the knife was put in by the court of appeal. today, they called bidens a opinion, they contested it to the drunken use of the privilege just because he's afraid to tell the truth in court and have his henchmen tell the truth in court. >> so the big question, neal katyal, is will these documents be handed over in two weeks? which they could be, they could be handed over in two weeks. if the supreme court refuses to hear the case. and in a pre trumpian supreme court, i would be sitting here absolutely certain that the supreme court would simply not grant assertion, i would simply throw it away. >> so the court of appeal, gave trump's lawyers 14 days. i'm sure that they will because delay is the name of the game. and this delays them by the so few weeks. and, lawrence, a president would get the court to hear such a case. it's a rare thing to have a former president ask of this. so in general court they would ask this. but i don't think the supreme court is going to hear this case. i think they have to be frustrated, politics all asi

the appeals court automatically added another two weeks of delay to the delivery of the documents by leaving a temporary injunction in place for the next two weeks so that donald trump's lawyers can comfortably appeal to the supreme court without fear that the documents are handed over to the committee in the meantime. and so as we sit here tonight, donald trump is being crushed in court at every turn, but his game is not winning in court. his game is delay. and his delay game is working to the point that the committee might not obtain these documents this year. the committee first requested the documents on august 25th. and donald trump's lawyers without any merit to their arguments at all are delaying the delivery of those documents for what will end up being at least five months, maybe six months, possibly more, and this is just the first request for documents from the committee. the committee will surely discover things in these documents that they will probably then get maybe some time next year, if the supreme court decides to hear the case. and if the supreme court affirms the

host: i have been to buchenwald and it is very disturbing so tell us the outcome of that appeal. >> the court of appeals with commissiont of appeals with part of which would be that i need to retrain my staff and start creating cakes that go against my faith and retrain my staff and others to report to the commission quarterly for two years and retraining. that's funny because i have a very small shop including my mom who works for me who is 80 and she walked up to me one day and said by the way i will not be educated. i said thinking mom i love you and appreciate you. that is what the court of appeals initially came back and said so now the next step is to appeal to the colorado state supreme court. host: it sounds like the now cultural rev —- revolution in china so you talked about this before but the government was telling you to violate your conscience was there a first or second tier where you were wavering and wondering if you should just do what they said? and not bake the cake quick. >> i i live close but that was never even a question so how far can we go and take this to the next st

indeed, one of the reasons the court of appeals ruled the way it did in the records case is that for me of those records there may not be any other source, and that may be true for a great many of them. but we are approaching the investigation from many different perspectives. i do think we are putting the pieces together. is it possible because some people like steve bannon would rather go to jail, rather thumb their nose at the law than help the country prepare to defend itself against any future political violence? yes, there may be some missing pieces they take to the jail with them. but i'm confident we're going to get the answers we need to protect the public. >> we didn't talk about john eastman. john eastman, did he answer any questions or did he take the fifth over and over? >> i can't comment on that. i think he made clear before his appearance he intended to assert the fifth. but as to how or what basis or how often, we're not commenting on that tonight. >> the house is pass your bill meant to combat presidential abuses of power, but its future in the senate is really uncle

court of appeals judge of the ninth circuit. e becomes a first korean american woman to serve in the federal appeals court judge for this week the senate is scheduled to vote on the 2022 defense program and policy bill. it could also consider the climate and spending plan. as always you can follow the senate live here on cspan2, online at c-span.org, or on the go with c-span now, our new video app. ♪ ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal", every day we take your call life on the air on the news of the day. we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning foreign policy in the biden administration with brian clark of the hudson institute and max of the center of american progress. also, business journalist john hopkins lecture kathleen day on the history of the debt limit and how it's used as a political and economic tool. watch "washington journal" live at seven eastern tuesday morning on c-span or on c-span now our new mobile app. during the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. ♪

