1
00:00:11,697 --> 00:00:14,977
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure

2
00:00:14,977 --> 00:00:17,977
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or

3
00:00:18,017 --> 00:00:19,737
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts.

4
00:00:20,137 --> 00:00:21,057
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Buck Brief.

5
00:00:21,057 --> 00:00:21,457
Speaker 1: Everybody.

6
00:00:21,457 --> 00:00:25,177
Speaker 2: This episode, Josh Hammer is with us. You could say

7
00:00:25,217 --> 00:00:29,177
Speaker 2: it's Hammer time. He is a Article three project senior

8
00:00:29,217 --> 00:00:34,017
Speaker 2: counsel and host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer

9
00:00:34,497 --> 00:00:36,617
Speaker 2: and Josh Before I dive into everything, are you are

10
00:00:36,657 --> 00:00:39,257
Speaker 2: you a true crime fan? Or is your wife? Because

11
00:00:39,817 --> 00:00:42,217
Speaker 2: my wife says she is and then we watch it

12
00:00:42,257 --> 00:00:45,857
Speaker 2: and she gets scared. So if it's like some heinous

13
00:00:46,017 --> 00:00:48,377
Speaker 2: murder or something, I'm like, maybe we shouldn't watch this, honey.

14
00:00:48,937 --> 00:00:50,737
Speaker 3: I mean, Buck, truth be told, I wouldn't even know

15
00:00:50,777 --> 00:00:53,057
Speaker 3: because every time we try to watch Netflix before're going

16
00:00:53,057 --> 00:00:55,697
Speaker 3: to sleep, my wife typically falls asleep within five minutes,

17
00:00:55,697 --> 00:00:57,457
Speaker 3: So I wouldn't even know the answer to that question.

18
00:00:57,497 --> 00:00:59,217
Speaker 2: To be honest with Yeah, it is amazing how quickly

19
00:00:59,297 --> 00:01:01,577
Speaker 2: my shoulder, which I've never thought of, is a super

20
00:01:01,577 --> 00:01:05,217
Speaker 2: comfortable place to sleep. Carrie can pass out on my

21
00:01:05,337 --> 00:01:09,897
Speaker 2: shoulder three minutes, by the way, especially if we have

22
00:01:10,097 --> 00:01:13,577
Speaker 2: spend fifteen minutes going over what movie we're going to

23
00:01:13,617 --> 00:01:16,017
Speaker 2: watch or what show we're going to start, you've got

24
00:01:16,057 --> 00:01:17,737
Speaker 2: to spend that time, and then by the time we

25
00:01:17,777 --> 00:01:21,177
Speaker 2: actually line it up, she's out. So apparently you have

26
00:01:21,217 --> 00:01:24,657
Speaker 2: the same thing. So congrat you're in your first I'm

27
00:01:24,697 --> 00:01:26,417
Speaker 2: in a year two, you're in year one of marriage.

28
00:01:26,417 --> 00:01:28,297
Speaker 2: So this is what we're learning as we go. Now,

29
00:01:28,337 --> 00:01:30,817
Speaker 2: let's talk about saving the country, or at least the

30
00:01:30,857 --> 00:01:33,777
Speaker 2: Democrats trying to destroy the country. There's some big Supreme

31
00:01:33,817 --> 00:01:37,417
Speaker 2: Court decisions looming right, we're almost in the where the

32
00:01:37,497 --> 00:01:40,377
Speaker 2: latter half of June. We know some stuff is coming

33
00:01:40,417 --> 00:01:44,737
Speaker 2: down our way. Let's start with the Trump immunity issue.

34
00:01:44,897 --> 00:01:47,417
Speaker 2: What are you seeing on this one so far? How

35
00:01:47,417 --> 00:01:49,057
Speaker 2: do you think it comes down and what will it mean?

36
00:01:49,817 --> 00:01:51,817
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean this is the big issue. I mean, look,

37
00:01:51,857 --> 00:01:53,417
Speaker 3: there are other cases coming to out back. I mean,

38
00:01:53,457 --> 00:01:55,537
Speaker 3: we're waiting for a big ruling on Chevron deference, but

39
00:01:55,697 --> 00:01:57,257
Speaker 3: this is the issue. I mean, the immunity case is

40
00:01:57,257 --> 00:02:00,497
Speaker 3: definitely I think where all of the eyes of the

41
00:02:00,617 --> 00:02:04,897
Speaker 3: legal community, the judicial community, left right center, who knows what,

42
00:02:05,137 --> 00:02:07,217
Speaker 3: We're all paying attention to this because it is a

43
00:02:07,257 --> 00:02:11,617
Speaker 3: deeply important case. Now, virtually everyone in my circles buck

44
00:02:11,697 --> 00:02:14,457
Speaker 3: that I have talked to is expecting roughly the same thing,

45
00:02:14,497 --> 00:02:16,977
Speaker 3: which is not a complete victory for Jack Smith and

46
00:02:17,017 --> 00:02:20,497
Speaker 3: not a complete victory for Donald Trump. So they took

47
00:02:20,577 --> 00:02:24,017
Speaker 3: extreme positions on their respective sides, which naturally lawyers tend

48
00:02:24,097 --> 00:02:25,977
Speaker 3: to do. That's kind of the nature of zealous advocacy.

