'Justice delayed is justice denied':  Hillary Clinton weighs in on Trump's trials

I want to ask you on behalf of our viewers not only about abortion, which I'll talk about in a moment, and women's rights, but also about former President Donald Trump, who is in New York City Criminal Court, for this money issue to keep silent meanwhile the documents case. is

delayed

meanwhile Georgia what is happening here everything seems to be

delayed

and moving along the way and there are even those who argue that these Manhattan cases are not that big, they are not serious and he could walk free anyway or not and how he handles the its people especially the people who really love this democracy, who take it seriously, who take very seriously the words that you just said on our program, that you can't just sit back and let democracy come to you, that this is something we all need to work on every day. together, what do you tell people when they ask you about the former president, these

trials

and these delays and the fear they feel about the upcoming elections?

Well, I'm happy to go to therapy with you anytime because clearly the pressure and the stress um, in our system, our country, our constitution, our future is so intense for those of us who understand what's at stake and don't. I say in a derogatory way for others, but if you have been in this world like you and I have studied it and you have seen it. It's a very difficult time right now. Know. Justice delayed is

justice

denied

and for the people of our country it seems that we are most likely going to vote. without knowing the outcome of these other very serious

trials

and the one that is currently taking place in New York it is really about electoral interference, it is about trying to prevent the people of our country from having relevant information that may have influenced how they could have voted in 2016 or if they would have voted.

I think the defendant, the former president, knew exactly what he was doing when he did everything he could to try to crush, bury, kill stories, pay people, because he understood the electoral meaning of them, so I think this is not This is about the past because the other cases are about electoral interference and he has practically promised us that if you listen to him at his rallies you will read his interview with Time magazine, if not I don't like the way the elections turn out. He's going to do something again to try to prevent the rightful winner from taking office.

I mean, I was Secretary of State traveling the world on behalf of our country trying to persuade leaders to believe. in democracy, believing in the peaceful transfer of power, accepting the results of the election after the appropriate challenges were made and, you know, Trump had all the time in the world to make those challenges and the courts shut him down and the Republicans fell. They

denied

it. as well as democratic election officials because there was no evidence that this is all about power how to get it how to keep it how not to give it up that is so opposite to everything we believe or should believe in our country about how we are a nation of laws, not of men, and they are men who try to put themselves above the law, try to hold on to power.

The other point I would like to quickly make is that the Supreme Court is doing our country a disservice by not deciding the case. on immunity, that is, I read the excellent decision of the court of appeals and the fair judges there, I think it covered all the possible arguments and what we heard when this case was tried before the Supreme Court, to my ears at least they were efforts to try to find loopholes to try to create an opportunity for Trump has tried to overturn an election has carried out hundreds and hundreds of pages of highly classified material for his own trade of entertainment interests we don't know what, um, these are very serious serious charges against any American, but someone who has been president and wants to be president again, that should make any voter think not twice but many, many times about whether we should trust you with our country, Madam Secretary, with a therapy session. obviously officially finished now uh things wait wait I need more oh do you need more do you need more? okay, well, we'll tell you at the end, everything will be fine if Americans do their job and get out and vote, lady.

Secretary, you know, yesterday we interviewed Andrew Ross Sorin, who spoke with one of the founders of the Silicon Valley revolution in the late '80s and early '90s, who said that as much as we talk about AI, we're not talking about she. Enough, I feel the same about Donald Trump, luckily we talk about him so much in the media that it's just hard to do so, it really gets nauseating after a while, at the same time I'm afraid that for some Americans we're not focusing enough on a president who said he would be a dictator from day one, who would end the Constitution, who would execute the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would immediately jail journalists he didn't like. that he would immediately find him guilty of treason to news organizations that didn't talk the way he wanted them to talk or didn't function the way they wanted him to function, now we can go down the list, he said he was going to fire us lawyers who would.

Not immediately Jael his political opponents we go on and on and I find myself thinking back and people will say I'm being overly dramatic. I do not think it is. I'm thinking of a column by Richard Cohen that was probably written in 20072 2008 where he talked about this scene around a lake in Germany in 1937 and how beautiful and peaceful it was and everyone was going about their business 1937 the kids were playing uh and then He said no one saw it coming, no one saw it a year later The world had changed. Jews were being rounded up, massacred and executed, so we found ourselves in this kind of dilemma.

We seem to talk about him so much, and yet I don't know if people are really accepting what a threat he is to American democracy. democracy facing the American experiment right now help us with that if you know Joe. I think you make a really important point. I mean, it's one thing to cover the circus and the circus is covered. I mean, people can't stop covering the. circus, every expression, every insult, every outrageous action or comment, is covered up, the context is often missing, what that really means and I think it's imperative, especially for members of the press who understand, as you just pointed out, that the world has been here before people. didn't take the kind of threats we saw in the 1930s as seriously as it should, including American journalists, you know, people took it at face value, oh, this can be controlled, I may have said some scandalous things, but you know he will do it.

The institutions will deter Herman's demagogue, unfortunately supported by members of his political party. Other facilitators. People who care more about a future tax cut than the sanctity of the Constitution are lining up. Behind him, they're trying to Excuse me some of the more outrageous things he just recited and I don't think the press has done enough to basically say, "Okay, the circus is here," you can see the circus, but let's say what that means, let's talk to people who have a real understanding of how dictatorships evolve, let's look at the people he admires and what they've already done, you know, in 2016 we didn't have interviews with him, we didn't have a track record of four years in office, you know? there was a lot of speculation and you know I understood that people wouldn't necessarily take what I said as gossip about what I thought might happen.

I get it, but now we know we've seen it and heard it etc. We have to do a better job of making it absolutely clear that someone who says these things, you know, maybe wouldn't jail all of his political opponents, one too many, maybe wouldn't try to force the business out of business, you know. members of the press who disagreed with him, one is too many, we're going down and maybe this would be our last election because someone who doesn't accept the validity of an election is someone who doesn't believe in elections. believes in his own power, his own right to power and his demand that he be installed regardless of whether he gets the votes or not, yes, and you know, we, I have always had, personally and in this program, great faith that the Supreme Court will be Unfortunately, the leveling wind when, as you said, you read the D.C.

Circuit opinion, on presidential immunity, I have to say I was surprised that the Roberts Court didn't just affirm it and send it down, they're dragging their feet and It certainly seems political. Are we depending on them if they can't even handle a simple basic question about immunity? I don't believe it I want and Tim Scott let's not talk about Tim Scott and other Republicans who now also refuse to say they will accept the results of the elections and