what s your argument? i think it s exactly in the constitution, the supremacy clause, the idea of separation of powers. it may go to the supreme court ultimately. we re going to win this. you can sfnot have a president subject to 5,000 local district attorneys who have a bone to pick or thels president would be interfered with by local magistrates. i think we re going to win. you know what i think? he s wrong and he s going to be reversed. they re not asking for him. they re asking for documents relevant for an investigation. you mentioned clinton verses jones. they said it did not raise that issue the idea of a state proceeding interfering with the office of president of the united states in a criminal process. so i completely disagree.
indistinguishable from clinton verses jones. i m joined by msnbc contributor. both of you know what you re talking about. i don t. how much is this like president clinton when he had to defend himself in a deposition that got him into all kinds of problems in the 90s? it wasn t unanimous. but think about this. there s actual language from the appellate court in new york that says the presidency and the president are indeed separable. and so now donald trump has to face the music in a state court in a defamation action and that means the discovery process which has not had the brakes put on this far is going to continue. there s a possibility of a deposition of donald trump and he will have to answer under oath. is this going to be a coswhere trump s on television