April 26, 2024 • 27 mins
Gregg Jarrett, Fox News Legal Analyst & Best Selling Author & David Schoen, Civil Rights Attorney, who previously represented President Trump, discuss the trial against Trump waged by the political left of our justice system, and the rampant overtaking by Hamas in our streets across America.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, well, come.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
In you.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
A confidence.
Speaker 4 (00:09):
Will be.
Speaker 5 (00:14):
And if you want a little may I come along.
Trump was like, you know, just gaga over Putin because
Putin does what he would.
Speaker 6 (00:26):
Like to do.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition. It's just about the
American brand, where I bring capital from all around the
world to invest here.
Speaker 7 (00:34):
We look like clowns.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
What did you mean when you said the border was secure?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Is that not a lie?
Speaker 1 (00:40):
With the resources and authorities that we have, it is
as secure as it can be.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Team minus one hundred and ninety three days left.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Till you get to vote.
Speaker 6 (00:56):
Coming to your.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Don't you a conscious song?
Speaker 2 (01:04):
From coast to coast, from border to border, from c
to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is.
Speaker 8 (01:17):
On all right hour to Sean Hennedy Show, toll free.
It's eight hundred and nine to four one Sean if
you want to be a part of the program. A
lot of legal stuff, as we've been telling you, going
on all day. The issue of absolute versus a limited
immunity and the Supreme Court arguments today got very interesting
(01:37):
on a lot of fronts. And then of course the
Trump witch on trial in New York with a bias
judge who donated to Donald Trump's opponent, That would be
Joe Biden, possible conflict statute of limitations eight years later.
I mean, you just can't make this up. But anyway,
(01:59):
here to help us through all of this, we have
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analysts, best selling author, David Jones,
civil rights attorney, previously represented President Trump. Let's start with
the Trump Community Supreme Court oral arguments that took place today. Greg,
let's get your take.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, it went exactly as I've discussed and predicted with you.
Presidents already have immunity from civil lawsuits as long as
their actions fall within the outer perimeter of official duties,
and it looks as though the justices will extend that
civil immunity protection to criminal prosecutions, because, as the discussion
(02:42):
and the arguments revealed, the same reasoning applies. Without some
kind of immunity, the chilling effect on presidential decision making
would trigger paralysis. Instead of a chief executive, America would
be ruled by committee of lawyers afraid to do anything
out of fear of future prosecutions. So, you know, it
(03:07):
appears that there are at least four justices who want
to send this back to the lower courts. It's called
remanding the case to sort of figure it out, and
one or two things will happen. The Supreme Court will
either give them guidance to do that along the lines
of the immunity in civil cases, or the Supreme Court
(03:28):
will just outright say we hereby extend the same official
duties protection that was identified in the Nixon versus Fitzgerald
case in nineteen eighty two. So but this is I mean,
it's going to have to, one way or another go
back to the lower court, which means, you know, hearings
(03:50):
and briefs, and there's no way that this case would
be tried before the election.
Speaker 8 (03:57):
I think that's a part of this one of the
big arguments that I think came out here and going
into this, David Showan, I thought that maybe the better
argument would be limited immunity, because they keep bringing up
these absurd hypotheticals. You know, well, if a president decides
that their opponent and an official act is a danger
(04:19):
to the country in orders their assassination, are you saying
that they would be immune from that. That's why I
think you would have an argument for limited immunity, but
criminal immunity and civil immunity as Greg is talking about.
Speaker 7 (04:35):
I think you're right, and I think you and Greg
are saying the same thing. Actually, I think that in
this case they're going to do something they should do.
You know, look, I'm not in the prediction business. But
what's clearly, oh what clearly ought to be the result
here and what the arguments indicate, as Greg said, and
as you've indicated, Sean, is something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald
in nineteen eighty two case. It says a president must
(04:55):
enjoy immunity for actions taken within the outer perimeter of
his official ASTs authority, official acts. I've said it before,
you know, I hate to say it, but President Trump's
going to win this one. In spite of his lawyers.
The positions they take and took again today hit the
Supreme Court are just wrong. They were asked today, for example,
what if a president ordered a coup, would that be
(05:16):
considered an official act? The lawyer said, it depends, it
doesn't depend. That's not an official act. Nor is having
sealed Team six hit your opponent. That would not be
an official act. And that's why it's a relatively easy case.
We must give presidents the community to act within their
official acts, or we would have prosecuted Abraham Lincoln and
Abrock Obama and Bill Clinton and many others along the line.
(05:39):
But they have to be able to act in the
appropriate manner when it comes to an official act for
national security, for the integrity of an election, or otherwise.
Speaker 8 (05:48):
I thought that sam Alito kind of blew the one
big argument in terms of the case against President Trump's arguments.
And he's asking the the attorney goes, if the president
gets advice from an Attorney general that something is lawful,
is that an absolute defense? The answer, yes, Well, wouldn't
(06:09):
the president just pick an AG who will let him
do whatever he wants? I mean, the guy seems stunned
just listening to this. According to court observers, he looks stunned,
And apparently the AG can provide absolute immunity, but the president,
who is the boss, can't. I mean, that kind of
is an obscene, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
It is obscene. It's absurd. I thought some of the
most important questions came from Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
Kavanaugh ask a very potent question, wants to stop a
creative prosecutor from using a vague statute to prosecute a president,
(06:50):
especially a prosecutor from the opposing party. And the answer,
of course is nothing. That's exactly what DA Alvin Bragg
is doing in Orful County, DA Fanny Willison and Georgia,
and of course Special Counsel Jack Smith in both Washington
and Florida. And then Neil Gorshich is sort of chimed
(07:11):
in and he said, you know, I worry about the
misuse of the criminal law to target political opponents based
on accusations about their motives. Now that really goes to
the heart of all four of the criminal indictments against
(07:32):
Donald Trump, and the Alvin bradcase ongoing right now in
Manhattan is the most egregious example of this nightmare scenario.
