Podcast episode

Charles Lane: There are so many cases, civil and criminal, against Trump right now. And it is hard sometimes to keep track.

Jason Willick: This is the January 6 case: the case involving Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. To me, it’s by far the most interesting.

Ruth Marcus: It is also the case that goes most directly to the question of whether Trump is fit to retake the office of president.

Advertisement

Charles Lane: The specific question is whether he can be prosecuted for this at all because there was an official act involved. His lawyers’ theory is that there’s a kind of implied immunity that the president enjoys from prosecution for that.

Jason Willick: The Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision in 1982 that Richard Nixon and all presidents were immune from civil damages suits — having to pay money to somebody they harmed through an official act. The Trump argument is basically trying to extend this principle to criminal law.

Ruth Marcus: The court said narrowly that civil cases against presidents are different because you don't want them, basically, pecked at by a thousand different crazy litigants in a thousand different courts. The court specifically in that case mentioned that criminal prosecutions are different.

Advertisement

So this case is important in order to cement what we have all assumed all along, which is presidents can’t be sued civilly for their official acts, but they, like other people, are not above the law for doing........

© Washington Post