The Daily Trump’s Case for Total Immunity
48 snips
Jan 10, 2024 
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, dives into Donald Trump’s controversial claim of total immunity from prosecution as a former president. He discusses the legal arguments made in federal court and assesses their potential acceptance. The exploration also touches on the unique challenges of prosecuting a former president, the implications of impeachment judgments, and how these issues may influence upcoming elections, painting a complex picture of accountability and presidential power.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Trump's Immunity Claim
- Trump argues that, as a former president, he should be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.
- This claim, if successful, could significantly impact his current legal challenges.
Path to Appeals Court
- Trump's immunity claim stems from a federal indictment related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
- The trial judge rejected his initial claim, leading to an appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Argument for Immunity
- Trump's lawyers argue that presidential immunity is essential for unbiased decision-making, preventing presidents from being constantly worried about future prosecution.
- They cite Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which established immunity for civil suits related to official acts, but this case involves criminal charges.