All right everybody. Welcome back. It's hot swap summer here at the all in podcast episode 186 of the world's number one podcast calling in from the home office in Italy cumali Hoppity. How you doing, sir?
Great, how are you? You look so relaxed. Look at you. Look at you know you do but it's only been two days and I'm working. I mean, I'm not that relaxed yet. But this place does put you in the right mood. I gotta say. All right sacks. I'm sure that it's been uneventful. We forgive you how you doing in the great state of California from our headquarters of the all in Tower in San Francisco has the all entire
doing why you doxing me what's going on here
because you don't live in San Francisco.
Everybody knows that. All you have to do is look for the protest follow the protest is you'll find sex also with us, of course from the oh hello headquarters is that Backdraft Hooper? The house is on fire. The house is on fire, but house you're referring which house which has America which one of your Democrats or Biden's how does a political party that I mean? You can interpret it as you wish. Okay, very good, but Enterprise your butt on fire. Did you have somebody Indian food? Did you hit the taco truck? What there's a heat wave?
In the west right now. He stopped at the taco truck. The West is on fire. The West is on fire. Okay? Okay. Dr. Doom if you want to come to the all in Summit now in year 3, we've got a ton of programming updates, but the tickets are going to sell out. We just released another hundred
tickets. Are you able to fly like attacking your head right now?
You look like Mike Pence
Jesus. Is it a Mike Pence moment.
That's a Mike Pence fly. It's a
Mike Pence fly. Yeah, it is a pencil moment or it could be like a Biden moment circling the death. That's too far. That's pretty dark. Okay 3
Rain Man
for folks who are interested in meeting the other lunatics who listen to this pot if you have no money and no budget, you can come to one of the 50 meetups that are currently happening around the world next week on Thursday, July 11th. Go to all in podcast.com slash meet-ups all in podcast.com slash meet-ups you can host or you can join them.
It's for zero point zero dollars now if you're doing well, you got a little extra cheddar and you want to get together at the all in Summit that's in September. We held back 400 tickets according to Freiburg who is running the summit now, he's released a hundred this week. So get your applications in and if you are trying to score a ticket or a speaking gig a gig just don't email me email Friedberg.
Freiburg any updates on the content people want to know what's on the docket? We're definitely going to be talking about the changing landscape of American politics. So we are going to have some representation there to have that conversation. We're going to be talking about the future of media. We're going to be doing some really cool technology deep Dives in areas, like robotics age reversal EV tall's and talking a lot about AI meets Enterprise software. So we have a number of you know, the leading Enterprise software CEOs joining us for conversations.
On that front, so it's shaping up to be really amazing programming. Like Jason said where we held back 400 tickets from the initial batch and we're going to release 100 this week. So put an application in we're trying to be selective and it's going to be amazing. The party is going to be awesome. Alright, really excited how it's come together, you know, if you're doing some bird of a Feather dinners, I understand the show some New Concept. Can you explain that to me? The first night of the summit were we've rented out a bunch of great restaurants around town and I lay
And we're putting people together for dinner at all these different restaurants. And then the parties are Nights two and three which are going to be you know, beautiful. Everybody's gonna be great. Everybody comes to the parties. But that first number one comes to the dinner is everything it's going to be great. So we're trying to create more space for people to meet each other and that's been a big thing in the past in the meetups and at the Summit is people love meeting other folks in the community. So yeah smaller groups. So the dinners will be 200 people or something like that. You can expect 100 depending on the location. Yeah, and then the bigger parties will be everybody 1800 people. So where do people
Apply for this. It's at Summit dot all in podcast.com. Okay, there you go folks and you can come to the free events and come there. All right. Just usually we when we do the dock and I pursue a mullet docket. I do the business first and the party in the back, but man we got to start with
Washington never support of the mullet strategy.
I know that I know that you've been anti mullet from the beginning you want this to be a political show.
No. No, I never said I'd be a political show exactly. I always said we start with the biggest most topical issues first.
And it could be business or it could be politics. Correct? You were discriminating against the politics you were insisting that it be a business issue, even if the business your wasn't relevant topical or interesting
here we got no, I was not I think you're talking about Freiburg Freiburg was the one
that's true. It mostly came from Freiburg who is right who brought the ratings this pod to a whole new level? Yeah free market. That's the Maga lunatic Francis thing.
I mean the ratings this pod hit some sort of new stratospheric level not just with President Trump interview, but last week
whenever I mean the point is last week was I think the most
crazy week in the history of politics and it's only going to get crazier. So let's start off with hot swap summary. You heard it here first or maybe not hot-swap summer continues, you know previously historically if you want to understand who's winning an election you look at the polls not perfect. Obviously some of these polls still call landlines yada yada, but then people built models obviously 538 all this kind of stuff, but it seems that this year and this election cycle people are really focused on prediction markets AKA betting markets and
We're looking at them in real time and obviously people have skin in the game. So you can I'm interested in the panel's take on the sharps on these platforms. And if you think that they're more accurate than say some of these poles or the aggregators are poles. But Kamala Harris is now the favorite to be the Democratic nominee according to one of them. So just let that soak in in the last 24 hours VP Harris is chances of being the Democratic nominee have gone from 18%
sent to 50% the same time President Biden has dropped from 66 percent to 28 percent. There are a bunch of long shots moonshots in their use of Michelle Obama Gretchen Whitmer all in the 8 to 12 percent, but they were low single digits prior to last week's debate as you can see in the chart by Dan Harris were about even this morning the taping of this is Wednesday, July 3rd, but the New York Times reported that Biden
Hold an ally he's considering dropping out. So we should note the White House a White House. Spokesman said this is absolutely false. But this is the money chart from I think Polly market and we keep updating this document in real time while we're taping chances of biting dropping out are now at 77% That's up from 60% this morning for the first time yesterday after we record the show we have to do before we publish be a hole.
Why
don't I don't think he's going to do that because he is scheduled to do a sit-down interview with George Stephanopoulos. I think the recording it on Friday, right which is
a
and then stuff it into Parts on Saturday and Sunday, so it's going to be edited. So we don't know what they're going to edit in or edited out at this point, though. The media is in such a freaking frenzy that I don't think that ABC is going to cover for bye.
So I suspect it'll probably be a pretty fair representation of the actual recorded interview in any event that's coming out this weekend. I think the buying presidency basically hinges on this interview if Biden can show that he's sharp and he's responsive and not senile and presumably he's going to sit down and do this at the best hours of the day, right? They can't make that
excuse anymore. So is that before naptime or afternoon
time? Right exactly. So I'm sure he can do this at a time when he
Has the good stuff I think if he knocks out of the park, maybe he can quell all of this speculation. But if not, if it goes poorly then I think he's done.
So this is the last chance again. It's like this is like the third last chance
because think about it. I mean the accusation is that he's senile that's not a hard thing to disprove if you're not actually see now right just need to go in there it right. It's a pretty low bar right not see now. Yeah, so he just needs to go in there and
Has a pulse for whatever it is an hour and he's not going to be fed. A hard hard ball question. Probably pretty softball questions. He just has to prove that he's not senile if he can do that. It'll calm things down.
Hey Stephanopoulos generally does a good job. He's not a sycophant. I think he considers himself a legit journalist and will actually well. This is this is some fastballs. I think Bloody Bernstein moment. I mean like if Stephanopoulos wants to go into the Hall of Fame. This is his opportunity if he absolutely if he throws
throws the high heater to Biden and basically is the one that
Delivers the coup de gras then his name will be in history alongside Biden for that but I think about it. That's the character reality. If you're the if you're the Democratic Party leaders and you are evaluating who to choose to replace Biden. The first thing you do is you have to double down on B it because if you are neutral to - on buy button or passers, it's immediately interpreted as he's being swapped out and
You don't have time to pick the right candidate in order to have the time to pick the right candidate. You have to first double down on B and B really declared of the Heats our candidate put them on media put them on talk shows while you were figuring out who's going to replace him and what the strategy is to get that person to win. So there's a there's a chance that what's actually going on is a little bit more of a structured strategy around find the right candidate set up the right program to get them elected figure out how we're going to move the 120 million dollars that we raised from Biden over to whoever this new candidate. Yes, you can only
Only you can only move it to Harris. You cannot move it to you cannot move the entire right entirely of that budget. So it's anything you've got. You've got to put together a real plan. You can't just do the hot-swap. You've got to have a plan for the hot swap. Which means in the meantime, you got to buy time and the best I tell you the plan is throw B and forward and be like, hey, look this guy's gonna go to your he's still our guy you're correct that they're buying time. Obviously while they try to figure this out and the powers that be which powers that be the biting Camp which is not the political machine. It's his literal family Hunter gelik cetera.
What they're actually doing and this will be the next Nostra canis prediction that will come true. Is there going to be anything that I didn't have time for like a whole lot. All I heard was lick. My anus is not a prediction coming in here. Here's what happened you're going to do complex all caps locks alert must credit.
No Shrek, Anna's they're going to do a Democratic primary. Speedrun. Here's what's going to happen. They're going to do five debates in 10 weeks. And then whoever wins wins Kamala he's going to resign Kamala becomes president. Kamala gets to run doesn't she later on she gets to speedrun like everybody else Dean Phillips gets to come in everybody speedruns it the they take over the media or the media will go crazy over the summer massive ratings. Boom and we have
Winner come in and they demolished run that's not going to happen. You said he's not going to get hop swapped as
well. Another circus has gone off the rails.
You said he wouldn't get hot swap. So you have no quarrel hasn't happened yet. If you run a debate, it shows its twists and this was going to party the party needs to select a leader and they need to say this is our candidate because if they do this, it's too diffuse, you know, it's whoever ends up winning. It strengthens of learning is it strengthens the diversity? It's trying to say listen he decided to resign
And we wanted to do the most democratic thing possible. What's the most democratic impossible? We put all our candidates out there and you the people choose to Mom. Tell him. I'm right. I think this is one of the dumbest
predictions and you've made
all right, you made some real doozies in your day. The hot spot is gonna happen. So you didn't call
it the problem with your hot-swap theory has always been that not only would buy in step down but that magically they would choose the best candidate we would get a Jeff Bezos. We get a Jamie dimon that somehow we would
Get someone who represented all Trump's policies without being Trump, but you would get some magical moderate to merge the Democratic party. That's not going to happen Okay. Okay. Thanks to your incessant demands for the hot-swap. Okay you and many others and this Feeding
Frenzy. I love
it. Yeah you and part along with many others have caused this Feeding Frenzy. We are going to get president Kamala Harris. She's the only alternative you could see this in the prediction markets just a few days ago. It was sort of evenly divided between there was her.
I was Gavin Newsom. It was Gretchen Whitmer now, it's just her why is that happened? Because they realize they can't sidestep Kamala Harris thought offending a major constituency in the Democratic party equally important maybe even more important. They would lose roughly a billion dollars of contributions to the by narus campaign. If neither Biden or Harris is running at the top of the ticket, they would have to refund all of that money back to the donors who contribute in it. There's no way they're going to start over from zero in terms of fundraising.
So they've realized that if Joe steps aside, there is only one feasible candidate for them, which is calm
Laris. Let me ask you a question if Jamie dimon declared that he's going to he would be happy to take on the candidacy for the Democratic party. He would call his friend Warren Buffett. He would call his friend Jeff Bezos. He would call up his own personal banker and say we've got half a billion. Let's go and let's have a run at this. There are certain folks that are outside.
Of the typical political spectrum that might actually have a shot at doing the extraordinary here and stepping up and doing exactly what Trump and others that support Trump don't want to see happen which is a candidate that can actually challenged Trump on the merits of their experience on their values on their capabilities As Leaders as Executives and on their past performance, and I think that someone like that might be the strategists kind of moved.
Say this is the one thing we can do that can defeat Trump because we all know from the polling that Harris doesn't stand a shot. We tried that for years ago and you're missing the history, which is Mike Bloomberg tried that exact same thing and there was one word that was said to Mike Billiards and his candid he's imploded and it was the word billionaire. So the idea that you're going to get some other billionaire that all of a sudden is less hated. I mean Mike Bloomberg has done some so much good quite honestly, and so if he can't kind of Escape The Scarlet Letter of that.
Of the b word. I don't know anybody else. But here's why Bloomberg ran against other Democrats. This is a person that is running against another billionaire which is Trump. And so if you have two people who are now on equal footing and it is the Trump University is not good for his business person get the long Democratic country Prime Suspect let them cook that's both regrets
that you're operating your operating under the Charming delusion that the Democratic party carers about democracy. This is basically a party that's run by political.
Spiders that hates billionaires and people like this people like Warren Buffett and Jamie dimon, they pay the Democrats protection money. Okay. That's how Democrats see them. We're going to go shake them down to get money from them. They're not gonna hand over the reins of the party
to some degree to some outside right? But let me ask you a question. The repulsive was dead by running your oh
he's hold on. He ran and shattered the party the
The power structure remember it was it was the bush family's party when Trump first ran jab was supposed to be the nominee, right? He was supposed to inherit the mantle from W the way that W inherited from his father and Trump came in there and appealed directly to Republican primary voters and called the Forever War Z mistake and said he was going to build the wall and said he's going to reset things with China issues that were latent in the Republican party and he took over the Republican Party the way you're supposed to through democracy through voting.
That opportunity is gone here because they're the Democratic primaries happened last year and the Biden team ensured that he would basically win the primaries and Ali so they control all the delegates remember that totally controlled the delegates. They're not going to release them to a Jamie dimon or some other billionaire.
Well, let me watch the shake up the party. Let me let me ask you a question. So if they if they end up facing the terminal nature of this which is if we don't put someone in that can win we lose we are not going to win. Yeah, it is.
Over why do you think that Kamala can't win that's their thinking right now is that she stands a better shot than
by let's assume let's assume that they take a read of the polls. They take a Read Of The Nation. They actually do a real look at the circumstances on the ground, which is that she is not going to win if they looked at that and they said you know what we need to win and some sense comes into the head of the leaders of the democratic party and they say who can win and a person like Jamie dimon polls that he can wear. There is a chance I think.
But maybe they say this is how we're going to get back to the White House.
They're never going to hand the reins of the party to a total outside. The Democratic party is the ultimate insider party and they are going to pick in insights insiders picking insiders and I think they've realized over the past week in particular that they cannot sidestep around Kamala Harris both because it would be a slap in the face to her constituency and the money issue. So it's common law or bust for them. It's either common law
or by it's a really good. It's a really good point what we'll see is just how rational
The Democratic party leadership is are they going to continue to play based on Insider first principles, or will they actually take a first principles point of view on how do we win the election? And I think it will be very revealing about how the leaders of the democratic party think based on the decision. They make and their donors for well. I don't know if that's true because I actually think that there's a risk that donors or fleeing the ship, right? Yeah. There was a rift between the donor class and the Democratic party leadership, correct? And I think the donor class doesn't.
Want to lose and by the way, sax what you're saying is probably right but I think it could actually end up being a signal that there might be a change in how the who the donors end up supporting the next go-around for to realize this a leadership change in the Democratic party.
Look what the prediction markets are showing is that it's not going to be a free-for-all. It's either going to be Harris or Biden. I mean that's the prediction markets are showing and I think that's fundamentally, right? But look, I think there's real danger here to the to the country in this because what a lot of people
Are saying and I guess it makes sense is that if Biden is not fit to run again, how is he fit to serve out the rest of his term as
president to serve out his term. He's got to resign.
Okay, so if he resides and that's probably the thing that helps Harris the most right because now she gets sworn in as Commander in Chief. She's the president United
States like a major
major glow up for her and imp user with all of this gravitas and credibility that she's now the president United States they can send her to Jesus.
And meetings and deal with other world leaders. They've got four months to basically take this candidate who everyone thought wasn't ready remember a year ago during the primaries when buying ran again one of the reasons why is because everyone said that comments is not ready, you know, every interview she does is basically a cackler word salad and any event. No one thought she was ready. Now. They have like basically made her seem much more significant by giving her the presidency, but my point is this
this we're in the middle of a war.
We're in the middle of a war with Russia just a week or two ago. We are Russian that we're in the
war or we're providing weapons
both a week or two ago. American cluster bombs were used to kill Russian civilians sunbathing on the beach in Crimea. Okay. Our weapons are targeting killing Russian civilians. The Russians in response to that said we are no longer in a state of peace with the United States that do not say we're in a state of War.
But they said we're no longer in a state of peace and the Russians have indicated that they may escalate horizontally by giving Advanced weapons to our enemies. For example, they've talked about giving cruise missiles to the hootie's. Okay. So all of this is happening right now in real time on the world stage and you're going to remove Biden who look I don't like binds policies and I don't think he's Compass mentis for more than a few hours a day, but I would still rather have Biden as
her and she for the next six months then take the risk of putting Harrison there who's inexperienced who's a lightweight and who might want to prove how tough she is. Let's get him off then for the final word here at your mouth your thoughts on what's going to happen make your prediction between now and September. What do you thinks the the mid-game here before we get to the end game?
I honestly don't know but I think that we are in a precarious place where things are going to get worse.
Biden actually approved private contractors now going into Ukraine and starting to fight American will be on the battlefield as of I think this was just a few days ago.
If you remember the movie Wag the Dog, I think that it starts to create all these weird scenarios where people will want to create major distractions to try to keep the evidence and the attention away from this core issue that after the debate everybody is focused on I think the reality is that if you were accused of any of you were accused of being mentally incapacitated, what you would probably do is go on every single talk show go on every single new show go on every single pot.
Podcast press conference. You would just do so much public facing work. So as to completely dispel this idea so that you could firmly say it was a cold. Although now this week. It's jet lag. It was it was jet-lagged or whatever app the time of day whatever it was you'd be able to just completely take the wind out of the sails. I think we're still getting only a controlled dribble of information and access to the president of the United States, so,
Going to be on Stephanopoulos. He's going to show up for a NATO meeting. And so you're only seeing drips and drabs of somebody who now a lot of people think is not in a position not just to run but let alone run the country. You said last week Democratic party will have a meaningful reset still still making Maxima. The issue that the Democrats will have to face is the person that they probably want to run is someone different than Kamala Harris and the problem that they're going to have to confront is there's a part of
Of it, which is fundraising and I do think that David's right there was an article in the Ft where one of the op-ed writer said they're in this sort of identity politics trap in sorts because they will have to run her no matter what and even if somebody did show up with the financial wherewithal and I think free Brooke actually brings up a really interesting thought experiment if there was somebody that could take the Democratic mantle who could completely self fund their campaign, but he happened to be just the white man.
What would the Democrats do relative to Kamala Harris and I think that they would be in knots around what to do because of the identity politics issue. I think they have made it an important issue this idea of inclusiveness as they've defined it. So it sets up for I think a very complicated summer. Yeah. The other thing you have to keep in mind is how the Electoral College works and how the ballot system works is that you don't have infinite time. You have to get all of this wrapped up and cinched up by the middle of August at the latest.
And so we're very much on like a for six weeks shot clock and I don't think the Democrats are doing what they need to do. In order to completely take the wind out of the sails of this narrative that Biden is not prepared or capable and the only way that you can do that is by having him appear 24 by 7 in real-time in front of hundreds of millions of people as often as possible and they're just not so since they're not doing it to have ample time to do it. He's yeah he's
He's obviously by the way the other the other problem that it creates is that you're starting to see some of these fissures inside of the team. There was a really charged article from axios that drop which basically said that there are three people that have cordoned off access to the president. It named. Yeah, that was real Biden and Thomas see me and some other person and my initial thought when I read this was other than Jill Biden who's a recognizable person. I had no idea who these other two people work and I thought that's really precise for somebody like that who has
Side Access to all of these sort of insiders to put that article so I think you're starting to see the sort of leaks and the Fishers. Yeah, and then that sort of this next phase that will make things a little bit ugly and Contour to me this one question here because we got rid of move on to the Supreme Court stuff.
Sacks two part question 1 is there a chance that he has had a diagnosis already and they're covering that up and two if they covered up something like that. What is the ramification of it? Because it's clear to everybody. He's in cognitive decline. It's clear. It's been a couple of years of cognitive decline. No, no that that was asked of. Kjp in a press conference yesterday. She was very explicit. No, and the reason know that she can says it no she doesn't know know knows the
The answer is much more explicit has he been diagnosed and she said no and the reason she said no is because that is very credible for her to say because he hasn't taken the test. Okay. So that's your there.
Look it was obvious. Now for months. If not years that there's been a huge cover-up of his cognitive decline and the media has participated in this anyone who raised that question was treated as being a partisan or a liar and just for a good example of this. I know you describe George Stephanopoulos a straight shooter, but
Nikki Haley was on his show a few months ago and I'm not a fan of Nikki Haley at all. But she started making this point and Stephanopoulos basically wouldn't let her finish. I mean basically shouted her down. So the media was actively suppressing the story. You take Morning Joe a scars burrow, he was saying that this version of Biden is the best he's ever been and we've been hearing all of that kind of stuff for months. They were describing true videos showing Biden being out of it. They were describing those as being fakes clean fakes. They invented this new
ERM for perfectly real videos that basically would reflect his condition. So the media has been engaged in a gigantic cover-up of this and as a result the country is in really bad shape because we have to go through the next six months either with a senile president who has limited cognition or we could end up with a new president who has untested inexperienced and based on every interview. She's given the last four years appears to be completely clueless at a moment in time.
I am where I think we have the most dangerous foreign policy situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Okay. So you think it's going to be this a really horrible situation and hold on. It's the media Bears a lot of responsibility and what should have happened? Okay, what should happen is we should have had a robust Democratic primary a year ago. Sure based on concerns about binds cognitive abilities reported by an honest media. We never had that.
Yeah. So you guys see this clip by the way, there is a clip on Twitter.
Where somebody put together a clip on x 6 minutes of 100 sort of spokespeople and proxies and they all had the same thing to say about President Biden, which is he is sharp as a tack shop and it's all very sharp as a tack which had to attack the round part. What was so funny to me is I thought to myself if I asked 100 people on the street. What do you think of Elon Musk? You have 100 different statements there be a general theme, but you would not have even 50 people.
Pete the exact same working points obviously and so you have this funny situation where a hundred different people were basically saying the exact same talking point, so it's not even a point of view. It was just something that they were told to say by somebody else and that your point both. Both sides socks is the real issue which is that you don't really have an honest media here. And so there is no check and balance on power right
now. Imagine if this Feeding Frenzy you happen to year
ago. Well the contrast and compare I want to make is everybody has a point of view about Donald Trump and
I was thinking about this. The reason why everybody has a point of view about Donald Trump is everything that has happened in his life is completely transparently documented there really is nothing hidden at this point. And so you have a point of view because you've been given all of the stuff right and there's endless amounts of new stuff that came out about the old stuff and so you know, and that's what's so interesting. You have the ability to come to your own decision and it's not packaged through these filters yet with
I think it's so constrained and controlled and I think you have to understand and appreciate that cognitive decline. Let's assume that he isn't for the sake of the United States. But if he is in it, it only gets worse from here and it compounds and compounds and compounds that is what happens. And so not only do you have to wonder what's in the next 5 months or like what does it look like an 18 and 24 and 36 months that is a really important
issue clearly button can serve a second term.
But the question is what do we do now? And I got to say it's amazing to me that the Democrats are not considering the one option that is kind of obvious, which is you let the man run the most dignified campaign. He can he's a candidate you chose and
he said to her sex is back here. It is. It's not set us
on fire. There's no satire Sachs the real problem here is the Democrats refuse to lose they want to cling to power. However, they can they refuse to let
She just work
timocracy working would be to do the speedrun. I have a question. What would you do with the money would you just not spend it then and just save it?
Well, this is really interesting. So there is an analog. Okay in 1996. Bob Dole was the Republican candidate for president and quite frankly. He was too old. He was seen as a relic Clinton was fairly popular and it was pretty obvious that he was just a loser and he was going to lose the Republicans engage in Shenanigans to try and fix the situation. No, they just accepted the inevitable that
that Dole is going to lose and what they did is they pulled financing from his campaign at least in the final month and they redistributed to House and Senate candidates. And actually they did better in the House and Senate they held onto the House and Senate. I think they lost a few seats but way less than they were expecting to and they kind of ran on a campaign that you know, you can't trust slick Willy. So keep us on split the ticket and keep us on as a check against him and it actually worked fairly. Well, it was the best Republicans.
Do but frankly they let Bob Dole run a dignified campaign. My advice of the Democrats would be don't have buying resign doing a shake-up.
Yeah, I'm down. Let's listen to Saks. There's your political council is here. I have your Democratic party
right now when you put an untested unexperienced clueless president in there who's going to want to show how tough she isn't bringing her own team. No, nobody metal of this dangerous situation. Let Biden run a dignified campaign and
lose my advice to the Democrats is to it.
Brace an outsider give the people what they want freedom of choice freedom to elect a leader and bring someone in that falls outside of the traditional typical spectrum that does not want to hold public office because it's not their career. They can bring money to the table. They can bring credibility of the table and they can win votes and compete effectively against Trump if your goal is to retain the White House Kamala or Joseph Fiennes, give us two navies from Jamie. Dimon, Jamie dimon.
Bobby this is second.
Bob are you it's great one he Jamie dimon. Oh Bob Iger, you know another great one. Yeah, it's
called wish casting you're doing wish
casting tax. I'm not speaking about realism I'm speaking I'm speaking about what it would take to win. Yes. They actually want to hang it out the winning someone that could win a popular vote someone that could actually win votes away from Trump because you can't introduce someone like Whitmer or more this late in the season when no one in the United States knows who the heck this person is. Yeah when you have someone with credibility with Economic and Business success with executive,
Tea with capital and connections into the Democratic party but isn't part of the political machine that you and many others in the Democratic party are now starting to hate. Let's go have an opportunity to actually win. Yes, if they were supportive and they got there together. They would say, you know what it's time for a change just like the Republicans had to do when things are use the Republican Playbook. Brilliant Freiburg. Brilliant. Okay. Well, you guys better have a magic lamp with a Genie in it because that's the only way this is gonna happen. Well, listen, it's I'm just trying to keep the show fresh, okay.
Okay, here we go. Next topic. Here we go. He had the best take I'm giving Freiburg the the final word on your puller your macneil-lehrer. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Here we go. There were seven rulings in a bunch of scotus activity over the last week. But these are really important consequential decisions. We are going to talk about three of them.
And I'm going to try to get through these quickly. Obviously you could talk about these four hours and people will be, you know, doing case studies on them for a long time. But let me try to do this quickly so we can get everybody's take on them. The first one I want to talk about is net choice. This is the content moderation cases that you may have heard of that were two very controversial laws passed in Florida and Texas in 2021 in the wake of January 6th, the Florida law if you weren't aware of it and don't spec most people are would cover.
A forms with over 100 million monthly active users or 100 million in annual revenue. In other words. They're targeting X YouTube Facebook many of those kind of sites and they would require those platforms to notify users if their posts are removed or altered and the platforms would have to make General disclosures about their operations and policies in the Texas law is very similar platforms over 50 million monthly active users and it would require them to notify users whose posts were removed and provide an explanation of why all that kind of stuff both of these laws.
Were challenged in court in 2021 just to give you an idea like why I think the conservatives were upset about this. Obviously Trump being suspended indefinitely on Twitter Facebook and other platforms or the labeling of content like we've seen on our own channel and YouTube net choice is a tech industry group includes Facebook and YouTube and the parent companies of those
and they sued to block these two laws Justice Kagan a liberal wrote the unanimous decision. Obviously, no dissensions here and the majority held the editorial judgment in the creation of other people speech is a unique expressive product of its own which entitles it to first amendment protection. So just to give an example if you wanted to create a social network, we can't be anonymous like LinkedIn you can do that. If you want to do something like Twitter X and have Anonymous account you can do that as well. If you want to create a social network with adult content. You can do it or like Zuck is doing on Fred.
Interestingly they are downplaying political content obviously other platforms amplify political content. So let me and so the end of all this in terms of how the court handled it is, they offered some guidance and sent the cases back to the lower courts to clarify bunch of stuff just to keep this brief trim off. What are your thoughts on this? Obviously some of the ideas here like letting users know why they were banned or I content was taken down I think
The overwhelming majority of users would like to have that but is this the government's role?
I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know the details of this case except to say that when the entire court goes in One Direction.
It's probably because this never should have been brought to the court in the first place and they're giving a very clear message. It wasn't even ideologically strained to figure out what the right answer should be. So sax, obviously you were chosen party was the one who brought this you have concerns about the platform's doing this but do you have equal concerns about the government then I guess being the ones who have to enforce these is this a good ruling
Well, I think that with respect to the Texas and Florida laws, I think their heart was in the right place. They were motivated by the right things which was to reduce censorship on these social media platforms specifically censorship of conservatives, which is to say, they're their citizens, but those laws probably were overly Broad and they infringed on the free speech of Corporations because I guess corporations get free speech to and basically what the ruling says is that content moderation receives the same first
Protections as any other kind of speech so the decisions of what content you're going to keep up or take down on your own property is itself a speech decision and the government has to respect that. So that's what the ruling here was saying. I think it's not a bad decision. I wish the Supreme Court however had couple this with a better decision in the Missouri versus Biden case, which they basically said that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue so they didn't necessarily
give it dispositive ruling in that case. But they threw it they threw it out and Yeah, and basically what that case was about was The Binding ministration was engaged in attempts to influence or pressure social media companies to take down speech as the practice known as jawboning and I wish they had coupled this decision with a better decision and in Missouri versus Biden saying the government is not allowed to coerce social networks to take down speech either and they refuse to do that so
I wouldn't say these are like the greatest set of decisions with regard to free speech at the courts ever done. I hope that they will come back in the future. Once they find a plaintiff with the right standing to address that
issue. Yeah, that's the issue Freiburg your thoughts. Yeah, so night said for a long time, we've obviously had conversations about Twitter and Shadow Banning and some of the other activities on what are typically called social media platforms at the end of the day. These are all as I've shared in the past. My belief is there all
companies they have a choice as Executives and it's editors of those companies to decide how to editorialize the content on their platforms. They can choose to create content with writers that they pay on staff like a newspaper might they can choose to create content with actors and directors that they pay to create novel video series for them like HBO might or they can choose to make content creation available to third parties that don't get paid like users and at the end of the day what they choose to do with that.
