Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Neal Katyal On How To Prosecute A Sitting President | The Last Word | MSNBC

Normal
(0)
Difficulty: 0

INDICTING THE PRESIDENT. >>> WE AT THE OUTSET DETERMINED

>>> WE AT THE OUTSET DETERMINED THAT WE, WHEN IT CAME TO THE

THAT WE, WHEN IT CAME TO THE PRESIDENTS CULPABILITY, WE

PRESIDENTS CULPABILITY, WE NEEDED TO, WE NEEDED TO GO

NEEDED TO, WE NEEDED TO GO FORWARD ONLY AFTER TAKING INTO

FORWARD ONLY AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OLC OPINION THAT

ACCOUNT THE OLC OPINION THAT INDICATED THAT A PRESIDENT, A

INDICATED THAT A PRESIDENT, A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE

SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED.

INDICTED. >> THAT WAS IN THE JUDICIARY

>> THAT WAS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING YESTERDAY,

COMMITTEE HEARING YESTERDAY, LATER IN THAT SAME HEARING

LATER IN THAT SAME HEARING REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN KEN BUCK

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN KEN BUCK ASKED A QUESTION EVERYONE KNEW

ASKED A QUESTION EVERYONE KNEW THE ANSWER TO AND IT WAS NOT A

THE ANSWER TO AND IT WAS NOT A QUESTION COMFORTING TO DONALD

QUESTION COMFORTING TO DONALD TRUMP.

TRUMP. >> COULD YOU CHARGE THE

>> COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE

PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE?

LEFT OFFICE? >> YES.

>> YES. >> YOU BELIEVE THAT HE

>> YOU BELIEVE THAT HE COMMITTED, YOU COULD CHARGE THE

COMMITTED, YOU COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OVERJUSTF JUSTI

WITH OBSTRUCTION OVERJUSTF JUSTI AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE?

AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? >> YES.

>> YES. >> LAST NIGHT A FORMER WATERGATE

>> LAST NIGHT A FORMER WATERGATE ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JILL WINE BANKS MADE A POINT

JILL WINE BANKS MADE A POINT ABOUT INDICTING A PRESIDENT THAT

ABOUT INDICTING A PRESIDENT THAT HAD NOT OCCURRED TO ME.

HAD NOT OCCURRED TO ME. >> THE EVIDENCE OF ALL THE

>> THE EVIDENCE OF ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME HAS BEEN

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND WERE HE NOT

ESTABLISHED AND WERE HE NOT PROTECTED BY THE OFFICE OF LEGAL

PROTECTED BY THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, AN OPINION BY THE WAY

COUNSEL, AN OPINION BY THE WAY THAT I THINK IS FLAWED

THAT I THINK IS FLAWED CONSTITUTIONALLY AND LEGALLY, I

CONSTITUTIONALLY AND LEGALLY, I THINK ITS INCORRECT, ITS TIME

THINK ITS INCORRECT, ITS TIME FOR SOMEONE TO CHALLENGE IT OR

FOR SOMEONE TO CHALLENGE IT OR CHANGE IT.

CHANGE IT. IT MAY TAKE A STATE PROSECUTOR

IT MAY TAKE A STATE PROSECUTOR INDICTING THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE

INDICTING THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR A

IT TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR A DECISION AND WHETHER YOU CAN

DECISION AND WHETHER YOU CAN COVER UP YOUR OWN CRIME AND GET

COVER UP YOUR OWN CRIME AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

AWAY WITH IT. >> YEAH, STATE PROSECUTOR COULD

>> YEAH, STATE PROSECUTOR COULD GET AROUND THAT JUSTICE

GET AROUND THAT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RULE.

DEPARTMENT RULE. >> AND JOINING US OUR DISCUSSION

>> AND JOINING US OUR DISCUSSION IS THE FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR

IS THE FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL AND MSNBC CONTRANSCRIBE

GENERAL AND MSNBC CONTRANSCRIBE IF THEY WERE TO APPEAL THAT TO

IF THEY WERE TO APPEAL THAT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND THAT STATE GOT NEAL TO ARGUE

AND THAT STATE GOT NEAL TO ARGUE THE CASE, COULD YOU ARGUE IT?

THE CASE, COULD YOU ARGUE IT? HOW WOULD IT GO?

HOW WOULD IT GO? >> YEAH, I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE

>> YEAH, I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE IT.

