>> GOOD EVENING FROM NEW YORK. I'M CHRIS HAYES. THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, DONALD TRUMP WAS TURNED
OVER TO THE JURY TODAY 12 OF TRUMP'S FELLOW NEW YORKERS.
I SAY THAT SOMEWHAT TONGUE IN CHEEK DELIBERATED FOR A TOTAL
ABOUT 4 AND A HALF HOURS TODAY BEFORE BEING DISMISSED FOR THE
DAY SHORTLY AFTER 4 O'CLOCK. NOW THIS AFTERNOON, THE JURY
SENT 2 NOTES TO JUDGE WANGER SEAN REQUESTING TO REHEAR FOR
SECTIONS OF WITNESS TESTIMONY AS WELL AS THE JUDGE'S
INSTRUCTIONS. COURT WILL RECONVENE TOMORROW MORNING AT
9.30. BUT THE COURT REPORTER READING BACK THOSE RELEVANT
PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE THE JURY CONTINUES TO
DELIBERATE. NOW, THE ONE CONSISTENT RULES
ABOUT JURIES IS THAT YOU JUST DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING
TO DO. WHEN YOU PUT 12 RANDOM STRANGERS IN A ROOM, THE
OUTCOME IS NEVER OBVIOUS. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE 3
POSSIBLE BROADLY THE JURY COULD ACQUIT DONALD TRUMP ON ANY OR
ALL THE 34 COUNTS AGAINST HIM. ALL 12 JURORS HAVE TO AGREE ON
THAT UNANIMOUSLY. WE COULD GET A HUNG JURY IF ALL
12 JURORS CANNOT AGREE. EITHER WAY. IT ONLY TAKES ONE HOLD OUT
FOR THAT OUTCOME FOR THE JURY COULD DECIDE TO CONVICT TRUMP
IF THEY UNANIMOUSLY AGREE HE IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT. AGAIN, THERE ARE 34 SEPARATE FELONY COUNTS OF PLAY
HERE. SO THIS COULD BE MIXED AND MATCHED IN A VARIETY OF
WAYS. UNDERSTANDABLY, A LOT OF PEOPLE
ARE VERY INVESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS TRIAL. I DO
THINK IT MATTERS, BUT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, I
REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS HAS ALREADY BEEN A
VICTORY FOR THE RULE OF LAW AND A REBUTTAL TO THE WORST
MOST DANGEROUS ASPECTS OF TRUMPISM. THE FACT THE FORMER PRESIDENT
WAS INVESTIGATED CHARGED AND TRIED BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS
SHOWS THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THERE, OF COURSE THAT'S
NOT DONALD TRUMP'S VISION OF LAW AND HIS YOU. THERE IS NO
SUCH THING CRUCIALLY AS A NEUTRAL FREE AND FAIR PROCESS
LIKE A TRIAL OR AN ELECTION. ALL THAT MATTERS IS OUTCOME. IF HE WINS, IT WAS FAIR.
