2:00

basically heard this case on the last day of

2:02

oral arguments for the term. They put out their

2:04

decision on the final day of the term, and

2:08

now they're kicking it back to the

2:10

district court. And

2:12

essentially, it's not everything Trump wanted

2:14

by a long shot. Trump

2:17

wanted absolute immunity for everything, but

2:20

it is in the

2:23

realm of what prognosticators and Supreme

2:25

Court watchers expected. It is very

2:29

favorable to Trump, 6-3, the

2:32

conservatives all joining Chief Justice Roberts.

2:34

And basically they're saying anything

2:37

that can plausibly be argued as

2:39

an official act is

2:41

immune from prosecution. So just right there, that's

2:43

going to strike down a bunch of the

2:46

charges in special counsel Jack Smith's

2:49

indictment against Trump, because it means

2:52

that everything Trump did with the

2:54

Justice Department and Jeff Clark and

2:56

trying to get the Justice

2:58

Department to investigate made up

3:00

allegations of fraud, that's all thrown out.

3:03

It seems basically like everything Trump did

3:05

to pressure Mike Pence

3:07

in his role as vice president

3:10

to reject certification is going to get thrown

3:12

out. It will be tested in the lower

3:14

court, but it's very clear that that's where

3:16

this is headed. And then all that really

3:19

leaves left is the speech that Trump gave

3:21

at the ellipse where he told

3:23

people to go fight like hell and he said he was going

3:25

to go with them. And the justices

3:27

created this test. This is a very

3:29

long opinion that the lower

3:32

court will have to dissect, but they're

3:34

saying, maybe it was official, maybe it

3:36

wasn't, you have to look at context.

3:38

And I think people will ultimately agree

3:40

that the speech at the ellipse was

3:42

not in his capacity as president, but

3:44

that's the kind of the least of

3:46

the alleged criminal activity. So

3:48

ultimately, this is

3:50

sort of a decision for the ages because

3:52

it affects every president, but it is a

3:55

big win for Donald Trump. And

3:57

James, did you sense that the court and

3:59

the justices... today

8:00

is telling that court to

8:02

reexamine now with this new

8:04

framework, that likely

8:06

pushes this beyond the election.

8:09

And again, that matters because

8:11

if Trump wins reelection, he

8:13

could then instruct his Justice

8:15

Department to toss out these

8:17

charges. And James,

8:19

before you go, I want

8:21

to get both of your opinions and thoughts and

8:23

reporting on this. Where does

8:26

this take us politically? We know that this

8:28

is not a clear cut win for

8:30

the former president, but we

8:33

do know he often takes things and runs

8:35

with them. And

8:37

where do you think he's going with this? Yeah,

8:40

Trump has already posted on Truth Social minutes after the

8:42

ruling that this is a big win

8:44

for our Constitution and democracy. In

8:47

his words, he's going to claim this as vindication.

8:50

He's going to say, John Roberts is no

8:52

friend of mine. And he wrote for the

8:54

court. And

8:57

this is about executive power generally and the power

8:59

of the presidency. And I mean,

9:01

this is, I

9:04

think it's a political victory for

9:06

Trump because it does just delay

9:08

everything. It means that he's not

9:10

going to have some October trial in

9:13

DC where he's out of the campaign

9:15

trail. And

9:18

Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida is doing everything she

9:20

can to drag her case out. The Georgia case

9:22

has been postponed because of appeals of her Fonnie

9:24

Willis and whether she should

9:26

be disqualified. Obviously, we have sentencing coming

9:28

up in a few weeks. But if

9:31

you're Donald Trump this morning, you're feeling

9:33

really good coming out of

9:35

the debate, getting this ruling. And

9:37

then he has his VP to roll out

9:39

sometime in the next two weeks. So I

9:41

think Trump has to be happy. All right.

