Videos

Pate, Johnson and Church represents the family of Fernando Octavio Rodriguez, a twenty-four year old young man who died after being tazed by police officers numerous times while laying on the ground, unarmed, naked, and in need of medical attention.

Our firm filed a Section 1983 lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez’s family, which accuses the officers, the City of Hampton and Henry County, Georgia, of violating Mr. Rodriguez’s constitutional rights and wrongfully causing his death.

11 Alive News aired the footage of the encounter between Mr. Rodriguez and the officers, and subsequently interviewed Attorney Jess Johnson and Octavio Rodriguez, the brother of Fernando Rodriguez, for comments on the encounter and subsequent death of Mr. Rodriguez.

Octavio Rodriguez tells 11 Alive that his brother “was murdered, and I had to see it over and over and over,” and that seeing this “felt horrible, because knowing that my brother needed help, knowing that he was crying and screaming for help…”

Attorney Jess Johnson comments that “These officers recognize that he’s no longer breathing. He’s unresponsive. And instead of getting off of him, and rendering medical aid, they continue to pin him to the ground.”

On behalf of Mr. Rodriguez’s family, our firm has accepted a settlement of $3 million for their claims against the City of Hampton and those involved police officers.  We are still pursuing the lawsuit against Henry County and two Henry County police officers, who were also involved in the death of Mr. Rodriguez.

TRANSCRIPT:

Cheryl: A family is talking to us tonight about what they consider to be justice after a man died after officers allegedly tased him 15 times, the family’s attorney sharing bodycam video of what happened, after filing a federal lawsuit against the departments involved, and we want to warn you, it is difficult to watch. Brittany Kleinpeter has the story.

Officer: I’m gonna tase you.

Man: Go ahead, [inaudible 00:00:23]

Officer: [inaudible 00:00:23]

Octavius: He was murdered, and I had to see it over and over and over [inaudible 00:00:30]

Officer: Roll over.

Octavius: It’s not right.

Brittany: It’s been two years since 24-year-old Fernando Octavio Rodriguez died at a hospital after he was allegedly tased by police 15 times. His brother tells me Rodriguez was the oldest of three boys, and could light up the dark with his smile.

Octavius: And he was a very outgoing person. He was a lovely, lovely soul.

Brittany: He says he’s watched the officer’s bodycam footage from the night of September 20th hundreds of times, and it still impacts him the same way.

Octavius: I get outraged. I get out of control.

Officer: Dude, you bite me and I’m gonna kick your teeth out. This arm ain’t moving, I’ll break it.

Brittany: According to a federal lawsuit, Rodriguez was found naked walking down a road in Henry County in 2019 after his family says he had attended a music festival. Officers with the Hampton Police Department and Henry County Police Department responded. In the video given to us by an attorney representing the family, you can see Rodriguez turn and say something, but the audio is cut out. He continues to walk away. He’s then tased as officers order him to roll over.

Officer: Roll over.

Brittany: His family says officers made jokes before realizing he had stopped breathing.

Officer: Can you believe I’ve done this this long and this is my first naked man?

Officer: He’s quit breathing.

Officer: Are you serious?

Officer: [inaudible 00:01:45]

Officer: Wake your butt up.

Octavius: It felt horrible, because knowing that my brother needed help, knowing that he was crying and screaming for help…

Brittany: Rodriguez was taken to a hospital, and died two days later. The family’s attorney says the medical examiner ruled the death a homicide as a result of asphyxia. The family has now filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Hampton and Henry County Police Department.

Jess: These officers recognize that he’s no longer breathing. He’s unresponsive. And instead of getting off of him, and rendering medical aid, they continue to pin him to the ground.

Brittany: The lawsuit alleges police violated Rodriguez’s rights, and wrongfully caused his death. The officers involved are now under a criminal investigation by the Henry County District Attorney’s office.

Cheryl: The family’s attorney tells 11 Alive that they have not received any medical reports yet to indicate that Rodriguez was under the influence of a drug, and his family says he has no history of mental illness. We reached out to each police agency for comment. We have not heard back yet.

Page Pate is a criminal defense attorney who has been representing people in serious criminal cases in the Atlanta Metro area and throughout the State of Georgia for over 25 years. Page is often contacted by the media to provide his opinion on serious legal issues appearing in the news. In this case, Page was contacted by CNN to discuss the investigation of President Donald Trump by the District Attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, for possible election fraud.

