Ryan Knutson

So there's two things about this case that are significant. One is the fact that it ultimately led to the statement from the chief justice. But then also that the Trump administration seems like they may have ignored potentially a court order here. How significant is that second aspect of it?

So there's two things about this case that are significant. One is the fact that it ultimately led to the statement from the chief justice. But then also that the Trump administration seems like they may have ignored potentially a court order here. How significant is that second aspect of it?

So there's two things about this case that are significant. One is the fact that it ultimately led to the statement from the chief justice. But then also that the Trump administration seems like they may have ignored potentially a court order here. How significant is that second aspect of it?

So after that little spat, Trump went on Truth Social and heavily criticized the judge, as we've been talking about. He said nobody voted for him. He said it was crooked. He said it was a troublemaker. And he said the judge should be impeached.

So after that little spat, Trump went on Truth Social and heavily criticized the judge, as we've been talking about. He said nobody voted for him. He said it was crooked. He said it was a troublemaker. And he said the judge should be impeached.

So after that little spat, Trump went on Truth Social and heavily criticized the judge, as we've been talking about. He said nobody voted for him. He said it was crooked. He said it was a troublemaker. And he said the judge should be impeached.

And that's when Roberts issued this statement that said, and I will just read it out loud, "...for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

And that's when Roberts issued this statement that said, and I will just read it out loud, "...for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

And that's when Roberts issued this statement that said, and I will just read it out loud, "...for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Molly, do you have any sense of whether or not there's an appetite in Congress for impeaching Judge Boasberg or any other judges?

Molly, do you have any sense of whether or not there's an appetite in Congress for impeaching Judge Boasberg or any other judges?

Molly, do you have any sense of whether or not there's an appetite in Congress for impeaching Judge Boasberg or any other judges?

I'll put this question to either of you, but do you think the Trump administration has a goal? Do you think there's something specific that the Trump administration wants to see? Like, only the Supreme Court can rule, or like, what's the thing that they want out of this question?

I'll put this question to either of you, but do you think the Trump administration has a goal? Do you think there's something specific that the Trump administration wants to see? Like, only the Supreme Court can rule, or like, what's the thing that they want out of this question?

I'll put this question to either of you, but do you think the Trump administration has a goal? Do you think there's something specific that the Trump administration wants to see? Like, only the Supreme Court can rule, or like, what's the thing that they want out of this question?

As a legal matter, there is a legitimate argument out there about national injunctions, right? That maybe a federal judge in Texas or San Francisco or wherever shouldn't be able to tell the federal government to stop doing something.

As a legal matter, there is a legitimate argument out there about national injunctions, right? That maybe a federal judge in Texas or San Francisco or wherever shouldn't be able to tell the federal government to stop doing something.

As a legal matter, there is a legitimate argument out there about national injunctions, right? That maybe a federal judge in Texas or San Francisco or wherever shouldn't be able to tell the federal government to stop doing something.

Okay, we are going to take a quick timeout. And when we come back, we'll talk about how the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for the president last year is impacting things today. And we'll also do a pulse check on the Democrats. The other thing that the Trump administration has been doing in the realm of the legal system is going after individual law firms.

Okay, we are going to take a quick timeout. And when we come back, we'll talk about how the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for the president last year is impacting things today. And we'll also do a pulse check on the Democrats. The other thing that the Trump administration has been doing in the realm of the legal system is going after individual law firms.