5 Burst results for "Walter Dellinger"

"walter dellinger" Discussed on Today, Explained

Today, Explained

08:00 min | 1 year ago

"walter dellinger" Discussed on Today, Explained

"Moment the Supreme Court is entering the debate over the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Today's case is aroused huge interest among citizens and politicians alike and it is divided even the president and vice president. March 18th, 2008, the day the Heller case was argued that the Supreme Court, everyone understood how high the stakes were. It is the people. Outside in front of the Supreme Court protesters by the hundreds were marching and chanting in favor of gun rights and in favor of gun control. Journalist from all over the world descended upon the Supreme Court that day. And inside the supreme courthouse. We will hear argument today in case zero 7 two 90 District of Columbia versus Heller. This was the first time in our history, the Supreme Court would directly try to figure out what the Second Amendment means. Mister dellinger. And immediately. Good morning, mister chief justice and may please the court. D.C.'s lawyer Walter dellinger gets up and jumps right into it. Second Amendment was a direct response. And he sort of begins with the central question like, what was James Madison thinking when he wrote this super confusing sentence like 200 years ago? Was he thinking about the individual people and the right to own a gun or was he thinking about the collective right of the militia to own a gun? To consider, is the phrase protecting a right to keep and bear arms. And he says, if you look at the phrase. The phrase keep and bear arms. How it was used at the time? Every person who used the phrase bear arms, used it to refer to the use of arms in connection with militia service. The interest that if you look at some of Madison's rough drafts of the Second Amendment, it's pretty clear that when he says people have a right to bear arms, all he really means is like report for duty. Even if the language of keeping and bearing arms were ambiguous, he had been first clause confirms that the right is militia related. It's a thing. If you're right, mister dellinger. Chief justice Roberts jumps in, like, wow, wow, wow, wow. Why would they say the right of the people to keep arms? They meant just the people in the state militias. Why wouldn't they say state militias have the right to keep arms? This is chief justice. I believe that the phrase, the people, and the phrase the militia were really in sync with each other. The federalist farmer uses the phrase, the people are the militia, the militia, the right, doesn't that cut against you if the militia included all the people, it includes all the people. Yes, I do believe it includes all the people. At this point, everyone sort of jumps in a bunch of justices. Start interrupting each other. It's kind of like a scrum and they're all trying to figure out, okay, so when Madison wrote the phrase. The right of the people to keep it bear, I'm sure not be in French. Like, who were the people he was talking about? Thinking of the people. What those words meant. Was the people just the militia or everyone, all the people. What is the relationship between the second part of the sentence, the people part, and the first part of the sentence? The militia part. They go into like Sonya and common law, right? He speaks of common law. Scottish highlanders. Scottish highlanders for some reason. At one point, the subject is arms in both clauses as they even sort of start to diagram Madison's sentence. I think as this court and the net result, according to Adam Winkler, was the four liberals, Stevens, souter Breyer, Ginsburg. Seemed to want to emphasize the militia part of the sentence, and then you had the four conservative justices, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts. Who seemed to want to emphasize the people part of the sentence, the second part. I don't see how there's any contradiction. And team people's team captain, the quarterback, the first chair that day was, without a doubt, justice Antonin Scalia. Why isn't it perfectly plausible indeed reasonable to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons. A year throughout the arguments is that Scalia is very, very forwardly pressing the sort of individual rights argument speaks of the right of the people. And justices like David souter, the kind of the military are arguing back saying what about the collective, the militia. This goes on for well over an hour, the justices sort of grilling the lawyers, arguing amongst themselves, everybody trying to figure out what was in James Madison's head. Until finally, just as briar, one of the liberal justices is like, you're saying that this is unreasonable. Hold the phone. And that really is my question. Forget what Madison intended, there is no way for us to know. Let's talk about now. Let's talk about gun violence. This sentence was most definitely written about muskets. What about handguns and assault rifles? What is reasonable now? 80 to a 100,000 people every year in the United States. Are either killed or wounded in gun related homicides or a crimes or accidents or suicides, but suicides and more questionable. That's why I say 80 to a 100,000. Now, in light of that, why isn't a ban on handguns? A reasonable or a proportionate response on behalf of the District of Columbia. Because your honor, for the same reason it was offered by numerous military officers at the highest levels of the U.S. Military. It all branches of service, writing in two briefs, they agree with us that the handgun ban serves to weak in America's military preparedness because Alan gura basically argues when you take away people's guns, they're going to be less prepared if and when they enlist in the army, to which justice Breyer is like, they can still practice shooting. With their rifles, which weren't banned in D.C. they can go to gun ranges, I guess, in neighboring states. But does that make it unreasonable for a city? With a very high crime rate, assuming that the objective is what the military people say to keep us ready for the draft, if necessary. Is it unreasonable for a city with that high crime rate? To say no handguns here. You want to say yes. That's your answer. Well, you want to say yes, that's correct, but I want to hear what the reason is because there's a big crime problem. I'm simply getting you to focus on that. That, by the way, it was justice Scalia telling Alan gura how to answer justice Breyer's question. The answer is yes, it's justice Scalia noted. And it's unreasonable. And it actually fails any standard of review that might be offered under such a construction of the individual right because proficiency with handgun, as anyway, the oral arguments last 97 minutes. Far longer than most other cases, and going into the arguments, many Supreme Court watchers figured the case would be a close 5 four decision, and it could go either way. And as with all of these close cases, the question was, what would Anthony Kennedy, the swing justice do? As in so many issues in America, it comes down to what does Anthony Kennedy believe. So at the oral argument and I had the good fortune to be at the oral argument in the Heller case, everyone was looking to hear what would he say about the Second Amendment. His was really the vote that counted, and the very first comment he made. So that even if you left and had nothing to do with the concern of this remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes, outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that. One of the first things he said was about bears. Like not bare arms, but grizzly bears..

