This is an hour and 40 minutes. We will hear argument in donald j. Trump versus committee on Financial Services. Court, thereshe no doubt the dispute comes to the court involving the house of representatives on one side and the president and his family members on the other. I do want to note the number of statements three rely upon and the Background Information makes it clear that these subpoenas are being targeted to the president because he is president. When you say because, are you raising motive . I am not raising motive but looking to at the real object of the subpoena is. That is another way of saying why they are doing it. The motive precludes motive and rises above concerns that the house or the congress has taken one action and we think they are not. They are not taking the action you can delineate from their statements from authorizing resolutions themselves. There is Something Else completely going on. Many of the cases make it very clear you can inquire into what the real
I do want to note the number of statements three rely upon and the Background Information makes it clear that these subpoenas are being targeted to the president because he is president. When you say because, are you raising motive . I am not raising motive but looking to at the real object of the subpoena is. That is another way of saying why they are doing it. The motive precludes motive and rises above concerns that the house or the congress has taken one action and we think they are not. They are not taking the action you can delineate from their statements from authorizing resolutions themselves. There is Something Else completely going on. Many of the cases make it very clear you can inquire into what the real object is and what the legislative purpose is. Is that the real object as distinguished from no other object . In other words, they put something up as just a sham. I think the court in watkins is clear about this. The court is obligated to look carefully especially in a ca
settled as it was from day one. in my view the facts are clear. the conduct impeachable and the obstruction unprecedented. in my view this impeachment process ran into a partisan wa wall. and the senate s part was to deny the american people the most basic elements of a fair trial, witnesses and evidence. alexander hamilton years ago warned us of what he called the greatest danger in impeachments. quote, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. end quote. in my view that danger has met us. as a boy i often sang a hymn with the stanza that to every man at nation comes a moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood for the good or evil side. in my view the senate chose the wrong side. we are obviously going to disagree about a lot here so let me focus on two thoughts that perhaps we can agree on. one is that what we have done here should carry little weight as precedent. pol
thought. she had sharply criticized the president in her speech calling his behavior shameful and wrong. the voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, we must trust their judgment, she said. as we ve been telling you, the senate about to gavel in, and time continues to be set aside for the senators to talk. 10 minutes each. yesterday we heard from 15, including joe manchin who floated the idea of a censure for the president. normally on tuesdays, the senate would recess for the weekly party caucus luncheon and while those are scheduled the senate had not announced a recess. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we offer you our hearts. guide our lawmakers. may they strive to permit justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. grant that they will join you in your messianic thr
test captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 a particularized need. i think if you come to court in a 6-e petition saying my need is something that any defense attorney or prosecutor in any criminal case could also say, i want to have the information handy in case i know if a witness is lying, all of the information available so i could reach the best possible decision, that s not a particularized need and this court would not accept that for any other judicial proceeding maybe this is different. impeachment is different from other proceedings. impeachment is different from and the constitution confers that power solely on the house. and i think that s a reason to reject the premise of the petition. if you get to it and conclude that notwithstanding the constitutional problems it creates we have to answer those questions, then i think we have to be extremely careful about what the particularized need is. it can t be t