The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

We're going to look at the facts, we're not going to look at motive, but we're going to look at

Trump's actions objectively and evaluate, are these more like the actions of a candidate,

or are they more like the actions of a candidate or are they more like the actions of a sitting president?

And looking at that, the DC Circuit said basically this guy was acting as a candidate trying to win office and therefore no immunity.

It's the Law Fair Podcast.

I'm Natalie Orpete, executive editor of Law Fair

with my colleagues Law Fair Senior editors

Quinta Jurassic, Roger Parloff, and Alan

Rosenstein. Most of the conduct alleged in the indictment is not official. It's

personal. Everyone seems to agree that personal actions don't get any sort of immunity,

but if that's the case then this whole debate over exactly what sort of immunity does

official conduct get is a bit beside the point because even if they say

sure the official conduct gets immunity Jack Smith still has a ton of personal

conduct that he could charge Trump with. Today we're bringing you our live discussion of Supreme Court oral argument in Trump the United States,

recorded yesterday, less than an hour after arguments concluded.

This is the case asking whether former President Trump is

immune from prosecution and it arises out of Special Counsel Jack Smith's

indictment of Trump in DC District Court for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

...