Immunity Impunity | Talking Feds Podcast
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2024
- We add a special episode this week to tackle the Supreme Court argument on immunity. A great group of court experts - Emily Bazelon, Leah Litman, and Mark Stern - join Harry to add the feds voices to a robust debate in the wake of the argument about the sky is falling, the gang breaks down the questions and a parent fault lines in the court to weigh in on whether the argument augurs the end of any possible trial this year and a ruling that provides a measure of kingly immunity to the President.
-
TALKING FEDS PODCAST is a roundtable discussion that brings together prominent former government officials, journalists, and special guests for a dynamic and in-depth analysis of the most pressing questions in law and politics.
New episodes every week! Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/57MG7Rv...
Make sure to SUBSCRIBE!
/ @talkingfeds
FOLLOW US
Website: www.talkingfeds.com/
Twitter: / talkingfedspod
Harry’s Twitter: / harrylitman
Instagram: / talkingfedspod
Facebook: / talkingfeds
TikTok: / talkingfedspod
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER: www.talkingfeds.com/contact
BECOME A PATREON MEMBER: / talkingfeds
CONTACT US
Contact forms: www.talkingfeds.com/contact
Email: talkingfedspodcast@gmail.com
Well AOC is drafting articles of impeachment for a second impeachment of Thomas. At least someone is trying to do something .
Unfortunately, it wont go anywhere. Republicans put him on the court for exactly the reasons, he shouldnt be there, and they will protect him no matter what, until they can get some1 in the WH to replace him with some1 much worse and 40 years younger.
I didn't know that. Thank you!
Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and even Roberts appear to be transferring their own feelings of being persecuted to empathy for Trump which is totally obliterating their judgment in this case.
The arrogance from these right wing justices is astounding.
Absolutel power corrupts, Absolutely👁️🔔👁️
@@njosborne6152 Supreme power corrupts supremely.
Fox news made them ignorant.
Thank you. We absolutely have to right size SCOTUS to say 13 and impeach 2-3 SCOTUS justices
“The Supreme Court has already ruined the country, don’t let it ruin your weekend as well.”😂 Spot on. I listened to the whole hearing and was gobsmacked through the majority of it, having mostly the same interpretations of the Justices as you 4 here.
A dark episode but a bright and lovely panel!
Thanks Harry. I'm listening now. You continue to bring the best conversation. Thanks for all you do.
👍 HARRY LITMAN 👍
Yeah, all this Ftrumpft BS is unbelievable! Hold your voting rights tight, vote Blue!
Excellent Podcast!! This is your best so far, and your guests were superb.
Although I'm not a lawyer and many terms and references are only vaguely understood, I still get a lot out of your discussions and believe it's worthwhile to listen. We voters should have as much information as possible inorder to make their decisions. Thank you for being here.
This panel provides the deepest and most disturbing analysis of the case Jack Smith brought against Donald Trump that I have heard. The unasked (and unanswered) question is, “How do the male justices of the Supreme Court sleep at night?”
The Leonard Leo / Federalist Society corrupt antidemocratic judicial fix is in; Leo's crooked judges will do anything they can to favor Trump and other Republicans, preventing Trump's disqualification and delaying Trump's prosecutions, to keep Trump from being convicted before the general election and to maximize the chances of the election of Trump and other Republicans, to perpetuate the cycle of corrupt antidemocratic Republican elected officials appointing and confirming corrupt antidemocratic Republican judges.
Honest to God, I really worry about that. Once corrupt, the law no matter applies - apparently. 🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🗽🩺
@@audreywellham2413that brings to mind a quote of Kavanaugh from the hearing, “Nobody knows what corrupt intent means.” Truly frightening.
I’m am so depressed after listening to this.
11:10 Leah Litman hit the ball not just out of the park but into the ocean.
Thanks Harry! This one was fun. I actually laughed a few times. Harry: "Yeah!" 😂🤣😂
Only common men fall under the law, money and power walk.
