>> CUT SALES. THE FORMER ACTING
U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL ANDREW WEISSMAN IS THE FORMER GENERAL
COUNSEL AT THE FBI AND A SENIOR MEMBER OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
ROBERT MUELLER'S TEAM. AT LEAST RIBBON IS AN MSNBC LEGAL
CORRESPONDENT. THIS IS LIKE A TROVE OF LEGAL BRAINS HERE.
SO YOU WANT TO START WITH YOU. I MEAN, YOU'VE ARGUED MORE
CASES. I'VE ALMOST LOST TRACK THE SIDE OF THE FRONT OF THE
SUPREME COURT. YOU ARE IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY. WHAT WAS
YOUR BIGGEST TAKEAWAY FROM LISTENING TO THE QUESTIONING IN
THE BACK AND FORTH THAT? >> YEAH, YOU KNOW, JOHN, I'VE
SEEN OVER 400 ARGUMENTS THERE. AND MOST OF THE TIMES WHEN YOU
WALK OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
AND THAT WAS NOT TRUE HERE. IT WAS VERY HARD TO PREDICT
WHERE THE JUSTICES WILL WIND UP. AND THAT ITSELF IS MY
BIGGEST TAKEAWAY. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN EASY CASE. AS YOU
SAID, JEN, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOW, TRUMP'S LAWYERS
MAKING BONKERS ARGUMENTS. AND BY CONTRAST, THE LAWYER FOR
JACKSON, IF MICHAEL DREEBEN WAS VERY AREA DIED IN SCOTLAND,
KELLIE JO AND I THINK IF YOU WEREN'T IN THE COURTROOM, IT
SOUNDED VERY MUCH LIKE JUSTICE SCALIA DISCLOSE ISHAN AND IT
WASN'T PERSUADE WAS REALLY PERSUASION IN THE COURTROOM.
I THINK THEY MICHAEL DREEBEN MADE A LOT OF POINTS. IT DID
LAND WITH THE JUSTICE AS I THINK THE MOST CHILLING POINT
CAME WITH ALMOST WHO WAS AT 11:55AM. ALMOST 2 HOURS AFTER
THE ARGUMENT BEGAN. TREATMENT HAVE BEEN TALKING FOR MORE THAN
AN HOUR AND SHE DESCRIBED TO THE JUSTICES SOMETHING THAT YOU
ARE PAY SAYING. THIS IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL. HERE'S WHAT THIS
INDICTMENT SAYS. DONALD TRUMP DID TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
PRESSURING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO TRY AND SEND
LETTERS TO STATE LEGISLATURES SAYING THOSE ELECTION FRAUD AND
THE LIKE AND THEN THREATENING TO FIRE THOSE DOJ STAFFERS WHEN
THEY REFUSED TO DO THAT. AND THE JUSTICES DID REALLY
PERKED UP THERE. SO I SAW 4 JUSTICES, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR
KAGAN, WHICH KEPT JACKSON AND ALSO JUSTICE BARRETT, I THINK,
REALLY REJECTING THIS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CLAIM. AND THE
QUESTION IS, WHERE IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE US? HE WAS PLAYING HIS
CARDS CLOSE TO THE VEST. >> JUST SUCH AN INTERESTING
PIECE AND A LIGHT ON THIS QUESTION TO YOU. I MEAN, DID
ANYTHING SURPRISE YOU AND WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF ANY TEA LEAVES
ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE? >> WELL, I THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT AT THE OUTSET THE COURT HAD
ALREADY GIVEN DONALD TRUMP THE WIN THAT HE WAS SEEKING, WHICH
IS THE DELAY OF THE DC TRIAL. SO GOING INTO THIS, THIS WAS
ALL UPSIDE FOR HIM. I MEAN, I THINK HE HAD TO BE THINKING
I'M MAKING THIS REALLY OUTLANDISH ARGUMENT, WINDS
RAMIFICATIONS THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE SQUARED WITH THE
TEXT AND HISTORY, THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE HISTORY OF THE PRESIDENCY. SO IT'S ALL UPSIDE IF THE COURT
WOULD ACTUALLY BUY ON THIS. AND SO WHAT WAS SURPRISING IS
THAT THEIR WORD JUSTICES WHO ACTUALLY WE'RE TAKING THIS
SERIOUSLY, AND I JUST IT'S FRANKLY, SHOCKING. REMEMBER,
GOING INTO THIS BIG EVENT WAS THAT PRIVATE CONDUCT WAS
CERTAINLY NOT IMMUNIZED FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY. AND WHAT EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT NOW IS, HEY,
MAYBE THEY'LL THINK THAT SOME OF THIS IS PRIVATE AND THEY CAN
GO FORWARD. BUT THAT WAS WHAT, WHAT WHAT WAS A GIVEN GOING
INTO THIS? AND THE REASON PEOPLE ARE THINKING THAT IS
BECAUSE THERE SEEM TO BE 4 JUSTICES WHO ARE REALLY TAKING
DONALD TRUMP'S CLAIM OF CRIMINAL IMMUNITY SERIOUSLY.
