the most conservative court in history is going to rule on abortion and gun laws. how could that impact the political landscape? we don t know what the supreme court will do here. it could take incremental steps or these could be big blockbuster rulings against abortion rights and in favor of gun rights. given the conservative tilt of the supreme court we can be pretty confident that the right is going to be happy about this. if they are big rulings, this creates an opportunity for democrats. because on the issue of roe versus wade, polling shows as much as 70% of the public supports that decision and doesn t want abortion rights taken away. guns used to be an issue for republicans but since the
court is going to rule on abortion and gun rights before midterms. how could rulings from the court that don t match the views of most americans, you saw the polling, impact the political landscape? we don t know what the supreme court is going to do here, could take incremental steps in conservative direction or big, blockbuster rulings against abortion rights in favor of gun rights. given the conservative tilt of the supreme court, can be confident the right is going to be happy about this. if they are big rulings, creates opportunity for democrats. on the issue of roe versus wade, as much as 70% supports that decision and doesn t want abortion rights to be taken away. guns used to be winning issue for republicans but since 2013, the newtown shooting of children in classroom, public opinion has moved toward stricter gun laws.
immunity. it stems from the notion that congress can t force the president of the united states to come and testify. he also can t then force his senior adviser to come testify. it s taken by presidents and department of justices in both parties but it s untested. we don t know what the supreme court will do with that. i think there s the belief out there that executive privilege means that congress can t force anyone who works in the white house to testify, whether it s don mcgahn or kupperman, national foreign adviser. is that wrong? at first they re trying to assert something even broader than executive privilege which is absolute immunity. i have to disagree with ross a little bit. there is some precedent. in 2008 district court judge soundly rejected the idea of there being this absolute immunity, specifically citing the nixon case, saying that
competing element of maybe you ll get a reduced sentence from the court, but then on the other hand maybe you ll get a pardon from the president, everything s kind of turned on its head, and the prosecutors mentioned that in this hearing, and they said this is one of the reasons they felt that manafort had been holding back, had not been telling the whole truth is because he was trying to play his odds and trying to keep the possibility of a pardon open, which is dangerous for a cooperating witness and absolutely infuriating for the government. michael schmidt, do we please engage in rampant speculation if you wish. when do you think we will next hear from the mueller effort, did the grand jury sit today for example in washington? when do you think the next utterance will be? you sound like my editor. look, we don t know, and speculating about it is hard, it s been very hard to get inside of mueller s head and what they re going to do. this clearly looks like something that s sti
i think there are going to be things happening on two levels here. some of this is going to be for the cameras, this is democrats first opportunity to try to draw some blood on the administration with their new oversight powers. keep in mind one of the things that changes, they have far more members on the committee s now than republicans, so they re going to be rounds and rounds and rounds of democratic questions. and fewer republicans to offer a break in proceedings for the testimony. so that s one level is just sort of the show. the other level of this is, this is also an opportunity to set some precedent. if there are going to be these fights over whether you can claim privilege over what what you can take to court. let s think back to when republicans had the benghazi committee, they established a lot of precedent about what congress can go after from the executive branch. this is also the first opportunity for democrats to plant some of those markers as well. all three of o