Supreme Court Scottish highlanders Heller Mister dellinger Walter dellinger mister dellinger Chief justice Roberts Scalia James Madison diagram Madison Madison Adam Winkler souter Breyer D.C. Alan gura mister Columbia Sonya Antonin Scalia Ginsburg
"walter dellinger" Discussed on There Are No Girls on the Internet

There Are No Girls on the Internet

07:28 min | 1 year ago

"walter dellinger" Discussed on There Are No Girls on the Internet

"Podcast awards. Well deserved. That's so awesome. Congratulations to you and your whole team. Oh my goodness, thank you so much. Yeah, and you know what? I'm gonna say it feels freaking good to win. I was kind of like, oh, you know, just being nominated is nice, but I deep down kind of, you ever have one of those times in your life where you just really need a win. Okay, that's where I was at. So I have to briefly shout out my team Atari Harrison is my producer and engineer. She's phenomenally talented. Jonathan Strickland is our EP phenomenally talented doctor Michael amato is our chief science officer and producer, so talented. I could not have one without them. They're so awesome. So thank you. Yes. We love a win, especially when it's our personal friends. Yeah, I said it. I'm claiming you as a personal, but I know Bridget, thank you very much. I feel the same way about you. I feel very honored to know you all in real life. Yes, yes. And in case you don't know listeners, which I'm assuming you do, this is for the podcast. There are no girls on the Internet, which is, you've got a new season coming, right? Yes. Yeah, I probably should have said the name of my own podcast. I'm trying to get better at self promotion. Yes, the podcast is called there are no girls on the Internet. We just want an I heart award and we're coming back for a brand new season on March 1st. So we've kind of been in the high on hiatus for a bit while we've been retooling and I'm so excited that we're finally launching. So it would mean a lot to me if y'all checked it out. Thank you for mentioning Annie. I obviously can not be trusted to remember to say the name of the thing I meant to be promoting, but yeah, please check it out. We have all kinds of interesting conversations about how women and queer folks and trans folks and black folks and other marginalized voices how we show up or donuts show up online and in technology. So yeah, please check it out if that sounds like something you're interested in. You absolutely should. I'm still waiting for the fan fiction episode I'm ready. Yes, TBT. Also, just a fun fact about Tara, who's also a good friend of ours. She always sings sitcom jingles at karaoke. The thing I adore about her. And she refuses to sing anything else. And when someone interrupts her, she gets very annoyed, rightly so because this is her thing and she wants it and has claimed it and has done well with it. How did I not? How have I worked with tare for two years and I guess COVID is how but I know this. I need to take her out for karaoke. To see this in action. Oh, you know what? What's a better Bridget? We need you to come to Atlanta and host a big karaoke night. If there are several great locations that we love, including my favorite spot towards before highway, ran by a Korean family who has a screen. And as you think, and we adore them, and they bring us fruit place. It's delightful while we sing karaoke to our hearts content. It's a please put that on the agenda. The last time I was in Atlanta, I went to, what is that spot called church of King Kong? Church. And there were some karaoke happening. It was pretty fun. So yeah. Atlanta karaoke date literally anytime I am in, I need to see producer tari in action singing these jingles. And she's like, we're singing cheers together. Okay. I love it. I love it. I love it. I love it. Okay, so this topic you're bringing to us today, Bridget, is extremely timely. We're very excited to talk about it. And we have a lot to get into. So let's get into it. What are we talking about today? So today is Friday, February 25th, 2022, and I want to talk about