presidential records created betweenre january twentieth, 207 and january 20th.2017 twenty one that covers his entire presidency. and if this was so urgent t because the left claims our national security could have a risk after all, then whye did it take days for them to actually execute the warrant? the judge signed off on the warrant on august o, but the raid didn t happen untilau august 8th. do fbigu agents actually not wok on weekends? and what s more is that trump would have had these documents for more than five hundred and sixty days since he left the white house. five hundred and fifty days. ou if this is so serious, really so long sohem far as the actual as so far asua the actual documents, we have ls a list now, albeit it s not a very good list of what was taken here, what could have been a threat to our national securityat, the grant of clemeny for roger stone, a leather bound box of documents and two binders of photos. there were boxes agents designated as top sec
astonishing how many of the corruptions of the british government are being revisited by thisor new threat to american democracy and society. ik i feele like a lot of us are like tom paine at the cost ofio the american revolution when her wrote these in the timesot to ty and men s souls and that thatme tyranny like is not is not easily conquered by is not can be easily conquered. but inconq his corruption must be we must take control of congress to bring sanity back to washington. once and for all while in control of congress with actual to take control of congress and sit on yournd hands like let s fight p back with the same people want to destroy the country. so i m done with that. i know you are not. some of these republican leaders remind me of whatre gene mccarthy once told e
convicted under this particular statute. and that s u par 27 one, which t statute that peter navarro wasut talking about. ot that is not even a close call. it would not it would not fly at all. now it s possible. i ve seene some people suggest that you just put a legal cloudl over trump s head on this issue, which kind of example of lawfare. but i don t think that that is at all plausible. so that language inna the statute, the inability to hold an office a under the unitd states does not apply to either members of congress orhi the president, but they played this out for me. so if we re actually going to get rid of that specificn language in the statute, that s going to actually go to the supreme court, the supremett court will have to make thatin decision, vacating that part of the statute or how does thatow play? i think that if an effort wasct made to actually enforce that particular punishment, it would be litigated to be a question of law. and we litigatedtete pretty quickly. i t
because i ve talked to both ofel them, they believe in congress right of oversight.ie if they believe in congress s right of oversight, they can give they should be able tohe give us all the information if they want to give it too me t and a classified setting, they can do that. but the american public needs to have a much better understanding of why they did this. what information did they have, why the judge made the decision ? there s a lotesti of unansweredr questions here and they re hurting themselves and they re hurting this great country. you know, senator , money talks, right? so i did overs oversightight on the financial services committee and they totally stonewalled me. they sent me youou press clippings and news releases. they might sayay they re going o cooperate and they might say they want transparency. but the only thing that s going to w drive them to comply with the requests is when you withhold their money and say, you know what, we re going to cut the budget. you r
as i told you, the democrats new mantra is if you can t beat them, indict him and think that by going after trump legally they will stop any chanceft inni running for president again, but not so fast.ngen my next guestt servedd in both the reagan and bush 41 administrations and he says ons. trump were to be convicted under a law governing the misuse of federal government, documents, he could still serve as president. joining me now is constitutional lawyer david rivkin. and david, you say the dems theory is efficient on both the statutory and constitutional grounds. alsoyo o, the supreme court has made it very clear in two casesn dealing with an effort to ena add additional qualifications forl congressional officesor and of course, the qualifications office of t the presidency that noha new qualifications can. and it s fundamentally incompatible with constitutional structure. s and this is nothing more than an effort to add another qualification to being able to run and serve as presid