Immunity Fallout
7Digest
This episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump delves into the ramifications of the Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity, particularly for the Mar-a-Lago case, the Manhattan case, and the January 6th case. The hosts, Andrew Weissman and Mary, discuss how the decision, which grants immunity for official acts, even if they are used as evidence for unofficial acts, could potentially impact the prosecution of Trump. They analyze the arguments made by Trump's legal team in the Mar-a-Lago case, highlighting the potential evidentiary issues that could arise. The hosts then shift their focus to the Manhattan case, where Trump's team is seeking to postpone sentencing to brief the court on the impact of the immunity decision. They discuss the key arguments that Trump's team is likely to make, including the potential use of official acts as evidence in the case. Finally, the hosts examine the implications of the decision for the January 6th case, noting that Judge Chutkan will have to determine which parts of the indictment involve official versus unofficial conduct. The hosts also discuss the possibility of the government seeking re-argument of the Supreme Court decision, highlighting the potential for a more expansive interpretation of the ruling. The episode concludes with a discussion of the broader implications of the decision, emphasizing the potential for abuse of power by future presidents.
Outlines
Introduction
This Chapter introduces the topic of the podcast episode, which focuses on the ramifications of the Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity for the various cases against Donald Trump.
The Mar-a-Lago Case
This Chapter delves into the arguments made by Trump's legal team in the Mar-a-Lago case, highlighting the potential evidentiary issues that could arise due to the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. The hosts discuss how the decision could impact the admissibility of evidence related to Trump's actions while he was president, even if those actions are not directly related to the charges against him.
The Manhattan Case
This Chapter examines the implications of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity for the Manhattan case, where Trump is facing charges related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels. The hosts discuss the arguments that Trump's legal team is likely to make, including the potential use of official acts as evidence in the case. They also analyze the potential for a postponement of sentencing and the implications for Trump's ability to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The January 6th Case
This Chapter explores the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity for the January 6th case, focusing on the role of Judge Chutkan in determining which parts of the indictment involve official versus unofficial conduct. The hosts discuss the potential for a fact-specific analysis of Trump's actions while he was president and the implications for the prosecution of the case.
Judge Chutkan's Role
This Chapter examines the guidance provided by the Supreme Court for Judge Chutkan in handling the January 6th case, particularly in determining which parts of the indictment involve official versus unofficial conduct. The hosts discuss the different categories of charges and the potential for fact-specific hearings to determine the scope of presidential immunity.
Re-Argument of the Supreme Court Decision
This Chapter explores the possibility of the government seeking re-argument of the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, highlighting the potential for a more expansive interpretation of the ruling. The hosts discuss the potential for Jack Smith to make arguments about the scope of the decision and its implications for Congress's authority to legislate and conduct oversight.
Immunity, Impeachment, and the Crime Fraud Exception
This Chapter addresses listener questions about the relationship between presidential immunity, impeachment, and the crime fraud exception. The hosts explain that the Supreme Court's decision on immunity does not preclude impeachment or the application of the crime fraud exception, as it only addresses immunity from criminal prosecution.
Conclusion
This Chapter concludes the episode with a discussion of the broader implications of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, emphasizing the potential for abuse of power by future presidents. The hosts express their concerns about the decision's impact on the rule of law and the importance of having a president who understands the dangers of using presidential powers.
Keywords
Presidential Immunity
Presidential immunity is a legal doctrine that protects the president from certain legal actions, such as criminal prosecution, while in office. The scope of presidential immunity has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that it should be broad to protect the president from undue interference in the performance of his duties, while others argue that it should be limited to protect the rule of law and ensure accountability. The Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity has further complicated this debate, with the court ruling that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts, even if those acts are used as evidence for unofficial acts.
Mar-a-Lago Case
The Mar-a-Lago case is a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's handling of classified documents after he left office. The case centers on allegations that Trump illegally retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstructed justice by attempting to conceal those documents from the government. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has raised questions about the admissibility of evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case, particularly evidence related to Trump's actions while he was president.
Manhattan Case
The Manhattan case is a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's alleged role in a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. The case centers on allegations that Trump violated campaign finance laws by directing the payment to Daniels to suppress negative information about his alleged affair with her. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has raised questions about the admissibility of evidence in the Manhattan case, particularly evidence related to Trump's conversations with his White House communications director about the payment.
January 6th Case
The January 6th case is a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's alleged role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The case centers on allegations that Trump incited the attack by making false claims about the 2020 election and pressuring officials to overturn the results. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has raised questions about the admissibility of evidence in the January 6th case, particularly evidence related to Trump's communications with officials about the election and his actions on January 6th.
Judge Chutkan
Judge Chutkan is the federal judge presiding over the January 6th case. She is responsible for overseeing the trial and making decisions about the admissibility of evidence and the scope of presidential immunity. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has placed Judge Chutkan in a difficult position, as she will have to determine which parts of the indictment involve official versus unofficial conduct.
