good evening. the breaking legal news of the night, which sounds minor is that donald trump's lawyers have already sent a letter to the judge in the case saying today's action by the united states supreme court means the conviction have to be thrown out and i think the sentencing will proceed and the courts will take that up on the appeal but that is the very first legal move they have made since the supreme court ruled today. >> here we go. as far as the practical consequence of that in the new york criminal case, i think the judge will hear arguments from both sides as to whether the sentencing should be delayed and i don't think the sentencing -- he has been convict did by a jury. i think the sentencing, even if it is delayed will likely proceed. if there is substance to it to the request to have the verdict , the jury's verdict thrown out because of today's radical supreme court ruling, i think it is something that will happen at the appeals court. we will see but we are waiting to hear from him now essentially. >> i have everybody we possibly can think of to ask that question two tonight and lawrence will start us off and andrew wiseman can start us off and we have the former clerk and also we have experts all the way and i have to get out of the way. >> all right. i will get out of your way. today the united states supreme court granted donald trump immunity for conduct described in exactly 2 paragraphs of a 130 paragraph indictment with the rest of the indictment against donald trump that still stands as of tonight. the supreme court has ordered the trial judge in the case to hear testimony in the case from a very long list of potential witnesses to clarify if some of the remaining charges in the indictment may now fit into a new category created by the supreme court today granting criminal immunity for some presidential conduct. that could lead the judge to, in effect, be presiding over an examination of the evidence similar to or equal to what would occur in the prosecution and the actual trial of this case. and when prosecutor jack smith would be calling his prosecution witnesses to the witness stand in the courtroom of judge chutkan including mike pence to take an oath and testify under oath, to prove to the judge that the conduct described in the rest of the indictment is in no way immune from prosecution evening with the supreme court's new definition. unlike a trial, donald trump doesn't have to be present for that hearing which could last for weeks. it would in no way interfere with his presidential campaign. the decision identified two different fears on each side of that decision in the supreme court. the majority of the justices seem to fear a president living under the pressure of unreasonable criminal prosecutions, even though that has never happened in the history of the country. and the minority of the justices fear the president may see as in effect sanctioned to break the law and the majority called the minorities view fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the president feels empowered to violate federal criminal law. and what the majority saw about today's ruling and this is what they fear is the more likely prospect of an executive branch that cannibalize is itself with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. nevermind that no president has ever in any sense prosecuted his predecessor. it is never happened. the majority of the court fears what has never happened. and the minority of the court fears what they have already seen happen in the trump presidency. amy coney barrett who joined this disagreed on one point and that is excluding any kind of their -- evidence that involves an official act by the president. she did raise the question of how that would destroy robbery -- bribery prosecution. she said, excluding from trial, any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution to make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo and the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo. the presidential campaign is now the campaign of a former president who abused his power as president against the current president who has not abuse that power and doesn't want anymore power. here is what president biden said tonight about the supreme court opinion. >> good evening. the presidency is the most powerful office in the world and it's not only to test your judgment but perhaps even more importantly it is an office that can test your character. you not only face moments where you need the courage to exercise the full power of the presidency but you face moments where you need the wisdom to respect the limits of the power of the office of the presidency. this nation was founded on the principle that if there are no kings in america. each of us is equal before the law. nobody is above the law and not even the president of the united states. today's decision by the supreme court of presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all practical purposes today's decision and it almost certainly means there are virtually no limits what a president can do. this is a fundamentally new principal and a dangerous precedent. the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the united states. the only limits will be self- imposed by the president alone. this decision today will continue the courts attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation from gutting voting rights to civil rights or taking away a woman's right to choose to today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation. and nearly 4 years ago my predecessor sent a violent mob to the united states capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. but also we sought with their own eyes and we sat and watched it happen that day. the attack on the police, the ransacking of the capitol and a mob hunting down the house speaker, nancy pelosi with gallows erected to hang the vice president, mike pence and i think it is fair to say it's one of the darkest days in the history of america. now the man who sent that mob to the united states capitol is facing potential criminal conviction for what happened that day. the american people deserve to have an answer in the courts before the upcoming election. the public has the right to know the answer about what happened on january 6 before they asked to vote again this year. now, because of today's decision, that is highly