>> ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A BUNCH OF STUFF TO COVER TONIGHT. FIRST, THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO BE SENTENCED FOR 34 FELONY
CONVICTIONS NEXT WEEK ON THURSDAY, THE PROSECUTORS WHO
BROUGHT THAT CASE AND WHO PROSECUTED IN COURT THAT CASE
AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, THEY WERE DUE TO DAY TO MAKE THEIR
SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION TO THE JUDGE AND A NEW YORK STATE CASE LIKE
THIS. IT'S IT'S NOT THE JURY THAT CONVICTED TRUMP THAT WILL
DECIDE BUT HIS SENTENCE IS IT'S THE JUDGE WHO OVERSAW THE CASE.
IT'S JUDGE ONE MORE SHOT WHO WILL SENTENCE TRUMP THE MAXIMUM
SENTENCE UNDER LAW THAT TRUMP COULD FACES 4 YEARS IN PRISON. IT'S VERY POSSIBLE, HOWEVER,
THAT HE MIGHT NOT GET ANY PRISON TIME AT ALL OR IF HE
DOES GET A SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT, IT'S POSSIBLE
COULD BE HOME CONFINEMENT. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. ON THE ONE HAND YOU WHAT HE'S
BEEN CONVICTED OF ALL IT IS 34 FELONIES. IT'S A NONVIOLENT
CRIME. AND ALSO HE'S A FIRST-TIME
OFFENDER IS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING BEFORE.
THOSE WOULD CERTAINLY CUT AGAINST HIM GETTING ANY
SIGNIFICANT JAIL TIME. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE DOES HAVE
3 OTHER MAJOR FELONY CRIMINAL CASE CASES PENDING AGAINST HIM.
AT THIS MOMENT. HE WAS FINED BY THIS JUDGE FOR MULTIPLE
VIOLATIONS OF THE COURT ORDER IN THIS CASE THAT REQUIRED HIM
TO RESTRAIN HIMSELF FROM SPEAKING ABOUT JURORS AND
WITNESSES AND COURT STAFF AND THE FAMILIES OF THE JUDGE AND
THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, HE'S ALSO SHOWN ABSOLUTELY NO
REMORSE WHATSOEVER, WHICH IS THE THING THAT JUDGES ARE
SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER. SO ALL OF THOSE FACTORS SERVICE SORT OF
AGGRAVATED CONTACTS AS MIGHT CUT. I'M IN FAVOR OF HIM
GETTING JAIL TIME TURNOUTS. THIS IS WHY A PERSON WITH THE
JOB TITLE JUDGE MAKES A DECISION LIKE THIS AND NOT
RANDOM IS LIKE YOU OR ME BEFORE THE SENTENCING. THE
JUDGE WILL GET 3 PIECES OF ADVICE ESSENTIALLY TO HELP HIM
MAKE HIS DECISION. HE WILL GET A NOT PUBLIC-FACING
CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION ON TRUMP'S TRUMP'S PROPOSED SENTENCE FROM
THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT. HE WILL ALSO GET A SENTENCING
RECOMMENDATION FROM TRUMP'S OWN LAWYERS WHICH PRESUMABLY WILL
BE THAT HE SHOULD GET A COOKIE AND AN ICE BAG OF TREATS
BECAUSE HE'S A GOOD BOY AND PRESUMABLY HE WILL ALSO GET
THE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION FROM PROSECUTORS AS WELL.