of the high court and the court of appeal said l court and the court of appeal said that being — court one of the fundamental aspects. it's one of the cornerstones of freedom, because freedom _ the cornerstones of freedom, because freedom that does not allow offence is not _ freedom that does not allow offence is not a _ freedom that does not allow offence is not a freedom that is worth having — is not a freedom that is worth having i_ is not a freedom that is worth having. i stand by that. i stand by that _ having. i stand by that. i stand by that being — having. i stand by that. i stand by that. being offensive is not and cannot, — that. being offensive is not and cannot, should not be an offence. onty— cannot, should not be an offence. only when — cannot, should not be an offence. only when speech turns to malicious communications or targeted harassment against an individual should _ harassment against an individual should it — harassment against an individual should it be a problem. anything else, _ should it be a problem. anything else, this — should it be a problem. anything else

he nominated franklin roosevelt to the court of appeals. it was seen to this day and accurately so the second most important federal court in the united states. and then world war ii breaks out, franklin roosevelt says i need you. frankly vincent is here to get off the bench and participate more actively in the war effort. world war i america's involvement when the war ended just as vincent had finished basic training. he felt like he had missed out or world war i. so we wanted to contribute now in his later years in world war ii and a more direct manner. so he left his lifetime appointment with tenure in the pension and everything that comes with it agreed to become a cabinet member for franklin roosevelt hopscotch two different jobs. they stopped holding confirmation hearings for did stop holding votes for vincent. the white house but that nomination shoot down an office of emergency management. nominate for treasury secretary gets the most votes. they all knew him, they had voted on him so many times and said this is a matter of course fo

that is what the court of appeals said those rulings now stand. so the next step is to appeal to the state supreme court. >> that sounds like a reeducation camp so you talk about this before but the government was ordering you to violate your conscience. was there ever a moment where you were wavering and wondering if you should just give in and do what they said? >> i would close the cake shop down but the question why is how far could be go? i learned the colorado state supreme court have discretion in the cases that they take and then my case was declined and thought it was over there is only one option left and that is to appeal to the united states supreme court. we were willing to do that but what they hear our case? that was the question. host: they were willing to hear your case and tell us the odds of the us supreme court to hear your case. >> the odds are extremely small you will be heard they are petitioned with between eight and 10000 cases every year the only grant between 70 or 80 and it has to be to circuit if they ruled differently

the court of appeal rejected associated newspapers' attempt to have a full trial in the case about privacy and copyright. meghan described today's ruling as a victory "for anyone who's ever felt scared to stand up for what's right". associated newspapers says it's considering an appeal. this report from our royal correspondent nicholas witchell contains some flashing images. once again, a very clear victory for the duchess of sussex in her battle in which she's been strongly backed by her husband against the tabloid media. at the heart of this case is the publication by the mail on sunday of lengthy extracts

of appeal. there is still another court above it, that's the federal court, and his lawyers will be filing an appeal to the federal court, the highest court in the land, and pending that appeal they will be filing a state on the sentence. if that stay of got granted, then it means now it will not have to go immediately to prison. if that state is not granted, then he will lose his seat as a member of parliament. and then he will have to be, he will, he will have to serve his jail time. he was sentenced to 12 years by high court. he was also find millions of dollars after being found guilty of 7 challenges of criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering. on the court of appeal in upholding this conviction that they were satisfied that now jim, what he had done, his actions were not out of national interest, but out of personal benefit. and one of the appeals judge even said that what he had done had, he said, caused a national and bowsman to the country. i think the opposition especially will feel that they've been vindicated. 5 as court of appeals position, but not job also has his supp

the federal court of appeals ruling, unanimous ruling against your legal team's request to withhold certainl documents from congress's january 6th committee. a lot of legal court watchers think the supreme court will agree, will affirm what the court of appeals said about the executive privilege and biden's decision to release those documents. your reaction. >> we will see what happens. if you look at the protest it was a protests, the insurrection took place on november 3rd which was election day. this was a protests, a lot of innocent people, being hurt, being injured. i would say the panel of judges we are talking about didn't like trump and if you look at the appointments you can figure that out for your self but this was absolute protests people are being treated very unfairly, their rights are being taken away from them and the other side is not. that what is going on with blm and antifa what they did in portland and minneapolis and seattle and nothing happens but what happened, by the way people were killed, nobody was killed here other than ashley babbitt who was shot 5 only by a ma

