potentially even trump himself. we don t know if it s gone that far. but this came after a number of people, very close to the president, when he was in office, had been subpoenaed to the grand jury, some of them declined to answer questions. and one person, an adviser, a lawyer, eric herschmann, essentially forced the trump team s hand there in court now and trump is trying to invoke various privileges, executive privileges, attorney/client privilege to wall off what was happening in his inner circle. what happens next, caitlin, if the justice department wins or if trump wins? there are enormous implications on both sides for this. these things are never taken lightly in any administration. and with this, with donald trump the former president, if the justice department wins, it opens a major set of doors for them. it potentially means those witnesses who decline to answer questions could get called back. it would allow the justice department to get answers and information from lo
what in theory is the argument against it? what was the argument for throwing a book at a mother of five, for making an example of someone by putting a mom in prison for 21 years? what argument are people making why that s a good idea? whitaker wanted to make an example of this mother of five, i guess, to send a message to anybody else out there that he is tough on crime. well, what responsible prosecutors are is smart on crime. this is a man who believes in winning at all costs. he is very hyped about the adversarial system and to him winning means getting convictions and putting people under the jail. that s really against the values of the justice department, which are about fairness and equality under the law. there s a famous slogan, the justice department wins when justice is done. not when there is a conviction.
under the jail. that s really against the values of the justice department, which are about fairness and equality under the law. there s a famous slogan, the justice department wins when justice is done. not when there is a conviction. i wish that matt whitaker will live according to that. but, joy, you know in this conflicts of interest. his ethics. his lack of understanding of the values of the justice department. the rule of lawsuit. he s like a lawyer version of donald trump. our justice system is in poor hands. what are the risks that somebody with that disposition has expressed views that would advocate the prosecution of donald trump s political adversaries? i m thinking of hillary clinton here. again, he doesn t under the norms. it s about power to him. since he has this access to donald trump again i think we have every reason to expect, instead of rod rosenstein
don t even have a standing to sue, meaning they can only sue if they been harmed, and they haven t. they are claiming the people in those states are harmed, and at the obligation of those a lemming harmed. if the justice department wins and the states of washington and minnesota appeal to the supreme court, i don t think the supreme court will hear it. if the states went and at the justice department appeals to the supreme court, i think the supreme court will hear it because a supreme court is interested in the orderly administration of governmental function, and this is profoundly disorderly for a single federal judge to stop the president from examining people with more care as they enter the country. martha: judge, thank you. or get more breaking news on this, we ll come back to you. good to see you tonight. boris epstein is a special assistant to the president. good evening to you. you ve been hearing all of this back and forth. one of the questions in my mind in terms of white
don t even have a standing to sue, meaning they can only sue if they been harmed, and they haven t. they are claiming the people in those states are harmed, and at the obligation of those a lemming harmed. if the justice department wins and the states of washington and minnesota appeal to the supreme court, i don t think the supreme court will hear it. if the states went and at the justice department appeals to the supreme court, i think the supreme court will hear it because a supreme court is interested in the orderly administration of governmental function, and this is profoundly disorderly for a single federal judge to stop the president from examining people with more care as they enter the country. martha: judge, thank you. or get more breaking news on this, we ll come back to you. good to see you tonight. boris epstein is a special assistant to the president. good evening to you. you ve been hearing all of this back and forth. one of the questions in my mind in terms of white