highly unlikely and it is a terrible disservice to the people of this nation. now, the american people has to do with the court should have been willing to do but didn't. the american people have to render a judgment about donald trump's behavior and they have to decide whether his assault on our democracy on january 6 makes him unfit for public office. the american people must decide that trump's embrace of violence to preserve his power is acceptable. perhaps most importantly, the american people must decide that they want to entrust the president once again, the presidency, to donald trump now he will be more embroiled to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants. you know, at the outset of our nation, it was the character of george washington, our first president to find the presidency and he believed power was limited and not absolute. that power always resides with the people. always. and now 200 years later today supreme court decision once again depends on the character of the men and women who hold that presidency and we will find the limits of the power of the presidency. the law will no longer do it. i do know i will respect the limits of the presidential powers i had for three and half years, but any president, including donald trump, will now be free to ignore the law. i concur with the dissent of justice sotomayor today. she said that in every use of visual power, the president is now a king above law. and with fear for our democracy, i dissent. end of quote. so should the american people, dissent. i dissent. may god bless you all. may god help preserve our democracy. may god protect our troops. >> leading off our discussion tonight is a professor who can -- has taught constitutional law at harvard. it is summer break but i imagine students returning to constitutional law class in the next semester. what just happened to constitutional law? >> it was rocked to its very bases. when the supreme court of the united states turned to the constitution and put it upside down in a very profound sense. the most fundamental principle on which the constitution rests is that the law binds everybody in the constitution elaborates the structure of that law. although it does contain in some provisions in the so- called speech and debate clause, for immunizing senators and members of the house and certainly in limited circumstances but it doesn't give any immunity from ordinary criminal law to the president, the most powerful figure in our government. on the contrary, it is because he has such enormous power that he, like anyone else, must obey the criminal law. there are some people, including people with the justice department who have written rules that say you have to wait until the president leaves office before commencing a prosecution for crimes he commits while in office. but until today, nobody has seriously claimed that absolute immunity for certain official acts would apply to the president. as justice jackson pointed out in a very powerful dissent, she said in addition to justice sotomayor, justice kagan joined the dissent justice jackson in a powerful dissent said this whole business of drawing the line between official acts and official acts and saying that if you are only on the official side of the line, the president can essentially get away with murder. but it is on the unofficial siding may be prosecuted. she points out how it gets it upside down and it is exactly when the president is that using the official powers that belong uniquely to that office that we should be most worried about the president becoming an autocrat or has -- as donald trump said he wanted to be on day one, a dictator. it is true that the case will go back to judge chutkan. she will hold hearings and some think that is a silver lining because those hearings can begin soon and the nation can perhaps see sooner than it actually would if there had been a trial in the fall and the nation can see more of the evidence of what donald trump did in the fake electorate's game and the violent mob that he riled up and that is a pale substitute for what people are entitled to and that is a verdict of guilty or not guilty. is the president guilty of, for the first time in her history, organizing an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor? that we won't have. people will be going to their voting booths and deciding whether to vote for somebody who was already abused these powers. as opposed to someone who though the powers have been handed to them says i don't want to use them and i believe in the rule of law. so making that choice without that evidence. >> i want to read justice jackson's conclusion of her opinion. she said the majority of my colleagues seem to have put their trust in our courts ability to prevent presidents from becoming kings through case-by-case application of the in determinant standards of their new presidential accountability paradigm. i fear that they are wrong, but for all of our sakes, i hope that they are right. in the meantime, because the risks and power the court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, i dissent. dissent language it doesn't get stronger than that. >> the language couldn't get stronger because it deserves to be enormously strong and that language was under just three days before independence day and in several days we will celebrate the nation's survival of a revolution against kings and queens. we have a revolution so we wouldn't have a king and now the supreme court says that is what we are giving you. i don't think we should accept that presently covid it does seem to me that all it does is basically put the court on the ballot this november. we have to decide whether we want the kind of government that donald trump has helped us have by appointing three members to this court because three of the members of the majority were appointed by him. to members of the majority ought to have recused them selves. that is five justices. it is those five who ultimately decided that even the evidence of official acts couldn't be used to show what the president was up to when he used his official powers because motive supposedly doesn't matter but motive is everything whether the president gave a pardon in return for a bribe, depends on whether he was doing it as a corrupt matter, or whether he was giving a pardon because he thought somebody deserved mercy and as