馃攳
Nadler, Dems introduce bill to freeze statute of limitations on crimes for presidents - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[0]
Congressman Jerry Nadler Ted Deutsch and
[1]
Eric SWA well our are introducing a bill
[5]
that essentially would halt the statute
[7]
of limitations on crimes committed by a
[9]
president joining us now for more
[10]
insight into all of this criminal
[12]
defense attorney and constitutional law
[14]
expert Ken Belkin ken thanks for joining
[17]
us thanks for having me kicking things
[19]
off I want to talk to you a little bit
[20]
about this move that's being made by
[22]
Nadler and his colleagues they're
[25]
essentially working towards here here's
[29]
just one of the arguments this made by
[30]
congressman SWA well that well I
[31]
disagree with the legal opinion that
[32]
says the president cannot be indicted
[33]
during their term in office Congress can
[35]
step up right now and change the law to
[37]
ensure any president can be held
[39]
accountable for crimes he goes on a
[41]
little bit but then he says president
[42]
Trump is living proof of the urgent need
[45]
to close this loophole what do you think
[47]
of the overall effort and also I guess
[50]
what some people might say a bit of an
[52]
attack on the part of Congressman
[53]
swallow going after the president in
[55]
that way look the first thing we gotta
[57]
understand here is that this is an
[59]
attack on the rights of the accused all
[62]
of the accused
[63]
we have statutes of limitations
[64]
specifically to protect the rights of
[66]
the accused now additionally with a
[68]
president in the Constitution in article
[70]
2 he has a pardon power he has unlimited
[73]
pardon power except in circumstances of
[75]
impeachment which you know could extend
[78]
it's never been decided whether or not
[80]
that would apply to a sitting president
[81]
being charged with a crime because it's
[83]
never happened but many people think it
[85]
would apply because that one exception
[86]
and there's not only are they trying to
[88]
vitiate the Constitution's pardon power
[90]
this law is a way of circumventing the
[92]
Department of Justice's guidelines which
[94]
are based on that Constitution man there
[96]
has been so much talk about what is
[98]
appropriate as far as the Constitution
[100]
is concerned are we in a constitutional
[102]
crisis what are the oversight powers
[104]
that Congress has which brings me to tax
[107]
returns the Ways and Means Committee
[108]
Chair Richard Neal he subpoenaed the
[110]
Department of Treasury as Secretary
[111]
minuchin and the Internal Revenue
[112]
Service seeking six years of the
[115]
president's tax returns the president
[116]
not releasing those publicly before your
[119]
thoughts on this effort to get the
[121]
documents look the president is under no
[123]
legal requirement to release his tax
[126]
returns certain presidents have done so
[128]
in the past they did it voluntarily he's
[130]
under no requirement to do so and this
[132]
guy is a businessman
[133]
with a lot of interests I doubt highly
[135]
that anyone would even understand his
[137]
tax return without possessing an MBA or
[139]
a CPA now shifting again is we're
[142]
talking about constitutional powers the
[143]
argument the House Judiciary Committee
[145]
voted to cite AG bar for contempt of
[148]
Congress Republicans have been pushing
[149]
back they voted against this contempt
[150]
resolution there's been this argument
[152]
made that Congress has oversight
[155]
responsibilities and that they're being
[156]
forced to take these steps in an effort
[158]
to do that your thoughts on this being
[160]
the constitutional crisis that some have
[163]
been discussing and and also just on the
[167]
back-and-forth over holding attorneys
[168]
general a bar in contempt I mean look
[171]
Attorney General bar testified for five
[174]
hours the other day he doesn't want to
[176]
testify further because number one he
[178]
believes that some of the testimony
[179]
could stray and potentially privileged
[181]
materials under executive privilege and
[183]
secondly that the questioning that
[185]
Congress is proposing right now is that
[187]
he'd be questioned not by members of
[189]
Congress by members of the committee's
[191]
staff and by outside counsel I don't see
[194]
why an attorney general sit should
[196]
subject himself to outside counsel
[198]
questioning and just to get a little
[199]
listen from the opposing side of course
[201]
this is Speaker Nancy Pelosi take a
[203]
listen oh sorry about that here I'll
[208]
just I'll just kind of briefly tell you
[210]
it's in essence what the speaker was
[214]
saying she said she was arguing that the
[215]
president is almost self impeaching
[217]
because he is everyday demonstrating
[219]
showing more obstruction of justice and
[220]
disrespect for Congress's legitimate
[222]
role to subpoena so she's really pushing
[225]
back directly on the president on these
[227]
issues your thoughts in kind of that
[229]
back and forth is there a bit of a power
[231]
struggle and in a sense our government
[233]
is set up in that way but to see it kind
[235]
of blatantly playing out when we're
[236]
talking about various subpoenas going
[238]
forward there is supposed to be a
[240]
process with which the executive branch
[242]
can comply with subpoenas it's an
[244]
accommodation process negotiations are
[247]
held and a compromise is reached some
[249]
things that are subpoenaed Congress is
[251]
not entitled to see and that's just the
[252]
reality and the president has every
[254]
right to assert privilege in those
[256]
aspects but at the end of yeah oh no I
[260]
was gonna thank you for your thoughts
[261]
actually but you had one final thought
[264]
what were you about to say
[266]
you know if some of this stuff is
[268]
privileged Congress is allowed to
[270]
petition the courts to have it you know
[272]
disclose them and we they should go
[274]
through the courts to decide that we
[275]
have remedies in place this is not a
[277]
crisis they have an avenue that they can
[279]
pursue through the federal courts and if
[281]
they really feel there's something there
[282]
they should do that and let a federal
[284]
district court judge make that ruling I
[285]
had the same thought as you were saying
[287]
it that we will likely see a lot of
[288]
action in the courts coming soon ken
[290]
belkin thank you so much for your for
[292]
your insight today thanks for having me
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage