focus with as few distractions as possible, going into his argument why a president shouldn t be indicted. i understand that s not contradictory to saying the focus should be on impeachment, but the point is that he has come to understand, he said, more of the difficulties and the role of the president vis-a-vis dealing with an investigation like the two of you worked on. right, that it can be a great distraction. it s important to know in this article he s talking about statutory reforms. he specifically talks about clinton v clinton versus jones, which held constitutionally the president has no right to defer a civil suit. but the court in jones, which was a unanimous decision, said look, if congress wants to pass a law providing for a deferral, just defer until you re out of office, like congress has already done for some military members, congress can do so. that s what brett argued in that
should be, it seems very favorable to the special counsel, not the president. i just wanted to note that in the 2009 article, he does actually refer to the decision in clinton versus jones, which was clinton going down a nefarious path. but he said that was decided that clinton had to respond to a civil lawsuit, which i think is bort noti worth noticing. so ben, i want to get another opinion of you. what does brett kavanaugh believe in more? he was a political animal. he worked in the white house. he has a broad knowledge of politics than others who have been appointed or nominated for the berchl nch in the past. he s being nominated by a man with very serious charges,
be indicted. if he s not re-elected could he be re-elected under the next president? eric: the courts already ruled on that, in clinton versus jones. so do you think that will be litigated. that type of language? do you think that broadens out to a potential criminal case? this is a new case that will present a new question whether a president has to. there were similar issues with respect to the nixon investigation. but the courts aren t well equipped to deal with that. that s where congress has to step in. what does the president have to do to uphold justice. if congress doesn t act, there
the head of and in charge of olc. that s not to suggest that the olc opinion is in any way unfair or improper. but, you know, institutional pressures often come into play when an agency is making a decision about whether its own leader can be subjected to sort of a criminal proceeding. but balance against the olc opinion that a sitting president, for example, can t be indicted, are the supreme court cases that are very closely related. and that is u.s. versus nixon and clinton versus jones. and both of them suggest that will, you know what? a sitting president, busy though he may be, is really not above the law, imperial tweets to the contrary knot not withstanding. glenn, thank you for breaking it down.
impeachment power, as the book that we lay out in detail, the reason we have an impeachment power, is that sometimes you can t do anything else to an official. sometimes you can t indict him. but you have to remove him if he abuses his power. that s pretty straightforward. this memo is written by people who obviously were appealing not to people who have any understanding of the law or of the relevant precedence like united states versus nixon or clinton versus jones, but who are just engaged in a pr campaign trying to mul placate r base. i hope the american people will begin to learn a little bit more about the prerequisites of