Watch the ReidOut with Joy Reid Highlights: April 25

In an insightful discussion, the focus is on the Supreme Court's apparent bias towards Donald Trump and the potential erosion of democratic norms. The conversation delves into the court's oral arguments regarding presidential immunity, where it was suggested that a president could potentially stage a military coup or order the assassination of political opponents without immediate legal repercussions. The discussion also touches on Trump's alleged attempts to undermine the 2016 and 2020 elections, the indictment of individuals involved in the 2020 election overturn attempt in Arizona, and the broader implications for the rule of law and the upcoming elections. The urgency of holding the president accountable to the law is emphasized, with a call for public insistence on the rule of law and the importance of the forthcoming election in safeguarding democracy.

Takeaways

• 📚 The Supreme Court has been accused of partisan bias, with critics suggesting it is protecting Donald Trump and potentially enabling future Republican victories.
• 🚨 Concerns are raised about the Court normalizing extremism, with hypotheticals presented that could lead to the acceptance of extreme actions by a president.
• 🎯 The argument that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, even if they include staging a coup or ordering assassinations, was discussed during oral arguments.
• 🤔 There is a call for action from the American people, questioning what will be done about the perceived politicization of the Supreme Court.
• 👥 Discussion about the potential expansion of the Supreme Court to reduce the influence of conservative justices who are seen as biased.
• 📉 The Supreme Court's decision could delay Trump's federal election interference trial, possibly pushing it past the November election.
• 👎 Accusations that some justices are acting like politicians rather than impartial arbiters of the law, undermining the credibility of the Court.
• 📝 Testimony from David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher, reveals his involvement in covering up Trump's alleged affair to aid in the 2016 election.
• 🏛 The indictment of 18 people in Arizona for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, with Trump referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator.
• 👩‍⚖️ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expresses concern about the lack of disincentives for a president to commit crimes without fear of repercussions.
• 🗳️ Emphasis on the importance of the upcoming election as a means to defend democracy and the constitution against perceived judicial overreach.

Q & A

What is the main concern expressed in the transcript about the Supreme Court's potential actions?

The main concern is that the Supreme Court may be acting in a partisan manner to protect Donald Trump, potentially undermining the rule of law and setting a dangerous precedent for future elections.

What was the purpose of catching and killing Karen McDougall's story according to David Pecker's testimony?

The purpose was to help Trump during the 2016 election cycle, and Pecker acknowledged that this action involved breaking campaign finance laws.

What was the alarming aspect of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court as described in the transcript?

The alarming aspect was the court entertaining extreme hypotheticals and arguments that normalize political extremism, such as discussing the legality of a president staging a coup.

What does the transcript suggest about the Supreme Court's potential decision on Trump's claim to absolute immunity?

The transcript suggests that although the court seems skeptical, some conservative justices might be open to the idea that presidents are entitled to some form of immunity from criminal prosecution.

What is the implication if the Supreme Court were to delay Trump's federal election interference trial until after the November election?

The implication is that it could be seen as a partisan move to protect Trump, potentially influencing the outcome of the election and undermining the legal process.

What does Congressman Jamie Raskin suggest needs to happen legislatively to address the issues raised in the transcript?

Congressman Raskin emphasizes the importance of winning the upcoming election and organizing the country to understand that democracy and freedom are at stake. He also mentions the need to restore the Voting Rights Act and pass national legislation to protect women's rights to choose.

What is the argument made by Trump's lawyer regarding the president's potential to stage a coup?

Trump's lawyer argues that a president would have to be impeached and convicted before they could be held criminally liable for actions such as staging a coup, suggesting that such actions could be considered 'official acts'.

What does the discussion around the Supreme Court's role imply about the current state of American politics?

The discussion implies that there is a perceived crisis of legitimacy and partisanship within the Supreme Court, with concerns that it may be used as a tool to achieve political goals rather than upholding constitutional law.

What is the position of the speaker regarding the expansion of the Supreme Court?

The speaker suggests that expanding the Supreme Court might be necessary to counteract the perceived partisanship and to restore balance, by removing some conservative justices who are seen as acting in bad faith.

How does the transcript characterize the actions of the 18 people indicted in Arizona for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election?

The transcript characterizes these actions as part of a broader effort to undermine the democratic process, with the individuals involved being accused of submitting false documents to Congress and being part of a conspiracy to overturn the election results.

What is the broader implication of the Supreme Court's consideration of the president's immunity from criminal prosecution?

The broader implication is that it could set a precedent where the president is seen as above the law, which challenges the fundamental principle that no one, including the highest officeholder, is above the law in a constitutional democracy.

Outlines

00:00

😠 Supreme Court's Partisan Bias Exposed

The first paragraph discusses the perceived partisanship of the Supreme Court, particularly in relation to Donald Trump. It talks about how people expect the court to act in extreme partisan ways and how this is not surprising given Trump's confidence in his appointed justices. The paragraph emphasizes the need for the American public to decide on a course of action against a Supreme Court that is seen as protecting Trump at all costs. It also touches on the idea of expanding the court to reduce the influence of conservative justices who are viewed as biased.

05:00

📜 Legal Developments and Trump's Immunity Claims

The second paragraph focuses on recent legal developments involving Donald Trump. It mentions the testimony of David Pecker, who admitted to suppressing a story about Trump's alleged affair to aid his 2016 election campaign, acknowledging breaking campaign finance laws. It also discusses the indictments in Arizona related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. The paragraph then delves into the Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding Trump's claim to absolute immunity, highlighting the extreme hypothetical scenarios discussed and the potential implications for the rule of law and the upcoming November election.

