Tangle - SCOTUS hears Trump's immunity case.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

Starting point is 00:01:00 From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. It's a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, recording here from Colorado, out in the Midwest, Southwest, enjoying some nice snow, good cold weather. I'm here for a little family gathering, and in my brother's room where we're staying at this rental property, recording the Tangle podcast on the road, which is always fun. It's nice to get out of Philadelphia, New York,

Starting point is 00:01:54 Northeast area, see some of the things going on all across the country. And funny enough, Colorado was kind of the, you know, I guess the location, the center of one of the last really controversial Trump Supreme Court cases, which was the kind of ballot 14th Amendment challenge to remove him from the state ballot in Colorado that the Supreme Court quickly dismissed. And today we're going to be talking about the other big Trump Supreme Court case, which is the immunity case. And we got oral arguments in that case last week. So we're going to talk a little bit about that and what we can take away from it. Before we jump into that, though, we do have a quick correction that we have to issue, unfortunately. Last week on Thursday,

Starting point is 00:02:38 in our Under the Radar section, we incorrectly referred to Jake Sullivan as the Secretary of State. Sullivan is, in fact, the National Security Advisor. Ironically, all of the editorial team's energy was spent on a dispute about how to word a different part of the under-the-radar section, which I guess distracted us from the very obvious mistake that was sitting right in front of our faces, so we just totally missed it. This is our 107th correction in our 247-week history, and our first correction since April 15th. We track those corrections and place them at the top of the newsletter in an effort to maximize transparency with our readers.

Starting point is 00:03:16 All right, with that out of the way, we'll jump in with some quick hits. First up, the Core Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, or the Core CPI, which measures cost consumers pay minus the more volatile food and energy prices, rose 2.8% year-over-year and 0.3% month-over-month in March. Number two, arrests of campus protesters who were demonstrating against the war in Gaza continued over the weekend, with an estimated 800 students arrested across dozens of college campuses. Number three, Hamas is sending a delegation to visit Egypt today to discuss Israel's latest ceasefire proposal, which includes the release of hostages. Separately, the World Central Kitchen said it will resume operations in Gaza

Starting point is 00:04:05 after the April 1st strike that killed seven of its workers. Number four, U.S. intelligence officials have determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin likely did not order the death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, though officials still believe he was ultimately responsible for it. And number five, as former President Donald Trump seeks additional fundraising for the 2024 election, he met Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for the first time since their bruising primary. We're going to begin with that big question before the Supreme Court. Are presidents above the law? All of it stemming, of course, from former President Donald Trump's claim that, yes, he should have immunity for any crimes he may have committed while in office.

Starting point is 00:04:52 It's a case that will affect him, but also every future president of the United States. The Supreme Court has been hearing oral arguments on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office. And while the Supreme Court considers this immunity claim, the former president's trial on charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election is on hold. The questions raised during oral arguments are more than academic, but instead sit at the center of the special counsel's criminal election interference case against former President Trump and whether a trial can happen before the November election. On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. United States,

Starting point is 00:05:36 a case to determine if former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. During arguments, the court appeared ready to side at least partially with former President Donald Trump's lawyers, who argued that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges for acts taken in his official capacity as president. defense against those federal charges, Trump has argued that he cannot be prosecuted for actions that were part of his responsibilities as president, nor for actions he was already impeached for but not convicted of. A federal appeals court rejected those arguments and Trump appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's conservative majority seems skeptical of the federal appeals court ruling. Several of the justices expressed concern that if former presidents did not have immunity, federal prosecutors could use the law as a political weapon against opponents.

Starting point is 00:06:29 The justices left open the question of whether Trump's trial in D.C. over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election could go forward, instead signaling they might send the case back to lower courts to clarify what differentiates official acts from private ones. However, if the court were to ask the judge overseeing Trump's case to hold hearings to make that differentiation, the trial, already delayed, would last well into 2025. John Sauer, the lawyer representing Trump, argued that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the presidency would be forever changed, suggesting the looming threat of facing criminal charges for official acts would destroy

Starting point is 00:07:05 presidential decision-making. Without immunity, Sauer argued, President Biden could theoretically be charged with unlawfully encouraging immigrants to come to the U.S. illegally through policy decisions. For the prosecution, Michael Dreeben, a lawyer from special counsel Jack Smith's office, said that blanket immunity would place presidents entirely above the law and encourage crimes like bribery, treason, or sedition. Drieben argued that Trump's lawyers are suggesting he should enjoy permanent and total immunity unless he has been impeached and convicted by Congress. Throughout oral arguments, several justices pressed Trump's lawyers to distinguish between official and private acts.

Starting point is 00:07:40 Chief Justice John Roberts offered a hypothetical where a president appointed an ambassador, an official act, in exchange for a bribe, a private act, and asked Trump's lawyers to define the boundary between the two. In response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Sauer said an act like signing a form affirming false election allegations would be a private act, while calling the chair of the Republican Party would be an official act. of the Republican Party would be an official act. Kagan asked whether a president ordering the military to stage a coup would be a private or official act, and Sauer suggested it would depend on the circumstances. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, meanwhile, expressed concerns that a lack of immunity would encourage federal laws to be used to target political opponents. Gorsuch argued that a first-term president is always going to be concerned about re-election and asked the Justice Department lawyers if they consider a president's motives in charging presidents. Drubin assured them that

Starting point is 00:08:29 ordinary presidential conduct is not targeted. After Sauer conceded that some of Trump's alleged acts were prosecutable private actions, Gorsuch suggested there was some common ground being found and that the lower courts had already signaled they might separate private and official conduct. This was one of the strongest signals from the justices that they might send the case back to the lower courts to determine what constitutes official or private acts. Ultimately, four of the conservative justices, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, appeared likely to grant some kind of immunity to Trump. That means the case could hinge on Chief Justice Roberts, who seems skeptical of the D.C. Circuit's

Starting point is 00:09:05 opinion. Today, we're going to break down some opinion pieces from the left and the right about the oral arguments, and then my take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left thinks this will be a legacy-defining decision for the court. Some say the court needs to focus more on issuing a timely ruling than a consequential one. Others are disheartened at some justices' apparent receptiveness to Trump's arguments. In CNN, Steve Vladek wrote that John Roberts has quite a mess in front of him. Four of the justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, expressed support for different arguments that would each pose serious, if not

Starting point is 00:09:55 fatal, obstacles to the closely watched criminal case. Four of the justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Katonji Brown Jackson, seem to support a ruling that would allow most, if not all, of the charges in the January 6th case to go forward. If that holds, the fate of the January 6th prosecution likely rests in the hands of the justice who spoke first and last on Thursday, but who did the least to reveal his views, Chief Justice John Roberts. It became clear early in Thursday's argument that there was little support across the bench for a narrow ruling that would be good for only this case, Vladek said. Where exactly is the line between acts that are immune from prosecution and those that aren't? One of the few colloquies during Thursday's argument that featured the Chief Justice

Starting point is 00:10:37 included his effort to underscore this problem. The one thing that seems most clear coming out of Thursday's argument is that the answer, and the broader legacy of Roberts' court, will ultimately be up to him. In the Tampa Bay Times, Michael McAuliffe argued that the Supreme Court doesn't need a rule for the ages, but one for right now. Most Americans simply want a court decision that addresses the current accusations of criminal wrongdoing by a former president. That seeming gap of expectation versus need is an apt but unintentional reminder that the justices can be shockingly insular in their manner of decision making, McAuliffe wrote. Are the accusations and the pending indictments sufficiently outside any

Starting point is 00:11:15 core presidential duty to allow this case to move forward with no more delay? That question can be answered in the affirmative without resorting to the larger question of blanket presidential immunity. The real fear is that a remand and further pre-trial appeals consume time slowly like an engorged creature protecting its kill. The justices don't appear to see what is in effect snarling in front of them. That's not right. No justification exists to ignore that delay is a death knell, McAuliffe added. Fortunately, we don't need to decide the ultimate existential question. The indictment alleges criminal conduct by a president, now a former president, outside the core presidential duties. That conclusion can be made by the court without renaming the stars. In the Los Angeles Times, Francis Wilkinson said

