a detailed indictment of twelve offices of russia's military intelligence agency failed in july mr myler documents that every move let's put aside the fact that the information exposed real issues in the democratic party not ones dreamt up or spun by trolls something else worth noting but the report doesn't is only a company called crowd strike hired by the d.n.c. had access to their servers the f.b.i. and mueller at the mercy of their findings because those servers were wiped clean why good question there is page after page of the stuff here's some of the quick highlights. who may have one trump the election but who knows that meeting would trump jr in a russian law or was to get rid of anti-rust. thank sions but was that all trump is correct when he tweets and all accounts that no collusion proof has been found but we just wrote a whole article about it i think you get the picture and all fairness the new york times does have an argument as to why there is so little public information to back them up it's just not been made public mr mullens prosecutors only rarely go public with the e

details and documents the twelve offices of russia's military intelligence agency filed in july the mr myler documents the every move let's put aside the fact that the information exposed real issues in the democratic party not ones dreamt up or spun by trolls something else worth noting but the report doesn't is only a company called crowd strike hired by the d.n.c. had access to their servers the f.b.i. and mueller at the mercy of their findings because those servers were wiped clean why good question there is page after page of the stuff here's some of the quick highlights. who may have won trump the election but who knows that meeting would trump jr in a russian law or was to get rid of anti russia's think sions but was that all trump is correct when he tweets and all accounts that no collusion proof has been found but we just wrote a whole article about it i think you get the picture and all fairness the new york times does have an argument as to why there is so little public information to back them up it's just not been made public mr mullen and his prosecutors only rarely go public w

myler: thanks for taking call. i have a follow-up question for mr. shapiro about potential solutions on fixing this process of judicial nominations. micro solutions three i want to ask about macro fixes. is there legislation? what you think about amending the constitution to require a higher vote count, which will recently mandate more bipartisan or multi-partisan input on a judicial candidate? guest: thanks for the question. it is interesting that you can some of these things without amending the constitution. you could actually have a senate role that says that for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court or a federal judiciary, we would require 60 votes. that is not a constitutional matter. and frankly, i think it is reasonable to say executive branch nomination, the president has a right to run deference -- broad deference. it only requires a majority, and guarantee that those nominations will be taken up within 90 days or 120 days. lifetime appointments are different. if you are going to serve 25, 30 years, why don't we have a supermajority r