1
00:00:00,760 --> 00:00:03,680
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,

2
00:00:03,840 --> 00:00:04,960
Speaker 1: and we here at.

3
00:00:04,840 --> 00:00:07,120
Speaker 2: Breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up

4
00:00:07,160 --> 00:00:08,600
Speaker 2: our game for this critical election.

5
00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:11,719
Speaker 3: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade

6
00:00:11,720 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 3: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.

7
00:00:15,120 --> 00:00:16,239
Speaker 4: Coverage that is possible.

8
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:18,279
Speaker 3: If you like what we're all about, it just means

9
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:20,040
Speaker 3: the absolute world to have your support.

10
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 4: But enough with that, let's get to the show.

11
00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:25,760
Speaker 2: This isn't uncommon in law generally, and it's how this

12
00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 2: law has always been prosecuted. There was no special rule

13
00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 2: created to make it easier to convict Donald Trump. It's

14
00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:32,760
Speaker 2: just how the law works.

15
00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:34,960
Speaker 1: The novel theory is the idea that there's a duty

16
00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:38,080
Speaker 1: to keep Christine business records that will never be seen

17
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:38,840
Speaker 1: by anybody else.

18
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:40,120
Speaker 5: That's never been prosecuted.

19
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:43,080
Speaker 1: Normally, when you have qualification of business records, it's prosecuted

20
00:00:43,159 --> 00:00:46,320
Speaker 1: because there's embezzlement or there's fraud. Somebody else is going

21
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:48,600
Speaker 1: to see these records and therefore be a victim of

22
00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:48,960
Speaker 1: a crime.

23
00:00:48,960 --> 00:00:51,280
Speaker 6: But there's no victim here. No one was defrauded, no

24
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:56,960
Speaker 6: one was hurt. Welcome to counterpoints. Today, we're going to

25
00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 6: be debating lock Trump up.

26
00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:01,840
Speaker 7: Yes or no is the resolution before us, and we're

27
00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:05,320
Speaker 7: joined now by two guests who are basically polar opposis

28
00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:07,440
Speaker 7: on this question, and we're excited to kind of dive

29
00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:10,920
Speaker 7: into it. Will Chamberlain is the senior counsul over at

30
00:01:11,040 --> 00:01:16,000
Speaker 7: Article three Project. Brian Buehler writes the off message substack Will, Brian,

31
00:01:16,120 --> 00:01:17,080
Speaker 7: thanks for joining.

32
00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 5: Us, Thanks for having me.

33
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:19,160
Speaker 4: It's great to be here.

34
00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:22,280
Speaker 7: All right, let's have some fun with this to the

35
00:01:22,319 --> 00:01:26,080
Speaker 7: extent that it's possible. Brian, I'll start with you if

36
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:29,559
Speaker 7: we take the sort of law fair against Donald Trump

37
00:01:29,800 --> 00:01:32,480
Speaker 7: in the aggregate, because there are a million different cases

38
00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:36,360
Speaker 7: happening right now, there are appeals, there are so many

39
00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:40,840
Speaker 7: different things happening in the aggregate. Though, Are the prosecutions,

40
00:01:40,920 --> 00:01:44,320
Speaker 7: the tempted convictions of Donald Trump, the convictions on thirty

41
00:01:44,319 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 7: four fellon accounts last week in the aggregate? Is all

42
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:49,120
Speaker 7: of this fundamentally just.

43
00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:51,600
Speaker 5: Yes?

44
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:54,400
Speaker 2: Can I just give the one word answer, I mean

45
00:01:55,240 --> 00:02:00,200
Speaker 2: the I since Donald Trump got convicted of crime that

46
00:02:00,240 --> 00:02:03,480
Speaker 2: I think all of us here understand a bit less

47
00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:08,800
Speaker 2: intuitively than, for instance, the stolen classified documents case or

48
00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:12,720
Speaker 2: the January sixth case, It's generated a level of controversy

49
00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:15,560
Speaker 2: about whether the charges were valid or the case was

50
00:02:15,600 --> 00:02:20,480
Speaker 2: good that those cases didn't. But I think close study

51
00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:22,360
Speaker 2: of what he was charged with in New York and

52
00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:25,160
Speaker 2: why he was convicted would lead people to see them

53
00:02:25,240 --> 00:02:27,639
Speaker 2: kind of all as of a single piece, rather than

54
00:02:27,840 --> 00:02:31,600
Speaker 2: as three different cases brought by three different prosecutors, all

55
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:33,240
Speaker 2: of whom are out to get Donald Trump.

56
00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:36,720
Speaker 7: Okay, so will then we'll stay at that kind of

57
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:41,400
Speaker 7: basic level for now. Will these prosecutions of Donald Trump,

58
00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:43,760
Speaker 7: the attempt at convictions of Donald Trump, the thirty four

59
00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:47,799
Speaker 7: found account convictions of Donald Trump fundamentally unjust. I'm assuming,

60
00:02:47,800 --> 00:02:49,679
Speaker 7: as your position, tell us a little bit about why.

61
00:02:50,440 --> 00:02:52,160
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, I mean foundationally unjust.

62
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:55,200
Speaker 1: These prosecutions never would have been brought if the defendant's

63
00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:59,400
Speaker 1: name wasn't Donald Trump. They are completely novel theory of

64
00:02:59,480 --> 00:03:03,760
Speaker 1: falsefcation of business records in New York. In every other instance,

65
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:06,760
Speaker 1: there's some idea that these records would be seen by

66
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 1: other people, But the New York State is putting forward

67
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:12,760
Speaker 1: a completely novel theory that President Trump has a duty

68
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:15,520
Speaker 1: to the state to maintain pristine business records, even if

69
00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:18,120
Speaker 1: those records will never be seen by anybody else. There

70
00:03:18,200 --> 00:03:20,359
Speaker 1: was no victim to this crime. No one was harmed.

71
00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 1: There's nobody ever who said anybody was harmed. The best

72
00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:25,639
Speaker 1: theory they could come up with was that he promoted

73
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,960
Speaker 1: himself in the election, but of course that's allowed. And

74
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:31,040
Speaker 1: then if you actually look at the technical issues with

75
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:33,080
Speaker 1: the trial that were so probably there were a number

76
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 1: of them that were hugely problematic. I mean, the first

77
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:37,640
Speaker 1: and most obvious is that they managed to find the

78
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:40,800
Speaker 1: one judge who violated his judicial code of conduct by

79
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:42,960
Speaker 1: donating to Joe Biden. Judges are not supposed to make

80
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:45,480
Speaker 1: political donations. It's explicit in the New York Code. And

81
00:03:45,480 --> 00:03:47,760
Speaker 1: there's plenty of other New York judges who could have

82
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: handled this case. But they found the one judge who

83
00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:52,400
Speaker 1: violated his oath in a way that was so trivial

84
00:03:52,440 --> 00:03:54,320
Speaker 1: because it's he gave a ten dollars donation. What does

85
00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:56,640
Speaker 1: that mean, Well, it doesn't actually sway anything, but it

86
00:03:56,640 --> 00:03:58,280
Speaker 1: does raise your hand to say that you're on the

87
00:03:58,320 --> 00:04:00,840
Speaker 1: team that you're part of of. You know, you're one

88
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 1: of the people who is happy to work towards the

89
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:07,080
Speaker 1: imprisonment of the most prominent Republican in the country. So

90
00:04:07,200 --> 00:04:08,680
Speaker 1: I mean, we can go down to this. I mean,

91
00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:11,120
Speaker 1: there's plenty more in terms of what was wrong with

92
00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:13,560
Speaker 1: this trial, what was wrong with this prosecution from its inception,

93
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:16,839
Speaker 1: but certainly unjust is the least of it.

94
00:04:17,720 --> 00:04:19,760
Speaker 6: Yeah, and Brian, I thought your point was interesting that

95
00:04:20,600 --> 00:04:26,000
Speaker 6: this particular case has raises more questions in people's minds

96
00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:28,880
Speaker 6: than the other kind of more obvious ones. I mean,

97
00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:32,880
Speaker 6: do you think it was a mistake for Democrats to

98
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:35,400
Speaker 6: kind of lead with this one? I mean, it's not

99
00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:37,839
Speaker 6: as if though Democrats were in a room and said, Okay,

100
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:40,560
Speaker 6: who's going to go first? All right, Alvin, you've got this.

101
00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:44,159
Speaker 6: But that is the way it shook out. Alvin Bragg

102
00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:47,120
Speaker 6: went first. Alvin Bragg is the first to get a conviction.

103
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 6: The rest are just languishing. Do you think that his

104
00:04:50,680 --> 00:04:53,400
Speaker 6: being the only one to make any progress is undermining

105
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:57,479
Speaker 6: the broader public's kind of faith in this or do

106
00:04:57,480 --> 00:05:00,880
Speaker 6: you think that you know, guys seemed guilty, so you know,

107
00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:03,200
Speaker 6: let's move the sentencing.

108
00:05:04,560 --> 00:05:06,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, to the extent that you want to

109
00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:10,599
Speaker 2: define Alvin Bragg or one Maershawn as Democrats. This shook

110
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:13,040
Speaker 2: out this way in large part because of the actual

111
00:05:13,120 --> 00:05:16,000
Speaker 2: lawfair that Donald Trump engaged in to delay his other trials.

112
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 2: This trial was set to go second and possibly never

113
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:23,360
Speaker 2: at all, because Alvin Bragg recognized that the January sixth

114
00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:26,640
Speaker 2: prosecution that Jack Smith brought was the more important one,

115
00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:28,640
Speaker 2: and that if that was teed up that he would

116
00:05:28,640 --> 00:05:31,920
Speaker 2: basically take his case into abeyance and then try Donald

117
00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:34,440
Speaker 2: Trump at a later time, or maybe just just let

118
00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:37,880
Speaker 2: things fly. To respond to what Will said, you know,

119
00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:40,679
Speaker 2: one Marechawan wasn't picked at random, or one Mchon didn't.

120
00:05:40,720 --> 00:05:42,679
Speaker 2: They didn't land on him. He was picked at random.

121
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 2: And the donation that he gave to Joe Biden. He

122
00:05:47,720 --> 00:05:51,720
Speaker 2: ran that by a New York ethics panel, which determined

123
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:56,240
Speaker 2: that he could not be deemed too biased to preside

124
00:05:56,240 --> 00:06:01,120
Speaker 2: over this case. What would have been sort of outside

125
00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:03,800
Speaker 2: the normal practice would have been for Alvin Bragg to

126
00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:07,200
Speaker 2: discover this crime and not charge it. This is a

127
00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:12,159
Speaker 2: law that New York State prosecutes very vigorously, and contra

128
00:06:12,279 --> 00:06:15,400
Speaker 2: what Matt says, it's it. They do it not because

129
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:18,159
Speaker 2: they're out of the goodness of their hearts, because America

130
00:06:18,200 --> 00:06:21,880
Speaker 2: has this robust culture of prosecuting white collar crimes, but

131
00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:23,920
Speaker 2: because New York is the business capital of the world,

132
00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:26,159
Speaker 2: and people who do business there need to have faith

133
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:29,400
Speaker 2: that the business records that they encounter are not fraudulent.

134
00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:33,080
Speaker 2: That's why it's so aggressively policed in New York, and

135
00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:38,440
Speaker 2: not prosecuting Donald Trump for falsifying his business records would

136
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:42,440
Speaker 2: have been placing him above the law. And if if

137
00:06:42,480 --> 00:06:45,440
Speaker 2: an appeals court or the New York legislator or whatever

138
00:06:45,720 --> 00:06:48,039
Speaker 2: determines that actually, because of Donald Trump, we need to

139
00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:50,920
Speaker 2: toss this law out the window. It's not like Donald

140
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:52,960
Speaker 2: Trump is the only one who gets off. A bunch

141
00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:55,320
Speaker 2: of other fraudsters get off too, which I suppose is

142
00:06:55,839 --> 00:06:57,200
Speaker 2: fine with MAGA, but it's not.

143
00:06:57,920 --> 00:06:59,920
Speaker 4: It's not that would actually not be good for me.

144
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:01,719
Speaker 7: York will go ahead.

145
00:07:02,680 --> 00:07:04,320
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you missed the thrust of my

146
00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:07,599
Speaker 1: point that this is an entirely novel theory that's never

147
00:07:07,600 --> 00:07:09,479
Speaker 1: been prosecuted in this manner before.

148
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 2: Well, there's never been a presidential candidate who falsified business

149
00:07:13,280 --> 00:07:15,320
Speaker 2: records to cover up his election crimes.

150
00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:17,760
Speaker 1: That's the I mean, you're narrowing the scope then too much.

