Brooks and Capehart on Supreme Court arguments over immunity for Trump

Amna: Legal cases involving former President Trump and some of his closest associates are playing out in state

court

s, the Supreme Court and the

court

of public opinion. Meanwhile, as foreign aid begins to arrive in Ukraine and the Middle East, protests break out at universities across the United States. For more on an important week abroad and here at home, we turn to Brooks and Capehart's analysis. They are New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor of The Washington Post. Great week around former President Trump. Let's start with the

supreme

court. Judges argue over potential Trump community.

What did you learn from the

arguments

? Lots of comments about the fact that the more conservative judges didn't seem interested in Donald Trump. They were interested in precedent. I find it intellectually interesting, but it was a little strange that in some cases Trump was barely mentioned. Normally, one would say that a president is not above the law, of course. But, if you look at democracies in decline, then it is a pattern for people in power to use their power to imprison people who were in office before them from the opposing party. So, we are in a democracy in decline.

So, it makes you think, well, if Republicans were to try to impeach Mayorkas and impeach him, maybe there should be some protections against that. I don't know where you would draw the line between presidential actions that are impeachable and those that are not. In a democracy in decline, we must think about building more barriers so as not to start criminalizing. Jonathan: The first thing we can do as the American electorate is to no longer elect someone who would crash into security barriers, and elect other people who would allow that person to crash into security barriers. I agree with David.

The idea that the Supreme Court could issue a ruling that forces the judge to review the recounts and determine whether they are private acts and official acts to determine if the former president is immune is crazy. This country is almost 250 years old, if my calculations are correct. Until the election of Donald Trump have we ever had to even consider this question. Until we stop electing CEOs who lack this shame gene, yes, we may have to answer this question. But the fact that we are here is really disturbing. And listening to the cross-examination back and forth you might wonder if the Supreme Court really wants to waste its public standing as it is, as it is, as it is, as it is, that everyone will look at and say what are they doing?

Amna: Do you think we will get a clear answer from them on this? Jonathan: I don't think so. David: I don't think so either. Amna: Let's continue then. There are some other cases that I also want to get your opinion on because they are very different. Both involve former President Trump. In New York, there is an ongoing hush money trial involving a payment he made to an adult actress in 2016. We hear testimony from a tabloid editor named David Pecker confirming that he buried stories that could have hurt then-candidate Trump. There were oda, two of his (in Arizona, two of his closest advisors question 18 people accused in the false elector scheme scehem 20) to help reverse Trump's defeat in 2020.

Did any of those events change the panorama? ? David: I don't think they have changed the outlook. I found myself morbidly fascinated by the tabloid editor's testimony. That is not the way we bear witness. Paying people money to silence stories is like a moral underworld that Trump entered. Once, in the 1980s, I was invited to a party, the inauguration of Trump Plaza. I look around the room, it's all the people you think are corrupt. A friend of mine comes up to me and says neither accused nor invited. We're really entering a different layer of New York than I'm used to.

That is what we are facing and have been doing for many years. Amna: Jonathan? Jonathan: David Pecker's testimony was fascinating. I lived and worked in New York for 16 years. He worked at the Daily News, so the New York Post was a competitor. I know this world. David pecker is no stranger to me. What he's talking about is not foreign to me, but I think for the general public, hearing what's really going on, particularly with that kind of tabloid, I think it's fascinating. Also, let's not forget, we're talking about a former president who is in court for hush money payments, who has been found responsible for fraud and sexual assault, who could be in Washington for the

immunity

hearing when Was he president? .

This guy is going to spend more time in court than on the campaign trail to run for re-election. I think what makes this week and this case so fascinating is that we're watching this guy be held accountable for at least a small part of what he's supposedly done. Amna: In the case of New York, the gag order has now been violated a total of 15 times. Jonathan: And counting. Amna: Is there a way to rein in President Trump on that front? David: I think his entire administration tried to do that for four years and it didn't work.

Jonathan: No. Amna: I need to ask you about President Biden because we should mention that a lot of times when authorities don't want you to talk too much about something, it's announced on a Friday afternoon. We had an announcement. They're delaying his decision, his plans to ban menthol cigarettes. We know that he is known for his attractiveness to black smokers. 81% of black smokers smoke menthol cigarettes. This is something the FDA has been pushing for years. They failed to cross the finish line. Why do you think the Biden administration decided to do this now? David: I hope it was because of the feeling that adults can make their own decisions.

Frankly, I had the same reaction when Michael Bloomberg in New York tried to ban hard drinks. I've seen the studies on menthol cigarettes. The FBI says far fewer people will smoke if we ban it. At some point, we will be a democracy in which adults should be treated like adults. Everyone knows this is really bad for you and people make their own decisions. Amna: Jonathan, there have been accusations that this is about politics and could alienate the Black voters that President Biden needs. Jonathan: Cigarettes are addictive and menthol is particularly addictive. When you talk about an addictive substance, an addictive product that has a disproportionate impact on African Americans, I'm sorry, I look at the FDA and I say good for you.

You should be doing this. People should be forced to quit smoking, which means this is not good for you. It's about trying to save your life. Maybe I agree with you about Michael Bloomberg and soft drinks. The first thing Mike Bloomberg did when he was mayor of New York that people started screaming about the nanny state was put cigarette bands in restaurants and everyone loves him for it. If the Biden administration is trying to play politics by scrapping this announcement on a Friday afternoon, fine, elections are decided on the margins. But in the end, it is necessary to do what the FDA proposes.

It's about saving lives. Amna: The pro-Palestinian protests, in protest of Israel's warlike conduct in Gaza. They have spread very quickly. They are holding on to the campuses. Should these be a warning to the Biden administration? David: I've been frustrated that people are making some distinctions here. I believe that most protesters are shocked by the horrors Palestinians are suffering and motivated by compassion. There are some people who are probably far left people, and they have their views. There are many people who are anti-Semitic and violet. We shouldn't be able to say that scientists don't deserve to live.

If you say that, they should be expelled. If someone says something like go back to Poland, or even a pro-Palestinian or pre-Israeli, go back to Gaza. Those people should be expelled. That is the distinction that should be made. People are threatening the community with threats of violence, they are being expelled. Bad actors need to be separated from people who are well motivated to save lives. As for the Biden administration, I'm concerned that the Chicago convention will look a lot like the one in 1968. That will just be terrible for the Biden administration. The president seems helpless. One last thing I found interesting.

Harvard does this survey, what are young adults interested in? Israel Gaza ranks 15th out of 16. Many people I know are passionately on both sides of the issue, but most young voters are interested in inflation, crime, healthcare, and normal issues. It is up to us, who are in educated circles, not to generalize from our experience because many people think about very different things. Jonathan: I agree with you, David. I think that the discussion about what is happening in these protests lacks many nuances. Not all protesters are anti-Semitic, support violence, or even cause violence. They are there for legitimate reasons.

I agree with David. If the university community is disruptive and saying racist and anti-Semitic things, yes, they should be expelled. But we must also take into account who are these people who say these things? Some may be members of the university or university community, but others may be from outside. My big fear of the blm movement is that people on the outside will cause violence and then blame will be placed on the people who are legitimately protesting. That is my big concern when we talk about this latest national protest. Amna: This is because of the nuances and the facts.

Thank you both for always bringing them to the table. It's always good to see you. Thank you.