justice barrett pointed out, you can't make sense of the quit without the quote but under the in can hear and -- incoherent majority you can prove the transfer of money but you can't prove anything about the pardon still in exchange and that is the kind of thing that makes this decision so incoherent and what makes it really dangerous is that even if we eventually get over it, we will half to rely on the good character of future presidents because the law will no longer serve as a source of inhibition. that is dangerous and that is a prescription for autocracy and eventually for authoritarianism and dictatorship. >> thank you so much for starting off our discussions on this historic night. >> thank you. coming up, we have more conversation about the view of today's supreme court ruling. at care.com, it's easy to get a break, even if you're not on summer vacation. join millions of families who've trusted us and find caregivers in your area for kids, seniors, pets, and homes. go to care.com now to find the care you need this summer. upset stomach iberogast indigestion iberogast bloating iberogast thanks to a unique combination of herbs, iberogast helps relieve six digestive symptoms to help you feel better. six digestive symptoms. the power of nature. iberogast. ohhh crap. the power of nature. now we gotta get france something. wait! we could use etsy's gift mode! alright. done. (♪♪) plateau de fromage! [cheering] oh la la! [cheering] don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, now on etsy. most people call leaffilter when their gutters are clogged and they notice one of the many issues that can bring. sometimes it's the smell of mildew when water has seeped into the interior walls. or maybe they've spotted mold in the attic. but most often it's the more obvious signs of damage like rotten soffit, fascia, or water pooling near their foundation. you can get ahead of costly damage by protecting your home's gutters today. we're in your neighborhood and ready to help. schedule your free gutter inspection today, call 833 leaffilter, or visit leaffilter.com z's baking the house special. arisa's styling a new look. and steve's filling his biggest order ever. with the first ever comcast business five-year price lock guarantee, these business owners get five years of value on gig speed internet and advanced security. all from the company with 99.9% network reliability. so now they can focus on doing what they do best for the next five years. that's a lot of bread. you got this. the comcast business five-year price lock guarantee. switch today for a limited time. joining us now is the forming -- former acting solicitor general and he is a professor at georgetown law and host of the podcast courtside and also joining us is andrew wiseman, the former fbi and general counsel and chief of the individual division and melissa joins us, and nyu law professor and they are the co- authors of the new york times best-selling book, which i used tonight, the trump indictments in the historic charging documents with commentary and all three of course are msnbc legal analyst. with all of your experience, how much of this did you expect? >> the most none of it. this is a decision that i think it's one i think that changed our constitution dramatically in both procedurally and substantively and substantially, the president can do whatever he wants including and up to his sending out navy seal team six to assassinate his political title and it certainly not the constitution that i had ever understood and the constitution of the united states. this decision goes way way way too far in giving the president basically carte blanche when it comes to executive powers. there are some bright silver linings and there for about the presidents rollover state legislatures and assembly of fake delegates, which i think the court leaves possible to prosecute people like donald trump for. but in general when it comes to presidential powers, this isn't the constitution that i have ever understood it to be and procedurally, i would have expect did a unanimous decision or close to unanimous which is the way the court traditionally operates in hot button cases like this. if you go back to the nixon tapes case which is almost unanimous against nixon and in rejecting his claim for presidential privilege, which is just a cousin of what donald trump thought here and even nixon's own appointees to the supreme court ruled against him and here by contrast you have the six republican appointed justices all siding with the republican nominee for the presidency, donald trump and you have the three democratically appointed ones siding the other way and that's not the place the court should be and it's not surprising we already heard from president biden about this. i do expect in the days and weeks to come, the court will become the front and centerpiece of the election. i think biden will run against the court more than he will run against even donald trump although the two now are locked kind of at the hip with trump and the supreme court. this is a tremendously unfortunate ruling and one to which i was shocked. >> i think is so many of us, during our own lifetimes have come to expect so much of the court because we saw the court deliver in circumstances that proved the courts integrity and the republican president, richard nixon, proved the supreme court's integrity. and now the former republican president, donald trump, has disproved it. without that supreme court decision in the nixon case, we wouldn't be sitting here so stunned tonight as we are. >> look. we talked about this off air. in many ways this decision kind of quietly talks about the logic of this tapes case because you have this broad recognition by the supreme court that anything that is within a very expansive view of the core functions or the take care clause of the constitution is completely and 100% absolutely immune. even other official acts, there is a strong presumption where the court sets out a very difficult test to allow the government to go forward. but let me make sure people understand, with respect to that court function what the court said, it is absolutely immune, they say one of the things within that court function is the communications and directions of the president and the department of justice. they do say that when the president orders sham prosecutions, he can do that and not face