Grabien

BARTIROMO: “Let me — let me get you to put your doctor’s hat on for a second, given the doctors caucus that you are leading, what do you make of these debates? Trump says he wants both of the them to be standing for the two hours. Biden says he doesn’t want a live audience and it just has to be Trump and Biden, no RFK Jr. What do you make — how do these debates play out from — from your perspective?” MURPHY: “Yeah, it’s going to be interesting. Because, look, I’ll just be very plain and simple. I was in the State of the Union address, and Joe Biden must have been jacked up on something that day. I absolutely believe that from a medical viewpoint, actually I have a little bit of good knowledge that that happened. He can’t stand it. He can’t stand under the lights for that long. And I don’t think he can keep a concept in his brain that long. It’s going to be important that President Trump stays presidential. He did that during the last debate. He did not do that during the first debate. That he stays on track, he shows the American people how much worse they are four years — from — from four years ago, what — and what this President Biden has done to destroy this country. He just has to stay in his lane, President Trump just has to stay in his lane and act presidential. Sometimes he can get off on a wheel. We all know that and love that about him, but it sometimes hurts his issues. But Biden will falter and falter if he doesn’t have things right in front of him telling him what to do.” BARTIROMO: “Congressman, what do you mean, when you say he was jacked up at the State of the Union?” MURPHY: “I — I believe they gave him something to help him sustain the lights and sustain the vigor that he had. That’s not — that was not Joe Biden. I was in there. He screamed for two hours.” BARTIROMO: “Yeah.” MURPHY: “He screamed for two hours. And you know, maybe we can talk offline and I’ll show you something. And I think that proves that.” BARTIROMO: “You will show me what?” MURPHY: “I think I can have some evidence that shows that he was given something before that.” BARTIROMO: “OK. In terms of medicine, or —” MURPHY: “You know, Joe — Joe, there’s no way Joe — Joe’s 82. There was a picture taken of him last week, he’s on the beach without his makeup on. And guess what? He looks like what, an 82 year old. You can see his surgical scar in the back where he had his facelift. You can see that very plainly. He’s being manufactured and puppeteered by the Democratic Party to be president of the United States. And I fully believe that has to do sometimes with pharmacology.” BARTIROMO: “Congressman, I’m going to follow up on that. I’d like you to — I’d like to see more of that. That’s really compelling.” MURPHY: “Yeah.” BARTIROMO: “We’ll follow it. Thank you very much, sir.” MURPHY: “All right. You all have a great day.”

Garland: “Good morning I’m about to go to the FBI Memorial for Fallen Agents. I’d be happy take a few questions before we go — before I get going.” UNKNOWN FEMALE: “David.” Reporter 1: “Mr. Attorney General, in your professional capacity you suggested to the president to invoke executive privilege. He invoked executive privilege. It protects you both personally. Is that a conflict of interest?” Garland: “Look, the Justice Department is a fundamental institution of our democracy. People depend on us to ensure that our investigations and our prosecutions are conducted according to the facts and the law and without political influence. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committees get responses to their legitimate requests. But this is not one. To the contrary, this is one that would harm our ability in the future to successfully pursue sensitive investigations. Now, there have been a series of unprecedented and, frankly, unfounded attacks on the Justice Department. This request, this effort to use contempt as an — as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files, is just the most recent the effort to threaten to defund our investigations and the way in which there are contributions to an atmosphere that puts our agents and our prosecutors at risk. These are wrong. Look, the only thing I can do is continue to do the right thing. I will protect this building, and its people.” [crosstalk] Reporter 2: “You kind of answered this just now, but I was wondering like, you know what these — these combined with the efforts to defund Jack Smith and other attacks on Biden Administration officials say about, you know, the broader effort to discredit you and to discredit the Justice Department and also, how would you manage that? How are you resisting that? And what can you do about that as attorney general.” Garland: “We have to go about our work following the federal principles of prosecution. They said we follow the facts and the law. We screen out outside inappropriate influences. That’s what we’re doing here. We’re protecting our ability to continue to do high profile and sensitive investigations. And — and we will continue to do that.” [crosstalk] UNKNWON FEMALE: “Carry, last question.” Reporter 3: “Mr. Attorney General, it now seems [indecipherable] now seen vanishingly small, that the two Jack Smith federal cases are going to begin trial, let alone finish trial this year. What does that say about the pace of the justice system and confidence in this Justice Department?” Garland: “Look, the special counsel brought both cases last year. He appropriately requested speedy trials. The matter is now in the hands of the judiciary, and I’m — I’m not going to be able to comment any further on that.” [crosstalk] UNKNOWN FEMALE: “Thank you everyone. We have to go at the FBI Memorial. Thank you everyone.”

