higher. the president and the former president the cnn presidential debate thursday night at nine live on cnn and streaming on max cnn good morning. >> you were alive in the cnn newsroom. i'm jim acosta and washington, we do start with breaking news at any moment, the supreme court is expected to hand down more opinions with just one week left and it's termed the court still has to release a number of decisions that could send shockwaves through american society. in addition to a bombshell presidential immunity case the justices have yet to rule on the prosecution of january 6. defendants. a key emergency abortion rights case and gun rights for domestic abusers, but less so the week before cnn's highly anticipated presidential debate, the question of whether donald trump is above the law, looms largest of all as the former president relentlessly demands total immunity out on the campaign trail do you have to have a guaranteed immunity for president otherwise, the president is not going to be able to function they're not going to move. >> harry truman would not have done harry truman would not have done hiroshima and nagasaki despite trump's baseless accusations of a two-tier justice system that seems to be working well in his favor right now, judge aileen cannon is entertaining his claim that a special counsel investigation is unlawful, and the supreme court has taken his time weighing trump's immunity claim for nearly two months, potentially delaying the january 6 case until after the election. >> let's discuss now with a yale law political science professor aqeel reed amar, he clerk for supreme court justice stephen breyer, and is the author of the words that made us america's constitutional conversation also with me, debra pearlstein, professor of constitutional law at princeton. she clerked for a supreme court justice john paulson stevens. debra, let me start with you first. thanks to both you for being on with us. the court took less than three weeks to decide us versus nixon which clarified the extent of executive privilege during the watergate scandal. obviously, this is a different case, but why is it taking so long? do you think? >> it's a great question? and there's no clear answer to that question. the court put it took the case on a slightly accelerated briefing schedule, an argument schedule what it has done, the court has done and can do and past cases is issue some sort of interim ruling saying the answer is x. there is no absolute unity here and then issue a longer opinion later to allow proceedings to go forward. often when the court takes a long time to issue an opinion, it's because there are multiple opinions being drafted. there's a descent being written. the opinions are going back and forth. all the justices have an opportunity to comment on them. if i had to guess that's what my guess would be as going on here. but given the stakes of the case and obviously the approach of the election they could have done it faster. and i think it would've been better for the court and for the country if they had yeah. >> kill i mean, do you do these kinds of practical real-world aspects of all of this? do they don on the justices? the court maybe dawns on some, but not others i mean, what do you think? did they recognize that the longer they wait, the more of a mess potentially they could make politically for the country if we don't see a january 6 case, go to trial before the november election, for example. >> in fairness to them, and it's an honor to be with you again, jim, and deborah, if i may, with you as well the they got the case pretty late and in january 6 and now election interference issues arose almost four years ago and it's taken a long time for some of these issues to percolate up and so it would have been nicer truthfully, had had these issues been teed up for their consideration a year ago? >> or eight months ago, or they only granted review a couple of months ago. it was the last oral argument end of april. >> so i agree with deborah that we should expect multiple opinions there, i think will be probably concurrences or dissents and if they're not even if it's a unanimous opinion, presumably from the chief justice, warren burger, and nixon tapes case that would still likely be the product of all sorts of complex conversation and negotiation among justices who began perhaps with slightly different perspective objectives. >> and it's not easy to herd cats not easy at all. >> and deborah, i mean, the court is already embroiled in controversy and confidence in the court is add an historic low you know, i think back to the dobbs decision, a couple of we're almost at the second anniversary of the dobbs decision. but what would a ruling favorable to trump amine for public trust in the justice system, would it can, i suppose it would continue to show a lot of polarization in the polling so i think part of me wants to say it depends what the ruling is. it's favorable to trump. it depends how the decision is written. it's almost inconceivable to imagine to me that this court would conclude the president has absolute immunity even this incredibly conservative court, there is nothing in the history three of the country or indeed any of the court's prior decisions that would support a ruling of that sort of staggering breadth so i expect we'll see a more complicated decision given the amount of time it's taken. >> in terms of the court's liberals approval rating, you're certainly write it said historic low, it began dropping. >> you even before dobbs. and it's a complicated question why that is part of it might be the unpopularity of some of its rulings, certainly dobbs itself. >> but another part of it is this sort of atmosphere surrounding the court the growing number of ethics controversies surrounding some of the justices the enormously contentious nomination and confirmation processes, the politics surrounding the confirmation processes of the justices. >> the justices own statements during those confirmation processes held up against their behavior once on the court, there's a lot going on and a lot for the public to pay attention to dobbs it's absolutely part of it, but it's not the only issue at this point yeah. >> i mean, there's other case to the courts january 6, defendants case could also impact trump's legal challenge was how significant well, that rowling be well, it's there are so many different fact patterns involving immunity for ex-president's trump talks about well, what about prosecuting harry truman for hiroshima and nagasaki after office? >> and that's different from the staging are cooperating an insurrection