Video

Appearing with former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance and conservative lawyer George Conway, former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann claimed Judge Cannon is "playing with fire" by not adhering to the law in Donald Trump's Florida trial.

Speaking with MSNBC host Katie Phang, Weissmann noted that Cannon has previously butted heads with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in matters related to Donald Trump, and her latest failure to adhere to the law will not be looked kindly upon.

Asked by the host what comes next for special counsel Jack Smith with the prospect he may turn to the court of appeals over a demand for evidence, Weissmann replied, "I think is going to be fascinating to see what he does. We don't know the underlying facts, but we do have a sense of them from Jack Smith's submission, as you noted with respect to the concern about safety."

"If you put that together with what George [Conway] pointed out, which is to remind everyone about Judge Cannon's really truly horrific history in sort of the pre-indictment phase where she was reversed from the 11th Circuit not once but twice in fairly scathing language, what Jack Smith may very well do today is seek what is called a writ of mandate," he explained.

ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school

"It's a form of appeal, without getting into the technicalities to say, once again, she is really not adhering to the law here," he continued. "And I do think if she is doing something that would hurt the witnesses unduly, where this is the kind of thing that I think any other judge in the case would not take that step, that is the kind of thing that, depending on who the panel is, and again, I always refer to Joyce [Vance] on all things 11th Circuit, and frankly everything else."

"I do think that is the kind of thing that can get an appellate panel really angry about the way in which this is handled, and that was very much what we saw and was evident in the 11th Circuit's reversal of her twice," he added. "[It] was a real concern about her disregard of classified information of the role of the intelligence community interfering with normal criminal investigations and explicitly saying that Donald Trump will be treated differently and more favorably than other defendants. And she was rebuked twice, saying that is not the standard, he is to be treated no better and no worse than anyone else."

"So she could really be playing with fire here in this ruling, but it remains to be seen, the underlying facts in what Jack Smith does," he remarked. "I do think if he takes it up, basically as you said, fasten your seatbelts as to what could happen."

Watch below or at the link.

After watching a clip of Donald Trump telling a crowd on Friday night that Pennsylvania as we now know it will cease to exist if he loses the election, two MSNBC hosts were left speechless while a third could be heard laughing in the background.

During his speech Friday night in Harrisburg, the former president told the crowd that a President Joe Biden win in November would be bad news for the state.

"We’re not going to have Pennsylvania. They’ll change the name,” Trump stated. “They’re going to change the name of Pennsylvania.”

On Saturday morning, MSNBC "The Weekend" co-host Alicia Menendez shared the clip and, as it concluded, tilted her head in confusion, Symone Sanders-Townsend looked down and was unable to speak, and former Republican National Committee head Michael Steele, who was off camera, started laughing.

Sanders-Townsend finally stated, "Michael, you said something the other day, I was like, 'Yes!' Donald Trump, obviously, he has trouble stringing a sentence together. The American people, the voters at least, do not think of him as senile or crazy, his inability to put a sentence together. They are not registering concern about his age. I think that is because there has not been a sustained campaign from the time Donald Trump came onto the stage down a little elevator to brand him as such."

ALSO READ: A Republican invasion of self-defeating immorality

"I agree," Steele replied. "The reason why it's hard to do it is because Donald Trump is so dammed entertaining, because he is entertaining us."

He added, "You don't look at him through the same critical lens you look at the guy who is obviously much more serious, the president of the United States. You then pick apart those flaws: the guy who you find entertaining has them, as well. He [Trump] can't put a sentence together correctly, wants to rename Pennsylvania. That says a lot about how Donald Trump stepped into the space."

Watch below or at the link.

With Donald Trump's lawyers expected to file an appeal to the Supreme Court by Tuesday asking for a stay of a lower court's ruling that he should not be afforded presidential immunity for crimes committed while in office, former DOJ official Mary McCord predicted doom for his bid.

During an appearance on MSNBC's "The Weekend," McCord told the hosts that she could see the court denying Trump's appeal outright, setting the stage for Judge Tanya Chutkan to proceed with her Jan. 6 trial as soon as possible.

Speaking with the MSNBC hosts, McCord explained that the lower court's ruling is ironclad and that may prompt the court to skip reviewing it and deal with more important matters.

ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school

Asked about Trump filing an appeal, McCord first joked, "His lawyers have been pretty busy this past weekend and probably haven't gotten it written yet."

"The Supreme Court could grant cert just based on the motion — they did that in Bush v. Gore. Or they could grant the stay and give him a deadline to file his petition, two weeks or something like that, something shorter than normal. Or they could deny the stay," she explained.

"I do think it's entirely possible they will deny this stay and deny cert even when a petition comes because it was unanimous, ruling, it covered all the bases," she elaborated. "They don't have to agree with every point made by the [Appeals Court] judges to affirm. If they think that there is not -- they think that the ultimate conclusion was correct, even if there are bits and pieces that are not weight-bearing in that opinion that they don't agree with — they don't have to take it just to correct those."

Watch below or at the link.

According to former high-ranking DOJ official Mary McCord, there is definite evidence of bias in Judge Aileen Cannon's handling of the Donald Trump obstruction of justice proceedings as well as general incompetence that is also slowing down the trial.

Appearing on MSNBC's "The Weekend," McCord discussed the back and forth between the Trump-appointed Cannon and special counsel Jack Smith over sealed evidence on Friday and was asked by the hosts if she is over her head.

"Do you think it is bias or do you think it is incompetence?" she was asked by co-host Alicia Menendez.

"I think there's a little bit of both," McCord quickly replied. "I think there is some incompetence here. She applied the wrong legal standard and it's not difficult to discern what the right legal standard is."

"But clearly she has revealed since the very beginning of this case a bias," she continued. "And I don't know whether she thinks she wants to make sure she is putting the government to its burden and not showing any favoritism for the government —."

"Feels like she's showing a lot of favoritism towards Donald Trump," co-host Symone Sanders-Townsend interrupted.

ALSO READ: There is no justice in America

"That's right, that's right," McCord agreed.

Watch below or at the link.

House Ethics Committee investigators examining U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz and allegations he had sex with an underaged teenage girl have obtained the cooperation of the star witness in the U.S. Dept. of Justice's investigation into the Florida Republican Congressman.

A lawyer for Joel Greenberg, the former close friend and "confidant" who Gaetz once described as his "wingman," says his client "has and will cooperate with any congressional request," The New York Times reported Friday.

Appearing on CNN early Saturday morning, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman dismissed an attempt by one of Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia RICO trial by making new accusations about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

At issue is an attorney for Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, claiming they have proof that Willis was engaged in an affair with special prosecutor Nathan J. Wade earlier than she claimed and, thus must be taken off the prosecution of Trump and his multiple co-defendants for election tampering.

Speaking with CNN host Victor Blackwell, Litman stated the claims have no bearing on the trial by stating, "It's a big so what?"

Asked about the significance of the claim, Litman shot back, "Legally none."

"It's really similar to what we're just talking about, it's a big so what, except it could have legs as a political talking point," he explained.

"The question is for this case before the judge, is there any conflict of interest?' he continued. "Bad move, for sure, to have started in a relationship with him before, after, during whatever. The legal question is does this in some way impair the office's ability to vigorously prosecute, and the answer is clearly no."

ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school

"The latest response by the defendant is just a way of keeping alive salacious allegations that really have nothing to do with the issue in front of the court in terms of the prosecution itself," he concluded.

Watch below or at the link.