151
00:07:17,800 --> 00:07:20,400
Speaker 1: The novel theory is the idea that there's a duty

152
00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:23,560
Speaker 1: to keep pristine business records that will never be seen

153
00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:25,920
Speaker 1: by anybody else, that's never been prosecuted. And I'm not

154
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:28,600
Speaker 1: the only person saying this. This isn't just some rkling conspiracy theory.

155
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:31,160
Speaker 1: This is Jed Sugarman, who's a very liberal law professor,

156
00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:34,600
Speaker 1: who pointed this out months ago, in actually probably last year,

157
00:07:34,680 --> 00:07:40,120
Speaker 1: when this prosecution was initially brought. This is incredibly, incredibly

158
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:42,760
Speaker 1: novel because normally, when you have falsification of business records,

159
00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:46,400
Speaker 1: it's prosecuted because there's embezzlement or there's fraud. Somebody else

160
00:07:46,440 --> 00:07:48,680
Speaker 1: is going to see these records and therefore be a

161
00:07:48,760 --> 00:07:51,000
Speaker 1: victim of a crime. But there's there's no victim here.

162
00:07:51,040 --> 00:07:53,840
Speaker 1: No one was defrauded, no one was hurt, and so

163
00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:56,800
Speaker 1: the clearly like this. Actually, when you say, oh, this

164
00:07:56,880 --> 00:07:59,080
Speaker 1: is so aggressively police, you're just wrong.

165
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:00,400
Speaker 5: Fact on the fact were.

166
00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 2: Judge Sugarman is not a former assistant District attorney for

167
00:08:07,160 --> 00:08:09,480
Speaker 2: the for Manhattan. If you talk to people who used

168
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:11,800
Speaker 2: to work in that office and used to prosecute those crimes,

169
00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:14,720
Speaker 2: they say that this is like was a paint by

170
00:08:14,760 --> 00:08:17,760
Speaker 2: numbers prosecutions for the reasons that I said, and that

171
00:08:17,800 --> 00:08:20,560
Speaker 2: new York does have a compelling interest in making sure

172
00:08:20,600 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 2: that people's business records are not fraudulent. I would agree

173
00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:27,040
Speaker 2: with you that were Donald Trump not Donald Trump, or

174
00:08:27,080 --> 00:08:29,800
Speaker 2: if you had lost the twenty sixteen election, this case

175
00:08:29,880 --> 00:08:31,480
Speaker 2: might not have been brought because it might not have

176
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:36,360
Speaker 2: been discovered right because the business w records would never

177
00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:38,960
Speaker 2: have come out. Nobody would have seen them, The prosecutors

178
00:08:38,960 --> 00:08:44,000
Speaker 2: would not have had anything to work with. They would

179
00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:46,920
Speaker 2: have gone fish fishing through his business records to find them,

180
00:08:46,920 --> 00:08:49,320
Speaker 2: but that might have been an abuse. Instead, what happened

181
00:08:49,360 --> 00:08:52,160
Speaker 2: is he was elected president, the business records became public.

182
00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:54,599
Speaker 2: The prosecutors were aware that he committed the crime. It

183
00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,679
Speaker 2: would have been malpractice of them to just like let

184
00:08:57,760 --> 00:08:58,400
Speaker 2: him off the hook.

185
00:08:58,480 --> 00:09:02,559
Speaker 1: Because side Vance had this case years ago and looked

186
00:09:02,559 --> 00:09:03,400
Speaker 1: at it and passed.

187
00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:06,400
Speaker 5: I mean this is like it took years.

188
00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:08,600
Speaker 1: I mean that like I mean remember that this transaction,

189
00:09:08,679 --> 00:09:11,800
Speaker 1: these transactions happened in twenty seventeen. There have been there's

190
00:09:11,840 --> 00:09:14,640
Speaker 1: been years where this has been available as a possibility

191
00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 1: to prosecute. And then, but not only did Vance look

192
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:20,439
Speaker 1: at it in past Federal election Commission looked at it

193
00:09:20,520 --> 00:09:23,560
Speaker 1: in passed and all of a sudden, Alvin Bragg comes

194
00:09:23,559 --> 00:09:26,240
Speaker 1: into the help of Matthew the feder election comment, and

195
00:09:26,240 --> 00:09:28,280
Speaker 1: everybody's like, oh, big time prosecution here. I mean it

196
00:09:28,400 --> 00:09:31,320
Speaker 1: just election commission that this is anything but lawfair.

197
00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:34,680
Speaker 2: The Federal Election Committee is neutered by people who won't

198
00:09:34,679 --> 00:09:37,440
Speaker 2: apply the law of Donald Trump. If Simon Vance made

199
00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:40,640
Speaker 2: a mistake, and somebody should ask him now, because the

200
00:09:40,920 --> 00:09:43,720
Speaker 2: jury came back unanimously that Donald Trump Trump committed all

201
00:09:43,800 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 2: thirty four of these felonies, that's sy Vance's problem.

202
00:09:47,559 --> 00:09:50,120
Speaker 7: Brian, what about the I mean a huge complaint, and

203
00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:52,080
Speaker 7: well you can flush this out as well. But one

204
00:09:52,120 --> 00:09:54,280
Speaker 7: of the huge complaints is that Donald Trump is not

205
00:09:54,480 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 7: charged with the underlying crime that he was convicted of

206
00:09:57,640 --> 00:10:00,760
Speaker 7: thirty four felonies of furtherance. So if he was not

207
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:06,760
Speaker 7: charged with, for example, election in a federal election crime, why

208
00:10:06,800 --> 00:10:09,959
Speaker 7: then is it appropriate to convict him on thirty four

209
00:10:10,040 --> 00:10:13,120
Speaker 7: counts that were trumped up to a felony because they

210
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:15,800
Speaker 7: were in furtherance of this other crime. How do you

211
00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:17,640
Speaker 7: sort of justify that then?

212
00:10:19,320 --> 00:10:20,880
Speaker 4: So I'd say two things.

213
00:10:20,880 --> 00:10:23,480
Speaker 2: One is that I think it speaks poorly of Merrick

214
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:26,679
Speaker 2: Garland's Justice Department that he let the statute of limitations

215
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:30,200
Speaker 2: on Donald Trump as individual one lapse. And then the

216
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:32,160
Speaker 2: second thing I'd say about it is that I think

217
00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:36,079
Speaker 2: that the argument is a canard, and lawyers will presumably

218
00:10:36,160 --> 00:10:38,720
Speaker 2: understand that there's like a very close analogy to this

219
00:10:38,760 --> 00:10:43,600
Speaker 2: in obstruction law. That if somebody shreds documents to cover

220
00:10:43,760 --> 00:10:49,320
Speaker 2: up bank fraud and or drug trafficking, but the destruction

221
00:10:49,400 --> 00:10:53,760
Speaker 2: of the evidence prevents prosecutors from proving beyond a reasonable

222
00:10:53,800 --> 00:10:58,439
Speaker 2: doubt that a defendant committed bank fraud or traffic drugs,

223
00:10:58,559 --> 00:11:00,839
Speaker 2: there's still guilty of obstruction, and the jury does not

224
00:11:01,000 --> 00:11:03,520
Speaker 2: have to be unanimous as to whether the shredding of

225
00:11:03,559 --> 00:11:05,680
Speaker 2: the documents was to cover up one crime or the

226
00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:10,120
Speaker 2: other or both. This isn't uncommon in in law generally,

227
00:11:10,200 --> 00:11:13,360
Speaker 2: and it's how this law has always been prosecuted. There

228
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:16,240
Speaker 2: was no special rule created to make it easier to

229
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 2: convict Donald Trump. It's just how the law works. Again,

230
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:23,440
Speaker 2: if if Donald Trump has a problem with the constitutionality

231
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:26,400
Speaker 2: of that of this law for that reason, he can

232
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:30,120
Speaker 2: take it on appeal. But there's there's nothing unusual about

233
00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:30,600
Speaker 2: it at all.

234
00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:32,400
Speaker 7: Go ahead.

235
00:11:32,440 --> 00:11:35,880
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, another point that was made is that

236
00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:38,160
Speaker 1: this is the first time that these federal election laws

237
00:11:38,160 --> 00:11:40,000
Speaker 1: have been used as a predicate anywhere in the country

238
00:11:40,040 --> 00:11:41,240
Speaker 1: under any circumstances.

239
00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:43,520
Speaker 4: Well, it's New York state law. It's it's not right.

240
00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:46,920
Speaker 1: The New York stated the New York state law prohibits

241
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:51,000
Speaker 1: the promotion of a candidate by unlawful means, that itself

242
00:11:51,000 --> 00:11:54,360
Speaker 1: contains the predicate, and that that included a violation of

243
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:57,439
Speaker 1: federal election law. Right, it's understanding how convoluted this theory,

244
00:11:57,520 --> 00:12:00,520
Speaker 1: this legal theory is why it's so bizarre. There's levels

245
00:12:00,520 --> 00:12:03,839
Speaker 1: of predicates here. There's the falsification charge, then there's they

246
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:05,719
Speaker 1: said that has to be in further instant of the

247
00:12:05,800 --> 00:12:07,440
Speaker 1: crime because they needed to bump it up to a

248
00:12:07,480 --> 00:12:10,559
Speaker 1: felony in order to get past the statute limitations problems.

249
00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:12,880
Speaker 1: They did that by saying, you know, saying that the

250
00:12:12,880 --> 00:12:14,840
Speaker 1: predicates of that was a New York state election law

251
00:12:14,840 --> 00:12:17,600
Speaker 1: of promoting a candidate the unlawful means. But that unlawful

252
00:12:17,640 --> 00:12:20,959
Speaker 1: means itself, it requires a predicate. And then that they

253
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 1: gave Judge Merschan gave a menu, or the prosecutors did,

254
00:12:23,520 --> 00:12:26,480
Speaker 1: of three different possible crimes. And this is yet another

255
00:12:26,520 --> 00:12:28,720
Speaker 1: problem with the prosecution a total failure in the jury

256
00:12:28,720 --> 00:12:31,280
Speaker 1: instructions to note that they had to prove the elements

257
00:12:31,280 --> 00:12:33,439
Speaker 1: of each of the of the one of the three

258
00:12:33,480 --> 00:12:36,480
Speaker 1: predicate crimes and have say that those were proven. Unreasonable

259
00:12:36,480 --> 00:12:37,960
Speaker 1: about the jury instructions didn't do that.

260
00:12:39,000 --> 00:12:41,440
Speaker 2: So, I mean, that's that's not true. That's not true

261
00:12:41,520 --> 00:12:44,200
Speaker 2: under the New York law. But if you think that

262
00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:46,400
Speaker 2: that's unfair or something like that, Donald.

263
00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:49,720
Speaker 1: Trump cantey, that's basically this is like the core system.

264
00:12:49,760 --> 00:12:51,840
Speaker 1: You have to prove every element of reason.

265
00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:54,800
Speaker 2: Go back to go back to the analogy to obstruction law.

266
00:12:54,840 --> 00:12:58,960
Speaker 2: There is no issue with charging somebody for obstruction without

267
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:01,920
Speaker 2: charging them for the crime that they were obstructing. That

268
00:13:02,520 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 2: I don't think that you believe that that that the

269
00:13:04,440 --> 00:13:07,719
Speaker 2: obstruction law is unconstitutional or violates to process law if

270
00:13:07,720 --> 00:13:10,800
Speaker 2: you don't also charge the obstructive offense, you don't think that.

271
00:13:11,280 --> 00:13:13,200
Speaker 1: I mean no, But if you think it's distinct, if

272
00:13:13,200 --> 00:13:15,160
Speaker 1: it's an if it's a predicate element of the crime,

273
00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:18,520
Speaker 1: every element that that also has to be proven, like

274
00:13:18,760 --> 00:13:21,840
Speaker 1: even if you don't independently charge it, that's a distinct

275
00:13:21,880 --> 00:13:24,880
Speaker 1: question from you know, people don'ty of the crime.

276
00:13:24,920 --> 00:13:27,719
Speaker 4: What made you have to establish I mean, do you

277
00:13:27,760 --> 00:13:28,200
Speaker 4: do you think it?

278
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:31,680
Speaker 2: Do you think it's legal for a corporation to to pay.

279
00:13:31,679 --> 00:13:33,640
Speaker 4: Hush money on behalf of a candidate.

280
00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:37,160
Speaker 2: I mean, I know that wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt,

281
00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:40,040
Speaker 2: but that is an element of the crime. That the

282
00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:42,800
Speaker 2: falsified documents were mental and zeal. I mean, I mean

283
00:13:42,880 --> 00:13:44,200
Speaker 2: I don't think that I would.

