Cenk & Ana DESTROY Vivek Ramaswamy's Defense Of Donald Trump

A very clear illustration of Vivek's snake oil.

One of several examples.   Vivek states (in defense of Trump) that the PRA determines what documents the former PotUS can take.

That is true.   However, the PRA definitively states that Trump was not allowed to take the documents he took.

Sophistry.   This guy is a slimebag.   Would be an excellent V.P. for Trump.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

Transcript:

Why exactly would likely Republican voters decide to vote for you over the former president? >> Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I think that the more he's being unjustly prosecuted and really attacked using the levers of the justice system, the more I felt a sense of obligation to stand up for what is right. And I also believe in judging based on results. What are the results that I ultimately judge to president by? Did you keep us out of wars and did the economy grow under your wash? There's a lot of other things that matter too, but those are two easy metrics. And I said he was the best president of the 21st century. So what I said on the debate stage, I stand by it. George Bush. Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Donald Trump. It's not even close. Which one was the best one of the century? And so I respect him. And probably more than any other GOP presidential candidate, when I'm president, I will respect his legacy and honor it more than anybody else will because I think it's the right thing to do and I think it moves the country forward. However, I have something that he does not. I am young. I have fresh legs. I think it's gonna take somebody coming in from the outside to have the true fresh perspective to lead the America First movement to the next level. I think I can unite this country by reaching the next generation of young Americans that have lost all semblance of national pride. And I can give you statistics to back that up. I mean, 60% of young Americans today say they would sooner give up their right to vote than to give up their access to TikTok. We have a 25% recruitment deficit in the US military, less than 16% of Gen z says they're proud to be American. And I think there is no question which Republican candidate is really which candidate, period, in this race is best reaching young voters at a large scale. We sit in college campuses across this country and so, yes, I think I will be able to reach that next generation and inspire national pride in that next generation better than anybody else in this race. >> Speaker 3: So, Vivek, you're saying then by definition, you're running against them. You are better than the best President of the 21st century and that the main reason why you're better than Donald Trump is because you're younger than Donald Trump. Am I understanding that right? >> Speaker 2: And because as a function of being younger, I'm gonna be able to reach the next generation, reunite this country. And I do think that reuniting this country and reaching the next generation will be part of what allows us to take the America First agenda to the next level. >> Speaker 3: I got you, but you said you're better than Donald Trump, right? >> Speaker 2: I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was the best candidate for the job. So yes, I believe I am the best candidate for US president. I think there are two America first candidates in the race, and I do think it has to be an America first candidate that leads the country forward. However, between it's the tried and true, I admit, if you want tried and true, you go with Donald Trump. If you want the next generation with fresh legs to lead us forward, you go with me. And I think that that's gonna be the successful formula that leads us to success in this race. >> Speaker 3: I'm gonna follow up on something you said earlier. You said that you would pardon Donald Trump on these unjust charges. So if you pardon him on taking national secrets without permission, not returning them, lying to the FBI, et cetera, does that mean that Joe Biden is allowed to do the same thing? That he could just take national secrets, show them to anyone he likes, even after he's president he could just take the documents, bring them home, show them to anyone he likes, and maybe other people, too. Anyone who's got access to national secrets, can they just show them to everyone? Or is it just a special privilege that Donald Trump gets to have because you like him? >> It is a whether you like the law or not, I believe in this thing called the law, and the law does give a what's that I. >> Speaker 4: Say I'd love to see it. >> Speaker 3: Because Donald Trump has broken about a dozen laws, and you'd say you'd pardon him on every one of those criminal actions, okay so prove it. >> Speaker 2: I think part of the reason why is that those laws that are alleged to be broken, I don't believe have been broken here. If I did believe that and believe it was definitive, then I wouldn't adopt the position that I do. Every case brought against him levels a novel legal theory never before used. So for the particular case that you asked about and I believe in getting into details. Details matter, if you're gonna convict somebody criminally, yes, the details doggone well matter. So the Presidential Records Act explicitly lays