want to save on some of the biggest names in streaming on the network made for streaming? x marks the spot. now you can add the new xfinity streamsaver™ that includes netflix, peacock, and apple tv+. that's xfinity streamsaver™ for just $15 a month. all your favorites. all in one place. only from xfinity. for more watching and less spending... x marks the spot. do it all on the network made for streaming, and bring on the good stuff.

house of the dragon streaming exclusively on me good morning. >> i'm jake tapper in washington. welcome to our special coverage july 1, 2024, a monumental day that will shape both the 2024 election and beyond that, the powers of the u.s president, at any moment, the nine us supreme court justices will hand down their ruling on donald trump's claims of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and i'm kaitlin collins live outside the supreme court this morning, this landmark case, trump versus united states, revolves around whether trump is immune from prosecution

regarding charges that he used his office to attempt to overturn the 2020 election but as neil justice, neil gorsuch summed it up, the significance of this is a decision not just for donald trump but also for future presidencies. >> as he said, quote, we are writing a rule for the ages. >> i made her son cooper from new york. today's ruling could boiled down to whether trump's actions were official as part of his presidential duties are private, and the court's decision will determine if trump could face trial on these federal charges before the november election. it's really difficult to overstate just how consequential this ruling is going to be, not just for donald trump's immediate legal and plop possible political peril. but for all future us presidents as well, it's taken 67 days to issue this opinion on the final day of the term after us supreme court justices heard oral arguments back in april, trump's lawyers argued that presidential immunity is an essential protection against overzealous prosecutors if a

president can be charged, put on trial in imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office that looming threat, we'll distort the president's decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. but the attorney for the u.s. justice department argued that no president should ever be above the law his novel theory would immunized former president's for criminal liability, for bribery, treason, sedition murder and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results. someone election. and perpetuate himself in power thanks so much. >> let's talk about this with my panel or in studio with us, we have many experts. i'm going to start with john king and john, it's going to what happens today is so incredibly important maybe not as important politically is what happened last week but for the ages certainly, it took the

court 67 days to release this decision, just over four months until election day. that in itself is a victory for donald trump anything that delays the trials. and so the decision today, let's say they send it back to the court and saying they make a distinct the lower court said it's back to the lower courts. they make a distinction between official acts because some of this could have been, he was president and some of it was he was candidate, even that causes more delay. so in the short term, donald trump, in some ways has already won in that it's most unlikely, even if he loses at the court today, pretty hard to see that trial taking place before the election and that's the more consequential trial in the stormy daniels hush money campaign finance. it's a much more serious issue that jack smith is trying to prosecute. so trump has won with the delay the question is, what happens today in the short-term in a very competitive race where trump has to be feeling better this week they did last week because of the debate, what happens there and justice gorsuch is absolutely correct. a president's 20 a 4050100 years from now will be impacted by this decision. in the immediacy because of where we are four months, 18 weeks to a

presidential election. we're thinking about trump and trump trials, but it is a bigger decision than that with all the cases against donald trump, donald trump is promising retribution. he's promising that he's going to go after the he's generals, these members of the january 6 committee, et cetera, and then obviously there is this question of what kind of immunity mike president joe biden, if he doesn't win in november, what might he have? i actually asked trump about that on thursday about going after his political opponents. take a listen your main political opponent is standing on stage with you tonight. can you clarify exactly what it means about you feeling you have every right to go after your political opponents. >> well, i said my retribution is going to be success, but he could be a convicted felon as soon as he gets out of office, joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he's done, he's done horrible thing all of the death caused at the border telling the ukrainian people that we're going to want $1 billion, or you change the prosecutor. otherwise you're not getting

$1 billion this isn't just about hypotheticals. trump has already using the rhetoric this decision today could have an impact again, who knows what's going to happen in november, but it could have an impact on what happens after november. >> it absolutely could and certainly trump was you could hear their that he had a message that his team wanted him to deliver to steer away. i mean, they know that this retribution kind of line is something that tends to damaged his standing with independence and swing voters. so you could hear them, they're trying not to, but then you could see what seems to really be there when we hear donald trump speaking without a teleprompter in more unfocused, shall we say situations right? how he really feels about this? i think the other piece when you look at it from the flip side of how how it could impact things. let's not forget about how much people have talked about how donald trump is running for president to protect himself from the situation that he is facing with the federal judiciary. because the bottom line is, if he is reelected he can make this entire case go away. >> that's absolutely true. and

likely everyone stayed with me i'm going to throw it to caitlin outside the court, kaitlan yeah. >> daken, obviously, the trump team has been weighing all of that as they are at this point waiting to find out, just like the rest of us, what exactly it is that the supreme court has decided here they have run through basically every option in their mind. and kristen holmes is here with me in casino. obviously, we've been talking to the trump to you about this. they don't expect to outbreak when they don't think that the supreme court's going to come out and say, actually, yeah, you are completely immune from prosecution, but they're looking for a way to essentially have them split the baby where they do they are vindicated on certain points of this and it does go back down to a lower court to figure out. okay. what's an official act and what's not an official active, therefore, delaying the case even further. right. and i would actually argue that they think this went better than they thought it would even at the beginning, when i talked to them when they were going into the supreme court, originally, they were like this as a hail mary pass. we're going in there, we're saying blanket immunity, but we don't know if this is actually going to go anywhere. we just know the fact that the supreme court has taken up is going to the delay the case. but when i talk to their various legal advisors that members of the campaign,

they feel i'm cautiously optimistic and that is not based on just their hopes. this is based on what they saw particularly the line of questioning from justice kavanaugh, justice roberts. they are looking at this for any kind of limited immunity because as you said, this is all about how can they delay this case past the election node? argue that isn't just a maybe of whether or not he's going to dismiss the case if you wins in the fall, this is certain that is part of the plan that they have had all along that these two federal cases would be gone almost the moment that he enters the white house, if he is to win again, the whole point has been to push this further and further. now, in their mind, their calculus says that if everything goes terribly and they lose on all fronts today, that it's still possible this could get delayed past the election just given the fact that it'd be so close to the election, there might be some kind of conversation around political powers and political sway, but they don't know if that would work what's interesting also is in speaking to them is that trump doesn't draw the distinction that his attorneys do. >> and well, some of this is

official acts, some of its unofficial acts. trump just argues for blinken immunity. i mean, what they argue in court as different than what he argues publicly and untrue, so then that's always how it is with that, right? you know, he he says one thing just in terms of a statement that's out there and lays there and then they tried to find the nuance and we're looking at a case here. where they have a very powerful and very smart lawyer. jonathan's our who has done this before. and as somebody who is well-respected on both sides of the aisle and by the supreme court itself. so what he is looking at, what they are hoping for right now is this limited immunity so that this does go back to jack smith. he has to restructure the case. he has to do this sorting between what was personal and what was an official act. and then this will get delayed beyond the election, which of course would mean that donald trump would eventually be able to dismiss this case. and we actually heard from trump this morning he did a radio interview with john frederick's, one of his favorite conservative host. and this is what he said about this decision that we are waiting any moment to get immunity statement that's coming out

they say on sunday on monday, that you have to be very interesting to see what happens. but i think it has a bigger impact joe biden then it has an mi actually i mean, obviously he's implying and what trump has argued is that future presidents would face prosecution. >> i mean, he's been out personally to go after what i mean, we saw what he said to jake take essentially saying, oh, he should be worried. >> joe biden because he's committed more crimes while in office, and also, it's almost like saying, if i was to be in office and this of course, is that his veiled way of saying, i might look at his chart, what he did and office as well, which is something he has said before. this is very important to donald trump, no matter what he says, matter what he says about it being more important to president joe biden. that's just how he talks as you obviously know, this is critical to them because they don't want this case, they do not want this trial happening before the election and just given all that they have seen, there is still a chance that if he does not get any immunity he

which seems highly unlikely again, given what we saw during oral arguments that this could go to trial. and so for them, it is critical to have any kind of slice here of immunity or vagueness, or of nuance so that the case has to go back. >> and the fact that we're even here showed that the justices at least wanted to explore that question and to see what it was exactly anderson that what is the limit of presidential immunity because clearly they don't believe it's blanket immunity, but they also don't agree with what a court in dc found, which is that there is no immunity for what the president had. what whether we as an office and of course, what he could be held accountable for after he left office. >> yeah, i'm the supreme court heard arguments, indicates back in april after lower courts rejected trump's claim of presidential immunity. >> now that hearing, the newest justice on the bench could zhongyi a codon g. brown jackson questioned if taking liability off the table could embolden future presidents to commit crimes while in office if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful

person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. >> i'm trying to understand what the disincentives it is from turning the oval office into the seat of criminal activity in this country here, here in new york, with the team. >> let's start abby, phillip, and attorney joey jackson i mean, it really boils down to what are private acts and what our official acts yeah. >> and i think first of all, i think the court did not necessarily by the idea that what trump was accused of here. we're private acts that seemed like a bridge too far. >> there were a number of cases during the questioning where attorneys for trump, but essentially admitted that some certain things would be proud of and they actually went line by line through the indictment. and in some cases acknowledged that at the core of the indictment were public acts. they were they were they were

or sr i'm sorry. we're not official acts of a sitting president of the united states, not in furtherance of his role as president. so in a way, are they acknowledged that i don't necessarily think that that's where this is going to come. come down to. i do think that the court has already said by just taking this case, that they want to put this issue on the table. they think it's a legitimate issue for them to address and secondly, i think that just that alone is a victory even if they don't answer the full question, which we've seen just in this term on a number of occasions, they have not decided on the full question. they might leave it open just enough that it keeps this issue alive, not just right now in this case for trump, but down the road, it should another situation like this emerge. and one of the real issues and risks risks that are a lot of people say the country faces is trump, basically being emboldened by a

lack of accountability for his previous set of actions and going even further another time around making it certain that this is not going to be the last time we'll revisit this. >> enjoy alina kagan, justice kagan, a press trump's lawyers over whether a person staging a coup would be considered a quote, official akre. want to play that let's say this president who ordered the military to stage a coup he's no longer president. >> he wasn't a phd, couldn't be impeached. but but he ordered the military to stage a coup and you're saying that's an official act i think it would i think it would depend on the circumstances where there was an official act if it were an official act, again, he would have to be what does that mean? it depend on the circumstances. you sent an official on the way you described that hypothetical it could well be. i just don't know. you'd have again, it's a fact specific context is determination that answer sounds to me as though it's like yeah under my test, it's an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn't it enjoy

