never had the privilege to begin with, so the court isn't really making any new law, it's just sort of announcing what has always been the case. again, i don't think anybody has ever said in writing that the president has official immunity for his official acts. it's not that one can't come up with a reason for it. i think it's possible that some members of that court might believe that when the president's acting as commander in chief maybe there is a need for some sort of immunity. the issue here is twofold. first, did president trump act in his official capacity for the acts in question? and if not then there's no question that he's criminally liable. there's only a question about official immunity if in fact he was asking as president as opposed to as candidate. and only if you think he was asking as a president of the united states when he took these acts does the question of whether the constitution has official immunity even come into existence. >> a lot of good questions here. saikrishna prakash, thank you for joining tonight with your