dissents in her opinion, which concurred in part. still, these justices, thomas, alito, kavanaugh, gorsuch, roberts and barrett seemed to treat the allegations and the indictment that brought this ground breaking case to the supreme court as more of an academic moment than an existential one. the allegations that the former president of the united states while in office tried to use the levers of power to keep himself in office. reading the decision can seem circular, even. the president is immune because the constitution implies he is immune, even when highs trying to violate the same constitution. the dissents were so scathing, instead, plowing through the majority s reasoning. from justice jackson, quote, the majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in our court s ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong, but f
to anyt president s ability to carry out a core constitutional function. is this more r soso a protectio the prior administration as opposed to this white house feeling that it is protecting the candidate? well we don t know withoutt s seeing the documents, but in my suspicion, it is protecting the candida candidate. they should release them, and they are rushing it through, and the concern is what do these document documents show about the type of oadvice that he gave george w. bush and where he stands on the various issue, and while he was advising george w. bush, and there are a lot of important issues that came up before the court. so i think that the whole idea here is to try to rush it through as fast as possible. they obviously want to get it through before the election. and they are not only shortcutting the process, but depriving senators and the public from really a full vetting of kavanaugh. and so with the president or
they use that charge to sort of limit and curb him in every turn. you re saying he can apply that logic when he s asked to sit down with mueller. he would make the argument how that that is not constitutional? yeah. right now this is what is wrong with the legal strategy, he s lawyers are learned about his personal legal liability. we ve been told that they don t want to sit with mr. mueller because they re worried that president trump might purger himself. the other argument is we will not sit down with special counsel mueller so long as he s engaged in an unconstitutional obstruction of justice probe. so either come out and say that that is not something that you re looking at or we re not parlaying with you at all. the second bold step that you talk about is the idea of declassifying a ton of documents. tell me about that. yeah. i think the president, again this is another core constitutional function.
an attack on the core functions of government. i get if you re a conservative and you re saying, i don t know, government shouldn t be mandating what s taught in classrooms, or government is too intrusive in our economic life, that s standard conservatism. when you re going after what a core function of government is, which is public safety, right, a core constitutional function, then you re talking about a very different kind of republican party and what you re saying is exactly right. this plays into the russian agenda because what russia really wants to do is sow profound distrust among americans at basic federal and state institutions. that is, that is their goal. it is essentially operation chaos from the kremlin, and they now have an agent, an unwitnessing agent, i hounwitti agent in the name of wayne la