guest: this moment it would be attorney general barr, like janet reno did under bill clinton.ike deputy attorney general rod rosenstein did because attorney general jeff sessions recused him. that's the person that made that decision. bill barr decided this doesn't warrant scrutiny period, it appears, because the whistleblower complaint was retained within the executive branch because congress found out about it. so i understand ken starr's concern. the fact is a thorough professional process. we saw it with robert mueller. in this instance that's not available to congress. congress as i said has to wear two hats. they have to develop the facts and do that publicly in a political setting just means a lot of rhetoric. it doesn't necessarily get to the facts themselves. and they are going to have to make the political judgment. i don't agree with judge starr that this process is a sham. i don't know how else it is feasible to have it unfold under what's clearly authorized in the constitution and that is impeachment. host: one other point, we saw house republicans storm into thes

people to the letter and the tradition of janet reno and the work made of it was never i think the vehicle is going to be sure to join you on. the other the police sent abdullah friday straight back to the camp as. the winter is approaching fast and that means there could soon be up to 2 meters of snow a cuban so there's not much time left to try to flee it's money. it's an appalling conditions you know people that i didn't even went to you know having been. at the isolated makeshift camp was set up in the summer. up to 2 times per day levoxyl which has a tank truck filled with drinking water for the migrants the head of b. hatch a civil protection directorate is trying his best to keep living conditions from terry orating even further blue jackets and so has been left to itself as the civil protection directorate got involved to prevent infectious diseases from spreading in the camp to the tune of behind. the. over the past 2 years more and more migrants arrived in the area a growing number of locals have grown annoyed by the situation including employees of the hatches water works both h

. >> laura: congressma congressmar versus -- they were relying on that general ren janet reno precedent. >> ms as i'm listening to that there's only one alan dershowitz. i wish there were more being able to weigh on that on the issue, it's obvious lee going to be appealed to come up that ruling. it was an expected ruling for the ruling had even come out and you can guess that this is where it was going to go. and two executive privilege, i can tell you during the closed-door depositions that took place this was one of the problems with not allowing the white house council present in the room. if someone was going to ask a question of one of these witnesses being deposed about a conversation with the president of the united states, there was no one in the room to exert executive privilege. if that witness -- >> that's an interesting point. it is not something that struck you as well? why didn't the white house counsel get to go to those closed-door sessions? >> absolutely. that goes to the president and the presidency. mcgann has no right to answer questions at the president invokes the

yes, appointed by clinton's attorney general janet reno but you have half the room in there only workingd the president. we've never seen that before either. >> if i were a prosecutor and i were prosecuting you for a felony and i went to a federal judge and said, judge, trust me, chris is guilty, i want an order he can't rebut the witnesses, he can't call any witnesses, he can't even have his lawyer in court. i would either end up in hand cuffs or a straight jacket. >> this is the difference. this is the indictment phase. even if it goes through the judiciary and they bring articles of impeachment, that is tantamount to an indictment. when you are being investigated for possible crimes, rudy giuliani ain't part of the investigation right now, he may want them to talk to him but we both know they don't have to. the only difference is this room has half of room of prosecutors working very hard to find him not guilty of anything. >> well, i still think we'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend, because i just don't think it's fair. i just don't think it's fair not to give somebody due

yes, appointed by clinton's attorney general janet reno but you have half the room in there own workingend the president. we've never seen that before either. >> if i were a prosecutor and i were prosecuting you for a felony and i went to a federal judge and said, judge, trust me, chris is guilty, i want an order he can't rebut the witnesses, he can't call any witnesses, he can't have any evidence in court. i would either end up in hand cuffs or a straight jacket. >> this is the difference. this is the indictment phase. even if it goes through the judiciary and they bring articles of impeachment, that is tantamount to an indictment. when you are being investigated for possible crimes, rudy giuliani ain't part of the investigation right now, he may want them to talk to him but we both know they don't have to. the only difference is this room has half of room of prosecutors working very hard to find him not guilty of anything. >> well, i still think we'll just have to agree to disagree, my friend, because i just don't think it's fair. i just don't think it's fair not to give somebody due

