sixth amendment right to confront your accuser in court and you don t have to do it to exercise your second amendment rights either. the law in new york new york is a state that doesn t allow the open carry of firearms in public. the only way you can carry a firearm in public is to get a concealed carry permit. in order do that, you had to go to the sheriff and demonstrate some special need. it wasn t enough to say you want it for self-defense or you live in a high crime area or you have some need like that. you had to show why you as opposed to many other people should get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. the supreme court said today, that violates the second amendment. that s a restriction the second amendment doesn t permit. the unanswered questions are, first of all what about sensitive areas? will local governments have the ability to red line those and say, yes, you can get a concealed carry permit, but you can t carry your gun into these sensitive places? the su
donald trump treated the attorney general and the department of justice compared to what has traditionally been the separation going back all the way, at least since watergate, since richard nixon interfered with the justice department with john mitchell. i don t think there s really any precedent, including watergate explain that. sure. so there is supposed to be a line between the justice department and the white house when it comes to criminal enforcement matters. there are things in which the president can talk to the energy and deputy attorney general and other officials. policy matters. other legal matters. but things that involve criminal or civil enforcement, the department of justice is supposed to be hands off from the white house except under narrow circumstances and those don t include matters that involve the president personally, as this election did. so for the president to pressure first the attorney general, then acting attorney general, the deputy, the acting
new subpoenas have gone out to people involved in the false elector scheme including the person who was apparently served at his home outside of washington, d.c., which you know, the justice department has already confirmed they were looking into this and this is further evidence that the investigation seems to have expanded, which is what you would expect would happen. you know, it s a small window into this sort of vast universe of actions happening in that building behind me that we don t know a lot about and we re not going to know a lot about because it s a secret investigation. we know we haven t seen a lot of public evidence that the justice department are following some of the same leads that the committee is in terms of interviewing witnesses and subpoenaing witnesses when it comes to donald trump s corrupt alleged schemes to try to overturn the election. but in terms of this false
clark and what s going to happen in today s testimony. this low level justice department employee in the role to take over an investigation that shouldn t have been carried out because it was an attempt to overturn the election. not losing sight of the main issue here. jeffrey clark was a name i thought most of the nation would be talking about around 3:00. it s a little early. not only did former president trump seek to possibly insert clark, clark tried to insert himself into this. he was, from my understanding, an environmental lawyer by training who was a mid level, low level, doj lawyer who decided that he could be the person to take on the role of trying to legally justify what was unlawful, which was former president trump trying to hold on to power when he in fact had lost the 2020 election and his own boss says people above clark
out. and he says that there is no chance, no chance that i would sign this letter or anything remotely like this going on to say that investigating vigorously irregularities et cetera is something that we would not publicly do in the public arena and that they would never tell the legislature, a state legislature to look into this. chuck? well, that s right. richard donahue has it right. this was an outrageous attempt to put the inkrim tor of the department of justice on to trump s farfetched theory that there was electoral fraud rampant in the states. i can imagine if you re looking for an excuse perhaps as a state legislator to gum up the works, getting a letter from a high ranking justice official would give you that excuse. this was a dangerous plot and i m glad there were some adults at the department of justice