47

Summary

Today, Explained – Episode 47 Summary

Release Date: January 20, 2025
Hosted by: Noel King and Sean Ramisburg
Part of the Vox Media Podcast Network

---

Introduction: A Chilly Inauguration Day

Noel King and Sean Ramisburg open Episode 47 of Today, Explained from the National Mall in Washington, D.C., amidst the biting cold of Inauguration Day 2025. The hosts note the stark difference in crowd presence compared to previous years.

Noel King [00:00]: "It's Today Explained. I'm Noel King on the National Mall alongside."

Sean Ramisburg [00:04]: "Hi, I'm Sean Ramisburg."

The scene is set with a sparse crowd, snow-covered grounds, and the US Capitol dressed for the inaugural ceremonies. Despite preparations, the area remains notably empty.

Sean Ramisburg [00:25]: "But Noelle, I'm very concerned. There seems to be no one here."

---

Contrasting Inaugurations: 2016 vs. 2024

Insights from Susan Glasser

The hosts introduce Susan Glasser, a reporter for The New Yorker, who provides an in-depth comparison between the 2016 and 2024 inaugurations.

Susan Glasser [02:35]: "2016 was like nothing I've ever seen in Washington, D.C. it was almost like a sort of alien invasion."

Glasser highlights the unprecedented emptiness and uncertainty surrounding the 2016 inauguration, describing it as a "hostile takeover by an outsider" within the Republican Party. Reflecting on the political turmoil, she recalls notable moments such as former President George W. Bush's candid remarks about Donald Trump's inaugural address.

Susan Glasser [04:22]: "I was sitting there, like, just, wow, couldn't believe. George W. Bush says to me, well, that was some weird shit."

In contrast, the 2024 inauguration lacks the massive public resistance observed in 2016. Instead, there's a noticeable absence of large-scale protests and a fragmented Democratic response focused on internal blame rather than unified action.

Susan Glasser [05:18]: "There is a big change. ... eight years later, not only is there no such massive public kind of acts of resistance planned for the immediate aftermath of Trump's inauguration..."

---

Corporate Endorsements: Big Business Backs Trump

Glasser details a significant shift in corporate support, with major business leaders and top-tier corporations symbolically backing Donald Trump's inauguration.

Noel King [06:59]: "Mark Zuckerberg donated a million dollars to Trump's inaugural committee. A day later, Jeff Bezos and OpenAI founder Sam Altman each donated a million bucks of their own."

Prominent companies such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, and automotive giants like Ford, General Motors, and Toyota have contributed financially, signaling a concerted message to align with Trump's administration for continued influence and access.

Susan Glasser [07:41]: "It's almost like it's a concerted message that's being sent to America's corporate elite, which is that if you don't pony up at least a million dollars for this inauguration, you do not have a seat at the table in this future administration."

---

Cultural Shifts: The New Face of Inauguration Celebrities

Glasser observes a transformation in the cultural landscape surrounding the inauguration, noting the emergence of a distinct "MAGA celebrity universe."

Susan Glasser [08:15]: "Eight years on Trump has created almost a whole Alternate... a much more clearly defined MAGA political fan base that helped him win this election."

Notable cultural figures like Carrie Underwood have publicly supported Trump, a significant departure from their typically apolitical public personas.

Noel King [09:35]: "Carrie Underwood was the one who got me. ... perhaps even not associating herself with someone like Donald Trump."

The integration of unique musical choices and the appearance of unconventional performers like Kid Rock further illustrate the evolving cultural endorsements.

---

Judiciary Changes: Supreme Court Grants Presidential Immunity

In the second half of the episode, Ian Millhiser joins Noel and Sean to discuss a landmark Supreme Court decision that has profound implications for the presidency.

Breakdown of the Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in July 2024 that President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for crimes committed under the guise of presidential authority. Millhiser categorizes these protections into three distinct "boxes":

1. Constitutional Authority: Total immunity for actions within the president's constitutional powers.
2. Presidential Power: Presumptive immunity for actions related to broader presidential powers.
3. Personal Conduct: Potential prosecution for crimes unrelated to official duties, albeit with significant legal hurdles.

Ian Millhiser [14:49]: "Essentially, they divided the sorts of crimes that the President can commit into three boxes."

This decision effectively limits checks on Trump’s power, allowing him to engage in actions ranging from manipulating investigations to potentially more severe abuses of authority without fear of legal repercussions.