49
00:02:26,017 --> 00:02:27,457
Speaker 3: That's what you do when you argue for your client.

50
00:02:27,537 --> 00:02:31,697
Speaker 3: You take the strongest possible position. You steal man, if

51
00:02:31,737 --> 00:02:34,057
Speaker 3: you want to use that kind of modern word, and

52
00:02:34,457 --> 00:02:37,697
Speaker 3: the outcome here is probably going to be a solemnonic

53
00:02:37,697 --> 00:02:39,817
Speaker 3: split the baby sort of things. So they're basically going

54
00:02:39,857 --> 00:02:43,137
Speaker 3: to say that some acts that a president does are

55
00:02:43,377 --> 00:02:48,257
Speaker 3: subject to core Article two constitutional presidential duty, and therefore

56
00:02:48,297 --> 00:02:51,617
Speaker 3: because of that, because they implicate a core presidential duty,

57
00:02:51,737 --> 00:02:55,377
Speaker 3: then you have immunity for those actions for criminal prosecution

58
00:02:55,577 --> 00:02:58,337
Speaker 3: after you are president. But there are some other actions

59
00:02:58,377 --> 00:03:00,377
Speaker 3: out there that have nothing whatsoever to do with a

60
00:03:00,457 --> 00:03:04,297
Speaker 3: core Article two presidential concern and therefore those acts can

61
00:03:04,337 --> 00:03:06,097
Speaker 3: be prosecuted after the fact. So we give a very

62
00:03:06,177 --> 00:03:08,217
Speaker 3: quick example here as to what this looks like in practice.

63
00:03:08,577 --> 00:03:10,617
Speaker 3: Let's say you know Barack Obama and he took out

64
00:03:10,617 --> 00:03:13,657
Speaker 3: Amwar al Alaki, the US citizen who was nonetheless al

65
00:03:13,697 --> 00:03:16,777
Speaker 3: Kaeda operative in the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen back in

66
00:03:16,817 --> 00:03:20,097
Speaker 3: twenty eleven. You know, a subsequent administration could have brought

67
00:03:20,257 --> 00:03:22,457
Speaker 3: or could have prosecute Barack Obama for who knows, some

68
00:03:22,497 --> 00:03:24,617
Speaker 3: sort of homicide. It is a US citizen after all.

69
00:03:24,777 --> 00:03:26,697
Speaker 3: But that's a core Article two function. I mean, this

70
00:03:26,777 --> 00:03:29,657
Speaker 3: is a war power, commander in chief, military decision, deep

71
00:03:29,657 --> 00:03:32,257
Speaker 3: in situation room. The Supreme Court is probably clearly going

72
00:03:32,297 --> 00:03:34,737
Speaker 3: to say that sort of activity you cannot be prosecuted

73
00:03:34,737 --> 00:03:36,697
Speaker 3: after the fact. However, you know, if you're going to

74
00:03:36,777 --> 00:03:38,297
Speaker 3: hire a hit man deep on the battles of the

75
00:03:38,337 --> 00:03:40,617
Speaker 3: inchineut To to kind of kill the dude who's shacking up

76
00:03:40,617 --> 00:03:42,577
Speaker 3: with your wife, you know, maybe that's a little further

77
00:03:42,657 --> 00:03:45,337
Speaker 3: outside of the mainstream is to what constitutes an Article

78
00:03:45,337 --> 00:03:47,897
Speaker 3: two presidential function. So the Court will probably issue that

79
00:03:47,977 --> 00:03:49,977
Speaker 3: sort of test. Then Buck, they're gonna have to kick

80
00:03:49,977 --> 00:03:52,497
Speaker 3: it down to the lower court to apply that test.

81
00:03:52,737 --> 00:03:53,937
Speaker 3: So this whole thing is going to take a lot

82
00:03:53,977 --> 00:03:55,817
Speaker 3: of time. Trump's looking He's looking good there.

