Instant Reaction: Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. 0:00:07.080 --> 0:00:10.320 Supreme Court ruling here partially back to Trump on immunity 0:00:10.560 --> 0:00:13.760 and the High Court immunity ruling likely to further delay 0:00:14.720 --> 0:00:17.440 Trump trial. So we'll see how this plays. That will 0:00:17.440 --> 0:00:21.520 have more reporting coming up for but certainly a significant 0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:25.000 ruling here we've been expecting from this Supreme Court and 0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:27.360 we got it today. So again another piece of presumably 0:00:27.840 --> 0:00:31.319 good news for former President Donald Trump. Let's get some 0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:33.920 more analysis here. We bring on Howard Krent. He's a 0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:37.840 professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law. Harold, 0:00:37.880 --> 0:00:39.400 we just had a few minutes to kind of look 0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:42.440 at this ruling. It seems like I guess a partial 0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:45.120 victory for former President Trump, but that may be all 0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:49.000 that he needs. Any early interpretation from you, Harold. 0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.120 Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, the court split 0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:54.080 the baby in a sense by saying that there was 0:00:54.080 --> 0:00:56.640 going to be absolute immunity for some kind of presidential acts, 0:00:56.640 --> 0:01:01.760 those acts that fall within the court of his executive powers, 0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:05.360 and for other acts it's presumptive immunity, which means that 0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:08.440 the lower court will have to go through the indictment 0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:11.600 and the trial and sort of separate out all the acts, 0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:16.080 so that some of the pro electionary re election acts 0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:19.240 in terms of how Trump tried to position himself to 0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:22.920 get reelected, that presumably would fall and not be entitled 0:01:22.959 --> 0:01:25.959 to absolute immunity. But his discussions with the Attorney General 0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:29.520 would certainly qualify, and with the vice president would qualify 0:01:29.600 --> 0:01:33.480 for absolute immunity. So this will be a contextual analysis. 0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:36.560 But that means delay, It means time, and so there 0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:40.320 will be very likely no kind of trial until after 0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:41.120 the election. 0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:43.160 When it goes back to the lower court. How does 0:01:43.200 --> 0:01:45.800 the lower court figure it out? What kind of guidance 0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:48.760 do they have to have to see, Okay, this qualifies 0:01:48.800 --> 0:01:50.840 as doesn't qualify? Where do they get that clarity? 0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:52.960 It's going to be in the opinion. There is very 0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:56.280 little precedent on this, but the court's opinion is more 0:01:56.320 --> 0:02:00.760 detailed than we expected, and so the district court will 0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:03.600 have to thumb through and sort of get clues and hints. 0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:07.360 And the court did give a couple of examples in 0:02:07.680 --> 0:02:10.440 the opinion about what it considered it to be absolutely 0:02:10.480 --> 0:02:14.680 worthy of absolute immunity and what it didn't. It's at 0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:17.480 first blush. Obviously, we all need to read it more carefully, 0:02:17.520 --> 0:02:20.720 but at first blush it is a reasonable decision. The 0:02:20.800 --> 0:02:24.640 court tackled with it. Obviously, there still is a kind 0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:27.480 of six ' three split as we've seen in other contexts. 0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:32.640 But it's not absolute community. It's not a complete insulation 0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:36.480 of the president from the criminal process. It's not putting 0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:39.720 the president above the law. It's taking a measured step 0:02:39.760 --> 0:02:44.239 and trying to say which acts are actually incredibly important 0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:46.959 for the president not to have a fear of criminal 0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:51.680 penalty for, and which acts maybe have a presumptive immunity for. 0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:54.640 But it can be found that if it's a personal 0:02:54.680 --> 0:02:58.120 act re election, personal vendetta, losing it a poker game, 0:02:58.639 --> 0:03:01.760 then he can be subject to the criminal sanction. 0:03:01.880 --> 0:03:03.959 Harold, if you know with the Supreme Court, I guess 0:03:03.960 --> 0:03:06.640 presumably sending this immunity case back to the lower court 0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:09.160 give us a sense of timing when how does this 0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:11.919 play out? When would we get more clarification on this, 0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:14.079 because I guess that that's really key as it relates 0:03:14.120 --> 0:03:17.760 to November fifth and then you know into January for 0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:18.519 swearing in. 0:03:18.919 --> 0:03:22.200 Yeah, I think that the lower court judge should be 0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.680 able to make a good faith stab at what acts 0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.640 for which President Trump should be absolute immune and which 0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:32.600 not within you know, six to eight weeks, but that 0:03:32.720 --> 0:03:36.600 also will be subject to you know, elocatory appeal. And 0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:39.040 so the question is whether the DC Circuit then would 0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:43.520 want to stop any kind of trial momentum to consider 0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:46.600 the ambit of the immunity that the trial court finally 0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:50.600 decides on. So because of that potentiality, it's extremely rare, 0:03:50.600 --> 0:03:53.280 as I mentioned, I mean, it's extremely unlikely that this 0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:57.320 could ever be held for a trial before the election, 0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:00.720 but the immunity decision should be reached well before that. 0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:02.680 So the extent that that's relevant, I'm not sure. It 0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:05.440 is that the lower court should be able to make 0:04:05.440 --> 0:04:08.400 the first stab at for which acts the president is 0:04:08.440 --> 0:04:11.520 immune and for which not, and therefore obviously that the 0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:15.600 criminal trial can proceed on those areas for which the 0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:20.599 president does not have an absolute immunity, such as possibly 0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:26.039 goading the protesters on January sixth, or maybe even for 0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:28.680 the fake elector scheme as well. 0:04:28.839 --> 0:04:33.320 So if we just look forward to after November, can 0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:35.480 if President Trump wins the White House again, can he 0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:39.200 give himself immunity from this case? Could President Biden if 0:04:39.200 --> 0:04:40.080 he gets re elected? 