>> THANKS.
>> Jonathan: IT'S PRIMARY
SEASON, BUT YET ANOTHER SIGN OF
HOW STRANGE THIS PRESIDENTIAL
RACE IS, THERE WAS MORE ACTION
ON THE LEGAL FRONT THIS WEEK
THAN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
THE SUPREME COURT TAKING THE
ISSUE OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY,
DRAMA IN GEORGIA SURROUNDING THE
FULTON COUNTY D.A., HUNTER BIDEN
TESTIFYING ON CAPITOL HILL, AND
ON FRIDAY, DONALD TRUMP SPENT
HIS DAY AT A FLORIDA COURTHOUSE
AS LAWYERS ARGUED OVER THE NEXT
STEPS IN THE CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENTS CASE.
TO HELP US MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL,
WE BROUGHT IN SOME OF OUR GREAT
LEGAL MINDS, PREET BHARARA,
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, AND SARAH
ISGUR, A FORMER ATTORNEY UNDER
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
I WANT TO ASK YOU, PREET,
SOMETHING ABOUT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT'S POLICY OF NOT
TAKING ANY MAJOR ACTIONS, NO
INDICTMENTS, OR NEW
INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN A 60-DAY
WINDOW BEFORE A CAMPAIGN.
SO HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH THE
IDEA THAT WE MAY ACTUALLY BE
SEEING FULL-BLOWN TRIALS OF A
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RIGHT IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE FALL CAMPAIGN?
>> YEAH.
SO THERE IS A GENERAL POLICY AND
NORM IF YOU WILL THAT THE
DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO
INVESTIGATIVE MOVES, THINGS
HAVING TO DO WITH THEIR -- THAT
ARE UNDER THEIR CONTROL, THEY
DON'T TAKE THOSE STEPS NEAR AN
ELECTION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF AN
ELECTION.
IT'S KIND OF IRONIC THAT THE
TRUMP TEAM IS ARGUING IN FAVOR
OF NORMS GIVEN ALL THE NORM
BREAKING THAT'S GONE ON ON THEIR
SIDE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW,
BUT AS JACK SMITH'S TEAM ARGUED
IN COURT ON FRIDAY, THAT NORM
EXTENDS TO THINGS THAT ARE
WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
THEY DON'T APPLY IN THEIR MINDS,
AND I THINK THIS IS CORRECT, TO
A TRIAL HAPPENING AFTER THE
INDICTMENT HAS ALREADY TAKEN
PLACE, RIGHT?
SO A JUDGE CAN DECIDE IN HIS OR
HER DISCRETION TO PROCEED WITH A
TRIAL, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT
POLICY, AND I WOULD SAY SEPARATE
AND APART FROM THE POLICY, IT
WILL BE AN INTERESTING THING,
AND I THINK A JUDGE WILL NOT
LIGHTLY GO TO TRIAL IN OCTOBER
OF AN ELECTION YEAR.
>> Jonathan: I MEAN, SIR, IT
REALLY RAISES JUST MIND-BLOWING
POSSIBILITIES THAT A JURY COULD
BE GOING IN TO DELIBERATE JUST
AS VOTERS ARE GOING OUT TO VOTE.
I MEAN, THIS IS -- IT'S WHERE WE
ARE, BUT IT'S AN ODD SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES TO SAY THE LEAST.
>> AND IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED.
REMEMBER WHEN SENATOR STEVENS
WAS INDICTED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.
HE ACTUALLY DEMANDED HIS SPEEDY
TRIAL RIGHTS AND THE JURY CAME
BACK TO CONVICT HIM JUST A WEEK
BEFORE ELECTION DAY IN THAT
YEAR.
YOU KNOW, YOU TALK TO VARIOUS
PEOPLE, SENIOR FORMER
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IN THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND THEY'LL
GIVE YOU DIFFERENT REASONS FOR
THIS POLICY.
ONE OF THE REASONS FOR INSTANCE
MENTIONED IN LORETTA LYNCH'S
POSITION OF THIS, SAYS IT'S
ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO LOOK
IMPARTIAL HEADING INTO AN
ELECTION, BUT, YOU KNOW, OTHER
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WILL TELL
YOU, ACTUALLY.
IT'S ABOUT GIVING THE DEFENDANT
AND THE CANDIDATE IN THIS CASE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, THAT
IF YOU SUDDENLY TAKE A PUBLIC
ININVESTIGATE STORY STEP, AND
THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
THEMSELVES.
