In this episode of Re-Examination, Murray Coffey and Andrew Longstreth sit down with journalist and historian Jeffrey Toobin to discuss one of the most consequential moments in American political history—Gerald Ford’s decision to pardon Richard Nixon. In his new book, The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy, Toobin argues Ford’s act—however well-intended—was a political miscalculation that deepened distrust in government.

"A bad pardon for an honorable reason is still a bad pardon, and that is what Ford's pardon of Nixon was." – Jeffrey Toobin

Presidential pardons have always been an extraordinary power, derived from the royal prerogatives of kings and inserted into the U.S. Constitution with little oversight or restriction. But no pardon has shaped modern American politics more than Ford’s absolution of Nixon.

With presidential pardons once again at the center of national debate, Toobin connects historical precedent to Trump’s pardons of January 6 rioters and Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. He discusses why he thinks of presidential pardons as "x-rays" into the souls of presidents.

And then there is Evel Knievel.

Ford announced the Nixon pardon on September 8, 1974, the same day that Daredevil Evel Knievel attempted—and failed—to jump Idaho’s Snake River Canyon in a rocket-powered Skycycle. The two events may seem unrelated, but Toobin sees Knievel’s jump as a perfect metaphor for the times: grand gestures, high-risk maneuvers, and the political realities of failing to stick the landing.

"Like Knievel soaring over the canyon, Ford thought he could clear the Watergate scandal in one leap. But history shows that neither of them stuck the landing." – Jeffrey Toobin

Thank you for listening. To learn more, visit Infinite Global and M Coffey.

In this episode, we sit down with Steve Schleicher, the veteran trial lawyer who played a pivotal role in the prosecution of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. Steve shares the behind-the-scenes strategy and storytelling approach that shaped one of the most significant cases in U.S. history. We explore how Steve's meticulous preparation, experience, and ability to humanize the narrative for the jury helped secure justice. Listeners will gain insight into the legal maneuvers, courtroom dynamics, and the emotional toll of representing the state in such a high-profile case.

Key Points:

- Steve's journey from growing up in rural Minnesota to becoming a key player in one of the most important trials of our time.
- The legal strategy behind the prosecution’s approach, including the use of bystander perspectives and focusing on the jury’s role as the new witnesses to the crime.
- The cross-examination that dismantled the defense’s expert testimony and the power of simple, direct questions in the courtroom.
- Reflections on the legacy of the George Floyd trial and its implications for justice and policing in America.

Thank you for listening. To learn more, visit Infinite Global and M Coffey.

When the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. United States over presidential immunity, it didn’t take long for the intent of the Founding Fathers to take center stage.

“There are amici here who tell us that the Founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president,” Justice Sotomayor said early in the hearing. “And, in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors. And yet they didn’t take it up.”

The amici Justice Sotomayor was referring to are 15 leading Founding Era historians. In an amicus brief, they argued that former President Trump’s claim of permanent criminal immunity runs contrary to the Framers’ intent to avoid creating an elective monarchy.

The job of combing through the historical record and synthesizing the august group’s expertise fell to counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Friedman Kaplan, led by partners Larry Robbins, Katherine Pringle and associate Ian Bruckner. Over a 34-page brief, they drew upon original sources, including Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the Federalist Papers, and James Madison’s Journal of the Constitutional Convention, to make the case that no one is above the law.

The brief not only struck a chord with some of the justices but also resonated with the public, garnering attention from MSNBC, The Guardian, Law360 and the Washington Post.

In this episode of Re-Examination, Katherine Pringle and Ian Bruckner discuss their approach to researching and writing the brief, what they learned, and why they think the brief resonated so much.

Thank you for listening. To learn more, visit Infinite Global and M Coffey.