George Conway Explains: SCOTUS order could be BAD NEWS for Trump | George Conway Explains It All

George Conway Explains It All (To Sarah Longwell)
29 Feb 202433:12

Summary

TLDRIn this episode of 'George Conway Explains It All,' Sarah Longwell and George Conway delve into the legal turmoil surrounding Donald Trump, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the immunity case and its potential impact on Trump's trial timeline. Amidst discussions on various legal scenarios, including Trump's disqualification from the ballot in Illinois and the broader implications for the presidential election, the conversation highlights the unprecedented nature of these legal challenges. With a mix of legal expertise and engaging dialogue, the episode offers insights into the complexities of the situation and its significance for American democracy.

Takeaways

  • 🔴 The Supreme Court's decision to hear the immunity case against Trump delays the trial, impacting the timeline and potentially affecting the fall presidential campaign.
  • 📝 George Conway discusses the significance of the Supreme Court's recent actions, including the expedited hearing set for the week of April 22, emphasizing the case's importance.
  • 📊 Speculation surrounds the Supreme Court's lengthy deliberation process, with theories suggesting time was needed to craft the precise legal question the case poses.
  • 🚨 The potential for a trial to begin in the fall is seen as a significant, gut-wrenching scenario, given its coincidence with the presidential campaign's critical phase.
  • 👍 Conway remains optimistic that the trial could start before the fall, despite the Supreme Court not moving as quickly as some might have hoped.
  • 🗞️ The role of Judge Chutkan and scheduling factors are highlighted as critical elements in determining the trial's commencement date.
  • 🛡️ The Illinois judge's disqualification of Trump from the ballot adds another layer of complexity to the legal battles surrounding the former president.
  • 📚 The discussion touches on various legal and constitutional questions, including presidential immunity and the potential for Trump to pardon himself if re-elected.
  • 💬 Conversations about the Supreme Court's handling of the case reveal mixed feelings, with some expressing frustration over perceived delays and others understanding the court's rationale.
  • 📌 The podcast underscores the unprecedented nature of the situation, highlighting the broader implications for the rule of law and the constitutional framework in the United States.

Q & A

  • What is the main legal issue discussed in the podcast?

    -The main legal issue discussed is the criminal prosecution of Trump by special counsel Jack Smith for actions related to January 6th and election interference, and Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while President.

  • What significant legal developments occurred the week of the podcast?

    -Significant developments included the Supreme Court's decision to hear the immunity case involving Trump, and separately, an Illinois judge disqualified Trump from the ballot.

  • What is the significance of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump's immunity case?

    -The significance is twofold: it delays the trial further, and the expeditious handling of the case by setting oral arguments indicates the Court's recognition of its urgency, though not as quickly as some would prefer.

  • How might the Supreme Court's decision impact the trial timeline for Trump's case?

    -The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case and set oral arguments potentially delays the trial, but a decision could still allow for a trial in the fall, impacting the presidential campaign season.

  • Why did it take two weeks for the Supreme Court to decide on a path forward for Trump's immunity claim?

    -The delay could be due to the Court crafting the precise wording of the legal question or considering the case's complexities. The true reasons may not be known for many years.

  • What are the potential outcomes of the Supreme Court's decision regarding Trump's immunity claim?

    -Potential outcomes include affirming the lower court's decision that Trump is not immune from prosecution, or providing a ruling that sets specific legal boundaries regarding presidential immunity.

  • How does the Illinois judge's decision to disqualify Trump from the ballot relate to the Supreme Court's actions?

    -The Illinois judge's decision is a separate but related issue to Trump's legal challenges. It reflects ongoing legal disputes over Trump's eligibility for public office, potentially influenced by the Supreme Court's future rulings.

  • What is the role of Judge Chutkan mentioned in the discussion?

    -Judge Chutkan's role involves overseeing the trial court where Trump's case could be heard. Her scheduling decisions and willingness to prioritize the case could significantly affect the trial timeline.

  • What is the public and legal significance of the Supreme Court's handling of Trump's case?

    -The public and legal significance lies in the case's implications for presidential immunity, the balance of powers, and the judicial system's role in addressing acts committed by a sitting president.

  • What does George Conway speculate about the potential impact of the trial's timing on Trump's political future?

    -Conway speculates that if the trial occurs close to the presidential election, it could be politically damaging for Trump, especially if he is on trial for actions perceived as trying to subvert the Constitution.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 The Potential Impact of a Fall Trial on Trump's Campaign

The discussion begins with speculations on the timing of Donald Trump's trial, potentially coinciding with the presidential campaign's critical phase. George Conway and Sarah Longwell analyze the legal maneuvers and court decisions that led to this juncture, including the Supreme Court's involvement and a surprising disqualification from the Illinois ballot. They express concern over the unprecedented situation of a presidential candidate possibly being on trial for undermining the Constitution while campaigning for office. The segment covers the legal complexities and potential scenarios, reflecting on the broader implications for Trump and the electoral process.

05:01

📅 Supreme Court's Decision Timeline and Its Consequences

This segment delves into the Supreme Court's decision-making process regarding Trump's immunity claim and its implications for the trial timeline. It scrutinizes the reasons for the court's delay in reaching a decision and the potential outcomes. The analysis also touches on the strategic considerations behind legal delays and the significance of the Supreme Court expediting the case, albeit not as quickly as some would prefer. The conversation reflects on the broader legal and political strategies at play, considering the implications for Trump's trial and the 2024 presidential election.

10:03

🤔 Legal Theories and Supreme Court Dynamics

The discussion explores various legal theories and the dynamics within the Supreme Court regarding Trump's case. It speculates on the justices' perspectives, particularly focusing on the balance between presidential immunity and accountability. The segment also considers the complexities of drafting a coherent legal opinion that addresses the case's nuances without setting problematic precedents. The conversation hints at the internal deliberations among the justices and the strategic considerations that may influence the court's decision, emphasizing the case's significance and its potential to reshape presidential accountability.