Page is asked what the potential charges could be as a result of President Trump’s phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State after the 2020 Presidential Election, in which President Trump requested that a certain number of votes be found on his behalf. Page says that he thinks that “there is certainly the potential for criminal charges in Fulton County for Trump’s phone call to the Secretary of State and other people in that office. The District Attorney in Fulton County is someone I have known personally for years. She is very smart, she is very aggressive. And from what I am able to tell, she is putting her foot to the gas on this criminal investigation. Now, the potential punishment here is probably only a misdemeanor. There are various statutes in Georgia that prohibit interference with an election, and certainly, solicitation of interference with an election, which is what I think Trump was clearly doing when he placed those phone calls. Find me some extra votes. That is a request to an election official to tamper with the vote. And that is illegal in Georgia. It’s a misdemeanor, but it’s still a crime.”

Page agrees that the most incriminating evidence is the recorded call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger, which was released by the Secretary of State’s office. Page says that the call is “crystal clear” and that outside of that, “the only question becomes intent. Was that just a political statement, hey, I really hope you can find 11,000 votes? Or was he trying to instruct the Secretary of State to do something illegal? And so that will be a jury question. I mean, initially, it’s a question for the prosecutor, but if she does decide to charge, then it will be a jury question.”

Finally, the topic of President Trump’s defamation lawsuits resulting from sexual assault allegations against him is discussed. Page is asked if these cases, which were basically delayed due to the President being in office, are likely to go forward now that he is out of office. Page says that these cases will “Absolutely” proceed, and that “Trump now has no defense that he can postpone depositions or refuse to provide information in discovery. Those lawsuits will move forward just like any other lawsuit against any private individual. And we all know Trump is no stranger to litigation. So I’m certain he will be lawyered up, so to speak, and he’ll do what he can to defend those lawsuits, but defamation is pretty clear as well. If you make a false statement about someone and you publish it, you put it out there, you’re liable. And the only question becomes the amount of damages.”

TRANSCRIPT

Fredricka: All right, Kara Scannell, thank you so much. Of course, the former President having to lawyer up now. Let’s get more on the former President’s legal problems, straight ahead, the road ahead. With me now is Page Pate, he’s a constitutional lawyer and a criminal defense attorney, and Carrie Cordero is a CNN Legal Analyst and former counsel to the U.S. Assistant Attorney General. Good to see both of you.

All right. So, Carrie, you first. You know, we heard Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, saying Trump was liable for whatever he may have done while in office. Let’s begin with the D.C. and the Attorney General’s office. You know, what is being weighed as it examines the legal challenges and the probability from the former President facing charges for that insurrection?

Carrie: Well, the charges, Fred, from the insurrection itself, they’ve got a wide variety. And it primarily would be the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the District of Columbia which is part of the Justice Department, and can handle both local and federal crimes. And so they’re really the ones running the investigation into the insurrection, charging many of the individuals who were on the premises, involved in that attack. One of the things they might be looking at is seditious conspiracy, which is a charge of overtaking the government or preventing the execution of a law by force. And so it’s a federal statute that really does, in my judgment, meet what took place that day. It’s possible that they could be looking at the President and his incitement that day. Other individuals who were involved, not just in the storming of the Capitol, but in the planning of it as well.

But I have to point out that Mitch McConnell’s statements are partly disingenuous because the constitutional remedy for a president who violates his oath, which is basically what Mitch McConnell accused him of doing, by inciting this activity and by not stopping it as the day was going on, that constitutional remedy was impeachment conviction. And so while there are criminal charges available, it really doesn’t absolve the Senate Republicans who failed to convict.

Fredricka: But, of course, you heard Mitch McConnell’s earlier argument and that of other Republican senators, who still believe that it was not constitutional to try to go after a former president, even though the body voted on it and said it was a constitutional matter.

Carrie: Right. That’s right. I mean, they voted on it. And so once the senate voted on it, then that was the end of that issue, and they were supposed to go forward. And so that’s why somebody like Senator Burr, once they moved forward in that procedural vote, looked at the merits of the case. And that was what the senators’ job was, to look at the merits of the case once they moved beyond that procedural vote.

Fredricka: And Page, outside of the insurrection, at least two investigations in Georgia, you know, surrounding phone calls to pressure Georgia to change the election outcome, a phone call involving the President of the United States, Trump, suggesting the Secretary of State find 11,799 votes. And then a separate phone call involving South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham to Georgia officials. So what are the potential charges here?

