the supreme court finally put its immunity ruling out saying all presidents not just donald trump are entitled to some form of it. what does it mean for special counsel's jack smith's prosecution and does it punt everything until after the election? we'll talk to a former attorney general bill barr in just a moment. first fox team coverage with shannon premier on the fall-out. and what former president donald trump is staying about that decision. welcome, everybody, neil cavuto. very happy to have you on a very busy new days. now the latest. >> reporter: neil, it is a big decision, a big win today for the trump camp, but it does not mean this case is over, far from it. because now it heads back down to the lower courts and chief justice roberts writing for the majority explains why he said this. the concerns we noted at the outset, the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties thus become more prominent we accordingly remand to the district court, they said that on nearly all the counts although they said charges tied to conversations that president trump had with members of the justice department would fall within his executive constitutional authority and so those would be immune. now, the dissent in the meantime is spelling gloom and disaster over what they see as the real-world impact of these decisions. justice sotomayor writing this, when he uses his official powers in any way under the majority's reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution. order the navy seals team six to assassinate a political rival. organizing a military coup to hold on to power, immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune, immune, immune. the majority said that is wholly disproportionate and this tone of doom and fear mongering by the dissent is improper and went on to say the president is not immune for any criminal activity that's unofficial, it's not a part of his official acts, but of course now the trial court will have to figure that out in this case and that is going to take some time. neil. >> neil: indeed. shannon, thank you for that. shannon bream. brian giannis joining us now. >> reporter: former president trump is declaring total victory after this supreme court decision. he's been posting a lot on truth social calling it a big win for america and the constitution and democracy. and he also wrote this, quote, the supreme court totally dismantled most of the charges against me. joe biden should now call off his dogs. our country should now be focused on greatness again. republicans and trump are using this supreme court decision as vindication that all the criminal and civil trials against trump are bogus. listen. >> i think that the democrats again, just like they have done with improvement and other checks and balances in our system, i think they've overplayed their hand, they've hurt our republic in the future. >> reporter: trump and the republican national committee are now fundraising off the scotus decision. the trump campaign has outraised the biden campaign by $81 million over the last two months, since his criminal conviction in new york. multiple fundraising emails today asking for donations including one that reads, quote, president trump has been vindicated, right now we've got them on the ropes, a massive response today could mean joe biden is finished by tomorrow. the trump campaign is trying to ride momentum following biden's debate performance and new polling in michigan showed even before the debate, trump is ahead of biden by 4 points in a head-to-head rematch. as shannon just explained, the decision by the supreme court at best conflicts special prosecutor jack smith's january 6th case and it also could affect the classified documents case here in florida as well as the georgia racketeering case because obviously these lower courts are now going to have to interpret what is an official act and what is an unofficial act that is no longer protected or immune based on this supreme court decision. neil. >> neil: amazing ramifications. brian, thank you very much. with us now is former u.s. attorney general bill barr, what he makes of all of it. attorney general, very good to have you. >> good to see you, neil. >> neil: let me ask you, first off, about what this case comes down to, that donald trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution but only for official acts. is it going to be up to a lower court then to determine the difference? >> that's right. i think this was a very sensible decision that i think most lawyers familiar with this area expected. which is this wept up to the wee court in a very alberta tract posture, the government's broad assertion there was no immunity whosoever but the court is saying here, no, there's absolute immunity acting under the constitution, carrying out an act under the constitution. the government has the burden of showing that it can prosecute him for that without impairing the executive function and finally, there's no immunity for unofficial or private acts. and i think -- and the practical effect of this is that the district court is going to do what it really should have done at the beginning, which is the government should have had it do, do the analysis so the facs go up to the supreme court. as a practical matter, there's not going to be a trial of this case before the election. >> neil: i guess it comes back to that difference between official and private conduct. what's to stop the president, former or otherwise, from saying everything i do is an official act? >> well, because -- and the dissent by justice sotomayor i think unfairly portrays the majority opinion. the question is what's the function being performed, what's the authority being used, not what instrument is being used. so for example, the president can direct that a case be dropped, that's part of his constitutional authority. but he cannot accept a bribe to do that because that's receiving a bribe. he doesn't have the authority to receive a bribe. another example would be he has the right to go and tell the department of justice to investigate something but an example used by justice sotomayor was, oh, then he can fabricate evidence, give the evidence to the department, and tell them to use that to indict them. he doesn't have authority to fabricate evidence. that's not carrying out an executive function, and the worst example i think, the one that makes no sense whatsoever is the idea he can use seal team six to kill a political