>>> BREAKING NEWS ON CIVIL
>>> BREAKING NEWS ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE TRUMP JUSTICE
RIGHTS AND THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
DEPARTMENT. DONALD TRUMP’S PENDING NOMINEE
DONALD TRUMP’S PENDING NOMINEE TO BE THE NUMBER TWO DEPUTY
TO BE THE NUMBER TWO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AT DOJ WOULD
ATTORNEY GENERAL AT DOJ WOULD REPLACE ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS AT A
REPLACE ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS AT A CONFIRMATION HEARING TODAY AND
CONFIRMATION HEARING TODAY AND REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT
REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH THE LANDMARK
HE AGREES WITH THE LANDMARK SUPREME COURT RULINGS OF ROE V
SUPREME COURT RULINGS OF ROE V WADE WHICH ESTABLISHES THE RIGHT
WADE WHICH ESTABLISHES THE RIGHT TO CHOICE, AND ONE OF THE
TO CHOICE, AND ONE OF THE GREATEST RULINGS OF ALL TIME,
GREATEST RULINGS OF ALL TIME, WHICH ENDED RACIAL SEGREGATION
WHICH ENDED RACIAL SEGREGATION IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS.
IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS. >> WAS BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF
>> WAS BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION CORRECTLY DECIDED?
EDUCATION CORRECTLY DECIDED? >> SENATOR, I DON’T THINK IT
>> SENATOR, I DON’T THINK IT WOULD BE A PRODUCTIVE EXERCISE
WOULD BE A PRODUCTIVE EXERCISE FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THE MOST
FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THE MOST THOUSANDS OF SUPREME COURT
THOUSANDS OF SUPREME COURT OPINIONS AND SAY WHICH ONES ARE
OPINIONS AND SAY WHICH ONES ARE RIGHT AND WHICH ONES ARE WRONG.
RIGHT AND WHICH ONES ARE WRONG. >> THESE ARE PRETTY SIMPLE
>> THESE ARE PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. THEY’RE ANSWERABLE BY YES OR NO.
THEY’RE ANSWERABLE BY YES OR NO. MOST LAWYERS, I SUSPECT, WOULD
MOST LAWYERS, I SUSPECT, WOULD AGREE BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE
AGREE BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW THAT THESE TWO CASES,
LAW THAT THESE TWO CASES, PILLARS OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE,
PILLARS OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE, WERE CORRECTLY DECIDED BY THE
WERE CORRECTLY DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. >> I HAVE VIEWS ABOUT LOTS OF
>> I HAVE VIEWS ABOUT LOTS OF SUPREME COURT CASES, BUT I’M NOT
SUPREME COURT CASES, BUT I’M NOT BEING NOMINATED FOR THIS
BEING NOMINATED FOR THIS POSITION TO BE THE SOLICITOR
POSITION TO BE THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, NOR A JUDGE AND I THINK
GENERAL, NOR A JUDGE AND I THINK IN THIS CONTEXT, THE POINT I’M
IN THIS CONTEXT, THE POINT I’M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WHATEVER
TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WHATEVER THE LAW IS, WHETHER IT IS A
THE LAW IS, WHETHER IT IS A DECISION I WOULD FAVOR OR
DECISION I WOULD FAVOR OR DISFAVOR, I SEE IT AS THE ROLE
DISFAVOR, I SEE IT AS THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO UPHOLD THE LAW SUCH AS IT IS,
UPHOLD THE LAW SUCH AS IT IS, UNLESS CONGRESS OR THE COURT
UNLESS CONGRESS OR THE COURT CHANGE IT.
CHANGE IT. >> YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF THE
>> YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT’S ARE MADE TO THE
ARGUMENT THAT’S ARE MADE TO THE SUPREME COURT.
SUPREME COURT. YOU WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO
YOU WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO SUGGEST THAT THE SOLICITOR
SUGGEST THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARGUE THAT ROE V. WADE
GENERAL ARGUE THAT ROE V. WADE WOULD BE OVERRULED.
WOULD BE OVERRULED. THAT’S WHY I’M ASKING YOU THIS
THAT’S WHY I’M ASKING YOU THIS QUESTION.
