Trump Wins Broad Immunity

from New York Times I'm Michael Boro. this is the. [Music]. daily on Monday the Supreme Court ruled. that former president Trump is entitled. to Broad immunity from Criminal. prosecution for actions that he took. while in. office my colleague Adam lipac explains. how that ruling will we weaken the.

federal case against Trump for trying to. overturn the last election and will. dramatically expand the power of the. presidency. [Music]. itself it's Tuesday July. 2nd Adam within the past few days former. president Trump experienced a major. political victory at the first. presidential debate against President.

Biden who did quite badly and now Trump. has won a major legal victory at the. Supreme Court he's having a good week. and the Supreme Court on Monday severely. undermined a case that really troubles. former president Trump and so he's got. political victories and he might even. say that he's got a constitutional. Victory because the court in large part. embraced his version of Presidential. Power.

okay and we're going to get to all the. details of this ruling I want to just. remind listeners about the origins of. this case it begins with the events. leading up to January 6th and it has had. a pretty long journey to the high court. right the special counsel Jack Smith. indicted former president Trump for what. Smith said were Trump's efforts to. subvert the 2020 election.

mhm and that case was chugging along. until Trump's lawyers went to the. district court and said wait a second. the president has constitutional. immunity from prosecution at least for. his official acts and that argument was. rejected by the trial judge by a. unanimous three-judge panel of the DC. circuit and then it goes to the Supreme. Court where people and I got to say.

including me didn't think Trump had the. best chance of prevailing but when the. case was argued the right side of the. Court the six Justice conservative super. majority seemed quite taken by Trump's. arguments and what was it about Trump's. arguments that seemed to find. sympathetic ears among the conservative. justices once the case reached the court. that these Lower Court judges completely.

rejected the conservative justices. looked at the case as presenting an. abstract question about the scope of. Presidential Power and the role of the. president in the Constitutional. structure and that was quite different. from what the lower courts had thought. about they were looking at the. particular facts of the case and asking. whether Trump's alleged conduct was so. unprecedented that you have to focus on. those alleg ations mhm whatever the.

general idea is about Presidential Power. these Lower Court judges thought there. needs to be an exception when the former. president is accused of having used his. office to undermine democracy itself got. it right okay I think that brings us to. Monday's ruling so tell us how the. justices ended up weighing these two. very different arguments the justices.

split. 63 along the usual lines which is to say. the six Republican appointees in the. majority the three Democratic appointees. in descent and the majority more or less. adopts the Trump view it says we're. talking about a case that will affect. any occupant of the Oval Office this is. not a Donald Trump case that the. constitution requires an energetic. vigorous in independent president who is.

not concerned about being potentially. criminally prosecuted for things he did. in. office so what they rule is that the. president has immunity for his official. conduct and that official conduct is. defined quite broadly to the Outer. Perimeter of His official duties and the. court draws some distinctions.

there are some core activities of the. presidency commander-in-chief the pardon. power and so on where it truly is. absolute and they give an example of. that kind of truly absolute power if. you're discussing with your own attorney. general What official actions to bring. even in connection with the election. that's absolutely immune other official. conduct they say is presumptively immune. but even that is a really high standard. because they say what they mean by.

presumptive immunity is that prosecutors. have to show that the prosecution. wouldn't endanger or even get near any. official conduct so the bottom line is. so long as it's official conduct there. is a very very high barrier to any kind. of prosecution okay so that is an. extremely broad sounding level of. immunity that the Supreme Court has just. conferred on the day-to-day official.

actions of a president so I want to. further Define this concept of official. acts especially this phrase of the Outer. Perimeter of official duties and. understand just how wide that perimeter. is and let me be super specific because. as this case has made its way up to the. Supreme Court the hypothetical that is. evoked time and again is of a president. using his or her official. authority to perhaps order the.

assassination of a political rival and. then claim that was an official act. because as president I have power over. the military does this ruling seem to. apply that immunity to an action like. that so the majority doesn't deal with. that precise scenario but the logic of. it is that if it's part of the. president's official duties he's. commander-in-chief he's the chief law. enforcement officer and if it's a. plausible application of His official.

responsibilities then yes he would be. immune even for things as wild as. ordering an assassination H so this. immunity is entirely separate and apart. from whatever the motivation of the. president is in taking an official act. that might ordinarily be seen as. criminal and prosecutable so Michael. chief justice Roberts actually answers. in so so many words the question you.

just asked he says in dividing official. from unofficial conduct courts may not. inquire into the president's motives H. such an inquiry would risk exposing even. the most obvious instances of official. conduct to judicial examination on the. mere allegation of improper purpose so. they really want to insulate the. president from prosecution.

and from Court's second guessing the. president's thinking wow I mean a truly. profound view of the president's power. and Immunity from Criminal prosecution. why would the majority Embrace that. really really robust view of. Presidential Power and legal immunity. what is the legal theory that Roberts. and the majority lay out to justify it. they say that the. constitution. contemplates a very powerful chief.

executive that it imbus him with power. that it makes him the head of one of the. three branches of of government and that. ideas like the separation of powers. insulate him from either Congress. passing laws that would subject him to. criminal prosecution or the courts. deciding whether he has crossed lines. into. illegality it feels like that view of. presidential immunity.