was first articulated by ren kwift when he worked under reagan and it was endorsed by janet are janet reno. the judge says it's wrong. the longstanding view of the justice department was that sort of fair is fair. that congress can't force the government -- the president to come in and testify because the opposite is also true, that the president can't force members of congress to come up to the white house and explain themselves, and the judge says that's just wrong. there's nothing in the constitution or law that upholds that view, and the reason is white house can't force members of congress to come up and explain themselves is the constitution speech or debate clause, which says members of congress can't be held to account for some other place for what they do in the congress. so for all those reasons, she says the justice department just had it wrong for 40 plus years and just because it's a longstanding view, longevity, she says, doesn't make it right. >> so let me go to the key question again, pete, of timing, because let's assume -- and garrett, you can break in if there's any indi

his diary for janet reno mary was speaking at the premiere of a documentary detailing his comeback from a career threatening hip injury. they keep. telling me no. if you go back to playing 1st tennis you've got a chance that you could destroy the head. of a mary almost quit the game after an emotional news conference at the last australian open are need to come back to win the european open in october but the 1st grand slam of the new tennis season will be his 1st be his big test over 5 sets. all the very latest from the champions league shoes like matches coming up an hour later bulletins but that's all useful for now while arts are forcing the doco as well that's all there is for now we're back with more news course just. does the mind play tricks the damn car is always parked right there are they really out there you have a family like to pull up a monster and dragons here act like they're in the car a filmmaker takes the f.b.i. to court to find out the tax money $33120.00 pages of records and in the process mobilizes her community as long as people are free to talk and there is no c

view of both republican and democratic administrations, versus forcefully argued for example by janet renohat congress cannot compel the president's senior most advisors to testify any more than they can drag the president himself up to congress. that it's a separation of powers issue. that is largely untested in court. there was one court ruling during the george w. bush administration over the testimony of harriet meyers, the former white house counsel. a judge ruled that there is no such immunity unless it involves very sensitive issues of national security. that decision was appealed and before the appeals court could rule, the case was settled. so there really isn't any binding case law here. so this judge will be largely writing on a blank slate. but it is an important thing because it -- it -- there really isn't much court decision to go on here. the other thing, katy, is no matter what the judge says, i'm sure it would be appealed. and then the question is, when would we get an answer? would the whole impeachment process be over? or the appeals court act lickety-split and get a dec

the -- the clinton administration argued this very strongly, too, under janet reno, the attorney general congress do? they find him in contempt. they refer the matter to a u.s. attorney and guess what? nothing happens. so he could simply resist the subpoena. he has a couple of choices here. >> what happens if the administration turns over and has a democratic administration? is he potentially trying to guard against any future retaliation -- not retaliation -- but future legal peril? >> maybe. and another possibility is he just wants to run out the clock because no matter what this federal judge rules, undoubtedly, there'll be an appeal whoever loses to the court of appeals and maybe even to the supreme court asking them to take the case, which they may or may not do. and, you know, the impeachment process, at least in the house, may be over by then. so perhaps that's another tactic here is just to run out the clock. >> pete williams. pete, thank you very much. for more what this could mean, i'm joined now by constitutional law expert and american university law professor robert psy. rob

guest: this moment it would be attorney general barr, like janet reno did under bill clinton.e deputy attorney general rod rosen stein did because attorney general jeff sessions resuesed him. that's the person that made that decision. bill barr decided this doesn't warrant screw-u scrutiny, period, it appears, because the whistleblower complaint was warrant ithin the -- scrutiny period, it appears, because the whistleblower complaint was retained within the period. the facts is a thorough professional process weefment saw it with robert mueller n this instance that's not available to congress. congress as i said has to wear two hats. they have to develop the facts and do that publicly in a political setting just means a lot of rhetoric. it doesn't necessarily get to the facts themselves. and they are going to have to make the political judgment. i don't agree with judge starr that this process is a sham. i don't know how else it is feasible to have it unfold under what's clearly authorized in the constitution and that is impeachment. host: one other point, we saw house republi