Debt and how they choose to display that content is up to them as an editorial platform that is ultimately creating content for other consumers. I don't view that user-generated content platforms are right of the consumers to have access to share their thoughts. They have the internet to do that and they have many other places that they can go to to create blogs to create websites to do whatever else they want to do to express themselves, but to have a technological platform that lets them submit content that then the editors get to decide how and where they
Oh that content. I think they should understand because it's in the terms and conditions when you sign up. So I don't believe in social media platforms as utilities. And I don't think that the government should have any role in deciding what is or isn't on those platforms this goes both ways. I think that the company should decide what kind of platforms they want to have whether they want to have free speech that allows inappropriate content or content that might be offensive or whether they want to have a highly moderated platform to make it more broadly available or appealing to users. It's entirely
To them and I really do appreciate the ruling because I think that the government should have less of a role in intervening and deciding how media companies create content and how they editorialize that content. Yeah. So I think that's well said and I was in the same sort of Camp as you free bird, which is like a battle of snowflakes here like the Liberals. Obviously, we're canceling people on these platforms and now like the bag of folks want to come in and have the government regulated. If you want to compete here just create a new product or service in the market. You're on the board of Rumble sacks like they're doing really
Be well and if you squeeze too tight and your platform doesn't work, it's the marketplace should you know figure out who the winners are and you know, it's not a situation where you want the government getting in there because then they're going to go to a newspaper and there's so much precedent here. I you know, I actually read some of the of these rulings which is really interesting. They're written phenomena while I will put in the show notes the actual link to the PDFs of these decisions. They're well worth reading and in this case, they brought up a bunch of the
Long and fascinating like people wanted to force a newspaper to allow, you know one candidate to reply and give him space. They're like, no you can't do that. It's their newspaper. They decide what they publish another person wanted to have a corporate newsletter before us to give information about the other side's you just don't get to do that. I'll just say one more thing. What else is striking is just how insular and protectionist Texas and Florida are being and it's not just what this law. It's also with the lab-grown meat or cultivated meet laws that
they passed in other states are passing similar laws, which is limiting innovation in the state and limiting freedom to operate in the state in order to protect interests of individuals and corporations that already exist within that state. So it's really important to note. This isn't a good or a bad thing. But those states are operating in a way to lawmakers of those states are operating a way that's trying to protect the interests of the individuals and businesses in the state over the freedoms that might and the Liberties that might otherwise be available. I think we often talk about these states being more free but these laws and the cultivated Meat Man
I was in my opinion indicate that these states are actually on the contrary. They're much more kind of protectionist. What's your take on that sax
to Freebirds point? I mean, I think this this ruling might have been necessary from a constitutional standpoint because corporations do have free speech rights. But again, I would say that I think that the laws of Texas and Florida were coming from a good place which is they were trying to protect the rights of their citizens to engage in free speech. I think it's just unfortunate that in this case. It's a zero-sum game and
as a result those laws were invalidated. I think that makes sense, but I still think we have a
problem. I agree with you the platform's have too much power. What is your proposed solution? You obviously don't want to have the government in there like running a newsroom or running Twitter acts because you yourself were saying hey the government's to involved in X and these platforms and doing this jawboning. So obviously having the more involved is bad, right you're against them being
involved. Yeah. I think it's really tricky to figure out how to solve this. Got it. I think for one thing you don't want.
The government jawboning decides to take down content that clearly should be free speech violation. I'm just pulling the court didn't get to that
any we're totally missing the bigger picture. There's like a lot of fear-mongering that I think has happened with respect to the Supreme Court and that it's all of a sudden become some super ideological super rigid super activists place and I think it's in fact much of the opposite and the data supports that and so I think it's important.
Orton for people to know that what's actually happening is that many of these decisions are very much split along non-ideological lines. And I think that that's an important thing. So I just like I'm pulling this up and I just want to read some of these things to you us vs. Rahimi, which is a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having a firearm. That was an 8 to 1 decision. We're all but Thomas supported them makes a lot of sense you would think
Racial gerrymandering that was more ideological where was a conservative blog versus sort of my or brown and keg Trump the Anderson, which is Trump getting back on the Colorado ballot 90.
FDA versus The Alliance for Hippocratic medicine, which was access to the abortion pill 90 maintaining access.
Mohel versus u.s. Which is whether Idaho strict abortion law conflicts with the federal law non-ideological where it was Gorsuch Alito Thomas and katanga brown Jackson who descended so it goes on and on and I think what's so interesting about all of this is that I had thought that this was not like what it was what I thought what had happened is Trump's track the Supreme Court all of a sudden we are ripping all these laws apart this long-standing sort of doctor.
Of what has passed but yet I think what's actually happening is people are pretty thoughtfully.
Pushing the responsibility to the states and I think that the Court's decisions are relatively unpredictable in the sense that it's not just a conservative Bloc versus the liberal Bloc. I think that's the real story and when you unpack a bunch of these decisions in that context, that's what's so interesting to me is like these are pretty nuanced decisions that get at the heart of a lot of key important issues happening across non-ideological lines Jan 6 1 catch on. Jibraan Jackson was the Biden appointee that basically supported this thing that may
200 plus convictions for Gen 6 and Amy coneybear was on the other side. This is an unpredictable Supreme Court. I think they think for themselves they seem to be independent and I think there are coming to their own conclusions. That's the only thing to take away from the distribution of the boats. That should make people feel a little bit better. So I think this next ruling is the most important one and I think will be the most important one that we've seen with this new court.
That has three of the nine justices place by Trump to your point trim off and this one is seismic the Looper versus raimondo decision overturned Chevron. Okay. So this one takes a little explaining the court overruled a landmark 1984 decision in the chevron case from 40 years ago for contacts the original ruling created the Chevron Doctrine where the government and federal courts generally defer to the stances of federal agencies. Unless Congress has
written specific laws on an issue the 1984 ruling upheld the epa's interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It's very influential. This has been cited by federal courts over 18,000 times in 40 years. It was overruled in another six to three decision where the justices voted along party lines from off basically the shifts power back to federal judges and courts instead of administrative agency staff by experts academics all that kind of stuff in the majority opinion Roberts conservative obviously said the Chevron doctor
Violates, the administrative procedures act a federal law that directs the courts to review actions taken by federal agencies. He also pointed out that the courts are regularly expected to deal with technical question. So this should not be considered beyond their ability scope Kagan a liberal wrote a critical descent. She said the agency staff would scientists and experts are more likely to have the expertise to make these decisions rather than the judges. She also pointed out that the system had been functioning for 40 years and this ruling will create a massive quote jolt to the legal system trim off get in there. Do you remember when President Biden tried to pass?
