Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody's day. Another solo show, but I got plenty of guests, so don't worry. You don't just have to stare at my ugly mug. We're starting a little bit late today, as I said yesterday, to accommodate RFK Junior. We're going to have an exclusive interview here and get his reaction to the debate.
Very interested in that.
We are going to start off with amazing debate between Bradley Moss and Wilt Chamberlain. They're both lawyers and experts opposing views on the Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I will then break down some of the latest news regarding Joe Biden, his debate performance, the Democratic establishment and their reactions. We're also going to talk about Boeing getting criminally charged with fraud and what the fallout from that will be. So it's going to be a fantastic show.
Thank you to everybody, Premium subscribers who've been supporting us at Breakingpoints dot Com expanding our coverage. Don't forget we are going to be down on the ground in Chicago at the DNC.
So if you want to help support our work for.
That, as you said, become a premium subscriber and get all of those benefits. But with that, I've got two great guests standing by. Let's go ahead and bring them in. We've got Bradley Moss, he's a national security lawyer, and we've got Will Chamberlain. Both of these gentlemen have appeared
on the show before. Will is the senior counsel at the Article three project, and we're very excited to be joined by both of you because there's been a lot of discussion here about this Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I'm going to go ahead and put this up there on the screen and read a little bit from this, and I want to get both of your reactions. So the Supreme Court has ruled that the ex presidents have quote broad immunity, but the broad immunity applies only to
so called official acts. The secondary effect of this is going to dramatically decrease the chance of a pre election Donald Trump trial. Let's go to the next slide, Police, so I can read a little bit from the decision itself. The decision maintains that from the Conservative majority that has returned it to the trial court to determine what is then left of the Special Council Jack Smith indictment. As I said before, it applies to official acts of the presidency,
reading here directly from John Roberts. Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within this conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Brad,
I want to go ahead and start with you. There has been a lot of discussion about Justice Soda Mayor's dissent, in particular in which she claims that per Donald Trump under this authority would be allowed to send Seal Team six as pose and the hypothetical questioning to assassinate his political opponent. What is your reading of the decision? What did you make of the descent? Do you think that that's true?
Well, Justice Sotomayer is not too far off.
In terms of how the majority opinion has structured this. So to be clear, they basically created three buckets. One is that absolute immunity that goes for everything that's within the exclusive authority of the executive branch.
Think about it.
That's running the Justice Department, which is why they completely knocked out a couple of the charges against Donald Trump in the election interference case.
That's controlling the military.
He's the commander in chief, he has exclusive control of how the military operates. There's any number of things that an incumbent president can do with those authorities that, according to this majority opinion, are absolutely immune. But then let's extend it a little further. Let's say that there's a
dispute over whether or not it's within the core. Let's say, but it's still within the outer perimeters of a president's authority to say declare someone a national security threat and have the military seize them, put them in Gitmo, and
silence them. The court will still treat that as presumptively immune, and they will not allow in any evidence of the president's intent or any evidence that came from acts that are otherwise subject to absolute immunity, such as coordinating with Justice Department lawyers like say Jeffrey Clark, or coordinating with military officials such as a Secretary of.
Defense or the commander of the commander of the Joint Chiefs.
Any of those things would be evidence that would be excluded, and the government would still the prosecutor would still have to somehow demonstrate with through the remaining evidence that the presumptive immunity can be outweighed.
Would not infringe on executive authorities.
What could be more principle to the executive authority than identifying national security threats taking action to the secure of the public. This is a recipe for disaster with a president who chooses to abuse these authorities.
Will can we go ahead and get your bottle please?
I mean to that, I mean that's been the status quote for twenty years. President Obama assassinated the sign of the preacher all A. Lackey and hasn't been prosecuted. Really, that's honestly the settled understanding of our country. And I think the really simple way to understand the Supreme Court's decision is not some broad expansion of presidential immunity beyond what was already understood, but rather just reifying the kind
of common understanding. Nobody prosecuted President Obama, Nobody prosecuted President Bush for all the abuses of the intelligence services under his administration, and so I don't think that I think people are wildly overblowing this. The Supreme Court's opinion is actually substantially more modest then I think it should have been. Honestly, that a lot of and it's certainly not something that's going to lead to this parade of horribles that people are expecting.
Well that, yeah, you can go ahead and respond to that.
Yeah, I know these examples get brought up every time, the Bush and the Obama examples.
So let's be clear on something.
With the Bush examples, They're actual were inquiries conducted led by none other than John Durham at the time, who was the US attorney out there Connecticut, to look into whether or not there should be potential criminal charges brought. The fact that they did not does not mean they could not. The Just Department's opinion has never been in the past that a former president can't be prosecuted. That was never any ollc opinion. It was always just about
incumbent presidents. The courts had never concluded this prior to this decision. As for President Obama, there was no indication that anyone had.
Ever concluded he was immune.
If in fact the next presidents such as Donald Trump, had chosen to bring a case against him. There was no argument ever outlined in any Just Department documentation saying he was absolutely immune.
Would he have presumptive immunity according to this decision? Yeah? Could it be overturned? Absolutely?
Well.
I want to stick actually within a conservative framework, and because I have seen at least some more libertarian minded folks object to this on the grounds of executive power, can you just give us kind of a view, as you said, into the decision itself and where it should be.
I mean, hypothetically should a president you know, again not to necessarily stick with the sodom Or framework, but the media has given this and so we should have to play within it within that framework, like should that be something that should be hypothetically up then to the justice system or to the next administration to be able to bring charges against a former president or no, like in a genuine conceptual universe.
I mean, it should be extraordinarily challenging.
