This is the Oct. 13, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday.

This has probably been asked before, but I keep going back to wondering what the Supreme Court was thinking when they granted this president immunity. It’s like looking at a classroom and taking the most disruptive, brattiest, unkind child and saying whatever you do in this class, you will never have to sit in the timeout chair like everyone else in the room. Did they have any idea? Did they not realize what telling this president would or could lead to? I’m so disappointed, I think really they are most to blame for this country’s downward slide. I hope you can explain their thought process because I certainly cannot understand it.

— Christy H., Cincinnati, Ohio

When the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity, I suspect the justices were thinking about far more than Donald Trump’s legal indiscretions. 

Before the Trump era, presidents and courts were extremely reluctant to criminalize presidential behavior, whether it was illegal or not.

This may have driven President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon for all crimes committed during the Watergate scandal. While Ford was roundly attacked at the time, and ultimately lost the 1976 presidential election because of the Nixon pardon, he would later be awarded a Profiles in Courage Award by John F. Kennedy’s family. 

On May 21, 2001, Sen. Ted Kennedy said this of Ford’s once-unpopular decision: 

“At a time of national turmoil, America was fortunate that it was Gerald Ford who took the helm of the storm-tossed ship of state. Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute President Nixon. So President Ford made a courageous decision, one that historians now say cost him his office, and he pardoned Richard Nixon. I was one of those who spoke against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us. He eminently deserves this award, and we are proud of his achievement.”

There were many who advocated that Barack Obama charge George W. Bush with war crimes during the Iraq War. I warned the incoming president that in eight years, the “shoe would be on the other foot” and setting such a precedent would be dangerous for all future commanders in chief. And sure enough, eight years later, there were Republicans accusing Obama of war crimes for killing Americans overseas in drone strikes. 

As is often the case with Donald Trump, his extreme actions took matters to a disturbing new level. I am confident historians will determine he should have been prosecuted for the stealing of classified documents on a grand scale, and also tried for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riots. That would have been the just thing to do — even if it set dangerous precedents for future chief executives.

When the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024, they sorted presidential actions into three distinct categories. 

1. A former president has absolute immunity for acts within his “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” The court’s examples include the pardon power, removing executive officials, recognizing foreign nations, and the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
2. Official acts outside those core powers, up to the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility, get “at least a presumptive immunity.” Prosecutors can overcome it only by showing that charging him would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
3. Unofficial acts done in a private capacity get no immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.”

Most Supreme Court cases turn on the facts and the law. I suspect that while the court will prove steadfast in future decisions on the first of these three categories, there may be more flexibility with how courts determine what the “outer perimeter of a president’s official duties” ultimately prove to be. That will depend on the circumstances of each case, the justices on the bench, and the parties involved.

And even on the first group of powers, abuse of presidential power for personal reasons will not protect a president—even if lawyers try to hide behind the “official duties” exception. 

While there are several aspects of this ruling with which I strongly disagree, the suggestion that this decision grants absolute immunity to all future presidents is not accurate.

I am concerned about the Democrats’ excitement over the polls. I just read a headline that they “smell blood in the water” with Brian Fitzpatrick. My daughter who lives in Bucks County [Pennsylvania] and is a very informed MS NOW fan likes Brian Fitzpatrick and will likely vote for him. She hates Trump and all Trump politics but feels Brian Fitzpatrick is truly bipartisan, not MAGA, not a criminal. I worry that this dynamic is brewing under the polls and the Democrats are not paying enough attention to these voters.

— Ann O., Plymouth, Mass.

You have good reason to worry about any party that is overconfident going into an election. When I ran for office, I too was skeptical of polls and always ran like our campaign was 20 points behind our opponent. Taking nothing for granted led to four landslide victories.

Pollsters are now predicting a “blue wave” next month. The last time we heard such talk was in 2022, when many members of the media predicted a “red wave.” Instead, Joe Biden’s party outperformed most presidents in mid-term elections. 

I also remember Bill Clinton’s second midterm election, when most of official Washington predicted a massive Republican victory because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. They were wrong. 

Democrats picked up five seats in the House of Representatives, and a week later, Newt Gingrich was kicked out of his speakership. 

As Tom Brokaw liked to say on “Morning Joe,” the media’s job is not to predict election outcomes but to report on the results. It is the voters, after all, who have the final word, and it is the voters who will determine America’s future. 

While this year’s political environment favors Democratic candidates, Republicans hold a massive financial advantage and have proved more adept at getting low-propensity voters out to the polls. But that is true mainly when Donald Trump’s name is on the ballot. Since it is not this year, he outcome of the 2026 election is anyone’s guess. You are right to be skeptical. Like Tom says, let’s just listen to the voters and then report the outcome.

No doubt the reaction to Trump praising Putin on the deal to release all the diesel fuel to save the fuel crisis makes one wonder if Trump is not a puppet of Putin’s circle. Especially lifting the blockade on Russia giving them a leg up on the war. Most importantly, backstabbing Ukraine and now saying all this is Zelenskyy’s fault. How can the Republican Party stand with Trump? Or will this suddenly raise the fortunes of the party to not lose as many seats with the elections looming?

— Bruce M., Moncton NB Canada

Bruce, most October surprises are launched to help the party in control of the White House. This may be the first time in recent political history that a president has unveiled one that does the opposite.

Americans understand that Vladimir Putin considers himself a sworn enemy of the United States and wishes us ill. They also see Ukrainians as freedom fighters defending not only their own land, but also Western democracy.

For Donald Trump to continue tipping the scales in the favor of a former KGB agent is shocking but not surprising.

One can only hope Senate Republicans will block this horrible deal and reinstate sanctions on the former Soviet agent’s deadly war machine. 

The post “Run like you’re 20 points behind”: Joe Scarborough answers reader questions about midterms, polls, and Russia appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.