83
00:03:55,857 --> 00:04:01,337
Speaker 2: I think, are there any other looming decisions that to

84
00:04:01,457 --> 00:04:06,217
Speaker 2: take take it from my non legalese background might upset

85
00:04:06,257 --> 00:04:08,737
Speaker 2: the Libs? If so, which ones.

86
00:04:09,817 --> 00:04:11,217
Speaker 1: Yes, I think it's Chevron difference.

87
00:04:11,217 --> 00:04:14,777
Speaker 3: I mean that is Look, it's not my most passionate subject,

88
00:04:14,857 --> 00:04:16,857
Speaker 3: but I think for a lot of conservative and libertarian

89
00:04:16,937 --> 00:04:19,377
Speaker 3: lawyers this probably is a very fiery issue that they're

90
00:04:19,377 --> 00:04:21,617
Speaker 3: passionate about. So Chevron deference, just to kind of explain

91
00:04:21,657 --> 00:04:23,457
Speaker 3: what it is, goes back to a nineteen to eighty

92
00:04:23,457 --> 00:04:26,617
Speaker 3: four Supreme Court case called Chevron, and back at this

93
00:04:26,697 --> 00:04:28,537
Speaker 3: time you kind of have to put yourself in that mindset.

94
00:04:28,537 --> 00:04:30,577
Speaker 3: Buff This is kind of the early stages of the

95
00:04:30,577 --> 00:04:33,137
Speaker 3: conservative legal movement. It was just a few years after

96
00:04:33,177 --> 00:04:35,857
Speaker 3: the Federal Society was founded, and at that time the

97
00:04:35,897 --> 00:04:39,577
Speaker 3: emphasis was on judicial restraints. So Chevron defference at that

98
00:04:39,657 --> 00:04:44,457
Speaker 3: time restrained judges, but paradoxically it empowered the bureaucracy. So

99
00:04:44,497 --> 00:04:48,097
Speaker 3: it basically said that the threshold is extremely high for

100
00:04:48,177 --> 00:04:51,337
Speaker 3: an Article three federal judge to in any way overrule

101
00:04:51,417 --> 00:04:55,137
Speaker 3: and agencies interpretation of its own statutes. So agencies have

102
00:04:55,257 --> 00:04:58,777
Speaker 3: broad leeway to interpret the operative statutes that affect their

103
00:04:58,857 --> 00:05:01,337
Speaker 3: data business. So the EPA gets away with bloody murder,

104
00:05:01,337 --> 00:05:03,857
Speaker 3: for example, because of Chevron on a day and day

105
00:05:03,857 --> 00:05:06,417
Speaker 3: on basis, most conservatives have changed their mind on Chevron.

106
00:05:06,457 --> 00:05:08,897
Speaker 3: Even the late Great Justice Anthonys Scalia actually did a

107
00:05:08,897 --> 00:05:10,377
Speaker 3: one to eighty over the course of his career and

108
00:05:10,417 --> 00:05:14,457
Speaker 3: basically ultimately said that he regretted his thoughts on Chevron

109
00:05:14,497 --> 00:05:17,017
Speaker 3: earlier in his career. So we're probably gonna see that

110
00:05:17,057 --> 00:05:19,857
Speaker 3: case overturned, and that's going to have a tangible, real

111
00:05:19,897 --> 00:05:23,177
Speaker 3: world's impact in so far as courts being ready willing

112
00:05:23,217 --> 00:05:25,377
Speaker 3: and able to step in, from the Supreme Court down

113
00:05:25,457 --> 00:05:28,377
Speaker 3: to federal lower courts when it comes to overturning rogue

114
00:05:28,417 --> 00:05:31,337
Speaker 3: agencies that are taking statutes and warping into storing them

115
00:05:31,337 --> 00:05:33,377
Speaker 3: and putting it in a far left direction, it should

116
00:05:33,377 --> 00:05:36,137
Speaker 3: be a good result. I'm not typically an optimist when

117
00:05:36,177 --> 00:05:38,417
Speaker 3: it comes to the judicial branch. I've been a bit

118
00:05:38,457 --> 00:05:40,817
Speaker 3: of a pessimist, somewhat of a profit of lamentation for

119
00:05:40,857 --> 00:05:42,817
Speaker 3: all my young careers so far. But this is actually

120
00:05:42,817 --> 00:05:45,257
Speaker 3: one case where I feel costs the optimist that we're

121
00:05:45,257 --> 00:05:46,057
Speaker 3: going to get a good result.

122
00:05:46,297 --> 00:05:48,497
Speaker 2: Isn't also a gun case that's making its way through

123
00:05:48,577 --> 00:05:52,097
Speaker 2: right now? Or is that? Am I? That's Is it

124
00:05:52,097 --> 00:05:57,417
Speaker 2: about domestic violence as a as a prohibition on firearms ownership?

