Supreme Court issues GREATLY CONSEQUENTIAL decision on Trump's immunity claim

Summary

Harry analyzes the Supreme Court's decision to review Trump's immunity claims regarding the election interference case. He argues the decision benefits Trump by delaying any potential trial until after the 2024 election. Even if the Court rules against Trump's immunity claims, pre-trial proceedings would extend into late 2022, with a trial unlikely before November 2024. This prevents voters from considering evidence against Trump when assessing his fitness for office.

Takeaways

• 😮 Supreme Court decided to review appeals court decision that Trump does not have immunity from lawsuits related to Jan 6 attack
• 😟 Review introduces delay that benefits Trump by potentially pushing trial past 2024 election
• 😠 Court is not expediting the case as quickly as it could given the stakes
• 🤔 Opinion likely won't come until May at the earliest, then case goes back to lower court
• 😖 Earliest possible trial date around Labor Day 2024, but could easily slip later
• 😳 Raises prospect of Trump being on trial during peak of 2024 campaign
• 😡 Series of breaks have enabled Trump to avoid reckoning for unconstitutional acts so far
• 🧐 Evidence and potential conviction intertwined with judgment of voters in 2024 election
• 😥 Voters likely won't have complete information to evaluate Trump before voting
• 😱 Prospect of autocratic threat from second Trump term elevated by lack of pre-election trial

Q & A

What are the two key issues regarding the Supreme Court's decision to review Trump's immunity claims?

The two key issues are the merits of the immunity claims and the timing/potential for delay that could prevent the case from being resolved before the 2024 election.

Why does the author think the Supreme Court is unlikely to hold in Trump's favor regarding immunity?

The author thinks it's unlikely because the charges relate to clearly illegal behavior outside the scope of Trump's official presidential duties.

What is the main 'disheartening aspect' of the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case?

The main disheartening aspect is the court's schedule, which makes it unlikely the case will be resolved before the 2024 election.

When will the Supreme Court hear arguments in the case?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case the week of April 22, 2024.

What happens after the Supreme Court issues its opinion in late May under the author's timeline?

The case returns to Judge Chutkan for the remainder of pre-trial proceedings, likely concluding in late August at the earliest.

What are the implications if the Supreme Court remands the immunity issue back to lower courts?

A remand would cause further delays, but likely wouldn't help Trump since courts have already rejected immunity claims for his actions around 1/6.

What is the 'best case scenario' for the timing of a trial according to the author?

The best case scenario is a trial starting around Labor Day 2024, in the midst of the presidential campaign.

Why does the author think the delayed timeline poses risks to American democracy?

The author thinks Trump remaining legally unaccountable for 1/6 poses risks as voters will lack full information about his fitness for office in 2024.

Who will likely argue the case for special counsel Jack Smith before the Supreme Court?

Michael Dreeben, a respected, longtime solicitor general's office attorney, will likely argue for Smith.

What is the author's overall conclusion about the Supreme Court's decision?

The decision makes it much less likely for a pre-election trial, forcing voters to judge Trump's 1/6 actions without complete legal clarity.

Outlines

00:00

😕 Delaying Trial till After 2024 Elections

Paragraph 1 discusses how the Supreme Court has given Trump a delay in the trial by not expediting it as much as they could have. This likely pushes any trial to mid-August at the earliest, and possibly September/October. This risks the trial happening during the 2024 elections when Trump may be a candidate again.

05:03

👎 Best Case is Funky Trial During Elections

Paragraph 2 continues the analysis of the trial timeline. Even best case with no further delays, the trial would happen around Labor Day 2024. This would be unprecedented and highly questionable to have a presidential candidate on trial during the election.

10:05

😤 Reckoning Should Be Before Elections

Paragraph 3 argues there should be a reckoning and resolution of Trump's crimes related to Jan 6th insurrection before the 2024 elections. Voters deserve full information to judge if Trump should be eligible. Pushing trial past elections means incomplete information.

15:10

😑 Supreme Court May Have Blinded Itself

Paragraph 4 speculates on Supreme Court's motives in taking the case now. While some see pro-Trump bias, an alternate view is the Court thought it had institutional duty to resolve immunity issue. But this ignores severe real-world implications of the delayed timeline.