WATTERS: “Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley joins us now. Jonathan, what does this mean?” TURLEY: “Well, it means what we already know. That Michael Cohen is the most compromised, unbelievable witness in the history of the federal legal system. That is hardly news. What we saw in his cross-examination was an evasive and rehearsed set of answers. And he will likely continue that tomorrow. But here you have his own lawyer now saying that what he said on the stand is diametrically opposed to what he told him in an attorney-client confidential setting. Now, we already flagged parts of the testimony of Cohen that did not seem to ring true. For example, Cohen said that he surreptitiously taped the former president for his protection, to keep David Pecker honest. That makes no sense at all. No one can make any sense out of how taping Donald Trump would somehow affect David Pecker. In fact, the call itself seemed to indicate that Trump had very little information about the deals that had been arranged by Cohen. It seems clear to most of us that he was banking insurance against Trump, that this was to be compromising information that he might use later. And that would be completely consistent with Michael Cohen. The only consistent element in Cohen’s career is that he will only tell the truth if he has no alternative, and he always acts for his own best interest.” WATTERS: “So does the defense call his ex-lawyer to the stand and just blows Cohen’s whole testimony up?” TURLEY: “Well, that would be something, wouldn’t it? You would just have the president’s formal council testifying against him, and then have his former counsel’s former counsel testifying against him. At some point, it’s going to get awfully strange. No, I don’t think that they will. Look, think there’s a strong temptation to just rest. I don’t think they have presented the elements of any crime. We still do not know what this other crime was that was being concealed by Trump. But they also have not put into evidence any clear support for saying that listing these payments as legal expenses was somehow fraud or wrong. Many experts are saying, ‘No, if you are paying your lawyer his fees and the costs that he put out there, most accountants would just list that as a legal expense because it’s going to your lawyer. So they haven’t put into play what is necessary, in my view, to get to the jury. But they may be tempted to put an expert on just to put a nail in this coffin. I can’t understand how any honest judge would allow this to go to a jury. You know, Judge Merchan is going to have his moment where he has to decide what he owes his commitment to, the rule of law or to something else. Because if he follows the rule of law, this would never go to a jury.” WATTERS: “Well, we’ll find out soon. Big day tomorrow, Cohen cross-examined. What a week.”

FALLON: “Today, President Biden challenged former President Trump to two debates, and Trump accepted. (Audience oohs) Yeah. Trump agreed to the debate. He said, ‘I’ll be there, assuming it’s okay with my parole officer.’ (Laughter) The first debate will be next month, which is the earliest a a presidential debate has ever been. And if we’re being honest, an early bird debate feels right for these guys. (Laughter) Yep, Biden and Trump will meet June 27th on CNN, and one of Biden’s debate conditions was not having an audience. So, that explains why it’s on CNN. (Laughter) Another condition from Biden, is that he wants microphones that automatically cut off when a candidate hits their time limit. (Cheering and Applause) Which — which will work right up until Trump walks over to Biden’s podium. ‘That’s why, as I was saying over there, more wall.’ ‘Okay. Thank you.’ Yep, microphones that automatically cut off. Biden got the idea after his last press conference when his staff was like, ‘We need a a microphone that automatically cuts off.’ (Laughter) Biden and Trump also accepted an invitation from ABC to debate on September 10th, and the winner will have the option of being president, or the next ‘Golden Bachelor.’ So that’s — (Laughter and Applause) It’s a tough call. Tough call. Well, get this. Biden actually made the debate challenge to Trump in a video that he posted. Take a look at this video.” [Clip starts] Biden: “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020. Since then, he hasn’t showed up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice.” [Clip ends] (Laughter) FALLON: “Biden’s talking smack. (Laughter) Usually an 81-year-old doesn’t get this riled up unless you park in front of their house. (Laughter) ‘(Mumbles) Now listen there, get off my lawn.’ ‘(Mumbles) We’re going to do it twice. (Mumbles)’ Thank goodness they had subtitles, right? ‘(Mumbles) Twice, twice.’”

