first argument. after nixon, we then see a series of independent and special prosecutors investigating a range of different types of conduct. you saw independent counsel lawrence walsh in the iran contra affair and this is what the defendant invokes in the reply brief and in chapter 27 of that report, the independent counsel assumes that president reagan is subject to prosecution, and he says that we did not get there evidentiarily, and we thought that there was immunity and it has continued through to the present and so this notion of a floodgate, i think that, again, the careful investigations and the clinton era didn t result in any charges. the fact that this investigation did, doesn t reflect that we will see a sea change of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future. i think that it reflects fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges
the behavior and if the house brings impeachment articles and moment to conviction and trial and if i am the president of the united states, i have to bide the time, and that is part of the argument, but there is a moment when the counsel, i mean, the special counsel from doj spoke about this issue, but i want to go back to a second for the lawyer of trump, because in the sound bite here, he talks about the idea that the notion for a criminal immunity not existing is a shocking holding. they are standing tall and saying, look, there has to be some level of immunity, because we are talking about president biden and other people. listen to this. to authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a pandora s box from which this nation may never recover. could george w. bush be prosecuted for obstruction of a proceeding for giving false information to congress to induce the nation to go to war
so jack did have the better argument there. and ministerial and that is what everybody was saying, just say it, whether it is his actions around january 6th were official acts and they were talking ministerial and discretionary and take-care clause, and this is the president has the duty to ensure that the laws of this nation are executed and enforced. but this idea, elie, of what he is doing is official or rogue in some way plays very big in this case, and it could end up back before judge chutkin. yes, and before the united states supreme court as well, and that is what it looked like the argument was going to be. was trump s conduct around
the conduct and what did he do? he accepted a pardon and he talked about how we have iran contra investigation, and we have ronald reagan and nobody thought that he could not be prosecuted. so i think that the slippery slope argument, and there is something there on both sides, but importantly, that is the nature of all prosecution, and we have both been prosecutors and for the system to work effectively, you have to have the prosecutors to act with discretion and perfectly and true for every scenario for the everyday americans and presidents and that faith in the system, it has to make sense no matter the defendant, so it is not especially strong argument to say that someone could abuse this, because we have courts to review the indictments and we have standards and burdens of proof and reasonable doubt for a trial, and we have other fail sa safes that is not a rogue prosecutor to go after it, and
an impeachment and conviction, and it can lead to absurd results. impeachment is different, because impeachment could be political and based on a number of factors and this is a different ball game altogether than a decision to prosecute and eventually convict somebody, and the thing that i keep coming back to, they had an easier way, and trump s team had a better way and they briefed an easier way, and they just said that what he is charged with is the scope of the outer perimeter of his job as president, and if they stuck to that, i still think they would have had a losing argument, but not a preposterous argument and stronger case to make. well, first of all, think about this, what that would suggest is as long as i can hide my behavior long enough to be in office and avoid impeachment, i can get away with anything i want and all i have to do is to not have transparency and eyes into what i am doing, and what i have to do is what i know about