Indictment Watch: No Immunity

Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution.

By and
142

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously decided that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution. On today’s emergency pod, Sarah and David react to the decision’s substance and how the timing affects the election.

The Agenda:
—Timing is everything
—Word of the day: estoppel
—Will SCOTUS take the case?
—The opinion’s flaws
—What is a president immune from?
—What is an official act?
—The parade of horribles argument
—Why the Colorado disqualification case is relevant
—The New Yorker: Sarah Isgur’s Majority Report

By and
Comments (142)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Tom Johnson

    "Estop in the Name of Love"

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    R.arronpowell

    One disappointment about the profile: If Sanneh has indeed listened to every episode, why is there no mention of the Queso Burros??

    Collapse
  3. Michael.Mcchesney

    I thought the profile in the New Yorker was excellent. I read it before listening to the podcast, and when Sarah said that the reporter had listened to every episode, I thought that made sense. While AO is clearly the Dispatch flagship, I wonder how it ranks among legal podcasts. Is it the top legal podcast? Does it have more listeners than The Remnant? How long before AO dethrones Joe Rogan? One thing in the piece I thought was particularly interesting was the person quoted saying that every law student listens to it.

    Now, to a much more depressing subject. I share Sarah and David's concern about a future where the MAGA rot that has infected the Republican Party spreads to future GOP judicial nominees. I was a member of the College Republicans at SUNY Albany in the 1980s, where political disagreements with the campus left could get really nasty. I remember one incident in particular. The College Republicans sponsored a member of the Nicaraguan Contras to speak on campus because funding for the Contras was a hot-button issue at that time. When he began to speak, members of left-wing groups attempted to shout him down.

    When I was applying to law schools, I decided to apply to Washington & Lee University, in part because the Princeton Review had described it as having the most conservative law students of any law school. I thought that would be an interesting change from college. What I found was that it was possible to have calm, reasoned discussions of controversial issues without anyone getting nasty. It wasn't because we were all conservative, either. We had liberal students, but I never heard anyone get nasty when they staked out a left-wing position. I looked at that experience and was proud that conservatives seemed to be much more willing to be civil with people they disagreed with. I really hope that W&L students are just as civil with people they disagree with today as the students were 30 years ago. But I haven't been back to Lexington in some time.

    One of the differences I've found between conservative and liberal judges is that liberals seemed to be much more outcome-driven than conservatives. Liberals often seem to start with the outcome they want and then try to come up with reasoning to justify that decision. Conservatives more often seem to let their reasoning lead them to their decision. To be clear, conservatives aren't immune to outcome-first reasoning, but it seems like it is less common than it is with liberals. Maybe that's just my ideological blinders. But the MAGA crowd is openly advocating for judicial nominees that will reliably deliver conservative outcomes. Rather than having the respect for law and institutions that you would expect from intellectual conservatives, the MAGA crowd is all about using whatever power they have to achieve what they want. It doesn't seem to matter if what they want to do is legal; all that matters is what they think they can get away with. Thank God for lifetime tenure.

    My mother used to say that she could see a civil war coming in this country. I thought that was crazy because I thought our institutions and respect for the Constitution were far too strong for something like that to happen. We had no issue as decisive as slavery was prior to the Civil War that could lead to another one. Or so I thought. Now, I fear she was a prophet. What really boggles my mind is how shortsighted the support for Trump's attempt to steal the election was. It's like Trump supporters can't envision a Democrat ever winning an election again because if Trump had succeeded in stealing the election, it is as certain as night follows day that a future Democratic president would do the same. Donald Trump is like a toddler who is only concerned with what he wants at the moment. Trump doesn't care about the harm he causes to either the GOP or the United States so long as he gets to be president again now.

    So, we are going to have a choice of voting for a senile Democrat or an existential threat to the future survival of the United States. I am actually terrified that statement won't turn out to be hyperbole.

    Collapse
  4. Eric S.

    Bucket is such a great word. All the alternatives really pail by comparison.

    Collapse
    1. Kalo

      That's how it's done, folks

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Cbrzez572

    I just read the article in the New Yorker. Before this podcast and the Dispatch, I would have said I was almost anti-Republican, unable to understand how good people I know could consider themselves aligned with such a group. Sarah, you are why I better understand what it means to be conservative, and now I consider myself a much more balanced centrist. I am your forever fan. Oh, and David - your Sunday newsletters during COVID-19 were so important to me. I had never heard the Christian songs you linked to at the end of your letters. You expanded my world in many ways, too many to list here, and not just in faith. The Dispatch has given me a perspective on the world that I appreciate.

    Collapse
  6. Chipwatkins

    Reagan appointees . . , God bless Royce Lamberth.

    Collapse
  7. Cyochum

    I heard Sarah mention something about a speaking engagement in San Francisco - if I heard that correctly what are the details?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      May 22nd in SF!!

      Collapse
  8. Aaron

    Congratulations on the New Yorker article! Really captured the spicy and smart spirit of the pod, and the reasons to be proud of the justice system.

    The bad news..."It is possible that the Supreme Court will come to resemble the House of Representatives, with its absurd partisan arguments that even partisans struggle to take seriously. “I’m very scared of that,” Isgur says"

    There will be no more fed soc judges in Trump 2.0

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    WKDawson

    I'm willing to accept your pessimism about the trial being delayed beyond the election. I did hear in the discussion at the Bulwark between Sykes and Wittes, that SCOTUS __could__ act quickly with two words "cert denied".

    Congratulations one getting on the New Yorker.

    Collapse
  10. Kalo

    Congratulations on the New Yorker profile. Well deserved.

    Next stop- Costco Connection!

    Collapse
Load More