AND WE ARE I MEAN, I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE HYPERBOLE, BUT I
THINK YOU'RE OPENING IS SO CORRECT THAT WE ARE SO
ESSENTIALLY HAS NOW PUT IT ONE VOTE AWAY FROM THAT SIDE OF THE
END OF DEMOCRACY. AS WE KNOW WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES AND
JUST SAY IT'S AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY THAT WOULD BE
CREATED IS IS IS FRANKLY SAYING IT WOULD BE OKAY. HE WOULD BE
CRIMINALLY IMMUNE AND THAT THAT IS WHAT IS SO SHOCKING IS HOW
CLOSE WE ARE. AND WE'RE REALLY ON THE RAZOR'S EDGE OF THAT
KIND OF RESULT. BUT FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE, YEAH, ONE VOTE
AWAY. >> WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THOSE
TERMS AND ARE IT IS IT IS VERY, VERY START. I WANT AS YOUR
DINNER SORT OF REFERENCE THIS. I THINK IF I WAS HEARING HIM
CORRECTLY MEAN AMY CONEY BARRETT, IT HAD A KIND OF LINE
OF QUESTIONING THAT JUMPED OUT TO ME. I'M NOT A LAWYER,
THOUGH, WHERE SHE WAS BASICALLY PENDING TRUMP'S LAWYER DOWN ON
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE ASKED ME
THAT THAT STICK OUT TO YOU AND AND WHAT WHAT ARE THEY TRYING
TO GET AT? WAS SHE TRYING TO GET OUT THERE YOUR ASSESSMENT? >> I THINK SHE'S TRYING TO GET
UP THE FACT THAT THE INDICTMENT MOSTLY ALLEGES A NUMBER OF
THINGS THAT ARE PRIVATE ACTS THAT DESPITE THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF JOHN SAUER, HAS MANY OF THE ACTS ALLEGED IN
THE INDICTMENT AS OFFICIAL THAT ACTUALLY THERE ANYTHING.
BUT IN FACT, AT ONE POINT, THE PRESIDENT ADVANCED A
DEFENSE ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THOSE 2
THINGS CAN COEXIST. YOU CAN'T SAY ON ONE HAND THAT HE'S BEEN
CHARGED WITH WHAT ARE PRIMARILY OFFICIAL ACTS ON THE OTHER HAND
CLAIM FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION BECAUSE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE PRESIDENT, BUT FOR THE FACT
THAT HE'S ACTING IN A PERSONAL OR CAMPAIGN CAPACITY. SO I
THINK AMY CONEY BARRETT TRYING TO SUSS OUT AND PIN DOWN JOHN
SAUER WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THIS
INDICTMENT WERE BOTH HELPFUL AND SURPRISING BECAUSE NO ONE
HAD ANY CONEY BARRETT NECESSARILY ON THEIR BINGO
CARD. THE SWING VOTE HERE. >> YEAH, AND I CERTAINLY DID
NOT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MOST OF YOU DID NEITHER.
NOW I WANT TO PLAY A MOMENT FROM JUSTICE ALITO DURING THESE
ARGUMENTS. LET'S SAY THAT I TALKED ABOUT ON THEIR SIDE. >> AN INCUMBENT WHO WE LOSE IS A VERY CLOSE HOTLY
CONTESTED ELECTION, KNOWS THAT A REAL POSSIBILITY AFTER LEAVING OFFICE IS NOT
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO OFF INTO A
PEACEFUL RETIREMENT, BUT THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY BE CRIMINALLY
PROSECUTED BY A BITTER POLITICAL OPPONENT. WE'LL LET NOT LEAD US INTO A
CYCLE THAT DESTABILIZES THE FUNCTIONING OF
OUR COUNTRY IS A DEMOCRACY. >> I MEAN, IT HE SEEMS TO BE
ARGUING IN PLAIN ENGLISH, THAT IMMUNITY IS NECESSARY
BECAUSE OTHERWISE PRESIDENTS WELL, FEAR PROSECUTION AND BE
THERE FOR INCENTIVIZED TO ATTEMPT TO HOLD ON TO POWER
UNLAWFULLY IF I HEARD THAT ALL CORRECTLY. BUT NEAL, WHAT DID
YOU MAKE OF THAT STATEMENT BY ALITO? >> YEAH, I THOUGHT IT HAD
MISSED 2 REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS. ONE, THE OVER 200 YEAR
HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY AND WAS THAT A LITERALLY NEVER
HAPPENED, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT PRESIDENTS
WERE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY. AND SECOND, IT LORD,
THE REMARKS MADE A VERY POWERFULLY IN JANUARY 2021.
