Sept. 24, 2026
BREAKING: Clock Ticking For Contempt; Trump Violates Judge’s Order
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Journalists from CNN, MSNOW and Politico have all been turned away from the White House today, hours after a judge ordered President Trump’s ban on the organizations temporarily lifted, effective immediately. There is a 12:30PM ET hearing set between the news outlets and the Trump Justice Department, and it’s unclear how this is going to unfold, and what the outcome may be. We go over what’s at stake as Trump defies a federal judge.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Thursday, September 24th, the day of our constitutional crisis. As we speak, folks, a judge is close to holding possibly the White House in contempt for violating his express order. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, CNN, Political MS Now. They were supposed to be back in the White House by now, babe. Yes.
00:00:29
Speaker 1: In fact, the judge's order said that the well, the temporary restraining order said it was effective immediately.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: And that came out when last night around what? Midnight, one o'clock in the morning.
00:00:39
Speaker 3: I think they said earlier this morning. So it was just past midnight.
00:00:43
Speaker 1: The judge's ruling took effect or at least it was supposed to take effect. And so this morning, when reporters and photojournalists and producers from Politico and MSNOW and CNN came up to the White House saying, here's my credential, y'all got to let me in, Secret Service said, oh, no, we don't.
00:01:03
Speaker 2: Bro, this is wild. The White House. It's standoff. They have been ordered. See, the standoff isn't there anymore because a judge just stepped in and ended it. A judge. This is law. This is law and order. Courts speak. They have told people what to do and two sides can agree, right? A judge, a court steps in and tells you how to behave. He has told the White House how to behave. Right now, there is a colossal white middle finger. That is right outside the White House to our entire court system. We don't have to do what you tell us we have to do. Now, Robes, do we want to leave space for this being, you know, a technical issue? It's taken a little while to get them back in the system.
00:01:49
Speaker 1: No, that's not what's going on. I'm very sure that's not what's going on. They know exactly what they're doing. They have, look, this is just, honestly, this is so frightening to think that the Trump administration has eroded public trust in our election system, in our judicial system.
00:02:08
Speaker 3: In the media.
00:02:10
Speaker 1: And they've made it seem as though all of these foundational elements of our democracy are not to be trusted and not to be adhered to. And we now have a standoff because there is an immediate hearing request. And that immediate hearing is supposed to be taking place Almost immediately. Immediate is the word of the day. I don't think the Trump administration knows what it means.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: I mean, I am waiting for a response because right now, folks, we did this story earlier in our feed this morning, right? It was a big deal, the judge order. We didn't expect to be hopping back on, but this is a breaking news situation right now, Robes, and the news is breaking and the clock is ticking. The judge has now, I need to hear from you by 1230 and then what? 1230 Eastern Time, so folks, that's about a little over an hour away as we're recording this, but the clock is ticking, Robes. How much time do you give someone to restore someone's past? If this happened at one in the morning, maybe the White House shuts down and nobody was there for work. I am being sarcastic, obviously. People are working constantly.
00:03:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's almost been 12 hours since that judge ordered that restraining order to take place, or at least to lift the... This ban that President Trump placed on journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico, and almost a full 12 hours later, they still are not complying.
00:03:39
Speaker 3: What are you supposed to do? What's set in place in our system?
00:03:45
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:03:46
Speaker 3: What is the next step?
00:03:49
Speaker 2: What is to go back to court, which is what they're doing. We'll let you hear. We'll read this thing to you now, folks. But obviously, you're up on it by now. The president last Friday decided he wanted to kick these three outlets out because he didn't like the way they were covering him. He went beyond that later in the court filings road and said this is a national security issue, some of their reporting. And I have the right to do this because they don't have a right to be here. It's a privilege to be here. So they still defended this thing. This brings us to now. They had a court hearing yesterday to argue this out. The judge didn't rule from the bench, but he did give them, Robes, a court order around midnight, one o'clock in the morning. That brings us to now. That means, Robes, when all these reporters went to the White House today, everything should have been hunky-dory.