Jack Smith
Jack Smith is the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump's alleged role in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and his handling of classified documents. He is responsible for overseeing the investigations and making decisions about the prosecution of the cases. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has created challenges for Jack Smith, as it has raised questions about the admissibility of evidence and the scope of presidential power.
Fake Electors
Fake electors are individuals who falsely claimed to be legitimate electors for the 2020 presidential election. They were part of a scheme to overturn the results of the election by submitting fraudulent slates of electors to Congress. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has raised questions about the scope of presidential power in relation to the fake electors scheme, with some arguing that Trump's actions were purely personal and unofficial, while others argue that they were within the outer perimeter of his official acts.
Bully Pulpit
The bully pulpit is a term used to describe the president's ability to use his position to influence public opinion and shape national discourse. The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has raised questions about the scope of the bully pulpit and its relationship to presidential immunity. The court acknowledged that the president has the power to use the bully pulpit to communicate with the public, but it also noted that there may be instances where the president speaks in an unofficial capacity, such as as a candidate or as a party leader.
Rule 44
Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows the Supreme Court to rehear a case if it believes that the original decision was incorrect or that there are important issues that were not adequately addressed. The government could potentially use Rule 44 to seek re-argument of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, arguing that the decision was poorly reasoned and that it has significant implications for the rule of law.
Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
Continuing legal education (CLE) is a requirement for lawyers to stay current on the law and maintain their licenses to practice. Lawyers are required to complete a certain number of CLE credits each year, typically through courses, seminars, or other educational programs. The hosts of the podcast jokingly suggest that listeners should receive CLE credit for listening to the episode, given the complex legal issues discussed.
Q&A
How does the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity affect the ability to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanors?
The Supreme Court's decision on immunity does not affect the ability to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanors. The decision only addresses immunity from criminal prosecution, not impeachment, which is a political process.
How does the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity affect the crime fraud exception?
The Supreme Court's decision on immunity does not affect the crime fraud exception. The decision only addresses immunity from criminal prosecution, not the legality of the conduct itself. The crime fraud exception still applies, meaning that the government can obtain information from lawyers if it believes that the information is relevant to a crime or fraud.
What are some of the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity for future presidents?
The Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity could have significant implications for future presidents, potentially allowing them to abuse their power with impunity. The decision grants broad immunity for official acts, even if those acts are used as evidence for unofficial acts, which could create a situation where presidents are shielded from accountability for their actions. This could lead to a weakening of the rule of law and a greater risk of corruption.
What are some of the arguments that the government could make in seeking re-argument of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity?
The government could argue that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity was poorly reasoned and that it has significant implications for the rule of law. They could also argue that the decision has implications for Congress's authority to legislate and conduct oversight, as it grants broad immunity for official acts, even if those acts are used as evidence for unofficial acts. The government could also argue that the decision is inconsistent with the principles of accountability and transparency.
What are some of the challenges that Jack Smith faces in prosecuting the cases against Donald Trump in light of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity?
Jack Smith faces several challenges in prosecuting the cases against Donald Trump in light of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. The decision has raised questions about the admissibility of evidence, particularly evidence related to Trump's actions while he was president. The decision has also created uncertainty about the scope of presidential power, making it difficult to determine which actions are considered official versus unofficial. These challenges could make it more difficult for Smith to secure convictions against Trump.
What are some of the arguments that Trump's legal team is likely to make in the Mar-a-Lago case?
Trump's legal team is likely to argue that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity should be applied to the Mar-a-Lago case, meaning that evidence related to Trump's actions while he was president should not be admissible. They could also argue that the decision creates a presumption of immunity for Trump's actions, which the government would have to overcome with a strong showing that prosecution would not pose a danger to the executive branch. These arguments could potentially delay or even derail the prosecution of the case.
What are some of the arguments that Trump's legal team is likely to make in the Manhattan case?
Trump's legal team is likely to argue that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity should be applied to the Manhattan case, meaning that evidence related to Trump's conversations with his White House communications director about the hush money payment should not be admissible. They could also argue that the decision creates a presumption of immunity for Trump's actions, which the government would have to overcome with a strong showing that prosecution would not pose a danger to the executive branch. These arguments could potentially delay or even derail the prosecution of the case.
What are some of the arguments that Trump's legal team is likely to make in the January 6th case?
Trump's legal team is likely to argue that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity should be applied to the January 6th case, meaning that evidence related to Trump's communications with officials about the election and his actions on January 6th should not be admissible. They could also argue that the decision creates a presumption of immunity for Trump's actions, which the government would have to overcome with a strong showing that prosecution would not pose a danger to the executive branch. These arguments could potentially delay or even derail the prosecution of the case.
Show Notes
As last week’s historic Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity continues to be absorbed in the public sphere, the majority’s expansive view of what is considered exempt from prosecution comes into stark relief. Given their unique perspectives, veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explore the knock-on effects the ruling will have on Donald Trump’s ongoing cases in Florida, New York and D.C.
Note: Listeners can send questions to: ProsecutingTrumpQuestions@nbcuni.com
Table of contents
United States
