NOW TO ANOTHER ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND IT IS UNDER SCRUTINY.

HIS TERMINATION OF SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR TWO PROMINENT LAW FIRMS, BOTH OF WHICH HAS AS THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE HILLARY CLINTON, AND JACK SMITH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION THAT BROUGHT CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE CURRENT PRESIDENT.

FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE DOJ, MARY McCORD, SPEAKS TO HARI SREENIVASAN ABOUT THE CHILLING EFFECT OF THESE ATTACKS ON THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

>> PAULA, THANKS.

MARY McCORD, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

ON FRIDAY, THE PRESIDENT WENT AND ADDRESSED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HE WANTED TO LAY OUT HIS CASE FOR ABOUT AN HOUR ON LAW AND ORDER, BUT INSTEAD, THERE WERE A LOT OF TIMES WHERE HE SPENT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY ATTACKING HIS ADVERSARIES, HIS ENEMIES, PERCEIVED OR REAL, BUT WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT SPEECH?

IT'S FIRST OF ALL, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SAT THROUGH NUMEROUS SPEECHES IN THE GREAT HALL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BECAUSE I WAS IN THE DEPARTMENT FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS, IT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY SPEECH, IT WAS A POLITICAL RALLY, AND IT WAS A REAL PROMISE OF VENGEANCE.

THOUGH WE COULDN'T SEE THE AUDIENCE, THAT THAT WAS NOT AN AUDIENCE MADE UP OF CAREER AND LONG-TERM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYERS AND STAFF, IT SEEMED TO BE A HAND-PICKED AUDIENCE OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES AND ALLIES , AND HE SPOKE TO THEM DIRECTLY.

AND YOU KNOW, NORMALLY --FIRST OF ALL, IT IS RARE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO COME SPEAK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT ALL.

IN PART, THAT IS BECAUSE EVERYONE USUALLY IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO MAINTAIN THAT SORT OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE PERCEPTION OF INDEPENDENCE.

BUT IF A PRESIDENT DOES COME, IT IS TO TALK ABOUT A NEW INITIATIVE, AND I THINK THE THOUGHT HERE WAS MAYBE HE WAS GOING TO BE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FENTANYL CRISIS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, BUT NO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN DURING HIS CAMPAIGN AT A RALLY, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE ACROSS AMERICA, SPEAKING TO HIS SUPPORTERS.

>> WHAT HAVE YOU NOTICED IN BOTH THE TENOR, TONE, AND ACTUALLY EVEN THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYERS ARE TAKING TO COURT, JUST IN THESE PAST TWO MONTHS?

>> WELL, HE TRIED TO MAKE -- I THINK YOU SAID AT ONE POINT, WE WERE GOING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND HE SUGGESTED THAT WHAT THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE GOING TO BE DOING WAS TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS WITHIN GOVERNMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT OF COURSE, PART OF HIS NARRATIVE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN WEAPONIZED AGAINST HIM, HAD PROSECUTED HIM FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, AND HE MADE CLEAR, I THINK HIS WORDS WERE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL ROOT OUT THE ROAD ACTORS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE, AND HE SPECIFICALLY POINTED TO ATTORNEYS THAT HE HAD PUT INTO THE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP, WHICH, REMEMBER, ARE BASICALLY HIS PERSONAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE TEAM.

HE HAS TODD BLANCHE AND EMIL BOVE UP AS HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL ON PRINCIPLE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEY WERE OF COURSE HIS PRIMARY CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNCIL.

PAM BONDI AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HIS FIRST IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE COUNCIL, AND EVEN JOHN SAUER AS HIS SOLICITOR GENERAL, WAS HIS DEFENSE COUNCIL IN THE JANUARY 6 CASE THAT ARGUED IN THE SUPREME COURT, RESULTING IN THE IMMUNITY DECISION.

SO, HE WAS SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THEM, AS WELL AS TO THE NEW FBI DIRECTOR, KASH PATEL, ABOUT WHAT HE EXPECTED THEM TO DO.

