tomorrow, we expect a judge's ruling on that in the mazars case. which again, is for ten years' worth of the president's financial documents, from his long-time accounting firm. that ruling, if we do, in fact, get one tomorrow, that will presumably have knock-on implications down the road for a lot of these other subpoena fights, as well. and, of course, it will have direct -- a direct impact on what appears to be the president's deepest and most animating fear, which is that his taxes and finances will finally start to see the light of day. so buckle up. lots to come. congressman beto o'rourke joins us live tonight in studio. stay with us. all sunscreen hate. you're gonna love this. new coppertone sport clear. not thick, not hot, not messy, just clear, cool, protected. coppertone sport clear. proven to protect. for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here.

he asks the court to declare the mazars subpoena unenforceable. courts have grappled for more than a century of investigative power. the binding principle is that courts must presume they are acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what congress needs to carry out that purpose. to be sure there are limits on congress' investigative authority but those limits do not substantially constrain congress. so long as congress investigates on a subject matter on which legislation could be had, congress acts as contemplated by article 1 of the constitution. applying those principles here compels the conclusion that president trump cannot block the subpoena to mazars. according to the oversight committee, it believes the requested records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws. the committee also says that the records will assist in monitoring. these are facially valid legislative purposes a

they contacted mazars, the accounts firm and told mazars that mazars should not respond to this subpoena from congress. hired to keep his finances and taxes a secret, they filed a lawsuit by the president, the president personally suing his accounting firm to try to stop them from complying with this subpoena, this subpoena that orders them to hand over his financial documents, including the financial statements that firm prepared that the president's lawyers said under oath he saw used to commit bank fraud and insurance fraud. the president sues the accounting firm to try to stop the firm from handing over information about him and he sues elijah cummings, chairman of the oversight committee, to try to stop him from demanding those documents. now, that lawsuit the president filed here is not a thing of beauty. by all legal accounts. but elijah cummings did agree once that lawsuit was filed that he would delay the subpoena's deadline ordering that accounting firm to hand stuff over. he would allow for a delay. they would not have to meet the subpoena's deadline to submit those documents

hey, mazars, hand over those ten years of records about president trump. now, the president's lawyers in this case, they had also asked the judge here to issue a stay, to give them time to appeal, because they knew exactly how this judge was going to rule because it was obvious to anybody who paid any attention to this case. but they asked for a stay so that even if the judge ruled against the president and said the subpoena was valid and said mazars had to hand over the documents, they wanted the judge to at least hit pause on that order to give the president time to appeal to a higher court. well, the judge today said no, i am not hitting pause. the subpoena is in effect. you've got seven days. now, the president and his new boatload of lawyers, again, hired specifically just to keep his taxes and finances secret, they will undoubtedly appeal and this will undoubtedly go to some other court as an appeal. but there is nothing equivocal or shy about this ruling. like i said, you can see it coming a mile off. this comports 1,000% with what every legal exper

again, trump sued to stop mazars from handing over material. again, the democratic-controlled committees decided to respect that lawsuit. they've agreed to delay the production date on that subpoena, on that one involving the accounting firm, mazars. they've got themselves a court date on may 14th. and, again, the court will rule and mazars will comply with whatever the court order is. now, honestly, i have not talked to a single legal expert or even a single well-informed reporter who believes that the trump lawsuits to stop those subpoenas are going to succeed in the long run. but they have succeeded in the short run, right? they've already caused delay. we would otherwise be expecting reams of trump financial documents including pages from each of his federal tax returns to be handed over to congress on monday. that has temporarily been paused while they fight this out in court, but that delay is only going to last so long. nobody thinks those lawsuits are going to succeed in the end. they're going to succeed in delaying it until they fail,

