JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Let me -- well, speaking# of authoritarianism, good transition,## a good all-purpose transition, let me talk# about another Republican, this time a judge,## J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of# Appeals, obviously not an active Republican now,## but appointed by Ronald Reagan, a well-known# conservative jurist.

This is part of what he## wrote in his order and his decision upholding# the lower court decision on the Abrego Garcia## issue.

The government is asserting a right# to stash away residents of this country in## foreign prisons without the semblance of# due process that is the foundation of our## constitutional order.

Further, it claims in# essence that because it had rid itself of## custody that there is nothing that can be done.# This should be shocking not only to judges but to## the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans# far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

Peter, that the judges are pushing back.

I mean,## maybe other people aren't.

But contrast# this -- contrast what's going on in the## judiciary with what's going on in# the Republican side of the Senate.

PETER BAKER: Yes.

In fact, what's really# fascinating about the Abrego Garcia case is that## every judge who has heard this from the district# court all the way to the Supreme Court, liberal## and conservative, has had the exact same response.# I mean, there's some semantic differences in some## of their rulings, but basically they're saying,# you, the government admit you screwed up and## violated the law by sending this man to El# Salvador, even though there was an order## saying you shouldn't do it, therefore, you# have responsibility to do something about it.

And then Trump is basically saying# is, no, I really don't.

You know,## I got nothing to do with this.

Even though I# have the president of El Salvador sitting next## to me in the Oval Office, I have no idea# how I could possibly convince the guy -- LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And instead,## now they're launching essent.. Now, look, do we know if he has ties to MS-13 or# not?

They haven't presented new evidence.

They're## basing it on police reports from 2019 that did# not charge him with any crime and a subsequent## 2022 interaction with police where he was also,# again, not charged with any crime.

But Judge## Wilkinson says this also in that opinion.# He says is he a member of MS-13?

Perhaps,## perhaps not.

But if the government is so# confident in their case, then they need to## bring it to the court of law and bring him back.

EUGENE DANIELS: And bring him back and so that## he can go through the due process.

That's# the whole point of due process is you go## through all of the points that you need# to, the government and then the defense## come together.

They go back and forth, and# then we figure out what actually happened## and whether or not someone is a member# of this gang or that gang or whatever.

MARK LEIBOVICH: #Well, but also the essence# of this, and I'm pretty -- I'd be shocked## if this wasn't part of Donald Trump and# the White House's calculation.

is that## the judiciary ultimately doesn't have# an army at their disposal.

They don't## have any way to enforce, you know, their# positions.

I mean, they can, you know,## launch contempt proceedings and so forth.# But, ultimately, you know, they see this as## sort of an argument that will play out in# a political spectacle that could benefit.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Let me go to this larger point,## and let's start by -- I want to show you# something that Judge Wilkinson said 12## years ago speaking at Duke University.

I want# to show you that very interesting moment.

And## then I want to go to Donald Trump talking# about judges.

Let's play Wilkinson first.

JUDGE J. HARVIE WILKINSON III, Fourth Circuit# Court of Appeals: When the tyrants of the## 20th century, these monsters, like Hitler and# Stalin and Mao, wanted to take over a society,## chief among their targets is the rule of law.# They don't want independent courts.

And, you know,## this is a sacred trust that we have here and there# ought to be a reverence for the law as the law.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #And now let's watch# Donald Trump this week talking about## judges as annoyances or impediments.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. President: I was# elected to get rid of those criminals,## to get them out of our country or to# put them away, but to get them out of## our country.

And I don't see how judges can# take that authority away from a president.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #So, the# million dollar question is,## have we reached an emergency# that you are alluding to?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, you know, is# this a constitutional crisis?

I mean,## to use the word -- I mean,# it seems like it, I mean,## along with other things that could# be getting into the neighborhood.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #But isn't it only# a constitutional crisis if the White## House says, yes, we've read your# ruling and we're not following it?

MARK LEIBOVICH: Sure.

PETER BAKER: It's pretty close.. JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #How close?

PETER BAKER: The.. that they are in keeping with the Supreme# Court's ruling as they interpret it.

Now,## it's a pretty strained interpretation because# the Supreme Court says, you shall facilitate the## return of him.

