Meet the Press full broadcast — March 24
Summary
TLDRIn this interview, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the impact of the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, and his views on the current state of the Supreme Court. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the real-world consequences of court rulings and expresses disappointment over the leak of the draft opinion. Justice Breyer also shares his thoughts on the retirement process and the ideological balance of the Court, highlighting the need for a non-partisan approach to judicial appointments.
Takeaways
- 💰 President Biden has a cash advantage over Donald Trump in the 2024 campaign, highlighting the financial disparity between the two potential candidates.
- 🏦 Trump's legal bills are mounting, and he is seeking campaign donors to help pay them, indicating financial strain on his campaign.
- 🤝 Ronna McDaniel, former RNC chair, discusses the tension and friction within the Republican Party, particularly regarding the handling of debates and the nomination process.
- 🚨 McDaniel's interview raises questions about the role of the RNC in the 2020 election and the party's future direction.
- 🎤 The panel discussion highlights the importance of journalistic integrity and the challenges of representing diverse viewpoints in the media.
- 📖 Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer speaks on the impact of the Dobbs decision and the importance of considering real-world consequences in constitutional interpretation.
- 🚨 Breyer's retirement and the changing ideological balance on the Supreme Court are discussed, emphasizing the impact of these changes on future court decisions.
- 🤔 The conversation with Breyer touches on the potential for compromise in Supreme Court decisions, but also the difficulty in predicting the long-term effects of such decisions.
- 📉 Trust in the Supreme Court is reported to be near an all-time low, reflecting increased political polarization and public skepticism.
- 🏛️ The historical context of Supreme Court nominations is provided, contrasting the bipartisan support for Breyer's appointment with the current highly partisan confirmation process.
- 📚 Breyer's new book, 'Reading the Constitution,' is mentioned as a resource for understanding his perspective on constitutional interpretation and the role of the Court.
Q & A
What is the main topic of discussion in the interview with Ronna McDaniel?
-The main topic of discussion in the interview with Ronna McDaniel is her stepping down as RNC Chair, her views on the 2020 election, the Republican Party's stance on various issues, and her thoughts on the current political climate.
What was Ronna McDaniel's response to the claim that she enabled Donald Trump to spread election lies?
-Ronna McDaniel defended her actions by stating that there were genuine concerns about the 2020 election at the time, but she also acknowledged that Joe Biden is the legitimate President and that the election was certified and done.
How did Ronna McDaniel address the issue of her credibility after her statements on the 2020 election?
-Ronna McDaniel argued that she has always acknowledged Biden as the President and that expressing concerns about the election does not negate his legitimacy. She also emphasized her commitment to the Republican Party and her belief in having different viewpoints in the country's political discourse.
What was Justice Stephen Breyer's stance on the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
-Justice Stephen Breyer dissented on the overturning of Roe v. Wade and expressed disappointment in the decision, highlighting the life-altering consequences of such a ruling and the importance of considering the real-world impacts of constitutional interpretations.
What did Justice Breyer suggest about the Supreme Court's decision-making process?
-Justice Breyer suggested that the Supreme Court's decision-making process should not be solely based on the original text of the Constitution but should also consider the real-world consequences of its rulings, emphasizing the importance of understanding the details relevant to important decisions.
How did Justice Breyer respond to the question about the potential for a compromise on the Dobbs case?
-Justice Breyer did not provide a direct answer to the question about a potential compromise on the Dobbs case. He stated that he usually hopes for compromise but did not want to speculate or make news about the case.
What was the context behind the discussion on the Supreme Court's handling of the 2020 election cases?
-The context behind the discussion on the Supreme Court's handling of the 2020 election cases was the then-upcoming arguments about Donald Trump's claim to be immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The discussion revolved around the Court's decision to take up the case and the potential impact on public trust in the Court.
What was the panel's reaction to Ronna McDaniel's interview?
-The panel expressed mixed reactions to Ronna McDaniel's interview. Some panelists questioned her credibility and motives, given her role as a paid contributor to NBC News and her past actions as RNC Chair. Others discussed the importance of ideological diversity in media and the challenges of navigating political interviews.
What did the panel discuss regarding the future of the Supreme Court and its legitimacy?
-The panel discussed the decreasing public trust in the Supreme Court, the hyperpartisan politics affecting its confirmation process, and the historical context of Justice Breyer's own confirmation, which was less partisan than recent ones. They also touched on the potential benefits of term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
How did Justice Breyer view the impact of the Dobbs decision?
-Justice Breyer anticipated that the Dobbs decision would lead to a number of issues coming to the courts, particularly due to the overruling of Roe v. Wade. He expressed his belief that the decision had real-world consequences and was a significant departure from the Court's previous interpretations of the Constitution.
What was Justice Breyer's perspective on the retirement of Supreme Court Justices?
-Justice Breyer acknowledged that deciding to retire from the Supreme Court is a difficult decision. He mentioned considering the right time to retire, the opportunity for others to serve, and the challenges of making tough decisions at an advanced age.
Outlines
💰 Campaign Finances and Legal Bills
The paragraph discusses the financial aspects of the 2024 campaign, highlighting President Biden's cash advantage over Donald Trump. It mentions Trump's legal bills and his request for campaign donors to help pay them. The conversation shifts to Ronna McDaniel, former RNC chair, discussing the Republican Party's financial strategy and the impact of Trump's legal issues on the campaign.
🗳️ Election Integrity and RNC's Role
This section delves into the former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the stress this has placed on American institutions. It includes an exclusive interview with former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, discussing the weight of considering cases central to the presidential election. The conversation also touches on the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's immunity and prosecution for his election subversion efforts.
🎙️ Ronna McDaniel's Interview and RNC's Strategy
In this segment, Ronna McDaniel shares insights into her decision to step down as RNC chair, the tension during the debates, and her stance on Trump's potential return as the party's nominee. McDaniel discusses the fundraising agreement between the Trump campaign and the RNC, and her views on using donations to pay Trump's legal bills. She also addresses criticisms about her tenure as RNC chair.
🚨 Trump's January 6th Remarks and McDaniel's Response
The paragraph focuses on the aftermath of the 2020 election, particularly the events of January 6th. McDaniel strongly condemns the violence that occurred, stating it does not represent the Republican Party. She discusses Trump's comments about freeing those convicted of crimes related to January 6th and her disagreement with such a stance. McDaniel emphasizes the importance of not attacking the Capitol and the necessity of denouncing the events of that day.
📞 The Controversial Phone Call and Election Certification
This section details a controversial phone call involving Ronna McDaniel and Donald Trump, urging Michigan officials not to certify the election results. McDaniel defends her actions by stating her concern was for the safety of the officials after they faced threats and intimidation. She clarifies her position on the election certification process and the need for audits, while also expressing regret for the threats faced by election workers.
🤝 Bipartisanship and the Future of the RNC
The discussion here revolves around the challenges of bipartisanship and the future direction of the Republican Party. McDaniel talks about the importance of different viewpoints and the need for respectful dialogue. She also addresses criticisms of her credibility and the perception that she enabled Trump's election lies. McDaniel emphasizes her commitment to the country and her desire for open conversations in the political discourse.
👨⚖️ Justice Breyer on Interpreting the Constitution
Justice Stephen Breyer shares his views on interpreting the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of considering the real-world consequences of rulings. He discusses the change in how people interpret legal documents and the potential impact of the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Breyer also touches on the role of the Supreme Court in the current political climate and the importance of public trust in the institution.
📚 Justice Breyer's New Book and Legal Philosophy
Justice Breyer discusses his new book, which advocates for looking beyond the original text of the Constitution to understand the intentions behind it. He explains why he believes this approach is crucial for interpreting the law and making decisions. The conversation also includes Breyer's thoughts on the potential for compromise in legal decisions and his views on the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion.
🎖️ Justice Breyer's Tenure and Retirement
In this part, Justice Breyer reflects on his tenure on the Supreme Court and the decision to retire. He discusses the difficulty of leaving the Court and the considerations that went into his decision. Breyer also talks about the potential benefits of having term limits for Supreme Court Justices and his belief that such a system would not be harmful.
🏛️ The Changing Confirmation Process and Public Trust
The panelists discuss the changing landscape of Supreme Court nominations, noting the increasing politicization and the impact on public trust. They reflect on Justice Breyer's confirmation process, which was bipartisan, and contrast it with more recent, highly partisan confirmations. The conversation highlights the need for reform in the confirmation process to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Supreme Court
💡Roe v. Wade
💡Originalism
💡Compromise
💡Leak
💡Retirement
💡Ideological Balance
💡Confirmation Process
💡Public Trust
💡Partisan Politics
Highlights
President Biden has a cash advantage in the 2024 campaign, contrasting with Donald Trump's lead in the polls.
Trump's legal bills are mounting, and he is urging campaign donors to help pay them.
Ronna McDaniel, the former RNC chair, discusses the tension and friction during the debate process.
McDaniel implies she was pushed out of her role due to Trump's desire to have his allies take over.
The RNC is now fully formed in Trump's image, with Trump's daughter-in-law and a new fundraiser benefiting his campaign and legal bills.
McDaniel defends the RNC's role in the 2020 election and the subsequent legal battles.
Justice Stephen Breyer speaks out about the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and his thoughts on potential compromises.
Breyer's retirement from the Supreme Court and his perspectives on the nomination process and the Court's public trust.
