trump versus the media what was once a battle of angry words an accusation is now a legal case in the court's perspective on the war suit of c.n.n. versus the white house from legal expert dan abrams on this edition of all. of that of politicking i'm larry king and i'm in new york c.n.n. that it's white house reporter jim acosta both frequent targets of the president's ire are suing this from the ministration for yanking the cost of this press access to the white house following a reason incident during a press conference when jim acosta refused to surrender of microphone during a back and forth with president trump does c.n.n. and jim acosta have

a case and we'll what will it mean for the president's already bad relationship with the press corps going forward i talked about that with dan abrams this week dan is the a.b.c. news chief legal analyst he's founder of the law and crime network and host of the van a broom show where politics meets the law on sirius x.m. here is that interview watch what do you make of the c.n.n. case about jim acosta does he have the right to have a press pass in the white house. so it is not a fundamental right to have a press pass through a speech well that's the question right so if the if the white house had said what they said today about why sarah sander why they're why they revoked his press pass which is his conduct and he wouldn't let go of the mike and he would let other people ask questions and he wasn't asking questions he was making.

statements well you know what there is an argument there that white house had in that event the first argument was well he actually physically hit the inter no he did that's not true and then the president comes out on friday and the president says well he's a disgrace and the white house is a sacred place. again that's not quite good enough serious that the current explanation has got to be the one they stick with because they're not an easy spot it feels like they're going after a cost of because they don't like his questions but there are restrictions that can be placed even on members of the media not about the questions they ask but about their conduct and the way they handle your lawyer a member of the media yeah how do you react to donald trump's attacks on the media the fake news are you personally angered not personally angry but i think it's i

think it it's definitely troubling i mean it is it is troubling to hear the constant references to fake news when the president doesn't like what's being reported i mean again i take words seriously the word fake means on try. if you want to talk about media bias we can have a discussion i would i would say that i think that the media on the whole has had a left leaning bias i think that's a fair criticism of the mainstream media. but that doesn't mean that when the washington post reports something or the new york times or c.n.n. that the president doesn't like that it's fake news it's fake news if it turns out to not be true the problem for the president has been that much of the news that he is called fake has turned out to be true and so if you care about facts and you care about the truth you're going to be bothered when anything he doesn't like is referred to as fake news then there is a big disagreement over mr wood and whether he as acting attorney general that is

legal look i think that there are two questions there's one which is a constitutional question about the what's called the appointments clause meaning do you need advice and consent of the senate for an appointment like this one. that argument is a really close one i think but i think in the end the president probably has the leeway to make a short term temporary appointment it's close though the main case on point on this issue involves someone who was there for three years in the acting role and there was no advice and consent of the senate so to some degree this is an issue of first impression the second question is if you can survive the constitutional challenge then there's the statutory question which is ok there's this statute out there about how you're supposed to go about filling vacancies for a position where someone leaps question one did you resign or was the fact. if you

if you believe in i believe that no matter what the reality is of course the president pushed him out by him saying he resigned he's resigning and so the bacon seize act applies then there's a separate question about the succession as to whether someone else in the department of justice should have gotten the position again these are tough complicated questions but he's got people under him who required approval so there are people who are under him who have gotten approval and so the question becomes because he hasn't had a approval from the senate since two thousand and four i think it is. should he have to get it now and then have the ethical questions by the way to then you've got the justice department ethics people who are asking whether the fact that he

made comments about this his relationship with one of the witnesses sam clovis so they're basically sort of three buckets of possible issues here once constitutional one statutory ones ethical and so you've got to believe that the president is already saying you know what i just want this guy for a short time the president know him the president saying now i hardly even know this guy so it seems to me that the president's distancing himself and saying you know it's time to to move on and find somebody else you know reporter and the lawyer and also. a passionate opinionated person can you remove you so from this and say legally business sure but in my heart i think he should require look i'll tell you for i think that i've said this on my radio show i think that whitaker was not the best choice for this job that even if comes in with a pre well but but beyond that jeff sessions no matter what you think of him was

qualified right. he had held positions very high positions in alabama in the legal community he'd been a united states senator you may love or hate jeff sessions but he was qualified for the position it feels like the only qualification that matt whitaker has is that he has criticized the russian best a geisha yes he was a former u.s. attorney in iowa but it doesn't feel like there's any other reason that he got appointed to the position now the president's allowed to pick who he wants but when you throw onto that the other possible legal challenges you've got to say is this worth it. this is off the top of the lawyer would mean the supreme court back the president i don't know i would not as cynical about the supreme court as some no no no i mean why you know laws say what because justice thomas who you would think is

a supporter of the president has actually written about this issue about advice and consent and it was a different set of facts but based on his language you would think he thinks that someone who is what's called a principle officer meaning like the attorney general would need advice and consent of the senate even in a temporary role like this. so i don't think that justice thomas is going to go one eighty on this everyone and i think i mean look the supreme court is in a tough spot right now there's definitely a divide but there are a lot of cases where it's still seventy two there are other cases the words unanimous it's other cases where they agree not to hear a case so i don't think that we should be so cynical about the supreme court that we say in every case always these are going to rule for the president or he's not there are reasons to to look back and say well you know this person someone has always deferred to executive power etc but you know these are these are serious

europe's but in this and this one from now forward all kavanaugh decisions will be examined. of course separate and above absolutely they well and but shouldn't should gorsuch be they haven't been so far no kava most will yes cavanagh will be will be under a microscope no doubt about it but but i think that look putting aside the allegations i just made a comment about whitaker where i said i don't think he's qualified putting aside the allegations about cabinet cavernous very qualified i mean whether if the allegations are true he shouldn't be on the court etc people can have that debate putting that to the side from when the president appointed him not knowing about those he was appointing him because he is a a real conservative jurist that's within the power of a conservative president to do and this is not someone who some random person who the president of the d.c.

circuit. what's known as the second highest court in the land so this is you're talking about a serious guy in cabin all. and consequently i think that his opinions are going to have to be taken seriously despite the fact that they're going to be a lot of people have very serious questions about him and his honesty in those hearings another area law professor former white house picks a lawyer under george w. bush richard painter been a frequent guest on this show he says that trump is in violation of the constitution's emoluments clause for certain foreign payments you agree i mean look the amal humans' clause is mean it's basically a clause in the constitution that says that a few basically foreign powers can give anything of value. we don't want bribery we don't want foreign powers bribing our our president. and giving them something of

value and the so the argument goes that for example his hotel is one of the. arguments is that because he is having foreign dignitary stay at the hotel he is getting something of value there look the emoluments clause has never been interpreted in a significant way that i think is particularly relevant to what we're talking about . i don't think that i think that there's an interesting argument it's not a frivolous argument but it's also not one that i think is going to ultimately win in the courts. you father. admires you greatly love him he's a great legal mind. did you grow up in that atmosphere that you almost have to be a lawyer so we were kids my dad would come in to my sister in my rooms and tell us a story before we go to bed and we knew that the way to get him to stay longer was

to ask him about his cases because he loved talking about his cases so we'd say you know as kids oh dad you know tell me about you know he talked about some bread and he actually said that it helped him in sometimes complex constitutional cases put into context and simplified the issues to talk to us as kids to explain to us what the point of the caseworkers in that help is perhaps then we have to do learn more of good to see then a rooms of the best stay right with us we'll be back with more politicking after the break.

there are three russian and lights. in a world of big partisan law and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smart or we need to stop slamming the door on the back and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks.

there are some russian. politicking i'm now joined by my political panel there peter kaufman former press secretary to hillary clinton and former u.s. navy officer presently voice chair for vote vets and person with blow blue jacket strategies he's with us here in studio in new york a nationally hijacked g.o.p. strategist a fund raiser executive director of the california women's leadership association she joins is the. job you do actually what do you think of the aggregate attorney

general mark whitaker is he a help or harm for the president i think he could definitely be and not help with a potential at the not harm that he does not will they don't think that's going to be an issue and here's why first of all the department of justice today at that what it means by i think by the white house but at the time is constitutional so that's helpful the president did ask for an opinion and i'm going to write a justice about hiring a senior advisor and they say that it would be constitutional also he followed the law and that respects. there is no evidence to prove that he would do anything to crack down on a mole or investigation in fact to keep order to use them that it could pose a huge problem for the president inst. in that house now controlled by democrats in

