This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States). Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse. Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges. Clarity on the argument emerges. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution. We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler: NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks. There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis. Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored. Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion. Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government. CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.