So we now know it’s true. 🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🗽🩺
Harry, as always thank you for these informative conversations any your daily videos.
Can’t finish. Too depressing
Add four new justices to the SCOTUS asap
This is the correct answer. The corneas shown it is more interested in philosophical hypotheticals while ignoring a clear and present danger from an actor with evil intent.
Thanks for all you do, Harry.
@TalkingFeds - A related question: Why can't Justice Thomas be impeached by the House of Representatives, then convicted by the Senate for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"? Forget the political problem with the make-up of Congress at that moment (but I am suggesting possibly after the Nov. election) ... he has accepted bribes clearly and with his wife supported an insurrection (treason) because he did not recuse himself in these Trump Jan. 6 cases at SCOTUS. It's incredibly rare (I think just once with Samuel Chase in 1804), but isn't he a good candidate for impeachment? At least an inquiry in the Senate?
It doesn’t matter whether the election interference case wraps up before early voting begin.
It’s only important that the prosecution be able to make its case before voters decide.
The defense’s case can wait until after the election.
So too can the decision & any sentencing that may result.
Jack smith must have every opportunity to make his case before early voting begins.
No one is above the law. 🗽
The reasoning that an ex-president can be prosecuted for a crime because it is a crime, which so bothers Chief Justice John Roberts, is just a consequence of saying the president is not above the law. Why does Roberts want presidents to be above the law?
Right. . .
@njosborne6152 At least shouldn't be.
Enabling fascism in slow motion
Courts going to rule that there isn't enough clarity on the law and pass the immunity to Congress. The case will be delayed indefinitely, as congress won't act on the courts ruling. So there will be no decision on immunity. Its how they dealt with removing Trump from rhe Colorado ballot case. Call it a loop hole.
Kafkaesque?🤔
The Justices in the corrupt antidemocratic majority in SCOTUS became aiders and comforters of the oath-violating former President and his accomplices in Congress, ruling Congress must pass a law to impose disqualification, and, by the same ruling, protected the corrupt antidemocratic Justices themselves.
They abused their supremacy to protect their favored traitors, including themselves.
The perfect crime.
The corrupt antidemocratic majority in SCOTUS is wrong to say that Congress must pass a law enforcing Amendment 14 Section 3. The Constitution is law. There is no law needed to repeat what the Constitution already says. What part of "No person shall” does the corrupt antidemocratic majority in SCOTUS not understand?
I'm really really goddamn sick of trump!
How do you hold people with lifetime appointments accountable?
Exactly. 🙏🏻🇺🇸⚖️💙🗽🩺
Term limits 👍🏾
I'm just here to hit "like",..I have to listen to the podcast,
for "a Spirited Debate."..it makes me chuckle. Nice crew today, Harry..you're the best.
Superb! Always happy to hear Emily Bazelon and your varied panels!
A couple of things: is he still President until the moment the VP ratifies the vote? On Jan 6, did he get the morning list of security briefings etc? Still had a Chief of Staff?
And while Alito is so freely hypothesizing, ask him to hypothesize the scenarios where a sitting president could use immunity to eliminate opponents.
US presidents remain president until the new one is sworn in on January 20th.
Love you All
I concur Mark Stern.
The mental acuity of Justices Alito and Thomas is on display for the entire nation. They have been an embarrassment for decades but their positions entitle them to immunity and all we can do is hope that someday soon they will retire.
Thanks Harry and guests. Great show. Recommend to explain to others what's going on with the supreme court.
