Starting at roughly 32:50 we have a fascinating discussion involving matters of law, character, personal judgement, and politics. The arena is that of Presidential misconduct in the cases of Clinton and Trump.
Paul Rosenzweig is a never-Trump conservative who had been on the team that Ken Starr assembled to prosecute President Clinton. He thought that prosecution was justified. But Rosenzweig is shocked and baffled to see Starr defend President Trump, especially in view of his belief that the substantive matters at issue in the Trump case are much worse than those in the Clinton case. Why, he asks, should a lawyer's (e.g. Starr) judgment about legal issues change when then culprit is a Republican (Trump) rather than a Democrat (Clinton)?
NOTE: You may have to click through to YouTube.
NOTE: You may have to click through to YouTube.
No comments:
Post a Comment