Lawfare Live: Discussing the SCOTUS Immunity Decision

[@JasonMcClainEvolved]

Is it just me, or does this decision clearly buttress (without naming it) the so-called "strong unitary theory of the executive" and therefore lays more groundwork for Project 2025?

[@bobbitelian]

Yes

[@janetwilliams7705]

Clear as mud. Thank you for your heroic efforts.

[@Jan-hz2sz]

I value your collective analysis even as it leaves me deeply depressed. Thanks A Team.

[@25usd94]

thanks lawfare for your expert analysis and insightful findings. I look forward to revisiting this

[@jabbalechat7910]

Thanks for an interesting conversation...

[@jeannieluna3009]

Oh what a cluster F!! My head is spinning. Thanks for a good discussion.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Congratulations to America on appointing its new King!

[@mikelord9860]

Yeah why would Trump even bother taking the oath on 1/20/25 if he gets that far? "I, Donald John Trump, am President for LLLYFE!! Now get out of way Roberts, I got a speech to make...!"

[@sbeckwit]

Hey Audience! It's important to note here that these people at Lawfare are very chill, intellectual experts who work to very high journalistic standards and they are worried. That makes my blood run cold for my beautiful daughter and grandson.

[@Everywhere2]

Roger's despair in particular chilled to the bone, yes.

[@garbonomics]

They are also not impartial and extremely politically left leaning. I’m sure that’s something we should take into account as well.

[@sbeckwit]

@@garbonomics I haven't seen the extreme left lean you speak of. Also, are you unconcerned by the ruling?

[@Everywhere2]

Third time through here, I'm finally getting my head around the nuances of terror in the majority opinion. Thank you for making this discussion available.

[@GoogleLover-r9e]

Ben, love the mushroom cloud! Very apropos for this podcast.

[@eranwilliams4098]

Whenever I got too dejected I'd see the cloud and laugh at how hilarious he is. I generally only listen to them after the fact, this was my first time putting faces to names outside of the "in lieu of fun" which I only made it to a couple of streams of.

[@sbeckwit]

SCOTUS has found a way to muddy the distinction between acts by a person in a powerful office and acts of the office itself. God Help Us.

[@cmxsprt]

ALL LEGAL bodies in the USA should be protesting the corruption of the scotus!!!

[@alanking6240]

No the democrats forced this issue

[@annhoffman2913]

Good luck with that. Our only recourse is to turn majorities in Congress BLUE and stack the court along with term limits

[@eranwilliams4098]

unfortunately with the wide seating of judges during the trump years, many who are proving to be maga-philes, I feel like there's little hope of this.

[@alanking6240]

@@eranwilliams4098 BS The judges ruled the way they had to. The problem the democrats wanted this to get Trump BUT without this decision Biden will be indicted and every president after him. There is still impeachment which this decision does not impede.

[@Stupidityindex]

Question: How can you possibly take faith seriously? How can anyone in their right mind ask others to believe in the existence of a Deity who makes Mormons so Christians will know how Jews feel, having had their literature hijacked. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital & indoctrinating children is criminal. The faith vocabulary causes the user to be avoided like the old woman with too many cats. Faith "comes not with peace, but sword." Faith comes with wolves dressed as sheep & preaching to the choir. Faith trades the last cow for a pocketful of magic beans & then expects everyone's appreciation. Jesus said, it is a wicked generations which seeks signs such as resurrection. Faith is as worthless as fantasyland magic, since you can't tell mountains to move. The only sign in reality is Jonah: A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.

[@sandraabrams672]

Doesn't matter if there were dissents. SCOTUS screwed us. Dissenting has no power.

[@nwrob1]

There are always dissents. They are occasionally cited, and might be a basis for a future challenge. They also help us understand the issue. They matter imo.

[@dddebz]

Why aren’t elected officials always under oath (pains & penalties) while lying to the American people from their office, including hearings or press briefings? Speech & Debate protections are for honest criticism not counter factual or a-factual statements intentionally misleading members of the public. They have a duty to inform. They just do.

[@WorldThinking333]

Gave Trump way to extend 1/6 case for years on appeal! Sad day for Constitution and Justice.

[@chrisduke1010]

Nope, most of the case will now be gutted and dismissed. We're done. It's over.

