Podcast Summary
Arguments against prosecuting sitting or former presidents: During a Supreme Court hearing, Trump's lawyers argued that criminal prosecutions of presidents could weaken the presidency and limit decision-making, and suggested certain statutes in Trump's indictment may not apply to him.
During a Supreme Court hearing, former President Donald Trump's attorneys argued that prosecuting a sitting or former president for criminal actions could weaken the presidency and tie their hands in making important decisions. The attorney, John Sauer, emphasized that such prosecutions could be a "mortal threat" to the presidency and that the Supreme Court has recognized some form of immunity for presidents in civil cases but not in criminal cases. Sauer also suggested that certain statutes in Trump's indictment may not apply to the president. The conservative justices seemed sympathetic to these arguments, indicating potential precedent-setting implications for future presidents.
Supreme Court debates defining official and private acts for a president: The Supreme Court is struggling to determine if Trump's actions related to electors were official or private, highlighting the lack of consensus on this issue.
Learning from the Supreme Court argument in the case regarding the immunity of a president from criminal investigations is that there seems to be no consensus among the justices about where to draw the line between official and private acts by a president. Michael Dreeben, arguing for the Justice Department, emphasized that Donald Trump's actions related to soliciting false electors and subverting the electoral college process were private acts, not official ones. However, some justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, questioned the characterization of these acts as private. The court is currently grappling with the issue of how to define official acts and private acts for a president, and it is unclear how long it will take to reach a decision.
Trump's Counsel Argues for Blanket Immunity, but Impeachment and Conviction Required for Criminal Prosecution: Trump's counsel argued for immunity for actions taken as president, but without impeachment and conviction, he can't be criminally prosecuted. Potential hypothetical scenarios of presidential orders to commit crimes pose risks for service members. The justice department opposes Trump's theory of immunity to prevent power accumulation.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Trump's counsel John Sauer argued for blanket immunity for a former president for actions taken while in office. However, even if such immunity doesn't exist, impeachment and conviction through the political process would be required before criminal prosecution. The discussion also touched on hypothetical scenarios, such as a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival or instigating a coup. Service members following such orders could potentially face prosecution, creating a risky situation. The justice department argued against Trump's theory of immunity, stating that it would shield him from prosecution for conspiring to overturn election results, which is unacceptable. The framers intentionally did not grant the president immunity to prevent the accumulation of too much power.
Supreme Court raises concerns about limits of prosecuting former presidents: The Supreme Court questioned the role of prosecutors and the implications for presidential power during a hearing on the prosecution of former President Trump, with several justices expressing skepticism about the lower court decision that found he did not have immunity. The outcome of the case remains uncertain.
During the Supreme Court hearing regarding the prosecution of former President Trump, the justices raised concerns about the limits of prosecuting a former president for official acts and the potential for prosecutorial misconduct. The lower court decision, which found Trump did not have immunity, was met with skepticism from several Republican-appointed justices, who questioned the role of prosecutors and the implications for the presidency's power. The government lawyer argued that certain allegations against Trump, such as his effort to overturn the election and solicitation of false statements, should be admissible as evidence of intent. However, the outcome of the case remains uncertain, and it's important to note that the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case suggests a deeper interest in the issue.
Conservative vs. Liberal Focus in Trump Documents Case: Conservative justices prioritized future presidential immunity, while liberal justices focused on immediate investigation implications.
During the Supreme Court argument regarding former President Trump's efforts to block the release of White House documents related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, conservative justices appeared focused on the future implications of their decision, while liberal justices were more concerned with the immediate implications for the ongoing investigation and potential trial. The conservative justices emphasized the need to be careful in defining presidential immunity and did not want to discuss the events of January 6 specifically. The trial's outcome and timing are uncertain, with some advocates hoping for a quick decision within 25 days, while others anticipate further proceedings. The court could potentially reverse the lower court's ruling that there is no immunity for official acts, but more work would be required in that scenario.
Impact of Supreme Court on Trump's potential criminal charges: The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity could significantly influence the outcome of Trump's January 6th investigation and potential criminal charges, potentially impacting the checks and balances system and the principle that no person is above the law.
The outcome of the legal proceedings regarding the January 6th investigation and potential criminal charges against former President Donald Trump could be significantly influenced by the decisions made by the trial judge and the Supreme Court. If the proceedings continue and result in a conviction, a second term for Trump could see him putting an end to the legal proceedings through the appointment of a new attorney general. However, the Supreme Court's role in this situation raises questions about the balance of power and the country's founding principles that no person is above the law. The justices are currently deciding the scope of presidential immunity, which could have significant consequences for the checks and balances system. Despite the potential delays and ramifications, the Supreme Court appears determined to assert its authority in this matter.
New customers saved an average of $744 with Progressive over 12 months: New Progressive customers saved an average of $744 over a year, but individual savings may vary
New customers who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023 reported an average savings of $744 over a 12-month period. However, it's important to note that potential savings will vary. This information was shared during an episode of the "On Investing" podcast, sponsored by NPR partner Charles Schwab. Hosted by Lizanne Saunders, Schwab's chief investment strategist, and Cathy Jones, Schwab's chief fixed income strategist, the podcast provides analysis on economic developments and context for conversations around stocks, fixed income, the economy, and more. To listen to the latest episode and subscribe, visit Schwab.com/oninvesting or wherever you get your podcasts.