the just recently announced new nominee for the Supreme Court. Judge katangi Brown Jackson. So I have to admit, I was putting together all my notes for this episode last night. And so the notes were all like, oh, the potential nominee. When we have the nominee, it was all very hypothetical. And then this morning, the news just dropped that she is indeed The White House's pick to be the first ever black woman Supreme Court Justice on our Supreme Court. So very historic, very important, very exciting. But we know that it also comes along with racist attacks, sexist attacks, miss and disinformation that women of color who are in public office. Unfortunately, tend to face. And so today I really wanted to talk about how we got to this place of having this historic black woman being nominated for the Supreme Court and what kind of attack she's likely to be facing. What kind of attacks she's already been facing and how we can sort of all work together to create the conditions to have a better conversation about her nomination. Yes, and as you said, this is very ongoing. We're trying to get this episode out as quickly as possible because things are changing very quickly. But we've already seen some of these attacks. I know we're going to get into that in a minute, but before we do that, can you give us some history and background on what's going on here? Absolutely. So here's a little bit of background about the call to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court. I have to shout out that she will rise campaign organized by a great organization called Cisco scotus. And their whole coalition is full of dynamic black women, women like April rain, who created the hashtag Oscars so white, 16, 19 project creator Nicole Hannah Jones, Lancia Johnson, who I love, I used to work with her at Planned Parenthood, Broadway, multi Tony Award winner, audra McDonald. So just a huge coalition of dynamic badass black women who have been advocating to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. And so in the over 200 year history of the Supreme Court, not one black woman has ever been confirmed or even nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. There have been a 115 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court and only three of them have been people of color. There have only been two black American members of the Supreme Court Justice thurgood Marshall and justice clarence Thomas. And so that's obviously not a very inclusive track record in terms of representation. And, you know, this idea of, I thought this was kind of a new precedent, you know, a presidential candidate saying like, oh, if I'm elected, I will put this kind of person on the Supreme Court. However, there is actually a long history and precedent for president's pledging to pick a scotus nominee who represents a certain demographic of our population. So this is from a really great New York Times op-ed by Walter dellinger, who was the acting solicitor general of the United States under Bill Clinton. He writes, there is a long and important tradition of presidents taking into consideration the demographic characteristics of prospective justices, including geographic background, religion, race, and sex. To ensure the Supreme Court is and remains a representative institution in touch with the varied facets of American life. More fundamentally, our history shows the process of reaching out to expand the personal backgrounds of the justices has often produced stellar jurists who make historic contributions to our court and judicial system. So he goes on to describe how president Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court and even though a bunch of his Republican colleagues were very vocally against it and kind of forced him to add some mandu is shortlist. President Reagan was really adamant about picking a woman and eventually nominated Sandra Day O'Connor, making her the first ever female associate Supreme Court Justice. And so that's some history that I didn't even know about how other presidents have set this precedent.