to overturn a valid electoral results. and that might be different still, from all sorts of other criminal cases we could imagine. that's part, these are part of the complexities. it seems to me that may explain some of the delay even if of course a president isn't it categorically immune? agree with my friend deborah that that would be a shocking ruling that there was some absolute immunity. there are going to be complicated questions about how to construe certain statutes and should they apply to the present in exactly the same way that they apply to someone else. if you were i tried to interfere with the prosecution that might be obstruction of justice. if a president did, well, he does have the pardon power and he is the head of the executive branch. and so he may have certain lawful powers. you see that you or i or deborah don't have. so those are some of the complexities that they're going to have to be wrestling with my own view is you don't need any kind of blanket immunity idea, but you will need as applied a special understanding about how various criminal laws state and federal apply or don't apply to former presidents all right, well, we're going to be watching these opinions as they're coming down. i suspect we're going to be watching them again next week and waiting for some big ones to come in, keel and deborah, thank you very much for your time. really appreciate the expertise and having you on this morning. thanks so much. >> thank you all right. >> now, in florida, trump's attorneys are back in federal court and the latest attempt to derail his classified documents case, the former president is arguing that jack smith, the special counsel, was unlawfully appointed. smith has brought charges against trump in both florida and washington, dc. see you cnn, senior justice correspondent ivan perez as joins us now, evan, what can you tell us how strong is this? argument? two, we think it's going to fly legitimate normally wouldn't even get this far in the past defendants have brought up claims like this, and judges, either have them handled over briefs and dismiss them. >> hundred biden, for instance, raised a similar objections to two different judges to judges in california and in delaware over the appointment of special counsel, david weiss. and those both were dismissed immediately. and so the fact that we're having hearing in the first place here in fort pierce is unusual, but that's what we're doing. the hearing just got underway at the federal courthouse here in fort pierce. and judge aileen cannon is giving is going further than just doing this hearing. she's also entertaining the arguments from a couple of outside groups, groups that have nothing to do with this case. including right-leaning, conservative legal group and a group on the left that is in support of jack smith's position. the argument here is that jack smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel, that that merrick garland, the attorney general, exceeded its authority because jack smith is not someone who is confirmed by the senate. now, it is something that other defendants have have brought up before the supreme court has upheld the appointments of special counsels in the past. so we'll see how hello, how far along these arguments go before a judge cannon today. it's one of three hearings. we have in the next few days, jen, including one on a gag order it has been requested by the special counsel that is on monday, as well as an effort by the former president to toss evidence that he says was unlawfully taken from mar-a-lago in the search in 2022? >> and evan, i want to ask you about this new new york times reporting a judge aileen cannon rejected suggestions from two other judges that she stepped aside from this case critics have been sank. she's in over head. >> does that put more scrutiny on all of her rulings? >> and i suppose as it raised the possibility at some point, she may be removed from this case it's very, very hard, jim, to remove a judge from the case from a case like this unless there's some kind of misconduct, unless there is some some evidence of a conflict. >> and so far, the special counsel has not even broach this idea yeah but as you pointed out, that new york times is reporting that number of judges, a couple of judges including the senior judge in the district in miami. this is district does as headquartered in miami, had pushed for her to consider removing herself from the case. she has declined to do so. and one of the things that has really drawn the attention of every everyone is the fact that this case has moved so slowly. she has not rendered decisions. there's about eight or nine important rulings that she has not made. and we'll see whether that eats up the calendar anymore than it already has gym i haven't. >> perez. thank you very much. please let us know if anything develops there where you are in florida are joining us now, cnn senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elie honig elie this is pretty unusual stuff to hear arguments to dismiss a prosecutor meanwhile, at the same time, there's this cloud over judge cannon. i mean, with these questions that have been raised, so let me explain the argument. trump's team is making. i think there'll be unsuccessful. they are arguing that when you have a special counsel, jack smith, that person is given essentially the same powers that normally a us attorney or the united states attorney general holds to investigate, to subpoena indict, try a case and the argument is while us attorney's in the eiji have to be presidentially nominated, senate confirmed. the special counsel's just pointed to by the eiji. therefore, it's invalid. this same argument was made to try to remove robert muller unsuccessfully. the same argument was made to try to remove david weiss, the special counsel, and knocked her biting case by hunter biden's lawyers unsuccessfully. judge it is giving this hearing this issue a bit more of a hearing, a lot more of a hearing than it's usually gotten. i think if she does say that jack smith is improperly appointed, she'll be reversed. i think it's clear that special counsel is lawful. >> yeah. are you a little shocked to see this new york times reporting that fellow judges, even senior judges, in her jurisdiction, have been saying, hey, you know maybe i should step aside here. >> maybe this is not where you should be right now. >> i'm surprised other couple levels. first of all, i mean, judges do talk like any other colleagues at work about what do you think of this? what should i do here? probably be smart idea for judge cannon to talk to some