Tangle - Trump's case goes to SCOTUS.

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. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about Donald Trump and an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States by Jack Smith, the special counsel charging Trump for alleged election interference. We're going to talk about what this means, what we're looking at, and as always, share some responses from the left and the right. Before we do, we have a correction. Another one. About a week ago, I was talking to the new managing editor here at Tangle News, Ari Weitzman, about how rare corrections have become in Tangle since he'd come on full-time.

Starting point is 00:02:05 We apparently just jinxed the entire team. So yesterday in our quick hit section, we referred to the New York Court of Appeals as the state Supreme Court when describing the ruling to redraw congressional maps. This was an error almost certainly born out of our writing about the Texas state Supreme Court in our main story. Unfortunately, this is our third correction in a little more than a week. It is our 97th correction in our 226-week history and our first correction since December 11th, this past Monday. We track these corrections and we place them at the top of the podcast in an effort to maximize transparency with readers. And if anyone wants to break the current hex that we have that has produced three corrections in nine days or whatever it is, please go ahead and do that.

Starting point is 00:02:51 All right, with that out of the way, we're going to jump in with some quick hits. First up, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to approve an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden over allegations of financial misconduct. Number two, Hunter Biden defied a House GOP subpoena to sit for closed-door depositions yesterday, instead insisting Republican lawmakers hold a public hearing. Republicans say they plan to hold him in contempt of Congress. Number three, the Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged and sent signals that 2024 could include significant rate cuts. Number four, the Biden administration said it is holding up the sale of U.S.-made rifles to Israel because of attacks by settlers in the

Starting point is 00:03:41 occupied West Bank. Separately, nine Israeli soldiers were reportedly killed in Gaza after an attack by Hamas. Number five, the Senate passed its annual National Defense Authorization Act by an 87 to 13 vote, authorizing $886 billion in military spending and a 5.2% pay raise for service members. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear special counsel Jack Smith's request to take up Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim. Smith made an unusual request Monday, asking the Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump was immune from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case. It's part of the investigation into Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Trump signaled he would ask an appeals court to weigh in on the decision to get the case heard.

Starting point is 00:04:40 Smith is looking to bypass the appeals court and take it straight to the Supreme Court to avoid any additional delays. Jack Smith asking the court to weigh in on Donald Trump's claim that being president gives you absolute immunity from prosecution. And tonight, the court already signaling it will consider weighing in. On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court granted special counsel Jack Smith's request to bring before the court the question of whether Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election. On Wednesday, the court also said it would hear an appeal to an obstruction of an official proceeding charge that could upend hundreds

Starting point is 00:05:22 of cases tied to charges from the Capitol riot, including Donald Trump's. A quick reminder, Jack Smith is the special counsel leading the Justice Department's case against Trump, charging him with attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Trump has argued that he is immune from federal prosecution for two reasons. First, he has argued that he can't be prosecuted for actions that were part of his responsibilities as president. Second, he's argued that since he was impeached but not convicted, he cannot be prosecuted in this case for the same actions. On December 1st, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected those arguments, and Trump appealed to

Starting point is 00:06:01 the U.S. District Court of Appeals. Smith responded by petitioning the case directly to the Supreme Court before it could go to the appeals court, a move known as certiorari before judgment. This is an extraordinary request, even in Smith's own words, but his petition argued that it was necessary because of the weighty and consequential character of the case. The court appeared to agree on the urgency, asking the former president's team to reply to the petition by 4 p.m. Eastern time on December 20th. Judge Chuckin, meanwhile, has agreed to pause proceedings in the election interference case while Trump appeals the decision and before it gets to the Supreme Court. Separately, the Supreme Court has also said

Starting point is 00:06:42 it would hear a challenge from Joseph Fisher, a former police officer who was charged with obstruction of an official proceeding on January 6th. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecution stretched the law beyond its scope to apply it to Fisher and two others. The Justice Department challenged the ruling, and an appeals court agreed that Nichols was reading the law too narrowly. Now, that case is headed to the Supreme Court, too. That is significant because Trump and many other defendants are also challenging the use of that charge. If Nichols were to win his case, it could upend hundreds of other charges, requiring lower courts to adjust their sentences. It could delay or change the outcome of Smith's

