trump lost the 2020 election to biden that and used his podcast to foment protests behind the scenes. he pushed for right-wing members of congress to block the certification of the election the day before the attack on the capitol on his podcast, ben and predicted chaos on january 6. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's not going to happen. like you think it's going to happen, okay? it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. >> the comments drew the attention of the january 6 committee we believe must abandon has information relevant to our pro and we'll use the tools at our disposal. to get that information. >> bannon was subpoenaed for documents and testimony. he refused to comply and was indicted on contempt of congress charges. after a trial, bannon was convicted and sentenced to four months in prison. >> i'm a political prisoner. i feel great about it. it won't change. will not suppress my voice. bannon's multiple attempts to stay out of prison ended last week when the u.s supreme court refused to hear his case. and as bannon entered prison, were healthy known as inmate 05635 he said he had no regrets i'm actually proud of what i did. >> our felt terrible if i didn't go yeah, i don't mind going to prison today. >> kara scannell, cnn, danbury, connecticut. >> and i said for us the news continues to source will kaitlan collins start now save them all start from the source tonight, the supreme court giving donald trump a bigger when than even he expected transforming the 2024 race and the country forever with one liberal justice morning that this new ruling makes every president quote, a king above the law. >> what today? this historic decision means for donald trump's criminal cases. i have new reporting and trump's attorney is also here to join me live. also presented by biden weighing in just so a few moments ago when his speech that was watched just for much is how it was delivered as for what was actually said coming after that disastrous debate performance that has loved democratic that's panicked and his campaign in crisis. i'm kaitlin collins and this is the source we start with breaking news tonight as the impact of today's supreme court ruling is already being felt i've just confirmed that the donald trump legal team is now moving to overturn his hush money conviction in new york citing today's ruling from the high court finding that presidents have sweeping immunity from prosecution for their acts while they are in office. we've learned from sources that trump's legal team has now fired off a letter to justice, juan merchan, that's the judge in new york who oversaw his case. they're asking him to set trump's guilty verdict aside. essentially, to overturn it. they claim that evidence that was used during that hush money trial included official acts that trump took while he was in office and they suggest postponing his sentencing. that is supposed to happen and just ten days from now for those 34 felony convictions this news is breaking tonight. is president biden has offered this blistering take just a few moments ago from the white house on the supreme court's ruling no one no one is above the law not even the president of united states today's supreme court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all, for all practical purposes today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits or the president can do this a fundamental only new principal and it's a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court and the states now that addressed from president biden was watched just as closely for his reaction to the ruling as it was for president biden himself. these were his first public remarks since saturday when he was in north carolina. they come amid calls from some of his own party to drop out of the race the finger-pointing has continued tonight over who's to blame for the 90 minute debacle that was last week's debate here on cnn. but the president, using a teleprompter there and also declining to take questions at the end, focused on the ruling and said that he agreed with justice sonia sotomayor, who accused her conservative colleagues on the court of ignore foreign quotes, settled understanding of the constitution of inventing immunity through brute force. and looking to history. and i'm quoting her now only when it is convenient days before the july 4 holiday, both the justice and the president tonight harkened back to the founding of this nation every use of visual power the president is now a king above the law with fair for our democracy. >> i dissent. end of quote so she, the american people dissent i dissent biden is imploring voters to take action in november, but i should note my new reporting tonight's those that trump and his legal team are acting now to take advantage of today's landmark ruling from the supreme court i want to get straight to the source tonight with one of the attorneys representing donald trump in the immunity case, will scharf. >> i should note he is also running in a republican primary to be missouri attorney general. and will it's great to have you back here at tonight you know, for for what's happening tonight with this news and trump's legal team tried thank to overturned that conviction. you're not representing him in that case, but you were there in the courtroom for parts of that trial as it was going on. does anything in the new york case pass the test in your view that the supreme court established today in this ruling? >> yeah, absolutely. kaitlan, the supreme court was very clear that for acts with that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution that evidence of those acts cannot be used in to try essentially private act. so what we having new york is a situation where a substantial number of official acts of the presidency, things that we believe are official acts were used as evidence to support the charges in that new york trial we believe that that corrupts that trial, that that indicates that that jury verdict needs to be overturned. and at the very least, you deserve a new trial where those the immune acts will not come into evidence as the supreme court dictated today, which, which acts are you arguing that were presented in the trial or official acts? >> so one example would be communications made through official white house communications channels those would be things that we believe based on the supreme court's opinion today, fall neatly within the outer perimeter of a president's official