QUESTION. SAME WITH BROWN VERSUS
SAME WITH BROWN VERSUS EDUCATION.
EDUCATION. WE’RE ENTITLED TO KNOW YOUR
WE’RE ENTITLED TO KNOW YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS.
PERSONAL VIEWS. >> AN IMPORTANT MOMENT AT THAT
>> AN IMPORTANT MOMENT AT THAT HEARING.
HEARING. I AM JOINED BY PHONE BY A PERSON
I AM JOINED BY PHONE BY A PERSON WHO RAN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
WHO RAN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION UNDER THE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. I’M ALSO JOENLD BY GLENN
I’M ALSO JOENLD BY GLENN KIRSHNER.
KIRSHNER. >> IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
>> IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. BROWN VERSUS EDUCATION IS ONE OF
BROWN VERSUS EDUCATION IS ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS
THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS IN OUR HISTORY.
IN OUR HISTORY. IT IS SETTLED LAW AND HAS BEEN
IT IS SETTLED LAW AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1954.
SINCE 1954. THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON WHY
THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON WHY ANY NOMINEE TO ANY POSITION IN
ANY NOMINEE TO ANY POSITION IN OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE UNWILLING TO SAY THAT.
UNWILLING TO SAY THAT. IN MY MIND, IF YOU CAN’T AGREE
IN MY MIND, IF YOU CAN’T AGREE THAT BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF
THAT BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED,
EDUCATION WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED, YOU DON’T BELONG IN THE JUSTICE
YOU DON’T BELONG IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
DEPARTMENT. AS A LINE ATTORNEY OR A DEPUTY
AS A LINE ATTORNEY OR A DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. ONE OF THE PRIMARY ROLES IS TO
ONE OF THE PRIMARY ROLES IS TO PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS.
PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS. IF ANY NOMINEE IS UNWILLING TO
IF ANY NOMINEE IS UNWILLING TO SETTLE THAT AS SETTLED LAW, THEY
SETTLE THAT AS SETTLED LAW, THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE THE JOB.
SHOULDN’T HAVE THE JOB. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ARGUMENT
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT BASICALLY, THIS
MADE THAT BASICALLY, THIS NOMINEE DOESN’T WANT TO BE DRAWN
NOMINEE DOESN’T WANT TO BE DRAWN OUT UNDER OATH ON EVERY CASE OUT
OUT UNDER OATH ON EVERY CASE OUT THERE, WHAT MAKES THIS CASE SO
THERE, WHAT MAKES THIS CASE SO OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT?
OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT? >> AS YOU SAID, THIS IS A
>> AS YOU SAID, THIS IS A CANNONICAL CASE IN OUR NATION’S
CANNONICAL CASE IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY.
HISTORY. THE QUESTION IS, DOES ROSEN
THE QUESTION IS, DOES ROSEN REALLY BELIEVE THE LEGALITY OF
REALLY BELIEVE THE LEGALITY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS GOING
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS GOING TO COME UP IN HIS TENURE AS
TO COME UP IN HIS TENURE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?
ATTORNEY GENERAL? THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, WHAT
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE JUSTICE
DOES IT MEAN FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S REALLY CRUCIAL ROLE
DEPARTMENT’S REALLY CRUCIAL ROLE IN ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS THAT
IN ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS THAT HE ISN’T BIG TO COMMIT
HE ISN’T BIG TO COMMIT UNEQUIVOCALLY TO THE FACT THIS
UNEQUIVOCALLY TO THE FACT THIS CASE THAT ENDED LEGAL APARTHEID
CASE THAT ENDED LEGAL APARTHEID IN OUR COUNTRY, WAS CORRECTLY
IN OUR COUNTRY, WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED?
DECIDED? YOU EVEN HAD JUSTICES, NOMINEES,
YOU EVEN HAD JUSTICES, NOMINEES, JOICH GORSUCH THAT THAT BROWN
JOICH GORSUCH THAT THAT BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS A
VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS A DECISION.
DECISION. EVEN BRET KAVANAUGH.
EVEN BRET KAVANAUGH. THE SINGLE GREATEST MOMENT IN
THE SINGLE GREATEST MOMENT IN SUPREME COURT HISTORY.