284
00:13:44,200 --> 00:13:44,680
Speaker 4: I don't.

285
00:13:44,720 --> 00:13:46,640
Speaker 2: I don't imagine that you think that that should be

286
00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:48,400
Speaker 2: legal practice for campaigns.

287
00:13:48,559 --> 00:13:50,719
Speaker 1: I mean it's not clear, right, Like, that's just not

288
00:13:50,840 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 1: clear under your current law, right, Like, this is why

289
00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:56,439
Speaker 1: they didn't rebring the John Edwards prosecution because he did

290
00:13:56,480 --> 00:13:58,800
Speaker 1: something something similar happened in his instance, and they didn't

291
00:13:58,800 --> 00:14:00,720
Speaker 1: want to bring it because it's just not it's not

292
00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:02,319
Speaker 1: clear if there's a mixed motive.

293
00:14:02,760 --> 00:14:06,760
Speaker 2: For why what was the corporation that paid John Edwards

294
00:14:06,840 --> 00:14:08,560
Speaker 2: hush money and that he didn't remembert well?

295
00:14:08,600 --> 00:14:10,800
Speaker 1: I mean, because the question is not whether a corporation

296
00:14:10,920 --> 00:14:12,600
Speaker 1: or somebody else does it. I mean, if it's any

297
00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:14,880
Speaker 1: instry other than the person who's the candidate. I mean,

298
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:17,120
Speaker 1: because obviously candad cans spend as much money on himself

299
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:18,679
Speaker 1: as he wants. If the candidate wants to sign an

300
00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:21,440
Speaker 1: NBA and a bazillion dollars on their own behalf.

301
00:14:21,600 --> 00:14:22,760
Speaker 4: Yeah, problem, I agree with that.

302
00:14:22,960 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 1: So whether or not it's a corporation or other individuals

303
00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:28,440
Speaker 1: is sort of irrelevant.

304
00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:33,800
Speaker 6: Would it be the case that if Trump himself and

305
00:14:33,840 --> 00:14:37,360
Speaker 6: maybe this is obvious, so if Trump cut the check himself,

306
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:41,440
Speaker 6: Donald J. Trump, you know two Stormy Daniels one hundred

307
00:14:41,480 --> 00:14:44,480
Speaker 6: and thirty five thousand dollars, you know memo, you know,

308
00:14:44,600 --> 00:14:49,160
Speaker 6: hush money sends her that check. You know, he's allegedly

309
00:14:49,200 --> 00:14:51,920
Speaker 6: a billionaire, Like you can write one hundred and thirty

310
00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:54,120
Speaker 6: thousand OAR check if you're a billionaire. If he does that,

311
00:14:54,160 --> 00:14:56,600
Speaker 6: and I break, Brian, I guess curious for your take

312
00:14:56,640 --> 00:14:56,880
Speaker 6: on this.

313
00:14:57,240 --> 00:15:00,520
Speaker 8: So would that have been legal like that? It seems

314
00:15:00,520 --> 00:15:01,240
Speaker 8: like we would.

315
00:15:01,080 --> 00:15:03,560
Speaker 1: Have, right, Yeah, that's because it would be the same

316
00:15:03,600 --> 00:15:06,040
Speaker 1: as a billionaire. I mean, assuming again that these are

317
00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:09,120
Speaker 1: constitute campaign donations, which you assume for the state of argument.

318
00:15:09,840 --> 00:15:11,600
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you can donate as much to

319
00:15:11,600 --> 00:15:14,240
Speaker 1: your own campaign as you want, So it would mean I.

320
00:15:14,240 --> 00:15:17,600
Speaker 2: Mean, with with with having like the legal expertise to

321
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:20,320
Speaker 2: answer the question definitively, as I recall from when the

322
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:22,880
Speaker 2: hush money story first came out in twenty eighteen. I

323
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:26,760
Speaker 2: believe the I think the concern at the time was

324
00:15:27,280 --> 00:15:30,160
Speaker 2: not would it be legal for a candidate to take

325
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:32,680
Speaker 2: money out of their own bank account, put it in

326
00:15:32,760 --> 00:15:35,680
Speaker 2: a suitcase, hand it to their mistress, make them sign

327
00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:39,080
Speaker 2: an NDA, and then the story goes away. I think

328
00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:42,200
Speaker 2: that that per se would be legal. The question is

329
00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:45,720
Speaker 2: whether then it was disclosed as a campaign expenditure or

330
00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:51,000
Speaker 2: else separately disclosed on like the financial filings that the

331
00:15:51,040 --> 00:15:54,040
Speaker 2: presidents are obligated to fill out, and would Donald Trump

332
00:15:54,040 --> 00:15:57,280
Speaker 2: have done that? But we ended up not reaching that

333
00:15:57,320 --> 00:16:00,280
Speaker 2: point because he went he went through Ami and Michael Cohens.

334
00:16:00,560 --> 00:16:02,440
Speaker 6: And I want to move on from this case in

335
00:16:02,480 --> 00:16:04,600
Speaker 6: a minute, but just to pick up on one thing

336
00:16:04,640 --> 00:16:06,760
Speaker 6: that Will said, Will you mentioned you describe it as

337
00:16:06,800 --> 00:16:08,520
Speaker 6: kind of like a victimless crime, and I think you're

338
00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:11,280
Speaker 6: referring to the business records, because you know, you're allowed

339
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:19,360
Speaker 6: to have sloppy business records the But broadly speaking, the

340
00:16:19,800 --> 00:16:23,320
Speaker 6: victim here would be the American public that was deprived of,

341
00:16:23,440 --> 00:16:25,360
Speaker 6: you know, learning about this scandal in the wake of

342
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 6: the Access Hollywood video. Yet on the other hand, we

343
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:32,920
Speaker 6: do accept the idea that parties are allowed to get

344
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:35,040
Speaker 6: together and page other settlements in.

345
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:38,080
Speaker 8: Exchange for an NBA.

346
00:16:38,560 --> 00:16:43,560
Speaker 6: So I guess, and this is the question for Brian too,

347
00:16:44,200 --> 00:16:46,040
Speaker 6: how does this become legal?

348
00:16:46,120 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 8: Like?

349
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:48,880
Speaker 6: Would you you pay the hush money and then you

350
00:16:48,960 --> 00:16:51,720
Speaker 6: just write in the FEC one hundred and thirty thousand

351
00:16:51,720 --> 00:16:56,240
Speaker 6: dollars for pr legal expenses, like because you obviously can't

352
00:16:56,400 --> 00:16:59,960
Speaker 6: put in the FEC hush money for sleeping with a

353
00:17:00,000 --> 00:17:03,400
Speaker 6: horn star because that undoes the whole point of paying

354
00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:07,720
Speaker 6: the hush money. And so is it really as simple

355
00:17:07,720 --> 00:17:10,879
Speaker 6: as that if he had just kind of written a

356
00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:13,760
Speaker 6: couple of things differently in his ledger back at the

357
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:17,120
Speaker 6: Trump organization and in the FEC that the whole transaction

358
00:17:17,320 --> 00:17:17,680
Speaker 6: was fine.

359
00:17:20,160 --> 00:17:21,840
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's not clear that it would have

360
00:17:21,840 --> 00:17:24,000
Speaker 1: been fine, because honestly, he does it differently. He's got

361
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:27,240
Speaker 1: an independent problem, right, So say it's a campaign expense, Well,

362
00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:29,360
Speaker 1: then could he pay for it out of his campaign account?

363
00:17:29,560 --> 00:17:31,560
Speaker 1: That would lead to an obvious problem of oh, you're

364
00:17:31,640 --> 00:17:34,879
Speaker 1: using your campaign for personal expenses, because you could reframe

365
00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:37,480
Speaker 1: it entirely and say, oh, the point the entire point

366
00:17:37,480 --> 00:17:39,000
Speaker 1: of paying is hush money is to avoid the public

367
00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:42,159
Speaker 1: embarrassment to your family into you know, your wife and

368
00:17:42,200 --> 00:17:44,960
Speaker 1: your children about having an affair revealed, and you're using

369
00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:47,720
Speaker 1: campaign money for that, right like you think about all

370
00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:50,320
Speaker 1: the other scandals we have where we go after politicians

371
00:17:50,359 --> 00:17:53,480
Speaker 1: like elin Omar, for example, for using campaign money for

372
00:17:53,560 --> 00:17:55,880
Speaker 1: personal expenses. So I mean it just literally, you could

373
00:17:55,960 --> 00:17:58,960
Speaker 1: invert the way the prism through which you view the

374
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:01,560
Speaker 1: transaction entirely realized that if he had done it in

375
00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:03,800
Speaker 1: a different manner, he also would have been prosecuted under

376
00:18:03,800 --> 00:18:05,560
Speaker 1: this theory, which again goes back to why this was

377
00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:07,080
Speaker 1: unjust in the first instance.

378
00:18:07,400 --> 00:18:09,440
Speaker 7: And so, Brian, here's a question that might be clarifying

379
00:18:09,480 --> 00:18:11,359
Speaker 7: and help us even broaden it up beyond just the

380
00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:14,080
Speaker 7: album Brad case. I think Will and I won't put

381
00:18:14,160 --> 00:18:16,600
Speaker 7: murds in Will's mouth. He can make this argument if

382
00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:18,399
Speaker 7: it's one he agrees with. But a lot of people

383
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:20,560
Speaker 7: on the right, myself included, look at this case and

384
00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:25,320
Speaker 7: think to ourselves, is this the way if you know

385
00:18:25,359 --> 00:18:28,240
Speaker 7: you have the way that James Comy treated Hillary Clinton,

386
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:29,919
Speaker 7: we can open up that can of worms too. But

387
00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:35,199
Speaker 7: is this worth the level of this particular case, is

388
00:18:35,240 --> 00:18:38,160
Speaker 7: the lawfair against Donald Trump in general? Is this worth

389
00:18:38,359 --> 00:18:41,640
Speaker 7: what it will do to the country? Are these severe enough,

390
00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:46,440
Speaker 7: grave enough offenses that justify breaking what we're previously seen

391
00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:49,119
Speaker 7: as norms? You know, they are not like codified in

392
00:18:49,160 --> 00:18:51,440
Speaker 7: the Constitution. You can't touch a president, though we can

393
00:18:51,440 --> 00:18:53,600
Speaker 7: get done. We can also talk about the immunity case

394
00:18:53,600 --> 00:18:56,800
Speaker 7: at the Supreme Court. But just in like a purely

395
00:18:56,840 --> 00:19:01,720
Speaker 7: political sense, in the question of like will this, will

396
00:19:01,760 --> 00:19:03,480
Speaker 7: this be worth what it does to the country, Brian,

397
00:19:03,520 --> 00:19:06,520
Speaker 7: I imagine you might say, would it be worth not prosecuting?

398
00:19:06,560 --> 00:19:07,719
Speaker 7: You know, what does it do to the country if

399
00:19:07,720 --> 00:19:10,560
Speaker 7: you don't prosecute Donald Trump on some of these charges?

400
00:19:10,720 --> 00:19:13,239
Speaker 7: How do you respond to how do you respond to that?

401
00:19:14,920 --> 00:19:18,600
Speaker 2: So without stipulating that any of this is law fair,

402
00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:22,159
Speaker 2: I can imagine an infraction that Donald Trump committed that

403
00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:27,119
Speaker 2: I would argue, look for prudential reasons, it's not worth

404
00:19:27,160 --> 00:19:31,520
Speaker 2: going after him for that. I wouldn't put the hush

405
00:19:31,560 --> 00:19:35,160
Speaker 2: money election interference case in that bucket, But you can

406
00:19:35,240 --> 00:19:38,119
Speaker 2: cook up a hypothetical scenario. I think the norm that

407
00:19:38,240 --> 00:19:40,720
Speaker 2: was violated here is not there's like no norm in

408
00:19:40,760 --> 00:19:44,520
Speaker 2: the United States against prosecuting a former president. The norm

409
00:19:44,600 --> 00:19:48,280
Speaker 2: is having a former president who's an inveterate criminal, and

410
00:19:48,400 --> 00:19:51,199
Speaker 2: the I think the implication is, well, now this is

411
00:19:51,280 --> 00:19:54,879
Speaker 2: just going to become standard. Presidents are going to leave office,

412
00:19:54,880 --> 00:19:57,560
Speaker 2: and whether they've committed crimes or not, prosecutors from the

413
00:19:57,600 --> 00:19:59,720
Speaker 2: other party are going to go after them. I'm personally

414
00:19:59,760 --> 00:20:03,040
Speaker 2: not not worried about any kind of Pandora's box like that.

415
00:20:03,480 --> 00:20:06,919
Speaker 2: Like I do worry that a second Trump administration would

416
00:20:07,040 --> 00:20:09,400
Speaker 2: go after innos and people were ruin inocent people's lives,

417
00:20:09,400 --> 00:20:12,000
Speaker 2: and I'm thinking mostly of people who who don't have

418
00:20:12,080 --> 00:20:15,280
Speaker 2: high profiles or lots of money. But I've seen since

419
00:20:15,280 --> 00:20:18,080
Speaker 2: the verdict came out, I've seen many conservatives say, for instance,

420
00:20:18,080 --> 00:20:20,600
Speaker 2: that you know, Nancy Pelosi, better watch out, like a

421
00:20:20,680 --> 00:20:24,560
Speaker 2: MAGA prosecutor will now indict her for insider trading. And

422
00:20:25,280 --> 00:20:27,760
Speaker 2: my response to that is, go for it, like give

423
00:20:27,760 --> 00:20:31,639
Speaker 2: it your best shot. I don't think MAGA activists have

424
00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:35,240
Speaker 2: much of a principal issue with insider trading because Donald

425
00:20:35,280 --> 00:20:39,199
Speaker 2: Trump pardoned Chris Collins, the Republican congressman who's convicted of

426
00:20:39,240 --> 00:20:41,919
Speaker 2: insider trading. But if a right wing prosecutor wants to

427
00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:45,280
Speaker 2: get revenge by going after Nancy Pelosi, they should look

428
00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:47,880
Speaker 2: for evidence that you did insider trading, and they should

429
00:20:47,920 --> 00:20:51,560
Speaker 2: seek an indictment and persuaded jury. But if it's just

430
00:20:51,600 --> 00:20:54,720
Speaker 2: tit for tet corruption, I'm pretty confident that the case

431
00:20:55,080 --> 00:20:59,440
Speaker 2: would stink and either the grand jury would return no bill,

432
00:20:59,840 --> 00:21:02,760
Speaker 2: or the trial jury would acquit her or hang. Donald

433
00:21:02,760 --> 00:21:07,280
Speaker 2: Trump got convicted because he committed the crime. And to

434
00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:09,880
Speaker 2: anticipate what I think the objection will be, yes, New

435
00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:14,720
Speaker 2: York is a very democratic jurisdiction, but not all Democratic

436
00:21:14,800 --> 00:21:19,000
Speaker 2: voters are rabid partisans. And Donald Trump won like fifteen

437
00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:22,320
Speaker 2: percent of the vote in Manhattan. Just picking twelve people

438
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:25,560
Speaker 2: at random, you would anticipate one or two of them

439
00:21:25,600 --> 00:21:27,080
Speaker 2: to have been Donald Trump voters.

440
00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:28,520
Speaker 4: It wasn't a random process.

441
00:21:28,520 --> 00:21:32,200
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers picked six of the jurors, and it would

442
00:21:32,240 --> 00:21:35,359
Speaker 2: be nice if in the aftermath of this verdict we

443
00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:37,520
Speaker 2: could hear from some of those jurors right like they could.

444
00:21:37,960 --> 00:21:40,800
Speaker 2: A Republican voting juror could say, you know what, I

445
00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:43,240
Speaker 2: respect the former president. I thought he was a good president.

446
00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:46,560
Speaker 2: But the evidence was there and it was my duty

447
00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 2: to convict. Unfortunately, any juror who came forward to explain

448
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:54,080
Speaker 2: their reasoning would be subject to death. Threats they might

449
00:21:54,119 --> 00:21:57,359
Speaker 2: have to leave their home, and that's that's the MAGA movement.

450
00:21:57,840 --> 00:22:01,480
Speaker 2: And I think that not prosecuting because you're afraid of

451
00:22:01,880 --> 00:22:07,080
Speaker 2: that kind of you know, public reaction is just normalizing

452
00:22:07,640 --> 00:22:08,720
Speaker 2: that kind of intimidation.

453
00:22:08,840 --> 00:22:10,800
Speaker 4: And it's good that it wasn't done in this case.

454
00:22:11,119 --> 00:22:13,479
Speaker 7: Did James Comy make the right decision when it came

455
00:22:13,520 --> 00:22:16,680
Speaker 7: to not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton? From your perspective, Brian.

456
00:22:17,760 --> 00:22:20,440
Speaker 2: Well, James Comy was the FBI director, so it wasn't

457
00:22:20,440 --> 00:22:26,439
Speaker 2: his place to bring charges brought to recommend that DOJ

458
00:22:26,680 --> 00:22:29,919
Speaker 2: not pursue charges, Yes, I think that. I think that

459
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:33,760
Speaker 2: his calculation was that, I mean, his the legal point

460
00:22:33,760 --> 00:22:35,359
Speaker 2: that he was making is that if I tell DOJ

461
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:38,080
Speaker 2: to go indict her and then we bring this to trial,

462
00:22:38,119 --> 00:22:40,720
Speaker 2: we're going to lose the trial, right and and we've

463
00:22:40,720 --> 00:22:43,200
Speaker 2: seen this right like like Donald Trump did actually try

464
00:22:43,240 --> 00:22:46,879
Speaker 2: to do something that I would call law fare by

465
00:22:46,920 --> 00:22:50,639
Speaker 2: getting Bill Barr to appoint Durham to be special counsel

466
00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:54,920
Speaker 2: who brought cases against people trying to disprove the the

467
00:22:55,560 --> 00:22:59,600
Speaker 2: or to undermine the Russian investigation, and those people were quitted.

468
00:23:00,080 --> 00:23:03,240
Speaker 7: After the FBI created the Russian investigation.

469
00:23:04,960 --> 00:23:05,480
Speaker 4: The FBI.

470
00:23:05,640 --> 00:23:08,680
Speaker 2: Well, the FBI engaged Russian that they had a predicate

471
00:23:08,760 --> 00:23:13,240
Speaker 2: for it, they pursued it, and they special counsel Robert

472
00:23:13,320 --> 00:23:17,280
Speaker 2: Muller brought charges against many people. Those people were by

473
00:23:17,320 --> 00:23:19,640
Speaker 2: and large convicted, and there are only many of them

474
00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:22,560
Speaker 2: are only out of prison now because Donald Trump pardoned them.

475
00:23:23,040 --> 00:23:24,119
Speaker 7: Well, what's your response to that.

476
00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:26,439
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of respond to there. I mean,

477
00:23:26,440 --> 00:23:28,960
Speaker 1: first and foremost this idea that Durham was just lawfair.

478
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:32,320
Speaker 1: I mean, Durham found a guy who falsified an application

479
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:35,480
Speaker 1: for a FIZ that Kevin Klinsmith, who could fled guilty

480
00:23:35,640 --> 00:23:36,439
Speaker 1: to falsifying.

481
00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:38,080
Speaker 5: I mean, and also we can you know me, I

482
00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:38,840
Speaker 5: think you got probation.

483
00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:41,360
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was his trophy and that is true. I'm

484
00:23:41,359 --> 00:23:42,639
Speaker 4: not denying that that happened.

485
00:23:42,680 --> 00:23:46,600
Speaker 2: It was just not It did not collapse the merits

486
00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:49,280
Speaker 2: of what was in the Muller Report or the Senate's

487
00:23:49,520 --> 00:23:51,119
Speaker 2: report on Russian interference.

488
00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:53,480
Speaker 1: I mean, the Muller report didn't have anything of merit

489
00:23:53,520 --> 00:23:56,880
Speaker 1: to talk about. There was a pression collusion was bs

490
00:23:57,480 --> 00:24:00,080
Speaker 1: and the obstruction charges were ridiculous. They were predicated on

491
00:24:00,119 --> 00:24:03,720
Speaker 1: a completely complete misunderstanding of how obstruction of justice works.

492
00:24:03,760 --> 00:24:05,720
Speaker 1: I mean, Bill Barr explained this thoroughly in the memo

493
00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:08,640
Speaker 1: he wrote before he became Attorney General and then became

494
00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:12,439
Speaker 1: when after he became Attorney General. He demonstrated that what

495
00:24:12,600 --> 00:24:15,080
Speaker 1: Andrew Weisman and the theory of fifteen Salts to two

496
00:24:15,119 --> 00:24:17,360
Speaker 1: that they were all prosecuting was just bizarre. And we're

497
00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:19,680
Speaker 1: about to find out that Supreme Court agrees with that entirely,

498
00:24:19,760 --> 00:24:21,640
Speaker 1: because when the Fisher opinion comes down a few weeks,

499
00:24:21,680 --> 00:24:25,160
Speaker 1: they're going to drastically narrow the scope of fifteen twelve c. Two,

500
00:24:25,280 --> 00:24:28,719
Speaker 1: this sort of this vague general obstruction statute that's going

501
00:24:28,760 --> 00:24:30,920
Speaker 1: to be narrowed down to actual impairment of evidence.

502
00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:36,240
Speaker 6: Well, let me pick up on something that that Brian

503
00:24:36,280 --> 00:24:38,920
Speaker 6: said that, Yeah, it's it's true that I think none

504
00:24:38,960 --> 00:24:41,800
Speaker 6: of us here want to see the norm broken where

505
00:24:41,840 --> 00:24:45,000
Speaker 6: we start to have political prisoners on each side and

506
00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:47,120
Speaker 6: like one party doesn't want to leave office because they're

507
00:24:47,119 --> 00:24:49,280
Speaker 6: afraid they're going to get jailed by the other party.

508
00:24:49,359 --> 00:24:51,040
Speaker 8: Like none of that is healthy for us.

509
00:24:51,080 --> 00:24:54,240
Speaker 6: But Brian makes an interesting point that a norm that

510
00:24:54,280 --> 00:24:56,679
Speaker 6: was broken before was by was by Donald Trump, you

511
00:24:56,720 --> 00:24:59,679
Speaker 6: know who's doing all of these crimes now I'm that

512
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:03,199
Speaker 6: one like standing up for all the sanctity of let's say,

513
00:25:03,240 --> 00:25:06,240
Speaker 6: classified documents. But you read that case, it's like the

514
00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:09,639
Speaker 6: guy was getting begged by the records folks to like

515
00:25:09,680 --> 00:25:12,520
Speaker 6: return the classified documents, and he's like moving them to

516
00:25:12,560 --> 00:25:15,040
Speaker 6: the bathroom and like telling people move them here, and

517
00:25:15,080 --> 00:25:20,160
Speaker 6: like flooding the flooding the like office and then saying, oh,

518
00:25:20,200 --> 00:25:22,240
Speaker 6: I'm not supposed to have this, this is classified. You

519
00:25:22,280 --> 00:25:24,560
Speaker 6: want to look at this. But then even setting aside that,

520
00:25:24,640 --> 00:25:28,680
Speaker 6: which I do think is setting that aside. You had

521
00:25:28,720 --> 00:25:33,960
Speaker 6: several hours where Trump supporters are ransacking the Capitol and

522
00:25:34,560 --> 00:25:37,919
Speaker 6: Kevin McCarthy and other Republican leaders are begging Trump to

523
00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:41,080
Speaker 6: put an end to the lawlessness, to this, to this

524
00:25:41,240 --> 00:25:44,040
Speaker 6: violent attempt to stop the certification of the election. And

525
00:25:44,119 --> 00:25:47,159
Speaker 6: he sat there for hours, and whereas a public just

526
00:25:47,160 --> 00:25:48,920
Speaker 6: supposed to be kind of okay with that. I mean,

527
00:25:48,960 --> 00:25:52,040
Speaker 6: at some point does there have to be some accountability.

528
00:25:52,880 --> 00:25:54,680
Speaker 1: I mean, that was CREDI but it's not the crime

529
00:25:54,680 --> 00:25:57,119
Speaker 1: he's being charged with, right Like, I mean, we people

530
00:25:57,160 --> 00:25:59,080
Speaker 1: do bad things all the time that are not criminal,

531
00:25:59,600 --> 00:26:01,360
Speaker 1: and that are ethical things all the time that are

532
00:26:01,359 --> 00:26:03,960
Speaker 1: not criminal, And the charges in the January sixth case

533
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:07,919
Speaker 1: just aren't about that. They're about like the elector's scheme, right,

534
00:26:07,960 --> 00:26:10,160
Speaker 1: which is the idea of like having these alternate slates

535
00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:13,680
Speaker 1: of electors put forward to facilitate legal challenges. And I mean,

536
00:26:13,760 --> 00:26:17,320
Speaker 1: the lawfair against those people is just absolutely absurd. There's

537
00:26:17,359 --> 00:26:19,800
Speaker 1: precedent for doing that, and there was no fraud because

538
00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:22,240
Speaker 1: they publicly posted on Twitter exactly what they were doing.