9:44

Thanks so much, James. And we will see you

9:46

soon back in the studio. In

9:49

France in the 13th century, a teenager

9:51

ascends the throne. He

9:54

seems calm, collected, and as it

9:56

happens, drop dead gorgeous. But

9:59

look, see you next time. can be deceiving,

10:01

and no one is ready for the death,

10:04

destruction, and chaos that lie ahead. Step

10:07

inside the reign of one of

10:09

the middle ages most cold-blooded rulers

10:11

on This Is History presents The

10:13

Iron King, available wherever you

10:15

get your podcasts. So

10:21

J.M., picking up where James left off, the

10:24

politics of this. We know Trump usually

10:26

will take something and run with it. Where

10:28

do you think this goes in terms of

10:30

the campaign and how this decision affects

10:32

the campaign? If

10:34

this decision wasn't already monumental

10:37

enough, it feels like it just

10:39

got that much more important coming

10:41

just a few days after what

10:43

was an awful debate for President

10:46

Biden with the potential, we don't

10:48

know yet, but with the potential

10:50

to really change the dynamics of

10:53

this election, this is

10:55

yet another wrench in what

10:58

so far has just been an unprecedented

11:00

kind of campaign cycle that we're talking

11:02

about here. I

11:04

also am interested how this

11:07

impacts, if at all, Trump's

11:09

vice presidential selection. He sort of said

11:11

that he, you know,

11:13

he sort of hinted earlier this year that

11:15

he had already made his mind up. We

11:17

know that, and you were

11:19

down in Atlanta, and he had a lot

11:21

of his vice presidential contenders or who are

11:24

thought to be vice presidential contenders down there

11:27

as surrogates for him. But a

11:30

central question in that selection

11:32

is whether they would have

11:34

certified the election as Mike

11:36

Pence did in early 2021

11:38

for the 2020 election there,

11:40

because that

11:44

does show up in the opinion

11:47

here. The quote

11:50

from the opinion is other allegations

11:52

such as those involving Trump's interactions

11:54

with the vice president, state officials,

11:56

and certain private parties, and his

11:58

comments to the general. actions

16:00

on January 6th and subverting

16:02

the 2020 election. So that's really

16:05

the only reason this was a question in front of

16:07

the Supreme Court. I want to

16:09

play a clip for you guys. Just talk about,

16:11

tell me what you're thinking when you hear what

16:14

a federal judge, Michael Lutig, had to say.

16:16

He's a Republican federal judge, and

16:18

he yesterday commented on the case. So

16:21

I'm going to play it for you.

16:23

The former president has corrupted America's democracy,

16:25

constitution, and the rule of law. And

16:28

now, with the Supreme

16:30

Court's almost interminable delay

16:32

of the immunity decision,

16:35

he's gotten away with it. America's

16:37

democracy and the rule of law

16:40

are the heart and soul of

16:42

the nation. America's

16:44

been the beacon of freedom and

16:47

liberty to the world for almost 250 years now

16:49

because of its democracy and

16:54

the rule of law. And

16:57

through his defiance of that democracy

16:59

and the rule of law, Donald Trump, as I

17:02

said previously, unsold

17:05

the nation. The

17:08

only redemption for this unsolding

17:10

of America at this point

17:13

is that Donald Trump at least be

17:16

held accountable for what he has done.

17:19

OK, so I want to get your thoughts on that. The

17:22

former federal judge also said that Jack Smith

17:24

should just bring the case whenever he is

17:26

able to, whether it's in October or weeks

17:29

before the November election, just bring it. So

17:32

what are your thoughts on that? I

17:34

don't think that there's any danger of

17:36

the case being brought any time before

17:38

the election in terms of getting anywhere

17:40

near a trial because Judge Shutkin now

17:42

must determine from the indictment

17:45

which of these acts were official acts

17:47

of the presidency, which are immune from

17:49

prosecution, and which were unofficial acts such

17:52

as maybe, you know, submitting a false

17:54

slate of electors. Was that an official

17:57

act? Was calling the Secretary of State

17:59

of Georgia? an official act, so there's

18:01

gonna be hearings that Judge Chutkin will

18:03

have, I imagine, I don't

18:05

think she'll just decide it on the briefs.

