government. in saying rt is a news organization isn t going to wash. and then lying on these forms, not sure he s lying but forgetting to put stuff down isn t perjury. he s worried if he s asking for immunity if he crossed some line. there s also the question of what did he tell the russian a.mbassador. he called them. the call led to his firing. what did he say during this call? was it classified information? or was it just, you know, passing time with the guy? we simply don t have that. you can count on the fbi is going through this very carefully and deciding what to do with it. what could be the penalty in this case? well, you know, the espionage act is horribly written, and this isn t a case of espionage, but it s something his lawyers
there would be evidence that s lurking behind that would raise the level of this. if there were phone calls in which there s a discussion and somebody said, look if you re asked this question, don t mention these two meetings that would be different issue. i don t think that s likely to emerge and i don t thing that happened. when senator over states the case and says it s perjury and dismisses his answers not true. i think there should be objective and she has recused herself from participating in investigation or resolution of this issue. thank you for joining us. still ahead reaction from the top strategist. what do inner circle think of
information when our first hearings goes off. let turn to professor, what are you re thoughts about this? first of all, i think the senator is correct. i also do that the nancy pelosi over states it when she jumps into saying he committed perjury. he took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. the american public will not be satisfied with the investigation by justice department even if recuses himself. they will not be satisfied about congressional investigations conducted solely republican.
professor from harvard. this one is yours. that s a interesting point. it may be off the table. no senator may be questioned for anything he says on the i doubt that the senator would be exempt from a perjury prosecution if he said white was black when black was white and did it intentionally. he was testifying as a senator, not necessarily as a surrogate of the president of the united states. i don t think that in the end would save him. i don t think there s a perjury prosecution in the future. this does not sound to me like the kind of case that would reach the levelful perjury. think few would charge perjury based on what we know. there s a lot we don t flow and
oversight also eugene, congressman, would you be prosecuting the statement of now attorney general at his meeting for perjury? no, ma am. it s not a crime to make a false statement. you have to know that s it s false, it has to be material. keep in mind, i didn t sign the letter before the benghazi committee to the department of justice. there were a half-dozen false statements. there has to be intent to deceive. none of which i have no evidence of. i would not prosecute the case because i m guaranteed to lose