the court today? >> might not make a decision about whether what trump did was an official act or a private act. they might just craft a ruling that then sends it back down to a lower court to make to actually define whether what trump did fits their quality okay she's so that is a very likely outcome, anderson. and if they do that, that leads some more uncertainty, right? because think about it. the court has a number of options here. one of the options is to create a bright line rule, as did judge chutkan when she issued her ruling saying, you know what, presidents and i kings then i popes, they have presidents and they have to follow the law like everyone else. then you have the court of appeals weigh in and say essentially the same thing now if we have a supreme court that makes him more nuanced rule, i don't think they'll make that assessment with respect to what's official, what's on official, and if it's official is it criminal? is it not? i think that would be a remand down to the lower court to make that assessment. one thing further, if they do that that that is a supreme court issuing it back to the lower court. do they then make this a judicial

determination? a question of law in terms of what's official or unofficial or does it become a jury question, meaning it's up to a jury after hearing all the evidence to make an assessment as to a do you meet the element if a president is prosecuted? of it official, non-official, it can get very complicated. so it's going to be a ruling with major implications as to whether it's specific and clear and articulate will or whether it just puts us in a more state of confusion. and john, this does not affect the classified documents case. this is not about the new york hush money case. this really will affect jack smith that's the four felony charges on the election. >> i can have an impact in george also because it deals with actions that were taken during the time in which donald trump was president. >> so those are the cases where the most clearest direct impact right now, i will say this as we are waiting for the supreme court to weigh in an issue, it's official decision, it's already made two decisions here. which have effectively gone donald trump's way. number

one, jack smith asked to have the supreme court rule on this last january, like way now come early and tell us now what you think about this. they said no, no, it's not for us. let's let it work up. the court system here and then when ultimately it did go pass the appeals court court and supreme court decided it was going to get in. it's not that they've taken their time, but you will note this is the last case they're deciding and this term no, no one said it had to be the last case. you decide in this term they could have issued their decision earlier. so the delay or the time it has taken has made this almost impossible, almost for this to go to trial before lecture, there should be happening any minute, jake, let's get back to you. thanks, anderson. and let's talk about this issue of immunity and what it means. jamie can go let me start with you what does it mean to jack smith? what does it mean to voters? this idea that what the court's going to rule on. so apart from the question of whether we can have this trial before the election if, there is a trial on any part of it, it's going on during the campaign but if

there isn't a trial american voters don't get to hear the evidence. >> they don't get to your the grand jury testimony from people like former chief of staff, mark meadows. maybe they don't get to see the rest of his text messages from former vice president mike pence, who apparently was taking notes during the time from the former white house counsel's pets ipl one pat fill open an eric hirschman who knew what trump was doing and saying in real time. so that could potentially be a game changer in this election and frame elie if you would, what the court is looking at here is as a legal matter and whether this is in your view, going to be a simple yes, he has immunity or no, he doesn't have immunity. it's probably gonna be something more complicated. they will be now as we sit here, 10:17 a.m. we know nothing about criminal immunity. it's never been decided by the u.s. supreme court before, so we're about to get some really big answers. number one, is there even such thing as criminal immunity?

we've had civil immunity in this country going back 42 years, but we don't officially know whether there's criminal immunity. question two, if there is such thing as criminal immunity, what are the parameters? where does it apply? where does but not apply seems likely it's going to be somehow related to was the on-the-job or off the job. and then really importantly, question three, if there is some immunity, will get the rules, the parameters. how does it apply to trump? it's possible. the supreme court says, we find it does or does not apply to donald trump. that's that i think it's unlikely. i think the more likely scenario is the supreme court kicks it back to the trial court and says, now that we've told you what the standard is, now you have to go about applying that. and how long would that take theoretically if if that were to happen, the supreme court kicks it back to the, to the to the district court what do they do depends whether you have a hearing are not if they have to have a hearing, some type of evidentiary hearing, then that'll take more time. >> if they can go based upon the facts they have, then that's going to take at least 30 days. i imagine. 260 days. so you get an opinion out. there's i don't believe there's any way if this goes

back to the trial court, there's no way this ends up being tried before the election. and also, let's talk about the guard rails for a second, right? and i'm going to talk about politics a little bit here so let, let's see let's see what those guardrails are. and if those guardrails, guardrails. guardrails, meaning what is immunity and what is right. and if they put some guardrails nd, what if donald trump becomes president? what are the guardrails around what he can and can't do? and i think independent voters and voters who were undecided pay it attention, especially likely voters and that's the folks that are showing up in the polls, or they going to look at that and say, okay, i feel more comfortable now given what i've seen in a debate and given what i've seen around voting for donald trump, because there are these guardrails. i think it's something we have to think about an ally and a lot of the arguments when the hearing took place at the u.s. supreme court were spent on a face patient lacks versus private acts and donald trump's attorney, john sauer, admitted during oral arguments. that some private acts should not get immunity.

let's run that soundbite so you can see the private acts don't get immunity. we do three private actors to attorneys, including those mentioned above and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a coconspirator attorney directed that effort you ready to quickly i believe that's significant, yes. yeah. there's no plausible universe and he and john sauer seem to acknowledge that there that the setting in which the setting up a fake electors was deemed could be deemed an official act of the presidency. it's a campaign act committed in furtherance of some act of fraud. now, the gray area that that might two esteemed co-counsel is here, have sort of touched on is the third point made in the indictment is that the justices, that the president used, the justice department to conduct sham investigations. now, an argument can be made that any engagement of an executive branch agency isn't official

act of the presidency even if it was committed in furtherance of fraud. now, look, i don't agree with that, but a court has to sort that out and i think where the supreme court does is take allegations like that and send them back down to judge chutkan and say, figure out what's official and what's not. now, to be clear, they could have done that and they can do that today if they so choose. but oral argument, they seem to suggest that they were but non would send it back down looking at it in a corporate setting, right? are you acting within the scope of your job for purposes of liability? and i think that's what you're looking at here, was president trump acting within the scope of his job in the context of what he did with doj. right. and i think in the corporate setting, if it's steam to be a criminal act, it's out the outside the scope of your job. let's explain what you mean by what he did with doj because ordering deal we've got a second opinion, not not free bird looking for, but the like, for instance when trump justice department officials, rozin and donahue looked into some of the wild stories that trump is

saying, look into this let's look into that, look into this. >> and they would go look and they would find out. no, that's just nonsense. that's not true. those election workers in georgia were doing, i think that's fine. right? that's why no one's talking about that. it's the issuance of the letter that had alleged fraudulent representations and that you need to do this. the presence directing doj to do something that's fraudulent. and if they find that that's thats outsidthe scope, then even though he's acting technically as president united states when he's directing doj, they'll find that that's outside the scope and be deemed the private joe jackson's point from one minute ago, is that a question for a jury or is that a question that the judge sorts out? what are interests? special coverage of the trump immunity ruling is going to continue. we're going to squeeze in a very quick break, stay with us, we'll be right back an unprecedented debate as only cnn could do it with a record audience around the world. >> our country is being

destroyed. >> here are the most admired country in the world for the most complete coverage through election day and beyond, follows cnn choice hotels is a family of brands with a hotel for any traveler you want to be like number one, chef, dad cooking up a free hot breakfast for the entire family and a comfort hotel mom made this i added the garnish stay twice and get a $50 gift card when you booked direct, it is real. >> okay. take a picture congratulations. >> thank you so much. i lost 50 pounds in, gained 19 $1,900 get paid to get healthy at healthy wager.com skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i'd take kunal turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support why cuno has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric kunal, the brand i trust it's time yes. but time has come for a fresh approach

to dog food every day. lord, dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmers dog made by. vets and delivered right to your door precisely portion from your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come this country has never been so divided. >> are you with licorice lover or hater? we had licorice.com have 50 plus gourmet flavors that you flip vout over, get some for yourself or licorice lebur in your life. licorice lovers unite at licorice.com. >> i'm richard car and i love my host. my hose is lightweight my hose will not kink. and my hose is anti leak it at those old hoses this is my host. the new pocket hose, copper bullet. now infused with real kopan. so your water is always clean and lead free just turn on the

water and watch your hose grow and grow to a full size, three quarter inch hose. it stretches that expands like a rubber band. and when you turn off the water away, it goes shrinking and squeezing that water out until it's practically bone dry. and that makes it easy to carry and put away our new inner tube uses three layers of high strength latex on the inside. then it's wrapped in a new polymer filament jacket, similar to the technology used in forest fire hoses, because it's light and tough, three times stronger than the other hoses it's guaranteed for ten years, nearly impossible to tear or snag. and the redesign connector protector helps stop leaks at the spigot. but my favorite part our new hose build the oversized easy to grip fittings, easy on and off, even with gloves with more than 100 patents worldwide it's the best pocket hose in the world. get the super light, 25 foot pocket, those copper bullet today for only 29, 99, but

wait, call now and get our copper spray nozzle with our inclusive thumb drive free simply use your thumb to turn off and on. and with ten unique patterns, you'll have a setting for every job. it's a $30 value, yours free with every 50 foot copper bullet, but it's not available in stores. this is an exclusive release of our newest pocket hose. there is a strict limit of three per order. so don't worry great order now to what are called 1800 727289, or visit copper bullet holes.com, so-called 1800 727289, or visit copper bullet holes.com order now i had to montgomery in tokyo and this is cnn welcome back to cnn's a special live coverage. >> we are live outside the supreme court decisions are coming down on the final day of this term where we are going to learn as the supreme court has had some momentous decisions before but the one we are waiting on right now could have the largest impact certainly on

the upcoming 2024 election. and that is donald trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution. we are waiting any moment now to get this ruling. and kristen holmes, obviously, trump's team is also waiting any moment now, they have been running through all the scenarios of this in their head based on what i heard they're kinda just waiting to see what it is and to what extent the supreme court weighs in on this issue. maybe they'll get into official acts and not official acts. maybe they won't. i mean, that's just a major question here. but the other aspect of this that i've been hearing and talking to trump people is about trump's view of the supreme court. i mean, we've seen how he has talked about the three justices that he put on this court. we've seen how his other attorneys, including alina habba, had talked about justice kavanaugh remembering what trump did for him by, by not pulling his nomination when it was in the middle of a frenzied chaos and a question of whether you'd get confirmed when trump has a very singular view of how this court should act in accordance with the fact that he put three of these justices on that court obviously because donald trump thinks everything is about loyalty. and so the fact that he went through the process of

nominating them, that they were confirmed that they sit on the bench. there is some kind of aspect there that they owe him. now, obviously, that is not what anyone who sits on the supreme court and ends up on the supreme court wants to believe in any way that there is any kind of partisan behavior that goes into the court any even before you get to this. and i should just know we do have the decision now from the supreme court on immunity. we are waiting, we are reading through it to see what it is. we'll report it as soon as we have it, but we knew that this moment was coming now because they waited until the very last day and it was clear when don roberts announced this day that we would get the decision. now? yeah. and i have talked to members of the team say they are not going to have any reaction until they read through this entire decision. this is not going to be a split reaction where they put out a statement or donald trump goes on truth, social, they want to understand exactly what is in this decision. they believe it could be complicated. they believe there could be nuance and all of that nuance it's going to affect what happens next. and obviously that is going to affect whether or not donald trump could potentially be on trial before the

