The World and Everything in It: April 29, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is brought to you by listeners like us. I'm Summer.
ILA: I'm Ila.
BRODIE: I'm Brodie.
SUMMER: And we're listening from Mount Vernon Washington.
ILA: My favorite part of my mom's podcast is the music. do do, do, do, do, do, do.
SUMMER: We hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Today the question of presidential immunity. It all turns on the presidential job description: what’s official, what’s not?

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, attempting to defend the integrity of the election, I mean, that’s the defense. The allegation is that he was attempting to overthrow an election.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket. Also today, the Monday Moneybeat. And later the WORLD History Book, 50 years ago this week, a milestone in the Watergate scandal.

NIXON: If I were to make public these tapes, the confidentiality of the office of the President would always be suspect from now on.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, April 29th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Cease-fire offer/Biden-Netanyahu conversation » President Biden spoke on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again over the weekend as Israel awaits a response from Hamas to a new cease-fire proposal.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said the terror group has not fully rejected the offer.

KIRBY:  They are considering this proposal on the table. If we can get that in place, then that gives you six weeks of peace. And that includes no fighting in Rafah. And what we're hoping is that after six weeks of a temporary ceasefire, we can maybe get something more enduring in place.

Kirby also said on Sunday that the U.S. military is getting closer to completing a pier in southern Gaza to help bring in humanitarian aid supplies.

SOUND: [Protest]

Campus protests » On college campuses across the country, pro-Palestinian demonstrations continue, which in some cases have included anti-Semitic rhetoric or destructive behavior.

And some students are now demanding amnesty from any consequences tied to breaking campus rules or laws during the protests.

Republican Congressman Pat Fallon said schools—in his words—“should act with strength.”

FALLON:  If you're repeatedly ignoring directives for lawful directives from your university, you should be removed. And if you're a student, you should be expelled. And that would stop these protests—these illegal protests—very quickly.

But Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine says he believes schools have to try to strike a balance. He said most protests are peaceful and orderly, but …

KAINE: There are those who speak in hate speech or anti-Semitism, and so giving people the latitude to do what they ought to be able to do and, and, and also trying to curb unacceptable behavior is tough.

Hundreds of students around the country have been arrested, suspended, or in rare cases, expelled for their actions.

Tornadoes » In the wake of weekend tornadoes that ripped through Nebraska and Oklahoma some families are now coping with the loss of their homes, like this Omaha resident …

RESIDENT:  This was our forever home and we've moved twice in the last two years and we were supposed to be done. And we came home and there was no home to really come to.

And others are mourning the loss of loved ones.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt addressed reporters in the rural town of Sulphur.

STITT: We’ve had four confirmed fatalities. One was here. Just right here on the corner. They just removed her body; two in Ada, and one in Marietta.

The twisters devastated Sulphur. In downtown, piles of rubble now rest where buildings once stood, and roofs were sheared off houses over several blocks.

Overall, state authorities reported about a hundred injuries.

ZELSENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

Ukraine latest » Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is making a renewed plea to Western allies to rush more air defenses to his country.

ZELSENSKYY: [Speaking Ukrainian]

He said in recent conversations with leaders in Washington, he “underscored that Patriot [missile] systems are needed, and as soon as possible”

That comes as Russia renews its attacks on Ukraine’s power grid, targeting infrastructure with dozens of missiles early Sunday morning .

White House Correspondent’s dinner » A tuxedo-clad President Biden looked to score a few political points by dialing up laughs at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington over the weekend he trotted out a few jokes he’s been testing lately on the campaign trail.

BIDEN: The 2024 election is in full swing. And yes, age is an issue. I’m a grown man running against a 6 year old.

Biden also mocked Trump’s past remarks about the overturning of the Roe v Wade decision at the Supreme Court.

BIDEN: Trump bragged how proud he was of getting rid of Roe v Wade. He took credit for it. He described the Dobbs decision as a miracle. Maybe it’s coming from that Bible he’s trying to sell.

He added—his words—“I almost wanted to buy one just to see what is in it.”

Trump Vice President » But the incumbent has a little catching up to do in the race.

An average of recent national polls show Trump leading Biden by 1 point. But much more importantly, he’s leading in every major battleground state.

Meantime, speculation continues over who Trump might pick as a running mate this time around. One of the names in the rumor mill is Ohio Sen. JD Vance. But he said on Sunday …

VANCE: I talk to President Trump a lot. We’re very close. I’ve never spoken to him about being vice president. So I assume that a lot of this is media speculation. Of course if he asked me, I’d have to think seriously about it, because I think it’s really important that he win.

