While the presidential campaign and politics across our Republic continue to shift with recent developments, including and especially in key battleground states like Michigan, President John Pudner remained focused on the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, specifically focusing in on a key aspect that, seemingly, has missed the eyes and ears of many of the decision’s critics - the equal application of the ruling. While this was in response to the cases brought against former President Trump by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, one of the critical aspects of the Court's decision was retroactive application, making sure to clarify that all past presidents, regardless of political affiliation, decimation, or motivation, are shielded from legal scrutiny for official actions taken while in office.
Supreme Court precedent cited in the case also showcases instances where presidents faced legal challenges stemming from their time in office, involving matters of national security, executive privilege, or allegations of misconduct. In 1982, long after former President Nixon resigned from office, Nixon v. Fitzgerald showed that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts, while just 17 years later, Clinton v. Jones affirmed that the president is not immune from civil litigation arising from conduct that occurred before taking office or unrelated to official duties. Thus, the Court's ruling re-affirms that cases, like former President Trump’s, can proceed through the judicial system without infringing on the core functions of the presidency, but that the protections of immunity while in office are crucial to ensure a president can focus on the responsibilities entrusted to them by the electorate and Constitution.
Despite this, many of the left have rebuked the ruling as a nakedly partisan move by a so-called radical court, but as Pudner and hosts Ryan Wrecker and Kim St. Onge discuss, the case not only does anything but this, but provides a steady hand on a hot topic and preserves the delicate interplay between executive power and legal accountability - a balance that will continue to shape the course of our Republic.
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
Supreme Court, Trump, political opponents, democracy, prosecute, precedent.
SPEAKERS
Ryan Wrecker, Kim St. Onge, and TBOR Action President John Pudner
Ryan Wrecker 00:03
Welcome back to the Marc Cox Morning Show. I'm Ryan Wrecker filling in. If you want to find me online at Ryan Recker radio, just do a quick search. Joining us now is the President of Take Back Our Republic Action. He was part of President Bush's 2000 campaign, and you hear him all the time on the show, but I think this is a first for us to talk. John Pudner, thank you for coming on this morning!
John Pudner 00:26
Oh, thanks, but you've already messed up a little bit. Mark always puts The Who music on his my walk-in but that's okay.
Ryan Wrecker 00:32
Both are good, but do you have a favorite Who song? And by the way, in St. Louis history, today was the day that Guns N' Roses jumped into the crowd and started to riot at Riverfront stadium. That was pretty big history here.
John Pudner 00:47
Oh, my gosh, that's good! No, Detroit just led me off with Barbara Riley right before this, but we're fine, it's all good.
Ryan Wrecker 00:55
The Supreme Court comes out with their decision yesterday. I think a lot of people that....oh, there we go! Look at this for the law that it is, very reasonable to say that a sitting President of the United States, or a president in that matter, can act in an official capacity and have some immunity, we say some because it's not all immunity, but some immunity. I think that's very reasonable. What's your thought on this Supreme Court ruling? Well, not everyone on the Supreme Court believes that. I mean, there were three on the Supreme Court that said the President's office and those acting in official capacity makes you a king, and gives them a dangerous precedent that they can do whatever they want under that office. Do you buy that?
John Pudner 01:20
Absolutely. You know, the left does this creating all these new powers thing... the Supreme Court rules on something that has seemed obvious for centuries is suddenly challenged. If you have a prosecutor, like Jack Smith, trying to throw political opponents in jail 100 years ago, Supreme Court would've had to do this then. But this pattern, and we saw this with Smith and Governor McDonnell in Virginia a decade ago, they go bankrupt them, throw them in prison, keep them off future ballots, and McDonald spent $28 million defending himself in a similar prosecution. He ends up getting him convicted for two years in prison for talking up a business leader, gave him nothing in return, and then the Supreme Court threw out Jack Smith 9-0. I mean, Ruth Bader Ginsburg went against him, so while not the same ruling, it's this abuse of going after your political opponents that causes the Supreme Court to step in and just state something that we all thought would be obvious for years. I don't, but it's good to have this discussion. I don't begrudge the opposing view. I think, as a matter of fact, the Republican Party has become the party of the First Amendment and free speech, and certainly that counter view should be articulated. I'm glad it didn't hold the day, I think that would have been the dangerous precedent, because it would just encouraged more going after political officials, trying to bankrupt them, and throw them in prison, and keep them off the ballot, but they're free to make that argument. And, it's probably healthy to have an argument, because it helps identify what is in your capacity as President versus what is in your capacity as an individual? That's certainly a fair argument to go through case-by-case on specific actions.
Kim St. Onge 03:24
Now, it'll be up to the lower court, right John, to determine if what happened on January 6th an official Act of Trump's presidency, right? Trump's not officially off the hook here, but obviously, I would still chalk this up as a win for Trump.
John Pudner 03:41
Sure, it's definitely a victory, and it gets rid of their first goal, which is to have this all happen before the election to affect the election outcome. Yes, he's not off scot free, you can certainly prosecute for specific things if they can convince a judge and jury that this particular act was not as President, and this was as an individual.
Ryan Wrecker 04:01
Let me ask you this question because this was another interesting sidebar on the ruling. Clarence Thomas raised the issue is if Jack Smith was legally appointed? What do you think about that approach - looking at it through if Jack Smith was legally appointed?
