Transcripts For FOXNEWS The Faulkner Focus 20240702

fox news alert. supreme court court, majority ruled that presidents have limited immunity from prosecution and they can be criminally prosecuted for unofficial acts. trump claiming he had presidential immunity from four felony charges in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. i'm sandra smith in for harris faulkner. a big news day. the supreme court has thrown the case back to a federal judge to decide if trump's felony january 6th charges meet the criteria for prosecution. a trump campaign senior advisor with this moments ago. >> they basically have said sorry, jack smith, you don't get to just impede and intrude on the executive branch. we get to have protections for presidents who are doing things while they are in office so they don't come out and get targeted and criminally and civilly sued. it is very important. a good decision. obviously i believe absolute immunity should exist for the executive branch but they did recognize it. >> sandra: shannon bream is all over this and live at the supreme court with continued reaction to this. shannon. >> sandra, the bottom line is a win for the trump campaign today in that this is kicked back to the lower courts. it buys more time and makes it less likely this case actually gets to trial by election day. 6-three there is immunity, criminal immunity for core functions of the presidency for official acts of the presidency. but not for unofficial acts. they said this case was so rushed and pressed along we can't answer these questions so it has to go back to the lower court. the chief justice says the president may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and he is entitled at a minimum for a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. that immunity applies equally to all occupants of the oval office regardless of politics, party, or policy. they are saying it applies in this case but this will be for every president moving forward. justice jackson said something i heard her say during arguments. she is worried about the real world impact saying to the extent the majority's new accountability paradigm allows presidents to evade punishment for criminal acts in office the seeds for absolute power have been planted and without a doubt absolute power corrupts absolutely. a win for the former president. how it plays out will take a lot of time and see whether he is successful on the merits below. >> sandra: thank you very much. jonathan turley, fox news contributor, george washington university law professor and constitutional law attorney and andrew cherkasky former federal prosecutor. welcome to you both. jonathan, top line thoughts as the news break. i want to read you from justice sotomayor's dissent along with jackson and kagan in this case. if a president, quote, orders the navy seal team to assassinate a political rival, immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune were her words in her dissent. your reaction at this hour. >> the problem with a dissent it doesn't show the same vigor looking at the opposing view. president obama ordered the killing of an american citizen by simply declaring him to be a terrorist without a trial. clearly justice sotomayor does not appear alarmed about that. presumably would view that within a core function. the majority was trying to find something in the middle. they did not embrace the trump sweeping arguments. they did not embrace the lower court's arguments sweeping in the other direction. but this is a major victory for the former president trump. the language here is highly favorable to him. they even go into his january 6th speech and say presidents are expected to speak passionately and publicly about issues of importance. this was an issue of great importance. and goes on to say that when the president speaks to the vice president, this is part of the president's official conduct. all of these statements are important because the court is giving navigational beacons for a lower court judge proven favor favorable to special counsel and motivated getting a trial before the election and the beacons are more narrow giving clear language and heavy burden for jack smith. he is not likely to go quietly into the night but he will have a heck of a time trying to satisfy this burden. >> sandra: thank you for that. andrew cherkasky is on set here. you heard there jonathan. you heard from shannon. being seen as a major win not only for the former president himself but the trump campaign and the timing is crucial. >> it guts jack smith's prosecution and some of us have seen this for a long time a long time coming. the idea the president doesn't have broad sweeping immunity whoy ate issues for presidents in the future and in the past for acts committed in the past. what the court has done is essentially created a hierarchy. the acts within the constitutional authority of the president immune. those that are official, those perhaps have to go back to lower courts for further analysis. the court does say unofficial acts have no immunity. what we look at is the middle category. it really does break down the idea that at least two of the remaining charges, last week's case in fitcher will eliminate two of the four of the charges against donald trump right now. so really they have kind of two charges left. i think jack smith will have to go through probably create a superseding indictment. send it back to the court for their new analysis under the new standard. it may go all the way back through the appel at court and up to the supreme court to see if the lower court analyzed it correctly before the trial. even the idea it could make it to trial with the little bit that remains i don't think is likely. i think it will go back through the appellate system. >> sandra: jonathan, your reaction to that. something you put out in the moments following this in is no protection or unofficial acts. it is very much for trump in the sense the court rejected the lower court and recognizes some immunity and further delay the lower court proceedings to andrew's point. trump will have argue actions that his actions fall within the navigational beakions, how do you see it playing out? >> a heavy advantage for trump on those questions because of the language used by the court. it is clearly telegraphing that there is a heavy presumption here not just in terms of the general constitutional standard but this specific case. many people expected the court to avoid the specifics in the case. it did not. and it left language to guide this court. in terms of how this plays out, even with a judge who has been quite favorable to the special counsel, it will be difficult to satisfy this burden. particularly with regard to things like the january 6th speech which the special counsel has referred to a great deal. many of us believe that president trump was protected entirely in that speech under the first