in response to the enron scandal, it has to do with falsifying evidence.is indictment against donald trump with respect to the january 6 matter, it does allege he came up with phony documents, namely the documentation underpinning the phony electors. in a sense, the decision last week is not going to have any impact on this case against donald trump. secondly, it seems to me that what the court did, for a supreme court that has been emphasizing history and what has gone on in the past, what they completely overlooked and what justice ferris decided in her dissent was there was a history with the initial statute that was the only statute out there during watergate. there were holes in the statute, one of which was obstruction of congress. that is what the statute was intended to cover. in a way, it was a bad decision but it will not affect the indictment against donald trump. david: i want to come back to what you said and agree with part of it and question part of it. you are right that there are certain indictments that even trump's counsel conceded. at t

sarbane's oxley and enron scandal. not for people on the lawn at the capitol, what has mr. trump done wrong, you look at cases and supreme court said, which many lawyers have said. it was not that radical, it was based -- in my reading, nixon, i read the decision, nixon vs fitzgerald what has trump done wrong and what happens to the cases. >> there was nothing extreme or over the top with this supreme court decision. it holds that is what we have seen in our country throughout the history of our country. one party or other could have seen as criminal. in 1980s we have nixon decision that says civil penalties can't be imposed on a president, and criminal sanctions would be higher, there is nothing extreme there. i see the left trying to create some historyonics, some hyperbole to motivate their base, but the supreme court is doing their job in looking at the law, it is taking a long time for trump to have his fair day in court and due process to work his way, i see that, it takes a long time. to win and unral an and uanan. >> unrav gr leo come back to that, i don't think tha

sarbane's oxley and enron scandal. not for people on the lawn at the capitol, what has mr. trump done wrong, you look at cases and supreme court said, which many lawyers have said. it was not that radical, it was based -- in my reading, nixon, i read the decision, nixon vs fitzgerald what has trump done wrong and what happens to the cases. >> there was nothing extreme or over the top with this supreme court decision. it holds that is what we have seen in our country throughout the history of our country. one party or other could have seen as criminal. in 1980s we have nixon decision that says civil penalties can't be imposed on a president, and criminal sanctions would be higher, there is nothing extreme there. i see the left trying to create some historyonics, some hyperbole to motivate their base, but the supreme court is doing their job in looking at the law, it is taking a long time for trump to have his fair day in court and due process to work his way, i see that, it takes a long time. to win and u a and aa. >> unrav gr leo come back to that, i don't think that any of

larry: you know, that's, by the way, andrew, another point, don't forget the enron decision friday by supreme court. they took that out, it was crazy. this was meant for financial issues, sarbanes-oxley and the enron scandal, not for people on the lawn of the capitol. let me ask you, what's mr. trump done wrong? you look at all these cases. you look at what the supreme court said which is what many lawyers have said. it wasn't that radical. i mean it was based, my reading, i'm not a lawyer, it was nixon, i was reading the actual decision, nixon versus fitzgerald back in 1982, trump didn't get everything he wanted in this case. almost a moderate compromise if you will, given that, what has trump done wrong and what happens to these cases. >> there was nothing extreme or over the top with the supreme court decision this week. in fact it holds that's what we've seen in our country throughout the history of our country. there never before has been genuine conversations of prosecuting former presidents even though a great number before acts been committed over the years one party or the ot

the department of justice to investigate everything related to enron. the same thing could happen here. the oddity, the thing that's so ironic here is remember the republican attack on jack smith is that he's too aligned with the department, that he is just a lackey of merrick garland and joe biden. essentially the decision today is saying no, no, no. he's too external to the department. he needs to be more internal. well, there's a way to do that which is to just have the case be pursued by a u.s. attorney's office and the staff and the agents assigned to it can also still work on the case. >> u.s. attorney weiss, he was u.s. attorney before made special counsel for the hunter biden case. i want to put back on the screen the trump truth social post in relax to judge cannon's dismissal of the classified documents. i want to drill down with mark on the language. donald trump after what happened on saturday talked about changing tone and uniting and moving forward saying that the speech he had planned wasn't quite right. when you look at what he's posting

they looked at the law that was at issue as part of the sarbanes-oxley act after the enron accounting scandal and said that justices said on friday it has to be tied to some kind of destruction or hampering of evidence. so that was a big win for the january 6th defendant in this case, joe fisher, and a couple others. it doesn't mean it's a big win for donald trump. he is going to file a motion to dismiss assuming this immunity case goes like we believe it will, and jack smith, i'm sure, already has legal papers to say, let me show you how this obstruction charge is still going to apply to donald trump. that carries a 20-year prison sentence. it is a felony, the most serious charge and i believe that based on, again, another opinion in the d.c. circuit, that lays out a groundwork for how trump can be charged they will be able to show that he was trying to interfere with evidence. the evidence of those certificates where they were counting state electors. he was trying to disrupt that evidence and the counting of those votes. >> very quickly, just under 1500 have been charged with the j