Page: Well, Fred, I think there is certainly the potential for criminal charges in Fulton County for Trump’s phone call to the Secretary of State and other people in that office. The District Attorney in Fulton County is someone I have known personally for years. She is very smart, she is very aggressive. And from what I am able to tell, she is putting her foot to the gas on this criminal investigation. Now, the potential punishment here is probably only a misdemeanor. There are various statutes in Georgia that prohibit interference with an election, and certainly, solicitation of interference with an election, which is what I think Trump was clearly doing when he placed those phone calls. Find me some extra votes. That is a request to an election official to tamper with the vote. And that is illegal in Georgia. It’s a misdemeanor, but it’s still a crime.

Fredricka: Yeah. And the most incriminating evidence, correct, is that recorded phone call that everyone got to hear, that was released from Raffensperger, the Secretary of State in Georgia, his office.

Page: That’s exactly correct. And it’s crystal clear. The only question becomes intent. Was that just a political statement, hey, I really hope you can find 11,000 votes? Or was he trying to instruct the Secretary of State to do something illegal? And so that will be a jury question. I mean, initially, it’s a question for the prosecutor, but if she does decide to charge, then it will be a jury question.

Fredricka: There are also, as we heard from Kara Scannell, you know, criminal and civil charges in New York, into the dealings of the Trump Organization. This is also the case where his personal and business tax returns could be released, Carrie. So are these cases furthest along and most threatening to the former President?

Carrie: I think he does have sufficient exposure when it comes to those cases in particular because those are investigations where some of the conduct has to do with his activity before he ever became president. So they’ve had the entire length of his presidency to conduct those investigations. They wouldn’t have brought them while he was president, obviously, but now that he is a private citizen again and much of those investigations pertain to activity that he engaged in prior to becoming president, I would expect that if they have sufficient facts that demonstrate they can move forward, that they should be able to do that now fairly soon.

Fredricka: And then, Page, there, again, are these defamation lawsuits that were largely delayed because the President was in office. Now, is he fair game? You know, both of these cases that we’re talking about are by women who accused Trump of sexual assault. Do you expect these cases to be able to move forward now unlike they have been able to before?

Page: Absolutely. I mean, Trump now has no defense that he can postpone depositions or refuse to provide information in discovery. Those lawsuits will move forward just like any other lawsuit against any private individual. And we all know Trump is no stranger to litigation. So I’m certain he will be lawyered up, so to speak, and he’ll do what he can to defend those lawsuits, but defamation is pretty clear as well. If you make a false statement about someone and you publish it, you put it out there, you’re liable. And the only question becomes the amount of damages.

Fredricka: All right. Page Pate, Carrie Cordero, we’ll leave it there for now. Thank you so much.

Attorney Page Pate, a criminal and constitutional lawyer, frequently appears as a legal analyst for CNN and other media outlets. CNN interviewed Page about the second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump and the possibility of a self-pardon by the President.

The first issue discussed in this interview is the possible timing of President Trump’s impeachment trial. Page indicates that the timing of the trial could be a significant issue after the inauguration of President-Elect Joe Biden. Page explains that he thinks “…clearly, it’s going to be up to the Senate as to when they decide to start the trial. The trial has to happen, but the constitution does not set any specific date or time limit. It’s really up to the Senate. And with the Senate changing hands, and we’re gonna have a new majority leader, I know there’s gonna be some tension within the Senate leadership to want President-elect Biden’s agenda to be fully addressed before they get completely distracted by an impeachment trial…So there’s gonna be a lot of back and forth, perhaps they’re gonna bifurcate the Senate and have part of them listening to the trial and then part of them working on the agenda. It’s going to be one of the most important issues that the new Senate will face this year.”

Page is then asked about the constitutionality of the impeachment of a president after they have left office. He says that this is a “gray area” and acknowledges that some federal judges believe that it is in fact, unconstitutional. Page further explains that “The constitution clearly sets up impeachment as a way to remove someone like the President from office. So the argument’s pretty simple. If the President is already gone, if his term has already ended, then you can’t impeach him. He’s gone. But really, we have seen impeachment used in the past, in our history, for people who have already left office. We’ve already had President impeached by the House of Representatives, so the only thing that’s remaining is the trial. And so I think the better argument, and one that’s supported by history, is that you can have an impeachment trial even after the President has left office.”

Also on the topic of impeachment, Page agrees that impeachment is the only way Congress can prevent President Trump from running for President again in the future and says he thinks “impeachment’s important, to disqualify Trump from holding federal office again.”  He also says that he thinks it is important “to send a message that Congress and the American people will not tolerate the kind of actions that President Trump has been taking recently and, really, in the past, and needs to send a message. Because if impeachment’s going to mean anything, then Congress has to be able to move forward, courageously move forward, and impeach a President who has broken the law. So I think it’s important for the disqualification but also for the principle involved.”