amendment. the court is saying here that he also may be protected as a point of presidential duties. it is expected for presidents to be able to speak on these types of issues. so going forward it will get tough because jack smith is known as someone who tends to double down on weak hands. he is not someone that yields readily to -- and unanimously overturned in a previous high-profile case. what is interesting about this case is that this is following a hay maker in fischer which would knock out two counts in d.c. jackson gave him a roadmap how he could talk about -- but he may still try to keep this on the runway to take off. i personally think that these two opinions have ripped the wings off his case. but jack smith is someone who does not readily yield to these types of setbacks. >> sandra: jonathan and andrew, stand by. former president trump reacting to the historic decision. bryan llenas is in west palm beach with that reaction for us. what are you hearing? >> we'll go straight to the truth social post from the former president who says in all caps, big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american. the president's son, don junior posting solid scotus ruling today. i'm sure the corrupt prosecutors and d.c. judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare. it is all they have left. now this is all about the calendar. we have talked about this a lot now. it looks like this will not go to trial. that means that the georgia racketeering case is now delayed until at least october. you have got the florida classified documents case that is indefinitely delayed and now you have this scotus ruling that will send it back to the lower courts and be bogged down in appeals. it looks like a former president for the next four months will be able to campaign freely depending on what happens on that july 11th sentencing date for the new york criminal case as we head to what has been thus far a tight election. another note based on what we've read here from the supreme court, it is interesting here remember that the former president was charged by jack smith with four counts, conspiracy to defraud the united states, obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to violate civil rights and the fake elector scheme. in this opinion it gets to the fact whether or not much of the bulk of the heart of jack smith east case about the fake elector scheme, whether or not it is an official or unofficial act noting a conversation with the vice president mike pence could be deemed an official conversation. and also the fact that when talking about these states, according to this piece here, when it comes to pennsylvania and arizona and that fake elector scheme, that is really at the heart of these charges. so whether or not the supreme court said they weren't willing to make a decision necessarily on that but that they've said there needs to be more fact finding as it relates to that fake elector scheme that jack smith is charging at the crux of the january 6th case. really fascinating here as we continue to go through more reaction from the trump campaign. obviously they are feeling very positive about it thus far. >> sandra: we'll check back with you shortly. reaction is pouring in as everyone can probably imagine would be the case and it is. andy mccarthy can now join us, former assistant u.s. attorney. thank you for jumping in with us. give us your top line thoughts and reaction to the ruling. >> it is more sweepingly in favor of executive immunity than i thought it would be. and i say executive immunity rather than trump immunity on purpose, sandra. i think the most important thing about this case, which judge gorsuch noted they were writing for the ages was the need to protect the executive branch from what i think we're in, a new era of politicized prosecutions. i think the most important thing in the opinion is where the court says that the president's motive is not something that a court is going to look at. in other words, if a presidential action is within the gamut. the courts will not look if the president had a corrupt motive in issuing a pardon or giving directive to the justice department. it is essential if the presidency will work properly and for the people who are hysterical saying it gives the president too much power, first of all the power the president always had. we had 230 years with no indictments of presidents and congress is the place where the framers decided to check presidential excess. so presidents can still be impeached and removed and disqualified if they abuse their executive powers, but it is obvious and seems to be common sense the framers would have thought it absurd that the main check on the president would be justice department prosecutors who work for the executive branch. >> sandra: andrew cherkasky is here with us on set. i do want to bring you back to the fold. something i want to get you to react to. this is orrin cur, a uc berkeley law professor. if my skim of the case is correct there is 0 chance trump will be tried before the election. if trump loses in 2024, it is not clear on which counts he would be tried at all. years to figure that out. that's after a quick skim of it at least. your reaction to that. it is worth thinking about. >> there is almost no chance that any of these trials make it to trial before the 2024 election. we have to remember how wrong the courts have gotten this. first the d.c. district level and circuit court level saying there was no immunity at all. they were wrong on that. now they send it back to the district court. the chance episcopal they get it right at the district level and circuit court level are low given their history with regard to this case. we also have to look at the florida case, which now has to be re-examineed under the new immunity idea. the documents case starts before the end of his term as president. the charge starts on the day in which the presidency was handed over. the documents relate to his time in office. finally, i think we might see a new round of motions in the new york criminal trial. i don't -- i think that ultimately the courts will find it was within his personal unofficial gamut but it dealt with times in office. if the defense can create a creative argument that those acts fell within the official function of the presidency that could happen before the sentencing on july 11th. >> sandra: wow, shannon, further weigh in on that. you have probably had a longer chance to dig through the 96 pages of this but just a reset here. the supreme court has ruled that former president donald trump has limited immunity in election interference prosecution, the court has ordered the lower court to further review the legal and constitutional questions involved. what are you learning as you dig deeper into this? >> well, there is a lot of back and forth between the majority and dissent. you noted some of the dissent earlier they are upset