of immunizing unnamed people who may have been enabling or acting as madames, to help a pedophile have people at their disposal to sexually abuse them. it s unheard of to have that leniency to hand over the reins to the legal defense team and have them exercise any form of control over how the plea deal is structured. and what also is unheard of is the notion that the victims themselves were not given the opportunity to voice their concerns, to testify or even comport with the victims rights act that says they have a right to know that the a plea offer has been made let alone accept it. all of this is a complete and total joke in terms of somebody comporting with what is supposed to be reasonable prosecution, which in many respects is why everyone is so confused because acosta, remember, alisyn, he is overseeing and monitoring human trafficking as the labor secretary. if there was this lapse in judgment in leniency with respect to somebody who was a child molester or pedophile, you can
immunizing you. and that could be happening in several of these cases, that they ve not volunteered but rather been forced to testify. that s interesting, so they use immunity to push to get the information they want. we ve heard how much the president says he values loyalty. weisselberg testifying with immunity, david pecker testifying with immunity. how does he react to what he perceives as disloyalty? he gets very angry. he s vaery volatile, and he mus be be seething. because his perception of loyalty is it different from the rest of us. he sees it as doing exactly what you re told regardless of what that is regardless if it s legal or not legal and keeping your mouth shut. so that kind of loyalty, i don t know how far it ll go.
actually taking care of the statute of limitations problem that a president could go free if the time expired for criminal charges while he was in office. let me ask you this, because mr. dellinger, you argued the clinton v. jones case before the supreme court, making the case that indicting president clinton would keep him from doing the job of running the country, and that turned out to be a losing argument. so why are you arguing the other side when it comes to this president, to president trump? well, a couple of reasons, don. the most important one is that we lost clinton against jones 9-0. the court rejected the position we argued. so the law is established by clinton against jones that you can actually make a president go through a civil trial while he s in office, and so and sets a very high standard for exempting or immunizing a president from the ordinary criminal processes. but moreover, i argued in clinton against jones that an actual civil trial ought to be
protection. what s also an important point to make here is the idea of this immunity that s being given or thrown around for flynn. this is not a guarantee for michael flynn. and the reason it s not a guarantee is because they have no interest at this time in time of immunizing someone before they have a full investigation as to what his role would have been. and remember, one of the reason that s flynn is saying that he does not want to turn over documents is because in his mind the actual act of production is testimonial in nature, meaning you asked me very broad questions about what i may have over a period of an 18-month window so, you re asking me essentially to have a very generic dragnet i give you information about and they re looking to have a very specific document request from the government before they turn it over to avoid them having to say listen, me having to go in my mind and tell you what i have would be giving you the noose to hang me with. but the committee has na
it s all strange and that s why it s so important they hear from her and if she won t take they have he option of immunizing her. i would put everybody around her under oath and ask everybody who works for her, and everybody who received an e-mail, and i would demand the government provide the e-mails. this is part of the lawsuits, but the house i would demand compliance with the subpoenas. they re quite wishy washy, their slowing so get things. like demanding you put the fox business channel on if you don t have it. certain things you just demand. that s brilliant. only you could wedge in a promo for fox bonus and that guarantees you another visit. thank you. let s say lois lerner really was part of a target effort to go after conservatives to get tax exempt status and almost no similar group was similarly scrutinized.