Podcast Summary
DC Circuit rules on Trump's immunity in Capitol riot investigation: The DC Circuit ruled Trump doesn't have absolute immunity for Capitol riot actions, leaving open 14th Amendment disqualification question.
The DC Circuit handed down a significant ruling on the immunity issues regarding the investigation of former President Donald Trump. The decision was made unanimously, which could impact the Supreme Court's potential involvement in the case. The court agreed that Trump did not have absolute immunity for his actions related to the Capitol riot. The decision leaves open the question of whether Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause. The hosts will further discuss this issue during their preview of the Supreme Court argument on Thursday. Additionally, they will cover a recent filing in the Mar-a-Lago case and other related topics. Overall, this decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings against Trump.
Court's Unanimous Decision in Trump Case: The court emphasized unity and consensus in its per curiam decision to remove individual targeting and threats in the Trump case, addressing jurisdiction based on case specifics and an amicus brief.
The per curiam decision in the Trump case reflected the unanimous agreement of the judges and served as a group decision to remove individual targeting and threats. The court addressed four legal conclusions, including whether they had jurisdiction to hear the case before the trial was complete. Despite some misconceptions, the court decided they did have jurisdiction based on the specifics of the case and the argument made in an amicus brief. The per curiam decision was a way to emphasize the court's consensus and unity in the face of potential controversy.
Court rejects Trump's arguments for executive immunity: The court ruled that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution, emphasizing the importance of criminal law as a check on presidential power
Former President Trump's arguments for executive immunity and the requirement of impeachment and conviction before criminal prosecution were both rejected by the court. The court emphasized that criminal law serves as a crucial check on the power of the presidency and that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution, even for actions taken during their time in office. The decision, which has been described as evocative and foundational, emphasizes that former President Trump, like any other criminal defendant, is now subject to the same legal protections and potential penalties as any other citizen.
Trump not absolutely immune from criminal investigations post-presidency: The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that former President Trump is not immune from criminal probes after leaving office, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances and upholding the law.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from criminal investigation and prosecution, even after leaving office. The court emphasized that no one, not even the President, is above the law. The case stems from an attempt by Trump to block a subpoena for records related to his business dealings during his presidency. The court rejected Trump's argument for absolute executive immunity, citing historical precedents and the importance of maintaining the system of checks and balances. The former President now has one week to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wishes to delay the mandate for the subpoena to be enforced. The court also indicated that further appeals to the DC Circuit would not automatically result in a stay of the mandate.
D.C. Circuit Court expedites Trump's appeal process: The D.C. Circuit Court denied an automatic stay, compressing Trump's appeal process, allowing the Supreme Court to make a decision more quickly on his constitutional qualifications to run for office.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an automatic stay on the enforcement of the subpoena issued to Donald Trump, effectively compressing the timeline for Trump to seek review in the Supreme Court. The court's decision to bypass the initial 45-day period and potential 90-day period for filing a cert petition was significant, as it expedited the process and allowed the Supreme Court to make a decision more quickly. This is a significant win for Jack Smith and Judge Chuklin, and a potential win for American democracy, as the country awaits the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's constitutional qualifications to run for office. Trump is expected to seek a stay in the Supreme Court on Thursday, leading to a potential argument on his qualifications to run.
Supreme Court to Hear Trump's Eligibility Case: The Supreme Court will debate whether Trump's oath to uphold the Constitution makes him an officer under the 14th Amendment, disqualifying him from running for office again.
The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can run for office again, despite his role in the Capitol insurrection. Trump's argument is that the presidency is not an "office under the United States" as defined by the 14th Amendment Section 3, which disqualifies those who have previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States from holding office. However, opponents argue that Trump's oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution makes him an officer, and therefore subject to the disqualification. The Supreme Court will likely explore these arguments and others, such as whether Congress must establish a specific procedure for implementing Section 3 and whether Trump can even be on the ballot. The public can listen to the arguments live-streamed starting Thursday, March 23rd. This case marks an important moment in understanding the limits of constitutional disqualifications and the role of the judiciary in shaping political eligibility.