speaking to you, the enron less the procession again has been sworn in before parliament as these law mach republics, 9th president was ask in one a snap election earlier this month. that after his freed assessor abram racing died and a helicopter across you back in may, isn't on your ration comes and been growing tensions in the region. the 69 year old match with the leaders of the palestinian islamic jihad crew and lebanon's has the lot. and the lead up to the ceremony now possessed in is regarded as a reformist, in iran, with one of the most stark indications being his desire to forage better ties with the west. and during his swearing in ceremony, he promised again to pursue a constructive and efficient foreign policy, as he called him outside from nadia bound during his campaign to try and revive the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers which collapsed in 2018 after the united states . unilaterally withdrew from that agreement. he's also previously criticized the enforcement of a runs mandatory. he job laws, which will crier women to cover their head and neck in public. and he has

killing and that it will be avenged. loss, as the assassination will not go on nonsense or protest as enron has condemned. the assassination of the government support is gathered at the university of tyrone on wednesday, just hours of to the killing that they held up the palestinian flag and pictures of the home oceleto while calling for a decisive response to the attack. i mean, while posting it was already presidential for the boss has also released the statement saying he strongly condemns the assassination of the must be the issue. while he is a cowardly act and a dangerous development is also called on palestinians to unite and to be patient and steadfast. in the face of his ready occupation, palestinians have gathered in the occupied west bank protesting against the assassination of him. the demonstrations have been taking place in the cities of ramallah novelists and hebron. many palestinians have expressed shock but say it doesn't change their determination to fight for their freedom is still good. the destination of the lead, it has increased. our determination and our resolution w

trump called for his recusal after nbc reported that a lawyer allegedly approach enron, they claim its the rules. he called the allegation of an improper conversation a, quote, nothing burrer gear and even though the case is over engron has jurisdiction over the case. cloud strike ceo says 97% of windows sensors are back online after the mass outage crippled airlines, airports and companies worldwide a week after ago a routine update was pushed out that led to the blue screen of death for microsoft's windows operating systems. so he apologized to users, writes on linkedin i'm deeply sorry for the disruption the you outage caused and i apologize for everyone this happened to. take a look at crowd strike, the stock right now it's higher by 2% but it's been hit for several days and we should add that this is costing companies billions of dollars. democratic california governor nor gavin newsom issuing executive order yesterday for officials to dismantle homeless encampments across the state after a recent supreme court decision that laws against sleeping in public spaces do not violate t

some scholars have argued that it is the largest testimony we have until the enron founder scandal and hearings around that. >> was there reluctance to appear before this committee? >> there's reluctance on both sides, black and white, using the binary there. i think that you have reluctance of political officials in the state, white political officials. you have individuals who are saying, you know -- perpetuating the violence, saying, we don't want to testify as well, because we have nothing to say, we're not involved in this, et cetera, lying before they even get there, of course, then line before congress, oftentimes, as well. you have african american people as well and the white sympathizers with them being afraid about repercussions, but i think the most important thing -- i guess -- i keep saying, the fact that the hearings do take place, and thousands of people do go before congress and tell their story. >> was the issue of reparations ever brought up with these hearings? >> the issues of reparations, directly, is not necessarily brought up in this hearing, but the issue of wh

we did enron. we did money laundering investigations. we did tax investigations of corporations that weren't paying their taxes. we covered the gamut of a very complex financial investigation as well. the 1997 movie titanic, of course, was a blockbuster at re-ignited interest in the sinking of the ship in 1912. there's also an exhibition currently touring the country. we caught up with it in maryland, just outside of washington, d.c. and here's the curator of that exhibit talking about the era and the famous ship. i wanted a story, a photo of a person and an artifact. that's a combination. i worked with this city. important parts. so i then went into our archive and talked to collectors and also lots of families, relatives of the titanic, passengers and crew. so in that way, we got together quite a lot during two arresting stories. so the stories actually about the humans, the difference of people's stories, i'd say, and of course very much about the titanic as well. but it's based on the humans side of the titanic story. there's a lot o

the enron that you did now means it will go back and ways to even more time going back and sorting through these things at the lower court level. i have to say about the dissent, and there were multiple of them today. the majority wrote that it was wholly disproportionate and a complete overreaction to what they had said. they said it was a tone of chilling doom that comes from the dissenters but also said we said -- and i'll read for you. like everyone else the president is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity but as you talked about with the judge there, these are different branches. we have to protect the executive branch. if there are core official functions they are doing. there's also a warning from the majority that they don't want presidents to leave office and immediately be at the mercy of a political opponent who says let me find something you did and that way i will send you to jail potentially. >> sandra: i want to conclude with this. this is from a senior biting campaign advisor. responding to the outcome from the supreme court here. today's ruling does not chang

