THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TONIGHT, PROFESSOR TRIBE. THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE MOCKERY OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT PEOPLE FEAR IN THE POSSIBLE RULINGS BY JUDGE AILEEN MERCEDES CANNON IN THIS CASE, SINCE SHE HAS ALREADY SHOWN SUCH CONTEMPT FOR THIS INVESTIGATION NEARLY BEING UNDERWAY WHEN IT FIRST CAME INTO HER COURTROOM. >> THAT'S RIGHT. AND WHEN I READ THE TWEET BY MY FRIEND, JUDGE MOODY, I THOUGHT SUCH A SHAME THAT THIS CASE, AT LEAST AS IT NOW STANDS, IS NOT GOING TO BE TRIED BEFORE A NORMAL JUDGE, WHO WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THESE FACTS, IT REALLY DOES APPEAR TO BE NO DEFENSE. SHE WOULD NOT TOLERATE IF YOU WERE A NORMAL JUDGE. MANY OF THE BIZARRE ARGUMENTS THAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS MAKING. THE ARGUMENT, SOMEHOW, THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, WHICH HAS NO BEARING ON THESE CHARGES, SOMEHOW GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO KEEP NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND WITHHOLD IT FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND LIED TO THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT HAVING IT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A NORMAL JUDGE. THAT IS REALLY THE PROBLEM. LIKE BRADLEY MOSS, I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. BUT THOSE OF US WHO DID THAT WHEN SHE INTERFERED WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS IN THIS VERY CASE OF THE EXTENT THAT THE UNANIMOUS 11TH CIRCUIT, A VERY CONSERVATIVE COURT, NOT ONLY REVERSED HER TWICE, BUT CASTIGATED HER FOR INJECTING HERSELF IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE WAY THAT THEY WERE FEARED WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. GIVEN ALL OF THAT, I AM DESPERATELY WORRIED. IN FACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE SAID THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD VERY LITTLE PATIENCE FOR, WAS BECAUSE HE WAS PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES, HE DESERVES NOT ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BUT HE DESERVES SPECIAL DEFERENCE AND A DIFFERENT SET OF LEGAL STANDARDS. SO MUCH FOR THE IDEA THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. WE ARE NOT HELPLESS IN THE SITUATION. IN 1980 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CONFRONTED THE CASE IN WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE DEFENDANT AND THE PROSECUTOR ALL WANTED TO EXCLUDE THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC AND IT SAID YOU CAN'T DO THAT. WHATEVER THE RULES OF THE INDIVIDUAL COURTROOM ARE, THERE IS A GENERAL RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AND NINTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC COULD SEE JUSTICE DONE. THAT RIGHT BELONGS ESPECIALLY TO THE VICTIMS. WARREN BURGER, NO LIBERAL, WROTE IN THAT CASE, IT BELONGS TO THE VICTIMS. AND WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE STOCKPILING OF ESSENTIALLY TREASONOUS POSSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT, THE VICTIMS ARE ALL OF US, 300 MILLION AMERICANS. VERY FEW OF US CAN FIT INTO THAT COURTROOM. ALLOWING THE PRESS TO SIT THERE AND THEN SIMPLY REPORT AFTER THE FACT IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR AT LEAST A LIVE AUDIO FEED IF THIS JUDGE IS NOT REMOVED BUT ENRICHMENT NEWSPAPERS I GUESS VIRGINIA, THE CASE I'M REFERRING TO, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NEUTRAL ADJUDICATOR. YOU HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS, EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT. IT SO WE DON'T DEPEND ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HERE TO ASK, WHY DOESN'T MSNBC, WHY DON'T THE NETWORKS AFFIRMATIVELY ASK THAT THIS BE COVERED? FROM BEGINNING TO END? SO THEY CAN SEE JUSTICE DONE. IF SHE'S NOT REMOVED, IF SHE'S NOT RECUSED AT THE VERY MINIMUM, IN ORDER COULD HAVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THIS MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL CASES, THE BIAS OF A JUDGE, WHO HAS ALREADY INDICATED THAT BIAS AND WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THIS PRESIDENT, DOESN'T PREVENT JUSTICE FROM BEING DONE. >> A NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TEAMED UP IN THE PAST, SPECIFICALLY TO TRY TO DO THIS LEGALLY. THE POINT ABOUT RECUSAL IS NOT, IT'S NOT AN ADMISSION THAT YOU ARE BIASED. IT IS SIMPLY THE RULE ABOUT IT SIMPLY SAYS YOU SHOULD RECUSE. THE JUDGE SHOULD RECUSE IF HER IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED, MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED. THAT'S ALL IT IS. THAT'S THE STANDARD FOR THIS DISTRICT JUDGE TO RECUSE. >> IT GOES BEYOND WHAT YOU SAID, LAWRENCE. IT'S NOT JUST SHOULD. IT'S MUST. 28 U.S. CODE SECTION 485 SAYS THAT A FEDERAL JUDGE MUST RECUSE HIM OR HERSELF IN ANY CASE WHERE THAT JUDGES IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED. NO PERSON COULD LOOK AT THE SITUATION AND FAIL AT LEAST TO SAY THAT THAT STANDARD IS MET. AND IF SHE DOESN'T RECUSE HERSELF, THEN THE 11TH CIRCUIT, THREW A WRIT OF MANDATE MUSS AND DIRECTOR TO DO SO, WHICH IS VERY RARE. IF THIS IS INDEED A VERY RARE CASE. IT'S A REMARKABLE THING IS THAT DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYERS ARGUED THAT JUDGE MERCHAN, WHO IS SET TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL WE, BROUGHT, PURSUANT TO THE ALVIN BRAGG INDICTMENT IN MANHATTAN, THAT HE IS SOMEONE THAT MUST RECUSE HIMSELF. WHY? BECAUSE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO HE CONTRIBUTED $35, TO SOME DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS THERE FOR HIS IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED. IN THIS CASE WE HAVE SOMETHING INFINITELY MORE PROBLEMATIC THAN THAT. IN THAT CASE THE ETHICS GROUP TO WHICH THE MATTER WAS REFERRED SAID JUDGMENT JOHN DOES NOT NEED TO RECUSE HIMSELF. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT. NOT ONLY WAS SHE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE TIME, BUT SHE HAS INDICATED IN HER RULINGS THAT SHE DOES HAVE UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THIS PROSECUTION, THAT SHE THINKS AS A FORMER PRESIDENT HE'S ON A SPECIAL PEDESTAL, THAT SHE BELIEVES THAT THE VARIOUS DEFENSES THAT HE MIGHT MAKE, THE ONES THAT YOUR PANEL EARLIER, QUITE RIGHTLY SAID ARE ABSOLUTELY EMPTY AS A LEGAL MATTER, FEELS VERY LIKELY TO GIVE HIM NOT JUST THE TIME OF DAY BUT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME TO DRAG THIS OUT SO THAT THE SCENARIO IN WHICH WE HAVE A MEANINGFUL VERDICT BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS VERY UNREALISTIC. SO WE HAVE TO DO ALL WE CAN TO GET THE JUDGE WHO NOT ONLY IS IMPARTIAL, BUT WHOSE IMPARTIALITY CANNOT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED. FAILING THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS AS TRANSPARENT PROCEEDING AS POSSIBLE SO THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT WILL DETER JUDGE CANNON FROM DOING THINGS THAT THE WHOLE NATION WILL SEE OUR LAWLESS AND BIASED. AND IF SHE IS NOT DETERRED, AT LEAST THE COUNTRY WILL SEE WHY IT IS THAT THESE EMPTY DEFENSES ARE PROVING SUFFICIENT FOR THE FORMER
