‘Huge mistake’: Analyst says Biden pardoning his son takes ‘moral high ground’ away from Democrats

FORMER CHIEF STRATEGIST FOR THE BUSH/CHENEY 2004 CAMPAIGN, BUSH/CHENEY 2004 CAMPAIGN, MATTHEW DOWD, AND WITH US, MATTHEW DOWD, AND WITH US, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW PROFESSOR AND AUTHOR OF THE BOOK PROFESSOR AND AUTHOR OF THE BOOK "PARDON POWER, HOW THE PARDON "PARDON POWER, HOW THE PARDON SYSTEM WORKS AND WHY" KIM WEHLE. SYSTEM WORKS AND WHY" KIM WEHLE. WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT HOW BROAD WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT HOW BROAD PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS ARE, SO THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS ARE, SO THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS, COULD JOE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS, COULD JOE BIDEN DO THIS?

BIDEN DO THIS? >> THE QUESTION IS ALWAYS IF HE >> THE QUESTION IS ALWAYS IF HE DID IT, WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE? DID IT, WHAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE?

LESS SO, WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE LESS SO, WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS NOT MUCH CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS NOT MUCH ABOUT PARDONS. ABOUT PARDONS. AND I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD AND I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD NECESSARILY BE ANY NECESSARILY BE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SOMETHING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT UNLESS DONALD TRUMP LIKE THAT UNLESS DONALD TRUMP LATER WERE TO PROSECUTE THESE LATER WERE TO PROSECUTE THESE FOLKS ANYWAY.

FOLKS ANYWAY. THEY WOULD RAISE THIS BROAD THEY WOULD RAISE THIS BROAD PARDON AS A DEFENSE, AND THEN IN PARDON AS A DEFENSE, AND THEN IN THAT INSTANCE, IT WOULD GO TO THAT INSTANCE, IT WOULD GO TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

OF COURSE, RICHARD NIXON WAS OF COURSE, RICHARD NIXON WAS PARDONED BY GERALD FORD WITHOUT PARDONED BY GERALD FORD WITHOUT ANY INDICTMENT ACTUALLY PENDING ANY INDICTMENT ACTUALLY PENDING AGAINST RICHARD NIXON. AGAINST RICHARD NIXON. I THINK THAT SET HISTORICAL I THINK THAT SET HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR THE NOTION THAT PRECEDENT FOR THE NOTION THAT PARDONS BEFORE INDICTMENT, AFTER PARDONS BEFORE INDICTMENT, AFTER THE CONDUCT HAS HAPPENED, BEFORE THE CONDUCT HAS HAPPENED, BEFORE INDICTMENT, HAVE BEEN DE FACTO INDICTMENT, HAVE BEEN DE FACTO ACCEPTED UNDER AMERICAN LAW EVEN ACCEPTED UNDER AMERICAN LAW EVEN THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT'S NEVER THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT'S NEVER ADDRESSED THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE.

ADDRESSED THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE. >> SO EDDIE, IN ARGUMENT FOR >> SO EDDIE, IN ARGUMENT FOR PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS MIGHT NOT PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA IS LISTEN TO WHAT BE A BAD IDEA IS LISTEN TO WHAT HE'S TELLING YOU, MEANING DONALD HE'S TELLING YOU, MEANING DONALD TRUMP, NPR DID A COUNT DURING TRUMP, NPR DID A COUNT DURING THE 2024 CAMPAIGN, THEY FOUND THE 2024 CAMPAIGN, THEY FOUND THAT DONALD TRUMP, QUOTE, MADE THAT DONALD TRUMP, QUOTE, MADE MORE THAN 100 THREATS TO MORE THAN 100 THREATS TO INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE, INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE, IMPRISON, OR OTHERWISE PUNISH IMPRISON, OR OTHERWISE PUNISH HIS PERCEIVED ENEMIES INCLUDING HIS PERCEIVED ENEMIES INCLUDING POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND PRIVATE POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS. CITIZENS.

IS THERE REASON NOT TO TAKE HIM IS THERE REASON NOT TO TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD? AT HIS WORD? >> NO, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND >> NO, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HIM, TO BE AS DIRECT AND AS HIM, TO BE AS DIRECT AND AS HONEST AS HE HE HAS BEEN.

