MSNBC

MSNBC 13 Jan 2020

'Disaster': Trump May Face His Nightmare Impeachment Trial With John Roberts In Charge

Description:

Pres. Trump is headed for an impeachment trial in the Senate overseen by a judge he once called an "absolute disaster," Chief Justice John Roberts. MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on Roberts' work as a lawyer, his testimony as a judicial nominee stating "no one is above the law" including "the President," and the outlook for key rulings at the Senate trial. Aired on 01/13/20.


President Donald Trump is weighing his options after threatening to pull the Republican National Convention out of North Carolina in August. Two Republican governors have offered up their states as alternatives. (May 27)
Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York responds to Trump's comments about his authority as president at Monday's press briefing: "I don't know why he would say that. I don't know why he would take us down that path." Aired on 4/13/2020.
"
President Donald Trump's campaign debuted Trump-branded face masks, as the number of confirmed cases and deaths in the U.S. continue to rise.
After blaming China for the coronavirus crisis and having a confrontation with reporters, President Trump abruptly ends his May 11 news conference.

… show captions ↓
>>> TOMORROW SPEAKER PELOSI IS
>>> TOMORROW SPEAKER PELOSI IS MEETING WITH DEMOCRATS, TEEING
MEETING WITH DEMOCRATS, TEEING UP A TRIAL OF DONALD TRUMP THAT
UP A TRIAL OF DONALD TRUMP THAT COULD BEGIN AS SOON AS THIS
COULD BEGIN AS SOON AS THIS WEEK.
WEEK. AND THEN TRUMP’S VERDICT WILL
AND THEN TRUMP’S VERDICT WILL DEPEND ON THOSE 100 SENATORS WHO
DEPEND ON THOSE 100 SENATORS WHO TOOK THE OATH JUST AS THEY DID
TOOK THE OATH JUST AS THEY DID IN THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL.
IN THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL. BUT THERE IS ONE OTHER FIGURE
BUT THERE IS ONE OTHER FIGURE WITH SPECIAL POWERS OVER HOW
WITH SPECIAL POWERS OVER HOW THIS TRIAL RUNS, BECAUSE THE
THIS TRIAL RUNS, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO TYPICALLY PRESIDES
PERSON WHO TYPICALLY PRESIDES OVER THE SENATE, THE VICE
OVER THE SENATE, THE VICE PRESIDENT, IS REMOVED DURING AN
PRESIDENT, IS REMOVED DURING AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL GIVEN THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL GIVEN THE OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD
THE VICE PRESIDENT WOULD LITERALLY TAKE OFFICE IF A
LITERALLY TAKE OFFICE IF A PRESIDENT WERE CONVICTED.
PRESIDENT WERE CONVICTED. SO INSTEAD, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SO INSTEAD, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL PRESIDE OVER IMPEACHMENT
SHALL PRESIDE OVER IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, A ROLE SO IMPORTANT,
TRIALS, A ROLE SO IMPORTANT, IT’S ACTUALLY THE CONSTITUTION’S
IT’S ACTUALLY THE CONSTITUTION’S ONLY REFERENCE TO THE CHIEF
ONLY REFERENCE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND THAT MEANS THIS
JUSTICE, AND THAT MEANS THIS TRIAL WILL BE RUN BY JOHN
TRIAL WILL BE RUN BY JOHN ROBERTS, A CONSERVATIVE BUSH
ROBERTS, A CONSERVATIVE BUSH APPOINTEE WHO TRUMP BLASTED ON
APPOINTEE WHO TRUMP BLASTED ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. >> JUSTICE ROBERTS TURNED OUT TO
>> JUSTICE ROBERTS TURNED OUT TO BE AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER.
BE AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER. HE TURNED OUT TO BE AN ABSOLUTE
HE TURNED OUT TO BE AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER BECAUSE HE GAVE UP
DISASTER BECAUSE HE GAVE UP OBAMACARE.
OBAMACARE. >> ROBERTS VOTES WITH
>> ROBERTS VOTES WITH CONSERVATIVES MOST OF THE TIME.
CONSERVATIVES MOST OF THE TIME. BUT TRUMP SEIZED ON HIS HIGH
BUT TRUMP SEIZED ON HIS HIGH PROFILE VOTE IN THAT CASE TO
PROFILE VOTE IN THAT CASE TO APPEAL TO REPUBLICANS WHOA
APPEAL TO REPUBLICANS WHOA WANTED A DIFFERENT RESULT.
