TRUMP

FABER Well Eamon we ░░░░░░░░ you to stand by ░░░░░░░░ and do a little ░░░░░░░░ while you can as ░░░░░░░░ We ll bring in ░░░░░░░░ next guest Well you ░░░░░░░░ I know are going ░░░░░░░░ go to pages 16 ░░░░░░░░ 32 Our next guest ░░░░░░░░ the investigation into Russian ░░░░░░░░ in the 2016 presidential ░░░░░░░░ Peter Strzok is a ░░░░░░░░ FBI Deputy Assistant Director ░░░░░░░░ the Counterintelligence division and ░░░░░░░░ joins us on the ░░░░░░░░ Newsline I guess first ░░░░░░░░ and again it s ░░░░░░░░ a bit of reading ░░░░░░░░ here Peter for any ░░░░░░░░ of people but what ░░░░░░░░ your take on what ░░░░░░░░ ve heard thus far ░░░░░░░░ terms of the decision ░░░░░░░░ Well I agree with ░░░░░░░░ and I m likewise ░░░░░░░░ through and reading this ░░░░░░░░ think from a high ░░░░░░░░ perspective it s highly ░░░░░░░░ that we re going ░░░░░░░░ see this case in ░░░░░░░░ C in trial prior ░░░░░░░░ the inauguration let alone ░░░░░░░░ the election So I ░░░░░░░░ you know reading through ░░░░░░░░ some interesting points you ░░░░░░░░ the decision notes that ░░░░░░░░ president is absolutely immune ░░░░░░░░ prosecution for the alleged ░░░░░░░░ and following his discussions ░░░░░░░░ DoJ officials So the ░░░░░░░░ is you know in ░░░░░░░░ of his charged conduct ░░░░░░░░ court is very clear ░░░░░░░░ when it comes to ░░░░░░░░ he said with DoJ ░░░░░░░░ again this is not ░░░░░░░░ like you know John ░░░░░░░░ who are outside of ░░░░░░░░ government but at least ░░░░░░░░ folks are off the ░░░░░░░░ I think there s ░░░░░░░░ question whether or not ░░░░░░░░ if that cannot be ░░░░░░░░ whether or not that ░░░░░░░░ can be used in ░░░░░░░░ context of proving his ░░░░░░░░ of mind with other ░░░░░░░░ other charges But this ░░░░░░░░ I think broadly what ░░░░░░░░ expected I mean between ░░░░░░░░ two extremes of either ░░░░░░░░ the case to go ░░░░░░░░ to the district court ░░░░░░░░ ruling that the president ░░░░░░░░ absolute immunity without bounds ░░░░░░░░ two extremes were were ░░░░░░░░ unlikely And I think ░░░░░░░░ re seeing here the ░░░░░░░░ you know imposing some ░░░░░░░░ on what a president ░░░░░░░░ or cannot do when ░░░░░░░░ re in office FABER ░░░░░░░░ Well it seems a ░░░░░░░░ of it also and ░░░░░░░░ I ve made this ░░░░░░░░ of directing people to ░░░░░░░░ 16 to 32 seems ░░░░░░░░ come down to sort ░░░░░░░░ the difference between official ░░░░░░░░ unofficial acts Do you ░░░░░░░░ an opinion here as ░░░░░░░░ sort of how that ░░░░░░░░ potentially break down STRZOK ░░░░░░░░ I think it s ░░░░░░░░ that that is going ░░░░░░░░ be something that is ░░░░░░░░ much in front of ░░░░░░░░ district court I think ░░░░░░░░ s interesting is how ░░░░░░░░ district court goes about ░░░░░░░░ whether or not acts ░░░░░░░░ official or not is ░░░░░░░░ to entail a certain ░░░░░░░░ of fact finding So ░░░░░░░░ the briefs that have ░░░░░░░░ been made beyond the ░░░░░░░░ alleged in or the ░░░░░░░░ contained in the