circuit which is considered the most prestigious of all the appellate courts has ruled, the president has to give this over. all the other courts are going to be following this ruling. i think the president is going to have a really tough time continuing to resist in the courts. >> is that weeks or months then that this could be happening? give us a time frame. >> i mean, the president may try and appeal, but i think that the supreme court can be very quick in saying, no, thank you, we're not taking this case. and the ruling will stand. in which case they will have to comply. >> jeff mason, scott, meek astick around. we have more -- mika, stick around. wee more coming up. >>> first a terrifying scene in new orleans. take a look. the video captures a moment of when the construction site sees this structure collapse. and you can see the crane swaying as part of what was supposed to be a brand-new hard rock hotel. falling to the street. it is early on, and one person is dead. right now a search is underway for more than a dozen missing. we'll stay on top of this. we have more from the sc

the thing you see your da at trial but when it comes to the appellate court, that is an entirely different office. you never see them because you don't actually go to the appellate court to attend those hearings. i would not have recognized him because i had never seen him. for him, he did not recognize it, either. it is very hard to remember a name in a case. i think that is a big problem with the system now. we're just reduced to case numbers and names on a file. he did not realize it either, but whenever he put it together, he was devastated. he felt trouble. amy: so you talk with him about your case. he is the one who denied the appeal. >> the judge denied the appeal but he fought for that. amy: what did he say he understood and speaking to you that he did not understood when he looked at your case? >> he told me how he did not understand everything else that had happened. he did not know anything about kut. he did not know anything -- anything surrounding just that one moment. asspoke to me about how him a prosecutor, how he thought that was an issue. as a prosecutor, you are just giv

i lost, and then i lost at the appellate division, and then i won at the supreme court. [cheers and applause] pres. trump: right? and he knew that, but he said i lost. he was right. i lost. and then i lost again. but then i won. and we have the travel ban. but instead of saying he lost and then he lost at the appellate and then he won at the supreme court, he said, he lost. these are very dishonest people. do you understand that? very dishonest. [crowd booing] pres. trump: in the republican party, we believe those who seek to join our society must honor our history and love our people. [cheers and applause] pres. trump: democrats also support deadly sanctuary cities. deadly criminal aliens into the heart of your communities. and we are not letting it happen anymore. [cheers and applause] pres. trump: republicans believe american cities should be sanctuaries for americans, not for criminal aliens. [cheers and applause] pres. trump: my administration is taking historic action to secure the border. we have reduced illegal border crossings by over 60% since may. and we are b

to be able to get the tax returns but stay while the appellate court makes the ultimate decision. i think this case is important for two reasons. one, it might lead to prosecutors finally getting the tax records after all the litigation is done. the public wouldn't see it because they're part of a grand jury information. but prosecutors would get their hands on it. second, katy, this might ultimately lead whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime. we know that the department of justice policy is that he or she can be. the supreme court never decided that. maybe now it will. >> very interesting. david, let's just back up a beat though. remind us why the manhattan d.a. wanted these tax returns. >> he's looking into something that happened in 2016. these two women who alleged they had affairs with donald trump got hush money payments right before the 2016 election to buy their silence and later on, we've learned those payments were directed by michael cohen, trump's attorney at the time and that cohen actually paid starmy daniels, one of the two women the hush money pay

involved, at the appellate and of any effort to enforce subpoenas. the chief justice, if there is a trial, serves as the judge. guest: the constitution says and impeachment of the president, the chief justice is to be the presiding officer. to a large extent, the chief justice does not do very much in the proceedings. he convenes and makes provisional rulings, but in the end, the senate itself decides what the ruling will be and what evidence will be permitted. if there is an objection to the evidence, a chief justice might make a preliminary ruling but if the other side doesn't like it they printed the vote of the full senate. is telling bannon the new york post he expects the house to convene and impeachment vote in the next six weeks. if that were to happen, when could we see a trial in the senate? questionsre are some about whether or not the senate is obliged to have a trial at all, that has been discussed a lot in the media. i think the answer is the constitution certainly implies an obligation on the part of the senate to hold a trial. it is r

so this was a very lengthy and thorough opinion by the appellate panel in d.c. that said basically congress does have the authority and the context of the impeachment inquiry that they're conducting to request not directly from trump himself but to request from the accountants, from the third party that homelands his tax records, that they have to provide them to congress pursuant to a subpoena. it's really a case that gets to fundamental constitutional issues of the scope of congress's authority to subpoena information in the context of an inquiry, a and the two judges t ruled against the president's team that was trying to challenge this, they really pointed to the authority that congress has and says that the administration can't force congress to have to take a vote to be able to provide these documents. the president's team does have the choice to appeal it. they tend to be wanting to appeal things and wanting to push things as far as they can, so i wouldn't be surprised if he tries to push this up to the supreme court. >> carrie cordero, thank you so much.