0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:40.599 Yeah? 0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:45.720 So President Trump would have two options if he's reelected. 0:04:46.279 --> 0:04:48.760 The first would be to part in himself, which has 0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:51.520 been discussed and we know that's never happened in history, 0:04:51.760 --> 0:04:53.960 but the Constitution is silent on it, so he might 0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:56.720 just try. The second is he could just order his 0:04:56.760 --> 0:05:00.159 Attorney general to drop the prosecution. And that's probably the 0:05:00.200 --> 0:05:02.479 more I would advise him to do the latter, because 0:05:02.480 --> 0:05:05.920 that's more tried and true, and so he does have 0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:09.520 that power, and he could just say stop the stop 0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:11.760 the wheels. Now, of course, President Trump would still be 0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:17.560 criminally possibly liable for the Georgia case, which is pending, 0:05:17.839 --> 0:05:20.320 and certainly we have no effect on the New York 0:05:21.160 --> 0:05:23.000 case for which he will be senced in a couple 0:05:23.040 --> 0:05:23.480 of weeks. 0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:26.360 What do we expect to hear from the special prosecutor 0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:26.839 in this case? 0:05:26.839 --> 0:05:27.719 Do you expect to hear. 0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:31.080 Something today or will they take days to kind of 0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:33.480 peruse and analyze this ruling. 0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:36.160 Oh, you know, that's a pr issue, you know, in 0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:39.800 terms of what they'll say, I mean, they'll you know, 0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:42.640 if I were advising Jack Smith, I might say that 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:45.599 you know that the Supreme Court has struck the line 0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:48.920 of we're immunity issue. We believe that most of our 0:05:49.200 --> 0:05:53.599 indictment is can continue, and we will work with to 0:05:53.760 --> 0:05:58.279 ensure as efficacious and speedy of a hearing on that 0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:01.440 issue before the district court. And we hope to continue 0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:04.359 the case that's been delayed for too long as quickly 0:06:04.360 --> 0:06:04.960 as possible. 0:06:05.880 --> 0:06:10.080 Again, to update everybody, the Supreme Court partially backs Trump 0:06:10.080 --> 0:06:12.680 on immunity, delaying the trial, saying that he has some 0:06:12.720 --> 0:06:15.280 immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty 0:06:15.320 --> 0:06:18.520 twenty election results. But the trial probably then won't happen 0:06:18.640 --> 0:06:21.040 before the November election. The Justice has voted six ' 0:06:21.080 --> 0:06:26.440 three along ideological lines, and would they issue some guidelines 0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:29.840 as to what constitutes or not constitutes immunity to then 0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:33.120 push back to the lower courts? Professor, what have we 0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:37.120 learned then about the Supreme Court? What have we learned 0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:40.159 through this decision in terms of how it may impact 0:06:40.279 --> 0:06:40.760 an election? 0:06:41.080 --> 0:06:45.159 Well, I mean, I think that this pundents don't know 0:06:45.200 --> 0:06:47.920 whether the New York felony trial is going to affect 0:06:47.920 --> 0:06:51.400 the election at all. I've seen polls going both ways, 0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:56.080 and all we know now is that the centerpiece of 0:06:56.320 --> 0:06:59.800 the case against President Trump, the fake elector scheme and 0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:04.280 the insurrection on January sixth. That will not go to 0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:06.680 a jury, and to the extent that that would become 0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:10.360 critical in the election, who knows, but we're not going 0:07:10.400 --> 0:07:14.360 to see that played out before a jury before the election. 0:07:14.640 --> 0:07:16.680 Tell us about that lower court that this is now 0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:19.000 going to go back to professor what do we know 0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:22.000 about that court and kind of how they interpret the law. 0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:26.040 So this is the court in the DC District Court 0:07:26.920 --> 0:07:30.360 and Judge Hutkin will be overseeing this case, So this 0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:32.840 will not be a jury determination. This first cut will 0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:36.800 be her efforts to apply the guidance that the Supreme 0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:40.960 Court just handed down to determine what can go forward 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:44.720 in terms of the essence of the Special Prosecutor's case 0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:50.040 against former President Trump, and so this can go relatively efficaciously. 0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:53.320 The issues have been argued before, but not under this 0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:57.840 specific framework that the Supreme Court has just delivered. So 0:07:57.920 --> 0:08:01.920 I would expect there to be by hearing before the judges. 0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:05.200 And there's no complication as in the Florida Documents case 0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:09.720 about anything being under seal. The indictment's been handed down, 0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:13.040 and the parties can parse through the indictment and decide 0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:15.680 what has to go and what can stay and what 0:08:15.720 --> 0:08:18.640 the theories are and their complications, and so it's not 0:08:18.720 --> 0:08:22.640 a matter of simply taking a red pencil and marking 0:08:22.680 --> 0:08:25.840 things out, because so much is connected. I mean, the 0:08:26.000 --> 0:08:30.240 president's comments to the vice president in part reflex and 0:08:30.280 --> 0:08:34.920 official action of the presidency, but in part may reflect 0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:37.760 his effort to get re elected. So everything may have 0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:41.440 both the sort of the private and the official combined, 0:08:41.800 --> 0:08:46.000 and so the parties will be arguing which predominates and why, 0:08:46.320 --> 0:08:49.120 and so Judge Hutkin then has to take those arguments 0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:53.480 and make a determination ultimately about which part of the 0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:54.680 indictment can go forward. 