Hot Swap growing, donors revolt, President Kamala? SCOTUS breakdown: Immunity, Chevron, Censorship

all right everybody welcome back it's hot swap summer here at the Allin podcast episode 1086 of the world's number one podcast calling in from the home office in Italy chth poopaa how are you doing sir great how are you you look so relaxed look at you look at you you but it's only been two days that I'm working I mean I'm not that relaxed yet but this place does put you in the right mood I got to all right saxs I'm sure that it's been an uneventful week for you how are you doing in the great state of California from our headquarters at the all-in tower in San Francisco how's the all-in tower doing why are you doxing me what's going on here CU you live in San Francisco everybody knows that all you have to do is look for the protests follow the protest and you'll find sex also with us of course from the ohal headquarters is that Backdraft the house is on fire house is on fire but house you're referring to which house which house America Democrats or Biden's house there's a political party there I mean you can interpret it as you wish oh okay there you go your butt is your butt on fire did you have some bad Indian food did you hit the taco truck what happened there's a heat wave in the west right now he stopped at the taco truck the West is on fire the West is on fire okay okay Dr Doom if you want to come to the Allin Summit now in year three we've got a ton of programming updates but the tickets are going to sell out we just released another 100 tickets I'm sorry you have a fly like a tack in your head right now you look like Mike Pence Jesus is it a Mike Pence moment it's a Mike Pence fly it's a Mike Pence fly yeah it is a pence moment God or it could be like a a Biden moment circling the dead God that's too dark that's pretty dark it's pretty dark okay three two let your winners ride Rainman David and instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy [Music] withen for folks who are interested in meeting the other lunatics who listen to this pod if you have no money and no budget you can come to one of the 50 meetups that are currently happening around the world next week on Thursday July 11th go to Allin podcast.co meetups Allin podcast.co meetups you can host or you can join them it's for $0.0 now if you're doing well you got a little extra cheddar and you want to get together at the all-in summit that's in September we held back 400 tickets according to freeberg who is running the summit now he's released 100 this week so get your applications in and if you are trying to score a ticket or a speaking G gig just don't email me email freedberg freedberg any updates on the content people want to know what's on the on the docket we're definitely going to be talking about the changing landscape of American politics so we are going to have some representation there uh to to have that conversation we're going to be talking about the the future of media we're going to be doing some really cool technology deep Dives in areas like robotics age reversal EVs and uh talking a lot about AI meets Enterprise software so we have a number of you know the leading Enterprise software CEO joining us for conversations on that front so it's shaping up to be really amazing programming like Jason said we're we held back 400 tickets from the initial batch and we're going to release 100 this week so put an application in we're trying to be selective and it's going to be amazing the parties are going to be awesome really excited how it's coming together you're doing some uh bird of a Feather dinners I understand this year some New Concept can you explain that to me the first night of the summit we're we've rented out a bunch of great restaurants around town in LA and we're putting people together for dinner at all these different restaurants and then the parties are nights 2 and three which are going to be you know beautiful it's gonna be great everybody comes to the parties but that first night everyone comes to the dinners everything yeah it's gonna be great so so we're trying to create more space for people to meet each other I know that's been a big thing in the past in the meetups and at the Summit is people love meeting other folks in the communities so yeah smaller groups so the dinners will be 200 people or something like that you can expect couple hundred depending on the location yeah yeah and then the bigger parties will be everybody 1800 people so where do people apply for this it's at summit. Allin podcast.com okay there you go folks and you can come to the free events you can come there all right just uh usually we when we do the docket I pursue a mullet docket I do the business first and the party in the back but man we got to start with Washington I've never supported the mullet strategy I know that I know that you've been anti- mullet from the beginning you want this to be a political show no no no no no I never said be a political show exact I always said we start with the biggest most topical issues first and it could be business or it could be politics correct you were discriminating against the politics you were insisting that it' be a business issue even if the business issue wasn't relevant topical or interesting here we go no I was not I think you're talking about freedberg freedberg was the one that's true it mostly came from freeberg who is right who brought the ratings of this pod to a whole new level yeah free who brought the Maga lunatic who built this thing who built me vad from Robin Hood he is the guy who did from did by the way I mean the the ratings of this pod hit some sort of new stratospheric level not just with President Trump interview but last week whatever I mean the point is last week was I think the most crazy week in the history of politics and it's only going to get crazier so let's start off with hot swap summary you heard of you first or maybe not hot swap summer continues you know previously historically if you wanted to understand who's winning an election you look at the polls not perfect obviously some of these polls still call land lives yada yada but then people built models obviously 538 all this kind of stuff but it seems that this year and this election cycle people are really focused on prediction markets AKA betting markets and uh we're looking at them in real time and obviously people have skin in the game so you can I'm interested in the panels take on the sharps on these platforms and if you think that they're more accurate than say some of these polls or the aggregators of polls but kamla Harris is now the favorite to be the Democratic nominee according to one of them so just let that soak in in the last 24 hours VP Harris's chances of being the Democratic nominee have gone from 18% to 50% at the same time President Biden has dropped from 66% to 28% there are a bunch of long shots Moon shots in there new Michelle Obama Gretchen Whitmer all in the 18 12% but they were low single digits prior to last week's debate as you can see in the chart Biden and Harris were about even this morning uh the taping of this is Wednesday July 3 but the New York Times reported that Biden told an ally he's considering dropping out so we should note the White House a White House spokesman said this is absolutely false but this is the money chart from I think poly market and we keep updating this document in real time while we're taping chances of biding dropping out are now at 77% that's up from 60% this morning after debate after we record the show we have to do before we publish a whole well I I don't think he's gonna do that because he is scheduled to do a sitdown interview with George Stephanopoulos I think they're recording it on Friday right which is two days there oh he's going to do an interview with Stephanopoulos on Friday and then Stephanopoulos is showing it in two parts on Saturday and Sunday so it's going to be edited so we don't know what they're going to edit in or edit out at this point though the media is in such a freeding frenzy that I don't think that ABC is going to cover for Biden so I suspect it'll probably be a pretty fair representation of the actual recorded interview in any event that's coming out this weekend I think the Biden presidency basically hinges on this interview if Biden can show that he's sharp and he's responsive and not scile and presumably he's going to sit down and do this at the best hours of the day right they can't make that excuse anymore so is that before nap time or after nap time right exactly so I'm sure he can do this at a time when he has the good stuff I think if he knocks it out of the park maybe he can quell all of this speculation but if not if it goes poorly then I think he's done so this is the last chance again it's like this is like the third last chance yeah because think about it I mean the accusation is that he's seile that's not a hard thing to disprove if you're not actually cile right you just need to go in there right it's a pretty low bar right not cile yeah so he just needs to go in there and talk for whatever it is an hour and he's not gonna be fed hard Hardball questions probably be pretty softball questions he just has to prove that he's not scile if he can do that it'll calm things down Stephanopoulos generally does a a good job he's not a sick aant I think he he considers himself a legit journalist and will will actually well this is he throw some fast balls I think in Bernstein moment I mean like if if Stephanopoulos wants to go into the Hall of Fame this is his opportunity if he absolutely if he throws the high heater to Biden and basically is the one that delivers to Cuda then his name will be in history alongside Biden for that reason think about it straty if if you're the if you're the Democratic Party leaders and you are evaluating who to choose to replace Biden the first thing you do is you have to double down on Biden because if you are neutral to negative on Biden or passive it's immediately interpreted as he's being swapped out and then you don't have time to pick the right candidate in order to have the time to pick the right candidate you have to first double down on Biden be really declarative that he's our candidate put him on media put him on talk shows while you were figuring out who's going to replace him and what the strategy is to get that person to win so there's a there's a chance that what's actually