i was my country's. >> i don't believe that rollingn back regulations on wall street will help the small businesswoman expand or the laid off construction worker keep his home. we have been there. weebg back. we are moving forward, america. >> under administration our friends will see more loyalty and mr. putilsett less flexibility and more backbone. >> he wants to make great again. well, he could start by aua making things in america again. >> we willñ: again. an we will make america great again. >> here and now i give you my word. if you entrust mwith the presidency, i will draw on the best of us, n >> this towering american spirit has prevailedve summit of human endeavor.o the

>> c-span, bringing you an unfiltered view of the conventions since 1980. powered by cable. welcome back e program. elie mystal, thanks for giving guest: time great. looking forward to an entire week of the most horrible supreme cour decisions i can imagine coming up. host: why do you think it is always at the happens? guest: one is procthe cases that the most contentious.tar you've got to write it, you got ave dissent, you've got to go back and forth. because they most contentious cases, they end up at the end of the term.

that is the kind of situation. the other clearly this term is that the cou of aws political standing. ere are political motivations on the court and they are aware of the political calendar e the trump immunity case, the january se charged, those things get shuttled to the quite frankly it helps the january 6 terrorist and donald hes em trial and his reckoning until ch upcoming election as opposed to before, and that is host: as far as the immunity remind air viewers about the ways the court could go on this. guest's go all the way back dd the supreme court to answer this question about it or

not donald trump is absolutely immune from any criminal prosecution. that is his argument that he is absolutely immune from hich is a ridiculous argument on and moral level. jack smith asked the supreme court to decide that. antiquated and sent the case of the d.c. circuit court of the p of tis not immune from everything, that would be stupi , the supreme court didn't justr confirm the circuit, they have another hearing on april 28, i believe. d since that hearing we have been waiting for them to issue a final ruling. ■ñwhile the d.c. circuits said t would be ridiculous for a president to be immune from everything and that is clearly the right answer, there are a couple of ways the court can help trump out. one, the mlivut here , is that the court is going to remand the case back to the

district court and say something like well, trump absolutely immune from everything like he is arguing because that is just he is immue things in some places. we don't know how to decide in a way that they didn't decided already and if they do that, that will again kind of indefinitely delay the trial because the judge will have to make another ruling which will then get appealed to the d.c. circuit court of appeals which will get appealed to the supreme so maybe if we are lucky this time next year or court actually tell us whether or not donald trump can be brought to trial but that is kind of like the ultimate delay tactic. vobviously they could. i don't think they will, but they.dou 6-3, republican vs. democrats that trump is immune from everything republican presidents and i

don't think that the supretic presidents to think that theyt'. i don't thth do that. and of course, there's the third would be to say that of course donald trump is not immuneutione president is not above the law, we live in a country of laws. that is what the d.c. circuits says. that is the right, but i have very little confideurt supt will reach the right answer. host: collars, if you want to call and ask questions of our guest, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8002. parallel to that, mr. the january 6 obstruction charges,and could that relate te former president as well? guest:hiteresting case legally.

his ability to win that is truly just based on policy. the january 6 case is a little more interesting. the january 6 terrorist attacks on the r being charged a number of statutes including obstruction of an official proceeding, and that statute under which they are charged was passed after the debacle. ■enron did a bunch of bad thing, we are trying to figure at algu. we passed a financial regulations law and obstruction of official proceedings is inserted into that law a catchall because one of the tend to be very smart and they know how to work their way around stoso the obstruction ofl proc works into that as a catchall psi to stop all

other crimes that congress hadn't thought of at that point. well,ttorney general used that catchall provision to 6 tes under the idea that this is a law about things that congress hasn't thought about that yet. nobody ever thought that somebody was going to attack the capital and try to hang mike pence. so the terrorists are saying you can't use the law agns us when we did a physical act of vice because laws are essentially about financial crimes. it is a misapplication of the law. now, i think that is a bad argument but i am not a republican. from what i heard from oral arguments, there are some republican judges who obviously want to help january 6, so their sinking -- thinking that this frankly there are some liberal judges that you can hear the idea her were also a

little bit worried about prosecutors having disability kind of use laws with other rts he code and apply it in novel and new situations. so i can definitely see that now, the question becomes whether or not if the january 6 terror are relieved of their obstruction of congress charge, whether or not that impacts the trump case. smith has charges against trump that are not justruction l proceedings. the election scheme has nothing to do with the obstruction charges, but you never know. you could be in aite the court p immune from some things and then the next day declares another statute used to prosecute him 't

trump and gives him that would be the most politicay'll see. it is a scary an interesting time. host: eli mystal is a justice correspondent and columnist from the nation. you are on with our line, democrat, good morning. caller: and hi, thanyoui think what you've donea really good job of kind stage fr the supreme court has gone outside of any type of judicial norm, them. i that joe biden is probably kind of stuck in a 1970's framework for what government institutions are

going to act like, so my question is if biden's position, it was president mystal, what would you do to pressure the supreme court that we have nowwhat are some ol things to be uti and looking at people who have no shame, what would you do if you really wanted to take itm overaa correct course that is actually good for the count?guest: marcue perfecse career. obviously,torical answer here is for an expansion. the constitutionally prefeed an, e will of the people ispansion. it has been used by president

