CNN: Former attorney general says seriousness of this case against Trump is being underestimated

Former attorney general Eric Holder speaks with CNN’s Abby Phillip about the range of legal issues facing former president Donald Trump, as well as the probes facing Hunter Biden and the end of immigration rule Title 42. #CNN #News

Transcript

So we turn now to former attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder. He served in the Obama administration. Former Attorney General Holder, thank you for joining us. This really tragic case is not just about enforcement. He was deported four times and still kept coming back. Brought us to this point.

So why are there so many gaps in our federal law enforcement system? Well, there’s clearly the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and that means coming up with sufficient resources, law enforcement resources along the border, but also having a system by which we are able to process people who have a right to asylum

In this country. We’ve been talking about getting comprehensive immigration reform done for a number of years, and it simply simply hasn’t happened. There are two. There are at least, you know, there are a few components to it. And Congress needs to be about the business of finally, finally getting it done.

And this issue is also happening in the context of a bigger issue in this country with guns. This is someone who was who had interacted with law enforcement at least four times and was still able to get a weapon and a AR 15 style weapon that he used in what authorities are calling

An execution style killing. Why is that? How can someone who fit that profile get a weapon so easily? Well, clearly, he should not have had access to that, that assault weapon. In fact, nobody should have access to assault weapons for a ban on on the sale of those weapons. But given his history,

Given the fact that he was an illegal immigrant here in the country, he should not have had the ability to get that weapon. And so you can get them, though, through private sales. There is still the gun show loophole. He could have gotten it there. And there are gaps in our

In our gun control, safety statutes and regulations that have to be patched. And again, this is something that we’ve been talking about for years that the American people overwhelmingly are in favor of. It is time for our Congress to do the right thing to protect people in this country

From the gun violence that has become almost a pandemic. In this nation. I mean, the biggest killer of young people in this country now is gun violence. We can put a stop to this if we will just put in place, you know, sensible gun measures that, again, are supported by the vast

Majority of the people in the country. And I wonder what you make of this earlier in this case. Governor Abbott released a statement identifying the victims here, the victims as illegal immigrants, which they have now, his office has now admitted. That is probably not accurate. What do you make of all of that?

Well, I thought that what the governor said was abhorrent. I mean, the notion that he would elevate their immigration status above their humanity is an indication of who he is and the way he views, you know, certain human beings. The focus should simply have been on the fact that these people

Were the victims of unnecessary illegal gun violence, lost their lives. And that should have been the focus, the fact that they were here perhaps, you know, without authorization. And now we’re finding out that, in fact, at least some of them probably had the right to be in this country. That was essentially irrelevant.

But Greg Abbott, Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, decided that he wanted to make an issue of the fact that at least that he thought that these were illegal immigrants, as if somehow, someway that made their deaths less reprehensible. It made their lives, you know, somehow less valuable.

It was just an awful statement, something that he should be ashamed of. I do want to move on to another topic here. The office that you used to lead the Department of Justice, they’re dealing with a number of cases involving the former president Donald Trump. These are cases that range

From the January six insurrection to the documents case just last week. The Trump lawyers released a letter insisting that Congress ordered DOJ to stop investigating the former president over the documents case. What’s your response? To that demand? Is there any basis for it No, there’s no basis for that kind of

That kind of letter that violates separation of powers. It puts Congress on the other side of law enforcement. Would they have done the same thing during the Trump administration? I’m sure that they would not have. You know, the Justice Department has got to act independently follow the facts, follow the law,

Make determinations on that basis and not take into consideration any any kind of political games that people are trying to play. This is something that I hope and I’m sure the people at the Justice Department will simply will simply ignore. So of these investigations that are swirling around the former president,

I mentioned two of them, one involving the documents, one involving January six. There’s also one in Georgia as well, a case in New York involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Which do you think as someone who’s deeply knowledgeable about the legal system, which do you think

Is the one that poses the biggest risk to former President Trump You know, I actually think that all of them do. And I’m not sure that anybody should be in the the business of trying to grade which one is the most important. I mean, the retention of classified documents

And the use of them in an inappropriate way potentially threatens national security. His involvement in the January six obstruction and insurrection is obviously something of great concern. That was an insurrection designed to stop the transfer of power. His attempt to influence the count, the vote in Georgia, you know, asking for

11,780 votes was clearly something that was inappropriate. All of these things, I think, are serious violations. And especially given the fact that, you know, the subject of these investigations, the potential target of these investigations, is a former president of the United States. I think all of these things are extremely serious.

I also think that the the case in New York that has already been indicted is a lot more serious. Than people have come to come to understand. I mean, that was a close election that he won against Hillary Clinton, had this information come out that he had paid off.

You know, a former porn star to hide the fact of an affair that he had with her might have influenced people in the three or four or five states that were, you know, critical to his to his election victory. So I think all of these cases are extremely serious.

The other side of this is, of course, the case the DOJ is also dealing with involving the current president’s son, Hunter Biden. There is an IRS special agent who is now seeking whistleblower protections over allegations that that department mishandled that investigation. Do you have any concerns about how that investigation is being handled

And it’s been going on since 2019. What’s taking so long, in your view? Hard to know why it’s taking so long. I mean I don’t know you know what’s going on in terms of the investigation, but I’m confident that it’s being conducted in an appropriate way. You know, the person who was

Handling the case, who is the chief investigator, is a former U.S. attorney who was appointed by the former president he’s a Trump appointed U.S. attorney. In those kinds of cases, main justice, that is the people here in Washington, D.C. tend to keep their hands off those cases and allow the people

In the field, politically sensitive cases in the field to simply, you know, run their course. And so I’m pretty confident that the investigation is being done in an appropriate way. On the other hand, this whistleblower who is claiming that things were done improperly, obviously should be talked to

And to see if there’s any validity to the claims that he has made So on voting issues, this is something that you’ve been working on the last several years. There was a case in in the state of North Carolina where now the state Supreme Court there has effectively removed itself

As a check on partizan gerrymandering, really opening the door for the Republican legislature to to to change the balance of power in that state. What is the consequence of that? Not just for North Carolina, but for a pending Supreme Court case? That’s coming up Yeah, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision

To essentially reverse a prior North Carolina Supreme Court decision that was really about four or five months old is really an abomination there. That was a decision. The new decision is not based on principle. It’s not based on precedent. It is simply based on personal ill or change in the personnel

On the Supreme Court. And the result of the new decision is to allow essentially allow partizan gerrymandering to take effect in North Carolina, a place that before a lawsuit that we brought had a it’s a 50 50 state that had ten Republican congressmen for Democratic congressmen

After we want our lawsuit the head fair districts redrawn the congressional balance went to seven to seven and this notion that somehow some way the courts are a function of who serves on them as opposed to the facts in the law that they are supposed to consider is extremely dangerous.

It’s the same thing we see in the United States Supreme Court where a change in personnel was the thing that resulted in the overturning of Roe versus Wade again. That’s not necessarily changed. Law had not necessarily changed, but people on the court had change and a 50 year precedent was overturned.

So what happened in the federal Supreme Court was wrong and what happened in the the North Carolina Supreme Court just last week was also was also wrong. All right. Eric Holder, thank you very much for joining us on all of those wide ranging issues. All right. Thank you.

source