Starting point is 00:11:58 the Supreme Court just showed us that Trump is not incompetent. He's a master of corruption. For all his mad greed and compulsive lawlessness, for all his sleaze and stupidity, crime is ultimately not Trump's game. Trump is nothing like a master criminal, but he is a master of something far more sinister and complex. Corruption, Wilkinson said. Crime is a largely private endeavor. Corruption is public. It seeps into the muscle and sinew of democratic society and institutions. It devours them from within. The Supreme Court, drunk on arrogated power, cut loose from rudimentary ethics, has been eaten alive by it. Originalists or textualists all sounded more or less Trumpist

Starting point is 00:12:36 as they seriously entertained Trump's argument that his assaults on the constitutional order are protected by the Constitution itself. There's no way to make honest sense of such a liar's mash. But Larry, Moe, and Curley aren't just chairing committees in Congress. They wear robes and furrowed brows now, too. And they seem eager to pretend that crimes are just constitutional exercises of power, and that one ex what the left is saying, which brings us to the right's take. The right says broad presidential immunity is key to a functional democracy. Some say the court should resist calls to issue a speedy ruling in the case, while others insist Trump's immunity claims cannot be allowed to stand. ruling in the case, while others insist Trump's immunity claims cannot be allowed to stand.

Starting point is 00:13:30 In Newsweek, Mark R. Weaver argued that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen Trump, but they still immunized him. If a president slips out of the White House and kills someone he's mad at, the law already allows him to be criminally prosecuted and politically impeached. The tougher question, which is being hotly debated in the Supreme Court this week, is this. When a president carries out his official duties, can he be prosecuted for that? The tougher question, which is being hotly debated in the Supreme Court this week, is this. When a president carries out his official duties, can he be prosecuted for that? We know for sure he can't be sued for it, Weaver wrote. If a threat of being ordered to pay money for a civil claim is a deterrent enough to distract a president from doing the work of the executive branch, the threat of being sent to prison is a dinosaur-sized distraction. But one need not even mention Donald Trump's presidency to illustrate precisely why the founding fathers designated impeachment as their ultimate punishment

Starting point is 00:14:10 for a president. Criminal charges as a political tool to neutralize and distract the commander-in-chief worried the founding fathers. Their constitution protects official presidential action from both civil and criminal prosecution, but they were wise enough to leave checks and balances on that broad grant of power, Weaver said. When law becomes a weapon of political revenge, it's our democracy that takes the fatal blow. Worse yet, it doesn't uphold justice, it undermines it. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th,

Starting point is 00:14:59 only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

Starting point is 00:15:35 In National Review, Rich Lowry said don't rush the Trump J6 case. As for the sweeping unanimous decision of the D.C. Circuit that denied Trump's claim of immunity and that Trump's critics considered dispositive, Chief Justice John Roberts, who is not a MAGA extremist, made it clear that he thinks it's desperately flawed. Trump's critics are putting partisan considerations, the belief that a trial in and of itself, and even more so a conviction, will hurt Trump politically and their hatred of Trump and his post-election conduct before everything else in their demand for the fastest possible ruling most damaging to Trump. This is a very bad impulse when asking the court to create a precedent that will affect all presidents going

Starting point is 00:16:14 forward. The idea that a complicated case relying on novel use of federal statutes and involving a former president should or could be slammed through the court like a case about an overdue parking ticket was always ridiculous, Lowry wrote. The court will most certainly reject Trump's extravagant claims of immunity while quite possibly blessing a more limited version. The court also may ask the judge in the J6 case to determine which of Trump's acts were official and which private. That would take time and be hateful to Trump's enemies who can't bear the thought that the judiciary might be judicious in its handling of a truly momentous court case. In the Washington Examiner, Quinn Hillier wrote that the court should not grant Trump any broad-scale immunity.

