1
00:00:02,440 --> 00:00:06,760
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

2
00:00:07,080 --> 00:00:10,320
Speaker 2: Supreme Court ruling here partially back to Trump on immunity

3
00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:13,760
Speaker 2: and the High Court immunity ruling likely to further delay

4
00:00:14,720 --> 00:00:17,440
Speaker 2: Trump trial. So we'll see how this plays. That will

5
00:00:17,440 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 2: have more reporting coming up for but certainly a significant

6
00:00:21,600 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 2: ruling here we've been expecting from this Supreme Court and

7
00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:27,360
Speaker 2: we got it today. So again another piece of presumably

8
00:00:27,840 --> 00:00:31,319
Speaker 2: good news for former President Donald Trump. Let's get some

9
00:00:31,360 --> 00:00:33,920
Speaker 2: more analysis here. We bring on Howard Krent. He's a

10
00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:37,840
Speaker 2: professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law. Harold,

11
00:00:37,880 --> 00:00:39,400
Speaker 2: we just had a few minutes to kind of look

12
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:42,440
Speaker 2: at this ruling. It seems like I guess a partial

13
00:00:42,760 --> 00:00:45,120
Speaker 2: victory for former President Trump, but that may be all

14
00:00:45,159 --> 00:00:49,000
Speaker 2: that he needs. Any early interpretation from you, Harold.

15
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,120
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, the court split

16
00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:54,080
Speaker 3: the baby in a sense by saying that there was

17
00:00:54,080 --> 00:00:56,640
Speaker 3: going to be absolute immunity for some kind of presidential acts,

18
00:00:56,640 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 3: those acts that fall within the court of his executive powers,

19
00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:05,360
Speaker 3: and for other acts it's presumptive immunity, which means that

20
00:01:05,400 --> 00:01:08,440
Speaker 3: the lower court will have to go through the indictment

21
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:11,600
Speaker 3: and the trial and sort of separate out all the acts,

22
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:16,080
Speaker 3: so that some of the pro electionary re election acts

23
00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 3: in terms of how Trump tried to position himself to

24
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,920
Speaker 3: get reelected, that presumably would fall and not be entitled

25
00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 3: to absolute immunity. But his discussions with the Attorney General

26
00:01:26,080 --> 00:01:29,520
Speaker 3: would certainly qualify, and with the vice president would qualify

27
00:01:29,600 --> 00:01:33,480
Speaker 3: for absolute immunity. So this will be a contextual analysis.

28
00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:36,560
Speaker 3: But that means delay, It means time, and so there

29
00:01:36,560 --> 00:01:40,320
Speaker 3: will be very likely no kind of trial until after

30
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:41,120
Speaker 3: the election.

31
00:01:41,120 --> 00:01:43,160
Speaker 4: When it goes back to the lower court. How does

32
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:45,800
Speaker 4: the lower court figure it out? What kind of guidance

33
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:48,760
Speaker 4: do they have to have to see, Okay, this qualifies

34
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:50,840
Speaker 4: as doesn't qualify? Where do they get that clarity?

35
00:01:51,280 --> 00:01:52,960
Speaker 3: It's going to be in the opinion. There is very

36
00:01:52,960 --> 00:01:56,280
Speaker 3: little precedent on this, but the court's opinion is more

37
00:01:56,320 --> 00:02:00,760
Speaker 3: detailed than we expected, and so the district court will

38
00:02:00,800 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 3: have to thumb through and sort of get clues and hints.

39
00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:07,360
Speaker 3: And the court did give a couple of examples in

40
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 3: the opinion about what it considered it to be absolutely

41
00:02:10,480 --> 00:02:14,680
Speaker 3: worthy of absolute immunity and what it didn't. It's at

42
00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:17,480
Speaker 3: first blush. Obviously, we all need to read it more carefully,

43
00:02:17,520 --> 00:02:20,720
Speaker 3: but at first blush it is a reasonable decision. The

44
00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:24,640
Speaker 3: court tackled with it. Obviously, there still is a kind

45
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:27,480
Speaker 3: of six ' three split as we've seen in other contexts.

46
00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:32,640
Speaker 3: But it's not absolute community. It's not a complete insulation

47
00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:36,480
Speaker 3: of the president from the criminal process. It's not putting

48
00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:39,720
Speaker 3: the president above the law. It's taking a measured step

49
00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:44,239
Speaker 3: and trying to say which acts are actually incredibly important

50
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:46,959
Speaker 3: for the president not to have a fear of criminal

51
00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:51,680
Speaker 3: penalty for, and which acts maybe have a presumptive immunity for.

52
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:54,640
Speaker 3: But it can be found that if it's a personal

53
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:58,120
Speaker 3: act re election, personal vendetta, losing it a poker game,

54
00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:01,760
Speaker 3: then he can be subject to the criminal sanction.

55
00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:03,959
Speaker 2: Harold, if you know with the Supreme Court, I guess

56
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:06,640
Speaker 2: presumably sending this immunity case back to the lower court

57
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:09,160
Speaker 2: give us a sense of timing when how does this

58
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:11,919
Speaker 2: play out? When would we get more clarification on this,

59
00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:14,079
Speaker 2: because I guess that that's really key as it relates

60
00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,760
Speaker 2: to November fifth and then you know into January for

61
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:18,519
Speaker 2: swearing in.

62
00:03:18,919 --> 00:03:22,200
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that the lower court judge should be

63
00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,680
Speaker 3: able to make a good faith stab at what acts

64
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,640
Speaker 3: for which President Trump should be absolute immune and which

65
00:03:29,000 --> 00:03:32,600
Speaker 3: not within you know, six to eight weeks, but that

66
00:03:32,720 --> 00:03:36,600
Speaker 3: also will be subject to you know, elocatory appeal. And

67
00:03:36,640 --> 00:03:39,040
Speaker 3: so the question is whether the DC Circuit then would

68
00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 3: want to stop any kind of trial momentum to consider

69
00:03:43,640 --> 00:03:46,600
Speaker 3: the ambit of the immunity that the trial court finally

70
00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:50,600
Speaker 3: decides on. So because of that potentiality, it's extremely rare,

71
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:53,280
Speaker 3: as I mentioned, I mean, it's extremely unlikely that this

72
00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:57,320
Speaker 3: could ever be held for a trial before the election,

73
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:00,720
Speaker 3: but the immunity decision should be reached well before that.

74
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:02,680
Speaker 3: So the extent that that's relevant, I'm not sure. It

75
00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:05,440
Speaker 3: is that the lower court should be able to make

76
00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:08,400
Speaker 3: the first stab at for which acts the president is

77
00:04:08,440 --> 00:04:11,520
Speaker 3: immune and for which not, and therefore obviously that the

78
00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:15,600
Speaker 3: criminal trial can proceed on those areas for which the

79
00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:20,599
Speaker 3: president does not have an absolute immunity, such as possibly

80
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:26,039
Speaker 3: goading the protesters on January sixth, or maybe even for

81
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:28,680
Speaker 3: the fake elector scheme as well.

82
00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:33,320
Speaker 4: So if we just look forward to after November, can

83
00:04:33,400 --> 00:04:35,480
Speaker 4: if President Trump wins the White House again, can he

84
00:04:35,520 --> 00:04:39,200
Speaker 4: give himself immunity from this case? Could President Biden if

85
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:40,080
Speaker 4: he gets re elected?

86
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:40,599
Speaker 1: Yeah?

87
00:04:40,640 --> 00:04:45,720
Speaker 3: So President Trump would have two options if he's reelected.

88
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:48,760
Speaker 3: The first would be to part in himself, which has

89
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:51,520
Speaker 3: been discussed and we know that's never happened in history,

90
00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:53,960
Speaker 3: but the Constitution is silent on it, so he might

91
00:04:54,040 --> 00:04:56,720
Speaker 3: just try. The second is he could just order his

92
00:04:56,760 --> 00:05:00,159
Speaker 3: Attorney general to drop the prosecution. And that's probably the

93
00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:02,479
Speaker 3: more I would advise him to do the latter, because

94
00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:05,920
Speaker 3: that's more tried and true, and so he does have

95
00:05:05,960 --> 00:05:09,520
Speaker 3: that power, and he could just say stop the stop

96
00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 3: the wheels. Now, of course, President Trump would still be

97
00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:17,560
Speaker 3: criminally possibly liable for the Georgia case, which is pending,

98
00:05:17,839 --> 00:05:20,320
Speaker 3: and certainly we have no effect on the New York

99
00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:23,000
Speaker 3: case for which he will be senced in a couple

100
00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:23,480
Speaker 3: of weeks.

101
00:05:23,880 --> 00:05:26,360
Speaker 2: What do we expect to hear from the special prosecutor

102
00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:26,839
Speaker 2: in this case?

103
00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:27,719
Speaker 5: Do you expect to hear.

104
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:31,080
Speaker 2: Something today or will they take days to kind of

105
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:33,480
Speaker 2: peruse and analyze this ruling.

