ashley: the class why not, i thought the law and the law one. it is 10:00 o'clock eastern i am ashley webster in force two. let's get straight to your money we started off in the green and the nasdaq has flipped ever so slightly below the watermark now it's about the watermark the s&p up a quarter of 8% in the dow up 280 points doing just fine. let's take a look at the ten year treasury yield that is on the rise but still on the rise coming up three basis points to four-point to 4% let's take a look at the price of oil while were in the summer driving season and yes crude oil up another 63 cents $82.17 a barrel and let's take a look at bitcoin is up about $2600 earlier and there's a ten year treasury yield, 99.3, no bitcoin, let's

move on there it is up across the board we got the latest read on manufacturing, the number, lauren. >> decrease for june 48 is the number, may was 48.7, the prices paid the inflationary component came down to 52.1, this is after the new york fed chief and is confident the fed is on the right track to getting back to 2%, that prices paid component coming down is good news, new orders went out to 49.3. ashley: are we in the bad news is good news frame of mind, i guess so it doesn't upset the fed. it really is we should take it at face value, thank you very much, at any moment the supreme court set to make what are the biggest rulings on whether former president trump is immune from criminal prosecution and we

will bring you that ruling as soon we get it. all eyes of the supreme court right now, in the meantime we have wall street journal bill mcgurn with us, great to have you, we should get that decision momentarily and i'm going to ask you to look into your crystal ball, how do you see this playing out. >> i don't know i think there are so many wrinkles, so many different extrapolations i don't think there's one clear answer, i think it's going to roil the election anyway it comes down, the court is skeptical that the president does have some immunity and wouldn't they support all of donald trump's claims, i'm not sure. ashley: it is interesting, you could argue that this was supposed to go to trial in march and now it's july. it could get moved back to lower courts in if that is the case

nothing comes up before the november election which essentially is a victory for donald trump. >> i think it's a victory for the constitution a lot of these things these legal actions against donald trump were tuned by the election in of course it's saying hold on we have to settle first and remember how the answer will not only affect donald trump but all presidents down the road as neil gorsuch pointed out, i think the right to slow down and consider these problems one-on-one and take them as they come. ashley: very good, south carolina senator lindsey graham says the media is covering up for joe biden, listen to this. >> the idea that biden had a bad night, that is not the story, he's had a bad presidency, a disastrous debate, how could we

get here. how could the american people see what they saw and not be forewarned, you have a compliant media who has written off the problems of president biden they tried to soft sell this as an attack by the right wing that is compromised and there is no clean fakes here, the man is compromised in the media has been covering in the policies administration are destroying the country. ashley: is the media partly to blame for biden's failed presidency ignoring what we all know the. >> absolutely this editor is exactly right, very few people would ask about the obvious that people are seeing all these incidents, the reason the debate was so bad, not only was it 90 minutes long and reached 51 million people watched, the sustained incoherence was a

problem and you can see this is what joe biden is without a teleprompter in all of the problems keeping them up yet even democrats were there, these people say i'm shocked that joe biden did so poorly, where have they have been, go further, the media not only is to blame apart from steve ducey at fox, very few people ask the questions at the press conference, when they do remember how robert hur was slandered after he reported that joe biden was a well-meaning but forgetful man, my colleagues at the wall street journal had a report of two or three weeks ago of quoting insiders say they're worried about joe biden, they were savaged in when you showed the clips in from normandy they were called faking everything, there are about apologies out

about this thing and it is amazing how uniform the democrat panic is but i think there is a lot of hypocrisy there, people telling us how fit biden was in he can be anyone to push ups and run rings around 50 years. ashley: it is galling and now we have nancy pelosi say the media is not reported that donald trump has dementia. [laughter] i don't think that helps. people see what they see. ashley: we are well aware of the situation and you try to tell us something different, thank you very much, as always. tech investor david sachs is calling out the democrat strategy for staying in power, what is he saying. >> the billionaire accuses democrats of lying to keep power, watch here.