Susan Glasser [15:31]: "Another power that the court said explicitly as one of the President's constitutional authorities is the ability to investigate and prosecute crimes..."

Implications and Future Concerns

Millhiser expresses deep concerns about the Supreme Court's stance, likening it to historical judicial overreaches such as in the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions.

Ian Millhiser [23:10]: "Sometimes the justices reach decisions that I just cannot understand the value system behind it."

The hosts discuss the potential for abuse of this immunity, including hypothetical scenarios where the president could misuse military power or engage in corrupt practices with minimal accountability.

Noel King [15:31]: "If the president decides his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him..."

Millhiser also touches upon recent attempts by Trump to leverage this immunity in legal battles, though these efforts have faced significant pushback and judicial ambivalence.

Ian Millhiser [22:35]: "It's just something someone made up... they made it up recently."

---

Closing: A Modest Turnout and Looking Ahead

Returning to the inauguration scene, the hosts observe a small but present crowd heading towards the Capital One Arena, anticipating performances by artists like Kid Rock.

Noel King [13:02]: "We found the party, we found the crowd. It's not a huge crowd, but it's a crowd."

The episode concludes with reflections on the day's events and a hint at future discussions, emphasizing the gravity of the political landscape shaped by corporate support and unprecedented judicial rulings.

Noel King [26:22]: "Four more years of Today. Explains."

---

Notable Quotes

• Noel King [00:33]: "We are among the very few people on the National Mall at this time. Where is everybody?"
• Susan Glasser [04:07]: "Donald Trump: This American carnage stops right here and stops right now."
• Susan Glasser [05:18]: "There is a big change. ... eight years later, not only is there no such massive public kind of acts of resistance planned..."
• Ian Millhiser [14:49]: "Essentially, they divided the sorts of crimes that the President can commit into three boxes."
• Ian Millhiser [23:10]: "Sometimes the justices reach decisions that I just cannot understand the value system behind it."

---

Conclusion

Episode 47 of Today, Explained delves into the stark contrasts between the 2016 and 2024 inaugurations, highlighting shifts in public engagement, corporate endorsements, and cultural support for the Trump administration. The discussion with Susan Glasser and Ian Millhiser underscores significant political and judicial changes, particularly the Supreme Court's decision to grant expansive immunity to the president. As the inauguration unfolds with a modest crowd, the episode leaves listeners contemplating the profound implications of these developments on American democracy and governance.

Transcript

[Noel King]

It's Today Explained. I'm Noel King on the National Mall alongside.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Hi, I'm Sean Ramisburg.

[Noel King]

I'm here in Washington, D.C. it's Inauguration Day, 2025. And Sean, it is cold. What do you see?

[Sean Ramisburg]

I see negative 20, 25 degrees. I see snow underfoot here on the grass we're standing on. I see the odd tourist taking a photo with a MAGA hat. I see the US Capitol.

[Noel King]

She's all dressed up.

[Sean Ramisburg]

She's wearing the US Flags ad hoc amphitheater. It looks ready for inauguration. But Noelle, I'm very concerned. There seems to be no one here.

[Noel King]

We are among the very few people on the National Mall at this time. Where is everybody?

[Sean Ramisburg]

Not sure. We've got porta potties for everyone. Woodstock, 99 levels of porta Potty, but not enough people here to use them. I'm warned about the porta potty.

[Noel King]

Can we figure it out on today's show?

[Sean Ramisburg]

Let's try and figure it out. What else are we doing?

[Noel King]

We're going to talk about how this year's inauguration is very, very different from 2016.

[Andy Roddick]

Coming up. Hey, it's Andy Roddick. And I'm not just a former tennis player. I am a tennis fan, a tennis nerd. I just can't stop watching it. I can't stop analyzing it. I can't stop talking about it to anyone that will listen. Which is why I started my podcast Serve with Andy Roddick, now a part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. On the show, we talk about everything from new up and coming players to the champions dominating the narrative to whatever's on my mind. This January is the Australian Open and you know, I've got some thoughts. So tune in for our Australian Open coverage. Find served wherever you get your podcast or on our YouTube channel.

[Megan Rapinoe]

Hey, Megan Rapinoe here. This week on A Touch More Unrivaled is coming, and we're going to preview the teams to beat and what the new league means for women's basketball. Plus, our baker of the week asked some tough questions about how one of us likes to cook in the kitchen. And we'll take you inside our experience checking out a professional women's hockey league game and why it really felt very familiar. Check out the latest episode of A Touch More wherever you get your podcasts. And on YouTube.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Today, explained Noel King and I have made it through security to Constitution Avenue. People appear to be heading north, Noel. We are heading with them. What's coming up on the show?