Lastly, Page is asked if there is anything in the constitution to prevent President Trump from pardoning himself before he leaves office. Page responds, saying “Nobody can stop President Trump from pardoning himself. The question becomes, will that pardon be enforceable? And that’s gonna be a tough call, not just legally but politically. Will a Biden administration want to take the politically dangerous step of trying to prosecute a former President Trump? I don’t think they’re gonna do that because, given the distractions and the uncertainty. But I do believe if Trump pardons himself, that will make it more likely he’s prosecuted, not less. Because then, I think the Biden administration will feel the necessity to challenge the idea that a President can pardon himself and make him above the law. So I think if he tries a self-pardon, he’s more likely to get prosecuted, not less.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Christi: There is still no timeline as to when President Trump’s second impeachment trial might start. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to send that lone impeachment article to the Senate next week. She has declined to specify exactly when that’s gonna happen. But let’s talk to constitutional attorney Page Pate here. Page, good to see you this morning. You have said, you told our producer the timing of the impeachment trial becomes a major issue after the inauguration. How so?

Page: Well, Christi, I think, clearly, it’s going to be up to the Senate as to when they decide to start the trial. The trial has to happen, but the constitution does not set any specific date or time limit. It’s really up to the Senate. And with the Senate changing hands, and we’re gonna have a new majority leader, I know there’s gonna be some tension within the Senate leadership to want President-elect Biden’s agenda to be fully addressed before they get completely distracted by an impeachment trial.

So there’s gonna be a lot of back and forth, perhaps they’re gonna bifurcate the Senate and have part of them listening to the trial and then part of them working on the agenda. It’s going to be one of the most important issues that the new Senate will face this year.

Christi: Well, President Trump’s former attorney Alan Dershowitz has claimed it’s unconstitutional for a person to be impeached once they leave office. How much credence does that argument hold? And is there truth to that or is there a gray area here?

Page: There is a gray area, Christi, and it’s not just Dershowitz. There are some former federal judges who think he’s right. The constitution clearly sets up impeachment as a way to remove someone like the President from office. So the argument’s pretty simple. If the President is already gone, if his term has already ended, then you can’t impeach him. He’s gone. But really, we have seen impeachment used in the past, in our history, for people who have already left office.

We’ve already had President impeached by the House of Representatives, so the only thing that’s remaining is the trial. And so I think the better argument, and one that’s supported by history, is that you can have an impeachment trial even after the President has left office.

Christi: Based on precedent. So, an ABC News Washington Post poll finds more than half of America, about 56% of Americans who were polled, do feel that Congress needs to remove Trump from office and disqualify him from holding elected office in the future. The intention here, at this point, now, with only four days, four and a half days to go before he’s…before inauguration day and President-elect Biden comes in anyway, it seems like the intention is to make sure that he cannot run for office again. Is impeachment the only avenue by which Congress has to try to make that…to try to solidify that?

Page: Yes, it is. And so, I think impeachment’s important, to disqualify Trump from holding federal office again. And it’s also important, I think, to send a message that Congress and the American people will not tolerate the kind of actions that President Trump has been taking recently and, really, in the past, and needs to send a message. Because if impeachment’s going to mean anything, then Congress has to be able to move forward, courageously move forward, and impeach a President who has broken the law. So I think it’s important for the disqualification but also for the principle involved.

Christi: Okay. I wanna ask you, before I let you go, about the potential of self-pardons here. President still has four days to make this happen. I get this picture in my head of the President just going to the Oval Office and signing it and going, “Ohp, all right. It’s done. That’s it.”

Page: Right.

Christi: I’m wondering, what constitutional parameters are there, that are in place to guide the validity of the lack thereof of this happening?

Page: Nothing. I mean, that’s the short answer. Nobody can stop President Trump from pardoning himself. The question becomes, will that pardon be enforceable? And that’s gonna be a tough call, not just legally but politically. Will a Biden administration want to take the politically dangerous step of trying to prosecute a former President Trump? I don’t think they’re gonna do that because, given the distractions and the uncertainty.

But I do believe if Trump pardons himself, that will make it more likely he’s prosecuted, not less. Because then, I think the Biden administration will feel the necessity to challenge the idea that a President can pardon himself and make him above the law. So I think if he tries a self-pardon, he’s more likely to get prosecuted, not less.