of the things he did, he collected mentors. he had a supreme court justice anthony kennedy who pushed him and to donald trump in the oval office and the conservative appeals justices, kenneth starr and george bush and of course george bush did not recommend wasn't something that would recommend to donald trump so why did he get nominated to given that trump sort of disdained all things. i think you have to give credit to donald trump's white house counsel who is a very conservative and his project is doing away with the e administrative state, federal regulations and he really put a thumb on the scale to be the first choice to take the seat that should have been garlands, obama's nominee. on the dc court of appeals ruling against the federal regulators so was very appealing to don mcgann in fact he chose kavanaugh to swear him and when he became a commissioner so he had a lot to promoting him to donald trump and in the bush years, he had to become a virtual son to george bush so he named the dc court of appeals was not a surprise at all back then. >> regina asks whether you thin. the rulings so far show him to be as conservative as expected. is he proving

by associated newspapers to have a trial in the privacy and copyright case was rejected by the court of appealr the duchess of sussex in her battle in which she's been strongly backed by her husband against the tabloid media. at the heart of this case is the publication by the mail on sunday of lengthy extracts from a letter the duchess had written to her father three months after her wedding. at the time, relations between meghan and her father were difficult. earlier this year, a judge at the high court in london decided the breach of privacy was so clear—cut, there was no need for a full trial. the mail on sunday's publishers appealed against that ruling. today, threejudges in the court of appeal found that the original judge's decision was correct. the judge's careful decision, mostly on factual questions, was upheld. and it was hard to see what evidence could have been adduced at trial that would have altered that situation. the judges found that disclosures by jason knauf, meghan's former communications adviser, that she'd written the letter knowing it might be leaked and that she'd aske

ruling tonight, this is the appeals court that holds jurisdiction where both the meadows case and the steve bannon case are being heard. so an appeals court ruling on the legitimacy of this investigation is a definitive thing that the courts in that circuit have to abide by, and in this appeals court ruling tonight, the january 6th investigation is described as quite legitimate. it's described in this ruling, congress is described as having a uniquely vital interest in carrying out the investigation. so to the extent that steve ban nonand mark meadows were going to say we don't need to comply, congress is didn't something they shouldn't be doing, that argument is closed off to them. for steve bannon, and mark meadows, their path to score out of this has gotten narrower. this is a bad day for them. steve bannon is being criminally prosecuted for defying the subpoenas for this investigation. the house is set to refer mark meadows for the same kind of criminal prosecution. it looks like that will happen on monday, this upcoming monday, just a few days from now. but i think it's also worth noting here, particularly when we're trying to sort of ascertain the state of min

court of appeals court said these records can be released for the january 6th committee. we'll pause it for two weeks so trump can appeal to the supreme court. what's going to happen? >> this ruling is a demolition. a lot of times when you read a court of appeals reading, it's close. this opinion is different. this says, they don't give us anything. donald trump has not given us anything to rule in his favor. they call his arguments a grab bag, meaning, you've given us nothing. this is not close. you could see this coming a mile away. this is the expected result. of course, the question now is does it go to the supreme court. >> to elie's point is they went much fourth than they could, not only to the president's bid to try to keep these documents under wrap, but people like mark meadows who are trying to dodge the committee's subpoenas, coming up with another january 6th attack from happening. and by going through all of that, they're sort of ticking through a lot of the arguments that ore people are going to make. it's just not clear to me that the supreme court even tak