[@happytraveller8953]

And another thing--folks keep comparing this to KG3 and monarchy as it related to Great Britain at the time of the Revolution. This is far, far worse: it's more like Iran with a president who is backed by a religious body that brooks absolutely no dissent. So the American Taliban is on the rise...

[@chorne4677]

Great discussion. Next maybe talk about what this decision could/does mean if Trump is re-elected or any despot we might elect in the future. I'm now more concerned about that and what I see are obvious changes in the core of our democracy which I believe go against the founding principles and our Constitution more than I am about Trump's trials. After all we've learned he can be President from prison and would just pardon himself if the trials ever happen.

[@monicaanicito4342]

Poor Roger. I feel your pain😣

[@raleedy]

At least he’s in France. Oh, wait . . . .

[@jenniferhendren1832]

Not an attorney, just a concerned citizen trying to understand.... back to Nixon.... if he had at least some absolute immunity as the President, does that mean he couldn't have been impeached as "the smoking gun" evidence couldn't even be considered?? Doesn't this mean that now impeachment is solely political?

[@nodaklojack]

The POTUS has immunity equal to that given to foreign diplomats. He has to have that immunity, otherwise diplomats would have they upper hand. The president however is not free from impeachment. Impeachment is the check on the absolute immunity to keep a POTUS from becoming a tyrant.

[@happytraveller8953]

Good morning Ben, from the UK. Your choice of pictures behind you speaks volumes. Hope you all have an exit plan for November because I have a feeling you will need it...

[@ac-twig]

Chaos!!! Lawlessness!!!

[@dddebz]

If elected officials’ only duty is fundraising & getting reelected, we’d be better off without a representative government in the Information Age.

[@markg.7865]

The Supreme Court just made presidential bribes legal....wtf!

[@patriciafederle3667]

What recourse is there for situations in which Justices stay in cases where they have a vested interest? Can’t they be brought up on some sort of charges for anything?

[@utopianna]

A little long, but I learned a lot. Excellent format for the discussion. Thanks to all.

[@BLTV_Photoshop]

Was inciting an insurrection a Presidential "official" or "unofficial" act? Bottom line: If the former, Trump has immunity. If the latter, he hasn't got a prayer.

[@benlagging2265]

Simply put, he never did incite an insurrection. He actually stated go peacefully to the capitol. He never asked for violence just peaceful protest. Tell me where he is being charged with insurrection, anyway. What court what charge where.

[@eranwilliams4098]

It clearly articulates that for all conservatives constantly talk obama's "extra judicial (removal) of American citizens abroad," and want him prosecuted for those drone strikes, that's clearly flawlessly immune according to these justices and not even on the table for discussion of if it should be allowed or restricted. Can presidents direct drone strikes on American soil if they don't like a particular building?

[@PennyGrey-pl7no]

​@@benlagging2265He DID cause,plan and invite an insurrection.Period .End of story.Its on tape but this how he and you do it.He uses cryptic language and his minions carry out the orders.You know this too.Why hasn't he ever ,ever condemned Jan.6???.

[@benlagging2265]

@@PennyGrey-pl7no Actually, he has condemned those who broke the law on Jan 6th. Show me where he has been charged with insurrection. You know he has not.

[@bassplayinben]

W invaded a foreign country under false pretenses and it's never been suggested that he be prosecuted. Just as nations operate above the law when they attack and invade each other so to do Presidents making those decisions or any decision.

[@lovinglight1720]

So very lazy of them to not do complete wok. Using the judges to think what they didn't Lord I know this is an awful test.

[@Pos3id0n.]

That laziness, is probably, at least in part, on purpose. Idk how radically committed any of the justices are to the MAGA/Project 2025 movement, but doing this makes it very likely that any legal proceedings for this case arent going to reach a meaningful decision before the election.

[@billEarth42]

For the "intrusion" principle, judge Chutkan should rule categorically that any behavior that violates federal law Cannot be construed as an official act, and shall be indictable on probable cause and prosecutable in federal court.

[@dddebz]

12:57 I do agree with Roger that this is a permission slip to presidents in the future. Opens the door, at any rate.

[@Betts711]

I feel we should all be fearful of being thrown out a window when we don’t abide by Their Law! We are now Ruzzia.

[@yvonnebonal7754]

I’m confused?!?!? ….. What does this mean? President Biden has complete immunity currently?

