lawn in town, the daughter of horror legend, em hey, javelin on her new movie, the watchers. >> and what she thinks about her dad's films so, the american justice system, if you have a notice and spacing a pretty critical moment, donald trump has been trying to chip away at its credibility ever since the first charges were brought against him. but this past week, it has been a whole different beast. he is open the flood gates in the day since his conviction the new york hush money trial repeatedly and forcefully trump is vowing revenge. he said at this weekend i revenge will be success. >> and i mean that but it's awfully hard when you see what they've done. these people are so evil he said it tuesday yeah, it's a terrible precedent for our country. >> does that mean the next president does it to them? when did we terrible two throw the president's wife and the former secretary state i think of it the former secretary of state, but the present the president's wife into jail wouldn't that be a terrible thing? >> but they want to do it he said it wednesday look when this election is over based on what they've done, i would have every right to go after them. >> and it's easy because it's joe biden he also said, thursday we'll revenge, just take time. >> i will say that does. and sometimes revenge can be justified. so i have to be honest, sometimes it can and here's the thing several of those interviewers, they were trying to give trump a kind of a very easy off-ramp. >> they were sent him up with some softballs almost t balls, really a chance to bury the hatchet, take maybe a higher road, but he refused to budge. in fact, he doubled down trump is being cheered on by his allies and a lot of potential vp picks are raising their hand to be second in command and say this is all political persecution, a two two-tiered system of justice filled with lawfare as they like to claim but that just i mean, it's not the case. we've got the evidence to show and exhibit number one, senator bob menendez, he is on trial for corruption federally, a sprawling case involving gold bars, envelopes of cash, and a brand numerous 80s convertible menendez announcing the speaker, he has actually changed his far as two independent but that was just this week for years, he has been one of the most powerful senate democrats and he is facing a federal charges and federal child with those brought by the doj, not some local or state prosecutor democratic administration and today, a witness for the prosecution testifying that he directly bribed the new jersey senator exhibit number 200, biden, president biden's own son facing possible prison time over felony gun charges hundreds, daughter giving emotional testimony today in her father's defense, that given how personal all of this must feel, it would be easy. maybe for president biden to follow trump's claimed playbook and claim the system is biased against people with the name biden but here's how biden is addressing it let me ask you, will you accept the jury's outcome? >> their verdict no matter what it is? >> yes. >> and have you ruled out a pardon for your son? >> yes sounds a little different than trump, right? well you be the judge joining me now, seed into your law enforcement analysts. would former deputy director of the fbi, andrew mccabe, a former law clerk for justice, sonia sotomayor, tiffany, right? former national republican senatorial committee aid liam donovan. so good to have an embarrassment of riches on a friday night. thank you all for being here. lay begin with you here, andrew, because this claim that there is a two two-tiered system of justice, we can all agree that there are inequities in our justice system period full stop. you can cannot convince me otherwise but this allegation that this is only targeting trump or republicans, or maga is just patently false absolutely right. and i think you had great examples of that there. i would also want to point out that part of this narrative that we're hearing from the former president and his supporters is that this is the result of some sort of political persecution, election interference. the fact is that donald trump was indicted in new york and in three other jurors its actions not by joe biden, not by any attorney general or any prosecutor. he was indicted by groups of 23 of his fellow citizens who got together on a grand jury, reviewed the evidence, heard the entire investigation, and voted that there was probable cause to believe he committed a crime in new york. he was then judged by 12 of his fellow citizens of manhattan, who heard that evidence through what we can all observe was a trial that observed all of the privileges and rights constitutional rights that any defendant is entitled to. and at the end of that trial, they decided that he was guilty. those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. >> and the irony, we couldn't actually observe it because apparently like that just can't happen in new york said wouldn't it be great? i'm going to wouldn't it have been great to actually watch it in some form or fashion, but tiffany, let me go to you on this because there is this split-screen happening. there's accusations about how the doj controlled the hashmap hey, trial. they did not. that was through the local da, but there is a federal trial happening involves hunter biden that his daughter up there today. it isn't a bit of an uphill battle to prove that there was this narrow window of time that he in fact was using and in violation of what he stated. but talk to me about this split screen that you're seeing that this seems to still have legs for people i think it's unfortunate. >> i think be in a lot of it comes from the lies that the former president tails, right? like either he was the leader of our entire federal government for many years and doesn't understand that the state of new york is not within the control of the federal government or he's patently lying to people. either way. it's unacceptable, but i think what we see with hunter biden really is an unfortunate picture of how addiction can rip apart a family. and that is what i see when i look at it, you have a man who has recovered, who is in his sobriety trying to recover and all of that is made rafat i got his daughter is on the stand. it is heartbreaking to see the current president in a model that i wish president trump would follow. say, i'm not going to consider intervening in the legal system even four my own son even though i know he was suffering with addiction when he did, this is a really powerful model that i think should be one for all of our commanders-in-chief, italy, there