associated newspapers, the publishers of the mail on sunday, said they were "very disappointed" by the court of appealonly on the basis of evidence tested at trial. "no evidence has been tested under cross—examination." associated newspapers say they are now considering an appeal to the supreme court. nicholas witchell, bbc news. thousands of disabled people are struggling to recruit thousands of people in the north of england are facing a seventh night without power after storm arwen. nearly 10,000 northern powergrid and close to 3,000 electricity north west customers are still cut—off. in scotland the army has been drafted in to support people in aberdeenshire who've been without electricity for almost a week. fiona trott reports from cartmel in cumbria. getting urgent help to the most vulnerable in the community. this fire station in ulverston has turned into an emergency hub. at the end of the phones, the police, mountain rescue and red cross volunteers, knocking on the doors of 600 properties. knocking on the doors of 600 preperties-— knocking on the doors of 600 --roerties. ~ ., �* ., , properti

court that holds jurisdiction were both the meadows case and the sea benin case are being heard. so an appeals court ruling, on the legitimacy of court, it's a definitive thing. that the court in that circuit have to abide by. and in this appeals court ruling tonight, to january six investigation is described us quite legitimate. it is described in this ruling as having a uniquely vital interest in carrying out the january six investigation. so to the extent that steve bannon and mark meadows say, we don't need to comply with this thing. congress is doing something that they shouldn't even be doing here. that ruling, that argument, would appear to be closed off to them. so for steve bannon, and mark meadows their path to trying to swear out of this has just gotten a lot narrow. this is a bad day for them. steve bannon is already being prosecuted for defying the subpoena from the investigation. the house is set to refer mark meadows for the same kind of criminal prosecution. it looks like that will happen on monday, this upcoming monday. just a few days from now. but i think it is also worth noting here. particularly when we are

he himself became the center of one of those fights when bush nominated him for the appeals court the second most prestigious course and it took him three years to get confirmed. it was controversial enough some of those controversies would arrive again and his 2018 confirmation ahead of the sexual assault allegation. >> you use the word revolution there have been four revolutions. these were more than trump. could you describe what these four revolutions were? what specifically at the different points were rebelling against? >> reagan revolution like i said was a culmination of what had been a decades long fight in the republican party. especially going back to world war ii but even before. and the conservatives were militants, they wanted to be harder edged they were against the new deal program long after most republicans started with dwight eisenhower given up. ronald reagan was one of them. and yet he put, he approached it with a smile and long into his presidency people like his style. it was far more conservative. it was still true to some of the foundational matters like free

associated newspapers said that they were verdisappointed by the court of appeals decision. strong view, they said in a statement, that judgment should be only be givenn the basis of evidence tested at trial. no evidence has been tested under cross-examination. associated newspapers say they are now considering an appeal to the supreme court. ros: a quick reminder before we wrap up this edition of "outside source." you can find more from me and the os team in lots of different places. we post our videos each week on the bbc news website. saturday, you'll see a new lengthy look at the issue of abortion in america. you can also listen to audio explainers on the bbc sound app. it has all of the bbc's radio and audio in one place. you can download that via the app store. that is it for this edition of "outside source." as always, we appreciate your narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... narrator: financial services firm, raymond james. man: bdo. accountants and advisors. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. by judy and

court of appeals. argued it was pretty clear from what his lawyers said at the end, they intended their next stop to be the supreme court. so there is an order that came out along with this opinion today that says we are going to hold our own opinion off, the effect of it off. nothing gets handed over for at least 14 days to give trump's lawyers time to go to the supreme court. >> pete williams, i have to give our often colleague robert costa credit for saying many weeks ago that he thought the issue, the trump white house documents at the national archives would winds up at the supreme court. i am sure you saw it around that corner as sfwheel yeah, because of the unique question here of how much executive privilege does a former president have. >> and who has the privilege. it is clear now that now this -- the three judges have said the executive privilege, the privilege is of the current president. i guess my question is, a lot of people think the strategy on trump's side isn't even that he has the w