18:08

I have to think, well, there'll be briefs,

18:10

oral arguments, what's official, what's unofficial, and

18:12

then when she rules and she'll issue a detailed

18:15

ruling, that will be appealed. That will go to

18:17

the DC Circuit. Then the DC Circuit ruling will

18:19

be appealed, and that will go to the Supreme

18:21

Court and be right back with these folks to

18:23

determine if when he was

18:25

tweeting, "'Hey, everybody, come to Washington, we'll

18:27

be wild. Was that an official act?"

18:29

When he said, "'Go to the Capitol

18:31

and protest.' Was that an official act?

18:33

There seems to be some unclearity about

18:35

whether or not what

18:37

he said and did that day were official

18:40

acts. What about his interactions with

18:42

Mike Pence and telling Mike Pence, you need

18:44

to delay the certification

18:46

of states. Was that an

18:48

official act? This opinion seems

18:51

to contemplate yes." And

18:53

so, if

18:55

they started on this tomorrow with briefing,

18:59

on July 2nd, they would

19:01

brief to the end of this month, and then

19:03

we'd have oral arguments in August, and the judge

19:05

would rule in September, and then

19:08

we'll go to the appeals court in October,

19:10

and then there's the election. So, I don't

19:12

see any way that we get close to

19:14

a trial this year. It's

19:17

really stunning when you lay it out like that. J.M.,

19:20

I was thinking earlier, I

19:22

talked to one of the Capitol Police officers when

19:24

oral arguments happened with this case. I talked to

19:27

him a day before, and asked him, how is

19:29

he feeling about the case and the Supreme Court

19:31

taking this up? The one thing he pointed out

19:33

to me is that he couldn't

19:35

believe how much they delayed the case.

19:37

This was not just about the question

19:39

at hand of deciding if presidents have

19:41

immunity from criminal activity or criminal prosecution.

19:44

It was also something that they kicked

19:47

the can down the road. They could have taken

19:49

this up early. Judge Chukin, I

19:51

believe, started in the winter with all of this,

19:53

and then the Trump side said, wait a minute,

19:55

stop, and then they threw it to the appeals

19:58

court, or threw it

20:00

to the... lower court and lost appeal

20:02

and then the Supreme Court

20:04

says we can take it up. So, you know,

20:08

did they do more harm than good when

20:10

it comes to the question of

20:12

whether or not Trump will be able to

20:14

be accountable for actions many people said he

20:16

was central to on January 6th? I

20:19

just think it's remarkable that we are

20:21

still talking about the 2020 election and

20:23

the actions and alleged actions around that

20:25

election three and a half plus years

20:28

later here and we're likely to be

20:30

talking about it past the election as

20:32

Tom was just mentioning at this point.

20:35

The other thing is this has been

20:37

on hold since December because that's when

20:39

the appeal on Judge Shuckin's ruling on

20:42

this question of absolute immunity was made

20:44

into your point Rhonda. By

20:46

the time that the Supreme Court decided to

20:48

take this up after it had sort of

20:51

worked its way through the initial proceedings that

20:53

was the end of February but they didn't

20:55

schedule oral arguments until the final week of

20:57

oral arguments in late April and now they

20:59

wait until the very last decision day to

21:02

issue the decision. Those weren't

21:04

necessarily unexpected per

21:06

se but the court can move fast

21:09

when the court wants to move fast.