and that's why both the trial judge and the appellate judge that heard the case today expressed incredulity that the president is essentially saying that he is above the law. that's not how we do things in the united states of america. >> i want to play for you a guy that had you still been at the justice department would have been your boss. he was in fact chief law enforcement officer for our country briefly. this is former acting attorney general whitaker on what is a crime. >> i'm a former prosecutor. and what i know is this is a perfect time for a preliminary hearing where you would say show us your evidence. what evidence of a crime do you have? the constitution, you know -- sort of abuse of power is not a crime. >> okay, counselor. question number two. abuse of power is not a crime constitutionally. true or false? >> well, it's not a crime in the sense that you can go to the united states criminal code and find that listed. but ask president andrew johnson. ask president richard nixon. abuse of power was included in both of their articles of impeachment. the standard, brian, is high

because even if you have a district court decision in favor the house, likely that would go to the appellate court and ultimately the supreme court and i don't think te want to wait around that long. >> and quickly, lonnie, you know john bolton. you served with him in the bush administration. what is he going to do? here is his deputy kupperman refusing to comply and bolton emerges in the narrative of a hero, objecting to what is being done with ukraine. what do you think? >> i haven't spoken to him but i imagine that he would want to set the record straight and certainly be clear what his role was or was not but his testimony is closely watched. this comes in the context of him wanting to tell his own story during the trump administration. we'll see. >>> breaking details of the baghdadi raid and we're getting our first look at the dog. look at that. good boy. stay with us. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ this is a jimmy john's sandwich, made with all-natural meats, hand-sliced veggies, and fresh-baked bread. and this is the new little john, available for only $3. they're almost identica

the question was whether or not the approval that the appellate court would accept this by want to copy him -- except this by 1:00 p.m. long-term, it is a losing argument, but long-term doesn't matter. the president's game at this point is to run out the clock as far into the future as possible, particularly deep into next year. is aically speaking, this positive develop and for him. theory, and in practice, presidents can't be charged. where does this whole process sit in that spectrum of what is an investigation, what is a criminal investigation? i'm slightly confused by where this kind of investigation into his tax records is positioned. the: part of this is process in the u.s. there's the justice department, which we saw through the mueller report. one aspect of the mueller report is the justice department policy that a sitting president cannot be charged criminally. however, at the state level, there's no charge that's being filed. this is just an investigation that is proceeding into a similar aspect that has already resulted in a guilty plea at the federal level. so this is an in

the first opportunity trump has to delay is to petition the appellate court for reconsideration on bonk. that means full court, and i bet his attorneyless do that. why? because it builds in yet another hearing that will take more time before ultimately it's appealed to the. see court. an enbanc rehearing means they were take all of the judges that sit on the d.c. federal circuit court of appeals and there may be as many as 14 or 15 of them and re-argue the case to all of those judges to see if all of those judges agree with the two out of the three judges that voted against trump in the first instance. assuming they go through that process that will take some time. if the entire court sitting enbaue enbanc against president trump his lawyers will undoubtedly appeal. the. see court doesn't have to accept it for review and say we see no significant constitutional interest involved that would warrant us actually hearing this case. i predict, however, this is one of those cases of first impression as we say. i suspect the supreme court would exercise its jurisdiction and, again, this whole

>> significant ruling and at the circuit level which is the appellate level 2-1. a significant employblow for th administration. >> they have seven days to file an appeal and one of the president's attorneys tells cnn, "we continue to believe this subpoena is not a legitimate exercise of congress' legislative authority". >> it's important the kocourt ruling says two centuries of precedent, case after case upholding congress' pouper to do what they've done to issue a subpoena as part of its legislative function. part of a legislative investigation. the opinion is strongly written citing all of these years of precedent saying congress does have this authority. the second point on the appeal is i think an important one which is that i would expect they will appeal first to the d.c. circuit so all the judges who sit on the decircuit and potentially to the supreme court to draw it out longer. >> on the supreme court point, i hear you on precedent, but, again you could look at it as, look at all the conservatives on the court, look at the trump appointments on the court

