Dan Abrams talks Don McGahn subpoena and Lori Loughlin plea offer

ABC News' chief legal affairs anchor explains why the White House doesn't have a winning argument against McGahn, and he agrees with the actress' decision to not to plead.
5:06 | 05/22/19

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Dan Abrams talks Don McGahn subpoena and Lori Loughlin plea offer
Former white house counsel Dan mcgahn was subpoenaed by the house judiciary committee. Defying the subpoena S. White house says don't go. He doesn't go. Now hope hicks is being subpoenaed. She may also say I don't think so. What kind of country are we living in where they can defy a subpoena? There are fights all the time over subpoenas in this country. If they subpoenaed me, wouldn't I have to go? You could still fight it. They would put us in jail. You hire a lawyer. People are acting as if there are never fights over subpoenas. I sent a lot of people to jail for doing that. That's for defying a subpoena. I'm saying the first thing you do is try to fight it which is what they are doing. The problem is what they're saying is this isn't about executive privilege anymore. It's not about private conversations. This is about immunity. They're saying we are immune from having someone like don mcgahn have to testify because he was effective live part of the inner sang tum. They're making it broader. That's right. Don mcgahn is a private citizen and could say I'm going to testify. Isn't this more evidence of obstruction of justice for Nancy No. This is not obstruction of justice. They're making an argument that's -- They're waiting out the clock. Donald Trump is waiting out the clock. Can I ask a dopey question? My brain is no longer working. When someone says no I don't want you to go do that, that's not obstructing? You have to punch somebody out and sit on them to keep them from going into the building to make it obstruction? What is obstruction? The difference is that they're making a legal argument, right? Harriet Myers made this argument that she shouldn't have had to it was made on behalf of her. Right. It's a losing -- it's a -- it may be a losing argument. Nixon lost that argument. That argument ended up in the third articles of impeachment for him. It's not obstruction to say I'm going to ask don mcgahn not to testify, to let it work its way through the court. If the court orders are ignored, then you got a different story. I'm saying, let's calm down. Let it work its way through the courts. You're right he's playing out the clock. That's what it is. You can criticize that. We do every day. Let me ask you something else. College admissions is something else we talk about a lot here. Last week felicity Huffman cried as she plead guilty. She took full responsibility which I always loved as a prosecutor. They're recommending that she serve four months in jail. Do you think she serves four? She still has the right to argue for zero months, which I think she'll do. I think she'll probably get a little time. Probably less than four months. You think less? She deserves to serve less. I seem to be the only person in Lori Loughlin who agrees with her pleading not guilty. She's been offered a deal for three years. Why would she take that? She's only getting that deal now because she wouldn't take the plea offer earlier. They're adding on charges. She's not being offered a great deal. Now. Now or -- What was the deal she originally got? A very similar deal to felicity Huffman. No. The money was so much higher. It would have been a year. I don't think she was offered a year. I don't think she was offered a year. Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are two different situations. She annoyed the judge too. I don't think there's a chance that Lori Loughlin gets ten years. I agree. These are also first-time offenders. The prosecutors are sending a message. There's sending a message and then there's overkill. That's my point. People are angry and I get it. I'm angry. I don't like it. We have to apply the same rules that apply to everybody Well, yeah. We have to teach other people how to work it correctly. I have to ask you, Dan, you're not just here for hot topics.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"duration":"5:06","description":"ABC News' chief legal affairs anchor explains why the White House doesn't have a winning argument against McGahn, and he agrees with the actress' decision to not to plead.","mediaType":"default","section":"ABCNews/theview","id":"63208850","title":"Dan Abrams talks Don McGahn subpoena and Lori Loughlin plea offer","url":"/theview/video/dan-abrams-talks-don-mcgahn-subpoena-lori-loughlin-63208850"}