WHEN A LAWYER WENT TO THE CONGRESS AND SAID DO NOT
IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP, INSTEAD YOU CAN INDICT HIM
AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE ON JANUARY 20TH. THAT PERSON WAS
DONALD TRUMP'S OWN LAWYER. SO TRUMP IN THE IMPEACHMENT WAS
SAYING I CAN'T BE IMPEACHED. I CAN ONLY BE INDICTED. NOW
THAT HE'S LEFT OFFICE IS SAYING I CAN'T BE INDICTED EITHER IN,
OF COURSE, THAT CAN'T BE IMPEACHED. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS
IS ALL JUST A RECIPE TO PUT THEM ABOVE THE LAW. >> HE SAID A LOT OF THINGS THAT
THAT COME BACK SOMETIMES TO BITE. ANDREW WEISSMANN IN THIS RIBBON
ARE BACK WITH ME. LISA, SO MUCH LEGAL NEWS FOR BOTH OF YOU.
THANK YOU FOR AGAIN FOR BEING HERE. YOU KNOW, THERE CLEARLY
WAS FIRST FOR A REASON. AND YOU BOTH HAVE BEEN PART OF THE
STRATEGY OF THIS NOW HAVING HEARD IT, HOW DID HE LAY THE
GROUNDWORK FOR THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE AS WE LOOK TO THE NEXT
STAGE? >> BRILLIANTLY ALL SAY AND THAT
HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE HOMEWORK THAT THE MANHATTAN
DA'S OFFICE TO IT. REMEMBER, JOHN, THIS CASE IS
NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE HUSH MONEY SCHEME AS IT IS ABOUT
FALSE VACATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS. 34 COUNTS OF IT.
BUT WHAT MAKES IT A FELONY IS THAT IT WAS DONE TO EITHER WITH
THE INTENT OF CONCEALING OR COMMITTING ANOTHER CRIME.
WHAT PACKER DID WAS ESTABLISH THAT OTHER CRIME, MAINLY A
CONSPIRACY UNDER NEW YORK ELECTION LAW TO PROMOTE TO
PREVENT THE ELECTION OF A PARTICULAR PERSON THROUGH
UNLAWFUL MEANS WHERE ONE OR MORE ACT WERE TAKEN IN THAT
DIRECTION THAT ARE LAID ALL OF THAT
GROUND WORK, THE FORMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY, THE UNLAWFUL
MEANS, MEANING THE KAREN MCDOUGAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT AND
THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS ORCHESTRATED. AND THEN THIRDLY, THE FACT THAT THE U.S. THE A
LAWFUL MEANS HERE WAS NOT ONLY THE AGREEMENT, BUT THE FACT
THAT THEY HAD SORT OF LARDED UP WITH SERVICES. >> AND THEN TIME TO START
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW ANOTHER, WHAT HE KNEW THAT PAYING HER
OFF TO SUPPRESS YOUR STORY WITH THE GOAL OF PROMOTING TRUMP'S
ELECTION WAS A LAWFUL. AND SO WHAT HE DID WAS IN THAT
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE UP HER STORY ALSO PROVIDED THAT SHE
WOULD DO COLUMNS FOR THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER OR SERVE AS
RED CARPET INTERVIEWER FOR RADAR ONLINE, ONE OF THEIR
PROPERTIES AND THE LIKE THAT WAS ALL A RUSE, ALTHOUGH A RUSE
THAT KAREN MCDOUGAL HERSELF TOO VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. AND
THAT'S WHAT POSED PROBLEMS FOR THEM EVENTUALLY, BECAUSE SHE
WANTED THEM TO MAKE GOOD ON THAT PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT.
