TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-10-05 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028913

US CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS THE TRUMP EMERGENCY FRONTLINE PBS ... Trump's Power & the Rule of Law: J. Michael Luttig (interview) PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXi20UZBEM0
Trump's Power & the Rule of Law: J. Michael Luttig (interview) \| FRONTLINE FRONTLINE PBS \| Official PBS is an American public broadcast service. Jul 23, 2025 3.14M subscribers ... 56,932 views ... 2.8K likes J. Michael Luttig served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1991 to 2006. Prior to his time on the bench, Luttig was assistant counsel to the president under Ronald Reagan and clerked for then-judge Antonin Scalia and Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger. He also served as assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice and as counselor to the attorney general under President George H. W. Bush. The following interview was conducted by Mike Wiser for FRONTLINE on March 31, 2025. It has been annotated and edited for accuracy and clarity as part of an editorial and legal review. See a more complete description of our process here: https://to.pbs.org/4lVZKzA This interview is being published as part of FRONTLINE’s Transparency Project, an effort to open up the source material behind our documentaries. Explore the annotated transcript of this interview, and others, on the FRONTLINE website: https://to.pbs.org/44V0ZrL To access the annotated transcript here on YouTube, scroll below and click “Show Transcript.” Explore a collection of more interviews from “Trump’s Power & The Rule of Law” here on YouTube via this playlist: https://bit.ly/40ih9tV Peter Burgess COMMENTARY This is long ... a little more than 2 hours! I have tried very hard to absorb the ideas being communicated without huge success. Michael Luttig has had an impressive career and I am happy to try to understand what he is saying in connection with the current Trump related constitutional crisis. My career has been somewhat lower in profile with more of a brorder global perspective than a deep US perspctive. My core foundational education was British, not American. My focus was more on engineering, economics and management than law and politics ... much more on now and the future than on the past! My knowledge of law is limited related to a fully trained lawyer. But the 'value' of what I know may well be greater than what a lot of well trained leal experts know. I have tried to keep learning during all of my adult life ... now some 65 years ... and I am shocked at that has changed over that time and what has not! Several times during this conversation, Michael Luttig talked about the quality of the American system of law and politics and it being the 'best in the world for the last 250 years. With my British and international background, I don't see the current state of the American political and legal system in quite such favotable light. There is a possibility that Michael Luttig understands the issues far better than I do ... certainly as they relate to internal issues in the USA ... but that may not be enough. The Trump administration seems to be losing 'allies' at a very rapid pace. The United States can be a rich little country ... but that will likely cause massive violence that cannot be controlled. I am not optimistic. In fact, I am scared to death! Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 >> Let me start by asking you about the New York Times op-ed that you wrote, and you described a war that the president was waging on the federal judiciary, an assault on the rule of law, and described it as a constitutional crisis for the country. (1) (1) The New York Times: It’s Trump vs. the Courts, and It Won’t End Well for Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/opinion/trump-judge-venezuela-deportation.html What were you saying? What do you see at this moment that we're in? >> The president of the United States has declared war on the federal judiciary, on the rule of law, and on the nation's legal profession. America is in a crisis. America is also in a constitutional crisis. The constitutional role for the president of the United States is to faithfully execute the laws—the laws, 1:05 including the Constitution, and the statutory laws of the United States, enacted by the Congress. Barely two months into the president's second term, he has already issued, I think, over 100 executive orders. An executive order is not uncommon, but 100 or more executive orders is extraordinary and unprecedented in all of American history. Now, the idea behind an executive order is that the president is directing the executive branch to do things. 2:04 That's within his right and prerogative to do. That's not what this president is doing. Essentially, every one of the president's executive orders today is illegal or unlawful, and most of the executive orders are unconstitutional. (2) (2) Forbes: Trump’s Success Rate In The Courts So Far: 31% https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/07/09/trumps-success-rate-in-the-courts-so-far-31/ Trump’s Success Rate In The Courts So Far: 31% That is, on their face, they are violative of multiple provisions of the Constitution of the United States. And then the remainder of them that are not in violation of the Constitution, direct violation of the Constitution, are in violation of existing statutory law of the United States. 3:06 Now, the federal courts are the last resort at this point for Americans and for America. One of the geniuses of the Constitution is the separation of powers among the executive branch, the legislative branch and the federal judiciary; thus, the so-called checks and balances of that constitutional system of government. Each of the three branches of government has prescribed roles to play in the constitutional order. 4:02 And the role of the president is to execute the laws, faithfully execute the laws. The role of the legislature, of course, is to legislate or to pass laws that are then signed into law by the president. The role of the federal judiciary is not a political role at all. In fact, it's, by design, the very opposite of a political role. The role of the federal judiciary is to, as John Marshall, Chief Justice John Marshall, famously said almost over 250 years ago, it's the responsibility of the federal judiciary 5:01 to “say what the law is,” and that's both as to constitutional law and also as to statutory law. (3) (3) National Archives: Marbury v. Madison (1803) https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison The role of the federal judiciary is to interpret the laws of the United States and apply them, if you will, where necessary to the president and the Congress. So the judiciary, not infrequently, holds laws passed by Congress and approved by the president, declares them unconstitutional, as incompatible with the Constitution itself. … Almost all of the executive orders that President Trump has issued to date, in his first two months, are encroaching or intruding upon the other two branches of government, 6:11 both Congress and the federal judiciary. So, for instance, these nefarious executive orders that the president had issued against the nation's law firms are violative of— Each of them is violative of many provisions of the Constitution, not just the First Amendment, but the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. 7:03 But all these executive orders in particular also intrude upon and attempt to usurp the role of the federal judiciary in this way: The president, with each one of these executive orders, has acted as prosecutor and judge, and meted out punishment for the offenses that he alone has determined that these firms have committed. The judiciary will never surrender its constitutional privilege to say what the law is. 8:03 President Donald Trump can try, as long as he wants to, and in every way he wants to, but he's going to have to understand, at the end of the day, that for the federal judiciary to yield to him, would literally be to surrender its constitutional role to Donald Trump. That's simply never going to happen. >> … One place that we're thinking about starting is when the president of the United States goes to the Department of Justice to give a speech, a department where he had been prosecuted, he talks about a feeling that the Justice Department has been weaponized against him. And people have told us it sort of sent a signal that there was a new sheriff in town, that the Justice Department now was going to report to him. What do you see in a moment like that and a move like that? 9:07 >> The president's political rally—and that's what it was—at the Department of Justice was reprehensible, and of course it was unprecedented in all of American history. (4) (4) WSJ: Trump Makes Political Show of Force in Justice Department Visit https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-makes-political-show-of-force-in-justice-department-visit-df623fad?