‘Chilling to hear’ Steve Bannon name individuals for political retribution: former federal attorney

Joining me now, Joyce Vance, former US attorney, law professor at the University of Alabama Co host of the #sisters in Law podcast and NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst. Let's just throw in good friend of the show, too. Why not? Anyway, Joyce, welcome. How chilling is it that Steve Bannon is naming names? So for someone who says it's not about revenge or about vengeance, he seems to contradict himself pretty quickly. Look, the career ranks at DOJ, the people who do their jobs day in and day out and are committed to the Constitution, those folks aren't legitimate targets for political retribution. And I think it's chilling to hear what's going on here. This is payback for Donald Trump being held accountable. But Bannon, who's a master really of this sort of linguistics, tries to couch what they're doing, what's unconstitutional in constitutional terms like accountability. And that forces all of us, by the way, to be very discerning listeners and to really do more than I think we've done at any point in time, even living through the Trump administration, to make sure we understand how our rule of law system of government should work and where problems are taking place. OK, So in terms of the rule of law and how our system of of government should work, is there room for people to be accused right now of overreacting? I mean, how much power can Trump assert if he becomes president again? Well, we don't have to speculate about how much power Trump will assert. He's already told us he intends to be a dictator on day one. There is an 800 plus page document called Project 2025. And this is Republican policy makers setting forth goals that are consistent of those with the second Trump administration. Many of them set us on the path towards authoritarianism if they don't actually knock at the door and take us through it. So here's something extraordinary. The Times article says that some officials are trying to democracy proof institutions ahead of the November election. To what extent is this possible? I mean, what can institutions do in such a short time? I think that this is an important question. And and Alex, something that we have to say is that there are legitimate policy objectives for every administration, right? And if Donald Trump is re elected to the presidency, he is entitled to pursue those objectives 100%. He has to do so in in a fashion that's consistent with our country's laws and with the Constitution. So it is legitimate, for instance, for agencies to set aside policy stances that set forth their obligation, the limits on their authorities and what they must do. Here's a great example. The Justice Department, the criminal prosecutions it undertakes, those are not part of the White House's prerogative to direct. Prosecutors by long standing legal and policy issuing in this country, make decisions based upon the law. Their decisions are tested, by the way, by grand juries in the first instance, by Petit juries, trial juries in the second instance, and by the court on appeal. It's not like prosecutors are running amok. So it's important that we re that we emphasize those institutional constraints, those guidelines and protect those institutions against an overactive White House. So President Biden was asked about Trump's rhetoric at the fundraiser in California last night. Here's what he said. Quote, the idea that he's actually threatening retribution. This is the United States of America. Did you ever think you'd ever, ever, ever hear anything like this? I mean, I guess Joyce, the question is, can the courts be relied on to protect democracy? Well, it'll take the courts plus. And I think the problem is the minute that you make these sort of comments, if you say that you are concerned about authoritarianism, then people push you aside as someone who's too emotional or someone who's imagining crazy things. But something that we understand, and people like myself who study democratic institutions and others who are far more scholarly when it comes to authoritarianism, understand that this often happens in countries that are under threat. That the voices that say we need to look at what's happening, we need to be careful about our future, that those voices are all too often ignored or pushed aside. This is the the moment when Americans, while they still have the ability to vote this November, need to take these issues very seriously and think through the implications of staying home versus voting and the choices that they make in November. Amen to that. Quick question, why do you think the Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on presidential immunity? Not surprising to see a difficult case like this held for the last weeks of the term. This Supreme Court term ends in formally in the last week of June. Occasionally they've gone over into early July and this is looking more and more like one of those terms. They have a lot of cases left, the difficult ones, the ones where there's either a last minute push for the court to arrive at a unanimous decision by doing a little bit of horse trading on on concurrences and dissents, or this, the cases where it's impossible for the court to rule unanimously and there's a deep split in the court. Those important cases tend to come out at the very end of the term. And there's every reason to believe after oral argument that there will not be a unanimous decision on this one. OK Joyce fans, always a pleasure. Thank you.