that didn t sound like a winning argument. no, i don t think it was. but i also think that, you know, getting into the areas of hypotheticals around, you know, what a president could or couldn t do is a pretty dangerous path toward the interpretation if of the actual law in these cases. you have, i think, a verier respond approach to the conversation around this very very irresponsible approach, because a lot of people are trying to find a path to get where they want to go as opposed to looking at the law and what s required of it in terms of the context at the time and what was meant by actual insurrection at the time of the 14th amendment. i think that s something that s too important to skip over, and it s one of the reasons why i believe we re going to see the supreme court weigh in on this and a number of key questions before the actual election happens. howard: right. i will be stunned if the supreme court allows donald trump to be kicked off of ballots in colorado and any ot
convicted. but his attorney said quite the opposite in his last impeachment trial saying, well, this is the a political process, but he could certainly be pursued by law enforcement. so which is it? [laughter] well, that s a good question. [laughter] lawyers can find a way. there you go. listen, ultimately they re make a strong argument which is unless you really want and you heard jessie say it in your montage, unless you want to open up pandora s box, be super careful about what you can charge a former president is. it is to say be careful what you wish for as we ve seen play out i think of the old harry reid, you know, 51 versus 60, be careful. decisions made today can have lasting impact, and i think the courts will probably consider that. howard: right. there is a legitimate debate about setting a precedent for future presidents. you know, the other, the civil fraud trial hearing in new york, trump did get to speak, and he insulted the judge to his face.
elected, from taking office. a coup such as we have never experienced. an act of sedition. there is a narrative to this case, that donald trump and those around him, do not want to see explored. because if it is explored, if it is made public, if it is done tick top, one hour after the other, if we see how he obstructed that election on january 6th, how he prepared in the months before to obstruct that election, we will get a picture of criminality of a president of the united states such as we have never seen in our history. trump knows that. his lower. the 14 republican floors who filed an amicus brief, some of whom have been on the network today, who filed a brief against trump, they know this. that know the strength of this case. this case is much more important than the others, because if it occurs before the election, then we have the full
so they can make those decisions without worrying about what s going to happen when the administration changes hands. but it s definitely not going to be a blanket immunity, that anything and everything you did while you re in office is untouchable. i don t think the courts are going to go for that. to be continued. tim, thank you very much for joining us. thank you. and join me now for the big picture, legendary journalist carl bernstein. charles, you are in the thick of watergate and a witness to nixon s absolutist view of power. that if a president does it, it s not illegal. is what you heard today in court from trump s lawyers, essentially, as we ve been discussing, more than nixon even imagined? it was preposterous. as your earlier guest just pointed out. and polite language. but i think we ve got to take a look at what s really going on here. and nobody understand it better than donald trump.
dead. i think that is one thing trump did do. trump made it to where you could speak truth to power if you want to, but i think a lot of folks choose not to. no one is stupid. why it s not true fever speaking i m not saying was true it s truths to people is speaking to. you can get on tv and say i m gonna be a dictator on day one. and nobody gets upset about that. and this causes you to go up in the polls. clearly the things they are saying, he likes. they think he s maybe speaking truth is wrong thing to say, he is speaking to his his constituents to. he s speaking to the fear and stoking the fear of an electorate that is very concerned about, what a rising majority we know that is the case. the hard thing about going back to kamala harris, madam vice president. we say a lot of this they won t let her. and i take issue with the