Buck Brief - Trump Team Gives a Legal Wedgie

Published Apr 25, 2024, 10:00 PM
Buck Sexton breaks down the latest headlines with a fresh and honest perspective! He speaks truth to power, and cuts through the liberal nonsense coming from the mainstream media. Subscribe to never miss an episode of The Buck Sexton Show.

You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, welcome to the Buck Brief everybody. We're looking at the Trump Supreme Court oral arguments today, and the biggest takeaway, I think Trump had a good day. I actually think that Donald Trump's Donald Trump's lawyer, Sawyer Sawyer, I think he did a really good job. A friend of mine described the Department of Justice counselor to the Special Council Dreabin as getting a legal wedgie today before the Supreme Court, and I think that was very much what happened.

Let's break down some of this. This is honestly fascinating.

First of all, before I even get into the merits of the arguments, let's understand this. This falls into this category of all of the legal scholars who had told you previously that the state ballot initiative to or the states rather sorry States, kicking Trump off the ballot, that was the initiative kicking Trump off the ballot. Colorado and Maine both dabbling in this, that that was a serious legal argument. They got crushed nine er at the Supreme Court, because obviously that would just mean that any state could decide to kick any candidate off the ballot and in essence be in a position to perhaps deliver deliver the presidency to the other side, right or to their own side, you know, to get a win. You can't have that, okay, you can't have states with no due process just saying you're off the ballot because we say so. California would just say no Trump on the ballot. Oh, I guess you know, well, Biden wi win that anyway. I know some of you would be pointing that out. But Pennsylvania or Michigan would say no Trump on the ballot, and you say, okay, we got a problem here, right, all right? So they got the point is they got slapped down nine to zero at the Supreme Court. They got slapped down nineo at Supreme Court, which means that you even when you have Soda Mayor.

And Kagan going along with it.

You have a situation where the argument being made is so clear that it is irrefutable, undeniable, indisputable. And that was the case of State Bounce. Why am I talking to state balance, Well, because on the other side of this, now we have the presidential immunity debate, and this was what was heard today at the Supreme Court, the presidential immunity debate. Now, this has been really interesting because the courts have never weighed in on this directly before. So this is uncharted legal territory and it's really important stuff. What you need to know first and foremost is that the same legal scholars and experts who are saying experts in quotes, who were saying it is a silly argument that Trump is making about this Trump's lawyers are making that he has immunity for official acts while in office. Those same people that said that's preposterous. We're telling you, oh, in the States can kick Trump off the ballot, right.

So they're wrong in a way.

Well, we'll see what happens with today's argument. I think it's going to go Trump's way. But they've already shown you in the past how wrong they are and how absurd they are, and how poor their legal analysis is. Okay, so that's a component of this.

Then you have as we sort of look at what.

The details of this dispute get to private versus public acts.

That's really what is essential.

The Biden DOJ Special Counsel and I would note that this special counsel, I I agree with the former AG Meice and former AG Mukasey Amicky Brief, Brief's Ammicky and whatever, my Latin's rusty that the special counsel is illegitimate. How can you have somebody who they just decide you get to go and have this unbelievable power to prosecute anyone anywhere, including a presidential candidate and former president, for his acts while he was president, without Congress, without a presidential appointment.

How do you have that? It's absurd.

So that came up in the oral arguments today from saur who, again I think did an excellent Trump's lawyer did an excellent job.

People who said Trump's never going to have any good lawyers who will even represent him false. So I did a very good job today.

He was he was totally sharp, and his arguments were incisive, and he came ready to play.

He was good to go. The dreaming guy who's the Biden.

Deal Jets, I don't know a lot of sort of trying to talk around some of the stuff install anyway public versus private acts as a president. They're trying to say that what Trump did everyone agrees on both sides. There's got to be some immunity for a president for official acts. And this is effectively what I've been saying all along. You know, you can't have a prosecutor, for example, or a police officer just being sued or being prosecuted for the good faith operations of their job. Right, So you can't say, oh, well, this prosecutor made the decision to prosecute somebody. We're going to say that he goes to prison now because we don't like that decision. Because it's within his prerogative to make that determination. It is an official act.