And I think the reason is precisely what the majority identified, which is this circumstance where presidents routinely prosecute their predecessors for acts that they took while they're in office. Because I mean, you think about how broad and how vague the statue that President Trump is being prosecuted under conspiracy
against rights, conspiracy against the United States. These are very broad, and you know, essentially it's like hindering the functioning of government as the crime well, I mean, presidents do things all the time that you know, push on the edges of the law, and that I could name like five off the top of my head that Biden has done.
If they aren't immune from prosecution for those, then it's really going to hinder the functioning the executive who's constantly going to be thinking about the consequences of their actions. You know, even you know, very even like simple presidential actions from a future political opponent who might hate them, and I mean the idea that that that was the world we were headed to in the absence of this rule, because I guarantee you, I mean President Biden should be
breathing a sigh of relief. He would have been prosecuted for any number of distinct official acts that he took well in office, parolling million, you know, million, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into the country, well beyond his parole authority, attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in the student loan.
Issues for his own political purposes.
All these things would have been prosecuted in a role where presidents weren't immune for their official acts. President Obama should be breathing a cyber relief because we certainly would have indicted in for murder on day one in January when President Trump takes office. So I think, I think it's a good thing for the country that they ended this sort of potential for this tit for tat escalation
and the destruction of the executive branch. And you know, you go all the way back to you know, why do we have the constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, which didn't have a functioning executive capable of taking action with dispatch. The entire you know, the thrust of the Federalist papers is about the importance of an energetic executive, and that's what the Supreme Court ruling preserves.
Brad, I want to give you a chance to respond to that.
Yeah, I'm trying really hard to left yet. Let me tell you, Democratic presidents are just so relieved. They were so terrified at the idea that they were going to be indicted any day now. Every president has known they are not above the law. Every other president has come and gone knowing they were not above the law, that if in fact they had committed crimes, there was not this complete immunity that could shield them forever.
And it didn't happen.
The reason Donald Trump got indicted is because Donald Trump couldn't accept he lost the election. And Donald Trump conspired to prevent the lawful certification electoral votes. He conspired to put up fake electors. That's why he got indicted in the DC case. No, wah, the president has been indicted for murder ever, and it's a laughable excuse that owe their relief.
Now give me.
A break, Okay, Well, let's stick with that though, because the January sixth element to this is actually quite important. Well, I'll let you lay out a little bit of this, because as I understand it, there is a parsing in the jack Smith charges, specifically between the so called official acts as president and instructions to the acting Attorney General versus the so called false electors scheme, which would perhaps fall into a campaign bucket.
What is your view of that?
Within the decision will lay some of that, and Brad, I'll let you do it as well.
I mean, yeah, the decision obviously distinguishes between the official acts of a president and his private acts. And I mean, I've read the opinion, but I need to I need to look at it again to confirm.
But I'm pretty confident they suggested that.
The fake electors or essentially the electors issue would probably all be private acts. I don't remember if they like firmly held that, but it's you know, something and something in that neighborhood.
Certainly.
Yeah, his discussions with what the Jeff Clark and the Department of Justice, I think they said would be absolutely imman because he is the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and the absolute right to be discussing with the Department of Justice how it's going
about its affairs. That said, I think, you know, people are saying, I mean, I think the big thing that I would disagree with in terms of what brat Moss is saying is that Trump did this unique, horrible fam I mean, you go back to twenty sixteen, we had objections from the Democrats, including people like Jamie Raskin to
the presidential electors. Go back to nineteen sixty we had the exact same mechanism used in the case of the Hawaii electors, where the election was extremely close and you had alternate electors who met to certify the votes even though they weren't the actual electors, the idea of being that they wanted to preserve their legal challenge. So the norm breaking here is not on the part of Trump going and trying to do something, you know, to challenge
the elector scheme in this way. The norm breaking is the attempt to be the first administration to ever prosecute
a former president. Throughout the Supreme Court opinion, it discusses like, why is this unique, Well, they decided to go after President Trump, they decided to launch an unprecedented lawfair campaign against him, indicting him in four jurisdictions on in forgerisdictions in four states in a little less than four months on you know, different criminal activity, sorry, alleged criminal activity, obviously, and the point being that, like, that's why this is unprecedented,
and that's why the Supreme Court needed to put a stop to it now. Otherwise, you know, because President Trump's going to beat Joe Biden. Joe Biden looked terrible at that last debate. He's going to lose by five or six. And I'm really glad that the Supreme Court decided to put a stop for this now because we would have tit for tat until the end of time.
It would be very very bad for the country.
Right would give him responsible Differently, Oh sure, here's the difference with twenty sixteen. Here's the difference with nineteen sixty, here's the difference with two thousand. It wasn't the incumbent president who was the louse in the election trying to lead these efforts.
To give that some context, to go back.
To twenty sixteen, when there were objections like there always are at the looktoral certification Imagine if between the date the Hillary conceded the Donald Trump and the certification of the votes in January sixth, twenty seventeen, if President Obama, using his official authorities, had been telling the DOJ to try to put out any claims, any fraudulent claims of fraud, put out any allegations they could to get state electors to reverse electoral certifications, to then lead to go to
a whole huge rally the day of the certification, tell them we're going to march on the Capitol. You have to be strong, and then say I'm going to march with you, and then that whole group breaks into the Capitol and tries to murder the incumbent Vice president and members of Congress. Imagine if that had happened. They're cool with that. They're cool with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
doing that. If Joe Biden loses on January sixth, twenty twenty five, they're saying, yeah, you can do that, and you have total immunity.
Go ahead, have fun.
Let's well give you a chance to respond.
I mean, you just just imagine a world where a president had after their preferred candidate had lost an election. Had decided to with his colleagues create an entire narrative that was totally false about the billionaire real estate aid billionaire real estate magnate turned president elect actually being an agent of a foreign country. Just imagine that that could never possibly happen.