THERE IS NO RULE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTORS
SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION IS MADE PUBLIC EITHER BEFORE THE
SENTENCING OR DURING THE SENTENCING ARE AFTER THAT IS
ALL UP TO JUDGE WERE SHOT AS TO WHETHER HE TELLS US WHAT THE
PROSECUTORS ARE ASKING FOR. BUT I CAN ALSO TELL YOU TONIGHT
THAT IT IS NOT TOTALLY CLEAR WHEN THE JUDGE IS GOING TO GET
THAT SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION FROM PROSECUTORS. IT WAS DUE IN
TODAY, BUT THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED
TODAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TODAY'S
SEISMIC SUPREME COURT RULING ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. TRUMP'S
LAWYERS ASKED THE JUDGE ADVISED TO THE JUDGE IN THE NEW YORK
CRIMINAL CASE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ASK HIM FORMALLY
THEY'RE GOING TO FILE A MOTION. I'M ASKING HIM ESSENTIALLY TO
SET ASIDE TRUMP'S GUILTY VERDICT DESPITE THE JURY'S
VERDICT IN THAT CASE AFTER THE PROSECUTORS ACCUSE ME
AFTER THE DEFENSE AFTER TRUMP'S LAWYERS NOTIFIED THE JUDGE THAT
THEY WERE GOING TO ASK HIM TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT,
PROSECUTORS THAT DIDN'T SEND IN THEIR SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION
SAYS THEY HAD BEEN EXPECTED TO DO. NOW, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THE
SENTENCING IS STILL ON. BUT THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF
UNCERTAINTY NOW AS TO WHAT KIND OF A HITCH THIS MIGHT BE IN
FINISHING UP THIS CRIMINAL CASE IN WHICH TRUMP HAS ALREADY BEEN
CONVICTED. WE CAN REPORT TONIGHT THAT TRUMP'S LAWYERS
HAVE ASKED THAT THE SENTENCING ITSELF BE DELAYED AND WE EXPECT THAT THAT JUDGE
MARSHAWN WILL CONSIDER DELAYING THE SENTENCE AFTER HE GETS THAT
BOTH THAT REQUEST FROM TRUMP'S LAWYERS, BUT ALSO AFTER HEARS
FROM THE PROSECUTORS ON THAT MATTER. NOW, THE PROSECUTORS HAVE
DELAYED SUBMITTING THEIR SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS.
DOES THAT MEAN THE SENTENCING ITSELF WILL BE DELAYED? DOES
THAT MEAN ANYTHING ELSE MATERIAL IN TERMS OF THAT, THE
SENTENCE THAT TRUMP WILL LIKELY FACE ARE WHEN HE WILL HEAR
ABOUT IT? WE DON'T KNOW. WE ARE WAITING
TO HEAR FROM JUDGE WERE SHOT AS WE AWAIT TRUMP'S SENTENCING
IN THAT CASE. THIS IMMUNITY RULING TODAY FROM THE SUPREME
COURT IS AT HAND AND I'M NOT A LAWYER. IT IS AS
FAR AS I CAN TELL AND MY LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING IT IS AS RADICAL AS ANYTHING I
HAVE EVER SEEN FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU THAT
IT IS PROFOUNDLY WORSE. IT IS A PROFOUNDLY WORSE RULING THAT
EVEN THE MOST PESSIMISTIC OBSERVERS PREDICT IT. THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY ONE
SUBSTANTIAL ASPECT OF COMMUNITY FOR TRUMP. THE TRUMP AND HIS
LAWYERS PUT TO THE COURT THAT THEY DID NOT GET. THAT WAS THE SORT OF INTERNALLY
CONTRADICTORY, CONFUSING PROPOSAL. THEY'VE MADE THAT A
PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR
CRIMES. IF YOU FIRST IMPEACHED HIM IN THE HOUSE AND CONVICTED
HIM IN THE SENATE. THE IMPLICATION WAS THAT ANY
FAILED IMPEACHMENT EFFORT WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY IMMUNIZE THAT
