LOU DOBBS (HOST): Let's be honest here, I want to ask you both this -- why -- isn't there a time where you have to just tell a district court judge to go to hell? Because -- I mean the idea that you have to follow the dicta of a district court judge and create rules and can't run the White House in the way that it has been run, since time immemorial? Harmeet?

HARMEET DHILLON: Well, Lou, to be -- to be fair to the judge, if you read his ruling from the bench, it seems clear that he felt that he was constrained by a prior decision.

DOBBS: Yeah, but that's -- that's patent nonsense.

...

DHILLON: Your question was, “Should we tell the judge to go to hell?” and the answer is “That's generally not a good idea.” And I do think that norms announced in advance even though they are obvious, like, you know, you shouldn't have to tell people to behave like adults. But now that we have that rule, I think --

DOBBS: You shouldn't have to tell a district court judge to get back on your -- get back on your baileywick either. What do you think?

GREGG JARRETT (GUEST): You're absolutely right. When you are -- there is no freedom to be obnoxious and rude. There is no freedom of the press to question the president. It's a privilege to be there at the White House, and there are rules and norms that have always been followed. And now you've got a judge who has decided to expand due process beyond any resemblance of --

DOBBS: He's telling a president of the United States how to conduct business.

JARRETT: And I agree with you. I would tell the judge “Go to hell, we're going to practice the way we want, let the Supreme Court decide it if necessary.”