminal conduct.