BEHAVIOR FOR LIFE. THAT THING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT BEING
CONNECTED IN THAT WAY TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. THE COURT
THREW THAT OUT. IT'S NONSENSE, BUT THEY GAVE THEM EVERYTHING
ELSE HE ASKED FOR AND MORE. THEY GAVE HIM IMMUNITY IN EVERY
OTHER WAY THAT HE ASKED FOR IT, INCLUDING FOR THINGS HIS OWN
LAWYER CONCEDED WEREN'T AMONG TRUMP'S OFFICIAL ACTS AS
PRESIDENT. THINGS THAT TRUMP'S LAWYER CONCEDED WERE PRIVATE
ACTS WERE DESCRIBED IN TODAY'S MAJORITY ROLLING AS THINGS FOR
WHICH TRUMP MIGHT NEVERTHELESS POTENTIALLY GET IMMUNITY. HERE'S A JUSTICE. SONIA
SOTOMAYOR PUT IT IN HER DISSENT TODAY. SHE SAID THAT THE COURT,
QUOTE, REFUSES TO DESIGNATE ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT ALLEGED IN
THE INDICTMENT AS PRIVATE. DESPITE CONCESSIONS FROM
TRUMP'S COUNSEL. SHE CONTINUES WHEN ASKED ABOUT
ALLEGATIONS THAT PRIVATE ACTORS HELPED IMPLEMENT A PLAN TO
SUBMIT FRAUDULENT FLIGHTS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS TO
OBSTRUCT THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING AND TRUMPET A
CO-CONSPIRATOR ATTORNEY DIRECTED THAT EFFORT. TRUMP'S
COUNSEL CONCEDED THE ALLEGED CONDUCT BY TRUMP WAS PRIVATE. SHE THEN SAYS, QUOTE, ONLY THE
MAJORITY, MEANING ONLY THE MAJORITY RULING IN THE COURT
TODAY. THANKS THAT ORGANIZING
FRAUDULENT SLATES OF ELECTORS MIGHT QUALIFY AS AN OFFICIAL
ACT OF THE PRESIDENT. IN OTHER WORDS, TRUMP MAY BE
EVEN MORE PROTECTED FROM PROSECUTION OF THE FAKE
ELECTORS. THING THAT EVEN TRUMP ASKED FOR JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR'S DISSENT IS
BEING CITED WIDELY TODAY. I'M NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS
HEAT, IT IS CONSIDERABLY HOT BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT
THAT IT SHEDS ON THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS RULING
FROM THE MAJORITY, THE SHE SAYS, QUOTE, LOOKING BEYOND THE
FATE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROSECUTION, THE LONG-TERM
CONSEQUENCES OF TODAY'S DECISION ARE STARK. THE COURT
EFFECTIVELY CREATES A LAW FREE ZONE AROUND THE PRESIDENT
UPSETTING THE STATUS QUO THAT HAS EXISTED SINCE THE FOUNDING.
THIS NEW OFFICIAL ACTS IMMUNITY NOW LIES ABOUT LIKE A LOADED
WEAPON FOR ANY PRESIDENT THAT WISHES TO PLACE HIS OWN
INTERESTS, HIS OWN POLITICAL SURVIVAL OR HIS OWN FINANCIAL
GAIN ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE COUNTRY AND
POSSIBLY THE WORLD WHEN HE USES HIS OFFICIAL POWERS IN ANY WAY.
UNDER THE MAJORITY'S REASONING, HE NOW WILL BE INSULATED FROM
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ORDERS. THE NAVY SEAL TEAM 6 TO
ASSASSINATE A POLITICAL RIVAL. IMMUNE ORGANIZES A MILITARY
COUP TO HOLD ON TO POWER. IMMUNE TAKES A BRIBE IN
EXCHANGE FOR A PARDON. IMMUNE IMMUNE IMMUNE IMMUNITY? LET THE PRESIDENT VIOLATE THE
LAW. LET THEM EXPLAIN THE TRAPPINGS OF HIS OFFICE FOR
PERSONAL GAIN. LET HIM USE HIS OFFICIAL POWER FOR EVIL ENDS
BECAUSE IF YOU KNEW THAT HE MAY ONE DAY FACE LIABILITY FOR
BREAKING THE LAW, HE MIGHT NOT BE AS BOLD AND FEARLESS AS WE
WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE. THAT'S THE MAJORITY'S MESSAGE TODAY.
EVEN IF THESE NIGHTMARE SCENARIOS NEVER PLAY OUT AND I
PRAY THEY NEVER DO. THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE TO THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE PEOPLE HE
SERVES HAS SHIFTED IRREVOCABLY IN EVERY USE OF OFFICIAL POWER. THE PRESIDENT IS NOW KING ABOVE
THE LAW. SHE CLOSES, QUOTE, NEVER AND
THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC HAS PRESIDENT HAD REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT HE WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IF HE USED
THE TRAPPINGS OF HIS OFFICE TO VIOLATE THE CRIMINAL LAW MOVING
FORWARD. HOWEVER, ALL FORMER PRESIDENTS WILL BE CLUB IN SUCH
IMMUNITY IF THE OCCUPANT OF THAT OFFICE MISUSE OF OFFICIAL
POWER FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THE CRIMINAL LAW. BUT THE REST
OF US MUST ABIDE WELL, NOT PROVIDE A BACKSTOP, SHE SAYS, QUOTE, WITH FEAR FOR
OUR DEMOCRACY. I DISSENT. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR'S DISSENT WAS
JOINED TODAY BY JUSTICE KAGAN AND JUSTICE JACKSON, THE 3 OF THEM AND THREW JUSTICE
OURS. WRITING THIS TO SAID THEY HAVE AT LEAST ON US THE FAVOR
OF WRITING WHAT'S KIND OF SPEAKING DISSENT. IT SPELLS OUT
NOT IN LEGAL EASE, BUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH. THE STARK CONSEQUENCES
OF THIS RULING TODAY TO HIS CREDIT. ACTUALLY,
PRESIDENT BIDEN TO THE SAME TONIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
HE SAID, QUOTE, TODAY'S DECISION ALMOST CERTAINLY MEANS
THERE'S NO LIMITS TO WHAT A PRESIDENT CAN DO. THIS IS A
FUNDAMENTALLY NEW PRINCIPAL AND IT'S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
THE POWER OF THE OFFICE WILL NO LONGER BE CONSTRAINED BY THE
LAW. EVEN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ONLY
LIMITS WILL BE SELF IMPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT ELECT. BUT THERE ARE 2 PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS RULING. BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED HELP IN
UNDERSTANDING TONIGHT. I'M WORRIED ABOUT BOTH OF THEM HAVE
TO TELL YOU. BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED EXPERT ADVICE IN TERMS OF
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY REALLY MEANS. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR
SOME HELP ON ON 2 THINGS IN PARTICULAR. THE FIRST IS THIS, WHICH IS NOT
FROM THE DESCENT, BUT FROM THE ACTUAL RULING, IT'S IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE
PART OF THE FEDERAL INDICTMENT AGAINST TRUMP FOR THE
OVERTURNING THE GOVERNMENT'S TOP OF THE JANUARY 6 TOUGH.
THE PART OF THE INDICTMENT THAT RELATES TO HIM TRYING TO USE
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TRYING TO EMPLOY THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT BASICALLY AS A TOOL IN HIS SCHEME TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT AND HOLD ON TO POWER AFTER HE LOST THE ELECTION. ON THAT POINT, SPECIFICALLY,
THE RULING SAYS THIS, QUOTE, THE INDICTMENTS ALLEGATIONS
THAT THE REQUESTED INVESTIGATIONS WERE SHAMS ARE
PROPOSED FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE. DO NOT DIVEST THE
PRESIDENT OF EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE
INVESTIGATIVE AND PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND ITS OFFICIALS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
PROSECUTED FOR CONDUCT WITHIN HIS EXCLUSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY. TRUMP IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR THE
ALLEGED CONDUCT INVOLVING HIS DISCUSSION. HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM ANYTHING RELATED TO HIS
DISCUSSIONS, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS. MY QUESTION IS, DOESN'T THAT MEAN THE
PRESIDENT, ANY PRESIDENT HERE IS BEING GIVEN OVER CARTE
BLANCHE FROM THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE CAN TELL THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO ANYTHING FOR ANY REASON AND IT
CAN NEVER BE REVIEWED FOR THE LIFE OF THAT PRESIDENT BECAUSE IF SO, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, RICHARD NIXON WOULD LIKE HIS PRESIDENCY BACK PLACE. IF IF IF, IF EVERYTHING THE
PRESIDENT HAPPENS, BE SURE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL LAW IS ABSOLUTELY
IMMUNE FROM NOT ONLY THE PROSECUTION BUT INVESTIGATION
BY THE COURTS AS A POTENTIAL POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL MATTER. THAT MEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT
CAN DO THINGS WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THAT IT'S WHAT'S THE LIMIT. MY SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IN THAT FEDERAL CASE REFERENCE THERE
ABOUT JANUARY 6TH, THE JUSTICES IN THE MAJORITY TODAY, THE
JUDGE, JOE WITH CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WRITING FOR THEM SAID
EXPLICITLY, BUT THEY WANT PORTIONS OF THIS CASE SENT BACK
TO THE DISTRICT COURT. SO NOT THE PART THAT RELATES TO
TRUMP TALKING TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BUT THE
OTHER PARTS OF IT, THEY WANT THOSE PARTS. THE
INDICTMENT SENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT MEANING TO BACK
TO BACK TO JUDGE TANYA CHUTKAN IS COURTROOM IN WASHINGTON,
D.C., ESSENTIALLY FOR HER TO DETERMINE IN HER COURTROOM,
WHETHER OR NOT TRUMP'S OF TRUMP'S ACTIONS AS DESCRIBED IN
THE INDICTMENT WERE OFFICIAL AND THEREFORE IMMUNE OR WERE THEY NOT OFFICIAL, WHICH MIGHT MEAN THAT CHARGES
ON THOSE MATTERS CAN GO AHEAD. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? EXACTLY?