You would suffer less shock and confusion and make better predictions about the Court if you accept that four, maybe five, justices are fascists who relish desecration of the Constitution. The Constitution Article III, Sect 2 limits the Court's jurisdiction to cases and controversies. The hypotheticals in US v Trump are not cases properly before the Court. The Court's dalliances with them were therefore flagrantly unconstitutional just like its groundless undermining of state application of the 14th Amendment, Sec 3 in Trump v Anderson (2024) was unconstitutional. At least 4 justices on the Supreme Court have for the first time in American history entertained favorably the idea that a president can be held to be above the law in United States v. Trump (2024). This is the "Führerprinzip," a core fascist concept that the “dear leader” can commit crimes with absolute impunity. No judge is known in American history to have ever considered this to be anything but a ridiculous anti-American proposition suited to the royal regime overthrown by the Revolution,
OMG - SO MUCH MEAT TO THIS WILD BEAST you dissect with such deliberated but clearly no manual to reference the anatomy! Three listens this week so far! Soo many "ah-hah" moments, it tickles my brain. ❤😂❤😂 Brilliant debate. Thank you - each and all!!
Can this SCOTUS decision be vacated later on since it will possibly be insane?
Bloody hell. The GOP has gone mad.
This was excellent. Thanks for gathering 4 of my faves together. 👏👏👏👏
Thanks for a great panel discussion
I'm with Harry and Emily. The Conservatives, to use the kindest term possible, are not addressing the case before them--they're playing make believe. In truth, they never should have taken this case, says this not-a-lawyer.
No President is above the law - when the Court is above politics!
Thank you for another great episode.
Thanks again, Harry, for having stellar people on your podcast. Shut me down if I'm getting too personal, but is Leah related to you?
Many legal analysts are feeling the same consternation as all-y'all. I hope-hope-hope that the Supremes will make the right decisions in this case.
Analysis Paralysis. Immunity and equal justice cannot co-exist.
Good show, but I am still crying inside!
Excellent program, Harry - - but very disconcerting, unfortunately. Thanks for your guest commentary and all the work the Sanity Brigade is doing.
Thank you!!!
This was an excellent, albeit depressing, episode.
Thanks!!
The Court has dropped into the rabbit hole of Alice In Wonderland.
Thomas will never recuse, if he did he would be admitting Ginni's guilt.
Great work! But a bummer.
Loving the content ❤
You touched on everything I felt and heard during this hearing, to me the argument distinguishing between official and unofficial acts without motive was just wild.
As depressing as this was it was a great episode & I laughed at the end when u couldn’t end in positivity even after trying a couple times.
The Bulwark is awesome too with Tim Miller and Charlie Sykes
This was terribly depressing... :)
All this time I thought it was safe to assume that, if nothing else, at least eight of the nine justices have the rudimentary common sense to see that it is not in their own interest to declare that the president is above the law.
It’s a disaster this bifurcation of the presidential immunity issue, this crime official vs crime unofficial. Criminal is criminal. Laws are needed defining what a president may not do, while president. Same the Supreme Court judges. So presidents and Supreme Court justices have to obey the same laws everybody else does with further restrictions considering the power the individual wields.
Intuitively...is Aleto vying to be smarter than established law as enshrined by the founding fathers? Are we witnessing 'wanna be judgement' here. Sickening.
Harry!❤
This court needs help. We the people are not listened to only wealthy donors have a voice. What they did to Al Gore should not be forgotten. And here they are, little change in attitude but huge treat to our republic form of democracy. The time is now. Change must happen soon.
I dont understand either! Lets stay shocked! Its necessary!
It is definitely grim, but thanks for giving me a reality check, that I'm not the only one that feels the same way..
Grim. Grim. Grim
What I heard was that if there was a mix of personal acts with presidential acts they could not separate the personal acts. Therefore the personal acts would also be immune.
It would be awesome if you could record your Talking San Diego show and upload it to CZcams. 💙🤗🗽⚖️🌊
This only motivates me to fight even more by voting, as with the abortion issue Biden alluded to in the State of the Union address. We can't just observe democracy going down the toilet.
I love listening to Talking Feds, but 11 minutes in I had to stop listening because the discussion about the Supreme Court discussion was too upsetting. And I'm not even an American.
He's not going to go to trial. There will be endless appeals until the hamberders catch up with him. Welcome to endless lawfare.
I did some very brief research on absolute constitutional presidential immunity in other countries and found an article. It does exist in Nigerian, here is the summary of the article.
