>>> NOW, IN THE UNITED STATES, ANOTHER TRIAL DATE HAS BEEN SET FOR DONALD TRUMP ON CHARGES OF TRYING TO OVERTURN THE RESULT OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
IT WILL BE ON THE FOURTH OF MARCH NEXT YEAR.
THAT IS ONE DAY BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY.
DESPITE FOUR INDEPENDENT GRAND JURIES INDICTING THE FORMER PRESIDENT, HIS REPUBLICAN BASE BELIEVES IT IS ALL POLITICAL.
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES SERVED UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.
HE JOINS WALTER ISAACSON NOW TO EXPLAIN WHY HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS BIASED AGAINST REPUBLICANS.
>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.
GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALIZ, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.
>> IT IS GOOD TO BE HERE.
>> AND NOW YOU SAY, NO FELLOW REPUBLICANS, YOU BEING A REPUBLICAN.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT BIASED AGAINST US.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> WELL, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WOULD BE SO PROVOCATIVE, QUITE FRANKLY, IN TERMS OF THE PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW.
I RAN THE DEPARTMENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
PEOPLE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A DEPARTMENT THAT HAS OVER 100,000 EMPLOYEES AND LESS THAN 1% ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES.
THERE IS ALWAYS A DANGER , IF YOU HAVE A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT IN THE OFFICE, THAT YOU ENGAGE IN POLITICS, MAKE DECISIONS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND DECISIONS BASED UPON POLITICS, THE CAREER FOLKS NOTICE THAT.
THEY CALL YOU OUT.
THEY HAVE FRIENDS IN THE MEDIA, SO YOU INVITE GREAT DANGER IF YOU START MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THAT.
THAT IS WHY I REALLY QUESTION THIS NOTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS BECOME POLITICIZED BECAUSE IT IS PROSECUTING DONALD TRUMP.
BECAUSE HE IS A LEADING FRONT RUNNER.
REPUBLICAN NOMINATION.
I HAVE TRIED TO EMPHASIZE, REMIND PEOPLE, OR TELL PEOPLE THAT IN MY JUDGMENT, EVEN IF HE WEREN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE WOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND BE PROSECUTED FOR THE THINGS THAT HE IS BEING ACCUSED OF COMMITTING.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOT A WITCH HUNT.
THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING WHAT IT SHOULD BE DOING, WHICH IS TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE CRIMINAL WRONGDOING AND TO PROSECUTE CRIMINAL WRONGDOING WHEN THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN SUCCESSFULLY DO SO IN FEDERAL COURT.
>> LET ME READ YOU SOMETHING FROM THE PC EUROS.
YOU SAID, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO SPEAK OUT FOR THE RHETORIC AND ACTIVITY THAT WE FUNDAMENTALLY KNOW, DEEP IN OUR HEARTS, THAT IS WRONG.
TELL ME WHY REPUBLICANS NEED TO SPEAK OUT, AND MAYBE WHY YOU THINK SO FEW OF THEM REALLY HAVE.
>> WELL, BACK TO THE LATTER.
I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION WHY THEY FAILED TO SPEAK OUT OTHER THAN PERHAPS OUR POLITICAL LEADERS, THE LEADERSHIP IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, PERHAPS THEY ARE FEARFUL OF SPEAKING OUT AND HOW IT MAY DAMAGE ELECTIONS GOING FORWARD, OBVIOUSLY LOOKING PAST THESE RECENT ELECTIONS.
WE ARE NOT DOING TOO GOOD, QUITE FRANKLY.
AT THE STATE LEVEL OR THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK OUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT AT STAKE HERE.
FOR THE LONGEST TIME, I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF SILLY, SOME OF THE RHETORIC COMING FROM THOSE .
BUT NOW I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE SOLID.
WE NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THE DANGERS OF CRITICIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CRITICIZING THE RULE OF LAW.
WHEN PEOPLE LOSE CONFIDENCE IN AN INSTITUTION LIKE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THEN I THINK WE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AS A COUNTRY.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
DO YOU THINK THAT SOME OF THE RHETORIC IS STOKING UP THE POSSIBILITY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST EITHER PROSECUTORS, MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY, THAT SORT OF THING?
IF SO, WHAT SHOULD THE JUDGES DO ABOUT THAT?
>> I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE.
I THINK JUDGES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO INSURE OR TO DISCOURAGE , BY THE ACTIONS, BY MEASURES THAT THEY CAN IMPOSE , IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROSECUTION.
AND, OF COURSE, I THINK THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS STATE GOVERNMENTS, SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHATEVER RULES A PROCESS MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF WHO ARE SOMEHOW IMPLICATED IN THESE TRIALS.
