>>> I COULD STAND IN THE MIDDLE OF FIFTH AVENUE AND SHOOT
SOMEBODY AND I WOULDN’T LOSE ANY
VOTERS.
VOTERS. OKAY?
OKAY? IT’S LIKE INCREDIBLE.
>> AND NOW HE HAS GONE BEYOND
THAT.
THAT. NOW THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING I
COULD STAND IN THE MIDDLE OF
FIFTH AVENUE AND SHOOT SOMEONE
AND I CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR
THAT CRIME.
THAT CRIME. OR ANY CRIME.
IN NEW YORK CITY TODAY THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS SUED
MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY
CYRUS VANCE, AND IN FILING THE
LAWSUIT THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS
TOLD THE COURT THE PRESIDENT
THUS CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO
CRIMINAL PROCESS FOR ANY CONDUCT
OF ANY KIND WHILE HE IS SERVING
AS PRESIDENT.
AS PRESIDENT. SO ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT’S
LAWYERS, DONALD TRUMP COULD
COMMIT MURDER, HE COULD COMMIT
MURDER ON FIFTH AVENUE WITH THE
WHOLE WORLD WATCHING ON TV, AND
THERE IS NOTHING LAW ENFORCEMENT
COULD DO ABOUT THAT AS LONG AS
DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ARE
SUING THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT
ATTORNEY TO TRY TO BLOCK THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S SUBPOENA OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PERSONAL TAX
RETURNS AND BUSINESS TAX
RETURNS.
RETURNS. THAT SUBPOENA WAS NOT SERVED ON
DONALD TRUMP.
DONALD TRUMP. IT WAS SERVED ON THE ACCOUNTING
FIRM MAZARS, WHICH IS PREPARED
THOSE TAX RETURNS AND HAS COPIES
OF THEM.
OF THEM. THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY
IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION
INTO POTENTIAL CRIMINAL
WRONGDOING BY DONALD TRUMP AND
HIS COMPANY IN THE HUSH MONEY
PAYMENTS TO STORMY DANIELS IN
THE LAST MONTH OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, WHICH
FEDERAL PROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK
CALLED A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
WAS DESIGNED TO AFFECT THE
ELECTION.
ELECTION. THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS DON’T
POINT TO A SINGLE LINE IN THE
CONSTITUTION TO SUPPORT THEIR
POSITION BECAUSE THERE IS NO
LINE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT
SAYS THE PRESIDENT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROCESS.
IN FACT, THE SUPREME COURT RULED
THAT PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON WAS
SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROCESS WHEN
THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO
ENFORCE A CRIMINAL SUBPOENA
ISSUED BY A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
WHO WAS CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
NIXON.
NIXON. PRESIDENT NIXON THEN COMPLIED
WITH THE SUBPOENA AND HANDED
OVER AUDIOTAPES THAT SHOWED THE
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY, AND SHORTLY AFTER
HANDING OVER THOSE TAPES RICHARD
NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN THE
PRESIDENCY.
PRESIDENCY. RICHARD NIXON RESIGNED THE
PRESIDENCY BECAUSE HE WAS
SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROCESS AND
THAT CRIMINAL PROCESS CLOSED IN
ON HIM AND FORCED HIM TO TURN
OVER THE EVIDENCE THAT CONDEMNED
HIM.
HIM. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE NIGHTS WHEN
WE HOPE TO TURN TO A
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OF THE
HIGHEST AUTHORITY AND WE CAN DO
THAT TONIGHT BECAUSE HARVARD LAW
SCHOOL’S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROFESSOR LAURENCE TRIBE, WHO
HAS ARGUED COUNTLESS CASES
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, HAS
AGREED TO JOIN OUR DISCUSSION.
PROFESSOR TRIBE HAS TAUGHT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO STUDENTS
SUCH AS BARACK OBAMA, TED CRUZ,
ELENA KAGAN, AND CHIEF JUSTICE
JOHN ROBERTS.
JOHN ROBERTS. AND AS WE JUST HEARD, FORMER
INSPECTOR GENERAL JOEL BRENNER,
AND NOW IT’S YOUR TURN TO TAKE A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS WITH
PROFESSOR TRIBE.
PROFESSOR TRIBE. JOINING US NOW IS LAURENCE
TRIBE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
HE’S THE CO-AUTHOR OF "TO END A
PRESIDENCY: THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT."
