an abuse of power is. it can be you spoke to whitaker and wanted to change even though nothing happened. or you pressured somebody it doesn t have to rise to the level of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. and they can be looking at it as an abuse of power as a list for an impeachment. so it s very broad and a huge threat and on every imaginable level. so peter, let s bore down on this a little bit more since you and i were around for the last impeachment. do the early elements of the clinton saga remind you of what we re seeing now? well, you do have some elements similar to the clinton saga in that, for instance, clinton was accused of violating the law in order to cover up a sexual affair. that s one of the allegations that has been made against president trump, that he conspired with michael cohen to violate campaign finance law, to pay hush payments to two women in order to cover up sexual indiscretions before the 2016
nothing happened. or you pressured somebody it doesn t have to rise to the level of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. and they can be looking at it as an abuse of power as a list for an impeachment. so it s very broad and a huge threat and on every imaginable level. so peter, let s bore down on this a little bit more since you and i were around for the last impeachment. do the early elements of the clinton saga remind you of what we re seeing now? clinton was accused of violating the law in order to cover-up a sexual affair. that s one of the allegations that has been made against president trump, that he conspired with michael cohen to pay hush payments to two women in order to cover up a sexual indiscretion before the 2016 election. the difference is that s not the only thing on the table here.
and it s as simple as not deciding and insisting cleverly in judge kavanagh s case, but still i think inexplicably or all too explicably, go talk to a third witness, a person in the room. and i think that what we saw was the triumph, again, of a kind of reflexive partisanship. the other thing i would say is one of the things that happened in those 27 years is the clinton story, the clinton saga, the clinton impeachment. and there will be a lot of monographs written in the coming years about what did one of ken starr s deputies really learn from the clinton impeachment. and i think what we saw today is that judge kavanagh learned from clinton to deny, deny, deny, and
was that reason has to have a chance against passion in the arena. and you have to, as jefferson put it, follow truth wherever it may lead. what we saw today in many ways was the triumph of mindless tribalism over a search for the truth. and it s as simple as not deciding and insisting cleverly in judge kavanagh s case, but still i think inexplicably or all too explicably, go talk to a third witness, a person in the room. and i think that what we saw was the triumph, again, of a kind of reflexive partisanship. the other thing i would say is one of the things that happened in those 27 years is the clinton story, the clinton saga, the clinton impeachment.
more tapes with the president. dershowitz asked him how. it would be illegal for them to have that information. in any event, there are no other tapes with the president. we have all of the tapes in our possession. we have transcripts of all them. we are comfortable with it. there are no others. laura: rudy, you have known lanny davis a long time. i ve known him going back 20 years during the clinton saga. do you have any thoughts about his decision to represent michael cohen, given his long ties to the clintons? not at all. i don t have any concerns about that. he is a lawyer and he has the right to represent who he wants. i question the strategy of doing it, trying to make it if putting out a tape in which you are kind of proud of the fact that you are a lawyer, putting out a tape of your client. if you want to cooperate with the government, you need credibility. first thing that happens is this