IMMEDIATELY REVERSE COURSE AND RESTORE ALL FROZEN FUNDING. I WANT TO BRING IN NBC’S GARRETT HAKE, WHO IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. MARK MCKINNON WAS AN ADVISER TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN, AS WELL AS CREATOR OF THE CIRCUS. AND JOYCE VANCE IS A FORMER U.S.
ATTORNEY PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF LAW AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. SO, JOYCE, WHAT IS EXACTLY IN THIS ORDER AND WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL IMPACT? WELL, THIS IS A VERY BRIEF. >> ORDER FROM. >> THE JUDGE.
>> IN RHODE. >> ISLAND SAYING. >> LOOK, GOVERNMENT. >> IT. >> APPEARS TO ME, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT’S BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF ME.
>> BY THE. COLLECTIVE STATES. >> ATTORNEYS GENERAL. WHO ARE THE. >> PLAINTIFFS IN THIS ACTION, THAT YOU.
>> HAVEN’T BEEN FOLLOWING. MY ORDER. >> THAT ORDER. >> IS A VERY TEMPORARY PAUSE. IT’S CALLED A.
>> TRO THAT TELLS. >> THE GOVERNMENT. >> YOU MUST. >> DISCONTINUE THIS BLANKET FREEZE. ON SPENDING.
>> IT APPEARS TO THE JUDGE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT DONE THAT. AND SO THE JUDGE IS NOW. >> SAYING YOU HAVE. AN OBLIGATION. >> TO.
>> COMPLY WITH MY. >> ORDER IMMEDIATELY. >> YOU HAVEN’T DONE IT. >> YOU NEED. >> TO DO.
>> IT NOW. >> AND GARRETT, LET ME READ TO YOU DIRECTLY FROM THE ORDER WHICH I JUST GOT MY HANDS ON AS WELL AS JOYCE DID.
IT SAYS PERSONS WHO MAKE PRIVATE DETERMINATIONS OF THE LAW AND REFUSE TO OBEY AN ORDER GENERALLY RISK CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, EVEN IF THE ORDER IS ULTIMATELY RULED INCORRECT. OF COURSE, DONALD TRUMP HAS AVOIDED ANY REAL PENALTIES, EVEN WHEN HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED IN THE PAST AND WHAT HE’S DOING, I THINK IT’S FAIR TO SAY, IS AN ABSOLUTE CORNERSTONE OF WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO FROM DAY ONE WHEN HE GOT INTO OFFICE. >> YEAH, CHRIS, I THINK THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS TEAM. >> HAD LONG. >> EXPRESSED THROUGHOUT. >> THE. >> CAMPAIGN THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TEST.
THE BOUNDS. >> OF EXECUTIVE. >> AUTHORITY, AND THEY WANT TO DO SO IN THIS CASE AS WELL. BOTH HE AND VICE PRESIDENT VANCE OVER THE WEEKEND MADE ARGUMENTS. >> TO.
THIS EFFECT THAT THEY DON’T BELIEVE.
>> THAT A SINGLE. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AS THIS IS IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN RHODE ISLAND. >> I BELIEVE. >> SPECIFICALLY SHOULD HAVE THIS KIND OF AUTHORITY OR DOES.
>> HAVE THIS KIND OF AUTHORITY. >> TO MAKE THESE KIND OF BLANKET STATEMENTS ABOUT FEDERAL POLICY NATIONALLY, AND THEY INTEND TO CHALLENGE OR PUSH BACK AGAINST ANY SPECIFIC JUDGE MAKING THAT ORDER. THIS GOES BACK TO SOMETHING J.D. VANCE HAS TALKED ABOUT, SORT OF A THROWBACK TO ANDREW JACKSON HISTORICALLY, SAYING, YOU KNOW, I’VE SEEN JUSTICE MARSHALL’S.
I BELIEVE IT’S JUSTICE MARSHALL’S ORDER. NOW LET HIM ENFORCE IT. THEY BELIEVE THE COURTS DON’T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE ABILITY TO HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE IN THIS CASE, AND THEY ARE SPOILING FOR A FIGHT. DEMOCRATS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND SEE A POTENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ON THE HORIZON. BUT FOR NOW, I’D BE VERY CURIOUS TO SEE, AND WE HAVE NO REACTION YET.