out the criteria for what documents a prior president is and is not able to access. If you don't like the law, change the law. But part of the reason is that we already entrust the US. President with making all kinds of incredible judgments whether or not to use nuclear weapons on down. So, yes, that same president we do entrust when leaving office with access to those same records. The judges have interpreted it. And even in the Clinton sock drawer case as it related to Bill Clinton revealing undoubtedly classified information afterwards, a judge explicitly came down on interpreting that statute. So I'll leave detailed articles in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but why am I bothering talking about it as opposed to legal scholars elsewhere? Let them debate it. My job is to unite this country. And I do not think it sets a good precedent when the President of the United States and the Justice Department under him, uses police force to indict its political opponents in the middle of an election, and then issue gag orders to say that that opponent during the presidential election can't even talk about that relevant set of issues. I just don't think that's a good precedent, and I don't wanna see that in one direction or the other. That's wrong. >> Speaker 1: Do you believe it's a good precedent to implement a slate of fake electors to overturn the results of our democratic process and go against the will of the American voters? >> Speaker 2: So look, I think that there were serious issues that need to be discussed relating to election integrity. However, I would not have made those same judgments that Donald Trump did. This, though, belongs to the voters. This is a judgment for the voters of this country, not a judgment for a justice system that lands people in prison as its ultimate goal, especially political opponents. I just think that's bad for the United States of America. So leave it to the voters, trust the voters to make the decision of who governs instead of trying to take it out of the voters hands. And I don't think that should be a controversial idea. >> Speaker 3: Yeah, it's definitely controversial because what you're saying is. >> Leaving it to the voters is controversial. [CROSSTALK] >> Speaker 1: Laws, including going against the will of the American voters by implementing a slate of fake electors, which were noted as such in memos within the Trump campaign, they were referred to as fake and fraudulent electors by Trump's co conspirators. That is part of the evidence. Another piece of evidence that I think is compelling, to say the least, is that they had fake electors in the state of New Mexico, which had absolutely no pending litigation in regard to election fraud. >> [INAUDIBLE] legal system and if you wanna go into the details of this, the First Amendment absolutely protects and courts have held this for a long time, dating back to a case called Alvarez. I think it was in 2012 that political officials, including candidates for election, unfortunately, like it or not, have the First Amendment right not to tell the truth. That's just a fact. It's not something that we should [INAUDIBLE]. >> Speaker 3: So Donald Trump was lying, so Donald Trump was lying. >> Speaker 2: That's for the courts to decide. >> Speaker 4: So then he should be tried, if it's for the courts to decide, and we live in a country of Laws and he's being charged with a very important criminal act, why do you get to decide instead of the court system and say, just let him off, who cares [INAUDIBLE]? >> Speaker 2: Because nobody else has been charged under the same set of facts because. >> Speaker 4: No one else tried to do a coup against America with a fake electorate scheme. Do you know a second person who's ever been accused of that? >> Speaker 2: We've had contested elections dating back to the late 1800s in this country in a lot. >> Speaker 4: Yeah, but no one ever did fake electors and tried to do a coup, Vivek. So are you saying because this is really important because good for the goose. >> Speaker 3: Is good for the gander? >> Speaker 4: So you're saying Donald Joe Biden, on his way out, can take any national secrets and show them to anyone he likes? Maybe you could even sell them. Whatever. He could just take them. Who cares? >> Speaker 2: And hold on, this sell him. Okay, all right. But if Donald Trump is charged with selling them, are we allowed to try him then? Or do we just have to let him go no matter what he's charged with? >> Speaker 2: We're gonna be on for most of an hour. So I think it's just important for you to understand something about me. I care about the details. Facts actually matter. I don't care about the details random jousting. >> Speaker 1: You just implemented a law having to do with political speech of a President and extended it to the actions of the President. If the actions of the President are criminal, he should be held by the way, excuse me, I'm still speaking. Can you please let me finish my statement, okay? If the actions of the President happen to be illegal actions, especially in the context of our democratic process, you genuinely believe that that individual should not be held accountable for what he engaged in? You think that the sitting President of the United States could attempt to steal elections, can attempt to implement fake electors, and