♪ >> WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO HANDLE THEM APPROPRIATELY, AND THOSE OF US WHO DON'T OUGHT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT NO MATTER WHICH PARTY THEY'RE FROM. BIDEN'S STUFFED IN HIS GARAGE OR THE DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DOWN AT MAR-A-LAGO. WHEN YOU MAKE A MISTAKE, YOU NEED TO OWN IT, NEIL, AND I HOPE THAT EVERYONE WHO TAKES THIS SACRED DUTY OF PROTECTING THIS INFORMATION WILL DO THAT. NEIL: MIKE POMPEO ESSENTIALLY SAYING OF HIS FORMER BOSS YOU MADE A A MAKE AND NOW -- MISTAKE AND NOW YOU HAVE TO OWN IT. BUT, OF COURSE, THIS IS A PROBLEM AMONG BOTH PARTIES AND FORMER PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE TAKEN DOCUMENTS AND EITHER LOST OR MISPLACED THEM, WE SUDDENLY FIND THEM, AND THIS BACK AND FORTH GOES ON. GREGG JARRETT, OUR LEGAL EAGLE, IS OUT WITH A GREAT NEW BOOK, AND AND I'M GOING TO GET INTO THAT, "THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY," BUT RIGHT NOW THIS COULD BE SORT OF LIKE THE EVENT OF THE CENTURY HERE, THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY NOW A PRESIDENT IS INDICTED ON FEDERAL GROUNDS HERE. SO IT'S BUILDING UP FOR DONALD TRUMP. WHERE DO YOU SEE THIS GOING, GREGG? >> WELL, I THINK THE MAIN ISSUE IS MERRICK GARLAND TRYING TO CRIMINALIZE A CIVIL STATUTE, THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OVER PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS WHETHER THEIR CLASSIFIED OR NOT -- THEY'RE CLASSIFIEDED OR NOT. AND THE PROBLEM FOR GARLAND IS, IT HAS BEEN THE LONGSTANDING POSITION AND STANDARD THE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT A FORMER PRESIDENT CAN KEEP WHATEVER HE WANTS INCLUDING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. AND, IN FACT, THE DOJ MADE THAT VERY ARGUMENT IN FEDERAL COURT IN WASHINGTON A DECADE AGO IN A SIMILAR CASE WITH BILL CLINTON AND CLASSIFIED RECORDS. AND THE JUDGE AGREED COMPLETELY AND SAID NOT ONLY IS THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES NOT AN AUTHORITY ON PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS, BUT THE DOJ HAS NO RIGHT UNDER THE LAW TO SEIZE THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM A FORMER PRESIDENT. SO -- NEIL: WHAT IF THE FORMER -- >> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DECADE AGO -- NEIL: I'M SORRY, WHAT IF THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S SAYING HE DOESN'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THEN REPEATEDLY WHEN DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND SAYS, THAT'S IT, ALL I'VE GOT, AND MORE DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND? IS THERE A DISTINCTION ON THE SHEER VOLUME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE OR NO? >> WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT VOLUME, THERE WAS MORE VOLUME, YOU KNOW, WITH JOE BIDEN'S DOCUMENTS IN FOUR DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENT THAT TRUMP WILL MAKE IS THAT YOU CANNOT OBSTRUCT A NON-CRIME. AND, YOU KNOW, FROM HIS VIEWPOINT THE IF HE HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP THESE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, THEN HE HASN'T COMMITTED THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH IS A CORRUPT PURPOSE. THE SUPREME COURT CALLS IT AN EVIL, DEPRAVED INTENT. I THINK THAT'S VERY HARD FOR GARLAND TO PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW. NEIL: SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING, THE FORMER PRESIDENT IS SAYING I DON'T HAVE NEARLY THESE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SAY THAT I HAVE, TURNS OUT THAT HE DID AND THEN THEY DISCOVER THAT THERE ARE OTHER DOCUMENTS MISSING AND AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, YOU COULD JUST TURN THOSE OVER THEN IN THAT EVENT AND HE DIDN'T, WAS THERE AN OBSTRUCTION GOING ON THERE IN YOUR LEGAL EYES? >> IF HE'S EA -- RELYING ON THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS, AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, TRUMP IS SITTING AROUND LOOKING THROUGH BOXES. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS AS IF HE RELIED ON LAWYERS AND OTHERS TO GO THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS AND TO SEGREGATE THEM. AND IF HE RELIES ON THEIR REPRESENTATION, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC INTENT TO DECEIVE ON HIS PART. NEIL: YEAH. SO WHEN WE HAVE THIS TAPE, ALLEGEDLY, GREGG, AS PRESIDENT I COULD HAVE DECLASSIFIED BUT NOW I CAN'T, REFERRING TO A VERY TOP SECRET DOCUMENT, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ONE THAT,S YOU KNOW, ALLEGEDLY MADE THE CASE FOR INVADING IRAN, BUT THAT, A,UP SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SHARED, SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN MISS E POSSESSION SO LONG AFTER -- IN HIS POSSESSION SO LONG AFTER LEAVING OFFICE AND SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PART OF A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THEY WERE DECLASSIFIED OR NOT. >> YEAH, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW MORE OF THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION -- NEIL: RIGHT. >> YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE IF YOU'VE EVER SPENT ANY TIME WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, OR SORT OF A TOP OF MIND, FREE-FLOWING, CASUAL CONVERSATION. AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN TAKE A SNIPPET OF IT AND SAY THIS IS LITERAL PROOF OF AN INTENT TO DECEIVE AND OBSTRUCT. NEIL: FAIR ENOUGH. I FINISH YOUR BOOK, "TRIAL OF THE CENTURY, GREGG, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AMAZING ME -- AMAZED HE ABOUT IT, YOU BRILLIANTLY LAY IT OUT, THIS WAS A PREVIEW TO WOKISM AND WHAT WOULD CLASSIFY BEING DEFINED AS A WOKE CULTURE. AT THE TIME LOOKING INTO THIS RIGHT TO TEACH THE EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AT THE TIME THERE WAS GREAT RESISTANCE AMONG THOSE WHO WERE ARGUING FOR RELYING ON THE BIBLE'S TEACHING. BUT EXPLAIN WHAT THAT TRIAL MEANT AND WHERE IT HAS US NOW. >> WELL, THERE YOU SEE WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, THE GREAT FUNDAMENTALIST LEADER, WHO GOT ALL THESE LAWS PASSED BANNING BOOKS ON SCIENCE INCLUDING EVOLUTION AND IN TENNESSEE MADE IT A CRIME FOR A TEACHER TO TEACH OUT OF THE STATE-APPROVED TEXTBOOK ON EVOLUTION. AND JOHN SCOPES WAS ARRESTED. AND THERE'S CLARENCE DARROW, THE GREATEST TRIAL LAWYER WHO EVER LIVED, ADDRESSING THE JURY. THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE FROM MY BOOK. AND HE SAVED THE DAY. HE SAVED CIVIL LIBERTIES AND FREE SPEECH BACK THEN. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE SEEING AN ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH TODAY, NEIL, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE OLD SAYING THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE SEE TODAY PARTISAN CENSORSHIP AND POLITICAL DISCORD, SILENCING OF DISSENT, CLASSROOM INDOCTRINATION, DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS, AND THIS SORT OF PUNITIVE CANCEL CULTURAL UNDER THE GUISE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SO THAT, YOU KNOW, CONFORMITY OF THOUGHT NOW SUPPLANTS ROBUST DEBATE. THAT IS THE ANTITHESISES OF A FREE SOCIETY, THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION THAT DARROW FOUGHT SO HARD FOR. NEIL: AND IN THE CASE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, PUT HIM ON THE STAND, A THREE-TIME PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. >> YEAH. THINK ABOUT THIS, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY CALLS HIS NEMESIS, THE PROSECUTOR, TO THE WITNESS STAND. WE CAN'T DO THAT, AND DARROW WAS COUNTING ON BRYAN'S E EGO AND, SURE ENOUGH, IT STOOD UP. YOUR HONOR, I'M AN EXPERT ON THE BIBLE, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TELL THE TRUTH OF THE GREAT BOOK. AND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WHICH WAS HELD OUTDOORS, BY THE WAY, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOOKING ON, A LIVE RADIO AUDIENCE NATIONWID- NEIL: OH, THAT'S RIGHT, YEAH. >> -- DARROW UTTERLY DESTROYED BYE WITH JANUARY, SO MUCH SO THAT A FEW DAYS LATER HE LAID DOWN FOR A NAP AND NEVER WOKE UP. NEIL: NO, IT'S INCREDIBLE HOW YOU BUILD THAT UP. WHAT IF THE CASE HAD GONE THE OTHER WAY. >> WELL, THIS POINT OF FACT -- IN POINT OF FACT, SCOPES WAS CONVICTED. DARROW LOST THE CASE, BUT HE WON THE LARGER ARGUMENT, THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. BECAUSE AMERICA WAS PAYING CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THIS. AND IT SPELLED -- IT WOULD HAVE SPELLED THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR BANNING BOOKS AND CRIMINALIZING THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE, AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT OPENED WONDROUS DOORS FOR LEARNING IN AMERICA BECAUSE DARROW FOUGHT FOR THE INDISPENSABLE PROPOSITION THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE TOLD HOW TO THINK. WE NEED TO BE REMINDED OF THAT -- NEIL: BUT THAT COURT PRECEDENT IS STILL THERE, RIGHT? IT DOES MAKE YOU WORRY ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN DESPITE THE PUBLIC OPINION THAT IT GENERAL RATED FROM A CASE LIKE THAT. -- GENERATED FROM A CASE LIKE THAT AND THE WOKISM TODAY, RIGHT? >> OH, YEAH. LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT ELAPSED. THE TRIAL WAS 1925. IT WASN'T MILLION THE SUPREME COURT IN 1968 -- UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT IN 1968 FINALLY SAID YOU CAN'T CRIMINALIZE THICKS, LEARNING, AND THERE MUST BE A FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION, AND THEY STOOD ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE WHICH, BY THE WAY, WASN'T BINDING ON THE STATES BACK IN 1925. SO FASCINATING CASE. "THE NEW YORK TIMES"ES CALLED IT THE GREATEST COURTROOM CONFRONTATION THIS ANGLO-SAXON HISTORY, IT STILL IS TODAY. NEIL: IT STILL IS TODAY, AND YOU BRING IT TO LIFE. IT'S "THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY," GREGG JARRETT OUT WITH ANOTHER ONE. IT'S A BARN-BURNER, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? BUT WHAT HAPPENED THERE, THE REVERBERATIONS SINCE BETWEEN HOW THE PUBLIC PERCEIVES SOMETHING AND A TRIAL THAT GRIPPED THE NATION, EVEN THE WORLD, AND HOW WE STILL ACT AND RESPOND TODAY. GREGG, GREAT JOB. LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO YOU