[Noel King]

Susan Glasser, reporter for the New Yorker, is going to Tell us about how 2024 is very different from 2016.

[Sean Ramisburg]

All right.

[Susan Glasser]

You know, I've been to a lot of different inaugurations here in Washington, going back to Bill Clinton's, and, you know, 2016 was like nothing I've ever seen in Washington, D.C. it was almost like a sort of like an alien invasion. You know, the streets were deserted. Definitely not the largest inauguration crowd ever in Washington. It was just nobody knew what to expect. It was Republicans as well as Democrats who not only didn't know what to expect, but had a profound sense of disruption and concern about it. Remember that Trump had been opposed by the vast majority of his own party in the Republican primaries in terms of the establishment types, the elected officials. And, you know, for many of those elected Republicans here in Washington, they viewed this correctly, I think, as a sort of a hostile takeover by an outsider of their own party. And remember the famous comment from George W. Bush, who was sitting on the platform in his role as former president for the Trump first inauguration? He turned to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting next to him in her role as a former first lady, not in her role as the defeated opponent of Donald Trump. And he said to Hillary Clinton, that was some weird shit, referring to Donald Trump's famous American carnage inaugural address.

[Donald Trump]

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

[Susan Glasser]

I was sitting there, like, just, wow, couldn't believe. George W. Bush says to me, well, that was some weird shit.

[Ian Millhiser]

Wow.

[Noel King]

So eight years ago, everything is eerie and what the heck is gonna happen? And the crowds are not out in the same way that you might expect in 2025. Who is coming out to support Donald Trump? That wasn't there last time. Who is notable this year?

[Susan Glasser]

Well, there is a big change. First of all, we can talk about the opposition to Trump or the lack thereof. And that's the other important point about 2016, right, is that, you know, immediately a sort of resistance paradigm kicked in among Democrats, among people who were upset and appalled and worried about Trump's victory. There was almost immediate sense, we've got to resist this. We've got to stand up to this. There was the Women's March, as you'll recall, immediately after the Trump inauguration, more.

[Andy Roddick]

Than a million Americans, women, men, children among them, sending a message to President Trump on the day after his inauguration. Women leading marches across this country.

[Ian Millhiser]

And really a. The size of the crowd surprising even organizers.

[Susan Glasser]

But this question, it had huge participation here. And so there was a sense of action being taken, I would say. And, you know, that this was something that, you know, could or would or would have to be gotten through for the next four years. And I think that that for me is the biggest difference now, eight years later, not only is there no such massive public kind of acts of resistance planned for the immediate aftermath of Trump's inauguration, but you have Democrats still embroiled in a game of finger pointing and blame game among themselves about why they lost the election. You have many business leaders and other types of people who would have establishment Republicans who would have considered Trump anathema back in 2016, who are not only openly supporting him, but I think they've come to the conclusion that this is the new normal not only of the Republican Party, but to a certain extent of the country, that Trumpism is not some one off aberration, but an important factor for a long time to come in this country's politics.

[Noel King]

Tell us about the types of corporations. So we hear that big business is getting behind Trump, at least symbolically in this inauguration. What kinds of big business are we talking about and who represents them on Inauguration Day?

[Susan Glasser]

Since Trump's election in November, you've seen many of America's corporate leaders of many blue chip corporations, really, certainly ones that are not associated exclusively with Red America, chipping in announcing $1 million contributions either from the corporation or from the CEO personally, or from both of them.

[Noel King]

Mark Zuckerberg donated a million dollars to Trump's inaugural committee. A day later, Jeff Bezos and OpenAI founder Sam Altman each donated a million bucks of their own. Other tech giants have too, including Google, Microsoft and Apple.

[Ian Millhiser]

But what's Toyota joining other major auto companies like Ford and General motors and making $1 million donation to President Elect Trump's inaugural fund.

[Susan Glasser]

It's almost like it's a concerted message that's being sent to America's corporate elite, which is that if you don't pony up at least a million dollars for this inauguration, you do not have a seat at the table in this future administration.

[Noel King]

You are an esteemed political reporter. So I don't know how much you've been paying attention to the cultural figures who are coming out for the inauguration either to perform or celebrate. But do you have a sense, again having seen this eight years ago, of who in the culture will be present and how that may differ from the way it was last time?

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I certainly don't remember seeing, you know, the Village People reuniting to do, you know, covers of YMCA at inaugural balls eight years ago. And that speaks again to the fact that eight years on Trump has created almost a whole Alternate. Not just alternate facts, but a sort of an alternate MAGA celebrity universe in which he has his favorite music playlist at his rallies that, you know, are as readily identifiable, very quirky, very unique to him. It's not just the Village People in ymca, but, you know, he's playing opera hits at his rallies and when he has gatherings at Mar a Lago and he's wielding the iPad himself to play the music. So, you know, there's a set of MAGA celebrities now to go along with a much more clearly defined MAGA political fan base that helped him win this election.

[Noel King]

Yeah, Carrie Underwood was the one who got me. Because Carrie Underwood is a popular country singer who probably eight years ago would have benefited from not letting anyone know what her politics are and perhaps even not associating herself with someone like Donald Trump.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Maybe next time I'll faint before he.

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, I mean, of course one of the other big political stories in my view in 2024 is the sort of normalizing and mainstreaming of Donald Trump. And of course he can take this too far. It's very important to note that this was not the overwhelming electoral victory or shift in the country that Trump and his supporters can often portray it as. Right. In just a number sense, this was one of the closest presidential election in the last hundred years. So, you know, that's important to note, but he's become just acceptable enough to a much larger chunk of the electorate than was the case in 2016.

[Noel King]

Let me ask you lastly, my co host, Sean and I are running around all day. You're gonna be running around all day for people who don't live in Washington D.C. but wanna be able to take away something from what they see today. What do you urge people to keep an eye on?

[Susan Glasser]

One of the things about Donald Trump is how much people tend to not really listen to what he's saying and to not really take him both seriously and literally. And I think if you listened to his inaugural address in 2016, you know, you really had some insight into the kind of disruption and the kind of negative political figure that Donald Trump would prove to be over the next four years. And this is a moment, I think, that should draw all of our scrutiny and understanding who shows up, which Donald Trump shows up.

[Noel King]

Susan Glasser of the New Yorker. Thanks to her.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Okay, thanks to the cold, I can't feel my hands. Noelle and I are on the parade route. Pennsylvania Aven hoarded 10 and it's like still more police than people. I don't think he's gonna have a Super populated parade.

[Noel King]

Noel, I'm worried we have not found the crowd just yet. Sean, what's coming up in the second half of the show?

[Sean Ramisburg]

You'll be happy to hear our old friend Ian Millhiser's coming up.

[Noel King]

What did the Supreme Court do?

[Sean Ramisburg]

They did something about six months ago, Noel, that might be very key to this Trump presidency. We're gonna ask Ian all about it. FOREIGN.

[Andrew Ross Sorkin]

This week on Prof. G Markets, we speak with Andrew Ross Sorkin, editor at large of DealBook at the New York Times and co anchor of CNBC Squawk Box. We discuss the key economic trends he's watching for Trump's second term, the evolving landscape of the AI market and the rumors that China is considering selling TikTok to Elon Musk.

[Ian Millhiser]

If China is prepared to sell to Elon Musk and only to Elon Musk, what does that say about the leverage and influence that China must think that they have over Elon Musk by dint of his factories and Tesla business in the nation state that is China?

[Andrew Ross Sorkin]

You can find that conversation and many others exclusively on the Prof. G Markets podcast.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Today. Explain is back. Noel King and I are at 7th and E. Northwest, Washington, D.C. noel, I think. I think we're starting to figure out where these people are heading.

[Noel King]

We found the party, we found the crowd. It's not a huge crowd, but it's a crowd.

[Sean Ramisburg]

It's a crowd and they're going to Capital One Arena. Noelle, are the Wizards playing this afternoon?

[Noel King]

No, Sean, there's an inauguration.

[Sean Ramisburg]

It's happening in the arena. That's unprecedented. Of course, this president who's coming in, Noel, he loves to break with precedent. And this Supreme Court of ours might be setting him up to do a little bit more of that with their immunity decision from this past summer. Remember summer, Noel? Anyway, Ian Millhiser is here to tell us all about it.

[Noel King]

Perfect. Perfect.

[Ian Millhiser]

The Supreme Court last July said that essentially Trump is allowed to commit crimes while he is president. It says that he is immune from prosecution for virtually any criminal act he commits using the powers of the presidency. So there's going to be far fewer checks on Trump because there's a court that's extraordinarily sympathetic to him. And this court has already said to him that if he uses his office to engage in crimes, that's fine.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Now, to be fair to the Supreme Court of the United States, which I know you love being, they didn't say Donald Trump can commit crimes. They said the executive, the commander in chief, the president of the United States can commit Crimes, in theory. In July of 2024, they were saying Joe Biden can go ahead and commit some crimes.

