Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Let make
Speaker 1: sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to the Buck Brief.
Speaker 1: This may determine the twenty twenty four election. This could
Speaker 1: be the entirety of whether Trump wins or loses. And
Speaker 1: it has nothing to do with votes. It has everything
Speaker 1: to do with the legal system and its abuse by
Speaker 1: the Democrats. In this case, the Jack Smith Special Council.
Speaker 1: Trump's team has as of Monday this week, reached out
Speaker 1: with an effort to have the Supreme Court intervene with
Speaker 1: a stay on the Circuit Court's decision based upon the
Speaker 1: District Court in DC decision. Now, this can be messy,
Speaker 1: so I want to boil this down to its simplest parts. First,
Speaker 1: what's going on here is two things simultaneously. A fight
Speaker 1: over the timing of all of this. One side trying
Speaker 1: to speed it up Jack Smith, the other side trying
Speaker 1: to slow it down Trump and his team. That's essential.
Speaker 1: And also this usually would be the main thing, but
Speaker 1: in this case it's not. And I'll explain why. A
Speaker 1: fight over the constitutional merits of the Trump position about
Speaker 1: immunity Now let's start, because this is really important. The
Speaker 1: timing will determine whether this gets to trial or not.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't get to trial before the election, then
Speaker 1: it obviously can't impact the election the way that the
Speaker 1: Democrats wanted to. So the stakes here could not be higher.
Speaker 1: They think, if they can get a conviction of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump on the January SI case, they could have Biden
Speaker 1: at the top of the ticket, Commal at the top
Speaker 1: of the ticket, or someone else at the top of
Speaker 1: the Democrat ticket, it won't matter. They will win. That
Speaker 1: is their fundamental belief, and some of the polls that
Speaker 1: we have seen show that they could be right, certainly
Speaker 1: in a Biden v. Trump matchup, if Trump is convicted.
Speaker 1: Specifically in the j sixth case Atlanta, that case is
Speaker 1: falling apart New York. That case is a joke. Florida.
Speaker 1: That case doesn't look like it's going to get to trial,
Speaker 1: although there's been some pre trial motions about that this
Speaker 1: week or motion around that I should say this week.
Speaker 1: But let's get first back to this central issue of
Speaker 1: the timing of the immunity claim. So here's what we know.
Speaker 1: The district court, right, so the lowest level federal Court
Speaker 1: in DC found against Trump, right, So then he appealed
Speaker 1: it to the Circuit court, which is the appeals court
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of DC, and the Circuit court also found
Speaker 1: against Trump. Now, what the Circuit Court has said is
Speaker 1: we want the district Court to be able to enact
Speaker 1: its will here, which would mean bringing the case against
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So they're trying to speed this up, right,
Speaker 1: and the Trump team has responded by saying, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, I need the Supreme Court to issue a
Speaker 1: stay on the Circuit court s toff, I give this
Speaker 1: all straight, so that the Circuit Court's order that the
Speaker 1: District Court can go forward is on hold. So they
Speaker 1: cannot proceed with the trial until we have a chance
Speaker 1: to get two things, an en banc hearing meaning all
Speaker 1: the Circuit Court judges hear this, and a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision on whether or not this immunity claim is valid.
Speaker 1: And therefore the whole you know, this whole component of
Speaker 1: the effort to get Trump goes away. Effect of the
Speaker 1: JA six trial is null and void because Trump has
Speaker 1: immunity from these claims. Now here's how they write about it.
Speaker 1: The court should stay. This is the Trump team writing,
Speaker 1: and the decision which I just read through. Uh, the court,
Speaker 1: I should say, sorry, it's not a decision, it's the
Speaker 1: Trump team. Uh, in the process of trying to get
Speaker 1: a stay, an application for the stay of the mandate
Speaker 1: to be issued by the United States Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: for the District of Columbia Circuit. Okay, so they are
Speaker 1: asking for a stop. Trump's team, they're asking the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to put a stop on the DC Circuit court
Speaker 1: saying that the District court can go forward. So see
Speaker 1: how all these pieces are moving in together. And here's
Speaker 1: what they want. The court should stay. This is from
Speaker 1: this application for a stay. The Court should stay the
Speaker 1: d C Circuits mandate pending resolution of President Trump's petition
Speaker 1: for cerciorari in this court. Essentially, you gotta hold off
Speaker 1: on that to see if the writ of cert gets granted,
Speaker 1: meaning the Supreme Court says we will hear this. So
Speaker 1: put a pause on all the trial stuff in DC
Speaker 1: until the Supreme Court says whether or not they will
Speaker 1: hear it. Also their request, as additional relief, President Trump
Speaker 1: requests this court stay the DC Circuits mandate for the
Speaker 1: resolution of a petition for on bank on banc French
Speaker 1: or some people say end bank, but it's on bank
Speaker 1: consideration in that court before the filing of his petition
Speaker 1: for cerciorari in this court. So they're saying, we want
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to say hold off on everything, but
Speaker 1: first we want them to put a hold off on
Speaker 1: everything until we have a chance to do the request
Speaker 1: for an on bank. Hear it, right, So you've got
Speaker 1: these three levels at the top of a Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: Appeals court below that, and then distrect court below that,
Speaker 1: and it's like, you know, it's like the pinball machine
Speaker 1: going off one after another and then it goes up
Speaker 1: again and then one after another. Trying to kick this
Speaker 1: back and forth. Trump's team is saying, you've got to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. On the merits, very likely we're going
Speaker 1: to win. This is what their application for the stay says.
