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

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 hello everyone and welcome to

George Conway Explains It All I'm Sarah

Longwell publisher of the bull workk and

because I'm not a lawyer I have asked my

friend George Conway from the society

for the rule of law to explain legal

news to me okay so did anything happen

did anything happen so it was feeling

like a quiet week when we were prepping

for the show we had a whole mailbox

episode planned where were just going to

answer questions from our you know

brilliant incisive listeners and then

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

Court just dropped its order

in the immunity case and then like right

on top of that separately an Illinois

judge disqualified Trump from the ballot

it was just like boom boom so no quiet

week anymore and guys I promise we're

going to do our best to do a mailed bag

episode soon uh George you haven't seen

these emails but we got a lot of love

from the listeners and so toar corgis

whenever they make an appearance uh one

person wrote in to say that she feels

like she's taken a smart pill on

court packing the Supreme Court with

corgis yeah that's uh some real

resistance stuff there yeah uh okay so

let's jump in we finally heard from

scotus after what felt like a very long

two weeks and to refresh everyone's

memory we're talking about special

counsel Jack Smith's criminal

prosecution of trump in DC for January

6th and all the election interference

leading up to it Trump has argued that

he is immune from Criminal prosecution

for the acts he committed while

President the DC Court the court of

appeals we did whole episode on this uh

said in January that no Trump is not

immune from Criminal prosecution wrote a

fabulous opinion yeah it was a great

opinion I don't know why that didn't

just stand uh Trump then asked the US

Supreme Court for a stay so that the

judge so that judge chuin in the trial

court wouldn't kick the trial into gear

right then he filed that request for a

stay like on February 12th uh then

yesterday so that's February 28th uh the

Supreme Court agreed to hear the case

and set oral Arguments for the week of

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

of questions for you including what this

means for the trial timeline first I

want to ask you why you think it took

two weeks to land on a pretty middleof

the road path

forward that's a very good question and

I don't think we will know the answer

the true answer for many years um it

won't be until somebody does like what

just Justice Blackman does and bequeaths

all of his or her papers to the Library

of Congress there are a number of ative

theories one

theory is that it took them a long time

to craft the precise wording of the

question that they want the legal

question that they think the case poses

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

what happened um uh the the important

thing is two the significance of what

happened yesterday is twofold one is it

does delay the trial further yeah and um

as but as I

said on the day that they denied that

earlier C petition that Jack Smith filed

to try to get the case directly this was

like back in January back directly from

the district court and skip the court of

appeals and go up to the Supreme Court

and then everybody said oh my gosh they

they denied that it's terrible and you

know my my view was well um you're going

to get a good opinion out of the DC

circuit which we did and the Supreme

Court could always deny C and even if it

granted C it would not Grant in a manner

that would kick the case over to the

fall and that's exactly what happened

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

at the end of February or the beginning

of March 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 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 and 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 it

should take them that long but you know

it's late in the term they get backed up

at the they get backed up in April

they've got all these opinions I don't

know how how backed up they are this

particular year and and it's possible we

won't get a decision until um till June

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

or 3 weeks um um if they get the you

know if they get a decision by May or

June it's still possible there could be

a trial in the fall what I think we're

seeing going to see is I mean I think

it's going to depend on Judge chuckin

schedule and whether judge chuckin wants

to turn up this turn up the speed dial

just a little bit more um uh to to to to

get the case tried sooner rather than

later U but I think there's still a good

chance um that this case would the trial

of the case could actually begin in the

fall which is kind of a stunning and it

really is sort of a gut-wrenching thing

to think that we could be in the middle

of a the you know after Labor Day with a

with a presidential campaign with six to

eight weeks to go and this guy could be

on trial for basically trying to subvert

the Constitution of the United

States we are so far in unprecedented

territory I you know it's hard to know

where where this is going to go but I 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 don't

believe that the Supreme Court is going

to hold or is intending to hold that

that five justices would 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 I mean this is

