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 PRESIDENT’S CULPABILITY, WE
PRESIDENT’S 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 IT’S INCORRECT, IT’S TIME
THINK IT’S INCORRECT, IT’S 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 THAT’S ONE ROUTE, JANUARY
SO THAT’S 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. THAT’S A FEDERAL OPINION.
THAT’S A FEDERAL OPINION. THAT’S ABOUT FEDERAL
THAT’S 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 AREN’T BOUND IN ANY WAY,
THAT AREN’T 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 HE’S BEEN MAKING
ARGUMENTS THAT HE’S BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG, HE’S IMMUNE, HE’S THE
ALL ALONG, HE’S IMMUNE, HE’S 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 DON’T THINK IT’S GOING TO GET
I DON’T THINK IT’S 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 DON’T THINK YOU’D
LIKE 1861 I DON’T THINK YOU’D 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 NATION’S
ALL, HE HAS THE NATION’S 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. >> LET’S LISTEN TO ANOTHER POINT
>> LET’S 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 DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
>> I DON’T 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. >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD
>> I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE -- I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD
AGREE -- I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION.
AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE
I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU
THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU SUGGEST.
SUGGEST. >> NEAL, WHAT’S THE ANSWER SM?
>> NEAL, WHAT’S 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. THAT’S NUMBER ONE.
THAT’S 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 DON’T
AND COURTS AND SAYING I DON’T NEED TO SHOW UP TO BE
NEED TO SHOW UP TO BE INTERVIEWED BY MUELLER.
INTERVIEWED BY MUELLER. I DON’T NEED TO GIVE HIM ANSWERS
I DON’T NEED TO GIVE HIM ANSWERS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS DAMMING
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS DAMMING EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. I DON’T NEED McGAHN AS YOU
I DON’T NEED McGAHN AS YOU TALKED ABOUT THE START OF THE
TALKED ABOUT THE START OF THE SHOW, HIS TOP LAWYER DOESN’T
SHOW, HIS TOP LAWYER DOESN’T 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 CAN’T INDICT ME AND I HAVE
YOU CAN’T INDICT ME AND I HAVE SUCH IMMUNEITY I CAN OUTRUN THE
SUCH IMMUNEITY I CAN OUTRUN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT OUR
I CAN’T 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.