Keywords

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is referenced multiple times, as the central institution that will determine whether Trump has immunity from prosecution. The decision to take up the immunity issue signals a major development that buys Trump more time before potential prosecution. However, the ultimate Supreme Court decision is still uncertain and could go either way.

💡immunity

A key legal question is whether a sitting president has broad immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court will rule on this issue of immunity, which has major implications for whether Trump can be prosecuted for election interference while in office. However, even if some immunity is granted, it may not apply in this case.

💡election interference case

This refers to the specific case where Trump is accused of obstructing Congress and seeking foreign election interference in 2020. The case timeline and potential for prosecution or conviction is analyzed in depth regarding the election.

💡delay

A main strategy for Trump is to delay legal proceedings as long as possible to avoid pre-election prosecution or conviction. The Supreme Court decision achieves this by pushing back the case timeline, making prosecution before November 2024 unlikely.

💡reckoning

The analysis suggests Trump may escape true reckoning or accountability for the election interference case before facing voters again. This reduces crucial information for evaluating if Trump should return to the presidency.

💡impeachment

Past impeachment proceedings claimed future criminal trials would address Trump's offenses. But repeated delays in cases like this one undermine timely accountability.

💡autocratic

The video warns that Trump's re-election poses risks of moving towards an autocratic state, smothering rule of law through revenge, reprisals and lies.

💡timeline

The timeline for Trump's trial and prosecution is analyzed in depth, showing the Supreme Court decision adds further delays meaning the trial likely happens after November 2024, reducing pre-election accountability.

💡stakes

The video emphasizes the democratic values at stake with the case. Letting Trump evade reckoning enables future anti-democratic action, threatening the ongoing American democratic experiment.

💡prospect

In the end, the prospects for prosecuting Trump before the next election are now far more unlikely due to the Supreme Court decision, raising risks he escapes accountability.

Highlights

The Supreme Court decided to take up the immunity issue in the election interference case

The risk is not the merits, but the delay and whether the case will be resolved before the 2024 election

The Supreme Court is not likely to hold an extreme view letting the president get away with criminal conduct

The Supreme Court timeline means the earliest we could see a trial is August or September 2024

This delays reckoning on Trump's betrayal of the Constitution until the polls

Voters may have incomplete information to judge if Trump should be president again

Trump gets a series of breaks delaying and limiting accountability before the 2024 election

If Trump wins in 2024, he could end the January 6 criminal trial

The Supreme Court may have felt compelled to take the case despite the election timing implications

Roberts likely recognizes this case's vital implications for American democracy

The prospect of Trump facing trial amidst running for president again is highly irregular

The Supreme Court's decision makes a pre-2024 trial much less likely now

We don't know what drove the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case now

Michael Dreeben will likely impress the Court, but timing is the biggest risk

The prospect of no pre-2024 trial is now far more distinct than before

Transcripts

hey everyone Harry here to talk about

the Supreme Court's decision to take up

the immunity issue in the election

interference case all right so the

headline you know it's always with Trump

you have to think of it in two different

channels the merits and the time the the

delay the all important delay the

trumpian strategy of delay and get this

somehow not to be heard before the

election a because there's a lot of

indication that if the case goes to

trial and he's convicted it would really

affect like nothing else his um

electoral prospects and B because if he

wins on the other side of it it's kind

of easy uh pickings for him to basically

make this federal case go away so on

those two channels um there's no reason

to think even though they're going to

review the DC circuit um opinion that

they're going to hold for him or have

some kind of

crazy uh executive Uber allas opinion uh

letting ex uh the president get a free

pass for criminal conduct that is not

the risk and the disheartening aspect of

what happened uh yesterday rather it's

the schedule so you do the math and uh

they will hear the case in the week of

April

22nd that's already that could have been

condensed a lot more this is sort of you

know point three here when they want to

expedite they can do and the DC circuit

we've seen this as well really uh uh

expedited um to um you know very short

turnaround

times uh which the litigant will just go

with bush VOR being the prime example

you know we want your brief in 36 hours

the response in 24 hours they gave Trump

three weeks here that's almost leisurely

given um uh the the overall stakes and

their um obvious recognition that they

we need some expedited treatment but you

know they're going like in the third

lane whatever where in Bush versus Gore

you know they they greine like a fire

truck up on the bank um so not super

fast and then you know there's also in

the not super fast category 13 days to

decide this and a lot of people um

myself included thought that was a

strong indication that somebody was

writing a descent uh because how long

does it take to actually just aggregate

the votes um and in fact it's remains a

mystery how you know what exactly was

going on behind the scenes maybe they

were cobbling together little by little

what turned out to be might have only

been four because the the DC circuit

said if the Spring Court takes the case

the stay remains or it might have been

five but is that what the 13 um days

were taking but but in any event the the

point here is fast expedited but not but

not warp speed um and anyway you so now

you do the math they hear the case April

22nd the week of April 22nd and there's

only so much they can do to shave things

down on the other side an opinion must

be written it's possible that it be

unanimous but with this court with this

issue um with the you know Trump

hovering in the in the background that

um Sonia soda mayor and Clarence Thomas

will be on the same

page kind of hard to see and um uh even

if they are it'll be after wrangling and

negotiation by Roberts and the like and

that itself will take time

so what the you know the pl the places

to really cut back where before the

argument is heard now it's got to be a

month it seems to me and that would be

pretty quick to prepare a a majority

opinion have it circulate have the

desense even pretty quickly uh prepare

go around get it all ready Etc so um uh

you got to count on at least that much

now let's so let's say at um the pretty

quick for what uh given that they're

they're have a fairly long windup uh

they we get an opinion at the end of May

and it goes right back to

chetkin remember we we uh stopped the

music in the with a big chunk of the

pre-trial proceedings still to go

forward and uh Trump would have a very

strong argument if chuin tried to say oh

we need more time and why you know it's

the everyone knows this is hovering out

there but they they don't want to make

it the actual um reasoning because it

seems to put their thumb on the scale so

if if they if she said something like we

really have want to get this in by the

election and I'm going to shorten the

time he would have a pretty good due

process uh claim I think that you know

you haven't given me uh all the time

that I um had coming to me just because

you wanted to you know uh shorten it so

we we we we return to what's still a few

months of the pre-trial proceedings and

that's you know if everything goes

quickly so we are looking at it seems to

me at the

earliest August mid to late August and

easily could be you know early September

and there's a whole another ring here

which is uh the Supreme Court is hearing

issue of whether or not there is

immunity for official acts if by chance

they say sometimes there is sometimes

there isn't we'd be looking at a remand

and I think again you know at the end of

the day doesn't shouldn't help Trump

because I think the courts would all

hold they have so far Illinois pretty

much just did it yesterday in a 14th

Amendment case that this was not within

His official Duty so he would be losing

uh you know it wouldn't it wouldn't

provide immunity anyway for by this it's

a short hand for like an amazing uh uh

kind of display of

anti-constitutional um criminal conduct

on his part in and around January 6 so

that you know he doesn't escape for that

reason why he escapes if escapes it's

all time because to to do that little

part and to apply a a supreme court

holding and then possibly uh he does he

get another appeal you know because it's

still an immunity issue it really we are

at sort of zero margin for error if that

because now let's say that everything

from here on in goes you know by the

book and quickly and we're starting St

Ing we could start a trial uh around

Labor

Day man that means that the uh a trial

with with the defendant a former

president who's now running to be a

future president having to be in the

chair every day uh in the in the middle

of a presidential campaign that is in in

constitutional legal terms funky in the

extreme it's you know it's just there's

no law against it of course because no

one's ever contemplated but you know

this now our best case scenario would be