>> let's put it plainly the democratic party of interest that wants to remain in power, the democrat party is a party of government and they invent hoax after hoax, lie after lie to obtain their power in a what happened the mask, and the whole shell game has been revealed and it is obvious that biden was always a puppet for the interests were hiding behind him and now it's all been exposed. ashley: here's the deal a lot of americans on both coasts across the country feel betrayed and angry after what they saw on thursday at the debate. when the white house and the democrats keep telling us biden is fine, fit and ready, no, we can see and judge for ourselves and david sachs is saying he's a vessel to stay in power and pursue their agenda. ashley: is the biden inside circle, nothing to see here and

clearly the debate was a deb debacle. thank you very much, i want to get back to the market we can, we've been vacillating in the s&p in the nasdaq on the higher and lower end of things but now we see the dow still up 180 points or thereabouts as we keep an eye on the supreme court as soon as the decision comes down we will be on it. michael lee joins me, what impact if any to the immunity decision have on the market or is there no impact? >> i think the consensus is none of the trials against president trump will eventually go anywhere. i believe he's the favorite to be the next president of the united states and that's what's priced in. if we get a ruling otherwise that says he's not immune and you can go after presidents for

whatever and whenever then that may roil the markets and set us into a tizzy based on what lauren was talking about and we saw joe biden last thursday night there is a not a lot going on. not to me if it doesn't go the way that's expected i believe we can be in for moments of disarray because we have no idea who will be the next president. ashley: as for the market to remain bullish, the new highs typically mean one thing, more new highs. >> absolutely. when you're up this much in the first half of the year, we never had a down year, you're up on average about 8% for the rest of the year, 8485% of the time you're up from here into the close of the year and on average 8% of the time. i think that's because of the

things that i've been saying were likely to get an accommodative fed and an expanding economy not gangbusters but expanding in earnings that look spectacular versus expectation, when all of those combined rockets take off and then you have the entire a.i. tech spending that is in front of us, the largest investment technology in the history of the world there is a lot of good things in front of us, if you look at the chart of the market and think about the backdrop we look identical to 1995 and if you think about the a.i. behind us in a potential pro-business trump administration, we could get very easily another 3 - 4 years of a blow off the top market. ashley: fantastic, i feel good. michael lee, very positive indeed, lauren you're looking at the movers look into let's look at apple pre-$2.90. 2.13 a share they maintained by

intruder $20 price target not the highest but i love the commentary, they said smart phone replacement cycle has extended to 36 - 40 months that is up from 24 - 30 months were keeping our phones longer that means apple customer is still loyal and will splurge after the 40 months and by the best most expensive phone, then you have merck they should be up shortly 4% and they hold exclusive rights to develop and commercialize in drug for the treatment of a certain type of prostate cancer but look at the cruise line, carnival is the worst performing stock on the broader market down sharply as hurricane reach cat 4 making the earliest category for on record carnival is down almost 5%. ashley: not good for the cruise line you need pepto-bismol or something if you're on one of those. thank you very much.

president biden's family reportedly telling him stay in the race and keep fighting. one of the loudest voices in the room, it was hunter biden house oversight committee chair james comer with the wood that he is on the show and of course were still awaiting the u.s. supreme court ruling on presidential immunity, that's a big day ahead, more "varney" after this. (♪) (♪) introducing new advil targeted relief. the only topical pain reliever with 4 powerful pain-fighting ingredients that start working on contact to target tough pain at the source. for up to 8 hours of powerful relief. new advil targeted relief.

if your business needs a new application

then developers will have to write code. a lot of code. if an application needs to be modernized then you'll need time, resources... and caffeine. if this sounds daunting then use watsonx code assistant ai designed to multiply developer productivity so you can generate code quickly. let's create a more modern foundation for business, with watsonx code assistant. ibm. let's create.

ashley: we are still awaiting the supreme court ruling on the term presidential immunity case, brian llenas joins me from west palm beach, florida, what is the trump teams saying about it.