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Presidents only infrequently go to the Department of Justice at all, and for good reason. Every president until this president has respected not the independence of the Department of Justice from the White House, but has respected the need for separation of the White House from the Department of Justice. 10:12 The Department of Justice, headed by the attorney general of the United States, is the chief law enforcement entity in the United States for so many reasons that we shouldn't even need to recount. There's every reason in the world under our constitutional order for the president of the United States to keep his distance from the Department of Justice. When a president—no president has ever not kept his distance, but we're seeing today what happens 11:05 when a president does not, and instead, in the person of the president himself, instructs the Department of Justice as to what it must do during his administration. (5) (5) Politico: Trump to make rare visit to main Justice amid interference concerns https://shorturl.at/PkxIV So the president of the United States of America went to the Department of Justice at the beginning of his administration to tell the Department of Justice and the American people that he was going to exact revenge, that he was going to get retribution against those who he views as his political enemies, by name even. 12:07 And of course, that's exactly what he's done since he left the Department of Justice that day in issuing many of these executive orders. These executive orders, with respect to the law firms, not only name and call out individual law firms in America, but they actually call out by name the clients of those law firms who the president of the United States regards as his enemies. That's one of the many things that renders these executive orders palpably, palpably unconstitutional. (6) 13:01 (6) Reuters: Trump's orders targeting law firms raise constitutional concerns, experts say https://tinyurl.com/ys8cuk54 So the president of the United States said at the Department of Justice that he was going to end the “weaponization” of government. What he meant, we all know, was he was going to end what he mistakenly believes was the weaponization of the federal government against him personally. As we all know, the United States of America prosecuted this president for what it viewed as perhaps the gravest constitutional crimes that an incumbent president could commit in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. The United States of America also prosecuted Donald Trump for purloining classified documents 14:13 from the White House, securing them at Mar-a-Lago, refusing to surrender them to the National Archives, where they belonged, and even claiming—and obstructing, by the way, the FBI's investigation into the whereabouts of those documents. Of course the president eventually claimed that he had declassified those documents in his own mind. (7) (7) American Bar Association: Fact check explores presidential authority to declassify https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/ This is all preposterous. Preposterous. It would be laughable if it were not so serious 15:06 and if it were not the conduct of the president of the United States. The federal government has never been weaponized against anyone, least of all Donald Trump. Now, today, Donald Trump is weaponizing the federal government, for the first time in American history, against his personal enemies. (8) (8) Miller Center: How Nixon's 'enemies list' led to an impeachment effort https://millercenter.org/how-nixons-enemies-list-led-impeachment-effort >> We talked to Norm Eisen, who was a lawyer who President Trump sees as an enemy, (9) (9) PBS: Trump's Power & the Rule of Law: Norman Eisen Interview with FRONTLINE https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/norman-eisen/' and in that Justice Department speech he calls him “scum” and says he's “vicious” and has been “violent.” (10) (10) Roll Call: Speech: Donald Trump Addresses the Staff at the Department of Justice https://tinyurl.com/yk4kszyz When you hear that language, you talked about the executive orders, but when you hear that language 16:01 used by a president of the United States in the Justice Department with the attorney general there, with the director of the FBI there, a building that you had worked in, what is your reaction to that? >> Norm Eisen is one of the finest lawyers in America. Donald Trump criticized Norm Eisen simply because Norm Eisen has been arguing against the constitutionality of many of Donald Trump's actions, including his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, for years now. That's the only reason, just as that was the only reason that Donald Trump has singled out 17:04 the particular firms that he has for retribution, and the particular lawyers that he singled out by name for retribution, like Andrew Weissmann, who was one of Bob Mueller's deputies, and others, individual lawyers. (11) (11) PBS: Trump's Power & the Rule of Law: Andrew Weissmann Interview with FRONTLINE https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/andrew-weissmann/ But what did I feel? Even after all that we've seen from the president over the past eight years, I— and maybe this is my fault—I was shocked beyond words. 18:05 And to watch him stand in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, a sacred place in America, and claim that the federal government, and law enforcement in particular, had been politicized and weaponized against him, and that now he was going to get even by politicizing and weaponizing the Department of Justice and the FBI against his political enemies, was a travesty in all of American history. >> You talked about the executive orders, and they start on the very first day. He goes to the Capital One Arena and begins signing them in front of a crowd and goes to the White House. 19:08 And as you say, it's more executive orders than other presidents, although all presidents sign executive orders on their first day. Some people have told us— >> No president—no president in American history has ever signed one single executive order like the 100-plus executive orders that this president has signed. No president. No president. It would never have occurred to any American president in history to issue these executive orders, because every president before now has taken his oath of office seriously to faithfully execute the laws. 20:01 >> Do you think it's part of an intentional strategy to stress the rule of law, to stress the constitutional separation of powers? When you look at what he's doing on that first day, what do you see as far as their strategy? >> Well, of course no one would dispute that it's intentional. No one would dispute its purpose, which is to attack the federal judiciary and the rule of law. And that's with the earlier executive orders. When you add the later executive orders targeting individual law firms in America, then it's crystal clear, 21:00 frankly, that the president of the United States of America has declared war on the federal judiciary, an equal and coordinate branch of the federal government, the rule of law and the nation's legal profession. There's really just—there's just no dispute. Donald Trump wouldn't even dispute that, I assume. And if he did, it would be a meaningless disputation because his words would betray the opposite of that disputation. >> It was the same day that he issued the blanket pardon to people convicted for crimes related to Jan. 6. (12) (12) The White House: GRANTING PARDONS AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES RELATING TO THE EVENTS AT OR NEAR THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6, 2021 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/ Did that send a message to you that—he had promised to do it during the campaign, 22:00 but it was more extensive, I think, than a lot of people expected. >> It sent a message to the world, literally to the world, but also to America that he believes—again, profoundly mistakenly—that he was victimized by the federal government in the past four years. Victimized by America itself is what he doesn't say, but that's in fact what he is saying. So was it a surprise that he pardoned the Jan. 6? 