. >> the appellate court now says that congress can have access to about eight years of his tax returns and another court separately, his use of the national emergency is unconstitutional, he using that as justification to use money to build the wall. >> exactly. >> we'll talk about those a little later on, but yes, there are a lot of things that undermine his plan. melanie, david, thank you so much. appreciate it. >> thanks, fred. >> thank you. >>> still ahead, president trump looking for a new secretary of homeland security again. he'll be looking for his fifth now homeland security secretary. and this just after six months that this man was on the job in an interim role. what is at stake for u.s. national security, next. i wanted more that's why i've got the power of 1 2 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy. with trelegy and the power of 1 2 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't rep

for your run of the mill civil case, it could take years to run through the appel at courts. when you look at the aggressive policy to petition for rehearings and then appeal and appeal to the supreme court. again, these are all, in many courts, new issues of law that have not yet been addressed. the normal deference you see lower courts being afforded may not happen here. >> good to see you, guys. the two candidates who may have the most at stick in this week's presidential debate is up next on "up" with david gura. up" wit. with dodge power dollars buy any challenger, charger, or durango and get ten bucks cash allowance for every one horsepower. billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults l

court would have it quickly, and then you could also & for an expedited appeal to the appellate intermediate court and to the supreme court. but that process doesn't mean that the democrats or house in general couldn't impeach or issue articles of impeachment in the interim. they could always amend those or issue a superseding set of articles of impeachment just like a prosecutor could issue sup supersedings and indictments. we saw this with mueller probe. this doesn't necessarily slow down the house process. and mr. trump doesn't even control -- even white house witnesses, they can decide for themselves to actually comply with these dprlgs subpoenas and people in the private sector can decide to comply. so we don't have a situation like with white water where i worked where we have ken starr handing congress a whole basically tome of data and information. congress is doing this in realtime as we speak and the information is going to continue to come out, so just sort of obstructing these subpoenas i don't think is going to get the white house to put basically a lid on this process. >> let m

they lost once they appealed that decision and yesterday at the appellate court, unanimously it was decided -- it was decided that they lost their dismissal and now we're going to court so this case is full steam ahead. >> all right i know we've reached out to iac for a comment on this lawsuit as well and i think we're still awaiting a response on our end too. but i guess in terms of lessons learned from that situation, what would they be that you would share with other founders? >> i think you've got to be careful who you work with and particularly as you develop partners and investors you've got to make sure that their cultural values really match your own you know, at tinder it was really about being in service to the customer and waking up every day with a sense of purpose, where i think at our parent organization it was really about financial success and money. we just believe that when you put purpose ahead of profit, profit follows but that wasn't the sort of cultural value that we got exposed to while there. >> why a nonprofit this time around why not another tinder this is kind of

just to be clear, getting a stay is not a statement by the appellate court that you're going to win. yes, this is novel and arguably unique issues because it is the president, it hasn't been tested before and we're seeing something different. that's why you got the stay. you didn't get the stay because it's a win. >> hold it. there's multiple reasons why you get stays. including is there a likelihood of success on the merits, is there irreparable harm, is the decision raising or opinions or issues raised in the pef tigs f -- petition for a stay unique? >> they gave you unique issues. >> the district court judge wasn't going to give us another ten minutes. which i think is ridiculous. >> let's go slow. remember, you've got this highly developed legal mind. for the audience, they're not mostly lawyers. show us the taxes, the manhattan d.a. says show me the taxes, i'm looking at a state potential charge for how these wims weome paid by your lawyer, michael cohen, i want the taxes. this is about turning over your taxes, not just throwing you in jail. >> let me quote what the u.s. distric

