This is a powerful statement by the Supreme Court: Brett Tolman

Joining us now to weigh in on this right on crime Executive Director and former US Attorney and Tolman Group founder, Brett Tolman is here. Great to have you on this day. I want to ask you your opinion on this, Brett, because that essentially what Sean left off with there is my question to you. How does this play out with respect to that January 6th case and Donald Trump, because the lower court now is in charge of deciding, was he in official capacity? Was he in an unofficial capacity? You know, it's not like this is an open and open and closed door kind of case here where they made a decision on that. That's going to have to be left to somebody else. Yeah, this this is a remarkable opinion. But let me let me just first sort of set the stage. There's actually three types of conduct that the Supreme Court addressed. The 1st is conduct under the clear constitutional power and then there's conduct that is official conduct, not necessarily under the constitutional authority. And the third is unofficial conduct. And the Supreme Court was, was was quite expressly trying to avoid being the the court of first review to tell people what is unofficial, what is official versus unofficial. But it gave us some real insight and I'll give you the specifics. The first insight was the phone call, the the fact that Donald Trump reached out to the Department of Justice that the court indicated in the opinion that's official conduct under the constitutional power, so absolute immunity applies. Then they referenced the the conversation with the vice president regarding the electors that the court said that's not clearly under the constitutional authority, but it may be official act and it may be entitled to a presumption of immunity, which the government could then present evidence to try to rebut. So what the court said is now go back, do it the right way. Present the evidence. You're not entitled to to prosecute a a a former president unless you can overcome that presumption. What does this do then to the timeline of Jack Smith's case? Well, when an indictment usually comes the, the court, it actually gives deference to the, the, the indictment to the government and says, I'll accept what you what you're telling me as true for now. And then they just go forward here. They now have to present. So it's like another trial. They have to present all of the evidence to support the allegations that they made in order for the court to assess whether it's official or unofficial or conduct under clearly under constitutional authority. Think how long that is going to take for in, for purposes of the government presenting all of the evidence in order to to overcome the presumption of immunity. You know, I was interested that it was put along ideological lines. Again, you had the three liberals probably just looking at Trump. These cases live beyond just this moment in time. It's going to be used for other presidents to determine how they behave and how they act. And I was surprised about the ideological ship. But I want to move to this, Brett, because last week we had the Chevron decision overturning the Chevron rule from 1984. And it seems like the court may not be done. Do you see more cases being taken and coming out, you know, going up against the administrative state that we've seen over the last, you know, several decades has grown? I do. This is this is a powerful statement by the court to remind the growing bureaucracy, the administrative state, to remind them who's actually in charge of passing and enforcing our laws. And it's dangerous. I mean, we know how how prior democracies have failed. And it is when the bureaucracy and the administrative state grows so powerful. So this is this is an important message. I mean, the last week has has has presented itself as maybe one of the most important weeks in the Supreme Court history of our country within the last 50 years. It really has. Brett Tolman, we so appreciate your insight and your time today. Thank you.