SUPREME COURT HISTORY. THIS IS A GUY WHO HAS BEEN
THIS IS A GUY WHO HAS BEEN NOMINATED TO BE THE NUMBER TWO
NOMINATED TO BE THE NUMBER TWO IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OVERSEEING CIVIL RIGHTS
OVERSEEING CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT AND MUCH MORE.
ENFORCEMENT AND MUCH MORE. AND I JUST THINK IT IS
AND I JUST THINK IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
UNACCEPTABLE. >> GLENN, YOUR VIEW OF THIS.
>> GLENN, YOUR VIEW OF THIS. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR BONITA WHO HAS BEEN SO CENTRAL
BONITA WHO HAS BEEN SO CENTRAL AT THIS INTERSECTION.
AT THIS INTERSECTION. HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEAL
HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEAL WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE DOJ.
WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE DOJ. >> WE’RE USED TO JUDICIAL
>> WE’RE USED TO JUDICIAL NOMINEES DODGING QUESTIONS ABOUT
NOMINEES DODGING QUESTIONS ABOUT CASES THAT MAY COME BEFORE THEM
CASES THAT MAY COME BEFORE THEM IN THE FUTURE.
IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY
THIS IS GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY IF CONFIRMED, ONE OF THE TOP LAW
IF CONFIRMED, ONE OF THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE COUNTRY.
COUNTRY. THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. FOR HIM TO SORT OF LEAVE A
FOR HIM TO SORT OF LEAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DAYLIGHT FOR THE
LITTLE BIT OF DAYLIGHT FOR THE NOTION THAT PLESSI VERSUS
NOTION THAT PLESSI VERSUS FERGUSON THAT SAID SEPARATE BUT
FERGUSON THAT SAID SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.
EQUAL. GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED RACIAL
GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED RACIAL SEGREGATION IS OKAY.
SEGREGATION IS OKAY. MAYBE IT IS STILL IN PLAY.
MAYBE IT IS STILL IN PLAY. BECAUSE BROWN VERSUS EDUCATION
BECAUSE BROWN VERSUS EDUCATION WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT PUT A NAIL
WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT PUT A NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE HORRIFIC
IN THE COFFIN OF THE HORRIFIC SEPARATE BUT EVENING BALANCE
SEPARATE BUT EVENING BALANCE DOCTRINE, WHAT KIND OF A SIGNAL
DOCTRINE, WHAT KIND OF A SIGNAL DOES THAT SEND TO HAVE SOMEBODY
DOES THAT SEND TO HAVE SOMEBODY LIKE THIS BE INVOLVED IN WEIGHTY
LIKE THIS BE INVOLVED IN WEIGHTY DECISIONS CONCERNING THE SORT
DECISIONS CONCERNING THE SORT OF, THE FAIRNESS, AND THE
OF, THE FAIRNESS, AND THE EQUALITY WITH WHICH OUR LAWS ARE
EQUALITY WITH WHICH OUR LAWS ARE CARRIED OUT.
CARRIED OUT. I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME ASK
I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME ASK HER.
HER. WHEN YOU WERE HEADING UP THE
WHEN YOU WERE HEADING UP THE CIVIL RIGHTS QUESTION.
CIVIL RIGHTS QUESTION. IF YOU SAW SOMEONE LIKE THIS
IF YOU SAW SOMEONE LIKE THIS WITH THIS MINDSET, HOW DO YOU
WITH THIS MINDSET, HOW DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED
THINK THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED THE MORALE OF THELE, MANY
THE MORALE OF THELE, MANY ATTORNEYS THAT YOU SUPERVISED
ATTORNEYS THAT YOU SUPERVISED WHO WERE WORKING THE CIVIL
WHO WERE WORKING THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE?
RIGHTS CASE? >> LOOK, THE MORALE IS REALLY
>> LOOK, THE MORALE IS REALLY LOW AT THE MOMENT.
LOW AT THE MOMENT. JEFF SESSIONS DIDN’T DO MUCH TO
JEFF SESSIONS DIDN’T DO MUCH TO HELP MORALE AND HAD DONE SO MUCH
HELP MORALE AND HAD DONE SO MUCH TO ALREADY GUT CIVIL RIGHTS
TO ALREADY GUT CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT.