HONEST AS HE HE HAS BEEN. TRUMP HAS PROVEN OVER AND OVER TRUMP HAS PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN, CHRIS, THAT HE'S A MAN OF AGAIN, CHRIS, THAT HE'S A MAN OF HIS WORD. HIS WORD.

AND I PUT THAT IN INVERTED AND I PUT THAT IN INVERTED COMMAS BECAUSE HE'S SO PRONE TO COMMAS BECAUSE HE'S SO PRONE TO TELL UNTRUTHS. TELL UNTRUTHS. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT, I THINK, TO PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT, I THINK, TO BE ABSOLUTELY CONCERNED.

BE ABSOLUTELY CONCERNED. BUT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR A KIND BUT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR A KIND OF BLANKET PARDON IN THIS SENSE OF BLANKET PARDON IN THIS SENSE IS, AS YOU RIGHTLY NODED IN THE IS, AS YOU RIGHTLY NODED IN THE LEAD, A KIND OF ESCALATION. LEAD, A KIND OF ESCALATION.

WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR QUESTION, WHAT WOULD IT MEAN FOR PRESIDENTIAL PARDONING POWER PRESIDENTIAL PARDONING POWER POST SUCH AN ESCALATION? POST SUCH AN ESCALATION? AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR AS WELL THAT IF HE'S WILLING TO AS WELL THAT IF HE'S WILLING TO TARGET FOLKS IN THE WAY HE SAYS TARGET FOLKS IN THE WAY HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO DO, HE'S GOING TO HE'S GOING TO DO, HE'S GOING TO TARGET THEM ANYWAY, EVEN IF TARGET THEM ANYWAY, EVEN IF THERE IS A KIND OF BLANKET THERE IS A KIND OF BLANKET PARDON AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN PARDON AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN ISSUE AT THE SUPREME COURT.

ISSUE AT THE SUPREME COURT. >> SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT >> SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WOULD IT MEAN POST ESCALATION. WOULD IT MEAN POST ESCALATION.

THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS, ONE IS THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS, ONE IS POLITICAL AND ONE IS LEGAL. POLITICAL AND ONE IS LEGAL. MATTHEW, LET ME ASK YOU THE MATTHEW, LET ME ASK YOU THE POLITICAL ONES.

POLITICAL ONES. IT'S NOT LIKE JOE BIDEN IS IT'S NOT LIKE JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING AGAIN, SO IN THAT SENSE, RUNNING AGAIN, SO IN THAT SENSE, THERE ARE NO POLITICAL THERE ARE NO POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS. IMPLICATIONS.

SOME DEMOCRATS WILL TELL YOU SOME DEMOCRATS WILL TELL YOU THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PAY A PRICE, THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY A PRICE, THAT THEY HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT TO SAY, WE LOST THE ARGUMENT TO SAY, WE HAVE TO HOLD TO A HIGHER HAVE TO HOLD TO A HIGHER STANDARD. STANDARD. BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?

THIS? >> WELL, FIRST, HAPPY HOLIDAYS >> WELL, FIRST, HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU, CHRIS, AND EDDIE, AND TO YOU, CHRIS, AND EDDIE, AND KIM. KIM.

I HOPE IT'S GREAT AND PEACEFUL I HOPE IT'S GREAT AND PEACEFUL AND RESTFUL, AS WE DISCUSS THESE AND RESTFUL, AS WE DISCUSS THESE HARROWING SITUATIONS. HARROWING SITUATIONS. I HAVE THREE REASONS WHY I THINK I HAVE THREE REASONS WHY I THINK THIS IS A BIG MISTAKE.

THIS IS A BIG MISTAKE. ONE OF WHICH I GUESS IS ONE OF WHICH I GUESS IS POLITICAL, MAYBE THE SECOND IS POLITICAL, MAYBE THE SECOND IS POLITICAL TWO. POLITICAL TWO.