00:04:30
Speaker 3: That's correct.
00:04:31
Speaker 1: So because it wasn't, and it's been described in this request for an immediate hearing, which we'll read to you, this is now the next step. So this is what CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have written to the courts. Early this morning, the court issued a temporary restraining order directing that defendants and their agents, representatives, and all persons or entities acting in concert with them shall immediately return, reinstate, and restore the White House hard-passed press credentials held by employees of CNN, MSNOW, and Politico that were revoked on or.
00:05:09
Speaker 3: About September 18th, 2026.
00:05:12
Speaker 1: This morning, journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico attempted to enter the.
00:05:16
Speaker 3: White House and were turned away.
00:05:19
Speaker 1: And Secret Service agents confiscated the hard pass of journalists whose hard passes had not previously been confiscated. And when plaintiff Betsy Klein, whose hard pass was confiscated on Saturday, September 19th, requested to have her hard pass returned, her request was denied. And she was refused access to the White House complex.
00:05:41
Speaker 3: And time is of the essence.
00:05:43
Speaker 1: CNN is scheduled to be the television pool this evening for President Xi's visit to the White House. Counsel for plaintiffs reached out to counsel for defendants this morning and requested to call the court together. Counsel for defendants has not responded. Defendants have already repeatedly violated the court's orders. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court set a hearing by videoconference or teleconference as soon as possible.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: If you can get a hold of them.
00:06:15
Speaker 3: They're not responding.
00:06:17
Speaker 2: Tick tock, tick tock. I know they're busy over at the Justice Department. Okay, we'll get to it. This seems like a big priority. Constitutional crisis. It seems odd that the... I mean, who was our number one defender of the Constitution? President of the United States. Number one, right?
00:06:32
Speaker 3: Supposed to be.
00:06:33
Speaker 2: Number one. He is... violating it one, Robes, just by getting us into court in the first place. First Amendment violation, right? Yes. And now, Robes, a court has ordered our White House, our government to do something, and they right now are saying no.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: No.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: Was it this morning or yesterday? I said, babe, I bet they come up with something cute. I bet they come up with some reason, something cute to say, oh, we got to put them through the system again. They have to go through all the background checks again. They were going to come up with something to not be in compliance, i.e. TARP.
00:07:21
Speaker 1: Well, yes. And now it seems as though they are going to use President Xi's visit as the reason why. So Politico is reporting that they are now saying in its court's arguments against restoring access to the three groups, the Justice Department is urging that the ban be retained at least until Xi's visit concludes for national security reasons. President Xi is here through tomorrow. He came in yesterday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. But that's not what the judge ordered. The judge ordered that those journalists immediately be granted access to the White House and to cover the events happening at the White House.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Robes, what argument? If these three networks are working during President Xi's visit.
00:08:20
Speaker 2: There is a national security threat? Is that the argument now?
00:08:25
Speaker 1: Yes, they're claiming national security, but the judge already made it very clear that he isn't buying the national security argument that the Department of Justice was trying to peddle initially as to why these journalists, these three organizations were barred in the first place. He said, no, I reject that. That doesn't make any sense. But they're still leaning on that right now.
00:08:51
Speaker 2: But they're tying it specifically and directly to the visit of the Chinese president. How? Is there a threat to the Chinese president if they're covering it? If you allow CNN in?
00:09:06
Speaker 1: Think about that statement. Think about that accusation and think about what that implies. And while you have the White House trying to use President Xi's visit as the reason why, out of national security concerns, they can't allow these journalists into the White House, now you've got these three news organizations arguing that.
00:09:25
Speaker 3: The Xi visit is unlawful.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: A newsworthy event that warrants the restoration of their credentials as soon as possible. Because this is a big deal. This doesn't happen very often. And we're, CNN, is the pool reporter. And by the way, all the other networks remaining in solidarity with the three singled out news organizations have all refrained from using photos or videos.
