June 20, 2024 • 15 mins
Buck Sexton is joined by Josh Hammer, senior counsel at the Article III Project and host of "America on Trial with Josh Hammer." They delve into imminent Supreme Court decisions, focusing on the Trump immunity issue and its potential outcomes. Josh explains the expected Solomonic split that may balance presidential duties and criminal liability. They also discuss the possible overturning of Chevron deference and its impact on limiting agency power, along with the Rahimi case's implications on Second Amendment rights.
The episode also explores the rapid pace of legal actions against Trump and the logistical challenges of imprisoning a former president with Secret Service protection. They consider alternative sentencing possibilities, such as home confinement, and analyze the likelihood of a trial before the 2024 election.
The episode also explores the rapid pace of legal actions against Trump and the logistical challenges of imprisoning a former president with Secret Service protection. They consider alternative sentencing possibilities, such as home confinement, and analyze the likelihood of a trial before the 2024 election.
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 (00:11):
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to the Buck Brief.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
This episode, Josh Hammer is with us. You could say
it's Hammer time. He is a Article three project senior
counsel and host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer
and Josh Before I dive into everything, are you are
you a true crime fan? Or is your wife? Because
my wife says she is and then we watch it
(00:42):
and she gets scared. So if it's like some heinous
murder or something, I'm like, maybe we shouldn't watch this, honey.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
I mean, Buck, truth be told, I wouldn't even know
because every time we try to watch Netflix before're going
to sleep, my wife typically falls asleep within five minutes,
So I wouldn't even know the answer to that question.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
To be honest with Yeah, it is amazing how quickly
my shoulder, which I've never thought of, is a super
comfortable place to sleep. Carrie can pass out on my
shoulder three minutes, by the way, especially if we have
spend fifteen minutes going over what movie we're going to
watch or what show we're going to start, you've got
to spend that time, and then by the time we
(01:17):
actually line it up, she's out. So apparently you have
the same thing. So congrat you're in your first I'm
in a year two, you're in year one of marriage.
So this is what we're learning as we go. Now,
let's talk about saving the country, or at least the
Democrats trying to destroy the country. There's some big Supreme
Court decisions looming right, we're almost in the where the
latter half of June. We know some stuff is coming
(01:40):
down our way. Let's start with the Trump immunity issue.
What are you seeing on this one so far? How
do you think it comes down and what will it mean?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, I mean this is the big issue. I mean, look,
there are other cases coming to out back. I mean,
we're waiting for a big ruling on Chevron deference, but
this is the issue. I mean, the immunity case is
definitely I think where all of the eyes of the
legal community, the judicial community, left right center, who knows what,
We're all paying attention to this because it is a
deeply important case. Now, virtually everyone in my circles buck
(02:11):
that I have talked to is expecting roughly the same thing,
which is not a complete victory for Jack Smith and
not a complete victory for Donald Trump. So they took
extreme positions on their respective sides, which naturally lawyers tend
to do. That's kind of the nature of zealous advocacy.
That's what you do when you argue for your client.
You take the strongest possible position. You steal man, if
(02:31):
you want to use that kind of modern word, and
the outcome here is probably going to be a solemnonic
split the baby sort of things. So they're basically going
to say that some acts that a president does are
subject to core Article two constitutional presidential duty, and therefore
because of that, because they implicate a core presidential duty,
then you have immunity for those actions for criminal prosecution
(02:55):
after you are president. But there are some other actions
out there that have nothing whatsoever to do with a
core Article two presidential concern and therefore those acts can
be prosecuted after the fact. So we give a very
quick example here as to what this looks like in practice.
Let's say you know Barack Obama and he took out
Amwar al Alaki, the US citizen who was nonetheless al
Kaeda operative in the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen back in
(03:16):
twenty eleven. You know, a subsequent administration could have brought
or could have prosecute Barack Obama for who knows, some
sort of homicide. It is a US citizen after all.
But that's a core Article two function. I mean, this
is a war power, commander in chief, military decision, deep
in situation room. The Supreme Court is probably clearly going
to say that sort of activity you cannot be prosecuted
after the fact. However, you know, if you're going to
hire a hit man deep on the battles of the
(03:38):
inchineut To to kind of kill the dude who's shacking up
with your wife, you know, maybe that's a little further
outside of the mainstream is to what constitutes an Article
two presidential function. So the Court will probably issue that
sort of test. Then Buck, they're gonna have to kick
it down to the lower court to apply that test.