Supreme Court Bridget Atari Harrison Jonathan Strickland Michael amato Atlanta Judge katangi Brown Jackson tare tari Annie King Kong Tara Nicole Hannah Jones Lancia Johnson Justice thurgood Marshall justice clarence Thomas audra McDonald White House Walter dellinger Oscars
"walter dellinger" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM

WABE 90.1 FM

04:25 min | 1 year ago

"walter dellinger" Discussed on WABE 90.1 FM

"Already in play of creating false provocations of then having to respond to those provocations and then ultimately committing new aggression against Ukraine And The White House says the Russian government is believed to be responsible for recent denial of service attacks on Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and state owned banks Blinken says regional partnership is required to manage the crisis I think president Putin's been a little bit surprised At that solidarity at the way that NATO has come together The European Union has come together The partnership includes Lithuania Latvia and Estonia who would be particularly vulnerable should Russia invaded crane and Munich leaders of the Baltic countries received vice president Kamala Harris's commitment that the U.S. would stand with them The Justice Department's special counsel investigating the origins of the FBI's Trump Russia probe is rejecting allegations that he's sought to politicize his prosecution of a Washington attorney And piers Ryan Lucas has the latest This all revolves around special counsel John Durham's case against Michael sussman who worked for a law firm with long-standing ties to the Democratic Party sussman has pleaded not guilty to a single count of line to the FBI This week sussman's attorneys accused Durham of seeking to politicize the case and gin up negative media coverage They point to a Durham filing last week that fueled a barrage of conservative media reports that claimed falsely that Hillary Clinton had paid to spy on Donald Trump's campaign and presidency Now Durham says in a new filing that any assertion that his team acted in bad faith and tried to politicize the case is quote simply not true Brian Lucas and Pierre news Washington The Dow was down 27 points at 34,282 the NASDAQ is down 51 in the S&P's fallen two points This is NPR news Former acting solicitor general Walter dellinger has died at the age of 80 NPR's Amy held reports dollinger argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court and spoke out in defense of civil rights Born in North Carolina in 1941 Walter dellinger began young in his fight for equal opportunity under the law Joining desegregation picket lines In 1967 he was working as a clerk at the Supreme Court when it struck down interracial marriage bans Former president Bill Clinton tapped dillinger to serve as the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer Later dellinger wrote an amicus brief in defense of gay rights In 2014 he told NPR the court knew where it was headed on the issue of same sex marriage It's a question of timing by waiting until more of the country has experienced their friends and neighbors being married and nothing bad happened The less the court would provoke a backlash One year later the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage Amy held and pure news The prosecution's rested its case in a federal hate crimes trial stemming from ahmaud Arbery's murder in 2020 three white men chased down Arbery after they saw him running through the neighborhood Greg mcmichael is sent Travis and their neighbor William roddy Bryan have already been sentenced by state court to life in prison They're now standing trial on charges that they targeted Arbery because he was black Kim Potter the former suburban Minneapolis police officer who says she'd mistaken her gun for a taser has been sentenced to two years in state custody for killing Dante Wright an African American man She's been ordered to serve 16 months in prison the remainder of her punishment in supervised release This is NPR Support for NPR comes from NPR stations Other contributors include C three AI C three AI software enables organizations to use artificial intelligence at enterprise scale solving previously unsolvable problems C three AI is enterprise AI On city lights we celebrated latter's vibrant art scene We get to do this because of the community that supports the station That's why this month we are celebrating sustainers celebrating you because together we are amplifying at latter From.