15:03

🚨 Political Ramifications of Legal Delays and Potential Trials

This segment examines the political implications of the legal battles and potential trial timelines for Trump. It discusses the strategic use of legal delays by Trump's team and the possibility of other cases influencing the trial's timing. The analysis highlights the precarious situation Trump finds himself in, potentially facing trial during the critical stages of the presidential campaign. The conversation also explores the broader political context, including the impact on Trump's public image and electoral prospects, and the legal system's role in the unfolding political drama.

20:06

📚 Perspectives on Presidential Immunity and Legal Precedents

The conversation shifts to a detailed examination of presidential immunity, exploring historical precedents and legal opinions. It discusses the potential outcomes of Trump's claim to immunity and the Supreme Court's role in addressing this contentious issue. The segment also touches on the implications for other cases where Trump has claimed immunity, highlighting the legal and moral questions surrounding the ability of a president to pardon themselves and the implications for the justice system and presidential accountability.

25:06

🔮 The Role of Courts in American Politics and Trump's Strategy

The final segment reflects on the broader role of the judiciary in American politics, especially in the context of Trump's legal challenges. It discusses the limitations of relying on the courts to resolve political disputes and the importance of electoral processes in upholding democratic principles. The conversation also considers Trump's strategy of seeking reelection to potentially avoid legal consequences, highlighting the tension between legal accountability and political dynamics. The discussion concludes with a call for civic engagement and the need for a principled stand against threats to the rule of law.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States, with the authority to review cases from lower courts and decide on significant legal questions, including constitutional issues. In the script, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case regarding the former president's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution is a pivotal moment, reflecting its crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and its impact on the political and legal landscape. The discussion highlights the court's process, the importance of its decisions, and the anticipation around how it will rule on this significant matter.

💡Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity refers to the legal doctrine that the President of the United States has certain protections against prosecution for actions taken while in office. The script discusses a specific case where the former president argues for immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed during his presidency. This concept is central to the video's theme, as it touches on the boundaries of executive power and the accountability of the highest office in the land.

💡Criminal Prosecution

Criminal prosecution involves the process of charging someone with a crime and conducting a trial to determine guilt or innocence. The script delves into the potential criminal prosecution of a former president for actions related to election interference and the January 6th event, illustrating the tension between legal accountability and political implications. This term is crucial for understanding the stakes of the Supreme Court case being discussed.

💡Election Interference

Election interference refers to actions aimed at influencing, obstructing, or manipulating the outcome of an election. In the script, the former president is implicated in efforts to interfere with the electoral process leading up to and following the 2020 presidential election. This concept is central to understanding the nature of the charges and the broader implications for democracy and the rule of law.

💡14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. The script mentions its relevance in the context of disqualifying a candidate from the ballot for engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. This aspect of the 14th Amendment is pivotal in discussions about the legal and constitutional mechanisms to hold public officials accountable for actions that threaten the democratic order.

💡Certiorari

Certiorari, often shortened to 'cert,' is a writ by which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court. The script references the Supreme Court granting certiorari to hear the case on presidential immunity, which is a critical step in the judicial process that determines which cases the Supreme Court will consider. This illustrates the selective nature of the Supreme Court's docket and the significance of its decision to take up this particular case.

💡Trial Timeline

The trial timeline refers to the schedule and sequence of events leading up to and during a trial. In the script, there is significant discussion about how the Supreme Court's decision and the subsequent legal processes could affect the timing of the former president's trial. This concept is crucial for understanding the strategic and practical implications of legal maneuvers and judicial decisions on the progression of high-profile cases.

💡Legal Precedent

Legal precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts and legal issues. The script touches on how the Supreme Court's ruling on this case could set a precedent regarding presidential immunity and the accountability of public officials. This concept is key to understanding the long-term implications of the court's decisions beyond the immediate case.

💡Electoral Process

The electoral process encompasses the steps and procedures involved in electing public officials. The script's discussion on election interference and the potential impact of a trial on a presidential campaign highlights the interplay between legal challenges and the political system. Understanding this term is essential for grasping the broader context of the legal issues at hand and their impact on democratic governance.

💡Rule of Law

The rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. The script frames the discussion around the importance of the rule of law in the context of presidential accountability and the integrity of the legal system. This concept is foundational to the video's examination of legal challenges and their significance for American democracy.

Highlights

I think there's still a good chance the, trial of the case could actually begin, in the fall if he's on trial right then, that is not good for him that is not, good for him it really is sort of a, gut-wrenching thing to think that we, could be in the middle of with a, presidential campaign with 6 to 8 weeks, to go and this guy could be on trial for, basically trying to subvert the, Constitution of the United, States

I don't think I have to go back, to calendars past years but it's very, difficult to see how that a case an an, ordinary case would get briefed and, argued before the end of the term if you, if you if you have a grant in March a, certaint grant in March typically, what'll happen is the briefing will take, place you know in April and May and June, and then it'll be set for argument in, October or November that did not happen, here so they are Expediting this they're, just not Expediting it as fast as, someone like I would want

I'd hope that they get it out in two, or 3 weeks um um if they get a decision, by May or June it's still possible there, could be a trial in the fall

I, don't think I still think this case is probably, going, to begin before the fall I don't know, that it'll be tried to Verdict by the, time of the election

I I I don't, believe that the Supreme Court is going, to hold or is intending to hold that, basically a president could s SEAL Team, Six on a political opponent and get away, with it

If if, they were to reverse uh but um you know, they're they're yeah if he's immune from, anything you you should probably yeah, I'm I'm byebye podcast you know Barry, Barry you I'll pay for your plane ticket, to to set up my my uh my podcast, booth in in in my ski chalet in the, south island of of that would be the, worst ramification of Trump's full, immunity for anything is this podcast, getting shut down

