aemember reading he nemesis. how did he take -- tim: john barrett. you should know that any given time, there were two constables, and there were a bunch of political parties at that time at any given election. it was an elected position. there may 3, four, or five running, but two pupil were chosen as accountable -- the two people were chosen as a constable. he was the same as john burns. i think sometimes the town constable seems to be like a job they give someone that they figure has earned it, but they don't have another means of income, so become comfortable. john barrett, his daughter was king, whoseilliam sign without the bullet hole and it. john berry has issues of his own. hadtimes -- john barrett issues of his own. but barrett and burns did not like each other. and he is the one who was playing jokes on burns a lot. reaction afteris the civil war about burns and his notoriety. i bet you that he is very jealous. but yes, good, john barrett is another guy. and there are a lot of those with purchase my book for descendents of john barrett. i have accounts that talked about him a

gotten the job in the first place. so let's talk about it june john barrett is a law professor at st. john's university and john dean, formernism won white house counsel. perfect gentlemen to talk about and no hard names because they're both johns. this is for john barrett. good evening to both of you. let's start with the new reporting i just talked about. before sessions resigned at least one justice official said that it may not be constitutional or they had questions about his appointment. what's your reaction to that? >> it's a very serious question. he is the principal law enforcement officer acting as a cabinet official. and he's never been for their job or any current job that he holds confirmed by the senate. under the appointments clause, there's a serious constitutional quell involved. the d.c. circuit in a federal grand jury case involving the mueller investigation has just called for supplemental briefing on that question. a lot of smart constitutional lawyers think that there is a real serious doubt that he's lawfully in office. >> i want to read this because trump just

. sometimes john barrett who was a the same as kind of john burns, well known individual in the town. the town constable seems to be like a job that they give someone that they figure it but they don't oflly have another means income. john barrett, his daughter was married to william king who a bullet hole. john barrett seem to have issues own.s other times he's on the other side of the law. and burns didn't like each other. he's the one who's playing jokes a lot.s unfortunately, we don't have his civil warfter the about burns and his notoriety. very jealous. john barrett is another guy. i think there's lots of people veryould purchase my book, a i will be outside for while. if anybody wants to purchase book. here.re i'll be the next lecture is near and dear to my heart. it's about a book i co-authored by the co-author. he's very knowledgeable about the subject and he's going to be excellent lecture if you guys want to stick around. coming.verybody for [applause] ♪ >> this year marks the whichnial of world war i ended on november 11, 1918. devoten history tv will 48 hours to coverage of

railing against the federal government. james buchanan and your man john barrett, who is one of your representatives in 1860, said the federal government has not done anything to you. the antagonist was the north. the northern people. the northern states. abolitionists in general. and as they got wound up, the -- those blacky republicans, as they like to say -- and eventually lincoln. believed thatouth the north was filled with abolitionist of the john brown stripe, that the republican party was an abolitionist party and a ram lincoln was the leading abolitionist in the country. none of it was true, but people believed it. i think the third conclusion was that -- and we hear a lot in any popular discussion you have with my students or others that they would take away the states' rights. in looking at these amendments, it turns out that southerners and perfectly willing proposed treating state authority.or federal the issue was not about states rights. it was about property rights. about 67here are amendments that make that point very clear. i've got a couple of other points. answersa

government as james buchanan and your man john barrett who is your representative in 1860 said federal government hasn't done anything. the bad guys that was the north. the northern people. the northern states, abolitionists in general and as they got wound up, the republican party, those black republicans as they liked to say, and eventually lincoln. by 1860, the south believed that the north was filled with abolitionists of the john brown strike, that the republican party was an abolitionist party and lincoln is the leading abolitionist in the country. none of that was true but they believed it. i think the third conclusion is that, and we hear a lot in any popular discussion you have about -- with my students or others that the south must have seceded to protect states rights. in looking at these amendments, it turns out that southerners like robert tombs and jefferson davis and others were willing and proposed trading state authority for the protection of slavery for federal authority for slavery. the issue wasn't about states rights. it is about property rights. i think th