more experienced judges were junior judges do this all the time. hey, what do you make this issue? but for multiple more senior judges to say you may be in over your head here is really unusual, but i shouldn't say if she were to step away for that reason, she's not going to that would be completely unprecedented. i mean, i've never heard of a federal judge saying i'm removing myself not because of a conflict of interests, but because i'm not up to it, that would be a very strange result and the complicating factor in all of this is that let's say she rules in a way that jack smith doesn't like goes to the court of appeals in some doomsday scenario, the court of appeals pulls judge cannon all the case that effectively also delayed the case because judge i've coming in an area that it makes it very difficult for this classified documents case to get to trial before the election. >> yeah. i think the chances that are close to zero now important to know it's very rare to see a judge forcefully removed from a case does happen occasionally. the first thing that would typically have to happen, those jack smith, the prosecutor, would have to ask for it prosecutors are very wary of doing that one because you don't want to look like you're judge shopping. two because it's kinda dicey if you say court of appeals, i'd like you to remove judge acosta and the court of appeal says no. and then you've got to go back in front of judge acosta hypothetically. yeah. so jack smith is happening? yeah. well, you would be a different not having a law degree. i think would be a problem. >> but jack smith has not made that move yet, but i do think if judge cannon rules that he's improperly appointed, that would be a shocking ruling and might give him a basis to ask a to reverse her and bieder remover and since we're waiting these major decisions to cut it out from the supreme court just to go back to that for a moment, we were talking with our two legal scholars early clear about just how long it's taking for this immunity case to come down. yeah. i mean, you know, again, i mean, getting back to this question of trump raises out on the campaign trail that the justice system has been weaponized against them and so on. >> yes, kind of worked into his favor, right? >> yeah. he's definitely had some wins just to update people, the supreme court has issued three opinions so far, none of them are the big ones relating to abortion or guns or immunity. so we're still were wearing out the refresh button has yet to speak. and if a big one drops, i mean, it is typical to get the big rulings in june and occasionally into july. so it's not unusual in that respect. and as a professor, reid pointed out, this was the immunity case was the last one argued, but look, i think donald trump's in life. i don't think he's going to win ultimately on immunity. i don't think this supreme court's going to say your immune case dismissed. but he could well win if they say. and i think this could happen. there's a new test for presidential immunity. here's what it is. trial court now you figured out because that will have the effect of delay. >> can you imagine that this comes down on the de, the debate next week, you know, all of our heads explode. >> you asked a great question of the earlier panel. do the justices no about this? of course, they know it's habit. listen, the justices watch us, they read the papers, they're aware of the real-world very good ali. thanks so much. we'll be right back labor. >> would you be up for sunday at nine on cnn have heart failure with unresolved symptoms it may be time to see the bigger picture heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms like carpal tunnel syndrome shortness of breath an irregular heartbeat could mean something more serious, cold, attr cme a rare under-diagnosed disease that worsens over time. >> sound like you call your cardiologist and ask about 18 cm with car gurus. do as much or as little as you want online only you could do things your way all the time i don't like ball thoughts you got it with gurus hi, i'm greg. i live in bloomington, illinois. i'm not an actor. i'm just a regular person some people say why should i take provision? i don't have a problem with my memory memory loss is not something that occurs overnight i started noticing subtle lapses in memory. i want people to know that prevalent has worked for me. itself. my memory itself, my cognitive qualities give it a try. i wanted to help you just like it has helped me prevalent at stores everywhere without a prescription what if we don't get down? >> it's time to get a birthday gift for zoe. don't panic with etsy. we can find the perfect gift and center a preview right away thanks, guy don't panic. gift easy with etsy. >> i'm richard car and i love my host. my hose is lightweight my host will not kink and my hose is anti leak it ate those old hoses. >> this is my host. >> the new pocket hose, copper bullet, now infused with real kopan. >> so your water is always clean and lead free. just turn on the water and watch your hose grow and grow to a full size three quarter inch hose. it stretches had expands like a rubber band. and when you turn off the water away, it goes shrinking and squeezing that water out until it's practically bone dry. and that makes it easy to carry and put away our new inner tube uses three layers of high strength latex on the inside then it's wrapped in a new polymer filament jacket, similar to the technology used in forest fire hoses, because it's light and tough three times stronger than the other hoses it's guaranteed for ten years nearly impossible to tear or snag. and the redesign connector protector helps stop leaks at the spigot. but my favorite part of our new hose build the oversized, easy to grip fittings, easy on and off, even with gloves more than 100 patents worldwide, it's the best pocket hose in the world get the super light, 25 foot pocket, those copper bullet today for only 29, 99, but wait, call now and get our copper spray nozzle with our exclusive thumb drive free. simply use your thumb to turn off and on and with ten units week patterns, you'll have a setting for every job. it's a $30 value, yours free with every 50 foot copper bullet, but it's not available in stores. this is an exclusive release of our newest pocket hose. there is a strict limit of three per order. so don't wait order. now two what are called 1800 1803 727289, or visit copper bullet holes holes.com, so-called 1803 727289, or visit kopan bullet holes.com order. >> now its terms de but neutrogena, ultra shear sunscreen is still on the clock. vital sun pro