supporters of stonewall, aghast and angry at the stonewall position on trans?r supporters are very, very supportive of what we're doing and how we're doing it. we've seen that in the way we've grown, the reach we have, the way in which we're working. we're a much bigger organisation than the way we were five years ago, and a lot of that is down to the fact that we thought about these things differently. we knew that there would be some people who didn't acknowledge or believe or want trans people to be part of that movement. there are lots and lots and lots that did. but those people — among those people are many lesbians who feel that you have changed the position, you are eroding their space. maureen chadwick. yes. who is a creator of television programmes with her partner, kath gotts, quit and stopped funding. they had given $38,000, over a number of years... over five years, yes. ..and are now giving it to women's aid charities. they make the point that many who are longstanding supporters of stonewall share our concerns and dismay about the organisation th

, says stonewall members of stonewall, simon fa nshawe, says stonewall withdraws representatives from people who disagree with its sta nce include people who disagree with its stance on self identification. to say these issues aren't debatable, that raising them is somehow transphobic, appears to be the stonewall position, rather than to build on the great position of concentrating on avoiding dissemination. well, simon hasn't been at stonewall in 30 years, so i am interested in his take, but he hasn't been part of the discussion. stonewall is constantly having debate on these issues. won't you have withdrawn people from panels. we have withdrawn them if we feel they are going to be unable to have their voices heard, and we have to ta ke their voices heard, and we have to take the safety of our trans staff very seriously, and the level of personal threats leads me to make a call. but myjob over the past five yea rs has call. but myjob over the past five years has been to have difficult conversations. i have had many of those difficult conversations. do you think it is transphobic to s

out of stonewall comes protests. they were called zaps because they were provocative, designed to get press coverage and attention to what the activists were fighting for. you have groups like the gay raiders out of philadelphia who got themselves into the cbs evening news with walter cronkite, had a protest, and this appeared as americans watched their evening newscast. the protesters said that cronkite took time after the newscast to talk to them and it changed the way cbs covered the gay movement at the time. you saw the rise of these incredible publications. various groups and nationalities when they feel their stories are not being told by the mainstream press, they would start their own newspapers and magazines. here you see gay activist and many publications rose up -- here you see "the gay activist" and other publications that rose up. gilbert baker called himself the gay betsy ross when he was encouraged to come up with a flag that symbolized movement. you will notice it has two more stripes than has now. th

we hope more people come to visit the exhibit because the ,vents at stonewall and rise up the stonewall and lgbtq rights movement tells the story of how everyday americans, first amendment right of the press, speech, religion, to rise up, push back and advocate for change, and that is what we are about here at the newseum. explaining the movement. somethingent embodies about the first amendment. we hope people will come to experience it as well as the movies and other interactive's that we tell here at the exhibit. announcer: you can tell this and every american artifact program any time by visiting our website, c-span.org/history. we continue a look at palo alto as we hear about contumacious to rock 'n roll and pop-culture. >> we are on. the new, an unincorporated section surrounded by menlo park. it was affectionately known as? > perry lane. it was an enclave of stanford graduate students which included the married ken kesey who came en 1958

out of stonewall comes protests. they were really provocative, designed to get press coverage and attention to what the activists were fighting for. you had groups like the gay raiders out of philadelphia who got themselves into the cbs evening news with walter cronkite, had a protest and it appeared as americans watched their evening newscast. cronkite took time after the newscast to talk to them and it changed the way cbs covered the gay movement at the time. you saw the rise of these incredible publications. when various groups and notonalities feel they are -- their stories were not being being told by the mainstream press, they would start their own newspapers and magazines. gilbert baker called himself the gay betsy wass when he was encouraged to come up with a flag for the movement. you will notice that it has more stripes than it does now. the reason is because two of the colors were harder to produce. the flag was made by gilbert. this was the sewing machine on which he created the original flag. it is not t

total stonewalling of congress, total stonewalling of the american people. that is powersertion of tyrannical by the president and we cannot stand for it. the american people have to have the government stand for them. that means the president and the ongress. >>[inaudible] >> i see this as fact gathering which may or may not lead -- i said this many times. we need the facts. we need all the