0:08:55.280 --> 0:09:00.160 In relation to the argument that presidents need total immunity 0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:02.720 because of stuff in office that they do, or whether 0:09:02.760 --> 0:09:06.040 that's sort of dealing with the military drone strikes, for example, 0:09:07.440 --> 0:09:10.600 does this clarify that part of it? 0:09:10.600 --> 0:09:14.040 It does. I mean, I think that the argument that 0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:17.160 I mean, obviously their listenership should remember that this Pingport 0:09:17.160 --> 0:09:21.360 earlier held that the president is absolutely immune from any 0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.160 kind of civil liability for drone strikes, from anything else. 0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:28.240 In the theory that the president cannot be detracted from 0:09:28.640 --> 0:09:31.800 his or her efforts to be an effective presidency by 0:09:31.800 --> 0:09:35.440 the fear of a lawsuit afterwards, and so the court 0:09:35.440 --> 0:09:38.480 has held that for about twenty five years now. And 0:09:38.559 --> 0:09:41.959 so this is actually in some ways saying that even 0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:45.080 though that we have civil liability, criminal liability can also 0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:49.320 be to terms or disincentive from being an aggressive, efficient 0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:54.600 exercise of presidency. But nonetheless the criminal law is so 0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:58.480 important that at times it has to exceed or i 0:09:58.480 --> 0:10:02.439 should say trump of what the president otherwise would do. 0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:04.959 And again, if the president's acting in a person and 0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:08.120 the easy answer, right is, if you're upset at a 0:10:08.160 --> 0:10:12.400 poker game and assault someone that's not there's no reason 0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:15.680 for the president to be immune from the criminal process. 0:10:15.880 --> 0:10:20.040 Or if there's an assault in the hallways of the 0:10:20.080 --> 0:10:22.560 White House, of course there's no reason as well. But 0:10:22.600 --> 0:10:26.240 there's obviously many, many complicated scenarios that one could draw. 0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:29.760 The drone strikes, the president would be absolutely immune both 0:10:29.800 --> 0:10:32.679 criminally answerably for those as long as they're within the 0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:36.520 outer ambit of his official functions. But again, there's going 0:10:36.559 --> 0:10:41.600 to be hard line drawing cases to make about what 0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:45.280 constitutes an official act of the presidency and what is 0:10:45.520 --> 0:10:49.160 a sort of private or unofficial act. And that's what 0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:52.479 Judge Chushkin will have to face now in the coming weeks. 0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:54.440 All right, very good, Harold, thank you so much for 0:10:54.520 --> 0:10:56.640 joining us. How we're Crent, professor of Law at the 0:10:56.720 --> 0:11:00.600 Chicago Kent College of Law, joining us from Chicago. 0:11:00.679 --> 0:11:01.079 Viszoom. 0:11:01.080 --> 0:11:02.840 We want to back down to Washington, d C. Joe 0:11:02.880 --> 0:11:07.200 Matthew joins us once again co host a Balance of Power. Joe, 0:11:07.240 --> 0:11:09.840 We've had a few minutes to kind of digest what's 0:11:09.880 --> 0:11:13.280 happening here. What's the feeling within the Beltway over the 0:11:13.320 --> 0:11:14.840 last several minutes with this ruling. 0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:17.120 Well, I mean to be honest, most people inside the 0:11:17.120 --> 0:11:19.120 Beltway haven't finished reading this yet. It's one hundred and 0:11:19.200 --> 0:11:22.040 nineteen pages long, but there are portions of this ruling 0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:25.040 that jump off the page as the Chief Justice rites 0:11:25.120 --> 0:11:29.079 as for a presidential's unofficial acts, this is a theme 0:11:29.120 --> 0:11:31.480 now this hour, right as we get our heads around 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.880 what they're really ruling on. There is no immunity that's 0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:37.520 made clear here determining. He goes on to write, whether 0:11:37.559 --> 0:11:40.560 a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular 0:11:40.559 --> 0:11:44.199 prosecution requires applying the principles that are laid out here 0:11:44.520 --> 0:11:45.319 with regard to. 0:11:45.320 --> 0:11:46.199 Conduct at issue. 0:11:46.200 --> 0:11:48.320 Remember we said that this may have to go back 0:11:48.320 --> 0:11:51.480 to the lower court to determine which acts are considered 0:11:51.520 --> 0:11:54.440 official in which are not. He writes, the first step 0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:57.920 is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. No court 0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:01.080 has thus far considered how to draw that distinction in 0:12:01.160 --> 0:12:04.559 general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. 0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:06.880 So we have a lot to learn here. And these 0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:09.400 justices just took a long time. This has been waiting 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:12.920 around for months with a very important case in terms 0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:16.360 of Jack Smith's January sixth case on hold for all 0:12:16.400 --> 0:12:18.600 of this, and it's going to take a lot longer 0:12:18.600 --> 0:12:20.400 for the Appeals Court to get its head around this 0:12:20.600 --> 0:12:22.560 and do the work that the Supreme Court is asking. 0:12:23.000 --> 0:12:26.280 The idea of a January sixth trial before the election 0:12:26.640 --> 0:12:28.880 is feeling pretty ridiculous at the moment. 0:12:28.640 --> 0:12:28.960 All right. 0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:32.000 Also joining us Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributor and partner 0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:35.600 at Stone Court Capital, standing by here with us. Hey, Rick, 0:12:35.679 --> 0:12:40.080 we see from a truth social President Trump tweeting big 0:12:40.120 --> 0:12:43.880 win for our constitution and democracy, Proud to be an American. 0:12:43.960 --> 0:12:46.360 We're already sort of seeing the spin the same question 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:48.520 that Paul just asked, what's going to be the spin 0:12:48.559 --> 0:12:48.960 around this? 0:12:49.040 --> 0:12:49.240 Now? 0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:51.640 Yeah? I think that this could go either way spin wise. 0:12:51.679 --> 0:12:54.520 I mean, obviously Trump's going to lean in and say, look, 0:12:54.600 --> 0:12:57.120 you know, it's obvious that I've got immunity that they 0:12:57.160 --> 0:13:01.600 give me this blanket coverage. And there's some implications within 0:13:01.720 --> 0:13:04.640 the early reading of the ruling that he can get 0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:05.840 away with that argument. 