AND TO BLAME FOR DOING THEIR JOB AND INVESTIGATING PROSECUTING INDIVIDUALS.
YEAH.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE DISCOURAGED FROM SPEAKING OUT AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCOURAGED FROM DOING THEIR JOB.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THE PEOPLE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FOR THE MOST PART, DAY IN, DAY OUT.
THEY GO TO WORK TO SERVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
>> SO YOU, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND THEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.
HAVE YOU TALKED TO OTHER MEMBERS OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION OR THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT BUSH HIMSELF ON THESE THINGS?
>> I HAVEN'T HAD DISCUSSIONS , CERTAINLY NOT WITH PRESIDENT BUSH.
AND FROM TIME TO TIME, I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, BUT NOT DETAILED DISCUSSIONS.
WE WOULD JUST SHAKE THEIR HEADS AND SAY, WOW.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?
>> YOU HAVE PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEADS AND IT IS JUST DANGEROUS.
WHY DON'T A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIKE THIS ESSAY, WE ARE NOW GOING TO GO TO MORE SHAKING THEIR HEADS.
WE ARE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING.
WE ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING.
>> I LEAVE IT TO OTHERS TO DECIDE WHAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE DOING, QUITE FRANKLY.
MAYBE THERE IS EVEN MORE THAN I CAN DO, BUT I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO SPEAK OUT .
PARTICULARLY, WHAT I WORRY ABOUT AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE ELECTION, THIS BECOMES MORE OF A CHALLENGE, MORE OF AN ISSUE.
IF SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT IS ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6, THEN I WOULD REALLY DEEPLY REGRET NOT HAVING DONE MORE TO TRY TO DISCOURAGE THAT KIND OF CONDUCT.
>> SO YOU WILL PROBABLY DO SOME MORE.
>> IF I FIND THAT IT IS NECESSARY.
AGAIN, IT IS NOT ABOUT THIS, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.
I DISLIKE WHEN PEOPLE, COMMENTATORS IN THE MEDIA, AND OTHERS, POLITICAL LEADERS, TALK ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I THINK THE SIMPLE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA?
>> THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT , IN PAST YEARS, HAS RESISTED FOR A WHILE OPENING AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.
YET THE INDICTMENTS COME DOWN AFTER HE DECIDES TO RUN FOR OFFICE , AFTER HE IS LEADING IN THE POLLS.
IT SEEMS THERE IS SOME CAUSE FOR PEOPLE TO SUSPECT THIS MAY BE POLITICAL.
HOW DO YOU REFUTE THAT?
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE I WOULD SAY, THERE ARE, EIGHT OR NINE REPUBLICANS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
NONE OF THEM ARE BEING INVESTIGATED, BUT THEY ARE ALL RUNNING FOR THE SAME OFFICE TRUMP IS RUNNING FOR.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS INVESTIGATIONS TAKE TIME.
THESE ARE COMPLICATED.
THE PROSECUTION BY JACK SMITH.
WITH THIS PROSECUTION, WHEN HE OR SHE IS READY TO DO SO AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE PROSECUTORS WERE LIKELY NOT READY TO GO BEFORE DONALD TRUMP AND ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AGAIN.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T BE, I WOULD HAVE TO THINK THAT THE PROSECUTORS IN THESE CASES WAS THAT DONALD TRUMP, THAT WE WEREN'T IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
I REALLY DO.
I BELIEVE THAT MERRICK GARLAND BELIEVES THAT.
NONETHELESS, YOU CAN'T CLOSE YOUR EYES AND IGNORE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE CRIMINAL WRONGDOING.
SO YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROSECUTION WHEN YOU'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR THAT WHICH IS IMPEACHMENT AND THEN A TRIAL BY THE SENATE AND TWICE, THE SENATE DID A TRIAL AND DIDN'T CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WHY SHOULD IT NOW BE GOING TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?
>> AGAIN, BECAUSE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE DIFFERENT, BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME IS DIFFERENT.
THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
WHAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
AND THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED BUTTON NOT REMOVED FROM OFFICE DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE'S INNOCENT OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING.
NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
AND SO THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING WHAT IT SHOULD BE DOING, WHICH IS TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL WRONGDOING AND TO PROSECUTE CRIMINAL WRONGDOING WHEN THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN COURT.
AND THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED BUT NOT REMOVED, IN NO WASTE OF THIS SUGGESTS THAT HE WASN'T IMPLICATED IN ANY WRONGDOING.
>> BACK WHEN YOU WERE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE WERE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE POLITICIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY REGRETS ABOUT HOW YOU HANDLED THINGS THEN IN BEING PART OF THIS PROCESS WHERE PEOPLE LOST A LITTLE BIT OF FAITH, THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS ABOVE POLITICS?