AND REALLY, THEY HAVE DONE IT ALL ALONG THE SILENCER. >> I MEAN, THE PACKER TESTIMONY
WAS SO INTERESTING. A LOT OF IT WASN'T A KILLER'S ALL HAPPENED
THIS WEEK. I WANT TO JUST GO IN REVERSE BEFORE. PACKER ANDREW,
ASK YOU ABOUT TODD BLANCHE IS OPENING STATEMENT. THIS ALL
HAPPENED THIS WEEK AS HE MADE SOME PRETTY BOLD STATEMENT AND
THEY'RE HEARING JUST EVEN AS AN MORE AND HE BASICALLY DENIED
TRUMP'S ALLEGED AFFAIR WITH DANIELS. THAT'S NOT A PART OF
THE LEGAL ARGUMENT NECESSARY IN THE LEGAL SENSE, BUT DOES THAT
MATTER AND HOW COULD THAT COME BACK TO BITE HIM OR IF IT
COULD? >> SO ONE OF THINGS WHEN YOU
ARE ON TRIALS, WHEN YOU ARE EITHER THE PROSECUTION OR THE
DEFENSE, YOU NEED TO BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT
YOU PROMISE A CHURCH AND WHAT HAPPENS IS BOTH SIDES LISTEN
VERY CAREFULLY TO THAT. AND IT WILL COME BACK. IF YOU YOU HAVE
PROMISED SOMETHING THAT DID NOT COME TO PLAY AND THEN YOU'RE
GOING TO HEAR THAT. SO THE STATEMENTS THAT DENYING THE
TRYST WITH STORMY DANIELS, I MEAN, I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW
THAT IS GOING TO COME INTO EVIDENCE BECAUSE STORMY
DANIELS, IF SHE TESTIFIES IS CLEARLY GOING TO SAY IT
HAPPENED. DONALD TRUMP, I THINK EVERYONE THINKS IS NOT GOING TO
TESTIFY AND I'M SURE THE PROSECUTION BUT THE LOVE IT IF
HE DID. BUT FOR THE SAME REASON HE NEVER MET WITH US IN THE
MUELLER INVESTIGATION. I THINK THERE'S NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN
EARTH SAID HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT IS GOING TO COME IN TO PLAY. AS LAWRENCE O'DONNELL HAS
SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WHERE IT MAY BE THAT
TODD BLANCHE FELT HE HAD TO SAY THAT FOR HIS WYANT. BUT IT'S
LIKE GOING WEST OR EXACTLY THAT. HE NEEDED TO SAY IT
PERCENT OF THAT THAT SORT OF PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. BUT AT
TRIAL IT IS GOING TO HURT HIM IF HE DOESN'T PROVE IT UP
BECAUSE IN SUMMATION YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THE STATE SAYING
THIS IS WHAT HE TOLD YOU. THAT IS NOT TRUE. WOMEN AT THE
MESSAGE BEING THAT DON'T TRUST HIM. SO IT'S VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT WHAT PEOPLE SAY AND OPENINGS OBVIOUSLY BUT SEE WHAT
THE JURY MAKES OF ALL OF THAT. >> YEAH, ALL OF OF ALL,
EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING. SO IT'S ONE OF THINGS WE
LEARNED IS THAT THERE'S THAT THERE'S TAX AN E-MAIL EXCHANGES
FOR OF ALL OF THIS, SOME OF WHICH WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS
WEEK. I MEAN, WE LEARN ABOUT A TEXT MESSAGE THAT DYLAN HOWARD,
THE TOP EDITOR OF ENQUIRE CENTER RELATIVE ON ELECTION
NIGHT SAYING, QUOTE, AT LEAST IF HE WINS ALL BE PARDONED FOR
ELECTORAL FRAUD. I MEAN, JUDGE MIKE MARSH ON IF I'M
CORRECT OR WON'T ALLOW IN EVIDENCE, BUT DOESN'T DOES MAKE
IT REALLY CLEAR THAT THEY KNEW THIS WAS ILLEGAL. >> I THINK IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES
IT CLEAR THAT NOT ONLY DID DAVID PACKER KNOW THAT IT WAS
ILLEGAL, BUT THAT DYLAN HOWARD HAD FIGURE THAT OUT AS WELL.
AND JEN, I SHOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SORT OF A CLOSE
CALL FROM AN EVIDENTIARY PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE MOST TIMES
STATEMENTS OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR CAN BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.