I SHOULD BE CLEAR FROM THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE, GIVEN THAT THIS NEWS HAS JUST BROKEN IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES, HOW FAR THEY WANT TO TAKE THIS CHALLENGE, EITHER UP THE LADDER WITH THE COURTS, OR BY SIMPLY CONTINUING TO NOT COMPLY? >> WELL, THAT’S A KEY QUESTION, ISN’T IT, JOYCE, IN TERMS OF PRESERVING THE CONSTITUTION AND PRESERVE, OF RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT’S THE DEMOCRACY THAT WE LIVE IN. HOW BIG IS THIS MOMENT, POTENTIALLY FOR A JUDGE TO SAY, I HAVE TOLD YOU WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. YOU NEED TO DO IT. YEAH.
IT’S SHOCKING. >> THAT A FEDERAL. >> JUDGE WOULD HAVE. >> TO ADMONISH THE GOVERNMENT LIKE THAT. >> AND THERE ARE.
>> TWO PATHS FORWARD. >> HERE, AND ONE IS VERY DRAMATIC AND.
>> PERHAPS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO DEMOCRACY. >> THE OTHER IS NORMAL. >> AND REALISTIC.
>> THE NORMAL. >> REALISTIC PATH. >> IS TO APPEAL THE JUDGE’S ORDER. >> TO TRY TO GET. >> A HIGHER.
>> COURT TO REVERSE. >> ALTHOUGH IN REALITY THIS IS A VERY. >> SHORT TERM. >> ORDER BECAUSE ON FEBRUARY 21ST, THIS JUDGE WILL HOLD WHAT’S. CALLED A.
>> HEARING INTO THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
>> AND LET BOTH PARTIES. >> PUT. >> ON EVIDENCE AND. >> DECIDE WHAT.
>> TO DO MOVING FORWARD. >> THE JUDGE. >> HAS ALSO. >> TOLD. >> THE GOVERNMENT THAT.
>> IT’S FREE TO. >> COME BACK. >> TO HIM IF THEY NEED. >> A SPECIFIC. EXEMPTION FROM.
THIS ORDER. >> IN. >> ORDER TO. >> PURSUE LEGITIMATE. >> ALLEGATIONS OF.
>> FRAUD AND WASTE. THIS ORDER. >> TELLS THE GOVERNMENT IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO HAVE A. >> BLANKET FREEZE. >> ON SPENDING.
>> THAT CONGRESS. >> HAS AUTHORIZED. BUT IF.
>> SOMETHING SPECIFIC COMES. >> UP, COME BACK TO ME.
SO THAT’S. >> THE RULE OF LAW APPROACH, THE APPROACH THAT WE WOULD EXPECT. >> TO SEE THE ADMINISTRATION. >> TAKE THE LAWLESS PATH. IS THE PATH.
>> THAT WE’VE INCREASINGLY SEEN. THE FORMER OR. >> THE CURRENT VICE. >> PRESIDENT REFERENCE. >> THIS NOTION THAT YOU.
JUST DON’T HAVE TO OBEY ORDERS FROM COURTS. >> THAT YOU DON’T LIKE. THAT’S OBVIOUSLY IN VIOLATION OF. >> THE OATH THAT. >> MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF THE.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. TAKE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. >> AND IF. THAT’S THE PATH. >> THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CHOOSES, THEN WE.
>> REALLY WOULD BE AT A VERY SERIOUS. >> MOMENT FOR DEMOCRACY. >> AND, MARK, I WANT TO READ ANOTHER PART OF THE ORDER.
HERE’S WHAT IT SAYS. THE DEFENDANTS NOW PLEA THAT THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO ROOT OUT FRAUD.
BUT THE FREEZE IS IN EFFECT NOW, WERE A RESULT OF THE BROAD CATEGORICAL ORDER, NOT A SPECIFIC FINDING OF POSSIBLE FRAUD. AND IN ANY CASE, AS WE’VE OFTEN SEEN BEFORE, LET’S GO BACK TO THE 2020 ELECTION WAS STOLEN. DONALD TRUMP HAS LONG SAID, WELL, THERE’S ALL THIS FRAUD AND WE’RE GOING TO SHOW YOU THE PROOF FOR IT. AND THEN THERE NEVER IS ANY PROOF. WE’RE STILL WAITING FOR HIM TO SAY WHY.
THE USAID, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION OR WHY SOME OF THE PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN TAKING KICKBACKS, FRAUD, THE POSSIBILITY OF TRYING TO PROVE FRAUD. HOW IMPORTANT IS THAT JUST THAT STATEMENT TO YOU IN THAT RULING BY THE JUDGE? >> WELL, IT’S FUNDAMENTAL. >> AND THIS JUST GETS TO THE BOTTOM. >> LINE.
>> WHICH IS THE REPUBLICANS HAVE CAUGHT THE CAR NOW. >> AND GOVERNMENTS. >> IN THEIR CONTROL. AND WHAT HAPPENS WILL BE ON THEIR WATCH AND THEY WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE. >> BUT IT’S CLEAR.
THAT TRUMP IS. DOING WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO. >> DURING THE CAMPAIGN. AND HE’S JUST TAKING A WRECKING BALL. >> TO.
>> THE GOVERNMENT. AND HE IS STRETCHING. >> THE LIMITS. >> OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO THEIR ABSOLUTE LIMIT, INCLUDING. CONGRESS AND INCLUDING THE JUDICIARY.
AND I THINK WHAT’S GOING TO BE INTERESTING, AND I KIND OF FLIP IT OVER TO JOYCE ON.
>> THIS QUESTION, IS. >> ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUMP JUST SAYS, SCREW IT, SUE ME. DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. FIND ME IN CONTEMPT.
>> I JUST, I THINK, WHICH. >> IS WHERE I THINK THEY’LL GO. THEY’LL JUST SAY, WE DON’T CARE. THE COURTS CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT. WE’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
JOYCE. WHAT IN THE END, WHAT’S THE HAMMER HERE IN THE END? >> I MEAN.
>> ISN’T THAT THE PROBLEM? RIGHT?
THERE’S THIS FAMOUS STATEMENT ABOUT LET THE COURTS ENFORCE IT. THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE AN ARMY THAT ENFORCES ITS DECISIONS. INSTEAD, WE HAVE AN AMERICAN TRADITION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH THE SUPREME COURT. >> AS THE ULTIMATE. >> ARBITER OF.
>> THESE LEGAL ISSUES. INCLUDING THE POWER. >> OF THE PRESIDENCY. AND SO THAT SAID, UNLESS THE CONGRESS SUDDENLY GROWS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A SPINE THAN WE’VE SEEN THEM WILLING TO ENGAGE WITH MOST RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE REALLY, THE LIMIT WE NOW LEARN ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER IS. THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, A POLITICAL POWER WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE EXERCISED HERE.
WE WOULD BE IN A REAL MOMENT OF CRISIS IF THIS PRESIDENT DECIDED HE COULD IGNORE COURT ORDERS AND DO WHATEVER HE WANTED TO DO. EVEN RICHARD NIXON DIDN’T DO THAT. ULTIMATELY, TURNING OVER THE WHITE HOUSE TAPES WHEN THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED HIM TO DO THAT. >> AND EVEN IF GARRETT, THE PRESIDENT SAID, OKAY, WE’RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER FOR THE NEXT 11 DAYS, THE DEFENDANTS THIS IS AGAIN READING FROM THE DOCUMENT.
THE DEFENDANTS MUST IMMEDIATELY TAKE EVERY STEP NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE TRO, INCLUDING CLEARING ANY ADMINISTRATION, OPERATION OR TECHNICAL HURDLES TO IMPLEMENTATION.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY FOLKS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS IT’S EASY, FOR EXAMPLE, TO LOCK EVERYBODY OUT OF THE BUILDING AND SAY, YOU DON’T COME IN TO WORK ANYMORE. IT’S ANOTHER THING TO GET THINGS BACK UP AND RUNNING, AND THE LATTER OFTEN TAKES LONGER THAN THE FORMER, RIGHT. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THINGS? >> WELL, THAT’S. >> EXACTLY THE WAY THOUSANDS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
>> THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND IN SOME CASES, IT MAY NOT EVEN BE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE’S ORDER. IF YOU’VE ALREADY PUT PEOPLE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WHO YOU KNOW, KNOW HOW TO PAY OUT CERTAIN GRANTS, OR TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LIGHTS ARE ON AT CERTAIN AGENCIES, WHETHER IT BE USAID OR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU. TODAY, WHERE WORKERS WERE TOLD NOT TO COME INTO THE OFFICE, IT MAY NOT BE AS SIMPLE AS SAYING, OKAY, YOU KNOW, FOLKS DOWN THE HALL IN CUBICLE A, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEND THAT CHECK OUT NOW, THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT AT WORK OR PERHAPS HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THEY’RE NOT COMING BACK.
THIS ORDER MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE IN THAT WAY.
AND I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT. SINCE JOYCE RAISED IMPEACHMENT ON THE RIGHT, INCLUDING FROM ELON MUSK, THERE HAS BEEN CHATTER THAT IMPEACHMENT COULD GO THE OTHER WAY, TOO. IT IS POSSIBLE TO IMPEACH FEDERAL JUDGES. AND SO COULD YOU SEE A SCENARIO IN WHICH THIS REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS GOES ENTIRELY THE OTHER DIRECTION AND SAYS THEY AGREE THAT THE JUDGE’S ORDERS ARE UNLAWFUL HERE? THEY BACK UP TRUMP IN THIS SHOWDOWN AND DECIDE TO TRY TO MOVE TO IMPEACH A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR ISSUING AN ORDER THAT THEY BELIEVE IS INAPPROPRIATE.
I DON’T THINK YOU CAN CROSS THAT POSSIBILITY ENTIRELY OFF THE LIST EITHER. >> WELL, JOYCE, I HAVE TO ASK THAT OF YOU DOING THE JOB THAT YOU DO AND WORKING WITH THE PEOPLE YOU’VE WORKED WITH THROUGHOUT YOUR CAREER, BECAUSE AS I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS, AS I’M RUNNING OUT OF THE NEWSROOM AND COMING OUT TO SET, I SAID TO SOMEONE WHO IS NOT INVOLVED IN NEWS PRODUCTION WHAT WAS HAPPENING, AND THEY SAID, OH, FOR THAT JUDGE, COULD YOU SEE A SCENARIO WHERE JUDGES I MEAN, LOOK, ALREADY WE KNOW THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ANY NUMBER OF JOBS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE NERVOUS ABOUT BEING SEEN AS BUCKING WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION WANTS.
BUT WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN IF THEY STARTED LOOKING SERIOUSLY AT IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES WHO RULE AGAINST WHAT THE WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS THEM TO DO? >> SO ALREADY. >> WE’VE SEEN.
>> THAT CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES. ELON MUSK TWEETED, I THINK YESTERDAY THAT EVERY YEAR THE BOTTOM PERFORMING 1% OF JUDGES SHOULD BE FIRED IN ORDER TO DO AWAY WITH CORRUPTION. THE REALITY IS, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, WHICH CANNOT BE ALTERED AT THE WHIMS OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, FEDERAL JUDGES GET LIFE TENURE, AND THEY GET THAT SO THEY CAN SET ASIDE THE PARTY AFFILIATION THAT HELPED THEM GET THE JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE SAW FEDERAL JUDGES DO THAT, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, IN THE WAKE OF THE 2020 ELECTION, WHEN THEY BRAVELY REJECTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD THAT WERE UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. NOW, WE HAVE THIS MORNING, THIS DECISION, THIS ORDER THAT’S ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE IN RHODE ISLAND, AN OBAMA APPOINTEE, WHICH I’M SURE WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT TODAY.
BUT HE VERY BRAVELY, AFTER SEEING THE CRITICISM OF THE JUDGE IN NEW YORK OVER THE WEEKEND WHO HAD ENTERED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN A DIFFERENT CASE. HE VERY BRAVELY LEADS WITH. THIS CITATION TO CASE LAW THAT SAYS IF A COURT ISSUES AN ORDER, YOU THE PARTIES MUST COMPLY WITH IT IMMEDIATELY, EVEN IF IT’S ULTIMATELY REVERSED ON APPEAL. SO THIS IS CLEARLY A JUDGE WHO’S SPINE IS STIFFENED. THIS IS NOT A JUDGE WHO’S GOING TO BACK DOWN.
BUT I THINK WE’RE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME JUDGES. JUDGES ARE ONLY HUMAN, WHO MAY REALLY BE WORRIED ABOUT. >> THE THREATS. >> THAT ARE UNDOUBTEDLY COMING. FOR ANY JUDGE WHO RULES AGAINST THIS ADMINISTRATION.
THAT’S WHY IT’S SO IMPORTANT THAT THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ACT IN CONCERT TO SAY JUDICIAL REVIEW IS A REALITY OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
IT’S HOW WE GET THINGS DONE. IT’S FAIR. IT’S RIGHT. WE DON’T ATTACK INDIVIDUAL JUDGES FOR THEIR RULINGS ANY MORE THAN WE ATTACK INDIVIDUAL PROSECUTORS OR FBI AGENTS FOR THE CASES THAT THEY’RE ASSIGNED TO WORK ON.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IN TRUMP 2.0, THOSE SORTS OF CRITERIA ARE USED TO CONDEMN OUR.
Read More: Trump declares Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations | NewsNation Live