Starting point is 00:16:55 Several Supreme Court justices yesterday seemed disturbingly open to far too wide a scope of supposed presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Almost nothing in the actual text of the Constitution provides for such immunity, Hillier said. Alas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and especially Justice Samuel Alito, asked questions indicating concerns almost diametrically opposed, constitutionally speaking, to the things that really should be alarming. Trump says he can't be convicted in impeachment proceedings if he is out of office, and also that if he isn't impeached, he can't be criminally tried. Logically, then, that would make a president completely above the law as long as he can keep his criminality hidden until the day after he leaves office. Yet nothing anywhere in the Constitution says or even strongly implies that a president is

Starting point is 00:17:39 above the law, Hillier wrote. The immunity Trump seeks is far more dangerous than anything Alito worried about. That's why, to the extent any sort of immunity is recognized, it ought to be well-defined and very narrow. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So, to be honest, I was pretty taken aback by how many justices seemed open to some absolute immunity during oral arguments. I said a few months ago that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit got it right. I wasn't sure how this case would play out before the Supreme Court, but I was certainly not expecting how many justices would be open to the argument that broad presidential immunity might benefit democracy. The idea that a president can't

Starting point is 00:18:33 be criminally indicted because he was not impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate just strikes me as absurd. I've only heard that argument used by people who feel that it's their guy that is being persecuted. That principle has an obvious flaw. A president could simply commit criminal acts at the end of their tenure or resign immediately after to avoid an actual impeachment trial and thus any criminal prosecution. In 2021, there were Republicans who cited Trump's exit from office as their reason for not voting to convict him in his impeachment, as he could be criminally tried later. Now, Trump is arguing the lack of such impeachment means he can't face any

Starting point is 00:19:10 further repercussions. There's no need to decide on one or the other. Impeachment is a political deterrent that can be used for allegations short of felony charges, and criminal prosecution is a deterrent against any action that falls under criminal statutes. Applying both to presidents is perfectly reasonable and far better than relying on impeachment alone. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court case granting presidents immunity from civil lawsuits for acts falling within their official duties, is the most relevant precedent here. Trump is asking the court to extend similar immunity to him because his actions fell under the auspices of the presidency. But his alleged crimes are a perfect blend of private and official acts. That he used the power of his office, i.e. his official duties, to commit alleged private

Starting point is 00:19:54 criminal acts is precisely what makes what he did so dangerous and so worthy of federal investigation. I don't say that to presuppose his guilt, only to say that the potential for him to be investigated, tried, and convicted seems perfectly reasonable. As I've said over and over, Trump's actions, both alleged and well-documented, related to the attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election are by far his most egregious actions as president, and really the actions I'd like to see tried in court the most. Just as Michael McAuliffe, under what the left is saying, I was struck by how Neil Gorsuch and others seem to want the court to make a grand ruling for the ages.

Starting point is 00:20:31 They don't have to. They need to rule on the case before them, where everyone, the conservative justices, Trump's lawyers, and the Justice Department seem to agree that Trump was being accused of private acts that can be tried in our criminal justice system. To me, the conversation starts and stops there. Remember, Trump got to the Supreme Court by making one broad and ridiculous-sounding argument, that he had absolute immunity from prosecution for everything

Starting point is 00:20:55 he did while president. His lawyers narrowed that argument substantially before the court, making the case for an immunity that encompasses all arguably official acts. Trump's defense team clearly wants this case to go back to the lower courts to parse all his actions in the wake of the 2020 election and to litigate which ones constitute private acts. This court seems poised to grant him that wish. I'm not really sure how or why any of that would be necessary. As McAuliffe said, there is no reason for the court to rename the stars before allowing those acts to be judged by a jury. Relatedly, the example Roberts brought up landed for me too. If a president takes a bribe to appoint an ambassador, of course he can be charged for taking that money. The official act of appointing the ambassador is part of the crime, and any jury

Starting point is 00:21:40 should be able to hear that act in the context of the crime. Drawing these lines is unnecessary and overcomplicated and creates a whole series of cascading issues. Crimes don't become legal just because a president used their office to commit them. Regardless of my feelings, the parsimonious path is the one the court seems to be taking. I'm not going to pretend distinguishing what acts can and can't be prosecuted in cases like this is a useless exercise. Gorsuch is right that such a ruling would have lasting impacts on the presidency and that drawing some lines might be worthwhile. But it feels like the justices are creating an imagined threat, such as a president being prosecuted for an obvious official act like ordering a drone strike to avoid dealing with the actual and realistic issues of one president's conduct that is before