The panel discusses the credibility of Ronna McDaniel as a contributor to NBC News and her past actions as RNC chair.
Justice Breyer's views on the importance of understanding the real-world consequences of Supreme Court rulings.
The discussion on whether the public deserves to know the verdict in the election subversion case before November.
Breyer's thoughts on the potential for future overturning of Dobbs and the impact of the leaked draft opinion.
The historical context of Supreme Court nominations and the changing political landscape.
Justice Breyer's suggestions for term limits on Supreme Court Justices to avoid politicization.
The challenges of deciding to retire from the Supreme Court and the considerations involved.
Justice Breyer's reflections on his time at the Supreme Court and the difficulty of stepping down.
The panel's insights into the future of the Supreme Court and the implications of Justice Breyer's retirement.
The importance of public trust in the Supreme Court and the impact of recent events on this trust.
Transcripts
>>> THIS SUNDAY, PARTY TAKEOVER.
>>> THIS SUNDAY, PARTY TAKEOVER.
DONALD TRUMP MAY BE LEADING IN
THE POLLS, BUT IT'S PRESIDENT
BIDEN WHO HAS THE CASH ADVANTAGE
IN THE 2024 CAMPAIGN.
>> WE HAVE TO RAISE A LOT OF
MONEY.
>> AS HIS LEGAL BILLS MOUNT,
TRUMP WANTS CAMPAIGN DONORS TO
HELP PAY THEM.
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF CASH AND WE
HAVE A GREAT COMPANY, BUT THEY
WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY.
THEY'D LIKE TO TAKE THE CASH
AWAY SO I CAN'T USE IT ON THE
CAMPAIGN.
>> IS THAT A WINNING STRATEGY?
I'LL SPEAK WITH RONNA McDANIEL.
THE FORMER CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
PLUS, SUPREME DECISIONS.
FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
STEPHEN BREYER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT
THE DECISION TO OVERTURN ROE V.
WADE.
>> DID YOU THINK THAT A
COMPROMISE WAS POSSIBLE BEFORE
THE WEEK AROUND 15 WEEKS?
>> I USUALLY HOPE FOR
COMPROMISE.
>> AND HIS DECISION TO STEP DOWN
FROM THE COURT.
>> IF IT WASN'T FOR YOU TO
DECIDE TO RETIRE.
>> JOINING ME FOR INSIGHT AND
ANALYSIS ARE, NBC NEWS CHIEF
POLITICAL ANALYST CHUCK TODD.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR, SENIOR
OPINION WRITER FOR THE BOSTON
GLOBE AND STEPHEN HAYES, EDITOR
OF THE DISPATCH.
WELL
WELCOME TO SUNDAY.
IT'S MEET THE PRESS".
>> FROM NBC NEWS IN WASHINGTON,
THE LONGEST RUNNING SHOW IN
TELEVISION HISTORY, THIS IS
"MEET THE PRESS" WITH KRISTEN
WELKER.
>>> GOOD SUNDAY MORNING.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S
EFFORT TO OVERTURN THE 2020
ELECTION IS PUTTING AN
UNPRECEDENTED STRESS TEST ON
AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS AHEAD OF
THE 2024 ELECTION.
WITH A SUPREME COURT ALREADY
DECIDING TRUMP CAN REMAIN ON THE
BALLOT IN COLORADO, NOW WEIGHING
WHETHER HE HAS TOTAL IMMUNITY
AND PROSECUTION FOR HIS ELECTION
SUBVERSION EFFORTS, THIS WEEK I
SPOKE EXCLUSIVELY WITH FORMER
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN
BREYER WHERE I ASKED HIM ABOUT
THE WEIGHT A JUSTICE FIELDS WHEN
CONSIDERING THESE CASES THAT
HAVE BECOME CENTRAL TO THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE WEIGHT
THAT YOU FELT, THAT ONE FEELS AS
A JUSTICE WHEN YOU ARE PRESENTED
WITH A CASE OF A PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
>> THIS IS NOT JUST AN ELECTION.
IMAGINE YOU WERE ON THE COURT
THAT DECIDED BROWN VERSUS BOARD
OF EDUCATION.
IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE ON THE
COURT THAT HAD TO DECIDE, WELL,
FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER PRESIDENT
NIXON WAS IMMUNE FROM GIVING --
DIDN'T HAVE TO TURN THE TAPES
OVER TO R.G. COX.
IMAGINE THAT.
>> MORE OF MY INTERVIEW WITH
JUSTICE BREYER IS COMING UP, BUT
FIRST, I'LL BE JOINED BY FORMER
RNC CHAIR RONNA McDANIEL IN HER
FIRST INTERVIEW SINCE STEPPING
DOWN AS PARTY CHAIR.
IN FULL DISCLOSURE TO OUR
VIEWERS, THIS INTERVIEW WAS
SCHEDULED WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS
ANNOUNCED THAT McDANIEL HAD
BECOME A PAID NBC NEWS
CONTRIBUTOR.
THIS WILL BE A NEWS INTERVIEW,
AND I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN HER
HIRING.
THIS WEEK WE EARN WELLEDLEARNED
TRUMP'S GRIP ON THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY IS IMPACTING THE GOP'S
BOTTOM LINE.
IT HAS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CASH
OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WHILE THE
PRESIDENT HAS SHARPENED HIS
ATTACKS WITH HIS PREDECESSOR
OVER HIS MOUNTING LEGAL DEBTS.
TRUMP HAS A NEW FUNDRAISER WITH
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE THAT WILL FILTER
DONATIONS TO BOTH HIS CAMPAIGN
AND THE SUPER PAC PAYING HIS
CAMPAIGN BEFORE THE RNC GETTING
A CUT.
WITH MICHAEL WATLEY AND HIS
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, LAURA TRUMP,
THE PARTY IS NOW FULLY FORMED IN
TRUMP'S IMAGE.
>> WE ARE GOING TO DETERMINE THE
FATE OF NOT ONLY THE UNITED
STATES, BUT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD
AND THIS BODY, THE RNC, IS GOING
TO BE THE VANGUARD OF A MOVEMENT
THAT WILL WORK TIRELESSLY EVERY
SINGLE DAY TO ELECT OUR NOMINEE
DONALD J. TRUMP.
>> WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF EVERY
DOLLAR RAISED GOES TOWARDS ONE
GOAL WHICH IS WINNING.
>> JOINING ME NOW IS FORMER RNC
CHAIR RONNA McDANIEL.
WELCOME BACK TO "MEET THE PRESS"
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> LET'S START WITH YOUR
DECISION TO STEP DOWN AS RNC
CHAIR.
IF YOU CAN TAKE ME BEHIND THE
SCENES A LITTLE BIT.
WERE YOU PUSHED OUT OF YOUR
ROLE?
>> THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT AS
RNC CHAIR WE HAVE TO REMAIN
NEUTRAL ANDEE WE HAD DEBATES AND
THERE WAS TENSION AND FRICTION
THAT STARTED DURING THAT
PROCESS.
IT WAS WELL PLAYED OUT IN THE
MEDIA, AND I KNEW AT THAT POINT
WHEN I WAS DOING THAT ROLE AND
WE WERE GOING TO HAVE DEBATES
THAT WHEN THE NOMINEE CAME
FORWARD AND IT WAS LIKELY TO BE
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THEY WOULD
WANT TO SWITCH, AND THAT'S HIS
RIGHT AS A NOMINEE.
>> SO WERE YOU PUSHED OUT BY
HIM?
>> HE ABSOLUTELY WANTED ME TO
MOVE ASIDE AND WANTED MICHAEL
WHATLEY AND LARA TRUMP TO COME
IN.
>> YOU PUT OUT THAT STATEMENT
EFFECTIVELY CALLING ON NIKKI
HALEY TO STEP OUT OF THE RACE?
CAN YOU SAY YOU WERE NEUTRAL?
>> I CAN'T.
WE HAD A NEUTRAL PRIMARY AND WE
HAD DEBATES AND THE DEMOCRATS
DIDN'T HAVE DEBATES AND NOW THEY
HAVE RFK JR. AS A THIRD PARTY, I
THINK THAT'S SO IMPORTANT TO OUR
PUBLIC DISCOURSE SO YES, I WAS
NEUTRAL, BUT AS I SAID AT THAT
TIME THERE WAS NO MATH AND NO
PATH AND THAT WAS TRUE, AND SO
WE DID NEED TO CONSOLIDATE
BEHIND THE NOMINEE AND THAT'S
WHAT I DID.
>> YOU TALK ABOUT THE TEPGDZS
AROUND THE DEBATES.
WAS THERE A BREAKING POINT WITH
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
AND YOU?
>> IT WAS A LOT OF TENSION WITH
THE CAMPAIGN.
HE REALLY DID NOT FEEL LIKE WE
SHOULD HAVE DEBATES.
HE SAID THIS PUBLICLY.
I GOT A LOT OF PHONE CALLS.
>> FROM HIM?
PHONE CALLS FROM TRUMP DIRECTLY.
>> FROM HIS CAMPAIGN AND I
TALKED TO HIM DIRECTLY.
>> YOU SAW SUPPORTERS.
DON'T GIVE TO THE RNC.
DON'T HAVE DEBATES.