A politically motivated case conjured up by unscrupulous prosecutor to
fulfill a campaign promise to get Trump, and Bragg is
not just using vague statutes but expired ones that do
(07:56):
not support the conduct charge. And yet so far he's
getting away with it.
Speaker 8 (08:02):
But again, now you're back to the point where a
president will will then in the future, only appoint in
an attorney general that's going to say yes to anything
that they want them to say yes to when in
reality they're supposed to be independent. But we know people
like Merrick Garland and Eric Holder or not.
Speaker 7 (08:20):
Yeah. The other undercurrent, by the way, in this case is,
remember the Supreme Court just took up the question of
whether the obstruction of justice subsection that was applied to
the January sixth demonstrators applies in this case can be
applied one of the charges that you know President Trump
is facing. And so the undercurrent during the argument was, well,
it seemed to imply at least that they're going to
(08:43):
go in the defendant's direction on that question. But listen,
at the end of the day, there's an important win
for the law. The question is ultimately as President Trump
when it if they send it back to Judge Chudkin,
you know, if it comes out something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald,
you can be just about sure. I think dollars the
donuts that she's going to find, well, this was not
within the outer perimeters of official acts. And then it'll
(09:03):
go back up to the DC Circuit on that factual question.
Or they could say, well, we're going to present this
to a jury the factual question that's more problematic.
Speaker 8 (09:13):
I think that's a lot more problematic. But I tend
to think I agree with Greg on this that they're
going to come down and they're going to offer guidance
on this in a specific way, knowing that ultimately it
would end up back in front of them, Wouldn't Wouldn't
that be the case, Greg?
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And you know, the
other interesting part is these justices did talk about all
of the other comparable situations in which former presidents have
made controversial decisions that arguably could have produced prosecutions after
(09:48):
they left office. George Bush, you know, could he have
been charged for obstructing an official preceding when he allegedly
lied to Congress of the reasons for the Iraq invasion.
Could Bomba be charged with murdering US citizens in a
drone strike? Could Biden some day be charged with unlawfully
(10:12):
inducing immigrants to enter the company country illegally? You know what?
What you know all of these foreign indictments have done
is open to can of worms that threatens the future presidency,
and the Supreme Court is finally, after sort of avoiding
the issue of immunity for decades, is now confronted with
(10:34):
addressing it because of the Trump prosecutions. And if you
listen to the conservative justices questions, they don't worry about
Donald Trump, they worry about future presidents being handcuffed by
the concern over future criminal prosecutions.
Speaker 8 (10:56):
Well, you're you're you're absolutely right, because you're you're basically
quoting I'll say, and I'm not focused on the here
and now of this case. I'm concerned about the future.
He actually used your words.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Yeah, he said, our decision is a decision for the ages,
which means to me also, they're going to take their.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Time on this now.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
They'll probably have a vote on Friday, as they normally do,
but you know, they realize the historic nature of this
and they are going to carefully craft their ruling in
this case.
Speaker 8 (11:29):
All right, quick break, We'll come right back more with
David Showan Greg Jarrett on the other side. Eight hundred
and ninety four one Seawan is our number if you
want to be a part of the program, And we
continue with the attorneys David Shoan and Greg Jared are
with us. Eight hundred and nine to four one Shawn
is a number if you want to be a part
of the program, and there's certainly skepticism on the part
of some of the justices. So do I say, well,
we would be creating a situation in which we'd be saying,
(11:52):
is this is what you're asking us to say, which
is that a president is entitled not to make them a stake,
but more than that, a president is entitled, for a
total person personal gain, to use the trappings of his
office that you're trying to get us to hold without
facing criminal liability. I'm having a hard time, she said,
(12:14):
thinking of creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that
ordering the assassination of a rival, which again, I just
hate the whole analogy because I think it's absurd. You
know that accepting a bribe and countless laws could be
broken for personal gain. David, your take on that part, well, no,
(12:35):
I mean.
Speaker 7 (12:35):
But I think again, I think the formula for mix
and versus Fitzgerald that I think they're likely to send
it back with the guidance for really deals with that.
Each one has an answer. It's not an official act.
It may be the person's holding office the time, but
it's not within what we think of as official acts.
Something like ensuring the integrity of an election when you
have advice about that election that you believe needs to
(12:57):
be acted on to insure its integrity would be within
the official Act doctrine. But something like you know, doing
something for personal gain or what we saw in the
case of you know, Bill Clinton with the Paula Jones
situation and so on, these are outside the realm. And
certainly the hit Seal Team sixth kind of thing. And
(13:17):
by the way, you know, I know everyone was offended
by the hypothetical, but that's a kind of hypothetical a
lawyer has to be prepared to answer to fit within
your formula. But he had a different take on it.
His take is, now you have to be impeached first
and convicted, and then you can only be tried. And
they cited to Judge Cavin on that, but just Justice
Kavanaugh actually wrote the exact opposite. He said that when
(13:37):
a person's out of office, then if they if you
first presented it to Congress and they didn't do anything
with it, when the person's out of office, they could be
prosecuted if it were the right kind of act to prosecute.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
What's your take on what's going on in this New
York City kangaroo court where you have a judge that
donated to Joe Biden presiding and then potential family conflicts.
