for us in washington. tom, you know a fact well that not a lot of americans know, and that is at any given time there are probably more than 9,000 airplanes over the united states carrying more than 1.2 million people. it s not a daily figure, that s an at any given time figure. boy, you nailed it. not only that, 100,000 people are in the skies at any one time. 100,000 people are in the skies at any one time. today they are being protected by tsa officers on the ground, not getting paid. air traffic controllers watching you in the skies, and the atc folks not getting paid. they have just filed this lawsuit. they are asking for an injunction. specifically, they are alleging a violation of their 5th amendment right, specifically the fact they are deprived of their earned wages. here is a statement quickly from the national air traffic controllers association. they say nafka also alleges violations of the air standards act and failure to pay at least
i m coming next week. and the rev al sharpton is back. president of the national action network and host of politics nation, my regular every friday. joyce, let me start with you. why? why weisselberg? he makes sense, he s the accountant, like al capone, the bookkeeper. he could narrate a broad story if investigators were looking at the far flung trump empire. but we don t know just yet what his cooperation consists of. we don t know if he s been compelled to cooperate after asserting his 5th amendment right, or if he s engaged in voluntary cooperation, perhaps in exchange for an agreement that he won t be prosecuted. the contours of that will perhaps stay opaque to us for a while before they become clear, but what we do know at this point is that prosecutors believed that his cooperation at this moment was essential to moving forward, and that likely means moving up the ladder for prosecution, not down it.
sure, testifies, gives a bunch of answers. option two, the president testifies but triggers his 5th amendment right, pleads the fifth basically, that could be an option. option three, the president fights the subpoena and that s where things start to get trick dii can, jill, it seems because the courts would zep in. that s the possibility of whether they decide whether a subpoena would be valid or not. the supreme court press sent is presidents can be subpoenaed but this would be a court bart will. option four is a gigantic question mark. what if he s subpoenaed and then ignores it? jill. that s the trickiest one is your fourth option. because it s something we debated during watergate. in watergate, of course, we issued and i m going to use legal terms for the first time on air, maybe just because i want to use them, but. i might ask you to translate them, but okay. okay. we had a subpoena for documents is the nontechnical term, as opposed to a subpoena for his testimony which i