Congress has the power to lift Trump's disqualification for insurrection: Despite being disqualified from running for office due to the insurrection, Trump could potentially be reinstated if Congress votes to remove the disability, but it's uncertain how he could do so before ballots are set.
The constitutional provision regarding disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the United States is unique because it grants Congress the power to relieve an individual of this disability by a 2/3 vote. This means that Donald Trump, despite being disqualified based on the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, could potentially be reinstated as a candidate if Congress votes to remove the disability. However, it remains unclear how Trump could secure this removal before appearing on ballots. The Supreme Court is expected to grapple with this question, among others, during the upcoming argument. The case is significant as it raises both legal and factual issues, including the definition of "engaging in an insurrection" and the distinction between incitement and engagement. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential race.
Supreme Court could send January 6th case back for fact-finding: The January 6th and Mar-a-Lago cases continue to unfold with significant implications for American politics. The Supreme Court may reconsider fact-finding in the January 6th case, while the Mar-a-Lago case sees both sides arguing over information sharing and political bias.
The ongoing legal proceedings involving Donald Trump's cases, including the January 6th Capitol riots case and the Mar-a-Lago documents case, are far from over. During a recent discussion, it was noted that the Supreme Court could potentially send the January 6th case back to the lower courts for fact-finding based on the application of a new legal standard. However, many arguments focusing on the facts themselves have been made by both sides and various amici curiae. Trump's team argued that the appellate court should not defer to fact-finding in this case because it mainly involves written material, and there's no need for credibility assessments. In the Mar-a-Lago case, the special prosecutor recently filed an opposition to Trump's motion to compel discovery, refuting Trump's claims of political persecution and bias. The government maintains that they have already provided all necessary information and are following proper procedures. Overall, these cases continue to unfold, and their outcomes could significantly impact American politics.
High-profile legal cases have unique information dissemination requirements: In high-profile cases, legal teams must effectively communicate complex issues to both the judge and public, and ongoing related cases can impact decisions.
During high-profile legal cases, the process and presentation of information to the public and the judge can differ significantly from more routine cases. The recent case involving Michael Sussmann's motion to dismiss in the Mueller investigation is an excellent example. The legal team made a considerable effort to explain the government's position and the complexities of the case to the judge and the public. Additionally, the ongoing civil fraud case against Donald Trump and his associates in New York, where Allen Weisselberg is reportedly in plea discussions, could significantly impact the outcome of the decision in that case. The judge may be waiting for the resolution of Weisselberg's potential violation of his sentence or independent charges before making a final decision.
DA Fani Willis denies conflict of interest in Trump probe: DA Fani Willis strongly denied any conflict of interest in her ongoing investigation of Trump allies, filing a persuasive response with an affidavit from special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Fani Willis, the Georgia Fulton County District Attorney, strongly refuted allegations of a conflict of interest in her ongoing prosecution of the 19 defendants involved in attempts to override the will of the voters in Georgia and support Trump's efforts. She filed a persuasive response, including an affidavit from special prosecutor Nathan Wade, denying any financial benefit or conflict arising from their personal relationship. The hearing scheduled for February 15th will determine if the court addresses this issue legally or factually. Despite the ongoing dispute, Willis' response was seen as a compelling rebuttal to the allegations.
MSNBC's 'Prosecuting Donald Trump' Podcast Team: Listen to MSNBC's 'Prosecuting Donald Trump' podcast for updates on the investigation against former President Trump, produced by a dedicated team.
MSNBC's "Prosecuting Donald Trump" podcast is produced by a team consisting of Kathryn Anderson and Bob Mallory as audio engineers, Bryson Barnes as head of audio production, Ayesha Turner as executive producer, and Rebecca Cutler as senior vice president for content strategy. Listeners are encouraged to search for and follow this series to stay informed on the ongoing investigation against former President Donald Trump.