A Momentous Day Podcast Summary with Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord

A Momentous Day

1-Page Summary

Trump and Biden classified documents

Concerns with states barring candidates from ballots over insurrection

The Supreme Court recently examined the rights of states to exclude candidates from federal election ballots based on accusations of insurrection under the 14th Amendment Section 3. The core of the debate was around the possibility of non-uniformity, where a candidate might appear on the ballot in some states but not others. The justices grappled with what standards of proof are necessary, citing a Colorado trial court's use of the January 6th Committee's findings and expert testimony on President Trump's rhetoric. They pondered whether a state could bar a president from the ballot under this amendment, with the overarching question of whether Congress could intervene if Trump, accused of insurrection, won the Electoral College.

The Department of Justice's decision not to charge Trump with insurrection, to avoid accusations of political bias, was also scrutinized. Despite these discussions, it appeared that the Justices might be leaning towards reversing the decision that excludes Trump from the ballot. The conversation extended to how Congress might handle a situation where a candidate is objected to under the 12th and 20th Amendments and the Electoral Count Reform Act, especially with regard to the 2024 elections, highlighting the significant implications for Congress' role.

Criticisms of special counsel's report on Biden documents

Special counsel Robert Her's report on how President Biden handled classified documents has come under fire from Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord. Their critique centered on concerns about the political misuse of the report's language, drawing parallels with the FBI's treatment of the Hillary Clinton investigation. Weissmann pinpointed the report's unnecessary adjectival and adverbial content, specifically derogatory comments on Biden's self-view and memory abilities. McCord echoed this sentiment, deeming extended discussions on Biden's memory lapses irrelevant to the critical evidence from 2017.

Moreover, the report's portrayal of Biden as a forgetful elder was labeled as immaterial and an unneeded addition by the commentators. Both emphasized the problematic nature of the report's public availability in an election year, suggesting that a more concise approach, akin to the one for Mike Pence which concluded lack of sufficient evidence without extraneous detail, would have been appropriate. They argued for brevity and the exclusion of unflattering extras, inferring that any innocent explanations pertaining to the documents' presence should incline towards a decision not to prosecute.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

The 14th Amendment Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution deals with the consequences for individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. It prohibits anyone who has taken part in such activities from holding public office unless pardoned by a two-thirds vote in Congress. This section was originally included in the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to address concerns about former Confederates holding office. In the context of the text provided, it is being discussed in relation to the potential exclusion of candidates from election ballots based on accusations of insurrection.
The Department of Justice decided not to charge Trump with insurrection due to concerns about political bias and the high burden of proof required for such charges. This decision was scrutinized in the context of debates about his potential candidacy in future elections. The DOJ's stance on this matter was a significant point of discussion in legal and political circles.
The Supreme Court considered whether states can exclude a president from election ballots based on accusations of insurrection under the 14th Amendment Section 3. They discussed the standards of proof required for such exclusions and the potential implications for national uniformity in elections. The debate also touched on the role of Congress in intervening if a candidate accused of insurrection were to win the Electoral College.
The 12th Amendment outlines the procedure for electing the President and Vice President by the Electoral College. The 20th Amendment sets the dates for the start and end of presidential terms. The Electoral Count Reform Act provides guidelines for Congress in counting electoral votes and resolving disputes during the presidential election process. These provisions are crucial in determining how objections to a candidate's eligibility or election results are handled in the context of the Electoral College and congressional procedures.
The comparisons between the report's treatment of Biden and the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation highlight concerns about potential political bias and misuse of language in official reports. Critics suggest that the language used in both instances may have been unnecessarily derogatory or irrelevant to the core evidence presented. These comparisons draw attention to the importance of maintaining objectivity and professionalism in investigative reports related to high-profile political figures.

Counterarguments

The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, and if the justices find that the 14th Amendment allows for barring candidates based on insurrection, it would be a constitutional rather than a political decision.
Standards of proof are essential in any legal proceeding, and the debate among justices reflects the complexity and importance of ensuring fair and consistent application of the law.
The Department of Justice's decision not to charge Trump could be seen as an effort to maintain impartiality and uphold the principle that legal decisions should not be influenced by political considerations.
If the justices appear inclined to reverse the decision excluding Trump from the ballot, it could be because they believe in upholding the constitutional rights of candidates and voters, rather than any political bias.
Congress has established procedures under the 12th and 20th Amendments and the Electoral Count Reform Act to address objections to candidates, which are part of the checks and balances within the electoral process.
The special counsel's report on Biden's handling of classified documents may include detailed language to provide a comprehensive understanding of the investigation's findings and context.
Comparisons to the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation could be seen as an attempt to ensure consistency and fairness in the treatment of similar cases.
Discussions on Biden's memory lapses and portrayal as a forgetful elder could be relevant if they pertain to his ability to handle classified information responsibly.
A concise approach to reporting on investigations may not always provide the public with a full understanding of the context and findings, which could be important for transparency and accountability.
The inclusion of details in the report could be intended to provide a complete picture of the investigation, allowing the public to make informed judgments about the conduct and decisions of public officials.

Learn more

United States Court of Appeals

President Trump became former President Trump and his successor, Joseph R. Biden, became President and began his own four-year term. ... then-President Trump with “Incitement of Insurrection.” H.R. Res. 24, 117th Cong. (2021). ... exclusion was not left within the limits of his discretion. It is idle, therefore, to say that the ...

5 key takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments over Trump's 2024 ...

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Trump v. ... The case hinges on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars officials who have sworn to support the Constitution from serving in ...

Biden's Claims About Special Counsel Report on Classified Documents ...

Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on his investigation of President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents concluded that “no criminal charges are warranted in this matter.”. But ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.

Get access for free

A Momentous Day

Trump and Biden classified documents

The discussion focuses on the complexities and potential consequences of barring candidates from ballots and the criticisms over the handling of classified document cases involving Presidents Trump and Biden.

Concerns with states barring candidates from ballots over insurrection

Concerns have been raised about a state's power to exclude a candidate for federal office from the ballot, based on their 14th Amendment Section 3 powers relating to involvement in insurrection. Unease about the potential lack of uniformity across states has been noted, as this could lead to a situation where a candidate might be on the ballot in some states but not in others. Justices delved into standards of proof and evidence, with references made to a Colorado trial court accepting the January 6th Committee's report and a professor's testimony on Trump's use of coded language. A key issue discussed is whether the 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to the president and if a state can enforce it.

The Supreme Court justices discussed the possibility of Congress acting in cases where a candidate, such as Mr. Trump, might be deemed to have participated in insurrection. This raises the point that if Trump won the Electoral College, Congress could object to the electoral votes based on his involvement in insurrection. However, the Department of Justice chose not to charge Trump with insurrection, possibly to avoid political bias accusations by attempting to remove him from the ballot. The Supreme Court arguments gave the impression that the Justices are likely to reverse the decision to bar Trump from the ballot. The conversation touched on how Congress might address this situation under the 12th and 20th Amendments and the Electoral Count Reform Act if such objections arise. This remains an open question, with extensive implications for Congress' potential actions in 2024.

Criticisms of special counsel's report on Biden documents

Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord critiqued the report by special counsel Robert Her, appointed to investigate President Biden’s handling of classified documents. Weissmann expressed concerns that Her’s report could be misused for political attacks, stating that it contained too many unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, drawing an unfavorable comparison to James Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation. He criticized the report for grat ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!

Start your free trial today

Trump and Biden classified documents

Additional Materials

Clarifications

The 14th Amendment, Section 3, deals with barring individuals from holding public office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies. This section was originally intended to address the aftermath of the Civil War. It provides a mechanism to disqualify individuals who have actively worked against the government from serving in certain positions of power. The application of this section to presidential candidates and the process of enforcement can be subject to legal interpretation and debate.
The January 6th Committee is a congressional committee established to investigate the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. It is tasked with examining the causes and responses to the insurrection, including gathering evidence and conducting hearings to understand the circumstances leading up to and during the attack. The committee's focus includes looking into the security failures, potential coordination among the attackers, and any role played by public officials. The committee's findings and recommendations aim to provide insight into preventing similar incidents in the future and upholding the democratic process.
The Electoral College objections occur when members of Congress challenge the validity of electoral votes during the certification process. This can happen if there are concerns about the legitimacy of the electors or the electoral process in a particular state. The objections trigger a formal debate and vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to determine whether the challenged electoral votes should be counted. These objections are rare and require significant support from members of both chambers to sustain.
The 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution outlines the procedures for electing the President and Vice President. It was ratified in 1804 and refined the electoral process after issues arose in the original method. The 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933, sets the dates for the beginning and ending of the terms of the President and Vice President and the session of Congress. These amendments play crucial roles in the functioning of the U.S. electoral system.
The Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887 is a U.S. federal law that outlines procedures for counting electoral votes after a presidential election. It was created to address issues arising from disputed elections and aims to minimize congressional involvement in election disputes. The Act sets guidelines for states to resolve disputes, certify results, and send them to Congress. It limits Congress's role to specific scenarios, such as resolving c ...

Counterarguments

Concerns about states barring candidates may overlook the constitutional provisions that allow states some discretion in managing elections, which could be argued as a necessary check and balance within the federal system.
Uniformity across states in election matters could be seen as infringing on states' rights and the principle of federalism, which allows for diversity in how states conduct elections.
The standards of proof and evidence in cases involving classified documents are critical to ensuring due process; thus, discussions by justices are necessary to uphold legal standards and protect constitutional rights.
The debate on whether the 14th Amendment Section 3 applies to the president is a legitimate constitutional question that requires judicial interpretation to clarify the scope of the law.
Congress's role in cases of insurrection involving a candidate is part of its constitutional duties, and exploring this role is essential for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
The Department of Justice's decision not to charge Trump with insurrection could be defended on legal grounds if there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal standard for such a charge.
The likelihood of the Supreme Court reversing the decision to bar Trump from the ballot could be based on legal principles rather than political considerations, emphasizing the importance of an independent judiciary.
The implications for Congress's potential actions in 2024 are a matter of constitutional interpretation and legislative prerogative, which are subject to debate and discussion in a democratic society.
Critiques of the special counsel's report on Biden's handling of classified documents may not consider the importance of transparency and thoroughness in investigations of public officials.
Concerns about the report being misused for political attacks could underestimate the public's ability to discern political maneuvering from substantive legal issu ...