providing that the united states reserves and retains complete ownership, possession and control of presidential records. for more than a year, and despite multiple opportunities to remedied situation and return materials that rightly belong to the federal government, donald trump refused to cooperate time and time again. as we know now from the indictment unsealed by the department of justice yesterday, the former president and his personal valet, and now codefendants, walt nauta have both been indicted. trump along faces 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, and one count of false statements. both men are also charged with one count each of his conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document, corruptly concealing a document, concealing and documents in a federal investigation, and a scheme to conceal. not to has also in charge for making false statements. the government alleges in his indictment that it s not only a passive bystander that go
speculation, that if nixon hadn t been pardoned, and the criminal process have been allowed to run its course, whatever the judgment ultimately was, that donald trump wouldn t have felt the right to behave as he had and to instigate and insurrection and to do all the other acts that he did in office that were either criminal or abuse of power. jill, i have a minute left. i suspect you feel the same way. that if this is not allowed to proceed the way it should, that in 50 years, three of us will be having this conversation again about back in 2023, they should ve let that process play out, because so-and-so is now abusing it. i agree completely. i argued very strenuously with leandro or ski to allow us to indict the best we could get at the time of the original indictment was to name richard nixon and unindicted coconspirator. but i do believe that my friend liz holtzman has said it very well. that if we had gone ahead and indicted him, the evidence was
todd did. in retrospect. had it been me i would have said i m not going there. abby: thought president is eeting about it? we are talking about it so it s part of the 24/48 hour news cycle. the argument in favor of the president can pardon himself is the pardoning power, according to the supreme court, is plenary. meaningful, final, complete. there s no check on it. the argument against that is the constitution elm bodies the rule of law. one of the basic principles of the rule of law is the person can t be the prosecutor or the judge in his own case. i think the stronger argument is most respectfully the president cannot pardon himself. there are partisan and there are partisan. president trump have pardoned people who have already committed crimes. when president ford pardoned then recently former president nixon. nixon hadn t been charged with anything. he just basically said i m wiping out. i m preventing anybody from,
the youngest mayor in stockton, first sphrern, he didn t get there by not working hard. this program and programs like this have been studied since 1968 through 1980 in this country under reagan, under carter, and under nixon and they failed because they produced lesser work hours that ultimately led to lesser income for the recipients. this program hurts resip yengts. it doesn t help them. abby: we will see where this program ends in 18 months. good to have you on this morning. thank you both. thank you. abby. abby: left launching a culture war on conservatives to cheering the end of roseanne to liberal americans attacking the white house. next guest says it s time for conservatives to start fighting back. he has a plan for that they say beans are good for your heart. also good for taking down armed criminals more on that coming up. a blaze of glory take me down.
eventually. and i also want to get you on what you make of evolving defense theory coming from donald trump s personal attorney and white house attorneys. you had john dowd floating donald trump cannot obstruct justice. but now you have ty cobb from the white house, i don t know, downplaying talking to the washington post saying they re focused on a fact-based defense not a mere legal defense. one of my initial questions, is why aren t all these folks on the same page when it comes to something as fundamental as this? they may not know the facts. that happened during watergate with james st. clair making statements about what nixon knew and didn t know. nixon hadn t been candid with his attorney either, so it s very easy for that to happen. as for dowd, you know, i think he is trying to defend his client, but he s putting words in his mouth that are very dangerous, giving him knowledge