‘Textual Backflips’
3Digest
The episode begins with a discussion of the Supreme Court's immunity decision and its potential impact on Donald Trump's hush money case. The hosts note that Trump's attorneys have sent a letter to Judge Mershan, asking permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict on the grounds that he is immune from prosecution. They argue that the payments to Stormy Daniels occurred before Trump was in the White House and that it is difficult to imagine how reimbursement for those payments could be official acts. The hosts also discuss the Thomas concurrence, in which Justice Thomas argued that Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump, was not constitutionally appointed. They express concern that this argument could be used to undermine the legitimacy of the investigation. The episode then turns to the Fisher case, which involved a January 6th rioter challenging the government's use of an obstruction charge. The hosts interview Ryan Goodman, a law professor and co-director of the Reese Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, who has written extensively on the case. Goodman explains that the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher does not have a significant impact on the vast majority of January 6th cases. He argues that the decision is unlikely to affect the charges against Trump, as the theory of the case against him involves the creation of false documents, which is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. The hosts also discuss the concurring opinion written by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, who agreed with the majority but wrote separately to explain how she sees the decision playing out. They note that Jackson's opinion suggests that the government could still pursue charges against Fisher under the obstruction statute. The episode concludes with a discussion of the dissent written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and that the government's interpretation of the obstruction statute was straightforward. The hosts express their admiration for Barrett's writing and her willingness to engage with the issues in a thoughtful and honest way.
Outlines
Introduction
This Chapter introduces the episode and its hosts, Andrew Weissman and Barry McCord. They briefly discuss the topic of the episode, which is the Supreme Court's immunity decision and its potential impact on Donald Trump's hush money case.
The Immunity Decision and Trump's Hush Money Case
This Chapter delves into the Supreme Court's immunity decision and its potential impact on Donald Trump's hush money case. The hosts discuss Trump's attorneys' letter to Judge Mershan, asking permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict on the grounds that he is immune from prosecution. They argue that the payments to Stormy Daniels occurred before Trump was in the White House and that it is difficult to imagine how reimbursement for those payments could be official acts.
The Thomas Concurrence
This Chapter focuses on the Thomas concurrence, in which Justice Thomas argued that Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump, was not constitutionally appointed. The hosts express concern that this argument could be used to undermine the legitimacy of the investigation.
The Fisher Case
This Chapter introduces the Fisher case, which involved a January 6th rioter challenging the government's use of an obstruction charge. The hosts interview Ryan Goodman, a law professor and co-director of the Reese Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law, who has written extensively on the case.
The Impact of Fisher on Trump's Case
This Chapter discusses the potential impact of the Fisher decision on the charges against Trump. Goodman argues that the decision is unlikely to affect the charges against Trump, as the theory of the case against him involves the creation of false documents, which is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's Concurring Opinion
This Chapter examines Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's concurring opinion, in which she agreed with the majority but wrote separately to explain how she sees the decision playing out. The hosts note that Jackson's opinion suggests that the government could still pursue charges against Fisher under the obstruction statute.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Dissent
This Chapter analyzes Justice Amy Coney Barrett's dissent, in which she argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and that the government's interpretation of the obstruction statute was straightforward. The hosts express their admiration for Barrett's writing and her willingness to engage with the issues in a thoughtful and honest way.
Keywords
immunity decision
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Trump v. Thompson, which addressed the scope of presidential immunity from prosecution. The decision held that official acts of the president are immune from prosecution, but that unofficial acts are not. This decision has significant implications for the ongoing investigations into Trump's conduct, including the hush money case.
Fisher case
A case involving a January 6th rioter, Joseph Fisher, who challenged the government's use of an obstruction charge against him. The Supreme Court's decision in Fisher narrowed the scope of the obstruction statute, but did not invalidate it entirely. This decision has implications for other January 6th cases, but is unlikely to have a significant impact on the charges against Trump.
Jack Smith
The special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump's potential involvement in the January 6th attack on the Capitol and his handling of classified documents. Smith is a former federal prosecutor with a long history of investigating high-profile cases. His investigation is ongoing and has the potential to lead to criminal charges against Trump.
false electors
A scheme allegedly orchestrated by Trump and his allies to create false slates of electors in key states that he lost in the 2020 presidential election. These false electors were then sent to Congress in an attempt to overturn the results of the election. This scheme is a central focus of the Justice Department's investigation into Trump's potential involvement in the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
January 6th
The day in 2021 when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. The attack was a direct assault on American democracy and resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The Justice Department has been investigating the attack and has charged over 1,400 individuals with crimes related to it.
obstruction of an official proceeding
A federal crime that prohibits individuals from obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding. The government has charged many January 6th rioters with this crime, arguing that their actions interfered with Congress's certification of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court's decision in the Fisher case narrowed the scope of this statute, but did not invalidate it entirely.
Katanji Brown Jackson
An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed in 2022. Jackson is the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She is known for her progressive views and her commitment to social justice.
Amy Coney Barrett
An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2020. Barrett is known for her conservative views and her strong Catholic faith. She is a controversial figure, but is also considered to be a brilliant legal mind.
Just Security
An online forum and publication that focuses on issues at the intersection of security, rights, democracy, and the rule of law. It is based at the New York University School of Law and is co-edited by Ryan Goodman. Just Security is known for its high-quality analysis of national security issues and its commitment to public education.
Q&A
What is the potential impact of the Supreme Court's immunity decision on Donald Trump's hush money case?
Trump's attorneys are arguing that he is immune from prosecution because the payments to Stormy Daniels occurred before he was in the White House and that reimbursement for those payments could not be considered official acts. However, the hosts argue that the reimbursements were made while Trump was president and that they could be considered official acts.
What is the significance of Justice Thomas's concurrence in the Fisher case?
Thomas argued that Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump, was not constitutionally appointed. The hosts express concern that this argument could be used to undermine the legitimacy of the investigation.
What is the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in the Fisher case on the charges against January 6th rioters?
Goodman argues that the decision does not have a significant impact on the vast majority of January 6th cases. He explains that the decision is unlikely to affect the charges against Trump, as the theory of the case against him involves the creation of false documents, which is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling.
What is Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's view on the Fisher decision?
Jackson agreed with the majority but wrote separately to explain how she sees the decision playing out. She suggests that the government could still pursue charges against Fisher under the obstruction statute.
What is Justice Amy Coney Barrett's criticism of the majority's decision in the Fisher case?
Barrett argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and that the government's interpretation of the obstruction statute was straightforward. She believes that the government's interpretation of the statute is clear and that the majority's decision to narrow its scope is unjustified.
Show Notes
As the fallout from the momentous Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity continues to reverberate, MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord offer some updates, then turn to another significant ruling from the High Court out on Friday: Fisher v. U.S. At issue was whether the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding could be applied to Capitol rioters in the wake of their actions on January 6th. Despite the ruling in favor of the defendant, their guest Ryan Goodman of Just Security confirms the limited impact this decision will have on those charged for their role in the chaos of January 6th, and on Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C.
Further reading: Here is the analysis Ryan, Mary and Andrew wrote regarding the Fischer decision for Just Security: The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact.
Table of contents
United States
