prosecutor in new york, and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. pete, for those just joining us, walk us through this decision and what it means for americans. this is the first time in american history that the supreme court has ever said what part of the second amendment means when it talks about the right to keep and to bear arms. 14 years ago, in a decision here involving a gun owner here in washington, d.c., the court said the key part it protects the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. now the court has said that the and bear arms part extends the second amendment outside the home. the new york law said that you can get a license to get a concealed carry permit, only if you can show some heightened or special need. basically, what the supreme court says today is, that turns a constitutional right into something that you have to qualify for, and that s not how the constitution works. this will affect new york and it will affect half a dozen other states th
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
During its weeks at the white house? i talked to a documentary filmmaker who told me it s not out of the realm of possibility there were certainly scores, if not 100 plus hours of film, we don t know. but considering the sheer volume, barbara, of what they have, what are we looking for? what might we expect? well, i doubt the committee would make such hay about this if they didn t believe there was something fruitful there. the last thing they want to do is to build up expectations and fail to deliver. so it seems to me they have previewed it and believe there s something important here. i think the key thing i would be looking for here are admissis by donald trump that he knows he lost the election. he has told repeatedly that he lost the election that would cause most people to believe he lost the election, and his plan to subvert the electoral count was illegal. but having trump say that out loud would be the smoking gun. i think that s what i would be
Environmental lawyer, jeffrey clark, who was sympathetic to the conspiracies that trump and his allies were pushing. we know the stories about presidents pushing out department of justice officials. he likely knew that was something that would look bad and yet he thought about doing it anyway. what we ll likely hear is that many of these officials stood up to him in that moment and threatened to resign. another thing that would have looked bad. as we continue on in these future hearings and as the committee starts putting more meat on the bone than they already have, the focus will still remain on donald trump himself. ken and ali, thanks to both of you. i want to bring in matt miller who served as spokesman for eric holder and special adviser to the national security council in the biden white house. so, matt, let s talk about how unusual it was for the way
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