About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Trump's Power & the Rule of Law: Ty Cobb (interview) — FRONTLINE from FRONTLINE PBS | Official, published May 16, 2026. The transcript contains 14,585 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"One place we're thinking of starting the film is the moment that President Trump goes to the Department of Justice and speaks at the Great Hall. What do you see in that moment of him going there talking for over an hour? So at 30,000 feet, given my experience as a former federal prosecutor in the..."
[0:00] One place we're thinking of starting the film is the moment that President Trump goes to the
[0:04] Department of Justice and speaks at the Great Hall. What do you see in that moment of him going there
[0:13] talking for over an hour? So at 30,000 feet, given my experience as a former federal prosecutor in
[0:22] the 80s and subsequently as an independent counsel and White House counsel, I was sad to see that.
[0:36] I think it was clearly intended to make plain that the Department of Justice no longer is an
[0:45] independent part of the government. It's now protective of him. That was not news to anybody
[0:54] given the appointments that he'd made, the fact that he'd installed two of his criminal lawyers
[0:59] in senior positions and picked Matt Gaetz to be the original nominee to be the Attorney General.
[1:09] It was clear that he had no respect for the Justice Department and intended to run it as an object of
[1:16] his fealty. But it punctuated all those things in a way that I was very sad to see.
[1:27] When he's there, one of the things that he did was single out particular people like Norm Eisen,
[1:34] who he calls scum and vicious, Andrew Weissman. What does it mean for the President of the United
[1:42] States at the Justice Department with the Attorney General there and the Director of the FBI to
[1:48] single out people as described them as scum?
[1:51] It's offensive. It's un-American. Everything about it is something that I wish I'd never seen or heard.
[2:02] Rare has been the opportunity for a President to speak in the Great Hall of Justice. I think typically
[2:13] when it's been done, and I only really actually recall Obama having done it, perhaps others have, but it's
[2:20] usually ceremonial to provide an award or, you know, congratulate somebody or say something uplifting
[2:28] about the rule of law or, you know, some major success in terms of moving civilized society forward.
[2:36] You know, it's rarely a campaign rally and it's, you know, well, it's never been a campaign rally before
[2:44] and certainly it shouldn't be the apparent call to vengeance that it was there.
[2:52] I think even before you get to Trump's remarks, you know, I frankly thought the most shocking thing
[2:58] I heard the whole day was not from Trump, but was from Pam Bondi when rather than saying that, you know,
[3:06] all the Justice Department people there were assembled because of their devotion to the Constitution,
[3:11] she said, you know, emphatically that we are all here for him. That is, you know, a break of, you know,
[3:23] 240 plus years, I guess, in terms of the independence of the Justice Department.
[3:27] You know, you're not there for an idol and you're not there to be idolaters.
[3:33] You're there to, you know, preserve and protect the Constitution. That's the oath you take.
[3:37] Why was it so different? Why was that? Because I think it's hard for people to understand why that would matter,
[3:44] that the Attorney General would say something like that or the President would present himself there or not.
[3:49] Well, I think it goes back just to the, you know, rule of law, no man is above the law principle
[3:55] that most Americans think the country is founded upon. It's gotten a little confusing because of the immunity decision,
[4:03] you know, which is, I think, misrepresented mostly by the mainstream media,
[4:08] because it does, it does get reported as though that the Supreme Court somehow gave him carte blanche
[4:13] to do whatever he wanted, which is not what they did. You know, had that been the case,
[4:17] they would have reversed the D.C. Circuit and dismissed the case rather than remanded the case to the District Court
[4:24] for instructions to determine which of the official acts or which of the acts in the indictment were official acts.
[4:34] And of those official acts, which have presumptive immunity, were any of them not entitled to immunity
[4:41] because of circumstances that, you know, the judge found?
[4:45] So I think the Trump takeaway from that opinion and certainly his advisers and the way they message it is,
[4:57] you know, he's free to do whatever he wants. Now, he's always felt free to do whatever he wants
[5:01] and always thought that should be his approach. But only now, after sort of four years to plan the approach,
[5:13] Project 2025 and, you know, the full-scale assault that's underway under, on the rule of law
[5:20] because the courts are there as an obstacle to the lawlessness that he has attempted so far.
[5:27] And the only obstacle under the Constitution because Congress has neutered itself through its own cowardice.
[5:34] I think the, I think the cheerleading that went on there and frankly, you know, at the, at the core of,
[5:43] where the rule of law gets exercised by the government was just shocking and, and offensive.
[5:51] You know him well. I mean, what did, what did you see? Was he the same president that, that you saw?
[5:59] Was he more unbound in a moment like that than, than when you knew him? What did you see about him as, as, as a man?
[6:06] So, um, yeah, I mean, I have some ethical constraints because of the position that I used to hold.
[6:11] And, uh, I, I, I worked closely with him and spent a lot of time with him.
[6:16] I'm not sure that I know him well or, um, I wouldn't say that, uh, you know, we were ever buddies or anything like that.
[6:23] But, um, I did spend a lot of time with him. I think, you know, the, the man he is today, uh, much different from the, you know, the man I encountered.
[6:31] Uh, uh, not necessarily in terms of, you know, character approach or, uh, personality, but in terms of, you know, confidence and, and recklessness.
[6:45] You know, I think, um, he was a little tentative during his first term in the sense of, um, not acting out on every impulse.
[6:53] Uh, he had advisors, uh, you know, from, um, the initial largely qualified cabinet that he had picked, uh, the first time around to, uh, to, uh, you know, his chief, his, uh, the chief of staff who was there the, the bulk of the time, General Kelly,
[7:11] uh, who would, uh, oftentimes try to counsel him and others would oftentimes try to counsel him to restrain himself in some way or, uh, you know, raise a decorum issue or, uh, um, stature issue.
[7:24] Um, I don't think you see that anymore, not, not with, uh, handlers that he currently has.
[7:28] So I think you see a man that is, uh, you know, uh, determined to get his own way, uh, knows what he wants to do, uh, uh, has, um, has people like, uh, Steve Bannon
[7:41] and others, um, you know, uh, you know, feeding him agenda items, uh, in a constant basis.
[7:48] Some of which, you know, he, some of which he's very interested in and others of which he might toy with briefly
[7:55] and then discard or toy with briefly and then become obsessed with.
[7:58] Like for example, uh, um, tariffs, which I know is the issue of today.
[8:04] Um, as we throw out, uh, several decades worth of prosperity and, uh, have seen stock markets around the world shake and the dollar drop.
[8:16] So, um, we'll see how long, um, you know, he plays with that.
[8:20] But given the criticism that he's taken on that today, I can assure you that criticism only inspires him to double down.
[8:27] Um, because it's, it's not, it's not like they're gonna rethink the wisdom of this, uh, these kind of things.
[8:33] And that's, that's sort of the tragedy of, um, uh, the president's personality, which is when, when attacked or criticized,
[8:44] um, his reaction tends to be very, very defensive and very, very vengeful.
[8:49] And his conflicts with lawyers, with the Justice Department during the first term, um, was very much public.
[8:55] The idea that Jeff Sessions would recuse himself, that, um, that, that the Justice Department wouldn't go along with him
[9:04] on attempts to overturn the election or going after people who, who he wanted him to.
[9:09] I mean, what, what was, what was his relationship with the Justice Department, with, with lawyers?
[9:15] What, did he, was he frustrated?
[9:17] I think the relationship with the Justice Department was, um, again, um, you know, it was a little uncertain.
[9:26] I mean, he wasn't really sure how far to push.
[9:28] He would, he would push as far as he thought he could and then maybe pull back, but then, you know, vent again.
[9:34] Um, you know, Sessions was a constant object of his ire, uh, in part because of the recusal, um, in, in which, you know, in, in candor,
[9:45] I think that the President did have a gripe, uh, because keep in mind that, you know, former Attorney General Sessions,
[9:53] a man who I have great respect for, um, you know, he, he announced his recusal, uh, without consultation with the White House.
[10:02] Uh, and so that was a little abrupt and, uh, um, and that rubbed the President the wrong way.
[10:07] And he has a right to, you know, react to, to that.
[10:10] Um, but it, he, but he never got over it.
[10:13] Um, and, uh, I think that, uh, from that point on, uh, you know, the Attorney General didn't have the President's confidence.
[10:20] And then when things would go badly there, uh, it would cause him to be even more irritated than he might have otherwise been.
[10:27] I mean, because I, what I'm wondering is if, as he goes into his second term, it, it changes the way, the type of people he chooses.
[10:33] It changes what he's looking for in, in an Attorney General and the lawyers who are around him.
[10:40] Well, certainly something has changed.
[10:42] Um, is it all, um, on the President?
[10:48] I'm not so sure.
[10:49] Um, you know, he's got some very close advisors who, uh, you know, have been, you know, planning,
[10:55] a polite word for scheming, uh, for this moment.
[10:58] Um, you know, the, the, if you, if you look not just at the Justice Department of Isolation,
[11:06] but, uh, the whole of government, um, the quality of, uh, appointed personnel, uh, has never been, uh, lower.
[11:16] Um, I mean, it's, it's sort of, it's sort of shocking.
[11:20] Um, you know, it's, you know, you replaced a bunch of statesmen with, you know, juvenile delinquents.
[11:25] Um, that's the best example I can come up with.
[11:27] Um, you know, and, and, um, you know, the theory that Matt Gaetz, you know, would have been an appropriate Attorney General,
[11:35] or that some of the other appointments that we've, you know, seen and endured and, uh, to date, uh, um, with frustration,
[11:46] I think, uh, um, you know, demonstrate that he, he only, he only value, at this stage of his, um, presidency
[11:54] and, uh, and what he wants to accomplish.
[11:57] He really only values, uh, loyalty, um, and, uh, virtually nothing else.
[12:02] Because that's the, that, that's the sort of the heart of, of, of, I think, one of the questions about who he's choosing
[12:07] is if it's for loyalty, if it's for, you know, is he looking for, you know, his Roy Cohn for somebody who's gonna go to battle for him,
[12:15] and, and who's the client, um, is it the President of the United States, is it Donald Trump?
[12:21] I mean, how do you see that?
[12:23] How do you see what, what Trump is looking for in a lawyer?
[12:26] So, it's interesting that you mentioned Roy Cohn.
[12:28] You know, Roy Cohn, I think, had a big effect on the President.
[12:32] Um, the, um, uh, not because of anything philosophical so much as, um, uh, I think the President found Roy Cohn's approach to, uh, problem solving.
[12:50] Um, uh, problem solving, liberating, um, which was, uh, um, to learn that there really are no rules.
[12:58] You know, the rules only matter if you care.
[13:00] Um, and there's no reason you should care about anything other than your self-interest.
[13:04] I'm not sure that he's got any Roy Cohn's, uh, because, you know, Roy Cohn, um, Roy Cohn was somebody that Trump looked up to.
[13:15] I don't think Trump looks up to any of these people.
[13:17] Um, I, I, I, I'd be shocked.
[13:19] I think these are people that he thinks he can control and has great confidence that they'll do what he wants.
[13:24] Uh, not, not, he's not looking for them to tell him what to do.
[13:27] He's looking for them to do what he tells them to do.
[13:30] Do you have that sense that, because a lot of lawyers will say, you know, we don't work for Donald Trump.
[13:37] Government lawyers will say we don't work for Donald Trump, whether it's in the White House Counsel's Office or the Justice Department.
[13:43] We work for the office, we work for the United States.
[13:46] Do you have the sense that, that, that he sees it differently, that he sees them as working for him personally?
[13:52] Yes.
[13:53] Now, I mean, so there are times where that distinction needs to be made.
[13:56] I mean, I had to make that distinction multiple times because my position, uh, as special counsel, um, to the president, um, and in managing the Mueller investigation, you know, there were a lot of ethical issues.
[14:09] The president had personal attorneys, um, uh, there were certain things that I could, I could discuss and negotiate with Mueller on behalf of the White House.
[14:16] But there were certain other things that had to be negotiated by his personal attorneys.
[14:20] We would be in meetings.
[14:21] I would have to, you know, uh, withdraw from meetings, uh, so that they could have discussions about, you know, his personal, uh, concerns, uh, or interests.
[14:32] And, uh, that were not, you know, White House, um, or constitutional issues of, of consequence at the White House with which I was entrusted.
[14:41] So there are, there are times that discussion makes some sense.
[14:44] Um, and I mean, obviously if I'd have been his personal attorney, I wouldn't be here today.
[14:48] Um, but, you know, I didn't have that, uh, I didn't have that individual, uh, representation.
[14:54] I, I represent, I did represent, uh, the United States and my oath was to preserve and protect the Constitution.
[15:00] You know, I didn't have a retainer agreement and he never paid me a dime, of course.
[15:03] So, uh, there are, there are nuances about those discussions.
[15:07] But when you talk about, so, um, take, like, take, uh, Emil Bove and, you know, Todd Blanche and, uh, uh, you know, take those two for example.
[15:17] Payne Bondi is a little bit of a different example, but, um, take those two for example.
[15:22] They, they were both his personal attorneys.
[15:23] You know, they have, um, the burden of carrying around a great deal of privileged information.
[15:29] Um, about their client, uh, and, and, and their devotion was to him.
[15:37] Um, and I think it sort of, um, begs credulity to think that their devotion, um, you know, is, is, is to anything other than him.
[15:46] And then I think, you know, the example that I cited earlier with regard to Pam Bondi when, uh, in her introductory comments at the Justice Department when Trump was there,
[15:55] you know, uh, made it plain that we're all here for him.
[15:58] You know, those words, A, should never be uttered, but they certainly, certainly should never be uttered in the, in the great hall in front of an assembled group of high ranking Justice Department officials.
[16:08] Because that's not their job. Their duty is to preserve and protect the Constitution.
[16:12] The very first day starts with, um, just a number of executive actions, executive orders, starting at the Capital One Arena, going on to, to the White House.
[16:23] Um, what do you see in the actions that, that he takes that day?
[16:27] Because a lot of presidents start out by signing executive orders.
[16:31] Was, was there something different about what he was doing?
[16:34] Oh, sure. I mean, yeah, every president is different.
[16:39] Um, this is, this is round two of, you know, his, his presidency.
[16:44] He learned a lot the first time around, I think, um, um, in terms of, um, you know, um, how far he could go.
[16:52] Uh, he had a plan to go further, uh, this time.
[16:55] And he went about, went into, you know, his first day, uh, in consultation with his, you know, uh, core team, of course, uh, with a, with a plan.
[17:04] Uh, and, uh, uh, a lot of it's theater, a lot of it's acting, uh, a lot of it's, uh, entertainment.
[17:11] Uh, but it's, it's, they're not all, they're not unrelated.
[17:15] I mean, this is an orchestrated exercise to, um, you know, forcefully fuel the base, um, to flood the zone in a way that, um, uh, Congress and, uh, businesses and individuals, uh, you know, feel the weight of his authority.
[17:35] Um, and, uh, respond accordingly, uh, or in the way that he desires, which is to cower.
[17:41] Um, and, um, uh, and to, and to overwhelm the courts.
[17:47] Um, and the courts, I think, were initially overwhelmed.
[17:50] Uh, that's sort of the, by design, though, the way the Constitution does.
[17:53] The court, um, sort of lags, uh, behind, uh, the President, uh, and Congress in terms of, you know, the speed with which they respond.
[18:04] And I think that's, um, you know, as I said, by design.
[18:09] Uh, the President is, you know, has the freedom to act, you know, faster than the other two branches of government in some regards.
[18:16] And Congress is, has the ability to, uh, forcefully do things, um, at a speed that sometimes the courts can't sustain.
[18:25] But, uh, ultimately, uh, when it comes to the interpretation of the law, uh, as, uh, as we're dealing with in the Supreme Court this week, where, um, uh, I was just on an amicus brief with, uh, with one of your, uh, former guests, uh, on the front line, Judge Ludig.
[18:45] And, uh, Ludig and, uh, others, um, uh, with regard to the Alien Enemies Act, uh, making the point, uh, that, uh, seems odd to be making, um, uh, that since 1803, uh, the law has been, uh, has dictated in Marbury versus Madison,
[19:04] that the courts determine, uh, what the law is, um, and, uh, interpret the law, uh, not, not the President, not Congress.
[19:12] Where do you think it's coming from, this idea of flood the zone, of, of overwhelmed things?
[19:16] Is this Stephen Miller?
[19:18] Where, where is it coming from?
[19:19] I, you know, I mean, I have some thoughts, but I don't have any real expertise on that.
[19:23] I think I'd be, um, a little bit, uh, arrogant to, you know, try to pin it down.
[19:28] But I, I, but it is definitely, um, you know, uh, something that I'm sure that was put together by his advisors.
[19:36] I mean, you know, Trump, Trump is eager to act quickly at any time.
[19:40] Uh, he likes to make, uh, decisions.
[19:43] He trusts his own judgment, uh, right or wrong.
[19:45] Um, um, and, uh, uh, once he makes a decision, you know, the likelihood of him ever acknowledging a mistake is not high.
[19:54] Um, but he does like to move quickly.
[19:56] Uh, and I think his advisors play to that.
[19:59] They've designed this in a way that appeals to him.
[20:01] Uh, and he's certainly, uh, executing at a pace that I'm sure they're happy with.
[20:05] Can you help me understand Stephen Miller, what, what he's like or what, what his role?
[20:10] So I only really had a professional relationship with Stephen.
[20:14] Um, and, uh, he's a very smart, uh, person.
[20:18] Um, you know, he, uh, not to, not to, uh, denigrate anybody in the room, but he got his start as a journalist.
[20:28] Um, at the, uh, at the Duke, uh, newspaper where actually to his credit, and he was instrumental in, uh, unraveling the, uh, Duke Lacrosse case and the improper conduct of the district attorney down there.
[20:41] Um, but, um, very extremely conservative, um, and, um, uh, very devoted to this president and sees this president as a, you know, vehicle for the philosophical things that, uh, you know, he thinks should come, come about, uh, uh, in America.
[20:58] Um, I'm not sure that, uh, those are necessarily the things that, um, all Americans agree should happen, but, um, you know, Trump won the election and, uh, Miller's one of his advisors and, and, and he trusts him immensely.
[21:11] Uh, you know, he had, uh, as his public information, um, you know, Miller was the scribe and, uh, editor of the, um, uh, now famous, uh, Comey firing letter that, uh, uh, the president had, uh, originally drafted.
[21:26] Originally drafted, uh, when he terminated, uh, when he was intended to terminate, uh, James Comey at the FBI and, um, and at, and at the time, you know, he was eight years younger than he is now.
[21:37] Let me ask you one other thing that happened the first day, uh, about one other thing that happened the first day, which, um, is the pardons, the commutations for all of the people who were involved in January 6th.
[21:48] Do you think that that sent a message, uh, to, when he did that on his first term?
[21:53] It was something he had campaigned on and, and sort of promised to do, but it would also surprise even some of his supporters.
[21:59] I do think it was surprising.
[22:00] Uh, my recollection, which could be wrong, is that, you know, he'd heated up a couple of times during the campaign, sort of backed away from it the last six weeks or so.
[22:08] Um, not, not, not in a sense of disavowing it, but just didn't talk about it.
[22:14] Um, and then, um, you know, made a decision to not only, um, pardon everybody, including, you know, even the most violent offenders, but, uh, do it and, and do it immediately.
[22:28] Uh, I think that was, that was, uh, that was a message.
[22:35] Um, and, and I don't think it was the message that actually people voted for him for, um, because while they wanted him to, um, you know, take forceful action and, you know, make an abrupt turn from the, um, you know, whatever difficulties they perceived that hampered the Biden administration.
[22:57] Um, I'm not sure that, um, they elected him to rewrite history, uh, and we've seen him spend, you know, 70 plus days actually rewriting history.
[23:10] Um, you know, trying to take January 6th out of the, out of the, uh, history books, um, and, um, fire the prosecutors who were involved in the cases that, uh, emanated from what I think anybody who saw it on TV or, you know, even read remotely about it.
[23:29] You know, recognized to be one of the darkest days in American history, uh, with many, uh, indignities, including violent crimes and deaths.
[23:37] Um, uh, the theory that, uh, uh, uh, it was the, you know, bright, sunny, happy, glorious day to be revered forever by, uh, the MAGA world, um, is just lunacy, but, uh, that's the narrative that they're trying to, uh, sell now.
[23:54] But there's long been theories about executive power going back to Watergate and the idea of the unitary executive and that the presidency had been, um, constrained and needed to be sort of reinvigorated.
[24:06] What, what do you make of, of that and this administration, um, and, and is that the intellectual framework for the way that he's approached the law or, or are they doing something different than the discussion that had been going on for, for decades?
[24:25] So I think, um, if I can parse that just slightly.
[24:30] So I think, you know, the, the power of the presidency was probably at its weakest, uh, in the post-Watergate, um, uh, few years.
[24:45] Um, you know, I think Gerald Ford was very cautious and appropriately so, uh, uh, trying to calm the country down and give it a steady hand after, um, after, uh, those things.
[24:58] Nixon had been, you know, deposed.
[25:00] Nixon had to, you know, character, um, to, you know, listen to, you know, uh, voices he trusted and, uh, do what they suggested.
[25:12] And I think he came to believe was the right thing for the country, which was to, to resign.
[25:16] Um, um, I, I don't, I don't think that, um, you know, had, had that been President Trump that anybody would have seen him leave the White House, uh, um, um, voluntarily.
[25:30] Um, the, uh, um, Jimmy Carter was no, uh, uh, threat to, um, to the, uh, to impose a, you know, unitary, uh,
[25:45] executive, um, philosophy on, on things.
[25:50] So I think the country had sort of a, you know, some breathing space.
[25:53] And then gradually since that time, you've seen, um, uh, and, and sometimes in, in part because of events.
[26:01] You know, 9-11 obviously was a significant event that, you know, required strong, uh, executive action.
[26:07] Um, and, uh, and there've been others, um, that, uh, where, uh, as the world gets more and more complicated and, uh, uh, which it does every day, um, that, uh, uh, you know, require a president to step up from time to time.
[26:23] Uh, but the, as a, as a philosophical intellectual matter, I don't think it really picked up steam, uh, until, until, you know, the post 9-11 era.
[26:35] And, uh, and, uh, and, and I think John Yoo, um, may have been one of the, you know, initial, uh, legal minds to, you know, put pen to paper and articulate it in a way that, uh, actually turned it into a philosophy.
[26:48] Uh, I could be wrong about that, but that's, that's sort of the record recollection I have in terms of first reading about, you know, um, you know, creeping, the creeping, uh, uh, re-infusion of power into the presidency over the other two branches.
[27:04] Uh, I, I do think, um, that there's never been anybody, you know, as unbound by convention or civility or norms, uh, as this president.
[27:17] Uh, and I think under this president, uh, I think you see assertions of presidential power that you've never seen before.
[27:25] And you see a, a little bit of, um, uh, well, you see a lot of gamesmanship behind it.
[27:31] I mean, I think some of the things, um, that have accompanied many of the actions of the last 70 days really sort of diminish, um, the, uh, unitary executive theory.
[27:45] For example, I think, um, in the, in the Venezuelan deportation case that Judge, uh, Bosberg has, uh, where, uh, the Justice Department refuses to give really perfunctory information, uh, about, uh, uh, what, what is clearly their, uh, defiance of, uh, uh, the judge's, uh, orders.
[28:07] Um, you know, and, and, and playing games with, like, the State Secrets Act, uh, where, uh, the rhetoric, uh, you know, not only from the president, but from the Justice Department in pleadings,
[28:20] suggests that, you know, the reason they have to do this is because of bleeding heart liberal judges that, you know, favor, um, gang members and terrorists and those who would, uh, rob, rape and, uh, murder, uh, people on our streets, uh, over, um, you know, over a president's desire to clean up the country.
[28:42] Well, that's not the issue at all in these cases.
[28:44] I mean, the only issue in the Alien Enemy Act case, um, now that it's been resurrected after having last been used in one of the darkest legal moments in the history of America,
[28:56] in the, uh, Japanese internment case, uh, 80 plus years ago.
[29:00] The, the only real issue is, um, were these people who the government said they were, and did they have the associations that the government said they did?
[29:12] Um, and those are simple, you know, probable cause standard, you know, findings.
[29:17] They're not, they don't require, you know, a lengthy trial.
[29:20] They require, you know, a simple hearing and probable cause, not reasonable doubt, or, um, uh, any other higher standard than probable cause is the standard.
[29:29] Uh, and, you know, people are, if determined to be, you know, who the government says they, they are, and if, if determined that there is probable cause to believe they did the government,
[29:39] what the government said they did, they're, they're whisked off.
[29:42] Um, plus none of those people were in a threat to anybody.
[29:46] They, they'd all been detained.
[29:47] So, you know, you see the rhetoric, you know, and, and, and these false choices that are thrown out there as, uh, reasons, um, to, you know, to loathe the judiciary
[29:59] and, you know, uh, delegitimize the judicial branch, um, you know, it's all made up.
[30:08] I mean, they, they, they, the, the, the, the judges, and particularly Judge Bosworth, you know, had a simple task.
[30:13] And then, and he, I think he has done a good job of trying to make that plain.
[30:16] Um, although it's not getting communicated very effectively within the current administration.
[30:21] With the Eric Adams case, what happens, is it, was it different than the way that that went down?
[30:28] Your understanding of how, of how the criminal justice system works, how U.S. attorneys work?
[30:34] Never seen anything like it, ever.
[30:37] I mean, but it, but it, it does, there is a common theme to that, that penetrates almost everything else he's done from, you know, um, his attempts to punish law firms,
[30:49] law firms with tangential relationships to, you know, people who, in the course of just doing their jobs, uh, you know, were adverse to him.
[30:57] Um, um, and, uh, uh, and, and not just law firms, but, um, you know, colleges and institutions, um, of higher learning, um, science.
[31:10] You know, it's, it's, it's, it's all transactional now, uh, very transactional.
[31:15] And this was, this was, as, as the judge who, uh, dismissed the case with prejudice, um, this week, um, observed in a very detailed,
[31:26] well, well thought out opinion, um, where he didn't do any violence to, you know, the, uh, separation of powers issues that were, uh, that were in play.
[31:36] He acknowledged them all and rationally so, uh, but, but he made it very clear that this was nothing more than,
[31:43] you know, uh, a quid pro quo, you know, for Eric Adams to support, you know, one of Trump's policy initiatives on immigration,
[31:51] um, and roll over, uh, for whatever, um, whatever his justice department and administration wanted to do in New York with immigration,
[31:59] um, in, in exchange for, you know, um, not sending him to jail.
[32:05] But the wrinkle that was, that was at issue this week, of course, was, you know, whether the dismissal should be with prejudice or not with prejudice.
[32:14] And, uh, Paul Clement, um, you know, a, a, um, uh, long-time conservative, uh, Republican, uh, thought leader and, uh, you know, government lawyer and, uh, recent, uh, uh, you know, Supreme Court, uh, uh, consider, uh, somebody who was recently considered for the Supreme Court as a, as a serious contender who would make a good justice, uh, because of his intellect and, uh, experience, um, you know, was appointed, uh, which I thought was unusual.
[32:45] But, you know, the judge appointed, uh, uh, Paul, who I know and respect, um, uh, given his conservative bent.
[32:52] But, you know, he, he came out with, uh, you know, a very lawyer-like, um, analysis that made it plain that, um, the, the, with prejudice, without prejudice, uh, distinction was one where only the, only dismissing it with prejudice, where it couldn't be rebroad,
[33:10] and didn't hang like a sort of Damocles over the head of Eric Adams, uh, uh, for the Trump, for the Trump administration was consistent with, you know, traditional concepts of justice and the rule of law.
[33:21] Uh, and the judge followed that recommendation, thank goodness, um, uh, and, and appropriately so to the frustration of, of the government.
[33:29] And he made it very plain that, uh, what Emile Bove and, you know, uh, senior leaders of the Justice Department attempted to do there was,
[33:36] you know, straightforward, uh, quid pro quo, um, uh, in a case that had taken up great resources, where there was really not much question about the facts, uh, or the events that had occurred,
[33:47] given the number of other people that have been implicated and some of whom have already been convicted, uh, or pled guilty.
[33:53] Um, so, I think, I think that's an instance, um, um, this week, uh, that I think, um, may be a signal that the courts are starting to catch up to this
[34:06] and, uh, trying to right some of these wrongs and showing that they can do that.
[34:10] Can you help me understand why somebody like Daniel, uh, Daniel Sessong, the, uh, acting U.S. Attorney for this other thing,
[34:18] U.S. Attorney for the Southern District would resign, you know, as a, as a former prosecutor?
