Donald Trump Hints At Defying Court, Edges Toward Constitutional Crisis | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC


NOW.>>IT’S FOURTH EVE.>>IT’S FOURTH EVE. THANK YOU, MY FRIEND. THANK YOU, MY FRIEND. THANK YOU AT HOME AS WELL FOR THANK YOU AT HOME AS WELL FOR JOINING US THIS HOUR. JOINING US THIS HOUR. IT IS JULY FOURTH EVE. IT IS JULY FOURTH EVE. JULY 3rd. JULY 3rd. YOU WOULD USUALLY EXPECT IT TO YOU WOULD USUALLY EXPECT IT TO BE A SLEEPY NEWS DAY. BE A SLEEPY NEWS DAY. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT THE WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT THE EVE OF THINGS IN THIS TRUMP EVE OF THINGS IN THIS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? ADMINISTRATION? LIKE YOUR TYPICAL FRIDAY NIGHT. LIKE YOUR TYPICAL FRIDAY NIGHT. HOLIDAY EVE WORKS THE SAME WAY. HOLIDAY EVE WORKS THE SAME WAY. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE DAY THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE DAY WHERE IS WE HAD TO TAKE THE SHOW WHERE IS WE HAD TO TAKE THE SHOW WE WERE PLANNING AND BALL IT UP WE WERE PLANNING AND BALL IT UP AND PUT IT IN THE FILE THAT WE AND PUT IT IN THE FILE THAT WE JUST SAVE FOR OTHER DAYS. JUST SAVE FOR OTHER DAYS. THESE THINGS DO KEEP COMING THESE THINGS DO KEEP COMING AROUND. AROUND. BREAKING NEWS HAS BLOWN UP THE BREAKING NEWS HAS BLOWN UP THE SHOW WITH SOMETHING JUST SORT OF SHOW WITH SOMETHING JUST SORT OF INCREDIBLE THAT HAPPENED IN INCREDIBLE THAT HAPPENED IN FEDERAL COURT WITH NO WARNING. FEDERAL COURT WITH NO WARNING. OUT OF THE BLUE. OUT OF THE BLUE. JUST BLEW UP SOMETHING. JUST BLEW UP SOMETHING. IT IS COMING FROM THIS IT IS COMING FROM THIS REMARKABLE AND DRAMATIC SOAP REMARKABLE AND DRAMATIC SOAP OPERA OF A THING THAT HAS TO DO OPERA OF A THING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION AND WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION AND WITH SOMETHING THAT THE WITH SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT FEELS MORE STRONGLY PRESIDENT FEELS MORE STRONGLY ABOUT THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN HIS ABOUT THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN HIS PRESIDENCY. PRESIDENCY. YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN A FEW DAYS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN A FEW DAYS AGO THAT CHUCK TODD FROM “MEET AGO THAT CHUCK TODD FROM “MEET THE PRESS” HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESS” HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. PRESIDENT TRUMP. THERE IS ALWAYS NEWS WHEN THERE IS ALWAYS NEWS WHEN SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE THE SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA GETS TO ASK CONSERVATIVE MEDIA GETS TO ASK THE PRESIDENT QUESTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT QUESTIONS THAT INVOLVE FOLLOW-UPS AND NOT JUST INVOLVE FOLLOW-UPS AND NOT JUST HIM SCREAMING OVER HELICOPTER HIM SCREAMING OVER HELICOPTER NOISE. NOISE. WE KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE WE KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE NEWS IN THAT INTERVIEW AND IN NEWS IN THAT INTERVIEW AND IN FACT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MADE FACT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MADE NEWS AND CHUCK TODD ASKED WHAT NEWS AND CHUCK TODD ASKED WHAT HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE WAS. HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE WAS. THE BIGGEST REGRET FROM HIS THE BIGGEST REGRET FROM HIS PRESIDENCY THUS FAR. PRESIDENCY THUS FAR. THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWER WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWER WAS THAT HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE, THE ONE HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE, THE ONE THING HE HAS DONE WRONG IS JEFF THING HE HAS DONE WRONG IS JEFF SESSIONS. SESSIONS. THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED AND GONE WRONG OVER 2.5 HAPPENED AND GONE WRONG OVER 2.5 YEARS, AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM YEARS, AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS JEFF SESSIONS? IS JEFF SESSIONS? AS FAR AS THE PRESIDENT IS AS FAR AS THE PRESIDENT IS CONCERNED THAT, IS HIS ONE CONCERNED THAT, IS HIS ONE MISTAKE. MISTAKE. THE ONLY THING HE REGRETS. THE ONLY THING HE REGRETS. WE KNOW FROM HUGE CHUNKS OF THE WE KNOW FROM HUGE CHUNKS OF THE MUELLER REPORT THAT THE MUELLER REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ANGER TOWARDS JEFF PRESIDENT’S ANGER TOWARDS JEFF SESSIONS AND HIS FEELINGS SESSIONS AND HIS FEELINGS TOWARDS JEFF SESSIONS ARE NOT TOWARDS JEFF SESSIONS ARE NOT LIGHTLY ARRIVED AT. LIGHTLY ARRIVED AT. THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL THING OR THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL THING OR A PASSING FANCY. A PASSING FANCY. WE KNOW FROM MUELLER’S REPORT WE KNOW FROM MUELLER’S REPORT TRUMP EXPRESSED RESENTMENT AND TRUMP EXPRESSED RESENTMENT AND ANGER TOWARDS SESSIONS OVER A ANGER TOWARDS SESSIONS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND HE FIRED LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND HE FIRED SESSIONS FOR A VERY SPECIFIC SESSIONS FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON. REASON. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THAT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE THAT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, JEFF SESSIONS UNITED STATES, JEFF SESSIONS SHOULD HAVE DONE MUCH MORE TO SHOULD HAVE DONE MUCH MORE TO USE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND USE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND TO USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO SERVE TO USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO SERVE DONALD TRUMP. DONALD TRUMP. TO SERVE THE WISHES AND TO SERVE TO SERVE THE WISHES AND TO SERVE THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF TRUMP. THE PERSONAL INTERESTS OF TRUMP. TRUMP WAS MAD AT JEFF SESSIONS TRUMP WAS MAD AT JEFF SESSIONS FOR NOT LOCKING UP HILLARY FOR NOT LOCKING UP HILLARY CLINTON AND MAD AT JEFF SESSIONS CLINTON AND MAD AT JEFF SESSIONS FOR NOT FIRING THE SPECIAL FOR NOT FIRING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. COUNSEL. HE WAS MAD AT JEFF SESSIONS FOR HE WAS MAD AT JEFF SESSIONS FOR NOT SHUTTING DOWN THE NOT SHUTTING DOWN THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA ATTACKING OUR ELECTIONS AND ATTACKING OUR ELECTIONS AND THOUGHT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THOUGHT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD JUST BE ORDERED TO DO SHOULD JUST BE ORDERED TO DO THOSE THINGS FOR HIM BECAUSE HE THOSE THINGS FOR HIM BECAUSE HE WANTED THOSE THINGS. WANTED THOSE THINGS. JEFF SESSIONS DIDN’T GIVE HIM JEFF SESSIONS DIDN’T GIVE HIM THOSE THINGS. THOSE THINGS. JEFF SESSIONS TO A CERTAIN JEFF SESSIONS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THIS WATERED THE EXTENT THIS WATERED THE PRESIDENT EXPRESS DESIRES AND HE PRESIDENT EXPRESS DESIRES AND HE NOW BELIEVES JEFF SESSIONS WAS NOW BELIEVES JEFF SESSIONS WAS HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE. HIS BIGGEST MISTAKE. PART OF THE REASON ROBERT PART OF THE REASON ROBERT MUELLER’S REPORT HAD SO MANY MUELLER’S REPORT HAD SO MANY DIRECT QUOTES AND DIRECT COLOR DIRECT QUOTES AND DIRECT COLOR BETWEEN TRUMP AND SESSIONS AND BETWEEN TRUMP AND SESSIONS AND WHAT HE WAS DEMANDING, PART OF WHAT HE WAS DEMANDING, PART OF THE REASON HE HAD SO MUCH DETAIL THE REASON HE HAD SO MUCH DETAIL IS BECAUSE JEFF SESSIONS’S CHIEF IS BECAUSE JEFF SESSIONS’S CHIEF OF STAFF, A MAN BY THE NAME OF OF STAFF, A MAN BY THE NAME OF JODY HUNT, HE GAVE TESTIMONY TO JODY HUNT, HE GAVE TESTIMONY TO MUELLER’S INQUIRY. MUELLER’S INQUIRY. JODY HUNT FOR THE ENTIRE JODY HUNT FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF JEFF SESSIONS’ TIME DURATION OF JEFF SESSIONS’ TIME AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE BASICALLY HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT BASICALLY HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THIS BIZARRE DYNAMIC BETWEEN TO THIS BIZARRE DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL. GENERAL. TO ALL THE WILD DEMANDS THAT TO ALL THE WILD DEMANDS THAT TRUMP WAS MAKING OF THE ATTORNEY TRUMP WAS MAKING OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. GENERAL. JODY HUNT WAS THERE TO SEE AND JODY HUNT WAS THERE TO SEE AND HEAR AND WITNESS ALL OF THE HEAR AND WITNESS ALL OF THE CRAZY BLEEP THAT TRUMP DEMANDED CRAZY BLEEP THAT TRUMP DEMANDED AND EXPECTED FROM HIS JUSTICE AND EXPECTED FROM HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. THE CHIEF OF STAFF, WHAT WAS THE CHIEF OF STAFF, WHAT WAS CHIEF OF STAFF TO SESSIONS. CHIEF OF STAFF TO SESSIONS. HE WAS THERE FOR ALL OF IT AND HE WAS THERE FOR ALL OF IT AND SAW IT ALL HAPPEN WHEN TRUMP SAW IT ALL HAPPEN WHEN TRUMP MADE THE DEMANDS. MADE THE DEMANDS. WHEN TRUMP IMPLORE AND BERATED WHEN TRUMP IMPLORE AND BERATED SESSIONS FOR NOT AGREEING TO SESSIONS FOR NOT AGREEING TO THOSE DEMANDS. THOSE DEMANDS. JODY HUNT WAS THERE WHEN TRUMP JODY HUNT WAS THERE WHEN TRUMP FIRED SESSIONS FOR THE CRIME OF FIRED SESSIONS FOR THE CRIME OF NOT DOING WHAT THE PRESIDENT NOT DOING WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. WANTED. NOW JEFF SESSIONS OF COURSE IS NOW JEFF SESSIONS OF COURSE IS GONE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND GONE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND INCIDENTALLY TRUMP SAID HE IS INCIDENTALLY TRUMP SAID HE IS MUCH HAPPIER WITH HIS NEW GUY. MUCH HAPPIER WITH HIS NEW GUY. HE IS GETTING MUCH MORE OF WHAT HE IS GETTING MUCH MORE OF WHAT HE WANTS. HE WANTS. EVEN AFTER JEFF SESSIONS WAS EVEN AFTER JEFF SESSIONS WAS FIRED AT ATTORNEY GENERAL, JODY FIRED AT ATTORNEY GENERAL, JODY HUNT STAYED ON AND IN FACT HAD A HUNT STAYED ON AND IN FACT HAD A BIG PROMOTION AT THE JUSTICE BIG PROMOTION AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. JODY HUNT IS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY JODY HUNT IS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND RUNS THE WHOLE CIVIL DIVISION OF RUNS THE WHOLE CIVIL DIVISION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. IT’S LIKE THE BIG PART OF THE IT’S LIKE THE BIG PART OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. IN THAT JOB, JODY HUNT TODAY IN THAT JOB, JODY HUNT TODAY SHOWED WHAT HE HAS LEARNED OVER SHOWED WHAT HE HAS LEARNED OVER THESE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS FROM THESE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS FROM THAT FRONT ROW SEAT HE HAD TO THAT FRONT ROW SEAT HE HAD TO THE SESSION DYNAMIC. THE SESSION DYNAMIC. HE SHOWED WHAT HE HAS LEARNED HE SHOWED WHAT HE HAS LEARNED OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPECTS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO WHAT HE WANTS AND NO TO DO WHAT HE WANTS AND NO MATTER HOW CONTRARY IT MIGHT BE MATTER HOW CONTRARY IT MIGHT BE TO THE NORMAL PROCESSES OF THE TO THE NORMAL PROCESSES OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND A BASIC JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE OF LAW. LAW. JODY HUNT MAYBE MORE THAN JODY HUNT MAYBE MORE THAN ANYBODY STILL IN GOVERNMENT HAS ANYBODY STILL IN GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN HOW EVEN THE HIGHEST SEEN HOW EVEN THE HIGHEST RANKING PERSON AND THE MOST RANKING PERSON AND THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON AT THE JUSTICE POWERFUL PERSON AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAN BE NOT JUST DEPARTMENT CAN BE NOT