Well, we're facilitating.# If he happens to show up on our border,## we'll let him in.

It's a spurious argument, most# lawyers would say, but they're not saying that## they're disobeying the whole court.

They may come# to that point next though, well, four years again.

MARK LEIBOVICH: Well, I sort of wonder if# at some point Justice Roberts or the court,## you know, en masse makes some kind of very# succinct statement about their position here,## not open to interpretation and# just sort of take it from there.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #You mean bring him# back and put him through the process?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I mean, the Supreme# Court made pretty clear that the action## that the administration took was against the law# to deport all of these people without due process.## It's against even the Alien Enemies Act, which is# what they use to deport them.

And so, you know,## there are many constitutional scholars who already# say that we're in a separation of powers crisis,## a rule of law crisis.

I mean, Judge Wilkinson# himself in that opinion said that maybe he's## naive.

He used the word naive to believe or have# hope that the president will -- and that the## executive branch will respect the rule of law and# understand that it is vital to America.

So, he's## already saying that he believes that the country,# if it isn't, is on the precipice of a crisis.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Is there a chance that# Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court are## not writing it so clearly because they# don't want to know what might happen?## There's a little Murkowski quality maybe# here.

Maybe they don't want to find out.

EUGENE DANIELS: Well, because the way that Donald# Trump and his team works is they want -- if you## need them to do something, you have to say# it, right?

You can't kind of wink a nod at## it.

You can't do the gray area like you've done# in the past with other presidents who say they## respect the rule of law and are going to do what# the Supreme Court says or do what a district## court says.

This is a group of people who, if# you don't make it black and white, they're not## going to do it.

And that's what's happening when# you're talking about their interpretation of it.

They also believe in the unitary executive# theory that they have more power than other## presidents have both exercised and# believe that they've had in the past.

PETER BAKER: And I think for the, to# your point, and what Mark's point is,## these judges are wary of the conflict.# They're really.

Being careful trying not## to provoke a situation where they are basically# ignored.

Because what is the credibility of the## courts, well then it happens .You saw Judge# Boasberg, for instance, says, I'm going to## have a hearing on whether you've committed# contempt in this other case, for instance.

It's pretty clear they did.

It seems like# you could make -- most judge would've said## you are in contempt, period.

He's trying to say,## I'm giving you a chance, nut tell me# how you're not, and we get out of this.

EUGENE DANIELS: It's like# talking to a kid or a puppy.

PETER BAKER: Like he's trying to sa.. don't push me, don't push me.

But .. JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #I have# to ask the question then,## what happens the day after they# actively ignore a clearly written order?

EUGENE DANIELS: We're in a constitutional# crisis and then nothing happened?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Yes.

What happened?

EUGENE DANIELS: There's no army.

The -- LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, they# would be found in contempt,## potentially criminal contempt.

But to# your point earlier, they don't come -- (CROSSTALKS) MARK LEIBOVICH: Right, no.

But then I# guess .. version of the Boasberg statement, you# know, sort of go up the ladder.

I mean,## I guess they can probably threaten contempt and# maybe future disbarment or lawyers who work on## this case and the government.

I don't# know.

I'm just sort of throwing that.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: You can also level# financial penalties against specific## government officials if the judges are able to# figure out which government officials violated## their order.

And you see that Boasberg is# kind of heading down that path right now.

But, again, yes, Justice Department# in many of these situations would be## in charge of enforcing any of the judge's orders.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Right.

I I'm trying to deduce# what the Supreme Court is doing and might do,## but let me -- you all cover the White House.

Does# this White House want an open confrontation with## the Supreme Court where that question is put# on the table in front of a million people?

MARK LEIBOVICH: I don't think the Supreme# Court would engage in such a thing,## or at least in a way that would be -- I don't# know -- that would be obvious or that would## actually put them in Congress.

I# mean, I disagree a little bit -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Does Donald Trump want# a confrontation with the Supreme Court?

MARK LEIBOVICH: He probably doesn't,## I would guess, partly because# he sees them maybe as an ally.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #What are# they telling you inside?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I think they do want a# confrontation or t.. to be brought fully to the Supreme Court,# whether it's birthright citizenship,## which we're seeing the Supreme Court deciding# that they're going to take up, or, you know,## they want to reverse the Impoundment Act,# which makes it so the president can claw## back a bunch of money when he decides I# don't want to spend federal funds.