IN TERMS OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS AND STAFF IN THE DEPARTMENT, I DON'T THINK HE GAVE THEM REALLY ANY CREDIT FOR THE GOOD WORK THE DEPARTMENT JUGS OVER THE YEARS, BECAUSE IF YOU WERE SITTING THERE LISTENING, YOU WOULD THINK THAT EVERYTHING UP UNTIL THAT MOMENT WHEN HE IS SPEAKING TO YOU AND SAYING WE ARE BASICALLY TURNING THE PAGE, THAT EVERYTHING UP TO THAT MOMENT HAD BEEN CORRUPT, WHEN OF COURSE, THOSE WHO HAVE WORKED THERE FOR DECADES, KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

YOU KNOW WHAT, THE PRESIDENT IS REWARDING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN LOYAL TO HIM, WHO HE THINKS UNDERSTANDS HIS WORLDVIEW, AND THINKS THEY WILL CARRY OUT SORT OF HIS INTEREST.

NOW, WHY IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ANY OTHER PRESIDENT DOES?

>> SO, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, AND AS SOMEONE WHO WORKED IN THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, I CAN SAY THAT THE POLICIES DID CHANGE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOCUS ON IMMIGRATION AS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LEADERSHIP WANT TO DO, THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAREER DEPARTMENT ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S FOR DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY, THAT IS SOMETHING THEY ARE YOU STUPID WE ARE GOING TO PRIORITIZE ONE THING, THIS ADMINISTRATION, MAYBE OVER ANYTHING ELSE.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING THAN USING THE MECHANISMS AND INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION AND PROSECUTION TO ACTUALLY GO AFTER ENEMIES.

THERE IS NOTHING HE WAS SAYING THAT SUGGESTED THOSE IN THE DEPARTMENT PREVIOUSLY OR JACK SMITH'S TEAM, JACK SMITH BEING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, OF COURSE WHO INVESTIGATED BOTH THE MAR-A- LAGO MATTER AND THE JANUARY 6th MATTER INVOLVING DONALD TRUMP, AS WELL AS THE PROSECUTORS WHO PROSECUTED THE ATTACKERS, THOSE WHO ATTACKED THE CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6th.

THERE IS NOTHING HE SAYS, OTHER THAN JUST LABELING WITH ADJECTIVES THAT THESE ARE HORRIBLE PEOPLE, NOTHING THAT SUPPORTS THAT THEY DID ANYTHING IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, IN VIOLATION OF ETHICAL CODES, OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE, AND RECALL THAT DURING THE LAST ADMINISTRATION, IT WAS NOT ONLY DONALD TRUMP WHO WAS INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED, BUT ALSO JOE BIDEN HIMSELF, WHILE A SITTING PRESIDENT.

NOT PROSECUTED, BUT INVESTIGATED WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER ANY MISHANDLED.

JOE BIDEN'S SON, HUNTER BIDEN, INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED.

WHAT THE ATTORNEYS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DO IS THEY FOLLOW THE FACTS WHERE THEY LEAD AND THEY APPLY THE LAW TO THOSE FACTS.

AND WHAT WE ARE HEARING NOW IS SORT OF THE SAME ALTERNATE REALITY THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS PREACHING RELATED TO HIS BASE THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN, WHICH IS THAT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ALL OF US COULD SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES AND HEAR WITH OUR OWN EARS, SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6, AND THAT THOSE WHO WERE PROSECUTED WERE POLITICAL PRISONERS AND HOSTAGES, SO HE CONTINUES ESSENTIALLY THAT FALSE NARRATIVE, AND CONTINUED THAT IN THE GREAT HALL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON FRIDAY.

LAST WEEK, THERE WAS ONE LAW FIRM , PERKINS, WHICH HAS A COUPLE THOUSAND LAWYERS, IT IS NATIONALLY KNOWN, IT FACED OFF AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION IN COURT.

THEY WERE FIGHTING AGAINST AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WRITTEN BY THE WHITE HOUSE THAT SAID THAT ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS LAW TO DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

AND NOT ONLY THAT, THAT REALLY CLIENTS OF THE LAW FIRM THAT HAVE ANY CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT MANDATE?

