came anyway. so this is perfect. keep doing it. have a great show, my friend. the impeachment clause of the united states constitution seems to be headed to the supreme court if don trump s criminal defense lawyers can get it there. we re going to consider the impeachment clause tonight from two perspectives, first, a lawyer and law professor, andrew weissmann, and then, a historian, stanford jack greg of who is an expert on the impeachment clause. his book, original meanings, politics and the ideas in the making of the constitution won the pulitzer prize. you will hear from both of them. year both of those perspectives. next tuesday you will hear dame trump s lawyers tell the circuit court of appeals in washington and lee, see, that he cannot be tried for crimes leading up to and on january 6th because that would amount to double jeopardy after donald trump faced an impeachment trial in the united states senate on essentially the same charges. 57 senators voted guilty ag
we are here every day, so when they do, it will be ready. joyce, thanks. joyce vance is a former attorney for the northern district of alabama. that s our show for tonight. time now for the last word with lawrence o donnell. lawrence, i think i ve eaten up half a minute of your show every night for the last tonight. so i think tomorrow night i will give you back a pile of it. orrow ni according to my clos 25 sections. i wasn t ready to go until you came anyway. so this is perfect. keep doing. it have a great show, my friend. the impeachment clause of the united states constitution seems to be headed to the supreme court if don trump s criminal defense lawyers can get it there. we re going to consider the impeachment clause tonight from two perspectives, first, a lawyer and law professor, andrew weissmann, and then, a historian, stanford jack greg of who is an expert on the impeachment clause. his book, original meanings, politics and the ideas in the making of the c
Finished Cross Examination from alvin braggs office. Welcome to a new hour of americas newsroom, im dana perino. Bill im bill hemmer. He is off the state is done with his questions. Who is robert costello, right . He is telling the jury the shame bombshell claims he told to Congress Last week and told us, too, on our program. I think he was with martha as well. Who is he . Former Legal Advisor to Michael Cohen, from new york. He had a falling out partly due to alleged outstanding legal bills which there were many, formal federal prosecutor and defense lawyer. Costello is on the stand yesterday saying Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own and he repeated that numerous times, okay . We reported on that many times. He has said that on television the last week many times. So here we go. Go ahead. Dana what we can show you a little bit of that from costello. Watch here. I probably came back to this subject ten o
Outlined in carefully choreographed testimony today how he boosted donald trump in his tabloids, how his entire apparatus blasted trumps rivals blatantly bogus stories and how he struck and off the books packed with trump to bury stories to bolster his 2016 election chances by Bamboozling American voters. The former trump friends, but two plus hours on the stand today as the former president was there glaring, as you can see here in this court sketch from across the room. And what marx, a no doubt about it betrayal for the politician who most prizes loyalty and new tonight, donald trump is again testing the limits of what he can say and how far he can push the judge who is presiding over this trial before he is actually punished. Now in a new interview, trump is committing what looks like and sounds like a pretty clear cut violence relation of that gag order that restricts what he can say about some of the main characters. In this case, who witnesses such as former fixer, Michael Cohen
it. and judges around the country are begging for help because they realize that there s a limit to their intelligence. no question judges of every level of jurisprudence. a real challenge unreal paul problem. we have a figure out quite yet with this illusion. is one possibility is don t take all of your clerks from law school. have at least one of them be a historian. because supreme court justices can have three or four clerks if they want them. they can easily have one b in historian. look, i ve had about seven or eight of my staff i m stanford history majors, so i think that s a nice fact. whether it s adequate, given the way the appointments process works, is another question. one way to think about this, maybe historians, maybe one to the about history is a form of expertise in the courts in judicial centers, think about ways to think about panels of