For the principle purpose of influencing the election. President trump today is claiming that those Campaign Violations are, quote, not a crime. Thats not what the Justice Department said and same president named as individual one in the plea deal. You can believe individual one who is implicated in the crimes. The president. Who does have a long and storied history of saying thing that is arent true. Or you can believe Career Prosecutors at the Justice Department, two federal judges and a jury of Paul Manaforts peers but you have to pick one or the other. Another falsehood of the president saying that he did not learn of the Hush Money Payments until after theyd been made. Despite the fact, of course, that Michael Cohen recently released an Audio Recording of September 2016 in which donald trump can be clearly heard discussing a potential payment to playboy model Karen Mcdougall and President Trump verified that Tape Tweeting at the time, what kind of a lawyer would tape
The days top
president goes south. to allow an individual federal prosecutor or state prosecutor to indict the president and allow 12 jurors to decide the fate of the president could run amuck and an impeachment proceeding to take police and i think that s where this can head up. i have a different view on that. sure. there s a debate. there s a debatement ken starr s office as well as another concluded that you could indict a sitting president. you could? you could. yes. it s not clear in the constitution. people talk about plain reading the constitution whether to indict a sitting president is not in there. i think the structure assumes accountability for every member of our government and to the extent of which congress right now is sort of out to lunch, not actually doing their oversight role here, the notion that there would be no accountability potentially if this political process fails i think is a problem. i do think you could in theory indict a sitting president and put it under