LISTEN, THERE ARE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT PRESIDENT
TRUMP IN OUR PARTY, BUT THERE
ARE OTHERS WHO DIDN'T AND THEY
NEEDED TO SEE THAT PROCESS TO
PLAY OUT TO SAY THIS WAS FAIR,
MY CANDIDATE WAS GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE VOTERS DECIDED, AND THIS IS
THE NOMINEE, AND BECAUSE WE LET
THAT PROCESS PLAY OUT HE HAS --
HE'S THE NOMINEE WITHOUT A THIRD
PARTY RUNNING AGAINST HIM WHICH
IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE
DEMOCRATS DID.
>> YOU WERE REPLACED BY DONALD
TRUMP'S HAND PICKED ALLIES
INCLUDING HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW
LARA TRUMP AND NOW THERE IS A
FUND-RAISING AGREEMENT WHICH
BASICALLY MEANS THE DONATIONS GO
TO THE SUPER PAC TO PAY FOR HIS
LEGAL BILLS BEFORE THEY GO TO
THE RNC.
IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR DONALD
TRUMP TO ASK DONORS TO PAY FOR
HIS LEGAL BILLS.
>> AS LONG AS THE DONORS KNOW
THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
IT IS IN THE WATERFALL OF IT.
IT IS SAVE AMERICA BEFORE THE
RNC.
WHAT I ALSO THINK THAT MEANS IS
THAT THE CAMPAIGNS OR THE RNC IS
BEING TRUTHFUL WHEN THEY SAY
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY THE
LEGAL BILLS AND IT IS GOING TO
RUN THROUGH THE SAVE AMERICA
PACT.
>> ULTIMATELY, THESE DONATIONS
ARE GOING FIRST TO PAY HIS LEGAL
BILLS.
PEOPLE WHO MAY BE STRUGGLING IN
SOME CASES TO MAKE ENDS MEET, IS
THERE NOT AN ETHICAL CHALLENGE
WITH THAT?
>> IF THEY FEEL TRONGLY TO
SUPPORT HIS LEGAL BILLS THEN
THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO,
AND I THINK HE'S BEING VERY OPEN
THAT THEY'RE HELPING WITH HIS
LEGAL BILLS.
>> YOU PAID $2 MILLION FOR HIS
LEGAL BILLS WHILE HE WAS STILL
IN OFFICE.
DO YOU HAVE REGRETS OF THAT?
DO YOU THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE?
>> AS A FORMER PRESIDENT AND
SOMEONE WHO RAISED A LOT OF
MONEY INTO THE RNC, WE PAID LESS THAN $2 MILLION IN LEGAL BILLS
THAN $2 MILLION IN LEGAL BILLS
AND WE DIDN'T ONCE HE BECAME A
NOMINEE OR CANDIDATE WE CUT THAT
OFF.
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN YOU'RE A
FORMER PRESIDENT THAN WHEN
YOU'RE A CANDIDATE.
>> ONE TOLD POLITICO YOU WERE A,
QUOTE, FAILED CHAIR.
ANOTHER SAID WE LOST THE SENATE
AND THE WHITE HOUSE WHIL SHE WAS
CHAIR.
DID YOU DESERVE TO STAY ON WITH
THAT TRACK RECORD, RONNA?
>> YOU KNOW, I PUSH BACK ON THAT
VERY HARD.
THE FACT THAT UNDER MY TIME AS
CHAIR WE'VE HAD MORE WOMEN IN
CONGRESS EVER THAN IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR PARTY, THAT WE'VE
HAD MORE MINORITY GROWTH IN OUR
PARTY AND THAT DIDN'T JUST
HAPPEN.
I HAD OFFICES OPEN IN BLACK,
ASIAN, HISPANIC COMMUNITIES THAT
WE HAD IGNORED AS A PARTY AND WE
HAVE SEEN GROWTH AS A RESULT,
WHICH BY THE WAY, WE'RE SEEING
IN THIS ELECTION, AS WELL AND
THEN I'M GOING TO POINT OUT TO
THIS.
THE RNC, WE DON'T DO THE
MESSAGING AND WE DON'T PICK THE
CANDIDATES.
WE'RE A TURNOUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT 2022, JUST 2022,
WE TURNED OUT 4 MILLION MORE
REPUBLICANS AND WE WOULD HAVE
WON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BASED
ON THE TURNOUT.
WHAT I SAY TO PEOPLE IF WE'RE
BUILDING THE ROAD THAT ALL OF
THE CANDIDATES DRIVE ON, AND ONE
CANDIDATE GOT TO THE FINISH LINE
THE ROAD ISN'T THE PROBLEM.
IT'S CANDIDATE TO CANDIDATE.
I VIEW MY RNC TENURE AS A
SUCCESS.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ELECTION
NOW.
DONALD TRUMP SAYS ONE OF HIS
FIRST ACTS IF HE IS RE-ELECTED
TO A SECOND TERM WOULD BE,
QUOTE, TO FREE THOSE CHARGED AND
CONVICTED OF CRIMES RELATED TO
JANUARY 6th.
DO YOU SUPPORT THAT?
>> I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.
THE VIOLENCE THAT HAPPENED ON
JANUARY 6th IS UNACCEPTABLE.
IT DOESN'T REPRESENT OUR
COUNTRY.
IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT REPRESENT
MY PARTY.
WE SHOULD NOT BE ATTACKING THE
CAPITOL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE HAVING
VIOLENCE.
I SAID IT THAT DAY.
I PUT A STATEMENT OUT THAT DAY
THAT THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IF YOU ATTACKED OUR CAPITOL AND
YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED THEN
THAT SHOULD STAY.
>> SO THEN TO THE QUESTION,
THOUGH, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH
TRUMP SAYING THAT HE'LL FREE
THOSE --
>> I DO NOT THINK THAT PEOPLE
WHO COMMITTED VIOLENT ACTS ON
JANUARY 6th SHOULD BE FREE.
>> SO YOU DISAGREE.
HE'S BEEN SAYING THAT FOR
MONTHS?
WHY NOT SPEAK OUT EARLIER?
WHY NOT SPEAK OUT ABOUT THAT
NOW?
>> WHEN YOU'RE THE RNC CHAIR YOU
TAKE ONE FOR THE WHOLE TEAM,
RIGHT?
NOW I CAN GET TO BE MORE MYSELF,
RIGHT?
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE.
I DON'T THINK VIOLENCE SHOULD BE
IN OUR POLITICAL DISCOURSE,
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, AND I
DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I AGREE WITH HIM ON A WHOLE HOST
OF OTHER THINGS.
LET'S CLOSE THE BORDER.
LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD
INCOMES FOR PEOPLE.
LET'S MAKE SURE WE DO A LOT OF
GREAT THING, BUT ON THAT POINT I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE FREEING
PEOPLE WHO VIOLENTLY ATTACKED
CAPITOL HILL POLICE OFFICERS AND
ATTACKED THE CAPITOL.
>> RONNA, THAT IS SUCH A
FUNDAMENTAL POINT.
SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL POINT TO OUR
DEMOCRACY.
YOU SAY YOU STILL SUPPORT HIM
AND YOU WILL VOTE FOR HIM BASED
ON THAT.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE WHO
HEAR THAT ANSWER AND FEEL IT'S
HYPOCRITICAL TO VOTE ON HIM.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE A
CHOICE, RIGHT?
EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT THEIR
CANDIDATES AND THEY MAY SAY I
DON'T LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT
THIS, I DISAGREE WITH THIS AND I
DON'T LIKE WHEN WHEN THEY SAY
THIS.
FOR ME WHEN I LOOK AT MY STATE
OF MICHIGAN AND THE COST OF
FOOD, THE COST OF RENT, THE COST
OF INSURANCE THAT I FEEL LESS
SAFE.
CRIME IS ON THE RISE, THAT WE'RE
SEEING FENTANYL COME ACROSS OUR
BORDER AND OPEN BORDER, I DON'T
THINK THERE'S ANY CHOICE, BUT TO
VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN EVEN
THOUGH YOU MAY HAVE
DISAGREEMENTS, IT'S HIM ORRED
BIEN AND THAT'S THE CHOICE.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, CRIME SHOWS
IT'S GOING DOWN IN MAJOR CITIES
AND THE FENTANYL IS COMING OVER
LEGAL PORTS OF ENTRY.
LET ME GET TO THIS NEXT
QUESTION.
MITCH McCONNELL SAID DONALD
TRUMP WAS PRACTICALLY AND
MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH HIM?
>> I DON'T THINK HE WANTED THAT
ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, BUT I
WILL SAY THAT ATTACK IS A DARK
DAY IN OUR HISTORY.
THERE IS NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF
ABOUT THAT DAY AND NOTHING TO
LOOK BACK ON THAT'S GOOD.
IT'S CHANGED OUR WHOLE COUNTRY.
SO I CONDEMN WHAT HAPPENED ON
JANUARY 6th TO I THINK HE WANTED
THAT TO HAPPEN OR PUSHED THAT TO
HAPPEN?
I DON'T.
>> NOW HE SEEMS TO BE VERY PROUD
ABOUT IT.
HE CALLS IT A BEAUTIFUL DAY.
A AGAIN, HE TALKS ABOUT FREEING
THOSE WHO WERE CONVICTED.
IF YOU ASKED THOSE CONVICTED
THEY SAY THEY WERE THERE BECAUSE
HE ASKED THEM TO BE THERE.
>> THE RNC WAS NOT THERE ON
JANUARY 6th.
>> WHAT ABOUT TRUMP?
MITCH McCONNELL SAID DONALD
TRUMP WAS PRACTICALLY AND
MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL.