people were chosen as a constable. man barrett, was an older who was the same as john burns, a well-known individual on that -- in the town. town constable seems to be a job that they give to someone who they figure has earned it. they don't have another means of income. barrett, his daughter's husband had a sign with a bullet hole in it. he seemed to have issues of his own in the town. he is often on the other side of the law. barrett and burns didn't like each other. he is the one was playing jokes on burns a lot. we don't have his reaction after the civil war about burns and his notoriety. he is very jealous. john barrett is another guy. there are a lot of people who would purchase my book who were descendedin him -- from him. now, we haveleave time for a while if anybody wants to purchase a book. i'm sure i will be here at the next lecture, it is near and dear to my heart. will be about a book i co-authored. he is very knowledgeable on the subject and it is going to be annexed to let lecture if you want to guys -- if you guys want to stick around. nikki for coming. [applause] --

, right. >> reporter: that call came from attorney john barrett, who won a lawsuit against dish network for illegal telemarketing. you went after the hilemarketers, but now these people think you're another tlemarketer. s that's right. >> reporter: so you must be a scam. >> that's kind of what a lot of these people were thinking. >> reporter: but it's no scam. the jury awarded $400 for each of the 51,000 calls made in violation of the do not call r gistry. 1,judge later tripled the damages to $1,200 per call. dish is appealing the ruling and blames an outside contractor, which has since shut down, telling cbs news, "these calls violated dish's express instructions to the contractor. but in the meantime, deborah turner is planning how she could spend her windfall. >> this part of my life, i plan to have fun, and if that can help me have a little bit more fun, that would be great. ( phone ringing ) >> reporter: well, some 18,000 people nationwide could potentially get between $2,400, up to $30,000 apiece. to see if you're one of them, go to cbsnews.com, click on this story, punch in your

. attorney john barrett is hearing that a lot as he tries to contact a group of people who may be eligible for thousands of dollars each. >> talking to them firsthand i realized they thought a we were telemarketers or b trying to scam them. >> some won't answer. others hang up on him. despite the fact he did win a lawsuit against dish network for what a jury found was illegal telemarket ing >> you went after the telemarketers. but now these people think you are a telemarketer. >> right. >> nobody gets money for free. you must be a scam. >> kind of what a lot were thinking. >> reporter: it is no scam. the jury awarded $400 for each of the 51,000 calls made in violation of the do not call registry. not only that, a judge tripled the damages to a judge determined dish willingly violated the law and tripled the damages to 1,200 per call. >> the evidence is dish network knew what was going on had ability to put an end to it but didn't. dish is a peeling the ruling. and blames an outside contractor which since shut down. telling cbs news, these calls violated dish's express instructions

teresa barrett, the wife of our other board member, john barrett, who couldn't be with us today. wonderful board members and anita is on our board. and these men and women give extraordinary leadership, guidance, and governance to our organization. it was founded by mrs. kennedy in 1961 as a nonprofit, non-partisan partner to the white house, and we're honored to be the convener of this presidential site summit this week. well, today we're going to talk a little bit about presidential legacy and commemoration. and let's start by diving into lbj. mark, your leadership with the lbj foundation. monday would have been the 110th birthday of president johnson. and so there was a commemoration of sorts, or at least a noting of that occasion. and johnson was larger than life as president. larger than life post-presidency, and what would he think of his legacy as we see him today? >> well, first of all, stewart, to you and anita, congratulations on this conference. [ applause ] i know how much work they have put into this, and it has clearly paid off. because it's been a rousing success.

welcoming professor. john barrett. >> [ applause ] . >> thank you chief justice roberts into the supreme court historical society who have been part of these arrangements. it's a pleasure to be in this room with many friends, especially members of the jackson family and those in connection with the center. i had the privilege to meet him through his long time friend who was my boss teacher and friend and to draw a the connection to this, silverman's colleague which he joined in 1949 and rose to chair-- rose to chair was a lawyer named sam harris. in 1945 and 1946 was a junior and important prosecutor. another named partner had a brother-in-law after justice jackson's time. indeed, he also moved into jackson's former office, the office of the atty. general. of the united states. i'm getting ahead of myself. 2 specific points in time during the life of robert jackson. franklin d roosevelt was president for neither, and yet he was quite here. the first is october and yet he was quite here. the first is october 13. robert jackson than 40 years old was in washington for the american bar assoc

