Joining me now, Catherine Christian, former assistant District Attorney of
Manhattan,
now MSNBC legal analyst. Catherine,
good to see you. The question is,
do you agree with Senator Murphy that there is a
crisis on the court?
Well, I think there's confidence that is being eroded by
the public in the the court.
You always look to at least I as a lawyer
and even before I became a lawyer,
as a person of color,
you know, Brown V. Board of Education,
separate but equal someone who cares about
criminal defendants rights, Miranda V Arizona,
you have to advise someone with their right to have
an attorney.
We always look to the court as to having the
last word and the right word on decisions that affect
our life.
And then when you hear about,
you know, a judge and I'm,
I actually think judge, judge the situation on top of,
you know, receiving all the gifts,
you know, his spouse was part of a big supporter
of the stop the steal all of the January 6
cases.
What happened on that day?
So when you hear that,
that these conflicts and that the judiciary,
the, the Supreme Court judges basically abide by their own
rules and you can't remove them unless you're going to
impeach them.
And nothing so far, I think,
has been impeachable. Then people in the public,
you know, put their hands up and say,
this is this is our court.
So I don't know if it's a crisis,
but there certainly is an erosion of the confidence in
their decisions.
The president referred to upside down flags and said the
court's out of kilter,
that it's out of step.
How unusual is it for a president to openly criticize
the Supreme Court?
Well, you might remember President Obama did once at the
State of the Union. And I think that was
interesting. George Alito, who called out
in the middle of that,
I think he's never been back to a State of
the Union.
So it's unusual. But, you know,
one could argue that this was an appropriate
time to to criticize the court.
You know, you have separation of powers.
But if one of the branches of judge of of
government is sort of,
you know, going overboard, it's it's appropriate for another branch
to criticize them.
Let's get to Donald Trump's immunity claim because it is
arguably the most important decision the Supreme Court will make.
Do you or how do you interpret the delay releasing
that ruling?
I mean, is it fair to conclude that at least
some justices are somehow trying to help Trump?
Well, I think it's fair to conclude that it's not
going to be 90.
I hope I'm wrong. And it's 90 that says that
a president,
a former president, is not immune from criminal prosecution for
criminal acts that he or she does while we're president.
But it could just be,
you know, this, they know
that this is a hot potato,
that this is a very big decision.
And, you know, it's going to probably be one of
the last that they issue.
And it'll be interesting decision because what will the lineup
be and will it be
in the special counsel's favor?
And that means that President Trump is not immune from
prosecution.
So therefore, he goes back to the court and a
trial can happen.
That doesn't mean the trial is going to happen before
Election Day.
Or will it be the president is immune from
prosecution for some acts but not others.
And therefore the District Court judge has to decide which
ones they are.
And therefore that means there will be no trial
before Election Day. That's guaranteed.
So it's it's a very,
very, I don't need to say it's an understatement to
say it's a very important decision because determine,
you know, whether or not Donald Trump will ever be
put on trial for the
alleged acts of crimes that he committed.
But when you say you hope it's going to be
90, you may not expect it,
but you hope that. Do you hope that based on
opinion or on based on law and precedent?
Law and also the confidence.
It's very important when I'm going to go back to
Brown V.
Board of Education, when the public sees that all nine
justices are on the same page,
that separate is not equal.
It also be very important here that all nine justices
are on the same page.
That know a president can't order a hit on his
political opponent and have the Navy SEAL do that,
which that sort of came up in the the the
the Circuit Court
argument that they're all on the same page that yes,
there's obviously, you know, there should be immunity for civil
lawsuits and you just can't sue a president and stop
them for for any frivolous lawsuit.
But when a president commits actual crimes,
you know he should be.
She should be. If there we ever have one prosecuted
for those crimes,
it should not be. You don't get a get out
of jail free card because you've become president and then
you get to commit actual crimes.
Catherine Christian, it's always illuminating.
We got a wise to wait yet till we see
how this one gets ruled,
but we'll do so with your help.
Thank you so much.