Starting point is 00:07:21 case against Trump as well. The arguments are expected to be heard this spring. Today, we're going to break down some arguments from the right and the left about Smith's case against Trump as well. The arguments are expected to be heard this spring. Today, we're going to break down some arguments from the right and the left about Smith's appeal to the Supreme Court, and then my take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. First up, we'll start with what the right is saying. The right thinks the move shows that Smith is operating as a partisan actor. Some say Trump will continue to grow stronger in the polls as Smith's prosecution becomes more aggressive. Others say the Supreme Court's decision on the case involving January 6th protesters could also exonerate Trump. In the Washington Post, Jason Willick argued that politics are now clearly shaping Jack Smith's Trump prosecution. Smith's argument is circular. The case must be

Starting point is 00:08:16 accelerated because if it's not accelerated, it will be delayed. But trials are delayed all the time, sometimes for years. Smith doesn't say what he means. If the justices don't take the case now, the chances of completing a trial before the 2024 election will go down. If Trump is not tried and convicted by the election, the chances of a Biden victory will take a hit, Willick said. If Smith's decision were independent of the political calendar, that would be of no concern to him. There might be an argument that it's legitimate for Smith to take the election date into account, but it's telling that his Supreme Court filing doesn't make it. That's because it would amount to a confession of what even Smith's defenders must be able to see. The special counsel is an aggressive political actor seeking a political outcome as much as a legal one. The fiction that he is anything else is

Starting point is 00:09:03 outliving its usefulness. In Town Hall, John and Andy Schlafly call Smith's move a desperate gamble. Smith's latest abuse of the legal system landed on the desk of Chief Justice John Roberts, who's long known for senselessly pandering to the liberal media as he did during COVID and in the big Obamacare and abortion cases, Schlafly and Schlafly wrote. Smith wants the Supreme Court to reject Trump's defense of legal immunity, but a president cannot be subordinated to the judiciary, and Trump was president on January 6th during the protests at the Capitol. Trump also has a double jeopardy defense based on his Senate impeachment acquittal. If Trump were treated like any other criminal defendant, as Smith and the Obama-appointed trial judge Tanya Chutkin have repeatedly pretended, there would not be this leapfrogging by Smith of the appellate

Starting point is 00:09:49 court. Biden and Democrats still delusionally hope that if Trump were convicted and sentenced to prison, that enough voters would be swayed by that to defeat him on election day. Jack Smith's case in D.C. is their last chance for this, but if the Supreme Court treats Mr. Smith like everyone else, then he'll become the biggest liberal flop ever. In red state, Matt Funicello suggested the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case brought by the January 6th defendant could be huge for Trump and others. The case, which will be heard in the coming months, will have major implications for several individuals charged under the statute, but especially in Trump's criminal cases, namely the election interference case brought forward by

Starting point is 00:10:29 special counsel Jack Smith. If the Supreme Court agrees with the plaintiff in the case, Mr. Fisher and several other individuals could have their charges dropped, bringing their criminal proceedings to a permanent end, Funicello said. As far as Trump goes, while this wouldn't be the end of all his legal woes, it would certainly alter things significantly in his favor as to the criminal case pending in the D.C. District Court. 300 individuals have been charged under the same statute, with several of those individuals having already been convicted of that charge or accepted plea agreements for lesser charges. With a hypothetical decision by the Supreme Court in the plaintiff's favor,

Starting point is 00:11:08 that alone would have massive implications for those individuals, Funicello wrote, needless to say, the decision by Fisher v. U.S. that will eventually be handed down by the Supreme Court will be a game-changer for hundreds of people, including Trump. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left praises Smith for a necessary but risky move to expedite Trump's trial. Some say the Supreme Court should put an end to Trump's delayed tactics and rule for Smith. Others say the court's decision in the January 6th appeal case has the potential to upend Smith's prosecution regardless of how it rules on Trump's immunity. The Washington Post editorial board wrote that the Supreme Court should not allow Trump to play the justice system. The Supreme Court has embraced the procedure in many cases involving national