. [ laughter ] >> thank you, pete. >>> john barrett and paul butler, professor of law at georgetown. jill, we'll go ladies first for you. the cohen document says the president directed cohen vgts but do the documents say the president commit add crime, or is that vague? >> it isn't spelled out, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. it's hard to believe that he didn't have knowledge and intent in doing everything that he has done. he is clearly identified as the person who instructed the commission of a crime and a crime that's been admitted to. cohen has admitted all his wrongdoing. i think there's a lot to pursue here and that it's time for a public hearing. we don't know everything that mueller knows, and we don't even know everything that congress knows, because some of these interviews have been conducted behind closed doors. it's time for some transparency in this case. but for anyone to suggest that is nothing there is simply delusional. you can't say that. you can't say that all the elements of a crime have been proven, but we're certainly close to that. >> john, i asked this

editor of commentary magazine, john barrett and maria teresa kumar from voto latina, all three msnbc contributors. josh, i was reading your write-up up on this. you said this was the kind of speech a president aiming for about a 55% approval rating would be delivering. trump closer to 35 right now. what do you mean by that? >> this wasn't a unity speech in trying to bring together 100% of the country. particularly on the tax plan and immigration proposal he's trying to get congress to do something, it was a pitch that more people ought to like these things than do. on tax plan, it was basically you're getting a tax cut. the vast majority of americans who obviously pay taxes will get a tax cut from the recently enacted tax plan. so the president's trying to reinforce that idea and trying to make a claim that the economy is doing really well now and this is a morning reason why. this makes sense for him to harp on. this is a policy that could be more popular than it is. it's not going to be popular with the whole country. more people could like it than do right now. on immigration he t

gill west and other board member john barrett who was not able to be with us today. anita is on the board and these men and women give leadership and governess to our organization that started by ms. kennedy, nonpartisan partner to the white house and we are honored to be the convener of this sum met this week. what wept to talk about is presidential legacy. let's start with the lbj. monday would have been the 110th birthday of president johnson. so there is a congressmen ration of sorts, at least a noting of that. and johnson was larger than life as president, larger than life postpresidency and what would he think about his legacy as we see him today? >> well, first of all, stewart, to you and anita, congratulations on this conference. [applause] >> i know how much work they have put into this and it has clearly paid off, because it has been a round of success. congratulations and thanks to all of you for what you do. i mentioned yesterday to the group that convened around lunch that not only historian, but a patron of your establishments and i appreciate so much not only what you

of commentary magazine, john barrett and maria teresa kumar from voto latina, all three msnbc contributors. josh, i was reading your write-up on this. you said this was the kind of speech a president aiming for about a 55% approval rating would be delivering. trump closer to 35 right now. what do you mean by that? >> this wasn't a unity speech in trying to bring together 100% of the country. particularly on the tax plan and immigration proposal he's trying to get congress to do something, it was a pitch that more people ought to like these things than do. on tax plan, it was basically you're getting a tax cut. the vast majority of americans who obviously pay taxes will get a tax cut from the recently enacted tax plan. so the president's trying to reinforce that idea and tr to make a claim that the economy is doing really well now and this is a major reason why. this makes sense for him to harp on. this is a policy that could be more popular than it is. it's not going to be popular with the whole country. more people could like it than do right now. on immigration he tried to m

talks as soon as next week. john barrett, thanks for being with us. i want to start with how meaningful you think this is. it has felt there was renewed attention and pressure -- is getting a car deal a big pivots moment? >> the challenges been united states problem with autos have been with mexico. hope they can resolve it soaking it back to the table. thehen canada does come to table, we have heard there have been sticking points. we still think they are likely to be a dispute resolution that and is him and also a sunset clause on the deal. are we willing to copper mise? >> i do -- are we willing to compromise? >> i do not think we should. a sunset clause would make the deal a relevant. people would stop investing in canada and other deal would be gone in five years. the resolution clauses the most important thing for canada so the federal government has got it right on those two issues. >> what about increasing american access to the dairy market. this administration seems to be pretty sound getting more access to your market. john: they have the capacity to do that. the p