responsibilities and duties. so certainly with respect to those sorts of official communications from the white house that were entered into evidence in that new york trial. that would be the sort of thing that would run a foul of the supreme court's opinion today. >> so like testimony from hope hicks or what exactly do you mean? >> no. i mean, there were, for example, tweets from president trump's official twitter account that were entered into evidence at trial. president trump's twitter account has been held by numerous courts to be during his time as president to be an official communications instrumentality of the white house. so those sorts of things would be official acts under the supreme court's ruling today. and therefore, they were not admissible as evidenced in that new york trial. >> do you think it'll actually warrant a new trial though? and new york, i think it's certainly should i think it just adds to the vast number of irregularities and unconstitutional aspects of that trial that took place in new york. >> we're obviously looking forward to vigorously challenging that trial verdict on numerous grounds. this is just another ground that i think adds to the clamor in terms of overturning that verdict. i'm a little skeptical, but we'll see what the judge decides here. women seen any response from him or from the da's office, but but on this case itself and on the january 6 case here in washington, which is what this immunity ruling came from. justice amy coney barrett wrote it. if the lower judge rules against you on this question of what's official and what's not official, that trump must stand trial. i mean, do you $1 that there is still a chance he does have a trial here for the january 6 election interference case. >> well, first of all, i would note that justice barrett's opinion is a concurrence and it's not controlling. i think the majority opinion authored by chief justice roberts very clearly sets out the path ahead. this case is going to be remanded back to the district court. the district court is going to have to determine which of the acts underlying the indictment or immune and which are not autoimmune. and then we'll proceed from there. obviously, any immunity decision made by the district court we would have the ability to appeal on an interlocutory basis, again, up to the dc circuit and potentially to the supreme court as well in terms of your core question about the trial timeline, i think at the very least, we're looking at a long run ahead before this case could go to trial, which i think is appropriate given the very serious constitutional issues that this first ever prosecution of a former president presents here. >> yeah. but you you have conceded here the last time that you and i spoke in april and john sauer, who was arguing this before the supreme court, that some of what's alleged wouldn't be considered a private act. so that would mean that at least part of this case from jack smith would go to court based on what you have said before, right? >> we've admitted consistently that their acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that jack smith doesn't have a case that this case should be dismissed on that basis. i don't think there's sufficient private private conduct here to support the indictment, to support the ongoing prosecution. and that's going to be litigated in the district court now even just the false claims of electors, you don't think that would constitute enough for a trial we would say alternate slates of electors. >> and as we argued before, the supreme court alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents that most notably ulysses s grant, to ensure the integrity of prior elections. so we believe the the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency. that's what we argued before the supreme court. the supreme court has reserved that issue for determination by the district court. and we'll see how arguments fall in front of the district court. yeah. we've walked through those historical references here before. none of them compared to what we saw 2020 with the fake slates of electors, but will scharf great to have your reaction to this. thank you for joining us tonight. >> i would disagree with that, katelyn, but great to be with you. thank you. >> that does not surprise me at all. thank you very much. well, and here with me now, a former federal prosecutor who was inside the supreme court today, shan wu also cnn senior legal analyst and former assistant us attorney elie honig, as well i'll see you didn't senior law enforcement analysts and the former fbi deputy director andrew mccabe. great to have you all here. le let me start with you because on this new reporting tonight of how this decision here in washington has already extending and having its impact felt new york, you predicted this earlier when you were hearing that this was going to happen within an hour of this? supreme court decision coming down. >> you can see the dominoes that we're going to fall. i think this gives donald trump's team a shot, a long shot, but a shot to try to overturn the hush money case. i think you just have some interesting details out of will scharf there as to how they're going to argue it. the supreme court today defined official acts very broadly, broader than i even expected them to. and so donald trump's team is going to say some of the communications, not many, but a bit of the evidence used against donald trump in the hush money trial happened in early 2017 when he was president communications with white house officials. i'm not sure that just using the official twitter account is enough to get something over the line, but they're going to have an argument. i think judge merchan, given his overall orientation in this case is going to be skeptical of that argument. i would had to guess i would guess he denies it. however, this gives donald trump another arrow in the quiver for when it goes up onto appeal and could end up right back in the same place we got our ruling from today. yeah. well, i mean, can you were inside the courtroom in time supreme court as this was coming down and obviously we don't get to actually hear the opinions the rulings being read. what was it like to hear one chief justice john roberts with his ruling as he read the majority opinion, but also the dissent from sonia sotomayor, which is worth reading. also, as you look at all of this, yeah, i'm actually bint one. the announcements before and it was quite a quite very different than