And it's eight year years later and the statute of
limitations have passed. But what does your take on the
testimony of this guy David Pecker who is with the
(14:08):
National Inquirer.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Greg, Well, you know, Pecker's testimony is immaterial and incompetent.
He knows nothing about the thirty four criminal charges of
falsifying business records. But you know, no matter to Alvin
Bragg because his objective is to tie Trump to the
sort of sleazy dealings of a notorious tabloid. It's really
(14:32):
filth by association here. Look, the entire case is a farce.
It's a sham. Any fair and impartial judge knowledgeable in
the law would have long ago dismissed Bragg's sham charges. Instead,
you know, this case went to Judge Juan Versant, whose
anti Trump bias is on conspicuous display whenever he takes
(14:56):
the bench. His unconstitutional gag order on the leading candidate
for president is one in a string of sort of
headbanging pronouncements. So you know, I worry about a hyper
biased judge, and also a venue in which the jurors
were selected from the pool. That's a pool that hates
(15:20):
Donald Trump. And so it's it undermines to me the
Bill of Rights, an impartial jury. I could have been
moved elsewhere, should have been moved else where. Marshawn wouldn't
do it.
Speaker 8 (15:33):
Yeah, it's going to be interesting. Your take? Has this
going to play out? Thirty seconds?
Speaker 2 (15:38):
David Show Well, Greg one hundred.
Speaker 7 (15:40):
Percent right again? So are you and this judge should
not be sitting on the case. They've got teed up
issues for appeal. I don't love the way they raised
some of them, but I still think the record is
clear enough the judge. There are many cases saying this
judge had to be disqualified and then it's reversible error.
They haven't ever charged identified the target charge. We saw
that even in the opening. We saw in the judges denial,
the motion to dismiss. It's a farce and it's going
(16:02):
to just send President Trump up higher and higher in
the polls because unfortunately everyone sees.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
It for what it is.
Speaker 8 (16:09):
If we can hang on to you guys, I just
have too much that I want to ask both of you,
and I think a lot of people want to have
a deeper understanding of this. We'll continue with David Shoan
and with Greg Jarrett on the other side. We'll get
to your calls coming up straight ahead as well. Eight
hundred ninety four one. Shawn is on number. If you
want to be a part of the program, I have
twenty five down to the top of the hour, our
toll free numbers eight hundred nine four one. Sean, If
(16:31):
you want to be a part of the program, let
me tell you about a case. A guy named Michael
his wife out for a walk in their neighborhood. Right,
all of a sudden, their life gets flipped upside down.
Why Michael was attacked by a homeless woman, stabbed him
multiple times before he was able to restrain her, thankfully,
and then waited for law enforcement to arrive. Now, what
(16:53):
happened next is why I am a proud member of
the USCCA, Because when Michael was in the hospital, well
guess what, a detective came in and charged him with
assault for protecting himself. Well, welcome to the all new
America of defund dismantle no bail laws, reimagining police right anyway,
that's now the America we live in. You go to jail,
(17:16):
what for defending yourself? You could be forced to spend
what tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars to
maintain your innocence. Well, if you want to learn proven
ways to deter criminals, defend your family, and avoid legal trouble,
well you want to be a part of the us
CCA also. Now they're going to give you their free
Concealed Carried Defense Guide. They put it together USCCA. They
(17:40):
joined forces with the former head of trading for the FBI,
I Quantico, And just go to their website. You'll get
this free. You know, proven defend your family, deter criminals,
and their Concealed Carried Defense Guide absolutely free. They also
have classes, by the way, around the country, situational self
defense classes. Just go to their website. It's USCCA dot
(18:04):
com slash hannityus CCA dot com slash Hannity. All right,
let's go to a couple of moments that took place
in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today. I want
to start with Neil Gorsich. You know, he's getting exasperated
at the lawyer for the Special Prosecutor. His name is
Michael Drabin, and anyway, over the semantics over the word immunity,
(18:30):
and I want to get reaction from David Shoon and
Greg Jarrett who continue with us, but listen to this exchange.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Did you agree that there are some core functions of
the executive that present conduct that Congress cannot criminalize? Yes,
we is that a form. I mean, we can call
it immunity, or you can call it. They can't do it.
But what's the difference.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
We call it as applied Article two challenge, and.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
That's okay, okay, we am all it immunity just for shorthandsake.
So I think we are kind of narrowing the ground
of dispute here. It seems to me there is some
area you concede that an official acts that Congress cannot criminalize,
and now we're just talking about the scope.
Speaker 5 (19:12):
Well, I don't think it's a just but I think
it's a very significant gap between any official act and
the small core of exclusive official act.
Speaker 8 (19:21):
I thought that was a checkmate moment, David Cholm, what
do you think?
Speaker 5 (19:26):
I think so.
Speaker 7 (19:26):
And I also think mister Grieban is not accurately relaying
what Nixon versus Fitzgerald held by the way, it's not
such a narrow.
Speaker 8 (19:34):
By the way, why don't you explain for people Nixon
and Fitzgerald because we've been talking about it all day.
Speaker 7 (19:39):
Yeah, Nixon versus. Fitzgerald's in nineteen eighty two case was
brought against for the Nixon after he was out of office,
a claim that he made an unfair, inappropriate, illegal employment decision.
