Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, Adam Liptak, discusses Trump's claim for immunity from prosecution. They explore the implications of presidential immunity, the skepticism from judges, and the government's case on the immunity of a sitting president. The podcast also analyzes the current court case involving Trump, his legal strategy, and the allegations in the Georgia election interference case.
Former President Donald Trump is arguing for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts while in office, which could potentially make his legal troubles disappear.
The court is skeptical of Trump's claim for absolute immunity, as it paradoxically allows a president to be immune from the law while responsible for upholding it.
Deep dives
Trump's Claim of Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
Former President Donald Trump and his lawyers appeared in a federal appeals court to argue that he is immune from criminal prosecution as a former president. Trump claims absolute immunity for his official acts while in office, even after leaving office. This claim, if accepted, could potentially make many of his legal troubles disappear.
The Argument for Presidential Immunity
Trump's lawyer argues that presidents need immunity from criminal prosecution to make tough decisions without fear of personal consequences. They claim that criminal prosecutions would distract presidents and interfere with their ability to execute their duties. They also argue that allowing such prosecutions could open the floodgates to criminal cases against former presidents for a wide range of acts.
The Counterarguments and Skepticism
The government's lawyer rejects the idea of absolute immunity, stating that it is not necessary to recognize a novel form of immunity in this case. They argue that Trump's actions, including attempts to overturn the election results, fall within the realm of potential criminal prosecution. The judges express skepticism towards Trump's argument, highlighting the paradox of a president being immune from the law while simultaneously responsible for upholding it. The court is likely to rule against Trump, potentially leading to further appeals to higher courts.
Donald Trump has consistently argued that as a former president, he is immune from being charged with a crime for things he did while he was in office.
Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, explains what happened when Trump’s lawyers made that case in federal court, whether the claim has any chance of being accepted — and why Trump may win something valuable either way.
Guest: Adam Liptak, a Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode