The Big History Podcast - The Making of Modern America
What events shook the 21st and 20th Century to make America what it is today? In this podcast we cover current politics, music, culture, history. From the Civil Rights Movement and Woodstock to 21st century culture, we examine what makes America what it is today?
The Big History Podcast - The Making of Modern America
The New Jack Smith Filing: What does it mean? Presidential Power vs. Personal Ambition: The Trump Legal Battle and Democracy's Fragility
What happens when presidential authority collides with personal ambition? Our latest episode unravels the intricate legal and political challenges facing former President Donald Trump, focusing on the delicate issue of presidential immunity. Special Counsel Jack Smith's allegations that Trump overstepped his presidential boundaries to overturn the 2020 election results spark a compelling discussion on the limits of presidential power. We navigate the murky waters of proving intent, exploring whether Trump's actions were a matter of official duty or a personal bid to cling to power. This episode sheds light on the potential constitutional crises looming on the horizon, especially considering the unprecedented scenario of a self-pardon, should Trump return to the presidency.
Beyond the courtroom drama, we tackle the larger question of democracy's fragility in the current political climate. The episode underscores the crucial role of informed citizens, urging listeners to scrutinize the information they receive and engage critically with differing perspectives. We emphasize the importance of active participation, reminding everyone that democracy's endurance hinges on more than just singular elections or personalities. This thought-provoking dialogue invites you to consider your part in safeguarding the democratic fabric of America, inspiring a deeper understanding of the power and responsibility shared by us all.
So you want to deep dive into presidential immunity, in this case against Trump? Well, you've come to the right place, definitely. We've got legal filings. We've got articles from Newsweek, forbes, cbs News, even PBS NewsHour, so it looks like you really want the full picture here, huh, not just the headlines.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and it's a picture that goes way beyond just one man or even just one election. You know, it's really about the limits of presidential power. Where's that line between running a campaign and actually governing? It's fascinating.
Speaker 1:It really is. So, first things first. What is special counsel Jack Smith actually saying Trump did regarding the 2020 election?
Speaker 2:Well, smith's argument is that Trump knowingly took steps, concrete steps, to try to overturn the election results. And he's not just talking about, you know, those big speeches and all that.
Speaker 1:Right. So this is about more than just Trump saying there was fraud.
Speaker 2:Exactly, yeah, this is about an alleged, like deliberate effort to mess with the counting, the certification of electoral votes. We're talking about the entire mechanism by which our country chooses its leader.
Speaker 1:And you sent over this really interesting Newsweek article about Trump's state of mind around this time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that gets to like the core of Smith's strategy here, which is proving intent. I mean, remember, it's one thing to make claims right, it's another thing entirely to act on those claims when you know they're false. So Smith is building this case that Trump wasn't just, like you know, protesting the results or something. This is about actively working to subvert them.
Speaker 1:And he's using some pretty strong language in that legal filing of his, like saying Trump's claims about massive voter fraud were just fabricated, completely made up.
Speaker 2:Yeah, whole cloth is what he said. Whole cloth which is a pretty bold accusation and it really sets the stage for this legal battle. That really hinges on one key question Were Trump's actions? Were these the actions of a president doing his duties or a candidate who's just desperate to hold on to power?
Speaker 1:Which is where that Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity comes in right. The one everyone's talking about.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly. Trump's team is arguing that everything he did falls under presidential authority, but the Supreme Court was very clear. Immunity is not a blank check. It only applies to things that a president does as part of his official duties.
Speaker 1:Okay, so how does that apply here? Were Trump's actions, were they part of his job description as president, or something else?
Speaker 2:Well, that's the million dollar question, Were they part of his job description as president or something else. Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? Smith argues that pressuring state officials trying to get those alternate electors appointed, that all of that goes way beyond what a president is allowed to do when it comes to elections constitutionally.
Speaker 1:You've also got to wonder how those like those pre-election comments from Trump's campaign advisor the ones you flagged you know about like declare victory no matter what. Oh yeah, how will that go over in court?
Speaker 2:Well, it's a fascinating peek into their mindset going into the election, that's for sure, whether or not a court's going to look at that and say, ok, this was a premeditated plan to overturn things, who knows? Yeah, but it certainly adds to that whole narrative that Smith is building.
