declassified the material. but he says point blank, on tape as president i could have declassified it. now i can t. he says in his own words it s on tape as part of this indictment that he did not declassify the material. therefore, it is classified. dana, saying he could have, saying he could have is not the same as saying he didn t. he said now i can t. now he can t. right. because he is not president now but when he was president he did declassify it. he said that. which means what he was holding was classified. not if he declassified it when he was president of the united states for goodness sake. he is saying point blank in this audio tape he did not declassify it. what you re saying just doesn t make sense on its face. dana, what this truly is, dana, is an affront to the rule of law. it is an affront to consistent application of the law. you have secretary clinton who had classified material on a
the equal application of the law. if he s allegations and probable cause had been found against any military person or any public servant that wasn t named donald trump they would have been indicted a long time ago, and so this is equal application of the law and we don t need and it will be an issue in the campaign, and so that s something that vivek and i agree upon that we don t need a commander in chief that disregards the nation s secrets from our nuclear secrets to our military responses, to particular worldwide events. these are things that should not be disclosed as entertainment value to a political contact that you re speaking with. one last quick question, are you concerned that all of this will help donald trump in his race against you and others? well, i suspect that he s going to raise money on the indictment as he did before, and
classified. he didn t declassify it. dana, he has said time and time again he s declassified all this material. this is the most political thing i have ever seen. they have been out to they re indicting president trump on tuesday for having material that he declassified that was protected by the secret service and the people who are doing it is the administration, the justice department from his opponent in the upcoming presidential election. this is as political as it gets and frankly, dana, it s part of a pattern. we have seen it time and time again with the president over the last seven years. they try one thing and then they try another and they ve continued to go after him and anyone with common sense can see that. okay. this is a very detailed indictment and a couple of things you just said. number one, the secret service, they are charged with protecting the president and they didn t even know according to the indictment that the documents were there. that wasn t their job
and stark, accusing trump of illegally keeping highly clas classified government documents on america s nuclear secrets and military vulnerabilities among others in unsecured areas of his resort and conspireing with an aide who is also charged to hide some of those boxes from his own lawyers to prevent them from fully complying with a federal subpoena. here with me is the chairman of the house judiciary committee, jim jordan. thank you for joining me this morning, sir. the indictment does say thank you. the indictment does say, as i mentioned the documents included u.s. defense, nuclear capabilities and potential u.s. vulnerabilities to a military attack and they were kept in an unsecured areas like a ballroom and a back room and donald trump lied to lawyers, his own lawyers which resulted in false statements to the fbi so that he could keep those documents. is all of that, any of that acceptable to you?
a bathroom, ballroom is that very bad judgement? no doubt about it. you have issues. if those allegations are true. by the way, the reason we have a court of law and i am deeply skeptical of everything in that indictment and i will not believe it until we see it aired in a court of law and the reason i don t believe it, dana is a selective omission of a bunch of other facts that should have been in that indictment and statutes that were mentioned nowhere they personally have no faith whatsoever in those vague allegations. so if those were true, yes, i think that s reflective of very bad judgment. i m skeptical that it even is true, but the bottom line is we cannot conflate a bad judgment with the violation of the law. we should note, as you know, when an indictment in order to get an indictment it has to be approved by a grand jury. what they taught us in law school, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.