Podcast Summary

The MeidasTouch Podcast

Episode: Trump Accidentally Waives his Immunity in Incriminating Posts
Date: September 22, 2025
Hosts: Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas

Episode Overview

In this episode, the Meiselas brothers—led primarily by Ben Meiselas—break down the recent controversy over Donald Trump's social media posts on Truth Social, arguing these posts may have inadvertently undermined his claim to absolute immunity in court. Ben utilizes his legal expertise to dissect how Trump's self-described "unofficial" actions on private social media could remove the legal shield the Supreme Court recently granted for official presidential conduct. The episode is rich with legal analysis, references to key court cases, and signature MeidasTouch banter, focusing on implications for democracy and accountability.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Truth Social Posts and the Waiver of Immunity

[00:57] Ben:

• Ben highlights Trump's Truth Social post demanding his (former) Attorney General Pam Bondi "prosecute my political opponent Senator Adam Schiff, former FBI Director James Comey, and New York Attorney General Letitia James" and the legal perils in such a call to action.
• Ben frames the issue as whether these posts count as "unofficial" acts, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision which only protects presidents from prosecution for official acts.
• Trump’s own legal arguments in previous cases (Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump) are used against him: Trump argued that his social media accounts, especially those not operated in an official capacity, are personal/private, not governmental.

Quote:
"Wouldn't it follow and be a more persuasive argument that his Truth Social account, which he owns, would be purely unofficial in nature as well?"
— Ben Meiselas [01:50]

2. Legal Precedents and Case Breakdown

[03:45+] Ben:

• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019)
  • Ben discusses the case where courts addressed whether Trump could block people on Twitter.
  • The distinction between official (@POTUS) and unofficial (@realDonaldTrump) accounts was central.
  • The 2nd Circuit ruled that Trump used his account "for both official and unofficial purposes," but this blurred line was argued by Trump to be private/unofficial.
• Supreme Court 2021 & Thomas’s Concurring Opinion
  • The Supreme Court vacated (dismissed) the case as moot after Trump left office.
  • Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence criticized private digital platforms having decisive control.
  • Ben uses this as a "trap" for Thomas: now Trump runs his own platform (Truth Social), strengthening the argument his posts there are private/unofficial.

Quote:
"Justice Clarence Thomas was very critical of Twitter... Well, Donald Trump owns the digital platform Truth Social, Clarence Thomas. So your attack against Twitter...wouldn't that translate now?"
— Ben Meiselas [05:32]

• SEC Filings and Personal Capacity
  • Ben points out that Trump’s contractual arrangements with Truth Social are structured as personal—not executive—endorsements in SEC filings. This further solidifies these are unofficial actions.

3. The 2024 Supreme Court Ruling on Immunity

[12:16] Ben:

• Ben reads directly from the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision:
  • Presidents have absolute immunity for official acts.
  • No immunity for "unofficial conduct."
  • Courts must determine, case by case, which is which.
  • Motive and violation of general laws are not sufficient tests for official vs. unofficial status.
• Ben positions Trump’s Truth Social activity as clearly outside official boundaries—especially since Trump himself previously swore his non-white-house accounts were private.

Quote:
"Donald Trump has admitted before that his Twitter handle [was] unofficial. Well then if his Twitter handle's unofficial, clearly his Truth Social is unofficial."
— Ben Meiselas [19:07]

4. Implications for Future Legal Accountability

[19:35] Ben:

• Ben stresses that Trump’s posts are likely incriminating and would not be shielded by immunity, opening him up to future criminal or congressional investigations.
• He argues this analysis should stand in the public record for future crimes commissions or administrative scrutiny.

Quote:
"A future Presidential crimes commission looking to get around immunity? Look at this Truth Social post. And by the way, it's not unique to that post... other crimes being committed on Truth Social are not subject to any absolute immunity."
— Ben Meiselas [20:43]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Ben Meiselas, [01:50]:
  "Wouldn't it follow and be a more persuasive argument that his Truth Social account... would be purely unofficial in nature as well?"
• Ben Meiselas, [05:32]:
  "Justice Clarence Thomas was very critical of Twitter... Well, Donald Trump owns the digital platform Truth Social, Clarence Thomas. So your attack against Twitter...wouldn't that translate now?"
• Ben Meiselas, [19:07]:
  "Donald Trump has admitted before that his Twitter handle [was] unofficial. Well then if his Twitter handle's unofficial, clearly his Truth Social is unofficial."
• Ben Meiselas, [20:43]:
  "A future Presidential crimes commission looking to get around immunity? Look at this Truth Social post... other crimes being committed on Truth Social are not subject to any absolute immunity."

Timeline of Key Segments

• 00:57–03:45: Setup of Trump’s Truth Social post and initial legal analysis
• 03:45–10:25: Detailed history and implications of Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (Twitter blocking, official vs. unofficial)
• 12:16–19:07: Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision and its application to Trump’s case; deeper legal reasoning
• 19:07–21:56: Implications for future prosecutions, the irrelevance of immunity for unofficial conduct, and Ben’s closing exhortation

Episode Tone & Style

• Analytical and rigorous, but conversational, approachable, and laced with the trademark Meiselas brotherly banter and humor.
• Emphasizes a strong democratic, pro-accountability stance.
• Balances legal deep-dive with clear explanations for listeners without legal backgrounds.

Conclusion

This episode offers a succinct but deep legal analysis of how Donald Trump’s public statements on his own social media platform have likely undermined his own attempts to shield himself with presidential immunity. By placing Trump's arguments and Supreme Court language side-by-side, Ben Meiselas persuasively argues that these actions are private, not official, and that future legal scrutiny is not only justified but imminent. The result is a compelling primer on presidential immunity, digital speech, and constitutional accountability, all explored with the wit and conviction MeidasTouch has become known for.