WAS HE?
>> I DON'T THINK HE WANTED THE
ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL.
>> WAS HE RESPONSIBLE?
>> WHEN I SAY THAT, I DON'T SAY
HE WANTED THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT I
DO THINK IT WAS A TERRIBLE DAY
AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE
CELEBRATED AND IT WASN'T A
BEAUTIFUL DAY.
THE RNC WAS NOT THERE.
WE DID NOT COORDINATE.
WE WERE NOT PART OF PLANNING
THAT DAY, BUT I ALSO TAKE IT A
DIFFERENT WAY, KRISTEN.
WHEN MY KIDS SEE THIS ON THE
INTERNET AND THEY SEE ALL THESE
FLAGS AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALL OF THIS,
IT CHANGES THEM.
THEY SAY, MOM, WHAT IS GOING ON?
IT'S FRIGHTENING.
THIS IS A DARK DAY IN OUR
HISTORY AND WE CAN NEVER BACK
AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WE
SHOULD ALL BE CONDEMNING THE
EVENTS OF JANUARY 6th.
>> I WANT TO TURN NOW TO YOUR
ACTIONS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE
2020 ELECTION.
>> SURE.
>> ON NOVEMBER 17th YOU AND
DONALD TRUMP WERE RECORDED
PUSHING TWO REPUBLICAN MICHIGAN
OFFICIALS -- ELECTION OFFICIALS
NOT TO CERTIFY THE RESULTS OF
THE ELECTION AND ON THE CALL
YOU'RE RECORDED AS SAYING,
QUOTE, IF YOU CAN GO HOME
TONIGHT DO NOT SIGN IT.
WE WILL GET YOU ATTORNEYS.
DO YOU HAVE REGRETS ABOUT THAT
PHONE CALL IN YOUR --
>> I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED ME
ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I'VE NEVER
HAD A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THIS,
AND IF YOU KNOW THE COURSE OF
WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT, THESE
TWO INDIVIDUALS WENT INTO A
HEARING.
THEY VOTED NO.
THEY DIDN'T VOTE NOT TO CERTIFY.
THEY SAID WE WANT AN AUDIT.
THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS IN
WAYNE COUNTY.
THEY'VE BEEN CONSISTENT AND WELL
DOCUMENTED OVER SUBSEQUENT
ELECTIONS AND AS CANVASSERS WE
THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN AUDIT.
THAT'S ALL THEY ASKED FOR.
ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED,
THEY WERE CALLED SUCH VICIOUS
NAMES, SUCH VILE NAMES, FAMILY
MEMBERS ARE BEING THREATENED
THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR VOTE AND
THEY LEFT SHAKEN AND I DID CALL
THEM AND SAY NOBODY, AND I THINK
WE SHOULD AGREE ON THIS AS
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS,
NOBODY SHOULD BE THREATENED OR
BULLIED OR PUSHED TO CHANGE A
VOTE AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO
THEM, AND I WANT TO THE FINISH
BY SAYING OUR CALL THAT NIGHT
WAS TO SAY ARE YOU OKAY?
THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.
IT WAS THREE AND A HALF YEARS
AGO.
THESE ARE PEOPLE I KNEW.
I LIVE IN WAYNE COUNTY.
ARE YOU OKAY?
ARE YOU ALL RIGHT?
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE, NOT
PUSHING THEM TO DO ANYTHING AND
THEN LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING,
SHE WAS THREATENED TO SUCH A
DEGREE, MONICA, THAT SOMEBODY'S
GONE TO JAIL.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE THREATS
THAT SHE HAD, BUT WE CAN'T AS
PARTIES SAY WE SHOULDN'T BE
ATTACKING ELECTION WORKERS AND
ELECTION WORKERS NEED TO BE SAFE
AND WHEN IT HAPPENS TO
REPUBLICANS IGNORE IT AND ONLY
REPORT IT WHEN IT HAPPENS TO
DEMOCRATS.
SOMEONE WENT TO JAIL FOR THESE
ATTACKS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING ABOUT THE CONCERNS FOR
HER SAFETY, BUT YOU GOT ON THE
PHONE WITH HER, WITH THE THEN
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOW CAN ANYONE --
>> SAYING YOU SHOULD NOT BE
BULLIED TO CHANGE YOUR VOTE.
>> YOU SAID DO NOT SIGN IT.
IF YOU CAN GO HOME TONIGHT DO
NOT SIGN IT, HOW CAN PEOPLE SAY
IT'S ANYTHING OTHER THAN A
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.
>> THE PRESSURE WAS PUT ON THEM
AFTER THE HOURS AND HOURS OF
THREATS AND ABUSE THEY WERE
RECEIVING THAT COERCED THEM TO
CHANGE THEIR VOTE AND THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH
THAT.
>> BUT IF THEY'RE ON THE PHONE
WITH YOU AND DONALD TRUMP WHO
WAS THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES --
>> I WAS NOT TELLING -- WHAT I'M
SAYING IS I SUPPORT YOU VOTING
YOUR CONSCIENCE.
>> DO YOU REGRET MAKING THAT
PHONE CALL, RONNA?
>> I REGRET THE FACT THAT PEOPLE
ARE BEING THREATENED FOR DOING
THEIR JOB IN THIS COUNTRY.
I THINK IT'S WRONG TO SAY I WANT
A SIMPLE AUDIT AND TO HAVE YOUR
FAMILY BE THREATENED, YOUR
DAUGHTER BE THREATENED, YOUR
LIVELIHOOD BE THREATENED, BEING
CALLED RACIST.
GO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRYPTS AND
THIS IS THE ONE THING WE CAN'T
HAVE ONE STANDARD FOR DEMOCRATS
AND NOT REPUBLICAN.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
RONNA, ULTIMATELY, THERE WERE
250 AUDITS AND THEY NEVER FOUND
THERE WAS ANY CORRUPTION.
DID YOU NOT HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY AS RNC CHAIR TO
SAY BEFORE JANUARY 6th THE
ELECTION IS NOT RIGGED THAT
DONALD TRUMP LOST GIVEN THAT
THERE WERE AUDITS AND GIVEN THAT
THERE WERE MORE THAN 60 COURT
CASES THAT OCCURRED ALL ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND THAT DONALD
TRUMP LOST.
>> THE REALITY IS JOE BIDEN WON.
HE'S THE PRESIDENT.
HE'S THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT.
I HAVE ALWAYS SAID, AND I
CONTINUE TO SAY THERE WERE
ISSUES IN 2020.
I BELIEVE BOTH CAN BE TRUE.
YOU CAN SAY MASSIVE LAWS WERE
CHANGED AND THEY WERE CHANGED
THROUGH COURTS OR THROUGH
SECRETARIES OF STATE AND NOT
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
IN THE NAME OF THE PANDEMIC THAT
TOOK AWAY SAFEGUARDS TO THE
ELECTION.
>> BUT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE DID
NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL IN ANY WAY
OF OVERTURNING ANY ELECTION.
>> IN NOVEMBER, WHICH BY THE
WAY, IS WHEN THAT CALL TOOK
PLACE IN NOVEMBER.
THE ELECTION HAPPENS IN
NOVEMBER.
WE ARE GETTING SO MUCH INCOMING.
WE HAVE A JOB TO SAY THIS WAS
DONE CORRECTLY, AND I'LL JUST
FINISH ABOUT WAYNE COUNTY.
>> YEAH.
>> THERE WERE PRECINCTS THAT
DIDN'T ALIGN.
THAT'S A FACT.
THAT'S NOT PROPAGANDA.
THAT'S FACT SO WHY CAN'T YOU SAY
HEY, LISTEN, THESE PRECINCTS
AREN'T ALIGNING.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK UNDER THE
HOOD.
>> YOU JUST SAID JOE BIDEN IS
THE LEGITIMATE RE-ELECTED
PRESIDENT AND THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME YOU HAVE SAID THIS.
>> IT'S NOT.
I SAID IT MANY TIMES.
>> THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID A YEAR
AGO TO CHRIS WALLACE.
I WANT TO PLAY YOU WHAT YOU
SAID.
>> ARE YOU SAYING AS THE CHAIR
OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT YOU
STILL HAVE QUESTIONS AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT JOE BIDEN WAS
DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
>> JOE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT.
>> DO YOU THINK HE WON THE
ELECTION?
>> I THINK THERE WERE LOTS OF
PROBLEMS WITHENT TW 20.
>> ULTIMATELY HE WON THE
ELECTION, BUT THERE WERE LOTS OF
PROBLEMS WITH THE 2020 ELECTION.
>> AND THAT'S FAIR.
>> I DON'T THINK HE WON IT FAIR.
I DON'T.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT.
>> YOU DIDN'T SAY HE WON IT FAIR
AT THAT POINT.
CAN YOU SAY THAT, DID JOE BIDEN
WIN IT FAIR AND SQUARE?
>> FAIR AND SQUARE.
IT'S CERTIFIED AND DONE.
WHY HAS IT TAKEN YOU UNTIL NOW
TO SAY THAT?
WHY HAS IT TAKEN YOU UNTIL NOW
TO SAY THAT?
>> I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK A
LITTLE BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S
FAIR TO SAY THERE WERE PROBLEMS
IN 2020 AND TO SAY THAT DOES NOT
MEAN HE'S NOT LEGITIMATE.
>> IT SUGGESTS THAT THERE WAS
SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE
ELECTION AND YOU KNOW THE
ELECTION WAS THE MOST HEAVILY
SCRUTINIZED AND CHRIS KREBS SAID
IT WAS THE MOST SECURE ELECTION
IN MODERN HISTORY THAT SUGGESTS
STILL THAT YOU'RE GIVING
CREDENCE TO THESE ALLEGATIONS.
>> WHEN YOU HAVE STATES LIKE
PENNSYLVANIA GO FROM 260,000
MAIL-IN BALLOTS TO 2.6 MILLION
SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT?
WHEN YOU GET RID OF I.D. FOR ALL
MAIL-IN BALLOTS THAT'S A
CONCERN.
WE SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE CARE, CUSTODY, INTEGRITY OF
EVERY BALLOT AND THAT'S ALL I'M
SAYING AND THIS IS A VIEWPOINT
OF A LOT OF REPUBLICANS AND THEY
THINK JOE BIDEN'S THE PRESIDENT,
BUT THEY ALSO THINK THERE WERE
PROBLEMS AND BOTH CAN BE TRUE.
>> EVEN THE SUPREME COURT,
RONNA, DIDN'T TAKE UP CONCERNS
ABOUT THE ELECTION RESULTS IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND THE SLEW OF
OTHER STATES.
LET ME JUST STICK TO, THOUGH, I
WANT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW YOU TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR
ROLE.
THE RNC HELPS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
ASSEMBLE ELECTORS IN MICHIGAN
AND PROVIDE A PLATFORM FOR TRUMP
LAWYERS TO HOLD THE NEWS
CONFERENCE WITH RUDY GIULIANI
ALING A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO RIG
THE ELECTION AGAINST TRUMP AND
YOU YOURSELF CALLED THE ELECTION
RIGGED MULTIPLE TIMES.
DID YOU ENABLE DONALD TRUMP TO
SPREAD ELECTION LIES?
>> LET'S GO BACK TO TIME.
>> DID YOU?
>> INITIALLY IN NOVEMBER OF 2020
THERE WERE CONCERNS EVERYWHERE.
IMAGINE YOU SAW VIDEOS BEING PUT
OUT.
ALL TYPES OF THINGS.
YOU HAVE TO TRACK THAT DOWN.
SO WHERE I WAS IN 2020 AND THE
QUOTES THAT ARE BEING TAKEN FROM
A VERY LONG TIME AGO.
THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO TO
WHERE I AM TODAY YOU HAVE TO
ALLOW THE PROCESS TO PLAY OUT,
AND I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY
THERE WERE CONCERNS THEN, BUT
NO, BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT AND
WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND THIS
IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR COUNTRY.
>> RONNA, I THINK WHAT PEOPLE
STRUGGLE WITH IS BY THE TIME
JANUARY 6th HAPPENED ALL OF
THOSE COURT CASES, MORE THAN 60
COURT CASE HESS BEEN LITIGATED.
DONALD TRUMP HAD LOST AND THE
SUPREME COURT SAID THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO TAKE UP CONCERNS.
AS HEAD OF THE RNC DID YOU NOT
HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY
JOE BIDEN WON?
>> I'VE SAID THAT.
>> AT THE TIME.
AT THE TIME BEFORE JANUARY 6th
AND YOU'RE STILL SAYING THAT
THERE WERE CONCERNS THIS MORNING
AS YOU SIT HERE.
>> SAYING THERE ARE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE ELECTION DOESN'T SAY
HE DIDN'T WIN AND THAT'S THE
ONLY THING I'M GOING TO SAY.
LISTEN, WE ARE IN 78 LAWSUITS
RIGHT NOW AT THE RNC.
I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE.
ONE IS IN MONTANA WITH DEMOCRATS
SUING TO SAY YOU SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO BE REGISTERED TO VOTE
IN TWO STATES.
WHY ARE YOU SUING TO ALLOW VOTER
I.D. TO BE REMOVED IN STATES?
I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
>> TO YOU, TO THE PEOPLE THAT
FEEL THAT YOU ENABLED DONALD
TRUMP AND HIS LIES ABOUT THE
ELECTION, DO YOU OWE THE PEOPLE
AN APOLOGY?
DO YOU OWE THIS COUNTRY AN
APOLOGY?
>> I THINK THE FACT THAT WE
LOOKED AT THINGS IS WHAT
DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE AND
REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE OR ALLOWED
TO LOOK AFTER ELECTIONS AND SAY
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS DONE
IN A TRANSPARENT AND FAIR WAY,
AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT AGREE
WITH VIOLENCE OR ANY ATTACKS ON
OUR CAPITOL, AND I'M GOING TO BE
VERY CLEAR THAT IS SOMETHING I
CONDEMN WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
>> VERY QUICKLY, RONNA, BEFORE I
LET YOU GO.
YOU SEEM TO BE CHANGING YOUR
TONE AS IT RELATES TO JOE BIDEN
BEING LEGITIMATELY ELECTED.
WHY SHOULD VIEWERS, WHY SHOULD
PEOPLE TRUST OR BELIEVE WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I DON'T THINK I'M CHANGING MY
TONE AT ALL.
>> WHY SHOULD PEOPLE TRUST WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW.
>> ONE, I WILL SAY THIS,
KRISTEN, VOTERS RIGHT NOW IN
THIS COUNTRY ARE GOING TO BE
MAKING A CHOICE IN NOVEMBER AND
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT 2020.
A LOT OF PEOPLE DO.
A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY IT IS
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE COUNTRY'S
DEMOCRACY.
>> I THINK THEY'RE THINKING
ABOUT INFLATION, THE BORDER,
CRIME, THEIR KIDS' SCHOOLING,
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT.
I REPRESENT 50% OF THIS COUNTRY,
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE DIFFERENT
VIEWPOINTS AND SAY I DISAGREE
WITH THAT VIEWPOINT, BUT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO HEAR IT AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO OUR COUNTRY.
I AM NOT CHANGING MY TUNE.
THIS IS WHERE I HAVE BEEN, AND
RIGHT NOW WE'RE HEADING INTO A
PIVOTAL ELECTION.
>> SPEAK TO THE PEOPLE WHO HOLD
YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR ENABLING
DONALD TRUMP AND HIS MISTRUTHS,
HIS LIES ABOUT THE ELECTION.
WHY SHOULD THEY TRUST YOU WHEN
THEY SAY THEY DON'T?
>> I THINK YOU SHOULD TRUST ME.
I MEAN, I CAN'T -- I CAN'T SPEAK
TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T TRUST A
DIFFERENT VOICE.
I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
HEAR FROM DIFFERENT VOICES AND I
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE CONCERNS I HAD GOING
INTO THAT ELECTION, AND I WISH
THERE WAS MORE OF A DIALOGUE
FROM THAT, BUT LET ME BE VERY
CLEAR.
I LOVE THIS COUNTRY.
I COME FROM A STATE THAT'S BEEN
OVERLOOKED.
I DON'T SEE MY STATE REPRESENTED
IN A LOT OF NEWS MEDIA.
I DON'T GO HOME AS CHAIRMAN
RONNA McDANIEL.
I'M MOM RONNA McDANIEL.
I GO TO THE GROCERY STORE AND DO
ALL THESE THINGS AND I REALLY
FEEL LIKE IF OUR COUNTRY'S GOING
TO SURVIVE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS
LIKE THIS IN A RESPECTFUL WAY.
WE NEED MORE OF THAT IN OUR
COUNTRY, BUT WE ALSO CAN'T GO
INTO OUR ECHO CHAMBERS AND SAY
I'LL ONLY LISTEN TO WHAT
DEMOCRATS HAVE TO SAY AND I'LL
ONLY LISTEN TO WHAT REPUBLICANS
HAVE TO SAY.
LISTEN TO IT AND MAKE YOUR OWN
OPINION.
>> RONNA McDANIEL, THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE THIS MORNING.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> WHEN WE COME BACK, DONALD TRUMP'S LEGAL BATTLES ARE
TRUMP'S LEGAL BATTLES ARE TESTING THE LIMITS OF HIS PARTY
>>> WELCOME BACK.
>>> WELCOME BACK.
THE PANEL IS HERE HELP CHUCK
TODD, NBC NEWS CHIEF MITT CAL
ANALYST.
KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR FROM THE
BOSTON GLOBE AND STEPHEN HAYES,
CEO AND EDITOR OF THE DISPATCH
IMPEACH LET'S DIVE RIGHT IN.
WHAT ARE YOUR TAKEAWAYS?
>> LET ME DEAL WITH THE ELEPHANT
IN THE ROOM.
I THINK OUR BOSSES OWE YOU AN
APOLOGY FOR PUTTING YOU IN THIS
SITUATION.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE.
SHE IS A PAID CONTRIBUTOR TO NBC
NEWS.
SHE DIDN'T WANT TO MESS UP HER
CONTRACT.
SHE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT SHE
WAS SPEAKING FOR THE RNC THE RNC
WAS PAYING FOR.
SHE HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES.
IS SHE SPEAKING FOR HERSELF?
IS SHE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WHO
IS PAYING HER?
ONCE AT THE RNC SHE DID SAY
THAT, I'M SPEAKING FOR THE
PARTY.
I GET THAT.
THAT'S PART OF THE JOB SO WHAT
ABOUT HERE?
I WILL SAY THIS.