Starting point is 00:11:59 crises, including in United States v. Nixon, when President Richard M. Nixon refused to turn over his infamous audio tapes. That's because, as a long line of law recognizes, the public is as entitled to the fair administration of justice as anyone standing trial, the board said. By ignoring that timing in a case with a peaceful transition of power at its heart, the court would allow themselves to be manipulated by a politician using his status as a candidate to avoid accountability. The former president's allies and his lawyers appear to believe his surest route to escaping accountability is to win re-election before a jury manages to convict him, then instructing the Justice Department to drop its cases. The Supreme Court would show that the

Starting point is 00:12:39 justice system won't be tricked if, instead, the justices insured the case is tried on the merits, the board wrote. This procedural matter will instead, the justices insured the case is tried on the merits, the board wrote. This procedural matter will swallow up the substance of the case unless the courts decide not to let it. In the Los Angeles Times, Harry Whitman said Smith's risky behavior, but clever maneuver, puts Trump in a bind. The standard playbook would suggest sitting tight while forcing Trump to press the issue in the higher courts. But Smith realized that Trump could string out the review process by plotting through every possible step, preventing the Supreme Court from taking up the issue soon enough to allow a trial before the November election. And if Trump is elected, he could simply end the federal prosecution, Lippman wrote. So the special counsel wisely decided to jump ahead. Another virtue of the

Starting point is 00:13:24 maneuver is that it puts Trump in a bind. His lawyers more or less have to agree that the court should consider the immunity issue, even though he would prefer them to do so later. He will be hard-pressed to mount a cogent argument against proceeding expeditiously. Even if he does, the court is likely to reject it, Littman said. It's true that Smith has taken a risk. The court could shut down the case on immunity grounds sooner rather than later. But if that is to be the ruling, Smith might as well

Starting point is 00:13:50 know as soon as possible when he can still change direction. 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 00:14:18 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. Thank you. 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. In the Boston Globe, Kimberly Atkins' store called the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal in the January 6th case a potential blow to Trump's criminal prosecution. How it will affect

Starting point is 00:15:05 Smith's case against Trump is not entirely clear, but it's unlikely to be good news for the prosecution. At best, it could delay the trial that is scheduled to get underway in March. At worst, it could blow a massive hole in Smith's case, or even worse, it could give Trump's team a reason to further amplify his false claim that the case against him is nothing but a baseless witch hunt. The clock is ticking, and Trump would like nothing more than to run the clock until after the election. And that is what will come next. Trump's legal team will ask the Supreme Court to grant a stay on trial proceedings until it issues a ruling on the obstruction issue. And that ruling could come as late as the last week of June, when the Supreme Court's term wraps.

Starting point is 00:15:44 They'll renew their efforts to have the charge thrown out altogether. And worst of all, Trump's lawyers could be successful. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. First, I'm not going to talk too much about the Supreme Court hearing challenges to the January 6th obstruction of an official proceeding charge. I'd certainly keep your eyes on that case, as it could have a massive impact on pre-existing convictions and Trump's case too. Briefly, the argument being brought forward by the defendants is pretty straightforward. Those charges require some action with respect to a document or a record or other object, too. Briefly, the argument being brought forward by the defendants is pretty straightforward.

