Judge Luttig: The Supreme Court just handed a ‘very difficult decision’ to Jack Smith

WITH THE ELECTION TO STATEMENTS

AWAY, ONE MIGHT HOPE THAT THE

SUPREME COURT IS LOOKING AT ITS

CALENDAR.

JOINING ME NGNOW IS A VERY GOOD

FRIENDS OF THE SHOW, IT'S TEAM

JUDGE NDMICHAEL LUTTIG, FROM

ROUGHLY 15 YEARS, HE SERVED AS

A FEDERAL JUDGE ON THE U.S.

COURT FEOF APPEALS FOR THE FOURT

CIRCUIT.

JUDGE LUTTIG, GOOD MORNING TO

YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

>> GOOD MORNING, ALI.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME WITH

YOU.

>> PRIOR TO THIS WEEK, JUDGE, A

LOT OF LEGAL EXPERTS AND COURT

WATCHERS EXPECTED THE SUPREME

COURT TO UPHOLD THE RULING FROM

THE PHCOURT OF APPEALS, WHICH

YOU'VE CALLED MASTERFUL.

I WANT TO READ ONE PART FROM

THAT RULING, QUOTE, WE CANNOT

ACCEPT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S

CLAIM THAT A PRESIDENT HAS

UNBOUNDED AUTHORITY TO COMMIT

CRIMES THAT WOULD NEUTRALIZE

THE T MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHECK ON

EXECUTIVE POWER.

THE RECOGNITION AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTION

RESULTS.

NOR CAN WE SANCTIONED HIS

APPARENT CONTENTION THAT THE

EXECUTIVE HAT CARTE BLANCHE TO

VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF

INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO VOTE,

AND TO HAVE ALTHEIR VOTES COUNT.

AT BOTTOM, FORMER PRESIDENT

STANCE WOULD COLLAPSE

OR T SYSTEM OF SEPARATED POWERS

BY PLACING THE PRECEDENT BEYOND

THE REACH OF ALL CITHREE

BRANCHES.

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY AGAINST

FEDERAL INDICTMENT WOULD MEAN

THAT AS TO THE PRESIDENT, THE

CONGRESS COULD NOT LEGISLATES,

THE EXECUTIVE COULD NOT

PROSECUTE, S,AND THE JUDICIARY U

COULD NOT REVIEW.

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE OFFICE OF

THE PRESIDENCY PLACES THE

FORMER OCCUPANTS ABOVE THE LAW

FOR ALL-TIME THEREAFTER.

END QUOTE.

JUDGE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, BY T,

DECIDING TO TAKE THIS, CASE IT

MEANS AT LEAST FOR THE JUSTICES

AGREED THAT IT'S WORTH

LISTENING, AND DETERMINING

WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS AIRED

IN ITS JUDGMENT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT,.

ALI IT IS AN ENORMOUS

CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL

CONSEQUENCES THAT THEY DECIDED

TO TAKE THIS CASE, TO TAKE IT

WHEN IT DID, TO SET ARGUMENT

WHEN IT DID.

AND THE SIDE IT'S WHEN IT IS

LIKELY TO BE DECIDED.

AS YOU NOTED, THE COURT HAS SET

ARGUMENT FOR APRIL 22ND.

THAT'S QUITE A NTBIT OF TIME FRO

TODAY.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT'S

ONLY ABOUT TWO MONTHS BEFORE

THE END OF THE COURT'S TERM,

ROUGHLY AROUND JULY 1ST.

IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO

MOVE SWIFTLY AND DECIDE THIS

CASE BEFORE THE END OF THE

TERM.

I THINK THAT THAT IS HIGHLY

UNLIKELY.

I THINK IT'S FAR MORE LIKELY

THAT THE COURT WILL ISSUE THIS OPINION THE LAST WEEK OF.

OPINION THE LAST WEEK OF.

TERM THIS CASE IS SURPASSING

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE.

IT WILL BE A LANDMARK CASE.

THERE'S NO EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN

THIS CASE AND THE NIXON CASE

THAT YOU REFERENCED IN YOUR

SETUP.

THIS CASE IS FAR, FAR MORE

IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNTRY AND AN

FOR THE CONSTITUTION THAN THE

NIXON CASE.

WE DON'T KNOW, FROM THE MERE

GRANT OF A REVIEW IN THIS CASE,

WHAT ANY OF THE JUSTICE MIGHT

BE THINKING.

AS YOU SAID, IT TOOK FOUR VOTES

TO GRANT THE CASE, BUT THAT

DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANY OF THOSE

FOUR JUSTICES HAVE ANY

INTENTION OF REVERSING SOME THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDGMENTS.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

AT MOST, WE CAN INFER THAT AT

LEAST FOUR JUSTICES BELIEVE

IT'S WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED TE

STATES DECIDE THIS CASE.

>> JUDGE LUTTIG, LET'S GO BACK

TO THE MATTRESS SECOND.

51 DAYS BEFORE THE HERE IT'S,

THEN, AS HE SAID, POSSIBLY THE

END OF JUNE.

LET'S GO TO LIFERS, JUST FOR

ARGUMENTS SAKE.

THEN, IF JUDGE CHUTKAN FIRST

PERMITTED TO MOVE ON WITH THIS

CASE, IRTHERE ARE 88 DAYS THAT

THE DEFENSE HAS BEFORE THIS CAN

GO S TO TRIAL, WHICH BASICALLY

TAKES US TO THE END OF

SEPTEMBER, BEGINNING OF

OCTOBER.

TELL ME HOW THAT MATH WORKS

OUT.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S POSSIBLE

THIS ERTRIAL, IF IT HAPPENS,

COULD BE DELAYED THAT LATE.

IT'S A PRACTICAL FOR THIS TRIAL

TO BEGIN AT THE END OF

SEPTEMBER, BEGINNING OF

OCTOBER?

>> THAT'S EXACTLY THE

QUESTION,.

ALI ON THAT TIMETABLE, THE

EARLIEST THAT THE TRIAL COULD

BEGIN WOULD BE THE FIRST WEEK

IN OCTOBER.

ESSENTIALLY, ONE MONTH BEFORE

THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY

DIFFICULT DECISION FOR JACK

SMITH TO BEGIN THE TRIAL ONE

MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION,

KNOWING THAT THE TRIAL ITSELF

WHEN WOULD SPAN THROUGH THE

ELECTION, AND PERHAPS, ALMOST

FROM TO INAUGURATION.

IF THE TRIAL WERE TO LAST THREE

MONTHS, WHEN THAT IS A TACTICAL

DECISION THAT JACK SMITH WOULD

HAVE TO MAKE FULL-TIME TABLE

WORKED OUT AS WE JUST SKETCHED

IT OUT.

>> JUDGE, IT'S ORDER ANNOUNCING

IT WILL TAKE UP DONALD, PEELED

LOOK COURT WROTE QUOTE,

PURCHASE GRANTED TO THE

FOLLOWING QUESTION, WEATHER AND

IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT, THUS THE

FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, FOR

CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE

OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TEN

TENURE IN OFFICE, END QUOTE.

SOME ANALYSTS HAVE EXPRESSED

CONCERNS AABOUT THE FRAMING OF

THE QUESTION.

DOES ANY OF THAT IF YOU PAUSE?

>> NO, IT

DOES NOT.

ALI.

FIRST, OFF YOUR VIEWERS SHOULD

UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURTS

ALWAYS FRAMES THE QUESTIONS

THAT, THE QUESTION THAT IT'S

GOING TO DECIDE.

AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S DONE HERE,

NONE MORE, NO LESS, AND EVERY

CASE.

THE PARTY'S PROPOSED THE

QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE

COURTS.

IN THIS INSTANCE, BOTH JACK

SMITH, FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND

THE FORMER PRESIDENT FRAMED THE

QUESTIONS DIFFERENTLY, FROM

EACH OTHER.

AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS, THAT

IT'S ITNOT UNUSUAL, THE SUPREME

COURT FRAMED THE QUESTION

DIFFERENTLY THAN BOTH OF THOSE

TWO PARTIES, SO AS TO REQUIRE

BRIEFING AND DECISION ON THE

QUESTION THAT THE COURT ITSELF

WANTS E TO DECIDE.

NOW, WHAT IS THAT QUESTION?

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF

DISCUSSION AS TO THE FRAMING OF

THE QUESTION.

IN MY VIEW, A LOT OF THAT IS A

TEMPEST IN THE TEAPOT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE

COURT HAS ASKED THE PARTIES TO

BRIEF THE QUESTION THAT'S AN

ISSUE IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE

FORMER PRESIDENT.

MAINLY, WHETHER THE FORMER

PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE

CONSTITUTION.

WHEN HE ACTING, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY, AS THEN PRESIDENT OF

THE UNITED STATES, SOUGHT TO

OVERTURN THE ELECTION IN 2020,

AND OBSTRUCTED THE OFFICIAL

PROCEEDING OF D THE JOINT SESSIO

OF CONGRESS TO COUNT THE

ELECTORAL VOTES.

THAT COURT, OF COURSE, CAN

DECIDE THAT QUESTION IS

NARROWLY OR AS BROADLY AS IT

WISHES.

BUT THIS IS A PARADIGM OF A

CASE WHERE THE COURTS WILL

ALMOST CERTAINLY DECIDE THE

CASE AS NARROWLY AS IT POSSIBLY

CAN.

AND IF IT WERE TO DO THAT, IT

WOULD DECIDE, IN MY, FEW

WEATHER A PRECEDENT, A FORMER

PRESIDENT, CAN EVER BE IMMUNE

FOR ATTEMPTING TO REMAIN IN

POWER BEYOND HIS FOUR-YEAR

TERM, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

PRESCRIBED FOUR YEAR TERM,

DENYING HIS SUCCESSOR BE POWERS

OF THE PRESIDENCY, OR

ATTEMPTING TO DENY HIS

SUCCESSOR THE POWERS OF THE

PRESIDENCY.

IN VIOLATION OF WHAT'S CALLED

THE EXECUTIVE VESTED CLAUSE OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES.

THAT'S THE NARROWEST QUESTION,