[34:22] Help me understand why she and a number of other people would, would either be pushed out or resign.
[34:29] I think that, um, the, uh, circumstances faced by, uh, Ms. Sassoon and, uh, uh, subsequently Mr. Scotton
[34:38] in the Southern District are, were similar to the, uh, circumstances faced by, uh, Elliot Richardson
[34:46] and, uh, Bill Ruckelshaus, uh, at, uh, at the Justice Department when the Nixon administration
[34:51] tried to get them to terminate Archibald Cox's independent counsel, um, and they both resigned.
[34:57] Uh, I think it was the same, um, I think it was the same consideration, uh, you know, that there's a time
[35:03] when that oath that you take to preserve and protect the Constitution, um, matters, uh, and hits the road.
[35:10] And, uh, once you assess it in those terms, you know, your duty is clear.
[35:15] Um, I think she did that and she did it eloquently. Uh, he did that and he did it eloquently.
[35:22] Um, and, um, you know, I don't, I have never personally met either of them, but I can't wait to shake their hand if I do.
[35:30] I think it seems like they see, they see their job differently than if you read the letter from Emile Boeve to her that says,
[35:41] you know, you work for this administration and when you're asked to do something, you should do it.
[35:47] And in a way you're sort of violating your oath by refusing to do it.
[35:51] Right. Which makes the, um, subject that we talked about earlier when, um, uh, Trump addressed the Great Hall
[35:57] and was introduced by Pam Bondi and she made a plan that they were all there for him, um, and devoted to him.
[36:04] Um, uh, that's just not, that's just not the way it's supposed to work.
[36:09] They're supposed to preserve and protect the Constitution and, um, they're not there to preserve and protect the presidency.
[36:16] What's the danger of if it doesn't work that way? If, if they do serve the president, if the United States Department of Justice
[36:25] or the U.S. Attorneys are, are, are serving him in the way that they're describing in those letters?
[36:32] Well, it turns the Constitution on its head. It does, it does, uh, turn, uh, uh, the president, uh, into a king.
[36:38] Um, and, um, you know, I guess, uh, if I had to epitomize the danger, the danger is Putin, Stalin, Hitler.
[36:49] Explain that.
[36:53] That, you know, all those, all those, um, leaders, you know, had the Slavish devotion of anybody below them,
[37:03] um, uh, all of whom knew that there would be serious consequences to them if they ran afoul of his desires,
[37:11] uh, and that that was really their only standard.
[37:14] Um, in America, um, until recently, um, the only standard that, uh, federal prosecutors, um, uh, were to be concerned about
[37:25] was whether what they were doing was, uh, fair, just, and consistent with the Constitution.
[37:30] Were you surprised there wasn't more fallout?
[37:32] You know, especially Congress doesn't hold hearings about it, doesn't call everybody in to find out exactly what happened.
[37:38] No, not with this Congress.
[37:41] I mean, I think this Congress has neutered itself through its own cowardice.
[37:45] Um, and, uh, certainly in the House, that's the case.
[37:49] And, um, I think in the Senate, while there are people there, um, as was demonstrated yesterday
[37:55] when, you know, four senators broke with their party to, um, uh, vote against, uh, the tariffs with, uh, Canada,
[38:04] um, uh, in, in, in good conscience and consistent with rational economic theory, um, the, the, the reality is, um, again, getting to the transactional point,
[38:19] uh, these people now know that Elon Musk and the President will go out and find somebody else to run against them
[38:25] from the right and, and raise hundreds of millions of dollars, uh, for them to put them out of a job.
[38:31] Um, now, I grew up in a little town in Kansas, and I can remember thinking it was, uh, you know, pretty cool thing about America
[38:44] that, uh, you know, you could serve your country and, um, that your standard would be, you know, to do what you thought was right.
[38:54] Um, I was in grade school when I read, uh, Profiles in Courage.
[39:02] Uh, one of the individuals profiled was, uh, Kansan, um, who, uh, salvaged the, uh, uh, attempted impeachment
[39:13] of Andrew Johnson, um, out of conscience, um, whether or not it was the right thing to do, I have no idea,
[39:20] but, uh, but it was clearly an act of, uh, conscience, uh, as portrayed in President Kennedy's book.
[39:27] Um, uh, those things made a great impression on me.
[39:30] Um, that's not the, that's not the America we've enjoyed the last 70 days.
[39:34] How unusual or what do you make of a moment like where Elon Musk and Doe show up and take a congressionally funded agency like USAID,
[39:45] say they're shutting it down, take the sign off, pull the money away.
[39:49] In a moment, a moment like that, how unusual is it?
[39:53] How does it relate to what, what we've been talking about?
[39:57] Well, I think it gets back to the, you know, form of government that we now have, um, in terms of the philosophy of this administration,
[40:05] which is we can do any, whatever we want and, uh, we don't really, you know, care what it looks like.
[40:12] Um, you know, this is the kind of thing you would typically see in a third world country or in a highly autocratic country.
[40:18] Um, um, and I guess the thing that I'm most shocked about is sort of less that they do it, but how hand-handed it is.
[40:26] Um, the, um, um, the cuts at USAID, I mean, USAID, I'm sure that there's, you know, a significant amount of fraud and a significant excess in terms of,
[40:42] you know, uh, what is paid or has been paid historically that, you know, could have been and should have been surgically addressed,
[40:49] uh, through examination of the books and relationships and other things and, and largely, but, you know,
[40:57] probably not completely rectified, uh, in the ordinary course of, you know, trying to fix that.
[41:02] Uh, instead what we did is we just killed the agency.
[41:04] And this is an agency that for what is a relatively modest, uh, outlay economically, um, produces incredible, uh, benefits to the United States,
[41:21] uh, and, and to the world.
[41:23] I mean, this is an agency where Ebola is, is controlled and contained, uh, uh, conditions, uh, designed to prevent, um, diseases like that
[41:34] and pandemics and, um, uh, other tragic events, uh, um, uh, you know, have historically been, um, um, the focus of, of those programs.
[41:48] Um, it's gotten us a foothold in, you know, any number of countries where we have significant, uh, national security interests.
[41:56] I mean, and, and there may be people who disagree with you about the value of USAID,
[42:00] but that they do a, a, a congressionally funded agency, a congressionally created agency, um, and, and sort of shut it down themselves.
[42:11] What do you make of, of that?
[42:14] Is that-
[42:15] Well, so I think, again, so that's an, so I, again, that brings us back to, you know, uh, Congress being neutered.
[42:20] I mean, Congress is not fighting for itself.
[42:22] Congress is not having those hearings that you suggest that clearly should be in order.
[42:26] Um, Congress has even accepted, you know, again, getting back to the gamesmanship,
[42:31] of this administration, you know, which insists that, you know, um, a woman who, you know,
[42:37] isn't even important enough at DOGE to make it into the, into the Fox News Brett Baier interview
[42:42] is actually the person running DOGE and Elon Musk is just a spectator.
[42:46] Everybody knows that's a lie.
[42:47] Um, you know, I mean, it doesn't take, uh, um, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to, you know, um,
[42:54] to, uh, to believe their, you know, lying eyes, uh, when they see he's at, you know,
[43:00] every DOGE event and he's the guy holding the, you know, power saw.
[43:04] Um, you know, it's, it's, uh, sort of silly.
[43:06] Um, and, and, and the speed at which they're moving, uh, virtually ensures, you know, chaos
[43:12] and, and, and ensures a lot of erroneous decisions, you know, not, not, uh, um, not, uh, unlike,
[43:24] you know, many of the other things that have, that have happened in the, in the, you know,
[43:29] in the chaos of the early days where, you know, uh, the military was told to take down everything DEI
[43:36] and Jackie Robinson gets wiped out and they later come back and say, well, that was a mistake.
[43:39] I'm sorry about that.
[43:40] You know, okay.
[43:41] Well, what about the Navajo, uh, code talkers?
[43:44] Oh, that was a mistake too, you know?
[43:45] I mean, but you know, mistakes are happening and it's only if somebody calls them out, do
[43:49] they get correct?
[43:50] Uh, there, there's really, there's not much that goes into the careful planning of these
[43:54] things, uh, highlighted again today by the revelations that have come out about the, you
[43:59] know, the way that the oddly, uh, configured tariffs and the, the, the, you know, the percentages,
[44:08] uh, were calculated.
[44:09] Um, I mean, it's, it doesn't make sense to economists.
[44:12] It doesn't even make sense to mathematicians.
[44:14] I mean, can the courts deal with it?
[44:17] I mean, you were saying like they were playing around with who's running does, for example.
[44:21] Sure.
[44:22] These things are being defunded.
[44:23] I mean, can the courts deal with this?
[44:26] Courts can deal with some of it.
[44:27] They can't deal with all of it.
[44:28] For, for example, um, you know, a, a court, let's take the example of the, you know,
[44:34] person that even the White House has acknowledged should never have been deported to, uh, to El Salvador.
[44:40] Um, the Venezuelan young man from Maryland, uh, who was arrested, uh, um, you know, in the, in the presence of his five-year-old.
[44:51] And at least according to his lawyers and, you know, the other publicly available information, um, you know, it, it was not a, you know, member of the gang or, uh, otherwise supposed to be there.
[45:05] And the administration has acknowledged that they, um, shouldn't have done it and that it was a, quote, administrative error.
[45:11] I'm not sure what that, what that means, uh, but it was a mistake of huge proportions when, uh, when you look at it from the perspective of his family.
[45:19] So, um, and, and they say, well, there's nothing we can do.
[45:23] Uh, and by the way, he did have some traffic violations and he has some tattoos.
[45:27] Bad, bad guy.