thinking it will empower someone to come in and take all kinds of actions and argue they are official acts and not be held accountable. the majority in writing says the dissent strikes a tone of chilling doom whole le disproportion to what the court did today. he is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. the president is a part of government and has sweeping powers and duties. there are ways to go after the president through impeachment and other issues but note that what the dissent is upset about and worried about according to the majority, that's not going to come to fruition. we still have to find out whether all of these allegations that jack smith has set up fall into that category of official or unofficial. there was a lot of talk about that during the arguments at the supreme court. so it may be as i said earlier a huge win for the trump campaign, for president trump today. but if the cases ever actually get to fruition it may be a different answer as to what these allegations are properly classified, official or unofficial. majority wants folks to know this isn't a free pass for people to get away with criminal activity. it is narrowed in scope and very specifically applicable to a president. >> sandra: that's all really interesting stuff. if you could stand by live at the supreme court. mark levine is with us now. give us your thoughts. >> i think the court has about had it with jack smith. stomping all over the constitution. he wanted to race to the courthouse. they stopped him. he brings obstruction charges to the u.s. attorney in d.c. basically rewriting the statute as he did the bribery statute with the former governor of virginia. they said no. then he brings this unique substantive immunity case, rubber stamps it and you have a panel in the circuit court with two biden appointees and they rubber stamp it. i'm sure the justices are saying they are raising all these constitutional issues right before the election. that's not the way we roll. the decision was brilliant. the status quo with one little footnote that says -- by the way, if you are going to charge a president or former president, candidate for president, a post president, you have to have more than just we think he committed a crime. we will have this very basic standard and figure it out as we go along that there is a presumption that he didn't. now overcome the presumption before you actually send this to trial. i don't think that's such a gre greater terrible thing. [inaudible] the attorney general of the united states takes the most aggressive, atrocious prosecutor with a horrendous -- as a special counsel. he should never been selected as special counsel. his appointment is being challenged in florida by two former attorneys general of the united states. he is down in florida demanding a gag rule that would violate the first amendment. he is demanding that classified evidence not go public. this is why -- [inaudible] he demanded -- [inaudible] [poor audio] >> and notice the media, the typical media are saying she is slow walking. no, what she is doing is looking at the motion. it is a unique constitutional issue. this prosecutor has -- [inaudible] that's horrendous and so the court is saying we don't have to follow his lead. we have to protect these institutions come what may. and that is exactly what they did today. very important. i think they have about had it with jack smith and his antics and the courts are busy rubber stamping and rushing at the demand of the media. >> sandra: if you could stand by with us. what you have to say is important. we lost some of your words due to the connection. if you could stand by i want to bring andy mccarthy back in starting to get political reaction to this. chuck schumer is weighing in. senator calling this, jonathan, a sad day for america. a sad day for our democracy on x. the basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president. your reaction to that, jonathan. >> well, he certainly gets points. no one would read this majority opinion and view it in such wildly inaccurate terms. this is a real effort to balance the interests of the country, of the constitution. it rejects the extreme arguments on both sides. comes up with a presumption that can be rebutted but recognizes that presidents need some breathing room in the decisions that they make. this will have implications outside of d.c. it will be interesting how the blowback effects, for example, the georgia case. the court here saying look, when the president speaks to the vice president and others on matters of great importance, that is part of what a president does. the georgia complaint in my view was poorly drafted and i've been a critic of that case since it was filed. and it really sort of was a peddler's wagon that brought in every possible allegation and conversation to create this broad racketeering claim. president trump will now be able to argue that some of that is protected not just by the first amendment, but by the constitution. i want to add one other thing here. that is everyone who has been critical of judge cannon in saying why aren't you moving as fast as the other judge trying to get a trial before the election, this is the reason, right? that the lower court in this case and the court of appeals made fast work of the constitutional claims in this case. and chief justice roberts mocked the d.c. circuit opinion and said you basically seem to be saying he could be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted. what type of standard is that? when people criticize judge cannon for holding hearings and listening to arguments, this is why a real judge does that. not to say the other judge is not a real judge but she moved very, very quickly and in my view and the view of the supreme court she got it wrong, as did the d.c. circuit. i don't blame her. this was still developing as a constitutional point of law. but there is a risk in moving fast. so all those that are saying you are taking too long, judge cannon, should look at this opinion, take a breath and say maybe we need to focus on getting things right than getting things fast. >> sandra: interesting. we're getting a statement from one of trump's legal spokes people alina habba. she is calling this decision a pivotal moment in our nation's history. the supreme court is unequivocally declared the administration's lawfare will not go unchecked. mark levine is still with us. we'll bring you back in for your continued reaction here. >> i'm in a place where the walls are built like a bunker. >> sandra: all right, a little bit tough to hear you there. andy mccarthy, are you still with us? i read a statement from trump legal team and try to get mark levine in him. we can't to continue to hear from him calling it a pivotal motion. the supreme court declared this administration's relentless lawfare will not go unchecked fete further thoughts. >> it certainly has shown that lawfare