539
00:26:22,280 --> 00:26:25,040
Speaker 1: They weren't saying they weren't trying to secretly be electors

540
00:26:25,040 --> 00:26:26,600
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night that no one would know.

541
00:26:26,920 --> 00:26:30,440
Speaker 1: They were publicly like we are trying to like set

542
00:26:30,520 --> 00:26:33,320
Speaker 1: up you know, we are meeting to convene to have

543
00:26:33,400 --> 00:26:35,600
Speaker 1: these votes so that in the event that Trump's legal

544
00:26:35,680 --> 00:26:38,879
Speaker 1: challenges prevail, the failure to have electors sign off on

545
00:26:38,920 --> 00:26:42,240
Speaker 1: the required day isn't going to be a hindrance. They

546
00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:44,080
Speaker 1: weren't committing any sort of fraud any They're all being

547
00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:47,919
Speaker 1: criminally prosecuted. That's that is lawfair, and the precedent for

548
00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:51,800
Speaker 1: having doing that particular thing to preserve your effectively your

549
00:26:51,920 --> 00:26:55,280
Speaker 1: legal challenge. I mean that was done in nineteen sixty

550
00:26:55,320 --> 00:26:58,600
Speaker 1: with Kennedy, So I mean, but I think going back

551
00:26:58,640 --> 00:27:00,800
Speaker 1: to the macro view, which is the really important point.

552
00:27:00,880 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 1: Joe Biden really better hope that Donald Trump prevails on

553
00:27:03,880 --> 00:27:06,160
Speaker 1: his presidential immunity. I think he will, but he better

554
00:27:06,200 --> 00:27:08,119
Speaker 1: hope that he will because if if that's not the

555
00:27:08,160 --> 00:27:12,800
Speaker 1: case and official acts have no immunity for presidents, which

556
00:27:12,800 --> 00:27:16,400
Speaker 1: is actually a really quite bizarre position if you read

557
00:27:16,400 --> 00:27:18,960
Speaker 1: a case like Nixon Beefazgerald, Joe Biden is going to

558
00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:23,040
Speaker 1: get prosecuted by Republicans if we're in power, no question

559
00:27:23,080 --> 00:27:25,480
Speaker 1: about that. You won't have much of a defense either

560
00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,119
Speaker 1: to what you just something, right, I mean, you know,

561
00:27:30,520 --> 00:27:33,639
Speaker 1: like all like official acts. Obviously, Barack Obama can just

562
00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:35,920
Speaker 1: be prosecuted for murder the moment we get back into

563
00:27:35,960 --> 00:27:38,000
Speaker 1: office for killing a dula from.

564
00:27:39,480 --> 00:27:42,080
Speaker 7: Ryan just gave a thumbs up. If you're listening to this, yes, right.

565
00:27:42,000 --> 00:27:43,800
Speaker 5: Like I mean it's I don't.

566
00:27:43,920 --> 00:27:46,080
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a good outcome actually for the country,

567
00:27:46,080 --> 00:27:48,639
Speaker 1: because I think it means that we massively weakened the

568
00:27:48,680 --> 00:27:51,560
Speaker 1: presidency of the United States. And I mean I'm actually

569
00:27:51,680 --> 00:27:54,919
Speaker 1: you know not, I think executive power is probably a

570
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:55,480
Speaker 1: good thing.

571
00:27:55,400 --> 00:27:58,879
Speaker 5: Relative, you know, rather than just elevating the legislature. Uh,

572
00:27:58,920 --> 00:28:01,680
Speaker 5: And I think you know, we have a lot of these.

573
00:28:02,040 --> 00:28:03,560
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh made a really good point in one of the

574
00:28:03,600 --> 00:28:07,400
Speaker 1: and I think the presidential immunity oral argument. He said, well,

575
00:28:07,520 --> 00:28:09,399
Speaker 1: we come up with these structures to try and like

576
00:28:09,480 --> 00:28:11,760
Speaker 1: punish and restrain presidents, and they end up doing a

577
00:28:11,800 --> 00:28:15,640
Speaker 1: real huge amount of harm. Like the independent council structure

578
00:28:15,720 --> 00:28:17,640
Speaker 1: was a good example of this. Democrats were all for

579
00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:20,240
Speaker 1: the independent council, thought it was a great idea, and

580
00:28:20,280 --> 00:28:23,119
Speaker 1: then independent councils started getting appointed all the time during

581
00:28:23,400 --> 00:28:25,880
Speaker 1: the Clinic administration, and suddenly they realized, hey, this really

582
00:28:25,880 --> 00:28:29,440
Speaker 1: inhibits the functioning of the executive means that everybody who

583
00:28:29,440 --> 00:28:31,679
Speaker 1: works in the executive branch gets subpoena and has to,

584
00:28:32,160 --> 00:28:34,200
Speaker 1: you know, spend huge amounts of money on legal fees.

585
00:28:34,520 --> 00:28:35,479
Speaker 5: This just isn't worth it.

586
00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:38,240
Speaker 1: And I think maybe I think the best outcome here

587
00:28:38,240 --> 00:28:41,320
Speaker 1: is one where we stop harassing our presidents during and

588
00:28:41,360 --> 00:28:43,920
Speaker 1: after their their terms. I think it's I think president

589
00:28:43,920 --> 00:28:46,840
Speaker 1: there should be presidential criminal immunity and things.

590
00:28:46,960 --> 00:28:50,280
Speaker 2: I think that creates a huge like that creates just

591
00:28:50,320 --> 00:28:53,400
Speaker 2: a huge loophole for for scoff law presidents, and like

592
00:28:55,160 --> 00:28:59,720
Speaker 2: Ryan might support prosecuting Barack Obama for for for drum strikes,

593
00:29:00,440 --> 00:29:03,360
Speaker 2: and you might in the event that Donald Trump get

594
00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:05,720
Speaker 2: there will Donald Trump has been convicted. That Donald Trump

595
00:29:05,760 --> 00:29:09,600
Speaker 2: is not granted official Acts community for what stealing classified

596
00:29:09,640 --> 00:29:12,480
Speaker 2: documents or trying to overturn the election, that Joe Biden

597
00:29:12,480 --> 00:29:16,160
Speaker 2: should be prosecuted for like giving student people student loan

598
00:29:16,200 --> 00:29:21,440
Speaker 2: relief or something like that. But Barack Obama and Joe

599
00:29:21,480 --> 00:29:26,880
Speaker 2: Biden went through normal processes. They were given advice by

600
00:29:27,880 --> 00:29:29,560
Speaker 2: some of the best lawyers in the country about how

601
00:29:29,640 --> 00:29:35,560
Speaker 2: to proceed. They carried out their policies and so if

602
00:29:35,600 --> 00:29:37,360
Speaker 2: you try to charge them later, they're going to have

603
00:29:37,400 --> 00:29:39,920
Speaker 2: a good defense. But Donald Trump is being convicted of

604
00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:47,280
Speaker 2: crimes because he has no defense. He didn't offer defend.

605
00:29:45,880 --> 00:29:47,920
Speaker 1: Right if you don't have official Acts community as president.

606
00:29:47,960 --> 00:29:50,200
Speaker 1: I mean, he just murdered an American citizen without trial.

607
00:29:50,760 --> 00:29:52,560
Speaker 1: I mean, does the fact that he has an OLC

608
00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:55,160
Speaker 1: memo that says, oh, this is okay, just mean that

609
00:29:55,200 --> 00:29:57,760
Speaker 1: it's that insulates him from a murder charge.

610
00:29:58,160 --> 00:30:00,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, because on advice of counsel, he thought that this

611
00:30:00,720 --> 00:30:02,920
Speaker 2: was consistent with America's na A Trump.

612
00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:04,320
Speaker 1: Need to do is find some blacky to be his

613
00:30:04,360 --> 00:30:06,640
Speaker 1: OLC guy. Remember you don't have that's not a president,

614
00:30:06,760 --> 00:30:09,240
Speaker 1: that's not a Senate confirmed position. He just finds some

615
00:30:09,320 --> 00:30:11,040
Speaker 1: lacky to be an OLLC guy and say, oh, yeah,

616
00:30:11,080 --> 00:30:11,880
Speaker 1: everything you do is legal.

617
00:30:11,920 --> 00:30:14,200
Speaker 2: And then okay, Donald Trump had lackeys and they told

618
00:30:14,280 --> 00:30:16,400
Speaker 2: him that his efforts to steal the election were illegal.

619
00:30:16,560 --> 00:30:17,320
Speaker 4: And then they went, I.

620
00:30:17,320 --> 00:30:19,800
Speaker 1: Mean that's a dodge from the broader point, right, Like

621
00:30:19,840 --> 00:30:20,840
Speaker 1: the idea that this sort of.

622
00:30:21,080 --> 00:30:23,000
Speaker 4: Oh, it's not that's that's exactly.

623
00:30:22,680 --> 00:30:26,000
Speaker 1: The potential community is, or like means that you can

624
00:30:26,040 --> 00:30:28,160
Speaker 1: we don't need a concept of presidential community just goes

625
00:30:28,240 --> 00:30:31,280
Speaker 1: isn't right? And I think the other problem, here's the

626
00:30:31,280 --> 00:30:32,840
Speaker 1: way to think about it. You are right that like

627
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:35,680
Speaker 1: the choice of saying that there was presidential acts immunity

628
00:30:36,160 --> 00:30:39,680
Speaker 1: creates a potential scoff law president problem. This this dilemma

629
00:30:39,840 --> 00:30:42,360
Speaker 1: was was analyzed in detailed by the Supreme Court in

630
00:30:42,440 --> 00:30:45,800
Speaker 1: Nixon Vivisgerald, where they considered exactly that problem. But they said,

631
00:30:46,120 --> 00:30:49,840
Speaker 1: the efficient functioning of the executive branch and incentivizing boldness

632
00:30:49,880 --> 00:30:53,840
Speaker 1: is sufficient to completely immunize presidents from civil immunity. And

633
00:30:54,320 --> 00:30:57,200
Speaker 1: I mean, you're going to see I'm very confident that

634
00:30:57,200 --> 00:30:59,080
Speaker 1: the courts are going to end up ruling at least

635
00:30:59,120 --> 00:31:00,880
Speaker 1: to some degree for an in Trump that there is

636
00:31:00,960 --> 00:31:03,720
Speaker 1: going to be some amount of immunity. Because the other

637
00:31:03,760 --> 00:31:07,600
Speaker 1: thing is even the even DJ and Michael Dribin didn't

638
00:31:07,600 --> 00:31:10,120
Speaker 1: defend the d Circuit opinion that said there's no such

639
00:31:10,200 --> 00:31:12,400
Speaker 1: thing as official acts community like he was he was

640
00:31:12,440 --> 00:31:14,680
Speaker 1: asked that point blank in the oral argument, do you

641
00:31:14,720 --> 00:31:16,840
Speaker 1: agree with the d C Circuit And Dreamin's like, well,

642
00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:19,160
Speaker 1: maybe I don't know. That's you know, we're going to

643
00:31:19,200 --> 00:31:21,480
Speaker 1: prevail in this question, and it's a good thing that

644
00:31:21,520 --> 00:31:23,440
Speaker 1: we do, because I mean, here's the other thing.

645
00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:27,240
Speaker 5: I mean, like Joe Biden's you know, sorry, I actually

646
00:31:27,240 --> 00:31:27,840
Speaker 5: mix things up.

647
00:31:27,880 --> 00:31:29,280
Speaker 1: But Joe Biden, you know, if we wanted to talk

648
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:31,760
Speaker 1: about if there's no official acts community, then Joe Biden

649
00:31:31,800 --> 00:31:34,480
Speaker 1: facilitated the mass migration of illegal immigrants across our border

650
00:31:34,520 --> 00:31:37,760
Speaker 1: by like failing to enforce our laws. Another point, Joe Biden,

651
00:31:38,160 --> 00:31:41,600
Speaker 1: in explicit violation of Supreme Court uh Supreme Court cases,

652
00:31:41,600 --> 00:31:43,880
Speaker 1: decided to like go ahead and try and push for

653
00:31:44,600 --> 00:31:48,080
Speaker 1: a student loan forgiveness without any lawful backing. It's like

654
00:31:48,120 --> 00:31:49,800
Speaker 1: if that's not if he doesn't get any official Act

655
00:31:49,800 --> 00:31:52,640
Speaker 1: community well, you know we're talking about, you know, promoting

656
00:31:52,640 --> 00:31:55,440
Speaker 1: your election via unlawful means. In the New York case, well,

657
00:31:55,480 --> 00:31:57,360
Speaker 1: I guess we could just have somebody prosecute him for

658
00:31:57,720 --> 00:32:00,800
Speaker 1: essentially trying to win a you know, bribe college students

659
00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:03,880
Speaker 1: and using unlawful means right in unlawful executive order to

660
00:32:03,920 --> 00:32:06,600
Speaker 1: do so. You know that the Pandora's box is real.