the event the appellate court is asked to take up the same question. but just reading some of the headings alone, richard, there are sections that say and i quote, disclosure of these materials is necessary to avoid injustice. that's one of the sections. there's a section that it says, the house judiciary committee has a particularized need for these requested materials. and i won't go on to read them all but there's another section. the heading of which is, no house impeachment inquiry resolution is required. and we have heard the republicans complaining over and over again about how there needs to be this official vote on a resolution. the judge, chief judge barrel howell said wrong under the law. i've been saying all along, richard, the state of our judiciary is strong and judge howell just proved that once again with this really thorough, authoritative, 75-page order. >> one of those statements, not a long sentence, she says, doj is wrong. in three words, no more than that. natalie, if you look at the headline coming out of that particular opinion

for term limits, don't forget, justices used to retire like everybody else to a rotation off the appellate bench. >>> and while bernie sanders defended his health, joe biden and elizabeth warren were asked if their age would affect their presidency. >> last month, jimmy carter said he would not be able to undertake the duties of president at 80 years old. why do you think you can. >> because i've watched it, i've been engaged. look, one of the reasons i'm running is because of my age and experience. with it comes withdo s withdom. we need someone to take office who on day one can stand on the world stage, command the respect of world leaders like putin and our allies who knows what needs to be done. >> 40% of voters think a candidate under the age of 70 is more likely to defeat president trump. what do you say to them? >> well, i will say, that i will outwork, outorganize and outlast anyone. and that includes donald trump, mike pence or whoever the republicans get stuck with. >> all right. switching over to the topic of impeachment, george p. kent, the senior state department official with

to appeal to the appellate level. we don't know how far it will go beyond this. the basic theory of the administration's case is the president cannot be subject to criminal investigations, criminal inquiries while he is president. the thing is that the district attorney in new york doesn't buy that and he's not under the department of justice's control. you have this ruling from the federal district court judge where he was quite firm in rejecting this argument. i'm going to read one of the quotes for you, because this court finds such aspects of such a doctrine repugnant to the nation's governmental structure and constitutional value. it abstains from adjudicating this dispute and dismisses the president's suit. just to give a big overview, hallie, and i know you and i have talked about this a lot, but what the district attorney wants is documents to he can get the tax returns for president donald trump to figure out if any state laws were broken in the payment to stormy daniels, the trump administration eventually a

smarter move might be to look at term limits or having people cycle off from the appellate courts so that you would have a replenishment of perspective. i would also make sure that i appoint as president people who respect the precedent of roe v. wade, that we codify roe v. wade, and that we do away with things liked hyde amendment because you shouldn't only be able to have reproductive freedom if you have money. we have to think about people who do not, people who are poor, and we have to concern ourselves not only with reproductive freedom but reproductive justice and invest in the ability of every woman to be able to make a choice and to be able have to her health care needs met. >> senator warren, would you consider adding more justices to the supreme court to protect roe v. wade? your response? >> i think there are a number of options. i think as mayor buttigieg, there are many different ways. people are talking about different options, and i think we may have to talk about them. but on roe v. wade, can we just pause for a minute here? i lived in an america where abortion was il

risk is much larger than the -- >> giant on appeal, missouri case, twice that missouri court, the appellate court has ruled against the plaintiffs j&j has been winning more suits than it has been losing. but this is -- look, it is j&j putting out the release. i'm not going to tell you it is a buying opportunity i'm not going to say you got to step in front of this freight train. i'm not going to do that i hope that it is counterfeit from the point of view of j&j shareholders, and that they can't confirm cross contamination. i don't want to leave it as this is just open and shut. but this is not -- it kind of took my speech away. i've been working on it for the last 40 minutes. i tried eight -- i'm stunned. >> we're going to watch that dow component with as we said coke and american express start with coke. the beveragemaker has earnings that were in line with forecasts. revenue was up organic sales of five that does beat and raises the full year guide for revenue and operating income as for amex, be on the top and the bottom lines, strong consumer spending, forecast current quarter ref new

fact the appellate court is going to be looking at it and he said to me do you remember the last thing that jodi said before she got off the stand at her sentencing and i said yes i do and the thing she said was he was alive when i slashed his throat, and so she's admitted to killing him and this was a gruesome crime and we need to remind people, stabbed dozens of times, shot in the head, his throat was slit so deep that almost decapitated him and she admitted to doing it but said look i did it because of abuse. griff: this is unbelievable. thank you very much for joining us you led that case last time and you will this time stay tuned, thank you, sir. >> thanks buddy great talking with you. griff: it's one of senator elizabeth warren's go-to stories on the campaign trail, watch. >> i was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principal s did in those days. wished me luck and hired someone else for the job. griff: turns out that's not how she always told that story. we'll bring it to you, coming up i'm your cat. ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to dest