Walter dellinger Russian government Ukrainian Ministry of Defense Blinken president Putin sussman Ryan Lucas John Durham Michael sussman Supreme Court FBI NPR Brian Lucas Durham Pierre news Washington The Dow Russia Kamala Harris dollinger Latvia
"walter dellinger" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Podcast

08:29 min | 1 year ago

"walter dellinger" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

"That the administration. Somebody i think it was in. The white house decided to represent the supreme court decision in a certain way and moreover sake said that on a thursday in or four days later gene. Sperling repeats the same talking point so there was no pushback from anyone. Not just the justice department or the white house counsel. And i have to think that's because it was agreed to in advance. Now someone in the justice department should have noticed in their heads might have exploded. And i wouldn't have been surprised if they sent a message. Saying this isn't an accurate reading of the case. But i think ultimately the responsibility for the white house press secretary getting talking points. Legally correct lies with the white house. Counsel's office yeah. I i agree with everything jackson and by putting some blame on doj. I don't mean to in any way. Absolve the white house counsel of anything and we should absolute talk about their role. It's just that you know. If you're the attorney general you have to understand no matter. What the official job description is at the end of the day. You need to protect you. Know most narrowly your departments equities and you also have a general obligation to make sure the administration does as much as it can do to get the law right so you know whether or not it's your job or not. I do think it's still prudent to make sure that someone is double checking the white house counsel's work and at the very least from here on in given the poor performance of whoever was vetting those statements. I think the doj we'll have to understand that the white has cancelled can't necessarily be be be trusted to get the the law right you say could have to zoom zoom out on this question. What is the right level of independence for coordination. I think this this example really shows why. This is such a difficult problem because we all understand. I think intuitively maybe especially after the trump years the dangers of too much coordination too much interference from the white house to the prominent justice and so therefore. There's this temptation to say well. Then let's just separate them as much as possible and that will preserve the adjacent dependence and on the one hand that is true that will preserve the jazz independence but if the president through either procedural reasons are any other reasons believes that he cannot go to doj whenever he needs to for advice. That doesn't mean he's going to just listen to what doj says he's going to find different advice. He's gonna find advice from people that he's not so independent from in this case it appears to be the white house counsel or outside constitutional law scholars. Or whoever it is so there's always this trade off between on the one hand you want doj to have independence but you don't want it to be so independent that the white house just go somewhere else for advice because it's such a pain in the butt to get advice from the oj. Yeah i wanna foot stomp the idea that the independence is on investigative and prosecutorial matters and the idea that there should be independence on review of and litigation of a policy decision by an expert agency within the scope of its jurisdiction. Nobody actually argues that. At least nobody who understands what the justice department does. And i think if the lesson that the biden white house is taking from the trump years is that they need to keep their distance from the justice department. Even on such administrative matters they've drawn altogether the wrong lesson. But but i think i agree with you one hundred percent. I don't think that's what happened. Here i agree they made. It seem like what that's what happened here. But i would be shocked if they thought that they couldn't seek the justice department advice on these questions and i would be frankly shocked as i said earlier. If the justice department didn't make both their legal and they're pragmatic judgments known to the white house. We'll see. I guess this will come out more. But i that that distinction is obvious and i would be very