WANTED A DIFFERENT RESULT. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OFTEN TRY
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OFTEN TRY TO AVOID POLITICS, SO IT’S A
TO AVOID POLITICS, SO IT’S A SUDDEN CHANGE FOR ANY OF THEM TO
SUDDEN CHANGE FOR ANY OF THEM TO BE THRUST RIGHT INTO A BATTLE
BE THRUST RIGHT INTO A BATTLE OVER WHETHER TO KEEP OR EVICT A
OVER WHETHER TO KEEP OR EVICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.
SITTING PRESIDENT. FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST PRESIDED OVER THE LAST
PRESIDED OVER THE LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HE OFTEN
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, HE OFTEN SEEMED UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE
SEEMED UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE NEW ATTENTION.
NEW ATTENTION. HE LAID LOW.
HE LAID LOW. HE TOOK CUES FROM THE SENATE
HE TOOK CUES FROM THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN, AND DONNED A
PARLIAMENTARIAN, AND DONNED A BLACK ROBE EMBLAZONED WITH GOLD
BLACK ROBE EMBLAZONED WITH GOLD STRIPES IN HOMAGE TO A SULLIVAN
STRIPES IN HOMAGE TO A SULLIVAN OPERETTA NOTING HE DID NOTHING
OPERETTA NOTING HE DID NOTHING IN PARTICULAR AND DID IT VERY
IN PARTICULAR AND DID IT VERY WELL.
WELL. FAIR ENOUGH.
FAIR ENOUGH. BUT EVEN DOING NOTHING CAN BE
BUT EVEN DOING NOTHING CAN BE HARDER THAN IT LOOKS WHEN YOU
HARDER THAN IT LOOKS WHEN YOU ADD POLITICAL FIREWORKS AND LIVE
ADD POLITICAL FIREWORKS AND LIVE TV COVERAGE ON EVERY CHANNEL.
TV COVERAGE ON EVERY CHANNEL. THAT’S SOMETHING JOHN ROBERTS
THAT’S SOMETHING JOHN ROBERTS MAY HAVE IN MIND AS HE PREPARES
MAY HAVE IN MIND AS HE PREPARES TO TAKE UP THE SAME TASK AS HIS
TO TAKE UP THE SAME TASK AS HIS FORMER BOSS.
FORMER BOSS. ROBERTS CLERKED FOR REHNQUIST.
ROBERTS CLERKED FOR REHNQUIST. IN HIS LAST FOR WAY, SWEARING IN
IN HIS LAST FOR WAY, SWEARING IN OBAMA, HE WAS FACING A LARGE
OBAMA, HE WAS FACING A LARGE NATIONAL GLOBAL AUDIENCE AND
NATIONAL GLOBAL AUDIENCE AND ROBERTS FLUBBED THE WORDING OF
ROBERTS FLUBBED THE WORDING OF THE OATH IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THE OATH IN THE CONSTITUTION. >> BARACK OBAMA TOOK THE OATH
>> BARACK OBAMA TOOK THE OATH ADMINISTERED BY CHIEF JUSTICE
ADMINISTERED BY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS.
JOHN ROBERTS. >> HERE YOU HAVE THE PERPETUAL A
>> HERE YOU HAVE THE PERPETUAL A STUDENT, JOHN ROBERTS.
STUDENT, JOHN ROBERTS. >> THE CHIEF JUSTICE WENT
>> THE CHIEF JUSTICE WENT WITHOUT NOTES.
WITHOUT NOTES. >> THE GUY’S NEVER MADE A
>> THE GUY’S NEVER MADE A MISTAKE IN PUBLIC BEFORE, AND HE
MISTAKE IN PUBLIC BEFORE, AND HE THOUGHT HE COULD ADMINISTER THE
THOUGHT HE COULD ADMINISTER THE OATH BY MEMORY.
OATH BY MEMORY. >> AND ACTUALLY GOT THE OATH
>> AND ACTUALLY GOT THE OATH WRONG.
WRONG. >> NOW IN TOTAL FAIRNESS,
>> NOW IN TOTAL FAIRNESS, ANYBODY COULD MAKE THIS KIND OF
ANYBODY COULD MAKE THIS KIND OF MISTAKE.
MISTAKE. THE CONSTITUTION’S TEXT SAYS
THE CONSTITUTION’S TEXT SAYS FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF
FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT. ROBERTS MOVED THE WORD
ROBERTS MOVED THE WORD FAITHFULLY LATER.
FAITHFULLY LATER. >> I BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA DO
>> I BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR.