661
00:32:06,960 --> 00:32:08,840
Speaker 1: And trust me, if we get back into power and

662
00:32:08,840 --> 00:32:12,320
Speaker 1: we don't win these presidential community cases, you will see

663
00:32:12,720 --> 00:32:14,360
Speaker 1: just how far that Pandora's box goes.

664
00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:16,160
Speaker 2: And I just want to I want to reiterate that, like,

665
00:32:16,160 --> 00:32:18,240
Speaker 2: I'm not worried about that Pandora's box, and I would

666
00:32:18,360 --> 00:32:22,440
Speaker 2: I would, I would welcome some Republican prosecutor to prosecute Joe.

667
00:32:22,760 --> 00:32:26,480
Speaker 2: I'll forgive this, but let me let me be magnanimous

668
00:32:26,480 --> 00:32:32,040
Speaker 2: about another thing, which is you mentioned Jim come earlier

669
00:32:32,040 --> 00:32:34,520
Speaker 2: in Hillary Clinton and we're talking a little bit about

670
00:32:34,520 --> 00:32:35,440
Speaker 2: official ex community.

671
00:32:35,520 --> 00:32:36,560
Speaker 4: When Jim Comey was.

672
00:32:36,560 --> 00:32:39,360
Speaker 2: I believe running s D and Y as a US

673
00:32:39,440 --> 00:32:43,680
Speaker 2: attorney at the end of the Clinton administration, he investigated

674
00:32:43,760 --> 00:32:48,680
Speaker 2: Bill Clinton for pardoning Mark Mark rich to to on

675
00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:52,160
Speaker 2: the on the theory that this was essentially like a bribe,

676
00:32:52,200 --> 00:32:56,400
Speaker 2: a quid pro quo. I think that that was like

677
00:32:56,880 --> 00:32:59,320
Speaker 2: a good theory if, like I don't know the details

678
00:32:59,320 --> 00:33:01,920
Speaker 2: of the case or why he declined to prosecute, but

679
00:33:02,080 --> 00:33:04,800
Speaker 2: I would absolutely support the idea that if a president

680
00:33:04,840 --> 00:33:07,880
Speaker 2: takes money in order to issue a pardon, that that

681
00:33:07,880 --> 00:33:11,200
Speaker 2: that the president is not immune from that. Now, that

682
00:33:11,720 --> 00:33:14,480
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that the pardon becomes invalid, right, It's still

683
00:33:14,480 --> 00:33:17,160
Speaker 2: an official act. The pardon was granted while Bill Clinton

684
00:33:17,160 --> 00:33:20,000
Speaker 2: was president, Mark Rich gets off the hook. But if

685
00:33:20,000 --> 00:33:23,200
Speaker 2: there was a corrupt purpose there, then of course Bill

686
00:33:23,240 --> 00:33:26,720
Speaker 2: Clinton should be prosecuted for it. And the pardon power

687
00:33:26,800 --> 00:33:31,280
Speaker 2: is like the core of presidential power, right, like it's

688
00:33:31,360 --> 00:33:35,000
Speaker 2: it's it's plenary, right, there's no uh, there's there's no review,

689
00:33:35,040 --> 00:33:40,040
Speaker 2: and only the president can pardon somebody. And the the

690
00:33:40,120 --> 00:33:44,800
Speaker 2: idea that like you create an official act community, you're

691
00:33:44,920 --> 00:33:48,480
Speaker 2: you're you're gonna get let people like Bill Clinton off

692
00:33:48,520 --> 00:33:49,720
Speaker 2: the hook for stuff like that.

693
00:33:49,920 --> 00:33:51,160
Speaker 5: Not necessarily, I don't.

694
00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:52,719
Speaker 4: Think you should want that. And I'm saying that as

695
00:33:52,760 --> 00:33:53,760
Speaker 4: a liberal, I.

696
00:33:53,680 --> 00:33:59,200
Speaker 1: Mean not necessarily. So can I answer this one? I mean, yeah, So,

697
00:33:59,800 --> 00:34:02,400
Speaker 1: I two reasons. One, I think people have glossed over

698
00:34:02,440 --> 00:34:04,200
Speaker 1: the fact that the position of the Trump legal team

699
00:34:04,200 --> 00:34:06,440
Speaker 1: and the sensible position. I think it's not that all

700
00:34:06,480 --> 00:34:10,560
Speaker 1: official acts always provide immunity. It's that if you are impeaching, convicted,

701
00:34:10,560 --> 00:34:13,360
Speaker 1: stunt for something, your official ac community goes away. You

702
00:34:13,360 --> 00:34:15,240
Speaker 1: can read the briefing. But that's been the Trump team's position.

703
00:34:15,280 --> 00:34:18,239
Speaker 1: I think that's the right one. Also jives with the constitution, right.

704
00:34:18,239 --> 00:34:21,960
Speaker 1: The Constitution explicitly talks about bribery as a basis for impeachment,

705
00:34:22,840 --> 00:34:26,360
Speaker 1: So clearly that would be an exception to whatever immunity provides.

706
00:34:26,400 --> 00:34:28,359
Speaker 1: Like you take a bribe for something as the president, Yeah,

707
00:34:28,360 --> 00:34:31,040
Speaker 1: you can be prosecuted for it after you're impeached and convicted.

708
00:34:32,680 --> 00:34:33,560
Speaker 5: I think that's so.

709
00:34:33,600 --> 00:34:35,800
Speaker 4: But but you can't be But you can't be impeached

710
00:34:35,800 --> 00:34:36,840
Speaker 4: and convicted.

711
00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:40,640
Speaker 2: Most almost for certain if you if you're issuing pardons

712
00:34:40,680 --> 00:34:42,000
Speaker 2: on your way out the door, which is what Bill

713
00:34:42,000 --> 00:34:42,879
Speaker 2: Clinton did in this case.

714
00:34:42,960 --> 00:34:43,360
Speaker 5: I mean.

715
00:34:45,400 --> 00:34:47,680
Speaker 4: Partners, campaign campaigned owners.

716
00:34:47,840 --> 00:34:50,439
Speaker 5: I mean Joe Biden, can President Trump partner?

717
00:34:51,840 --> 00:34:55,880
Speaker 2: Can can Joe Biden part hunter Biden without facing and

718
00:34:56,040 --> 00:34:58,200
Speaker 2: he should have official acts community for doing that?

719
00:34:58,200 --> 00:34:59,560
Speaker 4: That's his son absolutely.

720
00:34:59,640 --> 00:35:00,680
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, Joe Biden can parton.

721
00:35:01,840 --> 00:35:03,799
Speaker 2: I mean you and you, and you wouldn't come on

722
00:35:03,840 --> 00:35:05,880
Speaker 2: this program, and you wouldn't come on this program and

723
00:35:05,920 --> 00:35:07,640
Speaker 2: say and and like now he needs to be impeached,

724
00:35:07,640 --> 00:35:09,320
Speaker 2: he needs to be convicted, he needs to be prosecuted.

725
00:35:09,360 --> 00:35:11,759
Speaker 5: No, No, it's very straightforward.

726
00:35:11,840 --> 00:35:14,279
Speaker 1: I always I don't understand what could possibly be the

727
00:35:14,360 --> 00:35:16,680
Speaker 1: argument against, what would possibly be the argument that Joe

728
00:35:16,680 --> 00:35:17,759
Speaker 1: Biden couldn't pardon his son.

729
00:35:18,040 --> 00:35:22,600
Speaker 9: So of course he could, of course, but even for

730
00:35:22,719 --> 00:35:25,640
Speaker 9: you know, if he did it for purely nepotistic, selfish reasons,

731
00:35:25,680 --> 00:35:28,040
Speaker 9: I don't that's you made the guy the president, that's

732
00:35:28,080 --> 00:35:28,520
Speaker 9: his power.

733
00:35:28,600 --> 00:35:30,200
Speaker 5: I don't see a way that he can be prosecuted for.

734
00:35:30,360 --> 00:35:32,600
Speaker 7: There's an interesting question that will come up when we

735
00:35:32,680 --> 00:35:35,960
Speaker 7: agree on you know, whether this is a just use

736
00:35:35,960 --> 00:35:38,239
Speaker 7: of legal power. What the law actually says one thing.

737
00:35:38,560 --> 00:35:40,799
Speaker 7: The other question I have for you, Brian, is what

738
00:35:40,840 --> 00:35:43,319
Speaker 7: you make of the argument from the right. And this

739
00:35:43,360 --> 00:35:46,080
Speaker 7: is where I brought Comy and Clinton into it, that

740
00:35:46,400 --> 00:35:49,880
Speaker 7: for the last let's say ten years, this has almost

741
00:35:50,200 --> 00:35:53,520
Speaker 7: always gone in one direction, the quote unquote law fair,

742
00:35:53,520 --> 00:35:55,680
Speaker 7: which I know you don't use that word, but that,

743
00:35:55,800 --> 00:36:01,200
Speaker 7: like the prosecutions have been almost exclusively of Trump allies.

744
00:36:01,320 --> 00:36:02,360
Speaker 7: What do you make of that.

745
00:36:03,800 --> 00:36:04,879
Speaker 4: They're criminals?

746
00:36:05,160 --> 00:36:08,280
Speaker 2: I mean you could people people would say that Hillary

747
00:36:08,280 --> 00:36:13,600
Speaker 2: Clinton is a criminal, and yes, sure, sure, but like

748
00:36:13,760 --> 00:36:18,160
Speaker 2: but like the scale of the you know we've had,

749
00:36:18,280 --> 00:36:19,239
Speaker 2: what does the matter?

750
00:36:19,520 --> 00:36:19,960
Speaker 4: President?

751
00:36:20,760 --> 00:36:22,200
Speaker 7: Why should the scale that matter?

752
00:36:22,800 --> 00:36:27,000
Speaker 2: Because people who aren't inveterate criminals don't leave behind nearly

753
00:36:27,000 --> 00:36:28,640
Speaker 2: as much evidence as Donald Trump has.

754
00:36:29,280 --> 00:36:30,080
Speaker 4: Well, they destroy it.

755
00:36:30,200 --> 00:36:33,640
Speaker 7: They if they're Hillary Clinton, they bleach bit the evidence.

756
00:36:35,160 --> 00:36:38,239
Speaker 2: The I mean if Hillary, if Jim Comey had made

757
00:36:38,239 --> 00:36:42,239
Speaker 2: the opposite recommendation, if he had said, this is like

758
00:36:43,160 --> 00:36:46,040
Speaker 2: a winner of a case and Loretta Lynch should try it.

759
00:36:47,719 --> 00:36:51,239
Speaker 2: I either I suspect that the case would have gone

760
00:36:51,280 --> 00:36:53,200
Speaker 2: forward at one point or another. Hillary Clinton would have

761
00:36:53,239 --> 00:36:55,800
Speaker 2: lost the election more badly than she did. There wouldn't

762
00:36:55,800 --> 00:36:57,520
Speaker 2: have been any need for Donald Trump to threaten to

763
00:36:57,560 --> 00:37:00,920
Speaker 2: lock her up. I don't think Jim was doing Hillary

764
00:37:00,920 --> 00:37:05,480
Speaker 2: Clinton a favor by intervening and saying she was extremely reckless.

765
00:37:05,480 --> 00:37:10,640
Speaker 4: But there's no no like a convictable crime here. Yeah,

766
00:37:11,520 --> 00:37:13,320
Speaker 4: Like I feel I feel like I'm in.

767
00:37:13,239 --> 00:37:16,640
Speaker 2: Like in upside downland, where we're saying like this only

768
00:37:16,640 --> 00:37:21,000
Speaker 2: ever goes one way. Yes, Hillary Clinton wasn't wasn't tried

769
00:37:21,040 --> 00:37:23,640
Speaker 2: for that. But she was the she was the candidate

770
00:37:23,680 --> 00:37:27,080
Speaker 2: who lost the election because the FBI director inserted himself

771
00:37:27,080 --> 00:37:31,120
Speaker 2: in the election to say that that she was careless

772
00:37:31,120 --> 00:37:33,239
Speaker 2: with classified information. And then he did it again right

773
00:37:33,280 --> 00:37:35,880
Speaker 2: before the election and the election turned on eight thousand

774
00:37:35,960 --> 00:37:36,600
Speaker 2: votes in three.