Speaker 1:It's like. It's almost like a political thriller. It adds to that whole narrative that Smith is building. It's like it's almost like a political thriller. You know every detail, every quote. It's like another layer to the story.
Speaker 2:It really is.
Speaker 1:And then, of course, you've got that chilling little anecdote from January 6th the one that you underlined in the filing about Pence being taken out of there during the riot Right when Trump allegedly asked about his safety and just says so what?
Speaker 2:Yeah, like it's no big deal.
Speaker 1:If he doesn't try to overturn the election results.
Speaker 2:It's just a small detail, but, man, it speaks volumes about the prosecution strategy here. They're really building this case that, to Trump, staying in power was more important than anything, even more important than basic safety, even more important than the integrity of a democratic process.
Speaker 1:It's a lot to untack and we're just getting started. So far, we've only talked about what Smith is alleging. We haven't even gotten to how Trump's team plans to fight back.
Speaker 2:Well, buckle up, because things are about to get even more interesting. They are sticking to their guns. They're arguing that everything Trump did came from a real concern for election integrity. He really believed it was stolen and everything he did he did as a president, defending the vote, not some desperate candidate trying to stay in power.
Speaker 1:So it all comes down to motivation. Was he acting because he thought the election was rigged, or was this a power grab?
Speaker 2:Basically, yeah, and proving what's going on inside someone's mind, especially someone as well. Let's face it as complex as Donald Trump. Right, that's a really tough task, but that's what makes this case so fascinating it's a battle for the soul of American democracy.
Speaker 1:And it's a battle that's just getting started. We still got one big elephant or should I say former president in the room that we need to address what happens if Trump wins the election.
Speaker 2:Could he pardon himself, could he make this whole case disappear? Now that is the million dollar question, and unfortunately there is no easy answer. You see, the Constitution doesn't specifically say if a president can pardon themselves. It's totally uncharted territory.
Speaker 1:You're kidding me. So we're potentially looking at a full blown constitutional crisis on top of everything else.
Speaker 2:It's possible, we'll dive into what a self-pardon could mean and why it's freaking out legal experts and everyone really. In part two of our deep dive Don't go anywhere. So we're back and to really get like the full impact of Smith's strategy, we kind of have to go back to that Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity the one you were asking about, right, because you're saying Smith's actually found a way to use it against Trump. Presidents can't be prosecuted for stuff they do as part of their job. But and this is important they basically left it up to the lower courts to figure out, like what official conduct actually means.
Speaker 1:So it's not like a get out of jail free card. There are still limits.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It's not a free for all, and that's where Justice Amy Coney Barrett comes in. Remember, she was appointed by Trump Right, so her words, they carry some weight, you know.
Speaker 1:Okay, this is getting good. What'd she say? That's got Smith all excited.
Speaker 2:Well, she agreed with the majority that presidential immunity is real in principle, but she wrote the separate thing highlighting parts of what Trump supposedly did to try and overturn the election.
Speaker 1:Like those alternate electors, he was pushing for the ones that would have said he won, even though Biden got more votes.
Speaker 2:Exactly, that's what Smith calls the like, the elector scheme. And Barrett, she basically said those actions they weren't official, they were quote inherently private.
Speaker 1:Hold on. So she's saying trying to overturn the election wasn't part of his job as president.
Speaker 2:Pretty much. Yeah, she's saying that stuff. He did that as a candidate who wanted a second term, not as the actual president.
Speaker 1:And Smith's using this to like blow up Trump's entire defense. That's kind of genius.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's a pretty smart move by going after this whole private citizen, angle Smith's, taking away the shield of the presidency. Like nope, you were acting on your own, buddy.
Speaker 1:And that's where all the little details that Smith put in that filing they really come into play. Like, remember those quotes from Trump's own team, the ones that suggested even they weren't buying the fraud stuff?
Speaker 2:Exactly. And don't forget the thing about Trump, how he seemed more worried about his supporters being mean to him than the riot going on at the Capitol.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:It all just adds to this picture of a guy who is acting out of self-preservation, you know, like his main goal was holding on to power, not upholding the Constitution or or a peaceful transfer of power or any of that.