So this whole thing is going to take a lot
of time. Trump's looking He's looking good there.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
I think, are there any other looming decisions that to
take take it from my non legalese background might upset
the Libs? If so, which ones.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Yes, I think it's Chevron difference.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
I mean that is Look, it's not my most passionate subject,
but I think for a lot of conservative and libertarian
lawyers this probably is a very fiery issue that they're
passionate about. So Chevron deference, just to kind of explain
what it is, goes back to a nineteen to eighty
four Supreme Court case called Chevron, and back at this
time you kind of have to put yourself in that mindset.
Buff This is kind of the early stages of the
conservative legal movement. It was just a few years after
(04:33):
the Federal Society was founded, and at that time the
emphasis was on judicial restraints. So Chevron defference at that
time restrained judges, but paradoxically it empowered the bureaucracy. So
it basically said that the threshold is extremely high for
an Article three federal judge to in any way overrule
and agencies interpretation of its own statutes. So agencies have
(04:55):
broad leeway to interpret the operative statutes that affect their
data business. So the EPA gets away with bloody murder,
for example, because of Chevron on a day and day
on basis, most conservatives have changed their mind on Chevron.
Even the late Great Justice Anthonys Scalia actually did a
one to eighty over the course of his career and
basically ultimately said that he regretted his thoughts on Chevron
earlier in his career. So we're probably gonna see that
(05:17):
case overturned, and that's going to have a tangible, real
world's impact in so far as courts being ready willing
and able to step in, from the Supreme Court down
to federal lower courts when it comes to overturning rogue
agencies that are taking statutes and warping into storing them
and putting it in a far left direction, it should
be a good result. I'm not typically an optimist when
it comes to the judicial branch. I've been a bit
(05:38):
of a pessimist, somewhat of a profit of lamentation for
all my young careers so far. But this is actually
one case where I feel costs the optimist that we're
going to get a good result.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Isn't also a gun case that's making its way through
right now? Or is that? Am I? That's Is it
about domestic violence as a as a prohibition on firearms ownership?
Can you tell me about that? One.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Yeah, So this is the Raheemi case.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
So this comes out of the court that I clerked on,
actually the Fifth Circuit, and it's a case out out
of Texas memory Sirs. I believe actually my former boss,
Judge Hoe was actually even on the Fifth Circuit panel
that issued it ruling in this decision here. So this
is just a continuation basically of the Brewing case of
twenty twenty two. So the Bruin case in twenty twenty two,
which is out of New York State, was the first
(06:22):
time in the history of the Republic that the Supreme
Court said that it's not just your right to keep arms,
but your right to bear arms to actually carry outside
the home has some meaning. And the test that they
implement in the Brewin test, which was just kind of
a successor to the two thousand and eight Heller decision,
the landmark secon Amendment case in the Brewing case two
years ago, they basically implemented this history and tradition test.
(06:43):
So another way is the regulation at issue. Is it
within the bounds of American historical traditional regulation of firearm
ownership or is this just a new fangle thing that
has no basis in the history of the Republic in
the history of Anglo American jurisprudence in general. So the
Raheemi case is just basically a high profile episode of
(07:04):
trying to implement that test in practice. And the statute
is exactly what you said it is. It has to
do with a domestic violence training order. And I think
the Court is probably going to rule the way that
most conservatives want them to rule, which is to basically
say that a curtailment of your segment rights when it
comes to this particular issue a domestic violence or training
order is not constant, is not consistent with traditional regulations
(07:26):
of firearm ownership. I could be wrong, but I suspect
that's probably going to get at least a five justice
majority on the current court.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
All right, well, let's talk about what happens to the
J six case and a few other things here in
just a second. But first up from our sponsor, Tunnel
the Towers. Since nine to eleven, the Tunnel the Towers
Foundation has been committed to supporting our nation's first responders
and veterans, heroes who put their lives in the line
for our communities and our countries. Heroes like US Army
Major Jonathan Turnbull. Major Turnbull sustained devastating injuries at the
(07:55):
hands of an Isis suicide bomber, the complete loss of
his left eye a puncture to his right eye. He
needed more than twenty surgeries in countless hours of rehabilitation.