00:09:51
Speaker 2: So what's going to happen? We'll tell you what we think is most likely going to happen today. Stay here.
00:10:05
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Amy and TJ. This is a breaking story that we actually don't know. where it's going to take us today, but I do believe this is taking us into unchartered territory. I cannot recall, and maybe some historian will be able to point out a moment in time where this has happened, but I.
00:10:25
Speaker 3: Cannot even imagine.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: anywhere close to something like this having occurred before. Yes, we've heard certain specific reporters, press credentials might have been revoked for specific certain behavior, but never have we seen entire news organizations banned from the White House for obscure, vague reasons.
00:10:46
Speaker 2: Was the AP, I think that's still in court, but they were only kicked out of the Oval Office.
00:10:51
Speaker 1: Correct.
00:10:51
Speaker 3: It was very specific.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: But look, this temporary restraining orders... cannot typically be appealed. And yet Trump's trying to appeal the temporary restraining order to a judge who was appointed by him in 2017. But it's believed that just about everybody is going to back the journalists here. This is not in question. This isn't, hmm, I wonder which side of the law this judge will fall on. There is no other side. This is a constitutional right.
00:11:26
Speaker 3: It's not a privilege. It's a right.
00:11:29
Speaker 1: And yes, if you can show specific violations and then you actually have the recourse to argue against these accusations, then and only then could someone's press credential be revoked.
00:11:41
Speaker 3: None of those things have happened.
00:11:43
Speaker 2: You know, it's a good point about the, there's a pretty high bar for temporary restraining order. You have to prove even before they adjudicate your case that you have a likelihood of winning Robes, that is a high bar. He said this is such a violation that I am just saying, nope, stop it now. Y'all can work it out later. But I think likely you journalists are going to win. So I'm just going to stop the ban right now. And the White House up until this point. Robes, make sure I'm not missing a possibility here that this is a technical boop, boop, boop. Right. You got to get them back in the system. You know what? The part there, though, Robes, they took somebody's pass. They took a pass. That they hadn't taken previously.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: After this restraining order was lifted, after they lifted the ban, after they obtained this temporary restraining order. So they not only have refused to comply with the judge's ruling, they've doubled down and taken more people's trespasses.
00:12:42
Speaker 2: That's a good point.
00:12:43
Speaker 3: That is remarkable.
00:12:46
Speaker 2: Rose, what was the... You remember they were in violation of a court order having to do with a flight taking an immigrant back to... You remember they said he shouldn't have been sent away and they did it anyway. I can't remember. I don't know what punishment the court can levy against the administration. Yeah. I mean, what can he.
00:13:05
Speaker 3: The President of the United States?
00:13:07
Speaker 2: What can he do?
00:13:09
Speaker 3: The Department of Justice and.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: What can a judge do to them?
00:13:13
Speaker 1: Our court system is going up against the Department of Justice.
00:13:19
Speaker 2: But, Robes, the Department of Justice is saying we don't have to follow the law. We don't have to follow a court's order. It's like, which one do you pick and choose that you want to follow? They are essentially saying we don't have to follow the law. The court's orders, Robes, that is, okay, how about this? Everybody today take that attitude that you're not going to, it's chaos. This is anarchy. Robes, if you just, we're just going to ignore what a court says. They are the arbitrators, baby.
00:13:55
Speaker 1: Well, he ignores what the election results are. He's ignored what the American people.
00:14:03
Speaker 3: Voted and were recorded.
00:14:06
Speaker 1: He has undermined every system in this country if it doesn't go along with the way he wants.
00:14:13
Speaker 3: Things to be.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: Bebe, a judge tells you to do something and you say, nope, I refuse. I don't know what he can do to the White House. But folks, the clock is ticking. So as of this recording, they have about an hour now, Robes, that they need to respond. And at this point, their response has been, nah, just give us until President Xi leaves. That just buys them more time to come up with something else probably.