>> THIS IS A PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY EXECUTIVE ACTION, AND CLEARLY THE JUDGE THOUGHT SO AS WELL.

JUDGE HOLLAND OF THE D.C. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, SHE DID ISSUE AN INJUNCTION, A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST PROVISIONS OF THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER.

THIS WAS REALLY AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND IT WAS FOLLOWED ON FRIDAY BY A SIMILAR EXECUTIVE ORDER AGAINST ANOTHER MAJOR INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, PAUL WEISS.

VERY SIMILARLY, STARTING OUT TALKING ABOUT WHAT A DANGER LARGE LAW FIRMS ARE TO SORT OF THE COUNTRY, AND BLACKLISTING PAUL WEISS MUCH IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ABOUT PERKINS BLACKLISTED PERKINS.

TO YOUR POINT, DID THINGS STRIP SECURITY CLEARANCES OF ATTORNEYS THERE, RESTRICTED -- SAID ANY TYPE OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH THESE LAW FIRMS SHOULD BE TERMINATED, EVEN SOUGHT IN BOTH OF THESE ORDERS TO LIMIT ACCESS BY THE ATTORNEYS AT THESE MAJOR FIRMS INTO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS OR TO MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

SO, IMAGINE A FIRM THAT DOES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WORK THAT IS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION BEFORE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IS INVOLVED IN REPRESENTING REGULATED ENTITIES , YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR REGULATIONS THAT ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.

IT MEANS ESSENTIALLY, THEY CANNOT DO THEIR WORK.

AND THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY POINTED EFFORT, BECAUSE THE REASON --THE STATED REASON IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN BOTH CASES --AND I WILL ALSO MENTION A THIRD ONE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AT THE LAWYERS AT COVINGTON AND BURLINGTON, WHO ARE REPRESENTING JACK SMITH, IT IS DIRECTED PERSONALLY OUT OF VENGEANCE.

IN THE CASE OF PERKINS, THIS IS STATED IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, I'M NOT JUST SPECULATING ABOUT THIS, IT IS BECAUSE THE FIRM HAD REPRESENTED HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN BACK IN 2016.

IT IS BECAUSE IT HAD FILED LITIGATION ON VOTING RIGHTS, THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DISFAVORS.

AND IT IS BECAUSE THEY ASSERTED THAT PERKINS ENGAGED IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAMS TO INCREASE THE MINORITY REPRESENTATION WITHIN ITS LAWYERS AND ITS STAFF.

AND SIMILARLY, AS DIRECTED AT PAUL WEISS, IT IS BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF AN ATTORNEY THAT USED TO WORK THERE, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T LIKE.

AND THEIR OWN DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION POLICIES.

SO, THESE ARE TARGETED BECAUSE OF PERSONAL VENGEANCE IS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, BUT THEY ARE ALSO SHOT ACROSS, THEY ARE MEANT TO INTIMIDATE OTHER BIG LAW FIRMS INTO NOT FILING LITIGATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, INTO NOT COMING TO MIGHT BE TARGETED BY THE GOVERNMENT, REALLY TO TRY TO GET THE LAWYERS OUT OF THE WAY.

>> IN THE PRESIDENTS RATIONALE, IN WRITING, AS YOU SAY, HE HAS GONE AND SAID I WAS THE TARGET OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS FOR FOUR YEARS, AND THEN FOUR YEARS AFTER THAT, SO DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT TARGETING.

HE FEELS THAT THESE LEGAL TEAMS AND THESE ACTIONS AGAINST HIM WERE PART OF AN ATTACK.

AND HE, IN HIS MIND, AND IN WRITING, HE IS SAYING I AM TRYING TO WRITE THESE WRONGS.

WHERE IS SORT OF HIS LOGIC WILL [ INAUDIBLE ] >> WELL, BECAUSE YOU DON'T USE -- [ INAUDIBLE ] IN THE CASES WHERE IT IS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, OR EVEN A CIVIL CASE, PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION, AND HE HAS WELL TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THIS MOST RECENTLY, OF COURSE, AND THE PROSECUTIONS HE IS TALKING ABOUT, HE HAS HAD A LEGAL TEAM WORKING REALLY 24/7, DEFENDING HIM IN CRIMINAL CASES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, NOT ONLY FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES, BUT STATE CRIMINAL CASES, CIVIL CASES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, THE E. JEAN CARROLL MATTER FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE BROUGHT BY THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING CORPORATE BUSINESS FRAUD.

HE HAS BENEFITED THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE FROM DEFENSE ATTORNEYS DOING THEIR JOBS.

SIMILARLY, HE HAS USED ATTORNEYS TO BRING CASES, MANY, MANY, MANY CASES OVER THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER, PARTICULARLY IN HIS BUSINESS ENDEAVORS, SO HE WELL UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS THE JOB OF LAWYERS, NOT TO BREAK THE LAW.

AND NO ONE HAS ACCUSED HIS LAWYERS ARE BREAKING THE LAW, BUT TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING PARTICULARLY IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE RIGHT TO CANCEL.

AND SO, WHERE HE BREAKS HERE IS IN TRYING TO PUNISH THOSE LAW FIRMS WHO ARE DOING THE VERY THING THAT OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM DEPENDS ON, WHICH IS LAWYERS PROVIDING LEGAL COUNCIL TO CLIENTS, WHETHER IN CRIMINAL MATTERS OR CIVIL MATTERS, TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT OF COUNCIL, THAT THEY HAVE DUE PROCESS, AND THAT ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM ARE DONE FAIRLY, AND CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

AGAIN, IT IS THE POINTING FINGERS AND SUGGESTING CRIMINAL MISFEASANCE --CRIMINAL MALFEASANCE OF ANYONE WHO HAS EVER CHALLENGED HIM, THAT'S WHERE I THINK HE GOES REALLY ALL RIGHT.

WHAT IS REALLY OUR --IRONIC ABOUT THIS IS DAY ONE IN HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER, ABOUT ENDING THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND IN SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS HE HAS MADE ABOUT ENDING THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HIS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SEEMS TO BE WEAPONIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND PARTICULARLY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

I THINK THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS THING.

>> THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION PUT OUT A STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRMS THAT ARE BEING TARGETED.

I WANT TO READ A PART OF IT.

IT'S AS IF A COURT ISSUES A DECISION THIS ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT AGREE WITH, THE JUDGE IS TARGETED.

IF A LAWYER REPRESENTS PARTIES IN A DISPUTE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OR IF A LAWYER REPRESENTS PARTIES THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT LIKE, LAWYERS ARE TARGETED THESE ACTS HIGHLIGHT GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH FAIR AND IMPARTIAL COURTS, THE RIGHT TO CANCEL AND DUE PROCESS, AND THE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION IN OUR COUNTRY.

THIS IS THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDING NOW.

BUT I WONDER, IS THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE?

IS THE CHILLING EFFECT KIND OF UNDERWAY?

RIGHT?

I MEAN, WHILE A SPECIFIC LAW FIRM, LIKE ANY BUSINESS, AND SAY, LISTEN, YOU ARE IMPEDING MY ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY AND HAVE CLIENTS, BUT THIS OTHER NOTION , AS SOON AS YOU PICK OFF TWO OR THREE MAJOR FIRMS AND EFFECT KIND OF THROUGH WASHINGTON AND OTHER PLACES THAT FOR BUSINESS REASONS, OR FOR HEADACHE REASONS, OR WHATEVER REASONS, OTHER FIRMS MIGHT JUST CHOOSE TO SAY, I AM JUST GOING TO STEER CLEAR OF THIS?

>> THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT IS ALREADY HAVING THAT CHILLING EFFECT.

I WILL NOT SAY THE DAMAGE IS DONE AND CAN'T BE REPAIRED, BUT IT IS CLEARLY HAVING THE EFFECT IT WAS TENDED TO.