election, or if this does, in fact likely push it to past that electron and justice amy coney barrett has been one of those fascinating voices on this, especially during the arguments that we got to listen to live outside here this friday from court and she was deeply skeptical of some of the arguments that trump's attorney john sauer, was making as far as what's an official act, what's not what's what's in the scope of being prosecuted and what's not for a former president. >> well, they will point to friday's decision where she was the actual dissenting voice on the january 6 ruling, which had a lot of people's guy have to call us what that meant for now, because and this decision because there was a lot of conversation as to okay. the court rules in favor on january 6, obviously saying the doj overstepped on some of these charges of obstruction of people who participated in january 6, that as a win for the trump team, which whether or not it actually affects his case, they can at least politically say that this to them is the doj overstepping its biden's doj. but when you look at the fact that amy coney barrett was the one who is

descending and opinion there that changes thing. what does that actually mean for the immunity case here? now the other person that they're looking at very carefully, justice kavanaugh, he is somebody see who has spoken at like four. he was actually brought to the supreme court about the separation of powers. and so they're looking at to see what he does in this case law. and he had a lot of questions. yes. found it actually, you have to call on the other side. yeah. that's a great point because we saw a lot of these justices and worked for the executive branch. and so they obviously wanted to explore this question themselves to see the question they ultimately pose, which wasn't really been discussed in the arguments, which was due president's have prosecutor have immunity. and if so, to what extent paula reid i know you've been listening to this decision. what what are we are who we have? of course, this is not a thumbs up, thumbs down. this is a complicated decision. we just got it here. it's an opinion from chief josh justice, john roberts, finding that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for official acts, but not for unofficial acts. so what does that translate to? well, this is something we saw that was

sort of signaled in oral argument because what this means is that the former president cannot be prosecuted for anything that was officially part of his job when he was in office this and that's significant because even his own lawyers conceded during oral argument that not everything that is alleged in this indictment was an official act. so now the question is, what does the special counsel do here? he could potentially try to cold down this indictment to a more narrow one, just focusing on unofficial acts and then try to proceed seed with this case. still an open question though about whether even a slimmed-down case could go before the election. three reasons for that. one, the judge overseeing this judge, tanya chutkan, she has a signal that the lawyers should get some lead time on this. i mean, we're for a couple of months out from the election. the idea of putting the candidate that republican candidate for the presidency on trial where he. would have to be in court. months, weeks before the election that's something that would likely have this right here again, before the supreme court, also the attorney general, unlikely to allow

something to go ahead that quickly. but we'll see, but right now, this decision, the supreme court finding that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity four official acts, but not for unofficial acts. this opinion very, very long. it's gonna take us a while to get through everything. yeah. an opinion from the chief justice john roberts as we expected, anderson, obviously, we are still reading through this decision from this appeal filed in february now, at least getting some answer from the supreme court on this important matter. >> yeah. reading through it are we as well? joey jackson, your initial take on what you've read so far? yeah. i mean, listen, that's not surprising that it would be for official acts versus unofficial acts. the critical thing i'm looking to determine is how that determination is going to be made and how's it going to affect this president at this time? is that going to be remanded down to the lower court? for them to make that determination. will it be a judicial determination or again, will that be a matter left up for the jury? so what happens now is really what i'm looking to get through to see obviously the key abby's if it's remanded down to a lower

court, that just means it's going to take more time and the chance of this going to trial before an election is almost non-existent. >> chance was already pretty slam going into this it almost seems likely at this point, it's almost impossible for that to happen as quickly as it would need to happen for there to be a trial. the court it's it seems like really needed to establish that the official acts of a president had to be protected. it says here, to enable the president to carry out his car institutional duties without undue caution. however, even the president's lawyers, as we were just talking about, acknowledged that some of the things that he was charged with. were not official acts. and so it's clear here that there's at least some part of this indictment that he is facing from jack smith's a case that that even his own lawyer this would not argue are official parts of the president's students. >> there's room court could have ruled. and again, i'm still reading this, but could have ruled determining this act was official. this act was not official it sounds like at this

stage. and again, we got to read this whole thing that more than likely, it's now just going to be pushed down to learn. he did a little bit of both. i do have one part of this that i can read. the parts of the indictment that dealt with trump's communications with the justice department, this court, the supreme court, said, were official acts and therefore cannot be prosecuted because the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within is exclusive constitutional authority. trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with justice department officials. so that's part of the indictment. it does not cover however, his discussions with then vice president pence. the courts specifically says that the district court has to weigh in on the discussions with vice president pence and also trump's discussions with state in local officials. those discussions that district court will also point out hired was using private attorneys to pursue his election claims, which is something that was brought up in the oral

arguments. tim, this is this decision is going to make it much harder for the american people to protect themselves from a corrupt president the fact the fact that the discussions with vice president pence have a presumption of immunity. it has to be determined by the district court, though is a chilling effect. the chicken with kaitlan collins with new information, katelyn. yeah. anderson, obviously we're reading through this part and of course that key k0-bar about vice president pence, because that is going to be a major your aspect of this. we are getting some initial reactions from the trump legal team on this. paula and kristen, what are we hearing from them as they're just now? i mean, they haven't made it through this either. i should note there just reading it in real time as we are. but what, what are you hearing from them right off the bat. they described this as code a major victory. now this was authored by chief justice john roberts, and i want to read the key paragraph here, and this is from the opinion exactly. this is from the opinion and really this is, this is the decision in a nutshell. he says, we conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former

president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his his tenure in office, at least with respect to the president's exercise of his core constitutional powers. this immunity must be absolute as for remaining official actions, he's also entitled to immunity. so at this stage of the proceedings in the trump case, they say, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient. so they are leaving a little bit of wiggle room saying that there's absolute immunity for anything that is connected to a president's core constitutional powers beyond that, though it may just be a presumptive a presumption of immunity. so here are the headline, former president's are we're entitled to some immunity. the trump team telling me this is quote, a major victory for the former president, but they're are essentially also saying it's up to judge chutkan who we have seen how she has aggressively overseeing this case. she's been very tight with timelines.

she's acted differently than any other judge overseeing any other of the trump cases and how swiftly she has moved maybe with excel section of justice murdaugh in new york. but they're basically saying it's up to her to decide when it comes to his conversations with mike pence and his efforts to influence him about to stop the certification of the electoral college certification of the vote, whether that was official or unofficial, because there's obviously conversations between a president and a vice president or official acts of the office but when it comes to trump's pressure campaign on mike pence, what i'm reading here is that the presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances they're saying it's the government's burden to rebut the presumption of immunity, and that they're remanded to the district court to assess. in the first instance whether a prosecution involving trump's alleged attempts to influence the vice presidents oversight of the certification would pose any dangers on the intrusion of authority and the functions of the executive branch. and regular people speak. that's a big decision for judge chutkan to decide here. yeah. and she's moved very quickly. she

wanted to bring this entire case to trial in march jack smith asked the supreme court back in december to weigh in on this question. that is being decided right now. so this case could go before the election. the fact that the supreme court has opened the door though, who are further proceedings were for further litigation makes it unlikely that this will go before november and the reason that is significant is because if trump is reelected, he can make this this case. and the classified documents case go away. so when it comes to the immediate future, the region they're framing this as a major victory is because they're gonna be able to litigate this for several months and possibly push this off until after november, then only has to do is get elected in the case goes away. so i believe that is why they're thinking of this in terms of a major victory and even a judge like tanya chutkan, who has moved so quickly, so aggressively, who has agreed with the special counsel that there was a public interests and pushing this case before the election. it's not clear that she's going to be able to get through all of these issues and put on a trial before november and one day just add to that is that they were already tracking that if

everything went wrong for them in this preceded that this wouldn't happen until late september, possibly october. there is a belief that even if judge chuck and moves as fast as she possibly can to get through this, which likely given what we've seen, that she will there is extra litigation that now has to happen that will push it beyond november. and again, this is text after text. here are they're celebrating this entirely just because of the fact. now, because they think that they won something overall, but because they know that this is likely to delay this is actually rejecting their argument, but still splitting the baby enough that they can view this as a wind jake yeah. >> no, i think that's exactly right. kaitlan right now. i'm looking at an excerpt from the roberts written decision. he says, quote trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we recognise, meaning the court, the text of the clause provides little support for the absolute immunity claim that trump asserts. so they're rejecting that. but but in essence, all of the details as to the

allegations made, the accusations made in the jack smith indictment of donald trump, not all of them, but many of them. the court is saying, we are sending this back to the district court. they have to decide whether trump's communications with the american people applying them to rally to the capitol on january 6 and everything that happened after that, the disruption of the counting of electoral votes the sham electors scheme, all of that, whether or not that's an official act has to be determined by the u.s. district court and elie honig, you were saying, what's most six about that is the u.s. supreme court's could have said were remaining this to the district courts, the lower court, and whatever they say goes and we will when we will uphold that, they didn't say that exactly to the contrary, this case will not go before the election. it will not be tried before the election. and here's why supreme court has just said there is such thing as quickly moral immunity, the test as we anticipated, essentially, official acts versus unofficial

acts. we're sending it back to the district court. and this is an important detail. the court says several times, whatever the district court finds can be appealed before trial, jack smith had made an argument of well, maybe the district judge, the trial judge can work it out. and send it to the jury and the jury can separate official from unofficial acts several times in this opinion, the supreme court, the majority says explicitly whatever the judge decides about what's official or unofficial, what's immune are not immune that can be appealed backup, 0% chance that happens before november. so why do that? i mean, if they are saying, hey, we're the us supreme court and we're going to have the final say on this no matter what. why not just make it clear, everything is delineated in the indictment. why not just make it clear and if judge chutkan decides x, y, or z, we will agree with that. why not just be explicit because they, the supreme court court of appeals, they, they want to see a record. right. and i think with the width, judge chutkan just kinda

dismissing out of hand. oh, criminal all conduct whatsoever to prison has no immunity for all criminal conduct for any criminal conduct, they've gone back and said, no, no, you need to go look at this and then come back to us based upon what we've said in this opinion well, it's the right and rules governing when and how to appeal aren't set in stone or aren't entirely clear. >> and i think they felt some need to delineate that this is an appealable order. they aren't always and sometimes some things you have to wait to appeal until the end of a trial. they're giving whoever it isn't probably trump the opportunity to appeal during dry well, let me ask you, do you think that if judge chutkan had ruled differently initially and said it basically closer to this the conversations with the justice department are clearly official acts. i'm not going to count them, but the other one, like if there had been a a less of a sweeping, of course, he can be indicted on any of this stuff ruling by judge chutkan would this not have been ended up where it was today? did she