And I got to be honest, a.
Coordinated conspiracy with the FBI, James Comy, all of them to completely be as a massive nonsense Russiagate narrative that ultimately led to three years of the future presidency being ruined admired in absolute nonsense.
Lawfair.
It's you know, the funny thing is this Lawfair campaign has been going on for nine years now. Effectively it started almost all the way back in twenty fifteen. So you know, the idea that basically my point being that it's like you're the point, the idea that a president who's party just lost an election wouldn't actually you know that this is some novel idea, that they would be very upset about it and trying to use every lawful measure lever at their disposal to try and undermine the
next president. Yeah, we saw that in twenty sixteen. That's exactly what the Democrats did to the Republicans. They're the ones. They're the first ones who really refused to accept the legitimate Seli election. I had, so I don't know enough time for the idea that this is some unique thing in American history. Twenty sixteen was as bad or worse.
Let's get brad fullchanswersp.
The wonderful the love affair they have with the idea that the whole Russian investigation was just the hoax.
Even the Senate.
Republican report that came out in twenty nineteen said the Trump campaign wittingly used Russian disinformation. There was a counterintelligence threat by the fact that the campaign manager was giving polling data to his Russian Holigarc benefactor. The campaign manager got convicted and went to prison. The deputy campaign manager pled guilty, multi bull staffers pled guilty. It was the most ridiculous idea that there was nothing to this. Could you prove a conspiracy to to commit a crime for
Donald Trump? No, when I said the day after the mulliport came out, they never proved that. In the end, it was two ships passing in the night. But the idea there was not an encounterintelligence threat that Donald Trump's tampaign didn't wittingly use what they had been warned was Russian counterintelligence.
Disinformation is ridiculous. It's in the Mother.
Report, It's in the Senate Republican report, the last take Republicans.
Okay, last word on Russia, gay before we move on to the trial. Go ahead.
Well, I mean, the entire investigation was predicated on the Steel Report, which accused the President of urinating on Russian prostitutes. And that was all false, all nonsense, none of it corroborated, all ridiculous. The idea that you're still, you know, nine years later, defending this nonsense broadly, is ridiculous.
All right, So let's then stick with stick with the trial itself. As I think we can all agree that the trial is going to be delayed. I want to give Brad. You can give us perhaps a rundown on why and what that mechanism looks like as some of this works its way through the courts.
Go ahead, No, I mean, the cases are not going to happen at this point before the before the election. There's just no chance that's never going to happen. So the case goes back to the district court.
The judge Chuck in in DC.
Biggest question is does Jack Smith's move to sort of gut and narrow down the indictment to just the fake elector's scheme?
I know, will it brought that up?
The actual the majority opinion didn't actually clarify one way or the other what they thought of it.
It came up in oral arguments a lot.
That'll certainly be an issue of dispute of whether or not that was a purely personal act. Trump's lawyers were on CNN last night with Kate and Collins saying they view organizing the slate of false electors as an official presidential act. That'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. But that has to be now disputed in pre trial motions. No matter what the ruling, either side can appeal it. Kate's immunity that'll take at least a year to flesh out.
But also the other cases are all stuck on hold now. Florida.
I mean even it was already delayed anyways because of the classified elements of that case, but now that immunity fight has to be drawn out. And think about this, this is the lovely thing we got from Trump's arguments in Florida.
In the documents case.
According to Donald Trump, on the last day of his presidency, Joe Biden can literally walk out of the White House carrying boxes that say top secret sci information, flip off the media, and say, by virtue of the fact that I'm still president for the next twenty minutes, i am now declaring all this personal records and you can't touch me.
Go ahead, well.
On what point?
Oh well, yeah, I'm just serious. I'm curious. Well, ay,
if you want to respond to that. But also in terms of the legitimacy of the current cases that stand, as I understand it, the Trump campaign and Trump's lawyers are moving to dismiss both the Georgia indictment against him, delay the Florida case, but perhaps most importantly is to lay the July eleventh sentencing that is currently awaiting for the New York trial because I believe that the original indictment that was presented against Trump actually did occur while
he was the sitting president of the United States, as stated in the Facts by Alvin Bragg.
So go ahead, yeah, I mean, I can see why they try to do that. I think that, you know, the primary impact of this will obviously felt on the j six indictment of the Georgia indictment. Both of those really directly deal with the president's actions while he was president. The classified information is a little bit more interesting because it sort of touches on right when he started and stopped being president. And so I think that that is a little bit less in a little bit. It could
go either way. I don't really you know, it's hard to see how that would happen. I think if that case is probably going to get results actually at the big outset on the idea that Jack Smith wasn't a legitimate but the Special Council appoyment was improper, and so the prosecution's improper. And yet New York I think that's just an attempt to lay the sentencing.
Got it all?
Right?
Well, I'm gonna end and in a tactic that Christal always does, which is asking each to steal man necessarily other. So, Brad give us the Steelman case as to why the soda mayor descent and the democratic response, including the president declaring that there is now king in office if needed?
Why is that incorrect in the American system?
The reason it would be incorrect is the simple sense that the separation of powers the existence of Congress, the existence of the judicial branch and their ability to oversee how the executive performs its duties still remains in place. The ability of states to still govern themselves in terms of how their personnel are handled. Those things still exist. So to the extent that just a Soda mayor went too far, it's the idea that a president is still
subject to a four year term. It's the idea that a president still subject to all the constitutional amendments and the restrictions that exist based off Article on an Article three are still in place.
Well, give us the counter kase and a conceptual world. Why would this ruling necessarily be bad in the American system? Take Trump out of it. What could be the worst case scenario.
I don't think the Soda Maora descent has any merit at all, but I will say I think Barrett's concurrence makes a reasonable point, which is the sort of I think the most interesting and contestical part of the majority opinion is about the whether or not official acts, even if you're immune from them, can be used as evidence,
and how exactly that would work. I think there's an interesting debate between the majority opinion and the concurrence kind of about whether or not bribery status prosecutions would ultimately work. I think so that's I think the strongest point against the majority opinion. But I found soda my ORI's descent. I mean, honestly, I don't think it's steel manable. I think that's just one of the weakest pieces of legal writing I've read in quite a while.
Still a good point there on the bribery statute and more, gentlemen, will have links to your twitters both in our ex'es. I apologize in the description of this video, and I think people will really get a lot out of this. I actually learned a lot, So thank you both. We appreciate you absolutely Holy.
That was a great debate.
I really enjoyed it, especially the callback to Russia gay But there's also been some major Supreme Court cases that we should cover, especially since we're already on the subject and we spent a lot of yesterday on Joe Biden, which we still have plenty left to talk about. Let's talk with the first major decision, arguably more consequential than anything we talked about in the last couple of days, and we'll put it up there on the screen and
that is what is known as Chevron. The Supreme Court struck down Chevron and curtailing the power of federal agency. So this one can get a little bit complicated, but the top line that you just need to know is this is that the power of the administrative state has been dramatically diminished. So the way that it works is that the nineteen eighty four case, which was known as Chevron versus the Natural Resources Defense Council, gave rise to
a doctrine known as a Chevron doctrine. Chevron says that if Congress has not directly addressed a question at a center of the dispute, a court is required to uphold the agency's interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. So, for example, we will look at what was actually brought. So the case itself focused on a
fishery and specifically on a fine. The fine was levied by the federal government on a fishery as a result of an interpretation of a statute that was viewed by the people who were fined as illegitimate and not reasonable.
The overturning of Chevron is landmark because it no longer gives the administrative state the authority in order to say that under this reasonable statute and the interpretation that we can exercise certain rules and monetary fines, which means that the administrative state and specifically now the court system, will have to determine every single action that is done now by the agencies to see if it falls within Congress's
mandate to the agencies. The way that it currently works is that the administrative state, and this is one of the libertarian critiques of the government, has expanded far beyond its original purview. The fine example is a perfect one. As Congress says, hey, you got to regulate our waters, they decide that regulation equals fine, but Congress never said anything about fines. Thus this leads to the striking down
of the Chevron doctrine. What's kind of fascinating is if you look back in time in nineteen eighty four, is that it's actually Republicans who celebrated that decision because Ronald Reagan was in power, and it empowered the Reagan administration to interpret federal law and administrative law in the way
that they wanted. Since then, though, it has become i would say the number one want and goal of the federalist society and of a lot of the conservative legal movement, which views the expansion of the the strait of states specifically nineteen eighties onward, combined with the ideological kind of center left neoliberal revolution as one which is a quasi foreth arm of government that is unelected.
This gets to the bureaucracy case.
Now, the counter to everything that I'm saying is that this effectively means that any time the government wants to do anything and address let's say a novel situation, something like AI or something like crypto or anything like that, that these agencies have no power to respond unless Congress specifically acts and passes at Now, theoretically that's the way that I want it to work, but let's also keep this in mind. They don't pass anything these days except
unless it's aid for Ukraine and for Israel. So this dramatically kind of leaves it to basically the free market and really could possibly lead to situations getting totally out of control before Congress even wakes up pays attention, and by that time it could be too late. So let's go to the next element, just to give you some more of the count. This one specifically focuses on climate, but it is a good example kind of into the
kind of into the mechanisms that are in play here. So, for example, the Inflation Reduction Act, right, the Inflation Reduction Act has given these ad these administrative agencies the power to quote force energy companies, automakers, manufacturers to curb pollution and to reduce it unless Congress steps in. However, it means though that the EPA will not have nearly as
much administrative authority to regulate power plants and others. What they also talk about is that quote it authorizes a more muscular posture by the judiciary when reviewing the decisions of.
The administrative agencies.
So the reason why this matters, as you previously saw with Chevron, is that the courts were not really allowed to overrule as long as it was en quote a reasonable standard. Now every single ruling by any of these administrative agencies can be challenged by big business and by in the court system, and depending on where they bring the case, depending on the judge, etc. As we all know, you could easily lead to that either getting struck down or tied up in the legal system. It has to
go all the way up to appellate courts. As we just saw in our previous segment. This stuff takes a very very long time. So arguably as it comes to business and the way that everything is regulated in this country,
Chevron getting struck down is a landmark event. Obviously, you know people who are big government authority figures, which not necessarily on the left, by the way, I spoke with some right wing figures, and there is actually some concern that the repeal of Chevron will significantly curtail Donald Trump's ability, let's say, to carry out some of the immigration policy that he wants to if he were to assume office.
So there's several things like with respect to what is known as public charge in welfare, where you know, basically illegal immigrants, depending on the circumstances, could or could not qualify for welfare. That was something that the Trump administration tried the first time around.
There was also this huge case around the census.
All of these things involve comment administrative law and interpretation of the law by the sitting executive, whereas this time around it takes a lot of authority to the court.
So even though we just had the Supreme Court case about presidential immunity, the Chevron doctrine significantly curtails the overall administrative state, which by definition means that it will lessen at least some of the power of the federal government, especially in the realm of the economy and determining, especially the president's absolute authority over military matters.
If you ask me, should probably be revers shouldn't it.
Let's also get to the next part because this is an also highly significant case. This was a case that we led with on the show several months ago. The Supreme Court unfortunately rejected the challenge to the Biden administration's contacts with social media companies, and this was a major, major First Amendment case with respect to how the government
should interact with social media platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Basically, what the decision came down to is that the authority and First Amendment rights of Americans is not infringed upon by the government if it has a contact with social media company or if it, let's say, whips up a campaign and leads to third party calls for censorship, it
does not violate your First Amendment rights. Now, obviously this is not the way that I think the decision should be because there is an implicit threat of power in my opinion, Let's think about the Alex Barentson case, for example, where you literally have White House officials who are emailing executives over at Twitter and saying why is this account still up?
Now?
They're not ordering you to take down the account, but the mere suggestion, and especially in working with conjunction with other groups surrounding the so called censorship industrial complex, leads to a snowball effect which could then lead to your digital rights a quote unquote freedom of speech to be curtailed.
Now.
Basically what they found, though, is that the executive has broad, broad authority to maintain their contacts with these social media companies. So, for example, this is written by Justice amy Cony Barrett. The plaintiffs, without concrete link between injuries and the defendant's conduct, ask us to review years long communications between dozens of federal officials across different agencies with different social media platforms
about different topics. This Court's standing doctrine prevents us from exercising general legal oversight of the other branches of the government. There was, though, actually a pretty important descent from Justice Alito Thomas and Neil Gorsich. They say, for months, high ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress American's free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address
this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent. Obviously, this White House is very happy about this. The Biden administration said, quote Supreme Court's decision is the right one. It helps ensure the Biden administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and the
security of the American people. So unfortunately, a so called you know, firewall between the government and the social media companies was not erected by the Supreme Court when they had the opportunity, I think to really set the standard from the beginning and make sure that there is not collusion going on. Justice Kavanaugh, for example, gave what I
thought was a really stupid example. He said, well, under this standard, you know, White House official shouldn't be allowed to talk to reporters because they're constantly trying to manage the information that is being put out. But that is a single instance for a single paper. That is not the same thing as a platform, especially in a monopolist environment like the one we're in today, where all of these platforms can simultaneously just take somebody down and dramatically
limit their exposure. There's also the so called shadow batting effect, which of course has no oversight, no insight from the federal government, and which has been highly encouraged, you know, especially during the whole vaccine era January sixth misinformation COVID Chinese origin of coronavirus I could go on forever regardless. The point is is that these two cases are very,
very significant. They may even be frankly more significant than the immunity case, because what we have now is a standard that the government can pressure the hell out of a social media company if they want to to take somebody something down that has no infringement on your First Amendment rights. And then also the administrative state and the delegated authority that it previously had without judicial review no
longer stands. So take those two things and understand that that is going to dramatically shape the next administration, perhaps the next Trump administry, and it may not be in the way that some right wingers actually wanted it to be, and we might see some of the First Amendment concerns really come back to bite some of these people in the ass. Any Palestine protesters out there I may not be so happy about this one, especially if Donald Trump does get elected. So Joe Biden daigned to make his
first public appearance yesterday. He made some comments on the Supreme Court. It was scheduled for seven forty five pm. There was a lot of anticipation. This is President Biden's first appearance since his disastrous public debate. Is he going to a la concerns? Is he going to speak for a long time? Is he going to show us that he really can do the job? Is he going to take any questions from all the reporters? Pretty much none of that happened. He spoke for a record four minutes.
He took no questions, He read off of a script, including at one point saying quote end of quote, showing that it was the end of the quote in the teleprompter. And then, perhaps most puzzling of all, was caked in orange makeup.
Not an exaggeration. Let's put this up there on the screen.
This is a side by side that's Biden at the debate, that's Biden yesterday. And there's no photoshop, there's no editing. I swear to you this is a real image. And we are already seeing reporting from multiple mainstream media outlets that Biden's staff is apparently very upset with CNN because they're blaming the makeup artists for not putting enough makeup on him and appearing to pale and out of it. Right,
it's the makeup people's fault. It's also apparently their fault that he didn't know which camera to look at, even though Trump somehow figured it out in the course of the debate. Interesting, right, that these are the excuses that we're coming up with. So orange man, bad question mark. That's one that cheetoh, Jesus and all of that perhaps will be changing the Democrats and the center left will
be changing their tune on that one. This funny part stuff though aside, there's some very serious stuff going on right now by the Biden campaign and the people behind him to try and shut down any conversation about him dropping out of the race.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
This is perhaps the most insane one is that Democrats are currently weighing nominating Biden through the unofficial or through the official channels online to circumvent all of the talk of dropping him from the tickets. So you can see this from Bloomberg. A mid July vote would formally tap Biden as the nominee as early as July twenty. First, the president's allies have pushed back then on the calls for replacement, and they believe that this would accomplish two
birds with one stone. Number one is that it would qualify him for the ballot much earlier in several states, as opposing to having him to wait a month. But number two is, look, it's July second, nineteen days. That's a long time, especially for an old man. But two months is way longer than that. It's a political eternity. So what they want to do is nominate him officially and then it's over. You can't even attempt to have a broker convention or a contested convention.
So this is as rigged as it gets. Folks.
Remember they were already doing this because they were worried about Palestine protesters and uncommitted delegates disrupting the official nomination process. This means they would move it fully online even earlier to disrupt concerns about his age and any Israel Gaza protests, and then make the convention a coronation as opposed to something that was actually contested. So this is a full on conspiracy by Biden, his family, and his closest aids
to ram this through as soon as possible. Let's go to the next part, please, because this shows us part of the push and pull of everything that is going on here. So, for example, Governor Whitmer, who has been hailed as some alleged replacement for Joe Biden, well it turns out that the very day after the debate, Governor Whitmer of Michigan phoned Jennifer O'Malley Dylon, she is the campaign manager for the Biden campaign, to quote relay that Michigan in the wake of the debate is no longer
winnable for Joe Biden. So look, any scenario where Biden doesn't win Michigan is basically game over. Remember Biden won Michigan in twenty twenty. Trump barely won Michigan in twenty sixteen. I think it was only like ten thousand votes or so. But he needs Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to go in his direction because right now all polling in the world indicates that Georgia and Arizona and Nevada are likely gone without those three so called Blue Wall states, he's done.