>> you already saw it in the poll last week, the mike appel in wisconsin, which is the biggest must win state in america. it showed that only 41% of the people in wisconsin support impeachment which is one of the worst numbers in the entire country. carl is right. i think the republicans -- i think the leadership on the republican side, you, so many others have done a great job in pushing back on the issue of this being totally procedurally flawed. the american people are getting it that this is a host job. i thought matt gaetz last week by charging into the star chamber was brilliant last week. people gave him a hard time about it when he sheds light on what was happening but what i would like to see, now the republicans have to start pushing back on the merits. they have done a good job on procedure but like a motion to dismiss, the white house counsel's office put out a three page paper and say look, if everything you say is true, if everything you said is true about president trump, this is why your case should be dismissed because it doesn't state a claim upon which relief can be g

i'm not sure i see the transformation at the circuit urt level, just on the preme court, of the 13 appellate courts come only one may flip. you he democratic districts staying democratic, but not a transformation from more liberal to a more conservative court. and his impact on future nominations may go down, because mocratic judges are not retiring. they are waiting. it is expected there will be fewer openings in the next for years. judy: maybe not trsformational? mark: it approaches transformational, judy. lisa's peace, she made the point that the base was fired up, republican voters. make no mistake, she is right. exit polls of 2016, when 23,000 voters were polled, they were asked the most important issue you were deciding on, and a full one out of five voters supreme court nominations and judicial nominations, and they broke for donald trump overwhelmingly, almost by three-to -- almost by 3-2. untraditional issues, all broke for hillary clinton. and david pointed out, his appointment have come from the federalist society, and the other factor is, they are playing actuarial charts. they a

of the 13 appellate courts only one may flip. you see democratic districts staying democratic, republicans getting redder, but no transformation from a more liberal court to a more c conservatiurt, and his impact on future nominations are going down because democratic waiting and hoping there's ae democrat. so there's expected relatively few openings in the coming years than previous. >> woodruff: so, mark, not transformational? transformational, judy. in lisa's piece, made the pointi that tue fired up republican voters. she's absolutely right. in the exit polls in 2016 when 23,000 actl voters were polled and they asked what the most important issue that you areci ng on, a full one out of five voters answered that the supreme court nomination and judicial nominations, an they broke for donald trump overwhelming donald trump overwhelmingly, almost 3 to 2. thoswho just consider it an important issue or not an important issue all vote for hirktd. hillary clinton. this was a key vote, pro made and delivered. as david pointed ou his a

involved, at the appellate and of any effort to enforce subpoenas. the chief justice, if there is a trial, serves as the judge. guest: the constitution says and impeachment of the president, the chief justice is to be the presiding officer. to a large extent, the chief justice does not do very much in the proceedings. he convenes and makes provisional rulings, but in the end, the senate itself decides what the ruling will be and what evidence will be permitted. if there is an objection to the evidence, a chief justice might make a preliminary ruling but if the other side doesn't like it they printed the vote of the full senate. is telling bannon the new york post he expects the house to convene and impeachment vote in the next six weeks. if that were to happen, when could we see a trial in the senate? questionsre are some about whether or not the senate is obliged to have a trial at all, that has been discussed a lot in the media. i think the answer is the constitution certainly implies an obligation on the part of the senate to hold a trial. it is r

so that fems have bedemocrats h fighting several months, second time they won in the district and appellate court this morning. we'll see how it moves forward. it doesn't look like democrats will actually see anything in terms of tax returns, tax documents, financial records anytime soon, because this fight will continue to play out in the courts here. brooke? >> jessica, thank you. speaking of the fights playing out in the courts, paul cowen is back with me. first on the point of tax returns what did white house counsel do? roll straight to the supreme court? >> two choices. roll directly to the supreme court. they might want to do that because of a 5-4 majority there. if they really want to stall things normally would go for what's called an on-bond hearing before the d.c. circuit. all judges in the circuit get together in a room and make a decision. but there's one thing that might cause them to hesitate. guess who the presiding judge of the d.c. circuit? >> who? >> merrick garland. >> right. >> the person appointed to the supreme court by president obama, but congress wouldn't give him

