linda tripp gives those tapes to paula jones' lawyers and kenneth starr's office. president has to give a deposition in the jones case. >> part of the danger for the president lies in what he said under oath to lawyers for paula jones. mr. clinton denied in his deposition having a sexual relationship with monica lewinsky. >> did the president agree with lewinsky to deny their affair under oath? >> if the president, in fact, encouraged this woman to lie under oath or ask someone else to encourage her, that's a crime. >> it's a different order of magnitude than any of the previous charges that the president had to put up with for seven years. >> what the white house is in for is another legal nightmare. >> hey, ho, clinton's got to go. hey, ho, clinton's got to go. >> this was a howl coming up in the media and from republicans. people were horrified after this. it was overpowering. >> i want you to listen to me. i'm going to say this again. i did not have sexual relations with that woman, miss lewinsky. i never told anybody to lie. not a single time. never. these all

he has to give a deposition in the paula jones case. historically the courts have the been more solicitous. you would think the logic is the president would have to give grand jury testimony as well. so, you know, it's not like we are writing on a blank slate here. kavanaugh's position as joultd lined in that law review article is much more solicitous. >> kavanaugh's position is donald trump's lawyer's position. period. they have been saying all along from day one the that you shouldn't be bothering the president with awful this right now. some of this can be taken care of. civil suits. done after, after, he leaves office. etc. and by the way, they don't believe -- that mueller, they're betting that mueller is not actually going to try and subpoena the president. whether this affects mueller's decision. don't forget one thing, the president has said that he wants to testify. we have got to take a break. more about the stakes involved and politics of the confirmation process. of course midterm elect,s as well. also more breaking new. eve

we've seen that over and over again, whether it was the nixon tapes case, paula jones. >> we've seenthe notion that somehow senators are going to be distracted from the supreme court decision i think is -- that's a stretch. this is one of the -- >> the reports -- >> this is one of the most remarkable shifts we're going to have in the supreme court in generations. the 1930 shift was remarkable, the 1968 shift was profound. this one is as consequential. there's no way democratic senators or republican senators will be distracted from it. this is going to be litigated -- >> particularly when it's the last branch of government that performs a check and balance on this president. >> let's not forget that this nominee is going to get confirmed because of harry reid getting rid of -- including the nuclear option for court picks and so democrats have no one but themselves to thank. >> it was actually mitch mcconnell who did away with the filibuster. >> both sides are always -- switch places on all of these nominations. isn't it true that even if harry reid had not done away with the filibust

the 2016 election. , thatw from the past clinton appointees voted against the president in the paula jones case. the next and appointees voted against him in the watergate case. why are you persuaded that justice kavanagh would not stand up to donald trump if it came to that? it goes back to judge kavanaugh's record. when he worked with the independent counsel, ken starr back in the 1990's, he presidently sought clinton's records, in fact, going to court three times to get access to president clinton's records. he fought really hard to get the president to turn over a whole slew of information. went toingly, when he work for president bush right after the clinton administration, interestingly, -- one of the first things brett kavanaugh did was push for an executive order that would have --elded presidential papers george bush chaco presidential papers, even though there was a law requiring those papers to be -- george bush's presidential papers, even though there was a law requiring those released.w he has taken the position from then on, that the president should be exempt from criminal p

that's what the supreme court held in the paula jones case and held it unanimously. >> fine.agree he has had a change of heart that a sitting president should not be investigated. >> his view is that because of th disruption -- and i agree we this -- the disruption is terrible and therefore, here's the conclusion, congress should consider passing an immunity law which it does for our service people. i think that's a fair point. >> that a president should have immunity. >> temporarily. >> while president. >> while president. >> so his view has evolved. he didn't once believe a president should have immunity and now he does? >> when you're talking about the report, this is where i'm quarreling with you. that's my conclusion, brett was serving on the staff but we now know -- >> but did he agree with you? >> you have to ask him. i'm sure that will be asked in the confirmation process but do people change their minds, of course they changed their minds. i don't think they should change their minds based on their own experience but what he saw in light of iran can tra, president re

off if president clinton could have focused on osama bin laden without being distracted by the paula jonesexual harrassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots. guys, there is no way kavanaugh could have predicted in 2009 that there would be a special counsel investigation into whether or not president trump colluded with a hostile nation to help himself get elected. ultimately it's not crazy to wonder, though, if kavanaugh still believes now what he wrote back then. it's also not crazy to wonder if kavanau kavanaugh's writing about presidential immunity back then motivated the president to pick him now. >> was that a consideration for the president? >> the white house is aware of his entire public record. >> including this, i assume, then. >> yeah, look. judge kavanaugh has over 300 opinions. he's written about a lot of legal subjects pretty extensively. >> was this is one a factor? >> a factor is his entire record. >> kavanaugh's entire record also includes what he wrote in 1998, whether the constitution allows indictment of a sitting president is debatable. we're left to wonde