SOLEMNLY SWEAR. >> THAT I WILL EXECUTE THE
>> THAT I WILL EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT TO THE
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT TO THE UNITED STATES FAITHFULLY.
UNITED STATES FAITHFULLY. >> THAT I WILL EXECUTE --
>> THAT I WILL EXECUTE -- >> FAITHFULLY THE OFFICE OF
>> FAITHFULLY THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
>> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FAITHFULLY.
STATES FAITHFULLY. >> NOT A BIG DEAL.
>> NOT A BIG DEAL. BUT ROBERTS DID HAVE TO RETURN
BUT ROBERTS DID HAVE TO RETURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE THE NEXT DAY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE THE NEXT DAY TO REDO THE OATH SO THERE WAS NO
TO REDO THE OATH SO THERE WAS NO LEGAL AMBIGUITY WHATSOEVER.
LEGAL AMBIGUITY WHATSOEVER. THAT’S HOW SERIOUSLY THEY TOOK
THAT’S HOW SERIOUSLY THEY TOOK THE WORDING AND EXECUTION OF
THE WORDING AND EXECUTION OF THAT OATH, A CONTRAST TO SOME
THAT OATH, A CONTRAST TO SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS AT THIS VERY
REPUBLICAN SENATORS AT THIS VERY TRIAL WHO HAVE ANNOUNCED THEY
TRIAL WHO HAVE ANNOUNCED THEY INTEND TO VIOLATE THEIR OATH ON
INTEND TO VIOLATE THEIR OATH ON IMPARTIALITY.
IMPARTIALITY. BUT WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW REALLY
BUT WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW REALLY ABOUT ROBERTS?
ABOUT ROBERTS? HIS TIME IN THE REAGAN
HIS TIME IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION INCLUDES
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDES ADVOCATING ROBUST POWERS FOR THE
ADVOCATING ROBUST POWERS FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE POWER TO KEEP
PRESIDENT AND THE POWER TO KEEP INTERNAL EXECUTIVE MATTERS
INTERNAL EXECUTIVE MATTERS SECRET FROM EVEN THE SENATE.
SECRET FROM EVEN THE SENATE. SO WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS
SO WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BLASTED ROBERTS OVER OBAMACARE,
BLASTED ROBERTS OVER OBAMACARE, HE MIGHT LIKE THE WAY THAT
HE MIGHT LIKE THE WAY THAT REAGAN ERA ROBERTS HAD ARGUMENTS
REAGAN ERA ROBERTS HAD ARGUMENTS ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. MAYBE TRIED TO APPLY THEM TO
MAYBE TRIED TO APPLY THEM TO JOHN BOLTON, BECAUSE ROBERTS
JOHN BOLTON, BECAUSE ROBERTS WROTE ABOUT TAKING WHATEVER
WROTE ABOUT TAKING WHATEVER STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE
STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE GENERAL OPENING OF FILES
THE GENERAL OPENING OF FILES WOULD NOT BECOME ROUTINE.
WOULD NOT BECOME ROUTINE. HE KEPT RECORDKEEPING AS
HE KEPT RECORDKEEPING AS PERNICIOUS, WARNING AGAINST ANY
PERNICIOUS, WARNING AGAINST ANY TRANSPARENCY THAT COULD ALLOW A
TRANSPARENCY THAT COULD ALLOW A CONGRESSIONAL STAFFER TO VISIT
CONGRESSIONAL STAFFER TO VISIT THE REAGAN LIBRARY TO SEE ANY
THE REAGAN LIBRARY TO SEE ANY INTERNAL WHITE HOUSE DELIVER A
INTERNAL WHITE HOUSE DELIVER A DOCUMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO
DOCUMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE.
SEE. THAT’S INTERESTING STUFF.
THAT’S INTERESTING STUFF. IN THAT ROLE, ROBERT WAS TO BE
IN THAT ROLE, ROBERT WAS TO BE VERY CLEAR.
VERY CLEAR. HE WAS LAWYER WRITING A MEMO FOR
HE WAS LAWYER WRITING A MEMO FOR THE EXECUTIVE.
THE EXECUTIVE. WHEN HE STARTED TO HEAD TOWARDS
WHEN HE STARTED TO HEAD TOWARDS THE SUPREME COURT, HE STRESSED
THE SUPREME COURT, HE STRESSED THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW IN
THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW IN COMMENTS THAT UNDERCUT RECENT
COMMENTS THAT UNDERCUT RECENT CLAIMS BY TRUMP AND ATTORNEY
CLAIMS BY TRUMP AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR.
