you one thing, because you said evidentiary based. michael cohen had checks signed by the president of the united states while he was in office. that s not michael cohen s credibility. you said, i ll take the president over michael cohen. that was evidence. look, i think we ought to look at any legitimate, credible evidence. i do think in this case, both mr. nadler and others are really, they are in the deepest of fishing expedition, under incredible pressure to impeach the president and find a means to do it. this isn t a crime looking for a suspect, this is a suspect they ve chosen, president trump, and now they re trying to find a crime. but just to understand, when i want comes to, say, violating the law, the hush money payments, if that happened, obviously, you still have you have room to wiggle, as congress. you say someone broke the law and that s still not impeachable, because we choose to make it not so. that s not impeachable for you? look, i would like to see the
held that post, would have the ability to target any american they choose for political purposes. in the meantime, there are already checks and balances. so let me just interrupt for one second. because when you say political purposes, and i understand what you re saying, you don t want to be able to go after everybody, but it s political, is the word that i m questioning here. what if there is crime, evidence of fraud in those tax returns? that would then not be political, that would be a crime? so shouldn t there be evidence of that? right now the president and the vice president s tax returns are automatically each year, by the irs. and my guess is with a great deal of scrutiny. they have a criminal investigation s unit, just as they investigate and audit us, they do, i think with special attention. and both the fbi and the special counsel have access to if there are challenges or problems, concerns within those tax returns. so i think that is where, who is best equipped to tack
more importantly, members of congress and the public are, after all of this time and all of this money spent on this investigation. i mean, so you could be at a point, it sounds like, from what dana s saying, you re very close, but not there. who knows what you are, but you could conceivably be at a point where you re close to a criminal act, or maybe at a point where a lot of people felt you are, but they couldn t prove beyond a reasonable doubt and you ll go ahead and plop that into the political realm? i think that s right. and that s in part, as has been said tonight and by others, that impeachment is not just the matter of sort of a special kind of indictment for the president. you could be impeached without ever having committed a crime. if the overall lay of the land suggests that this person shouldn t be president, because of things they ve done, even if it isn t a crime in the title 18 of the u.s. code, impeachment is still possible. and that s why it really is important t
kroo criminal justice system that celebrities are treated differently once they are in the criminal justice system. sometimes they are treated better than other defendants and sometimes it cuts against them as in the case with michael vick. let s focus on that. crimes that involve making false police reports to police like the dog fighting crimes aren t often prosecuted and you don t often see people go to jail. this is a nonviolent crime if he did commit it. this isn t a crime where anyone was harmed other than the resources that were utilized. sorry to interrupt. we see the press conference beginning here. let s have a listen.
though. are they going to say come on even if this isn t a crime which again i think it could be charged as a federal extortion. that s the not the issue. the issue is this is not conduct you as a company should have been engaging in while under this agreement. what was it that they were trying to ward off? why were they willing to risk manafort in the middle of his cooperation agreement. it s the why are they lying. what are they covering up. and, you know, look, again. sometimes people do stupid things for no reason. sometimes people engaging this kind of behavior. a lot of times where there s smoke there s fire. now you got the southern district of new york who will be looking into that. this won t stop with this nonprosecution agreement. that s my prediction. what are the queens and legal lie guilt if it s determined they broke the agreement. then ami is subject to whatever crimes they could have