Prosecutor calls bombshell Trump pardon a "bribe" - Brian Tyler Cohen

[TexasTowelie]

BTC: You're watching the legal breakdown.
Glenn, we all watched as Donald Trump
basically railed against Henry Cuellar on
Truth Social because Henry Cuellar didn't
give him the loyalty that Donald Trump
expected after Trump pardoned him and
then Cuellar announced that he would be
running continuing as a Democrat and of
course Trump wanted him to switch
parties and basically offer up the quo
in this quid pro quo. So, first and
foremost, on the legality of this move
where Trump issues a pardon expecting
something in return, can you speak on
that? Or, you know, what I fear you
might say is just that the pardon power
is plenary and Trump can be as corrupt
and overtly corrupt as he wants and he
has the full right to do that.

GK: So Brian,
let's start with the proposition that
what we know about Donald Trump
delivering a pardon to Democrat Henry
Cuellar and then railing against him
because apparently Cuellar, you know,
didn't follow through with what Donald
Trump expected would be the quo to the
quid pro, right? This for that. And he
announced he's going to continue being a
Democrat. He's going to run again as a
Democrat. And Donald Trump actually put
in writing for all the world to
see. Well, that's not loyalty. So,
Brian, what I just described is the
crime of bribery. In essence, the qu
it's one of many potential crimes that
Donald Trump commits when he corruptly
delivers a pardon expecting to get
something in return for that official
act that he took of delivering a pardon.
And what he wants is political loyalty
in return that will enure to his
personal benefit because he obviously
wants to continue to keep the House of
Representatives in Republican hands and
this is now going to thwart his efforts
in that regard. You know, um it is
political corruption of the most callous
and craven. It probably also constitutes
a violation of any number of federal
laws. But the next question becomes, as
you sort of uh foreshadowed,
what does it mean? Is there any way
Donald Trump can be held accountable for
this gross abuse of presidential power?
I think the answer is most likely no
because the Supreme Court, the really
radical right-wing sixth justice
majority of the Supreme Court decided
that a criminal president should be
allowed to commit crimes in violation of
our federal laws. You know, victimizing
the American people in the process with
complete immunity against prosecution.
he can't be held criminally responsible
for the crimes he committed, violating
federal law. Now, why in the world the
Supreme Court believes that is the way
we should govern ourselves, those are
the powers that be this president should
have, powers that no other president in
the history of the United States
enjoyed. Immunity against all crimes
that aren't personal crimes. But here's
what I would argue, Brian. I would argue
that when the rule of law comes back
into the light of day, so starting with
the midterms when I expect the Democrats
will take control of the House, who
knows, maybe the Senate as well, when
the Democrats retake control of the
White House, the executive branch. What
will have to happen is these corruptly
delivered pardons will have to be
challenged. The way you challenge it is
you charge crimes that were committed.
You walk into court, you let the
defendant hold up a pardon or the pardon
power in Trump's um uh case and you
litigate it. And if all of the federal
courts from trial court judges to courts
of appeal judges up to the Supreme Court
again decide that now in this very
concrete context of corruptly delivered
pardons committing crimes in the
process. That's exactly what we want for
our government. That's exactly what we
want a US president to be allowed to do,
entitled to do with impunity and
immunity. Let the judges rule that way.
Let the courts rule that way. But what
we can't do is just sit back and throw
up our hands and say, I guess
lawlessness is our lot and we just have
to lay down and take it. You know, these
things must be challenged. I am not
going to sit here and tell our viewers.
I fully expect the challenges to be
successful. But you know, Brian, we have
to attack criminality where we find it.
We have to try to rebuild our
institutions of government. We have to
try to restore the rule of law and the
constitution. And if we don't, we didn't
do it the first time around. You know, I
will say Jack Smith tried to hold Donald
Trump accountable for his crimes, but he
didn't quite get there. I think because
Merrick Garland didn't, you know, deploy
him early enough in the process. Um, but
we didn't we didn't fix the problem. We
didn't address the problem the first
time around. If we again fail to address
this problem um when Donald Trump, you
know, falls from power, then I can no
longer argue we deserve to keep our
republic.

BTC: Yeah. Glenn, you had said that that this
could fall under the umbrella of
bribery. How does that reconcile with
the fact that the pardon power is
plenary and that Trump has the the legal
right as far as the Supreme Court has
recognized to give a pardon for any
reason. uh which I would assume includes
corrupt reasons. And so how do you
reconcile those two things?

GK: I don't I disagree with the Supreme
Court precedent. I acknowledge that it
exists. But if you read Justice
Sotomayor's descent often, Brian, and
what she said is, you know, with fear
for our democracy, I dissent because she
laid out the parade of horribles that
are now coming true. Right? We are
seeing how Donald Trump is now abusing
his presidential powers including the
pardon power, including his um core
constitutional power of directing the
military. What is he directing them to
do? Murder people lawlessly in
international waters. We see that
Justice Sotomayor's
um warning was prophetic because we now
we see it all coming home to roost. So I
can't square it. If we continue to abide
by Supreme Court precedent um of Trump
versus United States, then we are just
acknowledging that the president gets to
rule over us like a dictator or a
monarch and can never be held
accountable for the crimes he
perpetrates against the American people
or we can fight against it by continuing
to litigate it and try to get it all the
way up to the Supreme Court. Brian often
dissents
predict where the Supreme Court might
go, where the rule of law might go,
where the Constitution might go in the
future. If we were to lay back and say,
you know, we have to accept Plessy versus
Ferguson's separate but equal doctrine.
horrific separate but equal doctrine
where the court in Plessy versus Ferguson
essentially said government sanctioned
government sponsored racial
discrimination and segregation
is good to go. If we just laid back and
accepted that, then we never would have
had Brown versus Board of Education, a
subsequent Supreme Court case that put a
nail in the coffin of Pie versus
Ferguson's horrific separate but equal
doctrine. That's why we can't just lay
back and say, well, you know, Trump
versus United States, six Supreme Court
justices said he gets to be lawless and
victimize the American people.
Fuck that. We take the fight to the
lawlessness, win, lose or draw. So I
can't rectify them at this moment. But
what I can say is we need to continue to
fight against it until we write this
American ship.

BTC: Recognizing that nothing is going to
change in terms of their rulings while
they remain in place, especially with
their 63 majority. What kind of reforms
do you think need to happen at the
Supreme Court level?

GK: You know, first of all, we can enact all
the reforms in the world. And the system
will only be as good and as strong um
and as effective as the honor of the
people populating government that are
put in in a position to enforce the laws
or to rule on the laws in accordance
with the actual you know terms of the
constitution rather than ignoring them
and contradicting the express terms of
the constitution as this Supreme Court
has done on multiple occasions. some of
the reforms that we should put in place.
One, we need a damn code of ethics that
is binding on the Supreme Court with a
robust enforcement mechanism such that
if they are found to have violate
violated the the code of ethics that
they are obligated to to live by, there
are sanctions up to and including
removal from office. It it's insanity,
Brian, that there are hundreds of
thousands, actually in excess, I think,
of 1.2 million federal government
employees, but nine of those people have
no code of ethics that binds them to
actually do the work of the American
people in an ethical and honorable way.
That's absolute insanity. So there needs
to be a mandatory code of ethics that
applies to Supreme Court justices with a
robust enforcement mechanism. And I am a
proponent of increasing the number of
Supreme Court justices. You know, in our
nation's history, we've had as few as
five Supreme Court justices. We've had
as many as 10 Supreme Court justices.
Nine is not a magic number. We've
increased the number of federal trial
court judges to norm for the increase in
our population and for the rising case
loads that those judges have to contend
with. We have increased the number of
circuit courts of appeals judges again
to norm for the increase in the
population and the increased case load.
It only makes sense to you know increase
the number of Supreme Court justices.
You know, justices have um certain
supervisory responsibilities over the
different federal jurisdictions. The
first circuit, the second circuit, the
ninth circuit out in California, but
there are 13 federal judicial circuits,
but only nine Supreme Court justices.
Some of them actually have to double up
and take two federal judicial circuits.
Let's norm for that expansion as well of
the Federal Judicial Circuits. 13 makes
a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. and
it would have the fringe benefit of kind
of evening out the score. And when I say
the score, I'm sorry, but when you have
Supreme Court justices who, you know,
will always rule in favor of expanding
presidential power beyond both the
federal laws which are in place to
constrain and provide checks and
balances against executive branch
overreach and abuse and will depart from
the constraints in the Constitution.
constraints that are designed to, you
know, channel the executive branch's
authority and prerogative. The there are
a number of justices who seem willing to
willing to ignore all that to, you know,
just increase Donald Trump and and
presidential power beyond all
recognition. Um, I don't know why that
is, but if you could get more honest
brokers of the law and the facts and the
Constitution on to the Supreme Court, it
would help address what I see as some of
the lawlessness and abuse of people like
Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel
Alito, both of whom seem to have taken
what I'll call in-kind contributions from
Republican oligarch donors. And you
know, they are not held to account
either by Congress by initiating
impeachment inquiries because it looks
like they violated federal financial
disclosure laws, you know, or by the
executive branch, a Department of
Justice. And Brian, a Department of
Justice can investigate crime and
corruption by Supreme Court justices.
But of course, they have opted not to do
it under Donald Trump or under Joe
Biden, I will add.

BTC: Right. Well, that was perfectly put.
We'll leave it there. For folks who are
watching and want to continue to stay up
on legal news, please make sure to
subscribe. I'm going to put the links to
both of our channels right here on the
screen. That is the best way to support
our work and it is and always will be
100% free. So again, the links to both
of our channels are right here on the
screen. If you've not yet subscribed,
please go ahead and subscribe. I'm Brian
Taylor Cohen

GK: and I'm Glenn Kirschner.

BTC: You're watching the Legal Breakdown.