JUST FIRED, BUT ATTACKED AND DEE EDED FIRED, BUT ATTACKED AND DEE EDED IF THEY DO NOT GIVE THE IF THEY DO NOT GIVE THE PRESIDENT THINGS THAT HE WANTS. PRESIDENT THINGS THAT HE WANTS. HE SAW THAT HAPPEN TO HIS BOSS, HE SAW THAT HAPPEN TO HIS BOSS, JEFF SESSIONS. JEFF SESSIONS. JEFF SESSIONS IS GONE, BUT JODY JEFF SESSIONS IS GONE, BUT JODY HUNT IS A SENIOR DEPARTMENT HUNT IS A SENIOR DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL HIMSELF AND MR. HUNT OFFICIAL HIMSELF AND MR. HUNT SHOWED, I THINK, WHAT HE SHOWED, I THINK, WHAT HE LEARNED. LEARNED. IN WHAT WAS A REMARKABLE TURN OF IN WHAT WAS A REMARKABLE TURN OF EVENTS IN A FEDERAL COURT TODAY. EVENTS IN A FEDERAL COURT TODAY. ON JULY 4th EVE IN A HASTILY ON JULY 4th EVE IN A HASTILY CALLED COURT CONFERENCE IN WHICH CALLED COURT CONFERENCE IN WHICH THE JUDGE SUMMONED BOTH SIDES ON THE JUDGE SUMMONED BOTH SIDES ON SHORT NOTICE TO TRY TO FIGURE SHORT NOTICE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HECK WAS GOING ON. OUT WHAT THE HECK WAS GOING ON. WHAT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED TO THE WHAT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED TO THE COURT WAS NOT HAPPENING IN THE COURT WAS NOT HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD AND FEDERAL JUDGES REAL WORLD AND FEDERAL JUDGES TEND NOT TO LIKE THAT. TEND NOT TO LIKE THAT. WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS THE WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF THE TRUMP SUPREME COURT CASE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LOST LAST WEEK. ADMINISTRATION LOST LAST WEEK. THEY TURNED BACK THE TRUMP THEY TURNED BACK THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S EFFORTS TO TACK ADMINISTRATION’S EFFORTS TO TACK SOMETHING NEW ON TO THE CENSUS SOMETHING NEW ON TO THE CENSUS AND CHANGE THE CENSUS IN A WAY AND CHANGE THE CENSUS IN A WAY THAT WAS EXPECTED TO RESULT IN THAT WAS EXPECTED TO RESULT IN AN UNDER COUNT OF LATINOS AND AN UNDER COUNT OF LATINOS AND OVERCOUNT OF WHITE PEOPLE AND OVERCOUNT OF WHITE PEOPLE AND REPUBLICANS SPECIFICALLY. REPUBLICANS SPECIFICALLY. THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CHANGE THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CHANGE THE CENSUS THAT WAY FOR THE PAST THE CENSUS THAT WAY FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND MULTIPLE COUPLE OF YEARS AND MULTIPLE FEDERAL JUDGES IN THREE FEDERAL JUDGES IN THREE JURISDICTIONS RULED AGAINST THE JURISDICTIONS RULED AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND RULED TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND RULED THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAD MADE UP THEIR PROPOSED HAD MADE UP THEIR PROPOSED REASONS FOR CHANGING THE CENSUS REASONS FOR CHANGING THE CENSUS IN THAT WAY AND IT WASN’T PROPER IN THAT WAY AND IT WASN’T PROPER FOR THEM TO CHANGE THE CENSUS. FOR THEM TO CHANGE THE CENSUS. LAST WEEK IT WENT TO THE SUPREME LAST WEEK IT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT IN A 5-4 RULING. COURT IN A 5-4 RULING. THEY TOLD THE TRUMP THEY TOLD THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT THE LOWER ADMINISTRATION THAT THE LOWER COURTS WERE RIGHT. COURTS WERE RIGHT. THEIR PURPORTED REASONS FOR WHY THEIR PURPORTED REASONS FOR WHY THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE CENSUS, THOSE REASONS WERE THE CENSUS, THOSE REASONS WERE PLAINLY NOT TRUE. PLAINLY NOT TRUE. THE SUPREME COURT TOLD THE TRUMP THE SUPREME COURT TOLD THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LATE LAST WEEK ADMINISTRATION LATE LAST WEEK THEY COULDN’T GO AHEAD WITH IT. THEY COULDN’T GO AHEAD WITH IT. NOT UNDER THE TERMS THEY HAD NOT UNDER THE TERMS THEY HAD BEEN TRYING TO GO AHEAD WITH IT BEEN TRYING TO GO AHEAD WITH IT UNDER. UNDER. LAST NIGHT ON THE SHOW, WE LAST NIGHT ON THE SHOW, WE REPORTED THAT THE JUSTICE REPORTED THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD CONCEDED DEPARTMENT HAD CONCEDED BASICALLY THAT THEY LOST THAT BASICALLY THAT THEY LOST THAT CASE. CASE. IT’S OVER. IT’S OVER. THEY HAD TOLD THE COURT ALREADY THEY HAD TOLD THE COURT ALREADY OVER THE COURSE OF THE OVER THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION ON THIS ISSUE THAT LITIGATION ON THIS ISSUE THAT THEY WERE UP AGAINST A HARD THEY WERE UP AGAINST A HARD DEADLINE. DEADLINE. THAT THEY NEEDED TO START THAT THEY NEEDED TO START PRINTING THE CENSUS BY JULY 1st PRINTING THE CENSUS BY JULY 1st WHICH WAS MONDAY OF THIS WEEK. WHICH WAS MONDAY OF THIS WEEK. EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE TRIED TO, THEY MIGHT HAVE WANTED TRIED TO, THEY MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO GO BACK TO COURT AGAIN AND TO GO BACK TO COURT AGAIN AND COME UP WITH A NEW JUSTIFICATION COME UP WITH A NEW JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDING THE QUESTION IN SOME FOR ADDING THE QUESTION IN SOME OTHER WAY, THEY ARE OUT OF TIME. OTHER WAY, THEY ARE OUT OF TIME. THEY NOTIFIED THE COURT THAT THEY NOTIFIED THE COURT THAT THEY WERE GIVING UP ON TRYING TO THEY WERE GIVING UP ON TRYING TO DO THIS FOR THE 2020 CENSUS. DO THIS FOR THE 2020 CENSUS. THEY WERE STARTING TO PRINT THEY WERE STARTING TO PRINT WITHOUT TACKING ON THAT EXTRA WITHOUT TACKING ON THAT EXTRA QUESTION. QUESTION. THEY DIDN’T JUST SAY IT IN A THEY DIDN’T JUST SAY IT IN A PRESS RELEASE. PRESS RELEASE. THE REASON WE REPORTED IT LAST THE REASON WE REPORTED IT LAST NIGHT IS THEY PUT IT IN WRITING NIGHT IS THEY PUT IT IN WRITING TO THE COURT. TO THE COURT. “COUNSEL, WE CAN CONFIRM THAT “COUNSEL, WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE TO PRINT THE 2020 DES ENNIAL PRINT THE 2020 DES ENNIAL QUESTIONNAIRE WITHOUT A QUESTIONNAIRE WITHOUT A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION AND THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION AND THE PRINTER HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO PRINTER HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO BEGIN THE PRINTING PROCESS. BEGIN THE PRINTING PROCESS. SIGNED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF SIGNED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION. JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION. CIVIL DIVISION AT THE JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOW RUN BY JODY DEPARTMENT IS NOW RUN BY JODY HUNT, JEFF SESSIONS’ FORMER HUNT, JEFF SESSIONS’ FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF. CHIEF OF STAFF. AS OF LAST NIGHT, THIS IS HOW AS OF LAST NIGHT, THIS IS HOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD LEFT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD LEFT IT. IT. THEY ARE TELLING THE COURT, THEY ARE TELLING THE COURT, WE’RE OUT. WE’RE OUT. IT’S OVER. IT’S OVER. THEN TODAY ON TWITTER, THE THEN TODAY ON TWITTER, THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED HIS PRESIDENT EXPRESSED HIS DISPLEASURE WITH THIS DISPLEASURE WITH THIS EVENTUALITY AND INSISTED THIS IS EVENTUALITY AND INSISTED THIS IS NOT WHAT HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NOT WHAT HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS DOING. IS DOING. THIS IS NOT WHAT HIS GOVERNMENT THIS IS NOT WHAT HIS GOVERNMENT IS DOING. IS DOING. YOU HEARD WE ARE NOT PUTTING ON YOU HEARD WE ARE NOT PUTTING ON THAT CENSUS QUESTION. THAT CENSUS QUESTION. WE CERTAINLY ARE. WE CERTAINLY ARE. AND JODY HUNT WHO HAS SEEN THIS AND JODY HUNT WHO HAS SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE, JODY HUNT HAS BEEN MOVIE BEFORE, JODY HUNT HAS BEEN FRIED BY THIS PARTICULAR FRIED BY THIS PARTICULAR PROVERBIAL ELECTRIC FENCE IN HIS PROVERBIAL ELECTRIC FENCE IN HIS RECENT PAST, HE REARS UP AND RECENT PAST, HE REARS UP AND BASICALLY PANICS TODAY IN PUBLIC BASICALLY PANICS TODAY IN PUBLIC ON A HASTILY CALLED COURT ON A HASTILY CALLED COURT HEARING ON THE PHONE WITH A HEARING ON THE PHONE WITH A FEDERAL JUDGE. FEDERAL JUDGE. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF IT. WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF IT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN OR HEARD I HAVE NEVER SEEN OR HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE. ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE. PRESUMABLY IN THE MIND OF THE PRESUMABLY IN THE MIND OF THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL DIVISION AT HEAD OF THE CIVIL DIVISION AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, PRESUMABLY HE WAS RELIVING PRESUMABLY HE WAS RELIVING PRESIDENT TRUMP BEATING THE PRESIDENT TRUMP BEATING THE GHOST OF JEFF SESSIONS ALL OVER GHOST OF JEFF SESSIONS ALL OVER AGAIN FOR SESSIONS REFUSING TO AGAIN FOR SESSIONS REFUSING TO DO WHAT HE WANTED THE JUSTICE DO WHAT HE WANTED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO. DEPARTMENT TO DO. THIS IS HOW IT ALL CAME OUT. THIS IS HOW IT ALL CAME OUT. JUST REMARKABLE. JUST REMARKABLE. THE JUDGE STARTS OFF AND SAID THE JUDGE STARTS OFF AND SAID GOOD AFTERNOON AND ASKED THE GOOD AFTERNOON AND ASKED THE PLAINTIFFS TO INTRODUCE PLAINTIFFS TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. THEMSELVES. THEY DO SO. THEY DO SO. THEN HE SAID FOR THE GOVERNMENT? THEN HE SAID FOR THE GOVERNMENT? THE LAWYER SAID FOR THE THE LAWYER SAID FOR THE GOVERNMENT, YOUR HONOR. GOVERNMENT, YOUR HONOR. JOSH GARDNER. JOSH GARDNER. AND JODY HUNT, ASSISTANT AND JODY HUNT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL DIVISION. DIVISION. THE JUDGE SAID MR. GARDNER, I THE JUDGE SAID MR. GARDNER, I KNOW YOU ARE ON VACATION SO I KNOW YOU ARE ON VACATION SO I HATED TO INTERRUPT THAT. HATED TO INTERRUPT THAT. THAT’S THE WAY THEY START. THAT’S THE WAY THEY START. IT’S A SIGN THAT SOMETHING IS IT’S A SIGN THAT SOMETHING IS UNUSUAL HERE. UNUSUAL HERE. JOSH GARDNER IS THE JUSTICE JOSH GARDNER IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAREER LAWYER WHO HAS DEPARTMENT CAREER LAWYER WHO HAS BEEN HANDLING THE CASE FOR THE BEEN HANDLING THE CASE FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDING WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO DO WITH THE CENSUS WAS TRYING TO DO WITH THE CENSUS AND HE LOST THAT CASE AT THE AND HE LOST THAT CASE AT THE SUPREME COURT LAST WEEK. SUPREME COURT LAST WEEK. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONCEDED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONCEDED AS OF LAST NIGHT THAT IT’S OVER AS OF LAST NIGHT THAT IT’S OVER AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WON’T BE ADDING THE NEW QUESTION WON’T BE ADDING THE NEW QUESTION TO THE CENSUS. TO THE CENSUS. THAT IT’S DONE. THAT IT’S DONE. THE GUY HAS BEEN HANDLING THE THE GUY HAS BEEN HANDLING THE CASE FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CASE FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LOST THE CASE AND TOLD THE COURT LOST THE CASE AND TOLD THE COURT THEY ARE CONCEDING AND IT’S THEY ARE CONCEDING AND IT’S DONE. DONE. NOW THAT IT’S DONE, THAT DUDE NOW THAT IT’S DONE, THAT DUDE HAS GONE ON VACATION. HAS GONE ON VACATION. SO WHY IS HE BACK IN THIS SO WHY IS HE BACK IN THIS HEARING TODAY PHONING INTO THIS HEARING TODAY PHONING INTO THIS EMERGENCY HEARING? EMERGENCY HEARING? APPARENTLY THIS IS NOT DONE. APPARENTLY THIS IS NOT DONE. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY HE HAS IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY HE HAS TO CALL IN BECAUSE IT’S NOT DONE TO CALL IN BECAUSE IT’S NOT DONE IS BECAUSE OF THE OTHER GUY FROM IS BECAUSE OF THE OTHER GUY FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO PHONED IN WITH HIM. PHONED IN WITH HIM. THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL DIVISION, THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL DIVISION, JEFF SESSIONS’S RECENT CHIEF OF JEFF SESSIONS’S RECENT CHIEF OF STAFF AND SEEN WHAT HAPPENS TO STAFF AND SEEN WHAT HAPPENS TO SENIOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SENIOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS IN THE TRUMP OFFICIALS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHEN THEY DON’T ADMINISTRATION WHEN THEY DON’T GIVE TRUMP WHAT HE WANTS NO GIVE TRUMP WHAT HE WANTS NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. MATTER WHAT IT IS. SO YOU HAVE THE TRIAL ATTORNEY SO YOU HAVE THE TRIAL ATTORNEY PHONING IN FROM VACATION AND THE PHONING IN FROM VACATION AND THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL DIVISION HEAD OF THE CIVIL DIVISION PHONING IN HIMSELF. PHONING IN HIMSELF. BECAUSE THAT GUY KNOWS WHAT YOU BECAUSE THAT GUY KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT YELLED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT YELLED JUMP. JUMP. THAT GUY, OF ALL PEOPLE, KNOWS THAT GUY, OF ALL PEOPLE, KNOWS THAT THE ANSWER WHEN THE THAT THE ANSWER WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS JUMP IS HOW HIGH, PRESIDENT SAYS JUMP IS HOW HIGH, SIR? SIR? HOW HIGH? HOW HIGH? THE JUDGE STARTS THINGS OFF. THE JUDGE STARTS THINGS OFF. I GUESS THE REASON I WANTED TO I GUESS THE REASON I WANTED TO HAVE THIS CALL, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD HAVE THIS CALL, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD OUR CALL I GUESS YESTERDAY. OUR CALL I GUESS YESTERDAY. I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY. I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY. THEN THIS MORNING I SAW A TWEET THEN THIS MORNING I SAW A TWEET THAT GOT MY ATTENTION. THAT GOT MY ATTENTION. I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY FEDERAL I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE TWITTER ACCOUNTS, JUDGES HAVE TWITTER ACCOUNTS, BUT I AM ONE OF THEM AND I BUT I AM ONE OF THEM AND I FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT. FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT. A TWEET CONTRADICTED THE A TWEET CONTRADICTED THE POSITION MR. GARDNER SHARED WITH POSITION MR. GARDNER SHARED WITH ME AND I INDICATED YESTERDAY AND ME AND I INDICATED YESTERDAY AND I WILL INDICATE THAT MR. GARDNER I WILL INDICATE THAT MR. GARDNER AND EVERY GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY AND EVERY GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE HAS WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT PROFESSIONAL BEEN NOTHING BUT PROFESSIONAL AND CANDID WITH THE COURT. AND CANDID WITH THE COURT. THE TWEET THAT I SAW THAT I THE TWEET THAT I SAW THAT I SUSPECT WE ALL KNOW THE TWEET SUSPECT WE ALL KNOW THE TWEET I’M REFERRING TO CAUSED TO THINK I’M REFERRING TO CAUSED TO THINK I HAVEN’T GONE FAR ENOUGH ON I HAVEN’T GONE FAR ENOUGH ON WHERE THINGS STAND. WHERE THINGS STAND. WE HAVE A COURT REPORTER AND I’M WE HAVE A COURT REPORTER AND I’M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION TO MR. GARDNER. TO MR. GARDNER. IS THE GOING GOING TO CONTINUE IS THE GOING GOING TO CONTINUE EFFORTS TO PLACE A CITIZENSHIP EFFORTS TO PLACE A CITIZENSHIP ON THE 2020 CENSUS. ON THE 2020 CENSUS. JOSH GARDNER, YOUR HONOR, THIS JOSH GARDNER, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MR. GARDNER. IS MR. GARDNER. I WANT TO BACK UP A STEP AND SAY I WANT TO BACK UP A STEP AND SAY I HAVE BEEN WITH THE UNITED I HAVE BEEN WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR 16 YEARS THROUGH MULTIPLE 16 YEARS THROUGH MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS AND I HAVE ADMINISTRATIONS AND I HAVE ALWAYS ENDEAVORED TO BE AS ALWAYS ENDEAVORED TO BE AS CANDID AS POSSIBLE WITH THE CANDID AS POSSIBLE WITH THE COURT. COURT. THAT WAS MY BEST UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS. OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE PRESIDENT’S POSITION ON THIS THE PRESIDENT’S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE LIKE THE PLAINTIFFS — ISSUE LIKE THE PLAINTIFFS — EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE MY BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS. STATE OF AFFAIRS. I DO NOT HAVE A DEEPING I DO NOT HAVE A DEEPING UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT MEANS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT MEANS OTHER THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT OTHER THAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TWEETED. HAS TWEETED. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, I AM DOING AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, I AM DOING MY BEST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S MY BEST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON. GOING ON. I CAN TELL YOU I HAVE CONFIRMED I CAN TELL YOU I HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE CENSUS BUREAU IS THAT THE CENSUS BUREAU IS CONTINUING WITH THE PROCESS OF CONTINUING WITH THE PROCESS OF PRINTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE PRINTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITHOUT A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION WITHOUT A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION AND THAT PROCESS HAS NOT AND THAT PROCESS HAS NOT STOPPED. STOPPED. THE JUDGE SAID ALL RIGHT. THE JUDGE SAID ALL RIGHT. I WILL HEAR FROM PLAINTIFF’S I WILL HEAR FROM PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL. COUNSEL. THE LAWYER FOR THE PLAINTIFF THE LAWYER FOR THE PLAINTIFF SPEAKS. SPEAKS.