receives also tie attorney general garland under oath, facing republican allegations of weaponizing the justice system of those inflammatory claims stand up against the actual facts. and as the president takes executive action on god documented migrants. a story you ll only see here how one man has taken the issue into his own hands. what he encounters in his knights on the border good evening. thanks for joining us. begin with breaking news request late today from the former president s legal team to lift the gag order. now that a jury has found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to keep word of its hush money payment to stormy daniels from reaching voters in the 2016 election? as you know, gag order or not, he s already said plenty about the judge. the judge s daughter, and witnesses in the case. now his lawyers are seeking free rein. cnn s kara canal is here with the tails also join his best-selling author and former federal prosecutors, je
defendant is yet to be sentenced, and a judgment of conviction, therefore, has not yet been entered. so i think it d be well within his rights to do it, but i agree completely that the judge that any judge we d much more concerned about jurors then witnesses, particularly public witnesses, who have been speaking out, would that geoff would that from a legal standpoint and even exist after whatever the sentencing is. i mean, if if can a judge have a permanent gag order protecting witnesses for no. no. i mean, he his jurisdiction over this case continues as long as the case is in effect af is pending this case is obviously going to be appealed. it would then be up to the court of appeals to decide if they want to issue a gag order. frankly, i ve never even heard maybe you have. i ve never heard of a court of a appeals issuing a gag order. so i think this only applies until the sentencing, which is now june, july 11, which is just a little
rating, democrats by 9% and how do you get your voters as motivated because they re saying, hey, we want, you know, so, you know, they re it s easier to get angry about something when you lost than it is to protect something when you have a victory. i think you saw in the supreme court race a month after that election, the supreme court incumbent, i think by any measure was likely to have lost that election because you had one side that was motivated. going to try to punish someone by electing somebody to talk his place and the electorate in wisconsin said that s not the way to elect a supreme court justice. i think in the same way, people across the state not only realize what we ve done has been effect af and helped it turn around the economy, roux are recall election. and one vote, recalls shouldn t be about one vote and should be about misconduct for office and if anybody makes a case for that, the three democrats who left the state for three weeks and make the case if you left