0:13:05.880 --> 0:13:06.440 Pretty well. 0:13:08.280 --> 0:13:09.920 No one's going to tell him no until it goes 0:13:10.000 --> 0:13:14.199 back to Judge Chuckkin and she Pin, you know, opines 0:13:14.240 --> 0:13:18.800 on whether or not the case they have before them 0:13:20.000 --> 0:13:22.480 is the acts of a president or the acts of 0:13:22.480 --> 0:13:25.959 a private citizen. And so I would say, on the 0:13:26.040 --> 0:13:28.880 other hand, and I'm surprised that Democrats aren't out more 0:13:28.920 --> 0:13:32.080 forcefully right now going after this, but they've been very 0:13:32.160 --> 0:13:35.640 laissez faire on their approach to all things legal when 0:13:35.640 --> 0:13:38.839 it comes to Donald Trump. But you know, I would 0:13:38.840 --> 0:13:43.040 certainly be looking at this as a positive from the 0:13:43.080 --> 0:13:45.320 Democratic point of view and saying, no, absolutely, he's going 0:13:45.360 --> 0:13:50.160 to be held account and all indications were that these 0:13:50.360 --> 0:13:55.040 acts that were performed that are under indictment by the 0:13:55.120 --> 0:14:00.120 Justice Department were unofficial private citizen actions and that they 0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:01.719 should be held accountable in court of law. 0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:06.400 Joe, have we heard from the prosecutor mister Stone about 0:14:06.480 --> 0:14:09.400 how he may if there was like a split decision 0:14:09.400 --> 0:14:11.240 like it seems like we're getting today, that he would 0:14:11.280 --> 0:14:15.720 still pursue aggressively those which are not subject to immunity. 0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:17.080 Do we know where he stands. 0:14:17.280 --> 0:14:19.040 In terms of Jack Smith Jack Smith? 0:14:19.120 --> 0:14:22.400 Yes, No, I don't think he's been going there in public, 0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:25.120 he says very little. You know, that's kind of part 0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:26.920 of a job here, And he was of course holding 0:14:26.960 --> 0:14:31.200 forth that all of the four charges would see the 0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:34.440 light of day. We got the dissent from Justice Soto Mayora. 0:14:34.440 --> 0:14:35.800 By the way, if you want to talk about the 0:14:35.840 --> 0:14:37.520 other side of this for a moment, she says, the 0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:40.640 president is now a king above the law. Quote, let 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.720 the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings 0:14:43.800 --> 0:14:46.240 of his office for personal gain. Let him use his 0:14:46.280 --> 0:14:49.720 official power for evil deeds, she writes, because if he 0:14:49.800 --> 0:14:52.680 knew that he may one day face liability for breaking 0:14:52.720 --> 0:14:54.600 the law, he might not be as bold and fearless 0:14:54.600 --> 0:14:55.560 as we would like him to be. 0:14:55.680 --> 0:14:57.920 That is the majority's message today. 0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:01.440 Obviously some real discontent here in another six y three ruling. 0:15:01.680 --> 0:15:04.520 Yeah, no doubt. Yeah, I'm scrolling through as well. This 0:15:04.560 --> 0:15:06.920 is quite a lot one hundred and nineteen pages as 0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:11.360 you were just mentioning, Hey, Rick, what would be the 0:15:11.440 --> 0:15:15.000 right way for the Republican Party to move on this? 0:15:15.120 --> 0:15:16.640 I mean, we know how Trump's going to go with this. 0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:19.840 You mentioned how the Democrats have been hesitant to embrace 0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:22.120 court rulings. But what's the right way for the GOP 0:15:22.640 --> 0:15:23.600 to move on this case? 0:15:25.160 --> 0:15:27.680 Yeah? Look, I think that Trump will do his victory 0:15:27.760 --> 0:15:30.760 lap today on his social media, and I think try 0:15:30.800 --> 0:15:32.960 to raise money from it, because he'll say, oh, these 0:15:34.560 --> 0:15:38.560 Democrats of Washington are using the Justice Department to just 0:15:38.600 --> 0:15:41.080 try and keep me from being president. This is another 0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:43.920 example of that, backed up by the Supreme Court ruling. 0:15:44.520 --> 0:15:47.920 They knew I had immunity and they did it anyway. 0:15:48.640 --> 0:15:51.240 And then I think what he'll try to convince voters 0:15:51.280 --> 0:15:55.400 of is that this ends his exposure to the Justice 0:15:55.400 --> 0:15:58.800 Department prope that Jack Smith is on a wild goose chase, 0:15:58.880 --> 0:16:03.320 and that ultimately Lee he'll be freative charges. 0:16:03.360 --> 0:16:05.440 And I think, you know, the reality is in the 0:16:05.520 --> 0:16:06.680 lesson until this. 0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:11.880 Case really starts to take fold, the time and the 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:14.880 clock is running out on them and Donald Trump. This 0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:18.040 is the big gamble for Donald Trump if he's elected president, 0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:20.400 he just makes this case go away. He just calls 0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:23.840 whoever he appoints his attorney general and say end it. 0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:27.960 And so it's all a gamble for Donald Trump on 0:16:28.000 --> 0:16:29.480 whether or not he can win the president see. 0:16:29.480 --> 0:16:31.480 And of course after that debate, he's feeling pretty good 0:16:31.480 --> 0:16:31.840 about it. 0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:35.040 So I think that right now the Republicans are going 0:16:35.080 --> 0:16:37.040 to try and one do a victor laughin, and two 0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:41.000 make the case that this is just a matter of 0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:46.400 legal fare, that the administration is coming after him and 0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:47.360 that it's unfair. 0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:51.440 So, Joe, is there any expectation that we'll hear from 0:16:51.800 --> 0:16:54.720 the Biden administration to you the Biden White House today 0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:55.840 on the Supreme Court ruling? 0:16:56.440 --> 0:16:58.320 Hard to tell if we'll hear from the White House 0:16:58.440 --> 0:17:01.480 or the campaign I suspect will the latter. Whether the 0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:03.720 administration wants to weigh in on this, that might have 0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:06.320 to wait till a briefing with Karine Jean Pierre. It's 0:17:06.960 --> 0:17:09.240 always unclear exactly what their posture is going to be 0:17:09.280 --> 0:17:10.960 on these types of things. But you better believe the 0:17:11.000 --> 0:17:14.159 campaign war room is cranking into high gear, and it 0:17:14.240 --> 0:17:17.400 was already run and hot after that debate on Thursday night, 0:17:17.440 --> 0:17:19.480 and a lot of tough conversations, a lot of tough 0:17:19.520 --> 0:17:21.520 interviews over the weekend as they try to tamp down 0:17:21.520 --> 0:17:24.639 this whole conversation about finding a new candidate between now 0:17:24.920 --> 0:17:28.439 and the Democratic Convention in August, as you make your 0:17:28.440 --> 0:17:31.280 way to the bottom of the Chief Justices ruling. By 0:17:31.320 --> 0:17:34.640 the way, he really sums it all up, looking at 0:17:34.680 --> 0:17:38.600 the balance of power here in Washington, the president's conduct. 0:17:38.720 --> 0:17:41.480 Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct and carrying out 0:17:41.480 --> 0:17:44.880 the responsibilities of the executive branch. He refers to this 0:17:45.040 --> 0:17:48.920 system of separated powers designed by the Framers, demanding an energetic, 0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:51.200 independent executive. 0:17:51.520 --> 0:17:53.120 This is something that you might hear repeated. 