Immunity clause as enshrined under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has generated protracted controversies for and against its inclusion in the rubrics of Nigerian constitutional laws. This paper considers widespread corruption by Nigerian leaders, shielded by the immunity clause. It explains the need for reform to curtail the anomaly wherein absolute executive immunity is provided for leaders in Nigeria. The paper maintains that there should be equality before the law, hence, the possible prosecution and appearance of a sitting President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors in some criminal and civil matters drawing from other jurisdictions.
Maybe America could learn something from the real experience in other places.
Official acts of inciting violence? Wow.
It seems to me that this SCOTUS gets upset (up on their high horse) whenever anyone attempts to make a point about the law. Like "how dare they say that to US?" Look at all the Amicus (sp) briefs that have been sent to them from Jack Smith, Judge Luttig, that group that were well respected sources of Civil War law. (14th ammendment part 3) other well respected groups or individuals. They take offense & take the opposite view. Not to say they weren't leaning that way anyway but it might come down to one halfway reasonable Justice. It sounds childish, I know, but I keep thinking about Roberts response when the Senate asked him to appear during the Thomas graft & non-recusals. After hearing Roberts response to the Senate, it came across as just that. How dare you? WE can police our own court. (but then did nothing. Squat as we say in NJ)
❤❤❤❤ Love Beyoncé… the episode was also goo😂d
"It's not conservative!" Sounds like someone hasn't yet grasped the reality that the GOP has been shifting away from conservatism to fascism. Also just how comfy people been with some of its common traits throughout our history.
If there can be silver lining, the ruling that’s coming will be, like Dobbs, more fuel to boost Democrats’ vote turnouts in November.
Just a question… whatever the court decides, can we expect President Biden to take advantage of the new findings?
He should put on his Dark Brandon sunglasses and threaten to.
He’s too damn honorable IMO to actually do it.
We will see.
They're not going to make a decision. That's the whole point of taking the case in the first place.
@@qwadratix I agree but don’t you think that they will have to provide some resolution?
@@qwadratix Yeah they won't decide, leaving Biden unsure about it. Much like how congress refused to select a supreme court justice until the election was over. Didn't matter if the seat was vacant. But if Trump win be sure the rules change to prosecute Biden for what ever.
@@dianedelello5906 I don't think so. It really is just about delaying these cases until the election.
If Trump wins, it won't be necessary to make him 'officially' immune since he'll have absolute power anyway. (He might insist they still declare him untouchable anyway)
If Trump loses, I think this time it will end him politically and SCOTUS will probably just quietly forget the whole thing as profitless speculation.
The court needs an infusion of common sense.
NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!
But maybe POTUS shouldn't be in court then in office?
Ugh!
Why would immunizing "official acts" help? Official acts arguably are actions that a private person cannot do, e.g. actions that only the president can do. Actions that carry the awesome and unmatched power of the presidency. Such as:
- Ordering a nuclear strike (on a perceived enemy, on a US ally, on a "corrupt" American city, like Portland or Miami)
- Ordering a military strike to kill a person or group of persons (a terrorist abroad, a "corrupt" political rival, a "corrupt" supreme court justice, the entire supreme court)
If you take out motive (such as Gorsuch seemed to suggest), the most egregrious acts, that are done with corrupt intent using the full power of the presidency, will be immune
Alito is so corrupt he is willing to look stupid in public.
I listen to a lot of these legal/political commentaries and discussions, and I often find them edifying; but not this time! Despite listening to every word for nearly an hour, I could never figure out what the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks you all were talking about! What are the two options you were discussing? I have no idea! I don’t know what will be decided, how it will be decided, what the future implications will be, etc. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? SAY IT - DON’T CODE IT.
Is Leah related to Harry? Litman isn't exactly a common name.
Edit:
So, Harry and Leah are _not_ related, and the name Litman _is_ uncommon. In fact, only 1 person in 158,348 have that name.