23:05 No, of course not. It was just a message to the world that Donald Trump was going to conduct his presidency in revenge and in retaliation against his world of political enemies, Republicans and Democrats alike. And that's exactly what he's doing right now in these first 60 days. I think I said in the New York Times piece that if he continues down this course, he will essentially 24:04 be a lame-duck president before his political honeymoon is even over in the first 100 days, or at least that's what should be the case. >> There are those among the president's supporters who say that what the president is doing is pushing back against wrongly decided precedent and laws that built up after Watergate and the idea of a unitary executive and reinvigorating the executive branch as part of the president's project. What do you make of that argument that there's this legal theory, the unitary executive, that’s there, that's underlining some of what he's doing? >> Well, we must be very precise here. But the first thing to be said is that argument by the president's supporters is fallacious. 25:15 It is anti-constitutional for this reason: Well, let's go back to basics. Every person in the United States of America is obligated to abide by and follow the law, including the president of the United States; indeed, especially including the president of the United States. Now, this president doesn't believe that the laws extend to him, and frankly, the Supreme Court 26:08 gave him reason to believe that the laws don't apply to him when, in Trump against United States last year, the Supreme Court gave the president, this president, essentially absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any act that he takes arguably in pursuance of his official duties as president; that is, for all intents and purposes, absolute immunity from prosecution. (13) (13) Oyez: Trump v. United States https://bit.ly/4nOf3f8 Now, that's not to say—and this president certainly does not understand this— that this is not to say that the Supreme Court said that the president could do what he's doing now. 27:07 What he's doing now is unlawful, if not unconstitutional in most instances, under the existing laws and constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court. So now let's turn to the so-called unitary executive theory. That theory essentially says that the president of the United States, as the chief executive officer under the Constitution, has complete control over the executive branch of the government and all executive agencies and departments within the executive branch. 28:12 That theory has been out there, and it has a firm constitutional basis for 50 years. The Supreme Court decided a case styled Humphrey's Executor [v. United States] in 1935— so almost 100 years ago—which gave birth to the unitary executive theory. (14) (14) Oyez: Humphrey's Executor v. United States https://shorturl.at/w7t0L In Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court said that the president of the United States could not remove the head of a so-called independent agency or department, except for cause. 29:13 And for the past 90 years, scholars and thinkers about the Constitution have debated the unitary executive theory. And today, it is still, in my view, a sound constitutional theory. But I would say this: This is the last president in the world for whom the Supreme Court should approve the unitary executive theory. 30:05 The Supreme Court now knows exactly what Donald Trump will do if the court were to hold that he does have exclusive power over all of the executive branch, including what had been understood to be the independent organizations and entities of the executive branch; including, for instance, the Federal Reserve. >> You said that Trump v. United States did not grant the president the authority to do many of the things that he is doing. It has been cited by some of his supporters, like Mark Paoletta, who have looked at some of the language 31:01 inside that and see vast executive power, and you were critical of that decision to grant immunity. How much responsibility do you think the court bears, that case bears, for the moment that we're in? >> I thought Trump against United States was literally the worst Supreme Court decision in history. I analogized it on day one to the court's insidious decisions in Dred Scott and Korematsu. (15) (16) (15) National Archives: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford (16) Oyez: Korematsu v. United States https://shorturl.at/GAE7m And then, I think the next day, I said something to the effect that it's even a worse decision than those 32:06 because it corrupted what's known as the structural Constitution, by which I mean it corrupted the separation of powers. To your question, Trump v. United States gave the president essentially absolute immunity only from prosecution. So that decision of the Supreme Court really has nothing to do with what the president is doing today through these 100-plus executive orders. 33:06 What the president's doing with these 100-plus executive orders, in almost all of them, is exceeding his legal authority, either under the Constitution or under the laws of the United States. That's not to say that that excess, as egregious as it is and as incompatible as it is with the Constitution and the rule of law, it's not to say that that would constitute criminal conduct. It would not. That leads me, then, to this answer to your question, which is, there is nothing incompatible 34:08 between Trump v. United States and that absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and the president's pursuit of, for instance, of the unitary executive theory of government or of his pursuit even of power for power's sake. Those activities, reflected in those executive orders, the 100-plus, are violative of the Constitution and violative of the laws of the United States for the most part, 35:04 but they do not constitute criminal activity by the president. >> You served in the Office of Legal Counsel, which renders decisions about the law, the constitutionality of executive orders and other things. The attorney general issues a memo early on that makes it clear that the word of the president's interpretation of the law, her interpretation of the law should be binding on the Justice Department. (17) (17) Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General Memorandum https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388521/dl?inline And from people we've talked to, the Office of Legal Counsel hasn't been involved in some of these executive orders that you've been talking about. What do you make of the direction coming from the attorney general on interpretation of the law, on changes inside the Justice Department relating to the Office of Legal Counsel? >> Well, there's never been an occasion in American history for almost the 250 years 36:07 for a president of the United States even to make such a statement. Now, the statement that he made, that only he and the attorney general can interpret the law, insofar as he meant for the executive branch, is true and unobjectionable. What it appears now the president meant is that he and the attorney general alone can determine what the law is, period, and not the judiciary. 37:04 We know that because of late, he and Elon Musk have been calling for the impeachment— the impeachment—of federal judges who rule against Donald Trump and his administration. And in fact, that prompted a rebuke from the chief justice of the United States just last week when Chief Justice Roberts very publicly and in very much a direct rebuke of the president of the United States reminded the president 38:02 that impeachment is not the process, the constitutional process for disagreeing with federal court rulings. The chief justice on the Supreme Court, we all know at least this: They see what's coming. Who wouldn't? But that rebuke assured America that the Supreme Court understands what Donald Trump is doing and that it will have none of it. (18) (18) WSJ: Chief Justice Roberts Criticizes Trump’s Call to Impeach Judges https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/chief-justice-roberts-criticizes-trumps-call-to-impeach-judges-e3b2be89?