the stonewall bulb was our place. the stonewall bulb was one of the gay bars.i was hanging out just a block away. they heard the sirens, the bars, they were raiding the stonewall bar. my reaction was to run towards the bar. because that is where the excitement was. i was 20 years old. and in that crowd were, you know, obviously drag queens and people who were effeminate males. and then these quys effeminate males. and then these guys who look like regular guys like me. and we were all together and the anger was towards them, the police. people started yelling at them and started tossing coins and stuff started tossing coins and stuff started coming flying from different directions. the police then went inside for shelter. this parking metre was partially out of the ground that apparently a car or a truck had hit. theyjoin three other people, we lifted up the parking metre and we used it as a battering ram on the doors of the stonewall, because we wanted to get to the cops. i wanted to kill the cops. that's how i feel. we would have really hurt those cops if the

there has been not one single page given. ,otal stonewalling of congress total stonewalling of the american people. that is an assertion of taranto power by the president -- tyrannical power by the president and we cannot stand for it. the american people have to have the government stand for them. that means the president and the congress. >> [inaudible] rep. nadler: i see this as fact gathering which may or may not lead -- i said this many times. we need the facts. information.he decisions like that or other things will be made down the road when we have the facts. >> [inaudible] rep. nadler: we are going to have to insist on getting the facts. thank you very much. >> all right. today has been an interesting day. for anyone who has been to law school, it has been more interesting. today we found out a subpoena is not what it is supposed to be for. it is the beginning of a dialogue. i don't think anyone who has ever issued a subpoena with think it is the beginning of a dialogue. we also found out today the subpoena that was issued was for grand jury information to hold the attorney general

the stonewall bar was one of the gay bars.of the rebellion i was hanging outjust a block away. they heard the sirens, the police cars, the police were raiding the stonewall bar. my reaction was to run towards the bar. because that's where the excitement was. that's what was happening. i was 20 years old. and in that crowd were, you know, obviously drag queens and people who were effeminate males. and then these guys who look like, quote, regular guys like me. and we were all together and the anger was towards them — the police. people started yelling at them and then people started tossing coins and stuff started coming flying from different directions. then the police then went inside for shelter. this parking meter was partially out of the ground that apparently a car or a truck had hit. and ijoined three other people, we lifted up the parking metre and we used it as a battering ram on the doors of the stonewall, ‘cause we wanted to get to the cops. i wanted to kill the cops. that‘s how i felt. we would have really hurt thos

you asked him about stonewalling by the white house. let's discuss that first. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. i asked the president what does he have to say to americans who think he's stonewalling and his team stonewalling members of congress when it comes to their investigations and ee answer surveillance a turned back to his talking points and said his has been the most transparent administration we've ever seen. that's obviously not the case and had 70 days in a row without a white house briefing. hardly transparent but, wolf, earlier in those comments to reporters, he did say essentially what his attorneys are saying in terms of why he is trucking the former white house counsel don mcgahn no not testify tomorrow. the president's team has been saying, listen, don mcgahn is protected immunity for former white house official, white house officials over here at the white house, and the president said this is not being done for me. this is being done for the presidency and so the president is essentially saying what his team is saying

a total stonewalling of congress, a total stonewalling of the american people and that is an assertionyrannica power by the president, and it cannot be allowed to stand. the american people have to have a government responsive to them and that means the president and the congress. >> last question. [ inaudible ] >> i see this as a fact gathering which may or may not lead -- as i've said many times, we need the facts. we need all the information and decisions like that or other things made down the road when we have the facts. >> if you can't get the facts how will you proceed? >> we are going to have to insist on getting the facts. thank you very much. >> thank you. >>> all right. that was the chairman of the house judiciary committee, congressman jerry nadler of new york talking about how in his view, quote, we are now in a constitutional crisis. is he overstating the case? >> i think many people in the democratic caucus agree with him and many of the american people agree with him. i think we also so the awkward challenge democrats will have moving forward which is saying it's a kung

stonewall was a gay bar in new york city that propelled forward the modern lgbtq rights movement. we tell the story of how

they say the only remedy for the administration stonewalling is impeachment, putting speaker pelosi go slow approach under serious scrutiny. cnn correspondent manu raju is on capitol hill with more on this. and so manu, what is next? >> reporter: yeah, democrats are starting to talk more openly about the prospects of an impeachment inquiry. now what that means essentially is to start a formal investigation into impeachment before there are any votes on an articles of impeachment. house would have to approve that and the senate, two-thirds of the republican-led senate would have to vote to convict the president or remove him from office so we're a ways away from that but hearing more members talk about a beginning of the impeachment inquiry which is something that the speaker nancy pelosi is resisting, something that the house judiciary chairman jerry nadler is not supporting yet but at the moment even some members, veteran members and people who have resisted this idea in the past are showing more openness. >> do you believe that it is an impeachment inquiry is warranted now given the

. >>> coming up for us, stonewalling congress. a new wave of defiance as the white house and president trump's allies resist more than 20 congressional investigations. that's the new analysis. so where does the standoff go from here? >> plus, they're back in court. actress felicity huffman getting ready to formally plead guilty for her role in the college admissions scandal. what will she say when she comes face-to-face with the judge? and could she soon be behind bars. we'll be right back. (paul) great. another wireless ad. so many of them are full of this complicated, tricky language about their network and offers and blah blah blah. look. sprint's going to do things differently. and let you decide for yourself. they're offering a new 100% total satisfaction guarantee. try it out and see the savings. if you don't love it, get your money back. see? simple. now sprint's unlimited plan comes with one of the newest phones included for just $35 a month. so switch now. for people with hearing loss, visit sprintrelay.com every day, vis

to such a degree, and not just stonewalling to such a degree, and notjust on stonewalling to such ah a degree, and notjust on the miller report, also on documentation on puerto rico, separation of families at the border, health care issues, all of thoseissues border, health care issues, all of those issues democrats have asked for information on and they are not getting it. nancy pelosi used the phrase out the president might be self impeachable, i have no idea what it means what it suggests the democrats can see the white house is stonewalling and that's having an impact on their design strategy. i was watching an american network today democrats in pennsylvania, middle america, you could have put that family anywhere in western europe, they wanted to talk about wages, how they were not benefiting from the economy, health care, how the rich were taking too much money, holding two jobs and not affording things, the just about managings. holding two jobs and not affording things, thejust about managings. do they want to hear on the doorstep about democrats not getting the full robert

they are stonewalling it. is this moving towards a situation where the only weapon to use a tough term, that congress has left is impeachm t impeachment? >> i don't think we exhausted everything yet. each day reveals a new angle and a new concern. my perspective is let's take it one day at a time. >> last question. looking at the report as i'm sure you have done because we haven't had a chance to look at it, the experience by the russians established by indictments, multiple indictments of russians, it happened. sweeping attempt to intervene in our election process. a reality. do you believe that the trump people played ball with the russians in the '16 campaign? >> it defends on how you define that. they were aware of what the russians were doing and they were fully prepared to receive the benefit of what the russians were doing. as a next step, it is incumbent on congress and this attorney general and all of us to say that any campaign that plays with a foreign government and benefit from that foreign govern

. >> president trump has been very clear -- his strategy is to stonewall all requests, from refusing to turn over documents to suing to stop banks from disclosing material, and he is even refusing to allow former white house counsel don mcgahn to testify.

the pressure is on for her with every new subpoena and every new episode of stonewalling from the white house, impeachment drumbeat is getting louder and louder for house democrats -- from house democrats whether the speaker likes it or not. we are learning that the treasury secretary steve mnuchin's refusal to turn over the president's tax returns goes against irs regulation, previously unknown irs legal memo, draft document obtained by "the washington post" says the disclosure of returns is mandatory unless the president asserts executive privilege which he hasn't done. we don't know who wrote it but the agency said it was prepared last fall and we've heard from one legal expert after another that the law is clear, congress is entitled to the president's returns. so this looks like another example of this administration running roughshod over the law in an effort to hide, well, we don't really know what and then there are the latest subpoenas tonight from the house judiciary committee for two former house -- white house officials. there's hope hicks, the trump whisperer who started wo

republicans in congress are supporting the stonewall. democrats scheduled a hearing for mcgahn, it is unclear if he will show up. threats of contempt, censure, fines don't seem to be moving the probe. in the last few hours, rank and file democrats in the house are urging a second look at impeachment. and the bigger question is this. at some point as leader of the congressional democrats, speaker of the house nancy pelosi going to set some parameters as to when are they going to draw the line and where do lines get drawn. let's dive in with reporters and experts. kasie hunt, nbc's capitol hill correspondent, senior politics editor, john podwerts, and strategist and former executive director of new york state democratic party. tell me, it seems as if the democrats are -- how many different requests, subpoenas, investigations they want to open. there is a single lar decision by the white house not to cooperate with any of them. at what point is speaker of the house being the most likely person going to basically say white house, 60 days or

it is simply part of the administration's complete stonewalling of congress.e ranking member is saying is that, by determining how we'll proceed, we are stonewalling, as if it's our choice that he should not come. he is trying to blackmail the committee into not following what we think is the most effective means of eliciting the information we need. earlier i asked our washington correspondent chris buckler where all this leave us. yeah, mike, we had feisty exchanges today at that senate congressional hearing. but as for the house of representatives hearing, which was expected to take place just hours later, it's now not going to happen. bill barr says he will not be there, he is not going to take part in it, and it seems to come down to this. that was a suggestion from the congressional committee chairman, jerry nadler, who you just heard from, that he wanted him to be questioned — bill barr to be questioned by lawyers, essentially congressional staff, rather than necessarily those sitting on the committee. now, what mr barr and the department ofjustice said

us judiciary chairman jerry nadler argues attorney—general barr stonewalls the congress and makes thetion more difficult. the attorney general has the nerve to try to dictate, or the administration has the nerve to try to dictate our procedures, it is pa rt to dictate our procedures, it is part of the administration's com plete part of the administration's complete stonewalling of congress. what's the ranking member is saying is that by determining how we will proceed, we are stonewalling, as if it is our choice that he should not come. he is trying to blackmail the committee into not following what we think is the most effective means of eliciting the information we need. more now from our correspondent chris buckler in washington dc. chris, strong words, and it seems tomorrow no words, from mr barr. does leave everything? yeah, we had feisty exchanges today at that senate congressional hearing. it is for the house of representatives hearing, which was expected to take place just hours later, it is now not going to happen. bill barr says he will not be there, he will not ta ke he wil

ph phil, the committee's request continues is to be stonewalled. what's the strategy with these latest subpoenas? >> reporter: to put it bluntly, wolf, keep the pressure on. make sure according to committee chairman jerry nadler, the judiciary committee, that they are not relenting, even in the face of the white house defiance, related to several subpoenas, blocking all aspects of the investigation they possibly can. and they are going to keep going after white house officials or former white house officials, connected to the president in their sweeping investigation into possible obstruction of justice. now, these two names, annie donaldson, and hope hicks, two of the people who were closest to the president and don mcgahn, who you noted, did not show up today for a scheduled hearing, did not comply with this subpoena, showing kind of an increased broad effort to increase pressure on white house officials that may have knowledge related to the committee's ongoing obstruction of justice case, their investigation. and the reason why this is so impor

they are stonewalling the american people from all information, and this cannot be.nnot have a government where all the information is in the executive branch, where the american people and the congress are stonewalled this information that they need to make decisions and to know what's going on. >> on a signal day in the history of this presidency, and a signal day in the long and storied career of democratic congressman jerry nadler, joining us now for the interview tonight is congressman nadler, who is the chairman of the house judiciary committee. today, of course, his committee voted to hold the attorney general of the united states in contempt. sir, thank you very much for making time to be here tonight. much appreciated. >> thank you for having me. >> this is a serious act that your committee voted on today. this confrontation with the attorney general is something that i know you did not rush into and that you didn't relish. can you just tell us a little bit about your thought process in terms of what brought you to this -- what brought you to this sort of ex

to be able to stonewall through the election. but, yes, they're trying to buy time, they're trying to draw this out and simultaneously blame democrats for how long the investigation is taking. that's the strategy they used with mueller and they had some success. they played rope-a-dope with mueller over the president's own interview, until mueller essentially said it would take too long to get this resolved. we're going to press, we're going to seek expedited briefing schedules. we're going to try to make this happen fast and we're going to explore other remedies, like the use of our power to fence funding, if agencies don't comply. but at the end of the day, we have to make sure that the oversight work gets done. otherwise, the country is vulnerable. he becomes a completely lawless president. and there's no way of ferreting out corruption or fraud or abuse. >> representative schiff, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> joining me now is cnn legal analyst carrie cordero and ken cuccinelli. carrie, is this a constitutio

now, the administration decided to use quite indefensible legal doctrines to stonewall congress, stonewallrican people and say nobody can testify and nobody can bring documents. we're going to beat them in court because that's ridiculous from a legal point of view, but they are going try to waste a lot of time. but we will have witnesses, those who will come in voluntarily, those who will be subpoenaed, and we will enforce the subpoenas. and we will have, i'm sure, other witnesses, too, like some of those 900 federal prosecutors who said that based on the evidence in the mueller report they would have indicted if it weren't for the opinion that a president can never be indicted no matter what the evidence. we will have hearings on other derelictions of duty. for instance, the president's intimidation of witnesses, his dangling of pardons, his intimidating witnesses, his failure -- it's the duty of the justice department, the duty of the justice department to defend the constitutionality in court ofny any law duly passed by congress unless they can say it's so off the wall that there's no l

. >> whether the white house stonewalling could cost some people around the president $25,000 a day. >> plus, breaking up facebook. a former employee gives his idea on this. >> developing this hour, democrats and republicans hardening their lines in the battle between the white house and congress. a new analysis suggests the president and his allies are trying to block 20 separate investigations by democrats. and the administration is not complying with at least 79 requests for documents or other information. one of those investigations may come to a head tuesday. a federal judge is expected to rule on whether the president can quash a subpoena demanding financial records from his personal accounting firm. on friday, the new subpoena deadline to release the president's tax returns. the chairman of the house intel committee says he's convinced the special counsel ultimately testify before congress, and on impeachment, this is the advice from adam schiff. >> it's certainly true these addictional acts of obstruction, the president having obstructing the justs department does add to impe

is this stonewall, stonewall, stonewall strategy working politically for him?y to say. if you think about it, it was just last week the president came out and said we're going to fight all the subpoenas. he had sort of been laying the groundwork to, of course, fight all these congressional investigations before, but there's a difference between sort of dragging out your answers to document requests that congress are making and saying we're going to shut everything down. and i think there was a notable change with some democrats who were skeptical of impeachment last week and after he made those comments are now starting to question whether they're going to have to go there. and i think that's why we saw nancy pelosi's tone this week shift. definitely escalated. she's using a lot more sharper rhetoric. yesterday, she said that trump is worse than president nixon, and she talked about the third article of impeachment against nixon, which was he was ignoring all the subpoenas. so i think that it's too early to say how much of an effect it might have on the polls o

on the house side they're going to continue to stonewall. i don't think they're going to send anybody up there. they're going to find a way to make them into a laughing -- i think even nancy pelosi is scared of looking completely stupid and impe tent now. i think trump is winning against his own government, executive and legislative branch and the courts. he's winning across the board. >> he always wants a foil, and mueller is gone. so the democrats are probably the next best bet for him and he thinks that in an election where it's about growing his base and trying to rally the republicans to his point, a stand nof may not be the worst thing. part of the strategy is to call the democrats' bluff. they think the democrats are conducting an impeachment proceeding but not in name. and they want them to go out and say we're trying to impeach the pred because the republicans think that's bad politics for the democrats. they think they need to force them in that direction in order to sus them out. rudy giuliani said they're going to slither around

stonewall the american people. the ways and means committee has been denied the president's tax returns when the law states clearly that they are entitled to them upon request. the chairman of the oversight reform committee has been sued in his personal capacity to prevent them from acquiring certain financial records from the trump organization. the president has stated that his administration will oppose all subpoenas and, in fact, virtually all document requests. witnesses are refusing to show up at hearings. this is unprecedented. if allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. as a co-equal branch of government, we should not and cannot allow this to continue, or we will not be a co-equal branch of government. i urge my colleagues, whether or not you care to see the full mueller report that we should all want to see the complete report, to stand up for the institution we are proud to serve. i expect we will have a full debate today on the measure before us. i hope that at

whether you call it stonewalling or call it legitimate counterarguments. reasonable people can disagree, certainly. it will take time, though. and when i see that list of 20 or so investigations that you put up recently, i mean, some jump out as stronger than others. so i have to think that for issues that have to do with while president trump was in office, meaning how he handled the mueller report, the issue about security clearances, that seems right for congress to get that information because it has to do with what's happening right now. things about president trump's tax returns when he was a private citizen, accounting records from his accounting firm when he was a private citizen, that seems like more of a reach. so, i think that while the general consensus is that congress will probably have the benefit of getting most of these materials, some will certainly be more hard fought than others. >> both of you have mentioned these tax returns, which, of course, democrats have been demanding since the days of the 2016 campaign. jim, as you noted, democr

