← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Lawrence: Trump is living in abject terror about the Epstein files. His silence proves it.
00:36:07
Tonight on The Last Word: Donald Trump remains silent today on the Epstein files scandal. And Harvard University argues in court that Trump’s funding cuts are illegal. Rep. Daniel Goldman, Rep. Ro Khanna, and Laurence Tribe join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts for early access, ad free listening and bonus content to all of MSNBC's original podcasts, including the chart topping series the Best People with Nicole Wallace, why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Plus new episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows ad free and ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddows original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [00:30]
Daniel Goldman
Well, consistency is not exactly Donald Trump's thing. And so Donald Trump has more than one way of expressing how, say, terrified he is. He might fly into obsessive, relentless social media postings about the thing he's terrified about. Sometimes he'll do it about the thing he's terrified about, and sometimes not. Sometimes about like anything else, which is kind of what he's been doing. And the other way Donald Trump communicates his fear is silence, which is also what he's been doing. That's how Donald Trump treats the things he's most afraid of, in my observation. And so, judging by his silence, Donald Trump is living in abject terror tonight of the Epstein Files Donald Trump spent the day in silence today about the Epstein files. The man who loves to have the cameras aimed at him while he plays with questions from reporters without ever actually answering them didn't dare allow reporters to get anywhere near him. Today at the White House, Donald Trump said nothing on social media today about the Epstein files, nothing about the person who for 15 years Donald Trump called a terrific guy, while the person Donald Trump thought was a terrific guy was raping children. The last time Donald Trump said anything about his now dead friend Jeffrey Epstein was on Saturday at 9:13am when he said nothing will be good enough. Donald Trump said, I have asked the Justice Department to release all grand jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval. With that being said, and even if the court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more. One of those radical left lunatics, I guess, is Marjorie Taylor Greene. According to Donald Trump's description, she's always been called a radical lunatic, but she is a Republican member of Congress who's always supported Donald Trump and built her short political career on supporting Donald Trump. Today, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted, if you tell the base of people who support you of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail and rich, powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of the people. If not the base will turn and there's no going back. Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else. Marjorie Taylor Greene is making it very clear what would be good enough for her. She wants the entirety of the Epstein files released, not just the grand jury transcripts, which would be the least informative part of the Trump Justice Department's criminal investigative file on Jeffrey Epstein. While some Trump supporters who were complaining about Donald Trump's refusal to release the Epstein files last week are now going quiet, Marjorie Taylor Greene hasn't given up yet. She said this tonight at 7:06pm I.
- [04:07]
Marjorie Taylor Greene
Believe in transparency and I believe the American people. This is a serious issue. I can tell you for the past, gosh, more than a week, the highest volume of calls into my office have been about Epstein. People want the information. They don't want things covered up, especially when it comes to the most well known convicted pedophile in modern day history. It's important to them and they really want the information out.
- [04:37]
Daniel Goldman