circuit court of appeals. and you kind of see even to this day, an accurate read on him as the most important court that is a circuit court. and world war ii breaks out. and vincent is eager to get off the bench and participate more actively in the war effort. he had been in world war i, and america's involvement in the war ended just as fred vincent finish basic training. so he felt like he missed out on world war i. and he wanted to contribute now in his later years in world war ii in a more direct manner. so he left his lifetime appointment with tenure and attention and everything that comes with it. and agreed to become a cabinet member for franklin roosevelt, hopscotched to different jobs. the senate actually stopped holding confirmation hearings for vincent. but they didn't stop holding votes. so the white house would send the nomination, shot down, saying that vincent is the nominee for the office of emergency management. and he was nominated for treasury secretary and they said, we are going to do a voi

yet another court loss for the white house but a scathing rebuke by appeals court judges of biden's weakorder policy now grabbing attention. the fifth circuit reinstated trump's remain in mexico policy. we've got the story. also florida governor ron desantis wants to transport illegals to the so-called not in my backyard rich play grounds like martha's vineyard. even biden's home state of delaware. look at this the washington post reporting that the white house wants to build, quote, european style reception centers at the border. new government data undercuts the white house claims of number of americans left stranded in afghanistan. we'll dig into the fuzzy math. i'm elizabeth macdonald. "the evening edit," it starts right now. ♪ elizabeth: welcome to the show. you're watching the fox business network. let's get started with the death toll in the aftermath of the swarm of tornadoes in half a dozen states. it continues to rise. the president said he will go to kentucky tomorrow. thousands now without heat and water. grady trimble has the story. reporter: liz, governor andy beshear of ke

lost my voice to file an immediate appeal to the court has temporarily suspended the sentence, pending the appeal and hardship remains free on his supporters, dozens of whom had gathered outside court on wednesday. say he's being persecuted to live, the better he will. we feel extremely said that the appeals court has upheld the sentence. now jeep is a leader who sacrificed so much for the people and the country. the court rejected no jobs defense. he had acted in the national interest and said evidence showed the former lead in you ought to have known the money in his accounts were from illegal proceeds. the court of appeal in a unanimous decision to uphold nudges conviction, said the case in which more than $10000000.00 was transferred to no jobs. personal bank accounts was a national embarrassment. this is the 1st of 5 trials involving one entity to places u. s. in malaysian authority say one half $1000000000.00 was stolen from the state investment fund. it was anger about the one and do the. 6 brookfield allegations that lead to lunch at school with that was the 1st time at lost power since malaysia gained independence in 1957. nature has been tr

i like to see that i am very disappointed in the judgement delivered by the court of appeal this morning. ah, my boyish file a big deal. ah, to coach. the court has temporarily suspended the sentence, pending the appeal. and logic remains free on bear. his supporters, dozens of whom had gathered outside court on wednesday, say he's being persecuted, felicity will. we feel extremely said that the appeals court has upheld the sentence. now jeep is a leader who sacrificed so much for the people and the country. the court rejected nudges defense. he had acted in the national interest and said evidence showed the former lead in you ought to have known the money in his accounts were from illegal proceeds. the court of appeal in a unanimous decision to uphold nudged conviction, said the case in which more than $10000000.00 was transferred to know jobs personal bank accounts was a national embarrassment. this is the 1st to 5 trials involving one m d. b fed nacia faces us in malaysian authority say at least 4 and a half $1000000000.00 was stolen from the state investment fund. it was anger about

but they won the case and the court of appeals 8th circuit, but a kentucky photographer is having a hard time with her business. because of a local ordinance, chelsea participate in photographs or blogs about weddings consistent with her face . she must also do so for same sex wedding, according to the cases ruling by a federal judge back in august 14th. it says, quote, the constitution does not require a choice between gay rights and freedom of speech. it demands both. now the question remains all these cases, force people to go against their deeply held religious beliefs. all the court side with the 1st amendment reporting for news use hughes and conscious. we are okay to discuss more. we welcome back. the brilliant proven bureau, democratic strategist in front of the show is also an army ranger veteran. hi robin . i, you know, i tell you this. they literally had with brilliant next year type name where you should be, i've never seen than my writer producer through that. so are they obviously like you guys do? i and i thought this would be interesting to have you on for one have a conv