open the door for a decision like this? >> i think judge chutkan's going to have a lot of regret when she issued her opinion. it just said there's no such thing as automatic immunity for every briefing a president does his whole four years when i was reading that, i said, okay, where's part b? i expected part b to b and i find having reviewed the record are review the documents and i find that even if there is such thing as immunity, he was outside the scope. and by the way, that's what the court of appeals did on their ruling. the problem is as jim was saying, the court of appeals and the supreme court and they're not fact finders. this can only be done at the district court level. and so i suspect, judge chutkan is feeling some regret. it wasn't it wasn't like it was some leap of logic that she should do that this happens their hearings, for example, in the georgia case, mark meadows is trying to get his case moved over to federal court. the question there's almost the same thing it was mark meadows in or out of the scope. you know what the federal judge did there and georgia, he held a hearing, mark meadows testified he said, i find based on this hearing, your outside the scope, if judge chutkan had done that, we'd be in a very different where i don't agree

with that though. is that either of the parties would have had an opportunity to appeal the portion of that opinion that they did not agree with because would been somewhat of a split. the baby gobbledygook that they would have had a right to appeal, you can't tell me that either jack smith or trump's team would not have attempted to take it up. and the supreme court would have created similar gobbledygook. we would have an answer right now. well, she'd already gotten to here. we would have gone up to this in court though, and i think it ever know this has promised this is on earth. do all i can tell you is having having been covering the u.s. supreme court and there just to go back to bush vigour. yeah. the reason that the conservative court in bush vigour was able to do what they did is because the florida supreme court let them yeah, the florida supreme court made so many bad decisions and bad rulings. it was easy for the u.s. supreme court to come in and say, none and stop the count. yeah. >> what's interesting here and there's a great line i'm skimming it very quickly. and justice sotomayor's sotomayor's descent where she says, you know, good majority

pays lip service to this idea that the president is not above the law. and then in effect says that for certain official acts, the president is in fact above the law. it's how do you sort out what this actually, let's, let's do that right now because in the oral arguments, there were certain examples that were given. let's explore a couple of those and what today's decision means. the first one was raised by justice sonia sotomayor back in was this april what about getting seal team six to assassinate a political rival? let's roll that tim if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity? >> it would depend on the hypothetical that we can see that could well be an official

that was a stunning moment in april, did the court say yeah, you can assassinate a political rival? >> no, i don't think they did. that's ridiculous answer by donald trump's team and dangerous and reckless answered one really important thing. they'll basis for donald trump's legal argument that maybe he can order an assassination still be okay. is this preposterous argument that they offered below that well, a president can only be indicted if these first impeached by the house and can victor by the senate, the supreme court explicitly rejected that argument impeachment has nothing to do with this. it's not the texas to your question, jake, someone's got to decide what's the official akre. the challenge here, and this was what sort of my job is getting at in her point, somebody has to make the call as to whether even the ceo, the preposterous seal team six exams double falls under the ambit of official accident and that's litigation months in court? no. agreed. i think that's something that we'll have to be decided by the trial court if we were faced with that preposterous type of scenario, no doubt about jamie. >> i just have a quick question for one of the big concerns is

getting evidenced out in in front of voters before november. we now don't think a tracking to get it is possible. is it possible one lawyer just texted would in evidentiary hearing be a way for jack smith to get some of that evidence out there in the public. >> so the judge, district judge now has to have an evidentiary hearing. she can absolutely do that before the election. she can hear from witnesses we're not going to get a verdict, i guess the judge will say some things were official or unofficial, but there's not going to be a convicted felon tag. hang on, donald trump for this case. i also should add, this is a major problem for the georgia case because the factual allegations are very similar for fani willis, this case. now, that case is beset by its own series of problems. yeah, but now they're going to have to contend with this immunity problem is as well. so listen to this because obviously there is a crisis of confidence in the u.s supreme court among many other institutions in america and i'm wondering, just read something from a judge, justice

sotomayor's dissent on some of these issues that we're talking about let the president violate the law. she writes in her dissent, let them exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. let him use his official power for evil ends. because if he knew that he may 1 day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like them to be. that is the majority's message today. orders the navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival, immune organizes a military coup to hold onto power. immune takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon. immune, immune, immune immune. that is the majority's message today from sonia sotomayor. >> yeah. i mean, it's it's remarkable and very stark way to think about out at and you mentioned the crisis of confidence in the supreme court. are varying institutions i just i can't help. but think while on the one hand, yes, this is a decision that's going to affect president's far into our future you can't pull it

apart from the immediate political contexts in which we are living. yep. and note that in a 5-4 decision like this split along ideological lines, like this is going to excuse me, i may have, i may have misspoken. it may have been 6-3. my my fault. but still along ideological lines, i should say, right, is how this broke down. yeah, yeah. no. yeah. the court's shifting. >> right you're absolutely right. but it it just i think that in the closely divided times in which we live, this is going to be viewed as much more of an inflammatory situation than perhaps it it is when you consider that, yes, of course it's writing history books as well. >> and john, i mean just just to underline the point here justice roberts, the chief justice of the united states could have tried to do something different, buying the scenes. we have no idea but this certainly is not just

perceived as a gift to donald trump it is a gift to donald trump. yes. they rejected the we have immunity for everything we do argument, but they could have settled arguments that they ultimately are going to arbitrary one way or the other assuming well, it might not if donald trump wins in november and then just completely gets rid of this case. but theoretically as we've discussed but this goes back to chutkan's cord, et cetera, et cetera. it's going to go back. they have opinions in their brains about what's official and what's not official. they could have said, and here's what's official. here is not a fish they could have settled the matter. they did not they have repeatedly pick delay over decisiveness in cases involving donald trump. they have repeatedly sent it back and said, you know, sort this out. they have repeatedly essentially refuse to speed things up, but this isn't just sort of that it's sorted out. and then if we disagree with you, maybe we'll disagree with you a bit of personal karma here i was covering the bush white house when the elevated john roberts, the chief justice, one of the reasons they did it was because bush

and cheney especially felt so powerful about executive power. and they knew robert's view on executive power. it's one of the reasons they liked him. on the bench. they're not fans of donald trump. donald trump wins in this decision today because i'm john roberts is the chief justice back from the busch days, but to jamie's point here's where we just get into this horrible place. we are as a country in my travels, there are a lot of voters who voted for donald trump in 2016, voted for biden in 2020, or completely tormented about what to do republicans in 2024, because they're republicans, they don't want a vote to reelected democratic president. they don't like joe biden's policy once he's some of them are wrestling with his january 6 question. can i forgive him? did he learn any lessons? so yes, there would be immense value in airing all this out in a courtroom. so that voters could listen to mark meadows, listen to mike pence, listened to people around donald trump, which then puts a stark contrast on donald trump's argument. that this is all people out to get me right now. these are loyal people who worked for him in every single

one of these cases, the most evidence comes from people or the right hand of donald trump, people velcro to donald trump, people loyal to donald trump, that would help the american people make their decision. however, that's not jack smith's job jack smith's job is to prosecute a case it's not to think about the calendar, it's not to think about the voters. it's to prosecute the case. and so anything that happens now, trump will be if jack smith demands a hearing, can jack smith, for example, could he sever his case? could he just prosecute the rudy giuliani fake elector part, which is clearly outside of official act. could he moved to sever his case he'd have a stronger case. you might get to travel before the election and trump would say, there they go to the specific evidence point that you raised and how it ties into the politics one thing that the court explicitly did today was say that even evidence of this protected conduct cannot be used in a trial. and so even and this is the part that amy coney barrett even says, no, no, no, wait a second. you know, you have gone really far here. so even these official acts can't even be

talked about are used as evidence in court for this unofficial conduct. it's a didn't even have all the t t consumer. >> they didn't, they didn't provide the guardrails you were hoping for? they didn't provide the guardrails that i wear. i think the american people would've said okay, i can trust, i can trust, i can kinda trust how this goes. i'm not sure that they put the guardrails around that now, but they did put set it back to the trial court. we have to trust the court system is going to work in such a way. okay. this is official act. this is not official act on official x, you're going to you can be charged criminally for sure. i do think it put this whole kit shake caseload biggest supreme court cases in our perhaps bush vigour. and this were both decided on pretty strict partisan splits. and i just think to the point of does the public have faith? and this institution, i think it's things like this that cast some doubt. i'm going to give you all a little bit more time to read the opinion and decision i'm going to send it back to caitlyn outside the core, caitlyn it doesn't look like there are many crowds protesting one way or the other

though now jake and they weren't crowds really here when they made the arguments back in april, it was actually kind of surprising. there weren't more people outside the supreme court. i drove by it on our way to where we are right now. obviously, it's a little bit behind us and there were maybe a few dozen people there, but not anything like what we've seen on other major decision days from this supreme court, we are hearing from donald trump responding in all caps to this decision, calling it a great day for the constitution and for democracy and saying that he is proud to be an american with an exclamation point, not a surprise. there as this is being viewed inside trump's team, his legal team certainly as a win for them. and paul, a big part of that in an interesting part of this this is about geoff clark. now he is, of course, someone that trump sought to install as the acting attorney general in the final days of his administration, someone who has a loyalist who wanted to do his bidding when it came to trying to overturn the election. and what the supreme court is finding here is that trump's dealings with the justice department, a president's dealings with the doj are immune from prosecution that is going to be quite something

because that means that a central part of this is not going to be something that they can argue about. and the other part of this is the prosecutors argued. okay. even if official acts are protected, we can still make arguments about those to say that unofficial acts when we have these charges to establish that chief justice john roberts is saying no, that that would defeat the point of having immunity for those official acts that they can't use evidence from official acts to bring charges related to what they believe are unofficial acts here this is huge and this is what could potentially put the entire case into parallel and speaking with sources familiar with the trump legal team thinking right there, just reading this as we are right now, they believe that because a lot of the communications that he would have had, for example, with vice president mike pence or the justice department officials, if those are official acts, they would try to get those excluded going forward, which would take away a lot of the key evidence that jack smith would need to prove what's left of his case. so there is some glimmering hoping the trump world that this