So if he's losing in Michigan according to the city governor there, I don't even know what the hell this entire purpose of this is. You can nominate him early if you want, but then you're basically guaranteed to lose. There's also a lot of other stuff going on right now, for example, Post Bay polls. This one is insane, it's shocking. Let's put this up there on the screen just to
show you. In the state of New Hampshire, a New Saint ansel College poll shows Donald Trump at forty four percent, Joe Biden at forty two percent, RFK Junior at four Now you would say, hey, but Biden's you know, he's pretty close there, right, Yeah, you shouldn't even be in the margin of error because he won the state by over five points last time around. It wasn't even supposed to be a battleground state. It hasn't been really looked
at as a battleground state for a long time. Trump came kind of close in twenty sixteen, but you know, look, that was the best possible circumstance for him and he still barely lost it. So what are we doing here when Biden is trailing Trump in New Hampshire. This just puts all kinds of states on the map which previously we weren't even thinking about. And let's go to the next part because we can just continue and roll down this. You know a Seltzer, we previously brought you her Iowa poll.
Ann Seltzer is perhaps the best polster in this entire country, the state of Iowa. She says that Donald Trump is up by nearly twenty points in Iowa. Why do we care, Yeah, Iowa is a red state because let's say the nearby states like Wisconsin, for example, that Trump obviously or that Biden needs to win if he has any chance, Well, that means he's probably losing Wisconsin by seven to ten points.
Then you've got here.
Journalist John Ralston pretty much the gold standard whenever it comes to Nevada politics. He says Biden is not only losing Nevada, but he is dragging the Democrats down down ballot. Here's what he says. My thoughts here on New York Times Siena. This is a very bad poll for Joe Biden. I also think it is terrible for Jackie Rosen and Democratic House incumbents. I am not a huge fan of most Nevada poles, and this one certainly has anomalies. But
Biden is losing here. When John Rawlston speaks, I'm listening, folks, and just over and over again, we are watching just really a meltdown, a national meltdown for Joe Biden at almost every level. And yeah, Biden has sixty three percent unfavorable rating in Nevada compared to Trump's fifty Nearly two thirds here have an unfavorable view of the president.
My goodness.
Well that's not all, folks, because already Republican candidates are picking up on the Biden debate performance, smacking Joe Biden and all of the Democratic candidates here, for example, is Dave McCormick in the state of Pennsylvania running against Bob Casey, another critical background state.
Let's take a listen. The worst bit I've ever seen in my entire life, no two ways about it.
That was not a good debate for Joe. It's pain. Oh my god, Oh my god, oh my god.
So what do we do about this, Whatever.
We have to do with.
Whether you have Joe Biden do to make the case that he's not an elderly, well meaning gentleman.
People are going to see it in the campaign, and he's prepared to do this job today and with the.
Real want best. Buddy's right post post screen with poses three, Bobby Casey, I have a lot of confidence in leadership. I have a lot of confidence in this leadership. No question, he's prepared to do.
This job today.
I mean, just take a look at that.
You are going to see that at every single race for the next several months, which is just genuinely devastating for these folks and it just makes it very questionable as to how you could be able to pull this out. So this is all the campaign debating polling that we have so far. I actually have one right in front of me which just came out, So let me go ahead and read it to everybody because it is actually more of a counter signal and I want to be
able to present the whole picture. This is from Harvard Harris poll and guys, we'll put this in a post production if we can. It says among those who watched the debate, did the debate make you more or less likely to voe for Biden? Biden less likely forty two percent, No impact thirty five more likely twenty three, Trump more likely forty no impact, thirty five less likely twenty six.
So look for Biden, you still got the biggest number there at forty two percent saying I'm less likely to vote for you.
That is not good.
I mean, that just shows you again how devastating it was, whereas it's only twenty six percent Trump forty percent more likely.
There for more likely whenever it comes to Trump.
You put all that together and I'm just seeing a total wipeout that is happening on the campaign front.
The bottom is falling out.
That doesn't mean, though, that the Democrats aren't still going to try and rig the process and nominate him before the convention to shut down any of the conversation about dropping him off the ticket. Sticking with the theme of the establishment rigging the process, We've got even more details from you that don't just have to do with the DNC.
Let's put this up there on the screen. Here we have ron Klain, the former chief of staff to the President, and then the person who also helped him prepare for the debate. He says it is one hundred percent certain that Biden is staying in the race. Big money donors. He say, don't get to dictate the nominee of the Democratic Party. Well, it's not like the voters really got to dictate the nominee of that party either, because there was no primary. They didn't even get to vote, There
was no debate, there was nothing. They were hidden by people like you behind the curtain. Before we could no longer deny reality in front of all of our eyes. Let's go to the next one, please, because this is actually the craziest one. This is quote behind the curtain, inside the Biden salvation plan. Let's leave this up there
just so I cannot read from it. A massive political pr personal campaign is underway to reject calls for President Biden to drop his re election race and rally Democrats to move on from the public debate and about his age and his future. Biden has zero interest in stepping aside. First Lady Joe Biden. Key family members agree the intrigue. Biden is ducking tough interviews and avoided no press conferences. Is now considering both. He is looking for a town
hall or a big one on one. This month, during a family gathering at Camp David, Biden family members including Hunter went through with the long scheduled session with celebrity photographer any Leibowitz. The Biden's insisted the president was stay in the race. They are all in and want him to stay behind the scenes. Biden friends are now blaming longtime aids who prepped Biden. They complained about everything from the data having answers, to his makeup to briefing on
the camera angles. The President smoothed it over. He called former chaff Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who I just referenced, to lead the team, and one of the things they talked about was that while he doesn't blame him for prep, that they will continue forward. The campaign spokesperson said that the aids who prepared President Biden have been with him for years. Ron Klain is expected to lead Biden's prep for now the second debate, and to be fair, Klain has let debate prep for every president.
Since Bill Clinton, So it kind of makes sense.
Really, though, is inside this survival strategy Number one is they want to quote dismiss bedwetting. They want to continue to go after anybody who is breaking ranks and say that they're bedwetterers, that they're cowards, that they're not sticking by the president. They're trying to turn this into their access Hollywood moment Number twoote.
They want to squeeze poles for juice.
Biden allies are circulating poles and focus groups showing that the debate did little to change the dynamics of the race. Not actually true though, considering the poll that we just showed you in our last segment, number three, this is the most important. They want to warn of chaos. So remember that Jen Psaki clip I played for everybody earlier.
But Biden allies are making plain in private conversation the perils of an open convention, the risks of picking a Democrat even more unpopular than Biden, namely Vice President Kamala Harris. So what they're doing is they're stabbing their own vice president in the back. They're like, see, she's even more unpopular. Can we can't run with her? They want to quote limit descent. They're orchestrating supportive tweets by Clinton, by Obama,
the ones they showed to yesterday. Those are happening after quote furious back channeling by allies. They're keeping all elected leaders close, Chuck Schumer, Hakem Jeffries, They're like, listen, guys, you're sticking with me, and you're not going anywhere. Getting the donor class to chill out. They're getting, specifically Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks Fame, to work the phones and to go after anybody who is saying that it is Biden. Biden should drop out. Quote they want to prove vitality.
That'll be an interesting one. Basically, they want to do the bait and switch that they did yesterday, which is there like, look, look how good he is on these prescripted rallies surrounded by supporters.
Why can't he have been like that at the debate.
And it's like, well, because the debate was at night, and he literally has sundowning and also he's reading off of a teleprompter, and obviously that's a lot easier.
Number eight is ignore and engage the media.
Biden allies want everyone to ignore prominent columnists who love Biden and are now calling for his resignation. And on the other hand, the White House is quote deeply engaged with reporters writing about presidential fitness, pushing as much back as possible that they can.
Now.
What they say is that the Biden kitchen cabinets, he's a recipe for a narrow victory that includes a grand slam speech.
At the Democratic Convention in Chicago. That'll be interesting.
I'll be in the room along with the rest of our staff that can't wait to watch that one and quote a strong showing in the next second debate plus positive economic news in the fall. So basically, they believe that this full court press survival strategy, rigging the process, going after the elected leaders, arranging the former presidents all behind him, will keep him limping along and that maybe, just maybe they can drag their way out of it.
Let's go to the next part, please, because this also is a little bit of a problem I think for the Biden people, I mean guys. She literally, Jill Biden is sitting for the cover of Vogue the very day after this disastrous performance. She says, quote, we will decide our future. And I mean more importantly, when you read this article, it is very clear that the trappings of
power are very attractive. I always say to our current first lady, And in fact, as we showed you yesterday with that clip where she said, Joe, you knew all of the facts, as if that was or sorry, Joe, you answered every question you knew all of the facts, as if that is supposed to be the baseline from which we're congratulating again the most disastrous debate performance by any American president ever. Anyway, I think it's important you guys know now we've got the DNC plan. We've got
now inside details of what that plan looks like. So
what I would look for, this is my prediction. They need to find a media sit down interview with a friendly enough person, preferably a Jensaki, right, maybe Simone Sanders, if we want to get a little crazy, they would go with Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, somebody like that, somebody who's a regime like apparatchick, but not somebody who's going to go out on a limb, and they want him to ask a few challenging questions and we'll go with that and there'll be a long sit down and interview.
They're going to blast it all over cable and they're going to see look at his performance. At the same time, I think we're going to see a lot more of what we saw last night, Biden trying to prove that he can speak at night, but doing a four minute press conference, right four minutes, taking no questions but reading scripted more North Carolina type rallies. And then they're going to prop up the DNC speech, which again is off
of a teleprompter, not impromptu whatsoever. They're probably going to make it lengthy like Stay of the Union level, where he reads off of the script and they're going to see, look, he can speak for over an hour, he remains cogent, but at the end of the day, it's all going to be scripted and at the same time using behind the the scene strategies to knife any potential political opponent,
any person who speaks out of line. At the same time, we're starting to see some Democratic officials finally began to speak out. First and foremost is Governor Andy Basheer of Kentucky. Obviously, he is a bluestak governor, red state, one of the most popular Democrats in the entire country.
What did he have to say? It was not kind. He basically was like, yeah, I guess it's up to him, but it was terrible. Let's take a listen. Well, the debate performance was rough.
It was a very bad night for the president. Now that he is still the candidate, only he can make decisions about his future candidacy.
And so as long as he continues to be in the race, I support.
Him and that you might jump in then, Boss, that you might slot in, which would you if you had to?
Only the President can determine his future as a candidate. He is the candidate, and as long as he is supporting him.
So I think people want to make sure that this is a campaign that's ready to go and win, that the President and his team are being candid with us about his condition, that this was a real anomaly.
