Stay updated with breaking news from He didnt obstruct. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Former white house counsel. the judge said we don t live in a world where your status as a former executive branch official somehow shields you or prevents you from giving information. are you encouraged to hear that? very much encouraged. i don t think there s any question but don mcgahn should testify and will be ordered to testify. just an issue of when he testifies so we can get the information. the trump team has put up the most specious legal arguments that judge howell and other judges have written these arguments are just off the wall. they are they probably wouldn t get you out of loss school. and yet they are just throwing up what they can to try to hide information and guard people from testifying to the american public. if trump s world is perfect, if he s done nothing wrong, if he didn t obstruct justice, there s no reason not to have mcgahn testify. mcgahn talked to mueller and ....
That constitutional issues that the president defenders of the president think that he can t that he didn t obstruct justice, the views are mostly political attacks. there will always be people in the party that agree with that point of view, and the question is, where is the party going to go? arthel: all right, we will watch for that direction. let s talk about the parade. president trump s salute to america event, which the president said will be the show of a lifetime. now former vice president joe biden is saying that president trump s military parade misses the whole point about why we are the country we are. he goes on to say that the u.s. should lead not by example of our power, but by the power of our example. meanwhile, emily, you got some military and pentagon officials concerned that this event will cast a traditionally nonpartisan military in a political light. ....
Client and keep his client out of legal jeopardy. if he says my client can t be subpoenaed, we ll fight a subpoena, he s going to make that argument. he s not the legal scholar we should be listening to at this moment. doesn t it go t the 90 reporters were trying to ask conway, if the pre nothing wrong, if he didn t obstruct justice, if he didn t do anything illegal, what does he need to talk about pardons for and potential indictments? rudy giuliani gets asked about it, but the president of the united states tweets about it on his own. it invites the continued questions. the other thing, i don t know how you read this, but i think rudy giuliani is making the argument to prerump about why he should not pardon himself. when he s on television talk about how impeachment could ensue, i don t think that s because necessarily rudy giuliani needs to tell us that. i think he s making the argument to the president who might want to just pardon himself and get rid of all of this. m not enti ....
i i can t really get into that. you can t answer that? no. what is serious is there s a level of sort of criminal exposure for people involved in this, and then there s intense theoretical constitutional questions about what the president can and can t be pursued for. sure. i guess what do you know, what is your reporting indicate about how they re thinking about that from the trump legal perspective or mueller s team? from the trump legal perspective, their primary argument would seem to be as far as our reporting shows that he that he didn t obstruct justice because his executive authority gives him the ability to hire and fire people including the director of the fbi at will. right, this fundamental idea that definitionally the president exercising the constitutional power vested in him to relieve somebody who works for him cannot be obstruction of justice. right. ....
Process for this to be playing out, and it is a little bit it is somewhat unusual that they actually submitted written arguments. have you read the memos? i i can t really get into that. you can t answer that? no. what is serious is there s a level of sort of criminal exposure for people involved in this, and then there s intense theoretical constitutional questions about what the president can and can t be pursued for. sure. i guess what do you know, what is your reporting indicate about how they re thinking about that from the trump legal perspective or mueller s team? from the trump legal perspective, their primary argument would seem to be as far as our reporting shows that he that he didn t obstruct justice because his executive authority gives him the ability to hire and fire people including the director of the fbi at will. right, this fundamental idea ....