Tunnel to Towers paid off his mortgage and gave him
a specially adapted smart home designed for his needs. He
moves around his home more easily now, and his home
also gives him hope. With help from people like you,
the Foundation supports families like the Turnbulls. Join Tunnel to
(08:18):
Towers in supporting America's heroes are nation's catastrophically injured veterans
and first responders, homeless veterans, gold Star families, and the
families of fallen first responders. Doing it eleven dollars a
month the Tunnel to Towers at T two T dot org.
That's t the number two T dot org ninety five
cents if every dollar goes directly to their programs. So
let's say that you're right about the Josh the immunity
(08:40):
presidential immunity case. I understand that in under normal order,
there's no way that they would be able to get
the DC J six case against Trump back to trial
before the election. But everything we've seen in DC so far,
whether it's the District Court or the Circuit Court, has
(09:02):
shown lightning speed is something they're willing to do when
it comes to Trump in this election. Right, I mean
they're moving. I have a friend who used to clerk
for a federal job, and he was telling me that
he's never seen anything like this. I mean, they've never moved.
Just it's something that would take two something that would
take two or three months, they're doing in five to
ten days, right, I mean just or even faster than that.
(09:23):
So do you think it is possible if the Supreme
Court comes down the way you think that on this case,
that Jack Smith is going to be able to, counting
on Judge Chuckkin, get the J six trial at least
started before November.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
It's going to be a close call.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
It is admittedly going to be a close call, Buck,
This is the only other case that has any chance
whatsoever of starting prior to November. Now, as you kind
of just said, if they were going according to normal
rules as to how this thing plays out, virtually no chance. Now.
The other thing to remember here, by the way is
that it is long standing Department of Justice protocol. It's
black letter internal DOJ mandatory guidance, essentially that prosecutors don't
(10:07):
bring politically charged cases close to an election. I both
know that. You know they can selectively enforce that, selectively
abide by that. But on a certain level, if they
do this out in the open, they literally start the trial.
Let's say it's October, a month before the election. That's
in flagrant, flagrant violation of the DOJ's own internal manual. Now, admittedly,
there's no obvious legal recourse for that, because the DJ
(10:28):
gets to interpret its own manual. You can appeal to
a judge. The DJ is just violating its own manual.
But it does, at a bare minimum look bad to
the voters. Now, look, if you're putting on the spot
and ask me to predict either way, I probably would
say that they're actually not going to get this thing
up and running here, and I'll tell you why, because again,
let's play that. Let's just play this out. So the
Supreme Court does what I say it did, which is
(10:51):
they cancoct this kind of middle ground remedy. It's a
two part test, and the test has to be applied. Okay,
then you go down the trial court, You're gonna have
to have a lot of evidentiary hearings. I mean there's
gonna be There's gonna be a lot before that ruling
is ever issued in the first place as to whether
or not Jack Smith's various acts that he alleged when
it comes to Jay six or in Bucket one or
Bucket two. Then let's played out even further and say
(11:11):
that Chuckkin rules against Trump, well, buck I mean Trump
can then just appeal that. I mean, he can appeal
that right to the DC's circuit right. So I'm just
not seeing this in any way getting resolved there. So
I look ken worst case scenario, can she actually reached
that conclusion. Probably? Probably, But he's gonna get a shot
of appeal. So there's no way we're gonna get anything
remotely resembling a final resolution, that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Do you think he he probably can get this rather
I'm talking about Jack Smith. Now, is there a chance
the Supreme Court intervenes again.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
There's a chance, but I think probably not before November.
So recall that after Chuckin ruled on the immunity issue
at the trial court level, Jack Smith tried to directly
go to Scotus.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
He tried to essentially to.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
A speed up right, I mean that a speed move.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Yeah, exactly right.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
He took two and a half three years to bring
these indictments and then he wanted to move like it
was lightning speed before an election obviously, But the crucial
point there is that the Supreme Court denied that. They
rejected that and made him go to the d c
S first. So they've already shown that they're not gonna
give Jack Smith everything he wants here. So I don't
think that's gonna happen prior to November now.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
And how do you see?
Speaker 1 (12:20):
You know what?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
I want to take a quick pause here, but think
about this one. What happens at Trump's New York sentencing
in two weeks. Basically, you know, I know, I'm asking
you for a prediction, but you can give me some
of the just the ins and outs of what you
think the possibilities are. But first up, from Porter and Company.