going on is a little bit more of a structured strategy around find the right candidate set up the right program to get them elected figure out how we're going to move the $120 million that we raised from Biden over to whoever this new candidate is you can only you can only move it to uh Harris you cannot move it you cannot move the entire entirey of thatd you you've got to together a real plan you can't just do the hot swap you've got to have a plan for the hot swap which means in the meantime you got to buy time and the best way to buy time is throw Biden forward and be like hey look this guy's G to go do media he's still our guy you're correct that they're buying time obviously while they try to figure this out and the powers that be which powers that be the Biden Camp which is not the political machine it's his literal family Hunter jaill Etc um what they're actually doing and this will be the next nois prediction that'll come true is they're going to do I didn't have time to get like a all all I heard was lick my anus it's NIS not n us so no shanus prediction coming in here hot here's what will happen freeberg they going to do all caps all caps locks alert must credit no shanis they're GNA do a Democratic primary speedrun here's what's going to happen they're going to do five debates in 10 weeks and then whoever wins wins Kamala he's gonna resign Kamala becomes president Kamala gets to um run doesn't speed she gets to speedrun like everybody else Dean Phillips gets to come in everybody speedruns it the they take over the media the media will go crazy over the summer massive ratings boom and we have a winner come in and they demolish Trump that's not going to happen yeah you said he's not going to get hop swapped as well noer canis has gone off the rail you said he wouldn't get hot swapped so you have no question if you run a debate it shows it shows weak the party the party needs to select a leader and they need to say this is our candidate because if they if they do this it's too diffuse it weakens whoever ends up winning it's whoever ends up winning is it strengthens the part it strengthens the party because they say listen he decided to resign we wanted to do the most democratic thing possible what's the most democratic thing possible we put all our candidates out there and you the people choose chth tell him I'm right I think this is one of the dumbest predictions you've made and you've made you made some real doozies in your date the hot swap is GNA happen so you didn't call it the problem with your hot swap theory has always been that not only would Biden step down but that magically they would choose the best candidate we would get a Jeff Bezos we get a Jamie Diamond that somehow we would get someone who represented all of Trump's policies without being Trump but you would get some magical moderate to emerge in the Democratic party that's not going to happen okay thanks to your incessant demands for the hot swap okay you and many others and this feeding I I love it yeah you in part along with many others have caused this Feeding Frenzy we are going to get president kamla Harris she's the only alternative you can see this in the prediction markets just a few days ago it was sort of evenly divided between there was her there was Gavin Nome there was Gretchen Whitmer now it's just her why does that happen because they realize they can't sidestep kamla Harris without offending major constituency in the Democratic party equally important maybe even more important they would lose roughly a billion dollars of contributions to the Biden Harris campaign if neither Biden nor Harris is running at the top of the ticket they'd have to refund all of that money back to the donors who contributed it there's no way they're going to start over from zero in terms of fundraising so they've realized that if Joe steps aside there is only one feasible candidate for them which is KLA Harris let me ask you a question if Jamie Diamond declared that he's going to he he would be happy to take on the candidacy for the Democratic party he would call his friend Warren Buffett he would call his friend Jeff Bezos he would call up his own personal banker and say we've got half a billion let's go and let's have a run at this there are certain folks that are outside of the typical political spectrum that might actually have a shot at doing the extraordinary here and stepping up and doing exactly what Trump and others that support Trump don't want to see happen which is a candidate that can actually challenge Trump on the merits of their experience on their values on their capabilities As Leaders as Executives and on their past performance and I think that someone like that might be the strategist's kind of move to say this is the one thing we can do that can defeat Trump because we all know from the polling that Harris doesn't stand a shot we tried that four years ago and you're missing the history which is Mike Bloomberg tried that exact same thing and there was one word that was said to Mike Bloomberg and his candid imploded and it was the word billionaire so the idea that you're going to get some other billionaire that all of a sudden is less hated I mean Mike Bloomberg has s so so much good quite honestly and so if he can't kind of Escape The Scarlet Letter of that of the b word I don't know how anybody but blumberg but here's why Bloomberg ran against other Democrats this is a person that is running against another billionaire which is Trump and so if you have two people who are now on equal footing and it is the Trump versus Howes this person get a lot of people in this country I suspect let them cook go that's you're operating you're operating under the Charming delusion that the Democratic party cares about democracy this is basically a party that's run by political insiders that hates billionaires and people like this people like Warren Buffett and Jamie Diamond they pay the Democrats protection money okay that's how Democrats see them we're going to go shake them down to get money from them they're not going to hand over the Reigns of the party don't disagree IE but let me ask you a question this this is this is what Trump didum he rewrote the rules of the Party by running you're right no he sh no hold on he ran and shattered the party the established power structure remember it was it was the bush family's party when Trump first ran Jeb was supposed to be the nominee right he was inherit the mantle from W the way that W inherited from his father and Trump came in there and appealed directly to Republican primary voters and called the forever Wars a mistake and said he was going to build the wall and said he's going to reset things with China issues that were latent in the Republican party and he took over the Republican Party the way you're supposed to through democracy through voting that opportunity is gone here because the Democratic primaries happened last year and the Biden team ensured that he would basically win the primaries handily so they control all the delegates remember that totally they control the delegates they're not going to release them to a Jamie Diamond or some other billionaire let me ask the party let me let me ask you a question so if they if they end up facing the terminal nature of this which is if we don't put someone in that can win we lose we are not going to win yeah it is over why do you think that KLA can't win that's their thinking right now is that she stands a better shot than bid let's assume let's assume that they take a of the PO they take a Read Of The Nation they actually do a real look at the circumstances on the ground which is that she is not going to win if they looked at that and they said you know what we need to win and some sense comes into the head of the leaders of the democratic party and they say who can win and a person like Jamie Diamond plls that he can win there is a chance I think that maybe they say this is how we're going to get back to the White House they're never going to hand the Reigns of of the party to a total outside the Democratic party is the ultimate insider party and they are going to pick an insid it's insiders picking insiders and I think they've realized over the past week imp particular that they cannot sidestep around KLA Harris both because it would be a slap in the face to her constituency and the money issue so it's commo or a bus for them it's either commo or I think it's a really good it's a really good point what we'll see is just how rational the Democratic party leadership is are they going to continue to play based on Insider first principles or will they actually take a first principal's point of view on how do we win the election and I think it will be very revealing about how the leaders of the democratic party think based on the decision they make and they're donors for you well I don't know if that's true because I actually think that there's a because the donors are fleeing the ship right yeah there's a rift between the donor class and the Democratic party leadership correct and I think the donor class doesn't want to lose and by the way Saks what you're saying is probably right but I think it could actually end up being a signal that there might be a change in how the who the donors end up supporting the next go around um for a to realize a leadership change in the Democratic party look what what the prediction markets are showing is that it's not going to be a free-for-all it's either going to be Harris or Biden I mean that's what the prediction markets are showing and I think that's fundamentally right uh but look I I think there's real danger here to the to the country in this because what a lot of people are saying and I guess it makes sense is that if Biden's not fit to run again how is he fit to serve out the rest of his term as to serve his term he's got to resign okay so if he resigns and that's probably the thing that helps Harris the most right because now she gets sworn in as commanderin-chief she's the president of the United States President yeah it's a big it's a major glow up for her and it imuse her with all of this gravitas and credibility that she's now the president of the United States they can send her to G7 meetings and deal with other world leaders they've got four months to basically take this candidate who everyone thought was ready remember a year ago during the primaries when Biden ran again one of the reasons why is