Pass the budget two years ago and he was one vote short and Joe manchin ended up putting it over the top but he negotiated what was a redo of a bunch of Regulation and he was promised that there would be this regulatory overhaul that happened and that was sort of why he had decided to vote for that budget bill. It ended up not happening. So the reason why I think he had saw that and he discussed this is that there
there are so many businesses that now suffer from the regulations of these agencies because when the agency enacted that regulation it was just a different time and place and there was no clean way to go back to an independent body and say I understand what your intention was in 1985 when you wrote that regulation, but in 2024 things have changed.
can we reconsider and basically what the courts have done now will allow companies who believe that regulations are either over rot or misguided for today's market landscape can bring it to an independent Judiciary and have them decide and I think that that's a very reasonable check and balance and I think that's that makes a lot of sense folks can pass laws and if folks believe that those laws do you undue harm now, you have a mechanism to go in
actually explain your case to somebody independent who can then make a judgment. I think that that's a good check and balance Freiburg. I knew this was the one you most wanted to talk about. What's your take on this end of the age of experts and throwing things back to the court? What will be the Practical ramifications don't know this how much experience you guys have had dealing with
Federal Regulators, you have a library and I think all agencies. Yeah, and I yeah, I've worked in a across a number of federal agencies in businesses. I've been involved in and I can tell you it is as I'm sure you would expect there's a lot of bureaucratic morass in in these agencies and if you think about it, it's because the agencies are effectively under the Chevron Doctrine vested unlimited authority to create rules and regulations that they then
Men are meant to represent the laws that were passed by Congress, but more often than not those rules and regulations begin to bleed outside of the lines of the intention of the laws when they were passed and this is because those agencies by creating new rules and regulations. This isn't this isn't some like, you know, I have a subversive reason for doing this but these agencies have an incentive for creating more rules and regulations because they then get to go
Back to Congress and ask for more budget and hire more people and grow the importance and the scale of their agency. This is the natural kind of organic growth that arises in any living system and any organization of individuals is also a living system and has the same incentive it wants to have more resources. It wants to get bigger it wants to do more stuff. It wants to be more important and the Chevron Doctrine has allowed agencies to operate independent and outside of the lines that were
In the laws that were passed that then vested them this Authority that then they can go and say I want more budget. I want to get bigger and I'm optimistic that this ruling will limit the agency's authorities and limit their ability to create more bureaucratic overhead more headcount more individuals that need to now go and administer the rules and regulations that they themselves create and so I'm actually very optimistic and hopeful about this this change now the downside the
Of to this is that there are a number of really important regulatory roles that agencies have come to play that never got past as bills like Environmental Protection rules, and there's a negative consequence that will arise to some degree with respect to help of the environment health of people Etc. But I think net-net Congress needs to do its job. It needs to go back to session and it needs to sit down and needs to pass laws that really clearly Define. What is and what isn't going to be legal going forward?
And then the agencies operate strictly within those bounds. So to recap it could get a little messy, but it's better healthier system because this system has become super bloated over 40 years. That was my take on it as well. Sax. What's your take on? This is feels like a huge wind to me. What do you do?
Well, I agree with that and I agree with what Freiburg said. Look when this decision the Chevron decision came down in 1984 at the height of the Reagan Revolution conservatives actually liked it. They praised it because we were coming.
Off a period of an activist Court here the Warren court and they thought that shifting power from the courts. The agencies would actually be a good move. Well, it turns out it completely backfired whichever on when it came out was not a widely notice decisions since then. It's been cited 18,000 Times by federal courts is turned out to be enormously important and influential and the reason for all those citations is it's the courts deferring to the rulemaking of an agency. You know, what Chevron basically says is
As long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable or you could say not unreasonable. Then the agency can basically promulgate the rule and what this has led to is an orgy of rulemaking by all these federal agencies. And so most of our laws now effectively are being made by unelected bureaucrats who are part of this three letter alphabet soup of government agencies. It's not the Congress is not the cord is not the president. Is this fourth branch of government. That's not in the Constitution, which is the
Ministry of state and so the ministry Ministry of state has become incredibly powerful as a result of Chevron Doctrine and now I think by reversing it you actually give a chance for the restoration of democracy. Basically, the agencies are not empowered to essentially make whatever rules they want. As long as they superficially appear reasonable. They actually have to show that their rules are within a statute that they were directed by Congress to effectively engage in the rulemaking. So this is a step in the right direction.
Section for sure. But again, the real problem here is raining in this unelected administrative State.
Yeah trim off any final thoughts here as we move on to the next one.
Seems like the Supreme Court is doing a great job all agree all nine of them and they really they really seem to be doing a tremendous job. I give them a lot of credit. I feel like I've become a conservative. Maybe I'm a conservative now sex. I don't know. I may have to sit down and confess to you because I read a number of these decisions and I was like, I agree I agree in this is supposed to be a conservative court. So I'm not sure.
Well, he's right. It's actually it's not it's
not an originalist court. It's not a conservative.
This is what I'm saying. Like these are words that are planted by people that want you to believe their version of the LIE.
Great. So there are a lot of original lists on the court and what the originalist doctrine says in socks. You can correct me as I read the Constitution with faith and Fidelity and I just see what it's what it says not I interpreted not I fill in the words. I just what it says is what were allowed and I think that there's some there's a really good version of America in that view of the world.
Yeah, I mean I would say it's not even necessarily an originalist or conservative court. It's a 333 Court meaning there's three conservatives or three liberals and there's three Justice in the middle. You have the middle block led by the Chief Justice Roberts with Cavanaugh and bear it and then you got the conservatives with Gorsuch and Thomas and Alito and sometimes the middle block goes with the Liberals on as it goes with the conservatives again, it's more of a like a triangle and as we know the triangle is the best shape for equipoise, right? Because it creates balance.
And I think what we have right now is a balanced court and I think on the whole they've done a good job and I think it's kind of sad that in reaction to some of these decisions. You've got powerful lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren who are explicitly calling for packing the court. They're actually saying a put a bunch of Justice on here to ruin this equipoise that we have. I think it's really sad. I think the court right now is one of the last highly functional institutions in American public life and for elected leaders to be calling for its destruction is
Sad,
well, I you know, I think what here and here's an image from axio showing, you know, six Republican nominated in three Democrats nominated. I think to give the counter-argument, you know, Roe v-- Wade being overturned with something the majority of the country didn't want these three people were added For That explicit Purpose By Trump people have trauma paying over that reasonably, I think and then the truth is though if they are, you know.
Just one standard deviation here. As you can see in this axios chart, which is based on some data. I don't trust this term. So if this chart is worthless Jason, I think well, let me explain to you what happened to Laura.
Welcome scientist Andrew Martin Kevin Quinn know what is the Martin Quinn score places judges on an idea lecture ideological Spectrum a lower score indicates a more liberal Justice where a higher score indicates a more conservative Justice and then they went through all of their decisions. So you're saying lace objective classifier a subjective classifier is created by these two random people and you're in our grand dating the score like a mean something. No, I think it's an interesting way. It's an interesting chart to discuss to understand a little bit.
It of their meanings what I would encourage anybody to do is to look at the actual substance of the decisions and the votes and what you will see is that people are not as easily predictable as that chart would show and I think that's what's important. Okay, I think that chart supports exactly what you just said Sachs, right? Yeah.
Not exactly. I mean again, I view it as a 3 3 3 quart a lot of other people have written about that and they've got their own diagrams and charts to show that look. I think it's a court. Like I said in equipoise. I don't think it's partisan. I think it's being reasonably fair. I don't agree with every single ruling. Like I said, I would have liked to seen a different results and by V Missouri. However, I think on the whole they're doing a good job, and it really should be a scandal that you've got powerful lawmakers explicitly calling for the court to eat Pat.
I mean, that would be a disaster right because you have nine justices, which is a good number you try to increase that to 13. Then the next time the Republicans have control they're going to increase it to fifteen or Twenty One or whatever. I'm pretty soon. We're gonna have 100 justices on the court. You'll ruin it, you know, really nine justices should be a constitutional requirement. We should just fix it at 9:00 and not mess with that. So it's just scandalous to me that you've got politicians who are reacting to reasonable Decisions by saying that we need to pack the
court.
Okay quick here. This is important story for you to moths code is also agreed to hear a case on the limits of online porn in its next term which starts in October. The line questions asked will it will it impact incognito mode? Because if it is not yet just in trouble. Could you imagine if they banned incognito mode you might want to do a deep dive into how?