surprised if this administration but otherwise but that said the president did have this remark as press conference about not wanting to step on. Doj's toe so it's clearly on his mind. Yeah it's mind and it's good that it's on his mind. It means that he shouldn't have any contact with merrick garland about whether and when he's going to indict relief rudy giuliani or matt gaetz. But it doesn't mean he shouldn't be in touch with merrick garland or that his counsel's office shouldn't be in touch with the department over what they should and shouldn't say about their legal authority to have a have an addiction moratorium. The white house counsel's office caused the justice department dozen times a day questions like that and they always have and it's never been part up in my experience and knowledge. It's never been part of what we mean by. Doj independence the distinction drawing very important. All right so let's close with a sense of what this episode means. You're both in broad agreement that notwithstanding the optics the biden administration didn't do anything lawless here. So why does this episode. Matter from. Alan i jack. Why shouldn't we just chalk it up to You know the president is a little bit laga real. Sometimes he did one of his uncle. Joe fangs but no harm no foul. Because there's really nothing improper happened. Why is it more than that. So i think there are two issues here but before i go into the my i do want to emphasize. I don't want anyone to come away from this thinking that there's some equivalency between the stuff that happened in this case and the worst of the abuses of the trump administration. I think that's how i mean i've been seeing. That's how some conservative media outlets are trying to spin this. And i don't think that's the case right. I think here you have your own problems. But this is nothing like the kind of almost intention whole destruction of norms that we saw in the trump administration but at the same time. I think we also need to be willing to hold bite into account not just to be better than trump which was extraordinarily low bar but to be particularly good at i'm rebuilding those norms. And so if i am perhaps hyperventilating a little bit in this case. It's because biden has very much promised to bring back those norms. And so i think it's important to to hold in kind of to that and to put his actions under a microscope but again at the same time. I don't want anyone to think that you know. This is just as bad as trumpet because it is not now to get into what i think. The two main problems are beyond just kind of uncle joe's occasional lottery. I think there are so i. There's just the process question right of what is the. The level of communication between the white house in the of justice is stuff going to doj. Arthur i people talking to each other You know these aren't the sexiest questions. But in the day to day operations of a white house administration generally. They're really really important. So someone's gotta tighten up. I don't know if it's an issue at doj or staffer white house counsel. There's some real process. Fails has to be fixed. The second thing is this idea of going outside the government in particular to get expert council. When you really don't need it that that quite bothers me to be clear. None of the people that biden the by administration consulted. You larry tribe martha minno. Walter dellinger you. These are eminent law. Professors right. I be very interested in their opinions. There's nothing wrong with necessarily talking to them or hearing what they have to say and You know i'm i'm a law professor. I teach online. It'd be great if people took you know what i said what. I said seriously one day but the idea that the by administration would do that because he thought it wasn't getting politically palatable enough legal answers from its own administration right because nancy pelosi told them to quote unquote get better lawyers that to me strikes me as really really disturbing because again. It's not as if the bite administration doesn't have an insane amount of legal talent within it right now. The white house counsel dana ramos is a law professor. At to the top two people will see on johnson and mardi liederman our law. Professors merrick garland knows everything there is to know about the constitution. They don't need to go outside the government to get expert legal advice and given the dangers of cherry. Picking you know there are a lot of people in legal academy..