Starting point is 00:16:29 Those charges require some action with respect to a document or a record or other object, but I have no earthly idea how that case, which is still developing, is going to proceed, so I am just in wait-and-see mode for now. The big historic story here is obviously the question of Trump's immunity. On that, I think it's quite clear neither Trump nor any president should be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken during their time in office, whether they escaped an impeachment conviction or not. I actually find that idea quite abhorrent. I think Trump's argument here is fundamentally wrong. He isn't immune because he did something in his official duties as president, nor because he avoided a conviction in his impeachment trial. I struggle to believe anyone in a vacuum would agree that a president is immune from being charged with criminal acts committed while in

Starting point is 00:17:15 office. If your opinion on that changes when discussing a particular president or a particular allegation, then your bias is infecting your fundamentally correct instinct about how our country should function. Clinton v. Jones taught us that a president isn't immune from civil litigation for acts taken before holding office. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a court put limits on a president's civil liability for actions taken while in office. Still, it's important to get a ruling because, as Red State's Wardark noted, neither case directly applies here. And whether it is the Supreme Court or the appeals court, the outcome should be the same. The case can proceed, and Trump is not immune. None of that is to say there aren't red flags about Jack Smith and this maneuver, though.

Starting point is 00:17:59 Jason Willick made the most comprehensive case, under what the right is saying, about these red flags. For starters, we just saw a gag order Smith attempted to impose get narrowed by Judge Shutkin and then narrowed even further by a three-judge appellate panel composed entirely of Obama and Biden appointees. These judges unanimously said the gag order, which, again, was not nearly as expansive as the one Smith tried to impose, violated Trump's First Amendment rights. This is a red flag about his motivations. Then there is the request to expedite this case. Again, presidents aren't kings, and impeachments are definitionally political proceedings, not criminal, so Trump should not be immune. But Smith, in his self-described extraordinary request, offers no real concrete reason to leapfrog the

Starting point is 00:18:45 appellate courts. The one he does offer, as Willick rightly notes, is circular. Essentially, the case must be accelerated because if it's not accelerated, it will be delayed. Smith doesn't give his reason, but everyone knows what it is. He wants this case resolved before people start voting in 2024. Of course, Willick also concedes that there might be an argument that it's legitimate for Smith to take the election date into account, but it's telling that his Supreme Court filing doesn't make it. I agree. Remember, this isn't Trump being charged with reckless driving. He's being charged with attempting to overturn an election while running for president. Smith can easily say it's in the public interest to resolve that case before

Starting point is 00:19:24 the election, but he's taking a huge risk by expediting it, and he could potentially tank his own prosecution if this goes south. So why not just make the argument in full? It isn't a perfect analogy, few analogies are, but imagine for a moment there is a person applying to be a limousine driver. Simultaneously, that same person is fighting a drunk driving charge in court. Nobody would think it's unreasonable for the limousine company to want to expedite and resolve the case before making its hiring decision. In this case, the limousine company is us, the people voting in 2024. And Jack Smith is our attorney. After all, as a U.S. attorney, he works for us, asking the judiciary to expedite the case so we can get answers.

Starting point is 00:20:06 I wish Smith would simply make that argument clearly to the court rather than dodge the elephant in the room. It's also worth arguing in court that not expediting the trial gives Trump the opportunity to stop the trial entirely if he were to win the election and clean house at the Department of Justice. These are the extenuating, unprecedented, and difficult circumstances that arise when a defendant is also a former and potentially future president, and the court should deal with them directly. Not just for the sake of this case, but for the sake of future cases involving high-ranking politicians. So, are there red flags about Smith's political motivations? Definitely. But there are also red flags about Trump's motivations, which is obviously to delay this trial until he can potentially retake the

Starting point is 00:20:49 White House and then kill the case. I truly believe the just outcome here is for us to get a trial, see evidence, hear arguments, and receive a ruling sooner rather than later. I just wish Smith would make that argument clearly rather than tiptoeing around it. 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 NB in Las Vegas, Nevada. They said, I know you read the comment section because I've seen you respond. Has anyone's comment ever changed your mind or put you on a path to question your own opinion?