Christi: Mm, all right. And set a precedent any way it goes. Page Pate, we appreciate you so much. Thank you.

Page: Thank you, Christi.

Christi: Good to see you this morning.

Attorney Page Pate is frequently contacted by the media to give his opinion about important legal issues in the news. In this case, 11 Alive News interviewed Page regarding several common questions that have arisen in the Roderick Walker case in Clayton County, Georgia.

Page was first asked if it is legal for a police officer to ask a person who is a passenger in a vehicle for identification when the driver of the vehicle is pulled over for a traffic violation. Page explains that there isn’t actually a law about this and says that “it’s a question of interpretation. What is reasonable? You can absolutely pull a car over if you have reason to believe that there’s a traffic violation and obviously those passengers are going to be detained too.” He further explains that the district attorney will ultimately decide whether the officer had a good enough reason, and says “Either the detention of the passenger for the identification is lawful or it’s not. If it’s not lawful, then everything the officer did from that point forward to hold on to Mr. Walker, even aside from punching him in the face, just holding on to him is a crime.”

Page is also asked about the release of Mr. Walker given the firing of the officer for excessive force. Clayton County Sheriff Hill has said that Mr. Walker has to first resolve outstanding warrants he has in Fulton County before he can be released, and because of that the Court denied the signature bond that Sheriff Hill ordered. Page explains that Clayton County’s action is correct, because “if he has a pending hold from another county, say he’s got a probation hold from a different county or a pending arrest warrant from some other county, then Clayton County cannot decide on their own to let him go. They have to get clearance from wherever this other case may be pending.”

Lastly, Page is asked if the firing of the deputy can impact any potential lawsuits that might arise. Page explains that “Normally, if that officer is still employed by the county then the county is going to step up, defend the officer in the case and pay any damages. But if they’ve cut ties with that officer, they’re basically saying he’s on his own. So Clayton County’s not responsible for this, that officer is. And you want to go after somebody, you go after the officer.” He notes that many individuals don’t have the insurance or assets that would be worth pursuing.

TRANSCRIPT

Aisha: …tonight La’Tasha Givens is showing the video to an attorney to get you answers to your top three questions.

La’Tasha: Eleven Alive viewers reached out to us wanting to know if a deputy can legally ask a passenger for I.D. when the driver is pulled over for a traffic violation. Attorney Page Pate gives his legal perspective.

Page: There’s no law in place. It’s a question of interpretation. What is reasonable? You can absolutely pull a car over if you have reason to believe that there’s a traffic violation and obviously those passengers are going to be detained too.

La’Tasha: Pate says the district attorney ultimately decides if the deputy had a good enough reason.

Page: Either the detention of the passenger for the identification is lawful or it’s not. If it’s not lawful, then everything the officer did from that point forward to hold on to Mr. Walker, even aside from punching him in the face, just holding on to him is a crime.

La’Tasha: Another question, can Walker legally be released since the deputy was fired for excessive use of force? Sheriff Victor Hill says he ordered a signature bond but the court denied it because Walker has outstanding warrants in Fulton County which must be resolved first.

Page: Clayton County is correct. If he has a pending hold from another county, say he’s got a probation hold from a different county or a pending arrest warrant from some other county, then Clayton County cannot decide on their own to let him go. They have to get clearance from wherever this other case may be pending.

La’Tasha: And another top question, could the deputy being fired impact potential lawsuits?

Page: Normally, if that officer is still employed by the county then the county is going to step up, defend the officer in the case and pay any damages. But if they’ve cut ties with that officer, they’re basically saying he’s on his own. So Clayton County’s not responsible for this, that officer is. And you want to go after somebody, you go after the officer.

La’Tasha: And Pate says in many cases individuals don’t often have the same insurance or assets that counties have that are actually worth going after in a civil lawsuit.

Reporter: Tonight, the Gulf Coast is…

Recognized as a legal analyst and constitutional attorney, Page Pate often provides opinions and analysis on important legal issues that appear in the news. Seeking an expert opinion, CNN contacted Page to discuss the commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence by President Trump.

Page is asked what the significance is of the fact that Roger Stone requested a commutation of his sentence, rather than the pardon most expected, to avoid having to admit guilt. He explains that he is “certain that Mr. Stone and his lawyers would have preferred a full pardon but I expect that the White House compromised here and Trump said, “Look. I’m not gonna wipe away the conviction entirely. I’m gonna get too much backlash from Department of Justice prosecutors, the people who are on the front lines, so I’m just going to commute the sentence.” Now, the idea that Mr. Stone can still appeal his conviction, that’s true. But there is nothing about that conviction that I can see that will be successful on appeal and result in a new trial. So I think it was a compromise by the White House.”