I've known Porter Stansbury for over a decade. This is
a guy who built a billion dollar company from his
(12:43):
dorm room back in the nineties down here in Florida.
And it's because he's a visionary who understands the markets.
But he did something really interesting recently, cut his salary
to a dollar a year. Why, Well, he's making a
point about something, he says. This is about the right
way to get paid. He says, there's essentially a new
form of money in America, and it's making some people
(13:04):
very rich. Now it's not gold or bitcoin, Porter says.
What's interesting is that while every American is legally entire
to use the secret currency, I few know much about it.
I strongly recommend you check out Porter's latest detailed presentation
online at secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com. He
details how to protect and grow your wealth in the
years to come using America's new money. I doubt you'll
(13:27):
see this idea or opportunity to discussed anywhere else. Take
a few minutes to check out Porter's fascinating insights Get
a Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com at secret
Currency twenty twenty four dot com. All right, Josh Trump
goes before a judge for sentencing in July. Feels crazy
to say that out loud, but that is what's happening.
At least that's what's supposed to happen. How do you
(13:48):
see this shaking out?
Speaker 3 (13:51):
So my first guess when the guilty verdict came in
was that he's actually going to jail, and that probably
still is where my heart is because they actually just
really do hate him that much and they really do
care that little for anything remotely pertaining to norms or
democracy or anything that they purport to care about. However,
(14:13):
in my head, so it's a bit of a it's
a bit of a head heart standoff, buck, you know,
in my head, I'm thinking about the fact that, you know,
how can they literally logistically do this? So it is
federal law obviously that a and that an ex president
has twenty four to seven mandatory secret Service protection. What
that means is that Trump needs secret Service agents with
firearms within close eyesight distance of him at all times.
(14:36):
I mean, I mean, look, this is a disgusting thing
to like play out, but here we are. I guess
this is what's really happening before our eyes. Can they
literally do that at Riker's Island? I guess they, like
in theory, can right, they can literally build like like
Trump's own wing of the of the prison. They can
have like not just solitary confinement, but like his whole
his own whole wing where the agents come in there,
(14:57):
are they really really really going to do that? They might,
but if I actually had to guess, I think probably not.
So I think it's probably gonna be home confinement, probation
something along those lines. Home confinement, by the way, is
obviously still really bad for Trump, assuming that a higher
court does not immediately stay that, because it does prevent
him from campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan and so forth.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Josh, where can people go to listen to your podcast?
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
So I've got an American Trial with Josh Hammer and
then also the Josh Hammer Show. It's available everywhere you
get your podcast. Thanks for having me, Buck, good to
see you man, Thanks so much.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
You bet
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to the Buck Brief.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
This episode, Josh Hammer is with us. You could say
it's Hammer time. He is a Article three project senior
counsel and host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer
and Josh Before I dive into everything, are you are
you a true crime fan? Or is your wife? Because
my wife says she is and then we watch it
(00:42):
and she gets scared. So if it's like some heinous
murder or something, I'm like, maybe we shouldn't watch this, honey.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
I mean, Buck, truth be told, I wouldn't even know
because every time we try to watch Netflix before're going
to sleep, my wife typically falls asleep within five minutes,
So I wouldn't even know the answer to that question.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
To be honest with Yeah, it is amazing how quickly
my shoulder, which I've never thought of, is a super
comfortable place to sleep. Carrie can pass out on my
shoulder three minutes, by the way, especially if we have
spend fifteen minutes going over what movie we're going to
watch or what show we're going to start, you've got
to spend that time, and then by the time we
(01:17):
actually line it up, she's out. So apparently you have
the same thing. So congrat you're in your first I'm
in a year two, you're in year one of marriage.
So this is what we're learning as we go. Now,
let's talk about saving the country, or at least the
Democrats trying to destroy the country. There's some big Supreme
Court decisions looming right, we're almost in the where the
latter half of June. We know some stuff is coming
(01:40):
down our way. Let's start with the Trump immunity issue.
What are you seeing on this one so far? How
do you think it comes down and what will it mean?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, I mean this is the big issue. I mean, look,
there are other cases coming to out back. I mean,
we're waiting for a big ruling on Chevron deference, but
this is the issue. I mean, the immunity case is
definitely I think where all of the eyes of the
legal community, the judicial community, left right center, who knows what,
We're all paying attention to this because it is a
deeply important case. Now, virtually everyone in my circles buck
(02:11):
that I have talked to is expecting roughly the same thing,
which is not a complete victory for Jack Smith and
not a complete victory for Donald Trump. So they took
extreme positions on their respective sides, which naturally lawyers tend
to do. That's kind of the nature of zealous advocacy.