00:14:38
Speaker 3: Of course it does.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: There'll be something else that will involve national security. And to have this judge specifically reference the BS around this national security debate, it really is laughable. Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was banning plaintiffs from the White House. Instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs reporting.
00:15:16
Speaker 2: Okay, using his own words against him. The clock is ticking. Rose, what do you think?
00:15:23
Speaker 3: I don't know. Because you know what?
00:15:25
Speaker 1: I don't know what this administration is willing to do, what they're capable of.
00:15:29
Speaker 3: We've seen.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: Enough in the past where I think the most honest answer and the most correct answer is to say they're going to do whatever the hell they want.
00:15:40
Speaker 2: I would say they are working to find a way to make it sound like they want this. That to give them the past back, they'll do they'll do a little something to make it feel like it's a win for the president. Like he's the one making the decision to give them their passes back. They're doing something, Robes, to make sure this is not a blatant, just a flat-out loss by the president. The TARP, I keep going back to the TARP. Robes, the judge has said repeatedly, repeatedly, you cannot have your name on that building. And what have they done? Shut the damn thing down and won't take the TARP down so people can see that the building once again says what it should say, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. That is why I think they're going to just do something cute. Do something to try to still pull off a win. I think they're going to go with, they have to go through the whole process of getting their passes again.
00:16:30
Speaker 3: I think that's, I'm afraid you just gave them an idea.
00:16:33
Speaker 2: Like a background check type of thing. Yeah, we got to go through and make sure.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they told one of the reporters who wanted their pass back that they were still in the process of disabling it.
00:16:43
Speaker 2: What?
00:16:44
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:16:48
Speaker 2: We're not done kicking you out, so we can't let you back in?
00:16:51
Speaker 1: Correct.
00:16:51
Speaker 2: All right, gotcha. Okay, it's going to be cute.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: It's going to be cute.
00:16:54
Speaker 2: Wait for it, folks, in an hour. We are all waiting, eagerly waiting. Are they going to be held in contempt? Are these folks going to get back into the White House? Is the president going to come up with something else? We are on it. Appreciate it, as always. Just wanted to give you this unexpected update. But I'm TJ. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, we will be talking to you all maybe
00:17:13
Speaker 1: In an hour.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Thursday, September 24th, the day of our constitutional crisis. As we speak, folks, a judge is close to holding possibly the White House in contempt for violating his express order. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, CNN, Political MS Now. They were supposed to be back in the White House by now, babe. Yes.
00:00:29
Speaker 1: In fact, the judge's order said that the well, the temporary restraining order said it was effective immediately.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: And that came out when last night around what? Midnight, one o'clock in the morning.
00:00:39
Speaker 3: I think they said earlier this morning. So it was just past midnight.
00:00:43
Speaker 1: The judge's ruling took effect or at least it was supposed to take effect. And so this morning, when reporters and photojournalists and producers from Politico and MSNOW and CNN came up to the White House saying, here's my credential, y'all got to let me in, Secret Service said, oh, no, we don't.
00:01:03
Speaker 2: Bro, this is wild. The White House. It's standoff. They have been ordered. See, the standoff isn't there anymore because a judge just stepped in and ended it. A judge. This is law. This is law and order. Courts speak. They have told people what to do and two sides can agree, right? A judge, a court steps in and tells you how to behave. He has told the White House how to behave. Right now, there is a colossal white middle finger. That is right outside the White House to our entire court system. We don't have to do what you tell us we have to do. Now, Robes, do we want to leave space for this being, you know, a technical issue? It's taken a little while to get them back in the system.
00:01:49
Speaker 1: No, that's not what's going on. I'm very sure that's not what's going on. They know exactly what they're doing. They have, look, this is just, honestly, this is so frightening to think that the Trump administration has eroded public trust in our election system, in our judicial system.
00:02:08
Speaker 3: In the media.
00:02:10
Speaker 1: And they've made it seem as though all of these foundational elements of our democracy are not to be trusted and not to be adhered to. And we now have a standoff because there is an immediate hearing request. And that immediate hearing is supposed to be taking place Almost immediately. Immediate is the word of the day. I don't think the Trump administration knows what it means.