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink One of the most chilling things I saw in the past week was that the federal judiciary has set up 39:04 a panel to deal with the threats on the lives of the federal judges who rule against Donald Trump. And of course, in the same week that it did that, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's sister, I believe, had received a bomb threat in Charleston, South Carolina. But just think: The federal judiciary is impaneling a group of its members to discuss the threats, 40:02 the physical threats on the lives of federal judges who rule against this president. If I'm remembering correctly, Elon Musk, in his detestable tweet, urged that Congress impeach every federal judge who rules against Donald Trump. Just this morning, I woke up to the story that Sen. Grassley is introducing legislation to eliminate nationwide injunctions. (19) (19) The Hill: Grassley unveils bill to limit reach of judicial rulings https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5224195-grassley-bill-limit-judicial-rulings/ In his statement, he said that this is to prevent the politicization of the federal courts, 41:06 but he also went on at length to say that the federal courts are ruling against Donald Trump's agenda and that he believed that had to stop, and so he's proposed legislation to prevent the nationwide injunctions that have been issued in a number of these executive orders. A nationwide injunction just means what the term suggests, which is a single federal district judge can enjoin the administration nationwide from enforcing, if you will, an executive order. 42:05 This, too, like the unitary executive theory, has been a topic of scholarly debate and discussion for years. And there's no question that it would be legitimate were Congress to eliminate the capacity for the lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. But just like with the unitary executive theory, it is clear to the world, because the president and now Sen. Grassley have made clear to the world that the only reason that they're pursuing these limitations on the federal courts 43:07 is because the federal courts have ruled against the president and his administration. So just like with respect to the unitary executive theory, in my view, this would be the worst moment possible to eliminate the nationwide injunction, because today, in this moment, because it's the president that is politicizing the courts and the law— it's not the courts that are politicizing the courts and the law; it's the president of the United States— so to enact a ban on nationwide injunctions right now would unquestionably be to, one, 44:13 accept the premise of that legislation, which is that the courts are political, one; but two, it would be, in fact, to politicize the courts in the image of the president of the United States. But I want to make those two points very clearly. As to the unitary executive, which underlays much of what the president's doing—underlays it somewhere. 45:04 The president probably has no earthly idea. But his thinking lawyers, they know about this. But that, the unitary executive and the nationwide injunctions, have been legitimate questions for the past decades. Right now, if the court were to adopt the unitary executive theory, and if Congress were to eliminate the nationwide injunctions, that would, in this moment, serve to politicize the federal judiciary. 46:04 And by the way, of course, those two efforts, if you will, are part of the larger effort to delegitimize the federal courts and to undercut, undermine the rule of law in America. They would not have been thought that before today, but there's no question in the world that that's the way we must think of them today in light of what the president of the United States is doing. America has been the envy of the world and the beacon of freedom to the world 47:07 for almost 250 years because of its democracy and because of its rule of law. Americans fought the Revolutionary War against Great Britain and its monarchy, the king, in order to create a constitutional system of self-governance under the rule of law. And that system of government, which we have happily lived under for almost 250 years— 48:03 and it's been the envy of the world for almost 250 years— is now under withering assault by the president of the United States. >> Early in the administration, there's a number of resignations around the deal to drop charges against the mayor of New York, Eric Adams. The acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District ends up resigning or being pushed out, really— and a number of other lawyers, lawyers at the top of the Justice Department— amid her allegation that there was a political quid pro quo and that she couldn't ethically make an argument to the court to drop or to suspend those charges. (20) (20) AP: Who is Danielle Sassoon, the US attorney who resigned rather than drop charges against Eric Adams? https://apnews.com/article/danielle-sassoon-resignation-letter-bio-eric-adams-a20ac0413ff3d426715c327863cc4f42 What did that moment tell you about where we were, where we were going? 49:05 >> Well, too much had occurred before that for that to tell me much additional. But I would hope that no serious lawyer would put up with any of this for one day. I mean, the president of the United States is literally directing the hand of even individual prosecutors at the Department of Justice. The attorney general of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. It's her profound obligation—profound obligation—not to permit these executive orders, 50:05 not to permit these attacks on the rule of law, the federal judiciary and the nation's legal profession. But of course that's the opposite of what she's pledged to Donald Trump that she will do. … It doesn't get any more serious than this in the United States of America. >> In the American constitutional order, American democracy, how unusual is it to have a figure like Elon Musk, an office like DOGE, that 51:00 does something like shut down USAID, a congressionally created agency, a congressionally funded agency? >> Well, there's two different things at work there. First off, Elon Musk is unknown to the Constitution and laws of the United States. Now, I believe his appointment or whatever it was was unconstitutional, appointment by Donald Trump was unconstitutional. Based on 250 years of Supreme Court precedent, someone who occupies the position 52:05 with the responsibilities that Elon Musk has been given is an officer of the United States. To be an officer of the United States, one must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. That's what all Cabinet officers are required to do. Obviously that's required of federal judges. But I gather that the president is calling Elon Musk a special government employee. (21) (21) NPR: Trump hired Musk as a 'special government employee.' Here's what that means https://www.npr.org/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5293124/special-government-employee-trump-musk-doge That is a recognized classification of employee, but no special government employee has ever 53:03 been anything approaching an officer of the United States in the way that Elon Musk, without any question, is. I think I just read yesterday that Mr. Musk intends on leaving in May as his time as special government employee expires. At least at that point, if not long before, Americans will understand the constitutional affront 54:00 that Mr. Musk has represented to America. >> And to shut down a government agency, to send everybody home— >> Yes, yes. That was the second aspect of it. Again, the president of the United States doesn't have any power or authority whatsoever to close a department or agency of the federal government. (22) (22) WSJ: Supreme Court Allows Trump’s Mass Government Layoffs to Move Forward https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-allows-trumps-plan-for-mass-government-layoffs-to-move-forward-2f823df1?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Departments and agencies of the federal government are creatures of legislation. Only Congress has the power to create or disestablish an agency or department of the government. Now, today's Republican Congress, of course, is either wildly enthusiastic about everything that the president's doing or famously supine. 