125
00:05:57,457 --> 00:05:59,057
Speaker 2: Can you tell me about that? One.

126
00:05:59,657 --> 00:06:01,017
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this is the Raheemi case.

127
00:06:01,537 --> 00:06:03,217
Speaker 3: So this comes out of the court that I clerked on,

128
00:06:03,217 --> 00:06:06,217
Speaker 3: actually the Fifth Circuit, and it's a case out out

129
00:06:06,257 --> 00:06:09,457
Speaker 3: of Texas memory Sirs. I believe actually my former boss,

130
00:06:09,537 --> 00:06:11,577
Speaker 3: Judge Hoe was actually even on the Fifth Circuit panel

131
00:06:11,657 --> 00:06:14,697
Speaker 3: that issued it ruling in this decision here. So this

132
00:06:14,817 --> 00:06:17,577
Speaker 3: is just a continuation basically of the Brewing case of

133
00:06:17,617 --> 00:06:20,417
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two. So the Bruin case in twenty twenty two,

134
00:06:20,417 --> 00:06:22,497
Speaker 3: which is out of New York State, was the first

135
00:06:22,497 --> 00:06:24,337
Speaker 3: time in the history of the Republic that the Supreme

136
00:06:24,377 --> 00:06:27,337
Speaker 3: Court said that it's not just your right to keep arms,

137
00:06:27,337 --> 00:06:30,097
Speaker 3: but your right to bear arms to actually carry outside

138
00:06:30,137 --> 00:06:32,737
Speaker 3: the home has some meaning. And the test that they

139
00:06:32,737 --> 00:06:34,817
Speaker 3: implement in the Brewin test, which was just kind of

140
00:06:35,017 --> 00:06:37,417
Speaker 3: a successor to the two thousand and eight Heller decision,

141
00:06:37,457 --> 00:06:40,137
Speaker 3: the landmark secon Amendment case in the Brewing case two

142
00:06:40,217 --> 00:06:43,377
Speaker 3: years ago, they basically implemented this history and tradition test.

143
00:06:43,577 --> 00:06:47,937
Speaker 3: So another way is the regulation at issue. Is it

144
00:06:48,057 --> 00:06:52,897
Speaker 3: within the bounds of American historical traditional regulation of firearm

145
00:06:52,937 --> 00:06:55,377
Speaker 3: ownership or is this just a new fangle thing that

146
00:06:55,457 --> 00:06:57,817
Speaker 3: has no basis in the history of the Republic in

147
00:06:57,817 --> 00:07:00,657
Speaker 3: the history of Anglo American jurisprudence in general. So the

148
00:07:00,737 --> 00:07:04,177
Speaker 3: Raheemi case is just basically a high profile episode of

149
00:07:04,217 --> 00:07:07,177
Speaker 3: trying to implement that test in practice. And the statute

150
00:07:07,217 --> 00:07:08,697
Speaker 3: is exactly what you said it is. It has to

151
00:07:08,737 --> 00:07:11,257
Speaker 3: do with a domestic violence training order. And I think

152
00:07:11,257 --> 00:07:13,577
Speaker 3: the Court is probably going to rule the way that

153
00:07:13,617 --> 00:07:15,577
Speaker 3: most conservatives want them to rule, which is to basically

154
00:07:15,577 --> 00:07:19,377
Speaker 3: say that a curtailment of your segment rights when it

155
00:07:19,417 --> 00:07:22,177
Speaker 3: comes to this particular issue a domestic violence or training

156
00:07:22,257 --> 00:07:26,377
Speaker 3: order is not constant, is not consistent with traditional regulations

157
00:07:26,377 --> 00:07:28,777
Speaker 3: of firearm ownership. I could be wrong, but I suspect

158
00:07:28,777 --> 00:07:30,657
Speaker 3: that's probably going to get at least a five justice

159
00:07:30,657 --> 00:07:31,977
Speaker 3: majority on the current court.