is all about getting out of the. president's way keeping the legal system. out of the president's hair and it would. seem to assume a general law abidingness. and even dare I say morality from the. presidency and it doesn't seem to really. want to Grapple with the idea that a. president would blatantly stray into. open. lawlessness in his or her official acts. right Roberts writes.

that this is the first time a prosecutor. has thought to charge a former president. with a crime and he seems to say that. that means there's something wrong with. this prosecution but another way to look. at it Michael is that this may be the. first president who did engage in the. kind of as you put it Lawless conduct. that would demand accountability at. least after he leaves office we have. been talking about official acts and the.

immunity that this decision confers on. them from a president Adam what does. this ruling say about unofficial acts. and what even is an unofficial act. according to this ruling that if done. might subject a president to criminal. prosecution so the decision doesn't get. into or give particular examples of. unofficial private conduct but it's not. hard to think about it I mean there. there are things that are completely. divorced from the president's official. duties let's assume Trump was involved.

in a business deal that gave rise to. illegality didn't pay his taxes was. involved in a car accident so there is a. narrow category of things but they are. all the Supreme Court. suggests wholly divorced from entirely. separate from outside the outer. perimeter of the president's official. conduct all to say there is a sphere of. decision-making that could get a.

president prosecuted criminally charged. after they leave office but it sounds. quite narrow that's right the majority. leaves very little room to hold former. presidents accountable for asserted. criminal conduct and the dissent is very. aware of this I mean this gives you a. sense of just how big a deal this. decision is just as Sonia Sor in her. descent says the majority has done the.

following the relationship between the. president and the people he serves has. shifted. irrevocably in every use of official. power the president is now a king above. the law. huh so if you think about it as a matter. of like constitutional Theory the gap. between the majority and The Descent. could not be bigger and the disagreement. about whether former presidents can be.

held to account is enormous but the. descent is also keenly aware of a. practical point that this ruling will. make the possibility of Prosecuting. former president Trump ever and. certainly before the coming. election very very difficult. [Music].

we'll be right. back so Adam let's turn to the very. specific question of how as you just. said before the break this Supreme Court. ruling is going to make it harder for. the special Council to prosecute Trump. for seeking to overturn the 2020. election right so as we've been saying. Michael the basic question is is the. conduct official or unofficial right and.

the Supreme Court sets out some. guidelines some ideas about what falls. on which side of the balance but it says. it's not going to do the work itself. it's going to send back to the trial. judge judge Tanya chken who's been. supervising this case what the Supreme. Court says is a difficult and fact. intensive and presumably timec consuming. job in which she will have to decide. what is absolutely immune from.

prosecution what is official conduct. that is presumptively immune from. prosecution and what is purely private. conduct right and the Supreme Court. draws some faint lines and it starts to. say that well one thing we know is. absolutely immune from. prosecution is the president's. Communications with the justice. department the justice department. reports to him that's official and of. course that would seem important because.

president Trump communicated a good deal. with his Department of Justice in his. effort to interfere with the 2020. election I recall him trying to install. a favored attorney general towards the. end of his presidency who he thought. would do his bidding in the effort to. overturn the election so that seems like. a pretty big sphere to exempt from the. special council's prosecution quite. right but I guess I'd say that if you. put aside what happened and the.

particulars of it and Donald Trump and. that shadow attorney general Jeff Clark. most people if you're to ask them the. abstract question of is the president of. the United States allowed to appoint his. own attorney general might say yes. that's part of his official duties so. you can disagree given the particular. circumstances here but viewed as an. abstract question it's not wholly crazy. to to think that's official okay what.

other guidance does the court give in. terms of what is immune or not immune in. the special council's January 6th case. another example is former president. Trump's Communications with his vice. president Mike Pence and there the sense. is that that's probably immune but the. court says it's complicated we're going. to presume it's immune and maybe the. prosecutors can come up with some way of.

overcoming that presumption but it sure. seems to be sending the signal that. there too that's official and therefore. exempt from prosecution and again that's. meaningful as a piece of evidence in the. special council's case because president. Trump was repeatedly pressuring his vice. president to not sign off on the. transfer of power from Trump to Biden. and he was constantly pushing Pence to. agree to a scheme. of alternative delegates who might keep.

Biden from becoming the president so. right so in these two areas already and. we've just talked about two the court. seems to be cutting major pieces out of. the indictment and out of the case. against Donald Trump I'm curious what. actions the president took around. January 6th that this ruling specifies. as not being subject to the dis. immunity so the majority opinion doesn't.

say for sure that any particular Act is. unofficial conduct and therefore. prosecutable but it does suggest that. it's at least possible that say some of. what Trump said on January 6th might be. unofficial conduct that some of his. contacts with say state election. officials not part of his administration.

might be unofficial conduct but it will. be up to prosecutors to overcome a. presumption that all of that is official. conduct and it will be up to the trial. judge to decide who's right but all of. this is the beginning of a very long. process right and that word long process. is important because when it comes to. the January 6th prosecution we have. always understood the special council's.

desire to bring this case and have it. adjudicated before Donald Trump could. win re-election and use his power as. president to. theoretically intervene in and interfere. with the prosecution of him as president. what critics of Donald Trump have long. hoped for is that there would be before. the election a trial not only to hold.

