The Supreme Court has decided to take up former president Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case. This is good news, Glenn says, but the decision could have huge ramifications for the 2024 election and future presidents. Glenn and Stu discuss what might happen: Will special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump take a massive hit? Or will the Supreme Court practically gut the power of the presidency? Glenn and Stu also discuss why they believe Trump is in a great position right now in his 4 trials: “There’s a good shot that none of this comes to anything.”
TranscriptBelow is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So there's a couple of things. Let me start with some good news.
A judge -- let me just read this.
No individuals associated with the left, who engaged in far right speech, and violently suppressed the protected speech of Trump supporters, were charged with a federal crime for their part in starting riots at a political event.
This is textbook viewpoint discrimination.
Okay. You ready?
That was said by a judge in California. He threw the charges out of the -- two far right political agitators. Saying, this is selective prosecution.
Now, these two guys, I don't know if they're necessarily -- you know, I don't consider Nazis far right. But maybe you do.
But they're white nationalist group. I shouldn't say Nazis. They're a far right nationalist group. So they're people I really don't like.
Kind of like the people in Antifa. I don't like them either.
So what the charge was, is these guys were holding a rally. And the Antifa guys came with, you know, all those things that they do. Intimidated and beat some of the people in this. Police came.
Only arrested the far right people. Not anybody at Antifa. And a judge said, no. Sorry. Can't do it.
Not going to do it. If you didn't arrest the other side. You can't arrest these guys. I think it's a step in the right direction. That's what I've always been saying.
Wait a minute. January 6. Why did you arrest all those people.
When you had people stealing. Breaking windows. Burning cities.
And none of those people were arrested.
STU: Yeah. I would think my preference would be, everyone would be arrested for burning it down.
GLENN: No. That's not my preference.
That's the way America should work.
STU: But my secondary choice is nobody does. It at least should be fair.
However, I would like all the people who burn things to the ground or start riots or beat the heck out of police officers, they should all go to prison. I'm fine with that.
GLENN: Let me give you this now. Bump stocks. Supreme Court.
The justices heard the case to legally -- to repeal an executive order from Donald Trump. Or was it an executive order?
Or was it just redefining guide lines?
STU: Yeah. It was that type of thing. An administrative change.
You know, this thing we already approved for eight years.
What if we don't approve it anymore.
What if we let a guy build an entire business, based on this thing that we were okay with. And then just pull the rug right out.
And make him send, what was it?
80 pallets of unused and unsold bump stocks to be melted down. What if we do that instead?
GLENN: It's one of the worst things Donald Trump did in his administration.
Was just use that executive, administrative branch to single-handedly say, no. Can't do that.
Supreme Court looks like they're torn.
Usual lines.
But there's a chance the bump stocks survive.
STU: The ban, you mean?
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: It's weird. The way the case is set up, is basically the question of, they should have at least passed a law to do this. If you want to get rid of bump stocks. You need to pass a law to ban bump stocks. You can't just do it. And I don't know. That just seems overtly obvious. However, I don't even think, the law if it was passed, would be constitutional. That's maybe, you know, being a Second Amendment extremist, or something.
GLENN: But at least that's the way our Constitution and the system of government is supposed to work.
You can pass a law. And it's not constitutional. Go back and rewrite the law and make it constitutional, if you can. You know what I mean?
STU: Or take the advice as unconstitutional and maybe don't do it again.
I take your point. At least it would be a normalized process.
Instead, what they did was basically say, I don't want these.
GLENN: It's the administrative state.
STU: It's bad on both sides.
GLENN: And I don't know how to convince people that this is one of the biggest problems we have in America.
Congress does not do their job.
They're not required to anymore.
Many of them are there fighting, to do a job.
But everything is a back door deal, that you got to rush to sign. And then it just gives more power to the agencies. Where the agencies can say, oh, no. You know what? We have this guideline. Why don't we write it to include this?
STU: Yeah. And, look, I get the motivation here. This is the worst mass shooting, that was not government-involved, in -- in history.
GLENN: Yes. Right.
STU: And it was really, really a bad incident.
But emotions of that incident do not overwhelm our system of government.
And, you know, they -- they -- this is just completely unfair.
They changed tens of thousands of US citizens into felons overnight.
GLENN: So there is -- there is another court case, that the spouter yesterday, said they would take up.
I think this is good news. And not just politically good news.
The real question here is presidential immunity. Does the president -- is he immune from a criminal trial for things he did as president?
Not while president. As president.
The answer to me would be, yes. No trial for -- because that should have been stopped by Congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or whatever.
As an official act, there should be -- we shouldn't have a bunch of people putting their hands in their pockets. Going, well, I was just following order. No. If it's illegal. No. Stop it.
But can the president do an official act, and then be held in criminal court. If that happens, you will just continue to be able to prosecute any president that is running a second term.
STU: So -- and I think pretty much the line is set. That while a president. If you do something as president, and you're currently still president. The answer to this, is pretty much. They can't throw you in prison. While you're president of the United States. That's been at least the guideline.
GLENN: No. No. But it's also a separation of, if the president murdered somebody while he was president, he should go to prison.
You know what I mean?
STU: Right. I would agree to that.
GLENN: He would murder somebody, while he was president.
STU: However, I believe the way that would play out. He would need to be impeached first.
And removed from office. And then he would be thrown in jail.
