>> A CONTENTIOUS AND -CONSEQUENTIAL- TERM AT THE SUPREME COURT, WITH MORE TO COME.

AND WHEN DOES POLITICAL SPEECH BECOME ACTUAL INCITEMENT?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY NINA MOORE, FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY; TARA ROSS FROM ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, RICK FENNER FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY AND MICHAEL TILLOTSON FROM SUNY CORTLAND.

THE SUPREME COURT TERM JUST WINDING UP HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL IN RECENT MEMORY, JAMMED PACKED WITH CASES THAT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON AMERICANS FOR YEARS TO COME.

IN THE DECISION THAT HAS GOTTEN THE MOST ATTENTION, THE COURT OVERTURNED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION.

THAT DECISION RELEASED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EMOTION-JOY, ANGER AND FEAR.

HOW DOES THE PANEL VIEW THE DECISION AND THE REASONING BEHIND IT?

>> THAT QUESTION HAS A LOT OF LAYERS TO IT.

I WOULD SAY AFTER THE SMOKE CLEARS WITH ROE V. WADE AND ALL OF THE EMOTION AND THE OPINION AND HYPOTHETICAL CONJECTURE AND EVERYTHING ASIDE, ROE V. WADE WAS CONTINUED SETTLED LAW EXCEPT THIS COURT APPEARS TO NOT CARE ABOUT PRECEDENT OR ANYTHING.

SO THIS COURT, ARGUES THIS HAS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.

THAT WILL HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF AMERICANS BECAUSE THERE ARE A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF AMERICANS THAT WANT TO KNOW WHY PRESIDENT CLINTON DIDN'T PRIORITIZE ROE V. WADE AND WHY OBAMA DIDN'T PRIORITIZE ROE V. WADE.

>> WHEN YOU SAY PRIORITIZE, WHY DIDN'T THEY PUSH TO HAVE A LAW THAT WOULD CODIFY... >> WHEN THEY HAD SUPER MAJORITY TO BE SPECIFIC AND WHY AS OF 72 HOURS AGO, WHY JOE BIDEN WANTS TO PRIORITIZE ROE V. WADE.

THE LEFT HAS A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO THIS NOVEMBER.

>> TALKING ABOUT DECISIONS, NINA, A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID WELL, THE COURT HAS DONE THIS BEFORE.

WE OVERTURNED BROWN OVERTURNED PLESSY VERSUS IF FOR EXAMPLAR SOB.

THAT'S NOT THE SAME.

>> ONLY IF YOU LOOK AT IT AT THE SURFACE AND NOTE THE FACT THAT A PRECEDENT WAS OVERTURNED BUT IN THE CASE OF BROWN OVERTURNING PLESSY, PLESSY WAS AN 1896, BROWN WAS 1954 BUT BETWEEN THOSE TWO DECISIONS, THE COURT GRADUALLY INCREMENTALLY WORKED ITS WAY UP TO BROWN.

A COUPLE OF DECISIONS IN THE 1930S, ONE IN THE 1940S AND THEN TOO IN 1950, SO IT DIDN'T, AS IT HAS DONE IN THIS CASE, JUST SORT OF BRING DOWN THE WHOLE HOUSE IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

>> OKAY, AND TARA, WHAT WAS YOUR REASONING FOR THE DECISION?

>> WELL, IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THE WHOLE IDEA OF UNINNUMERATED RATES COMES FROM ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OR TITLE IX AND BASICALLY IT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE RIGHTS THAT EXIST THAT COME FROM NATURAL LAW AND IT WAS THE SUPREME COURT IN A SENSE RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WAS NO WAY THAT YOU COULD PUT EVERY RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SO YES, WE HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS.

BUT THEY ALSO WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WERE THESE RIGHTS THAT, AS HUMAN BEINGS, WE, IN A SENSE, ARE BORN WITH AND OVER THE YEARS THE COURT HAD DECIDED THAT PRIVACY WAS ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS.

THEY ALSO TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF THAT PRIVACY RIGHT FROM THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURE BECAUSE BASICALLY THAT'S YOUR BODY, THAT'S YOUR PRIVACY.