On the bright side he might just leave the living.
Sad for the country, but democracies don't typically last more than a couple hundred years, so not really a surprise.
It is sad to think of it, but the inescapable reason as to why the court has gone off on a kind of moot court exercise, is that the Court is trying it's mightiest to ensure that Trump becomes the next president. It is a legal crisis IMHO. This immunity issue as it exists in Trumps matter, is not reasonably subject to widely differing judicial conservative/liberal opinions. And yet.
This case is blowing holes through the fallacy of “originalism” and “textualism”. These hypocrites are using it to legislate right wing policy.
Geez Harry! You need not ever buy a DNA test my man!
Why wasn't Trump charged with insurrection?
Unbelievably depression analysis. I wish you guys are wrong but doubt it.
Plz stop with the “Talking Feds San Diego” promotions. Can’t you just advertise it in southern California? I’m in Texas, love your podcast, but am old & grumpy & don’t like the San Diego specific delay of your podcast. Thanks for considering my request.
Just the fact, that its been over 3 years since an attempted coup in ur country, and u guys have still been unable to handle it or even come to terms with it, is insane. That the coup maker is still running free and a friggin presidential candidate again is beyond insane.
That ur Supreme Court is debating, whether or not he can even be indicted, let alone prosecuted, for, again, an attempted coup, is so beyond insane, I dont even have words for it.
Considering the sorry state of ur justice system, it was always eyerolling and vaguely insulting, when u guys came lecturing us in Western Europe about our justice systems, which are not perfect, but far far FAR better than ur sh*tshow. After the way, u failed as a country, justice system and ppl alike, to handle a friggin coup, dont ever come talking to us about justice systems or democracy again. At best we would be polite and just laugh in ur face. At this point, ur best case scenario is being a total joke. And thats if u finally manage to prosecuted, convict and incarcerate the guy, we all saw doing a coup live on tv. If u fail to do that, nobody will ever take u seriously again, u wont even be able to lecture a banana republic about justice.
“U” are very rude. You act as if every American supports this state of affairs and you’re listening to the podcast of four smart legal analysts who clearly don’t like what’s happening. Why are “u” giving them a hard time. You are full of resentment and your comment stinks. I am British, by the way. So I’m an outsider too. Every country has its problems, and the US is no different. Either say something helpful or understand that nothing you said achieved anything except point out to the world how obnoxious you are
You're promoting alcohol? The biggest killer recreational drug on Earth? Shame ...
President TRUMP deserves the same protections all other presidents have had!......TRUMP 2024
Exactly, NO protection against prosecution for insurrection and conspiracy to falsify electors.
No tweeting!! No Put him in the courthouse basement for his own safety, he can spend the night, take a cold shower, dress in orange, while his suit’s out being pressed and be refreshed in the morning, so he doesn’t fall asleep during his court
Fantastic show, all.
Btw, to Guest Mark:
Ty for sharing @ the end of the show the sage piece of advice [that you share w friends who text you in distress re. SCOTUS] ie. that they “are already ruining the country, don’t let them ruin your week/end as well…” 🫡 Noted.
Cuz tbh, this is *so depressing…* (and terrifying, infuriating, etc…) BUT it is obv necessary info nonetheless, so thx again to the panel!🙏🏼😊👋🏼
Good evening Harry, Australian here. 2252 hours 2 May. A bit late but just like to say that I appreciate you and your guests common sense and just the way it is attitude. No BS. If I might ask a question? What would happen if the Defendant is incapable (not of sound mind) of standing trial or finishing the trial ? Does the trial continue or is the Defendant "restricted" in other ways? Thank you . 🧐👋👣🦘🦘🦘🦘
I knew in 2015 during the primaries that he wasnt going to leave peacefully , remember only if win !!!!!!!😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠
I meant " ONLY IF I WIN " .😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠
Yah dont even be a democrat ,and do even a fraction of what teump did .😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
👍 HARRY LITMAN 👍