FIRST IS JOE BIDEN MADE A FIRST IS JOE BIDEN MADE A COMMITMENT BEFORE ELECTION DAY, COMMITMENT BEFORE ELECTION DAY, WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS SAID, THIS WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS SAID, THIS WAS ALL SAID BEFORE ELECTION WAS ALL SAID BEFORE ELECTION DAY. DAY. DONALD TRUMP SAID IT, KASH PATEL DONALD TRUMP SAID IT, KASH PATEL SAID IT, ALL THESE FOLKS SAID SAID IT, ALL THESE FOLKS SAID THIS BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

THIS BEFORE ELECTION DAY. AND JOE BIDEN MADE A COMMITMENT, AND JOE BIDEN MADE A COMMITMENT, HE WASN'T GOING TO PARDON HIS HE WASN'T GOING TO PARDON HIS SON. SON.

BY EXTENSION, HE WASN'T GOING TO BY EXTENSION, HE WASN'T GOING TO GIVE BLANKET PARDONS TO OTHER GIVE BLANKET PARDONS TO OTHER PEOPLE. PEOPLE. FIRST, HE WENT BACK ON WHAT HE FIRST, HE WENT BACK ON WHAT HE SAID PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY, EVEN SAID PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY, EVEN THOUGH WE ALL KNEW, IF JOE BIDEN THOUGH WE ALL KNEW, IF JOE BIDEN WAS PLANNING ON DOING THIS, IN WAS PLANNING ON DOING THIS, IN MY VIEW, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID MY VIEW, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE ELECTION DAY WHEN THIS BEFORE ELECTION DAY WHEN ALL THIS WAS GETTING STARTED.

ALL THIS WAS GETTING STARTED. I DON'T TRUST THIS GUY, AND IF I DON'T TRUST THIS GUY, AND IF HE GETS ELECTED, I'M GOING TO HE GETS ELECTED, I'M GOING TO TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS AND TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS AND PROTECT THESE PEOPLE. PROTECT THESE PEOPLE.

THAT'S ONE PROBLEM. THAT'S ONE PROBLEM. THERE'S A LEVEL IN MY VIEW OF THERE'S A LEVEL IN MY VIEW OF DISHONESTY OR SHADINESS IN THIS.

DISHONESTY OR SHADINESS IN THIS. THE SECOND IS, PEOPLE WHO THE SECOND IS, PEOPLE WHO CONFRONT AUTOCRACIES AND PEOPLE CONFRONT AUTOCRACIES AND PEOPLE WHO CONFRONT THE SITUATION, PART WHO CONFRONT THE SITUATION, PART OF THE POWER OF THAT IS THE OF THE POWER OF THAT IS THE STRUGGLE THROUGH IT. STRUGGLE THROUGH IT.

AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS BROUGHT, MANY WHO ENDED UP IN BROUGHT, MANY WHO ENDED UP IN JAIL, MANY OF WHOM WERE JAIL, MANY OF WHOM WERE ARRESTED, ALL WRONGLY, ALL IN ARRESTED, ALL WRONGLY, ALL IN ACTS OF INJUSTICE, BUT BY VIRTUE ACTS OF INJUSTICE, BUT BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY WENT THROUGH OF THE FACT THEY WENT THROUGH THE SYSTEM, IT GAVE POWER TO THE THE SYSTEM, IT GAVE POWER TO THE MOVEMENT. MOVEMENT. WHEN YOU DO THESE BLANKET WHEN YOU DO THESE BLANKET PARDONS IT TAKES POWER AWAY FROM PARDONS IT TAKES POWER AWAY FROM THE MOVEMENT.

THE MOVEMENT. THE OTHER PART IS ALL THE PEOPLE THE OTHER PART IS ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT GIVEN THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT GIVEN PARDONS TO ARE PEOPLE WITH MEANS PARDONS TO ARE PEOPLE WITH MEANS FINANCIALLY, AND ALL PEOPLE WHO FINANCIALLY, AND ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE MOSTLY PROMINENT IN THE ARE MOSTLY PROMINENT IN THE PUBLIC EYE WHO HAVE MUCH GREATER PUBLIC EYE WHO HAVE MUCH GREATER POWER. POWER.

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER HUNDREDS WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS THAT AND THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS THAT DONALD TRUMP MIGHT GO AFTER THAT DONALD TRUMP MIGHT GO AFTER THAT DON'T HAVE FINANCIAL MEANS, THAT DON'T HAVE FINANCIAL MEANS, THAT DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GET DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GET IN THE PUBLIC EYE, THAT HE COULD IN THE PUBLIC EYE, THAT HE COULD EASILY HARASS AND HASSLE? EASILY HARASS AND HASSLE? TO ME, IT'S A BRAND OF ELITISM.