160
00:07:32,217 --> 00:07:35,857
Speaker 2: All right, well, let's talk about what happens to the

161
00:07:35,937 --> 00:07:38,457
Speaker 2: J six case and a few other things here in

162
00:07:38,537 --> 00:07:40,617
Speaker 2: just a second. But first up from our sponsor, Tunnel

163
00:07:40,657 --> 00:07:42,977
Speaker 2: the Towers. Since nine to eleven, the Tunnel the Towers

164
00:07:42,977 --> 00:07:46,017
Speaker 2: Foundation has been committed to supporting our nation's first responders

165
00:07:46,057 --> 00:07:48,577
Speaker 2: and veterans, heroes who put their lives in the line

166
00:07:48,617 --> 00:07:51,577
Speaker 2: for our communities and our countries. Heroes like US Army

167
00:07:51,617 --> 00:07:55,377
Speaker 2: Major Jonathan Turnbull. Major Turnbull sustained devastating injuries at the

168
00:07:55,377 --> 00:07:58,177
Speaker 2: hands of an Isis suicide bomber, the complete loss of

169
00:07:58,217 --> 00:08:00,657
Speaker 2: his left eye a puncture to his right eye. He

170
00:08:00,737 --> 00:08:03,697
Speaker 2: needed more than twenty surgeries in countless hours of rehabilitation.

171
00:08:04,097 --> 00:08:06,297
Speaker 2: Tunnel to Towers paid off his mortgage and gave him

172
00:08:06,337 --> 00:08:09,337
Speaker 2: a specially adapted smart home designed for his needs. He

173
00:08:09,377 --> 00:08:11,897
Speaker 2: moves around his home more easily now, and his home

174
00:08:11,977 --> 00:08:14,417
Speaker 2: also gives him hope. With help from people like you,

175
00:08:14,497 --> 00:08:18,097
Speaker 2: the Foundation supports families like the Turnbulls. Join Tunnel to

176
00:08:18,097 --> 00:08:21,977
Speaker 2: Towers in supporting America's heroes are nation's catastrophically injured veterans

177
00:08:21,977 --> 00:08:25,097
Speaker 2: and first responders, homeless veterans, gold Star families, and the

178
00:08:25,137 --> 00:08:28,217
Speaker 2: families of fallen first responders. Doing it eleven dollars a

179
00:08:28,217 --> 00:08:30,537
Speaker 2: month the Tunnel to Towers at T two T dot org.

180
00:08:30,857 --> 00:08:33,617
Speaker 2: That's t the number two T dot org ninety five

181
00:08:33,697 --> 00:08:37,057
Speaker 2: cents if every dollar goes directly to their programs. So

182
00:08:37,257 --> 00:08:40,657
Speaker 2: let's say that you're right about the Josh the immunity

183
00:08:40,697 --> 00:08:45,177
Speaker 2: presidential immunity case. I understand that in under normal order,

184
00:08:45,977 --> 00:08:48,457
Speaker 2: there's no way that they would be able to get

185
00:08:48,897 --> 00:08:54,017
Speaker 2: the DC J six case against Trump back to trial

186
00:08:54,137 --> 00:08:57,937
Speaker 2: before the election. But everything we've seen in DC so far,

187
00:08:58,057 --> 00:09:02,497
Speaker 2: whether it's the District Court or the Circuit Court, has

188
00:09:02,537 --> 00:09:05,497
Speaker 2: shown lightning speed is something they're willing to do when

189
00:09:05,537 --> 00:09:07,177
Speaker 2: it comes to Trump in this election. Right, I mean

190
00:09:07,177 --> 00:09:09,377
Speaker 2: they're moving. I have a friend who used to clerk

191
00:09:09,417 --> 00:09:12,697
Speaker 2: for a federal job, and he was telling me that

192
00:09:12,737 --> 00:09:14,857
Speaker 2: he's never seen anything like this. I mean, they've never moved.

193
00:09:14,897 --> 00:09:17,697
Speaker 2: Just it's something that would take two something that would

194
00:09:17,697 --> 00:09:20,217
Speaker 2: take two or three months, they're doing in five to

195
00:09:20,257 --> 00:09:23,177
Speaker 2: ten days, right, I mean just or even faster than that.

196
00:09:23,737 --> 00:09:26,537
Speaker 2: So do you think it is possible if the Supreme

197
00:09:26,537 --> 00:09:30,177
Speaker 2: Court comes down the way you think that on this case,

198
00:09:30,537 --> 00:09:33,457
Speaker 2: that Jack Smith is going to be able to, counting

199
00:09:33,457 --> 00:09:36,417
Speaker 2: on Judge Chuckkin, get the J six trial at least

200
00:09:36,657 --> 00:09:39,097
Speaker 2: started before November.

201
00:09:40,657 --> 00:09:41,897
Speaker 1: It's going to be a close call.

202
00:09:42,737 --> 00:09:44,777
Speaker 3: It is admittedly going to be a close call, Buck,

203
00:09:44,817 --> 00:09:46,977
Speaker 3: This is the only other case that has any chance

204
00:09:47,017 --> 00:09:50,097
Speaker 3: whatsoever of starting prior to November. Now, as you kind

205
00:09:50,137 --> 00:09:53,217
Speaker 3: of just said, if they were going according to normal

206
00:09:53,337 --> 00:09:56,257
Speaker 3: rules as to how this thing plays out, virtually no chance. Now.

