that s what i said in my office as often as i could. it may be true that you have the authority to do something. but if every prosecutor took his oath or her oath to mean that you prosecute everyone to the absolute fullest extent that the breadth of correctional statutes permits you to do, we would live in a hell-scape. you are exercising your discretion not to let people he have exercise their discretion. it s a mistake. is it prosecutor s problem to make sure children are reunited? prosecutors are supposed to do the right thing. you don t only follow the technical obligations that you
investigation. the way you prove as a from t prosecutor, somebody s intent, you don t have a magic telescope that sees inside their brain. you look at their words and actions over a long period of time and you ask a jury to form conclusions about the person s intent from those words and actions. so, for example, why was the president so angry at jeff sessions for doing what he was legally required to do by recusing himself? why did he talk about the attorney general protecting him? why did he fire james comey? why did he tweet about there being tapes during the conversations? all these specific questions that you are reading, don, relate to actions that could be used by a prosecutor to infer that the president was trying to act with the intent to impede the investigation. okay, michael, lot of questions related to the campaign s accord nation with russia. questions like there one, when did you become aware of trump
just. if you rob a bank and you re convicted for robbing a bank, that s a fair and just outcome. but there s a second way we measure our justice system. you rob a bank, you re convicted of robbing the bank but it prosecutor is talking about his disdain for tall, white women with dark hair and he s been doing flat 20 years. people doubt that the process has the inhad teg rety that it ought to have. so you need the perception of the cyst fweem fair and the system to actually be fair and here s the problem with the text messages. it answers one of those questions or pretends. it suggests the process is not fair. what i was hoping would happen is the inspector general would put out a report telling us about everything. there was a bad perception, perhaps they shouldn t have written what they wrote. i m not convinced the first amendment argument gets us out of this thing meaning they can write whatever they want to
trump s orbit had prior russian ties. at. at this point we should pursue the evidence and nothing else. arthel: there has not been confirmation that this prior former ties to russian diplomats, that there are not various relationships at this point. we are careful here not to indict before i have the information. what dots would have to be connected for you to prove what it is that you are claiming, if in fact there is ron doing here? that s right. as a former it prosecutor there s responsibility to only follow the evidence. what we have is that russia attacked us, it was ordered by putin, they sought to help donald trump. that is what our intelligence community has concluded. then you have people in donald trump s orbit people in donald trump s orbit who have a prior russian ties. and we re meeting with the russian ambassador after.
the prosecutor needs to get it together or she should be taken off the case. arricardo flores is one of the most powerful men in peru and he can t get this case to trial. how many women does this guy have to be accused of murdering. megyn: what he s reportedly confessed to, is slamminger in the face with his right elbow. strangling her, take off his shirt and asphixiating her. then he signs a written confession. what do they want? to gift wrap it? i understand. it seems like it s a slam dunk, as close to one as you can get. i don t understand what the holdup is unless maybe it prosecutor is trying to work out a deal so the flores family doesn t have to sit through a trial. megyn: if he goes free, can they bring him back in? that depends on whether this is a speedy trial issue which