TO ME, IT'S A BRAND OF ELITISM. AND THE THIRD THING, WHICH I AND THE THIRD THING, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST POWERFUL THING THINK IS THE MOST POWERFUL THING POLITICALLY IN THIS, IS IT TAKES POLITICALLY IN THIS, IS IT TAKES THE MORAL HIGH GROUND BY DOING THE MORAL HIGH GROUND BY DOING THIS IN MY VIEW, IT TAKES THE THIS IN MY VIEW, IT TAKES THE MORAL HIGH GROUND AND THE FIGHT MORAL HIGH GROUND AND THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AND BY EXTENSION FOR DEMOCRACY AND BY EXTENSION THE RULE OF LAW AWAY FROM THE THE RULE OF LAW AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS OR DILUTES IT BADLY IN DEMOCRATS OR DILUTES IT BADLY IN THIS. THIS.

FOR ALL THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE FOR ALL THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT WE NEED TO BEEN MADE ABOUT WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THE RULE OF LAW, THE ESTABLISH THE RULE OF LAW, THE EXECUTIVE POWER HAS TOO MUCH -- EXECUTIVE POWER HAS TOO MUCH -- THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TOO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TOO MUCH POWER AND DONALD TRUMP IS MUCH POWER AND DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO USE IT TO ESTABLISH AN GOING TO USE IT TO ESTABLISH AN AUTOCRACY. AUTOCRACY. WHEN JOE BIDEN WALKS OUT THE WHEN JOE BIDEN WALKS OUT THE DOOR, HE'S GO TO EXERCISE DOOR, HE'S GO TO EXERCISE EXECUTIVE POWER IN A WAY THAT EXECUTIVE POWER IN A WAY THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT DONALD SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT DONALD TRUMP WOULD DO OR SAY, AND I TRUMP WOULD DO OR SAY, AND I THINK IT FRACTURES THE THINK IT FRACTURES THE PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT.

PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT. IT FRACTURES IT SERIOUSLY. IT FRACTURES IT SERIOUSLY.

AND I THINK IT SORT OF DILUTES AND I THINK IT SORT OF DILUTES THE MORAL HIGH GROUND THAT YOU THE MORAL HIGH GROUND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU DIDN'T DO WOULD HAVE IF YOU DIDN'T DO THIS. THIS. SO FOR THOSE THREE REASONS I SO FOR THOSE THREE REASONS I THINK IT'S A HUGE MISTAKE.

THINK IT'S A HUGE MISTAKE. >> YEAH, AND I THINK FOR A LOT >> YEAH, AND I THINK FOR A LOT OF FOLKS, THEY AGREE WITH YOU. OF FOLKS, THEY AGREE WITH YOU.

PROBABLY ON ONE, TWO, AND THREE. PROBABLY ON ONE, TWO, AND THREE. BUT LET ME GO BACK TO YOU, KIM, BUT LET ME GO BACK TO YOU, KIM, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT THE POST-PRESIDENTIAL AT WHAT THE POST-PRESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE LOOKS LIKE AFTER JOE LANDSCAPE LOOKS LIKE AFTER JOE BIDEN HAS LEFT OFFICE, AND WHAT BIDEN HAS LEFT OFFICE, AND WHAT THIS MIGHT MEAN GOING FORWARD, I THIS MIGHT MEAN GOING FORWARD, I MEAN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF THERE MEAN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF THERE REALLY ARE BIG THREATS?

REALLY ARE BIG THREATS? WILL WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO WILL WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST THEM? PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST THEM?

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF TAKING THIS TO THAT KIND OF TAKING THIS TO THAT KIND OF LEVEL? LEVEL? >> WELL, I THINK THE IMMUNITY >> WELL, I THINK THE IMMUNITY DECISION OVER THE SUMMER WHEN DECISION OVER THE SUMMER WHEN THE SUPREME COURT INJECTED THE SUPREME COURT INJECTED IMMUNITY FOR PRESIDENTS INTO THE IMMUNITY FOR PRESIDENTS INTO THE CONSTITUTION, WHEN IT'S NOT CONSTITUTION, WHEN IT'S NOT THERE, AND IN FACT, IT SUGGESTED THERE, AND IN FACT, IT SUGGESTED IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, THE IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, THE ALTERNATIVE, THE SUPREME COURT ALTERNATIVE, THE SUPREME COURT LITERALLY AMENDED THE LITERALLY AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO PUT THE CONSTITUTION TO PUT THE PRESIDENT ABOVE THE LAW, ABLE TO PRESIDENT ABOVE THE LAW, ABLE TO USE EXECUTIVE POWER TO COMMIT USE EXECUTIVE POWER TO COMMIT CRIMES.

