mr. freeman is wrong. the dennis decision of the supreme court makes clear that much of what he argued right now about particularized need is absolutely wrong. the supreme court there said there is no obligation under a particularized need to do an in camera inspection. no need to go line by line. what supreme court has said in cases like cells engineering and dennis and doe and i understand mr. freeman doesn't like doe and dennis, he would prefer they isn't exist, but they do, and they say that courts don't have to do this, this is largely up to the discretion of the district courts. mr. freeman -- >> how could the district court make any analysis under a particularized need? any analysis? without having looked at the unredacted material? she's flying blind on this. >> again, the dennis -- the supreme court rejected that very argument. so what she has to do way the court did in dennis, and what court did in doe, because, for example, this also was not done in the doe case that we so heavily rely on. what

mr. freeman is wrong. the dennis decision of the supreme court makes clear that much of what he argued right now about particularized needs is absolutely wrong. the supreme court said there is no obligation under particularized need. to do an on camera report or an on camera inspection. there is no need to go line by line. rather, what the supreme court is saying in cases like dennis and doe, i understand mr. freeman does not like doe and dennis, he prefers they did not exist, but they do and they say largely it is up to the discretion of the district court's. mr. freeman, how could the district court make any analysis under particularized need -- any analysis -- without looking at the redacted material? she is flying blind on this. >> again, the supreme court rejected that very argument, and so what she has to do is what the court did in dennis and what the court did in doe. what those cases showed is the obligation of the judges to -- judge is to take into account the factors and make a determination. ho

mr. freeman? i asked in the previous case, there have been two articles of impeachment that have been acted upon. are you here to say there may be a third? >> i will do the exact same brief, weh is in our tried to be very clear about this. a third?might be >> exactly. both committees said that for two reasons. one, the evidence that comes up might be usable in the senate trial. it could be that this material is useful for us, the house managers and the senate trial. >> who are the house managers? [laughter] >> i'm glad you asked. again, it could be useful. dennis, submitted to the court, obviously not hand as we made clear, the judiciary committee will look at this material and decide whether to recommend more articles of impeachment and i want to be clear because i think there was some hysteria. said,nt exactly what he the judiciary committee looked to see whether to use it to recommend, so yes, that is on the table. this is totally different from the articles that were sent over. as we mades not

mr. mooppan have more time? take freeman. >> thank you, your honor. on standing, my friend basically wants this court to read rates neighborly to its facts and ignore its reasoning but read at&t broadly. as we talked about we agree the facts of reins are a case involving individual nervous but the reason goes much more broadly. i don't think weird explanation of why the reasoning doesn't apply here. there was some suggestion that information to some out obviously an injury. take for example, the examples that were given in reins. of course it interfered with the goat of an executor to by the subordinate but clearly would be an injury even when post on a private party. if congress told -- of course that ceo could see. of course the legal question with a set of resolution backing clinton. the fact was the chief executive, it was the president not some private party. conversely, the emphasize this is information that congress needs. the point is as judge griffith emphasize they need information in furtherance of the legislative progress. it is only as re

unfailingly energetic and optimistic ambassador david freeman, jason greenblatt, bobby berkowitz, and and the rest of your exceptional peace plan, mrpresident. it's good to be here with the other distinguished ladies and gentlemen of your administration, with senators and members of congress who are israel's greatest friends on capitol hill. thank you. [applause] p.m. netanyahu: thank you. with the ambassadors of the united arab emirates, bahrain, pleasure to see you here, and what a sign it pertains -- i was going to say of the future. what a sign it pertains of the present! [applause] p.m. netanyahu: to all of you and to the many distinguished -- other distinguished guests who are here today, this is a historic day. and it recalls another historic day. we remember may 14th, 1948, because on that day, president truman became the first world leader to recognize the state of israel after our first prime minister declared our independence. that day chartered a brilliant future. mr. president, i believe that down the decades, and perhaps down the centuries, we will also remember january 28th, 2020, because on this day you became the f

good to see the unfailingly energetic and optimistic david freeman, jason greenblatt, brian have, and the rest of your exceptional peace team, mr. president. it is good to be here with the other distinguished ladies and gentlemen of your administration with senators and members of congress who are israel's greatest friends on capitol hill, thank you. [applause] >> pm netanyahu: thank you. with the ambassadors of the united arab emirates, what a pleasure to see you here, what a sign it shows of the future, what a sign of the present. to all of you, and to the many other distinguished guests were here today, this is a historic day. it recalls another historic day, we remember a 14, 1948, because on that day president truman became the first world leader to recognize the state of israel after our first prime minister declared our independence. that day chartered a brilliant future. mr. president, i believe that down the decades, and perhaps down the centuries, we will also remember january 28, 2020, because on this day, you became the first world leader to recognize israel's sovereignty over areas that are vital to our security an

mr. trump leaves office or until the election in november. >> that his contribution, the wall street journal joined in calling for bolton to reveal what he knows publicly. james freemanll with us. if bolton comes out or testifies for example, doesn't that open the door for good republicans to open the door for hunter biden and joe biden and anybody else. >> absolutely. i think adam schiff to raise the issue not just of ukraine but hunter biden's business still leans in china last week. it does not smell any better than the ukraine deal. you have an issue where the bidens have promised never to do these deals again. but they have never explained what he got for all that money. hunter biden as we discussed during the obama administration ukraine never got the weapons it wanted to defend itself but hunter biden got rich. that goes to the core question, was it unreasonable for president to say i think you want to look into hunter biden situation where he's unqualified getting paid a lot of money to sit on a board and to this day he has not explained what he did for that money. >> it might well come out if this things goes forward and is called as a witness. we should see