certainly not from the constitution. i think you don t have basis and you don t have an application. you re going to lose. what s your argument? i think it s exactly in the constitution, the supremacy clause, the whole idea of separation of powers. i this i we nk we going to win. we re going to win this. here s why. you cannot have a president subject to 5,000 local district courts w district attorneys wo have a problem with the president of the united states. i saw the district court s opinion. i think he s wrong and he s going to be reversed. they re asking for documents that could be relevant to you mentioned clinton v. jones. they say it did not raise that issue of clinton versus jones, the idea of a state proceeding
focus every morning for the next seven years for president bush was still september 12, 2001. single minded focus. and then thinking back to the independent counsel experience in august of 1998, so i proposed some ideas for congress to consider. here is the bottom line, they were ideas for congress to consider. they were not my constitutional views. if a case came up that where someone was trying to say this is a constitutional principle, i would have a completely open mind on that because i ve never taken a position on the constitution on that question. i ve only put out proposals for you all to study to think about the president fighting a war, leading a war, and a president subject to say ordinary civil lawsuits as in the cloointon versus jones. you re becoming very good, you are learning to filibuster. but let me ask this precisely.
was still september 12, 2001. single minded focus. and then thinking back to the independent counsel experience in august of 1998, so i proposed some ideas for congress to consider. the bottom line point. there were ideas for congress to consider, they were not my constitutional views. if a case came up that where someone was trying to say this is a constitutional principle, i would have a completely open mind on that because i ve never taken a position on the constitution on that question. i ve only put out proposals for you all to study, to think about the balance of a president fighting a war, leading a war, and a president subject to say ordinary civil lawsuits as in the clinton versus jones case. you are learning the filibuster. let me ask this question precisely. the supreme court has ruled
forever, other presidents said everyone should pay their part. some say the mechanisms of nato are out of date and should be revisited but donald trump agreed nato is relevant if not foreign and nato agreed that we have got a u.s. president who is going to take us to task, better not get under his skin. the government is full of potential briefers, the state department is full of experts. there is real concern this is a president subject to flattery wanting a close personal relationship after every encounter, that he could agree to things that he shouldn t. well, he is very transactional on the one hand. on the other hand he is susceptible to flattery and personal relationship. those two have nothing to do with policy. he feels if he can ingratiate himself with people, the saudis are going to do that, the israelis have already done it. the pope will do it in order to modulate some of the things that trump does i m sure the pope is
rick, a tougher question. the government is full of potential briefers. the state department is full of experts. there is real concern this is a president subject to flattery wanting a close personal relationship after every encounter, that he could agree to things that he shouldn t. well, he is very transactional on the one hand. on the other hand he is susceptible to flattery and personal relationship. those two have nothing to do with policy. he feels if he can ingratiate himself with people, those people are going to figure out how to do that with him. and by the way, the saudis are going to do it. the israelis have already done it. the pope will do it in order to modulate some of the things that trump does i m sure the pope is aghast at. to quote rick stengel, what could go wrong. gentlemen thank you for a great conversation tonight. ali velshi and rick stengel. up next, when generals are pulled into politics on live television. how h.r. mcmaster became the