I'm John Batchel with Professor Richard Epstein of the Civitas Institute, the University of Texas at Austin,

who teaches law at NYU and the University of Chicago.

Presidential immunity from prosecution, from civil affairs, civil suits, while in office, during office, behind office, before office.

All these questions have been looked at by different cases

over these last decades of the 20th century. The presiding decision right now is Trump versus

the United States 2024, which determined this court, Roberts Court, all presidents have

absolute criminal immunity for official acts under core,

constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for other official acts. The court held there is

no immunity for unofficial acts. That's 2024. We also look at civil immunity. Nixon versus

Fitzgerald, 1982. The president has absolute immunity from civil immunity. Nixon versus Fitzgerald, 1982, the president has absolute immunity from

civil damages actions regarding conduct within the, quote, outer perimeter of his duties.

In Clinton v. Jones, 97, the court ruled against temporary immunity for sitting presidents from suits arising from pre-presidency conduct.

That's the range of questions that are now brought into the story because of the conduct of President Trump that has not been explained.

One is use of the acting Attorney General,

who is now going up before the Senate

because he's been nominated to be the Attorney General, Mr. Blanche,

conducting his office in a fashion in which he's the president's obedient lawyer, not the chief, the chief law enforcement

officer of the Department of Justice. And also because of the revelation of an enormous amount

of money the president earned from people buying a now nearly worthless crypto coin at the president's behest,

influencing decisions made by people who support the president,

but are now out a great deal of money.

There's also the suspicion raised during this controversy

...