white house justice department doj merrick garland Sperling matt gaetz Doj biden biden administration Joe fangs supreme court jackson rudy giuliani Alan larry tribe martha minno jack Walter dellinger
A Complete List of Trump’s Pardons and Commutations

All In with Chris Hayes

12:14 min | 3 years ago

A Complete List of Trump’s Pardons and Commutations

"Today. Donald Trump continued his full on assault. On the rule of law pardoning and commuting the sentences of several high profile criminals he notably included former Illinois governor. Rod Blagojevich was convicted of trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat vacated because he was elected president in exchange for campaign contributions. Begovic had served eight years of a fourteen year prison sentence. You may also remember the governor from the apprentice where he messed up the Harry Potter Challenge and got fired Donald Trump. We'll technically by the apprentice producers today the President Communities Sentence Response Members of the Illinois House Republican delegation released a saying quote. We're disappointed by the president's commutation of Robert Mugabe of federal sentence. Begovic is the face of public corruption in Illinois. And not once has he shown any remorse for his clear undocumented. Record of egregious crimes that undermined the trust placed in him by the voters. Nbc News Correspondent. Tom Winter reminds us are eating. A jury found him guilty of trying to extort the CEO of Children's Memorial Hospital for a donation in exchange for increasing the payments to doctors. Who took care of Specialty Care Kids? Oh but Donald Trump was not done there he also pardoned former New York police department. Commissioner Bernard Kerik pleaded guilty to eight felony charges including tax fraud and lying to White House officials. Carrick was nominated by George W Bush to be the Secretary of Homeland Security before withdrawing that nomination just a week later. The judge gave a longer sentence than agreed to the plea deal saying quote. I think the damage caused by Mr Carrick is in some ways. Immeasurable trump also pardoned bond. Trader Michael Milkin. So guy considered to be the face of insider trading in the nineteen eighty S. Milton was originally charged with ninety eight. Federal counts including racketeering. He pleaded guilty to six felony charges of securities fraud conspiracy. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. He also paid six hundred million dollars in fines and restitution at sentencing. The judge said quote when a man of your power in the financial world repeatedly conspires to violate and violate securities and tax laws in order to achieve more power and wealth for himself and his wealthy clients. A significant president prison term is required in order to deter others others receive clemency from trump today glued former San Francisco Forty niners owner Edward debartolo junior. Who pleaded guilty in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight two concealing an extortion attempt involving the governor of Louisiana David Savvy and the former Bush administration official who was sentenced to a year in prison for lying about his association with Jack? Abramov June grown the owner of a Mental Health Care Company. Who was serving a thirty five year prison sentence for running? A two hundred. Five million dollar Medicare fraud scheme to be clear. This is the president who spent the last six months arguing. He so pose corruption. He had to make sure. Ukrainian president was to by withholding credit grudgingly approved military aid unless you launch fake investigation into the Biden's and route around Kremlin source conspiracy theory tourist findings but somehow this group of liars an extortionist and swindlers is the group of people. Trump felt deserve clemency. Maybe it's just a coincidence. That trump is pardoning these felons as the sentencing yet. Another one of his criminal pals looms earlier today. Trump tweeted about the judge in the trial of his longtime friend and advisor. Roger Stone suggesting stone deserved a new trial. Not long after the judge ruled stone. Sentencing hearing we'll go on that's planned on Thursday. Although she did say Roger. Stone's sentence will not begin until after she rules on his request for a new trial. Trump's interference with the stone cases. Troubled the Federal Judges Association so much that they called an emergency meeting tomorrow to address it and joining me now. For more on the president's pardoning spree. Today's Walter Dellinger. He was formerly formerly the acting. Solicitor General and also the head of the office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice under president. Bill Clinton Mr Dellinger. What do these pardons say to you as somebody who worked in in at high levels in justice in the United States? Well I think the show that we're really at the at the end of being a country that believes in equal justice under law there was no process to see how these crimes and these sentences compared with others who remain in prison. It's the president's own whim when a president acts by Wim and says he did of the Goya Vich. I wanted wife on television that that is an assault on the rule of law. But it goes much deeper than that. This is part of a three pronged assault on low as we know it. It involves threats of criminal prosecution of political opponents. Those investigate you. It involves promises that the president will intervene on behalf of those who commit crimes on his behalf and it. The third leg of this assault is his attack on judges and jurors in cases in which he's involved there is there's a banana republic aspect to it as you said that if you're friends with the president or on his TV show you get a pardon no matter what you've done and if you cross him in any way you might end up being prosecuted and we know that William Bar doesn't seem to be opposed to doing that but they're also does seem to be kind of a sort of Ross statement of power that Donald Trump is saying that if you commit these particular kinds of crimes that are against the Public. Trust that our financial in nature that are about corruption when he himself was impeached for corruption. It