>> were still waiting, obviously we made a breath for the reaction to the opinion set to come out at any moment but i think it's important to remind our viewers were the former president has been on the issue, he said this opinion by the supreme court is not about him but rather about future presidents in the presidency in general he says if presidents do not have full or total immunity that they would be paralyzed and not be able to make difficult decisions that are needed from the white house because of fear of future prosecution, here is a former president a couple months ago on the issue. >> the president has to have immunity if you don't have a president the most you could say is a ceremonial president that's not what the founders had in mind we want presidents that can get things done and bring people together. of course trump has a self

interest in the outcome today, short of the supreme court ruling entirely against trump were for trump were for or against presidential immunity, today's decisions expected to do for the delay of january 6 case which has been frozen since december with no trial start date, now fears very unlikely that the three remaining criminal trials will begin before election day, the expectation that this court the supreme court will rule on presidential immunity in a more nuanced way that will send it back to the obama appointed judge tanya chutkan which will determine which of the four trump faces in the january 6 case that can be impacted by the ultimate scotus opinion today, the decision that could be bogged down by more appeals from the trump team but in the interim the trump campaign continues over the weekend to him or president biden on his performance into focus and on

thursday night. listen. >> this is a rocky knockout they should build a statue of donald trump that georgia tech, should joe biden even stay in the race, that's never happened in her history. >> he obviously was not hands-down and not just because joe biden was so far gone in so embarrassing. >> not only did he deliver of the greatest performance and debate history. >> as we await the opinion from the supreme court it is important to remind folks about the timeline judge tanya chutkan says she wants to give the defense lawyers several months to prepare for the trial depending on what comes from the decision in the prosecution, jack smith has said he needs 4 e case, even if we will see a lot of questions and whether they will have enough time to start and finish the trial by novembe. ashley: exactly right, thank you very much for that, the chair of

the house oversight committee kentucky congressman james comer joins mina, great to have you here, we have no idea how this is going to play out as we wait how do you see it playing out. >> i have no idea how the supreme court will rule but i'll tell you my personal opinion, i believe people should be held accountable for wrongdoing whether there president or not, the problem is the democrats have abused every facet of our system of checks and balances. the supreme court does not rule in favor of what president trump is requesting, then you are going to have a weapon ice court that is going to go after george bush for afghanistan and iraq and you're going to have a court that's good to go after barack obama for fast imperious in future presidents that are going to fear to make tough decisions for fear of retribution in the court system, i think this is

another situation that the democrats have put us in and unfortunately the supreme court needs to rule that the presidents are immune i never would've thought about that before but i would've thought i would've lived to see a court system that has been politicized at merrick garland's department of justice. ashley: jack smith would say you're just giving criminal conduct a free pass if you grant that immunity. it's unfortunate, i think people should be held accountable. jack smith doesn't need to say anything, jack smith is already overstepped his bounds, he doesn't have a case on anything you to spending taxpayer dollars and trying to go after a political opponent, he needs to go ahead and wrap his investigation. ashley: next one for you, the biden family urging the president to remain in the race, the new york times claimed that hunter biden is the one pushing

the hardest to keep his father from dropping out, what is the motivation, power? >> i think it survival with hunter biden. according to six banks, he is money laundering and that's what they reported to the treasury according to the whistleblowers under oath, he abated and didn't pay taxes and lied on his taxes with tax fraud, our investigation is proven he was operating a full-fledged influence peddling operation with the assistance of his father, hunter biden is smart enough to know he wouldn't last six months without his father being president of the united states, obviously his way to push to keep his father in power as long as he can and i believe at the end of the day hunter biden expects a pardon to get out of all the trouble. ashley: self-preservation, next

one forward 2024 republican presidential candidate nikki haley told the wall street journal that she expects the democrats to replace biden with someone young, vibrant and tested, in other words be careful what you wish for, is that something to worry about? >> is certainly something to worry about, anybody would be a better candidate than joe biden, i think it's going to be a lot more difficult to place joe biden and i think every state has its own election laws and it's my understanding is too late to replace joe biden in wisconsin in nevada, those are two states that joe biden needs to win if he is going to be donald trump this november, i think the democrats have cooked their own goose and they waited too long and i agree with david axelrod and james carville, this should have happened year ago, they tried to have this discussion with the democrat insiders but they wouldn't have any part of it, now the american people have seen that the mainstream media has been covering for joe biden and his staff is lying about joe biden

it i think at this point is too late to replace joe biden as a valid. >> it may be too late but will have to wait and see, thank you very much indeed for your input as we continue to wait for the supreme court ruling on presidential immunity, we will bring that to you once we get it, more "varney" after this. ♪