55:20 It doesn't matter which. The point is, is that the Republican Congress is not going to utter a single word against anything that the president's doing. But of course heretofore, our politicians, they cared about the Constitution and laws of the United States. But that's no longer true. So the Congress of the United States is supposed to be a check on this presidency, but just as certainly, 56:00 it hasn't been, and I doubt it will be for the duration of President Trump's tenure in office. So the short answer to your question is that the president has— not only does he not have any authority to close down these departments and agencies. In doing so, he's usurping the role of the Congress of the United States in the same way that he's trying to usurp the role of the federal judiciary. >> How important is that fact that Congress is not pushing back? As I understand it, part of the framework of the separation of powers was an idea that they would guard their prerogatives and there would be institutional reasons why Congress might react in a moment like this. 57:02 And yet it's not happening. Is it a flaw in our system? Is it part of what you've described as a constitutional crisis, the way that Congress is reacting? >> It's everything. The fact that the Congress of the United States is silent in the midst of this crisis and constitutional crisis is unforgivable. It's the polar opposite of what our founding fathers and the drafters of our Constitution intended. The system created under the Constitution was one of separated powers under which each branch serves as a check and balance on the other branches. 58:12 Right now in America, one could not say that we have the separation of powers that was envisioned by our founders and written into the Constitution of the United States. >> How much pressure does that put on the third branch of government, when the Congress is standing by, when the president is shutting down agencies, sending people home— as you say, hundreds of things going on at the same time. How much pressure does it put on the judiciary to retain the constitutional order? How much stress is it under in this moment? >> Extraordinary, unprecedented pressure and stress never known by the federal judiciary and 59:15 never to be known by the federal judiciary, according to our founders and the framers of our Constitution. The president of the United States is at war with the federal judiciary, with America's independent federal judiciary, and he's made no bones about that. It remains to be seen whether he will win that war against the federal judiciary 1:00:03 or whether he will lose that war against the federal judiciary. It's too soon to say because his full-frontal assault on the judiciary just began a couple of weeks ago, and the individual judges have had the occasion to respond, but not yet the entire federal judiciary, save the chief justice's rebuke—frankly, mild rebuke—of the president, reminding him of the separation of powers and the fact that impeachment of federal judges is not the recourse for disagreeing with their opinions. 1:01:06 That's a very mild rebuke. And of course the very next day the president returned to calling for impeachment of federal judges. This president, he really doesn't care what the Supreme Court says, and of course, he doesn't care what any lower federal court says. So then the judiciary should be busy about zealously guarding its constitutional independence from this president. Only the judiciary can do that, but I think that Americans 1:02:03 have a question at this point of whether the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court are up to that task. God save us if the federal judiciary does not stand up for itself in this moment of crisis. >> You said the American public. What about yourself? What's your confidence in the judiciary in this moment? >> Well, I am of the federal judiciary. Serving as a United States Court of Appeals judge was the greatest honor of my life. I believe in the federal judiciary more than I believe in anything else in the world. 1:03:10 But I'm watching these vicious frontal attacks, unapologetic, by the president of the United States, and I'm just not clear in my own mind that even the federal judiciary can withstand this kind of attack by the president of the United States of America. >> You talked about your judgment that the executive orders about the lawyers was not constitutional, was not legal. Do you see that as part of what we're talking about, of an assault on the third branch, 1:04:01 on the ability of people to zealously advocate for different sides on a case? How do you see what the president is doing in issuing executive orders like that? >> Well, there's no question. The federal courts and the legal profession are the only obstacles to this president's insatiable appetite for power—power for its own sake, not power to use in service of the nation and the American people, just for himself. 1:05:00 These attacks on the nation's law firms and legal profession are, by their terms, intended to— well, first, to put the individual firms out of business, but then, larger, to send a message to the nation's 1.2 million lawyers that they better never take again a case representing a client against Donald Trump and his administration. These are some of the first steps that are taken in pursuit of tyranny; that is, 1:06:12 to attack and undermine the judicial system and whatever country's legal profession. >> When Paul Weiss makes a deal with the president, they have an internal letter, as we understand it, that says we think that this is not legal, that we would win if we went to court, but the clients see a signal from the president, and whether the executive order is legal or not, this was a threat to the firm. What do you make of the position that big law firms are in and the decision of some of them to settle? 1:07:01 >> Well, Paul Weiss sold out itself, once a great law firm, sold out its associates, sold out its former partners, and sold out the entire legal profession in, quote, “cutting a deal” with the president of the United States. (23) (23) The New York Times: Head of Paul, Weiss Says Firm Would Not Have Survived Without Deal With Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/us/politics/paul-weiss-firm-trump.html?searchResultPosition=7 Like the other executive orders targeting law firms, the executive order against Paul Weiss was extortion, pure and simple, by the president of the United States, and Paul Weiss enthusiastically agreed to that extortion. Rightfully and thankfully, the firm has been roundly criticized nationally, 1:08:11 not just by lawyers but by everyone else. The American people understand what's going on here. They understand what Donald Trump's trying to do with these executive orders against the legal profession. And if they don't, I would just tell them this: If you, a client, come into disfavor with Donald Trump, you will not be able to get a lawyer to represent you, whether that's before the Social Security Administration, Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, the Defense Department. 1:09:01 If Donald Trump doesn't like you or what you stand for, you will not be able to get a lawyer to represent your cause before the federal government. Now, Skadden Arps, as I understand it, has recently also agreed to the extortion. (24) (24) Politico: Skadden Arps, one of the largest law firms in the world, reached an agreement with Trump despite not being targeted by the White House like other firms. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/skadden-arps-trump-law-deal-028324 But two other firms just this past week said no, they will stand firm against this extortion, and they will stand firm on behalf of the nation and also the legal profession. 1:10:01 And that began with Jenner & Block, a great Chicago-based, multinational global firm, followed on the same day by WilmerHale, another great global law firm. Both of those firms, rather than negotiate a deal—what does that even mean, negotiate a deal? These are supposed to be professional lawyers; that is, they are part of the noble profession of law. 1:11:03 Lawyers are known for representing clients against the world. That's their highest obligation, and yet Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps sold out themselves and the profession. But back to Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. Of course they had the, quote, “benefit” of seeing Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps and their unforgivable conduct, and they both have now sued essentially every entity of government, 1:12:01 including the United States Department of Justice. And I think it was the very day that they sued, two separate district judges in the District of Columbia enjoined the executive orders. There's not a court in the land, especially the Supreme Court, who will ever, ever, uphold those executive orders targeting the law firms and individual lawyers. They're unconstitutional on their face. They are violative of multiple provisions of the Constitution. It would be impossible under law for a court, any court, to uphold those executive orders. 