is a real risk are they strategy to attack based on two brian otherwise, it could backfire in terms of a political talking point that suggests that this is, this is a case to pursue a or that they could undermine the system of justice by using this as a case study. there's a real tension there because you're, if you're republican, judge, as you are, you've got this balance to pull between wanting to suggest that there is a two tiered system that's targeting donald trump. and then proof of like menendez being tried. i mean, a top ranking democratic only recently as a sentence as an independent, the president's own son, how should voters evaluate the two? >> well, there's two separate issues here. i think if you assume the premise of the system is rigged, all these things, just pointing that direction. you can backfill your rationale as to why the fact that menendez is still a center or you, chuck schumer hasn't called for him to resign. that's just proof that the system is rigged. the fact that he's taking for say these are gold bars or what have you that's proof that the system is rigged. the fact that a hunter is on trial, not for the things that they think he did. the biden crime family or what have you this is for line on a gun application. that's proof that the system is rigged. so i think you can always, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but from the standpoint of how voters should look and frankly how voters do look at it. think they're disgusted by the whole thing. i think even having to look into these issues, it's not comfortable min as we're talking about, it's as a father, as a son, you wouldn't wish this on anyone. i think it's how voters really recoil from this stuff. and frankly, if they're thinking about what voters care about, especially as it relates to law and order. they're not worried about what politicians who they already are disgusted by are doing they're more worried about crime in their cities and the concerns over what's coming through our borders and those sorts of things. so i think the idea that we're focusing our time that prosecutors are focus there and times on thing that they think is a sideshow or distraction from the things that are driving people when they go to the polls to think about adam, andrew mccabe, excuse me, the idea of if if everyone's doing it right, it doesn't actually prove that you haven't done it. it's the idea. if you think everyone's corrupt, but yet you, yourself are accused of being corrupt. it doesn't take the wind out of the sails of prosecution, but i want again, fisa physics here because in the bob menendez trial, i mean, you've got a key prosecution witness that happened today. i mean, you had a man by the name of jose uribe who took the stand today. he testified that he bribed the senator, gave his wife a mercedes benz in exchange for gaining and i quote, the power and influence of menendez i do wonder what kind of political impact is has to have this on the same screen as an accusation that only republicans are targeted, but also larger is that liam swach me about that. you've got a sitting senator accused of this behavior. what does that do to the trust of the system entirely. >> it's horrible for the system. it's horrible for the senate. it's horrible for our political system in general because it is yet another example of someone in that system who's gone allegedly gone beyond the law, broken the law and found himself in this situation. but i think it's important to distinguish and i do agree with the en, that people are disgusted by that and more concerned with the issues that are rightly the focus of a political contest. but i do think it's important to distinguish that the criminal justice system, be it new york or the federal system, or anywhere else? is not designed to convince people who to vote for. prosecutors don't bring cases because they're trying to commit election interference or they're trying to split off moderate voters they brynn cases because the facts and the law demanded that's their job, right alvin bragg was was voted by elected by the citizens of manhattan. he has the authority to bring cases where he thinks the facts and the law support them. he chooses to bring that case and that's his obligation under under the responsibility that's invested in him by the citizens manhattan, if they don't like the way that he's making those decisions, they can elect someone else. and then next time but the results of any of these individual cases are not designed to decide elections. they're designed to determine accountability under the criminal laws of this country. good point and yet we have people we will accuse any elected official who is a prosecutor in particular, i like the appointed align prosecutors that if you've campaigned in a certain way than they assume that you're only goal is to please a particular constituency that he has been very direct in saying that was not his goal here, but we'll see how the voters alchemy, judge that but let me talk about this. >> a hunter biden case because it is history in the making. a sitting president's child in a criminal trial it involves some of the same narrative, same statements is would never have been brought at the last name, wasn't there? this is a trump depth charge or this is never a standalone shot wherever it could be, a lot of these things have been said about the hush money trial as well. and there's a lingering question that is actually in both when it came to trump, would he testify as one big spokesperson and only on best person? >> hunter biden will have that choice as well. >> tiffany should he testify as a lawyer? >> i'm always hesitant to say that a defendant should testify. it seems that there's so much risk. they are particularly because i think what's come out in the trial to this point is really the tip of the iceberg of some of the really unfortunate things that we know about that period of addiction in his life. and so he may not want to open himself up to that. i think it's a calculus between house certain does conviction look if it looks pretty certain than maybe this is a hail mary testifying is something that could work or couldn't. there's not much risk. but if you think there's a chance he might make a difference. twice, i cannot say that. what i would do, i just don't inbee the position that he or his lawyers are in. >> well, you know, i ended the position today. >> it's somebody who gets $4 million. >> over the course of his career in that is clarence thomas, justice clarence thomas. and we turn the page for a second because we saw that there has been