0:17:53.320 --> 0:17:56.280 The President therefore, may not be prosecuted for exercising his 0:17:56.359 --> 0:17:59.680 core constitutional powers, entitled at a minimum to a presumptive 0:17:59.680 --> 0:18:04.680 immune from prosecution for all of his official acts. Remember 0:18:04.800 --> 0:18:08.119 this applies to every president after this as well. The 0:18:08.160 --> 0:18:10.960 immunity applies equally, he writes to all occupants of the 0:18:11.000 --> 0:18:14.639 Oval office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. This is 0:18:14.680 --> 0:18:18.000 something we have to remind ourselves. Is bigger than Donald Trump. 0:18:18.359 --> 0:18:19.240 Yes, absolutely. 0:18:19.560 --> 0:18:22.040 And then just if you're just joining us the news 0:18:22.040 --> 0:18:24.200 of the morning, the US Supreme Court ruling that Donald 0:18:24.200 --> 0:18:26.920 Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to 0:18:26.960 --> 0:18:30.280 overturn the twenty twenty election results. The case back goes 0:18:30.320 --> 0:18:33.119 back down to the lower court and the justice is 0:18:33.200 --> 0:18:36.240 voted six y three along ideological lines. So questionably becomes 0:18:36.760 --> 0:18:39.560 what actions does Trump to our presidents take that are 0:18:39.680 --> 0:18:44.119 or are not protected with immunity? Rick, Where does this 0:18:44.200 --> 0:18:46.960 then leave other cases that are against Trump in relation 0:18:47.119 --> 0:18:49.480 to immunity. I'm thinking specifically the Georgia case. 0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:53.960 Yeah, the Georgia case is a little bit more complex 0:18:54.000 --> 0:18:57.679 because it's state law that's being duplicated here, and so 0:18:58.520 --> 0:19:01.320 whether or not this presidential they extends to the state 0:19:02.200 --> 0:19:05.200 is going to be a similar question as to Jack Smith. 0:19:05.240 --> 0:19:07.800 In other words, if some of these acts are seen 0:19:07.840 --> 0:19:10.480 as private acts, you know, Donald Trump picking up. 0:19:10.440 --> 0:19:12.679 The phone and trying to fish for votes with the. 0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:18.359 State officials in Georgia, then that prosecution can go forward 0:19:18.440 --> 0:19:22.639 and it is vulnerable to Donald Trump becoming president and 0:19:23.800 --> 0:19:27.320 unleashing is just this apartment on killing the case. This 0:19:27.400 --> 0:19:30.679 case would go forward even if Donald Trump was president. 0:19:30.760 --> 0:19:35.040 So my sense is that if Jack Smith finds. 0:19:34.680 --> 0:19:37.600 That some of these charges or Judge Chuck and really 0:19:38.040 --> 0:19:40.439 finds that some of these charges are done in his 0:19:40.560 --> 0:19:43.919 private capacity, that that will be a signal to the 0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:47.520 Georgia case that they can go forward with those same 0:19:47.640 --> 0:19:52.000 kind of charges, knowing that the FEDS have already decided 0:19:52.000 --> 0:19:55.600 that these are personal functions of Donald Trump and not 0:19:55.680 --> 0:19:57.159 the functions of the presidency. 0:19:57.240 --> 0:19:59.159 All Right, guys, thanks a lot, We really appreciate it. 0:19:59.160 --> 0:20:01.480 It's been quite a more learning. Again. The US Supreme 0:20:01.480 --> 0:20:03.760 Court ruling and Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal 0:20:03.840 --> 0:20:06.480 charges for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election results 0:20:06.520 --> 0:20:09.240 is going back now to the lower court. Rick Davis, 0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:12.560 Bloomberg political contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital. Also 0:20:12.640 --> 0:20:14.960 Joe Matthew Cuinger, a balance of power, both of you. 0:20:15.000 --> 0:20:16.160 Thank you so very much. 0:20:16.240 --> 0:20:19.600 Again, the news of the day is clearly the US 0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:22.119 Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some immunity from 0:20:22.160 --> 0:20:25.199 criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results, 0:20:25.280 --> 0:20:28.720 all but ensuring that a trial won't happen before the 0:20:28.840 --> 0:20:30.960 November election. Let's get some more reporting on that. We 0:20:30.960 --> 0:20:35.720 go to Zoe Tilman, senior illegal reporter for Bloomberg News. Zoe, 0:20:36.440 --> 0:20:38.840 what are we learning from this? One hundred and nineteen 0:20:38.880 --> 0:20:39.919 page ruling. 0:20:41.280 --> 0:20:43.000 You know, I think the big picture of what we're 0:20:43.080 --> 0:20:45.720 learning is that we're not learning all that much. That 0:20:45.800 --> 0:20:48.240 the case is going to back down, going back down 0:20:48.280 --> 0:20:50.880 to a district court judge in Washington to really go 0:20:50.960 --> 0:20:54.760 through the indictment piece by piece to determine what in 0:20:54.800 --> 0:20:58.240 there is a core constitutional power of the president and 0:20:58.440 --> 0:21:02.199 entitled to immunity against secution, and what is unofficial or 0:21:02.200 --> 0:21:05.600 private conduct that he can still that Donald Trump can 0:21:05.600 --> 0:21:08.080 still be prosecuted for. You know, the court said, the 0:21:08.080 --> 0:21:12.840 majority said definitively that his communications with Justice Department officials 0:21:13.359 --> 0:21:16.159 after the twenty twenty election were definitely off the table. 0:21:16.320 --> 0:21:19.320 That they made clear. But everything else, you know, is 0:21:19.359 --> 0:21:25.840 still up for litigation. That includes the conspiracy to put 0:21:26.040 --> 0:21:29.040 pro Trump electors in battleground states to have them sign 0:21:29.119 --> 0:21:33.199 false certifications, you know, other efforts to overturn the election. 0:21:33.840 --> 0:21:36.840 All of that is is still potentially on the table, 0:21:37.040 --> 0:21:39.080 but it's going to take a while for that to 0:21:39.080 --> 0:21:39.760 get sorted out. 0:21:39.840 --> 0:21:42.320 Now, can you go through what we may or may 0:21:42.359 --> 0:21:45.400 not know about what constitutes official or unofficial actions? 0:21:46.920 --> 0:21:49.199 Yeah, you know, what they said is that, you know 0:21:49.320 --> 0:21:54.840 what the core constitutional functions of a president of the officeholder, 0:21:54.880 --> 0:21:58.560 and that includes his communications within the executive branch. And 0:21:58.600 --> 0:22:01.679 that's why, you know, the majority said that talking with 0:22:01.720 --> 0:22:04.920 the Justice Department, with Justice Department officials about what they 0:22:05.160 --> 0:22:07.879 could or could not do on his behalf after the election, 0:22:08.280 --> 0:22:13.359 that that was clearly within the parameters a core constitutional function. 0:22:14.359 --> 0:22:17.720 But other types of communications, even the Court said with 0:22:17.800 --> 0:22:20.680 his vice president at the time, Mike Pence, they didn't 0:22:20.720 --> 0:22:24.120 say definitely that all of those communications would fall within 0:22:24.160 --> 0:22:26.200 that kind of core constitutional power. 0:22:27.200 --> 0:22:29.200 Right now, I also want to bring in Nick Ackerman, 0:22:29.359 --> 0:22:33.080 former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Nick, thanks so much for 0:22:33.160 --> 0:22:35.479 joining us here. I love to get based upon all 0:22:35.520 --> 0:22:38.760 your years of experience, your takeaway from this Supreme Court 0:22:38.800 --> 0:22:39.640 ruling this morning. 