brings to the front the questions that came up with the mueller report. and that is, specifically what did donald trump know, when did he know it, but how would they ever how would they ever prove, because it sounds like trump said in his written answers, i don t recall, yadda, yadda, yadda. how do you prove that s a lie, given that it s rick gates word versus anyone else. that s a fair point. and it will be a serious obstacle. it s an old trick and it s a tactic to say i don t know, i don t remember. that s a hedge for sure. the question will be the plausibility or the implausibility of that complete failure of president trump s memory. so is it possible, is it plausible that he could have forgotten that he personally had heard this information about wikileaks and he heard any of the buzz that has been well documented among his campaign staffers?
the president said in those responses to robert mueller and the whole investigation. the question now is, did he lie? and why is this relevant now? it s massively relevant. the question, did the president lie too often spoiler alert is yes. they were very careful in these wring answers. you see the answers he gave to wikileaks, i do not recall. but he specifically mentioned roger stone. and the things that came out in the stone trial, showed a preoccupation by the candidate, now president trump about wikileaks. and a constantly back channeling in the presence of rick gates and other folks, that is very difficult to square, and it s easy to see that he you know, he perhaps defaulted and even within that legalism, i don t recall, did not tell the truth about his preoccupation with getting information about wikileaks and hillary clinton s emails which were hacked by the russians. as i talked to two lawyers last hour. this could become
they said that could not go forward. but lost in the lower court. then they came to the sbreek, they asked the supreme court to step in and block it and right now things are on hold. keep in mind this case is really interesting, because it does trigger a significant separation of powers dispute. there is another similar case in front of the supreme court. this is brought by the house, so the justices could very well be interested in stepping in here down the road, to decide this important question. that s where we re going to start the discussion. don is here, she s a former federal prosecutor. nick akerman was a special prosecutor during watergate. he s a former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. let s dive in on all things scotus. on the supreme court temporarily blocking the release of trump s taxes. if the oversite committee gets the record, intrusions will become the new normal.
zelensky but believed it came from giuliani or volker. what does he says if he lied in his face it he lied in his revision sns. he faces quite a bit of exposu exposure. there are times when witnesses believe if they say, gee, i don t recall, i don t remember, that that somehow makes them perjury-proof. can i tell that you it doesn t. if it did, we former prosecutors wouldn t really be able to get any work done. because that would be kind of the cure-all for witnesses. they could come in and say i just don t remember. sondla sondland, we know has already corrected his testimony in several respects claiming that, well, i just forgot about these things. the reality is, nobody is buying that. he didn t forget about those things. those were the things that gave him potential exposure as being part and parcel of what has been called, albeit be john bolton, a
of money that hunter biden was ? no, this was not part of their briefing. i had big old books with questions that might come up. in preparation for your confirmation? and they thought that hunter biden s role at burisma might be significant enough that it would come up during your confirmation, is that correct? apparently so. there were hundreds of questions. well, hundreds of questions, but where there are hundreds of companies? how many companies other than burisma did the obama-biden state department prepare you to give answers for? if there were others, which on ones? i just don t recall. you don t recall that there were any other companies, is that correct? i m quite sure that there were some companies. but you know, this is a while ago. i don t recall. but you specifically recall