rush, if they hear these cases in march as expected, they should rule by june, which in political terms might as well be decades from now. june would also mean, of course, the middle of a presidential campaign. the new york times was a bit loftier than i just was in their treatment of this story. quote, the court is now poised to produce a once in a generation statement on presidential accountability. the case will test the independence of the court, which is dominated by republican appointees, including two named by mr. trump. well, they went there. and here with us for more, barbara mcquade, veteran federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. so, barb, take on all of this. how strong or weak is the president s case, and what could we learn about the jurisprudence of the republican-appointed chief justice and the two trump appointees now on this court? you know, brian, i thought i
if they gave us equal representation. i note that this is the moment in which the white house would have had an opportunity to question the witnesses but they declined our invitation. back with us tonight, barbara mcquade, veteran federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. and barb, in your view did the white house make a mistake or was this just not their dance, was this a good one to sit out? well, i think president trump has made it clear that one of his strategies is to play the victim here, to continue to complain about due process. and i think if he shows up and has representation at these hearings he loses that strategic advantage, that talking point of talking about how the process is unfair and illegitimate. if he sits it out he can continue to maintain that complaint. and i think he will continue to do so. barb, a lot of talk about the founders today. must have triggered law school thoughts for you. it did. and i know representati
you re saying is it s fine to go ahead and do this again. meanwhile, the president weighed in on today s impeachment hearing. as we said, he said he had no representation there. but chairman nadler seemed ready for that comment and pointed out there s a reason no representatives from the white house were in attendance. they get three constitutional lawyers and we get one. what s that all about? we had no representation. we couldn t call witnesses. we couldn t do anything. it is the most unfair thing that anybody s ever seen. they would have done much better if they gave us equal representation. i note that this is the moment in which the white house would have had an opportunity to question the witnesses but they declined our invitation. back with us tonight, barbara mcquade, veteran federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. and, barb, in your view did the
they would have done much better if they gave us equal representation. i note that this is a moment in which the white house would have had an opportunity to question the witnesses, but they declined their invitation. back with us tonight, barbara mcquade, veteran federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. and, barb, in your view, did the white house make a mistake, or was this just not their dance? was this a good one to sit out? well, i think president trump has made it clear that one of his strategies is to play the victim here, to continue to complain about due process, and i think if he shows up or has representation as these hearings, he loses that strategic advantage, that talking point of talking about how the process is unfair and illegitimate. if he sits it out, he can continue to maintain that complaint, and i think he will continue to do so. barb, a lot of talk about the founders today. must have triggered law school thoughts for
i think maybe the press isn t treating rudy very well, and i think that s unfair. butth rudy was a great mayor ana great crime fighter. here forim our leadoff discussion on afo monday night, barbara mcquade, veteran federal prosecutor, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. ashley o parker, pulitzer prize winning reporter for the washington post. and peter braaker, co-author of the new book impeachment, an american history. barbara, i ve got to start with you. how big, how consequential or not is tonight s court ruling? the ruling with regard to the mcgahn testimony, i think, is very significant. it doesn t reallys come as a surprise, but it s a very important step because what s i says isrt that witnesses cannot hide behind this c concept of absolute immunity. the judge says it doesn t exist, and these witnesses do have to testify, including don mcgahn. now, as a practical matter, the department of justice says it willde appeal this decision, so