GENERAL BARR. >> I BELIEVE THAT NO ONE IS
>> I BELIEVE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW UNDER OUR SYSTEM,
ABOVE THE LAW UNDER OUR SYSTEM, AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT.
AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT. I HAVE BEEN ARGUING CASES
I HAVE BEEN ARGUING CASES AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND FREQUENTLY ARGUING CASES FOR
AND FREQUENTLY ARGUING CASES FOR THE PROPOSITION OF DEFERENCE IN
THE PROPOSITION OF DEFERENCE IN FAVOR OF THE LEGISLATURE.
FAVOR OF THE LEGISLATURE. JUDGES ARE LIKE UMPIRES.
JUDGES ARE LIKE UMPIRES. UMPIRES DON’T MAKE THE RULES.
UMPIRES DON’T MAKE THE RULES. THEY APPLY THEM.
THEY APPLY THEM. IT IS A LIMITED ROLE.
IT IS A LIMITED ROLE. NOBODY EVER WENT TO A BALL GAME
NOBODY EVER WENT TO A BALL GAME TO SEE THE UMPIRE.
TO SEE THE UMPIRE. >> NOW ROBERTS HAS NOT PREVIEWED
>> NOW ROBERTS HAS NOT PREVIEWED HIS APPROACH TO THIS TRIAL.
HIS APPROACH TO THIS TRIAL. HE HAS A NEW YEAR-END REPORT ON
HE HAS A NEW YEAR-END REPORT ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IN GENERAL
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IN GENERAL WHICH SAYS WE SHOULD EACH
WHICH SAYS WE SHOULD EACH RESOLVE TO DO OUR BEST TO
RESOLVE TO DO OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC’S TRUST THAT
MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC’S TRUST THAT WE ARE FAITHFULLY DISCHARGING
WE ARE FAITHFULLY DISCHARGING OUR SOLEMN OBLIGATION TO EQUAL
OUR SOLEMN OBLIGATION TO EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.
JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW. A GOAL THAT COULD APPLY TO BE A
A GOAL THAT COULD APPLY TO BE A JUDGE IN THIS TRIAL?
JUDGE IN THIS TRIAL? AND THAT’S WHERE IT DIFFERENCES
AND THAT’S WHERE IT DIFFERENCES FROM JUDGES WHO HAVE THE LAST
FROM JUDGES WHO HAVE THE LAST WORD.
WORD. TREATS THE SENATORS AS BOTH
TREATS THE SENATORS AS BOTH JURORS AND JUDGES, WHICH
JURORS AND JUDGES, WHICH ACTUALLY MAKES SOME SENSE,
ACTUALLY MAKES SOME SENSE, BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT RANDOM
BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT RANDOM CITIZENS SERVING ON A JURY.
CITIZENS SERVING ON A JURY. THEY ARE ELECTED LAWMAKERS.
THEY ARE ELECTED LAWMAKERS. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT A LAW
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT A LAW WOULD BIND WHAT THE JUDGE RULES,
WOULD BIND WHAT THE JUDGE RULES, THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
THESE ARE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN ALWAYS LITERALLY CHANGE THE
CAN ALWAYS LITERALLY CHANGE THE LAW WITH ENOUGH VOTES.
LAW WITH ENOUGH VOTES. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, CONSIDER
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, CONSIDER SOMETHING YOU’RE GOING HEAR A
SOMETHING YOU’RE GOING HEAR A LOT ABOUT AT THIS HIGH STAKES
LOT ABOUT AT THIS HIGH STAKES TRIAL.
TRIAL. CONSIDER RULE SEVEN, WHICH HOLDS
CONSIDER RULE SEVEN, WHICH HOLDS THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULES ON
THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULES ON ALL QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE,
ALL QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE, INCLUDING RELEVANCE AND
INCLUDING RELEVANCE AND TEARIATE, BUT NOTES THE SENATE
TEARIATE, BUT NOTES THE SENATE CAN OVERRULE THOSE DECISIONS,
CAN OVERRULE THOSE DECISIONS, NOTING THAT ANY CHIEF JUSTICE
NOTING THAT ANY CHIEF JUSTICE RULING STANDS, QUOTE, UNLESS A
RULING STANDS, QUOTE, UNLESS A SENATOR ASKS FOR A FORMAL VOTE
SENATOR ASKS FOR A FORMAL VOTE ON IT.