appealed against that ruling. today three judges in the court of appealfound ruling. naljudges decision was correct. original 'udges decision was correct. �* . original 'udges decision was correct. �* , . ., correct. the 'udge's careful decision correct. the judge's careful decision mostly _ correct. the judge's careful decision mostly on - correct. the judge's careful decision mostly on factuall correct. the judge's careful- decision mostly on factual questions was upheld. and it was hard to see what evidence could have been deduced at trial that would have alter that situation. the deduced at trial that would have alter that situation.— alter that situation. the 'udges found the disclosures h alter that situation. the judges found the disclosures found . alter that situation. the judges found the disclosures found by| found the disclosures found by meghan's former communications adviser that she had written the letter knowing it might be leaked and asked him to brief authors of a book or irrelevant. within minutes a statement was issued from the duchess of sussex. sh

and it looks as if the court of appeal may be leading to what's up holding. the conviction that was given by a lower court last year florence, can you remind us of the background of these quite extraordinary case with millions of dollars involved in the scandal. so this is just the 1st in a series of 5 other cases, 5 other trials, but not your faces. now he faces more than 40 charges all related to one m d b where millions of dollars were believed in siphoned out of the state development fund. this particular case relates to $10000000.00 that was believed to have been transferred into his personal bank account. now it was also the corruption and the angle of a corruption allegations that cause not trip and his political party, the united national organization to lose a general election in 2018. so a lot of banking on this case, but whichever way this decision goes, this is, this will not be the end of not just legal problems, because if i said he faces for the trials and those charges range from corruption, abuse of power to tampering with all the documents. o

and if they don't take it to the international court of appeal, but at any j site, if they hear they from when those what's your take on how the race ira applied the rules? obviously it was in favor of vir staffing. so in terms of mercedes, ca, they fill that either the race or i to select all of the unlocked cost $3.00 or no unlike and none of the cost $3.00. and unfortunately in the have ye, michael massey, any let 5 of them through now the cause between louis and mux not allowed mac subs . he be up right behind louis and on the fresh a ties and get ahead. and they just feel that the rules in their view wasn't applied properly. it's, it's kind of out to them now. so if they wanna go forward with it is an interpretation of the rules. disuse of made that decision. and if we go to the instructional court of appeal, they'll have to make their own decision. well, you've been covering f one for a long time. now, do you think hamilton would rather just move on and not try to win his 8th well title in the courts? yeah i, i know that louis when he wants to win the approach he takes to racin,

a colorado web designer and founder of 3 or 3 creative could be heard in the supreme court come january. she lost in a $2.00 to $1.00 ruling in the us court of appeals for the 10th circuit. it stated that she would have to create custom graphics and websites for l g b t clients. even if those messages went against her deeply held religious beliefs . the high court has until january, 7th to decide whether or not it will hear smith's case. both philip and smith are being represented by the firm alliance, defending freedom on its website. the company says it promotes restoring religious freedom as a fundamental right. your friends? this week i put to rest the last legal considerations for decision. my husband gerald and i made nearly a decade ago, a flower shop owner in the state of washington announced she was settling and leaving her business after a friend suit her for not granting his custom. okay, for a same sex wedding, while she says the conversation ended and a hug. rob still fought her decision in court. he was paid $5000.00, and stoots men says at 77 years of age, she wanted to enjoy the rest of her life. she said while she lost her business

of all we're talking about a privilege being invoked by a former president. and now we're starting to hear from the federal courts including a court of appeals that that does notlege might apply here, i don't think a court would give the benefit of it to mark meadows relating to january 6th conversations because the privilege does not apply to cover wrongdoing or potential criminality. what will merrick garland do? i think merrick garland has been weak so far in the way he has investigated and prosecuted january 6th. he does not seem to be interested in potentially political decisions. i think this one's going to be a coin toss as to what he does. i think it's going to be a 50/50 call. >> wow, interesting. and a federal appeals court ruled against former president trump as he has tried to keep his white house records from the committee. trump is now vowing to take this legal battle to the highest court. one of our viewers wants to know how likely is it that the supreme court will decide to hear the executive privilege case involving trump and the national archives? what do you think? >> yeah. so i actually think the supreme court is not going to hear this case