And what the.

Argument comes down to here is, well, what constitutes for a press a public versus a private act. Both sides agree, and this is we are establishing critical precedent here. Both sides agree that purely private conduct, let's just say a president, you know, strangles and murders a secretary in the White House, right, one of his aides or something, you have no immunity for that. You're going to prison. Okay, that's not a presidential act. They both agree on that. So that's a believe it or not. That's an important place to start. So we know that there is a legal liability that even presidents have again for their private acts, meaning no one could make an argument. There is no argument to be made in a word and world where words have meaning that a president, you know, bludgeoning a secretary with a candlestick and she bleeds out on the floor of the oval office. Oh well, he's the president. That's part of his job. Like, no one buys that. Fine, Okay, both sides agree, that's good. But then where is the line? What is public what is private as an official act? That's where it gets really really interesting. And I say that is also where we are going to come back at a second. I'm going to tell you where that line is. You know, this podcast as you know, as you can hear right now, it's all about having deep dive conversations into topics that have tremendous impact on us in the world we live in, and I want to bring you insights about politics and culture and what's actually happening.

I don't really cover the markets.

I'm not a stock guy, but I know somebody who does it phenomenally well, Mark Chakin. Mark worked on Wall Street for fifty years, and his time on the street, he invented three new indices for the Nasdaq has predicted some of the biggest market shifts of the past decade. And he says that there's a big turning point coming up right now for stocks that are AI involved, that AI touches on either directly or indirectly. And he says it's a new dawn for US stocks coming up. He doesn't want you to miss out on this. It's going to happen the next ninety days. Go to twenty twenty four aistock dot com. That's twenty twenty four aistock dot com. You can watch for free see what he has to say. Twenty twenty four aistock dot com paid for by Shaking Analytics. All right, so where is the line public private conduct? Where is the line for a president? They did ask some of the questions we expected them to, like, could Bush be prosecuted for lying about WMD or you know, for being wrong about WMD whatever, These are the questions they were asking. Could Obama be prosecuted for droning an American citizen abroad without that person having any due process and not being involved in a in an imminent threat situation like this wasn't you know a terrorist with a gun to somebody's head.

When they were killed.

In fact, if you believe the reports, it is a it was a US minor abroad as it not yet even of of age, who was caught in.

A drone strike.

Now that's a you think that's a big deal. Truth is Obama. And this is even from the trumplayers. No Obama cannot be prosecuted for that. That is an official act as commander in chief, right, he is acting overseas to deal with an imminent threat against a I should say, a proven threat against the United States. And I notice all of these arguments are arguments. None of them are perfect because then they turn around and say, well, what about what about if? And they keep I feel that they actually one of the justices. I forget it was, but was like, look, I'm not trying to Everyone goes, what if Seal Team six, you know what if those guys were assigned to assassin. It's like, they're not an assassin squad, They're an elite tier one, you know, military special operations unit. Right, I just feel but they're always no One's ever like, what about what about the greenen Berets going in an assassin It's always so what about Seal Team six going. And so a justice actually pointed out and he said, look, we're not we know Seal Team six are not like the assassin squad. But what if any military that think it could just be an air strike, it could be a drone strike. Okay, what if a president ordered a drone strike on another person, a US person who was their political rival, would that have immunity? And this is where you get to know and then you get to the corrupt and criminal purpose.

Hm.

Well, if you have corrupt and criminal purpose for the act, then the act is not.

Covered under immunity.

Again, going back to the argument here, Well, then where is the line because for example, if you now we get into the into the meat of the Trump situation, if you say, you know the president Trump viewed his role as president as making sure that there was not an illegitimate and therefore illegal certification of an election. If he is wrong, but he still does this believing.

He is correct.

Does that fall within his presidential powers? And this is right at the heart of the argument, because what the what the Democrat left anti Trump argument is is well, no Trump knew.

This was not true.

Now you're getting into if you can effectively divine the mindset.