WE ARE SEEING SOME MAJOR LAW FIRMS THAT ARE LITIGATING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW OR PARTICIPATING IN CASES BEING BROUGHT, CHALLENGING VARIOUS EXECUTIVE ACTIONS, THERE ARE CERTAINLY LAW FIRMS WHO ARE STEPPING UP TO DEFEND SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TARGETED BY DONALD TRUMP OR BY HIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY NONPROFITS THAT ARE DOING THAT TYPE OF WORK , THOSE THAT DO PUBLIC INTEREST WORK, INCLUDING MY OWN ORGANIZATION AT GEORGETOWN LAW, WHICH HAS LITIGATED CHALLENGING THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF LAWYERS THAT ARE NOT BEING CHILLED, BUT THE IMPACT IS CLEAR WHEN YOU ARE IN THE LEGAL FIELD, PARTICULARLY HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WE CAN NOTICE WHICH FIRMS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE CASES.

WE KNOW FROM TALK AMONGST OURSELVES THAT IN CERTAIN FIRMS, THE DIRECTION HAS BEEN, NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT.

WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME SORT OF ATTORNEYS WITHIN FIRMS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHINGS PRO BONO, FINE SCENES, SO THEY CAN SUPPORT CHALLENGES TO OVERREACHING EXECUTIVE ACTION, BUT IT CAN'T HAVE THE NAME OF THE MAJOR LAW FIRM IN WHICH THEY WORK.

SO, THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING, BUT THE CHILLING EFFECT IS REAL, AND THAT IS WHAT WAS INTENDED.

BUT IF PEOPLE DON'T STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS, IF THEY DON'T CHALLENGE OVERREACHING AND UNLAWFUL --AND IN MANY CASES UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION, THAT ALLOWS THE ADMINISTRATION TO JUST KEEP ON DOING IT.

>> PAM BONDI, THE NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL, SAID RECENTLY, "THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE FBI AND ALSO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHO DESPISE DONALD TRUMP, DESPISE US, DON'T WANT TO BE THERE.

WE WILL FIND THEM, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN TRANSPARENCY, YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HONESTY, YOU HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO ROOT THEM OUT.

WE WILL FIND THEM AND THEY WILL NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED."

AND YOU WORKED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY REALM.

TELL US KIND OF YOUR REACTION TO HEARING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAY THAT ABOUT, WELL TECHNICALLY, HER COLLEAGUES.

>> SO, NOTABLY, THERE WAS NOTHING THERE SUGGESTING THAT ATTORNEYS OR EMPLOYEES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WERE NOT FILLING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, THEIR DUTIES, THEIR OBLIGATION, THE OATH THAT THEY TOOK TO THE CONSTITUTION, THAT THEY WERE DOING ANYTHING UNETHICAL OR IMMORAL OR ILLEGAL, NOT EVEN THAT THEY WERE NOT FURTHERING LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

SIMPLY, HER WORDS WERE THEY DESPISE DONALD TRUMP, AND WE WILL ROOT THEM OUT AND WE WILL FIND THEM AND THEY WILL NOT HAVE A JOB.

THIS IS --I HATE TO OVERUSE THE WORD EXTRAORDINARY, BUT IT IS EXTRAORDINARY.

IT IS BASICALLY SAYING IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY OR YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HIS VIEWS, YOU NEED TO BE ROOTED OUT AND FIRED.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DEPARTMENT IS BUILT ON.

SO, HERE IS SOMEBODY SAYING IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS PRESIDENT, SHE USED A STRONGER WORD, DESPISE, WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT SHE BASED THAT ON, THIS WAS A COMPLETELY BASELESS STATEMENT, BUT IF YOU DESPISE US, YOU NEED TO BE OUT.

THAT IS A LOYALTY TEST, HARI.

>> MAYOR McCORD, THE FORMER ACTING GENERAL AT THE DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND DETECTION UNDER GEORGETOWN LAW, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.