any criminal repercussions. and just to say it is to be shocked by. i am completely with neil. this is such a transformational decision and finally, the tape you played of president biden is so remarkable because you have this sitting president saying i do not want that power . i should not have that power. that is not how our system works. the sitting president is saying this isn't part of the checks and balances that we have in this country and we are not a -- an autocracy. it's remarkable you have president biden on the day of the decision saying i do not need and shouldn't have that power. >> you are a clerk for sonja -- justice sotomayor. she made the point in her dissent that every president prior to donald trump, everyone of them, assumed that criminal law applied to them. everyone of them. they weren't inhibited in any way as presidents as law abiding people are not the fact that the law applies to them. how do you think that justice sotomayor has been dealing with this opinion and the length of time it took to put it out and what can you imagine going on inside the court to take this long? >> i don't think we have to imagine it. i think she said a few weeks ago when she received the radcliffe metal where she said that there are days when she goes back to her office and cries and does this because the court in which she is a member has done things so shocking and beyond the pale that it begs the leaf and i think this is one of those days. she chose to read this from the bench and that is an unusual step that they take they do only when it's necessary to impress upon the public how monumental the majority's views are and also i think she quite rightly noted this is a major hit to democracy and noted she didn't respectfully dissent and she simply noted the bad and sad times for democracy ahead and i wasn't entirely shocked by this decision. this is a supreme court that had a conservative super majority and in three of those four years, it is overruled a major precedent every year. dobson 2022 and affirmative action cases in 2023 with the chevron case this year and now it is essentially abandoned nixon versus the united states and it hasn't done so exclusively but this is the overruling of nixon and who would've thought we would've been in a position like this where the supreme court of the united states so emboldened by its mere numbers could simply run roughshod over the rule of law and existing precedents and that is what donald trump put in place and i do agree with neil and i am surprise the biden ministration hasn't taken a more strident view about this court and its role in constructing these current landscapes that we live in. this isn't just about the threat that donald trump poses to democracy but this court by itself is annex essential threat to democracy. >> quickly. >> this book is important and the argument is that the court does its best by not doing a lot at any one time and conserves its legitimacy. what you have here is the opposite, what melissa has called the yolo court and they are overruling precedent of the president because they have the numbers and what they predict is the institutional collapse of the supreme court in its legitimacy. and that is what we now see and it is the courts fault they are putting themselves in the headlights of all of these major decisions like the ones melissa mentioned. >> this opinion does agreed like a mess. the question is how big of this is holes and how much can the judge get through these holes and we will take up this question after the break. the bk everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪ ♪ ♪ have you always had trouble losing weight it's an idea whose time has come. and keeping it off? same. discover the power of wegovy®. ♪ ♪ with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. ♪ ♪ and i'm keeping the weight off. wegovy® helps you lose weight and keep it off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only fda-approved weight-management medicine that's proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. wegovy® shouldn't be used with semaglutide or glp-1 medicines. don't take wegovy® if you or your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop wegovy® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. wegovy® may cause low blood sugar in people with diabetes, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes. tell your provider about vision problems or changes, or if you feel your heart racing while at rest. depression or thoughts of suicide may occur. call your provider right away if you have any mental changes. common side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. with wegovy®, i'm losing weight, i'm keeping it off. and i'm lowering my cv risk. that's the power of we. ♪ ♪ check your cost and coverage before talking to your health care professional about wegovy®. that grimy film on your teeth? dr. g? (♪♪) it's actually the buildup of plaque bacteria which can cause cavities. most toothpastes quit working in minutes. but crest pro-health's antibacterial fluoride protects all day. it stops cavities before they start... crest. starting a business is never easy, but starting it eight months pregnant, that's a different story. with the chase ink card, we got up and running in no time. earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase with the chase ink business unlimited card from chase for business. we are back. andrew, i wanted to read a part of the oral argument in this case in which justice roberts appeared to disagree with his opinion today and agree with justice barrett's dissent from this element of it involving this so-called official act. during the argument justice roberts said if you expunge the official part from the indictment, that is like a one leg of the stool. giving somebody money isn't bribery unless you get something in exchange. if what you get in exchange is to become the ambassador to a particular country, that is official. the appointment is within the presidents prerogative. andrew, today in this opinion, justice roberts seemed to have forgotten this. >> this will be quite important, both at the federal level and state level where we have this new brief letter to the da saying that there should be a hearing and evidence can be thrown out and trump is relitigating that. why? supreme court and the majority said that if there are official act's immune, none of