Kate Shaw

President-elect Donald Trump will enter office in January 2025 with more power and with fewer constraints than any other president in modern U.S. history. Agree or disagree?

So I agree that there are certain complexities and I do want to get into some of those. But it seems at the outset as though we do agree that the president's power has been expanded in recent years and recent decisions and that the immunity decision is really a critical piece of that story. Absolutely.

So I agree that there are certain complexities and I do want to get into some of those. But it seems at the outset as though we do agree that the president's power has been expanded in recent years and recent decisions and that the immunity decision is really a critical piece of that story. Absolutely.

And so I think that actually one way to think about a number of recent Supreme Court opinions, maybe first and foremost the immunity opinion, is that they give the president both a sword, new powers, and a shield, new protections from any sort of meaningful accountability.

And so I think that actually one way to think about a number of recent Supreme Court opinions, maybe first and foremost the immunity opinion, is that they give the president both a sword, new powers, and a shield, new protections from any sort of meaningful accountability.

So one of the most important decisions that I think operates as both sword and shield is the court's immunity ruling from earlier this year, Trump versus United States, in which the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump sweeping new immunity from criminal prosecution for virtually any official acts taken as precedent.

So one of the most important decisions that I think operates as both sword and shield is the court's immunity ruling from earlier this year, Trump versus United States, in which the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump sweeping new immunity from criminal prosecution for virtually any official acts taken as precedent.

So what did you think was the most significant consequence or implication of that ruling?

So what did you think was the most significant consequence or implication of that ruling?

Just to underscore the first thing that you mentioned about the opinion, I continue to be kind of gobsmacked by the breadth of some of the rhetoric about things like the exclusive authority of the president over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Since essentially time immemorial, to my mind at least,

Just to underscore the first thing that you mentioned about the opinion, I continue to be kind of gobsmacked by the breadth of some of the rhetoric about things like the exclusive authority of the president over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Since essentially time immemorial, to my mind at least,

there has been a complex and nuanced and subtle set of dynamics and relationships between the I think is something presidents of both parties have engaged in in good faith. And this opinion just seems to wipe all of that away and say all of the power resides in the president. He can direct investigation and prosecution full stop, or at least he can't be prosecuted for any of that.

there has been a complex and nuanced and subtle set of dynamics and relationships between the I think is something presidents of both parties have engaged in in good faith. And this opinion just seems to wipe all of that away and say all of the power resides in the president. He can direct investigation and prosecution full stop, or at least he can't be prosecuted for any of that.

There might be some distance between the proposition that he can do whatever he wants and he can do whatever he wants and not be prosecuted for it, right? I think that those two might not be exactly the same.

There might be some distance between the proposition that he can do whatever he wants and he can do whatever he wants and not be prosecuted for it, right? I think that those two might not be exactly the same.

Oblivious or hostile to the project of maintenance of that separation. Yeah, I honestly don't know which it is. But I do think, you know, you mentioned the focus on the president. And that, I think, is one important question about the sweep of this opinion, how focused it is on just the president personally and how much it will have ripple effects personally.

Oblivious or hostile to the project of maintenance of that separation. Yeah, I honestly don't know which it is. But I do think, you know, you mentioned the focus on the president. And that, I think, is one important question about the sweep of this opinion, how focused it is on just the president personally and how much it will have ripple effects personally.

involving underlings of the president, right? So on its face, this opinion just talks about the immunity of the president, right? It doesn't say anything about shielding the president's top deputies from potential criminal prosecution. So I guess, is that also how you read this opinion as limited to the president by its terms and on its logic?

involving underlings of the president, right? So on its face, this opinion just talks about the immunity of the president, right? It doesn't say anything about shielding the president's top deputies from potential criminal prosecution. So I guess, is that also how you read this opinion as limited to the president by its terms and on its logic?

Or can you imagine the Supreme Court deciding to expand the immunity it announces in this opinion to encompass top advisors, say?