A FEW LOSES. IT WAS RAPED. HE SAID THIS ABOUT EVERYTHING
FROM HIS LEGAL TRIALS TO MULTIPLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
TO THE EMMY AWARDS. THAT IS DONALD TRUMP'S
AUTHORITARIAN VIEW OF THE WORLD. POWER TRUMPS ALL THE
POWERFUL. GET TO DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS IS THE OPPOSITE OF OUR
COURSE OF THE COMMITMENTS OF EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL PROTECTIONS
AND EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW THAT WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO THE
SAME FARE PROCESSEES AND WE RESPECT THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE
PROCESSES. IT'S THE BASIS OF THE LIBERAL
DEMOCRATIC PROJECT IN A WAY THIS FIRST CRIMINAL
TRIAL. DONALD TRUMP IS GOING BIG TEST FOR AMERICA FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR
HISTORY, A FORMER PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PROSECUTED IN TRIED FOR
COMMITTING A CRIME. WE KNOW THIS PROCESS WORKS IN
SOME OF OUR PEER DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY TAP AND LOTS OF PLACES
IN FRANCE, IN SOUTH KOREA, TAIWAN, WHERE FORMER PRESIDENTS
HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY TRIED AND CONVICTED. WE'VE SEEN THE PROCESS PLAY OUT
HERE ON THE STATE LEVEL. MAY 4 GOVERNORS OF ILLINOIS HAS
BEEN SENTENCED TO TIME IN PRISON MOST RECENTLY ROD
BLAGOJEVICH WHO HAD, BY THE WAY, HIS SENTENCE COMMUTED BY
NONE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP. CONNECTICUT GOVERNOR JOHN
ROWLAND WAS CONVICTED TWICE FOR CORRUPTION. EXACTLY 10 YEARS
APART. SPENDING 2 STINTS IN PRISON. THE FORMER STATE ATTORNEY OF
BALTIMORE WAS JUST SENTENCED TO A YEAR OF HOME CONFINEMENT
AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF PERJURY AND MORTGAGE FRAUD. NOW, THE FIRST TRIAL DONALD
TRUMP NEARING ITS CONCLUSION. THIS PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL JUSTICE
FOR ALL IN AMERICA. IT IS A PRETTY BEDROCK. JUST TO BE CLEAR, I USED TO BE
I THINK THE CONSENSUS ONE AND IT NO LONGER IS I MEAN, TRUMP
AND HIS REPUBLICAN TONY'S, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING UP TO
NEW YORK DRESSED LIKE DONALD TRUMP TO GO STAND MICROPHONES,
THEY ALL REJECTED. AND YET THIS TRIAL IS A REAL
SUCCESS IN ITS OWN RIGHT. FOR WEEKS, DOCTORS HAD TO SIT
IN A COURTROOM FOR JUSTICE IS DAY IN DAY OUT, DISPENSED TO
REGULAR CITIZENS FACED A JUDGE WAS FAIR AND FROM
WHAT BOTH SIDES PRESENTED THEIR CASES TO A JURY OF HIS PEERS.
ALL THAT HAPPENED WHILE ANOTHER GROUP OF TRUMP LAWYERS ARE
TRYING TO CONVINCE THE SUPREME COURT, BUT HE ACTUALLY HAS A
SPECIAL STATUS AS A FORMER PRESIDENT. HE'S A SPECIAL KIND
OF CITIZEN AND BOUND BY THE NORMAL PROCESS EASE OF MERE
MORTALS THAT DONALD TRUMP DOES HAVE
MORE ACCESS TO WEALTH AND POWER, FANCY LAWYERS THAN 99.9%
OF ALL CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WHO STEPPED IN TO OCCUR IN AMERICA AND IN THE PROCESS PLAYED OUT
EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD FOR ANY AMERICAN. HE WENT THROUGH THE FORMAL
PROCESS OF THE TRIALS. ANY PERSON ACCUSED OF A CRIME
WOULD. THAT'S WHAT'S AT STAKE IN THIS
NEW YORK COURTROOM. IT IS WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THE SUPREME
COURT IMPENDING DECISION ABOUT TRUMP'S SO-CALLED PRESIDENTIAL
IMMUNITY. ULTIMATELY OUR ENTIRE LIBERAL
DEMOCRATIC WERE RISES AND FALLS ON OUR ABILITY TO PRODUCE FAIR
AND NEUTRAL PROCESSEES THAT APPLY EQUALLY EVERYONE AND LEAD
TO OUTCOMES WE CAN ALL TRUST IF IT FAILS. WE HAVE TRUMPISM AUTHORITARIANISM. SO WHATEVER THE JURY DECIDES IN
TRUMP'S CASE IS NOT ACTUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS THAT PROCESS. THE TRIAL OF DONALD TRUMP, I
BELIEVE, HAS PROVEN THAT THAT PROCESS WORKS INDEPENDENT OF
THE OUTCOME. AND THAT ALONE IS A REBUKE OF
EVERYTHING THAT TRUMP IS MOVING. ITS STAFF AND WOMEN SERVED AS DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FRONT OF JUSTICE. KATHRYN
CHRISTIAN SPENT OVER 30 YEARS OF PROSECUTING THAT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEY BOTH JOIN ME NOW AS PEOPLE THAT AS
SOME OF THAT WORKED IN THAT OFFICE AND HAS BEEN IN THE
TRIAL EVERY DAY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT
ASSESSMENT THAT THAT HAS A PROCESS AS A SORT OF TESTS OF THE AMERICAN EQUAL
JUSTICE UNDER LAW, THE THE INDEPENDENT OF THE OUTCOME
SINCE THE JURY HAS NOW DISMISSED SUCCESS? I AGREE.
