This is John Bachelor, conversation with Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution

about the Supreme Court decision on immunity for the former President Mr. Trump.

The 6-3 ruling, there are official acts and unofficial acts. The case goes now back to

there are official acts and unofficial acts.

Immunity is enjoyed for the official acts.

It is not enjoyed for the unofficial.

The case goes now back to lower courts to define official and unofficial.

However, Richard reflects on how this decision was logical, given the vulnerability of former

presidents once they're out of office to be charged or in some fashion

entangled with conduct during the office.

Official and unofficial to be defined. More of this tonight.

Let's start with the view that the president is entitled to official immunity

for acts that are done inside the scope of his office.

And this has sort of been fairly clear since the Fitzpatrick case

and a bunch of other stuff.

So the question then is he's now out of office.

What happens to that immunity? The sensible thing is to say he has to have it

because he knows that he doesn't have it after he's in office, then de facto he knows

that he doesn't have it period, because it's just a matter of time

because these things will be done. So what you have to do is to say that whatever

immunities that he had during the office are the same immunities that he has

afterwards because otherwise the true dominant fear is that political opposition can in fact weaponize the entire situation.

...