IMPEACHMENT." PROFESSOR TRIBE, I GIVE YOU THE
LECTURE HALL FOR CAN THE
PRESIDENT SHOOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH
AVENUE AND THE MANHATTAN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SIMPLY HAS TO
LOOK THE OTHER WAY?
>> THE ANSWER IS NO.
WE DON’T HAVE A CONSTITUTION,
THANK GOODNESS, IN WHICH THE
PRESIDENT IS THAT MUCH ABOVE THE
LAW.
LAW. BUT IN FACT, THE POSITION THAT
HIS LAWYERS WERE TAKING TODAY IN
THE FEDERAL COURT FILING IS EVEN
MORE EXTREME THAN THAT.
THEY HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION
THAT THE PRESIDENT’S COMPANY
CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED, THAT
THOSE WHO MAY HAVE CONSPIRED
WITH HIM TO COMMIT FINANCIAL AND
OTHER CRIMES CANNOT BE
INVESTIGATED, THAT THE WHOLE
STATE PROCEEDING MUST BE STOPPED
IN ITS TRACKS.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THERE IS A
FEDERAL LAW GOING ALL THE WAY
BACK TO THE FOUNDING, ACTUALLY
TO 1793.
TO 1793. IT’S CALLED THE ANTI-INJUNCTION
ACT.
ACT. AND IT SAYS THAT NO FEDERAL
COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH AN
ONGOING STATE PROCEEDING.
SO THAT WHEN THE JUDGE FINALLY
HAS TO RULE ON THIS OUTLANDISH
CLAIM YOU CANNOT INVESTIGATE
CRIMINALITY ON THE PART OF THE
PRESIDENT, HIS COMPANY AND HIS
CRONIES, THE JUDGE WILL HAVE THE
OBLIGATION UNDER THE
ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT, 28 USC
2283, TO DISMISS THE CASE
BECAUSE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE
FOR A FEDERAL COURT AS A
PRINCIPLE BASICALLY OF STATES’
RIGHTS, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT’S
NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR A FEDERAL
COURT TO MESS AROUND WITH AN
ONGOING STATE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.
PROCEEDING. SML AS THAT.
AND SO --
AND SO -- >> PROFESSOR, IF THAT LAWSUIT --
WOULD IT BE DIFFERENT IF THAT
LAWSUIT HAD BEEN FILED IN NEW
YORK STATE COURT?
>> WELL, THEY WOULD THEN BE
MAKING AN EQUALLY ABSURD
ARGUMENT.
ARGUMENT. BUT AT LEAST THEY WOULD BE IN
THE RIGHT FORUM.
THEY’RE TRYING TO SAY THAT THE
STATE COURTS HAVE TO BE KICKED
OUT OF THE PICTURE BECAUSE AFTER
ALL THE PRESIDENT IS A FEDERAL
OFFICIAL.
OFFICIAL. THAT DOESN’T IMMUNIZE HIM FROM
STATE PROCESS.
STATE PROCESS. IT DOESN’T IMMUNIZE HIM FROM
STATE PROCEEDINGS.
STATE PROCEEDINGS. THERE ARE ONLY VERY LIMITED
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS
ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT.
ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT. THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD
CONCEIVABLY BE RELEVANT WOULD BE
THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS IF THE
PRESIDENT SAID THIS LAWSUIT
THAT’S BEING BROUGHT AGAINST ME
BY CY VANCE VIOLATES MY FIRST
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT IN A CASE I ARGUED ONE IN THE
SUPREME COURT CALLED PENNZOIL V
TEXACO IN 1987 THE SUPREME COURT
SAID ON BEHALF OF ONE COMPANY
THAT HAD LOST A BIG JUDGMENT IN
ESTATE COURT THAT IT COULDN’T
RUN OFF TO FEDERAL COURT TO KIND
OF INTERRUPT THE STATE
PROCEEDING.
PROCEEDING. THE ONLY WAY TO GET FEDERAL
REVIEW OF A STATE JUDGMENT IS TO
LET THE STATE PROCEEDING RUN ITS
COURSE AND THEN TAKE YOUR
CHANCES WITH ASKING THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE
RESULT.
RESULT. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT,
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE
FACT THAT THIS OUTLANDISH
POSITION THAT SAYS THE PRESIDENT
AND ALL THOSE AROUND HIM ARE
ABOVE THE LAW.
THEY CAN’T BE INVESTIGATED FOR
ANY CRIME NO MATTER HOW SERIOUS
UNTIL THE PRESIDENT IS OUT OF
OFFICE.
OFFICE. WELL, HE’S BASIC LYALLY INVITING
THE COUNTRY TO KICK HIM OUT OF
OFFICE SO HE CAN BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE LAW.
THAT’S KIND OF HIM BUT I DOUBT
THAT’S HIS INTENTION.
IT’S NOT A COINCIDENCE THIS
HAPPENS ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE
WHISTLE BLOWER ISSUE ARISES
BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THERE IS AN
ODD PROVISION THAT DOESN’T ALLOW
FOR ANY JUST DISH REVIEW, SO WE
HAVE THE PRESIDENT TAKING THE
EXTRAORDINARY POSITION BY IN
DIRECTION THROUGH THE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE THAT IT CAN WITH
HOLD INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION OF
AN URGENT KIND THAT GOES TO THE
SECURITY OF THE NATION FROM THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES OF
CONGRESS, EVEN THOUGH AN ACT OF
CONGRESS SAYS THAT’S WHERE THE
WHISTLE-BLOWERS SHOULD GO.
AND IT’S CLEAR THAT HIS POSITION
NOW IS NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING TO
ME.
ME. THEY CAN’T TOUCH ME.
I HAVE ARTICLE TWO ON MY SIDE.
YOU CAN DO WHAT I WANT.
CONGRESS CAN’T TOUCH ME.
THEY CAN’T ASK QUESTIONS OF
ANYONE WHO HAS EVER WORKED WITH
ME OR ANYONE WHOSE HAD ANYTHING
TO DO WITH ME, ESTATE COURTS
CAN’T INVESTIGATE ME.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN’T
INDICT ME AND, YOU KNOW, NANCY
PELOSI DOESN’T WANT TO IMPEACH
ME.
ME. I’M HOME FREE AND I CAN GET AWAY
WITH MURDER.
WITH MURDER. THAT CAN’T BE THE LAW IN THE
UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES. THAT’S NOT WHY WE FOUGHT A
REVOLUTION AGAINST A KING JUST
IN ORDER TO GET A TYRANT.
IT’S ASTONISHING AND HOPEFULLY,
THIS WILL FINALLY WAKE PEOPLE UP
AND REALIZE THIS GUY HAS GOT TO
GO.
GO. >> THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS PUT
THIS IN WRITING IN THEIR
COMPLAINT TODAY.
COMPLAINT TODAY. THEY SAID STATE AND LOCAL
PROSECUTORS HAVE MASSIVE
INCENTIVES TO CRIMINALLY
INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT TO
ADVANCE THEIR CAREERS OR TO
DAMAGE A POLITICAL OPPONENT.
WE’VE HAD APPARENTLY 230 YEARS
OF THIS MASSIVE INCENTIVE THAT
HAS NEVER INNOCENTIZED A LOCAL
PROSECUTOR BEFORE.
PROSECUTOR BEFORE. >> WELL, WE HAVE TYPICALLY
SELECTED PRESIDENTS WHO ARE NOT
CRIMINALS.
CRIMINALS. THIS TIME WE MAY HAVE MISSED THE
MARK, AND WE’VE SELECTED A
PRESIDENT WHO SEEMS TO KNOW NO
BOUNDS.
BOUNDS. HE VIOLATES THE AMONUMENTS CASES
AND ENRICHES HIMSELF AT THE
EXPENSE OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
AND TAKES MONEY FROM FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS IN ORDER TO BENEFIT
HIMSELF.
HIMSELF. HE BENDS POLICY IN THE DIRECTION
OF THOSE GOVERNMENTS WHETHER
IT’S SAUDI ARABIA OR ANOTHER
COUNTRY THROUGH ENHANCING HIS
OWN WEALTH AND NOW WE UNDERSTAND
HE MAY HAVE BEEN MAKING SOME
KIND OF DEAL WITH UKRAINE
PERHAPS TO GET INFORMATION OF A
NEGATIVE KIND ABOUT JOE BIDEN’S
SON IN EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINE.
IT’S TREACHEROUS IF NOT TREASON
AND BRIBERY AND UNACCEPTABLE.
>> PROFESSOR LAWRENCE TRIBE,