go against the will of the American people? Is that what you're arguing here? >> Speaker 2: And I just wanna address you correctly. What's your name? >> Speaker 1: I mean, you just came on my show. You don't know my name? My name's Anna. >> Speaker 2: I don't actually. I thought I was talking to Jenk. What's your name? >> Speaker 3: My name is Anna. >> Speaker 2: Anna, good. No, we're gonna be chatting for a while. I just wanted to address you conversation. >> She'll prepared for the interview ahead of time. >> So well, Anna, you guys invited me on your show. I'm making some time for you guys. I'm happy to have the open debate. Let's get some facts actually straight here. >> Speaker 1: I thought you were detail oriented. I don't know. >> Speaker 2: I didn't mean that as a personal affront. And I promise you, and I'm looking forward to getting into substance with you. So the reality is you're making an assertion that he broke the law, and then everything that you're doing is working backwards, making a legal judgment on a complex legal theory that has never been brought against a defendant in American history. So that's a circular reasoning. It's a circular loop. >> Speaker 2: No, it's not like that. That doesn't make any sense. We're not making but Vivek, you're going in circles. Hold on, let's be clear. So we're not making the assertion. Prosecutors are making that assertion. And you're saying do not let the prosecutors do their job. Foreclose that I don't wanna discuss let me finish. Can Joe Biden do a fake elector scheme and just make up electors and declare himself President, as Donald Trump wanted to do? And you admitted earlier he is lying. Donald Trump was lying. And so can Joe Biden lie and say, I've got fake electors and I'll even call them fake electors, and then you're not allowed to prosecute them because you just said that's it. No one's allowed to prosecute former Presidents. Go ahead. So is Joe Biden allowed to do the same exact thing? >> Speaker 2: Let me just ask you guys a question, because I think I'm getting a sense for your command of the details here. Which case would you like to talk about? >> Speaker 4: Go ahead. Fake electors. Is Joe Biden allowed to do the same? >> Speaker 2: One of you talking about documents, and one of you is talking. >> Because he broke so many laws, but let's stick with fake elections. Go ahead. >> Speaker 2: Which one would you like to discuss? >> Speaker 4: Fake elections. Go ahead. >> Speaker 2: Yeah, so there is no crime here that can be charged. That's the answer. There's no relevant crime. Now, can voters take this into account when determining who their next President is? Absolutely. That's exactly how our process works. But our Constitution has a process that has been followed, and it was followed here. And the US President, absolutely. Even if he's, the outgoing President, has an opportunity to share his opinion, even if those opinions are not true. And if that's found in a court of law, I don't have a view on that. But that's what the allegations are. >> Speaker 4: That's what a court of law is Vivek. But you're saying we're not allowed to go to a court of law? >> Speaker 2: I'm not saying that you're not allowed to. I'm saying that I would pardon him because I think that these do not match the actual law that the Supreme Court has held applying to these set of facts. And I think it's a bad judgment for the US Justice Department to bring this case because it divides the country. And it sets an awful president that will now be used going forward for years unless we do something about it, unless it takes a leader who actually unites this country. This is the new president in the United States of America. The new president is the party in power will look at who the opponent is and throw the legal statute book at them. That's not how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to find a crime and then decide whether or not you wanna prosecute it according to the same standards you use for every American. That is not what's happening here. And there is little doubt that if Donald Trump were not running for President, they would not have brought these charges. So I think that if you ask me, does this move towards uniting the country or not, I think it does not. I think it moves towards dividing the country, which is why I have been clear, even though I'm running against Donald Trump. I would pardon him if I'm elected president because that will move this nation forward. And I do not think that we should be guided by vengeance and grievance against one man. I do not think that that helps the United States of America. That's why I'm in this race, and that's why I clearly answer your question. You asked me why would I pardon. That's why I would pardon. >> Speaker 1: And just to be clear, you have absolutely no problem with the Trump campaign implementing fake electors in the state of New Mexico, which had no pending litigation in regard to election fraud. You're okay with that? >> Speaker 2: There is a difference between would I have made the same judgment? >> Speaker 1: Answer the question, yes or no? You don't that's illegal? Okay, you don't value our democratic process. Great to hear it. >> Speaker 2: I don't think anything that's laid out has been a violation of the law. That's what I believe. >> That's amazing. Okay, all right.