And the court said that we're not going to subject
a president, even out of office, to civiliability or she
(20:00):
is going to have immunity for actions taken within the
outer perimeters of his official authority as president. And so
we call it refer to, you know, as an official
acts immunity. And it's quite broad. That's why they said
the outer perimeter. Many examples are given, but essentially, you know,
official act has been defined in McDonald versus us A
(20:23):
twenty sixteen case to say, any official act on any
matter that's pending before a public official and includes the
president using his official position to exert pressure on another
official nowhere intending such advice will form the basis for
an official act of another official. And so my view,
at least it puts what happened here squarely within the
(20:43):
official act it's not a narrow exception. President stands apart
from every other official. And by the way, other officials
have immunity too, judges, prosecutors in their realm.
Speaker 8 (20:54):
Yeah, what's your take on that, Greg got because I
think David niled it.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Yeah, he's a mistake to try to bicker over semantics
with the Supreme Court justice and Dreaming.
Speaker 6 (21:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
By the way, that should be one on one in
terms of being dumb. You know, when you get an
when you get a justice exasperated like that, can we
just say immunity because that's what you're saying, you know. Yeah,
And they're trying to come up with a creative way
to get out of the immunity that he's basically being
forced into a corner to acknowledge.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, but Dreamin is striking and he, you know, he
won't give an inch. And part of the problem here
is both sides are guilty of that. You know. Dreamn
and the Special Counsel argued there should be no immunity whatsoever,
and of course the other side on behalf of Donald
(21:47):
Trump argued wrongfly, I think that there should be absolute
immunity for everything. Part of the problem arises.
Speaker 6 (21:55):
From the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case in which Supreme Court,
in their rule, referred to absolute immunity, and then they
set conditions, as David described, within the outer perimeter of
official acts.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
So it wasn't absolute immunity at all. The immediately contradicted themselves.
It's really limited immunity, or let's call it immunity with conditions.
And you know, I'll reiterate that listening to these arguments today.
That's where the Supreme Court majority is heading here to
(22:27):
simply adopt the Fitzgerald principles and apply them to a
criminal case because it makes sense. I mean, you've got
to offer some sort of immunity. And you know, this
was a very different court in nineteen eighty two, but
it was a smart court and the justices there had
(22:50):
spent a lot of time trying to figure it out,
and they came up with a immunity solution that has
stood the test of time civilly. It should now be
extended criminally.
Speaker 8 (23:03):
I mean, that's the fascinating part of this. Let's stay
with Gorsic and he's asking the same attorney for the
special prosecutor if a president can be prosecuted after leaving
office for leading a protest that would delay Congress, which
kind of goes to the heart of a lot of
the arguments that the Special Council is making.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Listen, for example, let's say a president leads a mostly
peaceful protest sit in in front of Congress because he
objects to a piece of legislation that's going through, and
it in fact delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under
fifteen twelve C. Two, that might be correctly impeding an
(23:51):
official proceeding? Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever
word euphemism you want to use for that is not
core and therefore prosecutable. Well, without a clear statement that
applies to the president, it's not core.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
The core kinds of activities that the Court has acknowledged
are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis,
and it's a pretty small set, but things like the
pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power
to veto legislation, the power to make appointments, these are
things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Once you get a president, then could be prosecuted for
the conduct I described after leaves office.
Speaker 5 (24:38):
Probably not, but I want to explain the framework of
why I don't think that that would be prosecution, that
would be valid your reaction, Greg.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Jarrett, you know, this is really getting into the weeds,
into the Youngstown case and so forth. But this was
really one of them.
Speaker 8 (25:00):
By the way, you say the Youngstown case. People don't
know what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well, I don't remember the Youngstown case.
Speaker 8 (25:07):
Well, I mean, do you do study a lot of
cases in law school. I'm sure you know Marlboro versus Madison,
and Brown versus Board of Education, and and and all
the all the important ones. I'm not expecting you to
remember everyone.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
Yeah, I appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
But this was one of the few times in which
they actually drew an analogy that is very close to
their own case, the J six Trump case, which of
course led to the immunity claim which they're now trying
to decide. Some of the other analogies I thought were
quite instructive and useful in going forth with an immunity
(25:50):
protection of some sort, And you know, this was this
was one that was both direct to the Trump case
but a little bit in the weeds.
Speaker 9 (25:59):
Lea your take, David shown Yeah, I mean, first of all,
Greg will remember the Youngstown case in a second Youngstown
sheet from two versus Sawyer nineteen fifty two case Truman seized.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
Ah, yes, yes, now I remember the seizure.
Speaker 7 (26:16):
Plans during the Korean War. There is a question was
illegal because it probably violated statute when you can seize
private property under very narrow circumstances, But they didn't prosecute
with the point some people suggest it's one of the
best Supreme Court written decisions ever and so on, but
it lays out factors on when it's appropriate prosecution and
that sort of thing. But anyway, yeah, I just think
(26:39):
that you know, what Gorsa and the others are getting
to is very reminiscent of the argument the other day
on the obstruction statue, and in fact, it's very cute
and clever. I think some of the examples they're using
the other day they said, well, what if a congressman,
for example, pulled the fire alarm falsely on his way
to a vote to obstruct that vote? Is that something
(27:01):
we can prosecute under the obstruction statute? And they have
the same kind of thing going during the repartee today.
Speaker 8 (27:06):
Actually, all right, quick break a our final moments with
Greg Jared David shown on the other side
Well, well, come.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
In you.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
A confidence.