SO IN A SENSE, AND OF COURSE YOUR HOME IS CONNECTED WITH THAT.

AND SO IN A SENSE, THE COURT HERE IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THOSE UNINNUMERATED RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST UNLESS THEY ARE ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OR AT LEAST INFERRED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

>> REFERRED IS THE QUESTION.

>> I WANT TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE AS THE AN ENUMERATED RIGHT IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AS YOU SAID, THE COURT CREATED IN A 1965 DECISION.

SO I WENT INTO READING THE DOBBS DECISIONS THINKING THEY WOULD OVERTURN THAT, THAT THEY WOULD DISMANTLE IT.

IN FACT, ALL THEY DID WAS SORT OF SAY THAT IT IS CONTROVERSIAL.

WHAT I FOUND MORE PROBLEMATIC IS NOT SO MUCH THAT IT CHIPPED AWAY, WHICH IT DIDN'T, AT THIS IDEA OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS BUT GROUNDED THIS DECISION ON THE IDEA THAT ABORTION DOESN'T HAVE A LONG HISTORY; THAT IT'S NOT PART OF THE DEEP HISTORY AND TRADITIONS WITHIN AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY.

NEITHER IS MY RIGHT AS AN AIRLINE PASSENGER OR THE OTHER RIGHTS FOLDED UNDER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, THE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION, THE RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELATIONS, THE RIGHT TO INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, ALTHOUGH THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE.

AND SO I WAS THINKING THAT'S NOT THE SORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH BECAUSE MOST FOLKS WHO GAINED RIGHTS IN THE 1960s DIDN'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

SO FOR THE COURT TO SAY THAT'S THE REASON, THIS IS WORSE THAN TEARING DOWN THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

>> JUSTICE ITO SAID THIS IS THE ONLY FOR THIS CASE.

YOU ARE NOT BUYING THAT?

>> AS MICHAEL SAID COURTS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR BEING ACTIVISTS.

I THINK CLEARLY IN SAYING THAT THE WE ARE NOT GOING TO RESPECT PRECEDENTINGS MAKING THIS ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVIST COURTS.

AND AS NINA SAID, CLARENCE THOMAS SAID THIS WAS NOT THE ONLY WRONG DECISION WE MADE.

WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK.

IS THERE A RIGHT FOR CONTRACEPTION, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ALL AND I THINK WE ARE REALLY GOING DOWN A PATH IS THAT IS GOING TO LEAD TO A LOT OF INSTABILITY WHICH IS THE MAIN REASON I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE SO MUCH WEIGHT TO SETTLED LAW BECAUSE THAT LED TO THE STABILITY, INCREMENTAL CHANGE WHICH SOMETIMES WAS HARD TO TAKE BUT WE ARE SEEING A QUICK OVERTURNING.

>> THEY'RE SAYING THE COURT AND THE MAJORITY THAT THEY RECOGNIZED SETTLED LAW BUT IN THIS CASE IT WAS AN EGREGIOUS DECISION, THE '73 DECISION WAS AN EGREGIOUS DECISION WHICH JUSTIFIES OVERTURNING IT?

>> THEY ESSENTIALLY SAID THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR IT; THAT THEY FOUND IT DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC.

ROBERTS ACTUALLY DID, AS WELL.

BUT SOME OF US WHO LOOKED AT IT KNOW THAT ROBERTS SAID, WEM, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TOO FAR.

I'M OKAY WITH SAYING THE WHOLE VIABILITY AND TRIMESTER FRAMEWORK DOESN'T WORK BUT I THINK YOU ARE SAYING MORE THAN YOU NEED TO AND ONE OTHER QUICK POINT, DAVE.

FOR ME, WHAT REALLY SORT OF MADE ME SHUDDER WHEN I READ THE DECISION IS THAT THEY FELT ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO RETURN THIS TO THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

AND TO ME, THAT FLIES INTO THE FACE OF THE SUPREME COURT INTENTIONALLY BEING DESIGNED TO BE A COUNTER MAJORITARIIAN INSTITUTION.