106
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:36,160
Speaker 3: Oh, you know, that's a pr issue, you know, in

107
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:39,800
Speaker 3: terms of what they'll say, I mean, they'll you know,

108
00:05:40,000 --> 00:05:42,640
Speaker 3: if I were advising Jack Smith, I might say that

109
00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:45,599
Speaker 3: you know that the Supreme Court has struck the line

110
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,920
Speaker 3: of we're immunity issue. We believe that most of our

111
00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:53,599
Speaker 3: indictment is can continue, and we will work with to

112
00:05:53,760 --> 00:05:58,279
Speaker 3: ensure as efficacious and speedy of a hearing on that

113
00:05:58,440 --> 00:06:01,440
Speaker 3: issue before the district court. And we hope to continue

114
00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:04,359
Speaker 3: the case that's been delayed for too long as quickly

115
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:04,960
Speaker 3: as possible.

116
00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:10,080
Speaker 4: Again, to update everybody, the Supreme Court partially backs Trump

117
00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:12,680
Speaker 4: on immunity, delaying the trial, saying that he has some

118
00:06:12,720 --> 00:06:15,280
Speaker 4: immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty

119
00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:18,520
Speaker 4: twenty election results. But the trial probably then won't happen

120
00:06:18,640 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 4: before the November election. The Justice has voted six '

121
00:06:21,080 --> 00:06:26,440
Speaker 4: three along ideological lines, and would they issue some guidelines

122
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:29,840
Speaker 4: as to what constitutes or not constitutes immunity to then

123
00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 4: push back to the lower courts? Professor, what have we

124
00:06:33,200 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 4: learned then about the Supreme Court? What have we learned

125
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:40,159
Speaker 4: through this decision in terms of how it may impact

126
00:06:40,279 --> 00:06:40,760
Speaker 4: an election?

127
00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:45,159
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think that this pundents don't know

128
00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:47,920
Speaker 3: whether the New York felony trial is going to affect

129
00:06:47,920 --> 00:06:51,400
Speaker 3: the election at all. I've seen polls going both ways,

130
00:06:52,200 --> 00:06:56,080
Speaker 3: and all we know now is that the centerpiece of

131
00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,800
Speaker 3: the case against President Trump, the fake elector scheme and

132
00:07:00,080 --> 00:07:04,280
Speaker 3: the insurrection on January sixth. That will not go to

133
00:07:04,320 --> 00:07:06,680
Speaker 3: a jury, and to the extent that that would become

134
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:10,360
Speaker 3: critical in the election, who knows, but we're not going

135
00:07:10,400 --> 00:07:14,360
Speaker 3: to see that played out before a jury before the election.

136
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:16,680
Speaker 2: Tell us about that lower court that this is now

137
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:19,000
Speaker 2: going to go back to professor what do we know

138
00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:22,000
Speaker 2: about that court and kind of how they interpret the law.

139
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 3: So this is the court in the DC District Court

140
00:07:26,920 --> 00:07:30,360
Speaker 3: and Judge Hutkin will be overseeing this case, So this

141
00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 3: will not be a jury determination. This first cut will

142
00:07:32,840 --> 00:07:36,800
Speaker 3: be her efforts to apply the guidance that the Supreme

143
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:40,960
Speaker 3: Court just handed down to determine what can go forward

144
00:07:41,160 --> 00:07:44,720
Speaker 3: in terms of the essence of the Special Prosecutor's case

145
00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:50,040
Speaker 3: against former President Trump, and so this can go relatively efficaciously.

146
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:53,320
Speaker 3: The issues have been argued before, but not under this

147
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:57,840
Speaker 3: specific framework that the Supreme Court has just delivered. So

148
00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:01,920
Speaker 3: I would expect there to be by hearing before the judges.

149
00:08:02,080 --> 00:08:05,200
Speaker 3: And there's no complication as in the Florida Documents case

150
00:08:05,240 --> 00:08:09,720
Speaker 3: about anything being under seal. The indictment's been handed down,

151
00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:13,040
Speaker 3: and the parties can parse through the indictment and decide

152
00:08:13,200 --> 00:08:15,680
Speaker 3: what has to go and what can stay and what

153
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:18,640
Speaker 3: the theories are and their complications, and so it's not

154
00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:22,640
Speaker 3: a matter of simply taking a red pencil and marking

155
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:25,840
Speaker 3: things out, because so much is connected. I mean, the

156
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:30,240
Speaker 3: president's comments to the vice president in part reflex and

157
00:08:30,280 --> 00:08:34,920
Speaker 3: official action of the presidency, but in part may reflect

158
00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 3: his effort to get re elected. So everything may have

159
00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:41,440
Speaker 3: both the sort of the private and the official combined,

160
00:08:41,800 --> 00:08:46,000
Speaker 3: and so the parties will be arguing which predominates and why,

161
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:49,120
Speaker 3: and so Judge Hutkin then has to take those arguments

162
00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:53,480
Speaker 3: and make a determination ultimately about which part of the

163
00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:54,680
Speaker 3: indictment can go forward.

164
00:08:55,280 --> 00:09:00,160
Speaker 4: In relation to the argument that presidents need total immunity

165
00:09:00,280 --> 00:09:02,720
Speaker 4: because of stuff in office that they do, or whether

166
00:09:02,760 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 4: that's sort of dealing with the military drone strikes, for example,

167
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:10,600
Speaker 4: does this clarify that part of it?

168
00:09:10,600 --> 00:09:14,040
Speaker 3: It does. I mean, I think that the argument that

169
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:17,160
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously their listenership should remember that this Pingport

170
00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:21,360
Speaker 3: earlier held that the president is absolutely immune from any

171
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:24,160
Speaker 3: kind of civil liability for drone strikes, from anything else.

172
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:28,240
Speaker 3: In the theory that the president cannot be detracted from

173
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:31,800
Speaker 3: his or her efforts to be an effective presidency by

174
00:09:31,800 --> 00:09:35,440
Speaker 3: the fear of a lawsuit afterwards, and so the court

175
00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:38,480
Speaker 3: has held that for about twenty five years now. And

176
00:09:38,559 --> 00:09:41,959
Speaker 3: so this is actually in some ways saying that even

177
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:45,080
Speaker 3: though that we have civil liability, criminal liability can also

178
00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:49,320
Speaker 3: be to terms or disincentive from being an aggressive, efficient

179
00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:54,600
Speaker 3: exercise of presidency. But nonetheless the criminal law is so

180
00:09:54,679 --> 00:09:58,480
Speaker 3: important that at times it has to exceed or i

181
00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:02,439
Speaker 3: should say trump of what the president otherwise would do.

182
00:10:02,760 --> 00:10:04,959
Speaker 3: And again, if the president's acting in a person and

183
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:08,120
Speaker 3: the easy answer, right is, if you're upset at a

184
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:12,400
Speaker 3: poker game and assault someone that's not there's no reason

185
00:10:12,440 --> 00:10:15,680
Speaker 3: for the president to be immune from the criminal process.

186
00:10:15,880 --> 00:10:20,040
Speaker 3: Or if there's an assault in the hallways of the

187
00:10:20,080 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 3: White House, of course there's no reason as well. But

188
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,240
Speaker 3: there's obviously many, many complicated scenarios that one could draw.

189
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:29,760
Speaker 3: The drone strikes, the president would be absolutely immune both

190
00:10:29,800 --> 00:10:32,679
Speaker 3: criminally answerably for those as long as they're within the

191
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:36,520
Speaker 3: outer ambit of his official functions. But again, there's going

192
00:10:36,559 --> 00:10:41,600
Speaker 3: to be hard line drawing cases to make about what

193
00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:45,280
Speaker 3: constitutes an official act of the presidency and what is

194
00:10:45,520 --> 00:10:49,160
Speaker 3: a sort of private or unofficial act. And that's what

195
00:10:49,480 --> 00:10:52,479
Speaker 3: Judge Chushkin will have to face now in the coming weeks.

196
00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:54,440
Speaker 2: All right, very good, Harold, thank you so much for

197
00:10:54,520 --> 00:10:56,640
Speaker 2: joining us. How we're Crent, professor of Law at the

198
00:10:56,720 --> 00:11:00,600
Speaker 2: Chicago Kent College of Law, joining us from Chicago.

199
00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:01,079
Speaker 5: Viszoom.

200
00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:02,840
Speaker 2: We want to back down to Washington, d C. Joe

201
00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:07,200
Speaker 2: Matthew joins us once again co host a Balance of Power. Joe,

202
00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:09,840
Speaker 2: We've had a few minutes to kind of digest what's

203
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:13,280
Speaker 2: happening here. What's the feeling within the Beltway over the

204
00:11:13,320 --> 00:11:14,840
Speaker 2: last several minutes with this ruling.

