judge millett: i don't know either. mr. wall: can you supervise officers of the court -- judge millett: it is clearly not settled whether the district court can -- mr. wall: it may be. judge millett: well, i could not figure out either but you have more experience than me. mr. wall: the basis for that would be -- judge millett: the question is you have a motion and at least argument is grant it and go home. the district court looks at that motion and says, i fear i have been like you in that motion. the opposition is that the district court has to grant the motion in which it feels it was lied to and maybe it is a violation of court rule with that very document, it nevertheless has to grant it and cannot inquire about whether or not it was lied to. that is the government's position before granting the motion. mr. wall: yes. it is not reviewable in that way. judge millett: rule 408a, when it says leave of court, did you know the supreme court is left open, the question of whether any other public interest decides harassment

judge millett? judge millett: in other criminal cases, there has been a question to dismiss or not like the case of united states versus armstrong. crack cocaine, whether there was racial bias in the prosecution. discovery the government did not want to do, it just said no. we cannot comply to a judgment against this and we will appeal. i am trying to understand the harms here. sometimes it sounds like you want mandamus against mr. gleason. and his arguments. but at this point, we don't know what the district court would ask. we don't know what the district court would insist upon. the district court ask something and we say we are not going to answer because it is privileged or separation of powers. you could say that. there is nothing that compels you to start turning over documents. you could just say you refuse to comply. the government could take our appeal. why isn't that? there is nothing here that requires you to disclose. you don't have to respond to every argument made by mr. gleason. the

judge millett: ok. sidney: no we had filed to get rid of mandamus because that's the remedy for the usurpation of power. judge millett: i thought the mandamus was filed after that? am i wrong? there is ahink mistake in the order of the ,ocket entry that is the purpose of mandamus. judge millett: ok. sure. in response to one of my colleagues that the district court could have brought the government and all of the attorneys and for a hearing and push them a bit was i think your phraseology, as in the stevens case, can ms. powell: not very much. millett: what pushing in the stevens case was ok? ms. powell: he asked the government if the material that had been withheld from senator stevens was brady material, and they were wishy-washy on that and then they admitted it was virtual -- and that was the virtual extent of it. a part of the motion to dismiss was the discovery of new material, correct? ms. powell: correct. judge millet: you have mentioned the court cannot appoint an aicus to argue against defendan

--ge millett >> can you hear me? on the mandamus standard, we could decide that if we were to against a petition we could decide that there were alternative remedies or there was no clear and indisputable right. i wonder if you have review on which is the narrower round? is there an alternative remedy, what is it? you think the narrower grounding is to say there is no clear and indisputable right at this point? mrs. wilkinson: it's a real contest, but i believe the narrower ground is the alternative for relief below because the judge has not ruled. the easiest remedy would be for the judge to grant the motion to dismiss and there would be nothing even for review and court. that seems to be the narrowest and most commonsensical basis to deny the petition because the court has not made its decision yet. judge pillard: the alternative remedy there is, if the judge grants the rule 38 a motion, the government would not -- if the judge were to deny the motion or postpone the motion is there an alternative remedy? not surei

proceed but many people also fear that it might be a sign of some that's not intervention maybe millett support from russia to crackdown on peaceful protest or similar as well there are different rumors and people don't really know what to think but they are against any kind of russia russia's international in the country for how to move a covert in man thanks very much for that information. the u.s. and poland have signed a deal that will see a 1000 u.s. troops move from germany to poland u.s. secretary of state might compare signed for pact in walsall alongside the polish defense minister the deal will pave the way for an increased and sustained the us in the train present 10 poland something was or has long called for it comes out of the us an ounce it would withdraw some $12000.00 troops from germany for failing to make nato targets on defense spending. for more i'm joined by journalist magdalena palo cat she joins me from wall saw magdaléna why did the polish government want this new defense deal with the us. well and the main purpose of the deal is as you already said to increase

>> i don't think it would judge millett. you know the number of rules justified by the equal protection clause and that's a tightly and one so it's a-ertel and only when you have clear evidence of unconstitutional motive. >> but you are talking about the process for the government to avoid injury. not talking about theam constitutional issue they are talkingere but i'm about the process of the government to avoid injury. you feel like you don't have tou answer you could just say we refuse to answer. they are not legally relevant that we refused to answer. >> that was my second answer. the firstt was probing the executive that armstrong allows. it's a very narrow exception. >> again i'mpr talking about the process for which the government responded. that was in the governments position in the lower court and the process was used then it could be used here to avoid harm. i suppose it attorney can make an immediate appeal of that to. i will completely protect you against anything being disclose that you don't feel you have to d

misleading but most importantly i we need to look at this statistic to the actual situation in that's come millett t. for example like. some developing countries or 'd country that with large populations problem a large number of population actually is in a low income class a very poor hygiene and poor living environment that estate is so cannot give you as a thing so different countries are in different stages of the d.c.'s in some country like hong kong and south korea we have a certain stage of combat that the seas we have prior stage we try to resume the economic activity misunderstands that of the 80 and the dc's come back for some country like south america or india they have never come back to these seas that this is keep going on in a high rise state but at the same time the economy and the life # of the whole populations are also in the very difficult situation it's interesting in a similar particular in the u.k. the economy for the british government is a big driver of trying to open things up but it's also the one thing that will make this worse it will spread cases if that if it opens

wall: if you are asking about the consent of context, -- ne judge millett: i do apologize, rule 48 a. we will break away -- announcer: we will break away to fulfill our commitment. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. august 11, 2020. i hereby appoint the honorable steny h. hoyer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the chaplain of the house, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we thank you for giving us another day. please send your spirit upon all those in elected leadership in our nation. most especially the member o