HENDERSON: “— Donald Trump, who’s just going to throw everything at the wall?” BASH: “Well, on that note, I want you guys to listen to what Nancy Pelosi told our Manu Raju after hearing about these debates.” [Clip starts] Pelosi: “I myself would never recommend going on stage with Donald Trump, but the president has decided that’s what he wants to do. I think the format he is suggesting is a good one. I think you all should have separate townhall meetings with them, let them challenge them with questions about the future and let the public make its decision.” [Clip ends] BASH: “As you were saying.” HENDERSON: “Yeah, I think that’s right. That’s an idea. Do you sort of elevate Trump? Do you give a platform to his many, many lies about everything by debating him but I, you know, to Jeff’s point, he is the incumbent president.” ZELENY: “You’re right. I asked an aide about that, like isn’t this risky. They’re like, look, not debating is even riskier because it looks like he’s hiding out, looks like he’s not up to it. And again, the president, I’m told, and I believe, I don’t think this is spin, he wants to debate. He’s competitive. He wants to show that he’s better, but they think not debating is worse than showing up and having some type of a melee.” BARRON-Lopez: “Yeah, I mean, they’re desperate for that contrast. And they are aware of the fact that a lot of voters either — and especially young voters don’t necessarily remember Trump’s presidency.”

[Clip starts] Biden: “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day pal. I’ll even do it twice. So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.” [Clip ends] Wallace: “Epic troll. Hi, again, everybody. It’s 5:00 in the New York and what is already shaping up to be an unconventional presidential debate season. So, this morning that video was released by President Joe Biden. You could see for yourself he came out swinging, this trolling of Donald Trump, saying I hear you’re free on Wednesdays. He challenged Trump to two presidential debates while teasing him a bit about his current state as a criminal defendant. Joe Biden’s video was accompanied by a letter that his campaign sent to the Commission on Presidential Debates that outlined that he would not be participating in the debates they set up. Among the Biden campaign’s reasons for that, they said the commission’s proposed debates come too late in the process. That their debates were structured like an entertainment spectacle and not a serious exchange of ideas and that the commission was, quote, unable or unwilling to enforce the rules, referencing Trump talking over President Joe Biden and moderators in past debates.”

Smith: “All right, time for our panel. Doug Holtz-Eakin is here, former CBO director, and Robert Wolf his former economic advisor to Obama. Welcome to both of you. Robert, what was inflation when Biden took office?” WOLF:” I think it was probably 9, 10%? Smith: (Laughs) HOLTZ-EAKIN: “No, no, no. Come on.” Smith: “Come on, Robert. All right — “ WOLF: “But more importantly, it’s 3% now, so it’s down by two thirds.” Smith: “I apologize, I put you on the spot there. It was 1.4% and that is fact. So, Doug Holtz-Eakin, these are the claims that the president has been making, that The Washington Post is giving four Pinocchios. Kind of sounds like what Robert just said, listen.” [Clip starts] Biden: “We have dramatically reduced inflation from 9% down to close to 3%. We are in a situation where we are in a better situated than we were when we took office. (...) It was 9% when I came to office. 9%. But look, people have a right to be concerned. (...) I think inflation has gone slightly up. It was 9% when I came in, and now it’s down to about 3%.” [Clip ends] Smith: “All right, so apparently we’re having a hard time with Robert’s IFB. It was 1.4%. And I did put him on the spot there.”

MILLER: “Would you tell me today, can you commit here today that your department will not withhold federal funding from hospitals or doctors who refuse to provide the gender affirming care that you’re, you know, mandating if it violates their religious beliefs?” Becerra: “So, now, congresswoman, recognize you’re going somewhere completely different. First you started talking about how a doctor should have the rights to not offer particular care. Then you stretch it out to provide for the system wide services that you support. Very different. Very different.” MILLER: “You put out this guidance and doctors do need to know what are you going to do if they refuse to provide this care.” Becerra: “A doctor, if that doctor has religious objections, that doctor, under these rules, is not required to offer this care.” MILLER: “Okay, so you’re committing here today that you will not withhold federal funding — “ Becerra: “Doctors don’t get federal funding, ma’am.” MILLER: “But the hospitals do.” Becerra: “Okay, so now talk to me about the hospital. Don’t confuse the two.” MILLER: “Okay.” Becerra: “A doctor’s not a hospital.” MILLER: “But the doctors are working in these hospitals. Are you gonna say today that you’re committing that you will not withhold federal funding from those healthcare facilities?” Becerra: “If a healthcare facility is violating the law and not providing the service they’re required to, they are not entitled to resources.” MILLER: “Okay. We knew that you would withdraw federal funding.”