IT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, FORGETTING THAT IS DONALD TRUMP
AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE STATE'S THIS TRIAL WAS ORDERLY.
HE DOUBLED TRUMP INSIDE THE COURTROOM, BEHAVES HIMSELF
RELATIVELY. YOU KNOW, THE TEACHER IS CAME ON TIME. >> YOU KNOW, THERE WERE NO
HICCUPS THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. AND MOST TRIALS ARE LIKE THAT.
SOME THEIR HICCUPS. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. HE'S NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. AND MOST DEFENDANTS IN MANY
WAYS HE HAS RECEIVED SPECIAL TREATMENT IN SOME OF HIS CASE,
ISN'T JUST THAT HE HAS 4 INDICTMENTS PENNIES FOR.
SO THAT'S ONE THING. BUT IT IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO SAY WHATEVER
THE VERDICT IS, WHETHER IT'S A CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL OR IF
THERE'S NO VERDICT, A HUNG JURY. THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM
WORKS. AND YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THAT. IT'S IMPORTANT. >> I'D SAY BEAUTIFUL POINT.
REALLY. THE HE WAS BROUGHT TO HEEL ALL DURING THIS TRIAL.
HE HAD TO DO AS OTHERS DO AND WHAT IT WAS A FULL AND FAIR
SORT OF OVERSIGHT BY JUDGE MATSCH. I'M BUT MENTION IT
ISRAELI CHANNEL AND A LOT HERE. IT WAS THE LAW THAT MADE HIM
SIT THE LAW THAT MADE HIM SHOW UP THE LAW THAT SUBJECTED HIM
TO THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENS TO EVERYONE ELSE. PEOPLE ARE
UNDERSTANDABLY I GENERALLY NOW COULD THERE BE SAY A HUNG JURY?
BUT UNANIMITY IS ONE OF THE FEATURES OF DUE PROCESS THAT HE
RECEIVED IN A WAY THAT SECOND AREA TO POSSIBLE POLITICAL
RESPONSE. HE COULD BE CONVICTED AND SAIL THROUGH. BUT THE FACT
THAT THE PROCESSES HAPPEN IF ITS MAJESTIC. >> YEAH, THIS IS MY POINT.
I GET IT BECAUSE I I JUST WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JURY
IS GOING TO DO. AND I I ALMOST FEEL I MEAN, IF THIS WERE THE
JAN 6 TRIAL WHERE I FEEL LIKE I KNOW HE'S GOING TO I SAW IT.
I READ THE REPORT IN THIS CASE. I THINK IT WAS A COMPELLING
CASE. AND IF I YOU KNOW, AS A WATCHER, I THINK I
PROBABLY THINK HE'S GUILTY. BUT AGAIN, LIKE INDEPENDENCE, A PROCESS.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE BEEN TRYING TO BALANCE HERE AND I
LOVE TO HEAR YOU BOTH ON THIS IS AS WE SORT OF A WAIT THAT
SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, AT ONE LEVEL TO KEEP
WANT TO BE LIKE, WELL, EVERYTHING THAT RUNS THE
AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IS GREAT BECAUSE IT CLEARLY IS
NOT. AND WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING BEEN IN THAT
BUILDING FOR 30 YEARS. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY, WELL,
IF HE'S IF HE'S CONVICTED, IT'S FINE THAT PEOPLE GET
WRONGLY PROMPTLY, CUT IT ALL THE TIME. AT THE SAME TIME,
THERE'S SOMETHING SO INSIDIOUS TO ME ABOUT THE ENTIRE THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY MARSHALING BEHIND AS A KIND OF
PARTY LINE THAT THIS IS THE CORRUPT ENTERPRISE TO ITS CORE.