That's what you do when you argue for your client.
You take the strongest possible position. You steal man, if
(02:31):
you want to use that kind of modern word, and
the outcome here is probably going to be a solemnonic
split the baby sort of things. So they're basically going
to say that some acts that a president does are
subject to core Article two constitutional presidential duty, and therefore
because of that, because they implicate a core presidential duty,
then you have immunity for those actions for criminal prosecution
(02:55):
after you are president. But there are some other actions
out there that have nothing whatsoever to do with a
core Article two presidential concern and therefore those acts can
be prosecuted after the fact. So we give a very
quick example here as to what this looks like in practice.
Let's say you know Barack Obama and he took out
Amwar al Alaki, the US citizen who was nonetheless al
Kaeda operative in the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen back in
(03:16):
twenty eleven. You know, a subsequent administration could have brought
or could have prosecute Barack Obama for who knows, some
sort of homicide. It is a US citizen after all.
But that's a core Article two function. I mean, this
is a war power, commander in chief, military decision, deep
in situation room. The Supreme Court is probably clearly going
to say that sort of activity you cannot be prosecuted
after the fact. However, you know, if you're going to
hire a hit man deep on the battles of the
(03:38):
inchineut To to kind of kill the dude who's shacking up
with your wife, you know, maybe that's a little further
outside of the mainstream is to what constitutes an Article
two presidential function. So the Court will probably issue that
sort of test. Then Buck, they're gonna have to kick
it down to the lower court to apply that test.
So this whole thing is going to take a lot
of time. Trump's looking He's looking good there.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
I think, are there any other looming decisions that to
take take it from my non legalese background might upset
the Libs? If so, which ones.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Yes, I think it's Chevron difference.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
I mean that is Look, it's not my most passionate subject,
but I think for a lot of conservative and libertarian
lawyers this probably is a very fiery issue that they're
passionate about. So Chevron deference, just to kind of explain
what it is, goes back to a nineteen to eighty
four Supreme Court case called Chevron, and back at this
time you kind of have to put yourself in that mindset.
Buff This is kind of the early stages of the
conservative legal movement. It was just a few years after
(04:33):
the Federal Society was founded, and at that time the
emphasis was on judicial restraints. So Chevron defference at that
time restrained judges, but paradoxically it empowered the bureaucracy. So
it basically said that the threshold is extremely high for
an Article three federal judge to in any way overrule
and agencies interpretation of its own statutes. So agencies have
(04:55):
broad leeway to interpret the operative statutes that affect their
data business. So the EPA gets away with bloody murder,
for example, because of Chevron on a day and day
on basis, most conservatives have changed their mind on Chevron.
Even the late Great Justice Anthonys Scalia actually did a
one to eighty over the course of his career and
basically ultimately said that he regretted his thoughts on Chevron
earlier in his career. So we're probably gonna see that
(05:17):
case overturned, and that's going to have a tangible, real
world's impact in so far as courts being ready willing
and able to step in, from the Supreme Court down
to federal lower courts when it comes to overturning rogue
agencies that are taking statutes and warping into storing them
and putting it in a far left direction, it should
be a good result. I'm not typically an optimist when
it comes to the judicial branch. I've been a bit
(05:38):
of a pessimist, somewhat of a profit of lamentation for
all my young careers so far. But this is actually
one case where I feel costs the optimist that we're
going to get a good result.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Isn't also a gun case that's making its way through
right now? Or is that? Am I? That's Is it
about domestic violence as a as a prohibition on firearms ownership?
Can you tell me about that? One.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Yeah, So this is the Raheemi case.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
So this comes out of the court that I clerked on,
actually the Fifth Circuit, and it's a case out out
of Texas memory Sirs. I believe actually my former boss,
Judge Hoe was actually even on the Fifth Circuit panel
that issued it ruling in this decision here. So this
is just a continuation basically of the Brewing case of
twenty twenty two. So the Bruin case in twenty twenty two,
which is out of New York State, was the first
(06:22):
time in the history of the Republic that the Supreme
Court said that it's not just your right to keep arms,
but your right to bear arms to actually carry outside
the home has some meaning. And the test that they
implement in the Brewin test, which was just kind of
a successor to the two thousand and eight Heller decision,
the landmark secon Amendment case in the Brewing case two
years ago, they basically implemented this history and tradition test.
