{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60baafd7d3cdd0001b29d9ee/66a68e8070177ec184f9ec1a?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Lawfare Daily: What the Immunity Decision Says About Proving the Case Against Trump ","description":"<p><em>Lawfare&nbsp;</em>Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes and Legal Fellow Anna Bower to discuss their recent<em>&nbsp;Lawfare&nbsp;</em>article, “<a href=\"https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-s-going-on-in-footnote-3\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">What’s Going On in Footnote 3?</a>” The article looks at a very specific issue buried in the Supreme Court's recent decision in&nbsp;<em>Trump v. United States</em>, or “the presidential immunity case”: what evidence the prosecution can use—and what it can't—to prove its case. Natalie, Ben, and Anna talked about what footnote 3 says, the many questions it raises, and what it all means for the future of Special Counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 case against Donald Trump.&nbsp;</p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}