does michael? not that i know of. i don t want you dead next. i don t think michael knows. unless he owes money from the past, i don t think he owes any money now. reporter: to edmunds, becky sounded like a mom unwilling or unable to wrap her head around the possibility of her son s involvement in a murder. i think he s trying to stay away from all of that to get out to better himself. reporter: edmunds spun through the possibilities was becky in denial? was she covering up for her son? or was he heading down the wrong path with michael altogether. he decided to cast a wider net. is there some any relationships you re not telling us about? like? you haven t had any problems with anybody? no, nobody. family problems? reporter: that s when becky revealed an intimate detail from her recent past. she and her husband tony had gone through a rough patch in
this could be the beginning of the end of democracy. cnbc s john harwood joins me. is that a risk? i must say, i don t see it as starkly as michael does. i don t think our democracy is in danger and i think, in fact, we re seeing in the response of ordinary americans, and many politicians and business leaders a reaction spontaneous and also encouraged against the sentiments the president was expressing. and he s becoming more isolated by the moment. i do think michael is right that the courts have a responsibility and the congress has a responsibility and i think we have seen that, to some extent john, you on issues like the travel ban, et cetera. i take your distinction on the democracy front. but the criticism is medium from the top leaders of the republican party. paul ryan basically only putting it broadly. mitch mcconnell, putting it
what they re getting here. you ve even heard ted cruz start to talk about compromise around this. he decided if he gets the amendment that goes into the bill, it seems so far plans to support it. now, i do think the critical piece of this is mcconnell getting it on the floor. i do think michael is right about the open amendment process and the sense that senators have that this is, you know a chance for them to show that there s open debate. a chance for them to influence policy and a chance for them to say take planned parenthood and a chance for them to take and then come around and say, okay, maybe i can support the final bill anyway because i at least tried. this hurdle we re talking about is mcconnell getting this bill on to the floor and getting 50 votes to start that process. that is the key part here. if he can hang it together until then, all this calculus will change. there is some risk before that happens. kasie hunt and michael steele, thanks to the two of
of the special counsel regulation is that he is supposed to be independent and operate on its own. that s historically the way it s been. what if he fires him? there s no one if trump fires mueller, yeah, but then he will have to face the political consequences of that which will be enormous. but the idea that getting rid of rosenstein is going to affect mueller, it is hard to follow the logic of that. david swerdlick, did you want to weigh in on that? no, think michael is right. all of these officials risk getting embroiled in this the same way director comey did, in the way that deputy acting attorney general sally yates did, unless they get fired which seems to me like in a sense if you are rod rosenstein would almost be merciful at this point. because if he s not fired, then he either has to recuse himself or partially recuse himself or
i only speak moldavian, it seems to me as problematic as it is, erin, if you are a united states citizen, you know, you have a right to serve on a jury and i get that it s not, you know, always ideal and you might have to get a translator, but i think the bottom line is if you are a united states citizen, you are allowed to serve on a jury. you know, that s america. michael, what do you think about this? you know, you re eligible for jury duty, by the way, unless there s a few reasons but one of them is you are unable to speak english and the court can t get a translator or interpreter as stephanie points out. the interpreter is key, is this enough? or, again, should you have to speak english yourself and understand it yourself clearly? of course, you should have to speak english and i hate to agree with dean, but i went to law school also once upon a time and, look, the constitution in new mexico which is very odd, it was new mexico became a state in 1911. and in the constitutio