Newsom: “If there’s any good news, and I’ll close on this officially, State of California sees a decline in veterans homelessness, we have a national model. What Proposition 1 did is it reinforced that model, provided more resources to advance that model, and we’re very excited to get those dollars to work.”

BERMAN: “So you say no live audience. You want it in a television studio without an audience. Does that mean if the Trump campaign insist to an audience, no deal?” Tyler: “Listen, I think the Trump campaign made their proposal very clear, when Donald Trump said he’d be willing to debate anytime, anywhere, any place. And so what and we want and what we have laid out is that we want to do this sooner rather than later. We should do it in June, after this criminal trial is likely to have concluded and after the president returns from the G-7 summit. It should be, yes, in studio with no audience so that the candidates can clearly articulate their visions for the country —“ [crosstalk] BERMAN: “Is an audience — is an audience a deal breaker? Is an audience a dealbreaker for you?” Tyler: “Listen, it’s Donald Trump who said he would do this anytime, anywhere, any place. So I don’t think that they should have any problems with what we have proposed. He’s the one who said he’s ready to go. So we should be set to go once we have proposals in from network. So we’re excited to debate. The question is will Donald Trump accept it?” BERMAN: “I just issued a proposal right here. We’ll do it right here on ‘CNN NEWS CENTRAL.’ Happy — happy to oblige. No third party candidate? What if RFK is at 15 percent Robert Kennedy, Jr. At 15 percent in September, you still don’t think you should be on the stage?” Tyler: “Listen, the reality here is that there are two candidates with a pathway to 270 electoral votes. That’s President Joe Biden and that’s Donald Trump, and the American people deserve to hear from them because that is the reality that we’re facing. That is the choice in this election. So we should have a debate between the two candidates on the issues. Joe Biden will articulate his historic record of accomplishment, his vision for the future, and Donald Trump will go out here and try to explain why he’s bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade, why he’s trying to rebuild an economy that only works for rich people like himself, why he’s trying to rule as a dictator on day one. That’s the debate that the American people deserve to see in primetime and that’s what we’re proposing here.”

HEWITT: “... talk to you about the debate challenge. President Biden just issued you a debate challenge for June and September with the beeps talking in July. Do you accept?” Trump: “Oh, absolutely. I’ve been trying to get — you know, he’s issuing it. I wonder whether or not he shows up. Because, you know, he also challenged me to golf. So I’m a very good golfer, he can’t hit a ball 50 yards. He said, I’ll give him three aside, but he knows he’ll never play. This is sort of like that I think. But I hope not, because I really think he has to debate, he might as well get it over with. Probably should do it early, so that he can you know — he’s not going to get any better.” HEWITT: “Well, but — but June and September is great.” Trump: “Every day — every day is a down factor for him.” HEWITT: “June and September would be great if you can agree on the size of the table and the moderator.” [crosstalk] Trump: “Well, I already — I just — why don’t you look at the statement? I just put out a statement, you should have it on your hot wires, you get everything. I noticed you get things very quickly. I put it out on TRUTH. And TRUTH is the hottest thing right now by far.” HEWITT: “I will go look that.”

Kennedy: “Well, this trial, I think, says more about our politics than it does about alleged crime. Mr. Bragg, I don’t know him either, my observation is that if you want to hide something from him, you put it in a law book. He’s bringing a felony criminal trial, but he hasn’t proved a felony. Here’s why. I think most fair-minded Americans look at President Biden and they say, well, he’s old, his vice president’s weak, his policies suck, his family has corruption problems, and he’s losing the election. So he has decided to throw deep, as the vice president might say, kick down the effing door, and prosecute his opponent.”

Biden: “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then he hasn’t shown up for a debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day pal. I’ll even do a twice. So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.”

Blinken: “♬ Keep on rocking to the free world ♬ ♬ Keep on rocking to the free world ♬ ♬ Keep on rocking to the free world ♬ “

RUSH TRANSCRIPT: Ingraham: “This has been happening for some time, but this is at the highest of high levels.” LANGONE: “Now it’s out of the closet. Now it’s — they are blatant. ‘Here it is.’ Look, I’m no a defender of Trump. What crime did he commit? That’s something I still can’t understand. What crime did he commit that he is on trial in New York City today?” Ingraham: “Would you endorse Donald Trump tonight on this show? I know you were — lots of people were Nikki Haley supporters. You were one of them. A lot of very, very well-connected and wealthy people were Haley fans. What about now?” LANGONE: “Let me say this to you. I said on television a couple weeks ago that I was going to vote for my wife.” Ingraham: “Okay. That’s cute. But that doesn’t work on ‘The Ingraham Angle.’” LANGONE: “I know. I think the most important decision he is going to make is who his running mate is. Because his running mate has the best shot of being the best president because he can’t — he is finished after this term. And I think I’m just going to keep my powder dry and watch and see what he — “ Ingraham: “So you would consider sitting out the elections and not supporting Trump if he picks someone that you didn’t think was qualified?” LANGONE: “Well, first of all, I live in New York State. My vote doesn’t count.” Ingraham: “No, but your money counts. They need your money.” LANGONE: “Believe me, Elaine and I are supporting — I had John Kennedy in my office yesterday. By the way, they don’t come for my wisdom.” Ingraham: “You are on the speed dial.” LANGONE: “No, they come for my wallet. People shouldn’t be confused to think that I have this influence. The minute my wallet is shut — “ Ingraham: “But it’s a binary choice, Ken. I mean, you and I have known each other a long time and I incorrectly stated that you had supported Biden when you were just saying you hoped he was going to be a successful president.” LANGONE: “He said it in his inaugural speech, ‘I’m going to bring America together.’” >> Laura: you from The Bronx originally? >> No, long island. >> Laura: I don’t get my boroughs right. You are beyond smart and brilliant it’s a binary choice. We can’t dictate who he is going to pick. I’m sure it’s going to be someone who supports him and his policies binary choice Biden and lose America and Trump who he picks. How is that a hard choice. >> I always act like I’m losing when I’m winning. I think that’s the safest approach to take in life? >> Laura: work hard. >> Well, because you don’t take anything for granted. The polls look good now. If I was Trump. >> Laura: New York is not a borough. I’m being told. >> If I were Trump who could add to the assurance that I will win to the the next election who could add? >> Laura: do you have any suggestions? >> Yeah, Nikki Haley. That will never happen. But, look. >> Laura: did she play that right after Iowa? >> Who knows. >> Laura: you think she should be the vice president. What do you mean who knows? >> Look, election night New Hampshire he had a chance to go out and say I won and my goal is to bring the American people together. >> Laura: back to the dress? Okay. >> What does he do? >> Laura: they both did it. >> But he goes out and mocks her for — >> Laura: but the party hasn’t been this united I don’t think I may be wrong but I don’t think it’s been this united behind Trump, behind anyone since maybe 2004. >> I agree with that. >> Laura: 4? >> Because you know why? We have no choice. >> Laura: you are making my point, Ken Langone is endorsing Donald Trump by implication with that comment. >> Let me say this to you. There’s no doubt about it. At the end of the day, I might hold my nose as I vote, but, what choice do I have? I haven’t made a decision yet. >> Laura: I mean, I’m sorry I’m betting a dead horse here. >> Do you know what I’m worried about most of all? >> Laura: what? I’m worried about losing the country that’s what I’m worried about.

