after is repeatedly told don t do, it he goes ahead. that report is really harrowing. why not? well, some have positive that there is a memo that makes it seem that maybe there is a claim that he doesn t have to show, because it s so close to trump. there is this local testimony immunity. the courts have rejected that, alicia. but the idea might be that it s giving the department off before charging with a crime. but, when i suggest that they ought to do is re-subpoena him tomorrow, and have it only apply to things that have nothing to do with his official duties. for instance, a campaign and everything about the 1/6 rally, because the argument, if it exists back there, it s that it s only for official duty. so then i think they could slap an immediate new contempt referral, and i think that might be an easier road for the climate of judges. short answer we don t know and it s a real issue, because there s so much that he is up to his elbows in.
the next few weeks, a hold before all minutely released and that is central to the investigation as well. why was that aid withheld? used for political reasons? thank you so much. manu raju on the hill. to a court ruling, a federal judge reminded president trump that presidents are not kings, words that came from his pivotal decision, katongy brown. the white house has been blocks this claiming absolute immunity. to make the point as clear as possible, absolute immunity from compel political process simply does not exist. indeed absolute testimony immunity for white house aides appears to be a fiction. while the law is on congress side, time is not. no telling when don mcgahn might
he hasn t gone to court to challenge it. john bolton and his deputy charlie kupperman, national security advisor, former, and deputy national security advisor or in court saying they have executive testimony immunity. this is not executive privilege. it s i don t have to show up. the house removed the subpoena from charlie kupperman and never issued a subpoena to john bolton. that s one question. will the court consider the whole thing moot if they don t have a subpoena? the other question is why didn t the house is you that one? they re afraid of losing. but this really maybe they were afraid of losing. it seems to suggest to top top s would have to testify. bret: it s really the supreme court that will make the decision because of the appeal. it s going to go to higher courts but a quick reading shows it s all about the absolute immunity claim. the maximalist position adopted by the white house. that we don t even have to show