number of times. this is from attorney john q. barrette about a conversation he says he had in the green room before their joint appearance. he says whitaker told me in june of 2017 he was flying from iowa to n.y.c. to be on cnn regularly because he was hoping to be noticed as a trump defender and, through that, to get a trump judicial appointment back in iowa. >> trevor: devious and impressive. he knew trump spends all day watching cnn, so he wasn't just trash talking mueller for no reason. he was trying to lure the president in. basically whitaker was laying traps for trump and worked because trump slid in the d.m.s like i.d.t.f. -- down to fire sessions. ( laughter ) but whitaker's plans to get trump's attention on tv worked better than expected because all he wanted was to be a judge in iowa and now he's the acting attorney general. that's like applying to be a cashier at ross dress for less and they're, like, forget cashier, you're ross! ( laughter ) so that's matt whitaker, the man taking jeff sessions' job. don't feel today bad for jeff sessions. i'm sure someone will offer

congressman who has cut ties with his party and john barrett is a professor at saint j -- saint john's school of law. i want to start with congressman swalwell. this is a breaking news tonight. questions about what they did with the money. did they misspend over $100 million where people were paying to play. is this one of those pay to play schemes, where they pay the administration and the inaugural money to get something and they got something. >> best evidence today that donald trump presided over a criminal campaign, a criminal transition and continues to provide over a criminal presidency and this is someone who ran on promising to drain the swamp and the very hours that he was about to become president during all of these inaugural celebrations it looks like there was a pay to play scheme. now someone has already pled guilty connected to the republican party, a consultant pled guilty in august of this year for giving tickets to a ukrainian pro-russian oligarch. for the 2016 inauguration. >> let me ask you the obvious question because you're in the intelligence, why was some prorussian u

posted this on twitter today. this is from attorney john q. barrett about a conversation he says that he had in the green room before their joint appearance. he says whitaker told me in june of 2017 that he was flying out from iowa to nyc to be on cnn regularly because he was hoping to be noticed as a trump defender and, through that, to get a trump judicial appointment back in iowa. so much to talk about, because he's not the only one who did it. fake news, but they want to be on this fake news so that the president can notice them. so that really means it fakes. more proof that i say the president watches me every night. so the man who is now in charge of the russia investigation offered a blueprint for cutting the legs out from under that investigation nearly a year and a half ago. seems tailor made to appeal to this president, and he did it on television according to john q. barrett, apparently deliberately in order to appeal to this president and get a job. he became the chief of staff for jeff sessions a couple months later, and now he is the most powerful law enforcement o

race, to john barrett. so again, that runoff will be in a couple of weeks. it will be on december 4th, a statewide election in georgia to pick a democrat or republican to be the next secretary of state seceding brian kemp. this will be for the person in charge of maintaining the voter roles in the great state of georgia. this runoff coming after an unbelievably con contested governor's race as the right to vote was as much about the contest as the two candidates. and the right to vote, the ability to vote, the question whether or not the playing field is tilted to one candidate or the other, to one party or the other, that has become basically the theme song to what happened in this year's election. if not the theme song, at least the background music. there is a weekly newspaper in wisconsin called isthmus. it's one of the worse i can't say no matter how many times i say it. isthmus. i can't say sixth or procurement or isthmus. there you have it. that's my kryptonite. i can't say those things. this project that isthums made to show the results. it's clear as you can get in terms

-- there's a photo right there -- he posted this on twitter today. this is from attorney john q. barrett about a conversation he says that he had in the green room before their joint appearance. he says whitaker told me in june of 2017 that he was flying out from iowa to nyc to be on cnn regularly because he was hoping to be noticed as a trump defender and, through that, to get a trump judicial appointment back in iowa. so much to talk about, because he's not the only one who did it. fake news, but they want to be on this fake news so that the president can notice them. so that really means it fakes. more proof that i say the president watches me every night. so the man who is now in charge of the russia investigation offered a blueprint for cutting the legs out from under that investigation nearly a year and a half ago. seems tailor made to appeal to this president, and he did it on television according to john q. barrett, apparently deliberately in order to appeal to this president and get a job. he became the chief of staff for jeff sessions a couple months later, and now he is the mo

