lightfoot, not to make it out of the primary and her own party. reelection for mayors of chicago has been something they could usually rely on. but not tonight. as long as your name, as long as you had a certain last name, right? well, lawrence, thank you for the breaking news update, have a great show. thanks alice. why is rupert murdoch throwing his anchors under the table? that s not my question. that is word for word what donald trump s question was this morning on his social media site, donald trump, who has been involved in more civil litigation than any other president in history also said, quote, it amazes me how weak and ineffective fox news isn t portraying itself and a lawsuit against them. that is of course because the fox and rupert murdoch are guilty as charged in the lawsuit and would love to offer a stronger dive defense if they weren t under oath. and if they hadn t written emails to each other that fully reveal that they all knew that everything donald
illusions. i do not have the power to throughout the election results, nor does any individual american as our forefathers said. and we look forward to seeing you tomorrow, and america forever. but i m not gonna do that. i mean, the chief of staff, calls up the trump guy and complains about it. but why don t you just put out the vice presidential statement immediately? yes, a very good point. and they re not showing us every single thing they ve obtained and every question and answer with everyone. and maybe, the congressman schiff could tell us that they did have some exchanges about why did the vice president didn t make a statement that they. they might have that in their. we ll see what congressman schiff have to say. go for it, lawrence. thank you rachel. he did his duty. that s what liz cheney said today about mike pence, at the beginning of the january six committee hearing. he stayed true to his oath. that s what democratic congressman pete aguilar said
information that could have changed what happened on january 6th, and that was, the consideration that faded away on january 5th, right over there on sixth avenue in the fox headquarters in manhattan, of the primetime hosts issuing a written public statement, a joint public statement of the three primetime hosts, abandoning the trump lie about the election, saying joe biden won and that there was really no function for mike pence the next day. imagine what could have been at the capitol that day of those three had told that truth. yeah, imagine what could ve been if they had made public their private text messages on january 6th and some of these other emails where they acknowledge that in no uncertain terms that the
believed. today that lawyer issued a written public statement saying that he did nothing wrong but he is resigning from his washington law firm. we know that cassidy hutchinson got rid of that lawyer and decided to tell the committee the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth because she was inspired by someone who appeared on this program discussing her testimony. in her testimony cassidy hutchinson says that the first lawyer who represented her, stefan passantino, who worked in the trump white house, quote, page 42, stefan never told me to lie. he specifically told me, i don t want you to perjury yourself, but i don t recall isn t perjury. they don t know what you can and can t recall.
witnesses with relevant information would take the same attitude and come in and share with us what they know. indeed, the whole situation of representative loudermilk, showing on that video, giving tours, it might have been avoided if except and come in and testified. one point john eastman said that he believed glenn s thomas would vote on the supreme court to support the vice president rejecting electoral college votes. do you have any indication that eastman got that information from ginni thomas? you know, i really can t go into the facts, until we have a chance to discuss those during whatever hearings, if that becomes a subject in one of our hearings. you know, i will say, as i have in the past, lawrence, that the idea that a supreme court justice would rule, presume to rule in a case in which the issue is whether congress