The only way he doesn't go to jail for something, in my to my mind is if um he's president, he gets 270 electoral votes and in that, case it doesn't you know it doesn't he, could be convicted in a state court and, sentence but they wouldn't be able to, execute the sentence he could be you, know and and and you know you just you, can't throw a president in jail while, he's president the only way to get rid, of him is to him impeach and remove him, then you can throw him in jail

I would, prefer to see him trounced at the, balance Box by a pro-democracy majority, because I think you know, that's that's the message we need to, send to the world and to our fellow, citizens and and to the Future that you, know this is what Wies this is about, America and this is we are Americans and, what draws us together are is the rule, of law is the belief in in in in in a, system of justice that is fair

This, is why I think there's this I think the, reason people look to the courts is, there there's a real fear right now that, given the choice Americans will pick, Donald Trump over the con majority

The guy's a, criminal okay this is a long time coming, he's a fraudster he's a rapist he's an, insurrectionist um he he's he's a thief, he stole classified documents he's a you, know he's everything morally, legally bad that you could imagine he is, the worst person imaginable to be put in, any position of public trust let alone, the presidency of the United States and, on top of that he's bat, crazy

It's very, difficult to see how that a case an an, ordinary case would get briefed and, argued before the end of the term if you, if you if you have a grant in March a, certaint grant in March typically, what'll happen is the briefing will take, place you know in April and May and June, and then it'll be set for argument in, October or November that did not happen, here so they are Expediting this they're, just not Expediting it as fast as, someone like I would want

They are Expediting this they're, just not Expediting it as fast as, someone like I would want um which would, be to reverse time and go back into a, Star Trek uh Time Warp and make it best, make it three months ago that said um, they didn't act as they didn't move it, as quickly as the special Council wanted, it to be moved

I think the real, question is how long is it going to take, them after this April 22 argument that's, when the argument is going to be um how, long it's going to take them to decide, the case after that

I don't think that this CA I I don't think, I still think this case is probably, going, to begin before the fall I don't know, that it'll be tried to Verdict by the, time of the election another thing that, I think it's worth considering I mean, there's a lot of talk today that's very, angry angry talk about the Supreme Court, about how this shows the fixes and I I I, don't I don't don't believe that

I I I don't, believe that the Supreme Court is going, to hold or is intending to hold that, basically a president could s SEAL Team, Six on a political opponent and get away, with it um that being said I I do, understand um the the feeling that some, justices could have is like well this is, really an important case