my first thought. right. >> reporter: attorney john barrett is hearing that a lot as he tries to contact a group of people who may be eligible for thousands of dollars each. >> talking to them firsthand i learned that they thought that we were "a" telemarketers or "b" trying to scam them. >> some won't answer, some hang up on him. that's despite the fact he did win a lawsuit against dish network for what a jury found was to be illegal telemarketing. you went after the tell marketers and now the people think you're a telemarketer. >> that's right. >> because nobody gets money for free so you must be a scam. >> that's what the people were thinking. >> reporter: but it's no scam. the jury awarded $400 for each of the 51,000 calls made in violation of to do not call registry. not only that, a judge later determined dish willfully and knowingly violated the law. and tripled the damages to $1,200 per call. >> the evidence was that dish network knew what was going on. had the ability to put an end to it but didn't. >> reporter: dish is appealing the ruling. the company blames an outside

established track record? john: judge barrett was on that list and had only been a judge for about eight months but she was a distinguished academic with a long history of scholarly publications. slouch andn was no winsted -- and went to georgetown law school. some people were questioning his pedigree. the president was focused on the qualifications of all of these people and looking at their body of work and brett kavanaugh certainly has the pedigree and distinguished body of work. david: how important was the administration -- demonstrate a component. be --ve that important cf cfpb decision. john: the white house has stressed that he is skeptical of so-called chevron deference to executive branch agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. he believes in a strict separation of powers and think that administrative difference blurs the lines. judge kavanaugh has spoken eloquently on those topics including a prominent speech he gave at the heritage foundation. david: it is impossible to know what any individual will do on the supreme court. as you look forward, how far could this go, because

stewart mclaurin. [ applause ] >> thank you. i want to recognize gail west and teresa barrett the wife of john.. a wonderful board member. anita is on our board. they give extraordinary leadership to the organization. started by mrs. kennedy as a nonprofit, not pot -- nonpartisan and we are honored to be the convener of this presidential site summit this week. today we will talk about presidential legacy and commemoration. let's start by diving into lbj. mark your leadership with the lbj foundation -- monday would've been the hundred 10th birthday of president johnson. there's a commemoration of sorts or a noting of that occasion. johnson was larger than life as president. larger than life post- presidency. what would he think of his legacy as we see him today? >> to you and anita congratulations on this conference. [ applause ] i know how much work they have put into this and it has clearly paid off. congratulations to both of you. thanks to all of you for what you do. i mentioned yesterday i'm not only a historian but also a patron. i appreciate not only what you do but the passion that

be bought and sold. barrett is ceo of scenic advisement joined by john schwartz of barons and david baker of the "san francisco chronicle." this is a secondary market, right? pretend i have no idea what that is. explain to me how somebody can sell stock if it's not on the stock market. >> the secondary market is just like buying anything that's -- it's like buying a used car, right? when you go to a car dealership and you buy a car off the lot, that's the primary market. when you go to craig's list, that's the secondary market. >> okay. so there are shares out there of uber or pinterest or other companies that aren't public that can be sold and bought? >> a whole market has emerged dating back to sort of facebook amongst late stage technology companies where, yes, people are buying and selling private company stock. the phenomenon of companies staying private longer is very real, especially late stage technology companies because there is an abundance of capital for those companies to fund them, to -- large institutional investors. in fact, the largest in the world, they're saying g

president has whittled it down to maybe five or two. we have amy barrett and john larson. what do you think of them? >> i want to comment on individual choices. i can tell you that everyone that the president has considered checks all the boxes were brilliant and capable and judicial temperament, not er personalir own feelings where the constitution belongs. as a law, the judiciary interprets the law, does not make the laws. too many judges today making things up as they go along. the executive executes them,xe legislative brute tomac branch should be making them. it's the interpretive function that is so important. this president said he wants academic and professional credentials and i think anyone you see in the list, they are people of great intellect and great experience, honorable men and women on the president's list. the president put out his list and then he added to the list. jeanine, this man is so transparent andd accountable, it is such an important decision. as someone who spent time with him today as well on this issue, i just had to tell you, he understands the gra