10:01

👎 The Supreme Court's Disturbing Questions

This paragraph expresses concern over the Supreme Court's line of questioning regarding whether holding a president criminally accountable could lead to more violent coups. It criticizes the notion that the president should be above the law and discusses historical precedents where presidents have faced legal consequences. The paragraph also suggests that the justices' questions indicate a bias towards protecting Trump and a disregard for the Constitution's principles that no one is above the law.

15:03

🗳️ The Importance of Upcoming Elections

The final paragraph stresses the importance of the upcoming elections as a means to defend democracy and the constitution. It talks about the need to restore the Voting Rights Act and protect women's reproductive rights, but acknowledges that these efforts could be undermined by the Supreme Court. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing that the current focus should be on winning the election and ensuring that everyone participates in voting and defending the election results.

Keywords

Partisan Thuggery

The term 'partisan thuggery' refers to aggressive and unethical behavior driven by strong political bias. In the context of the video, it is used to describe the perceived actions of the Republican justices in the Supreme Court, which are believed by the speaker to be acting in a way that protects Donald Trump's interests excessively and inappropriately.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, with the power to interpret the Constitution and make decisions that impact the entire nation. In the video, the speaker is critical of the Supreme Court's actions, suggesting that it has become a partisan institution that may be aiding Donald Trump.

Star Witness

A 'star witness' is a key individual who provides crucial testimony in a legal case. In the provided transcript, the former National Inquirer publisher David Pecker is referred to as a star witness in Trump's criminal trial, where he testifies about efforts to suppress a story that could have affected the 2016 election.

Indictment

An 'indictment' is a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime, usually made by a grand jury. The video discusses the indictment of 18 people in Arizona for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, including submitting false documents to Congress.

Unindicted Co-conspirator

An 'unindicted co-conspirator' is a person who is believed to have engaged in a criminal activity with others who have been formally charged, but who has not been officially indicted themselves. In the transcript, Donald Trump is referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Arizona case.

Absolute Immunity

The term 'absolute immunity' suggests that a person cannot be held legally accountable for their actions. In the video, it is discussed in the context of a claim made by Trump's lawyers that presidents have absolute immunity, which the speaker argues is a dangerous and potentially illegal concept.

Oral Arguments

Oral arguments are the presentations made by attorneys before a court, where they argue their case and respond to questions from the judges. The video discusses the oral arguments made in the Supreme Court regarding Trump's claim to immunity, which the speaker finds alarming and indicative of a court that is not acting impartially.

Constitutional Democracy

A 'constitutional democracy' is a form of government where a constitution, which is a set of fundamental principles, outlines the framework for democratic governance. The video emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law and the Constitution, suggesting that the actions of the Supreme Court and Donald Trump threaten this form of government.

Impeachment

Impeachment is a process by which a legislative body, such as the U.S. Congress, brings charges against a government official, such as the President. The video discusses the impeachment process in the context of holding a president accountable for criminal actions, arguing that it should not be the only mechanism for doing so.

Election Interference

Election interference refers to any actions, foreign or domestic, that undermine the integrity of an electoral process. The video discusses allegations of Trump's involvement in election interference, suggesting that it is a serious matter that the Supreme Court seems to be treating lightly.

January 6th Select Committee

The 'January 6th Select Committee' is a congressional committee formed to investigate the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob attacked the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The video mentions the committee in the context of holding individuals accountable for their actions on that day.

Highlights

The Supreme Court has been accused of partisanship, with critics suggesting it is protecting Donald Trump and aiding Republican interests.

The court is questioned on its role in upholding the Constitution amidst allegations of bias towards Donald Trump.

Concerns are raised about the potential for the Supreme Court to delay Trump's federal election interference trial until after the November election.

Discussions revolve around the concept of presidential immunity, with Trump's lawyers arguing for absolute immunity even for potential crimes.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices are suggested to be entertaining extreme hypotheticals, normalizing political extremism.

Elena Kagan confronts Trump's lawyer on the legality of a hypothetical coup, pushing the boundaries of presidential power.

The transcript reveals a debate on whether the president, if immune from prosecution, could potentially engage in criminal activity without consequence.

Congressman Jamie Raskin emphasizes the importance of holding the president accountable under the law, countering narratives of absolute immunity.

Raskin criticizes the Supreme Court for its perceived political bias and suggests it operates more like a partisan entity than a judicial body.

The concept of expanding the Supreme Court to reduce the influence of conservative justices is mentioned as a potential solution.

The importance of the upcoming election in determining the future of the Supreme Court and the rule of law is highlighted.

The potential for the Supreme Court to undermine 20th-century legal reforms and revert to pre-Revolutionary American legal standards is discussed.

The necessity for the American public to insist on the rule of law and to participate in the democratic process is emphasized.

The strategy for addressing the Supreme Court's perceived bias involves building political majorities to restore key legislation and protect constitutional rights.

The urgency of defending election results and the integrity of the democratic process in the face of potential manipulation is underscored.

The role of the Supreme Court in potentially delaying justice and its impact on public trust in the legal system is critiqued.

Suggestions are made for legislative actions that could be taken if Democrats regain control of Congress, including impeachment possibilities for justices.