[45:28] Um, that's the kind of thing I think that offends most, you know, right thinking Americans.
[45:32] I mean, you know, I don't, I don't think, um, you know, I know the evangelicals voted for, um, you know, Trump, 82% of the evangelicals, uh, voted for Trump.
[45:42] But I think that many of them in, in their core understand that that's not the kind of, you know, compassion that they're talking about in church, uh, on Sundays.
[45:51] Uh, and that's not the kind of fairness that they've typically associated with America.
[45:55] And, and, and now the administration is saying there's nothing we can do.
[45:58] You know, there's, of course there's things you can do.
[46:00] You know, I mean, Bill Richardson went to North Korea nine times to, you know, uh, lobby to try to get people back.
[46:05] You know, and we're, and we're not even picking up the phone and calling the, calling the country of El Salvador saying, hey, you know, we, we, we made a mistake.
[46:11] Can you give us this, this one guy back?
[46:13] Um, you know, that's, I think, I think the, the way that they're playing fast and loose and, um, unwilling to try to address the mistakes that they make, um, you know, ultimately may, may, uh, uh, be the downfall of, uh, you know, some of this, uh, uh, uh,
[46:32] aggressive and reckless, uh, uh, conduct.
[46:35] Do you think that firing the inspector generals, the USAID inspector generals is like, oh, I think right after he issues a report.
[46:41] They, they wasn't in the first group of, of inspector generals who were fired, but, but the replacement or, or the firing really and not replacing the inspector generals.
[46:51] Is that part of this, the same?
[46:53] Oh, certainly.
[46:54] Yeah.
[46:55] No, I mean, so, um, so you got Congress neutered from doing their oversight, um, because you've got, uh, uh, Mike Johnson is the speaker, uh, who takes his marching instructions directly from the White House on a daily or multiple, multiple times a day basis.
[47:11] Uh, and then you've got, um, you know, the Senate, which, you know, is almost evenly split, um, and, and the message was, uh, made very crystal clear when, uh, Joni Ernst, you know, a sexual assault victim and a military veteran, uh, was bullied into, uh, supporting Hagseth, uh, uh, by threats that they were gonna run somebody against her and, you know, and grossly overfund that person.
[47:37] Uh, you know, this is gonna cost you your job if you resist this.
[47:40] Uh, I think that kind of transactional, extortionate, whatever you want to call it, um, responses is what, um, uh, is what you see and purposely so.
[47:51] And that's what you see with the attorney general, uh, inspector generals, because the inspector generals, you know, um, uh, while Congress provides the oversight generally for, you know, the, uh, executive branch, inspector generals provide it for agencies on behalf of Congress.
[48:07] So they're, they're there to report back to Congress about whether the agency is, you know, performing consistent with its, you know, ethical and legal obligations.
[48:15] And, uh, that's the kind of oversight, um, you know, this administration can't afford and, you know, doesn't tolerate.
[48:21] So the inspector generals have been, are pushed to the side.
[48:25] The, um, Congress is sort of to the side.
[48:28] The Justice Department, as we've talked about, uh, is being brought under, under sort of control of the White House.
[48:36] And a lot of this has ended up in the courts.
[48:38] And it's, it's in that context that the president starts signing executive orders about law firms.
[48:44] What do those executive orders do?
[48:47] What, where do you think they fit into this, into this story?
[48:52] Well, they, they are consistent with the picture that I think people are, you know, grudgingly starting to, uh, recognize about what's really going on here.
[49:06] Which is, you know, uh, this is, this is, uh, not only about immigration and the economy and, uh, other things that the president campaigned on.
[49:18] But it's, it's, it's, it's, vengeance is at the, at the front and center of, uh, what, uh, what, uh, many of the actions taken in the, in the first 70 days have been about.
[49:30] Um, you know, the, the law firms, uh, involved, some of whom have just the most tangential relationship
[49:39] to individuals that the president, you know, abhors or, um, who crossed him in the course of performing their duties, uh, historically.
[49:47] It's just, there's never been anything like it.
[49:49] Nobody's ever done anything like this.
[49:51] It's, it's again, gets back to the, you know, um, authoritarian regimes that, uh, uh, the United States has long been distinguished from, uh, because of the rule of law.
[50:03] Um, the, um, the, the legality of these orders, um, has so far been crystal clear that, you know, the, the, the, the law firms that have been courageous enough to contest them, uh, have prevailed.
[50:20] At least with regard to the patently, uh, absurd, um, order that they can no longer go into federal buildings, uh, uh, thus keeping them out of federal courts and federal agencies where,
[50:33] you know, uh, citizens of all faiths, all, uh, political parties and, uh, uh, rich, poor, partisan, indifferent, whoever, uh, make an individual, visual choice consistent with the right to counsel in the United States.
[50:50] Another constitutionally time-honored concept, um, you know, to represent them in those matters.
[50:57] And, um, um, it's, it's a, it's a grotesque interference in that.
[51:00] And, um, the courts, uh, have agreed that, you know, that's inappropriate.
[51:05] Uh, one of the aspects of those orders is the removal of the security clearances of, uh, lawyers in those firms.
[51:14] Now that is something, uh, when you were asking is, are the courts up to it?
[51:19] So the courts are up to the, the issue of, you know, unlawfully, you know, prohibiting, uh, them from, you know, entering federal buildings.
[51:29] Um, uh, but, uh, the courts really actually aren't up to, you know, uh, contesting the president's ability to, uh, pull a security clearance.
[51:38] Um, now, under certain evidentiary circumstances, they may ultimately be able to do it.
[51:44] But, you know, in terms of an injunctive approach, they're not going to be able to do that.
[51:48] So, uh, so those clearances will be gone less than until those cases are tried and vindicated or resolved.
[51:54] Uh, but I think the, um, law firms for the most part, uh, who want to contest it will certainly be able to stay in business, uh, and, and, and do their work, uh, at the EPA or, um, OSHA or, you know, FDA or other, other federal buildings, including federal courts.
[52:12] But it sounds like a lot of the firms, even if they know they might be able to go to court and get an injunction, feel some kind of pressure because they're settling.
[52:20] I mean, why?
[52:22] Um, you know, why did, why did, uh, why did some of the media outlets and some of the tech companies, you know, settle?
[52:31] Um, I mean, part of it's sort of, um, you know, a sign of fealty to the president, uh, not wanting to be at, at, uh, at war with the president because the, you know, um, you know, his, his vengeful,
[52:44] extortionate side is, you know, uh, easily understood, um, um, that it, you know, it's not good business.
[52:50] Um, uh, um, you know, it's, it plays into the, um, as it, as it should, the image of the president as a mob boss.
[53:02] Um, and, uh, um, you know, it's, it's sort of his way or the highway.
[53:07] Uh, if, if you, uh, if you, um, get on the highway, you better be prepared to, to, uh, you know, defend yourself vigorously.
[53:17] And it'll be expensive.
[53:18] It's interesting you make that comparison.
[53:20] He says, uh, a lot of these law firms are bending to me.
[53:23] You know, in the articles they say, you know, they're bending the knee.
[53:27] What does that, what does that say to you?
[53:31] I mean, it's certainly the messianic way he sees himself and others portray him.
[53:37] As, as what?
[53:39] I mean, what does it mean for a law firm to, to bend to him or?
[53:43] Well, so, I mean, you know, I think people generally would associate Skadden with, you know, enormous power as a,
[53:49] you know, uh, titan of the law firm industry and, uh, you know, some firms that, you know,
[53:57] Trump historically, you know, having been a New Yorker looked up to as, uh, as one of the,
[54:02] you know, blue bud, you know, tough, uh, successful, forceful, powerful, you know, law firms.
[54:08] And, uh, it certainly, uh, makes him feel good about himself that, uh, you know, they're, they're, uh, yielding to him.
[54:16] And what's the, what's the, what's the, what's the challenge of that?
[54:22] I mean, does that, does that deny people who want to challenge the government?
[54:27] What's the, what's the, what's the overall strategy or effect of, of some of these firms making these deals?
[54:34] I think, well, it's so new that we can't be sure.
[54:37] Um, but I think there's certainly the danger that, uh, clients, uh, judges, others,
[54:45] will have some questions about the, uh, vigorousness of, uh, arguments that are made against the government
[54:51] by, uh, firms that, uh, have, have, uh, acquiesced to the president's, uh, demands.
[54:57] Um, I think, um, um, it, it undermines the, again, the confidence that many Americans have in, uh, in the, uh, legal system.
[55:09] Um, and, and, and any, any anxieties that, you know, people develop or get seeded about, um, potential infirmities
[55:20] of, uh, of the legal process or of Congress, uh, uh, or other institutions other than the presidency, you know,
[55:28] you know, feed the power of the presidency.
[55:30] So, diminishing all these, uh, uh, institutions, uh, and, uh, you know, historically consequential entities,
[55:41] um, you know, makes the presidency that much, that much stronger and that much more powerful
[55:46] and, um, um, uh, transforms the American democracy from, um, you know, three co-equal branches to,
[55:54] you know, uh, the, the, um, uh, situation where the, you know, the presidency dominates, um, in a way that it wasn't intended.
[56:06] As I'm listening to the way you're describing him as transactional, as almost like a, a sort of a mob boss
[56:13] and these other institutions being marginalized, uh, it almost sounds like there's, that these are two
[56:18] sort of different systems, this rule of, what you're calling the rule of law and, and this other system
[56:23] that's developing. What is, what's, what's happening in the big figure? What are you describing?