harvard law review, appellate lawyer at several levels, very successful and as we heard in the report from garrett in a few different states as solicitor general, on its surface very obviously eminently qualified. if there are legitimate questions whether he would treat everyone fairly under the law we should get specifics, not vague concerns. daymac one of the things his critics pointed out as he signed up to a brief in favor of the defense of marriage act in states, laws that were backing traditional marriage but you got to remember not that long ago president clinton signed into law, something harry reid, joe biden when he was a senator, a number of democrats voted for this but now folks are pointing to his defense of that saying he is disqualified and can't treat people fairly. he said i know what the supreme court has ruled and i will respect precedent. >> the factors and like has repeatedly argued against gay rights throughout his career. he has been against marriage on several occasions, he argued same-sex marriage would be bad for children, for families, he has worked with an

the request stems from a july appellate decision in a case dating to before the trump administration and unrelated to the terrace it has put on chinese goods. an arbitrator will handle the case. if the u.s. objects to the amount, china is proposing. in lebanon, a lawmaker has approved reforms that they hope will appease hundreds of thousand to have been protesting for days, calling on the government to resign. 0.6%udget has a deficit of with no new taxes. salaries on top officials will be cut in half, and the government will give millions of dollars to families living in poverty. dhe supreme court has hande republicans a victory. they threw out a lower court ruling that would have forced michigan legislative maps to be we -- redrawn to give republicans less of an advantage. the judges said they were so partisan they violated the constitution. global news 24 hours a day, on-air, and @tictoc on twitter, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries. i'm mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. much. thanks so coming up, the war against the islamic state has not just

circuit court, they lost 2 to 1 in an appellate case whether the president's financial firm have to hand over the tax returns to congress. they lost a district court case about a new role in which they want immigrants to have to certify there won't be a public charge meaning they can pay for their health insurance and lost another district court. is this normal for an administration to lose this much? >> can i go back to glen's point? >> please, yes. >> maga, making attorneys get attorneys. >> it's nice. i love it, i love it. >> it's been a blistering day for the trump administration, so there were three really important cases. the d.c. circuit case where the judges both ruled that the administration had to comply with the subpoenas from congress. the only person to dissent on that three judge panel was a newly appointed judge and a trump appointee, former member of the federalist society, not a surprise perhaps. >> took brett kavanaugh's seat. >> really took his seat. so they were very clear in their decision tat the president was not above the law. and one of the things really interest

obama made the list even though he appointed 55 judges -- paul: only 2 of 55? >> right. because it's mostly activists, professors, are liberal lawyers, and so this is arguably a vote of no confidence by some on the left in president obama's judicial picks. paul: wow. is that rule on dish washers going to make it? >> it's getting very positive response, so we can hope. paul: okay, all right. good, cool. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, tweet it to us at jes on --@je e r on today the president is stopping by his decision to withdraw our troops from syria.

appellates. -- signal the start of questioning. if you are familiar with oral arguments we re-air on c-span, often the justices jump right in oftentimes to question the lawyers on both sides. an apparent rule change for the attorneys involved. wheat ridge, colorado, mark on the republican line. caller: you know what? i am looking at this historically or over the period of time, not too historic. biden stopped the investigation by withholding money from the ukraine that they barely needed because they were in dire straits being run against by russia, taking over their territory and all this. biden stopped an investigation and trump is saying go ahead to the investigation again. i think it is a false premise to say it is because he is trying to help his election or something. that may help his election, but we are trying to get to the truth here. why is it alright for biden to withhold money from ukraine? so his son who was in rehab while he was employed several times, he had to go back for cocaine and crack addiction, was it? and he

t inthey said, in the travel ban. thest and then i lost at appellate division. and then i won at the supreme court. right? he knew that. he said i lost. he was right. i lost. and then i lost again. then i won. instead of saying he lost and then he won at the supreme court, he said, he lost. please are very dishonest people. you understand? very dishonest. party, weublican believe those who seek to join our society must honor our history and love our people. support deadly sanctuary cities. we are not letting it happen anymore. republicans believe american fores should be sanctuaries americans, not for criminal aliens. administration is taking historic action to secure the border. we have reduced illegal border crossings by over 60% since may. we are building the wall faster itn anyone ever anticipated could be built. this is a serious wall, you have all seen it. you think that was easy? i had congressocrat in fighting me. i had a lot of the rhinos fighting me. fightingevery democrat you. we took it from here and we took it from there and we took it from all over