decision could in the end, got the entire case. so even if jack smith can still bring it, that if there's a jury sitting here in washington listening to him, he can't argue about we'll trump tried to put a loyalist in charge at the doj to do this. when it came to the state of georgia and when it came to arguing that there was fraud here, they won't be able to make that argument to the jury based on what were our initial reading of this finding so try to make the argument, but they're not going to have the evidence. >> they need to support it because a lot of these communications, it's massive and that's why there is so much celebration right now in trump world with, with the lawyers on his team calling this a major victory. now this still have to be litigated. this has to go through evidentiary hearings. there have to be more proceedings to answer these questions with finality. but the way they are reading this, the reason they think it's a major victory is not only because they're recognizing some immunity, but more so because of what it does is some of the key evidence that jack smith it would likely need to successfully bring this case. >> it also raises the questions right? >> of what is an official act,

but i think that we've said over and over again, as sure that is huge, but they're also going to have to litigate it. and all of that is going to take an enormous amount of time because donald trump's team is going to bring this forward. they believe this to be the case. that is why you're seeing them say they have a glimmer of hope that this can be completely gone. but the other part of this is that all of this is going to be processed through and that's going to take time again. remember at the end of the day, donald trump says the stuff i was a big win for democracy. it was a big win because it's win for him. he obviously wouldn't think it was a big win for democracy if you didn't feel confident at the end of the day that this was going to write if it wasn't right exactly. wasn't gonna help him legally. it wouldn't be a big win for democracy would likely be hearing him rag on some of the supreme court justices. i'm calling the system rigueur unfair, but instead, they believe that this is going to help them in the long run, whether it's as big as getting the case completely thrown out, or even if it's just moving the goalpost here to being a trial post-election. either way, they are looking at this a celebratory well, and paul, it's interesting because speaking to people who are in top attorney positions, legal

positions in the trump administration they were worried that trump pushing this argument that it would limit the powers of the presidency in a way we had never seen defined before. but obviously what the liberal justices are arguing in their dissent is actually this is giving them carte blanche when it comes to the real examples that they argued about during these hearings, which was if a president says, okay, give me $1 million and i'll pardon you, and i'll pardon you for also bribing me that would be okay. is what the justices are. the liberal justices are concerned about here and their descent and what this means for reshaping the presidency in a different way than what conservative sphere. yeah, i want to lay out exactly what justice sotomayor said and her dissent and why i don't think it actually refer flex what chief justice roberts wrote in this opinion because she's of course saying the present united states, the most powerful person in the country when he uses his official power in any way, this is what sotomayor wrote under the majority's reasoning. he would now be insulated from criminal prosecution orders. navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival. immune organized as a military recoup

to hold onto power. immune takes a bribe in exchange for a part, a part in immune, immune, immune. but if you look at what chief justice roberts wrote here, he's talking about with respect to the president's exercise, if its core constitutional powers, there was absolute immunity and for remaining official actions, he is entitled to immunity, but they fall sort of actually deciding exactly how far that goes. i don't think anyone's going to argue that they don't think it was successfully going to argue that assassinating a political rival is part of your core constitutional powers. so i see what they're saying in the dissent, but i think someone could also successfully argue that is not what the chief justice is saying here. he's drawing a line around a core constitutional powers for the presidency, seeing those actions are immune, that is absolute, but there are other things you might do in your official capacity that are entitled to some immunity. immunity, but we're not going to say just how much and what a rejection of what the dc circuit court found here. i mean, that was a per curiam decision, basically unanimous and obviously anderson, to see

what chief justice john roberts is riding here is rejecting actually what the dc circuit court found in that argument, saying that they didn't enjoy this kind of immunity, the supreme court disagreeing yeah we're all going through this lengthy document very closely. just the top of the hour, if you're just joining us, the supreme court has finally released its ruling on this long awaited case saying that trump has immunity from official acts. in several cases, they cite what official acts may be, but they all so leave a number of others open for lower courts to make a final determination on. we're going to be talking a lot about the legal implications of all this. one. first, bring in cnn's van jones and scott jennings van is you look at this, what stands out to you? >> well it's very very concerning outcome there's a maximum that says in law of bad facts create bad law. >> so when you have somebody

doing some stuff that's so terrible, the stuff that trump did an office, it creates these bad facts. the court has to come in and figure you're out what to do about it. it often creates bad law. basically, the question is supreme court, do you more care about the unlawful conduct of a sitting president or possibly the unfair prosecution of a former president that's really what they had to balance there are obviously more concerned about the latter and so i think politically it's bad it makes us supreme court look very partisan. they're supposed to be wearing these kind of black and white umpire jerseys or whatever they look like. they're wearing red jerseys, or even maga hats. it's going to go down bat politically for supreme court it's also scary because what is trump going to do if trump gets elected and there's this idea that he can get away with even more stuff. that's really, really scary for the public because he are ready ran over every norm that he could. so it seems like it

just doesn't look as politically not legally politically. it's almost like a license to thug in a way like you can do whatever you want. and supreme court is probably going to let you get away with it. that is very frightening in this case. and so i'm i'm i'm i'm very concerned. it's got jennings, justice sotomayor in her dissent, essentially makes that argument saying the main takeaway of today's decision is that all of a president's official acts to find without regard to motive orange content are entitled to immunity. that is at least presumptive and quite possibly absolute. >> look, i think there's some amount of overreaction here. i mean, after all, they did kick it back down to the lower courts. so some decisions could be made about differentiating between official and private x. but look, this court has stood up for the officer, the presidency and the executive power of the presidency in a way that maybe some benefit to future presidents. i mean, we're looking at this through the lens of donald trump, but the prezi united states has a lot of power for a reason. and

they do take a lot of official actions and i just i think about a future where if it was open season on presidents for time and memorial, what, what action would any president ever take out a fear of being dragged into a courtroom every time they did it. so i hear van and i think there's interesting arguments on both sides of this today. i've listened to some of arguments like what van is made but at the same time, i do think the office deserves a lot of protection and a lot of deference because of the special place that it holds in our system. so i'm okay with it, especially because i think a lower court may have decisions to make in the future. of course, depending on the outcome of the election in november but just to be clear, even if a lower court makes a ruling, then that can because what this record it says is that that can be appealed ultimately back to the supreme court yeah i think supreme court is really hurting itself here. i mean, i think most americans on either side would have preferred us getting some kind of finality around these cases. and what you see as a

supreme court just dragging this out and dragging this out, they could have weighed in on all this stuff back in march and clear the decks on this one way or the other. they didn't they say go through the whole process and you come back up here and then they wait 60 plus days past the buzzer to give us this this decision the way it's structured, this thing is going to ping pong back-and-forth for three or four more years, maybe it seems like they're doing donald trump a favor when they don't have to the ruling does seem to be much more concerned about unleashing the presidency than constraining the presidency. that's fine. except that there's a different balanced here. now you're concerned about a renegade president are you concerned about a renegade president prosecuting somewhat unfairly after the fact or acting like a rogue or a thug in office. it's not clear what's the greater threat to the republic, and it doesn't seem like the majority you really has taken as seriously the concern of half the country about renegade presidencies in

the office i think supreme court is hurting itself there's there was i believe, a way to come to a better outcome, a quicker outcome, an outcome that better balance the interests here. what i think people are going to take away from this donald trump has a supreme court that will let him do whatever he wants to. and that is terrifying anderson, if i may, i actually agree with van that i thank a majority of americans would have preferred a resolution to all this, a deck clearing before they had to make a decision on voting in november, i think he's right about that. however, on the renegade presidency point, luck the constitution does give the united states congress a way to rein in any president at anytime they feel like it. and it's called impeachment and he was impeached twice and he was acquitted twice. but at the end of the day this is the wisdom of the founders. they gave us the ultimate political tool to rein in any presidency at anytime. they felt like if the other people who can write in a president or the voters and voters in november, ultimately, you're going to look at all this and make decisions about whether they're comfortable

with donald trump or joe biden, given the circumstances we know about today. so even, even if you're upset about the legal decision today, remember, we have political processes in place and this is another reminder that if the congress so chose, it could reclaim the power given to it by the constitution to do a lot of things at anytime it wants. it's not done that much lately, but it could if it felt like it van how i think that'll go ahead i just think that i think you're right. scott, as far as it goes, but we also know the system a little bit broken on the congressional side, i think the founders really believed in something which we don't talk about much, which is called republican virtues, not republican versus democrat that even exist. then but anyone who would elevate would have the virtues to preserve the republic, that that they look at the federalist papers, they didn't imagine that you would have people elevated that act the way that donald trump is acting and act the way a lot of people in public office act today. so this is, this is a real test. i'm i'm concerned. it's a real test. you if you have

someone in office as no respect for the law, no respectful republican virtues, no respect to the constitution, no respect for norms. and then you have a supreme court that says, well, you know what? we've never before had to look at whether you can could commit crimes. supreme court says, there's some crafts you can commit gary man. that's not i mean, you can't just hope that somehow the senate, which is broken, is going to fix this. the supreme court is functioning and it is basically giving a green light for criminal activity in the oval office under certain circumstances, which i think given the present state of our country, is very, very scary scott, i mean, under this ruling, do you believe then that the president can if he's reaches out to somebody in the justice department to prosecute somebody or reaches out to somebody in the justice department or the military to do something if it wasn't the president asking would be illegal or would have a corrupt

and that he's allowed to do that well, i believe look, i'm not a lawyer and a bands gotten an advantage over me in this debate because he's got a law degree and i don't i don't know the answer to your question, but here's what i do know. >> if the president does anything at all that the united states congress decides is corrupt, has corrupt in ten or however, you just described it they can take action immediately. they really can. and so i again, i go back to the ultimate failsafe that the founders built into our constitution. and i would think that in some of these extreme circumstances that people who are worried about this ruling keep laying out, ultimately the united states congress can take control of the u.s. government and throw the president out of office. any time they feel like, i guess i'm not as worried about the extremities here. and by the way, on republican virtues, by the way, it's gone shatter some of the folks who are in congress. i mean, you're putting a lot of faith in maybe you're looking at the center for as the last session, but listen, i hear you and i understand what you're saying. no, my faith is in the people of the united states.

they elect the congress, they elect the united states senate. ultimately, if you don't have faith in what voters do and who they send them. what are we all talking about here? and you can say that it's broken and you can argue that people that you don't like, some of them there or whatever at the end of the day, if we don't have faith in the voters and the people they sin. but i'm not sure what we're fighting about today. so i'm going to i'm going to take a glass half full approach to the people of the united states of america in the system that was set up by our founders, van as you read this i mean, if the seal team six argument is sort of my are right, that under this ruling, the president can task them to assassinate somebody who right? not, not a foreign leader. she's not, she's not right yet because of this idea that it has to be limited to the core responsibilities of the president, but we don't know because it's thing ping-ponging back and forth this i don't i don't know. i don't know if this is a pretty in court that it's going to be

able to restrain its basic instinct to grant more and more power to the executive and so weird thing is they give more and more power to the executive when you're talking about the president being able to run over every norm. but then they also want a handcuff and stop are the federal bureaucracy are agencies from protecting the american people when it comes to clean air, clean water, other rulings. so there's this weird thing where it's like the supreme court seems to want the president to be almost omnipotent, but they want the federal agencies to be completely innocent. i disagree with that. i can i can i say i tell you what the supreme court i think what the supreme court in all these rulings, chevron, i think they are screaming at the united states congress please fulfill your constitutional duties. make laws rain, and the executive branch, and up to and including the president if necessary. i think this court is screaming at the people down the street over in the u.s. capitol, across the way and saying, please for the love of god, do your job as the constitution orders you to do it.