won't go unchecked because i think the defining feature of lawfare is this notion that even when a president is acting within the presidential authority, prosecutors who are inferior officers in the chain of command at the executive branch, that prosecutors are empowered to read into the motivations and read the mind of the chief executive of the country. that never made any sense. but it is really the foundation of what politicized prosecutions are built on. and why it would be reasonable for a president, upon leaving office, especially if he is turning the government over to a presidency of the other party, would have to fear that policy decisions that were made during his term would be revisited through the lens of the criminal law. people from both parties ought to reject that. this whole idea there has been a great upheaval. i keep reminding people until trump raised this and said presidents have to have immunity, which the courts have now recognized, we went 230 years without indicting a president. and that was because everybody as a norm in the system, this is a constitutionally driven norm, understood that presidents had to have immunity. it didn't need to be -- it didn't need to get a supreme court ruling or some kind of codified rule in order for people to understand the common sense that other actors in the government could not use prosecutorial power to go after a president for official acts. it doesn't mean that official acts go unpunished. there are still plenty of ways in the constitution, the framers gave congress enormous powers to check the president if he abuses his power. but it ought not to be done by prosecutorial process. >> sandra: i want to get back to you live at the supreme court, shannon. we have reaction from the president himself on his truth social, former president, i should say. donald trump weighing in on his truth social account calling it a big win for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american says former president donald trump. we went back and highlighted this portion about motive in the ruling as andy and jonathan were pointing out earlier. this is specifically what it says. if dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives. such a highly intrusive inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct through jude ilks examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. obviously a key point in this ruling. >> i think they want to get to just looking at the official act itself. is it official? is it unofficial? are they part of the core duties of what a president is doing? there is a lot of worry, can these things be used politically. a political motivation rather than a legal one. an enterprising prosecute whore in a new administration may assert the president violated a broad statute. without immunity such types of accusations of ex-presidents could become routine. it sparked that kind of cycle and they were worried about that. the feeblg of the presidency and government with fractional strife is what the framers intended to avoid. they say we don't want to give this a platform so people can use it to go after former president strictly on political grounds in a lawfare way. when you look at the functions of the presidency, does it qualify, is it official or not? to your point, the portion you just read not getting into the motives behind it and trying to add something to it that may not be there. >> sandra: andrew, further weigh in here. we are hearing that there is no reaction from the department of justice. when requested they have referred us to jack smith's office for any reaction to the scotus ruling trump version u.s. us and a spokesperson for jack smith's office is declining to comment. >> they are saying what are we going to do? more broad than some on the left an right thought it was going to be. although others of us who thought it would be this broad all along. as shannon was talking about the idea the supreme court is talking about the justice department cannot look into the motivations of a president. the ruling also says this, that testimony or private records of the president or his advisors probing essentially the question of whether it was official or unofficial conduct cannot be admitted as evidence as trial. we have to remember the statutes for which donald trump is prosecuted under here require specific intent. that's the idea that former president trump had a criminal state of mind. that he was acting with specific intent to engage in certain conduct. so i think that in combination between the motivations clause that was in the ruling as well as the idea they cannot use private records or the advisor's testimony at trial even for the charges that could remain or that we could see through a superseding indictment get narrowed down prosecutors will have tremendous difficulty proving anything, especially as it deals with specific intent of president trump. >> sandra: that was your point, andy. weigh in. >> if this case, sandra, goes back to washington and jack smith wants to prosecute it as the 45-page indictment he returned and fight over every little morsel of it, my friends who have commented on the -- how it is inconceivable this case could get to trial are quite correct. there is some kind of fact finding the judge will have to make to determine if something is presumptively immune, is it private acts or is it part of the president's exercise of his legitimate powers? in order to get to trial, i think jack smith would have to do something that is very, very unjack smith-like, which is he would have to break off a piece of this that is clearly private conduct, supersede the indictment so only that is in it and try to push to trial on that. when i say it's very unjack smith like, down in florida, if he had just indicted that case as an obstruction of the grand jury case, it would have been much more narrow and would have had a better chance getting to trial. instead he add 32 classified documents count on it and as a result the case is mired in actions that make it hard to get to trial. he is not the kind of guy who waters something down and streamlines it makes it crisp and presentable so you can get to trial quickly. he would have to be out of character. i don't think it is impossible it could happen. >> sandra: i want to bring in doug collins, former georgia congressman. get your reaction to the news as we reset. we're an hour since the ruling came down. reminding the court had delayed this ruling until today. this is the last day of the current term. it was a 6-three decision. not a sweeping victory for the former president but does all but guarantee this case won't go to trial before this year's presidential election. your thoughts and reaction to it. >> first thoughts on this is again it is more sweeping than i thought it would be but in a good form. i think this court especially under roberts seems to want to look backwards and forwards