ashley: we are still awaiting the supreme court decision on presidential immunity but we did however, get a decision of the first amendment in social media, lydia hu, come back in, what you have. >> this is a really interesting case, is a complex opinion that seems to be a short-term victory for the state of florida and texas a setback for the social media companies were hoping to have accomplished. let's set the table a little bit and give us some background, states of florida and texas issued laws back in 2021 to protect their intention of conservative speech on their platform, this happened after they saw twitter and facebook banning the former president trump after his remarks

surrounded the january 6 event. the social media company after the laws were passed challenge the laws claiming that the social media company was entitled to first amendment protection. in other words the states could not force them to carry speech that they did not want to, what the supreme court is saying here is that the lower court did not adequately evaluate the first amendment arguments in the context, they say that the challenges advanced by the social media company at first blush don't carry much merit so they're sending this back to the lower court for more for the consideration in the short-term victory for texas and florida. ashley: fascinating. thank you very much let's bring in elliott felig, your reaction to the first amendment case perhaps a victory for the states

and perhaps a setback for the social media companies. >> was supreme court you always have to before you get to the merits you have to deal with issues of standing and likeness, that is what this decision focuses on more, it's a question of rightness the companies have not been impacted necessarily that they can bring their claim but they may be able to in the future, was fascinated about the first amendment your conservative principles running into each other and conservative groups who are angry about what they see as a censorship and limitation on their speech that comes from the social media companies but your conservative principles that say let the companies do it themselves and if you don't like the way facebook or twitter or whoever regulate speech then start your own platform. ashley: i'm sorry to cut you off or going back to lydia we have a ruling on immunity, what you got. >> this is the big one we had all eyes on, justin former

president donald trump from the supreme court of the united states does have immunity and it appears that the decision is limited to his official acts, big question after the lower court in the district of columbia decided that the former president had no immunity across-the-board, when the supreme court come back and say wait a second we can split the baby, he is immunity for some acts and not others and official acts perhaps not immunity for unofficial hocks, were just getting this opinion and from the supreme court of the united states but it does appear that former president donald trump they had decided if you have immunity for official acts that he carried out, now what would happen is that the case would be remanded back onto the lower court, the lower court trial judges would read this opinion and they would have to decide what happened around the events of january 6 that would qualify

as an official act such as president trump would have immunity from the prosecution brought by special counsel jack smith. ashley: very interesting, thank you very much, elliott felig come back and i'm sorry i had to cut you off but now we can talk about the big topic of the day this immunity, basically the court to lydia's point saying it depends was it a private act, an official act that you did and how do you segregate those acts, how do they make that determination, this is consistent with the one of us expected on the oral argument, the fact is the chief justice by john roberts he was one of the two, robert in amy coney barrett with the two swing votes on the issue and they seem to be drawing towards a middle ground where they wouldn't get trumped the absolute broad sweep of

immunity that blows out the indictment that seems unlikely but it seems that they were skeptical of what the d.c. circuit has done which said no immunity everything goes forward. ahead, the upshot, based on our initial reading, this is probably going to have to go back to the district court for serious adjudication as to what ask constitute official acts that would be immune from criminal prosecution and what ask constitute private acts that would in fact be subject to come to prosecution, that means it was unlikely that this would go to trial before the election but i think this makes this less likely and possible. ashley: in that context, a victory for donald trump. >> not a complete victory, he wanted a broad suite of immunity that i don't think the court was going to grant him, he wanted the court to say, what you do during the four years as president not subject to, prosecution is only subject to impeachment i didn't think the court was going to give that sweep of immunity and it goes both ways, if you give a president donald trump brought

immunity you also get into joe biden. ashley: the truck team said he's already been tried during senate impeachment hearings and he can't be tried twice, i guess that did not play into it. >> i don't think so, impeachment has never been interpreted by the courts as a substitute for coming to prosecution. ashley: interesting stuff. thank you very much for your input. i want to bring back in congressman james comer the republican from kentucky in the house oversight committee, i want to get your response to this. kind of a split decision, what is your take? >> i think this is the right decision and a win for the american people, the american people can focus on the real issues at hand and who they want to lead america over the next four years instead of worrying

