intent. is it to just explain to the public he knew what he was doing was wrong and that s why we re going to trial with this? or is it more meaningful than that? do you feel that actually needs to be proven in court as part of a potential indictment? i think it s both. that is also a very lawyerly answer. i apologize. it s okay. it doesn t go away. the bedminster tape and the incitement to insurrection statements they have something in common, which is the defense there is some defense of hyperbole or boasting. when i think about proving state of mind it s not so much whether the president knew he was losing an election was he wulinally inciting an insurrection or just talking, was he just blustering, and so that would be an interesting line. and i think there s a lot of collateral evidence, evidence surrounding him about what
serious damage that was done to them. paul, let me ask you this, if you ve got a case against him. you come forward. even in a defamation suit that we were talking about that was settled in 2017, of those documents that came out today, or late last night, if you ve got a civil suit against him, what more do you have to have to prove your case, other than just your word, paul? . well, you re going to have available pretty much the same amount of information you would have had available, even if he were still alive. because, remember, in those civil cases, it s unlikely that jeffrey epstein would also agree to testify. he would assert the fifth amendment and refuse to testify. so the lawyers in those cases have to prove through collateral evidence. through other kinds of evidence and other witnesses of which there probably are many, the facts of the case. but, of course, in many instances, in sexual abuse litigation, the case often comes
this morning, rosenstein stalked on behalf of mccabe most of the afternoon. that that s as it should be. you have essentially to prove through collateral evidence what the state of mind of the actor is. in this case, that s the president. you put these pieces together slowly because you can t read the president s mind to see what his intention was. so you look at it and say, how does it work on a continuum? first you have a request for loyalty, then you have these chitchat types of phone calls and the calculation by mr. comey that he wants some sort of patronage relationship. then sort of like the shoe drops here, where he says flat-out, i need you to drop this investigation, i want you to drop this investigation. he s a good guy. that becomes the centerpiece of your mosaic. we will see in the next hour, when we get to the following parts of this memo, other pieces
law is no excuse for violating it. but let s also remember that donald trump is not just a businessman. he is a businessman who has been a party to hundreds of lawsuits. this man has more legal experience than many lawyers practicing in america today. michael, is this one of the most key moments in a possible obstruction of justice case? absolutely. let s go back and forward a minute on this. firstly, i think it has to be said that the attorney general did not serve the president well by agreeing to leave that room. he should have said, mr. president, i m not leaving the room, there are structures by which we communicate with the fbi, and someone from the justice department needs to be there. just as we saw in the testimony this morning, rosenstein stalked on behalf of mccabe most of the afternoon. that s the way it should be. secondly, in an obstruction of justice investigation, you have essentially to prove through collateral evidence what the state of mind of the actor is. in th