AND THAT WAS TO ME THE MOST OFFENSIVE PART OF THE TRIAL,
WHICH WASN'T ABOUT THE TRIAL. BUT THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, SENATORS CONGRESS, PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF A
COURTHOUSE WHILE A TRIAL IS ONGOING, BASICALLY TRASHING THE
PROCESS, CRITICIZING THE JUDGE, TALKED ABOUT ATTACKING THE
INDEPENCE OF JUST RE CRITICIZING THE JUDGE'S
DAUGHTER. THAT WAS A STATEMENT AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW.
I MEAN, THE TRIAL WAS ONGOING AND THEY WERE DOING THAT.
AND YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS SHAMEFUL TO MAKE. AND THAT'S
EVEN KICKED UP A NOTCH IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. WE HAVE
REPUBLICANS LIKE I MEAN, EITHER THEY'RE THEY'RE STUPID
OR PRETENDING TO BE TRUE. BUT I NEVER KNOW. BUT BUT ABOUT
WHAT EXACTLY THE JURORS INSTRUCTIONS ARE SAYING, LITTLE
BW, NOT THE SAME CRIME LIKE THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS SORT
OF STEP UP THING. BUT YOU HAVE MARCO RUBIO AND OTHERS. I MEAN,
JUST FOR PROBLEM GATING THIS DO SORT OF LIES AND AND AND COUNTY
AGAINST MORE SHOT IN THE WHOLE PROCESS HAPPENING NOW. THAT'S
EXACTLY RIGHT. BUT THAT'S THE POLITICAL SPHERE SOMEWHERE IN A
THE COURT ROOM, A KIND OF HOLY COURTROOM IN MANHATTAN,
EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO AIR HAPPENED AND IT AND IT
REALLY DEMONSTRATED HE'S BEING SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROCESS IS
NUMBER. I THINK JUST THAT PART ITSELF, IN FACT, KIND OF
BROUGHT HIM DOWN. HE'S SOMEONE WHO EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLE THAT
NOBODY CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO. AND HERE THE LOCK TOLD HIM WHAT
TO DO AND FORCEFULLY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS. SO TODAY WE FINALLY HEARD FROM
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO IN THE FORM OF 2 LETTERS
HE SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. HE EXPLAINED WHY 2 FLAGS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSURRECTION FLUID. HIS 2 HOMES
REFUSED THEIR REQUEST TO RECUSE FROM CURRENT CASES RELATED TO
DONALD TRUMP AND JANUARY 6 BEFORE THE COURT. THERE IS ONE KEY FIGURE WE HAVE
NOT HEARD FROM. YEAH, THAT'S THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT HAS SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE NEAREST SCANDALS AND
UNDERMINING AMERICANS CONFIDENCE IN HIS COURT. ROBERTS HAS NOT RESPONDED TO 2
TOP DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WROTE HIM
LAST WEEK ASKING ENSURE LEAD TO RECUSE HIMSELF AND REQUESTING
MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. DISCUSS OTHER STEPS TO, QUOTE,
ADDRESSED THE SUPREME COURT'S ETHICS CRISIS. A MICHIGAN
GOLDMANS AND DEMOCRAT NEW YORK ALONG WITH CONGRESSMAN HANK
JOHNSON OFFERED A LETTER TO JUSTICE ALITO CALLING ON HIM TO
RECUSE. THE LETTER WAS SIGNED BY 43 OF HIS COLLEAGUES AND HE
JOINS ME NOW. WELL, YOU GOT A RESPONSE. YES. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE
RESPONSE? >> IT'S PRETTY SHOCKING.