Trump criminally accountable as they. think he should be but also to let the. American people have a look at all of. the evidence against Trump in this. sphere and that Prospect seems to be. evaporating before our eyes in short. this really clearly kneecaps much of the. January 6 prosecution against trump it. may even end that prosecution if Trump. gets reelected and just to go back to.

the majority's logic in this ruling that. it's so much bigger than Trump and it's. so much bigger than the January 6th case. it's about Presidential Power I wonder. if that means the majority is kind of. willfully ignoring the reality of what. their ruling on Monday means for the. specific case before them the January 6. prosecution or perhaps just not caring. about that I think there's a bunch of. things that the court maybe properly. maybe not doesn't seem to care about it.

doesn't care about the fact that its. public approval ratings have dropped. precipitously and this case is not going. to help among major parts of the. American public it doesn't seem to care. that two members of the majority. justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel. Alo have faced calls for their recusal. and it doesn't care about the election. it doesn't view this as an election case. it views this as a major case on.

Presidential Power and it's made almost. no efforts to send it back to the trial. court in time for it to have a trial. before the. election it expedited the case a little. bit but not very much issued its. decision on the very last day of the. term and all of this speaks to a court. that views itself as deciding. important but quite abstract legal.

questions well if we take the. conservative majority at its word Adam. and believe that they are making this. big abstract ruling in the name of. preserving or expanding Presidential. Power and protections it strikes me that. Donald Trump is benefiting mightily from. the Supreme Court's inclination to see. its decisions as affecting all. presidents not just him. and assuming as it seems to do in this.

ruling that your average president is. going to be law-abiding rather than law. challenging or. violating it is certainly a gift to. Donald Trump and the majority would say. he's the incidental. beneficiary of an important broad ruling. about Presidential Power it would be. easier to take that point of view. seriously if the gift came from the.

entire Supreme Court Fair rather than. from a part of the Supreme Court. precisely the six justices named by. Republican presidents over the vehement. objections of the three justices named. by democratic presidents so I would like. to think that this is a good faith. dispute unrelated to the particular. consequences in the particular case. about Donald Trump but that lineup.

challenges my wish to think that both. sides are operating in perfect good. faith another way to think about this. ruling if you step way back is it's kind. of a supreme court saying that when you. elect a president you have to accept. dear American people that the. constitution gives them a tremendous. amount of power and legal latitude to. kind of do what they want under this r. brick of official acts and we the.

Supreme Court are going to make it. pretty hard to hold that President. criminally responsible for their actions. so voters need to think really carefully. about who they want to possess this. level of immunity I mean the ruling. doesn't say that of course but it's the. only logical conclusion to come to I. think that's right and it's also the. case that the court authentically wants. to protect every president president. including Joe Biden let's assume a world.

in which Biden loses Trump wins and. Trump follows through on thinly veiled. threats to exact retribution from his. political Rivals right and tries to. prosecute Biden this ruling would very. much protect Biden and chief justice. Roberts writes that presidents take many. controversial and unpopular acts that. are not hard to characterize as criminal.

mhm do you want the next president to be. prosecuting the former one that's never. been part of the American legal. tradition so this is good I suppose for. outgoing presidents who will not be. prosecuted by their political Rivals. over what they did in office but it does. a second. thing it emboldens the next president. and the president after that. to test the boundaries of Presidential.

Power because they'll know that the. Supreme Court has said there is almost. nothing they can do in an arguably. official way that will ever cause them. to be prosecuted criminally after they. leave. office well Adam thank you very much we. appreciate it thank you Michael. [Music]. on Monday afternoon both President Biden.

and former president Trump issued. statements reacting to the Court's. ruling Trump celebrated the decision. calling it quote a big win for our. Constitution and. democracy the Biden campaign denounced. it saying that the court had quote. handed Donald Trump the keys to a. dictatorship. we'll be right. [Applause].

back here's what else you need to know. day hurricane Barrel the first category. 4 storm to ever materialize this early. in the hurricane season made landfall. Monday on Kaku a small island north of. Granada the result. was extraordinary Devastation across the.

Island Hurricane Barrel shocked. meteorologists because it strengthened. from a tropical depression into a major. hurricane in just 42 hours a direct. result of higher than normal water. temperatures throughout the region and. House Republicans have sued the US. attorney general Merck Garland in an. effort to obtain audio recordings of. President Biden's interview with a. special C Council who raised questions.

about Biden's memory and mental Fitness. if successful the lawsuit would give. Republicans embarrassing audio to use. against Biden at a time when his debate. performance has put his age at the. center of the presidential. [Music]. race today's episode was produced by. Olivia Nat and Diana win it was edited. by Patricia willins with help from Lisa. Chow contains original music by Alicia B.

and Diane Wong and was engineered by. Chris Wood our theme music is by Jim. runberg and Ben lansberg of. [Music]. wonderly that's it for the daily I'm. Michael. Laro see you tomorrow. [Music].