0:22:40.840 --> 0:22:43.520 Well, to me, I guess I get a little bit 0:22:43.560 --> 0:22:47.120 angry because there really is nothing here that is an 0:22:47.119 --> 0:22:51.359 official act, even calls to the Justice Department. I have 0:22:51.400 --> 0:22:53.320 not read the opinion yet because I have had so 0:22:53.400 --> 0:22:56.280 many people have been asking me questions about it. But 0:22:56.320 --> 0:22:58.879 I need to read the opinion. But it seems to 0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:02.639 me that every thing in there, including making trying to 0:23:02.680 --> 0:23:05.560 get the Justice Department and putting in an Attorney general 0:23:05.600 --> 0:23:08.239 who's going to come up with a phony document to 0:23:08.320 --> 0:23:11.800 send out to the battleground states saying that there was 0:23:11.880 --> 0:23:13.920 fraud in the election when there was not fraud in 0:23:13.960 --> 0:23:16.760 the election. Doesn't seem to me to be within the 0:23:16.760 --> 0:23:19.720 official acts of the President of the United States or 0:23:19.800 --> 0:23:23.720 part of his constitutional duties. Everything that is in this 0:23:23.840 --> 0:23:27.720 indictment is alleged is something that is not part of 0:23:27.760 --> 0:23:30.960 his duties. It certainly isn't part of a president's duties 0:23:31.160 --> 0:23:34.280 to run for reelection, and moreover, it's not part of 0:23:34.320 --> 0:23:37.240 his duties to try and fix that election and try 0:23:37.280 --> 0:23:42.200 and maintain his ability to stay in power through false 0:23:42.240 --> 0:23:46.359 and fraudulent means, which is what this indictment alleges. What 0:23:46.480 --> 0:23:49.600 I find troubling about this whole thing is that it 0:23:49.720 --> 0:23:53.359 is so obvious as to the fact that what is 0:23:53.400 --> 0:23:57.679 alleged here are not official acts. To begin with that, 0:23:57.800 --> 0:23:59.840 I don't think it should take Judge Chutkin, who is 0:23:59.840 --> 0:24:02.920 a district court judge overseeing this, more than a few 0:24:02.960 --> 0:24:06.360 minutes to determine that these are all official acts. Now, 0:24:06.800 --> 0:24:08.960 I haven't read the opinion, but is she supposed to 0:24:08.960 --> 0:24:12.119 have a hearing on this? All of this stuff, most 0:24:12.160 --> 0:24:14.679 of it we know already because we've heard it before 0:24:14.720 --> 0:24:18.440 the January sixth Committee, and we know it's not official acts. 0:24:19.080 --> 0:24:23.119 So what they said is not really of any great moment, 0:24:23.240 --> 0:24:26.360 because of course, a president who is doing his official 0:24:26.440 --> 0:24:30.680 acts that are set forth in the Constitution, you can't 0:24:30.680 --> 0:24:34.000 be accused of a crime for doing that. But that's 0:24:34.040 --> 0:24:35.720 not what this indictment is about. 0:24:36.160 --> 0:24:39.119 But so Nick, it feels like, then what you're saying 0:24:39.240 --> 0:24:42.800 is the distinction of what is official aka then protected 0:24:42.800 --> 0:24:45.880 by immunity, and what's unofficial which is not isn't clear 0:24:45.920 --> 0:24:48.040 at all. And I appreciate that you haven't read the opinion, 0:24:48.080 --> 0:24:50.360 but the going to a lower court and then them 0:24:50.400 --> 0:24:52.680 having to decide that based on guidance from the Supreme 0:24:52.720 --> 0:24:54.880 Court seems very complicated. 0:24:56.040 --> 0:24:58.560 I don't think it's that complicated, no, okay. 0:24:58.400 --> 0:25:00.119 But you have a different opinion than other people's, So 0:25:00.119 --> 0:25:02.240 from that perspective, it does seem like it's complicated. 0:25:03.119 --> 0:25:05.320 Well, I don't see how it's all complicated. The fact 0:25:05.359 --> 0:25:08.600 that you come up with phony electors. What's so complicated 0:25:08.640 --> 0:25:11.199 about that? The fact that you lie about the election, 0:25:11.520 --> 0:25:14.399 that you put in false documents before a federal district 0:25:14.440 --> 0:25:18.240 court judge in Georgia about their being fraud in the election. 0:25:19.160 --> 0:25:21.480 To me, none of that is very complicated. Of course, 0:25:21.520 --> 0:25:25.240 that's criminal, and it can be charged as criminal. They're 0:25:25.240 --> 0:25:27.960 not charging him. First of all, he had no business 0:25:28.280 --> 0:25:32.840 sticking his nose into anything in the Georgia process. It's 0:25:32.880 --> 0:25:35.840 not the job of a US president to have anything 0:25:35.920 --> 0:25:39.600 to do with the presidential election or how that election 0:25:39.960 --> 0:25:43.199 is run. That is not within the purview of his 0:25:43.320 --> 0:25:46.120 official acts. And that goes for everything else he did 0:25:46.119 --> 0:25:50.080 in the other battleground states. So I don't quite understand 0:25:50.600 --> 0:25:55.080 what the Supreme Court could even conceive of as being 0:25:55.160 --> 0:25:57.560 an official act that's charged in this indictment. 0:25:57.960 --> 0:26:00.720 Zoe, what do we expect to hear from the Biden 0:26:00.760 --> 0:26:04.399 White House, the Biden campaign as it relates to this ruling. 0:26:06.160 --> 0:26:10.400 You know, so far, the White House has been quite 0:26:10.400 --> 0:26:14.399 careful when talking about this case. It's depending criminal matter. 0:26:14.880 --> 0:26:19.960 Everything is alleged until a jury determines, you know, whether 0:26:20.000 --> 0:26:22.800 he is guilty or not. And I think the President 0:26:22.840 --> 0:26:25.119 and the White House have been quite careful not to 0:26:25.119 --> 0:26:27.760 be seen as intruding on the process with all until 0:26:27.880 --> 0:26:30.840 it's you know, fully adjudicated. So, you know, I would 0:26:30.840 --> 0:26:34.600 expect the same kind of caution and care in anything 0:26:34.640 --> 0:26:37.400 they might say about this decision and the next steps, 0:26:37.440 --> 0:26:41.080 because the court has really left so much unresolved. You know, 0:26:41.119 --> 0:26:45.200 it's the Justice Department's policy generally to not comment publicly 0:26:45.359 --> 0:26:48.000 while a case is pending, So I don't think we're 0:26:48.000 --> 0:26:50.680 going to expect any kind of robust commentary, at least 0:26:50.720 --> 0:26:52.640 from official channels on this for now. 0:26:54.560 --> 0:26:58.919 Nick, do you feel like that if you are bringing 0:26:58.960 --> 0:27:01.040 this sort of case A fair question, but you're a 0:27:01.040 --> 0:27:05.119 special prosecutor for Watergate, right, would you consider how it 0:27:05.320 --> 0:27:09.320 was delivered to the courts this particular case. Was it 0:27:09.359 --> 0:27:11.880 framed in the correct way to get the right message 0:27:12.200 --> 0:27:16.600 across mentioning Georgia. I mean, the case had nothing to 0:27:16.640 --> 0:27:19.399 do with Georgia, So everything that we're talking about maybe true, 0:27:19.520 --> 0:27:23.320 but with Georgia that wasn't. The case was specifically with 0:27:23.440 --> 0:27:26.320 twenty twenty and specifically in a January sixth issue. So 0:27:26.480 --> 0:27:28.920 do you think the case and not dealing with insurrection, 0:27:29.040 --> 0:27:30.960 for example, was a problem. 0:27:31.640 --> 0:27:34.719 No, it's not just The indictment is not just a 0:27:34.840 --> 0:27:39.040 January sixth issue. It's also an issue that relates to 0:27:40.560 --> 0:27:44.560 the entire effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power. 0:27:44.920 --> 0:27:47.040 It goes back to Georgia, it goes back to what 0:27:47.119 --> 0:27:50.679 he did in the battleground states. This is not just 0:27:50.840 --> 0:27:55.200 relating to January sixth and the January sixth matter. All 0:27:55.240 --> 0:27:59.879 relates to trying to underline the peaceful transfer power and 0:28:00.119 --> 0:28:03.560 January sixth and trying to get the vice president to 0:28:03.680 --> 0:28:10.879 basically take what our fraudulent electors and put those in 0:28:10.960 --> 0:28:14.040 place or send the vote back to the battleground states. 0:28:14.280 --> 0:28:18.600 I mean, this is all outside of what a president 0:28:18.720 --> 0:28:23.879 is supposed to do and outside of his absolute normal acts. 0:28:25.440 --> 0:28:30.200 Zoe, what's the expectation here? Is there enough left outside 0:28:30.240 --> 0:28:35.879 of the immunity for the prosecutors to continue this case? 0:28:37.240 --> 0:28:40.600 That's what they will certainly argue. You know, the court 0:28:40.800 --> 0:28:45.120 certainly left enough in the indictment up for debate before 0:28:45.200 --> 0:28:45.880 the district court. 0:28:45.960 --> 0:28:46.200 Dutch. 