who ruled valid the subpoena that the oversight committee had sent to mazars's, an can'ting firm that the president and his business worked with for years. that subpoena directs mazar's to hand over ten years of dealings with the president and his businesses. this one in new york ruled from the bench that a similar subpoena sent to deutsche bank by two other congressional committees, that too is a valid subpoena, and deutsche bank must comply with that subpoena. and just like the ruling in the mazar's case on monday, this ruling today on the deutsche bank case, it is blunt and unequivocal. we just got in the transcript from this hearing today, including the parts of the transcript where the judge reads his ruling from the bench. part of that ruling, quote, the court concludes that plaintiffs have not raised any serious questions going to the merits -- the plaintiffs in this case are president trump and his family. "the supreme court has likely foreclosed the path that plaintiffs ask this court to travel. it is well settled that the committees possess the power to issue and enforce sub

and in the mazars case on monday, the judge declares there can be little doubt that congress' interestin the accuracy of the president's financial disclosures falls within the legislative sphere. but the president's priority is his personal and political interests, not the public interests. yesterday, as you know, democrats went to the white house prepared to offer the president the opportunity to launch an historic infrastructure initiative. we had met three weeks before. the idea that it was a good, positive meeting, on how we build the infrastructure of our country, roads, bridges, mass transit, broadband in rural areas and in underserved urban areas as well, water systems, both waste water and safe clean drinking water. infrastructure for our satellites so that our technology works here. for all of these things, we were optimistic. we also were hoping for housing and school construction as a further part of the conversation, but the question is how is it paid for. and the president was going -- the plan was, as we agreed at the meeting three weeks ago, the president was to present

saw those lawyers make basically that same argument yesterday in court in the oral arguments in the mazar's case, where the president's lawyers are arguing that the oversight committee can't rightfully subpoena financial evidence about the president from his accounting firm. there was that strange hearing in court yesterday when to the judge's astonishment, the president's lawyers argued bluntly that across the board congress has no right to investigate a president for alleged corruption or any alleged crimes. the judge appeared to be plainly astonished by that claim from the president's lawyers yesterday in the mazar's case, but they apparently are going with that as their argument. both in court and as their political argument including from the white house counsel today. it's the same grounds on which the white house counsel today said he would refuse to hand over any witnesses or any testimony at all in any congressional investigation. i mean this -- stepping back from this a second, this does mean that we are now already at the point in the trump presidency where between him and willia

federal judge said the former trump accounting firm mazars would have to comply. >>> vladimir putin was more prepared than president trump for their meeting in germany putting u.s. officils at a disadvantage. that's what former secretary of state rex tillerson told the top democrat and republican in a secret meeting this week. a source says tillerson says he was guided by american values but could not or would not answer whether the same could be said for president trump. >>> pentagon officials expected to brief president trump's national security team as soon as today on a plan that could send thousands of additional u.s. troops to the middle east over rising tensions with iran. the officials emphasized no decision has been made and the troops may not be needed at all. the president's approval is needed for such a significant deployment. it's unclear if he'll authorize the action after criticizing past u.s. interventions overseas. >>> six migrant children have died after crossing the southern border and the latest case being reported happened eight months ago. a ten-year-old girl dying

i think that as you know, with the mazars ruling earlier this week and now this particular ruling ink, it's clear the courts are unanimous in their sentiment that congress has the authority to conduct oversight and investigations and issue subpoenas and those subpoenas need to be complied with. and so i think there are cracks forming in the trump obstruction strategy and the strategy to try to delay the production of documents, and important testimony that we should have. and hopefully, they come to their senses and start cooperating and producing documents and other testimony in other matters, as well. >> adam, today's judge echoed monday's judge saying there was no serious question, that's the phrase they used. no serious question was raise the by the trump side. right. >> and what that meant to him since he had the case for three weeks and able to study it, he was ready to issue an opinion unless he heard something from the trump lawyers that he didn't know about. which is why he questioned them very closely. >> absolutely. >> questioned the house of representatives' lawyers very,

yeah, there's these subpoenas to deutsche bank and mazars they're trying to block with a lawsuit and, again, that lawsuit has won them a delay. ultimately, that is not a fight they're likely to win. and, again, "the new york times" is reporting that it is a ton of trump tax information that is included in the material that deutsche bank assembled and had ready to hand over and that they presumably will hand over when ultimately they're inevitably compelled to comply with that subpoena. it's also, you know, it's investigative reporting. right? this pulitzer-prize-winning team had previously laid bare the trump family finances and what they peered to be their history of rank tax evasion and fraud. laying bare the president's myth of having built his own business empire rather than having taken and inherited then squandered his dad's. all of these paths will open. they'll open in -- they'll open in congress, they'll open by virtue of the law. they'll open through open-source reporting. tomorrow, another path is going to open, too. tomorrow in the new york state legislature, of all place,

subpoena, but i think that just as we saw in the oversight committee ease case with regard to the mazarsrm and turning over financial records, the trump administration has to realize they may try to delay the turning over of these records, but the courts have something to say about this as well, and the mazars situation, the court expedited the process by which the records might eventually be turned over to being could. similarly i hope the same occurs here with regard to the deutsche bank records. >> can i just ask, congressman, you mentioned russia. have you seen something on the committees that would imply or tell you that this is russia or are you going off the public reporting. what's your sense that have? >> are you talking about with regard to the "new york times" story? >> yes, sir. >> yes. that is what the rank and file officials said that they saw which was questionable links or financial transactions between, for instance, jared kushner and russian entities, and in fact one of those examiners, one of the rank and file officials was actually terminated and people perceived the

. >> that is a very good point especially tonight with the mazar ruling. >> today saw a huge victory. i mean huge and historic and important. a huge victory for the house of representatives and a crushing defeat and i mean historic crushing defeat for president trump in a ruling by a federal judge in washington, a judge who wrote this court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history. the case is doesn't j. trump versus committee on oversight and reform of the house of representative. the president is suing to block elijah cummings subpoena of trump financial documents from an accounting firm that did several years of work for donald trump and trump businesses. the judge ruled the subpoena must be obeyed and the judge refused to grant a delay in the execution of his order because the judge said that donald trump's lawsuit does not present "serious legal questions about the subpoena." the judge said this is not a serious case. president doesn't have a chance of prevailing. the president's private attorney arguing the case told the court last week that congress did not have a legit

this house oversight committee subpoena to mazars, an accounting firm that worked with president trump on accounting issues before he was president. they issued a subpoena for a bunch of documents, and the president's lawyers had been trying to stop this, but they lost in court yesterday with a federal judge saying essentially that this is within congress' right to do. it's within their powers to ask for these documents and that companies like mazars has to turn them over. he gave them seven days. we're now at six days now. this appeal basically could potentially put in motion a process that could stop that from happening, at least in the next week while that case is pending. but already, president trump has gone forward with attacking this judge. listen to what he said to reporters yesterday. >> as far as the financials are concerned, we think it's the wrong -- it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an obama appointed judge. >> so an attack on the judge directly there from president trump. but this too is also going to get worked out in court. i would say, kate, this decision by

you take the information from mazars, trump's accountant, and take the information from deutsche banko he submitted the information to, does it match up or did he inflate it in the loan applications? if so, that's a pretty straight forward bank fraud. >> counselor, elie honig, thank you very much for joining us. >>> president trump's allies are peddling a doctored video meant to make it look like nancy pelosi is slurring her speech. we'll show you what is real and what is fake, next. anyone can go fast. but, is fast enough? or, do you want speed and style? introducing performance, born of refinement. the lexus rc line. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. experience amazing onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. hi, do you have a travel card? we do! the discover it® miles card. earn unlimited 1.5 miles on every purchase, plus we'll match your miles at the end of your first year. you'll match my miles

mazars only abortion clinic might be forced to close by friday. ct

young man who left california to fight alongside the tele- band and was discovered in a prison near mazar-e-sharif afghanistan. he had been interviewed by cia special operative mike span, he was killed in a prison uprising. the family said he was aware of the uprising and ultimately took a plea for aiding the tele- band. the sentence was 20 years, federal sentencing guidelines allow good release after 85% of the sentences served. the former director of the cia and now secretary of state agrees. >> unexplainable and unconscionable. john spann was one of ours, we are now allowing someone who was involved with his death out of jail after a short sentence. >> even liberals were asked why it lindh wasn't prosecuted for treason, a position long held by conservatives. >> he met with usama bin laden, he chose to go to the front lines to fight with a tele- band. in the summer of 2001, john walker lindh swore allegiance to. >> while in prison, lindh continue to advocate for global jihad. johnny spann said prison can keep him from his jihad-ist ways now he's on the street. >> i think we would need to review

we asked for financial records from the mazar's firm. they want to court.nk they were hoping to drag out the proceedings. >> sure. >> the courts will enforce the subpoena power. last time that a court did not was during the administration of rutherford b. hayes. we are going to do that if that's what's required to have a check and balance. >> what does a contempt do, though? >> three types of contempt. criminal contempt referral, which is what you referred to. there's civil contempt, initiated by house general counsel and a third type of contempt called inherent contempt. that's something we're looking at closely where you would use the inherent power of the house to hold someone individually and personally in contempt, perhaps assessing a fine on them. i think that would get people's attention fast. >> all the different avenues that might actually convince them to comply, that is your best avenue? >> i think so. perhaps all three should be adopted simultaneously. in any case i know that the loweredship and the chairman and women of the different committees

mehta upheld a subpoena monday for 10 years of trump's financial records from the accounting firm mazars, issued by the house oversight committee. trump's lawyers attempted to resist the subpoena by arguing the request is unconstitutional because it isn't tied to legislation. judge mehta ruled the house panel had valid reasons for requesting the document and that "it is not for the court to question whether the committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations." trump's lawyer said d he would appeal the ruling. federal prosecutors in new york are looking through tens of thousands of documents related to the funding of president trump's inauguration for any evidence of illegal spending or campaign finance laws violations, including whether any foreign donors received access to the trump administration in exchange for inaugural contntributions.s. a record-breakaking $107 m milln in donations was received fofor trump's inauguration. in new zealand, police have charged the suspect in march's christchurch massacre with terrorism. he is also facing 51 counts of murder and 40

now the deutsche bank and the mazars think they have gone that way.hey still have tricks up their sleeves. maybe it will take years, but nevertheless democrats this morning, joe, are feeling bullish finally -- they feel they have been stonewalled for a long time. the mueller thing didn't go their way. do they feel the tables are turning? >> in a large way, this is a gift for nancy pelosi and bolsters her strategy. there is some division within the democrats about how quickly to move to impeachment. speaker pelosi has said let the process play out. we have a legal case. it doesn't have to take forever. these are two big victories in a row. that gives her breathing room within the caucus. internally, her politics are good. trump has basically taken the position that he's going to take everything to the supreme court. he believes that it's his supreme court now. the interesting question is what happens when the supreme court rules against him? there is nothing in trump's character or record that shows he respects any ruling outside of his own feeling. so

i think donald trump's attorneys thought that by intervening or suing the mazar's firm in court they would slow down the process and delay as long as possible their turning over the financial records of donald trump to the oversight committee. i think what the judge's ruling illustrates is that i don't think that delay is necessarily going to be in the cards with regard to a lot of these subpoenas and the enforcement of their subpoenas. >> over the weekend the president really went after the current fbi director christopher wray and former white house counsel dob n mcgahn. if he is totally exonerated, what do you think is behind the new attacks? >> i think he knows the truth, that he was not totally exonerated by the mueller report, and the fact that he tried to get don mcgahn to say that there was no obstruction and the fact that don mcgahn refused to do so and now to get christopher wray to say that somehow spying was done by the fbi on the trump campaign and that he is refusing to say that illustrates that, you know, the facts can be stubborn and the truth is the truth and i think