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

important cases you know there's this

whole line of cases involving

um presidential immunity I I you know I

I I someday somebody's going to um do

the history of this and we'll find out

you know what exactly was going on in

the Justice Department what what took it

was it was it you know Liz Cheney in the

January 6 hearing really I I it seems

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

question for historians um and and

historians of the justice department and

historians of these proceedings and you

know we may not live to see exactly read

read a definitive historical account of

what happened here um speak for yourself

I plan on being alive uh when they well

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

my age right no I for I think I think we

will know sooner than you think but let

me I want to back up and I want to just

tease out that was a long answer wasn't

it well it was you you put a lot out

there I want to hit some of the

highlights uh and and stomp on them um

in a good way so first of all the point

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

to stomp on things in a bad way cuz

that's very be really tough when you do

that I know I not a mean I want to

highlight and accentuate a couple of

really important points so one of them

seems to me is that you're saying hey

look the Supreme Court was always going

to have to take this up because they

want to be the final Arbiters yeah but I

I they they they they I didn't say they

all had to but it would possibly it's

appropriate it's it's not inappropriate

not inappropriate I can understand it I

wish they had done it sooner on the

other hand the the the the the the the

effort to skip the court of appeals is

highly unusual and I can understand

Justice is saying well we don't want to

look like we're trying to you know light

Trump at the stake by by Expediting this

because it's just another criminal case

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

you're looking that's looking at the

case with blinders but I can understand

a Jud a judge saying that okay so we're

so we on this podcast are not mad at the

Supreme Court for taking it up as I've

seen a lot of people be on Twitter were

you surprised not exact I don't want to

give the Supreme Court an award for this

yeah sure did you think though what what

did you think the chances were and maybe

um when we talked about this I'm not

sure why I don't remember but what did

you think the chances were that they

would have just granted outright like

the like approved of what the lower

court had said and been like we agree

you know that that was my fantasy

scenario and and as I I think I tweeted

at one point that yeah this would be the

scenario where the order would have come

out yesterday

saying the petition for the application

for stay is denied treating the

application as a petition for rid of

cersi the rid of cersi is granted and

the Judgment of the court of appeals is

affirmed period that was you know that

would be that's theoretically possible

there have been cases where they have

done that they were never going to do

that in this case I think I tweeted once

that said I this is my fantasy scenario

but it would take a zillion billion it's

a zillion billion quadrillion to one but

the theory those are long odds the

theory of why it took so long could be

that maybe they they were crafting some

kind of a pruum opinion to affirm it but

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

there there is you know there is

something to be said for the notion that

there must be at some point some limits

on the ability to prosecute a president

because what if Congress passed a law

that was specifically designed to

infringe upon the president's um

Constitutional Powers by basically

saying the president if the president

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

he will be Pro uted or something make it

criminal like you know something

ridiculous um and think the answer to

that is you know you don't you can

confine it to the facts of this case is

the facts of the case is this is

something where the president um was

essentially trying to extend his term of

office and and and and and and trying to

violate um what's called the executive

vesting clause which basically says the

president is President for four years

and so it's quite possible and it's

quite possible that the Supreme Court

wants to write an opinion or some

justices want to write an opinion that

kind of

fine-tunes the uh the reasoning of the

court of appeals to make it more

precisely narrow to the situation at

hand because you just don't know what

crazy hypotheticals could come next the

perfect example of you know you could

have a dangerous situation where a

former president is being prosecuted

illegitimately and that's what could

happen if a certain person gets elected

this year so you know I mean he is sort

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

ironic that Donald Trump presents the

very danger represents the very danger

that he's trying to invoke yes but the

other thing you're laying out though

that's really important is this timeline

okay and I just want to I want to hit

this so people have it in their heads

because you're argu you're saying okay

uh they would set the oral arguments

over April 22nd which means and we'll

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

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

you know what the whether anybody has

any issues with with the scope of the DC

circuits ruling yeah okay so we'll no

we'll no but then they rule in May or

June right probably

June you know I I I it really depends I

mean you know you could it depends on

whether they're descent it depends on

whether the opinion as they say I mean

judges have this phrase that says well I

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

know opinions have to write in other

words they have to flow they have to

make sense sometimes you think oh let's

hold x a judge judges will decide let's

hold this this is where we're going to

go and then when they write it out it

doesn't make quite a lot of sense which

I think is something that could happen

in the 14th Amendment case where they

don't really where they just make they

seem to want to just make stuff up um I

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

or four weeks and it could be done it it

might take to the end of the term I mean

I guess I guess I'm assuming June now

just because it seems like they're on

board with the longer timeline it's not

it doesn't seem like they are burdened

by the need to act with super

expeditiously no they well they they

they did place the burden on themelves

to produce an opinion within six weeks

basically yeah by April 22 they they go

they go home last week in June so they

basically 8 weeks they basically confine

themselves to a two-month um period to

write an opinion and there may be

separate opinions so I you know I I

think the worst case is that he gets

kicked we don't get a decision until

like the last day of the time well the

the only reason I think that I guess is

because I'm just used to the Supreme

Court holding the big cases until the

end it is because everybody you know

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

thing is the stuff that's most important

you try to get the easy stuff out of the

way and the stuff that you think is is

more historically significant or the

stuff that has greater ramifications you

you futs with more yeah to use the

official legal

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

lawyer so I use words like futs and

putts and Schmutz and that's okay scal

was famous for uh argle bargle you know

making up words no that was a real word

AR it is now I use it to describe all

manner of things so if that's the case

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

was on CNN this morning with uh and

their CNN sort of legal analyst um

William fabulous he he was he was great

uh but he was arguing that he thought

the timeline would be September October

and so my response to that was okay if

that's truly the timeline I understand

that puts us in unprecedented territory

and everybody's going to feel pretty

unable but politically that's bad for

Trump like if of course it's bad for

Trump so he would have then tried to

delay win right this is but but if he's

on trial right then that is not good for

him that is not good for him and that's

absolutely right I mean that was

something I was thinking about this

morning on the train on the way up down

here is that you know he may have ended