THE THE FACT THAT JUSTICE ALITO THINKS THAT HE CAN BE THE JUDGE
AND JURY OF HIS OWN IMPARTIALITY FLIES IN THE FACE OF SUPREME
COURT. PRECEDENT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE CONSTITUTION, FLIES
IN THE FACE OF FEDERAL LAW AND COMPLETELY MISS APPLIES.
THE STANDARD THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE APPLYING, EVEN GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO
BINDING CODE OF ETHICS ON HIM AND HE ESSENTIALLY GETS TO
DECIDE THIS IN ITSELF. BUT THE STANDARD IS WHETHER A
REASONABLE PERSON OR WHETHER UP A PERSON COULD REASONABLY THINK
THAT HE HAS SOME DEGREE OF A BIAS OR PARTIALITY. IT IS NOT WHETHER HE DOES OR
DOESN'T WRITE. IT IS WEATHER. IT IS REASONABLE FOR SOMEONE TO
CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST. AND FOR HIM TO ACTUALLY SAY IN THIS LETTER
THAT IT IS COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE FOR ANYONE TO
THINK THAT WHEN HE FLIES A STOP, THE STEAL FLAG OR A STOP,
THE STEAL FLAG IS FLYING FROM HIS HOME THAT THAT SOMEHOW IS NOT
REASONABLE. 11 DAYS AFTER THE JANUARY 6 TO THINK THAT HE HAS
SOME POLITICAL BIAS ABOUT A CASE RELATED TO STOP THE STEAL
THAT FLAG IN JANUARY 6. HE'S JUST BEWILDERED. >> YEAH, I MEAN, HIS ARGUMENT
IS MY WIFE DID ALL THIS AND SHE'S AN INDEPENDENT WOMAN WHO
HAS SHE CO-OWNS OUR HOUSE? HE SAYS AT ONE POINT THE LETTER
I CAN YOU KNOW, SHE SAYS SHE HAS A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER SHE
WANTS THEM, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY. SO I CAN'T CONTROL IT ALL.
AND THEREFORE, NO REASONABLE PERSON UNLESS SOMEONE WITH AN
IDEOLOGICAL BIAS COULD THINK THAT I HAVE TO RECUSE,
THEREFORE, I WON'T. BUT AT A DEEPER CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT AGAIN, ALL THIS STUFF IS POINTING TOWARDS
ISRAEL TRIP CONSTITUTIONAL STANDOFF BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.
I MEAN, THEIR ASSERTION THAT THE COURT'S CURRENT ASSERTION
IS YOU CAN'T MAKE US DO ANYTHING. WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT
BRANCH AND NO ONE CAN MAKE A TRUCK USED ABOUT ANYTHING.
AND LIKE YOU SHOULD GO TAKE A LONG WALK OFF A SHORT PIER
CONGRESSMAN. >> WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY
WHAT THEY THINK OF 100%, WHICH IS BATTLING GIVEN OF THE
JURISDICTION THAT CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED ON THE SUPREME COURT,
THE FUNDING THAT WE GIVE TO THE JUDICIARY AS A COEQUAL BRANCH.
WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE OVERSIGHT AND LEVERAGE OVER THE SUPREME
COURT. OTHERWISE WE DON'T HAVE COEQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
BUT EVEN UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENT ITSELF
RECENTLY, A JUDGE'S SPOUSE IS SUFFICIENT TO IMPLICATE A JUDGE
IN WHATEVER CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE MAY BE. THIS IS
NOT OLD 100 YEAR-OLD. THIS WAS JUST AS KENNEDY AND JAMIE
RASKIN. THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HAS A
TERRIFIC OP-ED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, WHICH REALLY GOES
THROUGH THE ACTUAL CASE LAW AS TO WHY IT IS NOT JUST UP TO
JUSTICE TOLEDO AND THE SUPREME COURT WITH THEIR NONBINDING
ADVISORY CODE OF ETHICS, UNLIKE EVERY OTHER JUDGE IN THE
LAND, BUT THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO RECUSE IF
IN IN A CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THIS, THERE IS AN OBVIOUS
UNREASONABLE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN ACTUAL CONFLICT BUT APPEARANCE IS
ENOUGH AND IT IS ABSURD FOR JUSTICE ALITO AND FRANKLY
JUSTICE THOMAS AS WELL GIVEN THAT HIS WIFE WAS INVOLVED,
GAVE TESTIMONY THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE AND WAS INVOLVED
TEXTING MARK MEADOWS RELATED TO THIS SAME CONDUCT, THE SAME
FACTS THAT ARE BEFORE THIS COURT. IN 2 CASES. IT'S NOT
JUST THAT THEY HAVE ADVICE FOR DONALD TRUMP. SO ANY EXECUTIVE
ACTION THE DONALD TRUMP MADE YOU DO IT. IT IS THE SAME
FACTUAL PATTERN THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT THAT IF YOU BELIEVE
JUSTICE ALITO, BOTH OF THEIR SPOUSES MADE POLITICAL
STATEMENTS ABOUT. >> THAT IS OBVIOUS. AND AT A
MINIMUM, IT IS REASONABLE TO THINK THAT THERE IS AN
APPEARANCE. YEAH, THERE'S THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP OR HIS CONDUCT UP TO, YOU
KNOW, IN THE AFTERMATH, THE ELECTION UP TO JANUARY SEX.
THERE'S ALSO THIS FISHER, THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT ABOUT
THE ONE OF THE CHARGES, WHICH IS A CONSPIRACY, OBSTRUCTION OF
STRUCTURE OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, WHICH IS BEFORE THE COURT AS
WELL. I GUESS THE NEXT QUESTION IS IT IS NOTABLE TO ME. YOU GUYS
WROTE TO ALEDO RIGHT ON THE HOUSE SIDE. THE SENATE
JUDICIARY WROTE TO ROBERTS AND AND THEY GOT A LETTER BACK.
SHOULD THE PUBLIC KNOW PITCH ITSELF IS KIND OF WILD? LOOK, I MEAN, THEY DIDN'T WRITE
A LEAD. THEY WROTE TO ROBERTS, THEY GOT A LETTER BACK FROM
ALEDO. IT'S LIKE, OK, JUSTICE ROBERTS, YOU'RE THE PERSON WHO
COMES BEFORE THE COURT ANNUALLY WHEN HE DOES, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT
COMES BEFORE CONGRESS ASKED FOR FUNDING, WHATEVER LIKE WE WANT
TO TALK TO YOU AND SO FAR NOTHING. IT UNDERSCORES THE PROBLEM THAT
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THAT? >> TECHNICALLY, CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER JUSTICE
ALITO TO REQUIRE HIM TO RECUSE OTHER THAN AS PART OF A LARGER
COURT DECISION IF THERE WERE TO BE A REQUEST. BUT WHAT IS STILL
SHOCKING ABOUT THIS IS THAT WE ARE NOW ABOUT ON THE PRECIPICE
OF AN IRREPARABLE HARM FULL. THE DECISION BY 2 JUSTICES WHO
TO ANY OTHER FEDERAL JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD RECUSE.
AND IT IS UP TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS TO SAVE THE COURT'S
LEGITIMACY RIGHT NOW AND FOR HIM TO NOT RESPOND TO SENATOR
JUROR DURBIN AND SEN WHITE HOUSE AND INSTEAD FOR ALEDO TO
RESPOND TO THEM IS TRULY FLOUTING CONGRESS'S OVERSIGHT
AUTHORITY AND CONGRESS'S ROLE AS A COEQUAL BRANCH. AND IT
DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR WHAT IS TO COME OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS
WHEN I THINK THE BIGGEST TRAVESTY IN SUPREME COURT
HISTORY MAY OCCUR IF THESE 2 JUSTICES RULE ON CASES ABOUT
WHICH THEY ARE CLEARLY CONFLICT. I MEAN, I THINK
PLASTIC OR HAMAS IS STILL FAIR ENOUGH. HOLD ARE TRAGIC. AND DAN
GOLDMAN IS GREAT TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
