Speaker 1: So folks, I had to take a pause.
Speaker 2: I could not really get my thoughts or my head
wrapped around the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, because
I think it has profoundly shaken the foundations of our country,
probably more so than anything we've seen so far, because
what the Supreme Court did.
Speaker 1: Was to upend.
Speaker 2: The very idea of America and to put in place
an imperial presidency. So let's take a step back. In April,
the Supreme Court was asked by Donald Trump's lawyers to
embrace a sweeping immunity argument, asserting that a president has
absolute immunity for official acts while in office, and that
this immunity applies after leaving office. Special Counsel Jack Smith
argued that only sitting presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution,
and that any broad scope that Donald Trump and his
lawyers was proposing would give a free pass to a
president to commit criminal conduct without accountability.
Speaker 1: So what happened.
Speaker 2: Lower courts prior to the Supreme Court getting this case
were largely dismissive of what Donald Trump's lawyers were arguing.
Judge Chuckin US District Court Judge Kanya Chuckin when this
matter was raised in the case before her, noted, whatever quote,
whatever communities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States
has only one chief executive at a time, and that
position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail
free pass, And that the defendants in this case, the
defendant's four year service as commander in chief did not
bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade
criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. That's what the
lower court said, and that was largely upheld all the
way up through the appellate court, which basically said, get
the hell out of here. No no man is above
the law, especially the president. This Supreme Court, this Supreme
Court had a different view this president. This Supreme Court
ruled that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts,
and that in fact, those unofficial acts are equally arguably
protected because you cannot use any evidence, you know, text messages, emails,
tweets in which an order was given, because that is
protected as an official act. So you can't even bring
anything in with respect to unofficial acts that may even
touch on what the president did while in office.
Speaker 3: So former White House Council to Richard Nixon. John Dean
really put this a little bit more precisely so that
we could really appreciate the impact of what this Supreme
Court has done. He noted, presumptively, the president has the
power to assassinate political rival. He would go on to
note that what.
Speaker 2: Makes matters worse in this case is that this court
has ruled that official acts by a president can't be
used as evidence of a criminal conduct for unofficial acts.
That's what I was getting at before. So in the
hypothetical of a president assassinating a political rival, his actual
giving the order would potentially be unavailable as evidence against
him as part of a case brought on behalf of
his unofficial acts. This is a radical decision by this
court and it says a lot about where we are.
Dean would also say to us, quote when Nixon warned
that when the president does it, that means it is
not illegal. How can any staff operate if they didn't
have a president who was totally immune going to give orders?
And now those orders very easily are cloaked by this
patina of an official act, even when he's acting in
an unofficial capacity. Folks, I don't know about you, but
This is a very disturbing ruling by this court. They
are full of shit, and what they have done is
undermine the very fabric of the rule of law. That
no one in this country, absolutely, no one is above
the law. But this Supreme Court, this Roberts Court, has
now said to the American people that Donald Trump or
any president has absolute immunity to behave roguishly and to
behave in such a way in which there is no
accountability for their actions.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't understand how how that happens. How
do we get.
Speaker 2: How did we get here?
Speaker 1: How does this happen? It just it is stunning to me.
It is absolutely stunning to me that we find.
Speaker 2: Ourselves at this moment witnessing the creation of an imperial
presidency by an imperial court. And that was a point
that was made by my buddy, Professor, Professor and Melissa
Mary Murray in his hearings to become a Justice of
the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts had a lot to say,
but one of the things that he said, in addition
to no one is above the law, was he made
it very clear that the president is fully bound by
the law. Well, we now realize that's a lie, because
his court has given Donald Trump immunity from prosecution because
it presumes he was acting in his official capacity. Our
constitution does not allow, does not allow for, nor does
it convey such immunity on the president. This is made
up bullshit by this court because it wants to protect
Donald Trump. And why do I say that, Well, because
when this matter first came to the court back in
January February of this year, they could have immediately, given
the urgency of the moment, knowing that we were in
the middle at that time, the beginning of a presidential cycle,
with voters going to the polls to nominate an individual,
Donald Trump, for the presidency. They didn't take this matter up.
They waited until the last fucking moment.
Speaker 1: To drop this.
Speaker 2: And to make these bold ass claims and to say
that this man, in his actions of undermining our constitution,
of attempting to overthrow the rightful election of a political opponent,
that somehow that was justified. This Roberts Court has made
it clear Donald Trump should never be prosecuted because it
now says he is above the law.
Speaker 1: I call these.
Speaker 2: Little moments make mine a double But on the heels
of what this court has done and more specifically has
done to our country. Give me the fucking bottle I
need to drink the whole thing.