[Clip starts] Biden: “We’ve already turned around. Look — look at the Michigan survey where 65% American people think they‘re in good shape economically. They think the nation‘s not in good shape, but they‘re personally in good shape. The polling data has been wrong all along. You know, how many of you guys do a poll at CNN, how many folks do you have to call to get one response? The idea that we‘re in a situation where things are so bad that folks — I mean, we‘ve created more jobs...” [Clip ends] BURNETT: “So he doesn‘t like the polls, he doesn‘t like what they‘re showing right now. Is he right or is it wishful thinking?” ENTEN: “He loved the polls four years ago when they showed him ahead. These are the same polls now. But here‘s the thing. The polls can be right at this point, and then keep in mind, we still have six months until the election. Polls can change plenty. You go back over history, you look back since 1972, the average difference between the polls at this point and the final result, 6 points. The biggest difference was 15 points in 1988, Michael Dukakis was ahead.” BURNETT: “A huge swing. And even on Election Day, polls can be off substantially and people point that out. What does history show?” ENTEN: “Yeah, you know, talk about the battleground states, look at the errors on Election Day. In the average battleground states, the polls were off 6 points since 1972. In 2020, they were off 5 points. So for talking about 1-, 2-point leads in these battleground states, the polls could be showing one thing and then the other person could certainly win.” BURNETT: “And that would show historically true. Because we know people are going to say, oh, who knows, fraud, whatever. Look at history, it always happens, Harry, thank you.” ENTEN: “Thank you.”

DOOCY: “Thanks, Karine. Why do you think Americans are so down on President Biden right now?” Jean-Pierre: “What do you mean?” DOOCY: “I know you don’t like to talk about polls like the five of six swing states that he is losing right now to somebody who is a criminal defendant. But more broadly, it doesn’t seem like anything you guys are doing is making him more popular. Why do you think that is?” Jean-Pierre: “So, you — you mentioned a criminal defendant — your words, not mine. So, I want to be super mindful about how I answer this question because, obviously, that criminal defendant is also a — in — in the race for 2024 election. So, going to be super mindful there. I will speak more broadly to what the American people are going through. Like, we understand. We are sensitive enough and open-minded enough to understand that this is — that not just this country but globally people have had to deal with a pandemic and coming out of that pandemic. We understand that even — you know, you think about gas prices and, because of Putin’s war, what that has occurred that led to gas prices increasing. And the president had a lot to deal with when he walked in — a lot — a lot of crises. And this is a president that took that very, very seriously and took action. The American Rescue Plan — no Republicans voted for that, but we ended up trying to work to get an economy that’s fairer for all and make sure that we don’t leave people behind and creating 15 million jobs, un- — an unemployment rate that’s under 4 percent. We understand that people are still feeling this. We get that. And we’re not — we’re not blind to that. That’s why you hear the president pretty regularly announcing how he is going to lower costs for the American people — whether it’s Big Pharma, trying to lower healthcare costs, expanding ACA for those who truly need it, or it is making sure that we get rid of junk fees that cost Americans a lot of money every year. So, look, we know it’s going to take a little bit of time. We get that. And we are going to continue to — it’s not going to stop us from talking about it and then also not going to stop us from talking about the contrast that we see from GOP Republican congressional members who want to do the opposite of what the president is trying to get done: cutting Social Security, Medicare — Medicare, Medicaid. That is what they’re talking about — slashing taxes for billionaires and corporations. That’s not what this president wants to do. He wants to make sure that we’re building an economy from the bottom up, middle out. And, again, we get it. We get that prices are too high for Americans. And that w- — that’s what we’re going to continue to do: the work.” DOOCY: “I get that you understand that people are hurting right now. Why is it that nothing you’re doing to address their concerns is working?” Jean-Pierre: “What I’m saying is we’re going to continue to do the work. I can’t speak to the polls, right? Those are for folks who are experts who can do a deep dive and look into that and speak to them. What I can speak to is: We understand what the American people are feeling. We understand what they’re going through. That’s why we’re going to continue to do the work. 301 tariff, that’s part of it — right? — making sure that we’re protecting American workers, making sure that we’re protecting American businesses. That’s the work that the president is going to focus on. And we’re going to continue to move in that way.”

Alito: “Right now in the world outside this beautiful campus, troubled waters are slamming against some of our most fundamental principles. Support for freedom of speech is declining dangerously, especially where it should find broadest and widest acceptance. In a book called The Idea of a University, Saint John Henry Newman saw the university as a place for reasons debate. Today, very few colleges live up to that ideal. This place is one of the few that does, and you are very fortunate to have had that experience. Religious liberty is also threatened. When you venture out into the world, you may find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting where you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm. And as Bishop Caggiano said last night, it will be up to you to speak out.”

Biden: “We got to be steady, stay the course and continue to produce these incredible jobs and the job — and by the way, pay for the jobs are — are outpacing the inflation rate they’re paying. We’re — we’re going to — we’re going to be able to deal with this. Gonna take a little more time. We’re just focused on it.”