Starting point is 00:21:35 If so, what was it? Yes, this happens all the time. First, while I do read the comments on articles occasionally, though I must confess not all the time, usually I go there to take the temperature on how something I wrote is being received. For instance, I was quite nervous when I published my 10 thoughts about Israel Post, and after about an hour when I checked to see the comments section, was relieved to see a lot of the positive feedback, even when it was couched in criticism. It made me feel like I had constructed the article in a way that allowed my point of view to be heard. Anyway, usually the place where my reader feedback changes my mind is

Starting point is 00:22:10 in email responses to the newsletter. The inbox is an intimate setting for discourse that I find genuinely productive. Most people are more thoughtful and considerate in their arguments and tone when putting their name to their criticism rather than just commenting at the bottom of an article, especially when it is addressed directly to someone. A few examples, my piece on changing my mind about voter ID laws was largely the result of reader feedback from a lot of conservatives. Many readers have written in about what is happening in Israel and Gaza and moved my position, either changing the language I've used or pushing me to focus on one issue over the other.

Starting point is 00:22:49 Readers from San Francisco convinced me my coverage of Chesa Boudin was almost entirely wrong, and I wrote a mea culpa a few weeks later. A number of women wrote in and changed my mind about abortion. Last year, quite a few readers convinced me the railroad workers' contracts were much better than I initially let on, and other readers have also convinced me I was way too optimistic about Elon's takeover of Twitter. Generally speaking, if you are not changing your mind regularly about things, I think you are not doing a good job of staying open-minded or learning. So yes, readers change my mind all the time. The day they don't, I know I've closed myself off to legitimate arguments that undermine my worldview. myself off to legitimate arguments that undermine my worldview.

Starting point is 00:23:32 All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under the radar section. The White House and Republicans are continuing to negotiate on funding for Ukraine, and it appears immigration policy is moving in Republicans' direction to get the deal done. On the table is a potential revival of a temporary expulsion authority used by Trump and Biden during the pandemic, Punchbowl News reports, as well as expanded detentions and deportations of migrants. A group of House and Senate Democrats are warning Biden that he'd be selling out progressives if he gives in on these proposals. Meanwhile, all eyes are on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from New York and whether he will keep the Senate in Washington, D.C. through the holidays to get a deal done. Punchbowl News has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description.

Starting point is 00:24:18 All right, that is it for our Under the Radar section, which brings us to our Numbers section. The number of days since the Justice Department formally charged Donald Trump with four criminal counts related to his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election is 135. The number of ongoing criminal cases against Trump in which a trial date has been set is three of four. That's the 2020 election case, the classified documents case, and the hush money payments case. The number of people arrested for charges related to January 6th as of December 2023 is now 1,237. The number of defendants who have pleaded guilty to federal charges related to January 6th is 714. The number of defendants who were convicted on charges related to January 6th at trial is 138, and the number of defendants who have received sentences for criminal activity on January 6th is 723. Finally, the number of defendants who have been

Starting point is 00:25:11 sentenced to periods of incarceration is 454. All right, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day section. Max Razor was watching TV at his grandmother's house when a story came on the news about a San Francisco man, Brian Sillick House, who had attempted to do 30 acts of kindness before turning 30. Max asked his parents if he could do 10 acts of kindness after he turned 10, and they were all for it, reaching out to Brian after Max's 10th birthday. Brian agreed and helped Max make all the sandwiches he could afford to make using his own birthday money to feed the homeless. He'd just finished picking out the bread and he told me,

Starting point is 00:25:51 This feels really good, Mommy. It makes me happy that I'm helping people, recalled Christina Racer, Max's mom. For his next act, Max is planning to lead a donation drive of winter coats. The Washington Post has the story and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, that is it for today's podcast. A quick heads up, I'm going to be interviewing Yousef Mouneyer for the podcast and for the newsletter today. And it will hopefully be published tomorrow. So keep an eye out for that. Yusuf is a Palestinian-American academic and writer who I think has some really important views

Starting point is 00:26:34 and an important voice to elevate during this moment. So we're going to talk to him, get some of his opinion out to our listeners and our readers. Otherwise, we'll be back after the weekend. Hope you have a good one. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Law. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kabak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady.

Starting point is 00:27:05 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. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to retangle.com and check out our website. We'll see you next time. 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 nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season?

Starting point is 00:28:09 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 fluselvax.ca.

Tangle - Trump's case goes to SCOTUS.

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