Live Breaking News & Updates on Clinton Versus Jones|Page 3
Stay updated with breaking news from Clinton versus jones. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Served his term? i think this is one where you and neil and i disagree. i think the constitution gives congress this job. if the president is unfit for office, if he has made bad policies, committed maladministration, political crimes, that s what congress s job is to investigate that and conduct impeachment proceedings. i don t think it s a job for a special counsel. i think that s become a distraction for the real constitutional route. however for the crimes that the sdny that are occurring before trump was president, i think the sensible things for the courts to do is to delay that until after the presidency is over. we didn t do that with president clinton. there s a case called clinton versus jones which says let the process work through, but the supreme court also said but we don t want those investigations to interfere with the president s ability to do his job. neil, counter point. so two things, if john is right that this is a job for ....
Except for sean spicer. if it you can t write a tell all book if the president doesn t like what you write. exactly. we ve seen that from donald trump. we ve seen him go after people who said negative things about him. it s surprising because he spends a lot of his time on twitter saying negative things about other people. one would think he would have a thicker skin. i m not sure i see this lawsuit going very far. we talked about this before we came on the show. i don t see it going very far. there s been litigation before as to whether or not a sitting president can be sued. we saw it with nixon versus fitzgerald in 1982 where the supreme court essentially said that a president is not liable for damages, at least for acts he did while in office. we saw it again in 1997, i think, with clinton versus jones where it said a sitting president could be sued but, again, not for official acts that were done. ....
Argued a sitting president could be indicted. did you agree with that view then? yes. do you agree with that now? yes. if there is the right evidence, bob mueller or another prosecutor, could indict a sitting president, donald trump? yes. may i now expand. then counsel formal opinions during the clinton administration. it was a very impressive legal documents with very thorough analysis. i just happen to disagree with them and you say why. why? clinton versus jones. president clinton said in the civil set, not criminal, i should be immune from a civil lawsuit during the course of my tenure as president. the supreme court, unanimously said no, mr. president. there s no basis in our rule of law institutional order for you ....
Well try to get very quickly to the supreme court on the question of whether the question is allowed to refuse to submit to questioning. and i think the president that does not bode well for the clinton. i argued and lost in clinton versus jones that a lawsuit against the president a civil lawsuit ought to be postponed while he s in office. the supreme court rejected that 9-0 and said that even having to go through a civil trial did not meet the standard of interference with the president, that and the nixon tape case would indicate that the supreme court would say the president has no choice but to answer questions. and my guess is that whether he would have to do it through a redacted version or not, special counsel mueller could lay before the supreme court how serious are the issues that he needs to review with the president to understand the president s state of mind. now, if there is pushback, ....
Not just what you knew about other people. that s an important distinction. now, the question becomes, so now what? we know that the president s lawyers don t want to put him in the chair. where does this go? well, i think, you know, that the special counsel could very well try to get very quickly to the supreme court on the question of whether the president is allowed to refuse to submit to questioning. and i think the precedents on that do not bode well for the president. i argued and lost in clinton versus jones that a lawsuit against the president a civil lawsuit ought to be postponed while he s in office. the supreme court rejected that 9-0, and said that even having to go through a civil trial did not meet the standard of sufficient interference with the president. that and the nixon tape case would indicate that the supreme court would say the president has no choice but to answer questions. and my guess is that whether he would have to do it through a ....