Speaker 4 (00:09):
Will be.
Speaker 5 (00:14):
And if you want a little may I come along.
Trump was like, you know, just gaga over Putin because
Putin does what he would.
Speaker 6 (00:26):
Like to do.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition. It's just about the
American brand, where I bring capital from all around the
world to invest here.
Speaker 7 (00:34):
We look like clowns.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
What did you mean when you said the border was secure?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
Is that not a lie?
Speaker 1 (00:40):
With the resources and authorities that we have, it is
as secure as it can be.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Team minus one hundred and ninety three days left.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Till you get to vote.
Speaker 6 (00:56):
Coming to your.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Don't you a conscious song?
Speaker 2 (01:04):
From coast to coast, from border to border, from c
to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is.
Speaker 8 (01:17):
On all right hour to Sean Hennedy Show, toll free.
It's eight hundred and nine to four one Sean if
you want to be a part of the program. A
lot of legal stuff, as we've been telling you, going
on all day. The issue of absolute versus a limited
immunity and the Supreme Court arguments today got very interesting
(01:37):
on a lot of fronts. And then of course the
Trump witch on trial in New York with a bias
judge who donated to Donald Trump's opponent, That would be
Joe Biden, possible conflict statute of limitations eight years later.
I mean, you just can't make this up. But anyway,
(01:59):
here to help us through all of this, we have
Greg Jarrett, Fox News legal analysts, best selling author, David Jones,
civil rights attorney, previously represented President Trump. Let's start with
the Trump Community Supreme Court oral arguments that took place today. Greg,
let's get your take.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Well, it went exactly as I've discussed and predicted with you.
Presidents already have immunity from civil lawsuits as long as
their actions fall within the outer perimeter of official duties,
and it looks as though the justices will extend that
civil immunity protection to criminal prosecutions, because, as the discussion
(02:42):
and the arguments revealed, the same reasoning applies. Without some
kind of immunity, the chilling effect on presidential decision making
would trigger paralysis. Instead of a chief executive, America would
be ruled by committee of lawyers afraid to do anything
out of fear of future prosecutions. So, you know, it
(03:07):
appears that there are at least four justices who want
to send this back to the lower courts. It's called
remanding the case to sort of figure it out, and
one or two things will happen. The Supreme Court will
either give them guidance to do that along the lines
of the immunity in civil cases, or the Supreme Court
(03:28):
will just outright say we hereby extend the same official
duties protection that was identified in the Nixon versus Fitzgerald
case in nineteen eighty two. So but this is I mean,
it's going to have to, one way or another go
back to the lower court, which means, you know, hearings
(03:50):
and briefs, and there's no way that this case would
be tried before the election.
Speaker 8 (03:57):
I think that's a part of this one of the
big arguments that I think came out here and going
into this, David Showan, I thought that maybe the better
argument would be limited immunity, because they keep bringing up
these absurd hypotheticals. You know, well, if a president decides
that their opponent and an official act is a danger
(04:19):
to the country in orders their assassination, are you saying
that they would be immune from that. That's why I
think you would have an argument for limited immunity, but
criminal immunity and civil immunity as Greg is talking about.
Speaker 7 (04:35):
I think you're right, and I think you and Greg
are saying the same thing. Actually, I think that in
this case they're going to do something they should do.
You know, look, I'm not in the prediction business. But
what's clearly, oh what clearly ought to be the result
here and what the arguments indicate, as Greg said, and
as you've indicated, Sean, is something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald
in nineteen eighty two case. It says a president must
(04:55):
enjoy immunity for actions taken within the outer perimeter of
his official ASTs authority, official acts. I've said it before,
you know, I hate to say it, but President Trump's
going to win this one. In spite of his lawyers.
The positions they take and took again today hit the
Supreme Court are just wrong. They were asked today, for example,
what if a president ordered a coup, would that be
(05:16):
considered an official act? The lawyer said, it depends, it
doesn't depend. That's not an official act. Nor is having
sealed Team six hit your opponent. That would not be
an official act. And that's why it's a relatively easy case.
We must give presidents the community to act within their
official acts, or we would have prosecuted Abraham Lincoln and
Abrock Obama and Bill Clinton and many others along the line.
(05:39):
But they have to be able to act in the
appropriate manner when it comes to an official act for
national security, for the integrity of an election, or otherwise.
Speaker 8 (05:48):
I thought that sam Alito kind of blew the one
big argument in terms of the case against President Trump's arguments.
And he's asking the the attorney goes, if the president
gets advice from an Attorney general that something is lawful,
is that an absolute defense? The answer, yes, Well, wouldn't
(06:09):
the president just pick an AG who will let him
do whatever he wants? I mean, the guy seems stunned
just listening to this. According to court observers, he looks stunned,
And apparently the AG can provide absolute immunity, but the president,
who is the boss, can't. I mean, that kind of
is an obscene, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
It is obscene. It's absurd. I thought some of the
most important questions came from Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
Kavanaugh ask a very potent question, wants to stop a
creative prosecutor from using a vague statute to prosecute a president,
(06:50):
especially a prosecutor from the opposing party. And the answer,
of course is nothing. That's exactly what DA Alvin Bragg
is doing in Orful County, DA Fanny Willison and Georgia,
and of course Special Counsel Jack Smith in both Washington
and Florida. And then Neil Gorshich is sort of chimed
(07:11):
in and he said, you know, I worry about the
misuse of the criminal law to target political opponents based
on accusations about their motives. Now that really goes to
the heart of all four of the criminal indictments against
(07:32):
Donald Trump, and the Alvin bradcase ongoing right now in
Manhattan is the most egregious example of this nightmare scenario.