THAT THE VICISSITUDES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND ALL OF THAT NOW-- THIS DECISION IS TROUBLING FAR BEYOND ABORTION.

>> LET ME JUST...

THE HAVE I SIT SUEDES-- ADVICE-- THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

MOST PEOPLE ARE IN THE MIDDLE ON ABORTION.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT PERHAPS WE ARE SIGHING LEGISLATORS WANT TO BAN IT, OTHERS WANT TO CODIFY.

THERE IS ANY PATH HERE FORWARD WHERE MAYBE THERE CAN BE A COMPROMISE LEGISLATIVE DECISION THAT MAYBE IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHERE ROBERTS WAS GOING?

>> I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY FOR THIS DECISION TO BE CHECKED.

IT'S FOR CONGRESS AND/OR CERTAIN STATES TO ACT AND THAT IS WHAT THE JUSTICES HAVE SORT OF SAID.

WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU HANDLE IT ON YOUR OWN.

AGAIN, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT?

ALEXANDER HAMILTON IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 78 SAID THE COURT IS GOING TO PRESERVE CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THOSE RIGHTS AREN'T SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF OTHERS.

THIS COURT HAS SAID WELL, WE ARE GOING TO WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN.

>> THIS CASE, OF COURSE, THE DOBBS CASE WAS ONE OF MANY CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS HANDED DOWN IN JUST THIS PAST WEEK.

DECISIONS ON ABORTION AND GUNS THAT POLLS SHOW MOST PEOPLE OPPOSE.

PEOPLE ARE UPSET WITH THAT.

THEY'RE UPSET WITH THE POLITICS THAT KEPT MAYOR OFF THE COURT AND PUT AMY BARRETT ON THE COURT AND THE BELIEF THAT JUSTICES ARE PARTISAN.

SO WITH ALL OF THIS TOGETHER, IS THERE A SENSE THAT THE COURT IS LOSING ITS LEGITIMACY?

>> WELL, IF IT IS LOSING ITS LEGITIMACY AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS, IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE COURT IS PARTISAN OR POLITICAL.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IF WE GO BACK TO EVEN THE 1800S, THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH THAT SHOW THAT JUDGES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN POLITICAL.

THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PARTISAN AND SOME OF THESE STUDIES ARE VERY METHODICAL IN THAT THEY LOOK AT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DECISIONS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT PART OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS NEW.

WHAT I DO FIND NEW HERE IS THAT WHERE AS IN PAST CASES WHERE THE COURT HAS BEEN VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND SORT OF MOVED ON ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE, TAKE DRED SCOTT IN 1857, WHICH BOLSTERED SLAVERY.

TAKE THE 1930s NEW DEAL DECISION QHZ BOLSTERED THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THAT WHOLE THING AND THEN EVEN IN THE 1940S, THE JAPANESE INTERNMENT CASE.

ALL OF THOSE WERE POLITICAL, ALL OF THOSE WERE COMPTROLLER BUT ALL OF THOSE WERE LIMITED TO A PARTICULAR POLICY FEAR.

HERE YOU HAVE THE COURT TAKING A WRECKING BALL ACROSS THE BOARD, GUNS, E.P.A.

AUTHORITY, ABORTION RIGHTS AND EVEN WHETHER FOLKS CAN SUE THE POLICE AND SO CAN I SAY SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE CYNICAL HERE?

SOME FOLKS ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS PERSONAL.

AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS.

THE JUSTICES RESEARCH SHOW THEY CALCULATE HOW FAR CAN WE GO?

AND CAN CONGRESS ACT?

THESE JUSTICES KNOW THAT CONGRESS IS PARALYZED BECAUSE OF PARTISAN POLARIZATION AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

>> I LOOKED AT THE POLLS THAT CAME OUT AND AS YOU SAID, THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS THAT HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TRUST IN THE SUPREME COURT IS DOWN TO 25% FROM 36% IN 2021 AND IT'S NO SURPRISE THAT DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS ARE GIVING THEM LOW MARKS HERE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF THE PACKING OF THE COURT AND ALL.

