As the political landscape settles after the tumultuous events of the past month, President John Pudner traveled down to border town McAllen, Texas to discuss the landmark Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, but more pertinent to the current climate, how it has already begun to play an important role for liberal candidates across our Republic as we officially enter the all-important 2024 general election season.
In the days following the ruling, liberals across Washington have not only made their displeasure with the Court’s decision clear, but have begun utilizing it as a key part of their platform moving forward. Several Congressional Democrats, including Senator Mazie Hirono, are drafting a constitutional amendment that, in essence, overturns the decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is working with colleagues on legislation that would classify Trump’s actions after the 2020 election as “unofficial acts” not covered by the court’s ruling, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez filed impeachment articles against Justices Thomas and Alito, the Court’s most conservative members. Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris, the now-presumptive Democratic nominee for President, has begun using the ruling as a key point in her campaign speeches, stating at a recent event in Las Vegas, “Donald Trump wants to turn our democracy into a dictatorship, and the Supreme Court basically just declared he can get away with it.”
Even while he has dropped out of the race, President Biden has been rumored to be seriously mulling major Supreme Court reforms, including the establishment of term limits for Court members, while none exist for Congress despite decades of support and campaigning, an ethics code enforceable by Congress, against the separation of powers intended by the Founders, and a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, despite the Court upholding long-held precedent.
As Pudner and host Sergio Sanchez point out, the hyperbolic reaction to this decision, and the continued politicization of the Justice system, much less the Supreme Court, bodes ill tidings for the future of our Republic and campaigns this fall as the nation remains ever-divided on the direction of it's future.
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
Trump, Biden, Supreme Court, Jack Smith, election, change, political opponents
SPEAKERS
James Parker and TBOR Action President John Pudner
James Parker 00:00
Supreme Court made a lot of news with some of their recent decisions, and one of them has a lot of your neighbors concerned is this new death squad ruling...I'm not exaggerating. The idea that, because presidents are going to maintain the same presidential immunity that every other previous president had, this is a death squad ruling, where we can now have death squads, jpeople run around with AR-15 and MAGA hats just taking out their political opponents. It seems like it might be a little far fetched, but let's ask John Pudner. He's President of Take Back Our Republic Action. John, what do you think about this new Supreme Court ruling? This seems to be very important as far as Trump's immunity claims go, but is this going to open up the door to death squads, John?
John Pudner 00:51
No, thanks for the easy question to start. What the Supreme Court usually does is issue decisions on things that seemed obvious for a long time until someone threatened them. I think if you'd had a prosecutor like Jack Smith, with his history of trying to bankrupt, throw in prison political opponents, 100 years ago, you would have had a Supreme Court decision like this. I mean, it's always been assumed that the president isn't going to be prosecuted for things, like let's say, putting the country into a war like World War Two, and people being killed from that. The idea that anyone can question that you can carry on acts as President that would not get you criminally indicted, like if you were just out there doing these things on your own to somebody, seems self evident.
James Parker 01:42
Well, it seems like they either don't know or they're pretending to not know that was the law of the land all the way up until Trump, and then it changed, because this is the first time a guy got charged. And so, the Supreme Court said Trump's not going to be held to a different standard, he's going to be held to the same standard as every other president before. That's not how it's been framed, even when you take....maybe I don't take a histrionic, sensational, journalist, I gotta take President Biden, here's what he said about it....
James Parker 02:10
"But, today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all, for all practical purposes...."
James Parker 02:20
Did it really change the rules that we've been playing with all these years?
John Pudner 02:25
No, I think it just offered clarity. They did not give the Trump attorneys everything they wanted, and they wanted to have the entire indictment by Jack Smith dismissed, and they didn't do that, but what they said is you have to distinguish between official acts as President, and then if you have acts that you can show and argue we're done not as president that you think are criminal, you can still pursue them. They sent it back to the lower court, but I only see clarity here, no change.