[@masdabugg8618]

Means he can't personally murder, but he order seal team 6 to murder for him

[@nodaklojack]

He has immunity from crimes but not impeachment. If congress feels the crimes are severe enough than he can be removed through impeachment. POTUS gets the same immunity as foreign dignitaries, which is absolute but can be revoked with sovereign agreement.

[@GoogleLover-r9e]

Ben, I love Lawfare! You guys are intelligent and insightful. At the risk of being terribly presumptuous, perhaps you might consider using Roger in a different capacity? It might be better to have Anna, Quinta or yourself make the case to get the group started. Just a thought.

[@mikelord9860]

Kinda agree here, I can be patient with only so much stammering. I had to bail in short order.

[@coalesced]

DO IT AILEEN!! I double dog dare you to take Thomas's bait!! Pleeeeaaase!!

[@danguillou713]

It appears to me that the range of actions that are potentially immune from prosecution is very wide, and the case-by-case decisions might be rather arbitrary. And end up back at SCOTUS for final outcomes. So this rule set might not provide very good protection for a former president, unless that former president is in good graces with SCOTUS. Or am I being paranoid?

[@Thetalambda]

I’m a complete layman, but this is what I’m hearing. SCOTUS is grabbing power. They become the kingmakers and the king keeps them in their positions of nobility. Congress would be the only hope of the average citizen, but the Republicans have that reliably gridlocked. It’s extremely depressing.

[@dddebz]

52:12 why isn’t the conduct categorization one of the matters for the jury to decide? Finders of fact, are they not?

[@dddebz]

2:12 I respectfully disagree. Jeffry Clark wasn’t senate confirmed, wasn’t the AG at the time or even “Acting” like one. Executive privilege doesn’t extend to criminal actions (til today) so why and how did immunity happen? Only by ignoring what made it into the constitution in favor of the federalist papers’ bloviations. Brought to us by LL, HC & Cronies. Plus minority rule.

[@gatordoc7026]

Cannot rely on the Republicans or the courts to #DumpTrump. We will have to show up for Biden in November

[@lwzeis]

If Biden wins the republican state legislatures can individually overturn the results based on false allegations of widespread fraud which their base has been conditioned to believe are true. Prepare yourself.

[@teamrocket5704]

i stand by the prediction i made as soon as the indictments dropped- this guy is going to die from health problems before he sees the inside of a prison cell

[@dddebz]

Also, just last thing: the “official” wasn’t a senate confirmed advisor or AG, who has now been recommended to lose his license if he hasn’t already, so that communication isn’t even inside the magic circle of code powers.

[@Aloneagainofcourse]

I'm done. The first guy is too slow.

[@PennyGrey-pl7no]

Yes and they don't speak in layman's terms.Dont understand a word they say.

[@kathym8365]

Look for the you tube option to speed up slow sections. … I like all the speakers. Some take longer but they are trying to be clear with complicated issues and subtle aspects of the discussion.

[@25usd94]

That’s Roger Parloff put some respect on the name, son

[@VanessaVaile]

Live chat started out promising, then infested by trolls in aliases. I hope @Lawfare adds a moderator to future chats.

[@sbeckwit]

All of this is starting to remind me of the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the young guy finally refuses to buy the bullshit and shoots the Nazi. That's just a joke, BTW.

[@jessematlock711]

Look at their faces. If looks could kill. 😮

[@torchedearth8547]

July 1, 2024....the day our democracy finally died! 😵🥺🤯

[@markg.7865]

We have a king now, of course it's only for Trump.

[@dddebz]

Is the right showing their gratitude for 45 being willing to be the Face of their constitutional tests? Like, Johnson J6 Planner has some skin in the same game & isn’t charged with anything. Nor are JimJo, Gaetz, Nunez, Cruz, etc. yet.

[@ddgyt50]

A fitting backdrop to Witter's pane.

[@jessematlock711]

Sadly the gig is up guys. No more lawfare for you. it is now time to take the knee and kiss the ring😂

[@jeffwelker8114]

I would say the same if Biden or Bush or Obama were put in the same spot.

[@dddebz]

I mean, Willy-Nilly, improperly documented or recorded acts marked “official” are not really official acts.

[@sandraabrams672]

So the Prople are no longer protected.

[@sbeckwit]

Ben, Nixon asked Haldemann. Trump went straight to the head of the FBI.