at the same time. i think some of the arguments about past administrations and the areas of conduct they could be charged for played into this if you read into the details about what they are worried about prosecutors in another administration. we can go back as far as obama and others that were brought up saying there were some acts here. what does it mean? they made a clear bright line on constitutional acts. they left it open. they narrowed it a lot. several have mentioned this. it will cause the georgia days re case and some others when it said you can't use staff conversations or notes to look at motivation. that will be a big issue going forward . donald trump's legal team has to be very happy now. but ready because i think what was just said about jack smiths. those of us who dealt with him and the fallout of him he is very legally important to his own mind. i think he will go at this thinking he can still overcome it. it will be interesting to see if he tries another way at this or he is going to be stuck and mired. i don't see these cases coming forward any time soon. >> sandra: mark levine is back with us. did you move the bunkers so we can hear you a little bit? >> yes. >> sandra: i want to reset for our audience in the ruling the former president has been entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution with actions within his constitutional authority. those are the words of john roberts who wrote the majority decision here, 6-three decision. as we move this forward it is up to the u.s. district judge who is overseeing trump's january 6th case to determine whether the acts the former president is accused of in the indictment are official or not. that's where this goes next. your thoughts. >> right, what else could they do? they said look, trial judge, before you draw conclusions and send a former president, sentence him to prison you have at least some modicum of information that pierces this immunity that has been in the existence since the beginning of the republic. all of this is being driven by the department of justice under this attorney general and jack smith. these are all issues of first impression that the supreme court has had to struggle with, that judge cannon, who is taking her responsibilities in florida seriously is having to struggle with. i understand that the biden administration and the prosecutor and are in a hurry before the election. that's their problem. the constitution belongs to the american people and the country. this prosecutors has raised issues related to the first amendment, related to the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment. he is raising issues of separation of powers, there are questions about whether his appointment was constitutional, raised by two attorneys general. by the way, clarence thomas's concurring opinion he says that's a legitimate question. and he sort of takes the position of former attorney general ed meece it is not constitutional. when you are going to pick the scab off at least six parts of the united states constitution, for the first time in american history, the supreme court, which is shocking to me, you have district attorney -- a district court who allowed this to happen, who had a panel of judges on the circuit court with two biden appointees who spent a week on this and shot it right through, they didn't take their job seriously. the judge in florida is taking her job seriously. this was an absolutely brilliant opinion under the circumstances. i read the dissent. the dissent sounds like chuck schumer and bernie sanders. there is no legal basis or constitutional basis for anything they're saying. above the law? ask donald trump if he thinks he has been above the law. this has nothing to do with above the law. this is do we want to live in a constitutional republic or not. and these firewalls, at least today, have with stood an assault by the biden administration, attorney general garland and this completely out of control prosecutor who has a damnable history of rewriting statutes. one last thing. the two remaining charges in this so-called january 6th case are preposterous. one is a charge accused against federal contractors, the other is the ku klux klan act. the civil rights voting act. they have nothing to do with january 6th. if chuck schumer believes that donald trump committed insurrection, that's his problem. he is not charged with insurrection. he is not charged with sedition. there are two statutes, they weren't used. this is a phony case, which is why they are in a hurry and why the court, i think, has lost patience with jack smith stomping all over the constitution. >> sandra: mark, i want to flashback to may when our own peter doocy got president biden's thoughts on this case. listen here. >> president biden, do you think this conviction helps trump in the election? are you worried this could happen to you some day. somebody comes up with charges and tries to bring you into court after your term? >> president biden: not at all. i didn't do anything wrong. >> when trump says you are trying to bruise him, what do you say? politically? he thinks you are pulling the strings behind the scenes doing all this to help yourself. >> sandra: the system still works. he didn't regret this was happening and by the way, as that was happening, this just came in, mark, a final thought from disgraceful decision by the maga scotus, which is comprised of three justices appointed by trump himself. enables to former president to weaken our democracy by breaking the law. it undermines scotus's credibility and suggests political influence, trump is all in our courts today. >> you know what, there is a reason joe biden graduated at the bottom of his class-in-law school, that's number one. number two, chuck schumer is a demagog -- he is doing damage to the supreme court. he wants to add members to the supreme court. he wants to do other things to the supreme court. he does not believe in separation of powers. this is about separation of powers. which branch has the power to do what. that's the core of our republic. separation of powers. it goes back to the federalist papers. these justices in what i consider a brilliant decision helped protect the republic today and the american people should understand we are only at this point because biden, the attorney general, his outrageous unconstitutional choice for prosecutor and the democrat party -- i'm saying this because i believe it -- do not like the constitution, whether it's dei or crt or pulling our monuments down. this court had a job to do and they did it today. and they deserve our praise for doing it. >> sandra: mark levine, great to have you on the program and thank you for jumping on the phone with us. the white house and biden campaign today responding to the supreme court's landmark ruling. we're live at the white house with that for us. what do you hear? >> good afternoon. the biden campaign is