You know, he didn't.

It's not like there was an exchange, an illicit exchange. It wasn't a bribery situation, right, It's not like someone paid Trump but he was president because bribery is something he talked about too. Oh, mister president challenged the election, here's here's a billion dollars whatever, you'd say, Well, then he has to know he's engaging in illegal conduct with an explicitly illegal purpose or clearly illegal purpose to him. But you started to get into all the Democrats say he knew that it was fake, he knew that he was breaking the lawn and the Republican The Trump side of it is, well, you can't prove that that hasn't been proven. And also being able to even challenge the official Act itself, whether it's appointing an ambassador or signing a bill that is a punishment that we can't allow presidents to go through. So if we determined that it is a legitimate official act, but we open up this Pandora's box to well, you can still challenge the intent behind the official Act.

Where does that stop?

And now it's as oh, well, you know the president he appointed that ambassador, because that ambassador is going to be part of a future coup to overthrow the United States government. So now let's prosecute him for that conspiracy they talked about this conspiracy and obstruction.

Conspiracy and obstruction.

Are very broad, very vague statues, and often really just rely on the good faith of the prosecutor to not abuse, and clearly they're abusing them against Trump. That's what we all that's where this all goes, that's what we all see. I think that the anti Trump argument here had a bad day. I'm going to tell you where this is going, where I think the next steps are in just a moment. But I want to speak to my fellow gun owners. You know it's time you got introduced to a lot of firearms that may be new to you, but you know they're made here in America, their top quality at an incredible price. Bear Creek Arsenal. Bear Creek Arsenal. It's a great story too when you look at the founding of this company. Veteran owned and operated gun manufacturer based in Sanford, North Carolina. Bear Creek Arsenal makes high quality firearms at an incredible everyday value. But the quality you're getting here. I mean, the price point is phenomenal. They're offered. They're able to offer rather a wide range of premium calibers that a fraction of what the competitors do. There's no middleman fees. That's how they're passing that savings along to you. Their products are precision oriented, perform very well at the range or in any situation where you need your firearm. Barck Creek Arsenal was founded by engineers with over two decades of experience in the firearms industry. I've got their BC fifteen model, a bar Creek Arsenal AR fifteen model. It is great, got it all ready to rock. I've been out at the range with it. It's a fantastic firearm. I've also got the Grizzly, which is my nine millimeter pistol. One of the things I love about it is that it has this excellent groove, you know for my weak hand, my left hand, and when I am holding it always reminds me when I'm holding my Grizzly from Bear Creek Arsenal, make sure I get my left thumb up on the slide properly to give me the proper grip it's so important with shooting a shooting a pistol, gotta have proper grip. And this just this little you can tell, little ergonomics, little decision making about Bear Creek Arsenal's firearms make such a big difference. Barcreek Arsenal dot com, slash buck. That's where I want you to go. Bear Creekarsenal dot com, slash buck. Use promo code buck to get ten percent off your first order. Bear Creek Arsenal dot com slash buck. Use promo code buck for ten percent off. You're gonna love this. Go to that website. You're gonna love the firearms gear. They got great prices on optics to all kinds of stuff knives.

Where do I think this is going for Trump?

I think the Supreme Court is going to overrule the lower court and send it down with further instructions to review it in a specified scope as to what presidential powers really are. I think they'll be defining some of it in their in their decision. And I think that this means that they're not going to be able to get this. Well, it's gonna be even harder than to get this federal trial, the JA six trial that's what's the background of all this. By the way, this is all I should have said at the beginning. This is all J six trial stuff. I think they're not gonna be able to get this if I'm right about the Supreme Court's order. I don't think they'll be able to get this thing done in time. Although maybe the lower courts are going to go into ludacrous speed, which they've been doing all along. That's possible, so we shall see. But a good day for Trump, a good day for the Constitution. I believe we'll see what that decision is shield time.

The Buck Sexton Show

Buck Sexton breaks down the latest headlines with a fresh and honest perspective! He speaks truth to 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 2,168 clip(s)