because everyone said that Comm is not ready you know every interview she does is basically a cackle or word salad in any event no one thought she was ready now they have like basically made her seem much more significant by giving her the presidency but my point is this we're in the middle of a war we're in the middle of a war with Russia just a week or two ago we are Russ we're in the war or we're providing weapons both a week or two ago American cluster bombs were used to kill Russian civilians sunbathing on the beach in cria okay our weapons are targeting killing Russian civilians the Russians in response to that said we are no longer in a state of peace with the United States they did not say we're in a state of War but they said we're no longer in a state of peace and the Russians have indicated that they may escalate horizontally by giving Advanced weapons to our enemies for example they've talked about giving cruise missiles to the hoodies okay so all of this is happening right now in real time on the world stage and you're going to remove Biden who look I don't like Biden's policies and I don't think he's compos menus for more than a few hours a day but I would still rather have Biden as commander-in-chief for the next six months then take the risk of putting Harrison there who's inexperience who's a lightweight and who might want to prove how tough she is let's get chath in for the final word here chath your thoughts on what's going to happen make your prediction between now and September what what do you think's the the the mid game here before we get to the end game I honestly don't know but I think that we are in a precarious place where things are going to get worse Biden actually approved private contractors now going into Ukraine and starting to to fight Americans will be on the battlefield as of I think this was just a a few days ago if you remember the movie Wag the Dog I think that it starts to create all these weird scenarios where people will want to create major distractions to try to keep the evidence and the attention away from this core issue that after the debate everybody is focused on and I think the reality is that if you were accused if any of you were accused of being mentally incap itated what you would probably do is go on every single talk show go on every single news show go on every single podcast press conference you would just do so much public facing work so as to completely dispel this idea so that you could firmly say it was a cold although now this week it's jet lag it was it was jet lag C the time of day whatever it was you'd be able to just completely take the wind out of the sales I think we're still getting only a controlled dribble of information and access to the president of the United States so he's going to be on Stephanopoulos he's going to show up for a NATO meeting and so you're only seeing drips and drabs of somebody who now a lot of people think is not in a position not just to run but let alone run the country you said last week Democratic party will have a a meaningful reset still still thinking that sh the issue that the Democrats will have to face is the person that they probably want to run is is someone different than kamla Harris and the problem that they're going to have to confront is there's a part of it which is fundraising and I do think that David's right there was an article in the Ft where one of the oped writers said they're in this sort of identity politics trap in sorts because they will have to run her no matter what and even if somebody did show up with the financial wherewithal and I think freeberg actually brings up a really interesting thought experiment if there was somebody that could take the Democratic mantle who could completely self fund their campaign but he happened to be just a white man what would the Democrats do relative to K Harris and I think that they would be in kns around what to do because of the identity politics issue I think they have made it an important issue this idea of inclusiveness as they've defined it got it so it sets up for I think a very complicated summer yeah the other thing you have to keep in mind is how the Electoral College works and how the ballot system works is that you don't infinite time you have to get all of this wrapped up and cinched up by the middle of August at the latest and so we're very much on like a four or six week shot clock and I don't think the Democrats are doing what they need to do in order to completely take the wind out of the sales of this narrative that Biden is not prepared or capable and the only way that you can do that is by having him appear 24x7 in real time in front of hundreds of millions of people as often as possible and they're just not and so since they're not doing it they had ample time to do it he's yeah he's he's obviously and by the way the the other problem that it creates is that you're starting to see some of these fissures inside of the team there was a really charged article from axios that dropped which basically said that there are three people that have corded off access to the president it named yeah that was weird Joe Biden and tomasini and some other person and my initial thought when I read this was other than Joe Biden who's a recognizable person I had no idea who these other two people were and I thought that's really precise for somebody like that who has inside access to all of these sort of insiders to put that article up so I think you're starting to see the sort of leaks in the fissures yeah and then that's sort of this next phase that will make things a little bit ugly and contorted let me ask one question here because we got we got to move on to the Supreme Court stuff Sachs two poor question one is there a chance that he has had a diagnosis already and they're covering that up and two if they covered up something like that what is the ramification of it because it's clear to everybody he's in cognitive decline it's clear it's been a couple of years of cognitive decline no no no that that was asked of kjp in a press conference yesterday she was very explicit no and the reason no that she doesn't know she doesn't know no no no the answer was much more explicit has he been diagnosed and she said no and the reason she said no is because that is very credible for to say because he hasn't taken the tests okay so that's your there look it was obvious now for months if not years that there's been a huge cover up of his cognitive decline and the media has participated in this anyone who raised that question was treated as being a partisan or a liar and just for a good example of this I know you described George Stephanopoulos as a straight shooter but when Nikki Haley was on his show a few months ago and I'm not a fan of Nikki haly at all but she started making this point and Stephanopoulos L wouldn't let her finish I mean basically shouted her down so the media was actively suppressing the story you take Morning Joe a scarsborough he was saying that this version of Biden is the best he's ever been I we've been hearing all of that kind of stuff for months they were describing true videos showing Biden being out of it they were describing those as being fakes clean fakes they invented this new term for perfectly real videos that basically would reflect his condition so the media has been engaged in a gigantic cover up of this and as a result the country is in really bad shape because we have to go through the next six months either with a scen out president who has limited cognition or we could end up with a new president who has untested inexperienced and based on every interview she's given in the last four years appears to be completely clueless at a moment in time where I think we have the most dangerous foreign policy situation since the Cuban Missile Crisis this a really horrible situation and hold on it's it's the media Bears a lot lot of the responsibility and what should have happened okay what should have happened is we should have had a robust Democratic primary a year ago sure based on concerns about Biden's cognitive abilities reported by an honest media we never had that yeah so did you guys see this clip by the way there's a clip on Twitter where somebody put together a clip on next six minutes of 100 sort of spokespeople proxies and they all had the same thing to say about President Biden which is he is sharp as attack and it was all sharp as attack which end of the attack the round part what was so funny to me is I thought to myself if I asked a hundred people on the street what do you think of Elon Musk you'd have a hundred different statements there' be a general theme but you would not have even 50 people repeat the exact talking points obviously and so you have this funny situation where a hundred different people were basically saying the exact same talking point so it's not even a point of view it was just something that they were told to say by somebody else and back to your point both both sides sa is the real issue which is that you don't really have an honest media here and so there is no check and balance on power right now imagine if this Feeding Frenzy happened a year ago well the contrast and compare I want to make is everybody has a point of view about Donald Trump and I was thinking about this the reason why everybody has a point of view about Donald Trump is everything that has happened in his life is completely transparently documented there really is nothing hidden at this point and so you have a point of view because you've been given all of the stuff right and there's endless amounts of new stuff that come out about the old stuff and so you know and that's what's so interesting you have the ability to come to your own decision and it's not packaged through these filters yet with President Biden I think it's so constrained and controlled and I think you have to understand and appreciate that decline let's assume that he isn't for the sake of the United States but if he is in it it only gets worse from here and it compounds in compounds and compounds that is what happens and so not only do you have to wonder what the next five months are like what does it look like in 18 and 24 and 36 months that is a really important issue here clearly Biden can't serve a second term but the question is what what do we do now and I got to say it's amazing to me that the Democrats are not considering the one option that is kind of