being there for arguments. i was really struck roberts was very matter of fact, as you read and the other conservative justices actually seem a little bit checked out. i mean, justice thomas was like leaning back in the chairs, eyes closed sometimes cabinet seemed to be looking at them. but what was really changed the atmosphere in the courtroom? was when she began to read that dissent and there was much more tension in the courtroom. and she really ratcheted up the drama by actually turning towards the conservative side looking right at roberts at certain moments and the fascinating thing to me, he never looked back at her up at all. >> i mean, because if you read what i was just saying, there, she was saying that they were inventing immunity through brute force. she was saying that they were only relying on history when it was convenient to them. i mean, it was pretty scathing of a descent. >> oh, absolutely and you see in the majority, right? i mean, tries to address some of that and i must say, looking at the body language, amy coney barrett, who started off the proceedings talking about the case. she did a little bit of humor. she was by personable. look pretty uptight, sitting next to her looking straight at the back during that very powerful, respectfully, either right? right no they usually say i respectfully dissent. >> justice said, i had a fear for democracy. i just said, i mean, this was a ruling and i think it's important to trump himself was cleaning it full immunity. they didn't actually argue that in court but they did get a lot more than even what the legal team felt they were going to get in this ruling. >> this was not the grand slam that trump was looking for, but it was very close very, very close. and as ellie's mentioned, the definition of immunity is so broad, i think it's far beyond what most legal analysts thought where we would end up that with the addition of the elimination of using any official conduct as evidence in a prosecution that targets unofficial conduct. really carves out a miniscule area of potential prosecution for any president or former president. it's almost impossible to imagine when you cobble together a hypotheticals around, built around different federal criminal laws, somos a impossible to imagine how you build a case to prove those prosecutions to a jury of 12. >> that's a biden was saying today, there's no restraints as he was saying, on the office that he enjoys currently right now. >> and what this means practically those judge chutkan has a lot of big decisions to make, which is when it comes to trump's influence campaign on mike pence, his outreach and influence on state officials, people like the governor of georgia, brian kemp, and also his speech on the ellipse that day yeah the supreme court gave some guidance, some loose guidance to judge chutkan, but you can see where they expect her to go. they basically said the court today said trump's communications with doj. those are going to be covered. he's immune, his conversations with the vp probably are going to be covered, even a speech on the ellipse, they say is probably going to be covered too. so they're signaling the judge, chuck and i'm not going we're not gonna leave you with a lot and you hadn't really interesting exchange does not with little scharf, kaitlyn, where he seemed to suggest that there's gonna be so little left in this case that it's not even going to be enough to support criminal charges. i'm not quite sure it's going to be that extensive, but whatever is left of this indictment, it's going to look like swiss cheese. it's going to have holes all over and his and he said, the supreme court said, you can't even use prosecutors, can't even use evidence of an official act even to just explain this to a jury, even to just fill out the narrative. so if this case survives, it's going to be just barely. >> and justice. amy coney barrett, though, was skeptical and that should disagreed with that, which was notable that's the that's the best example. it's the bribery examples. so if you accuse the president of bribery, that's of course taking a bribe and return for performing an official act you could essentially enter evidence of the acceptance of the prime because that's not official. but you can even refer to the official act. so imagine putting that case on in front of a jury and not being i'm able to explain to them what the official act was that the president allegedly took it's giving me anxiety in a headache as a prosecutor, i mean, having that kind of stuff stripped out of your case it's killer. >> i mean, even beyond the substance aspect the way they set this process up makes it just the torturers experienced are trying to bring cases. i'm just going to be so much extra fact-finding. they didn't give very clear guidance as to how chutkan's supposed to do this it really just makes it sort of death by 1,000 cuts. >> yeah. i don't really remarkable to see how she handles it. and if we have a hearing in front of her over these arguments of these actual issues. a great to have you all there. she had what a better day for you. i hope you write about this in your diary tonight. coming up here hello, i'd cnn, president biden arguing it, it's time for voters to decide whether donald trump is fit for office. clearly, the courts not going to be involved really very much in that. the question is whether or not president biden in is doing enough to quash concerns about his own fitness. the latest on what's behind the scenes in his party inside that whitehouse tonight also tonight, steve bannon spending his first night federal prison. we're going to speak to the person who dropped him off at prison in connecticut today but you certainly thank you for imprint set certainty matters, meet provo gear for inference. >> certainly got it. oh, carol, drink where bags and more go get it. et for input.com imprint for certain this forth we're throwing a four for the fourth celebration, spotlighting for power sofas that will charge up here relaxation. four best selling mattresses it's four bedroom sets worth dreaming about. and for trending dining sets, its bi-annual four for the fourth celebration this morning three rhythm and blues, caribbean sally's now on these sandals.com or called wanting touch with samples before abigail chewable for allergic edge, giving dogs pills was a battle of wits. oh maria, i'm windier foolish game. >> he's gone totally gone it's relieved, just got easier applic well, the trusted number one treatment f