>> van jones, scott jennings. >> thank you've got new reaction from the biden campaign's seen this priscilla alvarez is live from the white house. what have you learned? >> yes, they are saying in this new statement that we just got moments ago that the facts of january 6 don't change. let me read part of the statement from a senior biden campaign adviser. it says, today's ruling doesn't change the fact. so let's be very clear about what happened on january 6, donald trump's snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election goes on to say 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's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto the power for himself. of course, anderson january 6 and the preservation and protection of democracy has really become the crux of the biden reelection campaign. and that is what they are saying in this statement as they weigh in on this ruling, also earlier today in their first

post-debate ad, they also talked about january 6 putting at on former president donald trump. but of course this also has wide implications for the office of the presidency. and we have not yet gotten a statement from the white house that we have reached out to them for comment, but presidential historians have said that over the last several decades there has been more power given to the president so this is something that could enhance that power moving forward. now, in terms of this specific case, the white house and president biden have generally not weighed in on former president donald trump's legal troubles. but last december, reporters did ask president biden if he believes any president is immune from criminal prosecution? and president president biden responded, quote, i can't think of one. now the president is at camp david. he will be returning to the white house later this evening. but again, we have not yet heard from the white house, the biden campaign. however, making it very clear that the facts of january 6 do not change as they continue to use

this to build momentum into november anderson, priscilla alvarez, we're going to take a short break or coverage continues in just a moment, like more of this an, unprecedented debate as only cnn could do it with a record audience around the world. our country is being destroyed. me are the most admired country in the world for the most complete coverage through election day and beyond follows cnn most people call lee filter when their gutters are clogged and they noticed one of the many issues that can bring well sometimes it's the smell of mildew and 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 softened facial for water pooling near their foundation. you can get ahead of costly damaged by protecting your homes gutters today, we're in your neighborhood and ready to help schedule your free gutter inspection today, called a33 lee filter or visit lee filter.com this is the temper predict breeze mattress and

it's designed to help you feel cool so no more sweating all night, no kicking off the covers or blasting the air conditioning because only the temper peta breeze is made with our one-of-a-kind cooling technology that pulls heat away from your body. so the mattress fuels up to ten degrees cooler all night long during our july 4 sale, say $500 on temper brings mattresses and sleep cool and comfortable all summer long, learn more at tebor p-adic dot com did you know sling has your favorite news programs for just $40 a month my favorite news for just $40 a month my favorite news for just $40 a month. >> $40 a month favorite? >> let's start just $40 a month $40 get your favorite news are $40 a month. sling

lets you do that have you always had trouble losing weight and keeping same. discover the power of week-old. >> the match we go i lost 35 pounds as some lost the war, 46 pounds we go. and i'm keeping the weight off we go the help you lose weight and keep it off i'm reducing my risk. >> we go v is the only fda approved weight management medicine that's proven to reduce risk major cardiovascular events and adults with no work disease and with obesity or overweight we go vision be used for semaglutide or glp-1 medicines. don't take wegovy if you or your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type two for allergic to it stop. we go we 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. we go we may call there's low blood sugar and 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 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. when we go i'm losing weight, keeping it off, and i'm lowering my cv risks check your cost and coverage before talking to your health professional about this summer, snacking, just got serious introducing new $3 footlong diverse the world might not be ready for them but at $3 a pop, your wallet definitely is what would motivate you to lose weight. >> i would to money, money, money because they need the money, money, money. >> i got to help when up to $10,000 for losing weight, healthy wager get paid to get healthy at healthy wagered.com

it's time to feed the dogs real food, not highly processed pellets the farmers dog is fresh food made with whole meet and veggies. >> it's not dry food. it's not wet food. it's just real food it's an idea whose time has come. >> i'm tom foreman in washington and this is cnn we have some breaking news for you now in moments, steve bannon, the former trump adviser, is set to begin a four month prison sentence. >> today. that's after mr. bannon defied a congressional subpoena from the house committee investigating the january 6 attack. cnn sara marie is in danbury, connecticut outside the low-security federal prison. sarah walk us through what steve bannon can expect today and present presumably he's going to try to capitalize on this prison stand to paint himself as a martyr of sorts of course he is and he's already trying to do that. >> we expect he's going to oh ops here in front of federal prison in just a few minutes. there's a smattering of pro

trump's supporters waiting for him. he's likely to make a statement before to the media before he goes inside. but jake, once he reports to this federal the prison behind me, he's going to have an experienced very similar to other federal inmates. he's going to go in, he's gonna go through a metal detector. he's gonna be stripped, so he's gonna go through a mental health evaluation patient and then he's going to be a scientist housing unit. and this is where he's going to stay again behind bars in this low-security federal prison for four months. now he's of course, trying to cast this as a political prosecution. and when i talked to him just a couple of days ago he predicted that he would be even more powerful in prison and he is now he said i will have a much bigger impact on the campaign when i'm in prison than i have now. he was also very clear to his fans that he didn't want them spending their time writing him words of support or condolences while he's behind bars, he wants them working to reelect former president trump in 2024. so that's sort of isn't that the jangly hi to your more of that? again,

before these cameras just before he reports to federal prison in just a little bit, jake alright. >> sara marie, thanks so much. really appreciate it. let's talk more about this big us supreme court decision essentially granting president trump immunity on official acts and kicking it back to the lower court has to decide what those official acts are. aly how could this decision changed the possible charges that trump faces? so this completely reshuffle the deck with respect to all four of the pending criminal cases. so first of all, the case that made it to the supreme court, jack smith's federal case relating to 2020 election subversion. this now goes back to the district court, which has to hold a factual hearing to decide what was in the scope or out of the scope of the job that in itself is appealable. also, there are two counts in this case of obstructing an official proceeding on friday, the supreme court cast some doubt over that, and i should note the supreme court in today's opinion says, while you're at it, district court, you need to decide and whether these can count supply. so

that's this case then if we go on to the other federal case, the other jack smith case relating to classified documents at mar-a-lago. now, trump has argued immunity in that case, a little harder to understand because the criminal conduct isn't even alleged to start until the moment he leaves office. that said, i think donald trump has argued in the past and will renew this argument that well, the way he got those documents had to do with his official job as president. he was given these documents as part of security briefings. so i think they're going to renew their argument now onto the state cases, the georgia case, the fani willis indictment, that one's in big trouble. obviously it's going up on appeal for other reasons. but that alleges essentially largely the same conduct as in jack smith's january 6 case so they're going to have in georgia, there same exact immunity issues. they're going to have to contend with those again, at a minimum further delays. and finally, it wouldn't surprise me to see donald trump's legal team go back into new york, into manhattan hush money case because some of the evidence that was introduced in that case had to do with

conversations donald trump had with his advisors, including hope hicks while he was in office those early months when he's in office. so kopecks was a white house. she was at that point exactly. so do not be at all surprised if we see in the next couple of days emotion from donald trump's legal team to throw out the verdict in the new york state case, the hush money case as well. although i do think it's likely that it would be thrown out? >> i don't think, judge. sean will agree to throw it out, but then we're going to be right back into this appellate loop. i mean, it could it make its way up the appeals courts in new york and ultimately, you've got the u.s. supreme court sitting there. i mean, if they decide that some of the conversations that donald trump had with hope hicks were part of his official duties? that conviction is going to be in trouble because one thing the supreme court says today is if there is an official act, even if it's not indicted itself, you cannot use that even as evidence in a case. now that's a very extreme and i'm actually surprised by how extreme that ruling is. but that's the ruling now. so trump is all for these cases or delayed there's

no way any of the other ones happens before the election and it's going to cause him to renew his immunity motions in all four cases, and we should point out that a higher court in new york throughout the harvey weinstein conviction, not based on the belief that he was innocent, but based on the fact that the lower court judge allowed in evidence that higher court said, you're not allowed to do that, and you might have that here as well with the testimony that was given by stormy daniels there, right? that's also a pellet issue there. i think another issue that's now brought the light. let's think about what trunks been saying about the border, right? joe biden keys basically alluding to joe biden can be prosecuted because criminally for what's happening at the border that that his his conduct is so grievous that he could be subject to criminal prosecution. what this case says is no way. so even if you have a local prosecutor after joe biden's out of office, that's wants to bring that case because they're suffering all the problems that are going on along that border. if you have a local prosecutor wants to bring criminal charges, gets joe biden. that's no longer

that's no longer on a table and neither can it be brought by a trump justice department, should it be compressed? we're going to hear a lot of people on the left are going to be quoting sonia sotomayor, justice sotomayor's dissent moving forward, one of the things she she wrote that i'd love for you to get your assessment of giving and how much we're going to i'm sure hear this from democratic senators and the like, quote, the relationship between the president and the people he serves as shifted. irrevocably in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law. is that what just happened here? is that a little extreme? it's strong language. let's be clear, but and making clear that there are official acts that are immune from even being used as evidence. the supreme court today absolutely gave i don't know if we're going to call presidents kings, but they gave the president far more immunity than i think many of us had predicted. and i think what's even more notable here is the number of questions that they left open elie and jim were

talking about. number one, let's look at the georgia case. to this question of what constitutes an official act who decides now, now, do you have to file a separate federal lawsuit in the northern district of georgia? the federal case or will the georgia state judge their make the decision as to what's official and what isn't. so you've got a big back-and-forth over federalism questions that come up. then this question in the new york case, once again, if any of the if any evidence came into that court, that could be deemed an official act of the presidency. there's absolutely a basis for throwing it out. now he's totally right here. i mean, i just i'm listening to you guys talk about the details of all these various things. >> and i just can't help but think that what we've seen over the course of the last five days, if donald trump wins this election in november, he wanted over the course of these last five days, and it was a combination, of of course, joe biden's performance in the debate that you and dana so admirably moderated? and then of course, this decision from the supreme court, which i have to say, again, they're different institutions.