obama made the list even though he appointed 55 judges -- paul: only 2 of 55? >> right. because it's mostly activists, professors, are liberal lawyers, and so this is arguably a vote of no confidence by some on the left in president obama's judicial picks. paul: wow. is that rule on dish washers going to make it? >> it's getting very positive response, so we can hope. paul: okay, all right. good, cool. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, tweet it to us at jes on --@je e r onxtraordin. madison, great to see you, have a great weekend. appreciate it. before we go, a quick programming note, you can catch me every weeknight at 5 p.m. eastern time hosting my own show, it's called bulls and bears right here on fox business. have a great weekend, everybody. here's maria bartiromo. ♪ ♪ >> from the fox studios in new york city, this is maria bartiromo's "wall street." maria: happy weekend, everybody. welcome to the program that analyzes the week that was and helps position you for the week ahead. coming up in just a few moments, my exclusive interview wit

obama made the list even though he appointed 55 judges -- paul: only 2 of 55? >> right. because it's mostly activists, professors, are liberal lawyers, and so this is arguably a vote of no confidence by some on the left in president obama's judicial picks. paul: wow. is that rule on dish washers going to make it? >> it's getting very positive response, so we can hope. paul: okay, all right. good, cool. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, tweet it to us at jes on --@je e r on fnc. hope to gee you right here -- see you right here next week. eric: president on the brink yet again -- brexit on the brink yet again, dealing yet another blow to prime minister boris johnson. but, you know, the british leader is vowing this saturday to press on, saying he will not ask the european union for another extension to a deadline that's coming up fast, so it is confusing and contentious in the british isles. i'm eric shawn, this is "america's news headquarters." arthel: and i'm arthel neville. british lawmakers gatt -- gathering on a saturday for the first time in 3

the president is exercising his appellate rights, as any other citizen. there's no reason to exclude that right from the president . when the case is finally litigated, you may get what you desired, you may not. i don't see the value in including it in this resolution that we're hearing today. it's almost as if we want to give our blessing to perhaps further the case against the courts. i don't think this is the purpose of the resolution. >> i appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. there is value here. and certainly, the continued pursuit of these documents is within the prerogative of the congress. that's why i would ask my colleagues to vote no on your amendment. >> just to echo the point. under article one, we can shape our impeachment investigation however we like. so, oversight is part of it. ways and means are part of it, because they have relevant evidence to bring forward. all of them will be sending evidence to the judiciary committee in potential high crimes and misdemeanors. i believe that the litigation relating to the president's taxes took pla

convincing an appellate court to issue a temporary hold on enforcing that ban. >>> a virginia doctor who illegally prescribed more than 500,000 doses of opioids has been sentenced to 40 years in prison. prosecutors say dr. joel smithers earned upwards of $700,000 from patients for those prescriptions including fentanyl and oxycodone. >>> now to an update of candidate bernie sanders, doing well after emergency surgery for an artery blockage. the hospital is known for its cardiac care and rehab center. sanders' wife says doctors are pleased with his progress. >> he's doing great. it's exciting that he's going to be out of here tomorrow or the next day, going to be home on the weekend. he's been spending the last couple of days just having a good time, talking to people, friends and family, so many well wishers that have called, his friends. >> sanders' campaign says he'll participate in the next debate that's on october 15th, but it's not clear when he plans to return to the campaign trail. >>> a fourth parent has been sentenced to federal prison time in the so-called varsity blues sca

i would simply point out that the process has been enjoyed and the president is exercising his appellate rights as is his right as would any other citizen have that right and there's no reason to exclude that right from the president when the case is finally litigated you may get what you desire and you may not, but i don't see the value of including it in this resolution that we're hearing today. it's almost as if we want to give our blessing to perhaps further the case against the president and the courts. i don't think that's the purpose of this resolution. >> and i appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. there is value here and certainly the continued pursuit of these documents is within the prerogative of the congress and that's why i would ask my colleagues to vote no on your amendment. >> mr. raskin? >> just to echo mr. pearlmander's point. under article one we can shape the impeachment investigation however we like and oversight is part of it and the ways and means are part of it because they have relevant evidence to bring forward and all of them will be sending evidence to the jud