This is John Batcher. What follows is an excerpt from a lengthy conversation I have with Professor

Richard Epstein about immunity, the claim by the attorneys for, by the former President

Mr. Trump that he, office enjoyed immunity as president and therefore

the trial that scheduled for March 4th should not go forward.

Professor Epstein comments immediately that the forward. on to analyze it very carefully and says that it has no place here.

Listen to Professor Epstein.

Now that we've had the three-judge panel and we can presume they were not happy with

the appeal.

There is the possibility of en banc all 11 judges of the

DC Court of Appeals, unlikely, I believe, I'm told. And then the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Immunity is not anywhere in the Constitution.

Here's Richard Epstein to explain.

This is a judge-made doctrine, the immunity stuff.

It originates actually relatively late in life because there were very few occasions

prior to the recent years in which there was anything like this.

So it actually gets started in a serious way with respect to Richard Nixon,

although it had always been understood to be a background doctrine somewhere or another.

But if it's an implied doctrine, there'll be implied exceptions to the implied doctrine.

That's what American constitutional law is about. You have basic presumptions and it turns out that

can be overridden in narrow cases and then if it turns out that he ordered

the killing of his opponent and he comes in and he says well the guy was in my room

he had a dagger in his hand and he was about to shoot me and so therefore I ordered my people to shoot

...