WHAT ARE THE JUSTICES SAYING SHOULD HAPPEN IN JUDGE CHUTKAN
IS COURTROOM AND AND WHEN AND WHAT WILL THAT LOOK LIKE TO AN
AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT REALLY IS ACTIVELY CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW
WHETHER TO SEND THIS PARTICULAR FELON AND BACK TO THE WHITE
HOUSE. THANKS TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES. >> I CONCUR WITH JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR'S DISSENT TODAY. SHE IS A SHE SAID SHE NEVER USE
OF OFFICIAL POWER. THE PRESIDENT IS NOW KING ABOVE
THE LAW WITH FEAR FOR OUR DEMOCRACY.
I DISSENT END QUOTE. SO SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
TO CENT. I JUST SEE IT. >> PRESIDENT BIDEN TONIGHT AT
THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDED TO THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING THAT
HANDS PRESIDENTS, INCLUDING HIMSELF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION FOR ANYTHING THEY CAN SUCCESSFULLY ARGUE WAS AN
OFFICIAL ACT. THE PRESIDENT NAME CHECKED
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR AS BLISTERING DISSENT, WHICH SHE
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH OF THE COURT TODAY THAT THE SET
STARTED, QUOTE, TODAY'S DECISION TO GRANT FORMER
PRESIDENTS CRIMINAL IMMUNITY RESHAPES THE INSTITUTION OF THE
PRESIDENCY. IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE PRINCIPLE FOUNDATIONAL
TO OUR CONSTITUTION AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. BUT NO MAN IS
ABOVE THE LAW. WE'RE LIVE ON LITTLE MORE THAN ITS OWN
MISGUIDED WISDOM ABOUT THE NEED FOR BOLD IN AN HESITATING
ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT. THE COURT GIVES FORMER
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALL THE IMMUNITY HE ASKED FOR AND MORE SHE SAID, QUOTE, BECAUSE OUR
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SHIELD A FORMER PRESIDENT FROM ANSWERING
FOR CRIMINAL AND TREASONOUS ACTS. I DISSENT SHE LAID OUT. >> THE BASIS FOR HER TO SET.
NORMALLY WHEN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DECIDE THEY USE THE
WORD RESPECTFULLY SAY I RESPECTFULLY DISSENT TODAY,
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR AND ALSO JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON.
EACH STRUCK THE WORK RESPECTFULLY AND JUST WROTE I
DISSENT AND THAT IS THE KIND OF
REACTION WE'RE SEEING FROM LEGAL SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS
EVERYWHERE TODAY. AND PRS VETERAN LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
NINA TOTENBERG JUST TELLING US MOMENTS AGO THAT A LEGAL
OBSERVERS AND EXPERTS, INCLUDING WHAT SHE DESCRIBED AS
SORT OF THE BOATS, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, MEANING BOTH
SIDES OF THE IDEOLOGICAL NUMBER LINE. WE'RE IN HOWARD'S
ASTONISHED BY HOW RADICAL THIS RULING WAS TODAY. CHERILYN EIFFEL, FORMER
PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR COUNCIL OF THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
FUND. SHE RESPONDED TO THE RULING TODAY BY SAYING THIS.