congress, the supreme court of the united states, the republican party. but i've, i feel like we've seen all three of them when given an opportunity to take on donald trump they have each basically folded, quite frankly, the republican party completely the republicans in the senate significantly during the second impeachment trial when they had an opportunity to quite frankly rid the party that many of them wanted to rid the party of donald trump. they didn't do it. and now here, the supreme court from myriad of reasons which we have, we have discussed john roberts history of protecting exactly get a power. but at the end of the day folded in the face of these trump, donald trump, scott's point a moment ago was absolutely correct. it's a clarion call. if you want to call it, better recall a signal, that signal to congress to act would make sense if congress were not a completely paralyzed body is also read an article in the washington post this week again by josh dausy talking about all the opportunities, all the all the questions at one unanswered at the debate in one of the things that was expressed was the

shock that i was actually the first person to mention january 6 at the debate. and that joe biden wasn't. and it does seem to me like that was a missed opportunity by president biden over and over, you adhere to an audience of whatever it was, 70 or 80 million. if you include streaming. and he could have raised january 6 in the very first answer, look, it depends on who you talk to and how candor they're willing to be. but the president united states, the incumbent wasted about 70 of the 90 minutes it's of that debate. he just did by either not pairing effectively or by not being engaged for by giving answers that were confusing and distracting. you're right. even more so in the sense that there's been a lot of pushback from democrats. team biden says they believe democracy institutions trump trying to subvert the election is the number one issue. a lot of democrats have said, sir, the cost of living is the number one issue. you're the incumbent. your performance is issue one a and the biden team

has consistently said, we will prove you wrong, like we did in 2020 when you didn't think we could when we will prove you wrong by making democracy a key issue. and yet he did not raise it right out of the bat. again, i said before the debate first impressions matter, even when you have two very familiar candidates like that. so if you ask joe biden, what's your name he should've said i will address the cost of living. you can't trust this guy with our democracy and he didn't do that and he didn't do that. donald trump came and made his came to make his points no matter what you asked him. again, donald trump did not have a good debate. donald trump lied repeatedly and he refused to answer a lot of questions directly. however, that has been overshadowed by the fact that a lot of democrats wonder did rpa candidate even show up. so i to that point, jamie, one of the things that i thought was interesting, we're all now talking about is this evidence is going to be brought before the country, before the election. we know what the evidence is. we've seen the evidence, we cover the january 6, hearings and this and that again, there was the number one democrat in the country in an,

with an audience of 70 or 80 million people, he didn't have to go into detail about the evidence, but he could have said there's this there's that there's this, there's that there's this and that would have been a much bigger audience than jack smith has ever going to have. >> no question. but just to clarify one thing, some of the evidence has come before the american public. what we learned, some that were there when we don't know january 6 committee, we do not know what mark meadows said. good point. the to the grand jury. we don't know about these notes that mike pence was taking in real time. so there's i think quite a bit of evidence are reporting is that that's brand new, that jack smith has all right. we're going to squeeze into quick break when we come back more of the cnn coverage on this historic de, during an incredibly consequential week, we'll be right back sunday, dr. sanjay gupta reports on

hold putting effects of alzheimer's reversing, something that seems so preordained. >> it sounds extraordinary. dr. sanjay gupta reports the last alzheimer's patient sunday at eight on cnn if you've been paying attention, it's easy to see prices are going up on just about everything. >> that's why you need to do your wallet a favor. we call khartiia. now one called khartiia lottery jump into today's low price. so you can join peace of mind knowing that you're not only protected from mechanical breakdowns, but also from those rising rate. if we're driving an out of warranty vehicle, car shield offers plans that cover up to 6,000 parts and systems in your car truck or suv. why pay for expensive repairs called car shield. now, before a breakdown, my mom told me to call car i listened and i say $5,000. you should always listen to your mom when i needed long-term protection at affordable prices, i call khartiia. >> i've been a carshow customer for close to seven years, had three vehicles cover they saved me close to $9,000

car. >> she'll saved me $2,200. carshow administrators covers expensive repair, so i don't have to it's so simple a plan to carnassial means we have a vehicle that needs to prepares their administrators. >> gottschall back, but wait, garland's there's more lots more expression if you love extras like i do i love a plan that includes 24/7 coast-to-coast roadside assistance courtesy, towing, and rental car options too, dark expensive car breakdowns will happen. the difference is calling car shield before they do so, listen to it biblical and called car shoe. now to protect yourself from rising rates and costly repairs called now, that get yourself a free quote it's not a matter of if your car will break down when you need to call car shield before your car breaks down, car shield gives you a price lot guarantee, which means your monthly price never goes up for as long as you cover your car, get help paying for expensive repair bills by calling car shield.

>> now, call 804 986955, 800 498, 5804, 986955 it keeps eight frames app makes it ridiculously easy to frame your favorite photos. just choose a photo that you love. select a perfect frame, and you'll have your framed print delivered and ready to download the free keepsake frame because i and start framing today was structured settlement it's your money usually when you need it$

dash.com and see how much you can save i'm learned thoughts on capitol hill and this

welcome back to cnn's a special live coverage as we're reading through this lengthy ruling from the supreme court on donald trump's claims of immunity, saying that he is absolutely immune when it comes to a official acts, but not when it comes to unofficial acts. and therein lies the key the question of what happens next here, what is considered official and what is considered to be an unofficial act that is certainly something that the trump legal team has a top of mind right now. and cnn's paula reid and kristen holmes are back here with me and paula reid basically this ruling means there's a lot of judge chutkan plate now, judge chuck, it, of course, is the judge here. i'd washington who is overseeing this federal election subversion case. the charges brought by the special counsel, jack smith, and just reading through this, they're basically reminding a lot of it back to her, which means she has to decide was trump's influence campaign on mike pence to stop the certification official or unofficial was his campaign to speak to these state officials, including georgia governor brian kemp, official or unofficial, his

comments at the january 6 rally that day, urging people to go to the capital and to fight like hell does that official or unofficial conduct they're basically saying we're not deciding any of this. this is up for judge chutkan to decide. they're giving her a test that she can now apply to all of the actions alleged in the indictment. and then once she decides are what are unofficial and official acts, that's going to take some time, that's gonna require litigation briefs from the lawyers, potentially, some oral argument, then they will likely be left with what are unofficial acts or official acts outside the scope of his core constitutional powers. and the reason the trump team's still sees such a quote, major victory here is because they believe that jack smith would still you'll need certain pieces of evidence in order to prove what's left of his case that would be official acts and they believe that they could probably get that tossed out. but what we know that that's clear here is that there's going to be a lot of litigation over the next few weeks and months because i know many people there question is okay. if whatever remains of this case can that go? so before

november and it appears unlikely, almost impossible, because it's going to take time for judge chutkan to go through this. i will likely be appealed, possibly even some of the questions back here at the supreme court, potentially. we also have an attorney general who is going to be so reluctant to take any case against the republican nominee for president to trial in september or october? yeah. and cnn's joan biskupic has also following all this with us. she was actually inside the court as this ruling came down, obviously, joan, we heard the oral arguments, but we couldn't actually hear them reading this opinion or are watching as this happened, what was it like inside the court today? is this ruling came down? well, caitlin, you see how stunning the opinion itself was. you can imagine how riveting it was in the courtroom as chief justice john roberts read for about ten minutes and then justice sotomayor in dissent, spoke for more than 20 minutes. it was, as i said, quite a compelling set of moments in, in that courtroom with the justices was michael dreeben, who had argued the case before the justices.

back on april 25th and several of the justices, spouses, including jane roberts, the wife of the chief chief justice, gave the most robust rendition of presidential power in this situation. more so than i think any of us expected. and he did it. it was speaking in his usual steady voice, but there wasn't tone of defensiveness as he referred to what the dissenters were about to un-school. he talked about how the any president, and he kept trying to stress this is not about donald trump, this is about presidents. from here to eternity and how they need to be protected and be able to make decisions without any kind of fear of what could happen to them down the road with any kind of prosecution so chief justice john roberts, one thing i do want to say, kaitlan i instead, so many times this morning when i talked to our anchors that pass, chief justices had worked very hard our to get unanimity on these kinds of separation of powers

cases. in the nixon case, in the bill clinton case, the supreme court had been able to do that. but here it was so painful about how splintered they are and how divided they are, not just done ideology, but i'm politics so the chief tried to make the best case possible that this was the only way out. but boy did was he met by dissenters? he stressed that the separation of powers protects the office of the presidency in a way that would certainly prohibit any kind of prosecution for official acts and there were a said there has to be there presumption for official acts and you know, he he stressed that that fear and that that idea that presidents should not have to hedge in any way then when justice sotomayor began her dissent from the bench, her voice is really dripping with disdain and she talked about how the majority was making a mockery of the the the notion of that no man is above the law. and she, she, at

several points even address the audience and said, how hard could this be to resolve it with a way that it really comports with history. do you think it's hard she was just quite impassioned and as i said, has this mocking tone in her voice in the end, she talked about what a law free zone the majority had drawn around the president with this kind of a ruling. as i said, just a very riveting set of back-and-forth between these two that pointed up what you see there on the printed page, kaitlan yeah, that is fascinating job. and even there was nothing about this was unanimous. obviously, we can all read the dissent and she says out of fear for democracy, i dissent, justice sotomayor wrote, but even just as amy coney barrett, who of course was the last justice that donald trump put on the supreme court. she agreed with the dissent when it came to be being able to use evidence related to official acts to bring charges about what is considered an unofficial acts. she said she disagreed with what the majority found here,

but on what you said about justice sotomayor and that her voice was dripping with disdain. i mean, don't you've watched a lot of these rulings come down and these opinions be red and these dissents as well have you ever have you ever heard of tone like that from her before on something like this well, i have to say caitlin, she's been escalating over the last ten days because justice sotomayor has already dissented from the bench a couple of times. >> and even today, in an earlier case, justice jackson, our newest justice, dissented from the bench but today, justice sotomayor really was at the peak of her opposition. her protest of what the majority had done. i mean, it's really but it's also the biggest thing the majority has done all session and probably as long as she's been sitting except for when it reversed nearly a half-century of ab terms of kaitlan, as you know questions about the separation of powers and what, what sorts of protections and also

obligations around the presidency are so important. and you should know that when justice so to meyer was reading from the bench, she brought everyone back to january 6, 2021 and said, remember what happened, remember these events, how can the majority is essentially brush those aside as she felt they were doing. so i would say caitlin, she's certainly escalated for this final day of the term don't biskupic a fascinating to hear what it was like inside the room. and kristen holmes, as we sit here, we're squarely