207
00:09:56,297 --> 00:09:58,257
Speaker 3: The other thing to remember here, by the way is

208
00:09:58,297 --> 00:10:01,417
Speaker 3: that it is long standing Department of Justice protocol. It's

209
00:10:01,497 --> 00:10:07,017
Speaker 3: black letter internal DOJ mandatory guidance, essentially that prosecutors don't

210
00:10:07,017 --> 00:10:10,457
Speaker 3: bring politically charged cases close to an election. I both

211
00:10:10,577 --> 00:10:13,537
Speaker 3: know that. You know they can selectively enforce that, selectively

212
00:10:13,577 --> 00:10:15,817
Speaker 3: abide by that. But on a certain level, if they

213
00:10:15,817 --> 00:10:18,857
Speaker 3: do this out in the open, they literally start the trial.

214
00:10:18,897 --> 00:10:21,577
Speaker 3: Let's say it's October, a month before the election. That's

215
00:10:21,617 --> 00:10:25,657
Speaker 3: in flagrant, flagrant violation of the DOJ's own internal manual. Now, admittedly,

216
00:10:25,697 --> 00:10:28,497
Speaker 3: there's no obvious legal recourse for that, because the DJ

217
00:10:28,657 --> 00:10:31,377
Speaker 3: gets to interpret its own manual. You can appeal to

218
00:10:31,497 --> 00:10:33,977
Speaker 3: a judge. The DJ is just violating its own manual.

219
00:10:34,017 --> 00:10:36,697
Speaker 3: But it does, at a bare minimum look bad to

220
00:10:36,737 --> 00:10:39,497
Speaker 3: the voters. Now, look, if you're putting on the spot

221
00:10:39,537 --> 00:10:41,857
Speaker 3: and ask me to predict either way, I probably would

222
00:10:41,897 --> 00:10:44,137
Speaker 3: say that they're actually not going to get this thing

223
00:10:44,217 --> 00:10:46,857
Speaker 3: up and running here, and I'll tell you why, because again,

224
00:10:46,897 --> 00:10:48,657
Speaker 3: let's play that. Let's just play this out. So the

225
00:10:48,657 --> 00:10:51,337
Speaker 3: Supreme Court does what I say it did, which is

226
00:10:51,337 --> 00:10:53,497
Speaker 3: they cancoct this kind of middle ground remedy. It's a

227
00:10:53,497 --> 00:10:56,217
Speaker 3: two part test, and the test has to be applied. Okay,

228
00:10:56,217 --> 00:10:58,417
Speaker 3: then you go down the trial court, You're gonna have

229
00:10:58,417 --> 00:11:00,457
Speaker 3: to have a lot of evidentiary hearings. I mean there's

230
00:11:00,457 --> 00:11:02,537
Speaker 3: gonna be There's gonna be a lot before that ruling

231
00:11:02,617 --> 00:11:04,497
Speaker 3: is ever issued in the first place as to whether

232
00:11:04,577 --> 00:11:07,177
Speaker 3: or not Jack Smith's various acts that he alleged when

233
00:11:07,177 --> 00:11:08,737
Speaker 3: it comes to Jay six or in Bucket one or

234
00:11:08,777 --> 00:11:11,297
Speaker 3: Bucket two. Then let's played out even further and say

235
00:11:11,417 --> 00:11:14,257
Speaker 3: that Chuckkin rules against Trump, well, buck I mean Trump

236
00:11:14,297 --> 00:11:15,697
Speaker 3: can then just appeal that. I mean, he can appeal

237
00:11:15,737 --> 00:11:18,977
Speaker 3: that right to the DC's circuit right. So I'm just

238
00:11:19,017 --> 00:11:21,457
Speaker 3: not seeing this in any way getting resolved there. So

239
00:11:21,497 --> 00:11:24,937
Speaker 3: I look ken worst case scenario, can she actually reached

240
00:11:24,937 --> 00:11:28,537
Speaker 3: that conclusion. Probably? Probably, But he's gonna get a shot

241
00:11:28,537 --> 00:11:30,297
Speaker 3: of appeal. So there's no way we're gonna get anything

242
00:11:30,297 --> 00:11:32,617
Speaker 3: remotely resembling a final resolution, that's for sure.

243
00:11:32,937 --> 00:11:36,737
Speaker 2: Do you think he he probably can get this rather

244
00:11:36,817 --> 00:11:39,417
Speaker 2: I'm talking about Jack Smith. Now, is there a chance

245
00:11:39,417 --> 00:11:41,097
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court intervenes again.

