Good morning everyone on the East Coast. Good evening to all you party animals on the West Coast.

Ten explanations for Biden's bad debate, fake presidential immunity reactions, and blaming Jill.

Dr. Jill getting the blunt of the blame here. We'll talk about it today on the show the story that everyone is talking about past couple days

Is the presidential immunity ruling by the Supreme Court in which they ruled that a former president or a

current one has substantial not total but substantial immunity from

prosecution for official acts committed while in office

but not for unofficial acts committed.

Which is basically what the standard was prior to this ruling.

The Supreme Court just kind of affirmed it and gave a little bit of direction

in determining what's official and unofficial,

then kicked it back to the lower courts

to make that determination between what that line is.

I haven't read the full hundred and what 12 pages or so that this thing is, but which I'm sure

there's some stuff hidden in there that are interesting and as I go through it and I find those

I will point those out but the gist of the ruling as I know it. Justice Roberts

who wrote the majority opinion, he wrote that the President, therefore,

may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled at a minimum to a presumptive

immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts. That immunity applies

equally to all occupants of the Oval House regardless of politics, policy or party.

And then Roberts goes on to acknowledge the confusion that such ruling may arise saying that certain

allegations such as those involving

Trump's discussions with acting attorney general are readily

...