weinberger.w was that this man, this mark stern, loved her. >> from the first day he was a really good man with me. with me, my family, with my friends, was a good man. for me was a good man. >> in the spring of 2009, monica says she and mark took a grueling bike trip through alpine passes to switzerland. monica says it was in a swiss village of grindelwald at the foot of famed mount iger that he told her he wanted to spend one night on the mountain alone. >> the next morning i bring my cycle and up the mountain to him. he come close to me with a big smile, screaming thank you, monica, thank you, monica, thank you, monica. why, mark? because i passed the best night of my life. >> after returning to courmayeur, monica says mark stern told her he had been inspired by that night on the mountain and wanted to spend a whole year at a high altitude in a tent alone. >> he wanted to write a book, how to survive above -- >> 6,000 feet. >> exactly. for an entire year. >> that september monica says mark set

weinberger. but that came to an abrupt end when he vanished from her life without a note or an explanation. why had the doctor abandoned the woman he professed to love? could his disappearance somehow be tied to his multimillion dollar medical practice? the picturesque greek isles where dr. mark weinberger deserted his wife in september, 2004, are half a world away from the rust belt region of northwest indiana where he made his fortune. mark weinberger was not from indiana. he didn't grow up on hoop dreams or the hope of a union job. in fact, he didn't even live here. according to this pulitzer prize winning writer who consulted with "dateline" on this story mark weinberger was a nerdy kid from a wealthy new york suburb driven by sibling rivalry to out shine his brothers. >> mark figured the way to be the apple of my parents' eye is to do very well in school. he did very well in scarsdale high, went to the university of pennsylvania, then went to ucla medical school where he thrived. >> he could

weinberger's diagnosis? all problems he told phyllis that could be cured with surgery. >> did your sister get better after the surgery? >> no. she got progressively worse after the surgery. >> by thanksgiving, just six weeks after her surgery with weinberger, phyllis barnes was gasping for breath. repeated follow-up visits to weinberger's clinic brought no relief. her family feared she might have pneumonia. >> i had to call the ambulance one night to have her taken to the emergency room because she couldn't breathe. >> shawn barnes, phyllis' daughter, was only 16 at the time. >> she did end up pulling through, but it was a hard time to get through. >> within days of leaving the emergency room, phyllis was again gasping for breath. so in december 2001 she turned to another ear nose and throat doctor for relief. the new doctor immediately suspected something serious. her breathing was ragged and a large lump was visible on the side of her neck. >> he called me on my cell phone and he said he had just seen my s

london,ncine lacqua in tom keene in new york, and carl weinberg with us.niversity , because one of my great staff got the parchment from columbia university over the weekend, so i got a bowtie. here is a columbia university chart, the two year yield looks a lot like the german yield, a chart of disinflation. do we disinflation, or need to worry about the dallas trim cpi as chairman powell would like? carl: inflation is low and slow and steady. we are not in any danger of deflation, i believe. we are at a historic low in inflation, and bond yields are appropriate low. that due to to all the retirees? what do the fossils do? do they need to save? what do they do? carl: they live a little bit less large than they thought. certainly imbalance between people's retirement expectations and what they realize. at some point, interest rates will go up and inflation will go up. the fed will be tightening they higher degree of intensity because there will be clear signs it is needed. it is not at this moment. we are at a transition point, but this is not forever. the

bush fired caspar weinberger on the eve of his trial for the purposes of ending there and controversy geisha and just finally when the world reports on this extradition hearing in a court and off in the studio tomorrow do you think the name joe mccarthy is a name that can be bandied around in europe with respect to the possible 175 year sentence facing june innocent no i don't think so i think mccarthyism is is quite different mccarthyism is going after people for their beliefs not for what they've done look there's there is it's a very complex case against a son to the 1st indictment is a lot legally firmer than the 2nd indictment but i think i would reserve the word mccarthyism for more serious violations of individual rights that are really uncontroversial but do you think it could be reserved then against a foreign visitor don't trump because big. noises being made by the senate intelligence committee and ultram himself tweeting against them about the use of congressional committees against the executive and the use of congressional committees does raise questions the specter of m

pardoned weinberger on the eve of the iran-contra trial. you cannot obstruct justice if you engage in a constitutionally authorized act. as far as obstruction is concerned, when the framers of our constitution debated the impeachment criteria, they rejected ideas of corruption and demanded for a president to be preached, he had to be guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. steyer can point to specific high crimes and misdemeanors, they are going to fall into the clinton trap. clinton was wrongly in peace. clinton may have committed a crime, but it was not a high crime. what president trump may have done was maybe high, but it was not a crime. it should be difficult to prosecute somebody for a crime. unfortunately, we have laws like obstruction of justice that are loose and open ended. every civil libertarian should be concerned about open-ended laws that are capable of being used in a discretionary way against people you don't like. i asked the viewers to ask yourself, if hillary clinton were president, and it cam

the best president when barr was attorney general for george hw bush when he hardens caspar weinbergert the special prosecutor said he did that to obstruct the investigation. he did that to prevent the culmination of the iran contra investigation but nobody suggested a president can obstruct justice by pardoning. the president can obstruct justice by firing, he is right and mueller is wrong, the president did not obstruct justice. >> the house has called on robert mueller to testify before may 23rd. in the senate, chuck schumer is demanding judiciary chair lindsey graham do the same. thousands of protesters in the streets of venezuela for a third day as the crisis intensifies. opposition leader juan guaido speaking out for the first time since calling for an uprising against nicholas maduro's regime. a new warning from the us. >> juan guaido tells us this will be over soon but his call for a military uprising didn't pan out last night. thousands of venezuelans filled the streets of caracas overnight heating his call but security forces remain loyal to nicholas maduro. the venezuelan mi