At least the -- it's not like a constitutional -- it's not in the Constitution.
There's not a founding, really reference toward this. The guidelines they've used is one year actually operating as the chief executive. We can't take you out of that room.
GLENN: Well, yes.
And the thing with Biden is -- Biden's crimes were before he was president.
STU: Uh-huh. But still, if he was -- if they went to this level of -- they found enough evidence. And they decided they would --
GLENN: Oh, he would have to be --
STU: He would have to be impeached and removed. Before he dealt with the punishment of that. And when he was removed from office, then be able to go through the trial as a normal person would.
GLENN: So here is the -- here is the ramifications of this decision.
Can Donald Trump be held now, in -- in a criminal case, for his acts as president?
The answer is, always been no. Always been no.
Otherwise, you're president if he decides to execute military operations. And somebody says, that that's illegal. Then it has to go to a court.
It would be very -- it would be very bad for the presidency.
It would just completely gut our president. This goes to the trial now, that everybody is so excited to hear.
All right. So the Supreme Court is hearing this, which would stop or at least because they're going to hear it, slow down the Jack Smith trial on Donald Trump.
Which is
STU: Which --
GLENN: Which trial.
STU: So you've got four major ones, right?
You've got the January 6th.
There are two of those.
You have the federal one, which is the jacks Smith.
And you have the Fani Willis one in Georgia.
Then you have the other two. Which are the New York. With Alvin brag. And you have the documents case in Florida.
Those are the four.
And it's like, I don't know, Glenn. Tell me if I'm wrong on this.
I think Trump is in the best position he's been in, since he started now.
GLENN: Oh, everybody has been saying, I don't know if I can vote for Donald Trump. Because he might go to jail.
At this point, there's a good shot, none of this comes to anything.
STU: Especially before the election.
GLENN: Yeah. Before the election, it won't now.
STU: Right. If you think about the four of them individually, you have -- one of them is the Alvin Bragg Stormy Daniels, which everyone acknowledges is the weakest case, it's the weakest case. He has all sorts of ridiculous laws he's bending to even bring the law in the first place.
It makes no sense.
Everyone, on the left, kind of blew that one off as frivolous. Then you have --
GLENN: And even if he's convicted of that, he won't lose any votes. Because it's just such a sham.
STU: Yeah. And plus, people knew that story already, a long time ago.
So second is the documents case. And, look, there is a lot of evidence against him on that, especially on how he handled it, when they asked for the documents back. He fought it.
And potentially did not tell them the truth about it.
Does he wind up being convicted of that?
It's possible. But what person -- you know, picture the Trump voter with the Trump sign in their lawn.
Then they're just like -- they're walked out one day. And say, I'm ripping this thing out of the ground. That man stored documents improperly.
I just don't believe that person exists. I don't know. I could be wrong. I just don't think he stored documents, frankly.
GLENN: The insurrection or stealing the election. Those -- are those big.
STU: Those could be big.
But think about what one of those two are. One is delayed in April. It could even be heard. Nothing can happen from now to April. April 22nd.
GLENN: Right. But after it's heard, their decision won't come out until June.
STU: Until June.
So you're all the way in June. Before they could even start this thing.
I mean, maybe they try to put this in -- I mean, the conventions are going on. I mean, we are deep into the election at this point.
Maybe they'll still try it. But it will be very difficult. And really amps up all of the problems with trying to persecute your opponents even more.
And then the last one is Fani Willis. Which is completely falling apart.
I mean, the texts that came out from this lawyer.
Who is texting the lawyers of the defense. Saying, yes.
Absolutely. This happened in 2019. And I'll tell you exactly where they met, and then he's on the -- the stand saying, I don't know.
I'm just speculating about that. Can he was not doing. He was given multiple chances to correct the actual filing about this. And said, there's no problem with it. And that's just what we know so far.
I mean, they completely lied --
GLENN: So far, there are three attorneys that should lose their license.
STU: Yeah, at least.
GLENN: At least. And personally, I think they should pay a very hefty fine.
And, well, possibly I think Fani Willis and her boyfriend, absolutely should go to jail. They were defiant.
They knew what they were doing. They didn't even have to test. She didn't even have to testify about it.
But she wanted to. She walked on that stand with the intent of lying. Gone.
STU: Everyone I talked to, said, nothing ever happens to these people when it happens. There's no I couldn't wait.
That may be true. I will say, this judge in particular. Remember, the Federalist Society. Appointed by a Republican.
He seems to have the right approach here, at the very least.
I don't know. Maybe we'll still be disappointed.
I don't think he's just taking this, as, oh, I can't wait. To give Fani Willis. A free pass on this.
I don't think that's his approach. We will see how this turns out. You all of these things -- at the very least, Trump will have a really good argument, even if he gets convicted in the Georgia case and come out -- these people are obviously corrupt. And it won't be one of those reflexive defenses where you're complaining about everything. They will have a really good case that this was corrupt.
GLENN: And the other one, if it makes it to court, is the District of Columbia.
So, I mean --
STU: I don't know.
GLENN: I think he's had a great week. Donald Trump. I think he's had a great week.
STU: Yeah. A lot of this stuff will probably cost him money in the long run. When it believes to this election. I think he's been in the best position he's been in, in a long time.
GLENN: Once again, the seems to be in the position, we got him this time. We got him this time.
Oh, crap, maybe we don't have him.