CRIMES. IN THIS MOMENT, THAT MEANS IN THIS MOMENT, THAT MEANS MANUFACTURING OR DESTROYING MANUFACTURING OR DESTROYING EVIDENCE, IF DONALD TRUMP WERE EVIDENCE, IF DONALD TRUMP WERE TO DECIDE DO THAT, THERE WOULD TO DECIDE DO THAT, THERE WOULD BE NO ACCOUNTABILITY. BE NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

THE LAW IS ONLY ABOUT INCENTIVES THE LAW IS ONLY ABOUT INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES. AND DISINCENTIVES. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LAWS.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LAWS. WHAT'S THE DISINCENTIVE FOR WHAT'S THE DISINCENTIVE FOR DONALD TRUMP GIVEN EVERYTHING HE DONALD TRUMP GIVEN EVERYTHING HE SAID AND WHAT HE DID THLAST SAID AND WHAT HE DID THLAST TIME AND THE MULTIPLE CRIMES TIME AND THE MULTIPLE CRIMES HE'S COMMITTED AND GOTTEN AWAY HE'S COMMITTED AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH, TO USE THE FULL POWER OF WITH, TO USE THE FULL POWER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST HIS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST HIS CRITICS? CRITICS?

THAT IS A NEW DAY FOR THE THAT IS A NEW DAY FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. I THINK WE'RE HEADING INTO A I THINK WE'RE HEADING INTO A COMPLETELY REVISED VIEW OF COMPLETELY REVISED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEANINGFUL GUARDRAILS AND ANY MEANINGFUL GUARDRAILS AND PUSHBACKS.

PUSHBACKS. AND I SEE THIS AS JOE BIDEN AND I SEE THIS AS JOE BIDEN COMING LATE IN THE GAME. COMING LATE IN THE GAME.

I THINK SOME MORE AGGRESSIVE I THINK SOME MORE AGGRESSIVE THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BY DEMOCRATS THE LAST FEW YEARS BY DEMOCRATS BOTH IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN BOTH IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PUSH BACK VIGOROUSLY ON THE PUSH BACK VIGOROUSLY ON THE DEGRADATION OF THE RULE OF LAW DEGRADATION OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION AND AND THE CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. DEMOCRACY. IF IN THIS MOMENT HE'S ABLE TO IF IN THIS MOMENT HE'S ABLE TO SAVE THE TRAUMA, THE COUNTRY SAVE THE TRAUMA, THE COUNTRY SOME TRAUMA OF SOME POLITICAL SOME TRAUMA OF SOME POLITICAL RETRIBUTIONS IN THE WANING DAYS RETRIBUTIONS IN THE WANING DAYS OF HIS OFFICE, TO ME, I DON'T OF HIS OFFICE, TO ME, I DON'T SEE THAT AS HAVING LATER A SEE THAT AS HAVING LATER A BOOMERANG EFFECT BECAUSE WE'RE BOOMERANG EFFECT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY THERE.

ALREADY THERE. WE'RE ALREADY THERE WITH THIS WE'RE ALREADY THERE WITH THIS MAN WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED, WITH MAN WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED, WITH HIS PROMISES, WITH WHO HE'S HIS PROMISES, WITH WHO HE'S PUTTING IN OFFICE, AND WITH THE PUTTING IN OFFICE, AND WITH THE SUPREME COURT GREEN LIGHTING THE SUPREME COURT GREEN LIGHTING THE USE OF THE SCARY POWER, THE USE OF THE SCARY POWER, THE OFFICIAL POWER, TO COMMIT CRIMES OFFICIAL POWER, TO COMMIT CRIMES WITH IMPUNITY. WITH IMPUNITY.

