Transcript
Ad Sponsor (0:00)
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com specialoffer hablas espanol spries to Joyce come do nosq if you've heard that sound from Babbel before, I bet you do. Babbel is the science backed language learning app that actually works with quick 10 minute lessons. Handcrafted by over 200 language experts, Babbel gets you on your way to speaking a new language in just a few weeks with over 16 million subscriptions sold and a 20 day money back guarantee. Just start speaking another language with Babbel right now. Up to 55% off your Babbel subscription at babbel.com Spotify podcast spelled B A B-B-E-L.com Spotify podcast rules and restrictions may apply. This episode is brought to you by Factor Optimize your nutrition this year with Factor America's number one Ready to Eat meal service. Factor's Fresh Never Frozen meals are dietitian approved. Ready to eat in just 2 minutes. Choose from 40 weekly options across 8 dietary preferences like calorie smart, protein plus and keto. Eat smarter at FactorMeals.com listen50 and use code listen50 for 50% off plus free shipping on your first box FactorMeals.com listen50 code listen50 T's and C's apply every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive, so they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate, and they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.
Ben Meisellis (1:59)
Donald Trump's press secretary Caroline Levitt just threw him under the bus and I don't even think she even realized it. And it's on some serious issues, potentially voiding Donald Trump's claim towards presidential immunity as it relates to his shady conduct relating to the dollar sign Trump meme coin. Let me explain what went down? Of course, you know by now, last night in Virginia, Donald Trump hosted the individuals or entities that had the most money invested in the Trump meme coin. In other words, the people who put the most money into Donald Trump's pocket bought private access with Donald Trump in Virginia. Now, Donald Trump's press secretary, Caroline Levitt, was asked about this massive grift because it kind of seems like it's illegal, duh. And what her response was is that this is what Donald Trump is doing on his personal time. She goes, that's his personal time. Because specifically, the individual who was asking Caroline Levitt at the press conference said, well, if y' all care about transparency, which you claim you do, which, by the way, we all know that they absolutely don't do, you plan to release the list of individuals Donald Trump is meeting with who own all of his meme coin, so we can see which foreign nationals may be trying to bribe the President of the United States who's giving Donald Trump money for this quid pro quo access. And she goes, well, we don't have to release the list because it's his personal time, not his presidential time. Now, that's an outrageous thing to say, but that's going to backfire in Donald Trump's face, because when you look at the United States Supreme Court ruling on the concept of absolute presidential immunity, the Supreme Court, as horrible as that ruling was, where they said Donald Trump was entitled to absolute presidential immunity for his official acts regarding the January 6th insurrection and his attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, they did say that his private conduct, and conduct that is purely, quote, personal time, would not be subject to any absolute immunity, and the President can be sued and or have criminal charges brought against him for that conduct. Now, Tim Miller wrote the first post in response to Caroline Levitt's statement where he says, presidents don't get personal time. There's not like a magic su wear when you are doing official business, and one where you are just Donald from Queens. But our friend George Conway, a superstar lawyer, pointed out, actually, Tim, it's fine. If Trump is saying he's doing something on his personal time, then that obviously means he's not acting within what the Supreme Court calls the outer perimeter of his official responsibility, which in turn means he's not immune from criminal prosecution. Good work, Caroline. You just blew it. You threw Trump under the bus, and now he could be susceptible at some later time to criminal prosecution for his conduct, if indeed crimes are demonstrated. So why don't we take a look at these Supreme Court rulings. So you don't just hear me blabber and give my commentary. You know, I like to read the opinions. So here's what the Supreme Court said from its October term of 2023 in the case of Trump v. United States. Turn to page four. As for a president's unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although presidential immunity is required for official acts to ensure that the President's decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the president's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former president is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish the his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the court to be mindful that it is a court of final review and not first view Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a president's official and unofficial actions and how to do so with respect to the indictments extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The court offers guidance on those issues. And as you go to page 29, I guess here's some of that guidance. There may, however, be context in which the president, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity, perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of quote, content, form and context will necessarily form the inquiry. But there is not always a clear line between the President's personal and official affairs. The analysis therefore, must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging. Well, it doesn't seem to be all that challenging here. And it seems that that Donald Trump was actually a little worried when when Caroline Levitt said this is his personal time. Because about an hour after she made those statements, Donald Trump made the following social media post Because I bet you a lawyer told him you could be absolutely screwed by what she said, so you should post something. So when Donald Trump posted this, my view was a lawyer told him to post this. So he posts heading to the crypto dinner in Virginia in a little while. The USA is dominating in crypto, Bitcoin, etc. And we're going to keep it that way. Exclamation point. Now we know that Trump's personal meeting on his personal time with personal or entity holders of the Trump meme coin of the Trump crypto has nothing to do with the United States of America. But you see here that he's trying to frame this as this is going to help the United States of America leading in crypto when this is all about Donald Trump's personal grift and or bribes. So why don't you judge the fact specific analysis for yourself? Why don't we conduct what a future hypothetical Supreme Court or federal court, how they would look at it? Shall we? So, as a lawyer, let me share with you the exhibits. So exhibit A is Caroline Levitt referring to Donald Trump doing this bitcoin or meme coin meeting with the top holders of his meme coin as personal time. Judge for yourself. If based on the Supreme Court ruling this is official or unofficial conduct, it seems pretty clear that this would be unofficial conduct. Let's play the clip.