joining me with expert insight is jenna ellis and congressman jerry nadler.hank you for joining us, appreciate it. strong words from a lot of folks saying throw him in jail, throw him in contempt, this is a crime, he lied to congress. what do you think? >> this is absolutely absurd and ridiculous abuse of power by the congressional house democrats. there is absolutely no legal basis for them to seek to compel bar's testimony when he is not under subpoena, he simply declined to volunteer to come in when chairman nadler changed the rule and it was unprecedented and inappropriate according to the doj spokesperson which is absolutely true. according to president of the house rules but then second, bar would be disobeying the law and breaking the law if he gave the fool unredacted report in the manner the democrats have asked for because let's remember he has to by law make certain redactions and he did that before he released the report to the public and congress can, members of congress can go in and read the fool unredacted report but they are trying to make a

our legal eagles, constitutional law attorney jenna ellis have been assigned their assignments tonighthe city of statesville trying to get the flag down. we take our laws and ordinances very seriously. our doors are open to any business in our community. we only asked the proper channels are followed, that is the first step to any change. we are not against flags but this one is too big and violates the ordinance. >> this is ridiculous what this town is doing. it is not a health, safety or welfare concern. these ordinances are supposed to be to protect the community. they have given no explanation other than they don't like the size of it and they voted to increase the size but they don't like the size of this flag. they should have granted a barrier. a very appropriate process to say we would like to have something that goes beyond what the ordinance says. it is memorial day weekend. was harmed does that american flag cause to the citizens of that town? they are not going to be able to win and lose the court of public opinion as well. heather: shannon: the owner consist keep finding m

constitutional law attorney jenna ellis joins us.hen you take what he had to say and he chose his words very carefully. what do you make of the whole we chose not to charge him with a crime because essentially we couldn't? >> that part of it was legally irrelevant to the outcome of the investigation. when a prosecutor finds that there is insufficient evidence to move forward with charges it doesn't matter legally whether or not they can then charge a sitting president with a crime. when you don't have evidence you can't pursue it legally. this was robert mueller going and expounding beyond the parameters of the investigation to incentivize and inflame the democrats to pursue impeachment which is constitutionally unsound right now because there is no legitimate legal basis. investigations showed no evidence of collusion, no evidence of obstruction of justice. when he is going into all these hypotheticals legally it doesn't matter. rob: it does show some evidence of obstruction or at least what mueller believed was evidence of obstruct

let's bring in attorney jenna ellis reeves. good morning. >> good morning.o many questions for you. i want to start with the line that took everybody's attention. he said if he had confidence president trump didn't commit a crime, he would have said so. but he also said the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. this is a constitutional question now. >> yeah, and so the constitutional question is very -- is lee legally sound, that mueller is correct to not charge a sitting president through the department of justice, there's a separation of powers issue going on. mueller is using this as a red herring because it's legally irrelevant to the outcome of the investigation. he found insufficient evidence to charge the president with collusion or obstruction of justice. when a prosecutor finds insufficient evidence to charge someone with criminal activity, that disposes with the rest of law enforcement's activities. he's using this to incentiveize and inflame the democrats to pur

we are joined by the director of immigration studies at the cato institute and jenna ellis is with ustitutional law attorney, member of the trump 2020 advisory board. jenna, we know what's going on at the border. more than a million illegals supposedly pouring over this year alone. activists say they have the right to flee oppression and murder. >> we are not tweaking the rights to claim asylum or come in on a very specific qualifying ground but let's remember asylum is not immigration. there is a legal immigration process for people who want to come into the country and stay. what's going on is that our very generous asylum process is actually being abused by people who understand that coming in and saying those magic words, i fear for my life, or even coming in just on the basis of wanting a better life, an economic benefit, those aren't actually qualifying bases. asylum exists for people who genuinely fear persecution on qualifying bases. what president trump is looking to do, i think the key words there were fairly and expeditiously. we always want to make sure that a legal determ

discuss american university executive in residence capri cafaro, trump 2020 advisory board member, jenna ellisstart with you, capri, from the outside looking in it looks like a complete disaster. feels like the one thing they have in common, everyone thinks is low-hanging fruit is infrastructure, but why do you think the nancy pelosi would have made comment moments before she would see president trump face-to-face? >> we have to put it in context she just left a caucus meeting, democratic conference they had. number of chair people present to them, financial services, judiciary, oversight, intelligence, all of these committees, those of jurisdiction are going through investigations. what she is trying to do is walk this very fine line between acknowledging the concerns of some of the far left in her caucus and in the party, then also not going totally over the edge because she recognizes that impeachment is not only divisive but bad politics. now we're in a huge game of chicken because nobody will back down because everybody will look bad if they do. charles: jenna, she didn't mention impeachm

i want a reaction now from jenna ellis, trump 2020 advisory board member. ou again. i have to tell you this. people, a lot of people believe what joe biden is saying, and he has moved up very strongly in the polls. how can the trump campaign get the message out that the middle class is better off under trump and not under obama and biden? >> well, i think that the economy being so great and the unemployment being so low is very self-evident so biden is simply casting himself as the doom and gloom candidate because he can't acknowledge that the economy is stronger and he can't acknowledge that the unemployment rate is below 4% for the last 12 months which has been the lowest for over 50 years. i mean, this is an incredible economy. stuart: i know it. jenna, we know it. i know it. people around me know it. we know this. but the country, it doesn't know it. they've not gotten the message. i don't want to be harsh, but if they don't get this message, if they believe that somehow or other the middle class was ruined by trump and was doing great guns under obama,

constitutional law attorney jenna ellis joins us.rrespondent and democratic strategist, jon summers. after the tariff threat in mexico, seems for republicans in iowa that seems it is not going over so well. is there political implication for 2020 or too early to tell? >> there are many politcally implications to this. you saw this in the remarks that senator chuck grassily made yesterday following announcement that president trump planned to move forward with the tariffs. he says this jeopardizes the usmca trade deal which was on track to reach congress at some point this summer. now seems that might not be the case. but also there are republicans who are saying privately that they're concerned on impact it has on negotiations with china. if chinese officials are looking at president trump and now questioning whether he is reliable trading partner, will they be, will they be hesitant to move forward or return to the negotiating table to work out a deal? as we know president trump is sort of eager to reach a deal with china because of