205
00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:17,120
Speaker 6: Well, I mean to be honest, most people inside the

206
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,120
Speaker 6: Beltway haven't finished reading this yet. It's one hundred and

207
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:22,040
Speaker 6: nineteen pages long, but there are portions of this ruling

208
00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:25,040
Speaker 6: that jump off the page as the Chief Justice rites

209
00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:29,079
Speaker 6: as for a presidential's unofficial acts, this is a theme

210
00:11:29,120 --> 00:11:31,480
Speaker 6: now this hour, right as we get our heads around

211
00:11:31,520 --> 00:11:34,880
Speaker 6: what they're really ruling on. There is no immunity that's

212
00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:37,520
Speaker 6: made clear here determining. He goes on to write, whether

213
00:11:37,559 --> 00:11:40,560
Speaker 6: a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular

214
00:11:40,559 --> 00:11:44,199
Speaker 6: prosecution requires applying the principles that are laid out here

215
00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:45,319
Speaker 6: with regard to.

216
00:11:45,320 --> 00:11:46,199
Speaker 5: Conduct at issue.

217
00:11:46,200 --> 00:11:48,320
Speaker 6: Remember we said that this may have to go back

218
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:51,480
Speaker 6: to the lower court to determine which acts are considered

219
00:11:51,520 --> 00:11:54,440
Speaker 6: official in which are not. He writes, the first step

220
00:11:54,480 --> 00:11:57,920
Speaker 6: is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. No court

221
00:11:58,440 --> 00:12:01,080
Speaker 6: has thus far considered how to draw that distinction in

222
00:12:01,160 --> 00:12:04,559
Speaker 6: general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular.

223
00:12:04,840 --> 00:12:06,880
Speaker 6: So we have a lot to learn here. And these

224
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:09,400
Speaker 6: justices just took a long time. This has been waiting

225
00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:12,920
Speaker 6: around for months with a very important case in terms

226
00:12:12,920 --> 00:12:16,360
Speaker 6: of Jack Smith's January sixth case on hold for all

227
00:12:16,400 --> 00:12:18,600
Speaker 6: of this, and it's going to take a lot longer

228
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:20,400
Speaker 6: for the Appeals Court to get its head around this

229
00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:22,560
Speaker 6: and do the work that the Supreme Court is asking.

230
00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:26,280
Speaker 6: The idea of a January sixth trial before the election

231
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:28,880
Speaker 6: is feeling pretty ridiculous at the moment.

232
00:12:28,640 --> 00:12:28,960
Speaker 7: All right.

233
00:12:28,960 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 4: Also joining us Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributor and partner

234
00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:35,600
Speaker 4: at Stone Court Capital, standing by here with us. Hey, Rick,

235
00:12:35,679 --> 00:12:40,080
Speaker 4: we see from a truth social President Trump tweeting big

236
00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:43,880
Speaker 4: win for our constitution and democracy, Proud to be an American.

237
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:46,360
Speaker 4: We're already sort of seeing the spin the same question

238
00:12:46,960 --> 00:12:48,520
Speaker 4: that Paul just asked, what's going to be the spin

239
00:12:48,559 --> 00:12:48,960
Speaker 4: around this?

240
00:12:49,040 --> 00:12:49,240
Speaker 8: Now?

241
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:51,640
Speaker 7: Yeah? I think that this could go either way spin wise.

242
00:12:51,679 --> 00:12:54,520
Speaker 8: I mean, obviously Trump's going to lean in and say, look,

243
00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:57,120
Speaker 8: you know, it's obvious that I've got immunity that they

244
00:12:57,160 --> 00:13:01,600
Speaker 8: give me this blanket coverage. And there's some implications within

245
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:04,640
Speaker 8: the early reading of the ruling that he can get

246
00:13:04,679 --> 00:13:05,840
Speaker 8: away with that argument.

247
00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:06,440
Speaker 7: Pretty well.

248
00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:09,920
Speaker 8: No one's going to tell him no until it goes

249
00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:14,199
Speaker 8: back to Judge Chuckkin and she Pin, you know, opines

250
00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:18,800
Speaker 8: on whether or not the case they have before them

251
00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:22,480
Speaker 8: is the acts of a president or the acts of

252
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:25,959
Speaker 8: a private citizen. And so I would say, on the

253
00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:28,880
Speaker 8: other hand, and I'm surprised that Democrats aren't out more

254
00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:32,080
Speaker 8: forcefully right now going after this, but they've been very

255
00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:35,640
Speaker 8: laissez faire on their approach to all things legal when

256
00:13:35,640 --> 00:13:38,839
Speaker 8: it comes to Donald Trump. But you know, I would

257
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:43,040
Speaker 8: certainly be looking at this as a positive from the

258
00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:45,320
Speaker 8: Democratic point of view and saying, no, absolutely, he's going

259
00:13:45,360 --> 00:13:50,160
Speaker 8: to be held account and all indications were that these

260
00:13:50,360 --> 00:13:55,040
Speaker 8: acts that were performed that are under indictment by the

261
00:13:55,120 --> 00:14:00,120
Speaker 8: Justice Department were unofficial private citizen actions and that they

262
00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:01,719
Speaker 8: should be held accountable in court of law.

263
00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:06,400
Speaker 2: Joe, have we heard from the prosecutor mister Stone about

264
00:14:06,480 --> 00:14:09,400
Speaker 2: how he may if there was like a split decision

265
00:14:09,400 --> 00:14:11,240
Speaker 2: like it seems like we're getting today, that he would

266
00:14:11,280 --> 00:14:15,720
Speaker 2: still pursue aggressively those which are not subject to immunity.

267
00:14:15,760 --> 00:14:17,080
Speaker 2: Do we know where he stands.

268
00:14:17,280 --> 00:14:19,040
Speaker 5: In terms of Jack Smith Jack Smith?

269
00:14:19,120 --> 00:14:22,400
Speaker 6: Yes, No, I don't think he's been going there in public,

270
00:14:22,440 --> 00:14:25,120
Speaker 6: he says very little. You know, that's kind of part

271
00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:26,920
Speaker 6: of a job here, And he was of course holding

272
00:14:26,960 --> 00:14:31,200
Speaker 6: forth that all of the four charges would see the

273
00:14:31,280 --> 00:14:34,440
Speaker 6: light of day. We got the dissent from Justice Soto Mayora.

274
00:14:34,440 --> 00:14:35,800
Speaker 6: By the way, if you want to talk about the

275
00:14:35,840 --> 00:14:37,520
Speaker 6: other side of this for a moment, she says, the

276
00:14:37,560 --> 00:14:40,640
Speaker 6: president is now a king above the law. Quote, let

277
00:14:40,720 --> 00:14:43,720
Speaker 6: the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings

278
00:14:43,800 --> 00:14:46,240
Speaker 6: of his office for personal gain. Let him use his

279
00:14:46,280 --> 00:14:49,720
Speaker 6: official power for evil deeds, she writes, because if he

280
00:14:49,800 --> 00:14:52,680
Speaker 6: knew that he may one day face liability for breaking

281
00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:54,600
Speaker 6: the law, he might not be as bold and fearless

282
00:14:54,600 --> 00:14:55,560
Speaker 6: as we would like him to be.

283
00:14:55,680 --> 00:14:57,920
Speaker 5: That is the majority's message today.

284
00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:01,440
Speaker 6: Obviously some real discontent here in another six y three ruling.

285
00:15:01,680 --> 00:15:04,520
Speaker 4: Yeah, no doubt. Yeah, I'm scrolling through as well. This

286
00:15:04,560 --> 00:15:06,920
Speaker 4: is quite a lot one hundred and nineteen pages as

287
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:11,360
Speaker 4: you were just mentioning, Hey, Rick, what would be the

288
00:15:11,440 --> 00:15:15,000
Speaker 4: right way for the Republican Party to move on this?

289
00:15:15,120 --> 00:15:16,640
Speaker 4: I mean, we know how Trump's going to go with this.

290
00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:19,840
Speaker 4: You mentioned how the Democrats have been hesitant to embrace

291
00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:22,120
Speaker 4: court rulings. But what's the right way for the GOP

292
00:15:22,640 --> 00:15:23,600
Speaker 4: to move on this case?

293
00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:27,680
Speaker 8: Yeah? Look, I think that Trump will do his victory

294
00:15:27,760 --> 00:15:30,760
Speaker 8: lap today on his social media, and I think try

295
00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:32,960
Speaker 8: to raise money from it, because he'll say, oh, these

296
00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:38,560
Speaker 8: Democrats of Washington are using the Justice Department to just

297
00:15:38,600 --> 00:15:41,080
Speaker 8: try and keep me from being president. This is another

298
00:15:41,160 --> 00:15:43,920
Speaker 8: example of that, backed up by the Supreme Court ruling.

299
00:15:44,520 --> 00:15:47,920
Speaker 8: They knew I had immunity and they did it anyway.

300
00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:51,240
Speaker 8: And then I think what he'll try to convince voters

301
00:15:51,280 --> 00:15:55,400
Speaker 8: of is that this ends his exposure to the Justice

302
00:15:55,400 --> 00:15:58,800
Speaker 8: Department prope that Jack Smith is on a wild goose chase,

303
00:15:58,880 --> 00:16:03,320
Speaker 8: and that ultimately Lee he'll be freative charges.

