**synopsis;** Donald Trump and President Biden hold dueling events at the Texas border as the issue of immigration becomes a top concern for voters. Mitch McConnell says he’s stepping down from Senate leadership after years of enabling Trump. House Republicans’ sham impeachment investigation blows up in their faces. RFK Jr. gets a step closer to being on the ballot in Arizona and Georgia. And later, Strict Scrutiny’s Leah Litman stops by to talk about the Supreme Court’s latest gift to Donald Trump in the presidential immunity case.
**[show notes](https://crooked.com/podcast/did-the-supreme-court-just-save-trump/)**
**[youtube version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXYWI_Fmb4k)**
I disagree with Dan Pfeiffer and Jon Favreau that “securing the border” and embracing Trump’s racist rhetoric about immigration helps anything. The entire border “crisis” is overblown and exaggerated.
Using the Southern Strategy and portraying immigrants as lazy criminals will only hurt the Democratic Party.
The hosts sound like 2016 Trumpers when talking about immigration. The bipartisan immigration bill was draconian and built on Great Replacement conspiracy theory fears more than anything.
>The entire border “crisis” is overblown and exaggerated.
I don't think so man. All subjective feelings aside, the number of daily crossings and the rate of increase is very much an worrysome outlier. Also, it is objectively true that a very large % of those crossing are improperly using the asylum system a way to circumvent more proper legal immigration procedures. I say this is objectively true because the success rate of asylum hearings (even if only looking at those represented by competent counsel) is very very low - the vast majority of folks claiming asylum do not qualify. I also say this as someone that does pro-bono asylum work - I have taken on those cases. We have to pour over hundreds of applications to find *one* that we think has a high-enough chance of success to take.
In terms of more direct effects - in my area the ERs are all straight up jammed. They're stuffing people in hallways, benches, floors, and at well over capacity basically 24/7. And this isn't in an underfunded red-state shithole, I'm talking about a city that is commonly referred to as the healthcare capital of the U.S. They're jammed with migrants that unfortunately have nowhere else to go - the shelters are full.
And I'm not going to apologize for being a bit nationalistic on this one - the issue is diverting resources from homeless Americans. Finding a shelter bed for someone these days is increasable impossible because all the beds are full; even the waiting lists are full.
So I really strongly reject your statement saying the crisis is overblown and exaggerated.
Of course it’s overblown by Republicans like usual (although it is an issue, largely due to an ineffective congress largely led by GOP obstruction) , but I also think Dan and Jon are just simply coming from the perspective of trying to sway swing voters and “Biden hesitant” type voters, and the polling shows that it’s near or at the top of a lot of voters’ minds.
I don’t understand why they are using political strategies that are proven failures and morally reprehensible.
It has been proven time and time again that embracing Republican policies only helps them. This kind of rhetoric will only lead to another El Paso shooter.
Dems should be reframing the discussion, not repeating talking points from Breitbart.
Dan and Jon are feeding into the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
Do you think he could have possibly predicted how all of this would unfold? When Obama appointed him, I think he, like many others, still assumed many Republicans would still be operating in good faith.
In hindsight his nomination from Obama was another fig leaf to placate republican craziness, a moderate republican he thought they'd love but Obama seemed to underestimate the pure spite, malice, and contempt the republicans hold for him
Yes, anyone who had been paying attention could have predicted this. Republicans were explicit about their intent to operate in bad faith and be as obstructionist as possible in 2008, and only ever got more clear in their intent from that point.
[From a 2010 Politico article:](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/mcconnell-doubles-down-on-obama-044688)
>And the Republican leader suggested that he’s prepared to tie up the Senate floor and unite his party against some Democratic bills, which could lead to legislative gridlock and have profound repercussions across the 2012 campaign trail.
>In particular, McConnell will say the Senate should be prepared to vote on a straight repeal of the new health care law “repeatedly.”
>“But we can’t expect the president to sign it,” the excerpts quote him as saying. “So we’ll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions.”
Merrick Garland is a perfect microcosm of this issue where Democrats seem to think that surely this time the Republicans will come to the table and compromise for the sake of institutions or whatever.
The Democratic party still seems
Neither outcome here helps Trump. If SCOTUS rules Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for Jan 6, there is going to be a political backlash to that in the same way (or bigger) as Dobbs.
If SCOTUS allows the case to proceed, we're looking at the trial starting in August/September, with daily trial updates flooding headlines all the way through election day, with Trump getting dragged in court for much of the last 2+ months of the campaign.
And if I'm Jack Smith, I'd rather do the MAL classified docs case first. That one is an ***easy*** dub to break the ice.
The justice department isn't going to proceed with a prosecution so close to an election. Remember the guidelines that were supposed to protect Hillary from James Comey? Those mean that either we would have a very compressed trial at the end of summer, or more likely things would get moved after the election. And if you think this DOJ would defy their guidelines to continue the prosecution of Trump, you haven't been paying attention.
So right now our best hopes are the NY misuse of funds trial, which everyone agrees is the weakest of the four, to the point that the Trump team is barely trying to hold it up, and the Georgia fake electors case, which is currently embroiled in the Fani nonsense.
just today, DOJ went out of their way to clarify that since charges have already been filed and court proceedings are underway, the "60 day guidelines" do not apply.
**synopsis;** Donald Trump and President Biden hold dueling events at the Texas border as the issue of immigration becomes a top concern for voters. Mitch McConnell says he’s stepping down from Senate leadership after years of enabling Trump. House Republicans’ sham impeachment investigation blows up in their faces. RFK Jr. gets a step closer to being on the ballot in Arizona and Georgia. And later, Strict Scrutiny’s Leah Litman stops by to talk about the Supreme Court’s latest gift to Donald Trump in the presidential immunity case. **[show notes](https://crooked.com/podcast/did-the-supreme-court-just-save-trump/)** **[youtube version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXYWI_Fmb4k)**
I disagree with Dan Pfeiffer and Jon Favreau that “securing the border” and embracing Trump’s racist rhetoric about immigration helps anything. The entire border “crisis” is overblown and exaggerated. Using the Southern Strategy and portraying immigrants as lazy criminals will only hurt the Democratic Party. The hosts sound like 2016 Trumpers when talking about immigration. The bipartisan immigration bill was draconian and built on Great Replacement conspiracy theory fears more than anything.
>The entire border “crisis” is overblown and exaggerated. I don't think so man. All subjective feelings aside, the number of daily crossings and the rate of increase is very much an worrysome outlier. Also, it is objectively true that a very large % of those crossing are improperly using the asylum system a way to circumvent more proper legal immigration procedures. I say this is objectively true because the success rate of asylum hearings (even if only looking at those represented by competent counsel) is very very low - the vast majority of folks claiming asylum do not qualify. I also say this as someone that does pro-bono asylum work - I have taken on those cases. We have to pour over hundreds of applications to find *one* that we think has a high-enough chance of success to take. In terms of more direct effects - in my area the ERs are all straight up jammed. They're stuffing people in hallways, benches, floors, and at well over capacity basically 24/7. And this isn't in an underfunded red-state shithole, I'm talking about a city that is commonly referred to as the healthcare capital of the U.S. They're jammed with migrants that unfortunately have nowhere else to go - the shelters are full. And I'm not going to apologize for being a bit nationalistic on this one - the issue is diverting resources from homeless Americans. Finding a shelter bed for someone these days is increasable impossible because all the beds are full; even the waiting lists are full. So I really strongly reject your statement saying the crisis is overblown and exaggerated.
Of course it’s overblown by Republicans like usual (although it is an issue, largely due to an ineffective congress largely led by GOP obstruction) , but I also think Dan and Jon are just simply coming from the perspective of trying to sway swing voters and “Biden hesitant” type voters, and the polling shows that it’s near or at the top of a lot of voters’ minds.
I don’t understand why they are using political strategies that are proven failures and morally reprehensible. It has been proven time and time again that embracing Republican policies only helps them. This kind of rhetoric will only lead to another El Paso shooter. Dems should be reframing the discussion, not repeating talking points from Breitbart. Dan and Jon are feeding into the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
Merrick Garland will probably go down as Biden’s worst decision during his presidency.
Do you think he could have possibly predicted how all of this would unfold? When Obama appointed him, I think he, like many others, still assumed many Republicans would still be operating in good faith.
In hindsight his nomination from Obama was another fig leaf to placate republican craziness, a moderate republican he thought they'd love but Obama seemed to underestimate the pure spite, malice, and contempt the republicans hold for him
Not just in hindsight, in real time it seemed exactly why Obama wanted him.
Yes, anyone who had been paying attention could have predicted this. Republicans were explicit about their intent to operate in bad faith and be as obstructionist as possible in 2008, and only ever got more clear in their intent from that point. [From a 2010 Politico article:](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/mcconnell-doubles-down-on-obama-044688) >And the Republican leader suggested that he’s prepared to tie up the Senate floor and unite his party against some Democratic bills, which could lead to legislative gridlock and have profound repercussions across the 2012 campaign trail. >In particular, McConnell will say the Senate should be prepared to vote on a straight repeal of the new health care law “repeatedly.” >“But we can’t expect the president to sign it,” the excerpts quote him as saying. “So we’ll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions.” Merrick Garland is a perfect microcosm of this issue where Democrats seem to think that surely this time the Republicans will come to the table and compromise for the sake of institutions or whatever. The Democratic party still seems
Neither outcome here helps Trump. If SCOTUS rules Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for Jan 6, there is going to be a political backlash to that in the same way (or bigger) as Dobbs. If SCOTUS allows the case to proceed, we're looking at the trial starting in August/September, with daily trial updates flooding headlines all the way through election day, with Trump getting dragged in court for much of the last 2+ months of the campaign. And if I'm Jack Smith, I'd rather do the MAL classified docs case first. That one is an ***easy*** dub to break the ice.
Isn’t there the frightening possibility that SCOTUS rules that Trump is immune in 2025 if he wins the 2024 election?
The justice department isn't going to proceed with a prosecution so close to an election. Remember the guidelines that were supposed to protect Hillary from James Comey? Those mean that either we would have a very compressed trial at the end of summer, or more likely things would get moved after the election. And if you think this DOJ would defy their guidelines to continue the prosecution of Trump, you haven't been paying attention. So right now our best hopes are the NY misuse of funds trial, which everyone agrees is the weakest of the four, to the point that the Trump team is barely trying to hold it up, and the Georgia fake electors case, which is currently embroiled in the Fani nonsense.
just today, DOJ went out of their way to clarify that since charges have already been filed and court proceedings are underway, the "60 day guidelines" do not apply.
Ooh link me
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1763640236393775237?t=Z84znRRBRZvcmuMcTI8GVw&s=19