>>YOUR HONOR, THIS UNDERSCORES>>YOUR HONOR, THIS UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR A STIPULATED ORDER THE NEED FOR A STIPULATED ORDER AS WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY AS WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY THAT MAKES CLEAR NOT ONLY THAT THAT MAKES CLEAR NOT ONLY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PRINTING THE THE GOVERNMENT IS PRINTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE 2020 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE 2020 CENSUS WITHOUT A CITIZENSHIP CENSUS WITHOUT A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION, BUT THAT THERE WILL BE QUESTION, BUT THAT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER EFFORT TO INQUIRE NO FURTHER EFFORT TO INQUIRE ABOUT CITIZENSHIP STATUS AS PART ABOUT CITIZENSHIP STATUS AS PART OF THE 2020 CENSUS IN ANY OF THE 2020 CENSUS IN ANY MANNER. MANNER. IT SUGGESTS THAT WE MAY NEED A IT SUGGESTS THAT WE MAY NEED A FURTHER PROVISION THAT MAKES FURTHER PROVISION THAT MAKES CAREER THAT THE DLFTS WON’T CAREER THAT THE DLFTS WON’T COMMUNICATE ANYTHING TO THE COMMUNICATE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, SUGGESTING THAT THE CONTRARY, SUGGESTING THAT THE 2020 CENSUS IS INQUIRING ABOUT 2020 CENSUS IS INQUIRING ABOUT CITIZENSHIP STATUS AND FURTHER CITIZENSHIP STATUS AND FURTHER THEY WILL COUNTER ANY SUCH THEY WILL COUNTER ANY SUCH MISINFORMATION THAT COMES FROM MISINFORMATION THAT COMES FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE MISINFORMATION FROM THE MISINFORMATION FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HERE AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HERE AS DESCRIBED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S DESCRIBED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S LAWYER WOULD BE MISINFORMATION LAWYER WOULD BE MISINFORMATION FROM THE PRESIDENT. FROM THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT SAYING WE ARE THE PRESIDENT SAYING WE ARE PUTTING THAT ON THE CENSUS EVEN PUTTING THAT ON THE CENSUS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT AND THEY THOUGH THEY ARE NOT AND THEY MAINTAINED TO THE COURT THEY ARE MAINTAINED TO THE COURT THEY ARE NOT. NOT. SO AT THIS POINT THEY HAVE SORT SO AT THIS POINT THEY HAVE SORT OF A LONG BACK AND FORTH OF A LONG BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF’S LAWYERS AND THE PLAINTIFF’S LAWYERS AND THE JUDGE ABOUT WHETHER THE JUDGE JUDGE ABOUT WHETHER THE JUDGE CAN BLOCK THE PRESIDENT FROM CAN BLOCK THE PRESIDENT FROM PUBLICLY SAYING UNTRUE THINGS PUBLICLY SAYING UNTRUE THINGS ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS. DOING ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS. AT ONE POINT THE JUDGE SAID I AT ONE POINT THE JUDGE SAID I ASSUME THE PARTIES ARE NOT ASSUME THE PARTIES ARE NOT SUGGESTING I CAN ENJOIN THE SUGGESTING I CAN ENJOIN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM TWEETING THINGS? FROM TWEETING THINGS? YOUR HONOR, DON’T ASSUME YOUR HONOR, DON’T ASSUME ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. BUT THERE REMAIN THIS IS BASIC BUT THERE REMAIN THIS IS BASIC QUESTION THAT THE TRUMP QUESTION THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO DO A ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO DO A THING. THING. THEY LOST IN COURT. THEY LOST IN COURT. AS OF YESTERDAY, THEY CONCEDED AS OF YESTERDAY, THEY CONCEDED THAT THEY WOULD THEREFORE NO THAT THEY WOULD THEREFORE NO LONGER TRY TO DO THAT THING, BUT LONGER TRY TO DO THAT THING, BUT THEN THE PRESIDENT WENT ONLINE THEN THE PRESIDENT WENT ONLINE AND SAID I’M STILL GOING TO DO AND SAID I’M STILL GOING TO DO THAT THING. THAT THING. WHAT’S THE REMEDY FOR THAT? WHAT’S THE REMEDY FOR THAT? WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? QUEUE THE POOR GUY WHO WAS QUEUE THE POOR GUY WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON VACATION WHO SUPPOSED TO BE ON VACATION WHO SPENT 16 YEARS AT THE JUSTICE SPENT 16 YEARS AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND PERHAPS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT AND PERHAPS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THIS WAS STILL A IMPRESSION THIS WAS STILL A NORMAL GOVERNMENT AND THAT’S HOW NORMAL GOVERNMENT AND THAT’S HOW HE SHOULD BEHAVE. HE SHOULD BEHAVE. THIS IS JOSH GARDNER. THIS IS JOSH GARDNER. YOUR HONOR, TO BACK UP, THIS IS YOUR HONOR, TO BACK UP, THIS IS A VERY FLUID SITUATION WHICH WE A VERY FLUID SITUATION WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUR ARMS ARE TRYING TO GET OUR ARMS AROUND AND OBVIOUSLY ONCE WE GET AROUND AND OBVIOUSLY ONCE WE GET MORE INFORMATION WE WILL MORE INFORMATION WE WILL COMMUNICATE THAT IMMEDIATELY TO COMMUNICATE THAT IMMEDIATELY TO THE COURT AND THE PARTIES. THE COURT AND THE PARTIES. I WANT TO ADDRESS A PRELIMINARY I WANT TO ADDRESS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE AND THAT IS THAT THE ISSUE AND THAT IS THAT THE CURRENT STATUS QUO IS THAT CURRENT STATUS QUO IS THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE FULLY PROTECTED, PLAINTIFFS ARE FULLY PROTECTED, MEANING THE NEW QUESTION IS NOT MEANING THE NEW QUESTION IS NOT GOING TO BE TACKED ON TO THE GOING TO BE TACKED ON TO THE CENSUS AS FAR AS HE KNOWS, CENSUS AS FAR AS HE KNOWS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID ON TWITTER TODAY. SAID ON TWITTER TODAY. I RECOGNIZE THIS IS A FLUID I RECOGNIZE THIS IS A FLUID SITUATION AND PERHAPS THAT MIGHT SITUATION AND PERHAPS THAT MIGHT CHANGE, BUT WE ARE JUST NOT CHANGE, BUT WE ARE JUST NOT THERE YET AND I CAN’T POSSIBLY THERE YET AND I CAN’T POSSIBLY PREDICT AT THIS JUNCTURE WHAT PREDICT AT THIS JUNCTURE WHAT POSSIBLY IS GOING TO HAPPEN. POSSIBLY IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AS OF NOW THE BASIS FOR THE AS OF NOW THE BASIS FOR THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION IS FIRMLY CITIZENSHIP QUESTION IS FIRMLY ENJOINED, VACATE AND DOES NOT ENJOINED, VACATE AND DOES NOT EXIST. EXIST. I THINK THE CURRENT FLUIDITY OF I THINK THE CURRENT FLUIDITY