actually should be asking. what did biden tell garland? what did garland tell jack smith? that is what you need to get to the bottom of. the white house insists that he has absolutely no connection to this. that the whole reason the special counsel was put in place is to take it out of politics. i want to read something bill barr, president trump s own attorney general said this morning on another network. he said, quote, if even half of it is true speaking of the indictment then he is toast. it is a very detailed indictment and is very, very damning. this is the former president s own former attorney general. i think we have to be able to draw a distinction between bad judgments. i would not have made the judgments president trump made. it is a big part of why i m in this race is i think i would have made different judgments. like what would you have done differently? i would not have taken the documents with me and i would have returned them on demand because it would have se
indictment. one of the, you know, i guess most disturbing things in here to me is that they, in my opinion, improperly pierced the attorney-client privilege, and then used attorney-client privilege discussions to form the basis of charges. i do see a viable motion to dismiss. do you share his concerns? well, that was not jack smith who made that decision. that was a district court judge who determined that those conversations were pursuant to the crime fraud exception, were exempt from the attorney-client privilege and that s why they used it. not because jack smith decided to use it, but because a district court judge and it was appealed to the court of appeal, as well. the judiciary decided that that was fair game for them, but that is just one piece of many, many damning pieces of evidence. you have recordings. you have text messages and video
of the things that you said. now they indicted him before the 2024 presidential race. on july 21st, a recording of a conversation that he had said, quote, as president, i could have declassified it. talking about a document he was holding. now i can t. that means it wasn t declassified. but i want to move on to what s in this indictment. i m sure you ve seen the photos. saying he could is not the same as saying he didn t. there are classified documents in the bathroom. in the ballroom stage, and classified information that he we re talking about information that the united states shares with its allies, critical information strewn on the floor. does that look secure to you? again, dana, the standard is the standard. the president of the united states can classify and he can control access to national security information however he wants. that s the standard. that s the constitution. that s what the court said in
the most relevant statute at issue. it is obviously as you said unprecedented. i should say that there have been democracies that have prosecuted, put criminal prosecution of former leaders because those times have been so extraordinary. here in the middle of an election. and this obviously is very extraordinary. i disagree with the allegations. i just do not believe those allegations because of i think the intellectual dishonesty in that indictment. so i think the federal court is actually, based on the precedence of the clinton sock drawer case where effectively judge jackson said in her language sole discretion in what is and is not covered as a presidential record. i think the court will acquit him. if trump s judgment was bad president biden s judgment is worse for actually bringing a prosecution. he should have done what trump did. president biden didn t bring
question should be asking is what did biden tell merrick garland and what did merrick garland tell zack smith because it s deeply politicized and not a single mention of the records act and selective statements from president trump s, and statements on the campaign trail in 2016 about classification and how he d treat it without one mention that after he was elected in 2016 said he would not prosecute hillary clinton and would not want to see her prosecute. no one mentioned this yet and what stood out to me, the classification scheme was not defined by statute, but executive order. appellate courts have held do not bind a u.s. president with the force of law. this is selective prosecution. its irresponsible to not have included any treatment of those facts or laws of this indictment and it wreaks of mritipoliticiz