about what the court was going to rule against donald trump over some trivial or over politicized issue, i think for future presidencies, they don't need to constantly worry about decisions that they have to make that could be in the best interest of the american people, they should not have to worry about prosecution when they leave office, we need checks and balances in our system and just like i said earlier, the problem is the democrats have abused every safety that we have in our form of government, the over politicized everything, the hatred towards donald trump has led them to have a primary election where they wouldn't let anyone in and they ran out like robert f kennedy to ensure that joe biden got the nomination, they held donald trump, they tried to getting kicked off the ballot, they tried to expend all of his campaign funds, defending himself and all the records, now

the reason the american people are winners is because of the records can go back to what they're supposed to do and go after the bad guys instead of going after political opponents, go after the carjackers in the rapist and the murders, go after the criminals and that the american people decide who's good to be the next president of the united states. >> it's very likely that none of the cases against the former president will come to light before the election which i'm sure that you say is fair and eliminates the interference of a candidate trying to become the next president of the united states. >> absolutely. let me ask you a question. why did these prosecutors go after trump immediately after his presidency ended, they waited until he made a decision as to whether or not he would run for the reelection and they waited until the point to where they can tie him up throughout the final campaign, that is evidence there that this is been

politicized. i think that the democrats again, just like they have done with impeachment and other checks and balances in our system, i think they overplayed their hand, they hurt our republic in the future and for the short term, i think this is a win, not just for donald trump but for every future president, they have to make a decision as an official act, that should not be something that you have to base a decision on whether or not you will be sued and you can afford legal fees when your presidency ends, i think this is the right decision by the supreme court. ashley: never going to get into arguments whether this was an official act or whether this was done as a private act and are we going to get into the weeds on that. >> that is the one downside, but i think the upside, the american people can focus on the issues and that's with the american people should focus on at this point in the presidential election, whose policies better

serve your family, who is the strongest leader to lead us over the next four years, i think that's what the american people can focus on now because of the supreme court ruling. ashley: we will leave it right there, congressman homer, thank you for being here to react to the what the supreme court ruled today, thank you so much. ashley: thank you. let's bring in guy lewis to talk about this. was this pretty much what you were expecting a split decision but it goes back to the lower courts now? >> i think so, although i have to lean toward president trump in terms of how big this is. make no mistake, this is a blockbuster decision. it's as big as bush beat gore in my opinion, what it does is send it back to the lower court and says basically, we lean and

approve of a presumption of immunity if indeed the president is committing official acts. the question, the devil in the detail, what is an official act? i think it is going to compound some of the lower courts in some respect and it'll create litigation. it will solve a couple of the cases i think very quickly, the d.c. january 6 case against trump and frankly i think the classified document case is breathing its last breath as well. ashley: all of these cases now are not going to come to light or play out before the election are they? >> that's exactly right, that's what president trump he and his legal team, what they want desperately now is time to get him into office, time to make

changes in the department of justice, time to reset the clock and once he is in, the law is clear on that. you can't prosecute the president once he is in, there will be another four years were the matter will sit on the shelf and as a prosecutor, when i was doing it, i never did like to draw these things out, we wanted to hit quickly and hit hard and this gives president trump and his legal team the clear decisive advantage. ashley: you know, if donald trump wins the election, can he essentially pardon himself or direct the department of justice to drop the cases? >> that is a great question. in short, i think the answer to your profound question is yes. i do think he can pardon

himself, there is no limitation in the constitution. if you care about and love the text of the constitution, then you look at it and you say is there a limit on what i can do in terms of pardoning myself and i think he can pardon himself on federal criminal matters. it may be a different thing on state matters but again we go back to the question, is it official, was he calling the people down in georgia to say i care about election integrity and i want this matter investigated and looked at or was he trying to commit a crime, i think it's a former not the latter. ashley: is a fascinating stuff, guy lewis you are always at one point, thank you for joining us this morning with your expertise, we appreciate that. who are we going to go back to,

