this is a pattern of pushing the limit around finally and dangerous rhetoric, until he s held accountable. that s not only in the criminal realm, it s also in the when you think about the fact this man is about to go to trial again with ethan carroll in new york, because the things that he violated after that. if you think about the fact that he also had an issue with respect to the judge here in new york with respect to the case, and that case, also talking about that judge firing rhetoric. this really towed the line. of course, january 6th, this rhetoric ultimately sparking what was a capitol insurrection. until someone hold him responsible, and they can, it s ultimately going to be a question of does someone act at his behest, someone acts influenced by his actions. does that inspired someone to do something that was harmful. the rhetoric itself is on the line. what takes it over the line of legality, jonathan, is what happens afterwards.
good to have you here. there s so many questions about what s going on. thanks. martha: good to have you. let s bring in trey gowdy, former house oversight chair and federal prosecutor. great to have you with us. what do you think happened here? what is your assessment? you know, martha, there s some really complicated cases in the criminal realm. these would not be one of them. literally you need a calendar to prosecute the tax case. that s all you need. a calendar and a piece of paper. why that takes five years? even for lousy prosecutors, you ought to be able to do it quicker than that. the gun case, you just need the piece of paper. are you a convicted felon? have you been court-martialed? have you been convicted of domestic violence? are you a habitual user of drugs? these are simple cases. and yet it took five years. now, what i can t tell you is whether or not this outcome is dissimilar to other
case whether to bring a criminal case there. i wouldn t say that is dead right now, but it s maybe it s onó[■ the back burner. butlp they could also move forwd with that in the criminal realm. but these civile1 cases can be normally he settles them. two are going tw■÷r trial just s year. jyu now can t seem to settle. we re going to hold you accountable. someone whether or not is a habitual liar who doesn t pay people he works with and now you awyer now in trouble and now you again for possibly at( massive miscarriage of ethics and justice. i will play youe1 this audio an get your comments on the other side. he may have worked with stormy daniels and now w+9 trump. yes. if there s an issue with that
and i believe the time has come for legal action, both in the civil realm and in the criminal realm. whether it s his business practices, whether it s his assaults on women, whether it s behavior during the insurrection and during his white house years, whether it s the presidential records act. he needs to be held to account. that principle is sacred. if this is allowed, this behavior is allowed to go unaddressed with impunity, what is to stop any future president from basically asserting the law is what i say it is, and i am not accountable or subject to any penalties pursuant to the law since i say what the law is, and there are no penalties for me. it can t be illegal, by definition, if the president does it. richard nixon asserted that principle, and he paid a very heavy price and learned a lesson
case with the facts that they had. as we know, in criminal law as a defendant, anything you say can and will be used against you. in this case, there was a question whether this mistake was forgivable or something that crossed over in to the criminal realm. we have the footage of kim potter saying she believed she s going to prison for, this perhaps that was used against her. the defense did what they could to put on the case that this was a mistake and it was an understandable and forgivable mistake but the jury believe it wasn t. neil: do you think it was a mistake to put kim potter on the stand? she was compelling and sympathetic. in the end, the final decision on the part of the jury didn t sway them. what do you think? it didn t work. that s for sure. i think what makes this case a