BUT WHAT IS SURPRISING TO ME IS THAT THE REPUBLICAN NUMBERS HAVEN'T BEEN RISING.

YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE ECSTATIC ABOUT THE COURT.

AND THEY HAVEN'T.

ONLY 39% HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TRUST IN THEM.

AND I THINK PART OF THIS MAY COME DOWN TO THIS ALL OR NOTHING LOYALTY THAT TRUMP IS DEMANDING.

THAT YOU CAN DO 100 THINGS FOR ME AND THEN YOU CROSS ME ONCE AND YOU ARE DEAD TO ME.

AND I THINK THAT MANY REPUBLICANS ARE VERY DISTRUSTFUL OF ANY KIND OF COMPROMISE.

THEY'RE DISTRUSTFUL OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.

YOU KNOW, THEY WERE VERY UPSET THAT THE ENTIRE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WASN'T STRUCK DOWN.

SO I THINK WE ARE GETTING TO A POINT WHERE EVEN BASIC COMPROMISES ARE NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO US.

>> IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT ROE, WE TALKED ABOUT SENDING IT BACK TO THE LPGHTIVE PROCESS.

AND I WONDER, ISN'T THE COURT NOT FOLLOWING PUBLIC OPINION A VIRTUE IN A SENSE?

THE COURT SAYS THIS IS THE LAW.

EVEN IF EVERYBODY DOESN'T LIKE IT, IF THAT'S WHAT THE LAW IS, THAT'S-- WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS, THAT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS.

ISN'T THAT A SIGN OF VIRTUE AND LEGITIMACY?

>> IT COULD BE BUT NOT IN THE CURRENT ATMOSPHERE THAT WE ARE IN.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATURES, AT THE GOVERNORSHIPS, BASICALLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IS THE CONSERVATIVES, REPUBLICANS OR BOTH, IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT THAT WAY, HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY ASSIDUOUSLY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO WOULD THINK THE WAY A CERTAIN WAY HAVE BEEN WINNING ELECTIONS.

THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TWO DECADES.

VERY SPECIFICALLY SO THAT IF YOU COULDN'T ASSUME THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD DECIDE YOUR WAY, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE STATE LEGISLATURES, GOVERNOR, WHO WOULD VOTE FOR WAY AND YOU WOULD ACHIEVE THE SAME END.

SO WHEN THE SUPREME COURT SAYS WE ARE SENDING IT BACK TO THE STATES, THEY ARE SAYING THAT KNOWING GOOD AND WELL ALREADY SET UP IN THE STATES ARE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNORS, CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS WHO ARE GOING TO VOTE THE WAY THAT THEY WANT THEM TO.

>> AND THERE IS NOTHING HAVE ITER YUTION-- VIRTUOUS ABOUT THIS.

I'M SORRY, MICHAEL GO AHEAD.

>> I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THERE IS AN UNDUE BURDEN PUT ON THE SUPREME COURT.

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT MADE OF RUBBER PLASTIC AND STEEL.

THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS THAT COME FROM A SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL.

PRODUCT IS OF OUR EXPERIENCES, EXPOSURES, DETERMINATIVE IN A TIME DETERMINE OUR BEHAVIOR AND WORLD VIEW.

ALL OF THEM BRING BAGGAGE TO THE COURT.

ALL OF THEM ARE PARTISAN TO SOME DEGREE, RIGHT?

IT'S JUST WITH THE 6 HFER 3 COP FIGURATION, WE THINK ABOUT IT MORE BUT WE HAVE ALWAYS PUT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON-- WAS IT IN 1857 IN THE DRED SCOTT DECISION WHEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID BLACK AMERICANS HAVE NO RIGHTS THAT ANY WHITE MAN WOULD RESPECT.

WAS IT LEGITIMATE IN 1876 THAT INDOCTRINATED RACIAL SEGREGATION IN AMERICA.

IF YOU TALK TO BLACK AMERICANS IN THE EARLY 90s, MID 90s, SOME OF THEM SEE THE SUPREME COURT THE SAME WAY THEY SEE THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM SO FOR SOME BLACK AMERICANS, THE COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY.

>> WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THAT RIGHT THERE.

I WASN'T PLANNING TO DISCUSS JANUARY 6TH ON THE SHOW THIS WEEK, AND THEN CASSIDY HUTCHINSON DIRECTLY IMPLICATED FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE VIOLENCE OF THAT DAY.

SHE TOLD THE COMMITTEE THAT TRUMP KNEW SOME OF THE CROWD HAD WEAPONS WHEN HE TOLD THEM TO MARCH TO THE CAPITAL AND FIGHT LIKE HELL.

HISTORIAN MICHAEL BESCHLOSS SAID NEVER IN OUR HISTORY HAVE WE HEARD CREDIBLE TESTIMONY THIS SHOCKING AGAINST A PRESIDENT.

DOES THIS TAKE HIS ACTIONS BEYOND DEFENSIBLE POLITICAL SPEECH TO ACTUAL INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE?

>> WELL, LAST WEEK ON THE SHOW I SPOKE FORCIBLY ABOUT WHY I THOUGHT TRUMP SHOULD BE INDICTED.

AND CERTAINLY THE EVENTS OF THIS WEEK ONLY REINFORCE THAT.

I THINK THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL AS EVIDENCED BY THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO THINK THEY'RE INFAIRLY AND MINDS ARE BEING CHANGED AND I THINK THE REASON FOR THIS IS THE VOICES AND THE FACES THAT WE ARE SEEING ARE NOT OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES MAKING LONG WINDED SPEECHES, BUT THEY'RE BY REPUBLICANS, THOSE THAT WERE WORKING FOR AND WITH DONALD TRUMP.

AND I THINK THAT A TRIAL WILL EVEN GO FURTHER.

I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR AMERICANS TO SEE MANY INDIVIDUALS TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

IT'S VERY EASY TO LIE OR SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT IF YOU ARE BEING INTERVIEWED ON CABLE NEWS.

BUT AS WE SAW WITH RUDY GIULIANI WHEN HE WOULD GO MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT THE ELECTION BEING STOLEN AND THEN HAVE TO GO INTO A COURT AND WHEN THE JUDGE ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANY EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING, BECAME SILENT.

SO I THINK MOVING AHEAD HERE WITH A TRIAL, WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO GETTING US THROUGH THIS ISSUE.

>> MICHAEL, CASSIDY HUTCH INSON'S ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT WAYS.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT WILL BE, DO YOU THINK DISCOUNTED ENTIRELY ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT RICK IS SAYING AREN'T GOING TO BE CONVINCED ANYWAY?

>> I THINK ANYTHING THAT ANYONE SAYS ON JANUARY 6 ABOUT CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DISCOUNTED.

I THINK FEW PEOPLE FIND THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT SHOCKINGLY.

DANEA PIECE FINDS HIM TO BE A PETULANT CHILD AT TIMES.

HER STATEMENT FORCE FORCED OUT WHAT ALL AMERICANS ARE FINDING OUT THAT THROUGH THE TESTIMONY WHICH LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE THAT TRUMP HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH VIOLENCE AS LONG AS IT SERVES HIS INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND THE QUESTION OF VIOLENCE CAN BE A PROBLEM FOR HIM AND PARTICULARLY HIS AIDES DOWN THE ROAD.

THIS NOTION OF VIOLENCE AND DID HE SUPPORT IT.

>> NINA.

>> I'M NOT THOROUGHLY CONVINCED THAT HUTCHINSON HAS THE GOODS BECAUSE WHAT SHE IS OFFERING IS HEARSAY.

I THINK THE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS WILL HAVE TO GO ON RECORD UNDER OATH AND EITHER CORROBORATE WHAT SHE SAID OR NOT.

FOR ME, THE BIGGER QUESTION IS WHETHER TRUMP SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

AND RICK I DISAGREE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I SEE IT IN TWO WAYS.

AS TO THE CRIMINAL LEGAL QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULD, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IF 874 PEOPLE CAN BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT HAPPENED, WHY NOT CHARGE THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THEM THERE, INCITED THEM BUT THEN THERE IS ALSO THE POLITICAL QUESTION.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PROSECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL FOR WHOM 74 MILLION AMERICAN VOTERS VOTED?

AND A GOOD NUMBER OF WHOM STILL SUPPORT HIM, KNOWING THAT GIVEN THE MAKEUP OF THE FEDERAL BENCH HE WILL LIKELY APPEAL AND WIN, WHAT IS TO BE GAINED BY THAT?

AND IT'S THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS THAT I WORRY ABOUT.

>> WELL, EVEN IF HE DIDN'T APPEAL AND WIN, TARA, ISN'T THAT TREMENDOUSLY DIVISIVE PROCESS?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY DIVIDE THE COUNTRY EVEN MORE AND IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT WE CAN BE MORE DIVIDED BUT IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY DIVIDE THE COUNTRY MORE.

AND FOR MANY PEOPLE, IT WOULD MAKE TRUMP EVEN MORE OF A MARTYR THAN HE IS AND THAT'S MY BIG SCERN IS THAT IF HE SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND NOT CONVICTED, THAT, IN ESSENCE, LITERALLY SETS HIM UP FOR 2024, DEPENDING ON THE TIMING OF THE TRIAL.

>> THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO ALLOW HIM TO GO ON AND SAY THAT HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG AND FOR HIS SUPPORTERS TO SAY THAT HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG AND NINA, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE FAITH IN SOME OF THE COURTS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE, STATE COURTS THAT STOOD UP TO HIM WHEN HE TRIED TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION AND I WOULD BE HOPEFUL EVEN IF IT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, THAT THERE WOULD BE A MAJORITY.

NOW THAT'S CERTAINLY A RISK.

BUT I THINK WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY OUT.

WE ARE GETTING CLOSER TO, AS I SAID, CRITICAL MASS OF AMERICANS, ABOUT TWO-THIRDS, THAT BELIEVE THAT HE DID SOMETHING WRONG.

>> I DON'T SEE THE SUPREME COURT GOING AGAINST TRUMP.

YOU MAY HAVE FAITH IN THE COURTS.

I DON'T HAVE FAITH IN THE PUBLIC AS OF YET.

AND THE FOLKS WHO VOTED FOR HIM.

I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE A BASKET OF DEPLORABLES BUT I AM SAYING THEY HAVE TO BE PERSUADED AND THAT'S WHERE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO FIGHT THIS BATTLE.

WIN THE PUBLIC, WIN THE ARGUMENT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BY SCREWING TRUMP.

>> PERHAPS THE WAY THEY DO THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, THE HEARINGS.

>> EXACTLY.

>> NOW IT'S A LITTLE UNDER THE RADAR BUT ONE OF THE THINGS SHE SAID WAS THAT, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THAT TRUMP TOOK PHONE CALLS WITH ROGER STONE AND I THINK MICHAEL FLYNN THE DAY BEFORE THE CAPITOL INCIDENT.

SO THAT SEEMS TO ME TO INDICATE WAS THERE SOME SORT OF PLANNING GOING ON.

THAT'S SIGNIFICANT AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH ABOUT THAT.

I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT ANYWAY.

>> I JUST WANTED TO-- WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS.

DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THE CASE.

THEY WILL DO THAT UNSUCCESSFULLY.

WHAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL ABOUT THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS IS THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN MAKING THE CASE AND WE NEED TO PUT PEOPLE UNDER OATH AND MANY OF THEM ARE NOT GOING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

BUT I THINK WOULD BE FORCED, IF THERE WAS A POLITICAL TRIAL.

>> AND I THINK MERRICK GARLAND APPRECIATES ONE THING.

IF THIS MAN IS PROSECUTED, AMERICA WILL NEVER BE THE SAME ON ANY LEVEL, IDEOLOGICAL WAR OR WAR WITH GUNS.

>> HE HAS A HEAVY BURDEN ON HIS SHOULDERS.