a trial kind of right in the middle now

that now you know chuin has made it very

clear I don't care about the election

we're just going forward with with what

you know there is to be done she

theoretically could be saying you know

we're going to have trial even through

the election

but it's you know it goes from

momentous and singular to like really

kind of crazy and and again so how would

that work some kind of mandamus for

election interference and the courts

having to weigh in all of this is by way

of saying that when you that on the all

important axis of time the court has

really done a solid for Trump we're

we're now at a point where at the very

best uh and that's if nothing else kind

of slips uh a trial could take place but

even so it might not take place and just

to remind this is the most important

case this is the one that really goes to

the heart of his wickedness as president

and why in fact he deserves to be um you

know never to uh darken the American

political scenes door again and yet it

looks like you know the the Reckoning

here um is going to have to be at the

polls and and that's that's that's a

problem it's to it's sort of a you'll

hear this talking point but it's a

little BL because the the fact is seeing

the case seeing the evidence and seeing

a potential conviction really is

completely inter intertwined with the

question for voters about whether he

should be the next president so um that

it's going to mean a a really

incomplete kind of uh portfolio of

information to put before the voters and

you know a lot of them that they maybe

will have had the Alvin brag trial that

seems unlikely to move the needle and

you have this you know okay funky in the

extreme for him to be um tried in the

middle of the the um uh you know

election home stretch but how about this

funky in the extreme for a likely um

insurrectionist someone who betrayed the

Constitution as severely as any

president ever has uh to become

president again without the Count's

having had a reckoning uh about the the

impeachment they said well he's out of

office and the criminal process will

take care

of that and here's the criminal uh

process but it's you know uh he he gets

a series of breaks you know this the

strong case in

marago he draws his favorite judge then

that gets delayed and by the way even

though he um uh you can't if if he wins

the presidency he can simply say okay

you January 6 trial you're done I order

you to stand down and they have to can't

do that in fton County but Fulton County

is a huge uh mess and probably even in

fton County even if it weren't a huge

mess the courts would say it can't go

forward when you are President so we

have this bizarre kind of series of of

concatenations and and

contingent um events that break his way

on the all important an scheduling point

and today we are um at a much uh more

remote possibility of going to trial on

in this all important matter um you know

I'll just mention this one from the

beginning uh you know seemed like it

really could go either way I said if you

put a gun to my head especially as the

time dragged on I would say they'll they

would deny and just let the let things

go forward and they were aware of the

timing but of always a very strong

argument and the one that prevailed and

we'll see but I'm not sure when it might

be you know only in history after a

Justice dies and five years thereafter

get to see the papers kind of what

happened here and if there was a fight

on the court whether to take it or not

an interesting point to note is it's

just not done really for someone to

descent from the grant of C you can

descent from the denial of a claim uh or

a stay but you know sir four four of the

colleagues have voted to hear a case

what are you going to say that the it's

put in their um uh discretion but so we

we we don't know exactly what drove them

um and there's a lot of I think

bitterness out there and um conviction

that they're in the tank for Trump etc

etc you know uh all I'll say as to that

is is the evidence is consistent with it

but it's uh you know quite a charge and

there's another way of looking at it

which is just you know Roberts and and

another four at least were of the view

that like huge question never resolved

what the heck are we here for what's the

Supreme Court uh for if not to hear and

resolve olve this and that's what the

the basic broader

institutional you know system requires

this is our job description and we've

just got to step up and and do it and

not let ourselves be swayed by the

timeline and its practical implications

and yet the timeline and its practical

implications in this case and with all

we know about what Trump has promised to

do should he win you know it's uh the

really not hyperbolic to say that the

the vitality and maybe you know um uh

ongoing status of the American

Democratic experiment is on the line not

that we become uh Russia the day after

he is elected but you know a giant step

toward an autocratic State a giant step

toward smothering of the rues law a

giant step toward a government that's

just revenge and reprisal and lie after

lie after lie after lie those those are

the stakes uh that I think the Supreme

Court you know blinded itself to maybe

thinking that's that's what they have to

do but in in any event the uh you know

the the the bottom line is they've for

whatever reason this this is our ticket

CN April uh and pretty much ample time

to to write stuff something to be aware

of is um for the Jack Smith uh the um

Advocate will probably be a man named

Michael dban who's was a longtime member

of the solicitor general staff very

respected by the the court and um you

know is likely to um really command

their attention and he's got the law you

know he's got huge Tailwinds behind him

but again the the real risk here is not

that they somehow hold for Trump which I

think has to be a long shot and even if

they do Under the question presented

Trump should still lose because it

wasn't an official act the risk and it's

it's the bigger one it's become

Paramount is time and schedule and the

distinct Prospect

now far more distinct than yesterday

that this trial will not occur before

the November 2024

election rough result bad

day talk to you later thanks for tuning

in if you enjoyed this video and other

talking feds content please take a

second to like And subscribe talk to you

later