1:13:07 If Donald Trump—maybe I should put it this way: Perhaps the best thing that could happen for America is for Donald Trump to insist that the Supreme Court of the United States decide one of those executive orders targeting the nation's law firms and the nation's 1.2 million lawyers. Lawyers are the officers of the court. Those executive orders, they may only be targeting lawyers and law firms, but those executive orders are a direct attack on the federal courts of the United States of America, 1:14:02 including, especially, the Supreme Court of the United States. >> … And other companies that are not in the legal profession are paying attention to this. I saw car companies that had been threatened, saying they saw what happened to the law firms. What does it do to our—because we’ve been talking about inside the government, but what does it do to our American constitutional order if these different players in civil society and private industry and universities have a fear of what could happen if they push back against the president? ... >> Well, the first thing to do is focus on the fear and think about that. Americans are trembling in fear of the president of the United States 1:15:05 for the first time in all of American history. That's really the story, and the only story. Then the second point to be made is, every single aspect of those executive orders— and there were many aspects—is demonstrably unconstitutional on its face, because every aspect, by the president's own words, was done in retaliation and retribution for the clients 1:16:00 that these law firms have had in the past and/or lawyers who were employed at these law firms in the past. These orders bar these law firms and these lawyers from entering federal buildings. They bar them from entering the courts. They bar them from entering the Supreme Court of the United States because the courts and the Supreme Court are, of course, federal buildings. They essentially prevent clients that the president doesn't like 1:17:00 from seeking representation from those law firms. And they make crystal clear that if the law firms accept representation of clients that the president doesn't like, that the entire federal government will punish those law firms and, of course, those clients. It's hard even for me to utter those words, but that's what has happened in the United States of America today. >> What do you make of the moment when the president invokes the Alien Enemies Act? There's a flight of Venezuelans that seems to be rushed off to El Salvador. 1:18:06 In the middle of that, there's a restraining order issued. What do you make of that incident in that moment? >> I wrote about that incident for the New York Times this past week. The hearings are being held before the chief judge of the federal District Court in the District of Columbia, Judge Boasberg. Judge Boasberg is as fine a jurist who's ever sat on the federal bench. He's actually served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which itself is a high honor. 1:19:08 There's no one other than Donald Trump who would call him a “radical, liberal lunatic,” no one other than Donald Trump and Elon Musk. All that he is trying to do is determine whether the Alien Enemies Act applies to this allegedly Venezuelan gang. That's all. Now, the point to be made is this: What he's trying to do is determine what the law is. 1:20:02 That's what judges do. That's the constitutional role for the federal judiciary— just determine what the law is, or in Chief Justice John Marshall's famous words, “say what the law is.” That's why we have an independent judiciary. Now, needless to say, not an American president in all of history has ever called for the impeachment of a federal judge because he or she ruled against them. This is unequivocally, indisputably, an attack by the president on the independence of the federal judiciary, pure and simple. 1:21:03 It's not even debatable that that's what he's doing. But one of the most remarkable things about these hearings before Judge Boasberg is the arguments that have been made by Donald Trump's Department of Justice. To the argument, no such argument has ever been made in a court of the United States by the Department of Justice. It's embarrassing to the lawyers who are making these arguments. It's embarrassing to the attorney general of the United States. 1:22:02 And it's embarrassing to the president of the United States. No one, no lawyer—I started to say no serious lawyer, but no lawyer should ever be making arguments like that. And to say that they're arguments is giving them too much. … Before Judge Boasberg, the Department of Justice has basically attacked Judge Boasberg personally and as a federal judge in not only the arguments that have been held, but in the briefing. (25) (25) The Hill: Bondi: Judge assigned to Trump cases ‘cannot be objective’ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/5219475-signal-group-chat-case-judge/ And Judge Boasberg, to his great credit, refuses to have any of it. 1:23:06 And he's called the lawyers out, as did Judge Howell, by the way, in the law firm cases, and other judges have begun to, also. (26) (26) AP: Judge says Justice Department attacked her character to ‘impugn the integrity’ of US judicial system https://apnews.com/article/trump-judiciary-executive-power-lawsuits-547ba740ad8689c8b8bd80291d2f4ad0 This is what Donald Trump calls the politicization of the judiciary and the weaponization of the federal judiciary against him. But Americans are smarter than that. They understand, rather, that this is the politicization and weaponization of the federal judiciary against Donald Trump's enemies. 1:24:02 So I wish we had time just to read some of the language from the briefs and some of the things that have been said by the Department of Justice, the United States Department of Justice, to the federal courts in the past two months. If the federal judiciary does not put a stop to this right now, then there's no hope for America. >> …There's dispute about the Alien Enemies Act, about whether they need to disclose in response to the court order, and there's also a push for him to recuse himself. Which of the arguments are the ones that are a big red flag for you? >> Well, I'm not going to intellectualize any of their arguments. 1:25:08 They're unacceptable in a court of law. They are, quote, “arguments that ought never be made by lawyers representing the United States of America from the Department of Justice.” Now, the two that you mentioned, two aspects, they really go to the larger questions. In particular, the Department of Justice is wrongly arguing that the federal courts are usurping the role of the president of the United States—wrongly. 1:26:00 That's what they're saying in open court. Well, the judges of America, they know what's going on. The second aspect you mentioned was the recusal. That goes hand in hand with the impeachment. But here you're talking about mid-hearing, Judge Boasberg had just …preliminarily but only temporarily ruled against the Department of Justice and Donald Trump. And what did the attorney general of the United States do? Called for Judge Boasberg's removal from the case and for his impeachment— 1:27:06 impeachment, impeachment of a federal judge who had only preliminarily and temporarily ruled against them. Now, I will comment just broadly on the merits, because other judges have at this point, to say this: The Alien Enemies Act was enacted for times of war, and it's only been invoked three times, if I'm correct, since its enactment. (27) 1:28:00 (27) CONGRESS.GOV: The Alien Enemy Act: History and Potential Use to Remove Members of International Criminal Cartels https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269 Each of those times was in a time of war. Whatever else, we are not in a war. And that's been the suggestion of the federal courts who have begun to look at this issue. I don't know enough about it to come to a conclusion, but I really don't have any doubt in the world that the Alien Enemies Act is not invocable by the president of the United States today. >> When I hear you talk about this, about the arguments the lawyers are making, about the executive orders the president has made, I get a sense that you're saying these are not good-faith arguments, legal arguments, which we normally would expect in court. 