more or less brushing this ruling aside saying it doesn't change what's at stake in november. a campaign had visor saying today's ruling doesn't change the facts. let's be very clear about what happened on january 6th. donald trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the capitol. he thinks he is above the law and willing to do anything to hold onto power for himself. getting to the heart of what the campaign says the election is about. the battle for democracy. they maintained the president is the best candidate to beat former president trump in november despite the calls from a lot of people, including democrats, for him to leave the race after his shaky performance on thursday. no comment from the president himself but he did say this in december when asked whether any president is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. >> mr. president, do you think that a president, any president, is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution? any president at all? >> president biden: i can't think of one. >> we asked a white house spokesperson if they have anything to say following the rule and are told they'll be in touch. >> sandra: keep us posted. the attorney for former president trump is joining us now. will, your reaction. >> we're pretty excited this morning. i think this is about the absolute best decision we could have expected out of the supreme court. they have recognized a very broad doctrine of criminal immunity for former presidents. there are some choice paragraphs in there from chief justice roberts criticizing the haste with which this prosecution has proceeded. we're excited to continue litigating the issues of presidential immunity and overall it seems as though the biden campaign of lawfare against president trump has been dealt a decisive blow by the u.s. supreme court. >> sandra: reading through the liberal justices who dissented in this case, they in some cases were blistering. they said it reshapes the institution of the presidency and makes a mockery of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law. will, it does appear the chief justice hits back in the ruling at those liberal justices in their dissent. he says our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility while their confidence may be inspiring the court adheres to time tested practices instead. after reversing on a threshold question. so obviously chief justice john roberts making it very clear to the justices where these other justices stood, the six of them. >> well, i think there are a couple of points i would make there. first of all, we believe that the doctrine of immunity the court recognized today is deeply embedded in our constitution and our constitutional system. in case law dating back to the early republic. the chief justice's opinion reflects all of that. the only thing that is unprecedented that we are dealing with in america today is this unprecedented campaign of lawfare. these completely unlawful attempts to prosecute a former president, including in this case for his official acts in office. that has never happened before in american history. a good reason why it hasn't happened before in american history. i hope to god that after the supreme court's opinion today we won't have to deal with this endless cycle of political recrimination and prosecution that i think could undermine the fop rick of the republic. it is a great day for the constitution. a great day for the separation of powers and a great day for president trump. i am disappointed by the tone of the dissents' opinion but it is a dissent and majority opinion is strong and decisive. >> sandra: thank you very much, will. good to get your voice in here. doug collins joining us right now. justice sotomayor in her dissent from the bench said quote relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom the court gives former president trump all the immunity he asked for and more. your further reaction from you. >> it is -- looking through the dissents it is more like you are reading a progressive activist than you are a judicial opinion. they are upset about this and i would agree i think in the sense of it. the thing it is not giving him what he wants, it's what is already there and the part she seems to be missing here is the opening of this pandora's box outside the ruling they have given opens it up to who is in charge and who is not. justice should never be about who is in charge but about the facts of the case. look, they did not say that every president could do whatever they wanted to do especially outside the official acts. within inside official acts there was immunity set in doing the job set forth. that's a big temper tantrum from all of them on the dissents today because they aren't happy with what happened. but it also set us back on the grounding that mark levin said we have had for over 200 years, the founding of the republic states that this is where you need to be so the president can act. congress still has plenty of power to do what it needs to do and the justice is affirmed that today. >> sandra: jonathan turley still with us. we're getting some further reaction, political reaction, senator blumenthal saying his stomach turns with fear and anger that a democracy can be so endangered by an out of control court. the members of court's conservative majority will be perceived by the american people as extreme and nakedly partisan hacks. politicians in robes. your reaction to that. >> well, given all the attacks by senator blumenthal on this court i would have thought he would have had great app intestinal fortitude. the democrats are calling to pack the court with a liberal majority to carry out an agenda. no one reading this opinion would view this as the work of political hacks. the opinion actually took a middle road to try to balance the interests of the office against the interests of the public in making sure that you don't have a rogue president but you also don't have a captive president. and the attacks on the court are nothing new. it shows a reckless demagog type of politics that we are living in. it is dangerous for our society because these politicians are misleading the citizens as to what these cases really mean and what they really say. these justices struggled mightily to get this one right and like many things in the constitution, they found a balance. that's the overriding characteristic of our constitution. the reason people are frustrated is because they have been demanding that judges like judge cannon pick up the pace, get trump to trial, convict trump. a justice doesn't work on a speed calendar. it is meant to get things right and that's what the court did today. >> sandra: thank you for that. andrew, you are setting on set with me here and getting -- vance says it's a good rule of law. this may well destroy all of jack smith's case against the president. a similar point you made earlier. >> i think it is really important to emphasize now non-political this is. the supreme court talks about the idea they could have followed some of the direction proposed by donald trump's defense team essentially saying immunity in all cases unless there was a pardon that -- unless there was a conviction through impeachment that had occurred. this leaves some room for prosecution in some cases. there is reasonableness to this decision. you read the dissent and i find that the dissent really misinterprets or miscategorizes what happens in the majority's opinion in this case. it all comes back then to what this case, the d.c. case, has left to go through. five different areas that jack smith had articulated as the manner and mode of the crime here. they deal with issues at the d.o.j., issues with states officials and electors, with the vice president and then speeches before the masses. the d.o.j. piece out. the vice president likely out. the discussions with state officials and electors, that is a part that still will have to be litigated in the lower court. that will go back through the appellate court and same as it stands for his public speeches. that is something that the court is going to have to reassess. all of that leaves room for a genuine question whether a president is acting inside or outside that official capacity and whether he can be prosecuted. that is not political. it shows the court wasn't willing to just slap down this prosecution in full total slapdown. they leave room for prosecutions in some cases in the outlying conditions. it shows that it is really not . >> sandra: this is private from official conduct will be difficult but not always. take the president's alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. in my view that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. weigh in further as this is going to be -- there will be a lot of reaction and debate in the wake of this ruling. >> justice barrett's opinion is not the majority controlling opinion with respect to that point. our view of this is that on remand back to the d.c. district, as andrew was actually just covering, a vast majority of acts in the indictment including much of the conduct covered by that passage in justice barrett's opinion is immune. the burden will be on jack smith, not on president trump, to show those acts are not immune. from a litigation standpoint, that's exactly where we would want to be. we obviously believe the immunity should apply to essentially the entirety of this indictment and reading this opinion and applying it to the facts as we know them, it is difficult to see how the d.c. prosecution can proceed at all going forward. so again, we're very excited about the way the court came down here. there are some passages justice barrett's opinion are unfortunate but the controlling majority opinion the court did an outstanding job here in terms of protecting the constitution and protecting the separation of powers. >> sandra: thank you for that. doug collins with us as well. is it safe to say there is almost no chance of a trial before the november election then, doug? >> i think it's safe to say. think about it. even if she decided to call the case back in and jack smith somehow changed it to a superseding indictment they still have to go through the process, which after she makes her ruling will be subject to appeal. some of it could end back up at the supreme court in this process. i don't see it going anywhere. what it does is the political side you are seeing come out from some of the liberal justice's opinions. the left is making it out to be more political. they wanted the conviction of donald trump. that's been the whole thing so they don't have to face the fact their own president, president biden, was found incompetent to stand trial by the department of justice. this has been political. the court has allowed it to go back into the justice system and follow it. >> sandra: appreciate that. all of our legal team joining us, andy, doug, thank you very much, jonathan, shannon is busy at the supreme court and andrew and will and everybody able to join us and mark levin as well. thank you for watching this "the faulkner focus" on this busy morning. i'm sandra smith and back at 1:00 p.m. eastern time for "america reports." "outnumbered" will be here after the break. from pep in their step to shine in their coats, when people switch their dog's food to the farmer's dog, the effects can seem like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's just smarter, healthier pet food. it's amazing what real food can do. it's pain o'clock! let's do this! sorry, pain. i can't let you in. what? i've had a standing appointment with mr. dubin for years! i'm expected! not anymore. mr. dubin's been taking relief factor. relief factor!! keep pain away for good, with relief factor. a natural supplement that takes a different approach to pain relief. it doesn't mask pain, it builds up your body's response to inflammation so pain won't get in. call or go online today and live your best life without pain. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> kayleigh: we are getting a reaction to the supreme court blockbuster ruling on

Related Keywords

Jack Smith , Supreme Court , Andrew Cherkasky , Point , Message , 0 , One , 8 , Thing , Wages , Its , Guy , Doesn T Dot , President , Presidents , Presidency , Executive Branch , Story , Bumper Crop , Adana , Sandra Smith , Decisions , Panel , Nation , Birthday , Bret , Faulkner Focus , Harris Faulkner , Hi , Three , Immunity , Prosecution , Majority , Fox News Alert , January 6th Case , Judge , Facts , Election , Felony Charges , Efforts , Big News Day , Four , 2020 , Charges , Trump Campaign , Advisor , January 6th , Felony , Criteria , Intrude , 6 , Office , Decision , Things , Protections , Reaction , Win , Campaign , Shannon Bream , Bottom Line , Courts , Questions , Core Functions , Lower Court , Powers , Core , Chief Justice , Minimum , Something , Democrat Party , Justice Jackson , Politics , Policy , Oval Office , Occupants , Arguments , Accountability Paradigm , World , Extent , Impact , Punishment , Lot , Power , Doubt , Seeds , Merits , Thoughts , Top Line , Jonathan Turley , Attorney , Former , Contributor , News Break , George Washington University Law Professor And Constitutional , Fox News , Dissent , Team , Jackson , Quote , Rival , Justice Sotomayor , Kagan , Navy Seal , Pardon , Words , Immune , Bribe , Exchange , New York Criminal Trial , Doesn T , View , Obama , Problem , Terrorist , Killing , American Citizen , Vigor , Justice , Core Function , Middle , Trump , Language , Victory , Direction , Issues , Issue , Speech , Importance , Wall , Vice President , Conduct , Part , Beacons , Statements , Burden , Counsel , Check , U S , Idea , Some , Timing , Authority , Hierarchy , Whoy , Category , Official , Analysis , Two , Ask Donald Trump , Case , Kind , Fitcher , Way , Standard , Superseding Indictment , System , Bit , Court , Sense , Protection , Lower Court Proceedings , Actions , Beakions , Advantage , Presumption , People , Terms , Specifics , Special Counsel , Deal , January 6th Speech , Many , Fifth Amendment , Types , Duties , Someone , Hands , Fischer , Hay Maker , D C , Counts , Roadmap , Opinions , Runway , Wings , Setbacks , Stand By , West Palm Beach , Bryan Llenas , United States Constitution , Prosecutors , On X , Truth , Solid Scotus Ruling , Post , Caps , Son , American , Don Junior , Lawfare , Calendar , Supreme Court S Landmark Ruling , Florida , Classified , Appeals , Georgia Racketeering , Note , New York , July 11th Sentencing , 11 , July 11th , Conspiracy , Proceeding , Conspiracy To Defraud , Opinion , Fact , Elector , Scheme , Heart , Rights , Bulk , Jack Smith East , States , Conversation , Mike Pence , Piece , Pennsylvania , Arizona , Charging , Fact Finding , Crux , Everyone , Andy Mccarthy , Executive Immunity , Sweepingly , Assistant U S Attorney , Favor , Writing , Purpose , Gorsuch , Prosecutions , Motive , Gamut , Action , Justice Department , Directive , Essential , Place , Framers , Indictments , Congress , 230 , Common Sense , Executive Powers , Excess , Fold , On Set , Skim , Chance Trump , Orrin Cur , Uc Berkeley Law Professor , Chance , 2024 , Circuit Court , Level , Trials , District Level , District Court , District , Episcopal , Term , Documents , History , Immunity Idea , Regard , Motions , Ground , Argument , Times , Function , Defense , Wow , Sentencing , Pages , Reset , 96 , Election Interference Prosecution , Thinking , Kinds , Capacity , Tone , Whole , Doom , Government , Impeachment , Ways , Allegations , Talk , Fruition , Cases , Trump Today , Answer , Folks , Activity , Isn T , Pass , Scope , Stuff , Mark Levine , Statute , Courthouse , Bribery Statute , Obstruction Charges , Governor , Virginia , Immunity Case , Biden Appointees , Stamps , Stamp , Justices , Status Quo , Footnote , Crime , Candidate , Figure , He Didn T , Attorney General , Inaudible , Gre Greater Terrible Thing , Prosecutor , Appointment , Horrendous , Public , Evidence , Attorneys , Gag Rule , Poor Audio , Motion , Media , Doing , Walking , Lead , Institutions , Rubber Stamping , Rushing , Come What May , Antics , Senator , Chuck Schumer , Demand , Connection , Law , Basis , Insurrection , Incitement , Majority Opinion , Points , No One , Country , Interests , Effort , Sides , Breathing Room , Implications , Others , Look , Georgia Case , Blowback Effects , Complaint , Matters , Georgia , Allegation , Peddler , Critic , Wagon , Broad Racketeering Claim , Cannon , Aren T , Reason , Court Of Appeals , Claims , Fast , Chief Justice Roberts , Circuit Opinion , Type , Hearings , Listening , Circuit , Breath , Risk , Point Of Law , Statement , Spokes People Alina Habba , Administration , Bunker , Walls , Won T , Notion , Feature , Fete , Officers , Chain Of Command , Motivations , Mind , Chief Executive , Foundation , Policy Decisions , Criminal Law , Parties , Lens , Upheaval , Everybody , Norm , Indicting A , It Didn T , Rule , Order , It Doesn T , Actors , Prosecutorial Process , Account , Truth Social , Portion , Ruling , Dividing Official , Motives , Instances , Inquiry , Jude Ilks Examination , Motivation , Worry , Whore , Cycle , Accusations , Ex Presidents , Feeblg , Strife , Platform , Functions , Grounds , Hearing , Spokesperson , Left , Scotus Ruling Trump Version , Thought , Idea The Supreme Court , Department Cannot , Question , Statutes , Testimony , Records , Advisors , Intent , State Of Mind , Combination , Clause , Indictment , Anything , Superseding , Difficulty , Weigh , Friends , Morsel , Washington , 45 , Exercise , Unjack Smith , Obstruction , Unjack Smith Like , Grand Jury , Result , 32 , Character , Doug Collins , News , Former Georgia Congressman , Won T Go , Areas , Administrations , Form , Details , Line , Conversations , Notes , Several , Staff , Georgia Days Re , Jack Smiths , Fallout , Audience , Bunkers , Yes , U S District Judge , Majority Decision , Trump S January 6th , Modicum , Trial Judge , Conclusions , Information , Prison , Republic , Existence , Beginning , Joe Biden , Responsibilities , Impression , Hurry , Separation , Clarence Thomas , Attorneys General , Concurring Opinion , It , Position , Ed Meece , For The First Time In American History , District Attorney , Parts , Scab Off , Six , Job , Judges , Circumstances , Bernie Sanders , Nothing , Above The Law , Least , Assault , Firewalls , Garland , Rewriting Statutes , Charge , Mother , Contractors , Ku Klux Klan Act , Civil Rights Voting Act , They Weren T , Sedition , Patience , Flashback , Conviction , Peter Doocy , Somebody , Bruise , Politically , Strings , Happening , Scenes , The System , Maga Scotus , Influence , Democracy , Credibility , Breaking The Law , Bottom , Number One , In Law School , Members , Damage , Demagog , Branch , Papers , Separation Of Powers , Federalist , Republic Today , Choice , Monuments , Crt , Dei , Praise , Jumping , Program , White House , Brushing , Phone , Stake , Saying , Visor , Doesn T Change What , Mob , Felon , Results , Capitol , President Trump , Calls , Battle For Democracy , Race , Comment , Performance , Mr , Will , Touch , Doctrine , Haste , Paragraphs , Blow , Lawfare Against , Reading , Institution , Colleagues , Oman , Principle , Mockery , Hits , Threshold Question , Confidence , Infallibility , Adheres , Practices , Couple , Case Law Dating , Attempts , Hasn T , Recrimination , American History , God , Dissents , Fop Rick Of The Republic , Voice , Bench , More , Wisdom , Misguided , Activist , Opening , Pandora S Box , Immunity Set , Grounding , Temper Tantrum , Founding Of The Republic , Set Forth , 200 , Danger , Stomach , Fear , Out Of Control Court , Politicians , Hacks , Attacks , Robes , Intestinal Fortitude , Agenda , Road , Work , Demagog Type , Rogue , Society , Citizens , Characteristic , Balance , Doesn T Work , Convict Trump , Judge Cannon , Speed Calendar , Space , Set , Setting , Vance , Rule Of Law , Defense Team , Talks , Room , Reasonableness , Miscategorizes , Electors , Officials , Manner , Mode , Five , Discussions , State Officials , Speeches , Masses , Appellate Court , Wasn T , Conditions , Slapdown , Attempt , Alternative Slates , Respect , Debate , Wake , Barrett , Much , Passage , Remand , Litigation Standpoint , Entirety , Passages , Terms Of Protecting The Constitution And Separation Powers , Safe , Process , Subject , Anywhere , Side , Justice System , Incompetent To Stand Trial , The Faulkner Focus , Break , Outnumbered , America Reports , 1 , 00 , Magic , Effects , Food , Dog , Dog Bark , Pet Food , Coats , Farmer , Step , Pep , Spain , Relief Factor , Standing Appointment , Dubin , It Doesn T Mask Pain , Supplement , Response , Pain Relief , Approach , Inflammation , Good , Body , Life , Supreme Court Blockbuster Ruling On , Kayleigh ,