SHE SAID, QUOTE, TODAY'S DECISION AND TRUMP VERSUS
UNITED STATES IS A GROTESQUE AND HIDEOUS DISTORTION OF THE
RULE OF LAW BY A MAJORITY OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE MOST
POWERFUL DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD. THE NATIONAL AND GLOBAL
IMPLICATIONS OF A PENDING THIS CORE PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY AS
POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC NATIONAL AND GLOBAL
IMPLICATIONS CATASTROPHIC. JOINING US NOW,
CHERILYN EIFFEL. SHE IS NOW THE FUN IN A JORDAN JUNIOR
DISTINGUISHED CHAIR IN CIVIL RIGHTS AND HOWARD LAW SCHOOL.
MISS. I FEEL I'M IT MAKES ME HAPPY TO SEE YOUR FACE. I'M
REALLY GLAD THAT YOU COULD BE HERE TONIGHT OF ALL NIGHTS.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE TIME, OF COURSE. >> SO JUSTICE ROBERTS
CRITICIZED THE LIBERAL JUSTICES DISSENTED TODAY SAID THEY WERE
STRIKING A TONE OF CHILLING DUMA, ESSENTIALLY SAYING CALM
DOWN, LADIES, ACCUSING THEM OF OVERREACTING FOR TRYING THIS
RULINGS CONSEQUENCES AS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE NOT.
YOU CLEARLY THINK THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS RULING.
ARE YOUR WORDS POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC AND CAN YOU
EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK SO? >> YEAH, I DO. I DO. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, RACHEL, FOR HAVING ME THAT THAT WAS PART OF WHAT'S SO
DISTURBING ABOUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS OPINION. YOU KNOW, IF
YOU'RE GOING TO BURN THE HOUSE DOWN, DON'T BE MAD THAT PEOPLE
CALL IT ARSON. YOU KNOW, THIS DECISION IS I TALKED ABOUT
IT BEING, YOU KNOW, HAVING CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES
BECAUSE PRECISELY OF WHAT JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR SAYS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW. THERE IS NO QUESTION
ABOUT THE RULE OF WHAT THE RULE OF LAW MEANS. IT MEANS THAT THE
LAW APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL RICH AND POOR HIGH BORN AND LOW BORN BLACK,
WHITE, LATINO. IT MEANS THAT THE ONE THAT ONE PRINCIPAL OF
LAW APPLIES TO EVERYONE EQUALLY AND THE PRESIDENT ONCE HE IS NO
LONGER A PRESIDENT IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. AND
THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT HE IS COVERED AS WELL BY
THE RULE OF LAW. 2 SHATTERED THAT TODAY IS SO INCREDIBLY
SHOCKING THAT I THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE BACK ON THEIR HEELS.