0:28:47.120 --> 0:28:50.280 You know, I think it's worth noting that whatever Judge 0:28:50.320 --> 0:28:53.880 Chuckkin in Washington decides after this next round of litigation 0:28:54.440 --> 0:28:58.280 could then potentially be appealed again and go back up 0:28:58.320 --> 0:29:01.560 to the appeals court process even reach the Supreme Court 0:29:01.800 --> 0:29:05.520 again before there's any kind of trial schedule. So that's why, 0:29:05.560 --> 0:29:07.520 you know, when we talk about this being a sort 0:29:07.560 --> 0:29:10.560 of tactical win for Donald Trump in the sense that 0:29:10.720 --> 0:29:14.040 it's very unlikely anything gets to trial before the election. 0:29:15.480 --> 0:29:17.480 You know, but the court sort of said, you know, 0:29:17.600 --> 0:29:20.920 even things like conversations between the president and the vice 0:29:20.960 --> 0:29:24.280 president might not be covered by immunity in the end, 0:29:24.320 --> 0:29:26.760 depending on what they were discussing, where it was really 0:29:26.760 --> 0:29:30.200 about the functions of the executive manchi as opposed to 0:29:30.480 --> 0:29:34.880 you know, the vice presidental rational process where president doesn't 0:29:34.920 --> 0:29:37.840 have any direct power to decide what should and should 0:29:37.880 --> 0:29:41.800 not happen. And then you know, the state elector's component 0:29:42.000 --> 0:29:45.000 of the indictment is you know, up for debate and 0:29:45.200 --> 0:29:48.120 justice Barrett and the concurring opinion said that she thought 0:29:48.320 --> 0:29:51.000 she didn't see how immunity would apply there in terms 0:29:51.040 --> 0:29:54.240 of any role that the president plays in the state 0:29:54.320 --> 0:29:58.320 election process. So there is just still a lot in 0:29:58.400 --> 0:30:03.360 the indictment that remains unresolved, even as you know, it 0:30:03.480 --> 0:30:08.360 is a positive opinion for Trump in terms of time. 0:30:09.520 --> 0:30:11.840 So if you're just joining us, this is what's happening. 0:30:11.880 --> 0:30:13.840 The US Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some 0:30:13.880 --> 0:30:16.680 immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty 0:30:16.720 --> 0:30:19.760 twenty election results. The vote was six ' three. Now 0:30:19.800 --> 0:30:22.520 goes back to the lower court, and we're talking to 0:30:22.600 --> 0:30:26.640 Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, and Zoe Tilman, 0:30:26.720 --> 0:30:30.600 senior legal reporter, are still with us. Nick, going back 0:30:30.600 --> 0:30:32.760 to the makeup of the court, is there a case 0:30:32.800 --> 0:30:35.400 that some justices could have recused themselves or should have? 0:30:36.400 --> 0:30:39.280 Of course, I mean there's two justices that obviously should 0:30:39.280 --> 0:30:44.560 have recused themselves, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Alito 0:30:44.680 --> 0:30:50.760 made his opinion known about the January sixth insurrection by 0:30:50.800 --> 0:30:57.000 flying the flag upside down immediately after that insurrection, adjoining 0:30:57.120 --> 0:31:03.080 the insurrectionists, and Justice Thomas's wife was intricately involved in 0:31:03.200 --> 0:31:08.800 trying to push forward this situation so that Trump could 0:31:08.800 --> 0:31:13.200 stay in power. So yeah, those two justices absolutely should 0:31:13.200 --> 0:31:16.880 have recused themselves. All I can say is this feels 0:31:17.000 --> 0:31:21.040 so much different than the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy four, 0:31:21.440 --> 0:31:26.680 which was also comprised of justices that were appointed by 0:31:26.960 --> 0:31:32.520 Republican presidents, who wound up in an eight to zero 0:31:32.680 --> 0:31:37.080 decision ordering Nixon to turn over his tapes. There was 0:31:37.120 --> 0:31:42.280 never any question about delaying the matter the Supreme Court. There, 0:31:42.360 --> 0:31:47.360 Unlike the Supreme Court bypassed the appellate court, the DC Circuit, 0:31:47.640 --> 0:31:50.120 and let this go directly the Supreme Court. It was 0:31:50.200 --> 0:31:55.520 done in a matter of months. Everything was expedited here. 0:31:55.640 --> 0:31:58.600 This was dragged out as much as possible. Even though 0:31:58.600 --> 0:32:02.560 the Special counsul asked for immediate review to the Supreme Court. 0:32:02.800 --> 0:32:05.800 The Supreme Court sent it back to the DC Circuit 0:32:05.840 --> 0:32:09.959 to decide, then didn't really take this in an expedited manner, 0:32:10.200 --> 0:32:12.840 and then issued the opinion on the last day of 0:32:12.880 --> 0:32:17.200 their term. So to me, it smells a lot like 0:32:17.560 --> 0:32:21.280 what they were doing was purposely trying to delay matters 0:32:21.600 --> 0:32:23.800 for Donald Trump so he wouldn't have to have his 0:32:23.920 --> 0:32:26.880 day of reckoning in court prior to the election. 0:32:27.120 --> 0:32:28.640 All right, Nick, thank you so much for joining us. 0:32:28.680 --> 0:32:32.440 Nick Ackman, former assistant Special Watergate prosecutor prosecutor, and Zoe 0:32:32.560 --> 0:32:36.200 tell Me legal reporter for Bloomberg News based in Washington 0:32:36.280 --> 0:32:36.640 and DC. 0:32:36.840 --> 0:32:39.000 The latest is that the Supreme Court has given Trump 0:32:39.080 --> 0:32:42.040 partial immunity when it comes to trying to overturn the 0:32:42.080 --> 0:32:45.080 twenty twenty election. Want to get right to the Supreme 0:32:45.120 --> 0:32:49.600 Court here with Greg Store, Supreme Court reporter on this ruling. 0:32:49.840 --> 0:32:52.400 All right, Greg, what is the feeling. What's the reaction 0:32:52.520 --> 0:32:56.240 where you are walk us through, walk us through the latest. 0:32:57.040 --> 0:32:59.960 Well, even though Donald Trump didn't get everything he saw 0:33:00.120 --> 0:33:03.800 in this ruling, he certainly got enough. This is a 0:33:03.880 --> 0:33:07.000 very big ruling in his favor because it means that 0:33:07.360 --> 0:33:10.680 there's really no practical way a trial can happen before 0:33:10.720 --> 0:33:14.000 the election. What exactly is going to happen when the 0:33:14.040 --> 0:33:16.560 case goes back to the lower court. The extent to 0:33:16.600 --> 0:33:20.280 which this case is still viable in theory, we don't 0:33:20.320 --> 0:33:23.760 know that yet. But what's clear is that the idea 0:33:23.880 --> 0:33:26.760 that he could be tried and convicted before the election 0:33:27.000 --> 0:33:29.040 is a non starter at this point. 0:33:29.600 --> 0:33:34.080 Gregor Prior guest Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, 0:33:34.240 --> 0:33:36.320 really kind of calling out the court I think here 0:33:36.360 --> 0:33:40.160 for some politalization of their duties visa VI kind of 0:33:40.160 --> 0:33:41.640 what we saw from the Supreme Court back and the 0:33:41.720 --> 0:33:46.000 Nixon investigation. What's your feeling about how this court ruled 0:33:46.000 --> 0:33:49.000 here in this case. What are some of your sources 0:33:49.000 --> 0:33:49.400 telling you. 0:33:50.200 --> 0:33:52.440 Well, I'll leave the kind of the rightness or wrongness 0:33:52.480 --> 0:33:55.400 of the substance of this opinion to other folks, But 0:33:56.360 --> 0:33:59.080 in terms of the timing of this there was certainly 0:33:59.160 --> 0:34:01.280 there were certainly a couple has the Court could have 0:34:01.360 --> 0:34:04.760 taken to get this ruling out sooner. They could have 0:34:04.960 --> 0:34:09.600 The Special counsel Jack Smith, asked the Court last December 0:34:09.640 --> 0:34:12.440 to take up the case on an ultra expedited basis. 0:34:12.480 --> 0:34:15.719 The Court turned him down. They could have taken it. 0:34:15.760 --> 0:34:18.440 Then they could have issued a quick ruling and then 0:34:18.480 --> 0:34:20.840 maybe there would have been a trial before the election. 