almost as sort of I don't know it almost feels like a message about that too about the fact that he's saying no no. I'm going to use of dive into corruption and revel in it. That's a good point Jordan. He treats he treats very high status people as if they're high status is a mitigation of their crops. When in fact it is an exacerbation that makes him so much worse. When you're a privileged person take for example. The fact that he has intervened on behalf of someone who was this got to be the national security adviser and lied about an investigation not just any investigation an investigation into a foreign military powers intervention. Our election. He intervened on behalf of someone who has been a prominent associated with President. Said is Roger Stone Who who committed five categories of lies and engaged in what the first department memo said was a relentless multi year attempt to again and obstruct justice in terms of an investigation into the corruption and the election and then finally the sympathy for someone. Who had the Honora being governor of one of our largest states? And who is thoroughly corrupt? And who sold a position in the United States Senate? Now that's he treats those because high status people as mitigation of their crops. And would it surprise you if the after to the things that Donald Trump does as well when it surprised if he's setting up there's been a lot of questions about whether he might try to part himself like if he's ever found to have committed some crime and that would certainly make himself the biggest part of the mall. I think he would undoubtedly attempt to pardon himself and everyone around him. He certainly let it be known that if a if he's re-elected or or even in the period after he was defeated he is GonNa take care of Of of everyone he knows including himself. I think the courts would reject hisself pardon but you know no presents ever tried that before so we can't be sure and the way in which he he seems to revel in the fact that he could take someone like sheriff. Joe Arpaio a law enforcement officer who is targeting Latinos for harassment and using the power of the police deliberately against a minority group and he pardoned him of criminal contempt of court that the way in which he plays with this. I think Dolly Elliptic who some times on this show referred to the `constitutionalisation of narcissism is what we face in this country. Yeah IT DONALD. Trump wants credit of also doing first step back kinds of criminal justice reform. He wants credit for that. But but do you sense in the pardons that he's doing especially today that the real message here is his own power right that he's essentially saying if you're powerful and you're my friend that is actually how you get a justice not by being somebody who was falsely accused of a crime or got too long of a sentence for having marijuana or something like that. That's why there's absolutely the absolute absence of any sense that the people pardoned held they compared with the culpability and the sentences of the tens and tens of thousands who remain in federal prison. The idea that he can act on on Mir welcome. I think something we've never seen the president before you know. Some people are going to raise the a Bill Clinton's pardon of financier and fugitive Bark Rich. And that was the worst thing. Bill Clinton did in eight years and an office is unjustified pardon but Donald Trump is taking it to a very different level where he's using the levers of the of the power of his office in order to corrupt law threatening opponents rewarding those who would commit crimes on his behalf going after judges and jurors in. I don't know where we go from here. I think we two thousand former prosecutors not just signed a letter but perhaps to think about blocking the willing to be arrested blocking the entrance of the Justice Department out. You have to use your imagination where we go from here Walter Dellinger. Thank you very much really appreciate your time and joining me now. For more. On the president's pardoning Spree Matthew Miller former chief spokesperson for the Department of Justice who's down MSNBC Justice analyst and Betsy Woodruff Swan Politics reporter at the daily beast and she's also an MSNBC contributor. So let's talk about sort of where where he could go from here and where and what it means and I'll start with where he could go from here. Betsy because is there any reporting on how much more of this because it does appear that there is a pattern? Somebody is either you know his friend or was on the apprentice goes on Fox News and pleads for his help he immediately responds to his friends and gives them a pardon. Who's who might be next on the list. I spent the afternoon talking to people who identify or describe themselves as allies of Roger Stone and they said that they saw the spate of clemencies that came down today as very comforting to them. Because they believe it's a signal. The President is sending that Roger. Stone may be next in line for this type of executive action. I thought your use of the phrase Banana Republic was really interesting because a federal judge. Us that exact same phrase in a transcript that was recently released from a closed door hearing regarding the investigation. That's now closed into Andrew McCabe and the judge literally said that the fact that trump was tweeting about McCabe so often the fact that he appeared to be interfering in that process created the appearance of a Banana Republic. So the thing to keep an eye on both the president of course granting clemency to people who he views as his political allies in part because he sees them on Fox News and the inverse of that which is the president encouraging DOJ to weaponize itself against people who he sees as his foes. And I'm glad also that Mister Diligent Joe Arpaio because they're also sort of symbolic arden's of people who are hurting the People Donald Trump's base wants to see hurt.

Donald Trump President Trump Roger Stone Walter Dellinger Assault United States Joe Arpaio Senate Department Of Justice Illinois Fraud NBC Bill Clinton Mr Dellinger Rod Blagojevich Begovic Robert Mugabe Barack Obama Commissioner Bernard Kerik Banana Republic Tom Winter