775
00:37:36,480 --> 00:37:37,360
Speaker 4: States and she lost.

776
00:37:37,640 --> 00:37:39,359
Speaker 8: I mean, right, that's right, right.

777
00:37:39,640 --> 00:37:42,200
Speaker 2: That's an abuse that that's an abuse of law enforcement

778
00:37:42,239 --> 00:37:46,319
Speaker 2: power to hurt. Like if they had indicted her, then that.

779
00:37:46,800 --> 00:37:49,799
Speaker 5: That was the official reason process, that was the official.

780
00:37:49,440 --> 00:37:51,399
Speaker 1: Reason that Comy was fired. It wasn't the actual reason,

781
00:37:51,400 --> 00:37:53,239
Speaker 1: but it's the official reason that Commy was fired. That

782
00:37:53,280 --> 00:37:55,520
Speaker 1: was that justified to Comy's fire.

783
00:37:55,600 --> 00:38:00,200
Speaker 4: Yes, there so after after after demand, yes, I.

784
00:38:01,000 --> 00:38:03,439
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I think I think there is still there's

785
00:38:03,440 --> 00:38:05,319
Speaker 1: a there's a different point here, which is that I mean,

786
00:38:05,440 --> 00:38:07,480
Speaker 1: not only Hillary Clinton, but Joe Biden's got a hug

787
00:38:07,480 --> 00:38:08,800
Speaker 1: classified information problem.

788
00:38:08,880 --> 00:38:12,120
Speaker 5: I mean, and in my opinion, more dramatic as he

789
00:38:12,320 --> 00:38:13,120
Speaker 5: President Trump's.

790
00:38:13,280 --> 00:38:16,360
Speaker 1: Yeah, he had classified documents in his garage, classified documents

791
00:38:16,360 --> 00:38:17,280
Speaker 1: from when he was a senator.

792
00:38:17,400 --> 00:38:20,160
Speaker 2: That's you don't just what the republic, what did the republic,

793
00:38:20,520 --> 00:38:23,239
Speaker 2: what did the Republican Special councils say about that, what

794
00:38:23,280 --> 00:38:24,640
Speaker 2: were the charges.

795
00:38:24,120 --> 00:38:26,120
Speaker 1: That they said he was too infirmed to be able

796
00:38:26,160 --> 00:38:30,239
Speaker 1: to get to extract a conviction? Right like these that's

797
00:38:30,239 --> 00:38:32,160
Speaker 1: not exactly a vote of confidence. It doesn't say he

798
00:38:32,160 --> 00:38:34,320
Speaker 1: didn't commit the crime. It says I couldn't extract conviction

799
00:38:34,400 --> 00:38:37,719
Speaker 1: in DC for a couple of reasons, right, but it.

800
00:38:37,760 --> 00:38:42,319
Speaker 2: Doesn't need so, So you think that that, like, like,

801
00:38:42,680 --> 00:38:46,000
Speaker 2: if Joe Biden loses the election, he'll be prosecuted for

802
00:38:46,040 --> 00:38:49,560
Speaker 2: those for retaining those classified documents and he'll be be surprised.

803
00:38:49,680 --> 00:38:51,640
Speaker 7: Brian, do you think he should be? Brian, do you

804
00:38:51,680 --> 00:38:54,440
Speaker 7: think he should be? Should Joe Biden under the logic.

805
00:38:54,280 --> 00:38:58,440
Speaker 2: And no, under the read of the her report, No,

806
00:38:58,520 --> 00:39:00,960
Speaker 2: he shouldn't be tried. But if he is, I'm not

807
00:39:01,000 --> 00:39:04,200
Speaker 2: going to you know, I'm not going to like sit

808
00:39:04,239 --> 00:39:06,319
Speaker 2: here sweating it for Joe Biden that he might spend

809
00:39:06,320 --> 00:39:09,880
Speaker 2: a lot of time in prison, should because murder?

810
00:39:12,239 --> 00:39:15,800
Speaker 7: So your your position is that neither by Obama's cases

811
00:39:16,040 --> 00:39:18,080
Speaker 7: rise to the level that they should be brought.

812
00:39:19,360 --> 00:39:21,759
Speaker 2: I mean, if if, if, if the Supreme Court says

813
00:39:21,840 --> 00:39:25,600
Speaker 2: nothing a president don it does in his official capacity

814
00:39:26,520 --> 00:39:29,480
Speaker 2: carries any immunity with it, and some prosecutor wants to

815
00:39:29,480 --> 00:39:34,239
Speaker 2: go after Barack Obama, I will probably argue that that

816
00:39:34,320 --> 00:39:37,960
Speaker 2: prosecutor is engaging in a partisan form of corruption. But

817
00:39:38,000 --> 00:39:40,800
Speaker 2: I'm not going to worry about, you know, Barack Obama

818
00:39:40,800 --> 00:39:43,360
Speaker 2: becoming a political prisoner because he's going to beat the charges.

819
00:39:44,239 --> 00:39:45,680
Speaker 8: Brian, I know you have to go in like one

820
00:39:45,719 --> 00:39:47,839
Speaker 8: or two minutes, but let me finish with a.

821
00:39:47,840 --> 00:39:50,640
Speaker 6: Question about that, because I do worry about the pandora's

822
00:39:50,680 --> 00:39:54,200
Speaker 6: box that that we'll mention, because you could imagine, let's

823
00:39:54,239 --> 00:40:00,520
Speaker 6: say an Alabama prosecutor finds somebody who was, you know,

824
00:40:00,600 --> 00:40:02,840
Speaker 6: killed by an immigrant who came across the border in

825
00:40:02,880 --> 00:40:06,560
Speaker 6: an unauthorized fashion, and they bring a charge against Biden

826
00:40:06,680 --> 00:40:09,640
Speaker 6: for complicity in that murder, and they get a jury

827
00:40:10,160 --> 00:40:14,279
Speaker 6: of they get a mega jury, Like is that is

828
00:40:14,320 --> 00:40:18,240
Speaker 6: that a thing that we should be worried about.

829
00:40:19,480 --> 00:40:23,200
Speaker 2: I lose no sleep over it personally. I mean, Alabama

830
00:40:23,320 --> 00:40:26,600
Speaker 2: is much. I mean I feel like it's it's silly

831
00:40:26,600 --> 00:40:30,160
Speaker 2: to be to be like so part of like who

832
00:40:30,320 --> 00:40:32,959
Speaker 2: about it in partisan terms, because I think Joe Biden

833
00:40:33,000 --> 00:40:34,840
Speaker 2: would be acquitted of.

834
00:40:34,760 --> 00:40:37,400
Speaker 4: Charges along those lines even in Alabama.

835
00:40:37,480 --> 00:40:42,680
Speaker 2: But if six of the jurors were magas selected by

836
00:40:42,719 --> 00:40:45,360
Speaker 2: the prosecutor because he had identified them as supporters of

837
00:40:45,400 --> 00:40:47,560
Speaker 2: Donald Trump who wanted revenge on Joe Biden.

838
00:40:47,760 --> 00:40:50,440
Speaker 4: Joe Biden would still get to pick the other six jurors.

839
00:40:51,120 --> 00:40:54,000
Speaker 4: And Alabama is less.

840
00:40:55,280 --> 00:40:58,839
Speaker 2: Is more democratic than Manhattan is Republicans, so you can

841
00:40:58,880 --> 00:41:00,480
Speaker 2: hang the jury. I mean, it's just like I am,

842
00:41:00,520 --> 00:41:02,680
Speaker 2: not like. It does not cause me to lose any

843
00:41:02,680 --> 00:41:05,399
Speaker 2: sleep at night when people like will come out lobby

844
00:41:05,520 --> 00:41:07,360
Speaker 2: lobbying these threats that if you put a criminal like

845
00:41:07,400 --> 00:41:09,520
Speaker 2: Donald Trump in jail, will put a non criminal like

846
00:41:09,600 --> 00:41:10,479
Speaker 2: Joe Biden in jail.

847
00:41:11,320 --> 00:41:12,840
Speaker 4: So I know he doesn't sweat.

848
00:41:13,120 --> 00:41:14,680
Speaker 6: I know you've got to run to an appointment. Really

849
00:41:14,719 --> 00:41:18,280
Speaker 6: appreciate you joining us. Feel free to log off because

850
00:41:18,280 --> 00:41:18,880
Speaker 6: I know you got it.

851
00:41:19,320 --> 00:41:20,080
Speaker 5: You'll be late for it.

852
00:41:20,200 --> 00:41:23,319
Speaker 4: I appreciate the panel. I appreciate you guys having me on.

853
00:41:23,800 --> 00:41:25,359
Speaker 7: Thank you. Brian. All right, well, do you have any

854
00:41:25,440 --> 00:41:28,279
Speaker 7: final thoughts? Brian ran obviously, so don't hit him too

855
00:41:28,320 --> 00:41:30,040
Speaker 7: hard because it's not here to defend himself.

856
00:41:30,080 --> 00:41:31,680
Speaker 8: But I didn't run on parts. He told us he

857
00:41:31,680 --> 00:41:31,960
Speaker 8: had us.

858
00:41:32,080 --> 00:41:34,280
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's right, he had a heart out. In all fairness,

859
00:41:34,320 --> 00:41:36,080
Speaker 7: we just went long because this was so fascinating, But

860
00:41:36,320 --> 00:41:38,680
Speaker 7: any final thoughts on Brian's last answer there.

861
00:41:39,560 --> 00:41:43,680
Speaker 1: So, I think that multiparty democracy doesn't really work unless

862
00:41:43,719 --> 00:41:46,840
Speaker 1: the parties show each other a basic amount of honor,

863
00:41:46,960 --> 00:41:48,880
Speaker 1: Like think about how the British Parliament works, where we

864
00:41:48,920 --> 00:41:51,560
Speaker 1: talk about the honorable gentleman or the honorable member of

865
00:41:51,600 --> 00:41:54,879
Speaker 1: opposite and there's that's actually kind of important, right, these

866
00:41:54,960 --> 00:41:56,840
Speaker 1: rules of decorum in the sense that the two parties

867
00:41:56,880 --> 00:41:59,880
Speaker 1: need to be respected because there's there's a fundamental instability

868
00:42:00,080 --> 00:42:03,759
Speaker 1: to any democracy, which is that if that honor dissipates,

869
00:42:03,920 --> 00:42:06,000
Speaker 1: then one party decides, okay, well, we don't really think

870
00:42:06,040 --> 00:42:08,000
Speaker 1: these election things are that good. We see you, the

871
00:42:08,040 --> 00:42:10,560
Speaker 1: other party is entirely illegitimate, and we want to take power.

872
00:42:11,719 --> 00:42:16,080
Speaker 1: And these kind of like lawfare style prosecutions of reciprocal

873
00:42:16,120 --> 00:42:18,200
Speaker 1: prosecutions that I think would occur in a world where

874
00:42:18,280 --> 00:42:21,280
Speaker 1: there wasn't presidential immunity or you know, we didn't stop

875
00:42:21,280 --> 00:42:24,120
Speaker 1: this Pandora's box ultimately leads to some really bad outcomes.

876
00:42:24,239 --> 00:42:27,839
Speaker 1: So I'm a big believer that I think it would

877
00:42:27,880 --> 00:42:29,480
Speaker 1: be better if we all stopped.

878
00:42:29,200 --> 00:42:30,920
Speaker 5: Trying to prosecute each other. But that's it.

879
00:42:30,960 --> 00:42:33,600
Speaker 1: I don't believe in the Republicans unilaterally disarming. That there

880
00:42:33,600 --> 00:42:36,480
Speaker 1: has to be a response to what they've done to

881
00:42:36,520 --> 00:42:40,640
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So you know, it might ultimately hope to

882
00:42:40,640 --> 00:42:41,760
Speaker 1: get to a settlement eventually.

883
00:42:42,280 --> 00:42:44,120
Speaker 6: My own view will and I'm curious for your take

884
00:42:44,160 --> 00:42:46,880
Speaker 6: on this, is that I would have preferred to see

885
00:42:47,080 --> 00:42:52,319
Speaker 6: Trump prosecuted for the flagrant bribery level corruption, a lot

886
00:42:52,360 --> 00:42:54,399
Speaker 6: of which flowed out of the Middle East and then

887
00:42:54,480 --> 00:42:58,600
Speaker 6: flowed in float in through his family into the White House.

