trump whether it involves the rule of law or foreign diplomacy or episodes like jeffrey epstein, you have trump supporters saying what about hillary clinton? what about bill clinton. either one neither are in office anymore and none have been in the public scene for quite a long time. it becomes a way to support trump and say that trump s critics or the media is not paying enough attention to the clintons. if you are going to criticize people who overlooked jeffrey epstein s misdeeds. all is a distraction from the reason people are paying attention to donald trump. he s the president of the united states and he has a skeleton in his closet that is a mile deep. it includes people like jeffrey epstein. people are asking the question because he is wielding authority and power and bill clinton isn t. let s take the case down the road. let s assume you got to a point of a conviction with jeffrey epstein. he doesn t have fear of incrimination.
department has said not just in this case, but in all the cases. this is an administration that plays fast and loose with the facts and the law and now the american public and the federal courts are seeing it. chief justice roberts called president trump s reason contriv contrived. you don t see that in supreme court opinions. if it was contrived then, what they would be coming up with next would be publicly contrived. we will have watched them publicly condrive it. condrive squared. exactly. underline this. the fact that they are changing lawyers is you are losing the a team, the very best experienced litigators for exactly this kind of case involving government interests being decided by the supreme court. they are moving down the ladder to people who have never handled matters like this. this is not an upgrade in legal
isn t. let s take the case down the road. let s assume you got to a point of a conviction with jeffrey epstein. he doesn t have fear of incriminati incrimination. can you take him before a grand jury to get under oath testimony from him? if he doesn t have fifth amendment rights to protect? par couhe could, but he coul there are other rights he still had. the issue really is that after someone is convicted and received a significant snls, th they don t have a lot of incentive to play ball. they may be obligated to tell the truth, but if he is facing decades in prison at 66 years old, it s a drop in the bucket. what would the worries be in donald trump s mind tonight? i think he s going to be
court decision came down and i think over the next day or two, you will see the approach we are taking. it does provide a pathway for getting the question on the census. here is donald trump s version of his conversations with william barr. we can do an executive toward and different things, but there are other alternatives. i believe our attorney general, fantastic man, he has it very well under control. the justice department said the attorney general is going to assign new lawyers to the case, but the lawyers opposing the citizenship question in the census filed a motion demanding clear articulation of satisfactory reasons for these lawyers withdrawals and unequivocal assurances from defendants that these withdrawals will not delay the conduct of this case. and when i heard what the attorney general said today, i
chief justice roberts called president trump s reason contrived. you don t see that in supreme court opinions. if it was contrived then, what they would be coming up with next would be publicly contrived. we will have watched them publicly condrive it. condrive squared. exactly. underline this. the fact that they are changing lawyers is you are losing the a team, the very best experienced litigators for exactly this kind of case involving government interests being decided by the supreme court. they are moving down the ladder to people who have never handled matters like this. this is not an upgrade in legal experience handling this case. right. it s not like you are sending in the b team. you are sending in the f team. i don t mean disrespect to the