246
00:11:42,977 --> 00:11:45,217
Speaker 3: There's a chance, but I think probably not before November.

247
00:11:45,297 --> 00:11:49,057
Speaker 3: So recall that after Chuckin ruled on the immunity issue

248
00:11:49,177 --> 00:11:52,817
Speaker 3: at the trial court level, Jack Smith tried to directly

249
00:11:52,857 --> 00:11:53,537
Speaker 3: go to Scotus.

250
00:11:53,537 --> 00:11:54,857
Speaker 1: He tried to essentially to.

251
00:11:54,857 --> 00:11:57,257
Speaker 2: A speed up right, I mean that a speed move.

252
00:11:57,337 --> 00:11:58,897
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly right.

253
00:11:58,937 --> 00:12:00,937
Speaker 3: He took two and a half three years to bring

254
00:12:00,977 --> 00:12:03,017
Speaker 3: these indictments and then he wanted to move like it

255
00:12:03,057 --> 00:12:06,097
Speaker 3: was lightning speed before an election obviously, But the crucial

256
00:12:06,097 --> 00:12:08,137
Speaker 3: point there is that the Supreme Court denied that. They

257
00:12:08,217 --> 00:12:09,777
Speaker 3: rejected that and made him go to the d c

258
00:12:09,897 --> 00:12:12,897
Speaker 3: S first. So they've already shown that they're not gonna

259
00:12:12,977 --> 00:12:15,377
Speaker 3: give Jack Smith everything he wants here. So I don't

260
00:12:15,377 --> 00:12:17,177
Speaker 3: think that's gonna happen prior to November now.

261
00:12:18,097 --> 00:12:19,937
Speaker 2: And how do you see?

262
00:12:20,017 --> 00:12:20,337
Speaker 1: You know what?

263
00:12:20,657 --> 00:12:23,297
Speaker 2: I want to take a quick pause here, but think

264
00:12:23,337 --> 00:12:26,497
Speaker 2: about this one. What happens at Trump's New York sentencing

265
00:12:26,857 --> 00:12:30,537
Speaker 2: in two weeks. Basically, you know, I know, I'm asking

266
00:12:30,577 --> 00:12:31,937
Speaker 2: you for a prediction, but you can give me some

267
00:12:31,977 --> 00:12:34,337
Speaker 2: of the just the ins and outs of what you

268
00:12:34,377 --> 00:12:37,377
Speaker 2: think the possibilities are. But first up, from Porter and Company.

269
00:12:37,777 --> 00:12:40,297
Speaker 2: I've known Porter Stansbury for over a decade. This is

270
00:12:40,297 --> 00:12:42,937
Speaker 2: a guy who built a billion dollar company from his

271
00:12:43,777 --> 00:12:46,417
Speaker 2: dorm room back in the nineties down here in Florida.

272
00:12:46,817 --> 00:12:49,577
Speaker 2: And it's because he's a visionary who understands the markets.

273
00:12:49,817 --> 00:12:52,177
Speaker 2: But he did something really interesting recently, cut his salary

274
00:12:52,217 --> 00:12:55,177
Speaker 2: to a dollar a year. Why, Well, he's making a

275
00:12:55,217 --> 00:12:58,457
Speaker 2: point about something, he says. This is about the right

276
00:12:58,537 --> 00:13:01,457
Speaker 2: way to get paid. He says, there's essentially a new

277
00:13:01,497 --> 00:13:04,017
Speaker 2: form of money in America, and it's making some people

278
00:13:04,177 --> 00:13:07,417
Speaker 2: very rich. Now it's not gold or bitcoin, Porter says.

279
00:13:07,457 --> 00:13:10,017
Speaker 2: What's interesting is that while every American is legally entire

280
00:13:10,257 --> 00:13:12,977
Speaker 2: to use the secret currency, I few know much about it.

281
00:13:13,697 --> 00:13:17,057
Speaker 2: I strongly recommend you check out Porter's latest detailed presentation

282
00:13:17,217 --> 00:13:21,817
Speaker 2: online at secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com. He

283
00:13:21,897 --> 00:13:23,777
Speaker 2: details how to protect and grow your wealth in the

284
00:13:23,817 --> 00:13:27,057
Speaker 2: years to come using America's new money. I doubt you'll

285
00:13:27,057 --> 00:13:29,937
Speaker 2: see this idea or opportunity to discussed anywhere else. Take

286
00:13:29,977 --> 00:13:32,937
Speaker 2: a few minutes to check out Porter's fascinating insights Get

287
00:13:32,977 --> 00:13:35,857
Speaker 2: a Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com at secret

288
00:13:35,857 --> 00:13:39,697
Speaker 2: Currency twenty twenty four dot com. All right, Josh Trump

289
00:13:39,897 --> 00:13:43,417
Speaker 2: goes before a judge for sentencing in July. Feels crazy

290
00:13:43,457 --> 00:13:45,697
Speaker 2: to say that out loud, but that is what's happening.