Johnson: “President Trump is is a friend and I wanted to be here to support him. I’m here speaking with you outside because the court won’t allow us to speak inside the building. That’s just one of the many things that are wrong here. This is the fifth week that President Trump has been in court for this sham of a trial. They are doing this intentionally to keep him here and keep him off of the campaign trail. I think everybody in the country can see that for what it is. I’m an attorney, I’m a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here, what is being done here to our entire system of justice overall, The people are losing faith right now, in this country, in our institutions. They are losing faith in our system of justice. And the reason for that is because they see it being abused, as it is being done here in New York. The facts here are very important. Facts are always important in a trial, or at least they’re supposed to be. The president’s actions in this matter were previously reviewed and no charges were filed. Why is that? Because there’s no crime here. Now, eight years later, suddenly they resurrected this thing. They brought it back. And why is that? Well, just apply common sense. Everyone can see. It’s painfully obvious that we are now six months out from an Election Day, and that’s the reason. That is the reason why they brought these charges here and across the country.”

Goldberg: “Sunny was — well, she was sitting there. So what did you hear, Sunny?” HOSTIN: “I was in the courtroom again yesterday. Yes, thank you. (Applause) Thank you. What I want to do is give a little color to the courtroom because a lot of people —“ Goldberg: “Redo that.” HOSTIN: “No, no, little color I mean that literally and figuratively.”

Trump: “They say it’s a bookkeeping error. I paid a lawyer a certain amount of money, we marked it down as legal expense. So I had a legal expense and marked it down as a legal expense. I didn’t mark it down as construction of a wall, construction of a building. I didn’t mark it down as electricity cost. I took a legal expense and they called it — I didn’t do it, the bookkeeper did it. He did it exactly right. Took a legal expense, they called it a legal expense. This is their whole case. Are you allowed to call a legal expense a legal expense? I don’t know what else you would call it, actually. But he brings it up here as a legal expense. What’s the problem? ‘I never thought that as an attorney I could see a system like New York’s, one of the most sophisticated legal in the world debase itself so badly. This judge should not be allowed on the case and should not have allowed this case to go forward. Merchan should rule in favor of a directed verdict immediately. There is an insufficient amount of evidence. No crime has been shown. No crime has been committed. There has been no crime.’ Judge Jeanine Pirro, she talks here, she is very excited here. ‘He is a fool. He is not an experienced judge.’ I will make that one a little short. I don’t want to insult anybody. Gregg Jarrett, brilliant guy, ‘Bragg’s argument is legally flawed. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) determined there was no campaign finance violation. The Department of Justice agreed. No civil fine was levied or criminal charges rendered. Those two entities have exclusive authority over federal elections.’ The state has absolutely no authority and the city, Bragg, has no authority. And Bragg never wanted to bring this case, in all fairness to him. He never wanted to bring this case. ‘No local prosecutor, such as Alvin Bragg, should be involved in this case.’ And the judge, as you know, is totally conflicted and everybody is talking about it. It’s an embarrassment to New York.”