THESE POSITIONS, YOU ARE GOING TO BE CRITICIZED BY SOMEONE, EVEN IF YOU ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
THAT IS THE WAY IT IS AND YOU ACCEPT THAT.
THE OTHER THING IS IN THESE POSITIONS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE SO INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT.
YOU CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE HOW DIFFICULT THEY ARE.
SO IT IS TRUE.
I WOULD THINK IF YOU ASKED ANY CANDIDATE OFFICIAL, IF YOU ASKED ANY FORMER PRESIDENT, THEY WOULD TELL YOU, YES.
IF I COULD DO IT OVER AGAIN, THERE MAY BE SOME DECISIONS I WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY, OF COURSE.
SO, YES.
I WISH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS THAT I WOULD'VE DONE DIFFERENT OR MAY HAVE SAID THINGS IN A DIFFERENT WAY, TO BE MORE REASSURING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
>> ANY EXAMPLE YOU WANT TO GIVE?
>> I CAN'T THINK OF AN EXAMPLE OFFHAND, BUT JUST TO REASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE, THAT WERE BEING MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE BASED UPON WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
>> I DON'T KNOW MERRICK GARLAND PERSONALLY.
YOU KNOW, I DID WHEN HE WAS NOMINATED TO GO ON THE SUPREME COURT, I DID RUN AN OP-ED SAYING THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS WRONG FOR THE SENATE REPUBLICANS NOT TO GIVE HIM UP OR DOWN VOTE.
I WROTE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DID HIS JOB BY NOMINATING SOMEONE IN THE COURT AND THAT THE SENATE SHOULD DO ITS JOB IN AT LEAST VOTING HIM UP OR DOWN.
BY ALL ACCOUNTS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, HE IS A MAN OF GREAT INTEGRITY.
HE APPEARS TO NOT LIKE THE LIMELIGHT, SO I THINK HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB.
I SUSPECT HE IS FRUSTRATED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO GET OUT THERE MORE OFTEN, TALK ABOUT DEFENDING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
YOU WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT DOING THAT, OF COURSE.
MAYBE THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DON'T SAY SOMETHING FOR ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE JUST DOING THEIR JOB DAY IN AND DAY OUT, TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
NOT THAT MERRICK GARLAND NEEDS MY HELP IN ANY WAY TO DO HIS JOB, BUT , AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HIM THAT WILL, BUT FROM ALL INDICATIONS, HE IS JUST TRYING TO DO THE BEST THAT HE CAN.
>> YOU KNOW, HE APPOINTED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, JACK SMITH, OF COURSE, ON THE TRUMP CASE.
AND THEN BASED ON A LOT OF CALLS FROM REPUBLICANS, ALSO THAN, THERE IS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, ACCUSING SOMEONE WHO HAD ONCE BEEN APPOINTED BY TRUMP, TO LOOK AT HUNTER BIDEN, THE PRESIDENT'S SON.
NOW THERE IS LOW BACK ON HIM.
I DON'T QUITE GET WHAT THE CRITICISM IS.
NOW HE IS CRITICIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTORS.
>> THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS THAT EVEN THE PLEA DEAL THAT WAS APPARENTLY REACHED , REPUBLICANS THOUGHT IT WAS TOO SWEET TO DEAL FOR HUNTER BIDEN.
THEY BELIEVE HE WILL BE TOO KIND, NOT AGGRESSIVE AS HE RESPECT TO THE PROSECUTION.
THAT IS THE ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF I REPUBLICANS ARE UPSET.
ALSO IT COULD BE BECAUSE THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, I THINK THEY HAD HOPES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNAL DOJ DOCUMENTATION BUT NOW WITH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND ONGOING INVESTIGATION, THOSE DOCUMENTS WILL BE CONCEALED UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION IS FINISHED, SO THERE IS A LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
ONCE YOU GET IT, YOU REALIZE, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MAIN OBJECTIVE HERE IS TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN AND TO PROSECUTE THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL WRONGDOING.
WHAT HAPPENS THERE AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH DONALD TRUMP?
EVERY PROSECUTION IS BASED UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION, OBVIOUSLY, IN THE PROSECUTOR THAT IS LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE AND FORWARD.
EVERY PROSECUTION IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.
>> WE HAVE RULES IN THIS COUNTRY ABOUT WITNESS, TAMPERING, AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION.
TRUMP SEEMS TO BE BUTTING UP AGAINST THOSE, AT LEAST DEALING WITH THE JUDGES AND THE CASE.
HE EVEN SAID, IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU.
EXPLAIN TO ME THE RULES ON WITNESS TAMPERING AND INTIMIDATION AND HOW CLOSE YOU THINK TRUMP IS GETTING TO THAT LINE.
>> IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW, OF COURSE, TO BE ENGAGED IN WITNESS TAMPERING, WITNESS INTIMIDATION.
WE ALSO HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE RIGHTS THERE ARE STRONGEST WITH THE CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
ON TOP OF THAT, THE FACT THAT THAT IS VERY TYPICAL OF DONALD TRUMP CONDUCT SO MAYBE WE HAVE BECOME IMMUNE TO THE TYPE OF RHETORIC THAT HE SAYS.
I THINK HE NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL.
JANUARY 6th CASE, APPEARS TO BE A JUDGE THAT IS PRETTY STRICT AND IS GOING TO HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT TRIAL.
SO I THINK HE NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL.
I THINK, OBVIOUSLY, SPEAKING TO HIM ABOUT THIS, WHETHER OR NOT HE ABIDES OR LISTENS TO WHAT HIS LAWYERS SAY, I THINK, IS OPEN TO QUESTION.
AGAIN, HE IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
THERE IS A TIME TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS, BUT HE NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL WHAT HE SAYS HERE ABOUT POTENTIAL WITNESSES.
>> THE TRIAL INVOLVING THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION.
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT WE HAVE AN EARLY TRIAL?
THAT IT GET DONE BEFORE THE ELECTION?
>> I THINK IT IS VITAL THAT AMERICAN VOTERS KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON THEY'RE VOTING FOR, ASSUMING DONALD TRUMP WINS THE NOMINATION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL WRONGDOING.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE TRIAL TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE ELECTION.
IN FACT, IF I AM A DEFENDANT IN THE CASE, I WOULD WANT TO GET IT OVER WITH AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AS WELL.
I THINK DONALD TRUMP WOULD LIKE TO DELAY IT PAST THE ELECTION BECAUSE HE ASSUMES HE IS GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL , GETTING RE- ELECTED TO THE OFFICE, AND THERE IS A LONG-STANDING PRACTICE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDENT.
HE WOULD BE SUBJECT, AGAIN, TO ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE.
THIS TIME, IT IS POSSIBLE THE SENATE MIGHT REMOVE HIM.
NEVERTHELESS, I THINK IDEALLY, QUITE FRANKLY, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION OF THE TRIAL BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY, BECAUSE , YOU KNOW, VOTING WILL OCCUR WELL BEFORE THE ELECTION, SO THE SOONER, THE BETTER.
I WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT THERE CANDIDATE, ASSUMING DONALD TRUMP IS THERE CANDIDATE, ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL WRONGDOING.
>> IF PEOPLE HAVE HIM AS A CANDIDATE, DON'T YOU THINK THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND ABOUT WHETHER WHAT HE DID WAS RIGHT OR WRONG?
>> IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT NOW .
MAYBE ANOTHER THING WHEN, IN FACT, THEY LEARN OF THE RESULTS OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND HE IS PROSECUTED.
EVIDENCE IS GOING TO COME OUT THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
WE ALWAYS ASK , THE PROSECUTORS AND INVESTIGATORS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE FAR MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU AND I, THEN PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA, THEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
SO ALL THAT IS GOING TO COME OUT IN THE CHILD.
MAYBE AFTER THAT INFORMATION COMES OUT, WE ARE GOING TO SAY, WELL, HE IS A CRIMINAL.
AND HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, PEOPLE MAY JUST START GETTING TOO TIRED OF ALL THIS AND REALIZE, THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY.
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE ARE PAST THAT POINT, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT YET TIRED, PERHAPS AFTER A LENGTHY CRIMINAL TRIAL, THEY WILL BECOME TIRED AND REALIZE, WE NEED TO MOVE ON.
IT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY TO MOVE ON.
BE TELEVISED?
>> I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST TELEVISED TRIALS BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE ACT DIFFERENTLY IN FRONT OF A CAMERA.
I THINK LAWYERS ACT DIFFERENTLY IN FRONT OF A CAMERA.
BUT HERE, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6, THIS IS REALLY AN ATTACK UPON, I THINK THE AMERICAN SYSTEM.
AGAINST AMERICAN VOTERS.
ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
I THINK AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THE RULE OF LAW IN THAT, IF IT IS TELEVISED AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOESN'T DO A GOOD JOB IN PROSECUTING DONALD TRUMP, AND HE IS CONVICTED, I THINK PEOPLE WILL HAVE SEEN HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS.
AND THAT HE DID RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL.
AND SO THERE ARE BENEFITS , AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
THIS IS UNIQUE CASE IN WHICH I THINK ONE COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE TELEVISED.
>> JUDGE ALBERTO GONZALES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