But Donald Trump says Marjorie Taylor Greene is a radical left lunatic and everyone she claims is calling her Georgia office, all of them radical left lunatics, and that nothing will be good enough for those Republican radical left lunatics. Donald Trump's silence about Jeffrey Epstein now extends, as it always does, to his complete silence about Jeffrey Epstein's victims. One of them was a high school girl who felt very lucky when she got a job working for Donald Trump at Mar A Lago. And that was the worst lucky moment she ever had because when she was working in the spa as an assistant at Mar A Lago, she met Donald Trump's friend Ghislaine Maxwell, who then lured her to Jeffrey Epstein's Florida home where she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the same time, the very first time that she was there. Donald Trump has never spoken a word of sympathy for that girl who used to work for him. Donald Trump has never spoken a word of sympathy for that girl whose life was ruined when Jeffrey Epstein's criminal, co conspirator, recruiter walked into Donald Trump's spa that day. Ghislaine Maxwell is serving a 20 year prison sentence right now for, among other things, recruiting that girl, sex trafficking that girl. Donald Trump has twice said in interviews after Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted as Jeffrey Epstein's co conspirator in sex trafficking that he wishes her well. I just wish her well. Donald Trump has said that repeatedly about her. Donald Trump can't think of a negative thing to say about the woman who is in prison tonight because she lured those girls into Jeffrey Epstein's home, onto Jeffrey Epstein's plane to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Ghislaine Maxwell did not testify in her own defense at her trial. She did not speak a word. Ghislaine Maxwell is appealing her conviction, as every criminal defendant with money always does. But very few of those appeals ever succeed. But if her appeal does not succeed, her only hope of getting out of prison is a pardon from Donald Trump. And Donald Trump has abused the pardon power beyond the wildest dreams of any other president, and so certainly be on the wildest nightmares of the authors of the constitutional power to pardon granted in absolute terms to the President by those framers of the Constitution who would be horrified to see that Donald Trump used that power to pardon every single person who participated in an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th to try to overturn the results of a presidential election for Donald Trump. Ghislaine Maxwell has been absolutely silent about what she knows about Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. Jeffrey Epstein himself, before he killed himself and before he was in prison. Jeffrey Epstein in 2017, in a tape recorded interview, said, I was Donald's closest friend for 10 years. Surely Jeffrey Epstein discussed Donald Trump with his criminal co conspirator. But she has never said a word about what she knows about Donald Trump. The Epstein files might have reports from FBI agents who interviewed other people who might have heard Ghislaine Maxwell tell them something about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. That's the kind of thing that could be in the Epstein files might not be admissible in court, but it could be in the investigative files. We know that the only person in the world who Donald Trump actually feels protective of is Donald Trump. And so the only person in the world he would be willing to extend himself to protect in the Epstein files would presumably be himself, Donald Trump. Donald Trump's place in the Epstein files might be completely innocent. It's possible. It might simply include press clippings that FBI agents probably have in their files of Donald Trump praising Jeffrey Epstein. The Epstein files, surely somewhere there has a copy of the 2002 New York Magazine profile of Jeffrey Epstein in which Donald Trump says, I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do. And many of them are on the younger side, no doubt about it. Jeffrey enjoys his social life. That's the kind of thing that appears in FBI investigative files. Donald Trump's public dating history does not include underage girls. But truly, weirdly and perversely, in 2006, the year Jeffrey Epstein was first charged with with sex trafficking, Donald Trump said something very, very strange when he was asked on Howard Stern's radio show about the ages of women.
- [10:31]
Mike Johnson
Do you think you could now be.
- [10:32]
Ro Khanna
Banging 24 year olds?
- [10:33]
Daniel Goldman
Oh, absolutely.
- [10:36]
Mike Johnson
Would you do it?
- [10:36]
Ro Khanna
I have no problem.
- [10:38]
Daniel Goldman
Yeah.
- [10:38]
Mike Johnson
Do you have an age limit or would you?
- [10:40]
Daniel Goldman
No, no, I have no age. I mean, I have an age.
- [10:42]
Ro Khanna
I don't want to be like Foley with, you know, 12 year olds.