So that's a very important clip. The first part Governor Andy Basheer. The second part there that we showed you was was Sheldon white House. Now what arguably even more important because Sheldon white House is the Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, longtime Democrat. This is a standard guy. These people don't speak out against the White House hardly ever, but for him to basically go after the White House and almost accuse them of a cover up and questioned
Biden's performance very significant. I also think Governor Andy Basheer there breaking from the White House and really being the first major Blue governor to acknowledge how disastrous that debate was for Joe Biden is a major event. It's also been some major breaking news that actually just happened. I'll go ahead and just bring into all of you. This is from Jake Tapper. He says that Democratic governors actually held a call yesterday afternoon, just the governor's, no staff,
no White House. On the call, Democratic governors express concern about what's going on with the president. They know that if they come forward publicly with concern, they will cause Biden to dig in. They are also shocked that Biden has not contacted any of them. There was a discussion about wanting to have a call with a campaign or the White House, some discussion about having Vice President Harris come and address their concerns. Strong sentiment they need to hear directly from Joe Biden.
Quote.
They are trying to set up a meeting with the White House or via zoom, but the White House knows of this request. They are not coming in with any specific message, but they feel the need to hear directly from President Biden. So you combine these two things. We've got Blue state governor. He's speaking out publicly. He's like, yeah, it's up to him, only he can make that decision. You only say that when you're like, look, this guy is screwed. Number two, you got their Sheldon white House
again totally normy Democratic senator. Let's go to the next part, and we have here example a tweet from Tim Ryan, former Senate candidate in Ohio, Democrat. He says, we have to rip the band aid off. There's too much at stake. The Vice president has significantly grown into her job. She will destroy Trump in a debate, highlight the choice issue, energize our base, bring back young voters, and give us generational change. Quote it's time. I mean, look, I don't
necessarily agree with that analysis, but important. Nonetheless, this is a guy from red state again Democrat. They seem to be the ones who are willing to speak out a little bit. There was also an interesting interview with Representative Mike Quigley Illinois fifth District, normal Democrat to again really acknowledging how bad it was for Biden and saying some troubling things for the White House.
Let's take a list. I think his four years are.
One of the great presidencies of our lifetime, but I think he has to be honest with himself this decision he's going to have to make.
He clearly has to understand.
I think what you're getting to here is that his decision not only impacts who's going to serve in the White House the next four years, but who's going to serve in the Senate, who's going to serve in the House, and it will have implications for decades to come.
It sounds like you're actually open to the idea that it might be the right decision for him to step aside.
I think what I'm stressing is it has to be his decision, but we have to be honest with ourselves that it wasn't just a horrible night. But I won't go beyond that out of my respect and understanding President Joe Biden, the very proud person who has served us extraordinarily well for fifty years.
But it's his decision.
I just want him to appreciate at this time just how much it impacts not just his race, but all the other races coming in November.
They're all using the same rhetoric, it's up to his decision. But look, he's opening the door. He's like, look, you need to get the hell out of here. And then at the same time, the nine are out for Biden and because the media is just no longer going to continue to play this game that they have. Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame comes out with a new report last night with more dementia ridden episodes that he can tell us about that has Biden has experienced behind the scenes.
Let's take a listen to Carl Bernstein.
These are people, several of them who are very close to President Biden, who love him, have supported them and have been among them, or some people who have raised a lot of money for him, and they are adamant that what we saw the other night that Joe Biden
we saw is not a one off. That there have been fifteen twenty occasions in the last year and a half when the president has appeared somewhat as he did in that horror show that we witness And what's so significant is the people that this is coming from, and also how many people around the president are away of such incidents, including some reporters incidentally, who have witnessed some of them.
The people who were you know, working with him at Camp David allegedly in this intensive debate prep if there were concerns there about this, and I don't know if you have any got any word about that. But how anybody involved in that debate prep, I mean, didn't anybody see something?
Well?
The debate prep was was supervised by Ron Klain, who has been with President Biden for many years, and people I've talked to have all been to Ron Klain in the last year to say, we have a problem. We have a problem such as we saw the other night, that there have been numerous instances where the president has lost his train of thought can't pick it up again.
There was a fundraiser at which he started at the podium, and then he became very stiff, according to the people there, as if it were almost a kind of rigor mortis.
This was said report.
It really needs to be explored, according to the people I'm talking to, and I think an awful lot of major Democrats believe this, including some who have made statements to the contrary.
The insane part is that Carl Bernstein is basically the same age as Joe Biden, and look at him. He seems relatively fine, I guess.
I mean, he's only eighty years old spring Chicken, compared to the eighty one year old Joe Biden. This is what we're dealing with I mean, look, this is obviously it was obvious to everybody given the public image and the public moments that Biden has had. But now to have these moments openly acknowledged on CNN of all places, also by a prominent reporter like Carl Bernstein, that's just knives out by at least some people around President Biden
that are going to be acknowledging the truth. And as more and more Democrats are open and acknowledging this and willing to speak to the media, the cascade is just going to continue.
Keep this in mind too.
This is a holiday weekend, a lot of people are on vacation, but starting July ninth, Congress is actually back in session, So keep that in mind. And just to explain that, is that all of these Democratic congressmen, they're going to be here in Washington and they're going to be surrounded by reporters. They're not going to be able to get away with no comments. Right now, they're all at home, or they're doing constituent events, or they're on vacation, they can dodge if they need to.
When you're here in DC, it is not that easy.
You're going to have every microphone in your face like this, if you're Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, or any of these other people not homing, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, every single one of these folks is going to have to comment or issue in no comment, which is in itself is very very telling. So this is a big moment. So we've given you both sides the story here. There's the rigging process, but there's also some starting bubblings about at
least trying to get him off the ticket. We'll see which one wins out.