Transcripts

00:00

I think there's still a good chance the

00:03

trial of the case could actually begin

00:05

in the fall if he's on trial right then

00:08

that is not good for him that is not

00:09

good for him it really is sort of a

00:10

gut-wrenching thing to think that we

00:12

could be in the middle of with a

00:15

presidential campaign with 6 to 8 weeks

00:18

to go and this guy could be on trial for

00:20

basically trying to subvert the

00:22

Constitution of the United

00:27

States hello everyone and welcome to

00:30

George Conway Explains It All I'm Sarah

00:33

Longwell publisher of the bull workk and

00:35

because I'm not a lawyer I have asked my

00:37

friend George Conway from the society

00:39

for the rule of law to explain legal

00:41

news to me okay so did anything happen

00:45

did anything happen so it was feeling

00:46

like a quiet week when we were prepping

00:48

for the show we had a whole mailbox

00:50

episode planned where were just going to

00:52

answer questions from our you know

00:54

brilliant incisive listeners and then

00:56

last night at like 5:00 p.m. the Supreme

00:58

Court just dropped its order

01:00

in the immunity case and then like right

01:02

on top of that separately an Illinois

01:04

judge disqualified Trump from the ballot

01:06

it was just like boom boom so no quiet

01:09

week anymore and guys I promise we're

01:11

going to do our best to do a mailed bag

01:13

episode soon uh George you haven't seen

01:15

these emails but we got a lot of love

01:17

from the listeners and so toar corgis

01:19

whenever they make an appearance uh one

01:21

person wrote in to say that she feels

01:23

like she's taken a smart pill on

01:28

court packing the Supreme Court with

01:30

corgis yeah that's uh some real

01:32

resistance stuff there yeah uh okay so

01:36

let's jump in we finally heard from

01:37

scotus after what felt like a very long

01:39

two weeks and to refresh everyone's

01:41

memory we're talking about special

01:43

counsel Jack Smith's criminal

01:45

prosecution of trump in DC for January

01:47

6th and all the election interference

01:49

leading up to it Trump has argued that

01:51

he is immune from Criminal prosecution

01:53

for the acts he committed while

01:55

President the DC Court the court of

01:58

appeals we did whole episode on this uh

02:00

said in January that no Trump is not

02:02

immune from Criminal prosecution wrote a

02:04

fabulous opinion yeah it was a great

02:06

opinion I don't know why that didn't

02:07

just stand uh Trump then asked the US

02:10

Supreme Court for a stay so that the

02:11

judge so that judge chuin in the trial

02:14

court wouldn't kick the trial into gear

02:16

right then he filed that request for a

02:19

stay like on February 12th uh then

02:21

yesterday so that's February 28th uh the

02:25

Supreme Court agreed to hear the case

02:26

and set oral Arguments for the week of

02:28

April 22nd all right so I've got a ton

02:30

of questions for you including what this

02:32

means for the trial timeline first I

02:34

want to ask you why you think it took

02:36

two weeks to land on a pretty middleof

02:39

the road path

02:41

forward that's a very good question and

02:44

I don't think we will know the answer

02:46

the true answer for many years um it

02:50

won't be until somebody does like what

02:52

just Justice Blackman does and bequeaths

02:55

all of his or her papers to the Library

02:57

of Congress there are a number of ative

03:00

theories one

03:02

theory is that it took them a long time

03:05

to craft the precise wording of the

03:08

question that they want the legal

03:11

question that they think the case poses

03:14

I I I'm not sure it's worth speculating

03:16

what happened um uh the the important

03:20

thing is two the significance of what

03:23

happened yesterday is twofold one is it

03:25

does delay the trial further yeah and um

03:28

as but as I

03:30

said on the day that they denied that

03:34

earlier C petition that Jack Smith filed

03:36

to try to get the case directly this was

03:38

like back in January back directly from

03:40

the district court and skip the court of

03:43

appeals and go up to the Supreme Court

03:44

and then everybody said oh my gosh they

03:46

they denied that it's terrible and you

03:48

know my my view was well um you're going

03:51

to get a good opinion out of the DC

03:53

circuit which we did and the Supreme

03:55

Court could always deny C and even if it

03:57

granted C it would not Grant in a manner

04:00

that would kick the case over to the

04:02

fall and that's exactly what happened

04:04

here um in a case that's that's granted

04:07

at the end of February or the beginning

04:10

of March I don't think I have to go back

04:12

to calendars past years but it's very

04:14

difficult to see how that a case an an

04:17

ordinary case would get briefed and

04:20

argued before the end of the term if you

04:22

if you if you have a grant in March a

04:24

certaint grant in March typically

04:26

what'll happen is the briefing will take

04:28

place you know in April and May and June

04:31

and then it'll be set for argument in

04:33

October or November that did not happen

04:36

here so they are Expediting this they're

04:38

just not Expediting it as fast as

04:41

someone like I would want um which would

04:43

be to reverse time and go back into a

04:46

Star Trek uh Time Warp and make it best

04:50

make it three months ago that said um

04:53

they didn't act as they didn't move it

04:55

as quickly as the special Council wanted

04:58

it to be moved and I think the real

05:00

question is how long is it going to take

05:02

them after this April 22 argument that's

05:05

when the argument is going to be um how

05:07

long it's going to take them to decide

05:11

the case after that I don't think it

05:12

should take them that long but you know

05:15

it's late in the term they get backed up

05:17

at the they get backed up in April

05:19

they've got all these opinions I don't

05:20

know how how backed up they are this

05:22

particular year and and it's possible we

05:24

won't get a decision until um till June

05:27

um I'd hope that they get it out in two

05:29

or 3 weeks um um if they get the you

05:32

know if they get a decision by May or

05:34

June it's still possible there could be

05:36

a trial in the fall what I think we're

05:39

seeing going to see is I mean I think

05:41

it's going to depend on Judge chuckin

05:43

schedule and whether judge chuckin wants

05:44

to turn up this turn up the speed dial

05:47

just a little bit more um uh to to to to

05:51

get the case tried sooner rather than

05:53

later U but I think there's still a good

05:57

chance um that this case would the trial

06:00

of the case could actually begin in the

06:03

fall which is kind of a stunning and it

06:10

really is sort of a gut-wrenching thing

06:11

to think that we could be in the middle

06:14

of a the you know after Labor Day with a

06:18

with a presidential campaign with six to

06:21

eight weeks to go and this guy could be

06:24

on trial for basically trying to subvert

06:26

the Constitution of the United

06:28

States we are so far in unprecedented

06:32

territory I you know it's hard to know

06:35

where where this is going to go but I I

06:38

don't think that this CA I I don't think

06:40

I still think this case is probably

06:42

going

06:43