- [10:48]
Daniel Goldman
Donald Trump was 60 years old. 60 years old, no problem with 24 year olds. He was 60 years old when you just heard him say he would not want to be involved with a 12 year old. And of course, Donald Trump is the only President of the United States in history who has publicly discussed anything like that. One count in Donald Trump's lawsuit. New lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal claims specific defamation because the Wall Street Journal article described Donald Trump as being a friend of Jeffrey Epstein. The article also described a birthday letter that bears Donald Trump's name to Jeffrey Epstein on Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. And the lawsuit that Donald Trump filed the very next day, which he is very unlikely to ever pursue beyond just that filing because it would force him to testify under oath about Jeffrey Epstein. That lawsuit of Donald Trump's claims that it is defamatory to say that Donald Trump was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's. That's what that lawsuit said on Friday. And the very next day Saturday, the New York Times published a massive article under the headline Inside the Long Friendship between Trump and Epstein. That's how absurd the Donald Trump lawsuit is against the Wall Street Journal. Donald Trump is not suing the New York Times for saying he had a long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. And the Trump lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal says it's defamatory to say that he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein. That New York Times headline proves to you how absurd the Trump lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is. And the Trump lawsuit will go nowhere because Donald Trump will not dare to pursue that lawsuit. Donald Trump will not pursue force himself to go under oath testifying about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein because that's what the Donald Trump lawsuit would force Donald Trump to do. Rupert Murdoch, who Donald Trump is suing, can force Donald Trump to give a videotape deposition under oath with unlimited questioning about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. And that's never going to Happen. The Trump lawsuit was a one day stunt, one day stunt just to try to trick the news media. And it tricked a lot of the news media and tricked Donald Trump's followers into thinking that Donald Trump was actually taking some kind of action against the Wall Street Journal. Senator Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee with jurisdiction over the Justice Department, sent a letter to the Justice Department saying, according to information my office received, you pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel and its Information Management Division, including the Record Information Dissemination Section, which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information act and Privacy act, on 24 hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrary short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14th through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York field office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or, or properly handle FOIA requests. My office was told that these personnel were instructed to flag any records in which President Trump was mentioned. The letter asks Attorney General Pam Bondi several questions, including have you personally reviewed all files in DOJ's possession related to Jeffrey Epstein? And who made the decision to assign hundreds of New York field office personnel to this March review of Epstein related records? Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Daniel Goldman of New York. He's a member of the House Judiciary Committee. And Congressman Goldman, as a former federal prosecutor, you've worked with FBI, you know what these investigative files look like. First of all, give us your reaction to hundreds of FBI officers in the New York field office being assigned to these documents to study these documents.
- [15:53]
Dick Durbin
It's absolutely crazy, Lawrence. It's crazy to assign so many on, as Senator Durbin said, such an arbitrary deadline that was really driven by the MAGA base that was upset that Pam Bondi's first dispatch of the Epstein files was so underwhelming and mostly public information. And in light of that pressure, she and FBI Director Dr. Kash Patel essentially took most of the New York field office to look for redactions in the Epstein files. Now, keep in mind, this is the New York field office that does terrorism cases, that does violent gangs cases, that does corruption, that does all sorts of fraudsecurities, fraud. The list goes on. I worked with them for 10 years. All of these agents were pulled away from keeping the public safe just to look through these Epstein files, flag Donald Trump's name, and somehow some way, Lawrence And I wonder how that arbitrary deadline that they were racing towards because of pressure to release the Epstein files came and went and now all of a sudden there's nothing of interest to anyone.
- [17:07]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Huh.
- [17:08]
Dick Durbin
I wonder how that happened.
- [17:10]
Daniel Goldman
So what is the state of play in the House of Representatives ton that there's the possibility that Mike Johnson might just close up the House for the rest of the summer just to avoid a vote on the Epstein files.
- [17:28]
Dick Durbin
That's right. Last week, Republicans on the Rules Committee voiced a lot of displeasure that they continue to have to vote on amendments to release the Epstein files. The Democrats, we are just simply asking for transparency. Donald Trump said this was the most transparent administration in history. We have heard over and over all of these reasons why they need to release the Epstein files. And then Donald Trump does a 180, clearly a cover up. So we just want to see what's in there. And we continue to introduce amendments to force the Republicans to release them. But the Republicans don't want to have to vote against that because they've been advocating for it for so long. So they have just abandoned the their job in the Rules Committee. And without a rule, we cannot vote on any bills on the floor. So it very well may be that we go home later this week without voting on anything because Republicans refuse to release the Epstein files.
- [18:29]
Daniel Goldman
As a former federal prosecutor, you know there's plenty of instances in which, in fact most where you wouldn't want to release any of the investigative file. Anything that was not used in public proceedings you wouldn't would want to release. Do you have any concerns about the precedent that could be set here with a release? Or is the presidential involvement something that makes it unique?