Trump previously confirmed that South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem are on his list of potential VP candidates.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Presidential immunity at the Supreme Court on Legal Docket. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 29th day of April, 2024. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Last week, the Supreme Court held a special session of oral argument. The court doesn’t typically hear arguments on Thursdays.

But the situation called for it, as the high court’s never faced this before: That is, resolving whether a former president has immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts while in office?

EICHER: Of course this is specifically about former President Donald Trump … and the four criminal charges brought last summer by Special Counsel Jack Smith. All of those charges relate to Smith’s investigation into the January 6 rally and riots at the US Capitol.

But the outcome of this case involves more than Trump. It sets precedent for future presidents.

The case comes to the Supreme Court from the DC Circuit court of appeals … where a three-judge panel decided that Trump is not entitled to presidential immunity.

Here’s an exchange in that appellate panel between Trump lawyer John Sauer and Judge Florence Pan:

FLORENCE PAN: Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached could he be subject to criminal prosecution.

JOHN SAUER: if he were impeached and convicted first.

PAN: So your answer is…no.

SAUER: My answer is a qualified yes. There’s a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our Constitution which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.

REICHARD: Some acts are official, some are not. And I think that statement will turn out to be for the Supreme Court the fulcrum on which arguments pivot as to whether immunity attaches or doesn’t.

Here’s how Trump’s attorney Sauer framed the case for the justices:

SAUER: For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts. The Framers of our Constitution viewed an energetic executive as essential to securing liberty.…Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the Court's decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case.

EICHER: Sauer harkened to history to ask whether President George W. Bush could have been imprisoned for allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq, or whether President Barack Obama could be charged with murder for killing Americans abroad with drones. Or whether President Biden might soon be prosecuted for ignoring the law and inviting mass illegal immigration.

SAUER: The answer to all these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure.

REICHARD: The other side says what’s innovative is the Trump team’s argument. For Special Counsel Jack Smith, former deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben:

MICHAEL DREEBEN: This Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official….delete…The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. Here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statutes and seeking accountability for Petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. That is a compelling public interest.

Both sides cite a Supreme Court decision from 1982 called Nixon versus Fitzgerald. That case established that presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for “acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties.”

You can imagine the many ways that “outer perimeter” of “official duties” might be interpreted.

But it doesn’t answer the question of whether presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.

EICHER: Is it plausible to argue that President Trump on that day was trying to ensure election integrity as part of his official duties?

Or, will the court see him as more in campaign mode, making his actions that day non-official?

Listening to the arguments, you can hear how different justices approach the case. Here’s Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:

JUSTICE JACKSON: But if there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants? … I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.

SAUER: I don’t think there’s any allegation of that in this case.

But the justices grappled with line drawing. Justice Elena Kagan listed actual allegations, including this one:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The defendant asks the Arizona house speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud.

SAUER: absolutely an official act for the president to communicate with state officials on a matter of enormous federal interest and concern.

REICHARD: Sauer going on to say Trump was defending the integrity of the election. Justice Kagan:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, attempting to defend the integrity of the election, I mean, that’s the defense. The allegation is that he was attempting to overthrow an election.

But no prosecution without an impeachment and conviction first. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about that:

JUSTICE BARRETT: So there are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment. So why is the president different when the Impeachment Clause doesn’t say so?

SAUER: …the sequence is mandatory only as to the president.

Sauer pointing out that the office of the presidency is unique in our constitutional structure.

The justices spun more hypotheticals … and they weren’t all for the Trump lawyer. Justice Clarence Thomas asked why past presidents engaged in various coups or covert ops like the Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba. No prosecutions.

JUSTICE THOMAS:  Why? If you -- if what you're saying is right, it would seem that that would have been ripe for criminal prosecution of someone.

DREEBEN: So, Justice Thomas, I think this is a central question. The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes.

EICHER: Argument turned toward another historical event: the pardon of Richard Nixon by his successor Gerald Ford for the Watergate scandal. Wouldn’t that imply that Nixon understood he could face criminal liability if he didn’t accept the pardon? Justice Jackson:

JUSTICE JACKSON: What was up with the pardon for President Nixon? …If everybody thought that presidents couldn't be prosecuted, then what was that about?

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh saw the situation through a different lens:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Very controversial in the moment.

DREEBEN: Yes.

KAVANAUGH: Hugely unpopular, probably why he lost in '76.

DREEBEN: Yes.

KAVANAUGH: Now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, I think, by most people. If he's thinking about, well, if I grant this pardon to Richard Nixon, could I be investigated myself for obstruction of justice on the theory that I'm interfering with the investigation of Richard Nixon?

REICHARD: Justice Samuel Alito also looked to bigger matters:

JUSTICE ALITO: Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail.

…with Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumping in and asking leading questions of the advocate for the government:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: A stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct?

DREEBEN: Absolutely.

SOTOMAYOR: And that good faith assumes that they will follow the law?

DREEBEN: Correct.

And that brings us back around to assumptions, always a risk when adjudicating disputes.

I think Chief Justice John Roberts really underscored that point here:

JUSTICE ROBERTS: The court of appeals below whose decision we’re reviewing, said quote “A former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws.”...and that I think is the clearest statement of the court’s holding which is why it concerns me. As I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.

Roberts making note of a tautological argument, surprising coming from an esteemed court such as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

EICHER: Surprising, too, that Dreeben didn’t really have an answer for the chief, except that we should trust the government and remember that a grand jury has to indict. There’s your safeguard.

REICHARD: But in law school, I learned the adage that a decent lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The same day as this argument, Trump was in New York for trial over charges that he falsified business records.

And he faces more prosecutions in Florida and Georgia.

EICHER: And just last month the Supreme Court unanimously stopped Colorado from kicking Trump off the state ballot using the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment.

As for this case, the charges from Special Counsel Jack Smith? The justices may send the case back to lower court to figure out what acts are and what acts are not “official.” That means further delay.

REICHARD: And delay works in Trump’s favor. It takes several months to prepare for trial.

Early voting starts in the fall.

If the Supreme Court says Trump has immunity, and if he wins in November, he could order the DOJ to drop the case or he could pardon himself.

By the way, the court has never ruled on whether presidents can do that.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm the Bahnsen group, and he is here now. David, Good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: Well, David, let's begin with the quarterly GDP report. It came in below expectations. What do you take away from the performance of the first three months of the year? 

BAHNSEN: Well, it definitely was not a good report. And they were expecting about 2.5% real GDP growth annualized in the first quarter, and it came in at 1.6%. And I think that there's a number of factors that kind of weighed on things, and I don't think that we should forget the historical context. Let me first point out the 2.5 was the expected number, and that is still below the 3.1% that we have averaged since World War II. And so we have had very, very few periods where we have even gotten back up to our regular trendline growth. And people can point to a few of the quarters post COVID, but those are obviously highly misleading, because it was coming off of a total collapse in GDP from the shutdowns. And then you had a big percentage move higher as things were, were normalizing. So there's a few outliers that we've had along the way. But from a basic trendline standpoint, we very much struggled to get to normal economic growth. And then this particular report was below that 2.5 expectation. The 2023 number full year was quite robust, and it was it was a surprise to many people. Not only that the number was pretty good, but that most started the year believing a recession was coming and the Fed tightening. So now to see a more disappointing number, I think it has opened up questions as to where we go from here.

EICHER: So who answers those open questions, David? When you say that, do you mean to refer to the Federal Reserve?

BAHNSEN: I think it's a question that people who are looking at economic growth in any number of contexts are asking. I don't believe that the Fed ought to be a very significant player. I wrote a piece for WORLD Opinions about this last week. I think the idea of the Fed being a key role player in creating economic growth is a very misguided idea. Although, do I think the Fed might look at slowing GDP as some factor in rationalizing an eventual rate cut? I think it's certainly possible. The 1.6% was the slowest we'd had in almost two years. And I think that when you look at the components of it, you have to kind of wonder where that business investment is coming from. The business investment wasn't the worst detractor, by the way. And that's always the factor I care about most. The largest drag was net exports. And, and, you know, the personal consumption side was healthy. But see, it always is. I mean, unless you're just in a real credit crisis. It takes an awful lot of economic headwind to get the American consumer to stop spending. Homebuilding was positive in the data for the first quarter. And so all things being equal, you're really talking about something was more trade related as being the biggest downward pressure. That allows us to kind of wait to look to the next quarter to see what sort of trend we get out of this. If you recall, Nick—it's been almost two years—but this was a theme you and I discussed literally two years. I recall it very well, when inventories were the big factor in a very low GDP number. And my comment was, well, the that is put downward pressure on the number here, but it's not generally something that is sustained. It tends to have a one-and-done impact, where things like business investment tend to be more sustainable. So, I'm curious what the next quarter is going to play.

EICHER: Okay. David, last week, speaking of personal consumption, we did get a look at the latest PCE, the government index of personal consumption expenditures. That would be the Feds preferred inflation gauge over the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, but a lot of ink spilled on how the PCE remains above the Feds target 2%. So, persistent inflation.

