This is CBS, I in the world, I'm John Bachelor.

Great fun to welcome Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution to help me through

what appears to be regular practice at the Department of Justice in criminal cases, which is a refiling

of an indictment when there's additional information or there have been changes to the landscape.

For sure, a very good evening to you at the Hoover Institution you've helped me for years

understand the Supreme Court.

There are not one but two Supreme Court cases to interpret with the refiling of the indictment by Special

Council Smith.

We'll take them in parts.

The first part is the Trump versus the United States decision by the Supreme Court that a president enjoys

absolute immunity or might enjoy absolute immunity.

The court asking the lower courts to define what is official and unofficial conduct so that they can decide in future, I believe.

The second part has to do with the two obstruction charges in the Special Counsel Smith's original indictment, which remain in the superseding indictment.

However, in the intervening time, there's been a Supreme Court case called Fisher versus the United States based on here to four practices of

destroying documents. That's what Fisher is about and the court ruled that

destroying documents is not to be seen as the same as

conduct on January 6th is unacceptable. And so many of the many of the convicted on the basis of obstruction of justice may or may not be

let out of jail I don't know but we're going to follow immunity first a very good

evening to you. Immunity.

As I understand it, the Special Counsel is aware of the immunity decision by the Supreme Court,

but in any event is still staying with the idea that the

president violated civil rights and does not enjoy immunity.

...