[56:30] Uh, so I don't have an agenda or anything. I'm sort of trying to react to the circumstances,
[56:36] but I, I think what we, what we have seen is, um, you know, a conscious diminution of, uh, uh, the, the, uh, power of the courts,
[56:49] uh, the integrity of the courts, uh, the, uh, judges and the lawyers, um, you know, who, you know,
[56:58] many of whom are there either to challenge the government when the government is out of bounds,
[57:02] being unfair or, uh, overreaching, uh, and, you know, uh, on the lawyer side
[57:09] and then on the judge side to determine whether that's the case, uh, in a way that, um, you know,
[57:15] feeds the arguments that, uh, you hear from the White House about, uh, uh, any judge who disagrees with him
[57:22] is, you know, a liberal rogue, even if it's Judge Bosberg, who was the judge who refused to let the IRS, uh,
[57:29] share Trump's tax returns, ruled in Trump's favor, forced the release of 14,000, you know, emails
[57:37] that, uh, had been wrongfully withheld by Hillary Clinton, um, and, uh, has taken, you know,
[57:44] numerous other actions that, you know, benefited Republicans and sometimes the president directly,
[57:49] but, uh, uh, because he got, got assigned a case that, um, where the government clearly, uh, overreached,
[58:00] uh, and, uh, raised questions about it, you know, not, not questions of his own frolic and detour,
[58:07] but questions raised about compliance with the statute that are framed by the statute itself,
[58:12] um, you know, uh, he's, he's under attack.
[58:15] So, I think the, I think what you see is, you know, this attack on, on the judiciary, the attack on law firms,
[58:22] uh, the attack on really all things other than, uh, the power of the presidency, uh, are designed to inflate the presidency
[58:29] to, uh, um, a level where, uh, it, it dominates the, uh, power structure of the, of the, of our government
[58:37] in a way that was never intended by the Constitution or the framers.
[58:40] When, when that moment happens with Judge Bozberg and the, the flights, um, what do you make of that?
[58:48] That there's an injunction to turn the flights around and it doesn't?
[58:51] What, what happens in that moment? What does it tell you?
[58:54] The fact that a judge would have been asked to rule on that, um, should have been a foregone understanding.
[59:00] I mean, the, the, the likelihood of doing something like that without having it contested in court was,
[59:08] you know, zero to none.
[59:10] Um, and the fact that it, uh, a judge asked the questions that this judge asked,
[59:16] those were questions that, you know, you should have answered in advance anyway.
[59:20] Uh, but you didn't, but they didn't care.
[59:22] I mean, they didn't, they didn't, they, they were so determined to do this in a way that, uh, was shock and awe
[59:30] that they, you know, they had people in the air within, within an hour or so of the signing of the executive order.
[59:37] Uh, now that's, you know, again, that gets back to sort of being cute, too, too cute by half.
[59:44] Um, because that's not really the way America has, has, has worked in the past.
[59:50] I mean, you, you know, usually that there are laws or proclamations that, you know,
[59:55] then are implemented in a careful, thoughtful way and, uh, consistent with, you know, due process.
[1:00:01] You know, careful, thoughtful, and due process were, you know, considerations that, you know, never came up in this, in this planning.
[1:00:09] I mean, what you're suggesting is that the White House wasn't exercising good faith in, in carrying out the law.
[1:00:17] They didn't have a lawyer before or, or what, what, what do you make of that?
[1:00:23] So I don't know, so I don't know whether, I don't know how lawyered it was.
[1:00:27] And, and, and we don't, we don't actually have much of an insight on that because the, the, uh, Justice Department's impertinent and, uh, unprecedented refusal to share, share information that the court has requested.
[1:00:39] Uh, but, you know, given the, the speed with which, uh, the, uh, actual execution of the deportations occurred following the signing of the, uh, executive order, um, or the proclamation, whatever, uh, however they want to frame it.
[1:00:53] Um, I think it's pretty clear that, uh, um, you know, the due process, even the minimal due process required by the Alien Enemies Act, you know, did not take place.
[1:01:04] So what, what are they doing?
[1:01:06] What are they doing on, on this, on, on other things?
[1:01:09] Are they, are they just testing the law or, or is there a bigger strategy?
[1:01:15] So I think that's an excellent question.
[1:01:19] I think oftentimes the presumption that there is a grand strategy and, uh, uh, this is somehow encapsulated in the art of, art of the deal, um, and the myth of, you know, uh, you know, the businessman notwithstanding the six bankruptcies.
[1:01:42] Um, I think it's a mistake to think that this is a grand scheme that's all coming together.
[1:01:49] But I do think, um, portions of it are part of a grand scheme, which is to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible.
[1:01:55] See where the chips fall, where they, see where the chips fall and, you know, seize the opportunities that, you know, um, you know, that, that seem to, seem to arise.
[1:02:06] Um, and, um, uh, I think the administration has been relatively lucky so far, but their track record over the last couple of weeks is, has been abysmal in court, uh, where they, you know, they lose sort of nine out of 10, uh, at this stage of the game.
[1:02:21] And when, which is, you know, a, um, slightly lower rate than they lost, uh, in the president's first term when I think he was 63 for 64.
[1:02:33] And, you know, he's won a few this time.
[1:02:35] Um, uh, and with, and, and frankly, the ones that he's won probably, you know, he deserved to win in terms of the constitution because as we discussed earlier, the courts can't remedy every reckless move he makes.
[1:02:47] They can only remedy the ones that raise constitutional issues or the clearly in violation of the statutes.
[1:02:52] And, you know, there are gray areas, um, and there are also, also areas that are exclusively entrusted to him, like we discussed before, the security clearances.
[1:03:00] So, um, he's gonna win some, uh, but, you know, he's, he has, um, uh, made very plain what his priorities are.
[1:03:12] And his priorities are, uh, to, to do as much, um, of what he wants as the courts will let him get away with it.
[1:03:21] Uh, and then to denigrate the courts with the hope that he'll be able to, um, recapture even that territory.
[1:03:27] And I don't know if they planned it, uh, to take on immigration to be the thing that they were gonna fight with the judge with, but they do seem to relish it.
[1:03:34] The idea, right, that the judge is letting gang members who they say are terrorists, um, and the comments that they make to reporters seem to sort of be bringing on if you wanna have a fight over this issue.
[1:03:48] Well, it's interesting because, I mean, their argument, one of the arguments, you know, that they make, and actually they said in court, which was, you know, uh, judge, a judge shouldn't, you know, prevent the president from, you know, doing what he was elected to do.
[1:04:00] Well, what does that mean?
[1:04:01] I mean, seriously, you know, he was elected, you know, to do a lot of things, fix immigration, you know, uh, fix the economy, do some, do some important things, uh, in, in both those fields, you know, many of which probably needed to be done.
[1:04:14] But he wasn't elected to do it lawlessly.
[1:04:17] It wasn't that he was elected to do it by any means.
[1:04:20] You know, Americans, you know, have been raised on the, on the, uh, you know, on the principle that, you know, due process applies here, that no man is above the law, and that, uh, you know, we, we can, we will do the right thing.
[1:04:38] It may be harsh in the end, but, you know, whatever that harsh result is will have been, uh, insulated, um, you know, from wrong by due process.
[1:04:49] And, um, this administration has decided to remove the due process from the analysis and just go straight from whatever their whim is to action.
[1:04:58] A lot of presidents have had conflicts with the court or not like Supreme Court decisions or, and have been critical of them.
[1:05:05] Is there something different that you see in the way that President Trump is approaching, especially the judge in this case?
[1:05:12] Sure.
[1:05:13] Um, I mean, if you go back in history, you know, the Warren court, for example, um, in the sixties and seventies, uh, you know, what took on, um, a lot of water, uh, from conservatives,
[1:05:34] uh, conservatives primarily in terms of the, uh, expansion of, you know, various freedoms, uh, under the Bill of Rights, you know, right to counsel, uh, among them civil rights, um, other things where, um, you know, the world changed quickly as, as it should have.
[1:05:57] Um, and, um, there was a great deal of criticism, um, and a great deal of, um, you know, political rhetoric, um, not, not entirely dissimilar to what's going on now.
[1:06:11] Um, but it was never in the sense of, um, that it was, it was never to the extent that, um, you know, the entire concept of three co-equal branches was threatened.
[1:06:26] Um, here, the, the difference I think is we've gone way beyond criticism of, you know, uh, the judicial process and, um, you know, liberal judges, conservative judges, um, conservative principles, liberal principles,
[1:06:44] you know, beginning to dominate, uh, into, into, you know, whether, you know, the judiciary should even be a, uh, uh, restraint on the presidency.
[1:06:53] And I think that's the primary distinction I would draw, uh, from the last 70 days that we, we have never really had before in America.
[1:07:03] Uh, and that's something that, that's a, that's a debate that we shouldn't be having because, um, without, uh, judiciary to restrain overreach by the executive branch,
[1:07:15] you know, we have a totalitarian authoritarian system.
[1:07:18] Do you know Judge Bosworth?
[1:07:21] Judge Bosworth, I don't, um, but I, I, I, I, I oddly, um, uh, am aware of him because of his, uh, time in the U.S. Attorney's Office
[1:07:31] where he tried a lot of, uh, homicide cases.
[1:07:33] When I was a federal prosecutor because I was in Maryland, uh, where there are a lot of government facilities and a lot of government property,
[1:07:41] um, uncharacteristically for federal prosecutors, I ended up trying a number of murder cases.
[1:07:47] He ended up trying a number of murder cases.
[1:07:49] So I did follow his career when he was in the U.S. Attorney's Office where he was a really highly regarded, uh, homicide, uh, uh, prosecutor.
[1:07:56] Um, so I don't know him, but I, I, I, I've been aware of him since he was, since he was an assistant U.S. Attorney.
[1:08:02] And a radical identity?
[1:08:03] You know, this is, this, this is somebody who, uh, at least to my knowledge and, and certainly, um, you know, within the circle of lawyers that I know who know him well, um, you know, find that sort of laughable.