304
00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:05,440
Speaker 7: And I think, you know, the reality is in the

305
00:16:05,520 --> 00:16:06,680
Speaker 7: lesson until this.

306
00:16:08,160 --> 00:16:11,880
Speaker 8: Case really starts to take fold, the time and the

307
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:14,880
Speaker 8: clock is running out on them and Donald Trump. This

308
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 8: is the big gamble for Donald Trump if he's elected president,

309
00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:20,400
Speaker 8: he just makes this case go away. He just calls

310
00:16:20,440 --> 00:16:23,840
Speaker 8: whoever he appoints his attorney general and say end it.

311
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:27,960
Speaker 8: And so it's all a gamble for Donald Trump on

312
00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:29,480
Speaker 8: whether or not he can win the president see.

313
00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:31,480
Speaker 7: And of course after that debate, he's feeling pretty good

314
00:16:31,480 --> 00:16:31,840
Speaker 7: about it.

315
00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:35,040
Speaker 8: So I think that right now the Republicans are going

316
00:16:35,080 --> 00:16:37,040
Speaker 8: to try and one do a victor laughin, and two

317
00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:41,000
Speaker 8: make the case that this is just a matter of

318
00:16:42,200 --> 00:16:46,400
Speaker 8: legal fare, that the administration is coming after him and

319
00:16:46,400 --> 00:16:47,360
Speaker 8: that it's unfair.

320
00:16:48,240 --> 00:16:51,440
Speaker 2: So, Joe, is there any expectation that we'll hear from

321
00:16:51,800 --> 00:16:54,720
Speaker 2: the Biden administration to you the Biden White House today

322
00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:55,840
Speaker 2: on the Supreme Court ruling?

323
00:16:56,440 --> 00:16:58,320
Speaker 6: Hard to tell if we'll hear from the White House

324
00:16:58,440 --> 00:17:01,480
Speaker 6: or the campaign I suspect will the latter. Whether the

325
00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:03,720
Speaker 6: administration wants to weigh in on this, that might have

326
00:17:03,760 --> 00:17:06,320
Speaker 6: to wait till a briefing with Karine Jean Pierre. It's

327
00:17:06,960 --> 00:17:09,240
Speaker 6: always unclear exactly what their posture is going to be

328
00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:10,960
Speaker 6: on these types of things. But you better believe the

329
00:17:11,000 --> 00:17:14,159
Speaker 6: campaign war room is cranking into high gear, and it

330
00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:17,400
Speaker 6: was already run and hot after that debate on Thursday night,

331
00:17:17,440 --> 00:17:19,480
Speaker 6: and a lot of tough conversations, a lot of tough

332
00:17:19,520 --> 00:17:21,520
Speaker 6: interviews over the weekend as they try to tamp down

333
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:24,639
Speaker 6: this whole conversation about finding a new candidate between now

334
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:28,439
Speaker 6: and the Democratic Convention in August, as you make your

335
00:17:28,440 --> 00:17:31,280
Speaker 6: way to the bottom of the Chief Justices ruling. By

336
00:17:31,320 --> 00:17:34,640
Speaker 6: the way, he really sums it all up, looking at

337
00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:38,600
Speaker 6: the balance of power here in Washington, the president's conduct.

338
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:41,480
Speaker 6: Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct and carrying out

339
00:17:41,480 --> 00:17:44,880
Speaker 6: the responsibilities of the executive branch. He refers to this

340
00:17:45,040 --> 00:17:48,920
Speaker 6: system of separated powers designed by the Framers, demanding an energetic,

341
00:17:49,280 --> 00:17:51,200
Speaker 6: independent executive.

342
00:17:51,520 --> 00:17:53,120
Speaker 5: This is something that you might hear repeated.

343
00:17:53,320 --> 00:17:56,280
Speaker 6: The President therefore, may not be prosecuted for exercising his

344
00:17:56,359 --> 00:17:59,680
Speaker 6: core constitutional powers, entitled at a minimum to a presumptive

345
00:17:59,680 --> 00:18:04,680
Speaker 6: immune from prosecution for all of his official acts. Remember

346
00:18:04,800 --> 00:18:08,119
Speaker 6: this applies to every president after this as well. The

347
00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:10,960
Speaker 6: immunity applies equally, he writes to all occupants of the

348
00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:14,639
Speaker 6: Oval office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. This is

349
00:18:14,680 --> 00:18:18,000
Speaker 6: something we have to remind ourselves. Is bigger than Donald Trump.

350
00:18:18,359 --> 00:18:19,240
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely.

351
00:18:19,560 --> 00:18:22,040
Speaker 4: And then just if you're just joining us the news

352
00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:24,200
Speaker 4: of the morning, the US Supreme Court ruling that Donald

353
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:26,920
Speaker 4: Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to

354
00:18:26,960 --> 00:18:30,280
Speaker 4: overturn the twenty twenty election results. The case back goes

355
00:18:30,320 --> 00:18:33,119
Speaker 4: back down to the lower court and the justice is

356
00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:36,240
Speaker 4: voted six y three along ideological lines. So questionably becomes

357
00:18:36,760 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 4: what actions does Trump to our presidents take that are

358
00:18:39,680 --> 00:18:44,119
Speaker 4: or are not protected with immunity? Rick, Where does this

359
00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:46,960
Speaker 4: then leave other cases that are against Trump in relation

360
00:18:47,119 --> 00:18:49,480
Speaker 4: to immunity. I'm thinking specifically the Georgia case.

361
00:18:51,480 --> 00:18:53,960
Speaker 8: Yeah, the Georgia case is a little bit more complex

362
00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:57,679
Speaker 8: because it's state law that's being duplicated here, and so

363
00:18:58,520 --> 00:19:01,320
Speaker 8: whether or not this presidential they extends to the state

364
00:19:02,200 --> 00:19:05,200
Speaker 8: is going to be a similar question as to Jack Smith.

365
00:19:05,240 --> 00:19:07,800
Speaker 8: In other words, if some of these acts are seen

366
00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:10,480
Speaker 8: as private acts, you know, Donald Trump picking up.

367
00:19:10,440 --> 00:19:12,679
Speaker 7: The phone and trying to fish for votes with the.

368
00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:18,359
Speaker 8: State officials in Georgia, then that prosecution can go forward

369
00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:22,639
Speaker 8: and it is vulnerable to Donald Trump becoming president and

370
00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:27,320
Speaker 8: unleashing is just this apartment on killing the case. This

371
00:19:27,400 --> 00:19:30,679
Speaker 8: case would go forward even if Donald Trump was president.

372
00:19:30,760 --> 00:19:35,040
Speaker 7: So my sense is that if Jack Smith finds.

373
00:19:34,680 --> 00:19:37,600
Speaker 8: That some of these charges or Judge Chuck and really

374
00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:40,439
Speaker 8: finds that some of these charges are done in his

375
00:19:40,560 --> 00:19:43,919
Speaker 8: private capacity, that that will be a signal to the

376
00:19:44,000 --> 00:19:47,520
Speaker 8: Georgia case that they can go forward with those same

377
00:19:47,640 --> 00:19:52,000
Speaker 8: kind of charges, knowing that the FEDS have already decided

378
00:19:52,000 --> 00:19:55,600
Speaker 8: that these are personal functions of Donald Trump and not

379
00:19:55,680 --> 00:19:57,159
Speaker 8: the functions of the presidency.

380
00:19:57,240 --> 00:19:59,159
Speaker 4: All Right, guys, thanks a lot, We really appreciate it.

381
00:19:59,160 --> 00:20:01,480
Speaker 4: It's been quite a more learning. Again. The US Supreme

382
00:20:01,480 --> 00:20:03,760
Speaker 4: Court ruling and Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal

383
00:20:03,840 --> 00:20:06,480
Speaker 4: charges for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election results

384
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:09,240
Speaker 4: is going back now to the lower court. Rick Davis,

385
00:20:09,280 --> 00:20:12,560
Speaker 4: Bloomberg political contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital. Also

386
00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:14,960
Speaker 4: Joe Matthew Cuinger, a balance of power, both of you.

387
00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:16,160
Speaker 4: Thank you so very much.

388
00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:19,600
Speaker 2: Again, the news of the day is clearly the US

389
00:20:19,640 --> 00:20:22,119
Speaker 2: Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some immunity from

390
00:20:22,160 --> 00:20:25,199
Speaker 2: criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty twenty election results,

391
00:20:25,280 --> 00:20:28,720
Speaker 2: all but ensuring that a trial won't happen before the

392
00:20:28,840 --> 00:20:30,960
Speaker 2: November election. Let's get some more reporting on that. We

393
00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:35,720
Speaker 2: go to Zoe Tilman, senior illegal reporter for Bloomberg News. Zoe,

394
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:38,840
Speaker 2: what are we learning from this? One hundred and nineteen

395
00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:39,919
Speaker 2: page ruling.