ON THE OTHER HAND HAS MASHAWN REASON. THIS WAS A STATEMENT
THAT HE DIDN'T MAKE IT TO ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE
CONSPIRACY, BUT RATHER WAS MAKING TO A FIRST-DEGREE
RELATIVE. AND MOREOVER, DYLAN, HOWARD IS NOT COMING TO THIS
TRIAL TO TESTIFY. HE LIVES IN AUSTRALIA. NOW, DAVID PACKER
REVEALED IN HIS OWN TESTIMONY THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THAT DYLAN
HOWARD HAS SOME SORT OF HEALTH PROBLEM THAT MAKES THAT
UNTENABLE FOR HIM TO TRAVEL. AND SO ON BALANCE, JUDGE
MASHAWN DECIDED THAT THIS WOULD BE 2 EXPLOSIVE TO EXPOSE THE
JURY TO. BUT IF YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE SIDEBAR
BETWEEN THE LAWYERS WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TEXT
MESSAGES FROM HOWARD TO THAT FIRST DEGREE RELATIVE, THERE IS
MORE OF WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM. A LOT OF OTHER STATEMENTS
THAT INDICATE THAT, HOWARD, IT'S FULLY BELIEVED THAT KAREN
MCDOUGAL WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ON ELECTION NIGHT WAS HORRIFIED
TO SEE WHAT HAD GONE DOWN. IF THOSE STATEMENTS HAVE COME
INTO EVIDENCE, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ONE MORE NOTCH
AND THE DA'S BELT WITH RESPECT TO PROVING UP THE EXISTENCE OF
THE CONSPIRACY AND THE UNDERSTANDING ON THE NATIONAL
ENQUIRER'S PART THAT THIS WAS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT A LAWFUL. >> OKAY. IT'S SAFE TO SAY AND
I'M SURE YOU'RE TRACKING THAT, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF LEGAL
NEWS THIS WEEK IN A COURTROOM IN DOWNTOWN MANHATTAN. THERE
WERE HOURS OF TESTIMONY ABOUT DONALD TRUMP AND THE NATIONAL
ENQUIRER, HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER TO KILL STORIES THAT
MIGHT HURT HIS CHANCES IN 2016 LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THAT HERE
IN WASHINGTON. INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT TRUMPS LAWYERS
ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT SURE KILLING YOUR POLITICAL
RIVAL WILL BE COMPLETELY FINE FOR PRESIDENT. THAT WAS
ARGUMENT. IT'S BEEN A LOT TO TAKE IN WHAT HAPPENED THIS WEEK.
BATTERS. IT SHOULD MATTER TO YOU ALL OF US. IT'S IMPORTANT
TO TALK ABOUT WHY, ESPECIALLY DURING THESE MOMENTS WHEN IT
FEELS LIKE WE'RE ALL DRINKING FROM A NEWS FIRE HOSE. SO WE'RE GOING TO START ON
THURSDAY AT THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE WHEN YOU LISTEN TO
THESE ARGUMENTS AND IT'S COOL THAT WE COULD, YOU MAY HAVE
THOUGHT TO YOURSELF, I MEAN, THIS CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS. >> IF THE PRESIDENT DECIDES HIS RIVAL IS A CORRUPT PERSON AND HE ORDERS THE MILITARY OR
ORDER SOMEONE TO ASSASSINATE HIM, IS THAT WITHIN HIS OFFICIAL
ACTS THAT FOR WHICH HE SAYS CAN GET THEM UNITY. >> IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT WE
CAN SEE. THAT COULD WELL BE UNOFFICIALLY. >> YOU HEARD THAT CORRECTLY.
HE SAID IT COULD BE AN OFFICIAL ACT. SO BASICALLY PAUSE HERE.