I THINK YOUR INTERVIEW DID A
GOOD JOB OF EXPOSING I THINK
MANY OTHER CONTRADICTIONS, AND
LOOK, THERE'S A REASON WHY
THERE'S A LOT OF JOURNALISTS AT
NBC NEWS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS
BECAUSE MANY OF OUR PROFESSIONAL
DEALINGS WITH THE RNC OVER THE
YEARS HAVE BEEN MET WITH
GASLIGHTING AND CHARACTER
ASSASSINATION.
SO IT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE
YOU BEGIN HERE AND SO WHEN NBC
MADE THE DECISION TO GIVE HER
NBC NEWS' CREDIBILITY,IO YOU
HAVE TO ASK WHAT DOES SHE BRING
TO NBC NEWS AND WHEN WE MAKE
DEALS LIKE THIS, AND I'VE BEEN
AT THIS COMPANY FOR A LONG TIME
YOU DO IT FOR ACCESS.
SOMETIMES IT'S ACCESS TO AN
AUDIENCE.
SOMETIMES IT'S ACCESS TO AN
INDIVIDUAL AND WE CAN HAVE A
JOURNALIST BEING DEBATE ABOUT
THAT, AND I'M WILLING TO HAVE
THAT DEBATE, AND IF YOU HAD TOLD
ME WE WERE HIRING HER AS A
TECHNICAL ADVISER FOR THE
REPUBLICAN CONVENTION THAT WOULD
BE DEFENSIBLE.
WE'RE TALKING TO HER, BUT LET'S
SEE WHAT SHE DOES IN INTERVIEWS
AND MAYBE VET HER WITH ACTUAL
JOURNALISTS AND SEE IF IT'S A
TWO-WAY, WHAT SHE CAN BRING TO
THE NETWORK.
SO I DO THINK, UNFORTUNATELY,
THIS INTERVIEW IS ALWAYS GOING
TO BE LOOKED THROUGH THE PRISM
OF WHO IS SHE SPEAKING FOR?
I THINK YOU DID EVERYTHING YOU
COULD DO.
YOU GOT PUT INTO AN IMPOSSIBLE
SITUATION, BOOKING THIS
INTERVIEW AND THE RUG WAS PULLED
OUT FROM UNDER YOU AND SHE'S
PAID TO SHOW UP.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE FOR THE
PROGRAM AND I'M GLAD YOU DID THE
BEST YOU COULD AND THAT'S WHY WE
ARE HERE TO BOLSTER.
>> AS A JOURNALIST AND THE LIAR,
I THINK ABOUT CREDIBILITY ALL OF
THE TIME.
CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES AND
WITNESSES, AND FOR THE REASONS
THAT YOU LAID OUT AND ALSO THE
TIMING THAT SHE'S ONLY HERE
AFTER SHE GOT OUSTED FROM
TRUMP'S RNC.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO
BOOK HER AS RNC CHAIR ON THIS
SHOW FOR YEARS.
>> HER CREDIBILITY IS COMPLETELY
SHOT, I HAVE TO DO WHAT MAYA
ANGELOU SAID I BELIEVE WHAT THEY
DO AND NOT WHAT THEY SAID, I
KNOW THAT SHE HABITUALLY JOINED
TRUMP IN ATTACKING MEMBERS OF
THE PRESS INCLUDING THIS NETWORK
IN A WAY THAT PUT JOURNALISTS AT
RISK, IN DANGER, AND WE DO KNOW
THAT SHE CARRIED WATER FOR
DONALD TRUMP AND WE KNEW THAT
SHE DID PARTICIPATE IN EFFORTS
TO KEEP VOTES IN DETROIT FROM MY
HOMETOWN, SO I TAKE THIS
JOURNALISTICALLY SERIOUS AND
PERSONAL TO KEEP THE VOTES FROM
MOSTLY BLACK VOTERS IN DETROIT
FROM BEING COUNTSED THAT NIGHT.
>> THAT'S PART OF THAT PHONE
CALL.
>> CORRECT.
PART OF THAT PRESSURE CAMPAIGN
THAT DONALD TRUMP NOW STANDS
ACCUSED IN THE COURT OF LAW OF
DOING.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M BELIEVING
WHEN IT COMES TO RONNA McDANIEL
AND NOT ANYTHING THAT SHE SAID
TODAY BECAUSE OF THOSE
CREDIBILITY --
>> STEPHEN, WHERE DO YOU FALL ON
THIS?
>> ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU READ
THE CRITICISM OF NBC THAT HAS
COME SINCE THE ANNOUNCEMENT.
IT IS CLEAR THAT SOME OF THE
CRITICS DON'T WANT TO BE
CONFRONTED WITH REPUBLICAN
VOICES AND CONSERVATIVE
ARGUMENTS AND THAT'S BAD.
WE SHOULD HAVE A ROBUST EXCHANGE
OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE DIFFERENT
THING, BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT'S
BEEN SAID HERE.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT RONNA
McDANIEL IS DOING.
THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE'S BEEN DOING
AND SHE HAS HUGE CREDIBILITY
PROBLEMS NOT BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN
A PARTISAN SPINNER ON BEHALF OF
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BECAUSE SHE
NOT ONLY PRESIDED, BUT DIRECTED
AND DROVE THE QANONIZATION OF
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DURING HER
TENURE AND IT IS THE CASE THAT
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT SHE DID
WITH THE FAKE ELECTORS
SPECIFICALLY, SHE WASN'T ON THAT
PHONE CALL BECAUSE SHE FELT BAD
ABOUT SOMEBODY.
DONALD TRUMP WAS ON THE CALL.
HE WAS TELLING THEM, SHE WAS
SAYING WE'LL GET YOU LAWYERS
BECAUSE THE ENTIRE SIX-WEEK
PERIOD AFTER NOVEMBER 2020
ELECTION WAS ABOUT MAKING THE
CASE THAT THE ELECTION HAD BEEN
STOLEN.
SHE DID A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE
TO THE COUNTRY BY MAKING THE
ARGUMENT THAT LED TO THE EROSION
OF FAITH.
WE HAVE HALF OF THE REPUBLICANS
RIGHT NOW BELIEVE THE ELECTION
WASN'T FAIR AND EVEN TODAY
CONFRONTED WITH HER PAST VOTES,
SHE COULDN'T GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT
ANSWER UNTIL YOUR FORTH OR FIFTH
TIME.
>> CHUCK, FINAL TEN SECONDS.
LOOK, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS
NETWORK AND FOR ALWAYS TO HAVE A
WIDE APERTURE IN COVERING VOTERS
THAT HAVE DESPAIRICAL LEADS AND
IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ON THIS
PANEL AND I PRIDE MYSELF IN, YOU
AND I TAKE PLENTIEN OF GRIEF
WHEN WE HAVE IDEOLOGICAL AND
POLITICAL DIVERSITY AND ALL OF
US IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA DO A
TERRIBLE JOB OF GEOGRAPHIC
DIVERSITY AND ALL OF THIS STUFF
AND I CALL INTO QUESTION AND
SOMETIMES PEOPLE THINK THEY
UNDERSTAND THE POLITICS OF THIS
COUNTRY WHEN THEY'RE SORT OF IN
A VERY, VERY, VERY BLUE CITY.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS WASHINGTON
OPERATIVE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO
BRING THE NETWORK WHAT THEY
THINK IT WANTS TO BRING TO THE
NETWORK.
I UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVATION, BUT
THIS EXECUTION, I THINK, WAS
POOR.
>> SOMEONE SAID LAST NIGHT WE
LIVE IN COMPLICATED TOOMS.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE.
I APPRECIATE IT.
WHEN WE COME BACK, MY
CONVERSATION WITH RETIRED
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEPHEN
BREYER, HIS THOUGHT OF OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE AND THE
OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE AND THE STAT
>>> WELCOME BACK.
>>> WELCOME BACK.
HE SAT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN
THE COUNTRY FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER CONFIRMED
IN 1994 HELPED SHAPE THE
NATION'S LAWS THROUGH FOUR
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS AND
RETIRED THE SAME YEAR OF THE
DOBBS DECISION WHICH OVERTURNED
THE LANDMARK ABORTION RIGHTS
CASE ROE V. WADE.
I SAT DOWN WITH JUSTICE BREYER
AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL THIS WEEK
WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE
CONTROVERSIAL DOBBS DECISION AND
HIS NEW BOOK, READING THE
CONSTITUTION IN WHICH HE URGES
THE JUSTICES TO LOOK BEYOND THE
WORD AS OX ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN
THE CONSTITUTION TO THE REAL
WORLD CONSEQUENCES THAT RULINGS
MAY HAVE.
>> YOU TOLD "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
OF THE COURT TODAY SOMETHING
IMPORTANT IS GOING ON.
WHAT DID YOU MEAN ABOUT THAT?
>> I MEANT REALLY WHAT I'VE BEEN
WRITING HERE THAT I DON'T -- I
THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
OR CHARACTERISTIC TO FOCUS ON IS
A CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT PEOPLE
ARE INTERPRETING IN GENERAL THIS
DOCUMENT AND THE STATUTES
TOWARDS WHAT DID PEOPLE
ORIGINALLY, WHEN THIS WAS
WRITTEN, WHAT DID THEY TAKE
THESE WORDS TO MEAN IN GENERAL?
IT'S VERY ATTRACTIVE.
YOU SAY THAT, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO
IS READ THIS.
FABULOUS.