396
00:20:41,280 --> 00:20:43,000
Speaker 1: You know, I think the big picture of what we're

397
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:45,720
Speaker 1: learning is that we're not learning all that much. That

398
00:20:45,800 --> 00:20:48,240
Speaker 1: the case is going to back down, going back down

399
00:20:48,280 --> 00:20:50,880
Speaker 1: to a district court judge in Washington to really go

400
00:20:50,960 --> 00:20:54,760
Speaker 1: through the indictment piece by piece to determine what in

401
00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:58,240
Speaker 1: there is a core constitutional power of the president and

402
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:02,199
Speaker 1: entitled to immunity against secution, and what is unofficial or

403
00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:05,600
Speaker 1: private conduct that he can still that Donald Trump can

404
00:21:05,600 --> 00:21:08,080
Speaker 1: still be prosecuted for. You know, the court said, the

405
00:21:08,080 --> 00:21:12,840
Speaker 1: majority said definitively that his communications with Justice Department officials

406
00:21:13,359 --> 00:21:16,159
Speaker 1: after the twenty twenty election were definitely off the table.

407
00:21:16,320 --> 00:21:19,320
Speaker 1: That they made clear. But everything else, you know, is

408
00:21:19,359 --> 00:21:25,840
Speaker 1: still up for litigation. That includes the conspiracy to put

409
00:21:26,040 --> 00:21:29,040
Speaker 1: pro Trump electors in battleground states to have them sign

410
00:21:29,119 --> 00:21:33,199
Speaker 1: false certifications, you know, other efforts to overturn the election.

411
00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:36,840
Speaker 1: All of that is is still potentially on the table,

412
00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:39,080
Speaker 1: but it's going to take a while for that to

413
00:21:39,080 --> 00:21:39,760
Speaker 1: get sorted out.

414
00:21:39,840 --> 00:21:42,320
Speaker 4: Now, can you go through what we may or may

415
00:21:42,359 --> 00:21:45,400
Speaker 4: not know about what constitutes official or unofficial actions?

416
00:21:46,920 --> 00:21:49,199
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, what they said is that, you know

417
00:21:49,320 --> 00:21:54,840
Speaker 1: what the core constitutional functions of a president of the officeholder,

418
00:21:54,880 --> 00:21:58,560
Speaker 1: and that includes his communications within the executive branch. And

419
00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:01,679
Speaker 1: that's why, you know, the majority said that talking with

420
00:22:01,720 --> 00:22:04,920
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, with Justice Department officials about what they

421
00:22:05,160 --> 00:22:07,879
Speaker 1: could or could not do on his behalf after the election,

422
00:22:08,280 --> 00:22:13,359
Speaker 1: that that was clearly within the parameters a core constitutional function.

423
00:22:14,359 --> 00:22:17,720
Speaker 1: But other types of communications, even the Court said with

424
00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:20,680
Speaker 1: his vice president at the time, Mike Pence, they didn't

425
00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:24,120
Speaker 1: say definitely that all of those communications would fall within

426
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:26,200
Speaker 1: that kind of core constitutional power.

427
00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:29,200
Speaker 2: Right now, I also want to bring in Nick Ackerman,

428
00:22:29,359 --> 00:22:33,080
Speaker 2: former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Nick, thanks so much for

429
00:22:33,160 --> 00:22:35,479
Speaker 2: joining us here. I love to get based upon all

430
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:38,760
Speaker 2: your years of experience, your takeaway from this Supreme Court

431
00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:39,640
Speaker 2: ruling this morning.

432
00:22:40,840 --> 00:22:43,520
Speaker 9: Well, to me, I guess I get a little bit

433
00:22:43,560 --> 00:22:47,120
Speaker 9: angry because there really is nothing here that is an

434
00:22:47,119 --> 00:22:51,359
Speaker 9: official act, even calls to the Justice Department. I have

435
00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:53,320
Speaker 9: not read the opinion yet because I have had so

436
00:22:53,400 --> 00:22:56,280
Speaker 9: many people have been asking me questions about it. But

437
00:22:56,320 --> 00:22:58,879
Speaker 9: I need to read the opinion. But it seems to

438
00:22:58,880 --> 00:23:02,639
Speaker 9: me that every thing in there, including making trying to

439
00:23:02,680 --> 00:23:05,560
Speaker 9: get the Justice Department and putting in an Attorney general

440
00:23:05,600 --> 00:23:08,239
Speaker 9: who's going to come up with a phony document to

441
00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:11,800
Speaker 9: send out to the battleground states saying that there was

442
00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:13,920
Speaker 9: fraud in the election when there was not fraud in

443
00:23:13,960 --> 00:23:16,760
Speaker 9: the election. Doesn't seem to me to be within the

444
00:23:16,760 --> 00:23:19,720
Speaker 9: official acts of the President of the United States or

445
00:23:19,800 --> 00:23:23,720
Speaker 9: part of his constitutional duties. Everything that is in this

446
00:23:23,840 --> 00:23:27,720
Speaker 9: indictment is alleged is something that is not part of

447
00:23:27,760 --> 00:23:30,960
Speaker 9: his duties. It certainly isn't part of a president's duties

448
00:23:31,160 --> 00:23:34,280
Speaker 9: to run for reelection, and moreover, it's not part of

449
00:23:34,320 --> 00:23:37,240
Speaker 9: his duties to try and fix that election and try

450
00:23:37,280 --> 00:23:42,200
Speaker 9: and maintain his ability to stay in power through false

451
00:23:42,240 --> 00:23:46,359
Speaker 9: and fraudulent means, which is what this indictment alleges. What

452
00:23:46,480 --> 00:23:49,600
Speaker 9: I find troubling about this whole thing is that it

453
00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:53,359
Speaker 9: is so obvious as to the fact that what is

454
00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:57,679
Speaker 9: alleged here are not official acts. To begin with that,

455
00:23:57,800 --> 00:23:59,840
Speaker 9: I don't think it should take Judge Chutkin, who is

456
00:23:59,840 --> 00:24:02,920
Speaker 9: a district court judge overseeing this, more than a few

457
00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:06,360
Speaker 9: minutes to determine that these are all official acts. Now,

458
00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:08,960
Speaker 9: I haven't read the opinion, but is she supposed to

459
00:24:08,960 --> 00:24:12,119
Speaker 9: have a hearing on this? All of this stuff, most

460
00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:14,679
Speaker 9: of it we know already because we've heard it before

461
00:24:14,720 --> 00:24:18,440
Speaker 9: the January sixth Committee, and we know it's not official acts.

462
00:24:19,080 --> 00:24:23,119
Speaker 9: So what they said is not really of any great moment,

463
00:24:23,240 --> 00:24:26,360
Speaker 9: because of course, a president who is doing his official

464
00:24:26,440 --> 00:24:30,680
Speaker 9: acts that are set forth in the Constitution, you can't

465
00:24:30,680 --> 00:24:34,000
Speaker 9: be accused of a crime for doing that. But that's

466
00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:35,720
Speaker 9: not what this indictment is about.

467
00:24:36,160 --> 00:24:39,119
Speaker 4: But so Nick, it feels like, then what you're saying

468
00:24:39,240 --> 00:24:42,800
Speaker 4: is the distinction of what is official aka then protected

469
00:24:42,800 --> 00:24:45,880
Speaker 4: by immunity, and what's unofficial which is not isn't clear

470
00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:48,040
Speaker 4: at all. And I appreciate that you haven't read the opinion,

471
00:24:48,080 --> 00:24:50,360
Speaker 4: but the going to a lower court and then them

472
00:24:50,400 --> 00:24:52,680
Speaker 4: having to decide that based on guidance from the Supreme

473
00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:54,880
Speaker 4: Court seems very complicated.

474
00:24:56,040 --> 00:24:58,560
Speaker 9: I don't think it's that complicated, no, okay.

475
00:24:58,400 --> 00:25:00,119
Speaker 4: But you have a different opinion than other people's, So

476
00:25:00,119 --> 00:25:02,240
Speaker 4: from that perspective, it does seem like it's complicated.

477
00:25:03,119 --> 00:25:05,320
Speaker 9: Well, I don't see how it's all complicated. The fact

478
00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:08,600
Speaker 9: that you come up with phony electors. What's so complicated

479
00:25:08,640 --> 00:25:11,199
Speaker 9: about that? The fact that you lie about the election,

480
00:25:11,520 --> 00:25:14,399
Speaker 9: that you put in false documents before a federal district

481
00:25:14,440 --> 00:25:18,240
Speaker 9: court judge in Georgia about their being fraud in the election.

482
00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:21,480
Speaker 9: To me, none of that is very complicated. Of course,

483
00:25:21,520 --> 00:25:25,240
Speaker 9: that's criminal, and it can be charged as criminal. They're

484
00:25:25,240 --> 00:25:27,960
Speaker 9: not charging him. First of all, he had no business

485
00:25:28,280 --> 00:25:32,840
Speaker 9: sticking his nose into anything in the Georgia process. It's

486
00:25:32,880 --> 00:25:35,840
Speaker 9: not the job of a US president to have anything

487
00:25:35,920 --> 00:25:39,600
Speaker 9: to do with the presidential election or how that election

488
00:25:39,960 --> 00:25:43,199
Speaker 9: is run. That is not within the purview of his

489
00:25:43,320 --> 00:25:46,120
Speaker 9: official acts. And that goes for everything else he did

490
00:25:46,119 --> 00:25:50,080
Speaker 9: in the other battleground states. So I don't quite understand

491
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:55,080
Speaker 9: what the Supreme Court could even conceive of as being

492
00:25:55,160 --> 00:25:57,560
Speaker 9: an official act that's charged in this indictment.