Incognito incognito mode is you may want to get a VPI and I'm pretty sure Texas is going to bend incognito mode project. Exactly. That's Texas and Florida. I think a couple of these sites because of the threat of you know, this these laws of age gating they've just decided to wholesale leave certain states by IP address there for the sale of vpns in text is went up because when you went to certain portion sizes that hey because of Texas is proposing these laws,
so we're not going to allow you to visit this website Nick do the NBC thing the more you know, the more judgment. Okay, let's go disagree to hear a case on the limits of online porn in its next term which starts in October. The law in question was passed by Texas legislature in 2023 requires porn sites to verify the age of their users and restrict access for minors. It seems reasonable fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans upheld the law sending it to the Supreme Court if I've held users would have to submit personal info that verifies the
Rating to watch porn the law is opposed by the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition, which is a trade group representing adult entertainers and companies. They argue a places an undue burden and adults wishing to access constantly protecting free expression. Oh speaking of porn and it's related businesses.
The Rick's Cabaret recession index is back on you guys. See this published on Twitter. So Rick's Cabaret is a collection of public strip clubs and the necklace and and what's interesting about the Rick's Cabaret stock price is that it has presaged the last two recessions whenever the stock Dives people people have said it actually predicts an upcoming recession and the stock just
You know puked up like 25 or 30% in the last week. There was there it is. So people do not have the cheddar to go to the Cabaret and go splashy captioning on but it's called it's called Rick's Cabaret, but the strip club index says of recession is is on the often for a cabaret. It's it's more Charming.
All right. So surprised you're not
discussing the immunity case. That's the one that all the
pundits would prevent elating but I made it I made it last I'll counter the Rick's Cabaret recession indicator as valid anymore based on the theory of our good friend on the group chat who I think has done a very good job highlighting that the strip club industry has been decimated by only fans as a result. Rick's Cabaret is more likely down because if only fans and the lack of hmm
Shall we say employee base available to work in these establishments? Because they make more money working online at only fans. Now that was the theory post posited by one of our good friends, but you got to think that that showed up in the data at least a year or two years ago. No because how long is only finds been around a long time? I'm guessing but I think your Peak during covid because you know, you couldn't go to a cabaret if you wanted to take in a cabaret show and have a you know, a bottle of champagne at a cabaret show you.
You can do it. So you're the thesis of our friend is the difficult flight entertainers. Yeah, only fans took all the entertainers out of the strip club industry because they make more money online break a branch The Cabaret industry. I'm sorry, please edit that Nick and as a result, the quality of the product at the Cabaret business has declined as a result. Revenue has declined. They took a little bit of time to earn that in so the virtual Cabaret in distress and Friends theory we give them a big shout-out we
Will ya shout out till it but called the beep Theory? Yeah to be a theory. So the the Elite Cabaret artists who can make more money on only fans by go there and then the that leaves the less refined
art, since
it was a real person why it's so good. I'm trying to navigate this and not get labeled Zacks. Where are you on this? What's your opinion?
Your position. So anyway, so far 16 red states have passed or agreed to pass Age game Jacobs God's Dunder Mifflin index of what average score of XYZ Johnson, so it's great. Dr. Mifflin score, but it's nothing.
I understand the doctor. That's a good score didn't always have from the office. I don't want to the office. Okay. Sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry what is wrong with you you and I never had probably watched it like four times the Paper Company where they work. Yeah. Apparently we've had a huge victory for Trump in the immunity case Trump sued in this case based on special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of trump for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and
Roll in January 6 if you don't remember that case.
Since there's so many cases against Trump. This was based on Trump pressuring Mike Pence to not certify the election his phone call to get the 11780 votes that were missing in Georgia or Giuliani and The Wack Pack trying to fake electorates to overturn the election Trump argue that he should be immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was President. So godÃs ruled 63 along party lines that former presidents can't face prosecution for a
actions that related to core powers of their Offutt office and official official official that was 10 core powers of their office and that all official acts receive at least the broad presumption of immunity. Here's the quote under our constitutional structure of separated powers in nature of Presidential Power entitles former president to Absolute immunity for criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and reclusive constitutional Authority and he
Entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for All His official acts there is no immunity for unofficial acts that would be outside. The duty of the President's chief justice Roberts emphasized that decision that the decision doesn't necessarily mean presidents are above the law in her dissenting opinion Justice Sotomayor wrote that under the new rule in criminal law can be applied to presidents. Even if they misuse their office for personal gain, she wrote that if the president orders the
Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival he is now insulated from Criminal prosecution another quote. The president is now a king Above the Law. She closed with this line with fear for our democracy. I descent notably this breaks the tradition of closing with I respectfully to send so Trump's attempts to overturn. The election results case now hinges on whether Trump's conduct was Private or related to his official Duty. For example, the lower courts now have to determine when Trump pressured pens to not certified.
The election if that was an official business of being president or not, or when he called Georgia and said hey, can you find me 11,000 votes? Was that official Duty or was it outside his duty President Trump has already cited the immunity ruling in requesting a New York judge throw out his conviction in the hush money case sentencing for that was pushed back from July 11 to September because of this ruling sacks. There's your rotating magical. Well, Jacob, what do you think?
This is I'm really curious what happened. I mean, I read the original the I'm halfway through the original PDF and I do think the president needs immunity obviously for conducting business and then I do think if they step outside the lines they
Should not have immunity and then the devil will be in the details here and that's what courts injuries exist to do. So when you told Mike Pence to not certify the election, he's obviously not doing that as part of his duty as president when he called Georgia to get the 11,000 votes. He was not doing that. That's why he had outside counsel that that's why he hired Giuliani in the wac time. What do you think? What do you think of sotomayor's hypothetical of using SEAL Team Six to kill a political Rival Well, I doubt it.
That's you think that he would be immune from process. Anybody would be immune from prosecution for that know that seemed a little bit hysterical and actually that came up in the discussions. I actually listened to the audio version of this when they were doing the the Q&A basically and I think you listen to it to Freiburg. We had talked about it. So yeah, I think the devil will be in the details here and how they execute it. Obviously you need to have immunity if you're going to I don't know take actions, you know to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, right or
Whatever it is.
But you know, it is a bit concerning this concept of being able to Shield the president when he asks, I don't know the Attorney General to do something illegal. So these are the details that are going to need to be worked out here and obviously it's a split decision. So the Supreme Court themselves can't agree on this. I think that there's just so much we don't know about what it takes to be the president of the United States the example that I gave you guys in the group chat is like look at the whole around Contra fear.
How complicated was that can any of us really understand? What all of the interplay was when Ronald Reagan decides to work around a weapons embargo sell weapons to Iran take money funnel it and fun the sandinistas in the middle of all of that. There was a huge cocaine trade that was kind of enabled or supported.
I mean who how do we know I think there's just a lot of latitude that you give to the one person that you elect to be president. And so maybe it's just a good reminder for all of us that we are electing one person. We cannot be electing five or six people were not electing a shadow cabinet were electing one person and this is just a reminder of how much power that one person has.
Satya brats
I think this was an easy decision. All the majority do is codify explicitly what has long been presumed that presence enjoy broad immunity for official acts that they undertake in the exercise of their constitutional Authority in the duties their office. It was established decades ago that presence enjoy broad immunity from civil lawsuits. It's already been the case that presidents can't be sued civilly. Well criminal liability is even harder to prove. So if you have the
Broad immunity from civil you should have brought immunity from Criminal as well and the Supreme Court I think has never ruled on criminal immunity because they never had to know former presidents ever been subjected to the type of law fair that's been deployed against Trump who also happens to be the political opponent of the current president. So I think it's a shame that the Supreme Court is at to rule on this do they get every detail, right? I don't know. I don't know what it means for the future. However, I know the reason they're doing it which is we've had this on precedent.
Fare against Trump and that's why they've been forced to do this. So ultimately I think this is the right decision. No, it is not authorized drone strikes against the present political enemies. That's insane. It does not make the president Above the Law or a king and I think that Roberts in his ruling said that the key things he said that the dissents position in the end boils down to ignoring the Constitution separation of powers and the courts precedent and instead fear mongers on the base of
Extreme hypotheticals and then he says that the dissents overlooked the more likely Prospect of an executive branch that cannibalizes itself with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. I think that's really the key line here is that you're posing all these insane hypotheticals instead of recognizing the Practical reality that if you don't give president Sam
Unity then the next president is going to prosecute the old president and future presidents will be hamstrung in doing this very important job that's already difficult enough. So I think that this was just a necessary decision. There was no way around it and the president already has civil immunity. You got to give them criminal immunity to
Freiburg your thoughts. I guess that the steel man on the other side would be, you know Trump doing things like calling George and asking to find votes or pressuring the president the vice president.
To overturn the election results after 60 failed legal cases, you know is what's concerning the other side. So do you have a take on it? I think that the distinction between acting in their executive capacity as president of the United States versus their personal capacity of an individual candidate or an individual that could benefit
through some other means it's a really good distinction. I think how the courts ultimately adjudicate that distinction is what still ahead but I do think that the clarity of that distinction is critical eye. It seems like the right thing how this is going to play out with respect to election interference does interfering in the election constitute ones role as an executive overseeing the federal election process or does it constitute one's personal benefits that may arise if one is individually elected is the key.
Determinant that the lower court will likely have to make maybe that gets kicked back up again in the future. If there's a disagreement over the decision that the court does make with regards to that distinction. Where do you stand on that sax you in previous episodes of said you didn't believe in this election interference and you thought Trump lost heavy change your position on that or are you still in that position?
That's totally irrelevant to the Court's
decision. Let me ask you a follow-up to the so in the case of do you think Trump was acting officially when he
ask Georgia to find the votes when he has Pence to overturn the election. Where do you think he was acting in his duty?
I think that that what you just described there is what's known as a question of fact in the legal system. There are questions of Law and questions of fact and what the Supreme Court has done is given us a Doctrine. They've answered the question of law. They basically given us a three-part test. They said that when the president acts within his exclusive constitutional Authority he gets broad immunity when he does an official duty, but that's not in that category he has
Jumped of immunity meaning that the prosecutor can still go after and they just have to rebut the presumption and when he gauges in a personal act, there's no immunity. So look what has to happen now is if Jack Smith wants to continue this prosecution of trump. He's going to have to make the argument that trumps acts are either personal or were part of his duties, but he's going to rebut the presumption. So that is the now the question of fact that Jack Smith would have to litigate and I'm not going to litigate it here. I
I know the answer to that. But again, I would separate questions of long questions of fact with the Supreme Court has done I think is given us a useful doctrine that the presidency now needs in light of the reality of Life are
see, this is the one I think Shema that is super fascinating because I could see President Trump and his lawyer saying hey very simple, you know, we think there was election interference. So yeah, we called Georgia to make sure that those 11,000 votes were there and hey, you know, we thought this was
Not a fair election, so I was acting in my duty and when I told Pence to not certify the election when I can see them making that argument, what do you think?
I don't know the specifics of these cases, but I think it's going to force a prosecutor to have a really strong point of view and have evidence and then go after somebody but again, I think you're focusing too much on Trump. Robert said in the decision, you can have to look past the exigencies of the current moment. This is a set of rules that's about past presidents and future presidents. This is for forever. And so that's the most important thing here, which is there's a set of rules.
Rules that I think we can all agree on because the man that we all elect dutifully elect is the most powerful person in the world. We knew it before we know it now, so even more important that we make sure we're picking one person and that person is capable of doing the job you may not agree but they need to be competent and capable of doing the job. Yeah. Well, they definitely have to be competent in this case was brought by Trump over this specific issue. So I think that's
We look at this specific judgment here. That's what they're going to have to determine in the coming months or years with this case is was he acting in his duty or was he not that's
going to be a relationship between between this ruling and another case called Fisher versus u.s. which is the January 6 obstruction case where the Supreme Court in a 6-3 majority found that sarbanes-oxley was being misused to create a new crime called obstructing an official proceeding when you combine that
With this judgment, I think Jack's mustard just resign. It's pretty clear. That student court has kicked the legs out from under his
case. And by the way Kate Angie Catania Jackson supported that decision is
right. So again, not a not a hydrological call not hyper partisan court has ruled that sarbanes-oxley and nothing to do with what happened on January 6 and was being misused by a great if prosecutor and I told you when these Jack Smith cases first came I said, it's not the job of a prosecutor to be creative their job is to
too narrowly interpreted the law and to enforce the law and you combine these rulings together and you can see that Jack Smith has now it even more uphill battle. It's time for him to resign stoutly that s all hundred convictions.
It's not just what's right to that's right 200 of them small percentage of the overall
convictions though. They took hundreds of people who did not engage in any violence on January 6 many of them just wandered through an Open Door in the capital and they were prosecuted to the hill. They were sent to jail for that because this doj wanted to send a statement. They wanted to use them as political talking point. And that's a shame. I think hundreds of people were horribly mistreated by the judicial system.
As in as part of a political prosecution now,
there are some people are the ones who beat police and
brought no problem putting those people in jail. No problem. Anyone who use violence go directly to jail do not pass go but some of these people just took a tour through the capital L is
beyond that suspended sentences and trespassing. So the ones
Tales the ones who want to get your hands Lee spent three years in jail.
Yeah the ones who went to jail. We're the ones who beat cops
or not just translate the panic.
Just because he wore the Viking remember the guy with the Viking.
Yeah, so they also went to jail in a shaman if you did damage if you vandalized. Yeah, that was the other reason people want to
generalize all video him getting a guided tour through the capitol.
I mean if you vandalized Capitol Building, I guess you have to do
something you do. It removed a dais
room. No, I think they like shattered the windows and you know,
they did I never saw any video of him doing that. Anyway, they picked on him because he was an easy target because you look like a weirdo and he had the Viking horns and he has
As he has a history of mental problems and so they put that man in jail for years.
Yeah. I'm not concerned about him. I'm concerned about the ones who brought all the long guns to the hotels around the capital to have backup Firepower. But you know, hey, everybody's got a different opinion on this we
that you can have those concerns. I don't think lets you put it on some people in jail.
Yeah. I think you can hold both of those ideas. I don't think anybody in a sense you go to jail and I don't think the oath keeper should have brought guns to the capital.
They didn't come to Virginia to speak
clear. Yeah, they brought them to the hotels around them. Huge large caches, Virginia, correct? Yeah, Virginia. Yeah, they drove to the Capitol and you're a sex. Anyway, I'm not threatened stood out about defending
defending. I know I'm not defending them. I'm just clarifying that there are no guns at the Capitol because that's what they were in the hotel so she can lie, but I don't think innocent people who just wandered through the capital should go to jail and that clearly a
great we are we agree. That's you're not going to get trespassing tickets. Okay, this is episode 1
186 of the world's number one podcast it by didn't resign while we're taping but it just went on a campaign called and he said let me say this as clearly as I possibly can. I'll simply and straightforward as I can. I am running no one's pushing me out. I'm not leaving. I'm in this race to the end and we're going to win.
Whoa, there's more likely than not that they're not going to replace by it. And because the only feasible alternative is Harris and should be worse and I think it's more dangerous for the country. Frankly. I'd rather
See Biden finish out his term then put someone new
now screams, even if he had Tundra,
it's too bad choices Jake Al and I don't agree with lions policies, but there's continuity
there. Okay for the chairman dictator from the home office in Italy to Maja patea your Sultan of Science and the rain man. Yeah, definitely definitely cabinet
position David
Sachs. I am the world's greatest moderator of the number one podcast in the
I'll see you next time. Bye.
Bye. I'll be boys, bye-bye. What you're winner is ride Rain Man Cave. It's a certain Source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with love you as ice queen of Besties are bad.