I think## they want those confrontations because# they're hopeful, maybe not that they'll## clash with the Supreme Court, but that the# Supreme Court will rule in their favor.

PETER BAKER: I think they want to confront,# particularly on this immigration case,## for instance, because they think it's a political# winner, right?

They could have made this go away.## They could have brought the guy back from El# Salvador and still deported him under a different## process that would've been seen as legal by the# courts, presumably.

But they didn't do that.## Why did they not do that?

Because they like the# idea of saying, you guys are defending rule of## law.

You're defending bad guys who are members# of gangs and thugs and all that kind of stuff, JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Right.

Two more issues# I want to get to.

On the first, Eugene,## sorry, but you're the head of the press in# America.

You're the president of the White## House Correspondents' Association.

We're# not going to talk about the White House## correspondents' dinner, but you are one of the# people leading the charge to make sure that## the press has autonomy and freedom to cover# the White House.

What's the state of play?

EUGENE DANIELS: I think the# state of play is not great,## if I'm going to be honest.

I'm going to# be like Lisa Murkowski be honest here.## Part of the reason is because you have in the# White House folks who believe that the people## who are doing the governing should also# pick who are, who's covering them, right?

In the past, even during his first term, Donald# Trump believed that, or at least allowed that## the people doing the covering picked who did# cover, who covered them.

And I think the reason## is because you don't want government officials# to be able to have viewpoint discrimination,## like we've seen with the Associated Press, than# choosing people who are going to bring into the## Oval Office, who are going to ask easy questions,# who aren't going to push them back on that.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #And the press and the White# House going back to the 60s to the television era,## the beginning of the television era,# just accepted that these are the norms.

EUGENE DANIELS: Yes.

And there's always# been tension, right?

Like, you know,## I tussled with the Biden folks on many a phone# calls, right?

That part of it is normal, right,## even with the WHCA and the White House.

The# difference is that the kind of him handedness## of we are going to control this because# and, frankly, lying and saying, you know,## the WHCA has been closed off and hasn't brought# in people.

We have brought in a place that both## of us used to work at, Politico, a digital outlet,# the Daily Caller, right?

Christian Broadcast News,## all these different types of organizations, or# members of the association, good members of the## association, and who have gotten chances to, and# have continued to be in the pools and all of that.

So, we're in a position right now where we are# ready at any time to continue to take over the## pool and do all of that because it's not about# us.

It's to make sure that the American people## have people in the Oval Office who are asking# questions, who are asking easy questions,## who are pushing the president to defend the# things that he wants to do in this country.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Right.

And we will come# back to this because this is going to be## going on and on and on, I'm afraid.

Peter,# one last question for you, I want to stay on## the subject of the Chris Krebs ran digital --# ran for Homeland Security in the Biden period,## an organization that looked at disinformation# campaigns, now is being targeted by the Trump## administration and part of the E.O.

directed# against him, the executive order directed## against him, blamed him, said that one of# the reasons he is unqualified to even hold## a security clearance is that he argues that# Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

He's had## to now leave his job in the private sector# because of this kind of pressure campaign.

PETER BAKER: Yes.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #What does it mean for the# heal.. PETER BAKER: It says a lot.

Chris Krebs,# of course, worked actually under the Trump## administration, was fired by Trump when# he said at the end of the 2020 election,## there was no evidence that# the election was, in any way,## unfair or rigged.

And you're right, this executive# order, which directly targets him by name,## I've never seen any president ever fought until# this one, sign executive orders targeting people## he did not like by name, saying that Justice# Department should investigate this person.

And you're right to say this Justice# Department should investigate Chris## Krebs because he refuses to accept that the# 2020 election was rigged, on other words,## my version of reality, what the president's# saying, he should be investigated.

In effect,## he's saying it's a crime to say# the 2020 election wasn't rigged.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #So, that's# straight Orwell territory.

PETER BAKER: It's pretty up there.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #That we're in.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: It's a time to# tell.. JEFFREY GOLDBERG: #Well, we are# going to have to leave it there.## Thanks to our guests for joining me# and thank you at home for watching us.