The following is a lightly edited transcript of the June 30 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.Donald Trump lost a few big cases at the Supreme Court on Monday. He also won a big one. But judging by the extended eruption of rage that followed after those losses, those are the cases he really cared about. And you can see why. In one of those losses, the court allowed states to continue counting ballots that arrive after election day, and that probably cuts off one of the pathways he was eyeing to help steal the midterms. Yet at the same time, his one victory was pretty substantial and underscored again the long-term crisis that the Supreme Court has thrust us into by continually expanding the power of this president.We’re getting into all of it with Lisa Graves, former counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, who writes about the Supreme Court. Lisa, good to have you on.Lisa Graves: Greg, thank you so much for inviting me.Sargent: So let’s start with Trump’s losses. The Supreme Court rejected his appeal of a $5 million verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll after a jury found he’d abused her. It blocked him from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook without cause. And in the biggest loss of all, the court upheld a Mississippi provision that counts mail-in ballots that arrive late, which will deliver a real blow to Trump and Republican efforts to invalidate mail ballots in this fall’s midterms in many other states. Lisa, what’s your basic reading on that last one?Graves: Well, the Watson case is one where, had the Roberts court ruled in favor of Trump, it would have caused further chaos for the elections. We’re already seeing some of the chaos the Roberts court has caused through the Callais decision and related rulings this spring around the maps and the redrawing of maps in the former Confederate states. But in this instance, the Roberts court said no to the effort of the RNC and Trump to block the counting of ballots that are postmarked by election day but that arrive after.And obviously, people don’t have any control over how long it takes for the mail to be delivered. And it’s been increasingly slow in recent years. And in numerous other ways, the postmark is the thing that counts. It’s the thing that can’t be altered. And so it’s a really reliable indicator of whether a ballot is on time based on the postmark. And the reality is that even though the press covers election night in the sort of horse-race coverage of who won and who lost, those are projections, because in reality, in many counties across the country, particularly in cities, it takes days to actually count and verify those ballots.And also there’s an opportunity for people to cure their ballots if they cast provisional ballots, come in later that week with their ID if they didn’t have one with these new ID restrictions. And so it’s not unusual at all for the counting of ballots that are postmarked by election day, and the ballots that are cast on election day, to be counted in the days after the election. Trump, as you point out, was counting on the court siding with him and the RNC to try to disrupt the counting of those ballots.Sargent: This loss really triggered Trump’s anger more than anything else. He exploded in an extended rant on Truth Social. He said this: “In light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning Voter’s Rights, and the fact that ‘people’s’ votes are allowed to be counted LONG AFTER an Election is over, it is more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT!”Lisa, it’s very rare that Donald Trump admits that he lost, but there he admitted it. And I also thought it was useful that he said straight out that he doesn’t think people’s votes should be counted. That’s very helpful. I think that’s a very clear window into how he saw this.Graves: Yeah, that’s right. Those in the law would call them admissions against interest, that he confessed those things. And this idea that he’s concerned about voters’ intent—if he were concerned about voters’ intent, he would try to ensure that those votes get counted when people mailed them on or before election day. But of course, as you point out, he also used this to pivot to his pressure campaign to try to get the SAVE Act passed, which is really about trying to save his presidency by making it harder for millions of Americans to vote.A lot of women—not me—took their husbands’ names when they married. And so their birth certificate is not the same as their driver’s license. And the SAVE Act would make it harder for millions of American women to vote if they can’t show, at that time or in registration, that they are who they are, even if they’ve been voting for years or decades using either their driver’s license or their residence—regular voters.