(06:43):
So another way is the regulation at issue. Is it
within the bounds of American historical traditional regulation of firearm
ownership or is this just a new fangle thing that
has no basis in the history of the Republic in
the history of Anglo American jurisprudence in general. So the
Raheemi case is just basically a high profile episode of
(07:04):
trying to implement that test in practice. And the statute
is exactly what you said it is. It has to
do with a domestic violence training order. And I think
the Court is probably going to rule the way that
most conservatives want them to rule, which is to basically
say that a curtailment of your segment rights when it
comes to this particular issue a domestic violence or training
order is not constant, is not consistent with traditional regulations
(07:26):
of firearm ownership. I could be wrong, but I suspect
that's probably going to get at least a five justice
majority on the current court.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
All right, well, let's talk about what happens to the
J six case and a few other things here in
just a second. But first up from our sponsor, Tunnel
the Towers. Since nine to eleven, the Tunnel the Towers
Foundation has been committed to supporting our nation's first responders
and veterans, heroes who put their lives in the line
for our communities and our countries. Heroes like US Army
Major Jonathan Turnbull. Major Turnbull sustained devastating injuries at the
(07:55):
hands of an Isis suicide bomber, the complete loss of
his left eye a puncture to his right eye. He
needed more than twenty surgeries in countless hours of rehabilitation.
Tunnel to Towers paid off his mortgage and gave him
a specially adapted smart home designed for his needs. He
moves around his home more easily now, and his home
also gives him hope. With help from people like you,
the Foundation supports families like the Turnbulls. Join Tunnel to
(08:18):
Towers in supporting America's heroes are nation's catastrophically injured veterans
and first responders, homeless veterans, gold Star families, and the
families of fallen first responders. Doing it eleven dollars a
month the Tunnel to Towers at T two T dot org.
That's t the number two T dot org ninety five
cents if every dollar goes directly to their programs. So
let's say that you're right about the Josh the immunity
(08:40):
presidential immunity case. I understand that in under normal order,
there's no way that they would be able to get
the DC J six case against Trump back to trial
before the election. But everything we've seen in DC so far,
whether it's the District Court or the Circuit Court, has
(09:02):
shown lightning speed is something they're willing to do when
it comes to Trump in this election. Right, I mean
they're moving. I have a friend who used to clerk
for a federal job, and he was telling me that
he's never seen anything like this. I mean, they've never moved.
Just it's something that would take two something that would
take two or three months, they're doing in five to
ten days, right, I mean just or even faster than that.
(09:23):
So do you think it is possible if the Supreme
Court comes down the way you think that on this case,
that Jack Smith is going to be able to, counting
on Judge Chuckkin, get the J six trial at least
started before November.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
It's going to be a close call.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
It is admittedly going to be a close call, Buck,
This is the only other case that has any chance
whatsoever of starting prior to November. Now, as you kind
of just said, if they were going according to normal
rules as to how this thing plays out, virtually no chance. Now.
The other thing to remember here, by the way is
that it is long standing Department of Justice protocol. It's
black letter internal DOJ mandatory guidance, essentially that prosecutors don't
(10:07):
bring politically charged cases close to an election. I both
know that. You know they can selectively enforce that, selectively
abide by that. But on a certain level, if they
do this out in the open, they literally start the trial.
Let's say it's October, a month before the election. That's
in flagrant, flagrant violation of the DOJ's own internal manual. Now, admittedly,
there's no obvious legal recourse for that, because the DJ
(10:28):
gets to interpret its own manual. You can appeal to
a judge. The DJ is just violating its own manual.