>> very after non-terminating to haven't for it from the they had it's mostly until that meeting until they sat down together. and then of course, they had brought in the photographers talking for just happened to be there to catch the critical moment for donald trump, which was mitch mcconnell want to talk about how this is political and bringing these trials for the november elections. so much of this really centers around the november election. one thing we haven't mentioned is the fact that there's likely not going to be another single trial after this. that's going to go to court before november. and this was really the lone holdout. they believe that because i'm judge chuck in because of the fact that she had moved so quickly that there was still a chance this could be brought. they no longer believed with the case is gonna be brought in georgia island. cannon case in florida,

the documents cases moving very slowly. they don't believe that's going to come. they feel like this is a win not only on the legal space, but also on the political space. now they don't have to deal with this again. they have nothing except for the sentencing which we know is next week on next thursday to deal with when it comes to the legal issues. if this does in fact not go to court, now they're just solely focused on the campaign, which has also going off for them. that's the moment. yeah. i mean, paul, when you look at this in the scope of new covered donald from the white house as well, between last thursday's debate and what happened today. i mean, it's probably been one of those promising few days for the stripes the stretch of the trump 2024 campaign yeah, absolutely. but this is still a lawyer full employment act because while we will not have another trial, they're going to continue litigating to try to get those cases the off chance that he does not win the white house and some or all of these survive. i mean, obviously we've talked a lot documents case going back to

official acts in terms of how trump first came to have those documents, why he had them? of course, in new york where he's already been convicted, they will likely use this opinion to attack portions of key evidence. who picks his testimony, key tweets it's unclear how this will impact georgia as that they different legal team, but you can bet there's going to be more litigation there as well those are all great points about how this decision doesn't just affect this case that it's about it could affect all of them, even state charges as well. polaroid christian homes, we are continuing to break down every part of this major ruling that we just got from the supreme court that doesn't just have implicated patients for donald trump, but also for the presidency overall, you were watching cnn special live coverage, stay with us an unprecedented debate as only cnn could do it with a record audience around the world. our country is being destroyed here. the most admired country in the world for the most it's complete coverage through election day and beyond follows cnn. >> take a pea size amount apply it like a lotion pits under

boob stifled about cracks, feet. this water-based cream. i'm telling you it's invisible on the skin. it works like a dream. i didn't someone think of this sooner we just shipped are million monthly coffee subscription boxes were sending custom thank you gifts to our team, our customer and grab is just as excited as we are and knows what great quality products to get celebrate your milestones with custom gear, get started today, accustoming.com my daughter's mula she is 19 months old she is a little ray of sunshine one of the happiest babies you're probably ever made children with down. >> syndrome typically have a higher risk for developing acute myeloid leukemia or just looking in general here we are st. >> jude children's research hospital works day after day to find coors and save the lives of children with cancer and

other life-threatening diseases she was referred to saint jean at 11 months they knew what to do as soon as they got her diagnosis. they already had her treatment plan draw now and they're like this is what we're going to do. this is how long it's going to take. this is how long in-between this place is like a family to us now, i can't say enough. how grateful we are to be here medical bills are always a big thing to everybody because everybody knows that anything medical is going to be expensive we have received nobel since being at st. jude. we have paid for thanks to generous donors like you families never receive a bill from st. jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food. >> so they can focus on helping their child live for just $19 a month. you'll help us continue the lifesaving research and treatment that these kids need now. and in the future joined with your credit or debit card

right now. and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt that you could proudly wear to show your support anybody and everybody that contributes any thanks to this place no matter if it's a big business or just the grandmother that donates. >> once they are changing people's lives and that's a big deal. >> it won't be hard to find a skilled pro to fix this lake. >> but before i started, angie's list, different story that was 1995 and a lot of change at angie said. but what hasn't changed are the issues that homeowners face, busted pipes it's kitchen renos roof repairs, lawn care, and the solution hasn't changed either. skill pros to get all your jobs done well, we just made them easier to find. higher high-quality certified pros at angie.com? >> these bills are crazy she

has no idea. >> she sitting on a goldmine. >> she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, she can sell. all were part of it to coventry for cash, even a term policy even a term policy find out if you're sitting on a goldmine called coventry direct today at 80461 at 800 or visit coventry direct.com closed captioning brought to you by meso book.com our firm only represents mesothelioma victims and their families. if you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelial kalisa. now we are back covering the long-awaited decision by the supreme court. andaya donald trump's immunity. the supreme court ruling trump has immunity for official acts. if in many cases that has leaped up for a lower court to decide what our official acts and what are private acts back with the team

here in new york timna sally, you're presidential historian, i focused a lot on nixon. what do you make of this this decision was written as if america has never had a corrupt president this decision is blind to the ways in which presidents have used their core constitutional authorities to hurt the american people in the 1970s, the congress of the united states, the courts and the american people push back against something that was called the imperial presidency. >> the imperial presidency so he was one that used the color of national security, one of the core presidential authorities to wiretap people to break into their homes, to break into their psychiatrists office. daniel daniel ellsberg to audit. there irs files. all under the color of what the supreme court would describe today as a core constitutional authority. now, those were

official acts according to this court, because according to this court, your motive is president doesn't matter. if you do this in order to hurt an american citizen, you don't like to hurt a political opponent according to this court, it doesn't matter. you have just talked to the cia. you have just talked to you. your attorney general, you have talked to the secretary of treasury by doing so, you're engaging in an official act. this opens the door to abuses of power, the kinds of abuses of power that we had in the cold war. at a time of imperative, the imperial presidency, it is beyond belief that a court of people who lived through the 1970s would have forgotten how it was that richard nixon abused. >> i think that's being generous. there are a lot of people i think we underestimate this, a lot of people on the right who are conservatives, republicans, whatever you want to call them, who believe that those nixon decisions were wrongly decided? who believed

that the president did and does have way more power than was applied in that nixon example. so the fact that this is b is sort of redo of the nixon era is not surprising. and the least to me because that has been a project on the right for a long time. and one of the interesting things, i mean, i was reading pretty closely, amy coney barrett dissent in part because she addresses some of the key parts of this. one is that she says it's not right to say that there are not official things that can also be criminal. and that congress has a saying that that criminal law has a saying that and pushing this to the district court is justice delayed justice denied kind of scenario in which you could delay the adjudication of these issues so much so that justice is never seen. and then on top of that, the idea that you can't take evidenced of official acts and use them in criminal prosecution taken together, all of those things say that even in the areas where they say a

president can be criminally prosecuted, the bar becomes so high that it creates huge roadblocks. so this will happen in, in any, in any particular case i think it's not it's not something that is like completely out of the realm of possibilities. i mean, we are living through it right now joe jackson, just from a legal standpoint, there's now moves in to lower court. so i'm concerned i'd go pretty far in my view. i think it's a disgrace. let me express why we looked at the supreme court for clarity. we look for the supreme court to be definitive and give definitive determinations there's no definitive termination here they gave uncertainty. they gave more litigation. they gave instances where you can go back to the district court just to be appealed again. and where does it come to the supreme court? all right. that's number one. number two, when you look at a ct, you look at courgive thaguidance and they should be nonpartisan. one of the reasons you want to talk about 70s founding fathers and 200 years ago is because

you give lifetime tenure so that you can make a decision. and that decision, you know what you're here doesn't matter. the reality is, is that so partisan we need to have confidence in our institutions for our institutions to be respected by people. and so you have six conservative justices protecting the president and three, okay. me barrett perhaps dissented in part, but six supreme court justices protecting the president and the other three liberal justices saying, are you kidding me here? and then you have to tim's point, you cannot use the president's motivation as evidenced. you can't use the president's discussion with department of justice officials or advisers is evidenced. what is that? and so i just thought that when i'd see an opinion, it would provide some direction. it would provide some clarity. this seems to me to be protection and cover, and this is going to go on for years, ad infinitum. and i'm concerned, i understand the thrust of what you're saying there. i would just say one of the things i

find surprising about this ruling is how specific it did get. in some instances here particularly what it ruled out going forward and let me just read the citation that both of you were referring to about motive in divining official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives so motivation here is no longer on the table at all. >> go ahead and check in with with van jones and scott jennings very quickly before we go to break van yeah and the more you look at the worse it looks when you put it all together basically, the supreme court said in the past week, no rules for the powerful, no rights for the power less. so if you're homeless, you can be thrown in jail for the crime of not having enough money to get a hotel room but if you're the president united states, you can commit an undetermined number of crimes under color of law and get away with it. this is not good i'm telling you this is going to backfire

politically. because what i'm seeing from the left now if you thought people were discouraged by what happened last week with biden's performance. they are now outrage and terrified that donald trump is going to get an office and be a complete madman dictator. so this is politically, this is a gift to the left though it is a blow to the country scott, i'll take another political view of this. i was thinking about the last 30, 35 days or so. i'm not sure any presidential candidate and modern history has had the incredible run of luck of donald trump. i mean, from the moment he got convicted in new york on a case that broadly unified the right and he got his big cash infusion to the debate implosion of biden last week two. now we know from the supreme court ruling today he's not going to see the inside of a courtroom, outside of sentencing in new york before november, he is on an amazing luck. democrats were hoping the month of june would totally change the tree trajectory of this campaign. and it did. now they're in a nosedive and they have no idea

how to pull out of it. he is on an incredible winning streak right now and his campaign 30 days after getting convicted is in far better shape than it was. >> i want to thank everybody for joining us this morning for our special coverage and the trump immunity ruling will be following this historic decision all day and night on cnn see that max and cnn.com. inside politics have done a bash, picks up our coverage after a short break there's, no war so hateful war between kim this is a war between tracks house of the dragon, streaming exclusively on macs we've always love taking care of our home. >> but last year, grandpa here

broke his arm we realize some home maintenance jobs aren't worth the risk. that's when we call lee filter to protect our gutters, lead filters, patented filter technology she keeps debris out of your gutters for good. they gave us a free inspection and we had the system installed that week mile and regret is not calling him sooner. >> now, we can focus on what we really enjoy drawing millions of satisfied homeowners. >> gallego 33 leaf filter today, more visit lee filter.com i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if your h 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget. remember the three ps what are the three p's? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget our price, price and price. a price you can afford a price that can't increase and a price that fits your budget i'm 54. >> what's my price? >> you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price

also? >> 995 a month. >> i just turned 80. what's my price? >> 995 a month for you to if you raise 52, 85 called now about the number one most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program option started $9.95 a month? no medical exam, no health questions? you're acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has guaranteed lifetime rate luck. so uri can never go up for any reason so-called now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planar. and it's yours free. just for calling so-called now for free information called what, 806881300 for your free information. and your free gift. that's what 806881300. dealt weight 1806881300, call now o improve your digital

security, just turn on nord vpn guard yourself from data supers encrypt your online traffic and block malicious sites, get the deal now it is real, okay. take a picture congratulations. >> thank you so much i lost 50 pounds in gained $1,900 get ed

needs home up dead but get your personalized plan today at noon.com. we go four is in america thuray