fisher case generally six defendants of this obstruction statute applied to me came in the wake of enron member financial crimes of it is not rightly applied to those who showed up at the capitol generally six. the court said there is not a proper application it was flawed for this could potentially impact hundreds of cases including president trump. >> this fits squarely in the courts a precedent on things like this if you've got a list of a type of thing and you say and otherwise do that it has to meet along the same lights it's like if you had a football regulation that said you cannot pull or twist their helmets or otherwise harm them does not cover trash talking or stabbing them it talks about things you do to their equipment in this case they are saying the sarbanes-oxley act which is about destroying evidence and blocking evidence and things does not have to do is broadly speaking anything you could do to interfere with the proceeding just has to be something to do with evidence it's possible that will cover sunday january 6 defendants we do not know what the government cannot use

prosecute this fisherman under the sarbanes-oxley provisions -- [laughter] that were designed to remedy the enrong party. and that a statute, you know, basically makes it unlawful under federal law to destroy a record, document or other tangible document. expect theory in yatess, which isn't crazy, a fish, it's a tangible object, right? so this fits within the statute. but the court, 5-4, said, no, that's crazy. i see where you get the tangible fish thing. the fish isn't really an intangible object to, i suppose, but it's just not coveredty -- by the statute. this involved the immediate adjacent -- which complements destroying a record, document or other tangible object and also prohibits otherwise instructing, influencing or ime periods if any official proceeding. so this provision was used against the people involved in january 6th on the idea that they were impeding the official proceedings involved in counting the electoral votes. and the court, by a 6-3 majority says, no. that's not -- this is about, this is a complementary provision that is supposed to complement the document, destruction,

when enron went bankrupt 25 years ago, every journalist, every business journalist in america felt gaslitbecause maybe we'll be wrong. the question is whether that sentiment comes to biden, or not? by the way i'm not sure it is. reading coverage this morning what took place over the weekend. there's a kum ba yah kind of thing happening. >> yeah. i do think the herd mentality in the media goes both ways in that this is the only story right now they'll be all over him. the white house -- used to ignoring the "new york times." happy to shut them out. happy to ignore their endorsements. but, no. i think this is going to be a huge subject of coverage. honestly any politician over 70 suddenly under a wave of scrutiny. >> and you knew, andrew, and never said otherwise. followed up with, yeah, i know, but, trump. six months. >> basically -- >> yeah. but, trump -- right? >> that's where we are. >> then you know a lot of people knew this. >> i think -- they, there was a denial and a sense that maybe -- i think people questioned themselves saying, well, you don't get to see him a lot. mean bay hind

the supreme leader has stated that enron must respond to this.rmost military official would require a response. you should look at this as a collective and add that the israelis have struck the who these -- the houthis and the united states has struck to prevent operations in the last 24 hours. for tehran they will have to respond in that matter. lisa: what response do you expect from tehran? norman: it is not impossible they will strike iran directly, but it's unlikely. israel was able to demonstrate an exquisite capacity to take out iran's most impressive air defense. the killing of haniyeh and shukr demonstrate incredible intelligence by the israelis. i think iran will have to hurry up and slow down. they will have to come up with a plan that doesn't start a war and risk their officials, but they will have to undertake strikes against israel itself. one other point to note is that hamas is in a position where it needs to respond. it is different than 10 months ago. 10 months ago we may have seen hundreds of rockets were missiles. the next few

laws that were not appropriate, which came down the other day for obstruction that came about from an enronmp was the president at the time. he has the right to make sure the elections are secure. he asked georgia to find votes because they had irregularities. fox news even called arizona while people were waiting online. there were so many -- i am a republican. i work the election. i thought the election was stolen by all of the states changing laws and using covid as the excuse. host: do you still believe that? caller: yes i do. host: joann in new york. on x, one of our viewers. the fact that three of the justices were appointed by the person claimg immunity om our law should be enough of a reason to vote for our opponent. there should never be a question about our president obeying our loss. robert in virginia, iependent. what do you say? caller: i do not think any president should ever have immunity. on the bright side, if they want to roll they do, -- if they want to rule they do, joe biden will have the right to have trump tried for treason and executed which he should be. host will n

cortez masto: i also ask unanimous consent that the senior senator from ohio be authorized to sign duly enronls through july 26. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the following interns be granted floor privileges until august 9, 2024. chris kamal, hailey lifezig and chad schumacher and duval. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: if good intenses -- intentions created good laws, there would be no reason for debate. i believe the authors of the law want want to protect children. the kids online safety act would impose unprecedented duty of care on internet platforms to mitigate harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression and eating disorders. the proponents say that it is not designed to regulate content, imposing a duty of care on an internet platform associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome, the stifling of protected speech. today's children live in a world different than i did, i'm the first