But it does, at a bare minimum look bad to
the voters. Now, look, if you're putting on the spot
and ask me to predict either way, I probably would
say that they're actually not going to get this thing
up and running here, and I'll tell you why, because again,
let's play that. Let's just play this out. So the
Supreme Court does what I say it did, which is
(10:51):
they cancoct this kind of middle ground remedy. It's a
two part test, and the test has to be applied. Okay,
then you go down the trial court, You're gonna have
to have a lot of evidentiary hearings. I mean there's
gonna be There's gonna be a lot before that ruling
is ever issued in the first place as to whether
or not Jack Smith's various acts that he alleged when
it comes to Jay six or in Bucket one or
Bucket two. Then let's played out even further and say
(11:11):
that Chuckkin rules against Trump, well, buck I mean Trump
can then just appeal that. I mean, he can appeal
that right to the DC's circuit right. So I'm just
not seeing this in any way getting resolved there. So
I look ken worst case scenario, can she actually reached
that conclusion. Probably? Probably, But he's gonna get a shot
of appeal. So there's no way we're gonna get anything
remotely resembling a final resolution, that's for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
Do you think he he probably can get this rather
I'm talking about Jack Smith. Now, is there a chance
the Supreme Court intervenes again.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
There's a chance, but I think probably not before November.
So recall that after Chuckin ruled on the immunity issue
at the trial court level, Jack Smith tried to directly
go to Scotus.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
He tried to essentially to.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
A speed up right, I mean that a speed move.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Yeah, exactly right.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
He took two and a half three years to bring
these indictments and then he wanted to move like it
was lightning speed before an election obviously, But the crucial
point there is that the Supreme Court denied that. They
rejected that and made him go to the d c
S first. So they've already shown that they're not gonna
give Jack Smith everything he wants here. So I don't
think that's gonna happen prior to November now.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
And how do you see?
Speaker 1 (12:20):
You know what?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
I want to take a quick pause here, but think
about this one. What happens at Trump's New York sentencing
in two weeks. Basically, you know, I know, I'm asking
you for a prediction, but you can give me some
of the just the ins and outs of what you
think the possibilities are. But first up, from Porter and Company.
I've known Porter Stansbury for over a decade. This is
a guy who built a billion dollar company from his
(12:43):
dorm room back in the nineties down here in Florida.
And it's because he's a visionary who understands the markets.
But he did something really interesting recently, cut his salary
to a dollar a year. Why, Well, he's making a
point about something, he says. This is about the right
way to get paid. He says, there's essentially a new
form of money in America, and it's making some people
(13:04):
very rich. Now it's not gold or bitcoin, Porter says.
What's interesting is that while every American is legally entire
to use the secret currency, I few know much about it.
I strongly recommend you check out Porter's latest detailed presentation
online at secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com. He
details how to protect and grow your wealth in the
years to come using America's new money. I doubt you'll
(13:27):
see this idea or opportunity to discussed anywhere else. Take
a few minutes to check out Porter's fascinating insights Get
a Secret Currency twenty twenty four dot com at secret
Currency twenty twenty four dot com. All right, Josh Trump
goes before a judge for sentencing in July. Feels crazy
to say that out loud, but that is what's happening.
At least that's what's supposed to happen. How do you
(13:48):
see this shaking out?
Speaker 3 (13:51):
So my first guess when the guilty verdict came in
was that he's actually going to jail, and that probably
still is where my heart is because they actually just
really do hate him that much and they really do
care that little for anything remotely pertaining to norms or
democracy or anything that they purport to care about. However,
(14:13):
in my head, so it's a bit of a it's
a bit of a head heart standoff, buck, you know,
in my head, I'm thinking about the fact that, you know,
how can they literally logistically do this? So it is
federal law obviously that a and that an ex president
has twenty four to seven mandatory secret Service protection. What
that means is that Trump needs secret Service agents with
firearms within close eyesight distance of him at all times.
(14:36):
I mean, I mean, look, this is a disgusting thing
to like play out, but here we are. I guess
this is what's really happening before our eyes. Can they
literally do that at Riker's Island? I guess they, like
in theory, can right, they can literally build like like
Trump's own wing of the of the prison. They can
have like not just solitary confinement, but like his whole
his own whole wing where the agents come in there,
(14:57):
are they really really really going to do that? They might,
but if I actually had to guess, I think probably not.
So I think it's probably gonna be home confinement, probation
something along those lines. Home confinement, by the way, is
obviously still really bad for Trump, assuming that a higher
court does not immediately stay that, because it does prevent
him from campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan and so forth.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Josh, where can people go to listen to your podcast?
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (15:21):
So I've got an American Trial with Josh Hammer and
then also the Josh Hammer Show. It's available everywhere you
get your podcast. Thanks for having me, Buck, good to
see you man, Thanks so much.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
You bet
Host
Buck Sexton
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.