court of appeals for the seventh circuit and the kind of backlash if you would sketch that out a little bit and show what a consequence it had when she then was nominated to the supreme court. >> the 2017 president trump named amy coney barrett to the court of appeals for the civil circuit and diane feinstein was the head democrat on the judiciary committee and asked the nominee a series of questions. so, this created a huge backlash of course on the constitution provides there should be no religious test for public office and the religious tests. and i gather in the parish gift shops there were t-shirts and caps and cups. that became a slogan. there was so much pushback that diane feinstein was still there three i years later when the supreme court confirmation hearing took place and she couldn't ask. what's interesting about that is the democrats obviously had decided that nobody was going to ask. the republican senators hadn't gotten that memo. isn't it terrible how the democrats are beating up on you for your religion. of course none of them had. but they were not nimble enough to p

court of appeals judge for the ninth circuit. as always follow the senate live here on c-span2, online at c-span.org or on the go with c-span now, our new video at. now we take you back to our tv programming. >> but we will put no money into those tools. we will not put any regulatory structure on the quality of those jobs and when the nation is in financial crisis there will not be an expansion of benefits for people in these jobs and the people are wondering why can't you advance from these jobs? when mcdonald's really starts to get into black communities there's two things that are really interesting. one is a lot of the black franchise owners are praise for bringing black women into working at mcdonald's. the early mcdonald's brothers fired all the young women who worked at the restaurants because they said they flirted, because sexism is evergreen. slowly but surely you have young black women working at mcdonald's and something able to become managers and releasing this as this great opportunity. mcdonald's sells itself to b

the fifth circuit court of appeals ordering a new hearing on the legality of the biden white house selectivech illegal aliens should be deported for crimes. what's going on with this? >> well, the court also allowed for the -- the memo to be set aside so that they put stay in place as well. and so this is -- this is a solution in search of a problem. as if people believe that ice was out arresting people in every city in every country in the united states. eight and ten of the people that they have in custody are either in the country illegally having just crossed the border or returned over to them by an institution, by a jurisdiction who arrested them and maybe convicted of further crimes and so suggesting that only people who are convicted of aggravated felonies or just crossed the border are threat to public safety are the only people that ice can approach or take into custody or try to remove, that was always nonsense. this is like i said, this is a problem -- this is a solution in search of a problem. having the court act here and having these states engage to protect their communities

but also the overwhelming nature of that decision and the real invitation to the supreme court to allow the court of appeal's. i think the courts understand that during the trump years, that he effectively played rope-a-dope in the case of former white house counsel don mcgahn, he was able to stall for over two years before that official was deposed, and i don't think the courts want to allow themselves to be used that way again. so i think a very significant decision on the merits and very significant in terms of how quickly they reached that conclusion. >> how significant is getting these documents to the committee's inquiry? >> it's very important. you know, of course we don't know all that's in there, but we have received cooperation from any number of witnesses, including for a time mark meadows. so we know some of what's in the archives, and if the rest of what's in the archives is anything like what we've received already, it's going to be very important for our committee. i'm confident we'll get it. the question is just how quickly will we get it? we are, when witnesses fail to cooperate, looking for

courts moved for once quickly. it has taken two months to get from first stage of district court through court of appeals and to thet. if the supreme court says no, we're not taking this case, that's it. documents go over from national archives to the committee. they'll be crucial documents from inner circle of the white house. if the supreme court takes it, they're going to come to the same ruling that's been reached by lower courts. they'll say of course the committee gets these documents. they have compelling legal need and donald trump has no privilege, that he can exercise as former president in this scenario. not sure whether the supreme court will even take it because i think the ruling below is clear and obviously correct, there's no need for the supreme court to step in and say you got it wrong. those documents are going over and i think they'll go over fairly soon. >> and quickly, what can we potentially learn from white house logs and notes from the then chief of staff mark meadows? again, trump seems to be guarding these with his loife, o to speak. >> 700 pages of internal logs, notes, memos. this shows