that can come in is even evidence. that is something, as you note, chief justice roberts really took to task a justice alito comment saying that is justice alito's view and he was scoffing at that saying it will make it almost impossible to prosecute public corruption cases because how do you prove the quota the quid? and he joins the majority. i should note that amy coney barrett in her concurrence the sense on -- a defense -- has a dissent on that. that will be the argument that there was official evidence, evidence of official acts by the president that came into the state trial in new york so you can expect that is where we start hearing, the number of arguments the state that they will make including that is an argument that is waived and de minimis evidence. it opened the door to that argument in this is a crazy argument and i really don't know why the chief justice flipped on that after being so strong. >> the supreme court is sending this back to judge chutkan and ordering her to have evidentiary hearings and she will have to listen to this testimony and listen to basically the prosecution's case. here is just some and there is an awful lot that the supreme court wants her to find out what here is some of what they want her to find out about january 6, for example. whether the tweets, the speech and trump's other medications on january 6 involved official conduct may depend on the content in the context of each and knowing for instance what else was said contemporaneous to the communications or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally. it could be relevant to the classification of each communication and this fact bound analysis is the best performed initially by the district court. we therefore remand to the district court to determine whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. and so, melissa, that sounds like a full-blown trial just on january 6 alone and this indictment also includes 42 mentions of arizona, 48 mentions of georgia, 39 mentions of michigan, and so on with nevada and new mexico, wisconsin as well and this is a big undertaking for all of the rest of the indictment which sounds like a full presentation of the prosecution's case. >> it will certainly be an opportunity for a hearing in open court and andrew has an op- ed in the new york times detailing is how this can serve as a public adjudication, certainly not a trial by jury but maybe the best we can hope for given the compressed timeline going into the election. that could be a silver lining. the court did the unusual step here of highlighting some of the various allegations in the indictment and providing what it called guidance as to how the lower court may resolve some of these questions. with regard to the communications with mike pence and former president trump's entreaties to mike pence to overturn the electoral college votes, the court basically said those should be considered official actions and presumptively immunized and letting the government have a high bar of rebutting that. the court has put a thumb on the scale by directing how the lower court should receive some of this evidence. with regard to the point andrew made about the evidentiary issue, i will note that justice alito, who i think an argument should be made should've been recused providing the crucial fifth vote for that view that any evidence or actions that were previously immunized could not be used then as evidence to prove the crimes that want subject to immunity. that wouldn't have been on the table if justice alito had not been in the majority or justice thomas had been forced to recuse. >> judge chutkan already took the view that everything in that indictment reads to her like a chargeable crime against a former president of the united states. she is now given the task by the supreme court to decide again are these chargeable crimes given the new framework to use looking at this indictment. i am not sure what prevents judge chutkan from finding it all to be a chargeable crime other than the only item in there that the supreme court eliminated, which is just those two paragraphs, 74 and 77 of the indictment. >> the supreme court today said allegations about trump pressuring the justice department to try to impugn the 2020 election and its integrity and that was somehow an official act and can't be touched by the criminal law and it's a crazy holding but nonetheless, that is what they said. with respect to the other allegations like pressuring vice president pence or pressuring other people, there may be some presumptive immunity they said but it is fully within the control of judge chutkan. there is this important line in the chief's opinion and i expect jack smith the special counsel to harp on what the chief justice said here. he said there may be, however, context in which the president, notwithstanding the prominence of his position speaks in an unofficial capacity , perhaps as a candidate for office or a party leader. and many of the allegations here go to that. take, for example, the claim that trump pressured state legislatures to have their fake electors scheme and that's not an official act any day of any week. the u.s. president has no control over state legislatures. it is fully within the states and that's part of our system of federalism. those allegations i expect the judge to find rather easily that will survive the decision today. i expect, as andrew predicted, we will see a fair amount of evidence that the american people can listen to about what donald trump did when it comes to those kind of allegations. what they won't here is more evidence on the pressure he did over at the justice department because the supreme court has now declared that off-limits. >> we will squeeze in one more quick break and we will be right back. say goodbye gush fears! thanks to always ultra thins... with rapiddry technology... that absorbs two times faster. hellooo clean and comfortable. always. fear no gush. ♪ i wanna hold you forever ♪ hey little bear bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪ ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ they say we should stop eating so much meat. ♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ so we made meat out of plants. because we aren't quitters. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. i still love to surf, snowboard, and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust. shop etsy for thoughtful pieces made by real people to bring a little something extra to the ordinary. find items that add wow to walls and make you fall in love with your family room again. when you want one-of-a-kind pieces to refresh your home... etsy has it. the cockroach. resilient creatures. true miracles of evolution. where there is one, others aren't far behind. always scavenging for food, the cockroach... well that's horrifying. ortho home defense max indoor insect barrier. one application kills and prevents bugs for 365 days. not in my house you don't. nature is wild. your home doesn't have to be. ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ [♪♪] did you know, how you feel can be affected by the bacteria in your gut? try new align yogurt coated probiotic fruit bites. with a delicious apple and blueberry-flavored fruit center and yogurt coating, each bite is infused with added probiotics, to help promote a healthy digestive system every day. plus, they're packaged in individually-wrapped pouches, for daily digestive support on the go. look for new align yogurt coated probiotic fruit bites online and in the digestive care aisle of your local retailer. brand power, helping you buy better. back with us, neil, andrew, and melissa. i want to read from page 52 of this book, the trump indictments by melissa and andrew. this is a paragraph, 74 in the indictment. this will have to be struck from the indictment according to the absolute immunity provision that the court came up with today saying that afternoon, the defendant, donald trump, called the acting attorney general and acting deputy attorney general and is set among other things, people tell me that co-conspirator ford is great and the defendants also raise multiple false claims of election fraud, which the acting attorney general and acting deputy attorney general refuted when the acting attorney general told the defendant that the justice department couldn't and wouldn't change the outcome of the election and the defendant responded, just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and republican congressman. the reason the supreme court said that is a completely legal and immunized conversation is because at a certain point in the conversation, donald trump was talking about possible hiring and firing and appointment power at the justice department and that justifies everything else he said in it no matter how criminal that may sound. that is what this indictment is going to be losing as a result of this. there is another paragraph on the other page, melissa, another conversation donald trump has. but there are a bunch of other conversations that don't involve the president and involves the deputy attorney general, the acting attorney general, and the other guy, you know, all of that is happening among them. does that have to be cut out of this indictment too? the president is not in any of those conversations. >> it is a good question. i read that part of the court's decision as a unitary executive theory on steroids and that has been advanced by a number of conservatives. it is this idea that the executive branch and the president, the president is the embodiment of the executive branch so the doj and the attorney general, those are all appendages of the president. the theory, as i understand it and as it is expressed in the opinion, in those circumstances where the president is talking for doj officials or simply directing things for the officials, they are official acts because the president himself is the embodiment of the dm j -- doj and he is responsible. i think it is really significant in this case, not just what it means with this indictment but what was ruled out as immunized but also what it means for the special counsel and all of these prosecutions going forward because essentially the court is saying that if the president, if reelected and becomes the president again, if donald trump is the president, he can direct the doj to drop these prosecutions. that direction is an official act and it can't be challenged or subject to criminal prosecution and he can release the special counsel and that is also part of his official duties as president. he can remove the special counsel. all of that is within the scope of his duties and not presumptively immune but absolutely immune. i think that is a sweeping sweeping set of circumstances, especially with regard to the doj. >> the supreme court in the majority opinion said the president is a branch of government. >> absolutely. it is a branch of government, but it doesn't mean it exists exogenous to law and the idea that they can do the type of stuff that you read in paragraph 74 in pressuring the justice department to impugn the election and stall -- install his preferred candidate for acting attorney general to do that is so dangerous. i do want to remind everybody of justice jackson, justice robert jackson. when the japanese internment case came up in the supreme court, he dissented saying the power of the majority will give here to the president will lie around like a loaded weapon for some of the president to pick up and use in some horrendous way. i fear exactly that about this decision. it isn't just about donald trump. it isn't just about joe biden or merrick garland or jack smith. it is about the most fundamental thing we have as americans, which is life under the rule of law and the idea that no person is above the law or the idea that a president can't act exogenous to law and constrained by the law. with the court did today is blow past and destroy the fundamental underpinning of our system and i don't think this decision will last and i don't inc. we will have five or six justices in the future who can sign on to what is basic the nonsense. it isn't america and it shouldn't survive the test of time. >> thank you all very much for joining us for the most important discussion of this program that we have ever had about a supreme court opinion. thank you very much. we will be right back. right ba. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust. we're trying to save the planet with nuggets. because we need the planet. and we also need nuggets. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. ed gutters. vision changes, or eye pain occur. 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.com. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.