James Parker 02:55
Alright, so where does the death squad thing come from?
John Pudner 02:58
I think it comes from the Biden debate a couple of days ago. You've got to change the subject once you come off 50 million people watching that debate performance. At that point, and I did campaigns purely for a long time, when you have really bad news, you look for any other issue you can latch on to, and you can see they are saying now this election is all about the Supreme Court decision, anything but anything that Joe Biden talked about on stage the other night.
James Parker 03:27
The frustrating part is these aren't dumb people. We'd like to make fun of Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, but they both went to Harvard, so they may not be on top of every Supreme Court decision in the same way that we would observe, but these aren't dumb people.
John Pudner 03:43
Very calculating. They know they've got to change the subject here. But I think they need to start, to look at the quick history of it. When then they pick Jack Smith to be the guy to go out and get Trump, Smith's history was he went after a Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonald, did the same thing, made him spend $28 million defending himself on basically talking good about a business leader in the state who turned out to be really bad guy, and so he gets a two year prison sentence for him after $28 million spent, goes to the Supreme Court, nine to nothing they throw it out. Ruth Bader Ginsburg throws it out. Obviously, Jack Smith is willing to go way beyond the Constitution to throw a political opponent in prison, and then they pick him for this job, so I think it's pretty clear the intent here was to mess up the election, one way or the other, and along with other legal efforts to keep Trump off the ballot in states, they've been trying to win the election by bankrupting the opponent, throwing him in prison, or keeping him off the ballot. That is not a good precedent for the country.
James Parker 04:44
Why isn't that how you protect democracy, John?
John Pudner 04:49
Funny you asked that. For the first time in polling now, CBS just had a poll that 47% think democracy is safe if Trump wins, 48% of Biden wins, and it's basically even. Now, the amazing part of that is they base the last couple of years, the Democrats, on nothing but campaigning that Trump's a threat to democracy, and they're 50/50 on it. It would be like if we'd advertised on the border and immigration for three years straight, and people said Biden and Trump are about just as good on the border. I mean, it's absurd after all the advertising they've done. You nailed it on the head, which side is the threat to democracy, and right now, Americans are split 50/50 as a nation on who that is.
James Parker 05:28
The legal consequences are interesting to talk about, but you are known as the only person in history to defeat a majority leader in a primary. What do you think the political fallout is going to be? Not just from this ruling, but you couple that with what's going on with the debates, and some of these other Supreme Court rulings, what's going to happen? Are they going to replace Biden? Can they replace Biden? What do you think?
John Pudner 05:52
You know, I've never had so many people I consider to have insights so certain on how that question should be answered and have the opposite view. I've had people say there's no way, he's gone, no one's in the middle of this. I'll let the Democrats sort that out in Chicago, I'll be in Milwaukee, where we're doing a prayer breakfast for the RNC convention, so this is their problem, let them deal with it.
James Parker 06:20
If you are on Team Trump, I would be saying nice things about Biden, because it looks like you want to run against this guy.
John Pudner 06:28
I have had some people propose starting a Republicans for Biden group just to make sure he stays on the ballot, you know, and then that would be a fake group, but that's all just gamesmanship.
James Parker 06:37
Well, other than that, I mean, he is so sharp, John. He is the sharpest, most accomplished, greatest...y'all better keep them on the ballot, you would regret replace him, that's for sure.
John Pudner 06:48
I've said that to a few people and were on the same page. My only fear out of this whole thing is the expectation game is always big. He can't be this bad again in the second debate, there's no humanly way he could be that bad again, so he will get a headline saying he had a better second debate, that's the only downside to this.
James Parker 07:07
Alright, let's talk about what you do outside the show. How can they find you?
John Pudner 07:15
takebackaction.org and we have some good info on Jack Smith and some of these other related issues posted there too.
James Parker 07:23
All right, good stuff. Thank you very much for being on the show, John Pudner.
Comments