Donald Trump, President Trump, Ukraine discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Hi this is not a line in Brooklyn calling with a question for my dad. Matthew Connecticut and explain in his defensive trump Alan Dershowitz says that foreign policy is if lucidly domain at the executive and that therefore what trump did not impeachable in my the opinion what trump is doing with Ukraine not foreign policy but to take another example. What if Congress passed a law? 'cause I funding to Cuba and trump surreal foreign foreign policy. Reasons refuse to send the funded. Would he be subject to impeachment for US according to Jersey. He would not but it seems to me and my dad that foreign policy is really not exclusively presidential and that's a violation of any law passed by Congress. They subject to impeachment. We're looking forward to hear your thoughts on this and we love podcast thanks. I'm madeline. Thanks for your call in your question though. It appears to come from your father. I think you're now says is pretty good. Look people will always always argue and democratic Republican presidents have both argued in different contexts. That foreign policy is within the domain of the executive branch and especially the president of the United States and that makes a lot of good sense now. Most of the examples that are getting by on Dershowitz don't seem to take into account that the president of the United States may engage in something that looks like foreign policy. But as you you point out is really about himself is really about self-dealing which was what the whole Ukraine scandal was about. The president. United States was doing something for his own personal political benefit. Time time and time again and the evidence that his intentions were all about self regard comes from all manner of witnesses and documents and the fact that the foreign policy establishment both within and end without the White House and Congress already against him on this issue of providing aid to Ukraine. Makes it clear that he had his own not foreign policy objective but his own personal and private benefit that he was seeking so for example is annual Komen. I talk about in the insider podcast one hypothetical provided by Alan Dershowitz relates to whether or not it is impeachable if the president of the United States simply allows Vladimir Putin to annex Alaska to Russia which is quite outrageous hypothetical and he does it for effect back Cornell undershirts because that's in the province of foreign policy. The president could be impeached for it. But that ignores a central issue that pertains in the Ukraine case as an pointed out in our conversation intersection in that is unquestionably. If the reason that Donald Trump allowed the annexation of Alaska for personal gain in other words in exchange for the opening of a huge trump tower in Moscow for for example that self-dealing. That's a high crime. I think unquestionably and would subject the president to impeachment so needs to beware of hypotheticals that don't incorporate into them mm-hmm the actual facts and intentions that the president had with respect to the Ukraine affair. Now I think separately. Your hypothetical relating to Cuba is an interesting one separate and apart from Donald Trump's personal personal interest in withholding aid from Ukraine. We now have this. A General Accounting Office opinion that says Donald Trump broke the law with respect to not turning over the money that was allocated by Congress Congress so whether you're talking about that issue in Ukraine or you're talking about some other issue on which Donald trump defies the law and FIS congress. I think you have an argument. That that's impeachable as well but just to restate the obvious again. The most clearly impeachable offense is when the president of the United States corrupts his office engages. In what we have here extortion slash bribery not proceeding in favor of the foreign policy of the United States. This question comes from twitter user. Mugabe the report at Premera. How is it that left? Parnasse is able to speak openly while out on bond without repercussions while Roger Stone had a gag order has gas. Well the answer that is simply league. They have different judges and different judges. In different circumstances. Depending on the nature of expected speech by a charge defendant will make different decisions about gag. Orders gag orders by the way are fairly rare. They're rare in part because most defendants listened to the counsel of their lawyer and most lawyers council their clients were under federal indictment to keep their mouths shut and stay off. The airwaves mean a large subset of defendants. Nobody's interested in hearing from them so they wouldn't get national TV interviews anyway but of the people that are they tend to keep quiet because most of the time it's in your interest is now may be the case here. The left part is trying to show that he wants to be cooperative with the Senate and the trial and the house and that he's able to be cooperative in a way that might influence the decision makers at the southern district of New York to give him some benefit of leniency with respect to his criminal case. I don't know if they'll be successful or not pretend to think it won't be the other differences Roger Stone when he was Exercising his right of free speech while he was under. Indictment was doing all sorts of things to affect his case by speaking negatively about the prosecutors negatively about other folks which I think the judge did not have any tolerance for so Roger Stone more polemical more obnoxious harder. Judge left part is so far able to speak.

Coming up next