ENFORCEMENT. BUT THIS KIND OF THING IS
BUT THIS KIND OF THING IS BIGGER.
BIGGER. IT IS REALLY SIGNALING TO THE
IT IS REALLY SIGNALING TO THE COUNTRY THE DEGREE TO WHICH
COUNTRY THE DEGREE TO WHICH THESE KINDS OF REACTIONS AND
THESE KINDS OF REACTIONS AND NONSTATEMENTS ARE BECOMING
NONSTATEMENTS ARE BECOMING ACCEPTABLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT
ACCEPTABLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
OFFICIALS. WE HAVE CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALL
WE HAVE CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALL OF US HAD TO RECKON WITH SEEING
OF US HAD TO RECKON WITH SEEING A PRESIDENT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFUSE
A PRESIDENT UNEQUIVOCALLY REFUSE TO DENOUNCE THEM MARCHING IN HIS
TO DENOUNCE THEM MARCHING IN HIS NAME.
NAME. TO NOW HAVE INCREASINGLY
TO NOW HAVE INCREASINGLY JUDICIAL NOMINEE AFTER JUDICIAL
JUDICIAL NOMINEE AFTER JUDICIAL NOMINEE.
NOMINEE. NOW IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TO
NOW IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS TASKED WITH
HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS TASKED WITH OVERSEEING THE ENFORCEMENT OF
OVERSEEING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, TRY TO BE
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, TRY TO BE SMART AND COY WITH ONE OF THE
SMART AND COY WITH ONE OF THE MOST FOUNDATIONAL DECISIONS TO
MOST FOUNDATIONAL DECISIONS TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
OUR DEMOCRACY. IT IS DEEPLY, IT IS JUST
IT IS DEEPLY, IT IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE AND DEEPLY
UNACCEPTABLE AND DEEPLY DEMORALIZING.
DEMORALIZING. I’M SURE THE LAWYERS IN THE
I’M SURE THE LAWYERS IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION ARE ASKING
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION ARE ASKING THEMSELVES, WHAT IS THE JUSTICE
THEMSELVES, WHAT IS THE JUSTICE PART OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
PART OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MEAN TO HAVE A NOMINEE ACTUALLY,
MEAN TO HAVE A NOMINEE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, GIVE THAT CLIMBED OF
YOU KNOW, GIVE THAT CLIMBED OF TESTIMONY.
TESTIMONY. AND REMEMBER HE REFUSED TO SAY
AND REMEMBER HE REFUSED TO SAY WHERE BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP
WHERE BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION. >> THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER HITS
>> THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD.
THE ROAD. WE HEARD IT IN THE HEARING.
WE HEARD IT IN THE HEARING. THE SENATOR SAYING, LOOK, THIS
THE SENATOR SAYING, LOOK, THIS IS THE PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE
IS THE PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE THE DECISIONS MADE.
THE DECISIONS MADE. THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS IN ALL
THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS BUT LINE BY LINE,
SORTS OF WAYS BUT LINE BY LINE, CASE BY CASE, THE HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE BY CASE, THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, A LOT OF
OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, A LOT OF THIS IS TAKEN OUT IN THE TRUMP
THIS IS TAKEN OUT IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION. THE VOTES STILL PENDING AND
THE VOTES STILL PENDING AND YOU’RE SO EXPERIENCED ON THIS.
YOU’RE SO EXPERIENCED ON THIS. THANKS FOR HOPPING ON THE PHONE
THANKS FOR HOPPING ON THE PHONE WITH US.
WITH US. >> THANK YOU FOR TALKING ABOUT
>> THANK YOU FOR TALKING ABOUT IT.
IT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >>> GLENN STAYS WITH ME.
>>> GLENN STAYS WITH ME. I HAVE BREAKING NEWS IN OUR HOUR
I HAVE BREAKING NEWS IN OUR HOUR AS SOMETIMES HAPPENS.
AS SOMETIMES HAPPENS. I WANT TO YOU SPEAK TO THIS.
I WANT TO YOU SPEAK TO THIS. I’M HOLDING A BRAND NEW LETTER
I’M HOLDING A BRAND NEW LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. THEY ARE TRYING TO BUY TIME,
THEY ARE TRYING TO BUY TIME, PUNTING ON THE REQUEST FOR
PUNTING ON THE REQUEST FOR DONALD TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS.
