we also have to think about this notion the president made sure that information voters shu should have had when they were making a choice in the 2016 election, he made sure that information wasn t available for them, and he did that certainly to influence the outcome of the election. that, i think, fits our common concept of what fraud involving an election is. and do you need, nelson, to prove intent when it comes to an accusation of defrauding voters? we have to separate two things here. what would you have to technically prove if you were trying to convict the president of campaign election law violations? and the second is, what would congress have to consider if they re judging the president s conduct? i spent the morning going over the federalist papers, and kim mccraw made some of the language
convinced. though he may be in the territory, this is not enough. republicans really feel, still, no matter what you re looking at, the base or the moderate, seven out of ten republicans still feel the mueller investigation is a witch hunt. in what world? is that because the president keeps tweeting out things to that effect like witch hunt and everything else. there s nothing of the sort that s been proven. he s used that phrase over a dozen sometimes since the november 6th election. obviously it s working. here s the thing. when you have people like rand paul who not a vast majority of republicans agree but they agree with him on the fact this investigation adviser to be something of the sort that puts the pressure on the people around the president hoping to do a gotcha moment for the president. they agree this is all a bunch
they are now exposed. on 245 occasions, former fbi director james comey told house investigators he didn t know, didn t recall or couldn t remember things when asked. opened investigations on four americans, not two, didn t know who signed off and didn t know christopher steele. all lies. the president is focused on comey today, less so on those new court documents that directly implicate the president in this illegal scheme to buy the silence of these women who claim to have had affairs with him in the lead-up to the election. you asked about adam schiff. here s what adam schiff, the top democrat on the house intelligence committee, had to say about that. there is a very real prospect that on the day donald trump leaves office, the justice department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time. we have been discussing the issue of pardons that the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people. the bigger p
and the implied connections between cohen s crimes and president trump. here it appears the justice department doesn t think there is any problem with proving that this was intended to principally affect the election. this is a president who is now named as an unindicted co-conspirator. the allegation is he committed at least two felonies to try and manipulate the 2016 election. joining me now, congressman raskin, director of the oversight committee. congressman, welcome to you, sir. cohen s filings that implicate donald trump. are they saying this now changes the results of the 2016 election? i ve not heard anybody say that. what s come out over the last 24 hours is the explosive revelation that the president himself allegedly directed this illegal campaign finance scheme,
it s very sensible to look at what the statute of limitations would be here. what about that same report in the times, joyce, which suggest the narrative being built by prosecutors is that the president defrauded voters? it s a question i ve asked several times today, the defrauded question here. do you agree with that? is it clear to you that trump, quote, defrauded voters, according to that headline? so the way prosecutors look at this is less with the characterization of words and more with violation of specific statutes. we ve seen this with the talked-about collusion with the election, which we now know technically is conspiracy. when we talk about the president defrauding the population, what pops into my mind are specific campaign finance fraud statutes, or making false statements when he filed financial filings with the government. those are certainly a species of fraud, but in addition to those specific legal counts that he could be indicted for, i think