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.

As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really - and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes. CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.