Glimpse into the defenses lawyers will make on the stand. Here is jonna lauro on meet the press. The defense is quite simple. Donald trump, president trump, believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election. And as any american citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment. He had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments. Based on his grievances that Election Irregularities had occurred. He had every right to speak about the important issues that were taking place after the election. A technical violation of the constitution is not a violation of criminal law. That is just plain wrong. Except a technical violation of the constitution by definition is still a violation of the constitution. The constitution, in six different places, opposes insurrection and our constitution is designed to stop people from trying to overthrow elections, and trying to overthrow the government. Moments later, democratic congressman jamie raskin respo
Lawyers will make on the stand. Here is jonna lauro on meet the press. The defense is quite simple. Donald trump, president trump, believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election. And as any american citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment. He had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments. Based on his grievances that Election Irregularities had occurred. He had every right to speak about the important issues that were taking place after the election. A technical violation of the constitution is not a violation of criminal law. That is just plain wrong. Except a technical violation of the constitution by definition is still a violation of the constitution. The constitution, in six different places, opposes insurrection and our constitution is designed to stop people from trying to overthrow elections, and trying to overthrow the government. Moments later, democratic congressman jamie raskin responded to lauro by making th
take mike pence, for example. he took contemporaneous notes of his conversations with president trump. he provided a direct account of their conversations, when only the two of them were present. we knew, generally, the circuit select committee knew, generally, what happened to those conversations. but it s really powerful to have a participant in the conversation recount it. i think pat cipollone has given some additional information that he stopped short of providing to us, because of privilege. this is all because jack smith has the ability, because this is a criminal proceeding, to go immediately upstairs to the chief judge of the district court that is supervising the grand jury, and get rulings on privilege issues. we did not have that ability. congress does not have the same rules congressional oversight doesn t have the same rules as a criminal grandeur, ems by for us, it was civil litigation, which lawyers knew would not run its course before it expired. so, he s using that po
joint session. so, we did, i think, a very credible job laying out those facts. but to be clear, it s the facts which are so compelling. it s this january six committee, or even jack smith, really. it s the cards that we had to play that are now been passed to him. i think he s added a few cards, like he s even strengthened that hand. but the fact here is established beyond, likely, any reasonable doubt that there were federal crimes committed. you said he may have added some new cards. he may have had some new players. can you talk to us about the involvement of players who refuse to come before your committee? people like mike pence, mark meadows. your reaction to what seems to be critical evidence from them that helped build the critical case against donald trump? yeah, look, i think it s clear from the indictment that take mike pence, for example. he took contemporaneous notes of his conversations with president trump. he provided a direct account of their conversations, when o
authority to regulate the supreme court. period. if you can imagine, that was not received well by just about everybody in the united states. senator durbin and committee democrats pendant open letter to chief justice roberts asking him to assure that alito would recuse himself from future cases that concern legislation regulating the court. days after alito s comments, justice at a judicial, conversations can be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else. we re not imperial. joining us now, a senior writer, mark joseph stern. mark, great for joining us. thank you. samuel alito s belief that congress can t regulate the court is simply wrong. isn t it? it absolutely is. i thought justice kagan, of all people, made the case quite well. at a recent nine circuit conference. she laid out the facts that the constitution itself gives congress the power to regulate the court in several different ways. it has power of the purs