BAHNSEN: I probably missed some of those reports just in the sense that it came in exactly as was expected and bond yields actually dropped on the news, and you had a pretty big week up in the markets. And then you had a particularly on the Friday that the PCE number came the market higher. But I don't think the market was responding higher to the PCE report. It came in at 2.7% year over year. That's exactly what was expected. The CPI number for the month came two weeks earlier. And as long as the PCE number is coming two weeks after CPI, it's difficult for the PCE to become a big news story, because everyone is focused on CPI. Although the Fed still says, and I believe them, that the PCE is their number. I certainly believe it's a better number. And you notice that the CPI number came in at 3.4, the PCE was 2.7. And that has everything to do with how housing is being measured. But there were no surprises in the PCE number. I think we've had a few weeks now to absorb a number of facts that are all true right now about the state of inflation. There's a lot of elements that we measure prices of, that prices have come down over the year. There's other elements that prices have gone up in the year. The one that moved the needle most last month was auto insurance. And then there's things that are just perpetually holding numbers in a certain place. And when you're talking about headline inflation, oil is going to be a very big factor there. Oil really helped inflation to go lower and 2023 when it dropped a lot from the 2022 levels. And oil coming a bit higher over the last couple months has added two tenths of a point to the headline number. But the basic theme here is what the shelter number will end up doing in the months ahead, and how that will give cover to the Fed, I think, to start cutting rates. And there's so much complexity in the way all this is measured. But no, I don't think I don't think the PSE number was a lot of hype. And both stock and bond markets on Friday seem to agree with me.

EICHER: DAVID, I'd like to circle back to where we started today at GDP for our ”Defining Terms” this week. We've discussed the differences between the PCE and the CPI. But the figure that we use to quantify economic conditions, that's GDP. So what is it? And what does it consist of.

BAHNSEN: So the letters actually stand for a gross domestic product. And it's essentially a way of measuring output in the economy, the goods and services that are produced. And it's meant to be a barometer for economic health, how much the economy is growing. And while it is difficult to measure precisely—and there's always going to be some debate as to how one goes about measuring it—I do agree that it's the right way to think about an economy. That an economy is growing when its output is growing. And in fact, there's a metric called gross output that I even like better, I think is very important. But the way in which we measure it is to include components of personal consumption. And then the non-residential fixed investment, which is a fancy term for business investment. And then we look at trade, which is imports minus exports. And then the effect of government spending. And then finally, inventories. And when you look at these components put together, you get some feel for what the total output in the economy is. And it's been pretty consistently measured for some time. So even if people would like to turn a knob here and there and how it's measured, it does give a pretty consistent reference over time to how we think about the gross domestic product of the country.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnson, founder, managing partner, chief investment officer of the Bahnson group. You can check out David's latest book Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life. It's at fulltimebook.com. David, I hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. Good to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday April 29th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, the last manufactured Oldsmobile rolls off the assembly line, and the car company calls it quits.

And, the body of a famous mountaineer is found on Mount Everest, 75 years after he disappears.

EICHER: But first, recorded evidence incriminates President Richard Nixon in Watergate.

Here’s WORLD Radio Reporter Emma Perley:

EMMA PERLEY: On a warm summer night in 1972, five men break into the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. At 1:47 A.M., Watergate security guard Frank Wills discovers the break-in. Here’s Wills on Good Night America.

WILLS: I called Metropolitan Police and I reported that I thought something was suspicious. And they came, and we discovered that the door that led directly into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters was broken into.

The police apprehend all five men for burglary. While the White House denies involvement, investigative reporters discover a paper trail that points to the president’s re-election campaign.

Democrat opposition George McGovern’s presidential campaign is especially skeptical of President Richard Nixon. Audio here from a 1972 McGovern campaign rally, courtesy of ABC News.

MCGOVERN: Mr. Nixon, did you know about the burglary of our Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate?

Senators form a Watergate Committee to continue the investigation alongside the FBI. And Nixon’s former aide Alexander Butterfield testifies that Nixon recorded private conversations in the White House. The Committee immediately subpoenas the tapes and transcripts, but Nixon refuses. He claims his executive privileges allow him to defy the orders.

Audio from a 1973 speech, courtesy of History.com:

NIXON: If I were to make public these tapes, containing as they do blunt and candid remarks on many different subjects, the confidentiality of the office of the President would always be suspect from now on.

Finally, on April 29th, 1974, Nixon and his legal team release edited transcripts to the Committee. Among these is the so-called “Smoking Gun” tape which reveals that Nixon tried to shut down further investigations into the Watergate break-in. He and his aide Bob Haldeman discuss ways to control the FBI from the inside. Audio from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library:

HALDEMAN: Now, on that investigation, you know, the Democratic break-in thing, we’re back in the problem area because the FBI is not under control.

The tapes prove to be Nixon’s downfall. He is impeached just over a year later.

Next, on May 1st, 1999, a search and rescue team led by climber David Hahn finds a man they’ve been looking for since his disappearance 75 years earlier.

HAHN: We as a group weren’t sure what to do because, this climber, looked at peace.

In 1924, climbing partners George Mallory and Andrew Irvine set out to summit Mount Everest. An ambitious and naturally skilled mountaineer, Mallory had scaled the lower ridges of Mount Everest three times before. This fourth time, he wanted to be the first man to reach the top. Audio here from a 2021 presentation by mountaineer Conrad Anker and author Wade Davis.

DAVIS: On June 8th, 1924, George Mallory, 37 years-old, Sandy Irvine, his young protege of but 22, crested the northeast ridge going strong for the summit … when the mist rolled in and enveloped their memory in myth.

Mallory and Irvine vanished that day and their bodies were never found. Until the 1999 Mallory and Irvine Research Expedition. Here’s David Hahn again.

HAHN: He was face down, head up the hill, arms outstretched. And, you know, you’ve come across this person who’s had an accident on the mountain and it cost him his life, and we took a few minutes, the argument was made that maybe we shouldn’t disturb him.

Did Mallory reach the top? Besides trying to find Mallory’s remains, the expedition looked for evidence that he’d succeeded. Mallory owned a camera. If he had reached the top, a photograph would undoubtedly be on the camera. And, Mallory had promised his wife that he’d leave a picture of her on the summit. The researchers did not find the camera or the picture of Mallory’s wife. But they did find Mallory.

They buried him with rocks and gave a small Anglican service where he lay.

HAHN: Some people say, “Oh, what a terrible place for somebody to end up—on this cold, lonely mountainside.” To us, George Mallory very much is identified with Everest, it’s fitting. It’s his gravestone.

If Mallory did summit Mount Everest, he would have been the first man to do so—nearly 30 years before climbers Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay.

Finally today, an Oldsmobile Alero rolls off the assembly line 20 years ago on April 29th in Lansing, Michigan. Audio here from 33 ⅓ Street Sound and Video:

AUDIO: It is the final Alero, and it is also the final Oldsmobile, being built right here, as it should be, in its home.

Engine maker Ransom E. Olds began the Olds Motor Vehicle Company in 1897, six years before competitor Ford Motors entered the scene. Disaster struck when a warehouse fire destroyed many of Olds’ prototypes. But two workers managed to rescue the Curved Dash Oldsmobile model, which would become the first ever mass-produced gasoline powered car.

At first the cars were called “Olds automobiles” but were soon known as “Oldsmobiles.” They became a household name through songs like the 1905 standard: “In My Merry Oldsmobile” by Billy Murray.

AUDIO: [“In My Merry Oldsmobile”] Come away with me, Lucille, In my merry Oldsmobile, Down the road of life we'll fly, Automobubbling, you and I, To the church we'll swiftly steal, Then our wedding bells will peal, You can go as far as you like with me, In my merry Oldsmobile.

One particular Oldsmobile achievement was the first mass produced Rocket V8 engine. Invented in 1949, it drastically boosted performance and paved the way for modern engines. Audio here from a 1959 Oldsmobile commercial:

AUDIO: Now, let’s talk about a rocket my friends. I mean a rocket engine Oldsmobile, a rocket engine is found in the ‘88, super ‘88 and the ‘98 Oldsmobile.

Oldsmobile’s heyday began during the 1960s with the release of the Cutlass, a sleek best-selling car with the cutting-edge Rocket V8 engine. But sales declined sharply 30 years later when import car companies such as Honda and Nissan slowly edged Oldsmobile out. When Oldsmobile shut down in 2004, it was the oldest surviving American automobile brand. And it was among some of the oldest manufacturers in the world.

AUDIO: It’s fabulous. It’s wonderful. It’s beautiful. You gotta see it. You gotta drive it. It’s the Oldsmobile for 1969!

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Perley.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this segment mistakenly reported that President Nixon was impeached.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: More on the Supreme Court: another abortion question, this time whether Medicare in effect requires a blanket national “health” exception to all state laws protecting unborn life. And, the United Methodist Church tries to keep its denomination together despite major theological divides. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” —Romans 12:2

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.