YOU'VE GOT THE ANSWER.
JUST READ IT, AND IT'S SIMPLE,
AND IT WILL STOCK THE JUDGES
FROM DOING, THEY'LL BE BOUND BY
THE TEXT.
YOU SEE, IT SOUNDS GOOD.
SOUNDS GOOD, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK
VERY WELL, IN MY OPINION, AND
THAT'S WHY I'VE SPENT A YEAR AND
A HALF TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE
IMMUNITY CASE, IF I COULD.
IN APRIL THE COURT IS GOING TO
HEAR ARGUMENTS ABOUT DONALD
TRUMP'S CLAIM TO BE IMMUNE FROM
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR HIS
EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE 2020
ELECTION.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE COURT TOOK
THE CASE AND WAS IT NECESSARY
FOR THE COURT TO TAKE THE CASE?
>> THAT'S ANOTHER ONE, I'M
SITTING AROUND THE TABLE.
I'VE READ THE BRIEFS AND THAT
ISN'T BEING COY.
IT'S TRUE.
MY GOODNESS YOU CAN MAKE
MISTAKES JUST BY SAYING WHAT
YOUR INITIAL OPINION IS, AND MY
GOODNESS, HOW OFTEN IT REALLY
OCCURS.
I'M NOT JUST TRYING TO GET OUT
OF THE QUESTION BECAUSE I CAN
GET OUT OF THE QUESTION BY
SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION, BUT THE POINT IS
THERE ARE SO MANY TIMES WHEN YOU
THINK, LOOK, THIS IS HOW
DECISION MAKING -- AND I BET
IT'S TRUE FOR YOU AND I BET IT'S
TRUE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WORK
WITH YOU AND I BET IT'S TRUE FOR
BUSINESS PEOPLE AND OTHERS AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S GENUINELY
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND AS BEST
YOU CAN THE DETAILS THAT ARE
RELEVANT TO AN IMPORTANT
DECISION, AND I THINK THAT'S
TRUE OF EVERYONE WHO MAKES THOSE
DECISIONS AND IT'S CERTAINLY
TRUE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE
COURT.
LET ME TRY IT THIS WAY.
WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT THEY
TOOK UP THE CASE OR THEY DIDN'T
NEED TO?
>> I MAY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT
THAT, BUT THAT'S TOO CLOSE.
TOO CLOSE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY, YOU ARE
A JUDGE WHO KNOWS WHAT IT IS
LIKE TO TAKE UP A CRITICAL CASE
IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
>> THAT WAS BUSH V. GORE, YOU
MEAN?
>> YES.
>> I DO REMEMBER THAT AND IN MY
OPINION I WROTE THEY SHOULDN'T
HAVE TAKEN IT UP.
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT BUSH
V. GORE.
I WROTE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE
TAKEN UP THE OPINION.
I THINK THEY SHOULD DECIDE IT
THE WAY.
THAT WAS MY VIEW.
WHY?
IT WAS A VIEW REACHED AFTER A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WORK.
>> I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO WEIGH IN ON THE CURRENT CASES
BEFORE THE COURT, BUT BIG
PICTURE, JUSTICE BREYER, DO YOU
THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY DESERVE TO KNOW A
VERDICT IN THE ELECTION
SUBVERSION CASE BEFORE NOVEMBER?
AS A LEGAL MATTER.
>> YOU'RE STILL GOING.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF GOOD
QUESTIONS, BUT THEY'RE ALL
AIMING AT THE SAME PLACE.
>> BIG PICTURE.
DO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY
DESERVE TO KNOW?
>> THE BIG PICTURE IS I'M NOT
GOING NEAR A CASE THAT'S -- THAT
IS AN EVEN BIGGER PICTURE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS, CAN YOU
TELL ME WHAT YOU THOUGHT ON
JANUARY 6th AS THOSE, VENTS EVEN
UNFOLDING?
>> ON JANUARY 6th.
THE BIGGEST PICTURE IS TO ME
THAT I TELL MYSELF.
DON'T GO NEAR THESE ISSUES.
I WAS --
>> WAS IT A TOUGH DAY FOR YOU?
>> MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY
ADVANTAGES AND PRIVILEGES WHEN I
THINK THAT I WAS A MEMBER OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THERE ARE A FEW
DISADVANTAGES AND ONE OF THOSE
DISADVANTAGES IS DON'T SOUND OFF
ON THINGS THAT ARE RELEVANT,
MIGHT BECOME CASES, ET CETERA,
PARTICULARLY WHETHER YOU'RE ON
THE COURT OR NOT.
YOU WERE ON THE COURT.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT DOBBS.
IT WOULD BE TWO YEARS SINCE
DOBBS, AS YOU KNOW, ENDED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET AN
ABORTION.
YOU DISSENTED.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IMPACT OF
DOBBS HAS BEEN. >> WHAT I PUT IN THIS BOOK AND G
AS DOREN JAGR 6YE0aET MAWOTHHOK >> WHAT I PUT IN THIS BOOK AND G AR
WE THOUGHT IT PROBABLY WOULD,
WE THOUGHT IT PROBABLY WOULD,
AND WE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE A
LOT OF ISSUES COMING TO THE
COURTS, COMING OUT OF THE
DECISION TO OVERRULE ROE VERSUS
WADE.
THAT'S WHAT WE SAID IN THE
OPINION.
>> WELL, AND YOU ALSO SAID THE
MAJORITY'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER
THE LIFE-ALTERING CONSEQUENCES
OF REVERSING ROE IN CASES.
IT'S A STUNNING INDICTMENT OF
ITS DECISION.
THOSE ARE VERY STRONG WORDS.
>> WE FELT STRONGLY ON THAT
CASE, YES.
>> WELL, AND I GUESS THE
QUESTION IS DO -- IS WHAT YOU
ANTICIPATED COME TO PASS?
>> I WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM --
IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE
ANSWERS FOR THESE THINGS IN MY
MIND, BUT I WANT TO STAY AWAY
PUBLICLY FROM -- I WANT TO STICK
AS CLOSELY ON A RECENT CASE AS
POSSIBLE TO WHAT I SAID IN THIS
BOOK, AND I DID MY BEST TO STICK
TO AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO WHAT
IS ALREADY PUBLIC.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE TOTALLY
OPPOSITE INTERESTS THERE BECAUSE
MY INTEREST IS NOT TO MAKE NEWS.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> I'M TRYING HARD, JUSTICE
BREYER.
>> I KNOW.
>> LET ME ASK YOU, IN TEXAS
THERE WERE ESTIMATED TO BE MORE
THAN 26,000 RAPE-RELATED
PREGNANCIES AFTER THE FIRST 16
MONTHS AFTER THE NEAR TOTAL
ABORTION BAN WAS IN EFFECT AND
PART OF IT IS THE CONCERNS ABOUT
A PATCHWORK OF LAWS.
IS THAT PART -- WAS THAT PART OF
YOUR CONCERN WHEN YOU DISSENTED
TO ROE BEING OVERTURNED?
>> I -- I THOUGHT ROE SHOULD NOT
BE OVERTURNED.
I THOUGHT CASEY SHOULD NOT BE
OVERTURNED.
>> CAN YOU SEE A WORLD, A
POSSIBILITY IN WHICH DOBBS IS
OVERTURNED ONE DAY IN ANOTHER 15
YEARS?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE?
>> OH, IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT WHO
KNOWS?
>> HOW DISRUPTIVE WAS THE LEAK
TO THE COURT AND TO THE
RELATIONSHIPS THAT YOU DESCRIBE?
>> IT WAS UNFORTUNATE.
>> WERE YOU ANGRY?
>> YOU TRY TO AVOID GETTING
ANGRY WHERE THAT -- YOU TRY IN A
JOB, YOU TRY TO REMAIN AS CALM,
REASONABLE AND SERIOUS AS
POSSIBLE.
I THINK IT WAS UNFORTUNATE.
>> HOW MUCH DISCUSSION WAS THERE
ABOUT A POTENTIAL COMPROMISE
AROUND 15 WEEKS.
>> YOU KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT THAT
AS I DO.
>> YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WROTE,
AND WHEN YOU SEE WHAT IS
WRITTEN, THE NORMAL SITUATION IS
BEFORE SOMETHING IS WRITTEN IN
THE CONFERENCE.
PEOPLE IN SOME FORM OR OTHER
WILL DISCUSS WHAT THEY'RE
THINKING OF WRITING.
NOT ALWAYS AND NOT IDENTICAL,
BUT THERE'S USUALLY SOME
DISCUSSION.
>> DID YOU THINK THAT A
COMPROMISE WAS POSSIBLE BEFORE
THE LEAK AROUND 15 WEEKS?
I USUALLY HOPE FOR COMPROMISE.
>> SO YOU WERE HOPEFUL THERE
COULD BE A COMPROMISE.
>> YOU WANT TO PUT WORDS IN MY
MOUTH.
I'M CAREFUL WITH WHAT I SAY ON
THIS BECAUSE I SAY OUR INTERESTS
ARE DIFFERENT.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE NEWS.
I'VE WRITTEN WHAT I THOUGHT.
IF YOU THINK THERE'S NEWS IN
HERE OR IN THE DISSENT, GO RIGHT
AHEAD, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY SOMETHING IN ADDITION.
SOMETHING IN ADDITION.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR THEN, DID
YOU -- DID YOU THINK IT'S
POSSIBLE?