493
00:25:57,960 --> 00:26:00,720
Speaker 2: Zoe, what do we expect to hear from the Biden

494
00:26:00,760 --> 00:26:04,399
Speaker 2: White House, the Biden campaign as it relates to this ruling.

495
00:26:06,160 --> 00:26:10,400
Speaker 1: You know, so far, the White House has been quite

496
00:26:10,400 --> 00:26:14,399
Speaker 1: careful when talking about this case. It's depending criminal matter.

497
00:26:14,880 --> 00:26:19,960
Speaker 1: Everything is alleged until a jury determines, you know, whether

498
00:26:20,000 --> 00:26:22,800
Speaker 1: he is guilty or not. And I think the President

499
00:26:22,840 --> 00:26:25,119
Speaker 1: and the White House have been quite careful not to

500
00:26:25,119 --> 00:26:27,760
Speaker 1: be seen as intruding on the process with all until

501
00:26:27,880 --> 00:26:30,840
Speaker 1: it's you know, fully adjudicated. So, you know, I would

502
00:26:30,840 --> 00:26:34,600
Speaker 1: expect the same kind of caution and care in anything

503
00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:37,400
Speaker 1: they might say about this decision and the next steps,

504
00:26:37,440 --> 00:26:41,080
Speaker 1: because the court has really left so much unresolved. You know,

505
00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:45,200
Speaker 1: it's the Justice Department's policy generally to not comment publicly

506
00:26:45,359 --> 00:26:48,000
Speaker 1: while a case is pending, So I don't think we're

507
00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:50,680
Speaker 1: going to expect any kind of robust commentary, at least

508
00:26:50,720 --> 00:26:52,640
Speaker 1: from official channels on this for now.

509
00:26:54,560 --> 00:26:58,919
Speaker 4: Nick, do you feel like that if you are bringing

510
00:26:58,960 --> 00:27:01,040
Speaker 4: this sort of case A fair question, but you're a

511
00:27:01,040 --> 00:27:05,119
Speaker 4: special prosecutor for Watergate, right, would you consider how it

512
00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:09,320
Speaker 4: was delivered to the courts this particular case. Was it

513
00:27:09,359 --> 00:27:11,880
Speaker 4: framed in the correct way to get the right message

514
00:27:12,200 --> 00:27:16,600
Speaker 4: across mentioning Georgia. I mean, the case had nothing to

515
00:27:16,640 --> 00:27:19,399
Speaker 4: do with Georgia, So everything that we're talking about maybe true,

516
00:27:19,520 --> 00:27:23,320
Speaker 4: but with Georgia that wasn't. The case was specifically with

517
00:27:23,440 --> 00:27:26,320
Speaker 4: twenty twenty and specifically in a January sixth issue. So

518
00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:28,920
Speaker 4: do you think the case and not dealing with insurrection,

519
00:27:29,040 --> 00:27:30,960
Speaker 4: for example, was a problem.

520
00:27:31,640 --> 00:27:34,719
Speaker 9: No, it's not just The indictment is not just a

521
00:27:34,840 --> 00:27:39,040
Speaker 9: January sixth issue. It's also an issue that relates to

522
00:27:40,560 --> 00:27:44,560
Speaker 9: the entire effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

523
00:27:44,920 --> 00:27:47,040
Speaker 9: It goes back to Georgia, it goes back to what

524
00:27:47,119 --> 00:27:50,679
Speaker 9: he did in the battleground states. This is not just

525
00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:55,200
Speaker 9: relating to January sixth and the January sixth matter. All

526
00:27:55,240 --> 00:27:59,879
Speaker 9: relates to trying to underline the peaceful transfer power and

527
00:28:00,119 --> 00:28:03,560
Speaker 9: January sixth and trying to get the vice president to

528
00:28:03,680 --> 00:28:10,879
Speaker 9: basically take what our fraudulent electors and put those in

529
00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:14,040
Speaker 9: place or send the vote back to the battleground states.

530
00:28:14,280 --> 00:28:18,600
Speaker 9: I mean, this is all outside of what a president

531
00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:23,879
Speaker 9: is supposed to do and outside of his absolute normal acts.

532
00:28:25,440 --> 00:28:30,200
Speaker 2: Zoe, what's the expectation here? Is there enough left outside

533
00:28:30,240 --> 00:28:35,879
Speaker 2: of the immunity for the prosecutors to continue this case?

534
00:28:37,240 --> 00:28:40,600
Speaker 1: That's what they will certainly argue. You know, the court

535
00:28:40,800 --> 00:28:45,120
Speaker 1: certainly left enough in the indictment up for debate before

536
00:28:45,200 --> 00:28:45,880
Speaker 1: the district court.

537
00:28:45,960 --> 00:28:46,200
Speaker 9: Dutch.

538
00:28:47,120 --> 00:28:50,280
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's worth noting that whatever Judge

539
00:28:50,320 --> 00:28:53,880
Speaker 1: Chuckkin in Washington decides after this next round of litigation

540
00:28:54,440 --> 00:28:58,280
Speaker 1: could then potentially be appealed again and go back up

541
00:28:58,320 --> 00:29:01,560
Speaker 1: to the appeals court process even reach the Supreme Court

542
00:29:01,800 --> 00:29:05,520
Speaker 1: again before there's any kind of trial schedule. So that's why,

543
00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:07,520
Speaker 1: you know, when we talk about this being a sort

544
00:29:07,560 --> 00:29:10,560
Speaker 1: of tactical win for Donald Trump in the sense that

545
00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:14,040
Speaker 1: it's very unlikely anything gets to trial before the election.

546
00:29:15,480 --> 00:29:17,480
Speaker 1: You know, but the court sort of said, you know,

547
00:29:17,600 --> 00:29:20,920
Speaker 1: even things like conversations between the president and the vice

548
00:29:20,960 --> 00:29:24,280
Speaker 1: president might not be covered by immunity in the end,

549
00:29:24,320 --> 00:29:26,760
Speaker 1: depending on what they were discussing, where it was really

550
00:29:26,760 --> 00:29:30,200
Speaker 1: about the functions of the executive manchi as opposed to

551
00:29:30,480 --> 00:29:34,880
Speaker 1: you know, the vice presidental rational process where president doesn't

552
00:29:34,920 --> 00:29:37,840
Speaker 1: have any direct power to decide what should and should

553
00:29:37,880 --> 00:29:41,800
Speaker 1: not happen. And then you know, the state elector's component

554
00:29:42,000 --> 00:29:45,000
Speaker 1: of the indictment is you know, up for debate and

555
00:29:45,200 --> 00:29:48,120
Speaker 1: justice Barrett and the concurring opinion said that she thought

556
00:29:48,320 --> 00:29:51,000
Speaker 1: she didn't see how immunity would apply there in terms

557
00:29:51,040 --> 00:29:54,240
Speaker 1: of any role that the president plays in the state

558
00:29:54,320 --> 00:29:58,320
Speaker 1: election process. So there is just still a lot in

559
00:29:58,400 --> 00:30:03,360
Speaker 1: the indictment that remains unresolved, even as you know, it

560
00:30:03,480 --> 00:30:08,360
Speaker 1: is a positive opinion for Trump in terms of time.

561
00:30:09,520 --> 00:30:11,840
Speaker 4: So if you're just joining us, this is what's happening.

562
00:30:11,880 --> 00:30:13,840
Speaker 4: The US Supreme Court rule that Donald Trump has some

563
00:30:13,880 --> 00:30:16,680
Speaker 4: immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the twenty

564
00:30:16,720 --> 00:30:19,760
Speaker 4: twenty election results. The vote was six ' three. Now

565
00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:22,520
Speaker 4: goes back to the lower court, and we're talking to

566
00:30:22,600 --> 00:30:26,640
Speaker 4: Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, and Zoe Tilman,

567
00:30:26,720 --> 00:30:30,600
Speaker 4: senior legal reporter, are still with us. Nick, going back

568
00:30:30,600 --> 00:30:32,760
Speaker 4: to the makeup of the court, is there a case

569
00:30:32,800 --> 00:30:35,400
Speaker 4: that some justices could have recused themselves or should have?