extraordinary costs to this. john huntsman and craig barrett who are free trade businessmen and leaders did a survey on ip theft in china. it can add up to at least $300 billion and perhaps $600 billion every year. so there's a real and tangible cost to american businesses here. and we know the cost for american workers. we saw one out of every three manufacturing jobs leave in the first decade china was in the wto. again, i will say that i don't support tariffs as -- just for the sake of putting up tariffs like william mckinley did more than 100 years ago. they have to lead to something. if they can lead to progress on this and get us a little more leverage than we otherwise would have -- >> got it. okay. >> then i think a lot of businesses will say we'll take the medicine if the outcome is going to be -- >> tariffs that lead to lower tariffs or whatever, lower trade barriers are the goal. the danger with doing it the way we're doing and i got your point about the danger of negotiating and not get anywhere. the danger of doing it this way is the possibility of a trade war. 37%

washington ties. or ray ketleg,some refer to as a gorsuch. >> john allen, i didn't hear the name amy barrett there. democrats have certainly zeroed in on her a couple days ago. there was this issue with olympia snow saying roe v wade is an issue for her. is there a sense that amy conan barrett may be an that list? >> certainly so, i think there's a significant am of support for those who would like to see a woman on the court who would be in the position of overturning roe. congressman might act federally to ban abortion beyond that if that were to happen. i think barrett appears to be alive in this process. somebody who certainly has her supporters, i think there are a lot of people wloflt like she had a good narrative coming out of her last set of hearings where senator diane finestein went after her and basically says she wears her religion on her sleeves. with that kind of fight, she's a good person to be picked. from the standpoint of whenever conservators will be happy with this pick, i think they'll be happy with all of them. president trump needs to get enough on the board to

the first lady and barrett coming down the starts. and so, john dean, when the president calls you a rat in capital letters as you point out, is there any kind of strategy in him going after you and trying to villainize you? >> it could be, because he might be trying to give a warning to others on his staff. don't go in and tell the truth, or i will tarnish you and attack you. he likes to use pejoratives and name calling, and it is his sort of standard operating procedure, and i am frankly delight ed to e on his enemy's list if i have made it that far. >> i am curious also to get your take on this argument where now we are getting word from john dowd the former lead attorney for the president, and his personal attorney on the russian probe. he is suggesting that because mueller has been able to talk to officials like don mcgahn that the president has not set any limits to those, or tried to fight it, and it is even more reason why the president should not have to testify before mueller himself, because he has all of the information that he would need, and what is your take? >> well,

. >> john kennedy go to rome, to the pope? amy barrett said she wouldn't so why are we still talking about this? it is bigotry, people of faith can't be fair. amy barrett can't be a fair judge, it is out there just, an attack on people's faith and not fair. >> a strawman argument. >> completely intellectually dishonest was no one is talking about religious faith. >> the issue here is in the context of what you want to avoid is the notion, and whether row is rightly decided. >> he is long-distance, wrap this up. >> why can't it be true, to be overturned, and opens up a lot of area to regulate abortion, correctly decided or not. >> she said was wrongly decided. andy's point is perfectly fair. shannon: right after this during the commercial. it is great to have you. other fbi agents, peter stzrok about texts and it agrees russia preferred trump over clinton presidency. >> and unclassified report backing a controversial assessment that found russia wanted to damage hillary clinton and overturn the russian government to develop a clear preference for donald trump. in 2017, there was dayli

sprkupreme court judges are amy coney barrett, brett kavanagh and john hardim n hardiman, hardiman and kethledge may be easier to confirm. >>> the executive vice president of the federalist society, a conservative lawyer's group, he's currently on leave. he advices president trump on judicial ncandidates and he helped create the list for the president. good morning. >> good morning. >> when was the last time you talked to the president and has he made a decision? >> i spoke to him yesterday, he had not yet made a decision, indicated that he wanted to make a decision tonight, or last night or this morning. so that's what we're waiting for and i'm sure he' announce this evening of course and maybe there will be a bit of a heads up. he's had these names for a while, you helped him craft them, he's talked about it during the campaign, what's he weighing now and why is anything still up in the air? >> well, he spent a pretty significant amount of time over the weekend asking questions, talking to people, thinking about this further. this is a really big decision for him. as you may remember