Speaker 1: On the merits they're going to win. We're going to win,
Speaker 1: or at least are likely to win or have a
Speaker 1: serious chance of winning. So you can't allow this damage
Speaker 1: to be done by Trump of the trial. You can't
Speaker 1: actually allow a trial to happen before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Here's this, because the damage is done by the trial itself.
Speaker 1: Now you'll notice there's all these games, and this is
Speaker 1: absolutely key imperative public importance of a prompt resolution of
Speaker 1: this case that comes from the Special Council, which was
Speaker 1: quoted in this application for a stay. The Special Counsel
Speaker 1: is taking an unprecedented legal position that the public has
Speaker 1: a right to a speedy trial. But that's not true.
Speaker 1: The defendant has the right to a speedy trial if
Speaker 1: the defendant wants to file motions, if the defendant wants
Speaker 1: to have his team bring you know, bring appeals and
Speaker 1: bring various that's within the defendant's right. There's not some countervailing.
Speaker 1: Oh but the public wants this to go faster, so sorry,
Speaker 1: it has to go faster. That doesn't exist in our law.
Speaker 1: The speedy trial is merely there for obvious reasons, so
Speaker 1: that you can't drag it out and punish the defendant
Speaker 1: with the process through duration. So by extending this, it's
Speaker 1: very obvious. If I'm charged with a crime and they
Speaker 1: can drag me into court for five years, oh we're
Speaker 1: going to have this, or rather they can wait before
Speaker 1: I can even be seen for five years. That's the
Speaker 1: bigger thing. I mean, they could drag this out different ways.
Speaker 1: But if they just have the charges hanging over my
Speaker 1: head for five years. My reputation is destroyed. Think of
Speaker 1: all the anxiety that I have to go through. So no,
Speaker 1: they have to be able to give me a speedy trial.
Speaker 1: So they cannot allow delay to be its own form
Speaker 1: of punishment. And then in the trial itself, I can't
Speaker 1: just say, oh, we're going to take you know, six months,
Speaker 1: day in and day out for this trial. If that's
Speaker 1: not necessary, right, they have to have to move expeditiously.
Speaker 1: They have to move on a timeline that's fair to
Speaker 1: the defendant. There is no countervailing. Oh but the public
Speaker 1: wants us to go fast, because you know who wants
Speaker 1: us to go fast? Democrats, Jack Smith, the Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, the White House, the Democrat Party, the machine
Speaker 1: of the left. That doesn't that doesn't weigh into this,
Speaker 1: that doesn't count. So there's a whole new concept being
Speaker 1: introduced here that I can just tell you is absolute garbage.
Speaker 1: We're going to come back into the merits of this case.
Speaker 1: So the timing thing is essential. Right. Trump wants it
Speaker 1: to go slower for obvious reasons, and he has a
Speaker 1: right to want to go slower. He also has a
Speaker 1: right to have this all heard. The process is allowed
Speaker 1: to favor the defendant here legally and politically, they can't
Speaker 1: speed the process because there's some desire of the public.
Speaker 1: That's fake, that's cheating, that's politicization of the justice system.
Speaker 1: But then also we'll talk a little bit here about
Speaker 1: the merits. But this is everything. If Trump wins this,
Speaker 1: he's probably going to be president. Right if they win
Speaker 1: this legal battle, Donald Trump may lose because of the
Speaker 1: lawfair against him. So we'll return to this in a moment.