[Ian Millhiser]

That's right.

[Sean Ramisburg]

And then Joe Biden pardoned his son for committing crimes. No, that's unrelated. Sorry. What exactly did the Supreme Court say, Ian?

[Ian Millhiser]

Essentially, they divided the sorts of crimes that the President can commit into three boxes. So the first box is anything involving his constitutional authority as president. Okay, so like the power to veto, the power to pardon anything that the Constitution says that the president is allowed to do. And there he's basically has total immunity. That is a very scary box.

[Noel King]

A president would not be prohibited by statute from perjuring himself under oath about official matters, from corruptly altering, destroying, or concealing documents to prevent them from being used in an official proceeding, from suborning others to commit perjury, from bribing witnesses or public officials.

[Ian Millhiser]

You know, one of the powers of the presidency is the commander in chief power. And like, although the dissent pointed out, like, hey, wait a second. This opinion seems to say that Donald Trump could send the military to kill his enemies.

[Noel King]

If the president decides his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?

[Ian Millhiser]

It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.

[Noel King]

It could.

[Ian Millhiser]

The majority opinion did not repudiate that. Another power that the court said explicitly as one of the President's constitutional authorities is the ability to investigate and prosecute crimes or investigate and prosecute wrongdoings. I think that the president could potentially order other agencies with investigative power. So, like, if he doesn't like something that I write or something that I say and today, explain, he could potentially order the IRS to open a tax investigation into Vox Media, and nothing can be done to him by Ian. So, like, things involving his official powers, if it fits within his constitutional powers, he has basically complete immunity. And then if it fits with some other power that the President has, the court said he has what's called presumptive immunity. It's unlikely that anyone's going to bring a. Bring a prosecution anyway because it'd be such a pain to get over this, you know, this hurdle that the Supreme Court hasn't defined, and then to win in a Supreme Court which has already said that Donald Trump is allowed to do crimes.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Okay, so essentially, the president has immunity to do the things that the Constitution says he can do, correct?

[Ian Millhiser]

Yes. And then he has pretty broad immunity as well for basically anything involving his presidential power. Okay, so, like, Congress passes a wall saying that the President has the power to decide what the tariff should be. If, like, Donald Trump finds out that, like, one of his enemies is importing bananas and he imposes a bunch of tariffs on bananas in order to hurt this enemy, then, like, that would fall into that second box where it's not constitutional, but it's still a presidential power. And what the Supreme Court has said is that second box is, it's not total nothing you can do immunity, but it basically is. It's what they called presumptive immunity.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Okay, so total immunity on constitutional power. Presumptive immunity on presidential power.

[Ian Millhiser]

Yeah.

[Sean Ramisburg]

You said there are three boxes or buckets here. What's the third?

[Ian Millhiser]

The third bucket is any crime he commits not using the official powers of the presidency. And so, like, if he. If he were to shoplift, if he were to cheat on his personal taxes, maybe he wants to go, like, falsify some more records in order to cover up a payment he made to a porn star. Like, anything that he does that is a crime that you or I could commit. In theory, he could still be prosecuted for that. But there's two caveats to that. One is that the opinion also said that you can't use any evidence at trial that comes from things he did as president. So, like, if there's a meeting with the presidential aide where they're discussing a bunch of presidential stuff, and he also says, by the way, I want you to help me cheat on my taxes, you probably can't get that presidential aide to testify against Donald Trump. And then, like, the second caveat, I'll just say to that point is, the things that we're afraid of about Donald Trump aren't that he's going to commit normal crimes. You know, I mean, I don't think that I'm gonna go out on the street and that Donald Trump is going to mug me. What I'm afraid of is that he is going to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. That is what makes him uniquely dangerous. And that is the area where the Supreme Court has said the president basically can do whatever the hell he wants.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Even in this era where we have a convicted felon becoming our president today, some of the things you're saying probably sound outlandish to people that Donald Trump is gonna jail you, Ian Millhiser, personally, or perhaps, you know, order the military to execute his enemies. And yet, since this decision came down last summer, the President has been trying to use it in court. Right. Can you tell us what's happened since July?

[Ian Millhiser]

Yeah. So I will. Two things have happened. I mean, first of all, I'll just say, like, I don't think it's very likely the President is gonna personally try to. Is gonna try to jail me. But, like, he has said that he might try to jail someone like Liz Cheney, who's a former Republican congresswoman who spoke out against him, and Cheney was.

[Donald Trump]

Behind it, and so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee for what they did. Yeah, honestly, they should go to jail. I think Hillary is very weak. I think she's pathetic.

[Ian Millhiser]

I think she should be in jail.

[Donald Trump]

For what she did with her emails. There's something wrong with Kamala, and I just don't know what it is, but there is definitely something missing. And you know what? Everybody knows it. She should be impeached and prosecuted for her actions.

[Ian Millhiser]

Where there are ambiguities is, again, what happens in that third bucket. What happens in that space where Trump is not using the powers of the presidency. So, you know, his actual conviction in New York, the specific crime he was convicted of there was falsifying business records in his personal business in order to cover up the fact that he used his personal funds to pay hush money to a porn star before he was elected president. So nothing he did there has anything to do with his official actions as president. But during the trial, there were presidential aides who testified against him. I believe that there might have been some documents that were produced while he was president that were used against him. And he was just in the Supreme Court saying that his New York conviction should be thrown out because the whole trial was invalid because the presidential aides testified and because there was evidence that was related to his presidency that was brought in at the trial. The good news there is that five justices decided to basically kick the can down the road on that case. Like, they didn't rule against Trump. They just said, we'll deal with this later. Four justices would have given him immunity. So, like, he already has four votes, and he only needs five for the proposition that we should toss out his conviction for personal actions he took with his personal money, using his personal business before he became President of the United States. Like, that's how much sympathy for Donald Trump there is on this Supreme Court.

[Sean Ramisburg]

But does he have a point that some of this investigation involved the presidency?

[Ian Millhiser]

I mean, here's the thing. Like, talking about this presidential immunity doctrine is a bit like asking if your daughter's imaginary friend likes ice cream. You know, it's just something someone made up. Like, the presidential immunity doctrine did not exist until July 1st of 2024. It's just something that six Republican justices made up, and they made it up recently.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Why would the judiciary give the executive so much extra power? Doesn't the judiciary like its own power? Is it ceding power to the presidency?

[Ian Millhiser]

I mean, I think that the most sympathetic take I can offer on the Trump v. United States decision is that there are six justices who have a very strong belief in a philosophy known as the theory of the unitary executive, which says that essentially, like all powers that belong to the executive branch are situated to the president, nothing can ever be done to limit the president's ability to exercise those powers. And so that explains why they said that the President is allowed to order the Justice Department to round up his enemies because Congress or the courts, if you believe in the unitary executive theory, aren't allowed to limit the President's control over the prosecutorial process. I think it explains why they said, I mean, there's a whole bunch of language in their decision about, well, if the President had to worry about being charged with the crime, he might do his job with less enthusiasm. He might be reluctant to do things because he'd be afraid of criminal charges. And, I mean, the response I have to that is that there were 46 other presidents and none of them committed crimes while in office or at least were charged with crimes while they were in office. Nixon is the one exception. And so it's a very poorly reasoned decision. And, you know, why did the Supreme Court say in the Dred Scott decision that black people are, quote, beings of an inferior order? Why did they say in Korematsu that President Roosevelt was able to round up hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans for the sin of having the wrong ancestor? Why did they say in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate but equal is okay? Like, sometimes the justices reach decisions that I just cannot understand the value system behind it. I mean, I can tell you because I have studied this thing called the unitary executive, what the theory is behind it. But I can't imagine how someone who has grown up in American schools and been taught American values can think that that decision is consistent.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Ian Milhiser, Vox.com Sean Romstrom and Noel King in line.

[Noel King]

In line with about 400 other people for the Capitol Arena.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Sean, we're gonna see Kid Rock sing.

[Noel King]

Ba Wita Ba God Bless America.

[Sean Ramisburg]

He's gonna do all the hits. Maybe we'll see Hadi Mwadi and Avishai Artsy.

[Noel King]

They produced today's show.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Maybe we'll see Amna Al Saadi, who edited Maybe we'll see.

[Ian Millhiser]

Laura Bowler.

[Noel King]

Laura Bohler. That's her up there.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Oh, my goodness. Andrea. Kristen's daughter. Patrick Boyd.

[Noel King]

The whole team's here.

[Sean Ramisburg]

Four more years of today. Explains.

[Noel King]

Four more years.