IT. BOTH OF THE CLIPS YOU JUST

BOTH OF THE CLIPS YOU JUST SHOWED, LAWRENCE, ARE RIGHT,

SHOWED, LAWRENCE, ARE RIGHT, CONGRESSMAN BUCK IS ABSOLUTELY

CONGRESSMAN BUCK IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON JANUARY 21st, 2020,

RIGHT ON JANUARY 21st, 2020, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASSUMING HE

PRESIDENT TRUMP ASSUMING HE LOSES, HE WILL NOT HAVE IMMUNITY

LOSES, HE WILL NOT HAVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AT THE FEDERAL

FROM PROSECUTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

LEVEL. SO THATS ONE ROUTE, JANUARY

SO THATS ONE ROUTE, JANUARY 21st.

21st. THE SECOND ROUTE IS JILL POINTS

THE SECOND ROUTE IS JILL POINTS OUT STATE PROSECUTORS COULD

OUT STATE PROSECUTORS COULD STILL INDICT.

STILL INDICT. NOW THERE IS THIS OFFICE OF

NOW THERE IS THIS OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION THAT IS

LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION THAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT THAT MUELLER

BEING TALKED ABOUT THAT MUELLER IS TALKING ABOUT.

IS TALKING ABOUT. THATS A FEDERAL OPINION.

THATS A FEDERAL OPINION. THATS ABOUT FEDERAL

THATS ABOUT FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS BUT IN OUR

PROSECUTIONS BUT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, WE ALSO

CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, WE ALSO HAVE A SEPARATE SET OF

HAVE A SEPARATE SET OF PROSECUTORS, STATE PROSECUTORS

PROSECUTORS, STATE PROSECUTORS THAT ARENT BOUND IN ANY WAY,

THAT ARENT BOUND IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM BY THE OFFICE OF

SHAPE OR FORM BY THE OFFICE OF LEGAL OPINION.

LEGAL OPINION. I EXPECT THE PRESIDENT WERE HE

I EXPECT THE PRESIDENT WERE HE INDICTED BY A STATE PROSECUTOR

INDICTED BY A STATE PROSECUTOR TO MAKE THE SAME KINDS OF

TO MAKE THE SAME KINDS OF ARGUMENTS THAT HES BEEN MAKING

ARGUMENTS THAT HES BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG, HES IMMUNE, HES THE

ALL ALONG, HES IMMUNE, HES THE KING AND SO ON AND I THINK THAT

KING AND SO ON AND I THINK THAT THOSE ARGUMENTS WILL GET

THOSE ARGUMENTS WILL GET SOMEWHERE WHEN IT COMES TO THE

SOMEWHERE WHEN IT COMES TO THE TRIAL OF A SITTING PRESIDENT BUT

TRIAL OF A SITTING PRESIDENT BUT I DONT THINK ITS GOING TO GET

I DONT THINK ITS GOING TO GET TO THE INDICTMENT PART, THAT IS

TO THE INDICTMENT PART, THAT IS I THINK THAT THE BEST ARGUMENTS

I THINK THAT THE BEST ARGUMENTS IN TERMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

IN TERMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SAY YOU CAN INDICT A SITTING

SAY YOU CAN INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT AT THE STATE LEVEL.

PRESIDENT AT THE STATE LEVEL. YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TRY THEM

YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TRY THEM FOR I THINK IMPORTANT REASONS

FOR I THINK IMPORTANT REASONS LIKE 1861 I DONT THINK YOUD

LIKE 1861 I DONT THINK YOUD WANT SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE ABLE

WANT SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE ABLE TO FORCE ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND

TO FORCE ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND HAUL HIM IN TO COURT TO FACE A

HAUL HIM IN TO COURT TO FACE A CRIMINAL TRIAL BECAUSE AFTER

CRIMINAL TRIAL BECAUSE AFTER ALL, HE HAS THE NATIONS

ALL, HE HAS THE NATIONS BUSINESS TO ATTEND TO AND A WAR

BUSINESS TO ATTEND TO AND A WAR TO PROSECUTE.

TO PROSECUTE. I THINK THE INDICTMENT COULD

I THINK THE INDICTMENT COULD HAPPEN AND SO I SUSPECT IF THERE

HAPPEN AND SO I SUSPECT IF THERE ARE STATE CHARGES THAT ARE

ARE STATE CHARGES THAT ARE VIABLE, THAT THOSE CAN AND WILL

VIABLE, THAT THOSE CAN AND WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE

BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

PRESIDENT. >> LETS LISTEN TO ANOTHER POINT

>> LETS LISTEN TO ANOTHER POINT RAISED BY MIKE QUIG GLY

RAISED BY MIKE QUIG GLY YESTERDAY.

YESTERDAY. >> WHAT IF A PRESIDENT SERVES

>> WHAT IF A PRESIDENT SERVES BEYOND THE STATUTE OF

BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?

LIMITATIONS? >> I DONT KNOW THE ANSWER TO

>> I DONT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE.

THAT ONE. >> WOULD IT NOT INDICATE THAT IF

>> WOULD IT NOT INDICATE THAT IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL CRIME SUCH AS THIS ARE

FEDERAL CRIME SUCH AS THIS ARE FIVE YEARS, THAT A PRESIDENT WHO

FIVE YEARS, THAT A PRESIDENT WHO SERVES HIS SECOND TERM IS

SERVES HIS SECOND TERM IS THEREFORE UNDER THE POLICY ABOVE

THEREFORE UNDER THE POLICY ABOVE THE LAW.

THE LAW. >> IM NOT CERTAIN I WOULD

>> IM NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE -- IM NOT CERTAIN I WOULD

AGREE -- IM NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION.

AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. IM NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE

IM NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU

THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU SUGGEST.

SUGGEST. >> NEAL, WHATS THE ANSWER SM?

>> NEAL, WHATS THE ANSWER SM? >> THE INTERCHANGE SHOWS ONE OF

>> THE INTERCHANGE SHOWS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS TRUMP WANTS A

THE MAIN REASONS TRUMP WANTS A SECOND TERM IS TO EXTEND HIS GET

SECOND TERM IS TO EXTEND HIS GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, THAT

OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, THAT OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION

OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION BUT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

BUT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION HAS IN IT THAT SAYS THE

OPINION HAS IN IT THAT SAYS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BE

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY TOLD THAT IS HELD

AUTOMATICALLY TOLD THAT IS HELD IN ADVANCE SO YOU CAN STILL

IN ADVANCE SO YOU CAN STILL INDICT HIM AFTERWARDS IF HE WERE

INDICT HIM AFTERWARDS IF HE WERE TO WIN A SECOND TERM.

TO WIN A SECOND TERM. THATS NUMBER ONE.

THATS NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, LAWRENCE, THIS GOES

NUMBER TWO, LAWRENCE, THIS GOES TO THE FUND MENTAL PROBLEM WITH

TO THE FUND MENTAL PROBLEM WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS

THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS THEY ARE TOTALLY LAWLESS.

THEY ARE TOTALLY LAWLESS. THIS PRESIDENT IS SAYING AND

THIS PRESIDENT IS SAYING AND THUMBS HIS NOSE AT THE CONGRESS

THUMBS HIS NOSE AT THE CONGRESS AND COURTS AND SAYING I DONT

AND COURTS AND SAYING I DONT NEED TO SHOW UP TO BE

NEED TO SHOW UP TO BE INTERVIEWED BY MUELLER.

INTERVIEWED BY MUELLER. I DONT NEED TO GIVE HIM ANSWERS

I DONT NEED TO GIVE HIM ANSWERS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS DAMMING

EVEN THOUGH THERE IS DAMMING EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. I DONT NEED McGAHN AS YOU

I DONT NEED McGAHN AS YOU TALKED ABOUT THE START OF THE

TALKED ABOUT THE START OF THE SHOW, HIS TOP LAWYER DOESNT

SHOW, HIS TOP LAWYER DOESNT NEED TO SHOW UP EVEN THOUGH

NEED TO SHOW UP EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A SUBPOENA AGAINST HIM

THERE IS A SUBPOENA AGAINST HIM AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND, YOU

AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE COMEULL MEN

KNOW, THIS IS THE COMEULL MEN NATION OF THAT LINE OF THINKING.

NATION OF THAT LINE OF THINKING. I AM EFFECTIVELY THE KING.

I AM EFFECTIVELY THE KING. YOU CANT INDICT ME AND I HAVE

YOU CANT INDICT ME AND I HAVE SUCH IMMUNEITY I CAN OUTRUN THE

SUCH IMMUNEITY I CAN OUTRUN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. I CANT IMAGINE WHAT OUR

I CANT IMAGINE WHAT OUR FOUNDERS OF OUR GREAT GOVERNMENT

FOUNDERS OF OUR GREAT GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT A

WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT A PRESIDENT MAKING SUCH RIDICULOUS

PRESIDENT MAKING SUCH RIDICULOUS ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL ASSERTIONS.

The Description of Neal Katyal On How To Prosecute A Sitting President | The Last Word | MSNBC