The first case that we will argue stay is down from versus the usa. Mr. Chief justice, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. No court hadcases, ever upheld the use of Congress Passed subpoena power. Had toittee of congress the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas
God save the United States and this honorable court. Chief Justice Roberts the first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump v. Mazars usa. Mr. Strawbridge . Mr. Strawbridge before these cases, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the use of congres subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president , and no one had tried with a broad swath of the president s personal let alone purpose of a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the First Time Congress has attempted such a gambit. Because congress has subpoena power, it is subordinate, and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or particular compelling showing of need. They show neither here. Satisfied, butas thoseguments would limit meaningless. For example, as long as they could tack on a potential for broad legislation. They claim c
Justice and made please the court, the issues here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the courts use of subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render meaningless but the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas to uncover individual wrongdoing simply because that the always informed efficiency of existi
watergate affair. ly do everything in my power to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice and that such abuses are purged from our political processes in the years to come, long after i have left this office. i looked at my own calendar this morning as i was working on this speech. it showed exactly 1,361 days remaining in my term. i want these to be the best days in america s history. god bless america. and god bless each and every one of you. stwrcentral to the problems d by president nixon is the tapes and their history. it all began suddenly when an obscure white house official named alexander butterfield appeared as a surprise witness before the senate watergate committee. are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the president? i was aware of listening devices, yes, sir. when i got the confirmation that there was a taping system, i was elated. they would tell much more than i would remember in those conversations.
For war with iran. That argument involves doing whatever it takes to get rid of the current regime and to bring about one that is friendlier. Theres also an argument to be made of fervor and of what it is you really want from us and what are you going to give in return . Is an argument for that. We are doing neither of these things. It may be possible to resolve whatever differences you have it there ran on the basis of number two. That has not been tried. It may or may not be possible and it is certainly possible to base our attend on the war against this regime. But that thought process has not been entered into. Thats the kind of thing im talking about. This has been an extraordinarily thoughtful exploration and some of the basic questions of our time up war and peace by very thoughtful expert analysts. This is his book, to make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations. It is available outside for 20, so we encourage all of you to buy one copy if not two. Can did that ang