OF THE STATE OF PLAY SUGGESTS THE THE STATE OF PLAY SUGGESTS THE STATUS QUO IS — WE NEED TO SEE STATUS QUO IS — WE NEED TO SEE HOW THESE THINGS DEVELOP. HOW THESE THINGS DEVELOP. AT THAT JUNCTURE, YOUR HONOR, IF AT THAT JUNCTURE, YOUR HONOR, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I CAN TURN IT OVER TO THE CAN TURN IT OVER TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR. HUNT. MR. HUNT. NOW WE GET TO FIND OUT WHY JODY NOW WE GET TO FIND OUT WHY JODY HUNT IS THERE. HUNT IS THERE. WHY JEFF SESSIONS’S OLD CHIEF OF WHY JEFF SESSIONS’S OLD CHIEF OF STAFF HAS ALSO INSERTED HIMSELF STAFF HAS ALSO INSERTED HIMSELF INTO THIS CASE. INTO THIS CASE. MR. HUNT, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS MR. HUNT, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS JOSEPH HUNT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY JOSEPH HUNT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. GENERAL. WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE IS A PATH EXAMINE WHETHER THERE IS A PATH FORWARD CONSISTENT WITH THE FORWARD CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION THAT SUPREME COURT’S DECISION THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO INCLUDE THE WOULD ALLOW US TO INCLUDE THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION. CITIZENSHIP QUESTION. WE THINK THERE MAY BE A LEGALLY WE THINK THERE MAY BE A LEGALLY AVAILABLE PATH UNDER THE AVAILABLE PATH UNDER THE DECISION. DECISION. WE ARE LOOKING AT NEAR TERM WE ARE LOOKING AT NEAR TERM OPTIONS TO SEE WHETHER THAT IS OPTIONS TO SEE WHETHER THAT IS VIABLE AND POSSIBLE. VIABLE AND POSSIBLE. VIABLE AND POSSIBLE. VIABLE AND POSSIBLE. BOTH KINDS. BOTH KINDS. WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO. WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO. PRESUMABLY FROM THE PRESIDENT’S PRESUMABLY FROM THE PRESIDENT’S TWITTER FEED. TWITTER FEED. WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO NOT WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO NOT DO WHAT WE TOLD THE COURT WHAT DO WHAT WE TOLD THE COURT WHAT WE WOULD DO YESTERDAY AND WE WE WOULD DO YESTERDAY AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS WE SHOULD DO, BUT HERE I AM TELLING SHOULD DO, BUT HERE I AM TELLING YOU WHAT DONALD TRUMP’S TWITTER YOU WHAT DONALD TRUMP’S TWITTER FEED TOLD ME TO DO REGARDLESS OF FEED TOLD ME TO DO REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE JUSTICE WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT MEANS FOR REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE LAWYERS, INCLUDING THE THE LAWYERS, INCLUDING THE CAREER LAWYERS WHOSE REPUTATIONS CAREER LAWYERS WHOSE REPUTATIONS IN FEDERAL COURT DEPEND IN PART IN FEDERAL COURT DEPEND IN PART ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN BELIEVE THEM WHEN THEY SAY BELIEVE THEM WHEN THEY SAY THINGS. THINGS. HERE’S HOW THE JUDGE DECIDES TO HERE’S HOW THE JUDGE DECIDES TO END THIS. END THIS. JUST BRUTAL. JUST BRUTAL. THE JUDGE SAID OKAY. THE JUDGE SAID OKAY. HERE’S WHERE WE ARE. HERE’S WHERE WE ARE. IF EITHER SIDE HAS A DIFFERENT IF EITHER SIDE HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW, I WILL HEAR THAT. VIEW, I WILL HEAR THAT. BUT HERE’S WHERE WE ARE. BUT HERE’S WHERE WE ARE. BY FRIDAY AT 2:00 P.M., I EITHER BY FRIDAY AT 2:00 P.M., I EITHER WANT A STIPULATION AS WE HAVE WANT A STIPULATION AS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING INDICATING THAT BEEN DISCUSSING INDICATING THAT THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION WILL THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE CENSUS OR A NOT APPEAR ON THE CENSUS OR A PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER ON HOW PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER ON HOW WE WILL GO FORWARD ON THE CLAIM WE WILL GO FORWARD ON THE CLAIM REMANDED TO THIS COURT. REMANDED TO THIS COURT. I WANT ONE OF THOSE TWO THINGS I WANT ONE OF THOSE TWO THINGS BY 2:00 ON FRIDAY. BY 2:00 ON FRIDAY. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS?>>THIS IS MR. GARDNER.>>THIS IS MR. GARDNER. THE ONE THING I REQUEST IS GIVEN THE ONE THING I REQUEST IS GIVEN THAT TOMORROW IS THE FOURTH OF THAT TOMORROW IS THE FOURTH OF JULY AND THE DIFFICULTY IN JULY AND THE DIFFICULTY IN ASSEMBLING PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER ASSEMBLING PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE PLACE, IS IT POSSIBLE WE CAN THE PLACE, IS IT POSSIBLE WE CAN DO THIS ON MONDAY? DO THIS ON MONDAY? THE JUDGE, NO. THE JUDGE, NO. MR. SGARDNER AND AGAIN — OH, MR. SGARDNER AND AGAIN — OH, OKAY. OKAY. THE JUDGE, NO. THE JUDGE, NO. TIMING IS AN ISSUE. TIMING IS AN ISSUE. TIMING IS AN ISSUE AND WE LOST TIMING IS AN ISSUE AND WE LOST AT WEEK AT THIS POINT. AT WEEK AT THIS POINT. THIS IS NOT ANYTHING AGAINST THIS IS NOT ANYTHING AGAINST ANYBODY ON THIS CALL. ANYBODY ON THIS CALL. I HAVE BEEN TOLD DIFFERENT I HAVE BEEN TOLD DIFFERENT THINGS AND IT’S BECOMING THINGS AND IT’S BECOMING INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATING. INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATING. IF YOU WERE FACEBOOK AND AN IF YOU WERE FACEBOOK AND AN ATTORNEY FOR FACEBOOK TOLD ME ATTORNEY FOR FACEBOOK TOLD ME ONE THING AND I READ A PRESS ONE THING AND I READ A PRESS RELEASE FROM MARK ZUCKERBERG RELEASE FROM MARK ZUCKERBERG TELLING ME SOMETHING ELSE, I TELLING ME SOMETHING ELSE, I WOULD BE DEMANDING MARK WOULD BE DEMANDING MARK ZUCKERBERG APPEAR IN COURT WITH ZUCKERBERG APPEAR IN COURT WITH YOU THE NEXT TIME. YOU THE NEXT TIME. I WOULD BE SAYING I DON’T THINK I WOULD BE SAYING I DON’T THINK YOU SPEAK FOR YOUR CLIENT YOU SPEAK FOR YOUR CLIENT ANYMORE. ANYMORE. I THINK I’M BEING REALLY I THINK I’M BEING REALLY REASONABLE HERE AND JUST SAYING REASONABLE HERE AND JUST SAYING I NEED A FINAL ANSWER BY FRIDAY I NEED A FINAL ANSWER BY FRIDAY AT 2:00 P.M. OR WE ARE GOING AT 2:00 P.M. OR WE ARE GOING FORWARD. FORWARD. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. OH, THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. OH, THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. DOES THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DOES THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPEAK FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? SPEAK FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? WHO IS THE CLIENT? WHO IS THE CLIENT? DOES YOUR CLIENT KNOW THAT YOU DOES YOUR CLIENT KNOW THAT YOU SPEAK FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? SPEAK FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT? OR DO YOU NOT? OR DO YOU NOT? THIS IS A BUNCH OF THINGS, ALL THIS IS A BUNCH OF THINGS, ALL OF WHICH ARE ASTONISHING. OF WHICH ARE ASTONISHING. AT BASE LEVEL, THIS IS THE TRUMP AT BASE LEVEL, THIS IS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO CHANGE ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO CHANGE THE CENSUS TO SYSTEMATICALLY THE CENSUS TO SYSTEMATICALLY UNDER COUNT LATINOS AND UNDER COUNT LATINOS AND DEMOCRATS. DEMOCRATS. A. A. IT’S THEM BEING BLOCKED FROM IT’S THEM BEING BLOCKED FROM DOING THAT BY THE COURTS. DOING THAT BY THE COURTS. IT’S THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS IT’S THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS CONCEDING THEY HAVE BEEN BLOCKED CONCEDING THEY HAVE BEEN BLOCKED FROM DOING THAT AND THEN THE FROM DOING THAT AND THEN THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAYING TO DO PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAYING TO DO IT ANYWAY BECAUSE HE SAID SO. IT ANYWAY BECAUSE HE SAID SO. IT’S THE TRUMP APPOINTEE WHO IT’S THE TRUMP APPOINTEE WHO RUNS THAT PART OF THE JUSTICE RUNS THAT PART OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS LITERALLY DEPARTMENT WHO IS LITERALLY HIMSELF PERSONALLY AN IMPORTANT HIMSELF PERSONALLY AN IMPORTANT FACT WITNESS TO THE PRESIDENT’S FACT WITNESS TO THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THREATENING THE LAST ATTORNEY THREATENING THE LAST ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ORDERING HIM TO DO GENERAL AND ORDERING HIM TO DO THINGS HE COULD NOT DO. THINGS HE COULD NOT DO. IT’S THAT FACT WITNESS, THAT GUY IT’S THAT FACT WITNESS, THAT GUY IS NOW IN POWER HIMSELF WITH THE IS NOW IN POWER HIMSELF WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS JUMPING INTO THIS CASE SAYING JUMPING INTO THIS CASE SAYING YES, SIR, I AM HERE FOR YOU, YES, SIR, I AM HERE FOR YOU, SIR. SIR. I AM JUMPING IN WITH BOTH FEET I AM JUMPING IN WITH BOTH FEET AND WILL TELL THE COURT TO AND WILL TELL THE COURT TO FORGET EVERYTHING AND INSTEAD OF FORGET EVERYTHING AND INSTEAD OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS GONE BEFORE EVERYTHING THAT HAS GONE BEFORE US IN THIS CASE, THE PRESIDENT US IN THIS CASE, THE PRESIDENT HAS TWEETED AND — I KNOW WHAT HAS TWEETED AND — I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON’T OBEY THE HAPPENS IF I DON’T OBEY THE TWEET. TWEET. I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN. I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN. FORGET EVERYTHING. FORGET EVERYTHING. THE HAS TWEETED. THE HAS TWEETED. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING WITH. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING WITH. I MEAN, A POLICY DISPUTE IS NOT I MEAN, A POLICY DISPUTE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. A BAD ACTOR HOLDING PUBLIC A BAD ACTOR HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. CRISIS. A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WOULD BE LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A PRESIDENT LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A PRESIDENT CHOOSING TO DEFY A LAWFUL COURT CHOOSING TO DEFY A LAWFUL COURT ORDER. ORDER. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE EDGING AT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE EDGING AT HERE. HERE. ALL THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALL THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT AND HOW ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT AND HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS ORDERING THE THE PRESIDENT WAS ORDERING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO THINGS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO THINGS TO SERVE HIS OWN INTEREST AND TO SERVE HIS OWN INTEREST AND THEY WERE MODERATELY RESISTING THEY WERE MODERATELY RESISTING TO THE EXTENT THEY COULD. TO THE EXTENT THEY COULD. ALL THAT WAS IS POTENTIAL ALL THAT WAS IS POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. ALL OF THAT IS TO DECIDE WHETHER ALL OF THAT IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THOSE THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THOSE CRIMES AND TO SEE THE TYPE OF CRIMES AND TO SEE THE TYPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRESSURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESSURE THE PRESIDENT WAS USING TO TRY TO PRESIDENT WAS USING TO TRY TO PULL APART THE THREADS THAT MAKE PULL APART THE THREADS THAT MAKE US THE COUNTRY THAT WE ARE. US THE COUNTRY THAT WE ARE. THE PRESIDENT DEFYIES A LAWFUL THE PRESIDENT DEFYIES A LAWFUL COURT ORDER AND INFORMS THE COURT ORDER AND INFORMS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO. THAT’S NO LONGER DISPUTE. THAT’S NO LONGER DISPUTE. THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS TERRITORY. TERRITORY. YOU CAN COUNT ON PEOPLE AT THE YOU CAN COUNT ON PEOPLE AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO BE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO STOP IT FROM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *