nada: kim wehle, thank you very much. kim: thank you. nada: prince andrew has answered questions for the first ti out his relationship with financier jeffrey epstein. the prince has been accused of having links to the billionaire who killed himself in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. in an exclusive interview with the bbc, prince andrew was asked about his relationship with one of epstein's accusers, virginia roberts, who said she was forced uke threeex with the times. buckingham palace has denied all the allegations against him. our royal coespondent nicholas witchell reports. nicholas: he is continuing with royal duties. last sunday he waseaaying a with his nephews. and yet for month after month, he has been the focus of troubling questions. prince andrew, the queen' second son, one moment seen waving from the doorway of the new york home of convicted child sex offender jeffrey epstein and photographed strolling through central park with him. the headlines have been lurid, relentless, and deeply damaging. most se

back with me, max boot and kim wehle. m, if the court takes up this case, it would actually be huge to do so. i mean it would be really the first major separation of powers sort of case on the supreme court. now, what is really at stake here? >> so this is a little bit different from what we were just talking about in that the house wasn't asking for documents from the president. so the president doesn't have -- from the office of the president -- can't say listen, these are presidential documents. they're protected that way. this is from a third-party accounting firm. but the wrinkle here for the democrats is that this is not pursuant to an impeachment process. it's general oversight. so the question really is can the president, because he's president, stop the house, stop congress from getting records from his financial history from third parties based on when he wasn't even president? this is him as a private party, a private person, and i think one of the relevant issues -- cases here is the case involving bill clinton

back with me, max boot and kim wehle. kim, if the court takes up this case, it would actually be huge to do so. i mean it would be really the first major separation of powers sort of case on the supreme court. now, what is really at stake here? >> so this is a little bit different from what we were just talking about in that the house wasn't asking for documents from the president. so the president doesn't have -- from the office of the president -- can't say listen, these are presidential documents. they're protected that way. this is from a third-party accounting firm. but the wrinkle here for the democrats is that this is not pursuant to an impeachment process. it's general oversight. so the question really is can the president, because he's president, stop the house, stop congress from getting records from his financial history from third parties based on when he wasn't even president? this is him as a private party, a private person, and i think one of the relevant issues -- cases here is the case involving bill clint

nada: for more on today's testimony, i spoke with kim wehle, a former assistant u.s. attorney and author of "how to c read tstitution and why." democrats have suggested that thdpresident's tweet co ssibly lead to an additional article of impeachment. could it, and is there precedent for that? kim: under the impeachment processes for richard nixon and bill clinton, there re counts in articles of imachment for instruction of -- obstruction of justice that included tamring or intimidating witnesses. there is precedent in thehm impet process. nada: republicans today, part of their strategy was to say that o e ambassador was not a material witnesse events they are discussing, that she an employment issue.s is why do you thi democrats thought she was a strong witness? was a strong witnecauserats, she the issue has to do with abuse ofhe power of office. she is a career diplomat, impeccably credentialed, very credible, and told the storyf her job as defending democracy across the globe, the rule of t law, measureughtful diplomacy. what is in the interest of the united states,

laa: a brief time ago i spoke attorney kim wehle, author of "how toead the constitution and why."nfamy, "domestic politicale in errand," but does it change the calculus of the impeachment inquiry? m: in terms of the senate votes, probably not. the fact cap and out in the public sphere for weeks if not months. -- the facts have been out in the public's fear for weeks if not mohs. there would be effo gette that the ukrainians to investigate the bidens and help the president. this is not something that i think is news to anyone. really the question in this momento is cares. do the republicans care? they have not made a case for why this is not badun for the ed states. they have not rebutted the central narrative that this was an abuse of power that did not benefit american interests and american foreign policy an american national security. pit benefited tsident personally and alsoimronically, vl putin. laura: david holmes described hearing the president's voice booming across the atlantic ocean into a restaurant in kiev to manage know what is happening with theby investigationhe ukr

and discuss what might or might not be technically impeachable are cb legal analyst ans netey and kim wehle est o so covers the justice department. good to have you all here. i say "decipher," because there is going to be a debate over how do you define high crimes and misdemeanors, which, along with treason and bribery, are how impeachment is laid out. you think there is a case to be made for abuse of power is. that what you think articles of impeachment to be? >> i think you can make a case for abuse of power, but you have to do some changes. you have to reschedule. you have to reframe and repeat e of this testimony. right now this seems designed to fail. it's an incomplete record. you have an audience listening to hear the lines they want the hear. when you step back and look at the whole, it is incomplete. a member would have a good-faith bay stois vote against conviction on that basis. >> brennan: welk you heard will hurd of texas, a congressman, say at the conclusion that he was not persuaded. he's one of the so-called moderate republicans who people had been hoping might be able to b

laura: kim wehle, thanks for being with us.mpeachment was also one of the key issues at the demtiratic presid debate last night, there was little disagreement amongst the candidates. instead, they trieerto prove theyin lockstep on the issue and into the fire firmly at president trump.sen. harris:l living in the white house, and there is no question that in 2020, the biggest intue before us we get to that tender moment's justice is on the ballot. mr. biden: should he be impeached and thrown out of office? that is one question. he is indicting himself. number two, after he is thrown out of office or after he is nfeated, should he t prosecuted? hiould he be prosecuted for crim offense he was president? an attorney general.o be made by sen. sanders: certainly be a present who is not only a pathological liar from he is likely the mosten corrupt presin the modern history of america. laura: for more on last night's debate i spoke a brief timraago with demc strategist mary anne marsh. who stood out the most to you on at crowded stage l

joining me now to discuss, we have cnn supreme court analyst joan piscupic and kim wehle back with usll. the president is going to appeal this ruling today with the supreme court. this decision has to do with new york's criminal investigation of the trump family real estate business. what was the court's rationale here, kim? >> the court's rationale is that there is no such thing as this kind of sweeping absolute immunity from any process whatsoever by anyone during the presidency. now, keep in mind here, we have a state process, we have a state prosecutor seeking information from a third party accountant firm. we don't have congress getting information from the white house. we don't even have information being sought from the white house about official business while he's president. these are his personal tax returns from a third party and the court said, wait a minute. there is no basis in the law for this massive umbrella, basically bullet-proof process for the president while he's in office. it just doesn't exist, and the compelling lower court decision explains in no uncertain te

let's get the thoughts of kim wehle — former us assistant attoney who worked on the whitewater investigatione constitution and why. i was reading to the deposition and stuff about rudy giuliani, we keep on going back to him, what do you make of it? i think what is important to note here is that rudy giuliani is not a government employee he did not take an oath of office, he is not bound by the ethics and norms and conflict of interest rules that apply to government employees. there's a whole legal apparatus in place of people who work for the federal government to ensure that when they do theirjob, they do it on behalf of the american populace and here we have a private attorney for the president of the united states, essentially dictating a different foreign policy relating to the and career public servants have been following doctors for this president, but with the prior presidents and that is deeply troubling, not just as presidents and that is deeply troubling, notjust as a matter of foreign policy but also as a matter of the rule of law and ensuring that people go to government and do

. >>> jonathan turley and kim wehle, our cbs legal analysts and constitutional scholars, and they joins start with you. did the democrats layout a case strong enough to reach the constitutional bar for impeachment? >> if the question is abuse of power, yes, they absolutely did in that the president it looks like asked for an investigation or announcement of investigations into a political rival in exchange for release of military aid. so using the power of the presidency, the ability to have a white house meeting, to release this critical aid that ukraine needed to stave off riern aggression and said, you know what? you have to help me personally. that's the standard that the framers cared about, having somebody in office that would use that power for themselves, not for the benefit of the american people. here we know it was contrary to national security. >> as far as you are concerned write out the articles of impeachment, let's vote tomorrow? >> we will see it. as far as let's vote tomorrow, no. this process is a senate trial and we'll have to see what is in the articles to then tes

wehle. t kim underscore host: independent line, good morning. caller: can you hear me?t: sure can. caller: i guess what's goose for the gander is good for the guse. t was ok when obama was -- the way he handled whistleblowers. if she's worried about -- i guess if she's worried about future, i guess what i'm trying to say is we should be concerned also if the f.b.i. goes up to future presidents, future presidential candidates. being a law professor it doesn't mean anything if you're going to show your bias all day long. i know exactly what's been going on. i voted for trump. voted for trump. going to vote for him again. i view this whole process as against me as a voter. i take it personal. i just think that the bottom line is, these facts she talked about, she also knows about rules of discovery being a law professor. because there are several facts that are never allowed to come to light because of the way that this process has been handled. host: bobby, let me ask you this question let me ask you this question. guest was one of the special counsel's investigating pres