i think we're seeing that. >> they're going to keep stonewalling.er cia operative, a writer and political survivor, now she's running for congress. my friend valerie plaim joins us next. e plaim joins us next for people 50 and older colat average risk.ing honey have you seen my glasses? i've always had a knack for finding things... colon cancer, to be exact. and i find it noninvasively... no need for time off or special prep. it all starts here... you collect your sample, and cologuard uses the dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers. you can always count on me to know where to look. oh, i found them! i can do this test now! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i was relentless first. relentless about learning the first song we ever danced to. about teaching him to put others first. about helping her raise her first child. and when i was first diagnosed, my choice was everyday verzenio. it's the only one of its kind that can be taken every day.

this stonewalling makes it all the more important to highlight some of the incidents that mr. mcgahn is said to have witnessed. >> so this comes after a meeting last night where behind closed doors, house democrats were split on whether this move from the white house is really the last straw. and there is more. less than 24 hours after a federal judge sided with congress saying that the committees have a right to see the president's financial records, now the president has already filed his appeal. to try to stop it still. clearly, a lot of moving parts today. let's start on capitol hill. cnn's manu raju is there with much more. what are the next steps now that the former white house counsel has refused to appear and testify? >> well, expect the house judiciary committee to move in the coming days to hold don mcgahn in contempt of congress. this coming after they did a similar step with the attorney general, bill barr, after he did not turn over the full unredacted mueller report and the underlying evidence, the democrats plan to do the same thing here. that will ultimately go

chairman congressman jerry nadler accusing the white house of, quote, stonewalling the american publictrump evoked executive privilege urging the ag to refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. what does all this mean? former counsel to the senate judiciary committee, good to see you, greg. are we in a constitutional crisis in your view as the critics are claiming? >> we are a long way of constitutional crisis. the phrase has to do with democratic-base politics, it's kind of a way of tip-toeing to line of impeachment but not crossing it. what we are seeing is exactly how the constitution is supposed to function. each branch competing with each other, fighting with each other, this goes back to the very founding president fought with congress, separation of powers that founders designed for. eric: were we in constitutional crisis when eric holder was held in contempt for fast and furious. >> obama administration was much more substantial than what's going on with barr, barr was under no obligation to hand over confidential report, he turned over, very lightly redacted. the redacted

somehow either stonewalling or blocking or just simply refusing to comply with those requests. the white house though is maintaining its position so far. we saw the president on twitter this morning already slamming the mueller investigation, the investigation that has dogged him for his two years in office, and that even stems back to the 2016 campaign, and the white house has issued a statement. this is a statement from the white house deputy press secretary steve groves. he says there are rules and norms governing congressional oversight of the executive branch and democrats simply refuse to abide by them. democrats are demanding documents they know they have no legal rights to see including confidential communications between the president and foreign leaders and grand jury information that cannot be disclosed under the law. this white house will not and cannot comply with unlawful demands made by an increasingly unhinged and politically motivated democrats. so that's the messaging that we've heard from the white house throughout this process, and as of yet there appears to

so they're just stonewalling. they want to draw this out as long as possible and we're going to fight it. we are fighting it and we have to because if this president can show that congress cannot enforce its oversight responsibility, something barack obama never tried to do and he had respect for the separation of powers, it will mean not only that we can't conduct this investigation but that no future president can be held accountable for corruption or malfeasance. >> that's the big question, what can you do about it. you've talked under the congress' power for inherent contempt that you can maybe fine officials. you're not going to get a u.s. attorney to prosecute the attorney general after you hold him or any other official in contempt so what can you do and how can you be effective? >> we're going to have to enforce so much of this in court and we're seeing signs already and this is positive that the courts understand the urgency here in the first case to get to the court involving the accountants, the house o