[1:08:17] And that, uh, uh, you know, as we know, Justice Kavanaugh is one of his closest friends, former law school roommate.
[1:08:23] They vacation together.
[1:08:24] Uh, he, he's made the rulings, I think I, uh, addressed earlier, where he, uh, ruled for Trump, uh, against the IRS.
[1:08:32] Uh, ruled, uh, against Hillary Clinton and, uh, in a matter of serious consequence in the 2016 election.
[1:08:39] Um, and, uh, has had other, uh, you know, far reaching, uh, significant rulings that favored, uh, uh, conservatives or, or Trump himself.
[1:08:50] So, um, there's nothing in his background, you know, until he, until he asked a couple of questions that, frankly, the statute required him to ask that, uh, would have ever gotten his ire from a, uh, from a conservative.
[1:09:04] Um, you know, um, uh, and, you know, how, how, uh, how he got labeled as a, you know, rogue leftist judge with TDS.
[1:09:15] Um, um, I think, uh, um, well, I don't, I don't, I don't know, but it's, it's silly.
[1:09:22] Um, I mean, keep in mind, this is also, you know, I mean, people, Trump always talks about how he was an Obama appointed judge.
[1:09:28] That's true. He was elevated from his initial judgeship by Obama to the current judgeship that he had, but his original judgeship was from George W. Bush.
[1:09:37] Um, uh, so, um, I think, uh, I think the, the fallacies, uh, in terms of the attempt to stigmatize him with, um, uh, the rhetoric from this White House is, is, um, I just think it's silly.
[1:09:53] Trump has said he would follow court order, but people around him, Tom Honan, has said, I don't care, uh, what, what the judge thinks.
[1:10:01] There's this talk that has begun, um, that the, the judges can't rein him in in this area and talk with him.
[1:10:08] Will he, uh, not comply with the court order?
[1:10:12] What do you make that that discussion is, is going on?
[1:10:15] I think the fact that we're even having that discussion shows how far we've slipped, uh, um, you know, as a nation, uh, just in, in a short period of time.
[1:10:23] Um, you know, it would have been unthinkable, you know, even a year ago that, um, um, that a president wouldn't, wouldn't follow a court order.
[1:10:33] Uh, now it's being talked as, talked about as though it's a 50-50 ball.
[1:10:37] Um, I, I don't think that, uh, uh, I don't think that the country would stand for it.
[1:10:44] I certainly hope they wouldn't stand for it.
[1:10:46] Uh, would, would he be impeached?
[1:10:48] Um, probably not, not in, not in this, uh, environment, um, and certainly not in the, with the current political makeup of the House of Representatives.
[1:11:01] Um, but, um, you know, could it, could it bring about, uh, changes, um, and, and maybe rally some more, uh, U.S. Senators to, you know, vote, uh, as they did yesterday on the Canadian tariffs with the Democrats, uh, against what's obviously bad policy, perhaps?
[1:11:19] And is Trump capable of it, of not following the court order? Do you see that as a possibility?
[1:11:26] Well, I don't know how to answer that. I mean, I don't have a crystal ball on that.
[1:11:32] Um, in terms of capability of lawlessness, um, you know, perhaps, but, um, you know, ideally, um, ideally he'll, uh, you know, he'll find, uh, um, other fish to fry if, uh, if thwarted, uh, by a court order and adhere to a court order.
[1:11:51] And ideally, uh, somebody, um, I'm not sure who it would be in this White House, but somebody may urge him to, uh, follow the law.
[1:12:00] Okay. So all of the things that we've talked about from the Justice Department, from Congress, from Inspector Generals, from these attacks on the judge, I mean, how high are the stakes at this moment?
[1:12:11] Never, never been higher in American history.
[1:12:13] Explain, explain why you say that. What, what is at stake?
[1:12:18] What's at stake is, uh, uh, structure of our democracy. Uh, it's, you know, we've gone 240 plus years, uh, uh, or more in terms of the execution of, you know, this experiment, uh, um, with, uh,
[1:12:34] three co-equal branches of government, uh, it's out of balance now. Um, the judiciary stands between, um, Trump and, uh, um, and, uh, you know, Trump as president, uh, or Trump as king, and that's what's at risk.
[1:12:50] Do you think that the judiciary can, on its own, handle that moment of crisis?
[1:12:57] We don't know. Um, you know, the, the judiciary doesn't have an army. Um, you know, they don't have an independent, uh, ability to enforce their orders. Um, uh, uh, the judiciary is sort of alone in this battle because Congress is, uh, is, uh, sidelined. Um, and, uh, uh, we'll have to, we'll have to wait and see.
[1:13:21] How, how hard a position is somebody like John Roberts in the Supreme Court in, in this moment, knowing that there's this talk and threat of, of maybe not complying, that there's, there's attempts to, you know, be very critical of, of the judiciary. Um, how, how difficult is the, is the moment that he faces that the Supreme Court faces?
[1:13:44] So that's a very hard question to answer for a variety of reasons. And, and foremost among the reasons that makes it difficult is, um, for most of the justices, and certainly for justice, Chief Justice Roberts, uh, these issues, uh, while weighty, uh, and more consequential than others in history, um, don't get analyzed that way. Um, uh, the pressure of any one particular decision to the justices who do this,
[1:14:24] best, um, is, uh, is, uh, is really no different than, uh, you know, uh, easier decisions. I mean, because they, they follow their oath, um, they analyze the law and they do what they think the law requires or to the extent that what the law requires is inadequate, uh, either enhance it or modify it, uh, uh, in some way, um, uh, to fit the, uh, fit the circumstance in a ethical, um, deliberative, um,
[1:14:58] uh, manner, uh, that is not freelancing or imposing their own will. And so, um, is it a difficult position? Yes. Um, are the times unprecedented, urgent, and, uh, consequential? Yes. Um, will that affect, uh, whether they do the right thing? I don't think so.
[1:15:21] And when Justice Roberts issues the statement, uh, about, about Trump, uh, the president's, you know, statements about impeachment, what did, what does that tell you?
[1:15:33] So, if you look at the statement, I think it's only two sentences. And, um, and it didn't single anybody out and it wasn't directed, you know, uh, it didn't, you know, call out any individual.
[1:15:48] Uh, but it made the simple point that, um, since the inception of our, um, Republic, that the appropriate response to, uh, judicial order with which you disagree is the appellate process.
[1:16:05] Um, that's a fact. Uh, that's a given. That's at the cornerstone of, that's one of the cornerstones of, uh, American democracy and certainly, uh, the, uh, most appropriate description of what the process should be.
[1:16:22] Um, so was it a, uh, was it a pointed reminder? Sure it was. Uh, was it necessary?
[1:16:31] I, obviously, uh, Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts thought so, um, just as he did when it was, uh, in the, during Trump, early in Trump's first term when, you know, there was a lot of rhetoric from the White House about Obama judges and Clinton judges.
[1:16:45] And, you know, he issued a similar statement about how, you know, we don't have Obama judges, Clinton judges, Bush judges.
[1:16:51] We have a bunch of people, you know, uh, devoted to the Constitution trying to do the best job they can.
[1:16:58] I mean, that's, that's a inelegant paraphrase of, you know, what I'm sure he said more appropriately.
[1:17:04] The President's supporters have said, you know, sure, maybe impeachment would not work, but just holding hearings, threatening to close the D.C. circuit or replace it with something else, sends a message to those judges.
[1:17:16] Do you think that that, and, and then there's all the rhetoric around it, do you think that kind of strategy works? Does it, does it worry, worry you?
[1:17:26] Sure. I mean, again, transactional, mob boss strategy. Um, yes. I mean, it's, you know, um, intended to intimidate, um, intended to undermine, uh, um, institutions, uh, other than the presidency, um, and intended to, uh, inflate the power of the presidency.
[1:17:47] Sounds like a real test for them.
[1:17:53] Yeah, so, and I apologize, you know, I just have this sort of intellectual resistance to that because I, I, uh, I, uh, I had the great, uh, privilege of being the Chief Justice's partner for many, many years, um, uh, somebody I don't always agree with, but somebody who I respect every day.
[1:18:12] And, uh, uh, uh, uh, knowing him and, uh, love that he has for the country and, uh, seriousness with which he approaches, uh, his tasks and responsibilities, um, you know, I think he would be the first to tell you that, uh, yeah, this, this is, this, these decisions are all important, um, but, uh, all the decisions that they make are important.
[1:18:35] And then he has to bring the same intellectual rigor and, um, honesty, um, uh, and, uh, highest ethics, uh, uh, imaginable to each of those tasks individually.
[1:18:47] I have one, so if you don't mind.
[1:18:49] Sure.
[1:18:51] So, we were talking at one point about what Trump looks for in a lawyer or, you know, how he views lawyers, right?
[1:19:01] Right.
[1:19:02] And you've shared a story that you says, says it all, explains it all.
[1:19:08] Um, can you tell me what, what your personal experience has revealed about what Trump sees in a lawyer and that story specifically?
[1:19:20] Sure.
[1:19:21] Um, so the president, um, has a lot of experience with lawyers.
[1:19:27] Roy Cohn was the lawyer that, uh, he mentioned the most during our interactions, um, of his historical lawyers.
[1:19:38] And, uh, you know, he admired, uh, uh, Roy Cohn's fearlessness as, as, as, as the president perceived it.
[1:19:47] And, uh, um, you know, the results he was able to achieve by, uh, uh, largely ignoring the rules.
[1:19:58] Um, you know, you got the impression from hearing him speak that Roy Cohn had no ethical restraints.
[1:20:05] Um, and, uh, I think that anybody who's watched the McCarthy hearings, uh, would probably share that view.