SEINFELD: “Privilege is a word that has taken quite a beating lately. Privilege today seems to be the worst thing you can have. I would like to take a moment to defend it. Again, a lot of you are thinking, ‘I can’t believe they invited this guy.’ Too late. I say, use your privilege. I grew up a Jewish boy from New York. That is a privilege if you want to be a comedian. (Cheering and Applause) Thanks. If I messed up a funny story around my relatives, they would go, ‘That’s not how you tell that joke. The prostitute has to be behind the drapes when the wife comes in.’ You went to Duke. That is an unbelievable privilege. I now have an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters degree from Duke University. And if I can figure out a way to use that, I will. I haven’t figured anything out yet. I think it’s pretty much as useful in real life as this outfit I’m wearing. But so what? I’ll take it. My point is, we’re embarrassed about things we should be proud of, and proud of things we should be embarrassed about. When I was writing my TV series — (Applause) Thanks. What a crowd. So, on my staff in the 90s, we had a lot of Harvard guys. They were fantastic, but I could never understand why these guys were so embarrassed about being from Harvard. They would never talk about it. They would never mention it. I’m not talking about Harvard now. I’m talking about the way it used to be. You’re never going to believe this. Harvard used to be a great place to go to school. Now it’s Duke. (Cheering and Applause) You didn’t fake your fabulous education. You earned it. Be proud of it. Don’t just drop it on people right before you serve in pickleball. Okay? ‘Duke ‘24, coming at you.’ But if it comes up, if someone asks, don’t say it looking down, stubbing your toe in the dirt. When someone asks, where did you go to school? You say, ‘I went to Duke.’ Watch them take that uncomfortable hard swallow. AI, on the other hand, is the most embarrassing thing we’ve ever invented in mankind’s time on Earth. Oh, so you can’t do the work? Is that what you’re telling me? You can’t figure it out? This seems to be the justification of AI, ‘I couldn’t do it.’ This is something to be embarrassed about. The ad campaign for ChatGPT GPT should be the opposite of Nike. You just can’t do it. (Laughter) Making fake brains is risky. Frankenstein proved that. He was so dumb, he thought a monster needed a sport jacket. It’s not a wine tasting. We’re terrorizing villagers. No one’s going to tell you. I’m sorry, Mr. Stein, it’s jackets only this evening. What I like is we’re smart enough to invent it, dumb enough to need it, and still so stupid we can’t figure out if we did the right thing. Making work easier — this is the problem. So obsessed with getting to the answer, completing the project, producing a result which are all valid things, but not where the richness of the human experience lies. The only two things you ever need to pay attention to in life are work and love, things that are self-justified in the experience and who cares about the result. Stop rushing to what you perceive as some valuable endpoint. Learn to enjoy the expenditure of energy that may or may not be on the correct path.”

GEIST: “Congressman, I’ll ask you to put on your former prosecutor’s hat for just a moment here. What about that connection? That’s the whole ball game right there, that Donald Trump knew that they were falsifying records. Has the prosecution made that case?” Goldman: “Well, I think it does remain to be seen, and that is the key. On the one hand, that is the technical legal requirement that they will have to prove. A lot of times in these trials, though, you know, the jury will want to make sure they check all the boxes, but the detailed defense is a tough one to make. I would echo what Claire said — and I have deposed Michael Cohen, I have met with him a number of times to prepare him — this was different testimony than what his demeanor was during the A.G.’s case. This is different than he has been in the past. But the question is not how he is on direct examination. The question is how he is on cross-examination. They were very smart to put him so late in the trial. Because what is happening now is, as he is on direct examination, he’s testifying, and the jury is seeing how what he is saying is consistent with what David Pecker said, with what Stormy Daniels said, with what other witnesses said. Because the D.A. knows that they are going to have to corroborate him, because he is an admitted perjurer, he is an admitted liar, he has testified inconsistently on the stand, so he is either lying one time or the other, and he will be really skewered on cross-examination for that. So in order to use him effectively, they’ll rely heavily on that recording where he’s very much corroborated about what he says about Karen McDougal, and they’re going to rely very much on the consistent statements that he made with all of the other witnesses. It remains to be seen today on cross-examination whether he can hold up and accept responsibility for lying on the stand before or lying to Congress. And he will say, of course, ‘Yes, I lied, and I did that for Donald Trump, your client,’ and that’ll be effective. The technical defenses or the technical aspects of the case do remain to be seen, but I think the critical thing here that they are really showing over and over and over, both for this trial and just generally, is that Donald Trump just doesn’t care about election law. He doesn’t care about campaign finance law. He welcomed Russian interference in 2016. He tried to hide the Stormy Daniels stuff because it came, especially on the heels of the ‘Access Hollywood’ and he thought he was done. Everything thought he was done. So they’re doing a very effective job of showing that this man simply doesn’t care about that law.”

MACRON: “This is my point. But the point is just we have to be sure when we regulate we should not over-regulate. And I think now we have to deliver, we need in Europe much more investment, we have to cut red tape, add more flexibility. But in parallel, everybody has to be serious. I saw a lot of funds, a lot of asset managers saying we are with you on climate change. Where is the beef? Are you sure you are sufficiently compliant? Are you sure you are clearly addressing the same issues? This is my point, and this is why we need the re-synchronization between the U.S. and Europe. The re-synchronization is number one, the U.S. regulation in terms of climate change should be more serious and realign on the European ones. Second, the Europeans have to invest much more and be more serious and realign themselves on the U.S.”