but here we have a blanket stonewall. this is an administration that says absolutely we are not going to cooperate. and in william barr, you have an attorney general that i think donald trump finally found -- you know, it's almost as if starting with jeff sessions, he's been auditioning attorney generals to be the attorney general he really wants who is not going to represent the people of the united states, not going to report to the people of the united states, but is going to be a lap dog for donald trump. >> same question to you. >> well, i was the chair of a subcommittee. i remember asking the immigration service about information about nazi war criminals in the war criminals in the united states. they could have said, oh, i'm not going to answer that question, but they did. turned out that there were nazi war criminals in the united states. turns out that they were doing nothing about it. turns out that congress and i worked on it and we brought a whole program to remove nazi war criminals to the united states. so p

this is kind of a tense feeling by the people there at the stonewall.he police had been harassing gay people for a while. arresting them for showing affection in public. at this point in time we have movements, counterculture, sexual revolutions happening. people are done with not being who they are. they are done with not being accepted. they are fed up. of on and off uprising, rioting, glass throwing, brick throwing. interactions with police. out of this moments springs forth what we call the modern lgbtq rights movement. theee here, the headline in mainstream media. you see how dismissive the mainstream publications are of gay people. -- it is really insulting and really derogatory. the mainstream media didn't cover this for a couple days. several days of fights and rioting going on before they are paying attention to what is going on. join us for the entire tour of the museum exhibit on stonewall. sunday night at 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern un-american american -- on artifacts. >> next on lectures in history. weber state professor brandon lytle

riots. >> the stonewall women actually prayed on the day workers who socialize their.ple could call their own. announcer: at 8:00 here about the watergate tapes 45 years later from jeff sheppard. >> if you listen to the tapes, the president said this and that , he told pat gray to do this, and you will not find any thing that says the president gave an order or acknowledged criminality. it's just not there. announcer: this weekend, on american history's -- tv on c-span3. explore president jane k phocas views and the environment and religion. this talk is part of a conference marking the completion of the 60 year project to assemble and edit his papers at the university of tennessee. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our session

>> i think the case gets stronger the more they stonewall the congress. >> house speaker pelosi believes otherwise and is ap posed to moving forward on impeachment, she also says her fellow democrats are with her on this. >> -- impeach the president from your caucus? >> no. >> that may be more a reflection of her political judgment than her assessment of the facts. whatever your view of the democrats of president trump or the prospects of impeaching another president, there are facts to contend with. the kind that have tripped up other presidents or ended up in articles of impeachment before driving one president out of office. president trump is facing a bigger body of damaging facts than most, no matter how much he down plays it which he does all the time. >> well, you can't impeach somebody that's doing a great job. that's the way i view it. we even talked about that today. i said why don't you use this for impeachment? nancy said we're not looking to impeach you. i said that's good, nancy, that's good. you know what? you don't impeach people when they're doing a good job. you don't i

the stonewalling that you mentioned including immigration and included every possible thing. you can't have witnesses and you can't have information about security clearances that were improper in the white house. that's the stonewalling that richard nixon would not have thought of. >>>. >> you have to comply with the subpoena and they will appeal and probably be stayed and might go all the way to the supreme court. what strikes me is people say we are in a constitutional crisis. we have a battle between articles one and two, right? the third branch of government is eventually going to be who resolves it. if the president ignores that, that strikes me as a crisis. >> the total end is if he sits in the white house, looks the doors and said that's it. we're done. >> there was a moment when the judge, when the supreme court orders nixon to hand over the tapes. there was an open question about whether they will comply. >> my memoire will include that fear of who will go into the white house and get them. >> you and which army? >> they have guns and guards and the army and secret

i think it is useful for her to say this is a cover-up when the white house is stonewalling. i don't think she changed her view. she doesn't want to put more moderate house democrats in a position where they have to vote on impeachment. i don't think that's changed. to laura's point, the theater. i don't think i have seen it in the rose garden, by the way. that you would come out with those kinds of placards. both sides get something out of that. except for anybody who wanted to see something done. >> it has all the spontaneity of date night. scheduled spontaneity. we are going to have a fight and then talk about the fight at exactly 11:15 with preprinted signs. then romance. >> you're giving us insight. >> i digress. >> this was inside the john berman household. >> no. >> abby, what's the feeling in the white house about these two court victories democratic lawmakers feel they have had? >> well, you know, you're going to hear the president attacking as he already attacked the judge who passed down the ruling in the accounting firm case. the rulings favor the democrats and th