any initiative to discuss obstruction so i don't think that will be an issue i think that as an ant and mr whitaker know what is the state in their own will do their duty but really beauty or view will even donald trump senior adviser kellyanne conway her husband is a conservative legal scholar and he's argued the opposite point that it's that it's not constitutional it's very clear the attorney general acting or otherwise needs to be confirmed by the united states senate but i think the more troubling even the more troubling than just having an unconstitutional appointment like that is certainly the at least the appearance that donald trump is trying to put his thumb on the scale of the more investigation the only thing we knew about matt whitaker a week ago was that he was a pundit who like to go on t.v. to impress the president and talk about the more investigation and try to defend donald trump that's how he got his job as chief of staff for sessions that's how he was in the position to be elevated like this and that's not the independent kind of investigation that we need and see with all of us going on logically don't you

think he should recuse himself. i don't think it's necessary i think it's false they've been you don't get that position and chito sat by not knowing where. he is going to do what he needs to do in a legal and constitutional way a constitutional way and there's no evidence that he has any even or any proof that you're undermining investigation and it would be more detrimental for him to try and interfere on that investigation it would actually help the president and i think everyone at the well knows that peter what do you think of the state of the mower investigation is he. dozens be so he doesn't speak he doesn't leak like past independent counsels have so that speaks to his credit in the credit of his investigation all he does is indicted and convicted people and get convictions and guilty pleas so this is playing out it's playing out deliberately i expect more to

come in the weeks and months ahead we're free and clear of the mid terms i expect something will happen before the general election really heats up and now i think we're heading into crunch time actually trump is moving toward making some major changes in the west wing staff what do you hear. and i think that's probably going to happen it's not uncommon after a midterm election for a president to makes and change is. secretary meals and a party in it that's actually. mr kelly as well but i think that's ok you know you did you did that person last is in the midterm election i think your strategy what your priority is going to be is a very good thing in a very healthy way. republicans led by trump of accuse democrats peter of trying to steal the elections in florida and georgia do they have an effect know it all that's going on in florida in georgia is that we're counting votes and that's at

the core of the foundation of what a democracy is we count every vote every vote counts and the idea that republicans for purely political reasons are playing games and trying to dowd in the very fabric of democracy really speaks to what become of the republican party in the trump era it's not what we should be doing we should be counting votes there's nothing republican or democratic about that that's democratic small d. it's the right thing to do actually want proof does the president have a fraud in florida. there's a couple things that are quite right i mean about this whole situation right in twenty sixteen up to the president was elected her for the past two years about russian meddling and there's no truth as you know the democrats have said old they could not accept the election results now you have the case in georgia and in florida at and in georgia the democrats are saying that you know there is election

fraud in our system is you know under my and in florida or it's actually happening there seems wait a minute there's no voter fraud there are laws that are in place to meet sure that those mean there is no voter fraud those laws were violated by rendering knights who has numerous accounts of destroyed ballots and post the results early. a list that in as thousands of ballots that show up that you know haven't they accounted for she wouldn't tell people how many more there were two counts democrats and republicans both seat of pride that this woman has where the incident undermined their not know that no one from the democratic party question that the. soltz of the actual votes in two thousand and sixteen no one ever said that anything was infiltrated in the ballot box or question the sanctity of that now i actually served in the navy and in the two thousand and four presidential election i voted by absentee ballot my ballot was postmarked in time for election day and my

ballot was counted several days later and wouldn't you know what in florida there are actually a lot of military voters they're stationed all over the world and yet they're florida residents they have every right to vote for governor they have every right to vote for a senator and you know what it takes a few days to get a ballot from a ship in the pacific or in the arabian gulf get back to florida and counted but i don't know what military votes military votes count just as much as a republican votes in your republican counties in florida count and that's why yes and to take if you do it it takes a few days to get those that serve three times on how it works the military votes we're talking about voter integrity and voter fraud at both that are not even potentially lethal there are certain rules are great the signature is not for matching the signatures have not matched and there are certain even terms that you know how the books are counted this is not about the military votes trust me i know

how military body works in there this is about not following the law signature is not actually illegal though one needs to be on it it's not about money every single though it's not on every legal and that's the difference and it's at least another area c.n.n. is suing to get jim acosta's press pass was stored in a lot of network including farms has filed along with them what do you think of it i think it's despicable that it's even come to this these are this is a reporter this is not this is a reporter at a respected news outlet who was asking questions the white house put out a doctor tape to make it look like he physically assaulted someone they played with this from from day one something that we can all see why. our own eyes what happened he asks tough questions the president doesn't like to answer tough questions the president doesn't respect what the media does he doesn't respect the right of the public press to ask questions and to question authority that is

