BECAUSE THAT IS SO CONTRARY TO OUR LAW AND OUR CONSTITUTION. YES, NIXON DID SAY THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, ALICIA, AND AS YOU KNOW, HE SAID THAT TO DAVID FROST ON A TV SHOW THREE YEARS AFTER HE RESIGNED FROM THE PRESIDENCY. THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE OR HIS LAWYERS WOULD'VE MADE THAT ARGUMENT IF, LET'S SAY, NIXON HAD BEEN INDICTED AND NOT PARDON, OR IF HE'D BEEN IMPEACHED AND WAS TRYING TO DEFEND HIMSELF HAVING HIS DEFENSE LAWYERS DEFEND HIM ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. THIS IS A DISGUSTING THING THAT A LAWYER FOR AN EX PRESIDENT WOULD SAY THAT A PRESIDENT HAS IMMUNITY FROM -- AROUND ANYTHING HE, DID NO MATTER WHETHER IT IS CRIMINAL OR NOT, AS LONG AS HE CAN CONNECTED IN EVEN THE MOST STRANGE WAY TO SOME POLICY HE WAS CONDUCTING AS PRESIDENT. THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER THING WE SAW THIS MORNING, AND I PROBABLY AM ANTICIPATING WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SAY, BUT I'M STILL -- MY HEAD IS SPINNING. THE SAME, GUY JOHN LAURO SAID HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL -- BUT NOT A CRIMINAL VIOLATION. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TECHNICAL VIOLATION. IF THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE GOT NO CONSTITUTION. I >> KEEP JOKING, MICHAEL, THAT WE NEED TO START SELLING T-SHIRTS THAT SAY THAT'S NOT A THING, BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBLE RETORT TO ALL THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS. >> WE SHOULD GO IN BUSINESS TOGETHER. >> LOOK FOR OUR FORTHCOMING BUSINESS. HERE'S THE REASON I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU, MICHAEL, WHICH IS KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF IN THE PAST NOT HAVING HELD PRESIDENTS ACCOUNTABLE, AND WHAT DOES THIS MOMENT, WHAT DOES THIS PROCESS MEAN FOR THE FUTURE STANDARD? >> THIS IS REALLY ALL ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL POWER. AND OUTSIDE THE LEGAL CASE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU HAVE DONALD TRUMP AND HIS PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WHAT AMOUNTS TO A PRESIDENTIAL DICTATORSHIP WITH VERY FEW CONSTRAINTS. A POWERFUL PRESIDENT THAT IS AN AUTOCRAT, THE KIND WE'VE NEVER SEEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE PRESIDENCY. BUT WHAT MAKES THIS CASE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, JANUARY SIX SO VITAL AND IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL IS THAT THAT IS THE DAY THAT HE ALMOST TOOK TOTAL POWER AS PRESIDENT, ALMOST INITIATED MARTIAL LAW, WAGED A COUP, TRIED TO SUSPEND OUR DEMOCRACY. SO IF THERE WERE NO CASE LIKE THIS, IF THERE WERE NO TRIAL, AND IF, IN SOME, WAY HE IS ALLOWED TO GET THROUGH THIS TRIAL AND NOT BE PENALIZED FOR WHAT HE DID, THEN THIS IS NO LONGER A DEMOCRACY. BECAUSE ANY PRESIDENT IN THE FUTURE OR OTHERS IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM WILL FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO THE SAME ING WITH NO WORRY ABOUT A PENALTY. >> MICHAEL, I NEED NOT REMIND, YOU BECAUSE YOUR MY MEMORY IS ENCYCLOPEDIC THAT TODAY MARKS 50 YEARS SINCE PRESIDENT JOHNSON SIGNED THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AT THE HEIGHT OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT MOMENT AS AN INFLECTION POINT FOR OUR CURRENT POLITICS. >> THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CHANGED THE COUNTRY. LBJ'S IDEA WAS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS GREAT, 1964, BECAUSE ANYONE COULD USE A HOTEL OR A RESTAURANT AND THAT WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. BUT HE FELT THE VITAL PIECE OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION WAS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. BECAUSE ONCE BLACK AMERICANS AND OTHERS WHO HAD BEEN MARGINALIZED WERE ABLE TO USE THE VOTE, THEY COULD CHANGE THIS COUNTRY AND THEY COULD BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISIONS THAT WERE BEING MADE, NOT ONLY IN WASHINGTON BUT LOCALITIES AND STATES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. IF LBJ WERE TO COME BACK AND SEE THE RETRENCHMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT AND REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE AGAINST VOTING RIGHTS THAT BEFORE TEN, 15 YEARS AGO MOST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS FELT
