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
okay, quick recap. we re getting after it with the president s lawyer jay sekulow. i m arguing on a transparency side we should get the president s taxes and he s saying he doesn t have to. jay sekulow says we won, we got a stay. i say, no, these are unique issues. here s why i think you will lose on appeal. the district court judge said this is repugnant to the constitution what you are arguing, that the idea of federal supremacy and presidential immunity from judicial process is unqualified and boundless in its reach. it cuts across the grain of constitutional precedent. in other words, it comes from the office of legal counsel, not case law, not legislation.
so what happens? so right now in the judiciary committee they don t have to do that by the way. i don t think that s correct. it is. it s the house in the constitution. the house, not a committee. the house has the power. how they administer that power is up to their own rules, and it is not in house procedure that they have to have a full chamber vote. you think the house s rules let me give you a little constitution 101. you re a smart lawyer. house rules can t override the constitution of the united states. they can t make a rule that goes against the constitution. but let s assume there is no rule that goes against the constitution. they just started in the committee. they ll have to have a vote as the constitution requires on whether or not there are actionable articles of impeachment. if they get a simple majority which we all agree they have not had. not yet. so far in the judiciary committee, i don t get to, the white house counsel we don t get t
cohen, i want the taxes. this is about turning over your taxes, not just throwing you in jail. let me quote what the u.s. district court judge did in california when the state of california passed a piece of legislation that said to be on the primary ballot you had to provide five years of your tax returns if you re running for president. what did the court there say? it s not constitutional. why? violated freedom of association and the presidential qualification clause of the united states constitution. hold on, hold on. jay, jay, the court its major part of the holding was we don t like the slippery slope of states being able to create their own tailored qualifications for national office. because it violates the constitution. that may be appealed also. because it violates the constitution. no. actually, to be specific the court said the actual law itself was unconstitutional. right, they did say that. unconstitutional. it violated the constitution.
counselor? well, i mean, the constitution says high crimes and misdemeanors. what does that mean? i don t see well, you know, here s what it means. it means that a conversation from a head of state to another head of state that is exactly what that transcript shows never could reach the idea of a high crime or misdemeanor. what is the high crime or misdemeanor involved in there? such a gross abuse of office that you use the state department, the white house, and the department of justice to try to secure relief in your election by finding dirt on an opponent that ukraine had to deliver or risk not getting valuable aid to fight off the russians. that s very interesting except it s not true. so that s not what the transcript says. which part of it? it s an interesting comment, which reminds me of the adam let s compare it. why don t you actually read the transcript. many times. i d like someone to read the actual transcript. i have, many times. i read it top to bo