and they both come to the same conclusion. i guess i want to get both of your feedback on it. again, i ve read them, and they seem they re actually fairly persuasive, i think. it s a thorny issue, right? and the constitution does have a specific enumerated way to deal with high crimes and misdemeanors by the president of the united states, which was impeachment, and it s very unclear what the constitution feels about indicting the president, though it clearly doesn t explicitly bar it in the text. what do you think? is this the correct legal operating procedure, carol? yeah. you know, actually, it is. and, you know, the unsealed fbi search warrant affidavit was a little bit of a gift to us that the judge said no, you re going release that, and the american public deserves to see what the details were here with respect to those phone calms that were made by michael cohen and the president s involvement and such. that was a little bit of a gift, but we are back now in criminal prosec
president, as surely it would. of course that s the argument that was rejected in clinton v jones. and when the they come to this extra step that mueller referred to about putting it under seal with really no more reasoning. they just lump it in there too. as olc memos go, it s i think pretty mucky and policy-driven. i think the weight of scholarly opinion is that it, per se, is not that. the bottom line might be right, might not. but the memo itself is pretty threadbare. all right, carol lam and harry litman, thank you both. thank you. joining me now democratic congresswoman maxine waters of california. your view, congresswoman on this matter, which is to say evidence the president has committed crimes or at least sufficient evidence for an indictment were he not the president. but he is the president, so there is no indictment. and now we just sort of wait, i guess. well, as i have said for a
two counts of sex trafficking for alleged crimes committed between 2002 and 2005 in florida as well as new york state. there s a lot to unfold here. we will get into epstein s background in a second. reveal to you why this is a big deal. joining me now is tom winter who has been following this story and former federal prosecutors carol lamb and katie shertefski. was this a surprising arrest? it was in the fact that this arrest was going to be made on saturday, yesterday, when he was arriving coming from overseas. that was a surprise. after that, our understanding is that federal law enforcement officials were actually involved with executing a search warrant on his upper east side home. that was a surprise. in addition to that, i think a lot of folks thought his criminal jeopardy kind of went
we need some kinds of heads up. just for the sake of protecting all interests if you can. without having to give up that information. if it s the form er, remember what was said about the president. anyway, let me know. and i appreciate you taking the time. i m joined by the former u.s. attorney who will be testifying for the house judiciary on monday and carol lamb, former superior court judge.
he has drawn 97%. he had done the work. he did it on his own time. all you decide to do is draw hypothetically gerrymandered maps. this is what they said to a federal judge. they represented this in court. they represented it under oath. the court in fact decided not to hold special elections because they believed north carolina republican when they said there was not enough time and they had a super majority in one of the most important swing states for another year as a result. there is a pattern. it s not just rigging the game and white people and republicans, but it s the lying about it which to me is to tell they understand what they are doing. they know they are wielding power. they nch there is a problem with a citizenship question to benefit white people which is