Not know yesterday, particularly about john eastman, number one, that on january 5th, even after admitting that he did not think mike pence could legally just throw out electoral votes, he pushed the pence team to do it. number two, that he was still pushing for pence to intervene even after the insurrection, and number three he asked for a pardon after all of it. george, i guess the more interesting question about this, though, is john eastman s legal liability, donald trump s legal liability, how similar or different are they? very similar. because let s ask the question, why was this prank allowed this crank, eastman, even though all the other lawyers around him and everyone else was saying this is bogus, and even though he was admitting in effect that his own theory was bogus, why did he get to keep banging on pence and getting meetings in and phone calls with the president? the reason is because trump
President, directly across from him, and said, mr. president, you may have four to six votes for acquittal, and you don t have mine. and the next day, be richard nixon announced his resignation from the presidency. what a difference republicans on the house judiciary committee pushed and voted for those articles of impeachment. look what happened in the two impeachment trials of donald trump. nothing we have now a political party, one of the two political parties in this country has now embraced and committed itself to trumpism, to authoritarianism of trump s brand. this is unprecedented in american history. carl, bob, i have to say, maybe your podcast could be titled whiskey with barry . i agree. if you had told an 18-year-old version of me that one day i would be listening to stories about watergate reporting from carl bernstein and bob woodward, i would not have believed. it would have been more than i
Had to have known, that the legal theory by which he could get this undone, get these certifications certified electoral votes undone was also false. these are a kind of independent these are independent ways to show criminal intent. and there is a it screws up the point that judge luttig made, not orally, but in his written statement, where he talked about the possibility of quote, unquote accountability for donald trump s attempt to steal the election. he used those words. he didn t talk about criminal liability in those words, but he talked about the fact that under the law, willful blindness to facts or law is not a defense. and that, when he pointed that out, it dove tails exactly with what we have seen this week and it means that he that donald trump can and should be criminally held criminally liable. we learned a great deal, just flat out new information we did
Believe, brianna, it was on this show months ago when we talked about this issue that the president cannot do this, and if he does, he is subject to the law. and this is 100 year supreme court decisions, written by justice taft, saying that if you try to subvert the normal necessary functions of government, it is a crime, particularly if you do it dishonestly. and what we heard yesterday was a string of dishonest actions and threats by the president at the time, donald trump, and, you know, where this goes, it is a good question. what is merrick garland, the attorney general going to do, what is the justice department
Be in jeopardy. that donald trump is out there, just had a rally, when was it last night, out there saying, look, all my not all, but many of his endorsed candidates, particularly in the state of nevada, it was a sweep for him, and the best information available is that trump is going to run. and he, if he is indicted, by the justice department, or grand jury, as a criminal can be indicted, what s the political impact of that going to be. this gets to the next question about what the real difference between watergate and a major way and what happened now is the republican party itself, which has become a vessel for donald trump and