>> A MATURE THINKER.

>> WITH A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

>> WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE PERSON WALK OUT THERE AND GO TO OUR AS AND Fs.

BEGINNING WITH YOUR F NINA.

>> IT HAS BEEN OVER 130 DAYS SINCE NBA SUPER STAR SHARELLE BRINER HAS BEEN WRONGLY DETAINED BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

HER WIFE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WHICH CLAIMS TO BE TRYING TO GET HER RELEASE.

WHEN THE WIFE CALLED THE U.S. EMBASSY IN RUSSIA, 11 TIMES, TO BE PATCHED THROUGH, HER FIRST CALL WAS MISSED BECAUSE NO ONE WAS AT THE EMBASSY.

>> THAT'S AN F. >> TARA, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO GEORGETOWN LAW PROFESSOR JOSH HIFITZ WHO COMMENTED ON THE VANDALISM AND THREATS BASICALLY SAID WHEN THE MOB IS RIGHT, SOME BUT NOT ALL MORE AGGRESSIVE TACTICS ARE JUSTIFIED.

THIS TYPE OF STATEMENT IS ON PAR WITH THE CONSERVATIVE RHETORICS WHICH LED TO THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION.

>> GO ET CETERA TO THE QUESTION ABOUT INCITEMENT.

>> THIS IS A HOLDOVER FROM LAST WEEK, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI AND CURRENT CANDIDATE FOR THE SENATE FOR HIS DISGUSTING HUNTING RHINOS AD.

IN THE ADD AD HE ENTERS AN EMPTY HOUSE AND OPENS FIRE.

WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS HUNTING RHINOS, REPUBLICANS IN NAME ONLY, IN THE AD HE ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO ORDER THEIR OWN RHINO HUNTING PERMIT.

SINCE WHEN IS ENCOURAGING THE KILLING OF MODERATE REPUBLICANS METAPHORICALLY OR NOT ACCEPTABLE?

>> MY F TO PRESIDENT JIB WHO HAS STRUCK A DEAL WITH MITCH MCCONNELL WHICH ALLOWS GIVING P. WEDNESDAY THE LOUISVILLE.

AND WHAT SOURCES SAY IS EVIDENTLY PART OF A DEAL WITH McCOMTO NOT OBSTRUCT BIDEN'S FUTURE NOMINATIONS GOING FORWARD.

ONE OF THESE GUYS IS PLAYING CHECKERS AND THE OTHER ONE IS PLAYING CHESS.

>> TIME FORS As.

>> IN HONOR OF INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENCE DAY, I'M GIVING AN A TO THE LEGACY OF CRISPUS WHO ESCAPED FROM SLAVERY AND THE FIRST TO DIE IN THE BOSTON MASSACRE OF 1770, THE VENT THAT SET AMERICA ON ITS PATH TO AMERICA.

I SALUTE THOSE WHO SACRIFICE BID CHOICE OR FORCE FOR THE AMERICAN IDEAL.

>> WE HAVE TO MOVE QUICKLY.

TARA YORKS A.

>> TO THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA.

THE NATION HAS BEEN QUIETLY WORKING TO RECOGNIZE AND INCORPORATE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE CHEROKEE FREED MEN INTO THE NATION.

THEY'RE BEING INCLUDED IN THE CHEROKEE NATIONAL HISTORY MUSEUM AS WELL.

>> RICK.

>> FOURTH OF JULY FOR MOST OF US THE WEEKEND IS ABOUT PICNICS AND FIREWORKS DISPLAYS.

THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALSO REMEMBER WHAT THIS DAY IS REALLY ABOUT GIVEN OUR DIVISIONS.

>> MY A GO WILL LITTLE LEAGUE UMPIRES AFTER A LONG DAY WORK MAKE IT TO THE FEEL TO CALL EVENING GAMES THAT GO WELL PAST SUNDOWN.

KUDOS TO MY UNCLE ZEKE WHO WAS A LITTLE LEAGUE UMPIRE.

>> THEY DO A TREMENDOUS JOB.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO AT DRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.