- [18:55]
Dick Durbin
Lawrence I have so many concerns about the Department of Justice. I will say the precedent about releasing investigative files is not high on the list. The precedent of investigating political enemies would go much higher as just one example. But the reason why you don't ordinarily release investigative files is that they often include uncharged co conspirators and who don't have an opportunity to defend themselves if they were not indicted. In this particular case, there was no interest in the Epstein files from anyone other than the maga. Right. Kash Patel, Dan Bongino leading the way with all these conspiracy theories that Donald Trump himself revved up, that the Department of Justice was hiding some elite cabal, as Marjorie Taylor Greene says, of the wealthy and connected who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein. So they brought this on themselves to release them. And now those wealthy elites who are trying to be protected by the Department of Justice. And the Trump administration appears to be Donald Trump himself. So now he has given direct orders, it appears, to Pan Bondi not to release the critical files. And let's be clear, grand jury testimony is almost certainly going to be irrelevant to other people involved, including potentially Donald Trump. You would find that information in a lot of the other investigative files, not in the grand jury testimony that relates to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
- [20:39]
Daniel Goldman
Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you very much for starting off our coverage tonight.
- [20:44]
Dick Durbin
Thanks, Lawrence.
- [20:45]
Daniel Goldman
And coming up, more of the breaking news on what's happening right now in the House of Representatives on the Epstein files with the congressman who is leading the demand there for a House vote on the issue. Congressman Ro Khanna joins us next.
- [21:03]
Lawrence O'Donnell
As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda. Follow along with MSNBC newest newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people.
- [21:21]
Daniel Goldman
The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this.
- [21:25]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at msnbc.com project47. Start your day with the MSNBC daily newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up now@msnbc.com.
- [21:51]
Daniel Goldman
Republican speakers of the House tend to wrap themselves in an indignant self righteousness that was invented by the first Republican speaker of most Americans lifetimes, Newt Gingrich. The current Republican speaker, Mike Johnson, has taken indignant self righteousness to another level. Divine self righteousness. No speaker of the House has ever wrapped himself in more publicly professed religiosity than Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who wants you to know that he and his high school son entered into a sanctified contract to, according to Rolling Stone, monitor each other's porn intake.
- [22:44]
Lawrence Tribe
It scans you obviously opt into it, but it scans every all the activity on your phone or your devices, your laptop, tablet, what have you. We do all of it and then it sends a report to your accountability partner. So my accountability part accountability partner right now is Jack, my son. Right. And so he's 17. So he and I get a report of all the things that are on our phones or all of our devices once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your accountability partner gets an immediate notice. I'm proud to tell you my son is he's got a clean slate.
- [23:15]
Daniel Goldman
Good for Jack. Now, I don't want to make too much of this and I offer no interpretation of this. But I did notice as that statement kept going, which I've edited there, but I did notice that Mike Johnson did not say that he also has a clean slate now. I'm sure he meant to say that, but it's interesting that he didn't. But at least he made it absolutely clear, couldn't be more clear that his 17 year old son at the time wasn't seeing any porn online at all. And you would think that a parent so obsessed with the possibility of his 17 year old son seeing even a second of porn would care more about the 17 year olds and much younger victims of the man Donald Trump called a terrific guy, Jeffrey Epstein. Those high school girls were subjected to something much worse than the stuff that Mike Johnson's son might be able to find online. But Mike Johnson did not have a word of sympathy for those child victims of Jeffrey Epstein today when he literally ran away from a question about what our next guest is trying to do on the House floor to force a a vote by the House of Representatives calling for the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.
- [24:53]
Lawrence Tribe
Discharge petitions are never a good idea in the House. It is the party of the, it is a tool of the minority party, not majority. The majority party has stated its position and it is mine and it is the President's that we want maximum disclosure. So the rest of it is a political game that Democrats are playing. And I hope Republicans, Republicans don't join him.
- [25:13]
Daniel Goldman
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. He's a member of the Oversight Committee. Congressman Connor, welcome back. This is our second discussion of your attempt to move this discharge petition. What's your reaction to what you just heard the speaker say about the discharge petition, not about the online want.