for a missing mother in colorado. john lawrence has the latest. >>> she was last seen wearing a sweater with the broncos and white shoes. >> three days later barrett's cellphone was found. >> we received a call that she would not return to work the following week. >> and barrett's family is hoping for a happy ending. >> kelsey we just want you home. call us if you can. and we won't quit looking. >> i just want her to come home. >> police say bar n a suspend is cooperating with the authorities. >> if they'm john lawrence repo. >>> a facebook page has beeea efforts. >>> a caltrans worker is in critical condition after being hit by a van on i-80 in west sacramento. gary morin was filling potholes on friday morning when lefs crushed by a van spinning -- he was crushed by a van spinning out of control. gary reportedly saw the van coming but didn't have enough time to get out of the way. >> gary said most of the impact he flew about 30' and slammed into a concrete wall and then the light fell onto gary. >> it's aus job has killed 52 caltrans workers since 1971 and that's not including

and neil gorsuch and john roberts and justice alito and amy conan barrett. there is a pipeline of excellent conservative judges and the democrats have blown this issue off. they didn't care. so instead of actually winning elections so they could put somebody on the court. they just want to impeach and investigate, which is pretty unsatisfying. special if you want to go to washington and do good stuff. >> maria: greg, i think we also hear from voters that they want some accountability from the trump administration. that they don't feel like the republicans in congress are doing much oversight of the trump administration which i would agree with. >> jesse: oversight? they have been subpoenaing the doj and fbi all year. >> maria: we will get to doj in a second. they haven't -- compared to the kind of oversight they provided to the administration i worked, in it feels different. let's put it that way. >> greg: very transparent administration maria. let's investigate kavanaugh after he is confirmed because then, your party would be able to prove that this merely wasn't political. if th

and also had reservations for amy coney barrett. joining me now, kate martell, and john nichols, national correspondent for "the nation." a great sunday to both of you. ladies first here. kate, with you, is the presid t president's legal team officially closing the door on any potential sit-down between the president and the special counsel? we'll get back to the supreme court in a second, but i want to get to this with you. >> yes, alex. i think that it is safe to say that rudy giuliani is starting to shut the door for a potential sit-down. i think the president's strategy right now has been to be combative about this russia investigation for months, but behind the scenes, his lawyers have been pro-kind of doing their homework and figuring out if that's the right move for the president to sit down with mueller. but now we're seeing this major switch. we're seeing the president's lawyer, headed by rudy giuliani saying, hey, we're going to need you to show us evidence that the president did commit a crime. so this is this major shift. and i think we are going to see going forward

kavanaugh and kethledge are the most in front, the two front runners. then of course amy coney barrett as well. >> trace: and for clarity, john roberts touched on it, the controversy with kavanaugh that some conservatives believe he set the table, he wrote the road map, if you will, that led to obamacare passing. others say that's absolute nonsense that he did not do that. it appears that that kind of has taken its toll. now, it seems like his momentum has at least slowed a little bit. it has a bit. and you're right, john roberts reported earlier a lot of people are pointing to that decision. worried that some one like kavanaugh, who is very conservative, is expected to vote the way that the president and several republicans want him to. you never really know what will happen when they're actually on the court, when they fill that vacancy, and it comes down to a different case. you look at abortion, healthcare. and these are issues that are making people nervous and prompting people like senator ted cruz to come out and say, you know, senator make lee, other candidates, seem to be the mos

before. not in this way. no one has. joan biskupic and john avlon. thanks to all. david, week got amy coney barrett, maybe not, from what we see at her home. thomas hardiman, though, certainly has to be at the top of the list, right? he was the runner-up after neil gorsuch. theoretically it should be his to take. first in his family to graduate for college. drove a taxi to pay for his tuition. you have bernie sanders saying anyone on this list is an right-wing extremist, thomas hardiman therefore included. are democrats going to have a hard time voting against someone whose personal story is so compelling? >> he's first got to get there. it appears from all indications we're down to two, kavanaugh and hardiman. if you think about the logic of that, i think the logic would say that the president would put hardiman in there. he's going to be in a hard fight and he's gotten assurances from mcconnell that hardiman, not kavanaugh, will have an easier time getting through. and hardiman's also, you know, has been friends with trump's sister. >> that's right. she had recommended him. >> h

attack for being too establishment, maybe too john roberts right and heaven forbid if i say too anthony kennedy like and barrett is seen as the darling of the social conservatives so it seems like cavanaugh is taking the fire from the hard right. >> if the president is watching "new day" as we know he does, i think charlie dent just spiked kavanaugh's chances. >> great going, charlie. >> sinking brett kavanaugh. >> i didn't mean to do that. >> perry do we have any more indication how the people in coming, at least the two women who all eyes are on senator susan collins and lisa murkowski, how they feel about these candidates? >> we haven't heard they would not vote for anybody yet. senator collins seems to be saying she doesn't want a candidate who has expressedly on the record said they would get rid of roe v. wade. i don't think any of these candidates have said that, the candidates are not stupid so they have not said that so clearly but i think kavanaugh's record is vague. i think that's why he's the top of the list. the assumption is he's someone who might be willing to strike down

march 6, 1887. three months before the scheduled dedication. colonel john m. wilson, in charge of the project sent frantic letters to sculptor ward , general barrett of the army of the cumberland, trying to ensure an on time completion and unveiling. the numbered and lettered files remain in the national archives. this is the site, west of the capital. i believe it is before the statue was placed there. i want to say it absolutely is. are those trees hiding the memorial? i don't think so, i think this is before it is erected. this is what the area looked like. this is what it looks like now. i took this picture recently. this is the invitation to the unveiling, may 11 and 12th, 1887. john quincy adams ward sculpted the statue of garfield and three additional figures, representing the aspects of garfield's life. richard morris hunt designed the pedestal for the statue. both men were renowned in their fields. ward was known as the dean of american sculpture. the two would collaborate on 13 monuments over a span of 25 years. ward had a prominent place in washington, d.c. public art. he w

rising, kavanaugh, barrett. what are your expectations? >> i think conservatives think kethledge is a fantastic writer. high on the list of a lot of outside conservative groups. people that i've spoken with. i think the three that john roberts mentioned as finalists if we put them in that category would please all manner of conservatives notwithstanding the criticism of brett kavanaugh we've seen from some conservative groups. >> sandra: it will be a big decision for the president and completed the six interviews with six judges. that process is over. we're all kind of wondering here we are thursday, the day after the holiday, if the president knows yet who he will pick. just a few days left, steve. this is going to have a lasting impact on this white house and this president's legacy. >> it will. you know, what's most interesting about this is the president's inclination to make judgments and decisions on a visceral basis. this is a president who trusts his gut and makes gut decisions and you wonder after the rounds of interviews whether the president doesn't have in his own mind w

coney -- amy coney barrett. ifs is from john, i'm action hillary were going to pick three or more judges. her activist judges ruled from their gut and not the constitution would have felt america. trump could nominate lucifer or a child molesters and the trump retards would rejoice. trust me. joining me from anaheim california this morning. your ideal pick for the supreme court? i didn't really call in about that. i wanted to fire back up that antiabortion -- fire back at the antiabortion guy. my mother's greatest pleasure in life was beating the craft out of her children. she wanted the rat pack light and was forced to have children. antiabortionists will have children born into a very bad situations. as far as i'm concerned all antiabortionists are child abusers. thank you. host: linda, good morning from texas. democrats line. caller: i think they are all bad choices. we need somebody more like kennedy. i would not choose a woman -- the woman, barrett. she belongs to a call. she has seven kids, i don't think she would have time to serve on the supreme court or take care of seven

court decisions almost 12 times more than any other candidate. he's got the track record. john roberts didn't have a track record and it was a mistaken pick. judge jeanine: amy coney barrett who on a number of levels would be great. she is very young. but the most of important point is she was just confirmed by every republican in the senate and three democrats. donnelly, manchin and i forget who the third one is. tim kaine. if this just two years ago. how do they come back and say we didn't like her or we were delusional two years ago. plus i want to play some found for you on her hearing. >> do you consider yourself an orthodoxed catholic. >> i am a cath thick. if you are asking if i'm a faithful catholic, i am. but i would express my personal church afail yaition or religious beliefs would not bear on my duties as a judge. judge jeanine: i play that because it seems there was at that hear twoog years ago, not just by dick durbin. but also dianne feinstein. staying she is living the dogma of her religion. i think that tees it up for people on her side saying enough of this an