Podcast Summary
Trump's Legal Team Argues for Criminal Immunity for Presidential Acts: Trump's legal team argued for immunity from criminal charges for official acts during presidency, potentially shielding them from prosecution unless impeached and convicted.
During the Supreme Court argument yesterday, Donald Trump's legal team argued for criminal immunity for official acts within the outer perimeters of the presidency, unless and until a president is impeached and convicted. This is a broad interpretation of official acts, which could potentially shield a president from criminal charges for actions taken during their time in office. It's important to note that this argument did not address private acts. The discussion about this case comes amidst other concerning Supreme Court decisions, and the outcome could have significant implications for American democracy.
Supreme Court Hears Argument on Trump's Immunity: The Supreme Court is considering if criminal statutes can infringe on the President's unique constitutional duties, with the outcome potentially shaping future presidential prosecutions.
During the Supreme Court argument regarding the legality of prosecuting President Trump, Michael Dreeben, representing the Department of Justice, argued that while private matters can be prosecuted, there is a small group of unique presidential duties granted by the Constitution that cannot be infringed upon by criminal statutes. The justices seemed skeptical of Trump's argument for absolute immunity for all official acts. Dreeben emphasized that the content of the call to Georgia's election official, Raffensperger, was a crucial detail in determining if Trump was acting officially or privately. The court's decision could have significant implications for future presidential prosecutions.
Justices debate presidential immunity from criminal prosecution: Concerns about chilling effect on presidents, but no consensus on absolute immunity. Debate lacked textual, historical analysis, focusing on policy implications. Some justices showed antipathy towards criminal justice system.
The justices expressed concerns about the potential chilling effect on presidents if they could face criminal prosecution, but there was no consensus on granting absolute immunity for all official acts. Another takeaway is that the discussion lacked consideration of the text of the constitution, prior case law, and historical precedent, making it more of a policy debate than a legal analysis. The conservative justices, specifically Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh, raised concerns about the impact on presidential decision-making, but their arguments lacked historical support. Michael Dreben countered that the system has worked effectively without the need for a new standard for criminal immunity. The antipathy towards the criminal justice system from some justices was also noteworthy. Overall, the discussion highlighted the complexities and nuances of the issue, with no clear resolution in sight.
Justices express concerns about presidential immunity during Supreme Court arguments: During a recent Supreme Court case, justices debated the implications of presidential immunity on the criminal justice system, questioning the clarity of criminal statutes and the line between private and official acts.
During the recent Supreme Court arguments regarding the potential criminal prosecution of a former president, several justices expressed concerns about the implications for the criminal justice system as a whole. They denigrated the grand jury system and questioned the clarity of criminal statutes, despite the Supreme Court's historical pro-law enforcement stance. The justices also debated the line between purely private acts and potential immunity for official acts or core executive functions. The outcome of this debate, which may result in a remand for a lower court to draw the line, could significantly impact the future of presidential immunity.
Distinguishing Official from Personal Actions of a President: The 'Blessing Game' test considers objective context like politics and officiality to differentiate official from personal actions of a president. Intent and purpose also matter: using office for private gain may make actions less protected and more criminal.
Determining whether an action taken by a president is an official act or a personal one can be complex. The DC Circuit Court's "Blessing Game" test suggests looking at the objective context, such as whether the event is political or official, to distinguish between the two. However, the question of intent and purpose also plays a role. Using the trappings of office for private gain, rather than public interest, may make the action less protected and more criminal. During a Supreme Court hearing, Amy Coney Barrett questioned Trump's counsel about the characterization of certain acts in the indictment as private, and Trump's counsel agreed that some of them were indeed private. These acts included petitioner's communication with private attorneys and their involvement in submitting fraudulent slates of electors. The distinction between official and personal actions is crucial in understanding presidential immunity and potential criminal liability.
Impact of Supreme Court's decision on president's criminal liability: The Supreme Court's ruling on the Trump tax case may limit the use of official acts as evidence of knowledge and intent for criminal charges against a sitting president for private acts, but the specifics of how this applies in practice are unclear.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Trump tax case could limit the ability of the government to use evidence of official acts as proof of knowledge and intent in prosecuting potential criminal charges against a sitting president for private acts. The court's ruling on what constitutes private versus official acts is still unclear and could impact the admissibility of evidence in future cases involving a president's criminal liability. The court did not directly address the hypothetical scenarios of a president engaging in a coup or other egregious actions using the trappings of office. The justices seemed to agree that official acts could be used as evidence, but the specifics of how this would apply in practice are yet to be determined.
Supreme Court to Decide on Executive Privilege and Criminal Investigations: The Supreme Court's decision on the distinction between official and private acts could determine the scope of executive privilege in criminal investigations against the President, potentially impacting the balance of power between the Executive and Judicial Branches.