291
00:13:46,137 --> 00:13:48,337
Speaker 2: At least that's what's supposed to happen. How do you

292
00:13:48,377 --> 00:13:49,257
Speaker 2: see this shaking out?

293
00:13:51,177 --> 00:13:54,857
Speaker 3: So my first guess when the guilty verdict came in

294
00:13:55,377 --> 00:13:59,217
Speaker 3: was that he's actually going to jail, and that probably

295
00:13:59,337 --> 00:14:02,297
Speaker 3: still is where my heart is because they actually just

296
00:14:02,377 --> 00:14:04,977
Speaker 3: really do hate him that much and they really do

297
00:14:05,377 --> 00:14:09,377
Speaker 3: care that little for anything remotely pertaining to norms or

298
00:14:09,457 --> 00:14:13,617
Speaker 3: democracy or anything that they purport to care about. However,

299
00:14:13,697 --> 00:14:15,817
Speaker 3: in my head, so it's a bit of a it's

300
00:14:15,817 --> 00:14:17,697
Speaker 3: a bit of a head heart standoff, buck, you know,

301
00:14:17,737 --> 00:14:19,737
Speaker 3: in my head, I'm thinking about the fact that, you know,

302
00:14:19,777 --> 00:14:22,297
Speaker 3: how can they literally logistically do this? So it is

303
00:14:22,377 --> 00:14:25,057
Speaker 3: federal law obviously that a and that an ex president

304
00:14:25,097 --> 00:14:28,737
Speaker 3: has twenty four to seven mandatory secret Service protection. What

305
00:14:28,777 --> 00:14:31,977
Speaker 3: that means is that Trump needs secret Service agents with

306
00:14:32,097 --> 00:14:35,817
Speaker 3: firearms within close eyesight distance of him at all times.

307
00:14:36,137 --> 00:14:38,337
Speaker 3: I mean, I mean, look, this is a disgusting thing

308
00:14:38,417 --> 00:14:40,177
Speaker 3: to like play out, but here we are. I guess

309
00:14:40,177 --> 00:14:42,297
Speaker 3: this is what's really happening before our eyes. Can they

310
00:14:42,337 --> 00:14:45,217
Speaker 3: literally do that at Riker's Island? I guess they, like

311
00:14:45,297 --> 00:14:47,777
Speaker 3: in theory, can right, they can literally build like like

312
00:14:47,897 --> 00:14:52,097
Speaker 3: Trump's own wing of the of the prison. They can

313
00:14:52,137 --> 00:14:54,577
Speaker 3: have like not just solitary confinement, but like his whole

314
00:14:54,617 --> 00:14:57,217
Speaker 3: his own whole wing where the agents come in there,

315
00:14:57,097 --> 00:15:00,337
Speaker 3: are they really really really going to do that? They might,

316
00:15:00,697 --> 00:15:03,497
Speaker 3: but if I actually had to guess, I think probably not.

317
00:15:03,577 --> 00:15:06,377
Speaker 3: So I think it's probably gonna be home confinement, probation

318
00:15:06,497 --> 00:15:08,657
Speaker 3: something along those lines. Home confinement, by the way, is

319
00:15:08,657 --> 00:15:11,537
Speaker 3: obviously still really bad for Trump, assuming that a higher

320
00:15:11,537 --> 00:15:13,737
Speaker 3: court does not immediately stay that, because it does prevent

321
00:15:13,817 --> 00:15:16,177
Speaker 3: him from campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan and so forth.

322
00:15:17,137 --> 00:15:20,097
Speaker 2: Josh, where can people go to listen to your podcast?

323
00:15:21,497 --> 00:15:21,697
Speaker 1: Yeah?

324
00:15:21,737 --> 00:15:23,657
Speaker 3: So I've got an American Trial with Josh Hammer and

325
00:15:23,657 --> 00:15:25,857
Speaker 3: then also the Josh Hammer Show. It's available everywhere you

326
00:15:25,857 --> 00:15:27,937
Speaker 3: get your podcast. Thanks for having me, Buck, good to

327
00:15:27,937 --> 00:15:29,017
Speaker 3: see you man, Thanks so much.

328
00:15:29,817 --> 00:15:30,137
Speaker 1: You bet