DONALD TRUMP’S TAX RETURNS. AN ISSUE THAT HAS DOGGED TRUMP’S
AN ISSUE THAT HAS DOGGED TRUMP’S CANDIDACY FROM THE MOMENT HE
CANDIDACY FROM THE MOMENT HE ANNOUNCED FOR PRESIDENT.
ANNOUNCED FOR PRESIDENT. SECRETARY MNUCHIN SAYS I WRITE
SECRETARY MNUCHIN SAYS I WRITE TO IN RESPONSE TO YOUR APRIL 3
TO IN RESPONSE TO YOUR APRIL 3 LETTER.
LETTER. THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT WILL NOT
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLETE ITS REVIEW
BE ABLE TO COMPLETE ITS REVIEW OF YOUR REQUEST BY THAT DATE.
OF YOUR REQUEST BY THAT DATE. AND IT GOES ON, GLENN, TO
AND IT GOES ON, GLENN, TO OUTLINE WHY THIS IS ALLEGEDLY AN
OUTLINE WHY THIS IS ALLEGEDLY AN EXTRAORDINARY REQUEST.
EXTRAORDINARY REQUEST. I SUPPOSE TO SET UP WHAT MIGHT
I SUPPOSE TO SET UP WHAT MIGHT BE A LEGAL CLASH.
BE A LEGAL CLASH. YOUR VIEW OF THIS NEXT STEP IN
YOUR VIEW OF THIS NEXT STEP IN THIS FIGHT.
THIS FIGHT. >> YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY
>> YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY’RE NOT BIG TO
EVIDENCE THAT THEY’RE NOT BIG TO SUPPRESS THE STATUTE COULDN’T BE
SUPPRESS THE STATUTE COULDN’T BE CLEARER.
CLEARER. IT SAYS IF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
IT SAYS IF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE, WAYS, AND MEANS COMMITTEE
HOUSE, WAYS, AND MEANS COMMITTEE IN WRITING, MAKES A REQUEST FOR
IN WRITING, MAKES A REQUEST FOR THE TAX RETURN OF ANY PERSON
THE TAX RETURN OF ANY PERSON THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. IT MUST BE GIVEN OVER.
IT MUST BE GIVEN OVER. THIS SEEMS TO BE NOTHING MORE
THIS SEEMS TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER DELAY TACTIC.
THAN ANOTHER DELAY TACTIC. YOU KNOW, ALL THE PEOPLE ARE
YOU KNOW, ALL THE PEOPLE ARE HOOK FOR, ALL THE CONGRESS IS
HOOK FOR, ALL THE CONGRESS IS LOOKING FOR.
LOOKING FOR. IS INFORMATION, TRUTHFUL
IS INFORMATION, TRUTHFUL INFORMATION, ACCURATE
INFORMATION, ACCURATE INFORMATION, WHAT IS IN THE
INFORMATION, WHAT IS IN THE PRESIDENT’S TAX RETURNS?
PRESIDENT’S TAX RETURNS? WHAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT?
WHAT IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT? WHAT ARE THE FACTS THAT WILL
WHAT ARE THE FACTS THAT WILL GUIDE OUR DECISIONS.
GUIDE OUR DECISIONS. WE HAVE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR
WE HAVE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SAYING TRUST ME, DON’T WORRY
SAYING TRUST ME, DON’T WORRY ABOUT THE FACTS.
ABOUT THE FACTS. LET ME EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT
LET ME EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT ON AS MANY FRONTS AS I CAN
ON AS MANY FRONTS AS I CAN WITHOUT SHARING THE EVIDENCE
WITHOUT SHARING THE EVIDENCE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR THE
WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR THE CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. AND HERE WE GO AGAIN.
AND HERE WE GO AGAIN. >> AND INTERESTINGLY, THIS TAX
>> AND INTERESTINGLY, THIS TAX LETTER WHICH IS BREAKING.
LETTER WHICH IS BREAKING. IT IS NOT A HARD NO, EITHER.
IT IS NOT A HARD NO, EITHER. IF THEY WANT MORE TIME, TO GUARD
