[ad_1]
DAVID AXELROD, CNN: Do you think Congress should proceed? It's a different question than whether they can, if they have an investigation. Is destitution a wise thing to do at this point, and would they be fleeing their responsibilities if they did not proceed?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I think they should proceed with an indictment investigation, an indictment investigation. This does not necessarily commit you to attack the president. I think that's what people need to understand. I think if you follow a whole procedure and then decide that we will not charge it, you may be censoring it. There will be meaning in the House of Representatives, in that the House of Representatives will expose everything you have discovered during the investigation and will not send it to the Senate where Republicans are likely to acquit him – deny it, but actually present to the American people – have witnesses before the American people. I want to see Don McGahn testify. I want to see the sessions testify.
AXELROD: Do you think it will, by the way?
I mean, look, every administration has its differences with the Congress on Executive Privilege. Your administration and the one in which I sat have also done so, but they have taken a very tough position on this issue of leadership privilege.
Do you think the courts will eventually compel these people to testify?
OWNER: Yes. I do not think that the executive privilege that could have existed still exists. The fact that McGahn did in fact speak to Bob Mueller waives the privilege that might otherwise have existed and, therefore, I think that this will have to be the subject of a judicial process. But I think in the end he and the others will have to testify.
AXELROD: If there is no indictment, do you believe that he can be prosecuted after leaving office?
OWNER: Well, I think there is no question about it. We already have an indictment in the Southern District of New York where Michael Cohen.
AXELROD: compared to earnings
HOLDER: relative to earnings. Michael Cohen is already in prison regarding his role.
The individual is the president. And it seems to me that the next attorney general, the next president, will have to make a decision.
AXELROD: You know, it's an interesting question. In the post-Watergate, President Ford decided to pardon President Nixon because he felt it would be bad for the country to stand trial of a former president. Would there be a cost to this?
OWNER: Yes, I think that bringing the former president to trial represents a potential cost to the nation. This should at least be part of the calculation to be considered in the decision to be made by the next Attorney General.
I think we should all understand what a former trial president would do to the nation. I think it saved Gerald Ford's determination with –
(CROSSTALK)
AXELROD: It cost him – it may have cost him his election in 1976.
OWNER: Yes, maybe, but you know, in retrospect, I tend to think that it was probably the right thing to do.
[ad_2]
Source link