>> I ALWAYS THINK IT'S POSSIBLE,
USUALLY UP UNTIL THE LAST
MINUTE.
>> WERE COW YOU SURPRISED THAT
THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION
DIDN'T DETERMINE WHO WAS
ACTUALLY BEHIND THE LEAK?
DID YOU --
>> YOU WANT TO ASK THAT
QUESTION, ASK THE PEOPLE WHO DO
INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS LIKE
THAT.
THEY'RE THE PEOPLE TO ASK AND
THAT MAY OCCUR ALL OVER THE
GOVERNMENT.
>> BUT DID YOU FEEL BETRAYED BY
THE LEAK?
>> THAT'S A STRONGER WAY OF
PUTTING WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY
ASKED.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED.
I WAS -- I'M SORRY ABOUT THE
LEAK.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE A THEORY OF
THE CASE?
DO YOU THINK THAT THE LEAKER WAS
SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO SOUND THE
ALARM ABOUT ROE BEING OVERTURNED
OR WANTED THE DRAFT OPINION TO
BE LOCKED IN PLACE?
DO YOU HAVE YOUR OWN THEORY?
>> DO I HAVE MY THEORY ABOUT IT?
YES.
>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SHARE
THEM WITH ME.
>> CORRECT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT IT IN THE
BROADER CONTEXT, THOUGH?
DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE
MOTIVE OF THE LEAKER WAS?
>> THAT'S PART OF THE THEORY.
>> AND GIVEN -- FAIR TO SAY HOW
THE FACT THAT YOU'RE
DISAPPOINTED, YOU WERE NOT
BEHIND THIS IN ANY WAY?
>> I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO SAY
THAT.
I WOULD BE AMAZED IF IT WAS A
JUDGE.
>> OKAY.
>> THERE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW.
YOU KNOW, WE NEVER KNOW.
>> DOBBS HAPPENED IN PART,
OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE AMY CONEY
BARRETT REPLACED GINSBURG WHO
WAS STILL ON THE BENCH.
DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE AGE
LIMITS ON THE SUPREME COURT?
>> I'VE SAID, AND I THINK IT'S
TRUE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S HARMFUL.
IF YOU HAD LONG TERMS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THEY'D HAVE TO BE LONG.
WHY LONG?
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU WANT
SOMEONE WHO IS APPOINTED TO THE
SUPREME COURT TO BE THINKING
ABOUT HIS NEXT JOB AND SO A
20-YEAR TERM, I DON'T KNOW,
18-YEAR TERM.
FINE.
FINE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE
HARMFUL.
I THINK IT WOULD HAVE HELPED, IN
MY CASE.
IT WOULD HAVE HELPED ME CASE --
IT WOULD HAVE AVOIDED FOR ME
GOING THROUGH DIFFICULT
DECISIONS WHEN YOU RETIRE,
WHAT'S THE RIGHT TIME?
AND SO THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
>> HOW DIFFICULT WAS IT FOR YOU
TO DECIDE TO RETIRE?
>> IT'S DIFFICULT.
>> YOU MISS BEING ON THE SUPREME
COURT?
>> OF COURSE, BUT YES -- BUT YOU
KNOW, LIFE, HUMAN LIFE IS TOUGH
AND MOREOVER, YOU GET OLDER AND
85, WHICH I AM NOW.
83, I MEAN, YOU'VE BEEN THERE
FOR QUITE A WHILE AND OTHER
PEOPLE ALSO SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE
AT THIS JOB AND AT SOME POINT
YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO DO IT, AND I THINK I CAN DO
IT, NONETHELESS, THERE COMES A
TIME YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT'S THE RIGHT TIME.
THERE ARE LOTS OF
CONSIDERATIONS.
>> WAS THE IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE
ON THE COURT PART OF YOUR
CONVERSATION TO RETIRE WHEN YOU
DID?
>> THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS,
THEREIN, PROBABLY PART.
>> MORE OF MY CONVERSATION WITH
THE FORMER JUSTICE AIRS NEXT
SUNDAY. WHEN WE COME BACK, A LOOK BACK
WHEN WE COME BACK, A LOOK BACK AT HOW LAWKERS FELMA
>>> WELCOME BACK.
>>> WELCOME BACK.
TRUST IN THE SUPREME COURT IS
NEAR AN ALL-TIME LOW.
YET ANOTHER SIGN OF OUR
HYPERPARTAN POLITICS.
THE LAST FOUR CONFIRMATIONS TO
THE HIGH COURT ALL MOSTLY CAME
DOWN TO PARTY LINE VOTES AND OF
COURSE, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S
NOMINATION OF MERRICK GARLAND
WAS NEVER EVEN BROUGHT TO THE
FLOOR, BUT IT WASN'T ALWAYS THIS
WAY.
NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT BILL
CLINTON IN 1994, JUSTICE BREYER
WAS CONFIRMED BY AN 87-9 MARGIN.
HERE'S HOW THE SENATE LEADERS AT
THE TIME TALKED ABOUT HIS
CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
>> LET ME ASK YOU FIRST ABOUT
THE SUPREME COURT, THE
NOMINATION OF STEPHEN BREYER,
SENATOR DOLE, YOUR REACTION?
>> GOOD CHOICE.
NOT A CONSERVATIVE, BUT I THINK
NOT AS LIBERAL AS BLACKMAN, A
MAN OF GREAT INTELLECT.
HE IS RESPECTED BY REPUBLICANS
OR DEMOCRATS, UNLESS SOMETHING
UNFORESEEN HAPPENS IT WILL BE AN
EASY CONFIRMATION.
>> SENATOR MITCHELL?
>> THINK HE WILL BE CONFIRMED
EASILY.
HE HAS A SOLID RECORD, GOOD
JURIST.
I DON'T THINK THE LABELS
CONSERVATIVE LIBERALS MEAN MUCH
WHEN APPLIED TO JUDGES.
HISTORY INDICATES THAT IT'S NOT
PARTICULARLY PREDICTABLE AS TO
THE ISSUES THAT WOULD OCCUR
DURING HIS TENURE OR WHAT THE
REACTION WOULD BE.
I THINK HE'S A VERY GOOD JUDGE OF SOUND, LEGAL MIND, GOOD
OF SOUND, LEGAL MIND, GOOD TRAINING, WELL EXPERIENC
>> THE PANEL IS BACK.
>> THE PANEL IS BACK.
KIMBERLY, I'M GOING TO START
WITH YOU.
AS OUR LAWYER AT THE TABLE, WHAT
WERE YOUR TAKEAWAYS FROM JUSTICE
BREYER.
>> FIRST, IT DID NOT SURPRISE ME
AT ALL THAT HE WOULD NOT SPEAK
ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUPREME
COURT.
THAT SAY KNOWN TRADITION AT THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT.
WITH RESPECT TO HIS BOOK AND THE
READING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE IDEA OF THE CONSERVATIVES
THAT YOU LOOK AT THE TEXT AND
SOMEHOW IT MAGICALLY TELLS YOU
THE ANSWERS ABOUT WHAT THE
FONDERS INTENDED AND THE BOOK IS
THERE TO LAY THAT BARE AND IT'S
NOT JUST JUSTICIS LIKE BREYER
THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW NOT WISE IT
IS, AND HOW NONSENSICAL IT IS
BECAUSE THERE ARE CON FLICKS
WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID THE SAME
THING AND ANTHONY KENNEDY, DAVID
SUITOR.
I WISH THAT THEY WOULD SPEAK,
TOO, ABOUT THE MISGUIDED WAY
THAT THE CONSERVATIVES ARE
READING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE
NAME OF ORIGINALISM.
>> STEPHEN, DOBBS IS AT THE
CENTER OF THE ARGUMENT THAT HE
MAKES AND THERE ARE REAL WORLD
CONSEQUENCES.
>> THERE IS A CONTEXTUALISM AND
THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE
FOR CONTEXTUALISM AND IF THERE
WERE MORE TIME I WOULD MAKE IT,
BUT ON DOBBS, JUSTICE BREYER
TALKS ABOUT A POTENTIAL
COMPROMISE ON DOBBS.
ISN'T IT BETTER TO JUST
ADJUDICATE RATHER THAN
COMPROMISEES.
>> LET'S REMEMBER WHY THE COURT
THINKS IT'S POLITICIZED.
THE JUSTICES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT
WANTED TO DO THIS.
THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UPON OUR
POLITICS ON THAT, WHAT IS BROKEN
IS THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS,
HOPEFULLY THAT PROCESS DOESN'T
THEN DESTROY THE JUDICIARY, BUT
IT IS ON THE U.S. SENATE TO FIX
THIS, NOT THE COURTS.
>> AND HE TALKS ABOUT HIS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LOSS OF
PUBLIC TRUST.
THANKS, YOU GUYS.
THAT IS ALL FOR TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.
WE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK BECAUSE
IF IT'S SUNDAY, IT'S "MEET THE PRESS."
♪
♪
♪
♪ ♪
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Judge Luttig: The Supreme Court just handed a ‘very difficult decision’ to Jack Smith
Colorado secretary of state responds to Supreme Court ruling Trump can stay on ballot
Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling
Brooks and Capehart on Supreme Court arguments over immunity for Trump
This could make it to the Supreme Court ‘quickly’: Andrew Cherkasky
“Running Out Of Options” - Supreme Court Keeps Trump on Ballot Infuriating the Establishment