president who are consistently defending donald trump, is there a larger danger here in dismissing essentially a legal process that has not played itself out? well, first of all, he s innocent till proven guilty. absolutely. but the charges are so serious. so to say that a process crime, that obstructing justice is not a serious crime, that trying to destroy evidence wanted by a federal grand jury is not a serious crime, you can say this person is innocent until proven guilty. however, the charges are very serious and the facts if they are true are very serious. so to just sort of pooh-pooh them i find, you know, problematic. do you think there s any indication from what we hear, not just from, again, the majority of republican candidates but the crowds that go to these events, of what a jury might be thinking, though, and the hill that might need to be climbed by some of these prosecutors? i think clearly what mr. trump is doing is going for jury
a crime that would not have existed but for the existence of an investigation. can you help us unpack that? well, the definition of a process crime are crimes against the judicial system. so i think this candidate is saying we should do away with lying under oath, which is perjury. that shouldn t be a crime. intentional disobedience of a court order. that s criminal contempt. he s saying i guess that shouldn t be a crime. interfering with an official proceeding. that s obstruction of justice. so process crimes are crimes that go to the heart of the judicial system. so if you got rid of perjury and criminal contempt and you got rid of obstruction of justice and destroying evidence, i see that would be a very big problem for the criminal justice system in this country. yeah. when you talk about this sort of chipping away for people who are not vivek ramaswamy, brendan, there s nikki haley, chris christie with his take on the new charges against not just trump but the two others in
other people. that s what he does. it s working for him. i think some of these other candidates should learn a lesson. donald trump is not going to implode. these indictments have not led to him blowing up. you have to chip away at him. and it starts by doing uncomfortable things. will hurd did it there. i don t know that will hurd is necessarily a top-tier candidate at this point. but if other people did that they could start changing things. on the current course they re not going to change. on the other side of it, katherine, vivek ramaswamy dismissed the importance of the latest charges. he basically said they re part of a process crime. i want to play what he had to say. i think that our general norm in our justice department is you should not convict somebody of a process crime when there was no actual underlying crime. so i v i think that s a major you think destroying evidence is a process crime? i think it is by definition a process crime. nobody left, right, any leg
significant new information. given this new information, do you still would you still pardon him if you were president? the standard i use as our next president is what moves our country forward? what is the right thing for the united states of america? right, and would having a president like this move it forward? is to move on and i would pardon him. i intend to be our next president, and yes, i do believe i will move us forward, and i believe one of the right ways to do that is pardon the former president of the united states from what is clearly a polit politicized persecution. i think that the general norm in our justice department is you should not convict somebody of a process crime when there was no actual underlying crime. i think that s a major so you think destroying evidence is a process crime? i think it is by definition a process crime. nobody left, right, any legal scholar will agree with me on