Starting point is 00:22:25 us today. My overwhelming sense is that such a far-reaching ruling isn't necessary. This case is the first of its kind because Trump's actions in the wake of 2020 were the first of their kind. If a future Trump administration wanted to prosecute Biden for something, they'd have to do what the Justice Department did for Trump, put together a years-long investigation, bring a detailed indictment, and then convince a series of judges and grand juries to take him to trial. I'd much rather have that as the standard, paired with the presidents who tread carefully knowing they aren't kings, than create some blanket immunity to prevent any future presidents from fearing repercussions outside impeachment for their actions. And I don't see anything in our Constitution or founding documents to suggest that we should broadly immunize presidents from

Starting point is 00:23:08 prosecution. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Jim in Wintersville, Ohio. Jim said, in the extra section on April 25th, I read that the available beds, 1.15 million in the United States, is roughly twice the number, 535,000, of average homeless in 2020. Why do we have people living in tents in cardboard boxes? Is it distribution or disassociation? So this is a great question. When we first included those stats,

Starting point is 00:23:54 I skimmed the study that we sourced the numbers from to ensure they were reported accurately and that the source was reputable. In this case, I was convinced that the source was reputable, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, and we had reported the figures accurately. 1,112,545 beds were available, according to HUD. Like you, I assumed the issue was about distribution of beds, that many cities would have a surplus while others were at capacity. But I wasn't totally sure, and I had to move on to other things. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to follow every one of these little leads. But thanks to this question from you and a few other readers, I was actually motivated to look into the data a bit more closely.

Starting point is 00:24:33 And according to HUD's 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report, available beds to support people experiencing homelessness are divided roughly into two groups. One for people who had been experiencing homelessness and the other for those who were currently homeless. Only 40.3% of the beds included in the report were in the latter group, leaving 449,567 beds available for the roughly 653,000 people who were without shelter on an average night in 2023. So that's a shortfall of roughly 200,000 people. Those beds were subdivided into emergency shelter and transitional housing, and then further specified for individuals, families, and, heartbreakingly, children-only households. That means that shelter

Starting point is 00:25:16 availability was probably even further strained within those groups, and when you add reports of people on the streets refusing available beds, it's more likely than not that the generalized HUD shortfall is a slight undercount. We included two charts that kind of illustrate this in today's newsletter. If you want to go check them out, you can do that by going to readtangle.com. All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under the radar section. New results from a study in Norway are intensifying the push for reducing smartphone use among teenagers. Researchers used a pupil survey, data on middle school smartphone policies, and a compilation of administrative data sets to examine the results.

Starting point is 00:26:01 The research found the impacts were positive, with decreased bullying and better academic performance among girls. Psychologist Adam Grant highlighted the study on X, suggesting smartphones belong at home or in lockers. Boston Globe has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, that is it for our Under the Radar section, which brings us to our numbers section. The number of days since Donald Trump was indicted in the 2020 election interference case is 272. The percentage of Americans who approved of the Supreme Court's performance in March 2024 is 47%. That's a 7% increase from February 2024, according to a Marquette Law School poll. The percentage of Americans who answered affirmatively when asked if former presidents

Starting point is 00:26:49 should have immunity from criminal prosecution was just 20%. In a different sample from the same poll, the percentage of Americans who answered affirmatively when asked if former President Donald Trump should have immunity from criminal prosecution was 28%. The percentage of Americans who say the charges against Trump in the 2020 election interference case should disqualify him from the presidency in August of 2023 was 48%. And the percentage of Americans who said the charges against Trump in the 2020 election interference case should disqualify him from the presidency in April of 2024 was 43%. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. According to the Ohio Department

Starting point is 00:27:30 of Natural Resources, a mammal that was once considered eradicated from the state is now colonizing Ohio again. Fishers, a forest-dwelling mammal related to river otters and weasels, have been spotted in the state over the last few years. After being extirpated from Ohio in the mid-1800s, one fisher was spotted in the Buckeye State in 2013. Since then, fishers have been spotted 40 times across nine counties in northern Ohio. WLWT Cincinnati has the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work, you can go to readtangle.com forward slash membership and become a member. We'll be

Starting point is 00:28:12 right back here same time tomorrow. And you might get a little bit of John's voice on the podcast as I'll have some transit ahead of me. But either way, you'll be hearing from me soon. We'll see you then. Peace. Bailey Saul and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. We'll see you next time. Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly

Starting point is 00:29:41 double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.

Tangle - SCOTUS hears Trump's immunity case.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.