1:29:07 We would have a combat of different people interpret things different ways. Is that what you're saying? Is that why it seems to upset you? >> Well, that's one reason. But let's be clear. These are not good-faith arguments at all, but neither does the Department of Justice present them as good-faith arguments. You don't present a good-faith argument by telling the federal court that they don't know what they're doing, that the president of the United States does know what he's doing, and that their job is not to interpret the law; rather, it's the president's job to interpret the law. 1:30:10 That's the very definition of bad faith. And again, all lawyers are officers of the court, but the Department of Justice's lawyers are the highest officers of the court. They have the highest obligation in the land to present the arguments to a federal court in good faith, as representatives of the United States of America, not as representatives of the president's Department of Justice— 1:31:02 as representatives of the United States of America before the federal courts of the nation. There is no higher obligation of a lawyer, and yet, we're seeing what we're seeing from the Department of Justice lawyers. >> And when the White House drafts these executive orders, you could pick any of them, which don't necessarily cite legislative reasoning or are explicit that a law firm is being targeted because the president disfavors it, where there's not even much of an attempt at a fig leaf of a legal analysis, what does that tell you, and how concerning is that, that there isn't even an attempt to engage on that level? 1:32:06 >> Well, there's not a lawyer, including the attorney general of the United States most notably, or the White House counsel secondarily, who is both advising the president on the Constitution and the law and being heard. But as to the attorney general of the United States, from her public comments, I don't have any question that the attorney general of the United States is approving these executive orders, and that should tell Americans all they need to know about the attorney general of the United States. 1:33:01 It was one of the great privileges of my life to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Former heads of that department include Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist, other great American lawyers like Ted Olson, Chuck Cooper. None of those people—none of them—would have ever signed off on these executive orders, not one of them. But these were men of great stature, great principle and profound professionalism. I don't know if this is true or not, but I've read that the president 1:34:03 and the attorney general are not even consulting the Office of Legal Counsel at this point. And if they're not, it's for all good reason. No lawyer who works in that office would ever approve these executive orders. I don't know even who the White House counsel is, but the White House counsel— well, let's put it this way: If the White House counsel isn't approving them, then there is no lawyer approval, no official lawyer who's approving them. (28) (28) PBS NewsHour: What does the U.S. attorney general do? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-u-s-attorney-general-do But I have to believe that he or she, whoever it is, is reviewing these and advising the president that they're fully constitutional and lawful, which also should tell the American people 1:35:01 a great deal about the White House counsel. >> We've talked about the rhetorical threat to the judiciary, the threat of impeachment. There's also, though the president has not said he wouldn't follow a judicial order, there's talk among his supporters; his border czar has said, “I don't care what a judge thinks.” There’s a lot of discussion of… Would it reach a point, especially on a politically powerful issue like immigration, where the president or the White House might decide to disregard a court order? Just that talk that is out there right now. What effect does that have? Does that have an effect on judges who are deciding these cases? What does it tell you that that conversation has started? >> Well, America is in a constitutional crisis today—and has been for weeks, 1:36:07 if not the past couple of months—because of the president's war on the federal judiciary and the rule of law. So we're in a constitutional crisis. Now, every scholar of the Constitution and every thinker about the Constitution would say that if there comes a time when the president defies an order of the court, then we are, without any question, in a constitutional crisis. But my point is, he's been defying Judge Boasberg's order. (29) (29) ABC News: DOJ contends judge didn't have authority to order return of 2 deportation flights https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-contends-judge-authority-order-return-2-deportation/story?id=120171352 So if you're looking for a defiance of a court and a court's order, you have it. 1:37:05 If that's not sufficient, which it is, then you have to wait until he defies a Supreme Court order. As your question intimated, the president, his vice president, they've been provoking the talk that the president at least ought to defy federal court orders where, in their view, the federal court has overstepped its bounds. 1:38:04 The president has given the country every reason to believe that he will defy a Supreme Court order, and if and when he does, looking across the executive orders to date, it would be in his case against Judge Boasberg over the Enemy Alien Act [sic]. The president has made clear through the Department of Justice, and even from his own mouth, that he believes that he has the, what he calls or his lawyers call, the inherent power 1:39:06 to deport these alleged gang members, who, by the way, it appears, many of whom are not even gang members. But he has the inherent power under Article 2 to deport these people in the interest of national security. Now, he does not have any such power at all. When a president is truly exercising his powers as commander in chief to protect the nation's security, his powers are at their zenith. 1:40:11 But whereas here, the president is merely asserting that he has such national security power, but in fact does not, then his asserted national security powers are at their nadir, which is legalese for saying that even if the Alien Enemies Act applies, or if the Supreme Court were to hold it applies, these people would have been entitled to some measure of due process. 1:41:03 If the court were to hold that, then today at least, that would seem to be the kind of order that this president would defy. >> Justice Roberts and the rest of the court must know that. He issued a statement. He must be aware of the political moment that he's in, of the fragility of this situation. I wonder what you make of that and whether these pressures can have some effect on the court. The decision that started it all, Marbury [v. Madison], is sometimes seen as a case of asserting power but without going so far as to break everything. Do these pressures on the court, will they be cognizant of them and try to find a way to avoid direct confrontation, or is that not possible here? 1:42:03 What do you make of that? >> The court is fully cognizant. And this is a signal moment for the courts and for the Supreme Court in all of American history. But the court will never surrender its constitutional role to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the United States, especially not to this president. Never. It will never happen. >> In your op-ed in the New York Times, when you warned about tyranny, what did you mean? What does that word mean? >> Well, I think that, from a lay perspective— I'm not an expert in the uses of those descriptions of governments, and I don't profess to be. 1:43:16 What I meant was, a tyrannical federal government, led by a tyrannical president— that is, a president who has no interest in faithfully executing the laws, but rather only in seeking the laws that he wants and wants to abide by and follow—in various places, that's described also as absolute power. 1:44:12 And of course this is the polar opposite of what Americans fought for in the Revolutionary War. It's the polar opposite of what our founders created once they had gained their independence from the British crown. And of course it's also the polar opposite of what the framers of the Constitution embodied for the government, the federal government, in the Constitution of the United States. 1:45:09 It's the very opposite, very opposite. And for almost 250 years, no one has ever questioned any of this at all, let alone a president of the United States. >> You go back in the article and specifically talk about it going back to the Declaration of Independence and an idea at the beginning of the country that, is it rule of law or rule of man? Explain what that means. Why does it go back that far? >> I don't expect most Americans to know much about the Constitution, much about the law. 1:46:11 But every American knows—every single American knows— that in this country, we have what is known as a government by laws, not by men and women. It would trivialize it to call that Civics 101, but what it is, it is the most basic fundamental, foundational principle of this country and of our Constitution. 