888
00:42:58,600 --> 00:43:00,400
Speaker 6: But not all Middle East, but a lot of it

889
00:43:00,480 --> 00:43:03,000
Speaker 6: flowed through the post that that you know, in that

890
00:43:03,239 --> 00:43:06,239
Speaker 6: like Postal hotel, and he's got all these people, like

891
00:43:06,320 --> 00:43:11,799
Speaker 6: you know, paying extraordinarily over over market price to stay

892
00:43:11,840 --> 00:43:16,960
Speaker 6: in his hotel nearby. But that to me cut too

893
00:43:16,960 --> 00:43:19,880
Speaker 6: close to the bone for Democrats because while it's it

894
00:43:19,960 --> 00:43:24,000
Speaker 6: was worse in degree then what is typical in Washington,

895
00:43:24,080 --> 00:43:27,560
Speaker 6: it was this, it was similar in kind. Yeah, so

896
00:43:27,600 --> 00:43:29,480
Speaker 6: if you come after, if you come after, you come

897
00:43:29,520 --> 00:43:30,200
Speaker 6: after everything.

898
00:43:30,320 --> 00:43:33,279
Speaker 1: Yeah, all the Biden China stuff, I mean, what you know,

899
00:43:33,360 --> 00:43:37,319
Speaker 1: the Tony Bobolinski revelations, Obama lives in Martha's vineyard. I mean,

900
00:43:37,560 --> 00:43:40,120
Speaker 1: you it seems that you know, Donald Trump has the

901
00:43:40,239 --> 00:43:43,040
Speaker 1: credit of being the one politician who's networth substantially decreased

902
00:43:43,040 --> 00:43:45,680
Speaker 1: as a result of his presidence. I don't know he's

903
00:43:45,760 --> 00:43:50,280
Speaker 1: the right person to look at for you know, the beneficiary.

904
00:43:49,719 --> 00:43:53,759
Speaker 6: Of Kushner went from near bankrupt because of yeah, a

905
00:43:53,920 --> 00:43:56,640
Speaker 6: six six six fifth avenue investment to doing just fine.

906
00:43:57,120 --> 00:43:59,000
Speaker 8: So yeah, that's funny.

907
00:43:59,120 --> 00:44:02,800
Speaker 6: It was a transfer of It's a generational transfer of wealth.

908
00:44:05,120 --> 00:44:09,279
Speaker 7: There you go. Will Chamberlain is senior counsel at the

909
00:44:09,360 --> 00:44:13,120
Speaker 7: Article three Project. Brian Buehler is the right of the

910
00:44:13,160 --> 00:44:17,480
Speaker 7: off message. There you go, off message, substack, will thank

911
00:44:17,480 --> 00:44:18,760
Speaker 7: you so much for joining us.

912
00:44:19,160 --> 00:44:22,719
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me, all.

913
00:44:22,640 --> 00:44:24,560
Speaker 7: Right, Ran, I don't think I agree one hundred percent

914
00:44:24,600 --> 00:44:26,560
Speaker 7: with either of them, And I thought that was a

915
00:44:26,640 --> 00:44:30,960
Speaker 7: really clarifying debate because to your point, liberal Democrats are

916
00:44:31,000 --> 00:44:34,200
Speaker 7: different from the sort of lock them all up, you

917
00:44:34,200 --> 00:44:36,239
Speaker 7: know perspective that you know, when you gave that big

918
00:44:36,280 --> 00:44:39,640
Speaker 7: thumbs up to prosecuting Obama for murder. There's a difference

919
00:44:39,680 --> 00:44:42,120
Speaker 7: on the left, a pretty important distinction on the left.

920
00:44:41,920 --> 00:44:46,160
Speaker 6: And of course prosecute Cheney and Bush for torture. On

921
00:44:46,480 --> 00:44:49,360
Speaker 6: the other hand, I'm ambivalent about it because I agree

922
00:44:49,400 --> 00:44:53,000
Speaker 6: with Will when he says you need and you need

923
00:44:53,040 --> 00:44:56,040
Speaker 6: executive power to be able to function like we actually do.

924
00:44:56,840 --> 00:45:00,800
Speaker 6: What is Trump's funny line, We got to have a country. Yeah,

925
00:45:00,840 --> 00:45:02,600
Speaker 6: Like you actually do have to have a government, and

926
00:45:02,640 --> 00:45:04,839
Speaker 6: you have to have a government that is able to

927
00:45:04,920 --> 00:45:06,000
Speaker 6: take the laws.

928
00:45:06,120 --> 00:45:09,399
Speaker 8: And execute them. And if you're if.

929
00:45:09,360 --> 00:45:13,120
Speaker 6: You do prosecute everybody in a partisan way, you can

930
00:45:13,160 --> 00:45:17,600
Speaker 6: always find crimes. Now I wish that we were we

931
00:45:17,600 --> 00:45:22,839
Speaker 6: were less of a bloodthirsty uh empire. But basically, any

932
00:45:22,880 --> 00:45:26,640
Speaker 6: any president, uh you know who of the United States

933
00:45:26,640 --> 00:45:29,759
Speaker 6: over the last century is going to be responsible for

934
00:45:29,800 --> 00:45:30,879
Speaker 6: an enormous amount of death.

935
00:45:31,520 --> 00:45:32,640
Speaker 7: Show me a man, and I'll show you.

936
00:45:32,680 --> 00:45:34,680
Speaker 6: I'll find the crime, right and then then the idea

937
00:45:34,680 --> 00:45:38,839
Speaker 6: that like locking up those individuals would do anything about

938
00:45:38,880 --> 00:45:42,920
Speaker 6: it under underminds what we understand about the logic of

939
00:45:43,280 --> 00:45:44,120
Speaker 6: imperial power.

940
00:45:44,480 --> 00:45:46,720
Speaker 7: And so I think they were both like very honest

941
00:45:46,760 --> 00:45:51,480
Speaker 7: representations of their side. And Will saying with the we

942
00:45:52,120 --> 00:45:55,719
Speaker 7: pronoun actually like if you know Republicans, he was saying,

943
00:45:55,760 --> 00:45:59,080
Speaker 7: we retake power. And obviously I don't include myself in that,

944
00:45:59,120 --> 00:46:03,640
Speaker 7: but he was saying we will. We cannot unilaterally disarm,

945
00:46:03,880 --> 00:46:06,560
Speaker 7: and that's the phrase that is like a buzzword in

946
00:46:06,600 --> 00:46:11,240
Speaker 7: conservative circles right now is unilateral disarmament, because they feel

947
00:46:11,280 --> 00:46:14,640
Speaker 7: that the Department of Justice, the FBI has been weaponized

948
00:46:14,760 --> 00:46:18,320
Speaker 7: against the right in the era of Trump, not necessarily

949
00:46:18,400 --> 00:46:20,879
Speaker 7: pre Trump, but in the era of Trump. And they'll

950
00:46:20,880 --> 00:46:25,759
Speaker 7: point to, for example, informants at traditional Latin mass that's

951
00:46:25,800 --> 00:46:28,160
Speaker 7: something that happened in the FBI under the Biden administration

952
00:46:28,360 --> 00:46:34,760
Speaker 7: in Virginia, pointing to the excessive prosecutions of anti abortion

953
00:46:35,080 --> 00:46:39,959
Speaker 7: protesters under the Face Act and gone down the line.

954
00:46:40,200 --> 00:46:43,239
Speaker 7: That's a really really interesting perspective, and a lot of

955
00:46:43,280 --> 00:46:44,719
Speaker 7: people on the right, I think, don't even say it

956
00:46:44,760 --> 00:46:47,160
Speaker 7: aloud unless you're in like sort of conservative movements.

957
00:46:47,840 --> 00:46:52,640
Speaker 6: So I assume they'll go after poor Hunter Biden. Who

958
00:46:52,640 --> 00:46:54,879
Speaker 6: are there other targets? You think that they'll actually go.

959
00:46:54,920 --> 00:46:57,960
Speaker 7: For, probably Joe Biden because of all of this, and

960
00:46:58,560 --> 00:47:01,080
Speaker 7: there's just a million different ways to go after any president,

961
00:47:01,120 --> 00:47:03,239
Speaker 7: doesn't matter who it is. And I think that's one

962
00:47:03,239 --> 00:47:04,719
Speaker 7: of the things that I found that was hard to

963
00:47:04,800 --> 00:47:11,279
Speaker 7: maintain from Brian's perspective is that Obama Clinton and who

964
00:47:11,280 --> 00:47:13,640
Speaker 7: else will we talk oh Biden, that none of the

965
00:47:13,680 --> 00:47:18,040
Speaker 7: potential charges against them rise to the scale of the

966
00:47:18,120 --> 00:47:19,480
Speaker 7: hush money porn star pay.

967
00:47:19,719 --> 00:47:21,680
Speaker 6: Brian's point was interesting though that he's like, oh, ahead,

968
00:47:21,719 --> 00:47:23,400
Speaker 6: bring it. You're not going to get a jury to

969
00:47:23,440 --> 00:47:24,720
Speaker 6: convict on any of this stuff.

970
00:47:24,760 --> 00:47:26,960
Speaker 7: And I appreciate the honesty honestly, because that's like a

971
00:47:27,960 --> 00:47:30,200
Speaker 7: pun intended. But I didn't mean to say it that way.

972
00:47:30,239 --> 00:47:32,480
Speaker 7: But it's a lot of people won't admit that. They

973
00:47:32,480 --> 00:47:34,480
Speaker 7: would say, it's just ridiculous that you would even think

974
00:47:34,480 --> 00:47:37,839
Speaker 7: to bring charges against anyone, blah blah blah. But go ahead,

975
00:47:37,880 --> 00:47:38,040
Speaker 7: do it.

976
00:47:38,080 --> 00:47:40,000
Speaker 8: Let the legal system do its work, all right, there

977
00:47:40,040 --> 00:47:40,319
Speaker 8: we go.

978
00:47:40,680 --> 00:47:43,880
Speaker 7: I also not worrying about the Pandora's box being opened.

979
00:47:43,920 --> 00:47:45,359
Speaker 7: I just have a hard time with that too.

980
00:47:46,880 --> 00:47:50,360
Speaker 6: I think it is open, Yeah, I mean Pandora is

981
00:47:51,120 --> 00:47:52,600
Speaker 6: the Is Pandora inside the box?

982
00:47:52,640 --> 00:47:53,880
Speaker 8: Or did Pandora build the box?

983
00:47:54,640 --> 00:47:55,359
Speaker 7: It is her box.

984
00:47:55,400 --> 00:47:57,680
Speaker 6: It's her looks inside of things you don't want to

985
00:47:57,719 --> 00:47:59,080
Speaker 6: come out, Okay.

986
00:47:59,400 --> 00:48:01,319
Speaker 7: I don't think it's they're worried about Pandora.

987
00:48:01,080 --> 00:48:03,200
Speaker 8: Coming out, okay, because she built the box.

988
00:48:03,560 --> 00:48:03,840
Speaker 5: All right.

989
00:48:05,160 --> 00:48:08,839
Speaker 7: Every single time we like end up confused than when

990
00:48:08,880 --> 00:48:11,000
Speaker 7: we started. Yeah, anyway, that was I thought that was

991
00:48:11,000 --> 00:48:13,759
Speaker 7: a great debate. So we'll be back next week with

992
00:48:13,840 --> 00:48:15,680
Speaker 7: more we're expecting. One of the reasons we set up

993
00:48:15,719 --> 00:48:17,560
Speaker 7: this debate when we did, because we're expecting a potential

994
00:48:17,640 --> 00:48:19,920
Speaker 7: ruling on the immunity case any day. So it's not

995
00:48:20,000 --> 00:48:22,120
Speaker 7: just that the brag phony convictions came out last week,

996
00:48:22,120 --> 00:48:24,319
Speaker 7: but also this immunity case, which has huge implications for

997
00:48:24,320 --> 00:48:26,920
Speaker 7: all the other cases, could be decided by the Supreme

998
00:48:26,960 --> 00:48:30,080
Speaker 7: Court anytime between now and early July, So stay tuned

999
00:48:30,120 --> 00:48:32,120
Speaker 7: for that and stay tuned for what we come up

1000
00:48:32,160 --> 00:48:33,600
Speaker 7: with for next week. I don't think we have anything on.

1001
00:48:33,560 --> 00:48:35,640
Speaker 8: The books yet, so it'll be good.

1002
00:48:35,640 --> 00:48:36,040
Speaker 5: Don't worry.

1003
00:48:36,080 --> 00:48:37,560
Speaker 7: It'll be good. Yeah, we don't know what it is,

1004
00:48:37,600 --> 00:48:38,960
Speaker 7: but we know it'll be good, all right.

1005
00:48:39,120 --> 00:48:39,520
Speaker 5: See then,