elliott felig if you can join me, i want to ask you to guy lewis' point, now it comes down to try to pass out what is it official act and what is being done under presumed private acts or unofficial acts. it's a difficult thing in some cases i would imagine to differentiate. >> it might necessitate in essence a mini trial not in front of a jury but in front of the judge were they have to elicit all of the acts that constitute this indictment. you could have almost a mini trial and let's remember whatever the judge ultimately decides, this is private, this is official, all of those findings are potentially subject to the appellate process. you talk about a delay, whatever the judge rules if and when the mini trial concludes would go up to the d.c. circuit and go up to the supreme court. it was already pretty unlikely, this case was going to go to

trial prior to the election. but this makes it pretty much impossible. ashley: the same question i posed to guy lewis, presumably, donald trump if you selected president can make these things kind of go away. >> absolutely hill point attorney general that shares his view of the case and that would be the end of the case. ashley: fascinating. let me bring in lydia i'm sure she had more time today again but i guess this was the result that a lot of people had expected. >> it is. i was just taking a look at how this opinion was decided because it was authored as elliott noted by chief justice john roberts. it was decided largely along ideological lines, the conservative justice filing concurring opinions with him in the three liberal justice dissenting. a quick note to put me on the bones around this conversation around what qualifies as an official act versus an

unofficial act, this opinion is quite dense exceeding 120 pages. in the preview pages, there is of syllabus and that offers an overview and a summary of what this opinion contains. there they summarize what qualifies in their eyes as an official act and how that relates to the indictment that the special counsel has brought forth against the former president, there they write the indictments allegation that trump attempted to pressure the vice president to take particular acts in connection with his role as the certification proceeding does involve official conduct and trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. there setting up a conversation which it seems they are saying to the lower court, we presume that the former president is immune, that these conversations that he had had with former vice president mike pence are on

certification of the election are entitled to the presumption of immunity it is up to the d.o.j., the special counsel to rebut the presumption now. it's a ball is in their court, going more to what elliott's court was that this will present a lengthy mini trial within the larger trial adding to the details in fact findings that is being dressed at the doorstep of the trial court. ashley: that is very inter interesting. the proof of burden is on the prosecutors not the president. >> as it wheezes, they're saying specifically as it relates to how the indictments brought forth, they would presume that the former president would have immunity as it is outlined here. ashley: it seems to make sense. thank you. donald trump has reacted to the supreme court immunity ruling on true social. he said big win for our constitution and democracy, proud to be an american.

there you have it, short and sweet, big win for the constitution of democracy, proud to be an american, of course we will bring you more reaction as it comes in, on the phone attorney mark, your reaction generally from what i've heard, this is kind of what was expected from the supreme court, would you agree? >> absolutely, i agree with trump, it's a victory for democracy and that the president should endure some immunity if they're acting in their official capacity. for example if they declare war they should find themselves struck with their liberty facing murder charges, the question is was it acting in the official capacity when he did each of the specific actions that he undertook that a be a question for the federal judge prior to going to trial. ashley: now they're going to

have to decide what is official and unofficial when it comes to ask from the sitting president. >> that is correct and ordinarily so generically, when president advocating to the vice president about an issue you would say generically that's official capacity but you gotta be very specific, the judge has to getting to it, what was he advocating, why was he advocating, does that shift from official to unofficial/private, depends on why he was speaking to the vice president in the has to be sorted out and what previous guests i agree with a mini trial in front of the judge. ashley: it's going to be a while before this thing even sees the light of day of a trial if indeed it does. >> absolutely i think the defense lawyers for trout are going to need time to absorb the

specific ruling and prepare pleadings and written documents were they outline why they believe trump should have absolute immunity from all the action that he took. i don't believe the judge will make that find you but the greedy time to advocate that and at some point an evidentiary hearing is required then witnesses will be have to sworn in by the judge and cross-examined by the parties involved. ashley: fascinating stuff, thank you very much. i want to get back to brian llenas if i can, west palm beach. what have you heard from their in the aftermath of the decision? >> we are hearing from the former president on a true social post, big win for our constitution a democracy, proud to be an american after the supreme court came out with this opinion essentially granting absolute immunity to certain acts done by the president for his core constitutional powers and obviously this is going back

