Punishing a Former Leader Is That of a Banana Republic

0:00 Speaker 1 Sunday Morning. What is today is a Congressman, Peter King, and one great congressman served the United States of America almost thirty years and a member of Chairman of Homeland Security and loves America. Well, Peter King, what’s the subject matter for Sunday morning?

0:20 Speaker 2 Well, John, you know you’re not even talking about this. And I just think, despite what some Republicans or people in the public might take, I think it’s a dangerous president to require President Clinton or any former president to testify before Congress, especially when there’s not any allegation at all that any crime has been committed. We’ve gone over

0:43 two hundred years. A president has never been required to testify before Congress before. There’s a reason for that, and I think to break that precedent because of newspaper talk and because of a horrible scandal. Epstein was a horrible person.

0:57 He was an evil person. But to say that anyone who was associated with him in any way, if they had no knowledge of what he was doing, well why they should be called in Now it would be different.

1:08 Maybe it would be different if people said that they knew that Bill Clinton was involved, or Bill Clinton knew what was going on. There’s no evidence of that at all, So they’re bringing him in is such a dangerous president.

1:19 And Hillary Clinton, she’s the wife of someone who apparently had no idea what was going on if she got called it also to me, we’re really going out here in guilt by association rather than guilt by conduct. There’s no evidence of any improper conduct by Bill Clinton, and yet for the first time in more than two hundred

1:39 years at president United States, he’s been called in to testify before Congress.

1:43 Speaker 3 To me, it’s a it’s a it’s.

1:45 Speaker 2 A mistake that we’re going to come back to ruin the future, and we shouldn’t get caught up at the hysteria of the times. Whatever has to be done. Going up to Epstein is one thing. But even opening up all these files traditionally, historically criminal files are not open up because they include every bit of gossip and hearsay

2:04 and rumor. Innuendo is prooning in there, and it’s the drop of the prosecutors over the years to see what’s right and what’s not, and that’s what you charge someone with. So it’s a dangerous paths for going down, and well, be very careful and how far we go but in any event, I did not think it was right to

2:20 call President Clinton as a to make him testify. And you’re right, I’m a friend of Bill Clinton. You’re a friend of Bill Clinton. But even if you are not my friend, I would say the exact same thing.

2:30 Speaker 1 Well, Congressman, I agree with you one hundred and tempercent. I’m a friend of Bill Clintons and you are a friend of Bill Clintons. And the fact is there is no crime, and otherwise we’re going to go on and on and on with Republicans fighting with Democrats and Democrats fighting with Republicans. And if there’s a crime, I can

2:50 understand it. But just to try to embarrass the other side both ways, I think it’s wrong. It’s the wrong way for Washington, that.

3:01 Speaker 2 It really is. I mean, suppose John Kennedy was so alive today would be going back into the fairs, and he apparently had in the White House, including white with White House employees. Would you bring him in there? When you bringing his wife she was so alive, and you’re bringing his children, I mean, where’s this going to end?

3:17 Their allegations that’s white. Eisenhower had an affair with his driver.

3:21 Speaker 3 Female drivers, there’s allegations that that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had affairs because there was allegations as Whitefoot like other people.

3:33 Speaker 2 Yeah, exactly, that was I think her name was Hitcock, was a friend of Eleanor Roosevelt. So I mean, all of that is so you know, the Paris has passed again. If we’re talking about a serious crime, that’s one thing.

3:44 If we’re talking about rumors and gossip at in the window, and that’s all it is right now. Listen, somebody comes up with solid evidence about Bill Clinton, then you could consider whether or not he should be brought into testify something that’s dangerous to do that, and he done before and the same with President Trump, no matter who it is.

4:01 But right now, all this is is he said his name is mentioned hundreds of times, the Epstein files, Daly, any number of people. Yeah, I mean, Epstein, unfortunately, was a fixture around New York, and he was whether it was a clergy, whether it was educator, whether it was scientists, whether it was athletes or whatever. People did have contact

4:19 with Jeffrey Epstein, and there’s no indication that almost any of them had any idea of what was going on, especially at the time they were with him and he was. If you’re talking about he had a controversial background at the time, yeh, there’s a lot of people like that.

4:34 But the fact that is, as far as crimes, as far as being a pedophile, there’s not a hint of evidence that Bill Clinton had any knowledge of that at all. And everybody be involved in it, saying with Hillary Clinton and also in President Trump. So to me, we’re going to be saying a formd president. Should we called him

4:51 by any bit of innuendo or gosceipt or because he happened at one time to be a friend of a person who was a lady convicted of a crime. Wow, that is a dangerous step to go down. And it’s the type of language to me, really tribes in third world countries and banaton republics, we want to go after

5:07 former leaders.

5:08 Speaker 1 Congressman Peter King, thank you for calling in this Sunday morning, and I agree with you one hundred and ten percent. We’re both friends of the Clintons, but I would say that about any president. And let’s bring peace to our country.

5:22 Thank you so much. Thank you. John