0:34:21.160 --> 0:34:23.560 They made a choice not to. They wanted to delve 0:34:23.600 --> 0:34:27.439 deeply into these constitutional issues. They wanted to let a 0:34:27.480 --> 0:34:32.080 federal appeals court decide the case first. And the practical 0:34:32.120 --> 0:34:34.600 impact is that it ends up being a huge victory 0:34:34.600 --> 0:34:37.160 for Donald trumpet even though they didn't go quite as 0:34:37.160 --> 0:34:39.279 far as he actually asked them to go. He asked 0:34:39.320 --> 0:34:41.399 them to throw out the indictment. They didn't go there. 0:34:42.320 --> 0:34:44.520 So, being a Supreme Court reporter and have been for 0:34:44.640 --> 0:34:47.160 quite a long time and kind of knowing how politicized 0:34:47.640 --> 0:34:49.800 in some ways it has become at least the rhetoric 0:34:49.880 --> 0:34:53.359 around that. What's been your takeaway over the last week 0:34:53.360 --> 0:34:55.600 and a half of all the decisions that we've learned, Like, 0:34:55.640 --> 0:34:56.799 where does that set us up? 0:34:56.840 --> 0:34:57.040 Now? 0:34:58.000 --> 0:34:58.239 Yeah? 0:34:58.280 --> 0:35:03.200 I mean it is very noteworthy that this ruling elects. 0:35:03.400 --> 0:35:07.880 Several others that we got recently were six three ideologically divided, 0:35:07.920 --> 0:35:11.560 the six Republican appointees, including the three Trump appointees in 0:35:11.640 --> 0:35:16.200 the majority and the three Democratic appointees in dessent. This 0:35:16.360 --> 0:35:21.560 is a conservative supermajority. They didn't rule in every single 0:35:21.600 --> 0:35:24.160 case this term on the conservative side, but they did 0:35:24.200 --> 0:35:27.040 in an awful lot of them. And you know, we're 0:35:27.360 --> 0:35:30.040 it's really going to have sweeping impacts on the law 0:35:30.400 --> 0:35:33.719 in a lot of areas. You know, rulings that we got, 0:35:33.719 --> 0:35:35.960 including one today that's going to probably not get a 0:35:35.960 --> 0:35:38.839 whole lot of attention having to do with administrative law 0:35:39.800 --> 0:35:41.680 and a big ruling last week, are really going to 0:35:41.719 --> 0:35:46.160 curtail the administrative state and regulation. And of course this 0:35:46.280 --> 0:35:48.880 ruling could have tremendous political impacts. 0:35:49.600 --> 0:35:51.960 So, as you mentioned, Jack, we've had have had a 0:35:52.040 --> 0:35:57.000 number of six three rulings along political lines. How normal, 0:35:57.200 --> 0:35:58.320 abnormal unusual? 0:35:58.960 --> 0:35:59.239 Is that? 0:36:00.880 --> 0:36:04.919 Certainly in recent years it's not that unusual. We've come 0:36:04.960 --> 0:36:08.000 to be used to it. There was a time back 0:36:08.120 --> 0:36:12.360 before twenty ten where you have a lot of you know, 0:36:12.760 --> 0:36:16.600 justices crossing over so to speak, Republican of re appointees 0:36:16.640 --> 0:36:20.880 who voted in a liberal direction in a lot of cases, 0:36:20.960 --> 0:36:25.200 and occasionally Democratic appointees who voted in a conservative way. 0:36:25.680 --> 0:36:27.960 We see an awful lot less of that. Now. The 0:36:28.080 --> 0:36:32.120 ideological divides on this court are also the partisan divides 0:36:32.440 --> 0:36:39.600 on this court, and that, coupled with the divisive, polarizing 0:36:39.680 --> 0:36:43.000 times that were in politically, mean that we end up 0:36:43.040 --> 0:36:46.160 with a lot of these rulings where the Republican appointees 0:36:46.440 --> 0:36:52.440 are are doing things that benefit the Republican party and 0:36:53.360 --> 0:36:54.080 their interests. 0:36:55.120 --> 0:36:58.640 To that point that you made about regulation, can we 0:36:58.719 --> 0:37:00.719 just kiss a lot of regulation good bye? I mean, 0:37:00.760 --> 0:37:02.719 it just seems like if I add up all the 0:37:02.760 --> 0:37:06.080 cases on that, I mean, is that a safe takeaway 0:37:06.080 --> 0:37:06.319 for me? 0:37:07.880 --> 0:37:10.040 I'm not sure I would guess it goodbye in the 0:37:10.120 --> 0:37:11.880 sense that all this is going to have to be 0:37:11.920 --> 0:37:15.520 fought over in the courts. It's going to be case 0:37:15.560 --> 0:37:17.880 by case. They are going to be just a slew 0:37:17.920 --> 0:37:23.279 of lawsuits challenging regulations, both existing ones and ones going forward. 0:37:26.560 --> 0:37:28.560 So I'm not sure it's like cut and dried. I 0:37:28.600 --> 0:37:31.240 can point to that regulation is not going to survive, 0:37:31.760 --> 0:37:33.640 but it's pretty clear that there are a lot of 0:37:33.719 --> 0:37:37.400 regulations that won't survive, and even more of them that 0:37:37.440 --> 0:37:39.680 are going to be under fire and kind of under 0:37:39.840 --> 0:37:41.560 question and raising uncertainty. 0:37:41.800 --> 0:37:44.080 Okay, So then to that point, let's pretend that Congress 0:37:44.120 --> 0:37:47.560 now issues super clear regulation or laws and everything is 0:37:48.080 --> 0:37:50.440 super cut and dry, which I don't know if that's 0:37:50.480 --> 0:37:53.080 actually possible. How many of the laws that we're going 0:37:53.160 --> 0:37:54.920 to see past we're going to eventually just wind up 0:37:54.920 --> 0:37:57.480 in courts like how do we govern? In that case? 0:37:58.400 --> 0:38:01.359 Well, a lot of them will. With regard to these 0:38:01.440 --> 0:38:05.920 Supreme Court rulings on the administrative state, most of those, 0:38:06.680 --> 0:38:08.640 it tend to be or the regual focus of those 0:38:08.719 --> 0:38:12.600 are where Congress hasn't been clear, And if Congress had 0:38:12.640 --> 0:38:15.840 been clear in a particular law, then we wouldn't have 0:38:15.880 --> 0:38:17.759 the case that we're having. We're kind of dealing with 0:38:17.800 --> 0:38:20.359 what happens when regulators sort of try to fill in 0:38:20.400 --> 0:38:24.280 the gaps or do something without explicit authorization from Congress. 0:38:24.560 --> 0:38:28.080 Now it's possible there's a there's a you know, a 0:38:28.200 --> 0:38:30.920 case that the Court could say tomorrow that it's going 0:38:30.960 --> 0:38:33.960 to take up that would actually restrict Congress's power to 0:38:34.000 --> 0:38:39.560 delegate things to administrative administrative agencies. But right now, a 0:38:39.600 --> 0:38:41.680 lot of these things. If you think they are problems, 0:38:41.960 --> 0:38:45.400 there are, at least in theory, problems that Congress could fix. 0:38:46.120 --> 0:38:49.040 The issue is more that you know Congress doesn't have 0:38:49.120 --> 0:38:52.520 the political will or the functionality at this point to 0:38:53.320 --> 0:38:55.840 enact a whole lot of clear legislation. 0:38:56.000 --> 0:38:58.200 The mechanism how this is going to move here for 0:38:58.239 --> 0:39:01.200 President Trump in this community case, where's it going to go, 0:39:01.239 --> 0:39:04.520 when's it going to go, and timing, So. 0:39:04.520 --> 0:39:07.479 It will get kicked back to the federal district judge 0:39:07.480 --> 0:39:11.520 who's overseeing the trial, Tanya chuck Kin. That won't formally 0:39:11.600 --> 0:39:15.200 happen for a month or so. She has said that 0:39:16.719 --> 0:39:20.520 even before this ruling happened, that she's indicated she's allowed 0:39:20.520 --> 0:39:22.680 a couple of months, two or three months for each 0:39:22.680 --> 0:39:24.759 side to prepare for trial, and the trial could last 0:39:25.000 --> 0:39:28.399 two or three months. And now on top of all that, 0:39:28.640 --> 0:39:32.760 she's going to have to dive into these allegations and decide, 0:39:32.800 --> 0:39:36.960 looking at the testa Supreme Court laid out is is 0:39:36.960 --> 0:39:39.719 this official or is this private? And therefore can stay 0:39:39.719 --> 0:39:43.319 in the indictment, And those decisions that she's making very 0:39:43.440 --> 0:39:46.400 likely will be appealable before there's even a trial. So 0:39:46.960 --> 0:39:51.640 we're talking about a much longer timeline than it had 0:39:51.640 --> 0:39:53.560 previously looked like we were going to have. 0:39:54.239 --> 0:39:56.000 All right, Greg, we appreciate it. I know it's been 0:39:56.080 --> 0:39:58.279 incredibly busy a couple of weeks for you, especially today, 0:39:58.320 --> 0:40:01.560 Greg Store, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter, by joining us in 0:40:01.600 --> 0:40:02.760 all the Supreme Court rulings,