Regarding Nancy Pelosi’s recommendation for a law that prevents a president from issuing a pardon to a person who is convicted of a crime caused by protecting that president, Page responds that such a law “would be an unconstitutional law if it ever passed because the Constitution clearly gives full pardon power to the president. It’s completely unchecked and there were some objections about that when it was put into the Constitution but James Madison said, “Look. It’s not a problem. If a president ever tried to pardon anyone he may have been connected with in the commission of a crime, he would be immediately impeached.” Well, obviously, that’s not going to happen in this environment so the idea that there would be a check on the pardon power in the Constitution never made it. So to change the pardon power, we’re gonna have to amend the Constitution and that is a huge effort. And I don’t see that happening.”

Lastly, Page is asked if there are any potential consequences of recent statements made by Roger Stone that seem to indicate that he knows something that would be incriminating to President Trump. Page responds that it doesn’t appear that there are, and that he thinks “it’s clear, despite the statement from the White House about all these reasons for the commutation, that the sole reason that the president did it was because he was a friend of Trump. Stone had protected Trump. I mean, the things that they put in the statement: it was a process crime, it was unfair, he may get sick in jail, all that applies to a bunch of people who are in federal prison right now, but they don’t know the president. So I think it’s clear that it was the relationship here and the fact that he lied to cover up something that ultimately protected the president. That’s why he’s not going to prison.”

TRANSCRIPT

Abby: And joining us now to discuss this is criminal defense and constitutional attorney, Page Pate. Page, this situation, I guess, is not entirely surprising. That’s been signaled for some time but what is different about this is that I think a lot of people were expecting a pardon here. Roger Stone says he wanted his sentence commuted because he didn’t want to admit guilt. What is the significance of that?

Page: Well, Abby, that’s a good point and I don’t think anyone’s really discussed it fully yet. I am certain that Mr. Stone and his lawyers would have preferred a full pardon but I expect that the White House compromised here and Trump said, “Look. I’m not gonna wipe away the conviction entirely. I’m gonna get too much backlash from Department of Justice prosecutors, the people who are on the front lines, so I’m just going to commute the sentence.” Now, the idea that Mr. Stone can still appeal his conviction, that’s true. But there is nothing about that conviction that I can see that will be successful on appeal and result in a new trial. So I think it was a compromise by the White House.

Victor: We heard at the top of this conversation from House Committee Intelligence Chair there, Adam Schiff. I want you to listen to what Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, said about limiting the president’s pardoning power. Watch.

Nancy: There ought to be a law and I’m recommending that we pass a law that presidents cannot issue a pardon if the crime that the person is in jail for is one that is caused by protecting the president, which this was.

Victor: Probably slim chances of that actually becoming law but reconcile that with the Constitution and what it would take to get it done.

Page: Yeah, Victor, that would be an unconstitutional law if it ever passed because the Constitution clearly gives full pardon power to the president. It’s completely unchecked and there were some objections about that when it was put into the Constitution but James Madison said, “Look. It’s not a problem. If a president ever tried to pardon anyone he may have been connected with in the commission of a crime, he would be immediately impeached.” Well, obviously, that’s not going to happen in this environment so the idea that there would be a check on the pardon power in the Constitution never made it. So to change the pardon power, we’re gonna have to amend the Constitution and that is a huge effort. And I don’t see that happening.

Abby: It’s interesting that, you know, that ship of impeachment has already sailed for President Trump, so it seems like that threat is not even operable in this moment. But there is something that Roger Stone said yesterday. He said, “He knows I was under enormous pressure to turn on him.” And he said, “It would have eased my situation considerably.” It really suggested to a lot of people that Stone had something to say that could have incriminated the president. Are there any potential consequences down the road to that acknowledgment from Stone this week?

Page: It appears not. I mean, I think it’s clear, despite the statement from the White House about all these reasons for the commutation, that the sole reason that the president did it was because he was a friend of Trump. Stone had protected Trump. I mean, the things that they put in the statement: it was a process crime, it was unfair, he may get sick in jail, all that applies to a bunch of people who are in federal prison right now, but they don’t know the president. So I think it’s clear that it was the relationship here and the fact that he lied to cover up something that ultimately protected the president. That’s why he’s not going to prison.

Victor: Page Pate, always good to have you. Thank you so much, sir.

Page: Thank you.