johnda andrew jackson, abraham lincoln, andrew johnson and white effectively by fdr even though we think of fdr's court packing plan as soremember what happenes losing all of his new deal cases in front of a conservative supreme court. to expand the court and all of a sudden he was winning all of his extremely new deal cases in front of the supreme court. if we call that a failed foreign expansion, court expansion■b is. i know for some people that is going to sound extremely ■ío$if you read my plan, actualy think that we need 20 more judges and i want to■q share thm with republicans. 11-9. not 10-10ause what they did with merrick garland needs to be

stopped. but if■a justices, put them 11-9, that would maintain a conservative majority on the supreme c i cou4 with a conservat majority on the supreme court because my idea is that more judges who are committed to democracy and lessommitted to whatever flags they are is what is necessary for the country. you give me judges who all believed that the supreme court should have less power and now we are cooking. judges who all believe they shouldn't be appointed and they sd be take senior status as every other federal judg forced to, now we are cooking with dance. so there arefahole bunch of supreme court reforms that you can get through if you have dges to agree to that. willing to aee

and court packing is the tip of the spear. love a court with more judges who are more cmi these conservatives in the majority and let's play that came out for a while. host:caller: so glad i use my 3y call to speak with this gentleman. i believe we are a time where it is evident that it is us vs. we do live in a country of laws but it isgain taxes, against the law to sexually harass someone but not again for law to pay off a porn star. but the laws seem not to apply to people or not to necessarily be enforced for specific people, talking about donald trump if you haven't guessed. but with the supreme court it has become evide that a his wify

flag upside down but not for women to have control of their justices when they were being confirmed said they would not go again precedent, but yet they have. ■so what makes you think that they will not say a president is immune because it■i■ñs a di cou. and then go back and say when there isff the powers of that immunity. ■÷ooike that is the situation that we are in in this country where we are clearly be, because i believe trump, but where do you think we with this whole divided supreme court, and how do we move forward with making changes where we don't have to play the

gameurt isn't biased? guest: first of all, i don't think that the supreme court has any intellectual consistency. i do think they are perfectly capable of saying donald tru imc presidents are not immune. the only they will say that rigt now is because a democratic president happens toso it hurtso say that but intellectual consistency, nah, bro. th i court has. court expansion is one way to right size the court, to bring them to heal. but there are other politicapaty could use to bring these peopl■e inone of them is their funding. the funding mechanism for the supreme court. >> identified the underlying crime. the nstutions that there shall be a supreme court. under our bill of rights, under our rule of law a defendant is the constitution doesn'and we will give them a nice fancy entitled to know what is being building. charged with.

so how can his legal teamforded from the constitutional perspective, the supreme court could hold their hearings in the prepare a defense if you 'me is? dirt for all the constitution cares.it is congress they give m that is why what happened in the money for the nice building. the end of the case, in closing give them the money for their clerks and secretaries and helpers. t pays for the dry cleaning on their roads and arguments. you're not allowed to do that. congress that can take it away. every judge knows this. and one other reform idea is for this is why everybody believe thsit is a problem. congress to cut their funding >>■ if it is overturned on■ó, wt to submit to ethics rules so they are from harlan crow. verdict? that is another solution they >> let me say what i'm trying to coulkeso to kind of put it alto, explain to you. for political there are lots of things the purposes. political branches could do to e everybody knows have a court system works in new yoit is goio political branches won't do her three years from now, we all voters care enough about the cot know this. what happened in lower manhattan of office or vote them into was to interfere with an election which is why speaker jon,yself included in many on their supreme court votes. americans believe the supreme court should step into this

and that ishappening on, matter. ho■ that was some of his concern over some legal issues coat do you make of the republicans on their side of the argument? guest: very bad. aie,0l■@ for donald's doesn't know what donald trump was charged years, for pretty much my entire with in new york, either byron donalds can't read or byron donalds is lying. life, a gain of voters who were motivated solely by the supreme given"maybe he thinks it is badr court and the issues they wanted their judges to decide. him to tell people that he knows w read, but if he knows how and those voters would go to the to read, he could have read the polls. indictment and seen exactly what trump was charged with. in 2015, donald trump down the escalatmexicans. campaign-finance fraud. and here is my support list, and cords is a state crime. i am a normal republican. but for thet is a felony. that is donald trump. that is what trump is charged so even donald trump had to be that is what trump was convicted with by a jury of his peers. brought to heel on the supreme vos demanded it. the issue of whether or not the supreme court is to weighn his rich coming from republicans do not demand that our candidates are strong who in every other situation on the supreme court, and man, like to tell me about federalism. in short form, his wife republicans have w supreme

they like to tell me abobyron s. court and why they are now in control. a majority of democratically appointed judges so here we have a states rights on the supreme court since 1969. situation state's host: you probably heard about ying new yk state laws to a new york state defendant. all of a sudden because he this effort among some doesn't like new happened to his republicans to takeision that was made when it comes to the hush money case against the former president directly to particular new york state thisthose people making that cas attendant, now he wants the federal government to come in over the top and overrule a floridre i want to play you a little bit state law proceeding in a state court. of what he had to say on it. in any a republican would say that shouldn't happen. so once againthey want one set r donald trump andis and one set of rules for everybody else. and given byronal histor d he might be comfortable living in a country that has one set of rules for sf rules for everybody else. i'm not comfortable with that. that if the country we should live in. and that is i

want to live in, let's put it like that. usually say is supposed to host: this is elie mysal. republican line, your next up. caller: