KFI a.m. 640. You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the Iheart Radio app.

We're on the radio from one until four, and then after four o'clock, you could hear whatever you missed on the Iheart app.

It's John Cobalt Show on Demand. It's the podcast version of the show. And I am, I got enough here for about six hours.

I cannot waste any time. Really, today's a bountiful day in news and bizarre things. And one of the biggest stories is that

the Supreme Court heard arguments from Donald Trump's lawyers that a president is is is immune to

well they were arguing is immune to any kind of prosecution for anything that happens to

him during his presidency whether whether it's over a public issue, a private issue.

And it seems, and I'm trying to, you know, I do not have a law degree, but we're going to have

somebody on who does.

It seems like the Supreme Court met him halfway maybe on this.

It's got a Royal Oaks, ABC News, legal analyst, and to see what you think, the Supreme Court,

which way it may be going on this issue. Royal, how are you? I'm great. Hey, John, I know time is precious,

so I'm shocked you're having me on, but I'm going to do my best anyway. You're absolutely right.

They're splitting the baby.

So the law courts said an ex-president is not immune from criminal prosecution. If he did bad

stuff, official, unofficial, you can get indicted. The Supreme Court seems open to giving

some level of immunity to a former president accused of a crime while in office. And it was a fascinating

three-hour oral argument. It was basically a battle of hypotheticals over the immunity issue.

The liberal justices said stuff like, well, what if he ordered the assassination of a political

rival or what if he appointed an ambassador? And that sounds official, but he demanded a bribe

in return. Now, the conservative justice has asked stuff like,

well, what if a former president is indicted, you know, by a bunch of left-wing local prosecutors?

...