00:02:37
Speaker 2: I mean, I am waiting for a response because right now, folks, we did this story earlier in our feed this morning, right? It was a big deal, the judge order. We didn't expect to be hopping back on, but this is a breaking news situation right now, Robes, and the news is breaking and the clock is ticking. The judge has now, I need to hear from you by 1230 and then what? 1230 Eastern Time, so folks, that's about a little over an hour away as we're recording this, but the clock is ticking, Robes. How much time do you give someone to restore someone's past? If this happened at one in the morning, maybe the White House shuts down and nobody was there for work. I am being sarcastic, obviously. People are working constantly.
00:03:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's almost been 12 hours since that judge ordered that restraining order to take place, or at least to lift the... This ban that President Trump placed on journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico, and almost a full 12 hours later, they still are not complying.
00:03:39
Speaker 3: What are you supposed to do? What's set in place in our system?
00:03:45
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:03:46
Speaker 3: What is the next step?
00:03:49
Speaker 2: What is to go back to court, which is what they're doing. We'll let you hear. We'll read this thing to you now, folks. But obviously, you're up on it by now. The president last Friday decided he wanted to kick these three outlets out because he didn't like the way they were covering him. He went beyond that later in the court filings road and said this is a national security issue, some of their reporting. And I have the right to do this because they don't have a right to be here. It's a privilege to be here. So they still defended this thing. This brings us to now. They had a court hearing yesterday to argue this out. The judge didn't rule from the bench, but he did give them, Robes, a court order around midnight, one o'clock in the morning. That brings us to now. That means, Robes, when all these reporters went to the White House today, everything should have been hunky-dory.
00:04:30
Speaker 3: That's correct.
00:04:31
Speaker 1: So because it wasn't, and it's been described in this request for an immediate hearing, which we'll read to you, this is now the next step. So this is what CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have written to the courts. Early this morning, the court issued a temporary restraining order directing that defendants and their agents, representatives, and all persons or entities acting in concert with them shall immediately return, reinstate, and restore the White House hard-passed press credentials held by employees of CNN, MSNOW, and Politico that were revoked on or.
00:05:09
Speaker 3: About September 18th, 2026.
00:05:12
Speaker 1: This morning, journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico attempted to enter the.
00:05:16
Speaker 3: White House and were turned away.
00:05:19
Speaker 1: And Secret Service agents confiscated the hard pass of journalists whose hard passes had not previously been confiscated. And when plaintiff Betsy Klein, whose hard pass was confiscated on Saturday, September 19th, requested to have her hard pass returned, her request was denied. And she was refused access to the White House complex.
00:05:41
Speaker 3: And time is of the essence.
00:05:43
Speaker 1: CNN is scheduled to be the television pool this evening for President Xi's visit to the White House. Counsel for plaintiffs reached out to counsel for defendants this morning and requested to call the court together. Counsel for defendants has not responded. Defendants have already repeatedly violated the court's orders. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court set a hearing by videoconference or teleconference as soon as possible.
00:06:14
Speaker 2: If you can get a hold of them.
00:06:15
Speaker 3: They're not responding.
00:06:17
Speaker 2: Tick tock, tick tock. I know they're busy over at the Justice Department. Okay, we'll get to it. This seems like a big priority. Constitutional crisis. It seems odd that the... I mean, who was our number one defender of the Constitution? President of the United States. Number one, right?
00:06:32
Speaker 3: Supposed to be.
00:06:33
Speaker 2: Number one. He is... violating it one, Robes, just by getting us into court in the first place. First Amendment violation, right? Yes. And now, Robes, a court has ordered our White House, our government to do something, and they right now are saying no.
00:06:54
Speaker 1: No.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: Was it this morning or yesterday? I said, babe, I bet they come up with something cute. I bet they come up with some reason, something cute to say, oh, we got to put them through the system again. They have to go through all the background checks again. They were going to come up with something to not be in compliance, i.e. TARP.
00:07:21
Speaker 1: Well, yes. And now it seems as though they are going to use President Xi's visit as the reason why. So Politico is reporting that they are now saying in its court's arguments against restoring access to the three groups, the Justice Department is urging that the ban be retained at least until Xi's visit concludes for national security reasons. President Xi is here through tomorrow. He came in yesterday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. But that's not what the judge ordered. The judge ordered that those journalists immediately be granted access to the White House and to cover the events happening at the White House.
00:08:10
Speaker 2: Robes, what argument? If these three networks are working during President Xi's visit.
00:08:20
Speaker 2: There is a national security threat? Is that the argument now?
00:08:25
Speaker 1: Yes, they're claiming national security, but the judge already made it very clear that he isn't buying the national security argument that the Department of Justice was trying to peddle initially as to why these journalists, these three organizations were barred in the first place. He said, no, I reject that. That doesn't make any sense. But they're still leaning on that right now.
00:08:51
Speaker 2: But they're tying it specifically and directly to the visit of the Chinese president. How? Is there a threat to the Chinese president if they're covering it? If you allow CNN in?
00:09:06
Speaker 1: Think about that statement. Think about that accusation and think about what that implies. And while you have the White House trying to use President Xi's visit as the reason why, out of national security concerns, they can't allow these journalists into the White House, now you've got these three news organizations arguing that.
00:09:25
Speaker 3: The Xi visit is unlawful.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: A newsworthy event that warrants the restoration of their credentials as soon as possible. Because this is a big deal. This doesn't happen very often. And we're, CNN, is the pool reporter. And by the way, all the other networks remaining in solidarity with the three singled out news organizations have all refrained from using photos or videos.
00:09:51
Speaker 2: So what's going to happen? We'll tell you what we think is most likely going to happen today. Stay here.
00:10:05
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Amy and TJ. This is a breaking story that we actually don't know. where it's going to take us today, but I do believe this is taking us into unchartered territory. I cannot recall, and maybe some historian will be able to point out a moment in time where this has happened, but I.
00:10:25
Speaker 3: Cannot even imagine.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: anywhere close to something like this having occurred before. Yes, we've heard certain specific reporters, press credentials might have been revoked for specific certain behavior, but never have we seen entire news organizations banned from the White House for obscure, vague reasons.
00:10:46
Speaker 2: Was the AP, I think that's still in court, but they were only kicked out of the Oval Office.
00:10:51
Speaker 1: Correct.
00:10:51
Speaker 3: It was very specific.
00:10:53
Speaker 1: But look, this temporary restraining orders... cannot typically be appealed. And yet Trump's trying to appeal the temporary restraining order to a judge who was appointed by him in 2017. But it's believed that just about everybody is going to back the journalists here. This is not in question. This isn't, hmm, I wonder which side of the law this judge will fall on. There is no other side. This is a constitutional right.
00:11:26
Speaker 3: It's not a privilege. It's a right.
00:11:29
Speaker 1: And yes, if you can show specific violations and then you actually have the recourse to argue against these accusations, then and only then could someone's press credential be revoked.
00:11:41
Speaker 3: None of those things have happened.
00:11:43
Speaker 2: You know, it's a good point about the, there's a pretty high bar for temporary restraining order. You have to prove even before they adjudicate your case that you have a likelihood of winning Robes, that is a high bar. He said this is such a violation that I am just saying, nope, stop it now. Y'all can work it out later. But I think likely you journalists are going to win. So I'm just going to stop the ban right now. And the White House up until this point. Robes, make sure I'm not missing a possibility here that this is a technical boop, boop, boop. Right. You got to get them back in the system. You know what? The part there, though, Robes, they took somebody's pass. They took a pass. That they hadn't taken previously.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: After this restraining order was lifted, after they lifted the ban, after they obtained this temporary restraining order. So they not only have refused to comply with the judge's ruling, they've doubled down and taken more people's trespasses.
00:12:42
Speaker 2: That's a good point.
00:12:43
Speaker 3: That is remarkable.
00:12:46
Speaker 2: Rose, what was the... You remember they were in violation of a court order having to do with a flight taking an immigrant back to... You remember they said he shouldn't have been sent away and they did it anyway. I can't remember. I don't know what punishment the court can levy against the administration. Yeah. I mean, what can he.
00:13:05
Speaker 3: The President of the United States?
00:13:07
Speaker 2: What can he do?
00:13:09
Speaker 3: The Department of Justice and.
00:13:11
Speaker 2: What can a judge do to them?
00:13:13
Speaker 1: Our court system is going up against the Department of Justice.
00:13:19
Speaker 2: But, Robes, the Department of Justice is saying we don't have to follow the law. We don't have to follow a court's order. It's like, which one do you pick and choose that you want to follow? They are essentially saying we don't have to follow the law. The court's orders, Robes, that is, okay, how about this? Everybody today take that attitude that you're not going to, it's chaos. This is anarchy. Robes, if you just, we're just going to ignore what a court says. They are the arbitrators, baby.
00:13:55
Speaker 1: Well, he ignores what the election results are. He's ignored what the American people.
00:14:03
Speaker 3: Voted and were recorded.
00:14:06
Speaker 1: He has undermined every system in this country if it doesn't go along with the way he wants.
00:14:13
Speaker 3: Things to be.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: Bebe, a judge tells you to do something and you say, nope, I refuse. I don't know what he can do to the White House. But folks, the clock is ticking. So as of this recording, they have about an hour now, Robes, that they need to respond. And at this point, their response has been, nah, just give us until President Xi leaves. That just buys them more time to come up with something else probably.
00:14:38
Speaker 3: Of course it does.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: There'll be something else that will involve national security. And to have this judge specifically reference the BS around this national security debate, it really is laughable. Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was banning plaintiffs from the White House. Instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs reporting.
00:15:16
Speaker 2: Okay, using his own words against him. The clock is ticking. Rose, what do you think?
00:15:23
Speaker 3: I don't know. Because you know what?
00:15:25
Speaker 1: I don't know what this administration is willing to do, what they're capable of.
00:15:29
Speaker 3: We've seen.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: Enough in the past where I think the most honest answer and the most correct answer is to say they're going to do whatever the hell they want.
00:15:40
Speaker 2: I would say they are working to find a way to make it sound like they want this. That to give them the past back, they'll do they'll do a little something to make it feel like it's a win for the president. Like he's the one making the decision to give them their passes back. They're doing something, Robes, to make sure this is not a blatant, just a flat-out loss by the president. The TARP, I keep going back to the TARP. Robes, the judge has said repeatedly, repeatedly, you cannot have your name on that building. And what have they done? Shut the damn thing down and won't take the TARP down so people can see that the building once again says what it should say, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. That is why I think they're going to just do something cute. Do something to try to still pull off a win. I think they're going to go with, they have to go through the whole process of getting their passes again.
00:16:30
Speaker 3: I think that's, I'm afraid you just gave them an idea.
00:16:33
Speaker 2: Like a background check type of thing. Yeah, we got to go through and make sure.
00:16:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they told one of the reporters who wanted their pass back that they were still in the process of disabling it.
00:16:43
Speaker 2: What?
00:16:44
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:16:48
Speaker 2: We're not done kicking you out, so we can't let you back in?
00:16:51
Speaker 1: Correct.
00:16:51
Speaker 2: All right, gotcha. Okay, it's going to be cute.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: It's going to be cute.
00:16:54
Speaker 2: Wait for it, folks, in an hour. We are all waiting, eagerly waiting. Are they going to be held in contempt? Are these folks going to get back into the White House? Is the president going to come up with something else? We are on it. Appreciate it, as always. Just wanted to give you this unexpected update. But I'm TJ. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, we will be talking to you all maybe
00:17:13
Speaker 1: In an hour.