1:47:01 How is it manifested every day to every single American? Every single American enthusiastically accepts that they must live in accordance with the laws. That is the rule of law. That's why every American needs to understand, as to what's going on right now, if the president of the United States doesn't like you for some reason or what you stand for or a group that you're affiliated with, if he doesn't like you, then he will not apply the law fairly to you, just like 1:48:00 he hasn't applied the law fairly in these executive orders to law firms, and even to individual lawyers. And then that causes me to wrap back around to the Enemy Aliens Act [sic] that's before Judge Boasberg. The other thing that every American knows, and this they know all that they need to know about, is due process. There is nothing more well known to the American public writ large than due process. 1:49:00 They may not even know it as due process, but they know that whenever the government comes against them, whether it be in a criminal proceeding, a civil proceeding where the government intends to take away your property or your liberty, that you're entitled to be heard. That's all. That's what due process is. You're entitled to explain to the federal government why what they are about to do to you is wrong. Take the Venezuelans who have been deported. All that they are asking for is a modicum of due process. And some number of them have said that they're not members of the gang at all 1:50:05 and that the tattoos that they wear have nothing to do whatsoever with the gang. And the Trump administration does not want to give those people the opportunity simply to make their case to the federal government that they're not members of the gang at all. That's about as rudimentary and fundamental to America as anything that I can conceive of. As I was speaking, it reminded me that I think it was John Adams who represented British soldiers 1:51:03 in the highest calling of the legal profession, in order that even those soldiers, against whom America had fought a war for its independence, had due process, elemental due process to be heard. (30) (30) Boston Tea Party Museum: Boston Massacre and the Trial https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/john-adams-boston-massacre That's all that we're talking about. And the president of the United States should always want that for every person who's in this country, whether legally or not, because that's a large part of what's made America 1:52:01 the envy of the world for almost 250 years. >> You wrote that it was the American people, the Congress and the courts that would have to respond to this moment. Do I read in that that you think the courts themselves are not enough? What did you mean in saying that? >> I don't think that the courts are enough. This moment calls for the American people to stand and speak and tell this president what they believe in and what they do not believe in. And by that I mean, do they believe in the federal judiciary, the independent judiciary in America? 1:53:03 Do they believe in the rule of law? And do they believe in the Constitution of the United States? If the courts alone say that to the American people, that will be insufficient in the long run. This does call for the American people. >> It sounds like you have some confidence in how the judiciary will react. How much confidence do you have in how this will all play out? >> Today, and for today only? Very little confidence. >> Why? 1:54:01 >> Because of what we're seeing. How could anyone have confidence at this moment? This is day to day in America, literally day to day. We will not know the answer to this for months to come. >> Is there anything you're watching especially carefully, anything that could be a sign that things are headed in the wrong direction? >> My attention these days is riveted on the federal judiciary. Every decision, every word, and also its oral or written statements about this crisis, constitutional crisis, 1:55:13 involving the only branch of government that can put an end to this anytime it wishes. >> How much concern do you think there is in the judiciary, of which you are a part, of fear for personal safety, fear for the rule of law in this moment? >> I know for a fact that many judges, federal judges, are shaken by all of this, as they should be. But I also know that they are unshaken in their resolve. 1:56:03 That's what gives me the confidence that I do have today. But as I said, this story of America in constitutional crisis is being written every single day right now. >> I could have asked you this as the first question, but because the president likes to target, as you said, Judge Boasberg as a “radical left, lunatic” judge, can you tell me about your background and how you came to this and your work in two of the branches of government? >> Well, we don't have time for that. But it was always a dream of mine, from college in the '70s, 1970s, to be a federal judge. 1:57:11 And it was a great privilege of mine to have worked at the Supreme Court in an administrative capacity as long ago as 1976, I believe. Scary, but that's almost half a century ago. And then it was the greatest privilege of my life to have been able to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for 15 years. Interesting vignette: Right out of college, I actually had an opportunity to work at the Ford White House. 1:58:07 I was a bag carrier, if that. But shortly after I got to the White House, I got a call from the administrative assistant to the chief justice, who asked me to come to the Supreme Court to work administratively for the Supreme Court, and for the chief justice in particular. So when I got that call, I called my dad, and I said, 'Well, what should I do?' And he said, 'Son, everything that you've always believed in, every single thing that you've ever believed in, is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. That's the best advice I can give you.' And I left the White House to go to the Supreme Court, as I said—it's hard to utter the words— 1:59:11 but almost half a century ago. And then, on that path to today, I had other great privileges, truly great privileges, to work at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and in the White House. So I'm older today than I was yesterday, but these have been wonderful experiences from which to see 2:00:02 and think about America, our Constitution, our constitutional form of government, and the rule of law. And that's essentially what I've thought about the most my entire life. >> And I gather from our interactions with you that there was a reluctance to be in this more public side. What led you to feel like you needed to speak out, to talk on camera, to write op-eds at this moment? >> Well, reluctance would be an understatement. A federal judge, in my view, should never be seen at all in public, 2:01:01 and never, never should say anything, quote, “publicly” except through his or her judicial opinions. And I could be misremembering, but I think for the entire 15 years that I was on the federal court, I may have only spoken at a judicial conference event once or twice. Certainly never wrote anything. But 20 years later, after I had left the court, Jan. 6, 2021, came to pass. 2:02:02 And then-Vice President Pence's outside counsel and a good friend of mine, a dear friend of mine, Richard Cullen, called me and asked me to help. And from that day to this day, I've devoted pretty much my entire life to all of the issues that came out of Jan. 6 and that are now presented to the American people in the first two months of the president's term. I will say that it's, as unexpected as it was—in fact it's been surreal— 2:03:02 this now has become the highest honor of my life, to address all of these issues publicly in front of the American people whom I believe that I serve at this point. And of course this is all I'll ever be remembered for now, and I'm fine with that. >> It sounds like you feel like it's a calling in the way that you had one to be a judge. >> I wouldn't call it a calling, but from Jan. 6 to today, 2:04:07 I have felt a profound obligation to speak about the issues that have been confronting our country, a profound personal obligation to speak.

SITE COUNT