AND I SAY THAT IT HAS GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE OUR
COUNTRY IS A TREMENDOUSLY INFLUENTIAL COME COUNTRY
BECAUSE OF OUR POWER BECAUSE OF OUR HISTORY BECAUSE OF OUR
NATIONAL IDENTITY THAT WE HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO TO PRESS TO
OTHER NATIONS. WE HAVE HELD OURSELVES UP AS AN EXEMPLAR OF
DEMOCRACY AND FOR THE HIGHEST COURT IN
OUR LAND TO SEND A SIGNAL NOT ONLY TO THOSE IN THIS COUNTRY
BUT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT THE RULE OF LAW IS
SOMETHING THAT CAN BE INTERRUPTED FOR A PRESIDENT OF
YOUR SAME POLITICAL PARTY IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS AND THE
WORST PART OF IT, RACHEL, IS THIS IS NOT A THEORETICAL
CONVERSATION. WE ACTUALLY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH FORMER
PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE KNOW WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF. WE KNOW THE
KIND OF EXCESSES THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AND DID ENGAGE IN AS
PRESIDENT. SO THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT DID NOT
HAVE BEFORE IT. THE EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE WHO WOULD DANGEROUSLY
USED THE POWER THAT THEY SO RECKLESSLY PUT IN THE HANDS OF
ANY PRESIDENT TODAY. >> I WAS INTERESTED IN THE IN
THE WAY THAT JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR IN HER DISSENT KEPT GOING BACK
TO THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE INDICTMENT AND TRUMP'S CONDUCT
AS IF TO SAY THIS IS NOT THE RADICAL MATTER. THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DESCRIBING DESCRIBING THE OR DECIDING IN
THE ABSTRACT, I THINK MAKING MAKING THAT EXACT POINT
IMPLICITLY. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE
VERY DARK POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE OF THIS. AND THIS AGAIN WAS
RAISED EXPLICITLY BY JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
HYPOTHETICAL ASSASSINATIONS. SORRY, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY A
PRESIDENT ORDERED I'M ELLA MEANT OF THE MILITARY
TO CARRY OUT AND ATTACK ON SOMEBODY WHO WE
SAW IT AS A DANGEROUS, A POLITICAL RIVAL. THE JUSTICES SEEMED TO HAVE
MADE CLEAR THAT THAT IF THE ORDER TO KILL THE PERSON COULD
BE CONSTRUED AS SOMETHING THAT WAS OFFICIAL, THAT THE IMMUNITY
MATTER IS IS SETTLED, NOT WOULD ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING FOR WHICH
THE PRESIDENT COULD NEVER BE PROSECUTED. IT ISN'T THAT SIMPLE? I MEAN,
HOW WOULD THAT ACTUALLY WORK IN IN THE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM? >> YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS IT SEEMS
IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE THAT THAT COULD BE WHAT THEY MAY MEAN.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAIN READING OF WHAT THEY WROTE, THAT IS WHAT
THEY MEAN. AND WE HAVE A FORMER PRESIDENT WHO YOU REMEMBER
ASKED HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY'S WHY WE WHY THEY COULDN'T JUST
SHOOT PROTESTERS, BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS IN THE LEGS.
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY THINKS IN THAT WAY. NOW, ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT HELD TRUMP BACK WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT WAS THAT
VERY OFTEN THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM WOULD NOT CARRY OUT THE
THINGS HE ASKED THEM TO DO. HE ASKED HIS WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO FIRE JEFF SESSIONS AND HE
WOULDN'T DO IT. HE CONSTANTLY ASKED PEOPLE TO DO THINGS AND
THEY WOULD IGNORE HIM KNOWING THAT HE WOULDN'T DO IT HIMSELF.
HE WOULDN'T DO IT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE WAS AT THAT TIME
UNSURE OF HIS LIABILITY. NOW HE IS SURE THAT THIS
SUPREME COURT THINKS HE WOULD HAVE NO LIABILITY. SO FIRST OF
ALL, WE HAVE A CATEGORY OF THINGS HE CAN DO HIMSELF.
HE CAN STRIP MILITARY MEMBERS OF FROM FROM THEIR RANKS FOR
NOT FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS. HE CAN ACCEPT CASH BRIBES FOR
FOR APARTMENTS. THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS HE CAN DO.
BUT THEN HE ALSO CAN ORDER OTHERS TO DO THINGS. AND THE
PEOPLE THAT HE'S GOING TO HAVE IF HE IS ELECTED IN HIS CABINET
IN HIS SECOND-ROUND ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE OF CONSIDERABLY
LESS RESTRAINT. THEN THOSE HE HAD THE FIRST TIME AROUND AND
THEY WERE NOT PARTICULARLY RESTRAINED. SO WHAT THIS COURT
HAS OPENED UP TO US IS A TRUE DANGER. IT IS UNLEASH THE FULL
POWER OF SOMEONE WHO HAS SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE UTTERLY UNFIT
TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY, SOMEONE WHO HAS NO REGARD FOR RESTRAINT
OR ETHICS. AND AND AND THE FACT THAT YOU CAN LITIGATE IT LATER,
THE FACT THAT YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OR THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS THESE MATTERS IN A LOWER COURT
TO 2 MAKE THEIR WAY BACK UP TO THE SUPREME COURT WILL CHANGE
THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WILL BE HARMED, THAT PEOPLE CAN BE
HARMED AND THAT OUR SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE RULE OF
LAW CAN BE EVEN FURTHER DEGRADED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE
WAY. THERE ARE A MAJORITY OF JUSTICES ON THIS COURT WHO
DECIDED THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE THE LAST WORD ON EVERYTHING
THAT THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST THE APPARATUS OF DEMOCRACY.