obvious which is you let the man run the most dignified campaign he can he's the candidate you chose and oh satire saaks is back here he is no this is not sa sa this is not satire saxs the real problem here is the Democrats refuse to lose they want to cling to power however they can they refus to let democracy just work democracy working would be to do the speedrun I have a question what would you do with the money would you just not spend it then and just save well this is really interesting so there is an analog okay in 1996 Bob Dole was the Republican candidate for president and quite frankly he was too old he was seen as a relic Clinton was fairly popular and it was pretty obvious that he was just a loser and he was going to lose did the Republicans engage in Shenanigans to try and fix the situation no they just accepted the inevitable that Dole was going to lose and what they did is they pulled financing from his campaign at least in the final month and they redistributed to House and Senate candidates and actually they did better in the House and Senate they held on to the House and Senate I think they lost a few seats but way less than they were expecting to and they kind of ran on a campaign that you know you can't trust slick Willie so keep us on split the ticket and keep us on as a check against him and it actually worked fairly well it was the best the Republicans could do but frankly they let Bob Dole run a dignified campaign my advice to the Democrats would be don't have Biden sign doing a shakeup Democrats listen to Sachs there's your political counsel if you're if you're a democratic right now when you put an untested unexperienced clueless president in there who was gonna want to show how tough she is and bring in her own team of this dangerous situation let Biden run a dignified campaign and lose my advice to the Democrats is to embrace an outsider give the people what they want freedom of choice freedom to elect a leader and bring someone in that falls outside of the traditional political spectrum that does not want to hold public office because it's not their career they can bring money to the table they can bring credibility to the table and they can win votes and compete effectively against Trump if your goal is to retain the White House Camala give us two Nam Jamie Diamond Jamie Diamond Bob a second name Bob Iger yeah it's a great one jie bober one yeah it's called wishcasting you're doing wishcasting SX I'm not speaking about realism I'm speaking I'm speaking about what it would take to win yes if they actually want to have a shot at winning someone that could win a popular vote someone that could actually win votes away from Trump because you can't introduce someone like Whitmer or more this late in the season when no one in the United States knows who the heck this person is but when you have someone with credibility with Economic and Business success with executive Authority with capital and connections into the Democratic party but isn't part of the political machine that you and many others in the Democratic party are now starting to hate let's go you have an opportunity to actually win yes and if they were smart and they got their together they would say you know what it's time for a change just like the Republicans had to do when into the part use the Republican Playbook brilliant freeberg brilliant okay well you guys better have a magic lamp with a Genie in it because that's the only way this is going to happen well listen it's I'm just trying to keep the show fresh okay okay here we go next topic here we goe get the final word here we go I'm giving freeberg the final Ro he had the best take I'm giving freeberg the the final word oh you're pulling your McNeil absolutely yeah okay here we go there were seven rulings in a bunch of scotus activity over the last week but these are really important consequential decisions we are going to talk about three of them and I'm going to try to get through these quickly obviously you could talk about these for hours and people will be you know doing case studies on them for a long time but let me try to do this quick so we can get everybody's take on them the first one I want to talk about is net choice this is the content moderation cases that you may have heard of there were two very controversial laws passed in Florida and Texas in 2021 in the wake of January 6th the Florida law if you weren't aware of it and I don't suspect most people are would cover platforms with over a 100 million monthly active users or 100 million in annual revenue in other words they're targeting X YouTube Facebook meta those kind of sites and they would require those platforms to notify users if their posts are removed or altered and the platforms would have to make General disclosures about their operations and policies and the Texas law it was very similar platforms over 50 million monthly active users and it would require them to notify users whose posts were removed and provide an explanation of why all that kind of stuff both of these laws were challenged in court in 2021 just to give you an idea like why I think the conservatives were upset about this obviously Trump being suspended indefinitely on Twitter Facebook and other platforms or the labeling of content like we've seen on our own channel on YouTube net choice is a tech industry group includes Facebook and YouTube and the parent companies of those and they sued to block these two laws jce Kagan a liberal wrote the unanimous decision obviously no dissensions here and the majority held the editorial judgment and the cation of other people's speech is a unique expressive product of its own which entitles it to first amendment protection so just to give you an example if you wanted to create a social network where you can't be anonymous like LinkedIn you can do that if you want to do something like Twitter X and have Anonymous accounts you can do that as well if you want to create a social network with adult content you can do it or like Zuck is doing on threads interestingly they are downplaying political content obviously other platforms amplify political content so let me um and so the end of all this in terms of how the court handled it is uh they offered some guidance and sent the cases back to the lower courts to clarify a bunch of stuff just to keep this brief shth what are your thoughts on this obviously some of the ideas here like letting users know why they were banned or why content was taken down I think the overwhelming majority of users would like to have that but is this the government's role I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know the details of this case except to say that when the entire court goes in One Direction it's probably because this never should have been brought to the court in the first place and they're giving a very clear message it wasn't even ideologically strained to figure out what the right answer should be so sax obviously your chosen party was the one who brought this you have concerns about the platforms doing this but do you have equal concerns about the government then I guess being the ones who have to enforce these is this a good ruling well I think that with respect to the Texas and Florida laws I think their heart was in the right place they were motivated by the right things which was to reduce censorship on the social media platforms specifically censorship of conservatives which is to say they're their citizens but those laws probably were overly Broad and they infringed on the free speech of Corporations because I guess corporations get free speech too and basically what the ruling says is that content moderation receives the same First Amendment protections as any other kind of speech so the decisions of what content you're going to keep up or take down on your own property is itself a speech decision and the government has to respect that so that's what the ruling here was saying I think it's not a bad decision I wish the Supreme Court however had coupled this with a better decision in the Missouri versus Biden case which they they basically said that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue so they didn't necessarily give a dispositive ruling in that case but they threw it they threw it out and Yeah and basically what that case was was about was the Biden Administration was engaged in attempts to influence or pressure social media companies to take down speech it's a practice known as jawboning and I wish they had coupled this decision with a better decision in in Missouri versus Biden saying the government's not allowed to coer social networks to take down speech either and they refused to do that so I wouldn't say these are like the greatest set of decisions with regard to free speech that the Court's ever done hope that they will come back in the future once they find a plff with the right standing to address that issue yeah that's a key issue freeberg your thoughts yeah so I've said for a long time we've obviously had conversations about Twitter and Shadow Banning and some of the other activities on what are typically called social media platforms at the end of the day these are all as I've shared in the past my belief is they're all content companies they have a choice as Executives and as editors of those companies to decide how to edit talize the content on their platforms they can choose to create content with writers that they pay on staff like a newspaper M they can choose to create content with actors and directors that they pay to create novel video series for them like HBO might or they can choose to make content creation available to third parties that don't get paid like users and at the end of the day what they choose to do with that content and how they choose to display that content is up to them as an editorial platform that is ultimately creating content for other consumers I don't view that user generated content platforms are a right of the consumers to have access to share their thoughts they have the internet to do that they have many other places that they can go to to create blogs to create websites to do whatever else they want to do to express themselves but to have a technological platform that lets them submit content that then the editors get to decide how and where they show that content I think they should understand because it's in the terms and conditions when you sign up so I don't believe in social media platforms utilities and I don't think that the government should have any role in deciding what is or isn't on those platforms this goes both ways I think that the company should decide what kind of platforms they want to have whether they want to have free speech that allows inappropriate content or content that might be offensive or whether they want to have a highly moderated platform to make it more broadly available or appealing to users it's entirely up to them and I really do appreciate the ruling because I think that the government should have less of a role in intervening and deciding how companies create content and how they editorialize that content yeah so I think that's well said and I I was in the same sort of Camp as you freeberg which is this is like a battle of snowflakes here like the Liberals obviously were cancelling people on these platforms and now like the mag of folks want to come in and have the government regulate it if you want to compete here just create a new product or service in the market you're on the board of Rumble sacks like they're doing really well and if you squeeze too tight and your platform doesn't work it's the marketplace should you know figure out who the winners are and you know it's it's not a situation where you want the government getting in there because then they're going to go to a newspaper and there's so much precedent here I you know I actually read some of the of these rulings which is really interesting they're written phenomenally well will put in the show notes the actual links to the PDFs of these decisions they're well worth reading and in this case they brought up a bunch of the previous law was fascinating like people wanted to force a newspaper to allow you know one candidate to reply and give him space they were like no you can't do that it's their newspaper they decide what they publish another person wanted to have a corporate newsletter be forced to give information about the other sides you just don't get to do that I'll just say one more thing what what else is striking is just how insular and protectionist Texas and Florida are being and it's not just with this law it's also with the lab grown meat or cultivated meat laws that they've passed and other states are passing similar laws which is limiting innovation in the state and limiting freedom to operate in the state in order to protect interests of individuals and corporations that already exist within that state so it's really important to note this isn't a good or a bad thing but those states are operating in a way the lawmakers of those states are operating in a way that's trying to protect the interests of the individuals and businesses in the state over the freedoms that might and the Liberties that might otherwise be available I think we often talk about these states being more free but these laws and the cultivated meat ban laws in my opinion indicate that these states are actually on the contrary they're much more kind of protectionist where your take on that sax to freeberg point I mean I think this this um ruling might have been necessary from a constitutional standpoint because corporations do have free speech rights but again I would say that I think that the laws of Texas and Florida were coming from a good place which is they were trying to protect the rights of their citizens to engage in free speech I think it's just unfortunate that in this case it's a zero some game and as a result those laws were were invalidated I think that makes sense but I still think we have a problem I agree with you the platforms have to much power what what is your proposed solution you obviously don't want to have the government in there like running a newsroom or running Twitter X because you yourself we saying hey the government's too involved in X and these platforms and doing this jawboning so obviously having them more involved is bad right you're against them being involved yeah I think it's really tricky to figure out how to solve this got it I think for one thing you don't want the government jawboning these sites to take down content that clearly should be a free speech violation I'm disappointed the court didn't get to that I think we're totally missing the bigger picture there's like a lot of fear-mongering that I think has happened with respect to the Supreme Court and that it's all of a sudden become some super ideological super rigid super activist place and I think it's in fact much of the opposite and the data supports that and so I think it's important for people to know that what's actually happening is that many of these decisions are very much split along non-ideological lines and I think that that's an important thing so I just like I'm pulling this up and I just want to read some of these things to you US versus rahimi which is a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having a firearm that was an 8 to1 decision where all but Thomas supported that makes a lot of sense you would think racial gerrymandering that was more ideological where it was a conservative Block versus Sodor Brown and Trump V Anderson which is Trump getting back on the Colorado ballot 90 FDA versus The Alliance for hypocracy versus us which is whether Idaho's strict abortion law conflicts with the federal law non ideological where it was Gorsuch Alo Thomas and katangi brown Jackson who descended So It Goes On and on and I think what's so interesting about all of this is that I had thought that this was not like what it was what I thought what had happened is Trump stacked the Supreme Court all of a sudden we are ripping all these laws apart this longstanding sort of doctrine of what has passed but yet I think what's actually happening is people are pretty thoughtfully pushing the responsibility to the states and I think that the Court's decisions are relatively unpredictable in the sense that it's not just a conservative Block versus a liberal block I think that's the real story and when you unpack a bunch of these decisions in that context that's what's so interesting to me is like these are pretty nuanced decisions that get at the heart of a lot of key important issues happening across non- ideological lines the Jan 6 One katangi Brown Jackson it was the Biden appointee that basically supported this thing that may throw out 200 plus convictions for Jan 6 and Amy con bear was on the other side this is an unpredictable Supreme Court I think they think for themselves they seem to be independent and I think they are coming to their own conclusions that's the only thing to take away from the distribution of the votes that should make people feel a little bit better so I think this next ruling is the most important one and I think it will be the most important one that we've seen with this new court that has three of the nine justices placed by Trump to your point shth and this one is seisman the Looper versus Rondo decision overturn Chevron okay so this one takes a little explaining the court overruled a landmark 1984 decision in the chevron case from 40 years ago for context the original ruling created the Chevron Doctrine where the government and federal courts generally defer to the stances of federal agencies unless Congress has written specific laws on an issue the 1984 ruling upheld the epa's interpretation of the Clean Air Act it's very influential this has been cited by federal courts over 18,000 times in 40 years it was overruled in another 6 to3 decision where the justice is voted along party lines shof basically this shifts power back to federal judges and courts instead of administrative agency staff by experts academics all that kind of stuff in the majority opinion Roberts conservative obviously said the Chevron Doctrine violates the administrative procedures Act of federal law that directs the courts to review actions taken by federal agencies he also pointed out that the courts are regularly expected to deal with technical questions so this should not be considered beyond their ability to scope Kagan a liberal wrote a critical descent she said the agency staff with scientists and experts are more likely to have the expertise to make these decisions rather than the judges she also pointed out that the system had been functioning for 40 years and this ruling will create a massive quote jolt to the legal system chth get in there do you remember when President Biden tried to pass the budget two years ago and he was one vote short and Joe Mansion ended up putting it over the top but he negotiated what was a redo of a bunch of Regulation and he was promised that there would be this regulatory overhaul that happened and that was sort of why he had decided to vote for that budget bill it ended up not happening so the reason why I think he had saw that and he discussed this is that there are so many businesses that now suffer from the regulations of these agencies because when the agency enacted that regulation it was just a different time and place and there was no clean way to go back to an independent body and say I understand what your intention was in 1985 when you wrote that regulation but in 2024 things have changed can we reconsider and basically what the courts have done now will allow companies who believe that regulations are either overwrought or misguided for today's market landscape and bring it to an independent Judiciary and have them decide and I think that that's a very reasonable check and balance and I think that's that makes a lot of sense folks can pass laws and if folks believe that those laws do you undo harm now you have a mechanism to go and actually explain your case to somebody independent who can then make a judgment I think that that's a good check and balance freberg I know this was the one you most wanted to talk about uh what's your take on this end of the age of experts and throwing things back to the court what will be the practical ramifications I know how much experience you guys have had dealing with Federal Regulators you have a lot more than I think agencies and yeah I've worked in a lot across a number of federal agencies in in businesses I've been involved in and I can tell you it is as I'm sure you would expect there's a lot of bureaucratic morass in in these agencies and if you think about it it's because the agencies are effectively under the Chevron Doctrine vested Unlimited lied authority to create rules and regulations that they then determine