John Pudner 04:17
I don't feel in a position to comment legally not being an attorney on that, I did see that argument and that was interesting. I certainly think it's a very dangerous precedent to have a Jack Smith appointed. Just think of this, he gets overruled nine to nothing because of the ridiculousness of the convictions he got on McDonnell, and then that's the guy you go to, the guy who's appointed is a guy who's already lost to all nine Supreme Court judges, and yet that made it even clearer, I think, that they wanted a person in place who would just get a conviction, whether or not there was any basis for it in law. That's the big concern for them. was there all political and logical concerns. Certainly, Clarence Thomas knows a lot more, but I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on that specific argument that he made.
Kim St. Onge 05:02
I just can't believe that Joe Biden and the other liberals don't see this as a win. Obviously, they're upset because of the implications this will have that Jack Smith case we're talking about. But, to me, I think back, and I use this example a lot, but I think it is very relevant - the whole situation in Afghanistan, the way that Biden withdrew, 13 troops killed. Did they not see that, after Biden is no longer in office, that if presidents weren't given some immunity, that they could prosecute him for what happened? Well,
John Pudner 05:39
Well, you think so. Of course, during the debate, he didn't remember that any military had been killed in that disaster of a debate, may not be cognizant of that, but yes, you're right. They're so desperate to change the subject right now. I mean, they just had 50 million people watch them on stage, and we just had a poll about New Hampshire, where Trump went from ten down to two up, they are just looking desperately for a new issue, and this is it. You can even see the liberal commentators now saying the campaign's all about this decision. They just need to change the subject to anything right now.
Ryan Wrecker 06:11
I want to look at this, and some of the commentators you mentioned, that the liberal conspiracy theories that this gives immunity to the degree where, let's say Donald Trump's back in office, he can send SEAL Team in to take out Supreme Court Justice members he doesn't like. What do you think about all the rhetoric you're hearing right now around the Supreme Court? And it's not just this decision, it's been multiple decisions where they try to attack the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because it's not ruling the way that they wanted to rule, so the attack on the Supreme Court in general?
John Pudner 06:44
In particular there, the related argument that Trump is terrible, he's talking about trying to prosecute political opponents, after a couple years of trying to throw Trump in prison? I mean, the hypocrisy of that. I think people tend to argue about things that they would do themselves, and so they apply it to other people, and I think all of us can admit we wish Trump wouldn't occasionally tweet certain things out, or not tweet anymore, he's quite theatrical, but the real threat to law here, and the real threat to democracy, has been the way they have prosecuted political opponents, not a theory on what they think Trump might do or some future President might do.
Ryan Wrecker 07:31
So this puts a cap on the Supreme Court rulings for a while is that right?
John Pudner 07:36
Yes, they are getting a break. They're on vacation. It's up today.
Ryan Wrecker 07:44
Part of the Supreme Court's job is to...I know they have clerks, and they have people underneath them to do extreme amount of research...but they've hit some pretty big landmark cases from...I mean, as long as I can remember, in a stretch of a couple of years, I don't remember a Supreme Court has ruled on so many historic things in a short amount of time. Have you?
John Pudner 08:05
No, and this string in a row. I think the most fascinating decision was the January 6th decision, which certainly will give protection to a lot of the people arrested on January 6th, the ones who are non-violent, barely went the Capitol, and things like that. But of course, to see the recent liberal appointee actually side with the J6th protester and Amy Barrett side against, that was kind of interesting, even though that was a conservative decision. It was a nice string recently for conservatives. Obviously, the one exception being Steve Bannon, him was trying to not go to prison, but yes, they certainly are landmarks here, there are threats to democracy, and I think that's when the Supreme Court has to step in.
Ryan Wrecker 08:53
Well, the Supreme Court, quite the history-maker as of late. I'm sure we're gonna see an uptick in a lot more ways. Even going back to Barack Obama, during his administration, every time the Supreme Court ruled in a way that he didn't like, he talked about the illegitimacy, and how the Supreme Court is doing partisan work, and over, and over, and over again, but when you look at the actual rulings, and the way that they decided to rule the way they do, they're just upholding the Constitution in a lot of different ways. But for many years, we've had, to me, a very left-leaning Supreme Court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and some activist judges that were ruling in a way that activists would rule, and then when you get back to the rule of law, that's a pretty big shock for those on the left that we do have a bedrock that we can guide ourselves with, it's the constitution, we need to get back to it. And you know what, that's what I think that's riding the ship in a lot of different ways with these decisions.
John Pudner 09:50
I agree, and this attack on the Supreme Court, it's the same as trying to inprison Trump and get him off the ballot. And you're right, they want to delegitimize, they run campaigns, as you can see, to try to get Supreme Court judges to not rule on things, to get off the court, to say their conflicted. These are the challenges democracy faces now that the threat to democracy is the left's attempt to delegitimize the Supreme Court, to get rid of a presidential political opponent, that's what democracy needs. And yeah, you just say Republic instead of democracy, but they use the theme that they're protecting democracy, and they're just not.
Ryan Wrecker 10:32
Well, producer Karl, I hope we have some Who to send off our guests. John Pudner, President of Take Back Our Republic Action .People wanted to find you online, maybe some of the work you're doing, where can they look?
John Pudner 10:42
It's takebackaction.org and we have some Jack Smith material on there right now.
Ryan Wrecker 10:51
Fantastic. John Pudner, thank you so much for joining us in St. Louis!
コメント