indictment ░░░░░░░░ court potentially has a ░░░░░░░░ or responsibility to further ░░░░░░░░ the record about exactly ░░░░░░░░ the government is alleging ░░░░░░░░ so that they can ░░░░░░░░ that determination So I ░░░░░░░░ even if we don ░░░░░░░░ see a trial prior ░░░░░░░░ the election there is ░░░░░░░░ possibility that we re ░░░░░░░░ to get additional details ░░░░░░░░ what the government is ░░░░░░░░ in order that the ░░░░░░░░ can then decide whether ░░░░░░░░ not the actions were ░░░░░░░░ versus personal And I ░░░░░░░░ there s clearly a ░░░░░░░░ argument on the part ░░░░░░░░ the government that a ░░░░░░░░ of what Trump was ░░░░░░░░ in these alleged acts ░░░░░░░░ in the context of ░░░░░░░░ Trump rather than President ░░░░░░░░ But certainly the former ░░░░░░░░ has made the argument ░░░░░░░░ you know he was ░░░░░░░░ about voter fraud and ░░░░░░░░ that concern was not ░░░░░░░░ of a candidate but ░░░░░░░░ one is the chief ░░░░░░░░ And I would expect ░░░░░░░░ to be a full ░░░░░░░░ when it comes time ░░░░░░░░ this additional you know ░░░░░░░░ litigation UNKNONW MALE Peter ░░░░░░░░ m just going to ░░░░░░░░ mention that we re ░░░░░░░░ the lows of the ░░░░░░░░ in terms of the ░░░░░░░░ performance S P and ░░░░░░░░ now both negative NASDAQ ░░░░░░░░ on to a fractional ░░░░░░░░ whether it s related ░░░░░░░░ this or not of ░░░░░░░░ remains to be seen ░░░░░░░░ either way the lows ░░░░░░░░ the session Back to ░░░░░░░░ decision Peter what do ░░░░░░░░ make of the 6 ░░░░░░░░ split in the votes ░░░░░░░░ just said you know ░░░░░░░░ in his report that ░░░░░░░░ some had thought if ░░░░░░░░ was going to go ░░░░░░░░ way despite the caveats ░░░░░░░░ official and unofficial acts ░░░░░░░░ we ve been saying ░░░░░░░░ might have wanted to ░░░░░░░░ something unanimous like we ░░░░░░░░ on the Colorado decision ░░░░░░░░ do you make of ░░░░░░░░ 6 2 split STRZOK ░░░░░░░░ I think it s ░░░░░░░░ a missed opportunity I ░░░░░░░░ sure the chief justice ░░░░░░░░ everything in his power ░░░░░░░░ try and get a ░░░░░░░░ opinion Now it s ░░░░░░░░ that that didn t ░░░░░░░░ Certainly something of this ░░░░░░░░ I think the general ░░░░░░░░ of the United States ░░░░░░░░ be much better served ░░░░░░░░ a unanimous opinion but ░░░░░░░░ s clear and I ░░░░░░░░ t you know I ░░░░░░░░ rushing through it I ░░░░░░░░ t gotten to the ░░░░░░░░ yet to see where ░░░░░░░░ the breakdown in the ░░░░░░░░ of opinion occurred but ░░░░░░░░ do think it indicates ░░░░░░░░ you know certainly when ░░░░░░░░ look at the ideological ░░░░░░░░ which is clear you ░░░░░░░░ the the liberal justices ░░░░░░░░ the in the dissenting ░░░░░░░░ that there were points ░░░░░░░░ they could not agree ░░░░░░░░ and that therefore you ░░░░░░░░ the chief justice decided ░░░░░░░░ the majority have decided ░░░░░░░░ they would go ahead ░░░░░░░░ a more extensive ruling ░░░░░░░░ than a more limited ░░░░░░░░ that might have garnered ░░░░░░░░ unanimous decision.”