opponent. the president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth, he has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. he doesn't have authority to go and assassinate people. so whether he uses the seal team or a private hitman, it doesn't matter, it doesn't make it a carrying out of his authority. so all these horror stories really are false. >> neil: maybe so, but it's igniting fears on the left that it's going to empower him, one put it this way, it could empower donald trump to wield executive power in more extreme ways in a second term. what do you think of that, it would embolden him to do the very things that democrats have been pounding? >> well, you know, i would say what the chief justice said in the opinion which is the supreme court has to write an opinion, a timeless opinion, an opinion that covers all situations in the future and that will be good for the country over the long haul. and they can't write opinions tailored to the particular exigencies of the moment. that said, i think that there's ample teeth remaining because they have said that even official acts can be prosecuted if the government can show under the circumstances the particular facts of the case that it would not impair the executive function. >> neil: let me ask you something, when we chatted last time in the studio, you were talking about the fact when push comes to shove, you would support donald trump as the party's nominee, indeed the party's nominee with all the misgivings you had about a second term, it could create a great deal of havoc, having said that, some think this might provide a green light for what some fear could be a donald trump vendetta campaign in a second term, he says success will be his best revenge although he's intimated that he remembers what some have done to him. what do you think of that? >> well, first, you know, i think those concerns are overblown about him seeking personal revenge against people. and second, i think that there are sufficient institutional checks and balances that that's very difficult to do and certainly difficult to do without it being detected. so there are a lot of people in the government, a lot of career employees that have to be involved in any investigation and any presentation of the case to a grand jury and so forth, so the idea that he's going to be able to go out and weaponnize, as they say, the department of justice against his adversaries, you know, i don't think there's a particularly acute risk of that. >> neil: how do you think a second term would go? it's been a very good past five, six days for donald trump. with the meltdown of the president at the debate, people still trying to figure out what happened there, and now these series of decisions that have gone his way, that he would be in a strong place, particularly emboldened if he does get elected with possibly a republican senate, maybe a republican house. already there are signs right now that the house is looking into a lot of this stuff against democratic prosecutors who were going after him, that they would do his bidding. do you think that's a fair shot, that they will do his bidding? >> look, that his appointees will? >> neil: the appointees and that we're already seeing it in a house that wants to go after some of the prosecutors who have been going against him. that they're weaponizing the house now, that they're weaponizing things already. >> well, you know, when i look at his first term, he had a very successful first term. he got a lot of things done against a lot of tremendous opposition. and, you know, i hear a lot of rhetoric about him going after his enemies and so forth, but i don't see any specifics as to that happening during his first term, and i think, you know, i don't minimize trump's flaws and specially a lot of his rhetoric and the effect that that can have on the body politic, but i think, as i said, when i look at the two different choices, for me, it's an easy choice. that i think the threat to democracy and the threat to the united states and the most damage would be done by four more years of biden versus trump. and i think, given the particular problems we face internationally, the problem of the administrative state, the problem of the sluggishness of our economy, the inflation and so forth, that he's the right person for that job as between the two, and we have to choose between those two individuals. >> neil: indeed. faced with that same choice, attorney general paul brian, the former speaker of the house, now on fox board of directors, he thinks that this is a bridge too far to cross for him. and that he could not support donald trump. i just want you to take a peek at this. >> bill's a good friend of mine. i understand the binary argument, i just don't agree with it, it's just that simple. >> neil: so he can't support it. what do you say? >> well, i hear it, and i know some people who take that position, but with the binary argument means he must feel that biden is a better choice, and that biden will do a better job over the next four years or do less damage to the united states over the next four years. i don't believe that. as i've said, i think it's not about me, it's not about me saying, oh, gee, i've kept my skirts clean and didn't vote for anybody or put a right in or so forth, i feel if one of two people ends up with the office, it's my duty as a voter to do what i can to support the person that i think would do the least damage. >> neil: speaking of people -- comments on donald trump, alexandria ocasio-cortez is saying today it represents an assault on american democracy, it's up to congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian -- what do you make of that? >> i think this idea of going -- i think these opinions were bang-on, they were very reasonable opinions, i'm talking about the immunity opinion, the opinion on the chevron doctrine, cutting that back, also the opinion on the obstruction statute and making sure that that's properly employed and isn't used as a drag net and i think that these were very reasonable opinions that put the law in the right place. and i'm afraid that if anything goes, let's do whatever we can to solve the -- to address the political imperative at the moment, we're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. we're going to do long-term institutional damage to the united states. and i think the supreme court's doing just the opposite. i think they're protecting our institutions and the processes we have against being disfigured by the passions of the moment. >> neil: i think some of the concerns that were expressed don't extend just to democrats, for example, annie cohen barret, another trump appointee did express reservation what they could or could not address, particularly that she felt that trump so-called fake electors scheme was not protected from prosecution. what did you make of that and that some of the nuances here they couldn't get into, didn't get too, and some are frustrated? >> i think she had one area where she disagreed with the majority, and actually the majority didn't say one or other whether the false electors effort or talking to those electors was official or non-official, they left that up to the district court to address. what she was saying was if there's something that's unofficial, an act that's unofficial, they should be able to introduce evidence, certain evidence about his intent behind other official acts, and that's a little bit down in the wires, it gets a little nine there but i think she makes a reasonable argument there. but she wasn't in the majority. >> neil: a lot of these cases could get pushed back or dropped altogether i understand that, but some have even said it applies to this hush money case and the weeding out of the penalty phase or that's coming up on the 11th, that there are some matters in that that means it could at least be broken apart or dropped altogether, for example, any conversations that donald trump had at the time with hope hicks, a key aide, and that that would have to go, wouldn't be allowed, and then that case itself might go. what did you think of that? >> so generally, obviously, most of that stuff happened before he became president. but you're right, i mean, there's certain aspects of things that happened once he became president that were brought into that case but that case is otherwise a mess. there's so much wrong with that case that's even more fundamental than that. that case is going to be reversed on appeal. >> neil: okay. let me just get your take -- finish, i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i was just going to say, there's a fundamental denial of due process for the defense not to know what the crimes were that he supposedly committed. >> neil: that's the time we're going to learn about sentencing for that and do you think marchand is going to put him in jail or make a statement or is it too risky for him to do, what are his legal parameters here? >> well, the left has always surprised me during this thing how far they're willing to go but i would be shocked if he actually tried to put him in jail or sentence him to jail time and certainly if he tried to put him in jail before his appeals, so i think they understand that that's a bridge too far to do that to a major party candidate right in the middle of the election. >> neil: if i can go back to this, i appreciate your patience, but some things i wanted to know and pick your brain on and one was the issue of, you know, donald trump, just turned 78, he would be 82 leading office, some have cynically said he will have full bore power, you dismiss that earlier on, to go after enemies and he stressed himself his best revenge will be success. but others look at his age when he's leaving office and he wouldn't have to worry about punishment, it would be an afterthought to him, so he might be emboldened to do that, no matter what you say. what do you say? >> i would say the president acts through people and maybe he wouldn't worry about it, although i think he would, but the people that are around him and are being asked to do things, certainly i think they're going to make sure that they're behaving within the law or, yeah, they're behaving within the law. i understand people's concern, especially given his frequency incendiary rhetoric, i'm just saying having experienced working with the person and being a subordinate of his, ban bannon says i'm the first to go to prison under president trump, i don't lose any sleep about that. >> neil: i think he's in prison right now himself. [ laughter ] let me ask you finally -- i don't mean to make light of that. if you were attorney general coming in and donald trump was the newly-elected president, second term, and he's saying all these cases i want them dropped, i want you to make them go away, what would you do? >> um... i guess -- if i felt i wasn't able to drop them, i wouldn't accept the position. >> neil: you think that's part of the interview cycle going on now, future a.g. -- >> i doubt it. on the january 6th trial, i've said all along that i felt that was not a compelling case and if i had been attorney general i don't think i would have brought it. and now it's sort of falling apart bit by bit, the obstruction statute they used has been knocked out, now you have the immunity issue. it's a very flimsy case, and i don't think it is a compelling case. i think there's an argument for dropping that case just on discretionary grounds. on the document case, i've said all along that i thought there was a strong basis for that case. on the other hand, you're in a situation now where they have refused to bring a case against biden for having those documents and now you have this disparate treatment and so, you know, there's arguments just to sort of cool the political temperature here in the country and a deep feeling that there are two standards about not moving forward with that case. so there are plausible arguments to make for the exercise of the a.g.'s discretion not to pursue those cases but i think the president at the end of the day does have authority to say drop those cases. >> neil: and if one attorney general do it, others might, richard nixon went through a few, that's when it comes down to, right? >> i assume he's smart enough to put someone in the office who he feels would feel those cases shouldn't go forward. >> neil: interesting. bill barr, thank you very much. always good seeing you. >> yep. >> neil: we'll have more after this. >> thanks, neil. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood maria and julio thought their life would never slow down. then one day, it finally did. you were made to find inner peace. we were made to track flight prices to paradise. call leaffilter today. and never clean out clogged gutters again. leaffilter's technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good. guaranteed. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.