21:11

The court moved fast with Nixon, the

21:13

court moved fast with the Colorado 14th

21:16

Amendment case. So there are situations where

21:18

the court can move fast and now

21:20

as Tom was just talking about it

21:22

we're in a situation where it is

21:25

highly highly unlikely that

21:28

this case goes to

21:30

trial before the 2024 election. There's something

21:32

else to consider here which is the

21:34

Justice Department took two years to get

21:36

going on this case. They as our

21:38

reporting has shown were hesitant to they

21:40

didn't want to appear political you know

21:42

we don't want to look like we're

21:44

taking sides here and they waited and

21:46

they watched the House Committee do their

21:48

investigation they actually asked the House Committee

21:50

oh give us your transcripts give us

21:52

the evidence you've gotten we'll go get

21:55

the evidence yourself DOJ you're the investigators

21:57

and they did not do that they're

21:59

the the ones that created the initial

22:01

delay in this, which is

22:03

what puts us here in July of

22:06

2024, still with no answers. Yeah, that's

22:08

so true. The point about, you

22:11

know, they waited for January 6th case

22:13

or the January 6th congressional investigation. They

22:15

worked the case off of that. They

22:17

took their time, didn't want to seem

22:19

hyper political. And

22:21

now we're here, you know, months

22:23

before the next election allowed the

22:25

candidate, in this case, Trump to

22:27

say they waited so that it

22:29

would happen during the campaign season.

22:31

Uh, little hard to argue with him on

22:33

that. Yeah, that's true. And

22:35

then there's also the, um, well, that

22:37

kind of informal rule, uh, the 60

22:40

day rule where the DOJ isn't

22:42

supposed to bring, you know, any sort of

22:44

prosecution or steps to prosecution ahead

22:46

of an election. Um, I believe that's

22:49

an informal rule that they often operate under.

22:51

Um, that also gives Trump an

22:53

opening to say, if you bring this before

22:55

the election, then that's election interference. So then

22:58

that's more noise around all of this. Yeah.

23:00

In theory, it should not

23:02

apply in the case of if Chutkin

23:05

herself decides to move this case forward.

23:07

But you know, there was also, I, you

23:10

know, I spoke with court watchers earlier this

23:12

year about how this might play out. What

23:14

are Jack Smith's options, depending on how the

23:16

court rules. And one of those

23:19

options was maybe Jack Smith goes

23:21

to Chutkin and says, Hey,

23:23

I know I've requested X number of weeks

23:25

here. I think it was six weeks, give

23:27

or take. I can

23:30

cut that in half. I can do this case

23:32

in half the time. Let's, let's move it forward.

23:34

Right. That was one of the theories that was,

23:36

that was really, I can do this case in

23:38

three weeks. Maybe I can do this case in

23:40

a day. Who knows? Right. But to

23:43

Tom's point, I think that's almost totally

23:46

out the window now, because there's going

23:48

to be so many layers of procedural

23:51

motions, appeals that

23:53

I don't know. It just at this moment

23:55

right now, it seems very hard to picture

23:58

how this case comes to trial before. In

28:01

most cases, a first-time

28:05

offender, as he would be viewed

28:07

by the courts, his age,

28:10

lack of prior criminality, would likely

28:12

not get him jail time. So

28:15

probation, possibly home detention.

28:17

Now there are some people who have said, well, you

28:20

know, people who have been convicted in New York for

28:22

falsifying business records have gotten jail time. There's

28:25

not really any great impact on anyone

28:27

in terms of financial loss

28:30

to others. You

28:33

know, people losing their houses or their life

28:35

savings by the falsification of records. That didn't

28:37

happen here. They

28:39

were just records that did not reflect

28:42

what that money was for. Okay.

28:44

A violation, yes. But

28:46

will it result in him going to jail? I

28:49

would bet very strongly against that. Yeah,

28:52

J.M., your thoughts? I mean, there's a few different

28:54

scenarios, obviously, right, in terms of, you can run

28:58

the gamut here of, you know,

29:00

gets nothing. Maybe there's some sort

29:02

of probation or house arrest or

29:04

he reports on weekends, right? Obviously,

29:06

you could go to, he reports

29:09

to jail. But we also know

29:11

that this is going to go

29:13

to appeal almost certainly no matter what the

29:15

sentence is. So

29:18

there are a lot of factors and,

29:20

you know, Machon seems to have, seems

29:23

aware of the fact that we are in kind

29:25

of the final stretch of the campaign here. And

29:30

Trump and others, we even heard his

29:33

former chief strategist in the White House,

29:35

Steve Bannon, make this argument on his

29:37

appeal, separate case, but

29:39

that because of his advice to

29:41

Trump, his centrality as a figure

29:43

in the 2024 election that his

29:46

jail sentence, which he reports to

29:48

today, should be postponed until after

29:50

the election. So the

29:52

election stuff, these cases just sort

29:54

of hang over this entire election

29:56

cycle here. The other thing that

29:59

Machon... John could do knowing that

30:02

the case will be appealed is say I sentence you

30:04

to 30 days, but

30:06

your sentence is stayed pending the appeal. So

30:09

he could give him time, and then if you

30:11

were had to serve time, the time would be

30:13

after the election when the appeals are resolved. I

30:15

don't think there's a lot of great appeals ground

30:17

there. Some people do. I watch a

30:20

lot of that trial, I do not. But

30:23

just holding off the

30:25

sentencing, the imposition of sentence

30:27

until after the appeals are resolved would

30:29

at least put it until after the

30:31

election so he wouldn't be sitting in

30:33

the slammer while campaigning for president. Yeah,

30:36

does it blow your mind that we are

30:38

covering a campaign and all of these court

30:40

cases and a Supreme Court now just ruling

30:42

that presidents do have immunity from official

30:45

acts all at the same time?

30:47

I don't know too many journalists who signed up for

30:49

to work in this field and thought that they would

30:51

have to cover this. Right, I didn't think I'd ever

30:53

say the word sitting in the slammer while campaigning for

30:56

president. Justice

30:58

Sotomayor's dissent is similarly

31:01

dark and

31:03

very angry about how this

31:05

happened and seems like something she

31:07

didn't expect to see when she

31:09

took on the Supreme Court job,

31:12

which was that this six person

31:14

supermajority on the court has decided

31:16

to discard precedent

31:19

when they see fit. Yeah, the

31:22

one thing that I remember from the oral

31:24

arguments that was a stunning line was from

31:26

Kataji Brown Jackson who said, if

31:28

we rule on this and give immunity to

31:31

presidents, that means that we might make the

31:33

Oval Office a seat of criminal activity. And

31:36

it's just, it's that stark, it really is.

31:38

And even though, you know, at summertime, there

31:40

weren't that many people outside of the Supreme

31:42

Court listening to this, it's still a stunning

31:44

day, a really stunning day

31:46

for history. Sotomayor wrote, settled understandings

31:48

of the Constitution are of little

31:50

use to the majority in this

31:53

case and so it ignores them.

31:55

All right, that's all we have time for this

31:57

week. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, J.M. as well

31:59

as James. who joined us earlier from New York.

32:03

We'll be back here next Thursday

32:05

for the sentencing hearing

32:07

of the former president. That happens

32:09

on July 11th, and that

32:12

sentencing is the New York case where he

32:14

was found guilty on all 34 counts

32:16

in the Hush Money trial. And you

32:18

can find more of our coverage on

32:21

that case and others on washingtonpost.com and

32:23

in the Trump Trials newsletter. But for

32:25

now, I thank my colleagues

32:27

for joining me today. I'm Rhonda Colvin. See

32:29

you soon. There's a lot happening these days,

32:31

but I have just the thing to get

32:33

you up to speed on

32:56

what matters without taking too much of your time.

32:59

The 7 from The Washington Post is a

33:01

podcast that gives you the seven most important

33:04

and interesting stories, and we always try to

33:06

save room for something fun. You

33:08

get it all in about seven minutes or less. I'm

33:11

Hannah Jewell. I'll get you caught up with

33:13

the 7 every weekday. So follow the 7

33:16

right now.