Latest / DEEP INSIGHT / Winning attorney & ex-Trump lawyer react to Trumps SCOTUS losses

Transcript

Winning attorney & ex-Trump lawyer react to Trumps SCOTUS losses · DEEP INSIGHT

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Ty A lot to talk about here, obviously what Rebecca's
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: talking about. There was a significant win for Trump and
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: his efforts to expand executive power. He did, though, suffer
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: today a number of losses at the Supreme Court, including
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: his attempt to overturn the ruling against him in the
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Egen Carroll case, where a federal jury in New York
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: had found the president liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: And Trump responded today on social media saying, I will
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: continue the fight against this weaponization and law fair case
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: against me, including the ridiculous claim of defamation, with all
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: my power and strength. This case is really against the
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: United States of America and all it stands for and
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: should never be allowed to happen to another president. Can
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: he do anything more about this?
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: Nothing?
• 0:46
  Speaker 3: You know, He's going to write a five point eight
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: million dollar check, have to supplement the five point five
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: that's already being held by the court, and Egene Carroll
• 0:59
  Speaker 3: will cash check sometime in the recent and sometime in
• 1:03
  Speaker 3: the near future. With regard to her claims, keep in
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: mind that this is one of twenty seven women over
• 1:13
  Speaker 3: the course of the last three decades who has come
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: forward with accusations against the president for sexual misconduct. You know,
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: this is one of three women that he has lied
• 1:22
  Speaker 3: openly about, you know, just since just since his presidency,
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: you know, and Karen McDougall and Stormy Daniels, who were
• 1:31
  Speaker 3: at the heart of his thirty four criminal felony convictions.
• 1:35
  Speaker 3: He denied having relationships with him, He denied having anything
• 1:39
  Speaker 3: to do with her, said she was in his type,
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: said other things about her that were defamatory. The jury
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: didn't have any difficulty with that, and he lost five
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: million dollars in the first trial under Joe Tacopina, who
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: I think did an excellent job compared to Elena Habba,
• 1:55
  Speaker 3: who ended up losing eighty three million dollars.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: So what about the mail in ballot case. I mean
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: that was significant, and you heard Christen Holmes reporting right
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: that he is really upset about that. Then there's a
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Lisa Cook case, which he also took a hit in
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: from the faed Chios is fed governor. So do you
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: read anything into these losses by Trump at the Supreme
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Court where obviously, let's just state the obvious here, ty
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: these there is a Supreme Court where he thinks he
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: stacked it with people who were going to rule in
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: his favor and FTC ruling Aside, which was obviously very significant.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: They did rule in his favor, these other very very
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: monumental court cases, they did not.
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: Right Trump reviews. That's very transactionally. They're his people. They
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: should vote his way. I mean, that's his view of
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: the world. But you know these people are you know,
• 2:44
  Speaker 3: they're there to call balls and strike. As Chief Justice
• 2:47
  Speaker 3: Roberts said at his hearing, he did that today. I
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: think he tried very desperately. If you look at the
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: alignment of all these different opinions to hold the center
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: of the court. You know, he was in the majority
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: in the cookcase, he was in the majority, and the
• 3:00
  Speaker 3: Mississippi ballot case. Amy comy Bert, who wrote the Mississippi
• 3:03
  Speaker 3: ballot case, is a conservative. She is a strong conservative,
• 3:07
  Speaker 3: but she's also an intellectually honest person. She and she
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: wrote the decision in the way that she actually believes.
• 3:14
  Speaker 3: I know they're a livid about that. I know Steve Bannon,
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: one of Trump's advisor's convicted Fellon and Epstein confidante, has
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: trashed her today and that Trump has livid. But the
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: reality is she did her job. And she should be
• 3:28
  Speaker 3: proud of that. So I think these are very very
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: significant decisions. I think the cookcase is very much different
• 3:35
  Speaker 3: than Miss Laughter's case. I commend Missleatter for her service
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: to the country, but I think on constitutional grounds that
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: the cases are very distinct, and the enabling legislation for
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: the FED has that four cause provision that Justice Roberts
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: relied upon.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: So we're hours away, possibly from birthright citizenship. What do
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: you expect there?
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: I expect that given the given the rulings today, particularly
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: the ruling on the Mississippi voting case, I would expect
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: that the Trump will be rebuked again on birthright citizenship
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: by the by the court. It could be it could
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: be unanimous. It should be unanimous. It's really an obvious decision.
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: But but you know, given the tone of some of
• 4:19
  Speaker 3: the uh conservative opinions, particularly Justice Leedo, you know, he
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: and Thomas may may rule against him. I do think that,
• 4:26
  Speaker 3: I do think that that the government will likely win
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: the two transgender sports cases where different states have tried
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: to uh eliminate uh uh you know, trans athletes from
• 4:40
  Speaker 3: women's sports and uh, but I so I think there'll
• 4:44
  Speaker 3: be a little bit of a you know, some for Trump,
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: some for some for the people tomorrow, But on birthright citizenship,
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: which I think is at the fundamental core of what
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: it is to be an American, I think that the
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: country will be proud tomorrow the of the Supreme Court.
• 4:58
  Speaker 4: My first guest is one of the Federal Reserve Governor
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: at Lisa Cook's attorneys, Norm Eisen, joins me. Now, Norm,
• 5:06
  Speaker 4: I'm so glad that you're here. I know that you
• 5:08
  Speaker 4: have been very busy, meticulously trying to protect your client,
• 5:13
  Speaker 4: but also the legacy that this represents as well. And
• 5:17
  Speaker 4: I know the Fed Governor is grateful the Supreme Court
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: has saved her job for now, but they also expanded
• 5:25
  Speaker 4: the president's executive power. Norm, how does that sit with
• 5:29
  Speaker 4: her tonight?
• 5:30
  Speaker 5: Well, the Supreme Court protected the independence of the FED law.
• 5:38
  Speaker 5: So let's start with the centrality of the Federal Reserve
• 5:42
  Speaker 5: to the US economy and to the economy of the world.
• 5:46
  Speaker 5: That is a significant matter. We're very grateful that the
• 5:51
  Speaker 5: rule of law has operated. And before turning to the
• 5:54
  Speaker 5: slaughter case, let's note this whole absurd mess was based
• 6:02
  Speaker 5: on groundless allegations against doctor Cook. It was stopped and
• 6:08
  Speaker 5: enjoined by a lower court. We won at the DC
• 6:13
  Speaker 5: Circuit on appeal, and today we wanted the Supreme Court.
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: So that is a significant victory.
• 6:20
  Speaker 4: But there are some limitations when you get that limitations.
• 6:23
  Speaker 4: Of course, one of the things she touches. Roberts points
• 6:25
  Speaker 4: out is that the ultimate question of whether the President
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: can remove her for cause will depend on part on
• 6:31
  Speaker 4: the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed
• 6:34
  Speaker 4: those facts, so explain why this is far.
• 6:36
  Speaker 5: From at Yes, But if you look at that page
• 6:41
  Speaker 5: of the decision, it is the most important page thirteen
• 6:44
  Speaker 5: and fourteen of the decision. They say you have to
• 6:48
  Speaker 5: look at the unique status and role of the FED.
• 6:52
  Speaker 5: They say, our review is deferential, but we are not
• 6:56
  Speaker 5: required to exhibit a naivete from which ordinary citizens are free.
• 7:03
  Speaker 5: In other words, they know what's gone on here. They
• 7:07
  Speaker 5: reject what happened to doctor Cook as baseless, as a
• 7:11
  Speaker 5: violation of her rights, and I think while they don't
• 7:17
  Speaker 5: define what causes, they're clear that it is an exacting
• 7:21
  Speaker 5: standard because there's no factual basis for these these absurd
• 7:25
  Speaker 5: allegations being made.
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: Against doctor Cook.
• 7:30
  Speaker 5: I am confident that we will be able to continue
• 7:33
  Speaker 5: to fight this issue now, but.
• 7:35
  Speaker 4: I want you to explain. I know we're warning this
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: because I want aside from the underlying facts involving in
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: her particular case, because you know, this case is bigger
• 7:45
  Speaker 4: of course, doctor Cook, and obviously it's personal to her,
• 7:47
  Speaker 4: but it's very personal to those who believe in the Constitution.
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: And of course the independent agencies explain why the Court
• 7:55
  Speaker 4: would say the Federal Reserve has a different place in
• 7:59
  Speaker 4: our society in terms of the independence of the agency
• 8:03
  Speaker 4: compared to the Slaughter case, where they said the four
• 8:06
  Speaker 4: causes not apply.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: There.
• 8:09
  Speaker 5: The Court looked to the historical status the majority of
• 8:14
  Speaker 5: our originalists.
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: They look to the historical.
• 8:17
  Speaker 5: Status of the First Bank of the United States, the
• 8:21
  Speaker 5: Second Bank, and the other financial institutions, and the independence
• 8:27
  Speaker 5: that they had historically. I do not agree with the
• 8:32
  Speaker 5: distinction that they made. I think the independent agencies, which
• 8:36
  Speaker 5: have been recognized for almost a century since I'm Freeze Executor,
• 8:43
  Speaker 5: as an essential part of American governance, they should have
• 8:48
  Speaker 5: been accorded this same treatment of four cause removal. Congress
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: has interpreted the role of the independent agencies, and they
• 8:58
  Speaker 5: have said, we are going to give this article one power,
• 9:03
  Speaker 5: congressional power.
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: We're going to authorize that for.
• 9:07
  Speaker 5: These independent agencies that operate within Article two. I disagree
• 9:13
  Speaker 5: with Slaughter, but protecting the independence of the FED, the
• 9:18
  Speaker 5: American economy, the world economy is very material, and if
• 9:22
  Speaker 5: you look at Slaughter, they do say they are not
• 9:26
  Speaker 5: reaching a wide variety of issues. Not all offices created
• 9:31
  Speaker 5: by Congress necessarily come with the triggering executive power, so
• 9:36
  Speaker 5: there may be exceptions for other offices created by Congress.
• 9:41
  Speaker 5: There are some functions traditionally handled outside the executive this
• 9:46
  Speaker 5: room may not apply there, and on and on. So
• 9:50
  Speaker 5: don't give up, hope. We have over three hundred cases
• 9:53
  Speaker 5: and matters that democracy to vendors, fund and action.
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: We're going to keep on fighting well.
• 10:00
  Speaker 4: And I Bill POULTI believes you might have to keep
• 10:03
  Speaker 4: cutting when it comes to your client because he believes
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: that she will be indicted for mortgage fraud. You are
• 10:08
  Speaker 4: adamant about the bogus nature of the underlying claims that
• 10:12
  Speaker 4: triggered this lawsuit in ultimate and in front Supreme Court.
• 10:15
  Speaker 4: But do you see this indictment coming down the road
• 10:18
  Speaker 4: or is Pulty just trying to litigate the case in
• 10:20
  Speaker 4: the court public opinion.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: There's no basis for an indictment.
• 10:25
  Speaker 5: We've seen this administration wrongfully investigate and attempt to indict people.
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: The courts have been very tough on that. Look at
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: Attorney General Tish James.
• 10:36
  Speaker 5: The court threw the case out, and then you were
• 10:38
  Speaker 5: a prosecutor, Laura, grand Jury's refuse to consider the case.
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: That's so rare.
• 10:43
  Speaker 5: Jim Comey, many others, the Broadview six in Chicago, the
• 10:48
  Speaker 5: Sandwich Thrower, So many of these cases have been rejected
• 10:54
  Speaker 5: by the courts. If they try this misbegotten approach to
• 10:58
  Speaker 5: doctor Cook, We're gonna victorously fight it. I don't think
• 11:01
  Speaker 5: the courts will entertain it. How wrong when the government
• 11:05
  Speaker 5: says this thing, this kind of thing about people, when
• 11:10
  Speaker 5: you lose a case at the Supreme Court, you immediately
• 11:13
  Speaker 5: move to target someone that's not America.
• 11:17
  Speaker 4: Normisen, thank you, Thanks Laura,