[1:20:12] Um, and you also, it was also very clear that, uh, Trump admired the extent to which Roy Cohn would do anything, uh, for a client.
[1:20:28] Um, anything.
[1:20:30] And, um, that's not a lawyer's job.
[1:20:34] Um, the, uh, uh, while it wasn't intended as such, you know, I did have, uh, an occasion at the White House when, uh, the president was frustrated with me.
[1:20:48] Um, I, uh, I'm, I'm sure he was frustrated on more than one occasion.
[1:20:53] But on one occasion, uh, he expressed his frustration by telling me that, uh, uh, or commenting to me that, you're no Roy Cohn.
[1:21:00] Um, um, I now have that phrase on a, on a, um, placard, uh, uh, above my home office desk.
[1:21:10] Um, I think that was probably the highest praise I've gotten professionally in my career.
[1:21:16] This morning, we talked to Steve Bannon, who said that, uh, the Justice Department was weaponized against, against Trump.
[1:21:25] And that all he's doing now is just trying to balance the ledger, uh, that, uh, uh, uh, your thoughts about that?
[1:21:34] You, you, uh, think Trump was, uh, that the Justice Department was weaponized against, uh, Donald Trump when you, when you were working with him?
[1:21:42] Uh, I, I think it's very difficult if you're the target of that investigation to view that as other than weaponization.
[1:21:53] So I think, you know, I mean, there's, there's a basis there to, you know, feel victimized if you're, if you're the target.
[1:22:00] I mean, and then the president I know obviously did feel victimized and certainly his passionate supporters like Steve Bannon, um, took it to a, you know, even greater extreme.
[1:22:10] Um, so that's, that's why, that's why it makes that a difficult question to answer.
[1:22:14] I think, um, I wouldn't say that the Justice Department is weaponized, but I think the process was, was ugly.
[1:22:21] Um, but, you know, the process is often ugly.
[1:22:25] Um, and this is so much different than that though.
[1:22:29] Uh, what's going on, what's going on here in terms of suggesting that what Jack Smith did was somehow the product of weaponization?
[1:22:37] I mean, you know, it's not like January 6th didn't happen and it's not like it didn't happen on TV.
[1:22:44] So, um, it's very hard to, uh, for me to, you know, equate the Russia investigation where, you know, I can sort of understand how you would take that personally with, you know, these things that he actually did.
[1:22:58] Uh, and it's undeniable that he did and then say that, well, you know, this was, this is somehow the weaponization of the Justice Department when they, they were just doing their job.
[1:23:06] I mean, you know, was, was, was, um, um, I mean, was the Justice Department weaponized against, you know, Spiro Agnew and, you know, John Mitchell and, you know, uh, Ehrlichman and Haldeman and those guys?
[1:23:20] No, I mean, they did what they, they were charged with, they were found guilty.
[1:23:24] They went, they went to trial or pled guilty.
[1:23:26] Um, so, uh, you know, yes, they were prosecuted, but that's, you know, being prosecuted or being investigated and being charged is much different than suffering, you know, um, a weaponized, uh, uh, Justice Department.
[1:23:40] And I think the, you know, weaponization, you know, rhetoric is, again, that's part of, you know, the rewriting of history, you know, you know, rather than, you know, uh, see these uncontested factual, um, allegations that constitute crimes, um, uh, and, and, and, and have history remember that, they would prefer that, you know, history see this as a Justice Department vendetta, but it wasn't.
[1:24:08] So, when people, when, when people complain about Pam Bondi and Kash Patel and, uh, Bannon says, wait a minute, who was Bobby Kennedy?
[1:24:19] He was Jack Kennedy's brother of all things.
[1:24:23] Who was Eric Holder?
[1:24:24] He was Barack Obama's best friend.
[1:24:27] Why are we so exorcised about Bondi and Patel?
[1:24:31] What's the difference?
[1:24:32] Well, so the difference to me is, um, and I guess Holder came closer to this line than I would have preferred when he described himself as Obama's wingman.
[1:24:51] And I know Eric and I like him and, you know, I think he, um, um, you know, did the best job he could.
[1:24:58] But, uh, I think that was, uh, you know, that, that was a little too, uh, cavalier, I think, um, in, in terms of the relationships that most Americans expect between an independent Justice Department and Attorney General and, uh, in the White House, uh, particularly in the, in the wake of, uh, Watergate.
[1:25:15] Um, but when Bondi, you know, um, introduced, uh, uh, the President at the Great Hall of Justice and he made a point about how the Justice Department was with him, um, I think, uh, that, that, that's a line that, um, shouldn't exist.
[1:25:33] Uh, I mean, it's, you know, they're not supposed to be with him and they're supposed to preserve and protect the constitution.
[1:25:38] And if he, if he violates the law, you know, he should, he should suffer the consequences.
[1:25:44] Um, and that's not the impression that you have.
[1:25:47] Now, Cash Patel is very difficult to talk about, um, rationally, um, because if you compare him to Bobby Kennedy, um, you know, Bobby Kennedy actually was a pretty good lawyer.
[1:26:04] Um, and his experience in government, you know, dwarfed, uh, Cash Patel's and the respect with which he was held by his peers, uh,
[1:26:13] that was real.
[1:26:14] I mean, I guess the difference, I guess the distinction I'm talking about there is, you know, Bondi on paper and by experience is qualified to be the Attorney General, um, and hopefully she'll get her footing.
[1:26:25] I was more optimistic, um, uh, when she was appointed than I, you know, I am today, but ideally she'll, she'll find her footing and, uh, do better.
[1:26:36] Um, you know, probably I'm sure my, my, um, uh, feelings were complicated by how relieved I was that it would be good.
[1:26:46] Maybe anybody, but Matt Gaetz.
[1:26:48] When you talk about what Bondi said, why does that matter to Americans?
[1:26:53] Help us understand why that, why that really matters to a lot of people who aren't following this every day and haven't grown up in the law and don't understand even what we mean by, you know, lawfare and all of those phrases.
[1:27:06] What does it mean when the, when the Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the country says something like that to her staff?
[1:27:14] Well, I think it, I think it, um, for those of us, uh, with, uh, little or no or gray hair who survived Watergate, uh, it brings back the, uh, specter of those days where, you know, John Mitchell's obvious loyalty was to Nixon.
[1:27:35] Um, and, um, and, um, and, and that was in large part what provoked that constitutional crisis.
[1:27:41] Um, uh, uh, I think, um, sit, you know, I certainly prior to that time and certainly definitely subsequently to that time, Americans, uh, expected, uh, that the Justice Department would be independent and that no man would be above the law.
[1:28:03] Uh, that's not the philosophy of this administration and it doesn't appear to be the philosophy of the Justice Department.
[1:28:09] There's, uh, my last question, sir.
[1:28:12] We've talked to maybe 20 people now about this in Washington, outside of Washington.
[1:28:19] They talk about a feeling of fear in Washington among the lawyers, among the lawyers of all people and among many other people in the government right now.
[1:28:30] Um, uh, uh, do you feel that, do you sense that, uh, uh, in all your experience coming in and out of Washington right now?
[1:28:38] Is there, is fear palpable and why?
[1:28:40] So, yes, fear is palpable.
[1:28:47] Um, why, uh, you know, people who have only because of the nature of the duties imposed upon them by the offices that they inhabited crossed Trump or been adversarial to him,
[1:29:09] have been fired, uh, ridiculed, um, endangered, uh, by the, you know, visceral, uh, vengeful rhetoric of the president and his supporters.
[1:29:25] Um, I don't think those are complicated questions.
[1:29:30] So your friend, John Robert, is going to face a moment, it's almost inevitable, they tell us, where one of them is going to have to blink.
[1:29:39] Is he, is he the fearful type?
[1:29:42] No, I don't, I don't think I've ever met a intellectually more honest, uh, or dutiful lawyer, um, jurist person than, uh, John Roberts.
[1:30:02] But having said that, he may not, he's not going to, it will never be about him.
[1:30:17] You know, it's not, this isn't going to be, you know, Russell, Russell Crowe and Commodus or whatever it was in The Gladiator.
[1:30:24] Um, you know, that's not the way Roberts perceives himself or his role.
[1:30:30] Uh, and, and frankly, if he ever had that thought, he'd probably resign on the spot.
[1:30:35] Um, you know, he, he, uh, he, he definitely, um, there's not, there's nothing easy about being the chief justice.
[1:30:45] And there's certainly nothing easy about being the chief justice in, in these times.
[1:30:50] Um, but, um, he doesn't see his role as to, uh, vanquish evil.
[1:30:57] Uh, he sees his role as to properly interpret the constitution consistent with the trust that, uh, with which the founders created the position that he occupies.
[1:31:10] Um, and, um, and it may be that in so doing, uh, he doesn't go as far, you know, as some people would wish.
[1:31:23] Um, and it may be that, you know, it, it, it imposes an obligation upon him to announce results that he believes are dictated by the constitution that aren't, aren't popular as, as was the, uh, case in the immunity decision.
[1:31:40] So he'll, it may not be a yes or no proposition in the future.
[1:31:46] Well, I think it will be whatever the constitution dictates in his honest view.
[1:31:52] I mean, I think that's the, I mean, I, I know that sounds like a hedge, but it's not.
[1:31:55] I mean, that's, that's really, that's, that's how he sees his task.
[1:31:59] I believe, I believe that's how he sees his task.
[1:32:04] I don't, I don't have any, I haven't, you know, I haven't talked to him in, you know, over a decade, I'm sure.
[1:32:09] And, uh, um, so I don't have any, you know, unique, uh, recent insights on that.
[1:32:14] But, uh, but, uh, um, you know, there's nobody I have greater respect for.