to the district court in d.c. where this is going to be bogged down in there really is all but guaranteeing that this case will not be started or resolved by election day which means a former president will get sentenced on july 11 for the new york criminal trial and after that, pretty much doesn't have to worry about any other trial at least in terms of how a potential conviction could affect his campaign or how the details could affect his campaign, yet justice roberts with the majority opinion, essentially saying it is up to the district court to decide what is an official act by the president and what is an unofficial act by the president. obviously it says there is no immunity for unofficial acts but there is presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts, that is a

question that the supreme court did not get to, the get up at the ball to the district court and they offered their guidance and opinion that you were sifting through, big win for the former president in terms of timing of january 6 and jack smith's trial and whether or not and how this could affect his campaign. ashley: very good, brian llenas and west palm beach down by donald trump's home, thank you very much. i want to get back to guy lewis. i was just looking at the dissent comments from justice sotomayor, she said that the prthepresident violate the law d exploit the trappings of his personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law he may not be bold and fearless as we would like them to be. clearly in the dissent, what would you say to that?

>> i was reading the same lines, you can tell that this was a raw decision, very partisan 6 - 3 conservatives versus the liberals and when you read -- with all due respect to the justice, basically as she characterizes it is silly, nobody thought, nobody expected that trump could walk out on fifth avenue and i think he once suggested and murder somebody and get away with it, that's not what were talking about. the reason i been so critical of this special counsel and some of these cases. as a prosecutor i never saw the count of evidence that i would expect if you were going to go after the king, you kill the king. you don't have a soupy watered-down evidence, you have

the president going to mike gant insane, that's you and i conspire and break the law, here is 100 grand i will have in your swiss bank account and let's tell a dishonest and falsehood in terms of what the reality is, none of that stuff, you have the front under president saying i think we got railroaded and i thought all the votes counted. whatever is the truth on that, the supreme court said the supreme court has an official immunity in that send it back down without all the excitement we gotta go through this carefully and cautiously this is a big case for not only this president but future presidents that are going to start. ashley: it is interesting, the

justice said it is a lack of factual analysis if you'd like done by the lower court when they were considering this. in other words, get your act together is what they're saying. >> that is exactly right. again when you look at the dissent he leads out the word i respectfully dissent which is almost always in these cases unless you're taking it very, very personally which obviously the three justices for the dissent, let's get beyond this let's concentrate on the good things about this country. the supreme court did the right thing here. i've always said this, politics and prosecution don't mix, we've got to get back to the core principle in terms of how we deal with these kinds of things. ashley: amen to that, thank you

so much, i would have the last word to lydia hu. >> big day for the former president donald trump not just with the immunity case but what happened last week with the supreme court dealt a large blow to have the d.o.j. using obstruction charges, this indictment by special counsel jack smith includes four counts, three of them a conspiracy, one of them and obstruction charge between the two supreme court opinions in trump today the immunity case finding immunity for official acts and last week dealing a blow to have the d.o.j. is using that obstruction account in the former president is having very good day, this case in d.c. probably not going to see a trial anytime soon as it's going to be remanded down to lower court for further consideration of how immunity applies now to donald trump. ashley: terrific stuff, thank you so much for helping us wade

our way through that, we always appreciate and just to reiterate the supreme court ruled that donald trump has some immunity for presidential acts, we have another hour of reaction right after this. (♪) whether you're moving across town or across the country, you can count on pods to deliver when we say we will. which is why we were voted america's #1 container moving company. book your move today at pods.com

ashley: it is 11:00 a.m. on the east coast on monday, july 1. i'm ashley webster in for stuart varney. the biggest news is the u.s. supreme court delivering the long awaited ruling on donald trump's immunity. chief john roberts delivered the 6-3 decision saying the president has absolute immunity on official acts as president, but does not have immunity on private acts. this will likely head back to the lower courts where prosecutors will have to prove donald trump's actions were not made in an official capacity. elliot is back with me. elliot, thanks for staying here. i mean, trump calls it a big win for democracy, could you agree? >> it's a big win for the election strategy pushing the case back and one thing in the dissent that justices said and we don't have kings and don't want presidents sending hit squads to kill political opponents and things we see in other countries.