570
00:30:36,400 --> 00:30:39,280
Speaker 9: Of course, I mean there's two justices that obviously should

571
00:30:39,280 --> 00:30:44,560
Speaker 9: have recused themselves, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Alito

572
00:30:44,680 --> 00:30:50,760
Speaker 9: made his opinion known about the January sixth insurrection by

573
00:30:50,800 --> 00:30:57,000
Speaker 9: flying the flag upside down immediately after that insurrection, adjoining

574
00:30:57,120 --> 00:31:03,080
Speaker 9: the insurrectionists, and Justice Thomas's wife was intricately involved in

575
00:31:03,200 --> 00:31:08,800
Speaker 9: trying to push forward this situation so that Trump could

576
00:31:08,800 --> 00:31:13,200
Speaker 9: stay in power. So yeah, those two justices absolutely should

577
00:31:13,200 --> 00:31:16,880
Speaker 9: have recused themselves. All I can say is this feels

578
00:31:17,000 --> 00:31:21,040
Speaker 9: so much different than the Supreme Court in nineteen seventy four,

579
00:31:21,440 --> 00:31:26,680
Speaker 9: which was also comprised of justices that were appointed by

580
00:31:26,960 --> 00:31:32,520
Speaker 9: Republican presidents, who wound up in an eight to zero

581
00:31:32,680 --> 00:31:37,080
Speaker 9: decision ordering Nixon to turn over his tapes. There was

582
00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:42,280
Speaker 9: never any question about delaying the matter the Supreme Court. There,

583
00:31:42,360 --> 00:31:47,360
Speaker 9: Unlike the Supreme Court bypassed the appellate court, the DC Circuit,

584
00:31:47,640 --> 00:31:50,120
Speaker 9: and let this go directly the Supreme Court. It was

585
00:31:50,200 --> 00:31:55,520
Speaker 9: done in a matter of months. Everything was expedited here.

586
00:31:55,640 --> 00:31:58,600
Speaker 9: This was dragged out as much as possible. Even though

587
00:31:58,600 --> 00:32:02,560
Speaker 9: the Special counsul asked for immediate review to the Supreme Court.

588
00:32:02,800 --> 00:32:05,800
Speaker 9: The Supreme Court sent it back to the DC Circuit

589
00:32:05,840 --> 00:32:09,959
Speaker 9: to decide, then didn't really take this in an expedited manner,

590
00:32:10,200 --> 00:32:12,840
Speaker 9: and then issued the opinion on the last day of

591
00:32:12,880 --> 00:32:17,200
Speaker 9: their term. So to me, it smells a lot like

592
00:32:17,560 --> 00:32:21,280
Speaker 9: what they were doing was purposely trying to delay matters

593
00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:23,800
Speaker 9: for Donald Trump so he wouldn't have to have his

594
00:32:23,920 --> 00:32:26,880
Speaker 9: day of reckoning in court prior to the election.

595
00:32:27,120 --> 00:32:28,640
Speaker 2: All right, Nick, thank you so much for joining us.

596
00:32:28,680 --> 00:32:32,440
Speaker 2: Nick Ackman, former assistant Special Watergate prosecutor prosecutor, and Zoe

597
00:32:32,560 --> 00:32:36,200
Speaker 2: tell Me legal reporter for Bloomberg News based in Washington

598
00:32:36,280 --> 00:32:36,640
Speaker 2: and DC.

599
00:32:36,840 --> 00:32:39,000
Speaker 4: The latest is that the Supreme Court has given Trump

600
00:32:39,080 --> 00:32:42,040
Speaker 4: partial immunity when it comes to trying to overturn the

601
00:32:42,080 --> 00:32:45,080
Speaker 4: twenty twenty election. Want to get right to the Supreme

602
00:32:45,120 --> 00:32:49,600
Speaker 4: Court here with Greg Store, Supreme Court reporter on this ruling.

603
00:32:49,840 --> 00:32:52,400
Speaker 4: All right, Greg, what is the feeling. What's the reaction

604
00:32:52,520 --> 00:32:56,240
Speaker 4: where you are walk us through, walk us through the latest.

605
00:32:57,040 --> 00:32:59,960
Speaker 10: Well, even though Donald Trump didn't get everything he saw

606
00:33:00,120 --> 00:33:03,800
Speaker 10: in this ruling, he certainly got enough. This is a

607
00:33:03,880 --> 00:33:07,000
Speaker 10: very big ruling in his favor because it means that

608
00:33:07,360 --> 00:33:10,680
Speaker 10: there's really no practical way a trial can happen before

609
00:33:10,720 --> 00:33:14,000
Speaker 10: the election. What exactly is going to happen when the

610
00:33:14,040 --> 00:33:16,560
Speaker 10: case goes back to the lower court. The extent to

611
00:33:16,600 --> 00:33:20,280
Speaker 10: which this case is still viable in theory, we don't

612
00:33:20,320 --> 00:33:23,760
Speaker 10: know that yet. But what's clear is that the idea

613
00:33:23,880 --> 00:33:26,760
Speaker 10: that he could be tried and convicted before the election

614
00:33:27,000 --> 00:33:29,040
Speaker 10: is a non starter at this point.

615
00:33:29,600 --> 00:33:34,080
Speaker 2: Gregor Prior guest Nick Ackerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor,

616
00:33:34,240 --> 00:33:36,320
Speaker 2: really kind of calling out the court I think here

617
00:33:36,360 --> 00:33:40,160
Speaker 2: for some politalization of their duties visa VI kind of

618
00:33:40,160 --> 00:33:41,640
Speaker 2: what we saw from the Supreme Court back and the

619
00:33:41,720 --> 00:33:46,000
Speaker 2: Nixon investigation. What's your feeling about how this court ruled

620
00:33:46,000 --> 00:33:49,000
Speaker 2: here in this case. What are some of your sources

621
00:33:49,000 --> 00:33:49,400
Speaker 2: telling you.

622
00:33:50,200 --> 00:33:52,440
Speaker 10: Well, I'll leave the kind of the rightness or wrongness

623
00:33:52,480 --> 00:33:55,400
Speaker 10: of the substance of this opinion to other folks, But

624
00:33:56,360 --> 00:33:59,080
Speaker 10: in terms of the timing of this there was certainly

625
00:33:59,160 --> 00:34:01,280
Speaker 10: there were certainly a couple has the Court could have

626
00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:04,760
Speaker 10: taken to get this ruling out sooner. They could have

627
00:34:04,960 --> 00:34:09,600
Speaker 10: The Special counsel Jack Smith, asked the Court last December

628
00:34:09,640 --> 00:34:12,440
Speaker 10: to take up the case on an ultra expedited basis.

629
00:34:12,480 --> 00:34:15,719
Speaker 10: The Court turned him down. They could have taken it.

630
00:34:15,760 --> 00:34:18,440
Speaker 10: Then they could have issued a quick ruling and then

631
00:34:18,480 --> 00:34:20,840
Speaker 10: maybe there would have been a trial before the election.

632
00:34:21,160 --> 00:34:23,560
Speaker 10: They made a choice not to. They wanted to delve

633
00:34:23,600 --> 00:34:27,439
Speaker 10: deeply into these constitutional issues. They wanted to let a

634
00:34:27,480 --> 00:34:32,080
Speaker 10: federal appeals court decide the case first. And the practical

635
00:34:32,120 --> 00:34:34,600
Speaker 10: impact is that it ends up being a huge victory

636
00:34:34,600 --> 00:34:37,160
Speaker 10: for Donald trumpet even though they didn't go quite as

637
00:34:37,160 --> 00:34:39,279
Speaker 10: far as he actually asked them to go. He asked

638
00:34:39,320 --> 00:34:41,399
Speaker 10: them to throw out the indictment. They didn't go there.

639
00:34:42,320 --> 00:34:44,520
Speaker 4: So, being a Supreme Court reporter and have been for

640
00:34:44,640 --> 00:34:47,160
Speaker 4: quite a long time and kind of knowing how politicized

641
00:34:47,640 --> 00:34:49,800
Speaker 4: in some ways it has become at least the rhetoric

642
00:34:49,880 --> 00:34:53,359
Speaker 4: around that. What's been your takeaway over the last week

643
00:34:53,360 --> 00:34:55,600
Speaker 4: and a half of all the decisions that we've learned, Like,

644
00:34:55,640 --> 00:34:56,799
Speaker 4: where does that set us up?

645
00:34:56,840 --> 00:34:57,040
Speaker 8: Now?

646
00:34:58,000 --> 00:34:58,239
Speaker 1: Yeah?

647
00:34:58,280 --> 00:35:03,200
Speaker 10: I mean it is very noteworthy that this ruling elects.

648
00:35:03,400 --> 00:35:07,880
Speaker 10: Several others that we got recently were six three ideologically divided,

649
00:35:07,920 --> 00:35:11,560
Speaker 10: the six Republican appointees, including the three Trump appointees in

650
00:35:11,640 --> 00:35:16,200
Speaker 10: the majority and the three Democratic appointees in dessent. This

651
00:35:16,360 --> 00:35:21,560
Speaker 10: is a conservative supermajority. They didn't rule in every single

652
00:35:21,600 --> 00:35:24,160
Speaker 10: case this term on the conservative side, but they did

653
00:35:24,200 --> 00:35:27,040
Speaker 10: in an awful lot of them. And you know, we're

654
00:35:27,360 --> 00:35:30,040
Speaker 10: it's really going to have sweeping impacts on the law

655
00:35:30,400 --> 00:35:33,719
Speaker 10: in a lot of areas. You know, rulings that we got,

656
00:35:33,719 --> 00:35:35,960
Speaker 10: including one today that's going to probably not get a

657
00:35:35,960 --> 00:35:38,839
Speaker 10: whole lot of attention having to do with administrative law

658
00:35:39,800 --> 00:35:41,680
Speaker 10: and a big ruling last week, are really going to

659
00:35:41,719 --> 00:35:46,160
Speaker 10: curtail the administrative state and regulation. And of course this

660
00:35:46,280 --> 00:35:48,880
Speaker 10: ruling could have tremendous political impacts.

661
00:35:49,600 --> 00:35:51,960
Speaker 2: So, as you mentioned, Jack, we've had have had a

662
00:35:52,040 --> 00:35:57,000
Speaker 2: number of six three rulings along political lines. How normal,

663
00:35:57,200 --> 00:35:58,320
Speaker 2: abnormal unusual?

664
00:35:58,960 --> 00:35:59,239
Speaker 5: Is that?

665
00:36:00,880 --> 00:36:04,919
Speaker 10: Certainly in recent years it's not that unusual. We've come

666
00:36:04,960 --> 00:36:08,000
Speaker 10: to be used to it. There was a time back

667
00:36:08,120 --> 00:36:12,360
Speaker 10: before twenty ten where you have a lot of you know,

668
00:36:12,760 --> 00:36:16,600
Speaker 10: justices crossing over so to speak, Republican of re appointees

669
00:36:16,640 --> 00:36:20,880
Speaker 10: who voted in a liberal direction in a lot of cases,

670
00:36:20,960 --> 00:36:25,200
Speaker 10: and occasionally Democratic appointees who voted in a conservative way.

671
00:36:25,680 --> 00:36:27,960
Speaker 10: We see an awful lot less of that. Now. The

672
00:36:28,080 --> 00:36:32,120
Speaker 10: ideological divides on this court are also the partisan divides

673
00:36:32,440 --> 00:36:39,600
Speaker 10: on this court, and that, coupled with the divisive, polarizing

674
00:36:39,680 --> 00:36:43,000
Speaker 10: times that were in politically, mean that we end up

675
00:36:43,040 --> 00:36:46,160
Speaker 10: with a lot of these rulings where the Republican appointees

676
00:36:46,440 --> 00:36:52,440
Speaker 10: are are doing things that benefit the Republican party and

677
00:36:53,360 --> 00:36:54,080
Speaker 10: their interests.

678
00:36:55,120 --> 00:36:58,640
Speaker 4: To that point that you made about regulation, can we

679
00:36:58,719 --> 00:37:00,719
Speaker 4: just kiss a lot of regulation good bye? I mean,

680
00:37:00,760 --> 00:37:02,719
Speaker 4: it just seems like if I add up all the

681
00:37:02,760 --> 00:37:06,080
Speaker 4: cases on that, I mean, is that a safe takeaway

682
00:37:06,080 --> 00:37:06,319
Speaker 4: for me?

683
00:37:07,880 --> 00:37:10,040
Speaker 10: I'm not sure I would guess it goodbye in the

684
00:37:10,120 --> 00:37:11,880
Speaker 10: sense that all this is going to have to be

685
00:37:11,920 --> 00:37:15,520
Speaker 10: fought over in the courts. It's going to be case

686
00:37:15,560 --> 00:37:17,880
Speaker 10: by case. They are going to be just a slew

687
00:37:17,920 --> 00:37:23,279
Speaker 10: of lawsuits challenging regulations, both existing ones and ones going forward.

688
00:37:26,560 --> 00:37:28,560
Speaker 10: So I'm not sure it's like cut and dried. I

689
00:37:28,600 --> 00:37:31,240
Speaker 10: can point to that regulation is not going to survive,

690
00:37:31,760 --> 00:37:33,640
Speaker 10: but it's pretty clear that there are a lot of

691
00:37:33,719 --> 00:37:37,400
Speaker 10: regulations that won't survive, and even more of them that

692
00:37:37,440 --> 00:37:39,680
Speaker 10: are going to be under fire and kind of under

693
00:37:39,840 --> 00:37:41,560
Speaker 10: question and raising uncertainty.

694
00:37:41,800 --> 00:37:44,080
Speaker 4: Okay, So then to that point, let's pretend that Congress

695
00:37:44,120 --> 00:37:47,560
Speaker 4: now issues super clear regulation or laws and everything is

696
00:37:48,080 --> 00:37:50,440
Speaker 4: super cut and dry, which I don't know if that's

697
00:37:50,480 --> 00:37:53,080
Speaker 4: actually possible. How many of the laws that we're going

698
00:37:53,160 --> 00:37:54,920
Speaker 4: to see past we're going to eventually just wind up

699
00:37:54,920 --> 00:37:57,480
Speaker 4: in courts like how do we govern? In that case?

700
00:37:58,400 --> 00:38:01,359
Speaker 10: Well, a lot of them will. With regard to these

701
00:38:01,440 --> 00:38:05,920
Speaker 10: Supreme Court rulings on the administrative state, most of those,

702
00:38:06,680 --> 00:38:08,640
Speaker 10: it tend to be or the regual focus of those

703
00:38:08,719 --> 00:38:12,600
Speaker 10: are where Congress hasn't been clear, And if Congress had

704
00:38:12,640 --> 00:38:15,840
Speaker 10: been clear in a particular law, then we wouldn't have

705
00:38:15,880 --> 00:38:17,759
Speaker 10: the case that we're having. We're kind of dealing with

706
00:38:17,800 --> 00:38:20,359
Speaker 10: what happens when regulators sort of try to fill in

707
00:38:20,400 --> 00:38:24,280
Speaker 10: the gaps or do something without explicit authorization from Congress.

708
00:38:24,560 --> 00:38:28,080
Speaker 10: Now it's possible there's a there's a you know, a

709
00:38:28,200 --> 00:38:30,920
Speaker 10: case that the Court could say tomorrow that it's going

710
00:38:30,960 --> 00:38:33,960
Speaker 10: to take up that would actually restrict Congress's power to

711
00:38:34,000 --> 00:38:39,560
Speaker 10: delegate things to administrative administrative agencies. But right now, a

712
00:38:39,600 --> 00:38:41,680
Speaker 10: lot of these things. If you think they are problems,

713
00:38:41,960 --> 00:38:45,400
Speaker 10: there are, at least in theory, problems that Congress could fix.

714
00:38:46,120 --> 00:38:49,040
Speaker 10: The issue is more that you know Congress doesn't have

715
00:38:49,120 --> 00:38:52,520
Speaker 10: the political will or the functionality at this point to

716
00:38:53,320 --> 00:38:55,840
Speaker 10: enact a whole lot of clear legislation.

717
00:38:56,000 --> 00:38:58,200
Speaker 2: The mechanism how this is going to move here for

718
00:38:58,239 --> 00:39:01,200
Speaker 2: President Trump in this community case, where's it going to go,

719
00:39:01,239 --> 00:39:04,520
Speaker 2: when's it going to go, and timing, So.

720
00:39:04,520 --> 00:39:07,479
Speaker 10: It will get kicked back to the federal district judge

721
00:39:07,480 --> 00:39:11,520
Speaker 10: who's overseeing the trial, Tanya chuck Kin. That won't formally

722
00:39:11,600 --> 00:39:15,200
Speaker 10: happen for a month or so. She has said that

723
00:39:16,719 --> 00:39:20,520
Speaker 10: even before this ruling happened, that she's indicated she's allowed

724
00:39:20,520 --> 00:39:22,680
Speaker 10: a couple of months, two or three months for each

725
00:39:22,680 --> 00:39:24,759
Speaker 10: side to prepare for trial, and the trial could last

726
00:39:25,000 --> 00:39:28,399
Speaker 10: two or three months. And now on top of all that,

727
00:39:28,640 --> 00:39:32,760
Speaker 10: she's going to have to dive into these allegations and decide,

728
00:39:32,800 --> 00:39:36,960
Speaker 10: looking at the testa Supreme Court laid out is is

729
00:39:36,960 --> 00:39:39,719
Speaker 10: this official or is this private? And therefore can stay

730
00:39:39,719 --> 00:39:43,319
Speaker 10: in the indictment, And those decisions that she's making very

731
00:39:43,440 --> 00:39:46,400
Speaker 10: likely will be appealable before there's even a trial. So

732
00:39:46,960 --> 00:39:51,640
Speaker 10: we're talking about a much longer timeline than it had

733
00:39:51,640 --> 00:39:53,560
Speaker 10: previously looked like we were going to have.

734
00:39:54,239 --> 00:39:56,000
Speaker 4: All right, Greg, we appreciate it. I know it's been

735
00:39:56,080 --> 00:39:58,279
Speaker 4: incredibly busy a couple of weeks for you, especially today,

736
00:39:58,320 --> 00:40:01,560
Speaker 4: Greg Store, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter, by joining us in

737
00:40:01,600 --> 00:40:02,760
Speaker 4: all the Supreme Court rulings,