>> Jonathan: THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
IS NOT SURPRISINGLY PUSHING IN
FLORIDA AS THEY ARE IN THE OTHER
CASES, SAYING THAT THESE TRIALS
SHOULD HAPPEN AFTER THE
ELECTION, BUT THEY DID PUT FORTH
A POSSIBLE DATE FOR DOING IT
BEFORE THE ELECTION, AUGUST
12th.
IT SEEMS READING THE TEA LEAVES
HERE THAT THERE ARE TWO FEDERAL
CASES.
THERE'S THE JANUARY 6th CASE AND
THERE'S THIS DOCUMENTS CASE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY CLEARLY, IF
ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO HAPPEN
BEFORE THE ELECTION, THEY WANT
IT TO BE THE DOCUMENTS CASE.
>> YEAH.
YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT HAS
SUGGESTED THAT THOSE DATES ARE
BEING PUT OUT IN BAD FAITH.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT GAME YOU WANT
TO ANALOGIZE.
BACKGAMMON, CHECKERS, WHATEVER
IT IS.
THEY WANT TO CLOG UP THE DOCKET
SO EVEN THOUGH THESE OTHER CASES
ARE WINDING THEIR WAY THROUGH
THE SUPREME COURT LIKE THE
JANUARY 6th CASE, AND WE'LL HEAR
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE CLAIM OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, IF YOU HAVE
ANOTHER CASE SCHEDULED, THAT
DOESN'T ALLOW ONE OF THE OTHER
FOUR CASES TO GO FORWARD, OR ONE
OF THE OTHER THREE CASES TO GO
FORWARD, AND THEY WILL COME UP
WITH SOME EXCUSE PRESUMABLY AS
TO WHY IT CAN'T GO FORWARD ON
THAT AUGUST DATE.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
GAMESMANSHIP GOING ON HERE, AND
JUST FURTHER TO WHAT SARAH SAID
EARLIER, IN YOUR EARLIER
QUESTION, YOU KNOW, THE REASON
YOU DON'T TAKE AN INVESTIGATORY
STEP OR ANOTHER ACTION, YOU
DON'T WANT TO UNDULY TAKE THE
ACTION.
THERE'S A LOT OF ARGUMENT TO
SUGGEST THAT BEING ON TRIAL AND
HAVING THESE CASES PENDING
AGAINST HIM ACTUALLY AIDS DONALD
TRUMP POLITICALLY.
WE'VE SEEN THAT TIME AND TIME
AGAIN WITH THE POLLS AND IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT THE ARGUMENT IS
ACTUALLY THE INVERSE OF WHAT
DONALD TRUMP'S FOLKS ARE
ADVOCATING.
>> Jonathan: I MEAN, HE WAS
THERE FOR SIX HOURS IN FORT
PIERCE ON FRIDAY.
VERY QUICKLY TO BOTH OF YOU,
HUNTER BIDEN WAS ON CAPITOL HILL
TESTIFYING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
DIDN'T TAKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
EVEN THOUGH HE'S FACING MULTIPLE
INDICTMENTS.
WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE ON THAT
CASE?
SEEMS LIKE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT
GETTING ANYWHERE TO SAY THE
LEAST IN THEIR IMPEACHMENT
EFFORTS.
SARAH?
>> THEY HAVE NOT FOUND WHAT THEY
NEED HERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT
OF LIKE WITH THE STORMY DANIELS
HUSH MONEY PAYMENT.
PARTISANS ON EACH SIDE WANT
EVERYTHING THEY DON'T LIKE TO BE
ILLEGAL.
HERE WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF
INFLUENCE PEDDLING, BUT THAT'S
NOT A CRIME IF JOE BIDEN WASN'T
PRESIDENT OR WASN'T VICE
PRESIDENT WHEN IT HAPPENED, AND
HERE YOU HAVE HUNTER BIDEN
LOOKING VERY CONFIDENT THAT WHAT
HE DID MIGHT HAVE BEEN SLIMY,
BUT IT WASN'T ILLEGAL, AND IT
DOESN'T IMPLICATE HIS FATHER.
REPUBLICANS HAVE REALLY YET TO
FIND WHAT THEY NEED TO MOVE
FORWARD.
>> Jonathan: PREET, QUICKLY,
YOUR TAKE?
>> YEAH.