Stay updated with breaking news from Nixon shigoli. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
is the ability for ordinary people to engage and deliberation, engage in self governance. if we don't have the information to have the arguments, because where you are siloed, democracy is [inaudible] >> nixon's really good one. if you remember who showed up until nixon was gone, goldman, it was within his own party. that's the thing i think has fallen down in the u.s.. i've republicans in my family, right? there was a rational republican party there that stood up to the crazy native this. what happened to them? >> they were told to sit down and shut up. >> they got eaten alive by the situation that they created. they ceded the ground. they cannot act like they weren't the forebears of what we have here. liz cheney was asked about this by stephen colbert more the most important conversations i've seen in a long time. he said, don't we have any responsibility for what we see? i'm talking about these issues for 15 years. watching these republican party taking their phone calls on live radio. this is not new. this is only become more and more popular. reasonable republicans that you talked about, i would argue
resigned. >> absolutely. right i think it's absolutely right. >> he would never resign. so, the lifeblood of democracy is the ability for ordinary people to engage and deliberation, engage in self governance. if we don't have the information to have the arguments, because where you are siloed, democracy is [inaudible] >> nixon's really good one. if you remember who showed up until nixon was gone, goldman, it was within his own party. that's the thing i think has fallen down in the u.s.. i've republicans in my family, right? there was a rational republican party there that stood up to the crazy native this. what happened to them? >> they were told to sit down and shut up. >> they got eaten alive by the situation that they created. they ceded the ground. they cannot act like they weren't the forebears of what we have here. liz cheney was asked about this by stephen colbert more the most important conversations i've seen in a long time. he said, don't we have any responsibility for
mean with the prosecutor. and cnn contributor john dean, of course, the former nixon, white house council. let me start with you. as we are seeing the case, the high court can move with speed when they clearly want to. the question here is how quickly do you think this could be decided? >> it has been too easy to criticize the supreme court. and i think in this instance, they deserve praise because they recognize this is imperative. for the first time in 150 plus years since the amendment was ratified, some guidance on how exactly the 14th amendment is suppose to work. they will be studying this in the future. the court has set a tight timeline here.
he has immunity, i think, from this outer perimeter of his duties. but even if the d.c. court of appeals were to find that was the standard, what donald trump did here was not within the after perimeter of his official duties. he was trying to interfere with the electoral count. and tried to make sure he was the one that was installed instead of the properly elected candidate. so, i really think that this is not going to go anywhere. i expected the argument, you're going to hear a lot of questions about the text of the constitution. nowhere in the constitution's presidential immunity addressed. where is donald trump getting this from? where are his lawyers getting these arguments from? history, there's no evidence from the founders that immunity existed. presidents were pardon, former president nixon, to prevent the prosecution, suggesting there was this, there was no understanding of history, at least, that there was such presidential immunity. i also think you're going to see a lot of hypotheticals presented by the special counsel's office, in the
>> if we are talking about a pardon, you are assuming he's guilty. nobody gets pardoned if you are not guilty. so i honestly do believe like they did with nixon, you have to say what's in the best interest of the country and i think pardoning trump and moving on is in the best interest of our country if we are going to heal and get back together and get out of the chaos. >> john: so you said that you would pardon him if convicted, you said nobody who gets a pardon who is not convicted but president ford preemptively pardoned president nixon, nixon had not been charged with anything. we don't know when the trump cases are going to finish up or go to court. if you become president, would you pledge to preemptively pardon him or only if found guilty? >> i think you only do it if someone is found guilty. so what i'll say, this is about moving the country forward and the last thing we want to see is
trump, he still has to face and we'll find out whether he is guilty or not. but if we are talking about a pardon, you're assuming he is guilty. nobody gets a pardon if you're not guilty. for me it's not about guilt or innocence. it's about what's in the best interest for the country. and i don't think our country will move forward with an 80- year-old president sitting in jail that allows our country to continue to be divided. we have to move on past that. and so i honestly do believe just like they did with nixon, you have to say what is the best interest in the country. and i think pardoning trump and moving on is in the best interest of country if we are going to get out of the chaos. >> from west des moines, a
result of that. >> the democrats want trump to be the candidate. they are going to talk about all the legal stuff, january 6, that will be what the election will be about. you don't want it to be a referendum on trump and the past. you want to be a referendum on biden's failures, on our positive vision for this country. >> both desantis and haley said that they would pardon trump for any felonies against him if they are elected president. >> and one asked haley about why she would have pardoned him. and haley talked about the difficult situation going on at the u.s./mexico border. >> for me, it is not about guilt or innocence. it is about what is in the best interests for the country. and i don't think that our country will move forward with an 80-year-old president sitting in jail that allows our country to continue to be divided. we have to move on past that. and so i honestly do believe just like they did with nixon,
it arizona wanda stays in office, "primetime" is already calling arizona for biden. presidents have often fled the chili christmas climate to warm her seven destinations. harry truman would take cabinet secretaries down to sunny key west to talk shop. obama thought he served in the hawaiian waves, to the delight of suburban wine moms. donald trump, who wisely wore a hat, played golf in sunny south florida. even jfk soaked up the rays before his first televised debate with nixon. but some presidents can't handle the heat. in a scandal more impeachable than obama's tan suit, joe biden returned from the virgin islands looking like george hamilton. i hate to be a nag, but the president just had skin cancer a year ago. he had a lesion removed from his chest. white house dermatologist dr dr. jill should know better, but
decide, if they do end up deciding here. eric olson, an attorney representing the plaintiffs here, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you, kaitlan. >> and joining me now to break down this lengthy filing that we got, john dean from white house council to president nixon, elderly hoenig for the southern district of new york, and cnn's legal analyst and regular on the source. elie, i want to start with you, because you just heard what eric olson is arguing here. what are the strongest points that you think the trump legal team is making here and the weakest? >> yeah, kaitlan, so trump's brief, which was just filed earlier today is 34 pages long. but let me break it down into sort of the four major arguments that trump's team makes. number one, he argues he did not engage in insurrection. i think that's a weak argument first of all on the facts. but second of all, the supreme court is not going toe touch that. they're not a fact-finder. they don't do trials. they generally won't make that kind of finding. argument 2 that trump makes, this is up to congress. congress has to tell us how this
gonna be four years signed? >> i think this court has shown no willingness to stop assigned from sort of the partisan frame on these hard issues that are important to our democracy. we're optimistic that as did the colorado supreme court, when you look closely at the eat legal arguments and evidence presented here, the really isn't a close case here. donald trump engaged in an insurrection against the constitution, and therefore, under the constitution, he cannot be our president again. >> we'll see what the courts decide. if they do end up deciding here. eric olson, an intermediate representing the plaintiffs here, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you, caitlin. >> joining me now to break down this lengthy filing that we got, john dean, former white house counsel to president nixon, elie honig, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, and cnn's senior analyst and regular here on the source, elliott, let me start with you here. you just heard with eric nelson was arguing here. his assessment of reading this.