fundamentally that is a a wall in the bill of rights it's protected in the constitution and for the white house to go after reporters just because they don't agree with them just because they're really tough on them is absolutely wrong and i and i think c.n.n. should fight this all the way to the supreme court where you think. the president took sixty eight questions from thirty five different reporters that day this is not about the first amendment this is about. jim acosta. being a jerk and not acting professional and i would hope that in those hears would tell him to act professional instead of going in and not through questions which the president will answer he doesn't in plain states that's not the fact that it's not getting the truth that's not good reporting and so this whole notion if you were about the press. his speech because the piece that you point out and only his point that would be a whiny issue but that's not the case he had and professionally who will argue

there to be a just that i just don't know who is the arbiter who's the arbiter of jerky behavior is that donald trump donald trump gets to tell me who acts like a jerk on camera is that that's really where we are i think you behavior he let him ask you questions and it was somebody else's turn absolute don't ask your question to michael or he said no more questions so agree with what you say he will meet jim acosta's does not get out more questions than everybody else because he decides that he gets a great so if you make fun of if you make fun of a reporter for having a handicap if you make fun of a p.o.w. because he got caught is that you're not a viewer is not returns not trying to to migrate. and oftentimes american starkey behavior that are going to go out the first minute right you're taking you're teaching our argument so it's not not about the person right so are you going to talk about him or me in the right place each are you going to talk about. these are

these are two totally different starts we don't know yet you said that you said that jim acosta should have as i say passed out in a way because he's a jerk. to us and if you say you said there is a jerk or not he should have his press pass taken away because of that thousand what you said the are you running to the president is the reason he is unconstitutional is because the president doesn't agree with his point of view that's not the case at all the president keeps hard questions and lots of journalists regularly jim acosta's granted any he got to ask this but he didn't follow protocol to sarcastic about now. it's actually illegal and. someone else. got a couple of almost a few you're a veteran no you heard that the president didn't go all into the veterans of day that he didn't go to arlington on foot on veterans day that he could in some raindrops to go to a cemetery in france. i just i don't know what more

this this president has to do that his supporters can just sort of roll over and defend it yes i served and you know what the men and women who served in world war one they were in facing. it wasn't rain that was dropping on them it was actual bullets and to not even have the courtesy to to to go and commemorate and honor them by toughing it out get a number zero if you're afraid of the rain if you don't want your hair messed up get a number you can have somebody hold it for you if you can hold onto it yourself but you know get your get your big boy pants on and go nicely doesn't annoy he's never visited the war zone does that bother you at all actually. now it's president and war for our military and showing support for our military in these two years and president obama has every time he supports our military he's provided by me for

our military i think it very odd money for wife i'm grateful that he has taken over because i can tell you or stories from the obama administration actually we look forward to having you back again soon thank you peter thank you and thank you for joining me on a mission of politicking from new york remember you can join my congress ation on my facebook page or tweet me a king's things though for get use the politicking hash tag and that's all for this edition of politicking. aeroflot russian and lights. you know world of big partisan

movies a lot of things and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that mainstream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bath shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now we're watching closely watching the hawks.

aeroflot russian airlines. it's hard to imagine the decades after the war a nazi don't it was still active and rich in the nineteen seventies cretonne had as the chair of its board a man convicted of mass murder and slavery at auschwitz a german company going until it develops a little mite. a drug that was promoted as completely safe even during pregnancy it turned out to have terrible side effects what has happened to my baby is anything paul you know she said she's just cut short arms minix a little mind victims i have to this day received no compensation they never apologized for the suffering that not only want the money i want the revenge. because systems logic doesn't have to do with the shooting here to achieve the goal

choosing. government government. by the government. which ends this region newcomers in strengthening muslim the. british prime minister to resume a battle to save have breakfast plan is key ministers clips head cabinet the last game piece to consider the national interest and give it their backing their withdrawal agreement represents a huge and damaging failure the deal that is already dead in the water. the largest terrorist faction in syria claims to have joined forces with so-called moderate rebels to fight the governments in their province.