[@julietfontaine4707]

As a concerned voter, say what???

[@nodaklojack]

How much is diplomatic immunity afforded to recognized foreign dignitaries in the US? Should not POTUS have equal or exceeding immunity?

[@sbeckwit]

Mr. Parloff, how is France? I'm not saying that I want to be your neighbor but it's getting pretty fucked up over here.

[@jessematlock711]

I always believed lawfare has not lawful? Is lawfare the American way?

[@sbeckwit]

Bannon reports to prison

[@mikelord9860]

Bannon shanked in prison...? Four months is a long time...

[@alanking6240]

You people have to read the opinion very carefully. If it is presumptive then it is immune. says so clearly in the document.

[@sbeckwit]

I so wish Roger was in the debate Thursday as a pinch hitter for Biden.

[@jeffwelker8114]

I understand Get Trump, but at what expense?

[@WorldThinking333]

Jeff Clark prosecutor lie for me Trump Supreme says okay! Supreme Ct took guts of Jack Smith case!

[@sofiablue2007]

I'm sorry, Roger, but listening to you makes me want to turn off the podcast. You're so knowledgeable but almost impossible to listen to.

[@gothate]

Even at 1.5x speed it's fuckin' rough

[@raleedy]

Nonsense. Roger is careful and thoughtful. You'd profit from a close listen.

[@PennyGrey-pl7no]

They ALL are.What????

[@mikelord9860]

The stammering is just too much.

[@Everywhere2]

Disagree. He's my #1 reason for listening to Lawfare podcasts.

[@briandhunt]

Roger Parloff is doing his best impression of Biden in the debate.

[@eranwilliams4098]

This is a pretty icky thing to say. They are parsing through complicated documents and he was given the task of explaining obvious nonsense while trying to live cite from a document he's had very little time to parse. And you're going to make a gross disparagement. I encourage you to better or get off the internet. The only point of your comment is to be gross for the sake of being gross.

[@briandhunt]

​@@eranwilliams4098 I have listened to several other commentaries and this is the least helpful and most annoying. Listen to Roger's analysis and tell me it is incisive and on point. Or Natalie's as she rambles to find her thread. I offer this as constructive criticism. The issue is not could I do better, but could they do better. As to your comment that I should get off the internet ... Kisses.

[@eranwilliams4098]

@@briandhunt There are ways to offer constructive criticism. A school yard dis is not it. I'd encourage you to take queues from the environment you're in... You know basic etiquette. Take a temperature read of the space you're in, reply in that temperature. I'll also remind you, I offered encouragement and suggestions. If you're adamant about being toxic it is a free country, I'm just encouraging you to be different, reminding you etiquette exists, highlight how you're brazenly fumbling it so outlining you as outside of society. I encourage you, rejoin society, or minimize your impact on it. The rest of us will treat eacother well, and you can be as miserable as you are because your contribution isn't actually going to be helpful or change anything. It's not constructive.

[@briandhunt]

@@eranwilliams4098 He was unfocused and stammering. Natalie was unprepared and wandered in her comments before arriving at a thread. It appears that any criticism is "toxic" to you. They could easily have a better product if they were professional and prepared. Such a product is desperately needed. Your caustic dissing that I am outside society and minimization of any contrary view suggests that you are incapable of diversity of opinion.

[@eranwilliams4098]

@@briandhunt You are bad at sifting though informarion and apply sensationalism to everything. This is wrong and not smart. Your reply as a reproach wouldn't have caught my attention. It's you throwing out juvinile playground bullying that got my reply. I literally told you, there is constructive criticism, yours was not. You don't understand what the word "constructive" means or is in society so I'm informing you. You aren't a part of society, you are a parasite.

[@brian.collins]

parloff looks a little buzzed. could be the time zones.

[@benlagging2265]

The Supreme Court made a great decision. Obviously, the decision is not what Lawfare wanted. Just the name Lawfare says it all anyway to most Americans.

[@PennyGrey-pl7no]

What's great about letting Presidents do whatever they want?You know it works both ways don't you?It won't keep Trump out of jail either plus now Biden can do whatever he wants too.God you're stupid!Why are you here????

[@briandhunt]

Bad off-the-cuff commentary is not better than well formulated analysis. Do some prep. This hurts my ears.