are meant to represent the laws that were passed by Congress but more often than not those rules and regulations begin to bleed outside of the lines of the intention of the laws when they were passed and this is because those agencies by creating new rules and regulations this isn't this isn't some like you know I have a subversive reason for doing this but these agencies have an incentive for creating more rules and regulations because they then get to go back to Congress and ask for more budget and hire more people and grow the importance and the scale of their agency this is the natural kind of organic growth that arises in any living system and any organization of individuals is also a living system and has the same incentive it wants to have more resources it wants to get bigger it wants to do more stuff it wants to be more important and the Chevron Doctrine has allowed agencies to operate independent and outside of the lines that were defined in the laws that were passed that that then vested them this Authority that then they can go and say I want more budget I want to get bigger and I'm optimistic that this ruling will limit the agency's authorities and limit their ability to create more bureaucratic overhead more headcount more individuals that need to now go and administer the rules and regulations that they themselves create and so I'm actually very optimistic and hopeful about this uh this change now the downside the negative to this is that there are a number of really important regulatory roles that agencies have come to play that never got passed as bills like Environmental Protection rules and there's a negative consequence that will arise to some degree with respect to health of the environment health of people Etc but I think net net Congress needs to do its job it needs to go back to session and it needs to sit down needs to pass laws that really clearly Define what is and what isn't going to be legal going forward and then the agencies operate strictly within those bounds so so to recap it could get a little messy but it's a better healthier system because this system has become super bloated over 40 years that was my take on it as well saak what's your take on this this feels like a a huge win to me what do you think well I agree with that and I agree with what freeberg said look when when this decision the Chevron decision came down in 1984 at the of the Reagan Revolution conservatives actually liked it they they praised it because we were coming off a period of an activist Court you know the the Warren court and they thought that shifting power from the courts to the agencies would actually be a good move well it turns out it completely backfired um which Cheveron when it came out was not a widely noticed decision since then it's been cited 18,000 Times by federal courts it's turned out to be enormously important and influential and the reason for all those citations is it's the core s deferring to the ru making of an agency you know what Chevron basically says is as long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable or you could say not unreasonable then the agency can basically promulgate the rule and what this has led to is an orgy of rulle making by all these federal agencies and so most of our laws now effectively are being made by unelected bureaucrats who are part of this three-letter alphabet soup of government agencies it's not the Congress it's not the court it's not the president it's this fourth branch of government that's not in the Constitution which is the administrative State and so the administr administrative state has become incredibly powerful as a result of Chevron Doctrine and now I think by reversing it you actually give a chance for the restoration of democracy basically the agencies are not empowered to essentially make whatever rules they want as long as they superficially appear reasonable they actually have to show that their rules are within a statute that they that they were directed by Congress to effectively engage in the ru making so this is a step in the right direction for sure but again the real problem here is reigning in this unelected administrative State yeah jamat any final thoughts here as we move on to the next one seems like the Supreme Court is doing a great job agree all nine of them I mean they really they really seem to be doing a tremendous job I give them a lot of credit I feel like I've become a conservative maybe I'm a conservative nowas I don't know I I may have to sit down and confess to you because I read a number of these decisions and I was like I agree I agree and this is supposed to be a conservative court so I'm not sure it's actually it's not it's not it's an originalist court it's not a conservative Court this is what I'm saying like these are words that are planted by people that want you to believe their version of the LIE great point there are a lot of originalists on the court and what the originalist doctrine says and sxs you can correct me is I read the Constitution with faith and Fidelity and I just see what it's what it says not I interpret it not I fill in the words I just what it says is what we're allowed and I think that there's some there's a really good version of America in that view of the world yeah I mean I would say it's not even necessarily an originalist or conservative court it's a 333 Court meaning there's three conservatives there's three liberals and there's three Justice in the middle you have this middle block led by the Chief Justice Roberts with Kavanagh and Barrett and then you got the conservatives with gorsa and Thomas and Alo and sometimes the middle block goes with the Liberals sometimes it goes with the conservatives again it's more of like a triangle and as we know the triangle is in best shape for equipo right because it creates balance and I think what we have right now is a balance court and I think on the whole they've done a good job and I think it's kind of sad that in reaction to some of these decisions you've got powerful lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren who are explicitly calling for packing the court they're actually saying you know put a bunch of Justice on here to ruin this equipoise that we have I think it's really sad I think that the court right now is one of the last highly functional institutions in American public life and for elected leaders to be calling for its destruction is just sad well I you know I think what here and here's an image from axio showing you know six Republican nominated and three Democrat nominated I think to give the counterargument you know roie way um being overturned was something the majority of the country didn't want these three people were added For That explicit Purpose By Trump people have trauma uh pain over that reasonably I think and then the truth is though if they are you know just one standard deviation here as you can see in this axios chart which is based on some data I don't I don't trust this chart I think this this chart is worthless Jason I think let exp actual articles no but I'm saying look at the actual how they voted if you look at it my point is this is meaningless a child could have drawn this it means nothing no no a child didn't draw it chamat this was how do you know read because I'm reading the source because I'm reading the source of the data this is based on something called The Martin Quinn score an analysis by political scientist Andrew Martin Kevin Quinn known as the Martin Quinn score places judges on an IDE ideological Spectrum a lower score indicates a more liberal Justice where a higher score indicates a more conservative Justice and then they went through all of their decisions subjective classifier a subjective classifier was created by these two random people and you're now Regita the score like it means something no I think it's an interesting way it's an interesting chart to discuss to understand a little bit of their meanings what I would encourage anybody to do is to look at the actual substance of the decisions and the votes and what you will see is that people are not as easily predictable as that chart would show and I think that's what's important uh okay um I think that chart supports exactly what you just said Sachs right yeah I mean not exactly I mean again I view it as a 333 Court a lot of other people have written about that and they've got their own diagrams and charts to show that look I think it's a court like I said in equipoise I don't think it's partisan I think it's it's being reasonably fair I don't agree with every single ruling like I said I would have liked to seen a different result in Biden V Missouri however I think on the whole they're doing a good job and it really should be a scandal that you've got powerful lawmakers explicitly calling for the court to be packed I mean that would be a disaster right because you have nine justices which is a good number you try to increase that to 13 then the next time the Republicans have control they're going to increase it to 15 or 21 or whatever and pretty soon we're going to have 100 justices on the court you'll ruin it you know really nine justices should be a constitutional requirement we should just fix it at nine and not mess with that so it's just SC handless to me that you've got politicians who are reacting to reasonable Decisions by saying that we need to pack the court okay quick it here this is an important story for you choth Scot has also agreed to hear a case on the limits of online porn in its next term which starts in October the law in questions will it will it impact incognito mode because if it is just you're in trouble just I think there's a did you fle it or are you could you imagine if they banned incognito mode I think you might want to do a deep dive into how Incognito incognito mode is you may want to get a VPN I'm pretty sure Texas is GNA ban incognito mode exactly Texas and Florida I think a couple of these sites because of the threat of you know this these laws of ageg gating they've just decided to wholesale leave certain states by IP address therefore for the sale of vpns in Texas went up because when you went to certain porn sites and said hey because of Texas's proposing these laws we're not going to allow you to visit this website Nick do the NBC thing the more you know the more you know okay scotus agreed to hear a case on the limits of online porn in its next term which starts in October the law in question was passed by Texas legislature in 2023 requires porn sites to verify the age of their users and restrict access for minors it seems reasonable fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans upheld the law sending it to the Supreme Court if upheld users would have to submit personal info that verifies their over 18 to watch porn the law is opposed by the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition which is a trade group representing adult entertainers and companies they argue it places an undue burden on adults wishing to access constitutionally protected free expression oh speaking of porn and its related businesses the Rick's Cabaret recession index is back on did you guys see this it was on Twitter so Rick's Cabaret is a collection of public strip clubs and and and what's interesting about the Rick's Cabaret stock price is that it has pre-aged the last two recessions and whenever the stock Dives people people have said it actually predicts an upcoming recession and the stock just you know puked up like 25 or 30% in the last week oh boy there it is so people do not have the cheddar to go to the Cabaret and go splashy cashy I got it Cabaret it's called it's called Rick's Cabaret but the strip club index says a recession is is on the offense I prefer Cabaret it's just it's more Charming all right so I'm surprised you're not discussing the immunity case that's the one that all the pundit hyperventilating I made it I made it last I'll uh counter the Rick's ceret recession indicator as valid anymore based on the theory of our good friend on the group chat who I think has done a very good job highlighting that the strip club industry has been decimated by only fans as a result Rick's Cabaret is more likely down because of only fans and the lack of shall we say employee base available to work in these establishments because they make more money working online at only fans now that was a theory post posited by one of our good friends but you got to think that that showed up in the data at least a year or two years ago know cuz how long has only fans been around a long time I'm guessing right but I Peak during covid because you know you couldn't go to a cabaret if you wanted to take in a cabaret show and have a you know a bottle of champagne at a cabaret show you couldn't do it so you're the thesis of our friend is the the thesis of our friend yeah only fans took all the entertainers out of the strip club industry because they make more money online cabet Cabaret industry uh the Cabaret industry sorry please edit that Nick and as a result the quality of the product at the Cabaret business has declined and as a result Revenue has declined and it took a little bit of time to earn that in so so the virtual Cabaret industry that's our friends Fury we give him a big shout out we will yeah shout out beep call it the beep Theory yeah the beep Theory so the the Elite Cabaret artists can make more money on only fans they go there and then that leaves the less refined artists real why it's so good so pure I'm trying to navigate this and not get labeled sax where are you on this what's your opinion SX trying to get into cabinet position so uh anyway so far 16 red states have passed or agreed to pass age G j's got the Dunder Mifflin index of whatever sorry I couldn't hear it you guys started laughing too quickly say it again cut out you had the dunder mlin score of XYZ Mifflin so quick J I'll check the Dr Mifflin score what do it say I don't understand the dunder M score didn't you ever watch the office I don't watch the office office oh my God J what is wrong with you you I never got into it I never got into it I've probably watched it like four times that's the paper company where they work yeah apparently we've had a huge victory for Trump in the immunity case Trump sued in this case based on special counsil Jack Smith's prosecution of trump for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in January 6 if you don't remember that case since there's so many cases against Trump this was uh based on Trump pressuring Mike Pence to not certify the election his phone call to get the 11,780 votes that were missing in Georgia or Giuliani and the wackpack trying to fake electorates to overturn the election Trump argued that he should be immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was President cotus ruled 63 along party lines that former presidents can't face prosecution for actions that related to core powers of their offit office and official official official that was the core powers of their office and that all official Act receive at least the broad presumption of immunity here's the quote under our constitutional structure of separated Powers the nature of Presidential Power entitles former president to Absolute immunity for criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional Authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for All His official acts there is no immunity for unofficial acts that would be outside the duty of the President's chief justice Roberts emphasized that decision that the decision doesn't necessarily mean presidents are above the law in her dissenting opinion justice so to Mayor wrote that under the new ruling criminal law can't be applied to presidents even if they misuse their office for personal gain she wrote that if the president orders the Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival he is now insulated from Criminal prosecution another quote the president is now a king Above the Law she closed with this line with fear for our democracy I descent notably this breaks a tradition of closing with I respectfully descent so Trump's attempts to overturn the election results case now hinges on whether Trump's conduct was Private or related to his official Duty for example the lower courts now have to determine when Trump pressured Pence to not certify the election if that was an official business of being president or not or when he called Georgia and said hey can you find me 11,000 votes was that official Duty or was it outside his duty president Trump has already cited the immunity ruling in requesting a New York judge throw out his conviction in the hush money case sentencing for that was pushed back from July 11 to September because of this ruling Sach there's your wrong what do you think J well ja what do you think this is I'm really curious what I mean I I read the or the I'm halfway through the the original PDF and I do think the president needs immunity obviously for conducting business and then I do think if they step outside the lines they should not have immunity and then the devil will be in the details here and that's what courts and juries exist to do so when he told Mike Pence to not certify the election he's obviously not doing that as part of his duty as president when he called Georgia to get the 11,000 votes he was not doing that that's why he had outside counsil there that's why he hired Giuliani in the wackpack what do you think what do you think of s to was hypothetical of using Seal Team 6 to kill a political Rival Well I that was you think that that's you think that he would be immune from Pro anybody would be immune from prosecution for that no that seemed a little bit hysterical and actually that came up in the discussions I actually listened to the audio version of this when they were doing the the Q&A basically um and and I think you listened to it too freeberg when had talked about it so yeah I think the devil will be in the details here and how they execute it obviously you need to have immunity if you're going to I don't know take actions you know to assassinate Osama Bin Laden right or or whatever it is but you know it's it is a a bit concerning this concept of being able to Shield the president when he asks I don't know the Attorney General to do something illegal so these are the details that are going to need to be worked out here and obviously it's a split decision so the Supreme Court themselves can't agree on this I think that there's just so much we don't know about what it takes to be the president of the United States the example that I gave you guys in the group chat is like look at the whole Iran Contra affair how complicated was that can any of us really understand what all of the interplay was when Ronald Reagan decides to work around a weapons embargo sell weapons to Iran take money funnel it and fund descend denas in the middle of all of that there was a huge cocaine trade that was kind of enabled or supported I mean who how do we know I think there's just a lot of attitude that you give to the one person that you elect to be president and so maybe it's just a good reminder for all of us that we are electing one person we cannot be electing five or six people we're not electing a shadow cabinet we're electing one person and this is just a reminder of how much power that one person has saak you have thoughts I think this was an easy decision all the majority did was codify explicitly what has long been presumed that presence and joy Brad immunity for official acts that they undertake in the exercise of their constitutional Authority and the duties of their office it was established decades ago that presidents enjoy broad immunity from civil lawsuits so it's already been the case that presidents can't be sued civy well criminal liability is even harder to prove so if you have the broad immunity from civil you should have broad immunity from Criminal as well and the Supreme Court I think had never ruled on criminal immunity because they never had to no former president's ever been subjected to the type of lawfare that's been deployed against Trump who also happens to be the political opponent of the current president so I think it's a shame that the Supreme Court has had to rule on this did they get every detail right I don't know I don't know what it means for the future however I know the reason they're doing it which is we've had this unprecedent lawfare against Trump and that's why they've been forced to do this so ultimately I think this is the right decision no it does not authorize drone strikes against the president's political enemies that's insane it does not make the president Above the Law or a king and I think that Roberts in his ruling said the the key things he said that the desense position in the end boils down to ignoring the Constitution separation of powers and the Court's presedent and instead fearmongers on the basis of extreme hypotheticals and then he says that the desense Overlook the more likely Prospect of an executive branch that cannibalizes it self with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next I think that's really the key line here is that you're posing all these insane hypotheticals instead of recognizing the Practical reality that if you don't give presidents immunity then the next president's going to prosecute the old president and future presidents will be hamstrung in doing this very important job that's already cold enough so I think that this was just a necessary decision there was no way around it and the president already has civil immunity you got to give him criminal immunity too freeberg your thoughts I guess the the steel man on the other side would be you know Trump doing things like calling Georgia and asking to find votes or pressuring the president the vice president to overturn the election results after 60 fil legal cases you know is what's concerning the other side so do you have a take on it I think that the distinction between acting in their executive capacity as president of the United States versus their personal capacity as an individual candidate or an individual that could benefit through some other means is a really good distinction I think how the courts ultimately adjudicate that distinction is what's still ahead but I do think that the clarity of that distinction is critical I it seems like the right thing how this is going to play out with respect to election interference does interfering in the election constitute one's role as an executive overseeing the federal election process or does it constitutes one's personal benefits that may arise if one is individually elected is the key determinant that the lower court will likely have to make maybe that gets kicked back up again in the future if there's a disagreement over the decision that the court does make with regards to that distinction where do you stand on that saxs you previous episodes that said you didn't believe in this election interference and you thought Trump lost have you changed your position on that or are you still in that position uh that's totally irrelevant to the Court's decision let me ask follow up to that then so in the case of do you think Trump was acting officially when he asked Georgia to find the votes when he asked Pence to overturn the election or do you think he was acting in his duty I think that that what you just described there is what's known as a question of fact in the legal system there are questions of Law and questions of fact and what the Supreme Court has done is given us a Doctrine they've answered the question of law they've basically given us a three-part test they've said that when the president acts within his exclusive constitutional Authority he gets broad immunity when he does an official duty but that's not in that category he gets presumptive immunity meaning that the prosecutor can still go after him they just have to rebut the presumption and when he gauges in a personal act there's no immunity so look what has to happen now is if Jack Smith wants to continue this prosecution of trump he's going to have to make the argument that Trump's Acts were either personal or were part of his duties but he's going to rebut the presumption so th that is the now the question of fact that Jack Smith would have to litigate and I'm not going to litigate it here I don't know the answer to that but again I would separate questions of Law and questions of fact what the Supreme Court has done I think has given us a useful doctrine that the presidency now needs in light of the reality of laware see this is the I think chth that is super fascinating because I could see President Trump and and his lawyers saying hey very simple you know we we think there was election interference so yeah we called Georgia to make sure that those 11,000 votes were were there and hey you know we thought this was not a fair election so I was acting in my duty and when I told Pence to not certify the election I can see them making that argument what do you think I don't I don't know the specifics of these cases but ah I think it's going to force a prosecutor to have a really strong point of view and have evidence and then go after somebody but again I think you're focusing too much on Trump Robert said in the decision you have to look past the exigencies of the current moment this is a set of rules that's about past presidents and future presidents this is for forever and so that's the most important thing here which is there's a set of rules that I think we can all agree on because the man that we all elect dutifully El is the most powerful person in the world we knew it before we know it now so even more important that we make sure we're picking one person and that person is capable of doing the job you may not agree but they need to be competent and capable of doing the job yeah well they definitely have to be competent and this case was brought by Trump over this specific issue so I think that's if we look at this specific judgment here that's what they're going to have to determine in the coming months or years with this case is was he acting in his duty or was he not that's going to be a really between between this ruling and another case called fiser versus us which is the January 6 obstruction case where the Supreme Court in a six3 majority found that sarban Oxley was being misused to create a new crime called obstructing an official proceeding when you combine that judgment with this judgment I think Jack Smith should just resign it's pretty clear that suprem Court has kicked the legs out from under his case and by the way katangi katangi Jackson supported that decision that's right so again not a not a hypological not a hyper paron Court they just ruled that starban oxy had nothing to do with what happened on January 6 and it was being misused by a creative prosecutor and I told you when these jacksmith cases first came I said it's not the job of a prosecutor to be creative their job is to narrowly interpret the law and to enforce the law and you combine these rulings together and you can see that Jack Smith has now an even more uphill battle it's time for him to resign stop Ric 200 convictions it's not just one two it's 200 of them small percentage of the overall convictions though they took hundreds of people who did not engage in any violence on January 6 many of them just wandered through an Open Door in the capital and they were prosecuted to the hillt they were sent to jail for that because this doj wanted to send a statement they wanted to use them as a political talking point and that's a shame I think hundreds of people were horribly mistreated by the judicial system as as part of a political prosecution now there are except for the ones who beat police and brought problem putting those people in jail no problem anyone who use violence go directly to jail do not pass go but some of these people just took a tore through the capital all those people got suspended sentences and trespassing they to Jail the ones who went chansley spent three years in jail yeah the ones who went to jail were the ones who beat cops or chansley that just because he wore the Viking remember the guy with the Viking oh yeah so they also went to jail Shaman if you did damage if you vandalized yeah that was the other reason people went to jam I saw a video of him getting a guided tour through the capital I mean if you vandalized a capital building I guess you have to do something he moved to D around no I think they like shattered the windows and you know he didn't I never saw any video of him doing that anyway they they picked on him because he was an easy target because he looked like a weirdo and he had the Viking horns and he has he has a history of mental problems and so they put that man in jail for years yeah I'm not concerned about him I'm concerned about the ones who brought all the long guns to the hotels around the capital to have backup Firepower but you know hey uh everybody's got a different opinion on this we uh that ws Up all In podcast you can you can you can have those concerns I don't think it lets you put inoc some people in jail yeah I think you can hold both of those ideas I don't think anybody innocent should go to jail and I don't think the oathkeeper should have brought guns to the capital okay they didn't they brought him to Virginia just to be clear yeah they brought them to the hotels around them huge large cashes ingin correct yeah inginia yeah they drove to the capital on January 6th guns to the hotel I'm not defending them no I'm not defending them I'm just clarifying there were no guns at the capital because that's they were in the hotel a lie but I don't think innocent people who just wandered through the capitals should go to jail and that clearly we agree we are we agree they should not go to jail they should get trespassing tickets okay this episode 186 of the world's number one podcast did Biden resign while we're taping Biden just went on a campaign call and he said let me say this as clearly as I possibly can as simply and straightforward as I can I am running no one's pushing me out I'm not leaving I'm in this race to the end and we're going to win whoa I think it's more likely than not that they're not going to replace by in because the only feasible alternative is Harris and should' be worse and I I think it's more dangerous for the country frankly I'd rather to see Biden finish out his term than put someone new even if he had Trump two bad it's two bad choices jcal and I don't agree with Biden's policies but there's continuity there okay four the chairman dictator from the home office in Italy jamapa your Sultan of Science and the Rainman yeah definitely definitely cabinet position David saaks I am the world's greatest moderator of the number one podcast in the world we'll see you next time byebye love you boys [Applause] byebye let your winners ride Rainman David and instead we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it love queen of [Music] besties are that's my dog taking your driveway oh man myet we should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all useless it's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release [Music] somehow we need to get merch our [Music] I'm going all in