Speaker 1: But you know, when Karen and I bought a home
Speaker 1: last year, there was no question who are going to
Speaker 1: use for our mortgage because we have a long standing
Speaker 1: relationship with the best in the business, American Financing. So
Speaker 1: I got my personal mortgage done through American Financing. They've
Speaker 1: been helping people get great mortgages with fantastic customer service
Speaker 1: and super competitive rates for twenty five years. They save
Speaker 1: their customers an average of eight hundred and fifty four
Speaker 1: dollars last month by tapping into their home's equity to
Speaker 1: payoff high interest debt. Think about this, a lot of
Speaker 1: credit card debt right now out there, really high rates
Speaker 1: people are paying on it. You can get this squared away.
Speaker 1: All it takes is a ten minute call to eight
Speaker 1: six six eight nine zero nine three nine two. That's
Speaker 1: eight six six eight nine zero nine three nine two.
Speaker 1: They never charge any upfront fees. They've over seventy two
Speaker 1: one hundred Google reviews and a four point seven star rating.
Speaker 1: They've helped thousands of customers, including me, save real money
Speaker 1: on their mortgage and put themselves in a better position.
Speaker 1: Call them to day to see what they Call them
Speaker 1: today to see what they can do for you. Eight
Speaker 1: six six eight nine zero nine three nine two. That's
Speaker 1: eight six six eight nine zero nine three nine two.
Speaker 1: American Financing dot net NMLS one eight two three three
Speaker 1: four NMLS Consumer Access dot Org APR rates in the
Speaker 1: five start at six point four zero six percent for
Speaker 1: well qualified borrowers. Call eight six six eight nine zero
Speaker 1: nine three nine two for details about credit costs and terms. Okay,
Speaker 1: now onto the merits of the argument about Trump immunity. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a big thing. It goes that they go
Speaker 1: into in this application for the stay even they go
Speaker 1: into Marbury v. Madison, and they go into a Separation
Speaker 1: of Powers and Article three and Article two. And this
Speaker 1: is all basically about the following can a president be
Speaker 1: prosecuted for official acts in office? And they make a
Speaker 1: very compelling case that well, no, of course not, because
Speaker 1: then the party that comes into power afterwards could prosecute
Speaker 1: any president for doing what he does in office. You know, Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't like that he used executive authority for this
Speaker 1: missile strike on this enemy of the state, So he's
Speaker 1: now a criminal. He's now going to be prosecuted for
Speaker 1: that and all the second guessing that would come from
Speaker 1: it. It would effectively undermine a president's ability to do his
Speaker 1: job when it comes to official acts in office. Right.
Speaker 1: So what they're arguing on the other side, first of all,
Speaker 1: they do the no man is above the law, as
Speaker 1: if that settles this, that actually appear in the district
Speaker 1: court ruling on this. What they're arguing is, effectively, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump became a citizen when he was no longer in office.
Speaker 1: He is now subject for the law like everybody else.
Speaker 1: And they'll be arguing that he that it is not
Speaker 1: an official act that would be protected, and that it
Speaker 1: was a ministerial act. Effectively, I mean, they're breaking this down.
Speaker 1: It's going to get into was Trump doing what presidents
Speaker 1: do and therefore he cannot be prosecuted for or was
Speaker 1: Trump outside the scope of what is protected for a
Speaker 1: president and since he is now a citizen, can be
Speaker 1: prosecuted for that. Now, this is going to be a
Speaker 1: fascinating constitutional melee, and I'm not sure I could tell
Speaker 1: you right now how the Supreme Court would rule on it.
Speaker 1: I think probably six ' three, but we would have
Speaker 1: to see. But what's even more obvious and more urgent
Speaker 1: is the timing of this is everything. Timing is everything
Speaker 1: when it comes to this Trump leadlegal challenge, because if
Speaker 1: they're able to get the trial going, the damage may
Speaker 1: be done. So this is why they're asking for a
Speaker 1: stay from the Supreme Court of a stay of the
Speaker 1: District Court's movement toward trial so that they can get
Speaker 1: an on bank They can request an on bank appeals
Speaker 1: court hearing for the Appeals Court in DC, the Circuit
Speaker 1: Court in DC. And also they want a writ of sircirari.
Speaker 1: It's tough to say, but that's what it is, where
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court will be able to weigh in on
Speaker 1: the immunity claim themselves. This is going all the way
Speaker 1: to the top friends, it is going to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court one way or another. I think that's quite clear,
Speaker 1: and the entire election probably turns on it. So in
Speaker 1: a sense, we may have the Court determining whether or
Speaker 1: not we get to even vote for our preferred candidate
Speaker 1: in this election, in a free and fair election. It
Speaker 1: is not an overstatement to say that the republic itself
Speaker 1: is at stake. These are the stakes that we face,
Speaker 1: so we'll continue to follow this. Appreciate you letting me
Speaker 1: do a deep dive into it. Shields high