A politically motivated case conjured up by unscrupulous prosecutor to
fulfill a campaign promise to get Trump, and Bragg is
not just using vague statutes but expired ones that do
(07:56):
not support the conduct charge. And yet so far he's
getting away with it.
Speaker 8 (08:02):
But again, now you're back to the point where a
president will will then in the future, only appoint in
an attorney general that's going to say yes to anything
that they want them to say yes to when in
reality they're supposed to be independent. But we know people
like Merrick Garland and Eric Holder or not.
Speaker 7 (08:20):
Yeah. The other undercurrent, by the way, in this case is,
remember the Supreme Court just took up the question of
whether the obstruction of justice subsection that was applied to
the January sixth demonstrators applies in this case can be
applied one of the charges that you know President Trump
is facing. And so the undercurrent during the argument was, well,
it seemed to imply at least that they're going to
(08:43):
go in the defendant's direction on that question. But listen,
at the end of the day, there's an important win
for the law. The question is ultimately as President Trump
when it if they send it back to Judge Chudkin,
you know, if it comes out something like Nixon versus Fitzgerald,
you can be just about sure. I think dollars the
donuts that she's going to find, well, this was not
within the outer perimeters of official acts. And then it'll
(09:03):
go back up to the DC Circuit on that factual question.
Or they could say, well, we're going to present this
to a jury the factual question that's more problematic.
Speaker 8 (09:13):
I think that's a lot more problematic. But I tend
to think I agree with Greg on this that they're
going to come down and they're going to offer guidance
on this in a specific way, knowing that ultimately it
would end up back in front of them, Wouldn't Wouldn't
that be the case, Greg?
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And you know, the
other interesting part is these justices did talk about all
of the other comparable situations in which former presidents have
made controversial decisions that arguably could have produced prosecutions after
(09:48):
they left office. George Bush, you know, could he have
been charged for obstructing an official preceding when he allegedly
lied to Congress of the reasons for the Iraq invasion.
Could Bomba be charged with murdering US citizens in a
drone strike? Could Biden some day be charged with unlawfully
(10:12):
inducing immigrants to enter the company country illegally? You know what?
What you know all of these foreign indictments have done
is open to can of worms that threatens the future presidency,
and the Supreme Court is finally, after sort of avoiding
the issue of immunity for decades, is now confronted with
(10:34):
addressing it because of the Trump prosecutions. And if you
listen to the conservative justices questions, they don't worry about
Donald Trump, they worry about future presidents being handcuffed by
the concern over future criminal prosecutions.
Speaker 8 (10:56):
Well, you're you're you're absolutely right, because you're you're basically
quoting I'll say, and I'm not focused on the here
and now of this case. I'm concerned about the future.
He actually used your words.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Yeah, he said, our decision is a decision for the ages,
which means to me also, they're going to take their.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Time on this now.
Speaker 4 (11:15):
They'll probably have a vote on Friday, as they normally do,
but you know, they realize the historic nature of this
and they are going to carefully craft their ruling in
this case.
Speaker 8 (11:29):
All right, quick break, We'll come right back more with
David Showan Greg Jarrett on the other side. Eight hundred
and ninety four one Seawan is our number if you
want to be a part of the program, And we
continue with the attorneys David Shoan and Greg Jared are
with us. Eight hundred and nine to four one Shawn
is a number if you want to be a part
of the program, and there's certainly skepticism on the part
of some of the justices. So do I say, well,
we would be creating a situation in which we'd be saying,
(11:52):
is this is what you're asking us to say, which
is that a president is entitled not to make them a stake,
but more than that, a president is entitled, for a
total person personal gain, to use the trappings of his
office that you're trying to get us to hold without
facing criminal liability. I'm having a hard time, she said,
(12:14):
thinking of creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that
ordering the assassination of a rival, which again, I just
hate the whole analogy because I think it's absurd. You
know that accepting a bribe and countless laws could be
broken for personal gain. David, your take on that part, well, no,
(12:35):
I mean.
Speaker 7 (12:35):
But I think again, I think the formula for mix
and versus Fitzgerald that I think they're likely to send
it back with the guidance for really deals with that.
Each one has an answer. It's not an official act.
It may be the person's holding office the time, but
it's not within what we think of as official acts.
Something like ensuring the integrity of an election when you
have advice about that election that you believe needs to
(12:57):
be acted on to insure its integrity would be within
the official Act doctrine. But something like you know, doing
something for personal gain or what we saw in the
case of you know, Bill Clinton with the Paula Jones
situation and so on, these are outside the realm. And
certainly the hit Seal Team sixth kind of thing. And
(13:17):
by the way, you know, I know everyone was offended
by the hypothetical, but that's a kind of hypothetical a
lawyer has to be prepared to answer to fit within
your formula. But he had a different take on it.
His take is, now you have to be impeached first
and convicted, and then you can only be tried. And
they cited to Judge Cavin on that, but just Justice
Kavanaugh actually wrote the exact opposite. He said that when
(13:37):
a person's out of office, then if they if you
first presented it to Congress and they didn't do anything
with it, when the person's out of office, they could be
prosecuted if it were the right kind of act to prosecute.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
What's your take on what's going on in this New
York City kangaroo court where you have a judge that
donated to Joe Biden presiding and then potential family conflicts.
