Amna Nawaz: Legal cases involving former President Trump and some of his closest associates play out in state courts, the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion.
That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
David Brooks: Well, a lot of commentary on the fact that a lot of the more conservative justices didn’t seem interested in Donald Trump, the case right in front of them.
And I do find it intellectually interesting, but it was a little weird that Trump was barely mentioned in some cases.
They, of course, both involve former President Trump.
David Brooks: Like, paying people hush money, burying stories, it’s just like a moral netherworld that Trump had entered.
David Brooks: Well, I haven’t spoken about it, but I hope it was out of a sense of some sense that adults can make up their own mind.
David Brooks: Yes, I have been frustrated that people aren’t making some distinctions here.
Nawaz, Amna.
State courts, the Supreme Court, and public opinion all hear cases involving the former president Trump and some of his closest allies. Protests erupt on college campuses across the United States as foreign aid starts to reach Ukraine and the Middle East. s.
We turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart for more on a momentous week both abroad and at home. David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, and Jonathan Capehart, an associate editor of The Washington Post, are those people.
It’s great to see you two.
David Brooks.
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the conservative justices’ apparent lack of interest in the case involving Donald Trump. The precedent piqued their curiosity.
Although I do find it intellectually fascinating, there were a few instances where Trump was hardly mentioned, which seemed strange. Thus, one would generally agree that a president is subject to the law. It is easy. The president is subject to the law. Law is for everyone.
However, there is a pattern when it comes to democracies that are in decline: those in authority use their authority to charge, prosecute, and imprison members of the opposition party who held office prior to them.
We are a nation experiencing a decline in democracy. It does lead one to consider the possibility that, should the Republicans attempt to indict and remove Ali Mayorkas from office, they may outlaw some of these activities. And perhaps safeguards against that are necessary.
I’m not sure how you would define the boundaries between presidential acts that are exempt from charges and convictions and those that aren’t. However, you really have to consider how to add more safeguards to prevent the criminalization of political dissent in a democracy in decline.
Jonathan Capehart:.
As American voters, the first thing we can do is to stop supporting candidates who would breach the guardrails and vote for others who would help them do so.
Well, I do agree with David. It is absurd to think that the Supreme Court might rule in a way that would oblige Judge Chutkan to sort through the counts and decide what counts as an official act and what counts as a private act in order to decide whether or not the former president is exempt.
You know, if my math is correct, this country is nearly 250 years old. It was not until Donald Trump was elected that we were forced to consider this issue. Thus, it’s possible that we will have to respond to this question until we stop choosing CEOs who don’t have the shame gene.
However, it’s extremely unsettling that we are here at all. The back-and-forth questioning truly got me to wondering: Is the Supreme Court really willing to jeopardize its already tenuous public reputation by rendering a decision that will be scrutinized by all and sundry?
Amna Nawaz.
We are going to revisit that.
I would also like your opinion on a couple other cases because they are highly distinct from this one. Of course, the former president Trump is involved in both. His payment to an adult actress back in 2016 is the subject of an ongoing hush money trial in New York.
David Pecker, the publisher of tabloids, confirmed in his testimony this week that he did indeed conceal information that would have hurt then-candidate Trump. In the meantime, 18 individuals were charged in Arizona with participating in the phony electors scheme intended to help Trump reverse his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Among them were two of Trump’s closest advisors, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
David, do you believe that either of those developments in these cases altered the circumstances surrounding Trump?
David Brooks:.
Trump seems to have entered a moral wasteland with his hush money payments and story-burying.
I was somehow invited to a party that opened Trump Plaza back in the 1980s, I was reminded. Along with all of his friends, Trump is present. And as I scan the room, everyone there seems to be somewhat corrupt. And as he approaches me from across the room, a friend of mine remarks, “You’re not invited, nor indicted. ****.
(Laughter).
Jonathan Capehart:.
Thus, I am familiar with this globe. I am therefore not unfamiliar with David Pecker. I’m not unfamiliar with what he’s discussing.
However, I find it fascinating that the general public is aware of what actually occurs, especially with that type of tabloid newspaper. Remember that this former president is facing charges of fraud and sexual assault in addition to being in court over specific hush money payments. He was unable to attend the immunity hearing in Washington.
This man has been spending more time in court than on the reelection campaign trail, and he will be spending more time there. We’re seeing this guy held accountable for at least a small portion of what he may have, allegedly, done, which is, in my opinion, what makes this case and this week so fascinating.
The Amna Nawaz.
As you know, when authorities don’t want you to talk about something too much, it’s usually announced on a Friday afternoon, which is why I need to ask you about President Biden as well.
Today, the Biden administration did make an announcement. Their decision, or rather, their plans, to outlaw menthol cigarettes are being postponed. We are aware that Black smokers in particular find it appealing. Eighty-one percent of adult Black smokers puff on menthol cigarettes.
David, the FDA has been advocating for this initiative for the past ten years. It has gone through three different administrations. They have not succeeded in getting it to the finish line. So why do you suppose the Biden administration chose this particular moment to take action?
David Brooks:.
I hope it was done with the understanding that adults are capable of making their own decisions, even though I haven’t said anything about it.
To be quite honest, I felt the same way when Mike Bloomberg of Bloomberg Associates attempted to have Big Gulp sodas banned in New York. It resembles a state of over-nannying. I’ve now seen the research on menthol cigarettes. The FDA claims that if we outlaw them, a significant decrease in smoking will occur.
However, in a democracy, people eventually get to be treated like adults. And everybody understands how unhealthy these things are. People also have the freedom to choose.
Jonathan Capehart.
I will now depart from David’s topic of discussion.
Cigarettes, however, are addicted. It is especially addictive to menthol. And I’m sorry, but as an African American, I look at the FDA and say, “You know what, good for you,” when you talk about an addictive substance in an addictive product that disproportionately affects black people. This is something you ought to be doing.
People ought to be made to stop because it’s not healthy for them. This is about trying to keep yourself alive. Regarding Mike Bloomberg and Big Gulp sodas, I believe I may be in agreement with you. However, Mike Bloomberg’s ban on smoking in bars was the first move as mayor of New York City that sparked accusations of nanny state behavior. In restaurants right now, too.
And now he’s loved by all for it. Thus, in my opinion, it’s okay if the Biden administration is attempting to manipulate politics by making this announcement on a Friday afternoon. The margins determine elections. Ultimately, though, what the FDA is suggesting must be carried out. Saving lives is the main goal.
Brooks, David.
Yes, I have found it frustrating that some people fail to distinguish between these two situations.
Based on my observations, the majority of protestors are driven by compassion and are horrified by the atrocities the Palestinian people endure. Some people get to have their opinions, and they are presumably hard-left individuals.
Many people are violent and antisemitic. Therefore, you shouldn’t be able to claim that Zionists shouldn’t be allowed to live, as one of the Columbia students did. That should result in your expulsion. Therefore, they ought to allow them to protest, in my opinion. Nonetheless, it is destroying the campus community when someone says something like, “Go back to Poland,” or even something pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli like, “Go back to Gaza.”.
Thus, those individuals ought to be banished. Thus, it is appropriate to draw that distinction. Unbelievably, those who pose a genuine threat to the community through threats of violence are not being banished. I also believe that would have the deterrent effect of separating the truly bad actors from the well-motivated individuals who merely want to try to save lives.
Concerning the Biden administration, I am concerned that the Chicago convention may bear a striking resemblance to 1968.