there's been these disclosures that have happened and you were a supreme court clerks. let me sit here for a second. so he is acknowledged at the 2019 trips you're already closing your eyes and shaking your head. >> like it so i can i get labs to avocado? i can last for doing lab. i'm going to look at you anymore, okay. i'm over here, a 2019 trip paid by republican megadonor. >> there was a watchdog group fix the court, identifying thomas as the biggest gift recipient on the court to the tune of more than $4 over the last 20 years. so i mean, this idea of justice's having at one time enjoying the highest approval ratings, right they ran touch while everyone was fine with them. they weren't in the mud. it was wonderful. they have been under a spotlight for a long time now over issues of financial disclosures and ethics and beyond what is this tell you in terms of the amount of heat which stands alone from others, has accumulated clarence thomas helped make the principle that money talks a constitutional principle he voted in favor of money being speech under the first amendment. >> so the question for him is, what does this $4 million say? and i think you can look to the menendez trial where this gentleman testified today, therefore, $60,000 i hoped to influence a criminal investigation. what does $4 million get you? because i don't think there's any doubt that if clarence thomas where a random law firm partner in dc, nobody is taking him on trips to bali or anywhere else for free. but what i think it does by is an ethically compromised justice who, when the next voting rights act case comes before the court, when the next dobbs opinion comes before what is he going to say? is there any doubt that had he voted the other way in dobbs, for example, to overrule roe versus wade. what he's still be getting this money. i mean, these are the questions you raise when you are accepting this level of money from political people who are very wealthy, why are you working? you don't agree with due respect and i'm i'm here as the only non-lawyer at the table, so i you're a lawyer or i'm sorry, have to go asterisk. >> asterisk, not attorney consultant, but it but i would say that if anyone was under the illusion that the clarence thomas from 1991 on was ever going to be in a position to vote contrary to the way he's voted. i think the as bad as the optics are because obviously this is something that doesn't look good. i think it's one of those things where maybe the scandals, what's legal because they was under under no obligation, didn't break any rules. he didn't recognize laws. of course, this doesn't look good, but the idea that he's been the most consistent person on the bench throughout his his tenure. and so i don't think there's been a mystery as to how he's going to come down. certainly not on something like like a dobbs but i think the through line here is it's not just about thomas because there has been a broader campaign against the court to delegitimize a number of justices and really call into question whether the court is legitimate. is this in its current state. and that's cleaner expression. so i think the question of whether or not he did something illegal, right? the argument has been that he was not required to disclose this he disclosed it today. why did he do that if he wasn't required to? so i think this is sort of a tacit admission that i should have disclosed that then i did not. and the purpose of ethics laws is not did you purchase a vote? it's we don't want the public to question that we don't want a decision overturning roe versus wade to be infected by even the appearance that this billions or millions of dollars, but he's received, influenced his vote and so that is a grave injury. so the integrity of our entire justice system, and i don't want to push it away by saying we're under no illusions about how clarence thomas would have voted. respectfully, i don't know that we can say that vital work ahead yeah. >> and an example of the importance of that is the fact that every other federal employee is held to a standard infinitely higher than what we currently see among our supreme court justices. it's basically what we refer to as the 2050 role. you're not allowed to accept gifts unless it's worth $20 or less. and you can only accept a few of those from any single source not to exceed $50 over a single year certainly far less than $4 million over 20 years. now, i know that in the fbi, the fbi director travels around the world, is constantly given gifts wonderful tokens of appreciation by our foreign partners. those gifts are taken by folks at headquarters who then determine the estimated value of each of them, bring them back about once a quarter to the director and asked him if he would like any of them and if he wants them, the ones he selects, he has to pay for so these are the sorts of procedures that go on across the federal government every day, year after year to ensure that people aren't creating that impression that we are receiving some sort of elicit favor from people affected by the work that we do. >> that's really fascinating. think about the comparison that's quite the split-screen as you describe in 25-year-old. thank you, everyone for this friday night. i appreciate it. >> now, from dc, i want to go down to florida where judge aileen cannon, the judge presiding over trump's classified documents case, is under fire for ongoing delays. >> why you might ask? >> well, cnn spoke with ten veterans of judge cannon's courtroom about her handling of the case. senior judge paul c. huck of fort pierce, who said on the record, she's very smart and very personal. singable. >> still a number of other attorneys painted the picture of an indecisive and not efficient, judge. >> i want to bring in former miami-dade county court judge, jeff swartz to the conversation charge. thank you for joining me this evening. i want to take a step back for a moment. and let's just go through judge cannon's actions or maybe the right phrase here is inaction. so far because at the beginning of may, she announced a laundry list of i think ten hearings and deadlines. >> then she reshuffled that again this week, adding even more data and there's a calendar showing all the different spots social have he's got the next two months pretty much booked up you have seen this court schedule you've got four key categories still outstanding how long how long do you think you've got a motion to dismiss based on jack smith's you've got a gag order as a category, but classified information procedures act concerns sepah and then of course, a motion to dismiss