And it's eight year years later and the statute of
limitations have passed. But what does your take on the
testimony of this guy David Pecker who is with the
(14:08):
National Inquirer.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
Greg, Well, you know, Pecker's testimony is immaterial and incompetent.
He knows nothing about the thirty four criminal charges of
falsifying business records. But you know, no matter to Alvin
Bragg because his objective is to tie Trump to the
sort of sleazy dealings of a notorious tabloid. It's really
(14:32):
filth by association here. Look, the entire case is a farce.
It's a sham. Any fair and impartial judge knowledgeable in
the law would have long ago dismissed Bragg's sham charges. Instead,
you know, this case went to Judge Juan Versant, whose
anti Trump bias is on conspicuous display whenever he takes
(14:56):
the bench. His unconstitutional gag order on the leading candidate
for president is one in a string of sort of
headbanging pronouncements. So you know, I worry about a hyper
biased judge, and also a venue in which the jurors
were selected from the pool. That's a pool that hates
(15:20):
Donald Trump. And so it's it undermines to me the
Bill of Rights, an impartial jury. I could have been
moved elsewhere, should have been moved else where. Marshawn wouldn't
do it.
Speaker 8 (15:33):
Yeah, it's going to be interesting. Your take? Has this
going to play out? Thirty seconds?
Speaker 2 (15:38):
David Show Well, Greg one hundred.
Speaker 7 (15:40):
Percent right again? So are you and this judge should
not be sitting on the case. They've got teed up
issues for appeal. I don't love the way they raised
some of them, but I still think the record is
clear enough the judge. There are many cases saying this
judge had to be disqualified and then it's reversible error.
They haven't ever charged identified the target charge. We saw
that even in the opening. We saw in the judges denial,
the motion to dismiss. It's a farce and it's going
(16:02):
to just send President Trump up higher and higher in
the polls because unfortunately everyone sees.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
It for what it is.
Speaker 8 (16:09):
If we can hang on to you guys, I just
have too much that I want to ask both of you,
and I think a lot of people want to have
a deeper understanding of this. We'll continue with David Shoan
and with Greg Jarrett on the other side. We'll get
to your calls coming up straight ahead as well. Eight
hundred ninety four one. Shawn is on number. If you
want to be a part of the program, I have
twenty five down to the top of the hour, our
toll free numbers eight hundred nine four one. Sean, If
(16:31):
you want to be a part of the program, let
me tell you about a case. A guy named Michael
his wife out for a walk in their neighborhood. Right,
all of a sudden, their life gets flipped upside down.
Why Michael was attacked by a homeless woman, stabbed him
multiple times before he was able to restrain her, thankfully,
and then waited for law enforcement to arrive. Now, what
(16:53):
happened next is why I am a proud member of
the USCCA, Because when Michael was in the hospital, well
guess what, a detective came in and charged him with
assault for protecting himself. Well, welcome to the all new
America of defund dismantle no bail laws, reimagining police right anyway,
that's now the America we live in. You go to jail,
(17:16):
what for defending yourself? You could be forced to spend
what tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars to
maintain your innocence. Well, if you want to learn proven
ways to deter criminals, defend your family, and avoid legal trouble,
well you want to be a part of the us
CCA also. Now they're going to give you their free
Concealed Carried Defense Guide. They put it together USCCA. They
(17:40):
joined forces with the former head of trading for the FBI,
I Quantico, And just go to their website. You'll get
this free. You know, proven defend your family, deter criminals,
and their Concealed Carried Defense Guide absolutely free. They also
have classes, by the way, around the country, situational self
defense classes. Just go to their website. It's USCCA dot
(18:04):
com slash hannityus CCA dot com slash Hannity. All right,
let's go to a couple of moments that took place
in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today. I want
to start with Neil Gorsich. You know, he's getting exasperated
at the lawyer for the Special Prosecutor. His name is
Michael Drabin, and anyway, over the semantics over the word immunity,
(18:30):
and I want to get reaction from David Shoon and
Greg Jarrett who continue with us, but listen to this exchange.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Did you agree that there are some core functions of
the executive that present conduct that Congress cannot criminalize? Yes,
we is that a form. I mean, we can call
it immunity, or you can call it. They can't do it.
But what's the difference.
Speaker 3 (18:51):
We call it as applied Article two challenge, and.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
That's okay, okay, we am all it immunity just for shorthandsake.
So I think we are kind of narrowing the ground
of dispute here. It seems to me there is some
area you concede that an official acts that Congress cannot criminalize,
and now we're just talking about the scope.
Speaker 5 (19:12):
Well, I don't think it's a just but I think
it's a very significant gap between any official act and
the small core of exclusive official act.
Speaker 8 (19:21):
I thought that was a checkmate moment, David Cholm, what
do you think?
Speaker 5 (19:26):
I think so.
Speaker 7 (19:26):
And I also think mister Grieban is not accurately relaying
what Nixon versus Fitzgerald held by the way, it's not
such a narrow.
Speaker 8 (19:34):
By the way, why don't you explain for people Nixon
and Fitzgerald because we've been talking about it all day.
Speaker 7 (19:39):
Yeah, Nixon versus. Fitzgerald's in nineteen eighty two case was
brought against for the Nixon after he was out of office,
a claim that he made an unfair, inappropriate, illegal employment decision.
