Former Department of Defense lawyer Ryan Goodman discussed the fact that Trump's latest threat to federalize elections is illegal, while warning any of his enablers that they should worry about criminal exposure if they want to try to help Trump deprive people of their votes.

Goodman made an appearance on this Thursday's Erin Burnett OutFront on CNN, and was asked about Trump's enablers' latest push to get him to use a phony "national emergency" as an excuse to control elections.

Goodman had some good news about how the courts might handle this, since they're probably showing their hands too early, and people are ready to take them to court immediately over that stupidity, and he also discussed the potential criminal liability of those involved.

BURNETT: Ryan, just to be clear here, I just am pointing something out that if it didn't stand out to anyone as I said it, because it was fast, they're not mentioning Russia interfering in the election because they're not going to do that, obviously. They're putting it on China.

I'm not saying that China would or wouldn't do it, but I just am making the point here that bipartisan Congress acknowledged that Russia did interfere and they're not mentioning that.

So you call this, so that the premise, right, is off to begin with, election interference on steroids. Can Trump do this?

GOODMAN: He can't legally do it. So I don't think this survives first contact with the courts. If he passes this kind of executive order, I imagine within hours, there will be people who have already developed their litigation strategy to counter it because it's being broadcast by him and his team, or at least by this group with the Washington Post.

And they will make arguments like this is not a place that there's presidential power. This is something that's run by the state and local election officials.

BURNETT: We're a federalist country, right? So it be run by the states.

GOODMAN: That's right. And we've tested this already once. So he passed an executive order in the middle of last year. And in fact, that order was then contested in court, and so far has lost.

He is now appealing it, but it's losing on the same idea that there's no presidential control over state and local elections.

BURNETT: Right, and obviously, I just to state an obvious thing, right? If states are doing it their own way, as long as you're auditing and checking as they do, as Georgia did, for example, right, when they need to within a margin, having it not be nationalized makes it more difficult to hack or interfere.

But a couple of points here, though. He's saying proof of citizenship, part of this would include everyone in this country having to re-register before the midterms. So if you're registered to vote now, it doesn't count unless you go do it again. That's on this possibility?

GOODMAN: Yeah, I mean, it's madcap in a certain sense of how extraordinary the idea is, and that's why it's on steroids in a certain sense.

And I think people that are involved in this machination might need to worry about their own criminal exposure, just to put it out there.

There is a criminal statute that says that people should not engage in a conspiracy to deprive people of their rights. That's 18 U.S.C. 241. And it specifically says a conspiracy with respect to the right to exercise one's vote. That's what it's about.

That was one of the charges that Jack Smith filed against the election interference in the last election, but this would be even more than that.

We'll see if Goodman's prediction that the courts will stop this is correct. I hope so because what's left of our democracy may depend on it.

Sadly, we'll never see anyone held accountable for the crimes he mentioned here until we get a functioning Department of Justice back.