Speaker 1:Strong argument for sure. But what about Trump's side? How is he going to come back from this?
Speaker 2:Well, they're sticking to their story. They're saying Trump was totally sincere, that he truly believed he got cheated. All his actions, they were just him as president, trying to protect the vote.
Speaker 1:So it's a question of, like what was really going on in his head.
Speaker 2:Yeah, was it a genuine belief or a power grab?
Speaker 1:Right right.
Speaker 2:And figuring out the motivations of someone like Donald Trump. That's not easy.
Speaker 1:No, it's not.
Speaker 2:But hey, that's what makes this so interesting we're talking about the very heart of American democracy here.
Speaker 1:And we're not done yet. We've still got one massive question to tackle what if Trump wins this next election? Could he actually pardon himself, just like make this whole thing go away?
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, the million dollar question and, honestly, no one really knows. See, the Constitution doesn't say whether a president can pardon themselves.
Speaker 1:It's never happened before. We're in uncharted waters here, so on top of everything else, we could be looking at a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 2:It's possible and we'll get into all that, what a self-pardon could mean and why everyone's freaking out about it in the last Plans Are Deep dive.
Speaker 1:OK, so back to the big question could Trump pardon himself if he wins? You said the Constitution doesn't really say.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's really vague. The pardon power it's broad, but no one's ever tried a self-pardon before. We're talking totally untested legal ground here.
Speaker 1:Well, that's reassuring. So what are the arguments like for and against it?
Speaker 2:Well, on the one hand, you've got people saying look, this whole thing goes against the very idea of being judged by your peers, Right Like a president pardoning himself. That's basically saying I'm judge, jury and executioner for myself.
Speaker 1:Yeah, not exactly a fair trial.
Speaker 2:Right. But then there's the other side. The pardon power is huge, maybe even unlimited, and they point to the Constitution, which doesn't explicitly say a president can't pardon himself.
Speaker 1:So it's a total toss up what happens if he tries it.
Speaker 2:Constitutional crisis most likely. Think about it. What would people say? It would look like he's putting himself above the law Total abuse of power. The fallout would be insane.
Speaker 1:So even if it's legal, the political cost might just be too much, even for Trump.
Speaker 2:It's possible. And here's another thing Even if a self-pardon worked for federal stuff, it wouldn't touch those state level investigations like that one in Georgia.
Speaker 1:Oh right, the one about interfering with the election there.
Speaker 2:Exactly so. He's got multiple legal headaches, pardon or no pardon.
Speaker 1:Man, this thing goes deep. So we've got this case and who knows how many others. That could go on for years. No matter who wins the election, it's a mess.
Speaker 2:It really is, and it just goes to show you how fragile things are.
Speaker 1:What do you?
Speaker 2:mean, well, we talk about democracy, like it's, you know, this rock solid thing, but it relies on people playing by the rules, on trusting each other.
Speaker 1:In this case, it's like all of that's been thrown out the window.
Speaker 2:In a way yeah, it makes you think what happens when those rules, when that trust disappears. We can't take it for granted.
Speaker 1:So what can we do?
Speaker 2:We have to be informed, you know, don't just accept everything you see and hear, especially these days.
Speaker 1:Right With all the information overload and everything.
Speaker 2:Exactly Question things, look for different sides to the story. That's what keeps democracy going, not, you know, blindly following someone.
Speaker 1:So where does this leave us? Potential legal battles, a possible constitutional crisis and a political system that feels totally broken.
Speaker 2:It's a lot, but that's kind of the whole point of these deep dives, isn't it? To look at these tough issues, figure them out and arm ourselves with information, because, in the end, it's informed citizens, the ones who are paying attention and asking the hard questions, who will decide what happens to our democracy.
Speaker 1:Wow, you've given us a lot to think about. It's clear that this is so much bigger than just one guy or one election. This is about the very heart of America, and it's a reminder that we can't just sit back and watch. We have to be a part of it.
Speaker 2:Couldn't have said it better myself.
Speaker 1:Well, thanks for joining us on this deep dive. We'll be back next time with another fascinating topic, ready to break down even more of this crazy world we live in. Until then, keep those brains working, everybody.