- [25:33]
Ro Khanna
Look, this is not partisan. There are 11 Republicans who want a full release of the files, not just Thomas Massie, who is more of a maverick. You have Lauren Boebert, you have Marjorie Taylor Greene, you have Tim Burchett, you have Nancy Mace. All of them are demanding it. Look, Lawrence, we know that Trump's populism was always a house of cards. And frankly, for you and me, it's been much sturdier than people think. I thought it would have fallen down years ago, but the blocking of the Epstein file, literally, maybe the slipped card, that brings this whole House down. And that is because he's betraying such a fundamental promise he made to his base. He said he wasn't going to protect rich and powerful men who abused and assaulted young girls. And his base is furious. They want These files released, he's not releasing them. And the speaker knows this is a huge, huge problem beyond Epstein. It's a problem for their claim of being a parody of populism.
- [26:32]
Daniel Goldman
Let's listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene tonight about the discharge petition.
- [26:39]
Marjorie Taylor Greene
The speaker said he doesn't like discharge petitions. He also said it's a tool of the minority. What do you make of those comments? Well, I think discharge petitions are actually important. I think that every single district in the country votes for their representative and whether they're in the majority or the minority. And that's the purpose of a discharge petition, is if 218 members of Congress sign it, that takes a combination of Republicans and Democrats. Right. And then that allows something to come to the floor for a vote.
- [27:10]
Daniel Goldman
So Thomas Massie is saying tonight that if the House closes up for the summer without this vote, it's just going to get worse in September. What is the state of play in this breaking news situation right now tonight on your discharge petition?
- [27:26]
Ro Khanna
Well, more and more Republicans are joining the call for a discharge petition, but the speaker is not willing to have a vote. You know, let's just speak plainly because we use all these complex words, discharge petitions. Sometimes I think Congress is sort of a priesthood which uses obscure and arcane language to confuse the American people. Here's the bottom. There is the majority of the Congress that has the votes to release the Epstein files. We have a majority of the votes. And the problem is that we're not having a vote. And that's the dirty secret in Washington. It's not how you vote. It's that most of these things never come up for a vote. And all a discharge petition is saying is that the majority, if they sign something, will demand and be able to get a vote on something that we know is going to pass. And the reality is that Mike Johnson is trying to recess the Congress because there's this arcane rule that the bill has to be there for seven days before you can actually get all the signatures. And it's been there for about four days. So he wants to adjourn us so that we can wait till after Labor Day to get the signatures and have this vote. It's the worst kind of gamesmanship, but the American people are going to see through it.
- [28:33]
Daniel Goldman
Congressman Rocona, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [28:36]
Ro Khanna
Thank you.
- [28:37]
Daniel Goldman
And coming up today, another lawyer for Donald Trump's Justice Department disgraced himself in a federal court, this time while arguing Donald Trump's case against Harvard University, which the federal judge hearing the case today called Mind boggling. That is to say, the Trump argument. Mind boggling. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe will join us next.
- [29:02]
Lawrence O'Donnell
MSNBC Films presents Season 2 of Leguizamo does America, an NBC News Studios production on the next episode. John Leguizamo travels to New Orleans Sunday at 9pm Eastern on MSNBC and streaming on Peacock.
- [29:21]
Daniel Goldman
Mind boggling, that's what a federal judge in Boston called Donald Trump's case against Harvard University today. The judge also said the consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering. The Trump Justice Department could find exactly one lawyer who was willing to enter the courtroom today to defend Donald Trump's attacks on Harvard University. At issue today was Donald Trump's blocking research funds to all branches of the university. The Trump Justice Department lawyer whose turn it was to disgrace himself today on behalf of Donald Trump is named Michael Velczik. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He represented Donald Trump's position to the court in what is clearly a lie, saying the government is pro Jewish students at Harvard, the government is pro Jewish faculty at Harvard. Harvard's attorney said that Donald Trump, quote, fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans and improve national security addresses antisemitism. Peter McDonough, representing the American Council on Education, which filed a brief supporting Harvard, told Judge Alison Burrow, I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court. Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial. And it sounds like Donald Trump is sure that he lost in court today. Donald Trump said, quote, the Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed judge. She is a total disaster, which I say even before hearing her ruling, when she rules against us, we will immediately appeal and win. Joining us now is Professor Lawrence Tribe, who has taught constitutional law at Harvard Law School for five decades. Professor Tribe, this is an unusual way to form the question tonight, but do you agree with Donald Trump that he is going to lose this case?
- [31:29]
Mike Johnson
Well, rather than predicting whether he will win or lose, and you know that I think Trump is going to lose, I want to make a comment about Today's argument because Mr. Belchick representing Donald Trump, supposedly representing the United States, but I think it's fair to say representing Donald Trump was a Harvard graduate, but so was the lawyer on the other side and he did a brilliant job. His name is Stephen Lihotsky and I remember him well 25 years ago. He was my student and my research assistant and boy, did he learn constitutional Law. He got the highest grade in the course, an A, and he went on to clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia. It's not an ideological matter one way or the other. It's a universally agreed principle that private institutions, especially colleges and universities, cannot be dictated to by the government. And there is a powerful precedent. It's one that I taught Mr. Lihutzky and others back in the day. And it's about Dartmouth College. Daniel Webster argued on behalf of Dartmouth College when the governor of New Hampshire was persuaded in 1815 to take the college over, to make it into a public institution, to dictate how it would govern itself, whom it would hire, how it would select students. When that happened, Daniel Webster argued in the Supreme Court before Chief Justice John Marshall and won a classic victory in 1819. One of the memorable lines in his argument, and it's hard to forget it was, it is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it. Now, Harvard is not so small. But the principle at stake in the case that Harvard has brought against the Trump administration is huge. It is the principle that educational institutions are not the handmaiden of the government. They have autonomy. They decide what they will teach and how they will teach it. Of course, they have to comply with the laws against discrimination, although the enforcement of those laws under this administration is going to be awfully difficult since they've essentially destroyed the Department of Education, where that enforcement largely resides. Of course, Harvard and other institutions like it have to obey the law and obey the conditions of the grants they receive. But suddenly yanking those grants, including grants for cancer research, grants for legal research, grants for national security programs, yanking them on some completely made up claim that Harvard is not trying to deal with antisemitism on its campus. It is trying to could try harder. And people like me, I'm Jewish, I push it to try harder. Judge Burroughs, who is Jewish, she wants it to try harder. But she raises the genuine question, what does antisemitism have to do with pulling the money for cancer research? No. Good answer.
- [35:35]
Daniel Goldman
Professor. We have to squeeze in a commercial break here. We're going to come right back. We'll be right back. Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe is back with us. And Professor Tribe, the attorney representing Donald Trump, in this case, basically claimed to be representing you. He said the government is pro Jewish. Faculty at Harvard, what was your reaction to that?
- [36:01]
Mike Johnson
My reaction was I've rarely heard a more ignorant, preposterous comment. The faculty is not pro or anti members of any religion, certainly not pro Christian, pro Muslim, anti Christian, anti Muslim. The faculty is pro truth. Our motto is a serious one. It's veritas. We're trying to fathom the deepest truths, historical, mathematical, scientific. People like Stephen Lihotsky come to Harvard to learn, not to sort of affirm one religion or another. And of course, the problem of bigotry on every American campus is a problem that we are trying hard to fight. But for the government's lawyer to talk about faculty being pro Jewish or pro any other religion just shows that he hasn't a clue what this is all about. Democrats around the world try to shut down institutions that try to discover truth because they thrive on lies. That's what we're all about.
- [37:21]
Daniel Goldman
Professor Lawrence Tribe, thank you once again for joining us. What I learned about Daniel Webster tonight alone is more than worth it. Thank you very much for joining us.
- [37:31]
Mike Johnson
Thanks, Lawrence.
- [37:32]
Daniel Goldman
Thank you. Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe gets tonight's last word. Businesses that are selling through the roof, like Untuck it make selling and for shoppers buying simple.
- [37:43]
Lawrence O'Donnell
With Shopify, home of the number one.
- [37:45]
Daniel Goldman
Checkout on the planet.
- [37:47]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And with shop pay, you can boost.
- [37:48]
Daniel Goldman
Conversions up to 50%. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Untuck it uses. Sign up for your $1 per month.
- [37:57]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Trial period@shopify.com podcastfree all lowercase.
- [38:01]
Daniel Goldman
Go to shopify.com podcastfree to upgrade your selling today.