from the oversight committee's perspective we demanded financial records from the mazar's accountingirm. that's the president's accounting firm. and of course, the president then intervened and filed suit to stop that accounting firm from producing documents in response to our subpoena. they were doing that to delay the proceedings. maybe to run out the clock even through the 2020 elections. but interestingly, the court in that case expedited the process and actually delivered an opinion last monday vindicating our right to have that information. two days later in the southern district of new york the federal district court similarly enforced our subpoena with regard to deutsche bank in producing financial documents that might indicate connections to money laundering by the russians. these were unexpected. many people thought we would never get these documents and now it looks like they are within sight. and i think that's what also prompted the department of justice by the way to produce some documents to chairman adam schiff's committee, the intelligence committee with regard to co

mazars only abortion clinic might be forced to close by friday. effectively ending access to legal abortion in the state. we will speak with the aclu as well as an abortion provider in neighboring illinois base just outside st. louis. then we go to arizona where humanitarian volunteer with the group no more deaths faces up to 20 years in prison for providing fo, , wate andnd aid to undocumented migrants. >> january 2018, w was aesteted by b bder patrol and crged th harboring. the bord patrol criminal colalaint ainsnst me, they said i was providi food, wer, beds, anclean clhehes towo men. so they charged me with harboring. amy: scott warren goes on trial today, but will join us first. all that and more, coming up. welcome to d democracy now!,!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. as states around the country ramp up their attacks on reproductive rights, the supreme court tuesday declined to rule on an indiana law that would bar abortions based on the sex, race, or disability of the fetus. the supreme court decision will kee

ordering the production of documents pursuant to subpoenas served on deutsche bank, capital one, even mazarsp is entitled legally to take an appeal. what's important about the last-minute deal struck yesterday between trump and house finance is the following -- normally there's a schedule of time to file your briefs when dealing an appeal. if you agree to an expedited appeal process, you've agreed to basically save a lot of time off what would have otherwise been available to somebody like trump to prepare his initial appellate briefs. what we're all beholden to, whether you're the democrats or trump, is the fact the appeals court can take his own time to make its decision. even though the parties have decided to do an expedited appeal, ultimately it will be up to the appellate court to make its decision. >> how does the timing affect the outcome? how would an expedited appeal to which the trump administration proposed and agreed, how does it benefit them? i don't see how taking less time benefits, perhaps, the trump administration favorably? >> you know, it's a very interesting question bec

donald trump actively filing lawsuits to stop deutsche bank and his accounting firm mazars from implying with congressional subpoenas to turn over financial information. this latest escalation tonight over the president's tax returns, it's another indication that this standoff between the executive and legislating branches is rolling to a boil. the chairman of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff, says his committee will take, quote, enforcement action against attorney general bill barr next week for defying his committee's subpoena for the special counsel's unredacted report and its underlying intelligence materials. yesterday the chairman of the judiciary committee, jerry nadler issued a blistering post to the white house's blunt assertion that should discontinue his committee's investigation of this white house. we will have more on that particular fight later in this show. but today we saw more evidence that the president and his attorney general are not content to put up a road block against any and all oversight from an equal branch of government. they are also seeking to

that's mazar usa. we're going to see if a federal judge is going to decide in favor of trump who is trying to block a subpoena that would release his accounting information. then on friday we're going to hear the results of a decision -- that's the deadline that the chairman of the house ways and means committee, representative richard neal gave to the treasury department to produce six years of trump's personal and business tax returns. so, you know, ken dis, we've been watching ever since this new house of representatives was seated back in january, been watching them launch these broad sides towards the white house and this week is going to be really interesting not just for the information that the decisions might reveal, but it's going to show us how the balance of power is tipped between the white house and this new democratic-led house of representatives, whether some of these shots are going to land. >> no doubt it is ruffling feathers in the oval office at the white house. you get a sense whic

the president's president legal team then sued mazars to then block the subpoena.et's get to the sarah marie outside of the federal courthouse in washington following all of this. the two sides were arguing over how fast this case should move forward. tell us what's happened so far here. >> reporter: that's right. in a hearing just wrapped up and one of the things the judge made colleagues, essentially, i have a lot of information and i'm fully briefed on this case so we'll be moving on a relatively quick timetable, but this is first time that we've seen both sides in court laying out both sides. he's not going to sent president to the jail but that doesn't mean we can't he didn't violate the law and there aren't constitutional or ethical questions that might need to be explored that might necessitate further legislation and on the president's side this is all just politically motivated this. isn't a question of whether congress actually wants to create some legislation. this is about going, rooting through donald trump's personal finances, and it completely crosse

the house oversight committee issued a subpoena to the president's accounting firm, mazars, to get themhand over information about president trump's financial history. the president has sued to block that subpoena. well today, a federal judge hearing that case took oral arguments from both sides. i think the "washington post" may have summed up how that went the best. when justice reporter spencer shu described the judge in today's hearing as, "astonished by president trump's argument in trying to block that subpoena. "a federal judgein washington today expressed astonishment at arguments raised by president trump's lawyers seeking to block his accounting firm from turning over years of financial records to the house oversight committee." we're in this weird moment in this presidency where we've got the president and the white house trying to stop all testimony, to stop all document requests, to defy all subpoenas in all investigations. and, you know, that seems nuts, as a matter of politics and history and how we know the three branches of government are supposed to work. but that argu

she pointed to the monday victory in court that could compel the trump accounting firm masar -- mazar to turn over part of the probe and we are getting results in this approach as we go ahead. the question is how much longer can she keep her colleagues at bay. jerry nadler had -- had a meeting with her last night and moments ago i asked why not move forward on the impeachment inquiry even if some house democrats on your committee are supporting that and declined to comment. brooke. >> so this divide. manu raju, thank you so much. >>> let's analyze what manu is reporting out. joann epstein was chief counsel for the house judiciary democrats during the administration and a criminal defense attorney hired to represent george papadopoulos in the dnc lawsuit for full transparency. great to have you both here. i want to start on mueller and his rit -- reticence, caroline, that his team expressed he doesn't want to appear political. he never spoke over two years an doesn't want to appear political. any question is would his testimony -- would he have a point? that his testimony would diminis

the subpoena to mazars, the president's accounting firm. i think we're going see more go this week. to the courts this week. second, are we going to see other members of congress follow the lead of representative amash who is the first republican to come out and say that impeachment is warranted. and the big one, will we learn that mueller is going to testify in congress? i think we will. i do not expect him to testify this week, but i do think he'll be testifying within the next couple of weeks. that's going to be huge. >> okay, thank you so much. elie honig, as always. if you want to catch more of your questions and get those answers go, to cross-examine on cnn.com. see what happens when victims of crimes and their offenders meet face-to-face followed by united shades of america with w. kamau bell at 10:00. we'll be right back. quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. [son loudly clears throat] [mom and dad laugh] bounty, the quicker picker upper. now with new prints featuring characters from disney/p

trump's longtime accounting firm, mazars, to turn over his financial records to house investigators, who see those documents as a potential impeachment mother lode. >> this is a very important loss for him. it sets the stage for the documents, his tax returns and other information to be available. >> reporter: also tonight, an empty table that speaks volumes, as former white house counsel don mcgahn followed trump administration instructions and defied a subpoena to testify before the house judiciary committee, where chairman jerry nadler warned he's running out of patience. >> mr. mcgahn has a legal obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance. if he does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him. >> reporter: despite threats from congress to go to court, mr. trump is making it clear he's in no mood to cooperate. >> what do you have to say to americans who feel that your administration is stonewalling all of these investigations up on capitol hill? why not let don mcgahn testify? are you afraid of what he h

fighting subpoenas in two different court cases involving deutsche bank and an accounting firm called mazars. the idea of both of those court cases is quite clear tee to try to stretch those fights out as long as possible, to delay the prospect any investigators especially ones in congress might ever get a look at the president's actual finances and taxes. but you know what, i mean subpoenas are a real thing. and the judicial process, that among other things that enforces subpoenas, is a real thing. tomorrow another subpoena deadline will arrive. tomorrow's the date by which the irs and treasury are supposed to hand over the president's tax returns to the ways and means committee in response to that committee's lawfully issued subpoena. we'll see what happens tomorrow when that deadline hits and we presume the treasury department and irs will stand in defiance of it. but, you know, we are at the point where the bluster and the defiance is starting to kind of hit the wall here. i mean, a federal judge just ordered the public release of whatever has been redacted from the whole flynn section o

and as you know this last week, two judges agreed with congress on the mazar's case and the case of deutscheer records to congress. you know what? those two judges said congress has the right to review those records, and that is what we're going do. as you know, the president immediately appealed, and those courts said we're going to hear these appeals immediately so. in mid-july, those courts of appeal are going to hear the president's arguments on appeal. but in my opinion, congress had tremendous wins this week, which were that we as congress on our job as oversight have a job, have the right to review those financial records. to me, that's our job, oversight to make sure that the president and that nobody including the president is above the law. this was a good week for the congress. >> what more do you need to hear then to make you believe that impeachment inquiry would be parented? >> well, we're doing what we need to do which is oversight. we're investigating what happened in 2016, what the president has done, and what may happen in 2020. it's not only about the president, it's also

the oversight committee requested documents to be produced from the mazar's firm for financial recordse trurm administration tried to drag out the litigation process, but to everyone's surprise, the judge convened an expedited hearing this past week, and i think that similar approach is going to be taken with regard to a number of subpoenas. >> we'll see. great to see you, congressman. i appreciate your time. >> thank you so much. >> coming up for us, it's been almost two years since hurricane maria devastated puerto rico. lawmakers on capitol hill, they're still fighting over a disaster relief bill. now, one businessman is taking matters into his own hands. he joins me next. nior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we kn

court rulings on getting the information that we've requested for the oversight committee through mazar'sd they're moving quicker than we thought, and they're also ruling in our favor, meaning i think we need to let this play out. and when he's -- when he says, when a court specifically says so and so needs to testify or you need to hand over these documents and he refuse, that to me is the red line that we can't allow to go any further. >> that would actually be a constitutional crisis? >> right. that is legitimately 100% a constitutional crisis. >> speaker pelosi yesterday, she basically dismissed the opinions of 2020 candidates who are calling for impeachment. i mean, they might not be members of the house. they are driving the national conversation to a certain degree. is that -- was that a wise thing to do? does it -- does it play either way? >> i mean, i think that the presidential candidates aren't involved in the investigations that we're doing right now. so i think that if people really -- when they get the opportunity to see how we're doing these investigations, how that inquiry

the accounting personal and business accounting information from the president's accounting firm mazarsthat's right. but i would predict a similar agreement reached over the deutsche bank subpoena that i think the financial services committee propounded any will goegt both go in the same way. and the agreement is that essentially the case should be briefed for mael appeal this summer and argued perhaps as early as the fall. and if that results in a speedy decision even if the supreme court wants to take it, one would think the decision will come out before the election. sometime in the early 2020. >> carrie that's what you are locking at but still six, eight ten months from now. >> the next case and the hearing one in summer we'll see how quickly the new york case goes. it's a lot of discretion put upon the federal judges. they have the ability if they want to to move these along fairly quickly. if they want to hold the parties to brief things quickly and do things. i think it's a party of months but i don't think necessarily we should assume it will go on for years. the other thing i w