them, convincing them there would be money that would be campaign money that they could draw on, they would not otherwise be able to get. not so much quid pro quos necessary. they say mayor michael bloomberg was fond of telling on the fence lawmakers that a yes vote would give them access to i beg your pardon. we just talked about the nra that threatens we ll take you out if you don t vote that way. or people saying, well a particular party will not support me, or everybody will vote for me and they ll raise a lot of money against me. look, you should be supporting the people that run for government that you think are doing the right things. and that s not a bribe. that s just common sense. you want to these are groups being threatened by the conservative party with $2 million in spending. it seems to me perfectly reasonable for someone to speak up and say, hey, if they do that, here s what you have access to. i think that s clear, but it s also true that most people, and mos
republican principles are keep the government out of your personal life. if you want to marry somebody, it s not the government s business to tell you who. and that s just to me, one of the fundamental principles of america. huffington post reports there were enticement attention made to republicans to sway them, convincing them there would be money that would be campaign money that they could draw on, they would not otherwise be able to get. not so much quid pro quos necessary. they say mayor michael bloomberg was fond of telling on the fence lawmakers that a yes vote would give them access to i beg your pardon. we just talked about the nra that threatens we ll take you out if you don t vote that way. or people saying, well a particular party will not support me, or everybody will vote for me and they ll raise a lot of money against me. look, you should be supporting
for office or not get in a race and the exchange is some kind of position, job or commission, really undercuts the whole democratic process. and, in fact violates federal idea that all of a sudden now you have quid pro quos going on running for office or not running, really does not pass what i call the basic smell test at all. sean: before we get to send for santorum. explain the law we are talking about 18 u.s. code, 600, 595 and the concept of anything of value yeah. if you look at 595, 600, 212, 201, what you see is the idea white that doesn t mean money it could be position an appointment to commission anything like that you forgive or decide not to run or engage in a particular campaign, violates the law for this reason. the idea that you would be buying people off through promotions, jobs or offers
president. what you just said, you should be on the defense team. look at the horse trade tag went on, the secret deals and quid pro quos in healthcare. i get on this show because i say gregg, do me a favor we don t talk about what you got in exchange. you don t do it on the record. i want to throw to a sound bite. i used to tell my clients to be quiet. don t talk to anybody but me. blago is all over the place, on the apprentice and holding news conferences. here s a clip from the other day. i m here today to issue a chang, if i m wrong with what i m saying, i challenge mr. fitzgerald, show up and explain why you don t want the tapes you made played in court. i ll be in court tomorrow. i hope you re man enough too.
justice policy and indict the president. so the question is what does congress think about that? the pardons themselves i think are constitutionally protected. but the negotiations around them could well will evidence of obstruction of justice. if there were any sort of quid pro quos, any sort of deals where the president says implicitly or explicitly or through intermediaries, to paul manafort, to michael flynn, to michael cohen, hang in there, don t cooperate and i ll give you a pardon. that, i think, definitely could be seen as evidence of an impeachable offense. when you think of pardons, you kind of think of people who deserve pardons, worthy pardons, people who are unjustly in prison, or people who had decisions of a jury trial in a