historically in the best precedent comes when barr was attorney general when he pardoned caspar weinberger on the eve of his trial and the special prosecutor said he did that to obstruct the investigation. he did that to prevent the culmination of the iran-contra investigation and yet, nobody suggested that a president can obstruct justice by pardoning. and so i think after you put aside about did he or didn't he mislead, or didn't he misstate something, bottom line is didn't obstruct justice. we know what the thrust of it i is. it's a moot issue. you said something one day and now, you are saying something a little different on another day. but it has nothing to do with the substance. and read the letter. i don't think there was. the conclusions that barr started were absolutely correct. they were disappointed that there wasn't more nuance or content. but now everybody has that's a judge for yourself. >> tucker: so you don't think anything has changed after today's hearing? >> i don't think anything changes. and i think barr put it right, his job is over. that's it. but the justice depart

historically in the best precedent comes when barr was attorney general when he pardoned caspar weinbergern the eve of his trial and the special prosecutor said he did that to obstruct the investigation. he did that to prevent the culmination of the iran-contra investigation and yet, nobody suggested that a president can obstruct justice by pardoning. the president can't obstruct justice by firing and after you put aside all of the stuff or did he or didn't he mislead, did he or didn't he misstate something, the bottom line is he is right and mueller is wrong, the president did not obstruct justice. >> tucker: since we have the mueller report, subsequently sy come up much of it is redacted, not too much -- why is barr's letter relevant in the first place. >> it's not. it's a moot issue. you said something one day and now, you are saying something a little different on another day. but it has nothing to do with the substance. let every american read the mueller report and read my introduction and read the letter and tohe see if you think if the was misstatement, i don't think there was. the

profits and some economists think could even force the hands of central banks around the world karl weinberger said it's a lose-lose proposition. our assessment is that u.s. consumers, voters, have more to lose than the chinese who can and do source everything from food to technology elsewhere ubs estimating full blown tariffs threatened by the president could shave 45 basis points off global growth and a bad hit to u.s. earnings how bad a hit? here's their estimate. if tariffs rise from 10% to 25%, they see a 2% hit point to s&p earnings but if there's a 25% slap of tariffs on all chinese goods imported to the u.s., that's another 7 percentage point by ubs economist with a full blown trade war or not can have a decisive impact on the fed and other central banks next move. jeffreys writes, if there is a breakthrough in the trade negotiations, a fed rate hike as soon as 2019 back on the table but the trade war between china and u.s. could force central banks into easing that is contingent upon how domestic economies fare in heightened global trade uncertainties here's what we know. producing tr

>> in the walsh instance bush pardoned weinberger prior to trial.cise of the article two authority of the president. walsh threw a temper tantrum over it, i don't literally mean that, but he was upset by it and did not proceed as that was an obstruction because it was an exercise -- >> that was his discretion at the time and we don't have one. we don't have spot on precedent on this. it's about discretion and guidance from the doj. >> then why did he mention the closest precedent. >> he can't prosecute the man. >> it wasn't applicable. >> i have to leave it there. >> and lawrence was in the same position. >> you're offering it up as food for thought and that's fine but if you want to say it didn't read like a prosecutor's report, it wasn't a law review article either. okay? let's just leave it there. he didn't need to provide precedent when he couldn't indict the president. >> he was writing a brief and left out the most important case. >> thank you to both of you. anyway, this is going to continue especially now. when you don't play it straight and

think the last time was probably during iran contra when the staff lawyers examined ed knees and weinberge it happened in the senate with dr. ford. the fact is the house rules permit this, the committee decides how we will examine witnesses and how we will collect evidence. a witness has no right to dictate to the congress how they are going to be examined or how we are going to collect evidence. >> chris: let's go back. in terms of the direct answer to my question, which was the last time a house committee did this, it was iran contra in 1987, -- >> congressman cicilline: i stand corrected. there were a number of witnesses that were examined during the clinton email inquiry. >> chris: cabinet secretaries? >> congressman cicilline: i don't know if there were cabinet secretaries, certainly director of the fbi and others but the fact is they are all witnesses whether there cabinet secretaries or not. >> chris: i can tell you, we asked the house judiciary committee, they say the last time that a house committee demanded that staff lawyers talk to a cabinet secretary was 1987 during iran cont

the reason we thought this was important, it was done by casper weinberg and ed nease, so it's happened before. the reason we thought it was useful is because this is a witness that evades answering questions. you need additional time to follow up. and rather than doing this five minutes back and forth, we thought in addition to that, we ought to have staff attorneys, half an hour from the republicans, half an hour for the democrats, to drill down a little more deeply, be sure that we get the evidence and the information we need to make informed judgments about our work. the real question is, what is the attorney general afraid of? why is he unwilling to be questioned by a staff lawyer? and it sort of raises questions, not about why do we want to collect evidence this way, but why is he afraid to come in and answer questions? i'm sure it's because he mischaracterized the findings in the report. i'm sure it's because he had a press conference at 9:30 to try to spin the report before it was released. he also said he didn't know what mr. mueller thought about his conclusions. when we now k