perspective that we would have been better off if clinton was focused more on osama bin laden than paula jonestake a closer look at what he said. he didn't say that the courts should protect a president from anytime of indictment -- any type of indictment. he said congress should pass a law so the president should be indicted after the fact. once he leaves office. again, this is in line with what kavanaugh's basic jurisprudence. if there is not a law, congress should go pass it. he expressed his personal opinion back then. he did not say the courts should provide insulation to the president. this is the line of attack. i think we will find this persuasive for massachusetts senator elizabeth warren. not so much for joe donnelly or west virginia democrat joe manchin. >> one wonders how much resistance is for the cameras. he will interpret the law and not make the law. michael, is this what happens when you win elections? you get to appoint supreme court nominations. >> tell me one supreme court nominee hasn't said they revere the constitution? they all say that. the bottom line is you look at wh

versus jones, which is the decision that required bill clinton to testify in the civil suit that paula jones brought against him, the successor suits that similarly involved president nixon. do you think that -- i think kavanaugh's writing bass been misinterpreted because the argued for legislative changes and has not specifically said whether the things the decisions were mistaken dovelet you think clinton vs. joan was ongoing. >> absolutely. >> a president shouldn't have to testify. >> i was totally opposed to clinton verse jones when it happened. cower -- >> what the about nixon. >> of course the president should have to testify in front of -- in a deposition after he leaves office. the statute of limitations should be postponed. if you start burdening a president with every civil suit that anybody can possibly bring, it seems to me that real jim poses an extraordinarily rick burden on the president. if i had ban justice i would have voted against the jones case. by the way -- >> that's a policy argue. what in the us -- >> nothing the constitution either way and wasn't decided on constitu

the paula jones case. he didn't want to go out there.did it. >> you i think at the end of the day for president clinton in particular it seemed to him and his advisers that it was just not tenable for the president of the united states to appear to be not cooperating with an investigation. i'm not sure that same old school mentality -- >> trump doesn't care what he looks like. to his 45% -- anyway, while you're here, when it comes to michael cohen, who's an interesting guy, who appears more and more willing to flip against the president, juli maintained that cohen had nothing that could implicate the president and encouraged cohen to tell the truth to prosecutors. let's watch this -- this is a limited modified hangout, as they said in watergate days. >> you want michael cohen to cooperate with the feds? you think that's a good development for the president if he does? >> yes. because it's going to lead to nothing. >> you have no concerns at all about anything that michael cohen might tell the -- >> as long as he tells the truth we're hom

he did it with president clinton during the juanita broderick and paula jones affair and monica lewinskyd it for african dictators and now for michael cohen. he wants to make his client looks good. he says i'm working for a client. >> julie: he is trying to plant a story. a cable news network jumps right on it. the story is out there. we've heard part of the tape. it is hard to figure out exactly what they are talking about regarding the cash issue because at one point he says finance? he is not referring to finance as a financial payments. it was a full payment that was doled out at some point. what is concerning is how the tape ends. as you know it ends abruptly. seems it was recorded either if his pocket or something. there is a lot of interference there. what do you make first of all of us not getting the big picture here? he doesn't seem like the full story is out? >> the tape cuts off abruptly. whether there is more of that tape i don't know or whether it is suddenly cut off because cohen either did it deliberately or not. however it was, you certainly don't get a clear impression

and the supreme court of the united states spoke unanimously in the paula corbin jones case, brought effect to the supreme court saying grant me immunity from civil litigation, and the supreme court unanimously said no, and that included two of president clinton's own appointees. that's the law of the land, that no one is above the law. that's the way, i'm confident, judge kavanaugh, if he becomes a justice, would rule. that a subpoena is a subpoena. a subpoena to testify in whatever. now, that's probably going to be litigated, but i think that he will follow the traditions of the law that i think is pretty clear that the president can, in fact, be subject to this kind of subpoena process. thomas jefferson, john marshall, going back a century, thomas jefferson didn't like it that he got subpoenaed. that was just to produce documents, but he obeyed. i'm sure richard nixon didn't enjoy the fact that he was getting a subpoena for the famous and now infamous white house tapes, but he obeyed and that's the rule of law in our country. neil: but it was the threat of subpoena from your offic

a deposition in the paula jones case. historically, the courts have been even more solicitous of grand jury investigations. you would think the logic is that the president would have to give grand jury testimony as well. so, you know, it's not like we here. kavanaugh's position is much more solicitous of the president's position than the supreme court. >> kavanaugh's position is donald trump's lawyer's position, period. they have been saying all along from day one that you shouldn't be bothering the president with all of this right now. some of this can be taken care of if you have civil suits, it should be done after he leaves office, et cetera, and by the way, they don't believe that mueller, they are betting that mueller is not actually going to try and and the president. whether this affects mueller's decision, we have no idea. but don't forget one thing, the president has said that he wants to testify publically. >> we have to take a break. more with this panel, talk more about the stakes involved here, as well as th