>> I WANT TO PLAY, TO THAT >> I WANT TO PLAY, TO THAT POINT, AND I'LL CONNECT THE POINT, AND I'LL CONNECT THE POINTS, EDDIE, SOMETHING THAT POINTS, EDDIE, SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ED MARKEY DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ED MARKEY SIGNALED. SIGNALED. HE SAID BIDEN SHOULD WAIT UNTIL HE SAID BIDEN SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBLE MINUTE TO MAKE THE LAST POSSIBLE MINUTE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS.

A DECISION ON THIS. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.

>> IF IT'S CLEAR BY JANUARY 19th >> IF IT'S CLEAR BY JANUARY 19th THAT THAT IS HIS INTENTION, THEN THAT THAT IS HIS INTENTION, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND TO PRESIDENT I WOULD RECOMMEND TO PRESIDENT BIDEN THAT HE PROVIDE THOSE BIDEN THAT HE PROVIDE THOSE PRE-EMPTIVE PARDONS TO PEOPLE, PRE-EMPTIVE PARDONS TO PEOPLE, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT OUR BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO NEED NEXT COUNTRY IS GOING TO NEED NEXT YEAR. YEAR. >> THE FACT THAT WE'RE EVEN >> THE FACT THAT WE'RE EVEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, EDDIE, HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, EDDIE, AND AS KIM POINTED OUT, WE'RE AND AS KIM POINTED OUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REVISED VIEW OF TALKING ABOUT A REVISED VIEW OF DEMOCRACY, WHAT DOES IT SAY DEMOCRACY, WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THIS MOMENT WE'RE IN?

ABOUT THIS MOMENT WE'RE IN? >> WELL, CHRIS, WE'RE IN A >> WELL, CHRIS, WE'RE IN A MOMENT OF CRISIS. MOMENT OF CRISIS.

WE'RE STANDING ON THE PRECIPICE WE'RE STANDING ON THE PRECIPICE IN SO MANY WAYS. IN SO MANY WAYS. AND IN A SENSE, I AGREE WITH AND IN A SENSE, I AGREE WITH BOTH MATT AND WITH SENATOR BOTH MATT AND WITH SENATOR MARKEY.

MARKEY. I THINK KIM HAS KIND OF GIVEN US I THINK KIM HAS KIND OF GIVEN US A NICE FRAMEWORK, BUT IT SEEMS A NICE FRAMEWORK, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED TO CREATE THE TO ME THAT WE NEED TO CREATE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE TO SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION. ADDRESS THIS QUESTION.

AND SO, IF DONALD TRUMP DECIDES AND SO, IF DONALD TRUMP DECIDES TO GO AHEAD AND PURSUE A TO GO AHEAD AND PURSUE A CONVICTION OR A CRIMINAL CONVICTION OR A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT OF THESE FOLK AFTER INDICTMENT OF THESE FOLK AFTER THE BLANKET PARDON HAS BEEN THE BLANKET PARDON HAS BEEN ISSUED, WE NEED TO PUSH IT AND ISSUED, WE NEED TO PUSH IT AND SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LAND. SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LAND. AND I WANT TO SAY THIS ABOUT AND I WANT TO SAY THIS ABOUT MATT'S POINT, TOO, THE THIRD MATT'S POINT, TOO, THE THIRD POINT ABOUT THE CEDING THE MORAL POINT ABOUT THE CEDING THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.

HIGH GROUND. OFTENTIMES WHEN WE'RE DEALING OFTENTIMES WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH BAD ACTORS, THEY PRESUME WITH BAD ACTORS, THEY PRESUME WE'LL BE CONSTRAINED BY OUR WE'LL BE CONSTRAINED BY OUR COMMITMENT TO NORMS. COMMITMENT TO NORMS.

THEY PRESUME WE'RE GOING TO BE THEY PRESUME WE'RE GOING TO BE RESTRAINED BY OUR COMMITMENT TO RESTRAINED BY OUR COMMITMENT TO MORAL NORMS. MORAL NORMS. THAT ALLOWED THEM FREE REIGN TO THAT ALLOWED THEM FREE REIGN TO ACT ANY WAY THEY CAN, ANY WAY ACT ANY WAY THEY CAN, ANY WAY THEY WANT TO.

THEY WANT TO.