The ongoing legal battle over the scope of executive privilege and its application to criminal investigations against the President could hinge on the Supreme Court's decision regarding what constitutes official versus private acts. While some justices seem inclined to allow for the investigation of private acts, others argue that such a distinction could set a dangerous precedent. The potential for a hearing on this issue could provide an opportunity for key figures to testify about the facts related to official versus unofficial acts, but the label given to this issue could impact the potential for further appeals. Ultimately, the outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance of power between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.
Legal proceedings against Trump could be delayed: Judge Chutkan's ruling against Trump's immunity argument could lead to appeals and delays in his legal proceedings, while the New York trial continues with key figures testifying in a 'catch and kill' scheme case.
The ongoing legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump could potentially be delayed until after the upcoming election due to the ongoing case in front of Judge Chutkan. If the judge rules against Trump's argument that certain actions are protected by presidential immunity, he may appeal the decision, which could delay a trial. During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the idea that the president is the only public official who cannot be prosecuted without impeachment and conviction. Meanwhile, in other news, the trial in New York continued with David Pecker, a key figure in the Stormy Daniels case, testifying. He was presented as a principal working with Trump, while Michael Cohen was portrayed as an amanuensis. The case revolves around a "catch and kill" scheme to suppress negative stories about Trump. These developments in both the Supreme Court case and the New York trial are significant and could have major implications for Trump's legal situation.
Enquirer payments to suppress negative stories about Trump not reimbursed due to campaign finance concerns: The National Enquirer's large payments to suppress negative stories about Donald Trump led to a complex 'catch and kill' operation involving home equity loans and potential campaign finance violations.
The National Enquirer's payments to suppress negative stories about Donald Trump were not reimbursed due to concerns over campaign finance violations. The Enquirer had paid significant sums to Karen McDougall and others, totaling almost $200,000, which was more than their usual payouts. When Michael Cohen took over the payments, he had to secure a home equity loan because the Enquirer could no longer finance the scheme. The financial component of the "catch and kill" operation was unique due to the large sums involved and the potential campaign finance violations. The defense attempted to use Trump's past dealings with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the general practice of catch and kill as defenses during cross-examination, but these arguments were irrelevant to the charge of falsifying business records to commit a campaign violation.
Arizona trial: Focus on those involved in election fraud schemes: The Arizona trial targets those involved in falsifying election results, including conspirators like Kenneth Chesebro and figures associated with Donald Trump, while the former president himself faces allegations of gag order violations.
The ongoing trial in Arizona regarding falsified election results involves not only the fake electors but also those who orchestrated the scheme, including people associated with Donald Trump and his campaign. The indictment accuses Kenneth Chesebro, a key figure in the civil case against fake electors in Wisconsin, of being a coconspirator. Despite his involvement and the availability of evidence, Chesebro has not been charged, and there is ongoing speculation about why this is the case. Similarly, there has been widespread reporting that Donald Trump himself has violated the gag order in the trial and has been ordered to respond to new claims of gag order violations. However, he has not been charged in this case. The focus remains on accountability for those involved in the fraudulent schemes and practices.
Arizona election interference case: Uncertain cooperation from key figure and uncertain charges against Trump: The Arizona election interference case involves a key figure's potential cooperation and uncertain charges against Trump, with complications surrounding the distinction between fake and contingent electors.
Kenneth Chesebro, a key figure in the Arizona election interference case, is believed to have cooperated with the authorities in exchange for not being charged. However, the extent of his cooperation, including potential testimony at a trial, is uncertain. As for Donald Trump, despite being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator, there might not be enough evidence against him to bring charges at this time. The case against Trump may be complicated by the issue of whether he was aware of the fake electors versus contingent electors. The trial continues, and the discussion will be followed closely to understand the judge's decisions regarding gag orders and potential alternatives. The importance of clear, dispassionate analysis, even amidst the chaos of multiple legal cases and media obligations, was emphasized. Listeners are encouraged to submit their questions, which will be addressed in future episodes.
Listeners can engage with the podcast by sending in questions: Listeners can interact with the podcast by calling or emailing with their queries, and the team encourages more submissions.
That listeners can engage with the "Prosecuting Donald Trump" podcast by sending in their questions through voice mail at 917-342-2934 or email at prosecutingtrump@mbcuni.com. The team appreciates the questions they have received and encourages more to be sent in. The podcast is produced by Vicki Virgolina, with Jameris Perez as the associate producer, and Alicia Conley providing production support. Katherine Anderson and Paul Robert Mounsey serve as audio engineers, Bryson Barnes is the head of audio production, Ayesha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC audio, and Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Listeners are invited to search for "Prosecuting Donald Trump" wherever they get their podcasts and follow the series for more in-depth discussions on the legal aspects of the Trump administration.