it would create a terrible precedent. the president instead of concerning himself with national affairs could be tied up in lengthy depositions. and i don t think that rudy has completely changed his position, recall on the snippet that you played he said that the president could claim that the purpose was to create an effective perjury trap. and he said that in the snippet that you played. and i think here we have a perfect example of a perjury trap. i don t see that they ve come up with any you could say it s being done for improper purposes, but he doesn t use the word perjury trap. i can t think of any improper purpose. i want to ask you about omarosa man gigault-newman.
tone in his voice, does that mean he s made up his voice, there s no interview coming, we re done here? i think he d be foolish to submit himself to an interview. his chief deputy is a person who s schooled in obstruction of justice. he s the prosecutor in the operand s in the case, angel weissman. we re not going to see an interview by him. was there a serious effort by team trump to negotiate one? rudy s has been out here saying june 4th or september 1st, was that all rudy yapping? it wasn t just rudy. it was the predecessors of rudy. i feel very strongly about this. i don t think there s any question that a competent lawyer would advise him not to submit