to begin before the fall I don't know

06:46

that it'll be tried to Verdict by the

06:48

time of the election another thing that

06:50

I think it's worth considering I mean

06:51

there's a lot of talk today that's very

06:53

angry angry talk about the Supreme Court

06:56

about how this shows the fixes and I I I

06:58

don't I don't don't believe that I don't

07:00

believe that the Supreme Court is going

07:02

to hold or is intending to hold that

07:04

that five justices would hold that

07:06

basically a president could s SEAL Team

07:10

Six on a political opponent and get away

07:13

with it um that being said I I do

07:16

understand um the the feeling that some

07:19

justices could have is like well this is

07:21

really an important case I mean this is

07:23

and it is it's it's one of the most

07:24

important cases you know there's this

07:27

whole line of cases involving

07:30

um presidential immunity I I you know I

07:33

I I someday somebody's going to um do

07:37

the history of this and we'll find out

07:39

you know what exactly was going on in

07:40

the Justice Department what what took it

07:42

was it was it you know Liz Cheney in the

07:45

January 6 hearing really I I it seems

07:48

that way you know that's it's really a

07:51

question for historians um and and

07:54

historians of the justice department and

07:55

historians of these proceedings and you

07:58

know we may not live to see exactly read

08:01

read a definitive historical account of

08:03

what happened here um speak for yourself

08:06

I plan on being alive uh when they well

08:08

you're younger you're you're you're half

08:10

my age right no I for I think I think we

08:12

will know sooner than you think but let

08:14

me I want to back up and I want to just

08:15

tease out that was a long answer wasn't

08:17

it well it was you you put a lot out

08:18

there I want to hit some of the

08:20

highlights uh and and stomp on them um

08:23

in a good way so first of all the point

08:25

you're making is that I don't want you

08:27

to stomp on things in a bad way cuz

08:28

that's very be really tough when you do

08:30

that I know I not a mean I want to

08:32

highlight and accentuate a couple of

08:34

really important points so one of them

08:36

seems to me is that you're saying hey

08:38

look the Supreme Court was always going

08:40

to have to take this up because they

08:43

want to be the final Arbiters yeah but I

08:45

I they they they they I didn't say they

08:47

all had to but it would possibly it's

08:50

appropriate it's it's not inappropriate

08:52

not inappropriate I can understand it I

08:54

wish they had done it sooner on the

08:56

other hand the the the the the the the

08:58

effort to skip the court of appeals is

09:00

highly unusual and I can understand

09:03

Justice is saying well we don't want to

09:04

look like we're trying to you know light

09:07

Trump at the stake by by Expediting this

09:09

because it's just another criminal case

09:11

of course you know that's a kind of a a

09:16

you're looking that's looking at the

09:17

case with blinders but I can understand

09:19

a Jud a judge saying that okay so we're

09:21

so we on this podcast are not mad at the

09:24

Supreme Court for taking it up as I've

09:26

seen a lot of people be on Twitter were

09:28

you surprised not exact I don't want to

09:30

give the Supreme Court an award for this

09:32

yeah sure did you think though what what

09:34

did you think the chances were and maybe

09:36

um when we talked about this I'm not

09:38

sure why I don't remember but what did

09:39

you think the chances were that they

09:41

would have just granted outright like

09:44

the like approved of what the lower

09:45

court had said and been like we agree

09:47

you know that that was my fantasy

09:49

scenario and and as I I think I tweeted

09:51

at one point that yeah this would be the

09:53

scenario where the order would have come

09:55

out yesterday

09:57

saying the petition for the application

09:59

for stay is denied treating the

10:02

application as a petition for rid of

10:04

cersi the rid of cersi is granted and

10:07

the Judgment of the court of appeals is

10:08

affirmed period that was you know that

10:11

would be that's theoretically possible

10:13

there have been cases where they have

10:14

done that they were never going to do

10:16

that in this case I think I tweeted once

10:18

that said I this is my fantasy scenario

10:20

but it would take a zillion billion it's

10:22

a zillion billion quadrillion to one but

10:25

the theory those are long odds the

10:26

theory of why it took so long could be

10:28

that maybe they they were crafting some

10:30

kind of a pruum opinion to affirm it but

10:33

I don't know and I do and and you know

10:35

there there is you know there is

10:38

something to be said for the notion that

10:41

there must be at some point some limits

10:44

on the ability to prosecute a president

10:46

because what if Congress passed a law

10:48

that was specifically designed to

10:51

infringe upon the president's um

10:53

Constitutional Powers by basically

10:55

saying the president if the president

10:56

does get up at 6:00 in the morning he he

10:58

he will be Pro uted or something make it

11:00

criminal like you know something

11:01

ridiculous um and think the answer to

11:04

that is you know you don't you can

11:06

confine it to the facts of this case is

11:08

the facts of the case is this is

11:09

something where the president um was

11:12

essentially trying to extend his term of

11:14

office and and and and and and trying to

11:17

violate um what's called the executive

11:20

vesting clause which basically says the

11:21

president is President for four years

11:23

and so it's quite possible and it's

11:26

quite possible that the Supreme Court

11:27

wants to write an opinion or some

11:29

justices want to write an opinion that

11:30

kind of

11:32

fine-tunes the uh the reasoning of the

11:35

court of appeals to make it more

11:37

precisely narrow to the situation at

11:39

hand because you just don't know what

11:41

crazy hypotheticals could come next the

11:44

perfect example of you know you could

11:47

have a dangerous situation where a

11:49

former president is being prosecuted

11:51

illegitimately and that's what could

11:54

happen if a certain person gets elected

11:57

this year so you know I mean he is sort

11:59

of presenting you know it's it's kind of

12:01

ironic that Donald Trump presents the

12:03

very danger represents the very danger

12:06

that he's trying to invoke yes but the

12:08

other thing you're laying out though

12:09

that's really important is this timeline

12:11

okay and I just want to I want to hit

12:13

this so people have it in their heads

12:15

because you're argu you're saying okay

12:17

uh they would set the oral arguments

12:19

over April 22nd which means and we'll

12:21

know a lot right we'll we'll know we'll

12:24

know we'll we'll know a lot about what

12:26

you know what the whether anybody has

12:28

any issues with with the scope of the DC

12:31

circuits ruling yeah okay so we'll no

12:33

we'll no but then they rule in May or

12:36

June right probably

12:38

June you know I I I it really depends I

12:42

mean you know you could it depends on

12:43

whether they're descent it depends on

12:45

whether the opinion as they say I mean

12:48

judges have this phrase that says well I

12:50

don't know if it's going to write you

12:51

know opinions have to write in other

12:53

words they have to flow they have to

12:55

make sense sometimes you think oh let's

12:56

hold x a judge judges will decide let's

13:00

hold this this is where we're going to

13:02

go and then when they write it out it

13:03

doesn't make quite a lot of sense which

13:06

I think is something that could happen

13:07

in the 14th Amendment case where they

13:09

don't really where they just make they

13:11

seem to want to just make stuff up um I

13:13

don't know you you it could be done in 3

13:15

or four weeks and it could be done it it

13:18

might take to the end of the term I mean

13:20

I guess I guess I'm assuming June now

13:22

just because it seems like they're on

13:24

board with the longer timeline it's not

13:26

it doesn't seem like they are burdened

13:29

by the need to act with super

13:31

expeditiously no they well they they

13:34

they did place the burden on themelves

13:37

to produce an opinion within six weeks

13:39

basically yeah by April 22 they they go

13:41

they go home last week in June so they

13:43

basically 8 weeks they basically confine

13:47

themselves to a two-month um period to

13:49

write an opinion and there may be

13:51

separate opinions so I you know I I

13:53

think the worst case is that he gets

13:55

kicked we don't get a decision until

13:58

like the last day of the time well the

13:59

the only reason I think that I guess is

14:01

because I'm just used to the Supreme

14:02

Court holding the big cases until the

14:05

end it is because everybody you know

14:07

it's just it's just the nature of the

14:09

thing is the stuff that's most important

14:10

you try to get the easy stuff out of the

14:13

way and the stuff that you think is is

14:15

more historically significant or the

14:17

stuff that has greater ramifications you

14:19

you futs with more yeah to use the

14:22

official legal

14:23

term so so then okay so I'm a New York

14:26

lawyer so I use words like futs and

14:28

putts and Schmutz and that's okay scal

14:31

was famous for uh argle bargle you know

14:34

making up words no that was a real word

14:36

AR it is now I use it to describe all

14:40

manner of things so if that's the case

14:42

all right so we say mayor Jun ma'am so I

14:45

was on CNN this morning with uh and

14:47

their CNN sort of legal analyst um

14:50

William fabulous he he was he was great

14:53

uh but he was arguing that he thought

14:55

the timeline would be September October

14:58

and so my response to that was okay if

15:00

that's truly the timeline I understand

15:03

that puts us in unprecedented territory

15:05

and everybody's going to feel pretty

15:08

unable but politically that's bad for

15:12

Trump like if of course it's bad for

15:14

Trump so he would have then tried to

15:17

delay win right this is but but if he's

15:20

on trial right then that is not good for

15:22

him that is not good for him and that's

15:24

absolutely right I mean that was

15:25

something I was thinking about this

15:26

morning on the train on the way up down

15:28

here is that you know he may have ended

15:30

up shooting himself in the foot yeah I

15:32

mean what he really needed ideally was

15:34

something that would push the case past

15:35

November um and I don't think this is

15:39

this is quite going to be enough I don't

15:41

think you know the only way it could

15:42

possibly now go past really past

15:44

November would be if chuin just just

15:47

can't fit it into her schedule and I

15:49

don't think judge chuckin I don't think

15:52

judge chuckin is is gonna she she's GNA

15:54

prioritize this case it's made pretty

15:56

clear on this point though here's a

15:58

question could some of these other cases

16:00

now that this gets pushed back could

16:01

they go first yes and end up pushing

16:04

this back by virtue of yes that's that's

16:06

possible I mean it could be possible I

16:08

mean it could be possible for example if

16:10

judge

16:11

Canon um decided all of a sudden to

16:14

light a fire under her case um that she

16:18

started a you know she decided to hold

16:20

an August trial then it would be hard to

16:24

see chuckin ordering a trial until after

16:27

that trial was complet about what you're

16:28

saying that but I I don't I don't know

16:30

that that that's not that I would not

16:32

put that as a high probability scenario

16:34

because she hasn't been moving at the

16:35

speed of light although she did some

16:36

things the other day that that seemed

16:39

reasonable um with respect to um the

16:42

production of materials to some of the

16:44

defendants okay I guess in my in my mind

16:46

too maybe this is like too

16:48

conspiratorial I'm thinking like if she

16:50

wanted to go put her case in front of

16:52

that one in order to sort of take the

16:55

more serious case the January 6th case I

16:58

mean I don't I don't know that that that

17:00

would that would be a terrible scenario

17:01

for Trump as well because the documents

17:03

case really is an open and shuta shut

17:05

case and that actually goes back to

17:07

another point about the

17:09

um about what the Supreme Court has done

17:12

here again not to you know not that I

17:15

think they should be given an award for

17:17

what they've done but I can understand

17:19

the logic behind it one of the Lo one of

17:21

the logical aspects of it is it's not

17:24

just this January 6 case Trump is

17:27

asserting immunity in the Georgia case

17:32

he is asserting immunity in the

17:35

documents case I don't think that

17:37

immunity could possibly get him out of

17:41

the numerous obstruction charges um that

17:45

he committed after he left office but it

17:47

might it might be it might it might have

17:50

something that it might could affect

17:52

some of some of the some of the charges

17:55

if if he were to win them you know some

17:57

of the stuff that he did bring them down

17:58

there he was President he might have had

18:00

these some of these documents there

18:01

before before January 20th but I I don't

18:04

I don't think it's going to affect that

18:05

case but you know it's a he's making the

18:09

argument so it it might be worthwhile

18:11

for the Supreme Court might said that's

18:13

just one more reason why we need to

18:14

actually explain what we think about

18:16

this um that said I would prefer them to

18:19

do it one case at a time and again and

18:22

the other point I would I would have

18:23

preferred them is like they they do it's

18:25

it is important that they decide

18:28

the case um this issue at some point but

18:31

they didn't have to do it before trial

18:33

they could always hear U an appeal from

18:37

his criminal conviction what do you who

18:38

do you think the individual Justice do

18:41

it's not to me as much as I um perhaps

18:44

have come to think of uh Clarence Thomas

18:47

as uh an Alita well no I was going to

18:52

try to describe how I felt about Justice

18:54

Thomas his wife he married to a woman

18:56

who is like a full-on

18:59

uh insurrectionist like storm the

19:01

capital type um Alo uh is obviously has

19:06

has become more and more bold and public

19:09

uh and I guess the question I have is

19:13

but still still these people are Supreme

19:14

Court Justices the idea that they would

19:16

just allow presidential immunity seems

19:18

crazy so who do you think is driving

19:21

this of I honestly couldn't tell you it

19:24

could it it may well

19:27

be

19:28

no I mean the the only two theories that

19:30

I've heard are that there was an effort

19:33

to to toward a summary

19:36

affirmance um that failed to get the

19:39

five votes um and was also triggering

19:42

descents so that means con Barrett or

19:45

Kavanaugh could I mean yeah I I if I had

19:48

to guess the person who might be the

19:50

most

19:51

cautious on this while ending up in the

19:55

right place would might be Kavanagh and

19:57

cuz C you know cuz cuz Brett I mean

20:00

Brett Kavanaugh has always been very

20:03

protective of the prerogatives of the

20:05

presidency and he's you know he's

20:07

thought about these issues a great deal

20:10

um and he's expressed concerns about

20:13

about the potential for criminalization

20:17

of of of politics and and and and of of

20:21

of work in the executive branch

20:23

ironically since he wrote the wrote the

20:25

fact section of the star report but um

20:28

you know there there are legitimate

20:31

concerns here um about how you write

20:33

this opinion I don't think any of those

20:36

concerns affects the result in this case

20:39

I don't see how a majority of the Court

20:41

could rule in his favor I would be

20:43

shocked and I would immediately catch

20:46

the first flight to New Zealand um if if

20:50

they were to reverse uh but um you know

20:55

they're they're yeah if he's immune from

20:56

anything you you should probably yeah

20:58

I'm I'm byebye podcast you know Barry

21:02

Barry you I'll pay for your plane ticket

21:04

to to set up my my uh my my podcast

21:08

booth in in in my ski chalet in the

21:10

south island of of that would be the

21:12

worst ramification of Trump's full

21:14

immunity for anything is this podcast

21:15

getting shut down well you're you're

21:17

going to have to come with you're going

21:18

to have to come with because you're

21:20

you're on yeah you're you're head of for

21:21

Guantanamo too my

21:23

friend uh okay so I guess now we've

21:27

established the timeline I just I just

21:28

do want to reiterate that I I am I have

21:31

because this is all I've seen is like

21:33

the Wailing and nashing of teeth on

21:35

Twitter and I doesn't that's what

21:37

Twitter is for I know I know that that's

21:39

true it's designed to keep the dental

21:41

profession going also also my bull workk

21:43

colleagues in the slack it was just like

21:45

no uh and i l no no I have one of one of

21:48

your bullwark colleagues was I'm on a

21:50

text chain with this colleague of yours

21:53

and he

21:55

quoted John McCain saying something

21:58

Something Like It's always darkest

22:00

before it gets pitch dark yeah it's

22:02

always darkest before it turns pitch

22:03

black yep uh and I kind of like that

22:07

that The Sopranos what happens when they

22:08

whack you you know he likes that phrase

22:11

uh I just this but to me I don't know if

22:14

and I could see look there's more things

22:15

that could get in the way could continue

22:17

to get pushed back further I just yeah

22:18

no that's right that that and that's the

22:20

thing is is that

22:21

there things never tend never to speed

22:25

up litigation problems arise that you

22:27

don't foresee so that's the real issue

22:30

here is um you know this could get to

22:34

trial two or three months after uh the

22:37

Supreme Court rules on the other hand

22:39

there could be some issue that comes up

22:41

that that doesn't even doesn't doesn't

22:43

even come up right the Trump and his I

22:46

mean they clearly are trying to make

22:47

sure this happens after cuz that's what

22:50

I mean this immunity thing is is also

22:53

about pushing out the timeline right

22:54

it's all and it's very common for

22:57

defendants to do that it's not just in

22:59

in civil cases and in criminal cases on

23:01

the other hand you know some innocent

23:03

defendants will say I don't think the

23:04

government can try can prove its case I

23:06

want to go to trial right away and you

23:08

put the government to its proof that's

23:09

not our friend Donald

23:11

Trump and so just since we have on many

23:15

occasions now on this podcast you have

23:16

felt pretty confident that Trump is

23:18

going to jail yes did yesterday take any

23:21

air out of that no I mean look the only

23:23

way he doesn't go to jail for something

23:25

in my to my mind is if um he's president

23:29

he gets 270 electoral votes and in that

23:32

case it doesn't you know it doesn't he

23:34

could be convicted in a state court and

23:36

sentence but they wouldn't be able to

23:37

execute the sentence he could be you

23:39

know and and and you know you just you

23:42

can't throw a president in jail while

23:44

he's president the only way to get rid

23:46

of him is to him impeach and remove him

23:47

then you can throw him in jail yeah well

23:49

when he's in his fifth term and dies in

23:52

office uh he will have evaded that's

23:56

yeah no I mean yeah cuz he eats so so

23:58

well so obviously he's going to live for

23:59

a very long time all right so I want to

24:02

just hit this Illinois disqualification

24:05

really quickly there was there wasn't

24:07

you know yeah I I mean uh basically I've

24:09

read Illinois some Cook County Judge did

24:12

this and you know I don't know what I I

24:15

didn't read the opinion well here I'll

24:17

set it up for you right uh so while

24:19

we're still waiting uh for a decision

24:22

from the Supreme Court on the 14th

24:23

Amendment disqualification case out of

24:25

Colorado uh and which in Colorado and in

24:29

Maine they've removed Trump from the

24:30

ballot under section three of the 14th

24:32

Amendment for engaging an Insurrection

24:34

so the judge in Illinois also removed

24:37

Trump from the ballot now I'm guessing

24:38

the Supreme Court decision in the

24:40

pending 14th Amendment case will impact

24:43

this Illinois decision I I suspect it

24:45

will dispose of that um case why don't

24:48

we have a decision in the Colorado case

24:50

yet because well when was it argued I

24:53

can't even remember now is like

24:55

everything's a blur it was argued like

24:56

three three three weeks ago go right at

24:58

least um was before the superc I

25:01

remember I went it was right before the

25:03

Super Bowl so it was like it was in

25:06

that's how I remember things um so it's

25:09

been about two or three three weeks now

25:12

February 8th produc feary right okay so

25:15

exactly three weeks um because this is

25:17

the February this is February 29 leap

25:20

day and that we're recording this

25:23

but I it's not an easy opinion to write

25:30

because they they're fighting the text

25:34

of section three of the 14th Amendment

25:38

and none of the off ramps have any clear

25:42

legal basis it's clear from the argument

25:45

that what they want to do is to make

25:48

limit the state's ability

25:52

to

25:53

prevent maybe all federal candidates or

25:59

or the president just the president to

26:02

to keep them off the ballot on a finding

26:04

of of of having engaged in Insurrection

26:07

violation of a previously taken

26:11

o you know I

26:13

don't it's it's inconsistent with the

26:16

fact that states knock people off

26:19

ballots all the time for failing to meet

26:22

qualifications and this would seem to be

26:24

the easiest

26:26

qualification to comp with which is

26:29

don't engage in Insurrection I mean

26:31

that's my personal opinion um but does

26:33

it mean then somebody somebody can

26:35

somebody if you can't prove that you're

26:36

they're 35 years old you'll be 35 years

26:38

old on on January 20th 2025 you can't

26:41

run for president it mean that means

26:43

that they got to put they got to put um

26:45

you know they got to put a 20-year-old

26:48

on the ballot I I don't I I they're

26:50

going to have to figure out how to write

26:52

this opinion and have it make sense and

26:55

have the lines that they draw not look

26:58

arbitrary and then get five six seven

27:03

eight or nine people to sign on to it

27:05

and I don't know that that's easy to do

27:07

um they've taken quite a task onto them

27:10

because I don't think I mean one of the

27:11

things I said from the very not the very

27:14

beginning but um when the Colorado

27:16

Supreme Court decision came down is like

27:18

the somebody's got to come up with

27:19

better reasoning than this to support um

27:22

Trump getting on the ballot because it's

27:23

just not it doesn't cohere and you know

27:27

the they're obviously they are nine of

27:28

them and they're pretty smart uh but you

27:32

know I don't know how you make that

27:34

cohere and and get people to agree to it

27:38

in a short period of

27:40

time so it's not it's not an easy task

27:43

for them Trump is keeping those law

27:45

clerks busy up there at the Supreme

27:46

Court okay so we did get we're going to

27:48

just take a few questions from uh and I

27:51

think you just answered one of them

27:53

because uh Joy wrote in and asked that

27:56

if Trump is elected whether or not he

27:57

can shut down Jack Smith's prosecution

28:01

in in effect he he he there are a number

28:03

of things that he could do he could

28:05

basically fire Jack Smith he has the

28:08

president he has the power to do that

28:10

but I think it's

28:12

also I I I think it's also pretty clear

28:15

that under the Justice Department's

28:16

existing policies that go date back to

28:19

the Nixon and Carter I mean not Nixon

28:21

and Clinton administrations a president

28:24

the the Justice Department's position

28:27

has been essentially for 50 years that a

28:30

president a sitting president cannot be

28:32

prosecuted for a crime so you know any

28:36

any you could appoint you could appoint

28:38

mer he could reappoint Merrick Garland

28:40

and Merrick garland would look at this

28:42

and say well this is the justice

28:43

department policy so we have to drop

28:44

this

28:45

case so the answer is yes thatum answer

28:49

he doesn't even he doesn't to fire

28:50

anybody I think he could probably shut

28:51

it down and then and then if if if I

28:53

mean there's no way the justice

28:55

department is going to proceed with the

28:56

prosecution of of of sitting president

28:57

just not going to happen that might

28:59

nullify the second question but Jeffrey

29:01

asks us whether Trump if elected is

29:04

constitutionally able to paron himself I

29:06

don't know why all of you guys are

29:07

writing in to tell me Trump's going to

29:08

win but yeah go ahead yeah that that's

29:11

an interesting question whether we could

29:13

pardon himself and there is basically no

29:16

law on that and it is something that law

29:19

professors have written about and I

29:22

cannot I do not know what the answer is

29:24

because what he would do is he would

29:25

pardon himself and basically then the

29:27

Supreme Court once again has to figure

29:29

out and make a ruling on it probably

29:31

right well I don't even I don't think

29:34

there would be ever I don't think it

29:35

would get litigated because somebody's

29:37

actually got the he he can't pardon

29:39

himself for State offenses yeah right he

29:42

can only pardon himself for federal

29:44

offenses and the only way that would be

29:46

tested in court would be if a federal

29:50

prosecutor indicted him and I don't see

29:54

the federal it's just never going to

29:55

happen it's just I I don't see how it

29:57

gets ever gets litigated you are hearing

29:59

the reasons right now while Donal why

30:01

Donald Trump is running for president

30:02

again when people say he is running to

30:04

avoid jail this is what they mean yeah

30:06

because he can if he wins do it you know

30:08

people get really mad at me uh on the

30:11

twitters when I say this but like the

30:13

courts probably aren't going to save us

30:15

I mean I I have part of the reason not

30:17

part of the reason I don't know a lot

30:18

about the legal stuff is because I'm not

30:19

a lawyer but I also have not I think

30:23

like a lot of people invested a ton of

30:25

time in the idea that what is going to

30:27

get us out of the Donald Trump situation

30:29

is the courts um because I do think that

30:33

the only way out of this is to defeat

30:35

him at The Ballot Box I agree and and

30:37

that was you know with to talk about the

30:39

14th Amendment section three that was my

30:41

original view um it is my origal I would

30:44

prefer to see him trounced at the

30:46

balance Box by a pro-democracy majority

30:49

because I think you know

30:52

that's that's the message we need to

30:54

send to the world and to our fellow

30:57

citizens and and to the Future that you

31:01

know this is what Weis this is about

31:04

America and this is we are Americans and

31:06

what draws us together are is the rule

31:09

of law is the belief in in in in in in a

31:12

system of justice that is fair and if

31:14

it's not quite the way we want it to be

31:16

we fix it and we work on that together

31:19

and and and not try to destroy the

31:21

system because that's what what we have

31:23

right now is you we essentially have a a

31:27

political party that is unprincipled and

31:31

centered on

31:32

nihilism that that basically wants to to

31:35

basically destroy our institutions

31:37

because they don't like they they they

31:40

don't like the other people they're

31:41

sharing the country with yeah but this

31:44

is why I think there's this I think the

31:46

reason people look to the courts is

31:47

there there's a real fear right now that

31:50

given the choice Americans will pick

31:52

Donald Trump over the con majority

31:56

of I mean but but there's also to me

31:59

it's more basic than that the guy's a

32:01

criminal okay this is a long time coming

32:04

he's a fraudster he's a rapist he's an

32:07

insurrectionist um he he's he's a thief

32:10

he stole classified documents he's a you

32:13

know he's everything morally

32:16

legally bad that you could imagine he is

32:19

the worst person imaginable to be put in

32:22

any position of public trust let alone

32:24

the presidency of the United States and

32:25

on top of that he's bat

32:28

crazy okay I'm going to call it I'm

32:31

going to call it right there all right

32:34

thank you guys so much for listening to

32:36

another episode of George Conway

32:37

explains it all to Sarah don't forget to

32:40

hit subscribe leave us a review on your

32:42

podcast app and you can always send us

32:45

more questions at ask George thework.com

32:47

we will see you next week bye George

32:56

bye

32:57

[Music]

33:04

[Music]

33:10

oh