on our capitol, as the court of appeals yesterday put it, you know, the most dangerous thing on our american soil since 1812, in terms of to our capitol building. we've got to get to the bottom of it. these lawyers and others who cooperated and facilitated this attack, i think need to be investigated. >> yeah, you make an important point there, quoting if appeals court which have litigated some of this, they're not on team investigation, nor on team witness or defendant, and, as you said, they sound a bit more like the probe itself that hold up that perspective. with regard to the subpoenas, which show where they're going. i want to read from the committee, they say some of the witnesses worked to stage the rallies on january 5th and 6th. some appear to have direct communications with the president regarding the rally. what is important for an investigation to figure out, whether they were planning, even the words are contested, quote, rally, which they're totally allowed to do. if you want a rally about a lie, you can do that in america, but were they planning to do something more than spea

president i have to ask about the federal court of appeals ruling. ling against the legal teams request to withhold certain presidential documents from congress january 6th committee. a lot of legal court watchers say the supreme court will agree, we'll affirm the court of appeals said here in the executive privilege in biden's decision to release the documents. your reaction tonight? >> we will see what happens. if you look at the protests, it was the protest, the insurrection took place on november 3rd which was election day. this is a protest on a lot of innocent people are being hurt, a lot of innocent people are being injured, and i would say the panel of judges that we are talking about did not exactly like trump. if you look at the appointments, you can figure that out for yourself. but this was an absolute protest and people being treated very unfairly. if the rates are being taken away from them and the other sie are not. you look at what's going on with blm and antifa what they did in portland, minneapolis, seattle, nothing happens. by the w

circuit court of appeals. and so, again, ultimately, the bottom line here is that the aclu won, that girl was able to get her abortion.in but that whole episode, from the government official with the regularly updated spreadsheet tracking the girls' menstrual periods and that official forcing girls into christian antiabortion counseling against their will and trying to physically hold a girl hostage until it was too late, until it would be illegal for her to get an abortion in texas, i mean, that whole episode, and the legal debacle and humiliation ia came to in the end, it really io was one of the weirdest things i've ever covered. but that story is now where we all live because that trump administration lawyer who got his hat handed to him in court, who defended the trump administration's behavior in that case, who insisted to that judge's face that, sure, a woman technically has a right to choose an abortion, but a woman doesn't have a right to actually get one, that lawyer, who was the top immigration lawy

subpoenas there, and the former has two weeks to ask the supreme court to review his claim of executive privilege, after a federal appeals court rejected his request to block the 1/6 committee from getting his white house records. >> and new york the state's attorney general wants to question donald trump as part of a financial fraud probe into the trump organization. joining us now to success all of this, dave aiaronberg and vetern journalist and donald trump biographer, michael deantonio. you say that yesterday was the second worst day of donald trump's year. why do you say that? >> well, i think for him the very worst day was when he jetted off as the former president and joe biden was inaugurated as the 46th president. so that was a very very bad day for donald trump, but yesterday was exceedingly bad as well, especially given his loss at the circuit court of appeals on this demand by the 1/6 committee for his participation in their work. and i also think letitia james' desire to subpoena him is something he's going to have trouble fighting. there's no leverage, actually, there in new york state, and i wonder, too, w

court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. -- provided written testimony to the presidential commission on the supreme court of the united states and i thoroughly enjoyed reading that testimony can which i thought was fascinating in terms of comparing aspects. let's get into the discussion. blast 15 minutes i will turn it over to help us with q&a from the audience. we will get into the some of the process and some of the substance of what happened with the commission, and finally where we should go from here. let me start with the central findings and the key takeaways from the report. >> well, i think mainly weather reported was what the commission was charged with, which is looking at the leading proposals for reform and trying to state and not really assess the arguments on both sides. court expansion was prominent, term limits was prominent. and then there were less central considerations -- we look at transparency, we looked at the use of emergency orders or the shattered docket, we talked a little bit about--shad