THEY CAN NO LONGER TRUST FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT OVER
TURNING CHEVRON, THEY CAN NO LONGER TRUST WOMEN TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR BODIES. THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST
UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO DECIDE HOW TO BUILD THEIR CLASSES AND
THEY COULD NO LONGER TRUST THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. 2 TO DECIDE
FAIRLY HOW TO PICK THEIR REPRESENTATIVE SO THEY COULDN'T
ENTER FEEL WITH PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING. NOW THEY
DECIDED THAT DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW COVERS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HOW MUCH IT DOES AND
WHAT IT DOES AND WHEN IT DOESN'T, IT'S FULLY IN THEIR
HANDS. AND THEY HAVE JUST CUT A WIDE SWATH OF THE PRESIDENT'S
AT ACTIONS POWERS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL THAT THEY HAVE
DEEMED BARRED FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IT'S STUNNING AND
I HOPE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW SIGNIFICANT THIS IS, HOW MUCH
THIS DAY IS ONE THAT WILL BE REMEMBERED AS AS ONE THAT HAS
VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE
OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY, WE HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND UNDERSTAND
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ELECTION AND UNDERSTAND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING ALLOWED THE SUPREME COURT TO HAVE THIS
KIND OF POWER IN WHICH THEY BELIEVE THEY CANNOT BE CHECKED
BY ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR SOCIETY AND NOT TRUST THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES.
I'M I'M SO ALARMED. I'M SO I'M DISTURBED. BUT I WOULD SAY I
FEEL ALSO A SENSE OF RESOLVE IS I THINK THEY HAVE FULLY SHOWN
THEM SOUTH. THIS COURT HAS PLAYED ITS HAND. ANYONE
PRETENDING THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS COURT
IS DOING THAT IS PRETENDING. AND I THINK WE NOW HAVE TO GET
VERY SERIOUS ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS. WE ARE ALLOWED TO
PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE HAVE TO DO SO. WE HAVE TO DO SO
AT THE BALLOT BOX. AND THEN ONCE WE PREVAIL IN ELECTIONS,
WE HAVE TO MAKE REAL DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO TO
ENSURE THE SUPREME COURT IS ETHICAL, THAT THE SUPREME COURT
IS ACTING IN A WAY THAT IS DEMOCRATIC AND WE HAVE TO PASS
LAWS THAT WILL CLOSE ALL OF THESE LOOPHOLES THAT HAVE BEEN
LEFT OPEN BECAUSE WE HAD THE TEMERITY TO BELIEVE THAT NORMS
AND ETHICS WOULD GUIDE US AGAINST CERTAIN KINDS OF
CONDUCT THAT HAS NOT PROVEN TO BE TRUE. AND SO WE HAVE A LOT
OF WORK TO DO. >> AND IN THE VERY NEAR TERM
AND AN INFORMANT'S, WE WILL BEACH MAKING A DECISION ABOUT
WHETHER ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE IN THE OVAL OFFICE HOLDING WHAT IS
NOW EFFECTIVELY UNLIMITED AND TYRANNICAL POWER. AND WHAT KIND
OF PERSON? YES, I'M NOT A LOT OF THOUGHT TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH
THAT, WHICH NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE ENTRUSTED WITH. BUT NOW
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. CHERILYN EIFFEL, NOT HOWARD LAW SCHOOL.
AGAIN, I'M SEEING YOU. HERE IS A COMFORT TO ME BECAUSE I I
TRUST YOU. I BELIEVE IT'S TIME TO ME AND I AM GRATEFUL FOR
YOUR. I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR WISDOM SITE. THANK YOU