And the court said that we're not going to subject
a president, even out of office, to civiliability or she
(20:00):
is going to have immunity for actions taken within the
outer perimeters of his official authority as president. And so
we call it refer to, you know, as an official
acts immunity. And it's quite broad. That's why they said
the outer perimeter. Many examples are given, but essentially, you know,
official act has been defined in McDonald versus us A
(20:23):
twenty sixteen case to say, any official act on any
matter that's pending before a public official and includes the
president using his official position to exert pressure on another
official nowhere intending such advice will form the basis for
an official act of another official. And so my view,
at least it puts what happened here squarely within the
(20:43):
official act it's not a narrow exception. President stands apart
from every other official. And by the way, other officials
have immunity too, judges, prosecutors in their realm.
Speaker 8 (20:54):
Yeah, what's your take on that, Greg got because I
think David niled it.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Yeah, he's a mistake to try to bicker over semantics
with the Supreme Court justice and Dreaming.
Speaker 6 (21:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (21:05):
By the way, that should be one on one in
terms of being dumb. You know, when you get an
when you get a justice exasperated like that, can we
just say immunity because that's what you're saying, you know. Yeah,
And they're trying to come up with a creative way
to get out of the immunity that he's basically being
forced into a corner to acknowledge.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, but Dreamin is striking and he, you know, he
won't give an inch. And part of the problem here
is both sides are guilty of that. You know. Dreamn
and the Special Counsel argued there should be no immunity whatsoever,
and of course the other side on behalf of Donald
(21:47):
Trump argued wrongfly, I think that there should be absolute
immunity for everything. Part of the problem arises.
Speaker 6 (21:55):
From the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case in which Supreme Court,
in their rule, referred to absolute immunity, and then they
set conditions, as David described, within the outer perimeter of
official acts.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
So it wasn't absolute immunity at all. The immediately contradicted themselves.
It's really limited immunity, or let's call it immunity with conditions.
And you know, I'll reiterate that listening to these arguments today.
That's where the Supreme Court majority is heading here to
(22:27):
simply adopt the Fitzgerald principles and apply them to a
criminal case because it makes sense. I mean, you've got
to offer some sort of immunity. And you know, this
was a very different court in nineteen eighty two, but
it was a smart court and the justices there had
(22:50):
spent a lot of time trying to figure it out,
and they came up with a immunity solution that has
stood the test of time civilly. It should now be
extended criminally.
Speaker 8 (23:03):
I mean, that's the fascinating part of this. Let's stay
with Gorsic and he's asking the same attorney for the
special prosecutor if a president can be prosecuted after leaving
office for leading a protest that would delay Congress, which
kind of goes to the heart of a lot of
the arguments that the Special Council is making.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Listen, for example, let's say a president leads a mostly
peaceful protest sit in in front of Congress because he
objects to a piece of legislation that's going through, and
it in fact delays the proceedings in Congress. Now under
fifteen twelve C. Two, that might be correctly impeding an
(23:51):
official proceeding? Is that core and therefore immunized or whatever
word euphemism you want to use for that is not
core and therefore prosecutable. Well, without a clear statement that
applies to the president, it's not core.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
The core kinds of activities that the Court has acknowledged
are the things that I would run through the Youngstown analysis,
and it's a pretty small set, but things like the
pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power
to veto legislation, the power to make appointments, these are
things that the Constitution specifically allocates to the president.
Speaker 1 (24:30):
Once you get a president, then could be prosecuted for
the conduct I described after leaves office.
Speaker 5 (24:38):
Probably not, but I want to explain the framework of
why I don't think that that would be prosecution, that
would be valid your reaction, Greg.
Speaker 4 (24:50):
Jarrett, you know, this is really getting into the weeds,
into the Youngstown case and so forth. But this was
really one of them.
Speaker 8 (25:00):
By the way, you say the Youngstown case. People don't
know what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
Well, I don't remember the Youngstown case.
Speaker 8 (25:07):
Well, I mean, do you do study a lot of
cases in law school. I'm sure you know Marlboro versus Madison,
and Brown versus Board of Education, and and and all
the all the important ones. I'm not expecting you to
remember everyone.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
Yeah, I appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
But this was one of the few times in which
they actually drew an analogy that is very close to
their own case, the J six Trump case, which of
course led to the immunity claim which they're now trying
to decide. Some of the other analogies I thought were
quite instructive and useful in going forth with an immunity
(25:50):
protection of some sort, And you know, this was this
was one that was both direct to the Trump case
but a little bit in the weeds.
Speaker 9 (25:59):
Lea your take, David shown Yeah, I mean, first of all,
Greg will remember the Youngstown case in a second Youngstown
sheet from two versus Sawyer nineteen fifty two case Truman seized.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
Ah, yes, yes, now I remember the seizure.
Speaker 7 (26:16):
Plans during the Korean War. There is a question was
illegal because it probably violated statute when you can seize
private property under very narrow circumstances, But they didn't prosecute
with the point some people suggest it's one of the
best Supreme Court written decisions ever and so on, but
it lays out factors on when it's appropriate prosecution and
that sort of thing. But anyway, yeah, I just think
(26:39):
that you know, what Gorsa and the others are getting
to is very reminiscent of the argument the other day
on the obstruction statue, and in fact, it's very cute
and clever. I think some of the examples they're using
the other day they said, well, what if a congressman,
for example, pulled the fire alarm falsely on his way
to a vote to obstruct that vote? Is that something
(27:01):
we can prosecute under the obstruction statute? And they have
the same kind of thing going during the repartee today.
Speaker 8 (27:06):
Actually, all right, quick break a our final moments with
Greg Jared David shown on the other side
The Sean Hannity Show News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.