>> Dana: WE HOPE IT GETS
RESOLVED VERY SOON.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, GREG.
>> Bill: THE "WASHINGTON POST"
REPORTING THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT IS NOW WRAPPING UP
-- RAMPING UP ITS WIDE RANGING
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO
FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP
INCLUDING HIS ACTIONS ON
JANUARY 6th IN EFFORTS TO
OVERTURN THE ELECTION OF 2020.
JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR
AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
AND FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR.
NICE TO SEE YOU.
THANKS FOR COMING BACK HERE.
JUST AS YOU READ BETWEEN THE
TEA LEAVES HERE, PROSECUTORS
QUESTIONING WITNESSES BEFORE A
GRAND JURY.
COULD THE FORMER PRESIDENT FACE
CRIMINAL CHARGES?
>> WELL, AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY I WOULD TELL ANY
CLIENT THAT YOU CANNOT DOWNPLAY
A GRAND JURY UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
OCCURS EVERY DAY.
THEY WOULDN’T BE BRINGING IN
PEOPLE INTO THE GRAND JURY
UNLESS THEY BELIEVE THEY HAD
CAUSE TO DO SO.
WHAT IS REALLY UNCLEAR IS WHAT
CASE THEY ARE MAKING.
THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE
PROMISED AT THE START OF THE
HEARING THAT THEY WOULD BE
PRESENTING NEW EVIDENCE THAT
DEMONSTRATED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT CRIMES
WERE COMMITTED BY FORMER
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THEY FAILED TO MAKE THAT CASE.
IN FACT, THEY DIDN’T INTRODUCE
A LOT OF NEW EVIDENCE IN TERMS
OF THE ELEMENTS OF VARIOUS
CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED.
SO THE QUESTION IS DOES THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVE MORE
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVEN’T
SEEN THUS FAR?
>> Bill: GREAT POINT.
YOU ASK THE CRITICAL QUESTION.
WHAT CASE ARE THEY MAKING?
I WOULD ASK WHAT WOULD BE THE
CHARGE?
>> ORIGINALLY THEY WERE TALKING
ABOUT INCITEMENT TO AN
INSURRECTION.
MANY OF US SAID THAT WOULD BE A
RATHER DIFFICULT ROW TO HOE.
THE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
MILL TAITS AGAINST THAT.
THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIS
FOLLOWERS TO GO TO CAPITOL HAIL
TO PROTEST PEACEFULLY.
THE COMMITTEE KEEPS DELETING
THAT SENTENCE WHEN THEY
PRESENTED HIS SPEECH, HE DID
SAIT AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE
TRIAL.
NOW THERE IS MORE TALK ABOUT
OBSTRUCTING A PROCEEDING OR
DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT.
BUT IT COMES AGAIN TO HIS
MOTIVATION.
TRUMP IS SAYING THAT HE
RECEIVED LEGAL ADVICE FROM ONE
OF THESE TWO TEAMS IN THE WHITE
HOUSE THAT SAID THAT HE COULD
DO THIS.
THAT HISTORY HAD SHOWN THERE
HAD BEEN MULTIPLE SLATES OF
ELECTORS.
DEMOCRATS HAVE CHALLENGED
CERTIFICATION.
NOW, I DISAGREED WITH THE
ADVICE HE WAS BEING GIVEN, BUT
THAT’S A RATHER DIFFICULT CASE
TO MAKE.
THE QUESTION IS, DOES MERRICK
GARLAND WANT TO TAKE THAT TYPE
OF CASE INTO TRIAL?
>> Bill: WE SHALL SEE.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT COULD BE
CHARGES BE.
YOU MENTIONED THE WORD
OBSTRUCTION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE THINKING
ABOUT?
>> YES.
TALKING MORE ABOUT OBSTRUCTING
A PROCEEDING AND ALSO
DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT
LARGELY FOCUSING ON THE FAKE
ELECTORS.
BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES WILL COME
DOWN TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT
WAS SEEKING PEOPLE TO PROTEST
TO TRY TO GET VOTES FOR THE
CERTIFICATION DENIAL OR WHETHER
HE WAS ACTIVELY TRYING TO CAUSE
A RIOT OR TO STOP THESE
PROCEEDINGS FROM OCCURRING.
THERE IS A LOT OF
INTERPRETATION THAT GOES IN
THERE.
NOW, IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A
CRIME AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT
TRUMP, I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO
SAY CHARGE HIM.
I BELIEVE THAT RICHARD NIXON
SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED AND
BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED.
NIXON AND CLINTON HAD VERY
CLEAR AND RATHER CONVENTIONAL
CRIMINAL CHARGES THAT WERE
RAISED AGAINST THEM BUT THEY
WERE NEVER PROSECUTED FOR THOSE
CHARGES.
THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT
SITUATION.
MERRICK GARLAND WOULD BE TAKING
A CASE THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED
NOT JUST AGAINST A PRESIDENT
BUT IN TERMS OF THE UNDERLYING
ELEMENTS BEING USED IN THIS
TYPE OF ACTION.
>> PROFESSOR TURLEY, THANK YOU.
WE’LL SEE IF ANYTHING COMES OF
IT.
ANYTHING AT ALL.