THE LAWYERS FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND LIKELY REPUBLICAN NOMINEE ARE ARGUING THAT SURE IF YOU OR
ANY OTHER PRESIDENT FOR THAT MATTER JUST HAS A FEELING, BUT
THEIR OPPONENT IS CORRUPT. THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT BY
KILLING THEM. AT ONE POINT, JUSTICE KAGAN
ASKED IF THE PRESIDENT CAN SELL NUCLEAR SECRETS TO A FOREIGN
ADVERSARY. BUT TRUMP'S LAWYERS SAY BASICALLY, YEAH. AND WHAT ABOUT ORDERING THE
MILITARY TO CARRY OUT A COUP? CAN HE GET AWAY WITH THAT? ACCORDING TO TRUMP'S LAWYER
BABY, BASICALLY IF A PRESIDENT DOES
IT, IF HE KILLS IT BECAUSE IF HE SELLS NATIONAL SECURITY
SECRETS, IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL AND LOOK AT MAY HAVE SOUNDED
LIKE THE JUSTICES. WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THIS, WE'RE PREPARING
THIS FOR THIS HEARING BY COMING UP WITH THE ABSOLUTE CRAZIEST
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS. THINGS SO FAR OUTSIDE THE REALM OF
POSSIBILITY THAT WHATEVER SHOCKING THING TRUMP'S LAWYER
SAID, THE RESPONSE DIDN'T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S ON
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED HERE. BUT THE THING IS NONE OF THIS
IS THAT MUCH OF A HYPOTHETICAL WHEN IT COMES TO DONALD TRUMP IN 2020, HE WAS REPORTEDLY
INVOLVED IN EFFORTS TO DIRECT THE DEFENSE SECRETARY TO SEIZE
VOTING MACHINES. THAT SURE SOUNDS LIKE TRYING TO
USE THE MILITARY TO CARRY OUT A COUP. AND JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO HE
MUSED ABOUT EXECUTING FORMER JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN MARK
MILLEY. TEMPERATURE PRETTY UGLY.
SAID A STAFFER LEAK STORY ABOUT SHOULD BE EXECUTED 2 AND THEN INTERVIEW ON FRIDAY
NIGHT. JUST 2 DAYS AGO, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR SAID
HE USED TO SAY THE KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME. SO WHEN IT COMES TO DONALD
TRUMP, KNOW THOSE THOSE HYPOTHETICALS BUT GOT TOSSED
AROUND SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK, REALLY HYPOTHETICALS, ARE THEY?
THIS IS STUFF YOU TALKED ABOUT. SOME THOUGHT WAS CLEARLY
RATTLING AROUND THIS HEAD. STILL IS. AND THIS IS STUFF HIS
LAWYERS ARE NOW SAYING SHOULD BE A-OK FOR PRESIDENT TO DO. HERE'S THE OTHER REALLY
IMPORTANT THING TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT ALL OF THIS WITH THE VIEW
OF THE PRESIDENCY THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS VERY CLEARLY THIS
ABSOLUTE POWER ABOVE THE LAW MINDSET IS LITERALLY HIS PLAN FOR A
SECOND TERM. I MEAN THAT THE PLAN THERE'S A
PLAN RIGHT NOW. THE FAR-RIGHT THINK TANK. THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION IS HARD WORK DRAFTING PLANS TO CONVERT
TRUMP'S CALLS FOR REVENGE AND LAWLESSNESS INTO ACTION.
IT'S CALLED PROJECT 2025. IT'S A NEARLY 1000 PAGES LONG.
IT'S ONLINE. YOU CAN READ IF YOU WANT PROBABLY NOT TO BE
TREATED BUT YOU CAN. YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK. IN THE MEANTIME, WE GET KIND OF
LIKE A CLIFF NOTES VERSION OF ALL THIS. THEIR GOAL IN THIS PLAN IS TO,
QUOTE, ASSEMBLE AN ARMY OF ALIGNED, VETTED, TRAINED AND
PREPARED CONSERVATIVES TO GO TO WORK ON DAY ONE TO DECONSTRUCT
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE. ONE BIG AREA UNDER ATTACK THIS
PRICE. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHICH PROJECT 2025 SAYS HAS
LOST ITS WAY. AND AS THE NEW YORK TIMES
WRITES TO FIND ITS WAY BACK, IT MUST BECOME SUBSERVIENT TO
THE WHITE HOUSE IN PLAIN ENGLISH. THAT ALL
BASICALLY MEANS THEY WANT TO REMAKE THE STRUCTURE AND
STAFFING OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SO THAT AN
INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY.
TRUMP BASICALLY DOES WHATEVER THE HECK HE WANTS. THAT WAS THE NEW YORK TIMES PUT
IT. ACCORDING TO THE PROJECT 2025 PLAN. THE LAW MUST SUBMIT
TO THE PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES IF NOT THE LAWYERS ARE DOING
WRONG. SO YEAH, I'M A LITTLE BIT.
ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE SUPREME COURT AREN'T EXACTLY
APPOINTMENT TELEVISION ALL THE TIME. THEY'RE CONFUSING THERE
DEFINITELY ALONG WITH THE TIMES. BUT THEY MATTER CLEARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
SPECIFIC CASE. BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE RESPONSES FROM THE TRUMP
LEGAL TEAM TELLS A WHOLE LOT ABOUT HOW HE SEES THE POWER OF
THE PRESIDENCY AND HOW HE LOOKS AT A POTENTIAL SECOND TERM