ON IT. AND WHILE ROBERTS USUALLY WORKS
AND WHILE ROBERTS USUALLY WORKS WITH HIS EIGHT COLLEAGUES IN
WITH HIS EIGHT COLLEAGUES IN PRIVATE PLUS HIS CLERKS, IN THIS
PRIVATE PLUS HIS CLERKS, IN THIS NEW TRIAL FORMAT, IT ALL COMES
NEW TRIAL FORMAT, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO HIM AND ONE RULES
DOWN TO HIM AND ONE RULES ADVISER, THE SENATE
ADVISER, THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN, ELIZABETH
PARLIAMENTARIAN, ELIZABETH McDONAGH, A 20-YEAR VETERAN OF
McDONAGH, A 20-YEAR VETERAN OF NONPARTISAN POSTS.
NONPARTISAN POSTS. SO ROBERTS CAN FOLLOW HER
SO ROBERTS CAN FOLLOW HER EXPERTISE AND LEAD, OR HE CAN
EXPERTISE AND LEAD, OR HE CAN JUST GO HIS OWN WAY.
JUST GO HIS OWN WAY. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST REJECTED
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST REJECTED THE PARLIAMENTARIAN’S ADVICE ON
THE PARLIAMENTARIAN’S ADVICE ON WHETHER TO CALL THE SENATORS
WHETHER TO CALL THE SENATORS JOORKS AND ROBERTS CAN ALSO LEAN
JOORKS AND ROBERTS CAN ALSO LEAN INTO THE PRECEDENT OR LEAN AWAY
INTO THE PRECEDENT OR LEAN AWAY FROM JUMPING INTO THESE HOT
FROM JUMPING INTO THESE HOT DEBATES THAT ARE BASICALLY
DEBATES THAT ARE BASICALLY COURSING THROUGH THE SENATE
COURSING THROUGH THE SENATE RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW. OF COURSE, THE LARGEST ONE, THE
OF COURSE, THE LARGEST ONE, THE BIGGEST CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT
BIGGEST CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT WITNESSES, AND REPUBLICANS COULD
WITNESSES, AND REPUBLICANS COULD HOPE THAT ROBERTS JUST STAYS OUT
HOPE THAT ROBERTS JUST STAYS OUT OF IT.
OF IT. BUT HE CAN ALSO POTENTIALLY PUT
BUT HE CAN ALSO POTENTIALLY PUT MORE PRESSURE ON THEM IF HE
MORE PRESSURE ON THEM IF HE RULES ON THE PRECEDENT IN THE
RULES ON THE PRECEDENT IN THE LAST 231 YEARS OF AMERICAN
LAST 231 YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY, THE SENATE HELD 15
HISTORY, THE SENATE HELD 15 TOTAL IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, AND IT
TOTAL IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, AND IT HEARD WITNESSES IN ALL 15.
HEARD WITNESSES IN ALL 15. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
EVERY SINGLE ONE. IT’S SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL POINT
IT’S SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL POINT THAT EVEN DONALD TRUMP’S
THAT EVEN DONALD TRUMP’S DEFENDERS USED TO MAKE IT.
DEFENDERS USED TO MAKE IT. >> IN EVERY TRIAL THAT THERE HAS
>> IN EVERY TRIAL THAT THERE HAS EVER BEEN IN THE SENATE
EVER BEEN IN THE SENATE REGARDING IMPEACHMENT, WITNESSES
REGARDING IMPEACHMENT, WITNESSES WERE CALLED.
WERE CALLED. >> CERTAINLY NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE
>> CERTAINLY NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE A WITNESS AT AN IMPEACHMENT
A WITNESS AT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
TRIAL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ONLY
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ONLY ASKED FOR THREE WITNESSES.
ASKED FOR THREE WITNESSES. I THINK THAT’S PRETTY MODEST.
I THINK THAT’S PRETTY MODEST. >> YES.
>> YES. A REAL TRIAL HAS WITNESSES.
A REAL TRIAL HAS WITNESSES. AND WHILE DONALD TRUMP MAY HOPE
AND WHILE DONALD TRUMP MAY HOPE FOR SOMETHING EASIER, TO
FOR SOMETHING EASIER, TO PARAPHRASE NOZ, IMAGINE GOING TO
PARAPHRASE NOZ, IMAGINE GOING TO COURT WITH NO TRIAL.
COURT WITH NO TRIAL. THE INTEGRITY OF THE SENATE AND
THE INTEGRITY OF THE SENATE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAY TURN ON

Share Video:

Embed Video: