George Conway Explains: SCOTUS order could be BAD NEWS for Trump | George Conway Explains It All
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
🔍 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.
📅 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.
🤔 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.
🚨 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.
📚 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.
🔮 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
💡Presidential Immunity
💡Criminal Prosecution
💡Election Interference
💡14th Amendment
💡Certiorari
💡Trial Timeline
💡Legal Precedent
💡Electoral Process
💡Rule of Law
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
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
up shooting himself in the foot yeah I
mean what he really needed ideally was
something that would push the case past
November um and I don't think this is
this is quite going to be enough I don't
think you know the only way it could
possibly now go past really past
November would be if chuin just just
can't fit it into her schedule and I
don't think judge chuckin I don't think
judge chuckin is is gonna she she's GNA
prioritize this case it's made pretty
clear on this point though here's a
question could some of these other cases
now that this gets pushed back could
they go first yes and end up pushing
this back by virtue of yes that's that's
possible I mean it could be possible I
mean it could be possible for example if
judge
Canon um decided all of a sudden to
light a fire under her case um that she
started a you know she decided to hold
an August trial then it would be hard to
see chuckin ordering a trial until after
that trial was complet about what you're
saying that but I I don't I don't know
that that that's not that I would not
put that as a high probability scenario
because she hasn't been moving at the
speed of light although she did some
things the other day that that seemed
reasonable um with respect to um the
production of materials to some of the
defendants okay I guess in my in my mind
too maybe this is like too
conspiratorial I'm thinking like if she
wanted to go put her case in front of
that one in order to sort of take the
more serious case the January 6th case I
mean I don't I don't know that that that
would that would be a terrible scenario
for Trump as well because the documents
case really is an open and shuta shut
case and that actually goes back to
another point about the
um about what the Supreme Court has done
here again not to you know not that I
think they should be given an award for
what they've done but I can understand
the logic behind it one of the Lo one of
the logical aspects of it is it's not
just this January 6 case Trump is
asserting immunity in the Georgia case
he is asserting immunity in the
documents case I don't think that
immunity could possibly get him out of
the numerous obstruction charges um that
he committed after he left office but it
might it might be it might it might have
something that it might could affect
some of some of the some of the charges
if if he were to win them you know some
of the stuff that he did bring them down
there he was President he might have had
these some of these documents there
before before January 20th but I I don't
I don't think it's going to affect that
case but you know it's a he's making the
argument so it it might be worthwhile
for the Supreme Court might said that's
just one more reason why we need to
actually explain what we think about
this um that said I would prefer them to
do it one case at a time and again and
the other point I would I would have
preferred them is like they they do it's
it is important that they decide
the case um this issue at some point but
they didn't have to do it before trial
they could always hear U an appeal from
his criminal conviction what do you who
do you think the individual Justice do
it's not to me as much as I um perhaps
have come to think of uh Clarence Thomas
as uh an Alita well no I was going to
try to describe how I felt about Justice
Thomas his wife he married to a woman
who is like a full-on
uh insurrectionist like storm the
capital type um Alo uh is obviously has
has become more and more bold and public
uh and I guess the question I have is
but still still these people are Supreme
Court Justices the idea that they would
just allow presidential immunity seems
crazy so who do you think is driving
this of I honestly couldn't tell you it
could it it may well
be
no I mean the the only two theories that
I've heard are that there was an effort
to to toward a summary
affirmance um that failed to get the
five votes um and was also triggering
descents so that means con Barrett or
Kavanaugh could I mean yeah I I if I had
to guess the person who might be the
most
cautious on this while ending up in the
right place would might be Kavanagh and
cuz C you know cuz cuz Brett I mean
Brett Kavanaugh has always been very
protective of the prerogatives of the
presidency and he's you know he's
thought about these issues a great deal
um and he's expressed concerns about
about the potential for criminalization
of of of politics and and and and of of
of work in the executive branch
ironically since he wrote the wrote the
fact section of the star report but um
you know there there are legitimate
concerns here um about how you write
this opinion I don't think any of those
concerns affects the result in this case
I don't see how a majority of the Court
could rule in his favor I would be
shocked and I would immediately catch
the first flight to New Zealand um 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 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 well you're you're
going to have to come with you're going
to have to come with because you're
you're on yeah you're you're head of for
Guantanamo too my
friend uh okay so I guess now we've
established the timeline I just I just
do want to reiterate that I I am I have
because this is all I've seen is like
the Wailing and nashing of teeth on
Twitter and I doesn't that's what
Twitter is for I know I know that that's
true it's designed to keep the dental
profession going also also my bull workk
colleagues in the slack it was just like
no uh and i l no no I have one of one of
your bullwark colleagues was I'm on a
text chain with this colleague of yours
and he
quoted John McCain saying something
Something Like It's always darkest
before it gets pitch dark yeah it's
always darkest before it turns pitch
black yep uh and I kind of like that
that The Sopranos what happens when they
whack you you know he likes that phrase
uh I just this but to me I don't know if
and I could see look there's more things
that could get in the way could continue
to get pushed back further I just yeah
no that's right that that and that's the
thing is is that
there things never tend never to speed
up litigation problems arise that you
don't foresee so that's the real issue
here is um you know this could get to
trial two or three months after uh the
Supreme Court rules on the other hand
there could be some issue that comes up
that that doesn't even doesn't doesn't
even come up right the Trump and his I
mean they clearly are trying to make
sure this happens after cuz that's what
I mean this immunity thing is is also
about pushing out the timeline right
it's all and it's very common for
defendants to do that it's not just in
in civil cases and in criminal cases on
the other hand you know some innocent
defendants will say I don't think the
government can try can prove its case I
want to go to trial right away and you
put the government to its proof that's
not our friend Donald
Trump and so just since we have on many
occasions now on this podcast you have
felt pretty confident that Trump is
going to jail yes did yesterday take any
air out of that no I mean look 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 yeah well
when he's in his fifth term and dies in
office uh he will have evaded that's
yeah no I mean yeah cuz he eats so so
well so obviously he's going to live for
a very long time all right so I want to
just hit this Illinois disqualification
really quickly there was there wasn't
you know yeah I I mean uh basically I've
read Illinois some Cook County Judge did
this and you know I don't know what I I
didn't read the opinion well here I'll
set it up for you right uh so while
we're still waiting uh for a decision
from the Supreme Court on the 14th
Amendment disqualification case out of
Colorado uh and which in Colorado and in
Maine they've removed Trump from the
ballot under section three of the 14th
Amendment for engaging an Insurrection
so the judge in Illinois also removed
Trump from the ballot now I'm guessing
the Supreme Court decision in the
pending 14th Amendment case will impact
this Illinois decision I I suspect it
will dispose of that um case why don't
we have a decision in the Colorado case
yet because well when was it argued I
can't even remember now is like
everything's a blur it was argued like
three three three weeks ago go right at
least um was before the superc I
remember I went it was right before the
Super Bowl so it was like it was in
that's how I remember things um so it's
been about two or three three weeks now
February 8th produc feary right okay so
exactly three weeks um because this is
the February this is February 29 leap
day and that we're recording this
but I it's not an easy opinion to write
because they they're fighting the text
of section three of the 14th Amendment
and none of the off ramps have any clear
legal basis it's clear from the argument
that what they want to do is to make
limit the state's ability
to
prevent maybe all federal candidates or
or the president just the president to
to keep them off the ballot on a finding
of of of having engaged in Insurrection
violation of a previously taken
o you know I
don't it's it's inconsistent with the
fact that states knock people off
ballots all the time for failing to meet
qualifications and this would seem to be
the easiest
qualification to comp with which is
don't engage in Insurrection I mean
that's my personal opinion um but does
it mean then somebody somebody can
somebody if you can't prove that you're
they're 35 years old you'll be 35 years
old on on January 20th 2025 you can't
run for president it mean that means
that they got to put they got to put um
you know they got to put a 20-year-old
on the ballot I I don't I I they're
going to have to figure out how to write
this opinion and have it make sense and
have the lines that they draw not look
arbitrary and then get five six seven
eight or nine people to sign on to it
and I don't know that that's easy to do
um they've taken quite a task onto them
because I don't think I mean one of the
things I said from the very not the very
beginning but um when the Colorado
Supreme Court decision came down is like
the somebody's got to come up with
better reasoning than this to support um
Trump getting on the ballot because it's
just not it doesn't cohere and you know
the they're obviously they are nine of
them and they're pretty smart uh but you
know I don't know how you make that
cohere and and get people to agree to it
in a short period of
time so it's not it's not an easy task
for them Trump is keeping those law
clerks busy up there at the Supreme
Court okay so we did get we're going to
just take a few questions from uh and I
think you just answered one of them
because uh Joy wrote in and asked that
if Trump is elected whether or not he
can shut down Jack Smith's prosecution
in in effect he he he there are a number
of things that he could do he could
basically fire Jack Smith he has the
president he has the power to do that
but I think it's
also I I I think it's also pretty clear
that under the Justice Department's
existing policies that go date back to
the Nixon and Carter I mean not Nixon
and Clinton administrations a president
the the Justice Department's position
has been essentially for 50 years that a
president a sitting president cannot be
prosecuted for a crime so you know any
any you could appoint you could appoint
mer he could reappoint Merrick Garland
and Merrick garland would look at this
and say well this is the justice
department policy so we have to drop
this
case so the answer is yes thatum answer
he doesn't even he doesn't to fire
anybody I think he could probably shut
it down and then and then if if if I
mean there's no way the justice
department is going to proceed with the
prosecution of of of sitting president
just not going to happen that might
nullify the second question but Jeffrey
asks us whether Trump if elected is
constitutionally able to paron himself I
don't know why all of you guys are
writing in to tell me Trump's going to
win but yeah go ahead yeah that that's
an interesting question whether we could
pardon himself and there is basically no
law on that and it is something that law
professors have written about and I
cannot I do not know what the answer is
because what he would do is he would
pardon himself and basically then the
Supreme Court once again has to figure
out and make a ruling on it probably
right well I don't even I don't think
there would be ever I don't think it
would get litigated because somebody's
actually got the he he can't pardon
himself for State offenses yeah right he
can only pardon himself for federal
offenses and the only way that would be
tested in court would be if a federal
prosecutor indicted him and I don't see
the federal it's just never going to
happen it's just I I don't see how it
gets ever gets litigated you are hearing
the reasons right now while Donal why
Donald Trump is running for president
again when people say he is running to
avoid jail this is what they mean yeah
because he can if he wins do it you know
people get really mad at me uh on the
twitters when I say this but like the
courts probably aren't going to save us
I mean I I have part of the reason not
part of the reason I don't know a lot
about the legal stuff is because I'm not
a lawyer but I also have not I think
like a lot of people invested a ton of
time in the idea that what is going to
get us out of the Donald Trump situation
is the courts um because I do think that
the only way out of this is to defeat
him at The Ballot Box I agree and and
that was you know with to talk about the
14th Amendment section three that was my
original view um it is my origal 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 Weis 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 in a
system of justice that is fair and if
it's not quite the way we want it to be
we fix it and we work on that together
and and and not try to destroy the
system because that's what what we have
right now is you we essentially have a a
political party that is unprincipled and
centered on
nihilism that that basically wants to to
basically destroy our institutions
because they don't like they they they
don't like the other people they're
sharing the country with yeah but 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
of I mean but but there's also to me
it's more basic than that 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 okay I'm going to call it I'm
going to call it right there all right
thank you guys so much for listening to
another episode of George Conway
explains it all to Sarah don't forget to
hit subscribe leave us a review on your
podcast app and you can always send us
more questions at ask George thework.com
we will see you next week bye George
bye
[Music]
[Music]
oh
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bAdy5LNHloA/hq720.jpg)
Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSk5cK63lbU/hq720.jpg)
Alert: Trump’s ‘license to kill or coup’ hits SCOTUS - See Ari Melber’s critical breakdown
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tPEU-ze_C54/hq720.jpg)
'You're lying': George Conway clashes with Republican commentator over Trump guilty verdict
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2xwyoQv0ST4/hq720.jpg)
‘HOW IRONIC IS THAT?’: Attorney calls out Letitia James over Trump bond
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p9TVMJfimUU/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCIAKENAF8quKqQMa8AEB-AH-CYAC0AWKAgwIABABGH8gHigtMA8=&rs=AOn4CLCqVqhDytDPPYyE8rDWhJIaLACGJw)
MUST-SEE: Jamie Raskin drops WORST NEWS on Trump
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FU7lPOikmp4/hq720.jpg)
Jack Smith STRIKES BACK at Supreme Court with BIG Announcement