administration? there's a key difference between candidate trump and president trump and he is not being prosecuted for his very bad decisions while in office. it's what he did post election and leading up to january 6th. that conduct is clearly criminal. doesn't have a blanket of immunity in any way. that is conduct he was doing to further his own personal motives and goals, which is why again, you have a case to prosecute but what is left. >> that's a good point to make. this is not about the policies he enacted. the moves he made while president. it was about the moves he made to keep himself in the white house after he lost the 2020 election. everybody, thank you so much. it's been such a morning. it's been great to be here with you, the viewers, on this truly historic and significant day. that's going to wrap things up for me. i'll see you back here at 3:00 p.m. you're going to see yamiche in a second.

andrea mitchell has more news now. right now, the supreme court ruling 6-3 that the president of the united states does have immunity for official acts. in the most anticipated case of the year, the supreme court redraws the line between presidential and private acts, saying that he can be prosecuted for unofficial acts, but denying donald trump's request for complete immunity. much of mr. trump's alleged conduct in the federal election interference case could be off limits. that case now further delayed into after the election as the case is going back to the district court to decide what is official and what is not before there can even be a trial. plus, continuing the fight. the biden family circling the wagons after the president's disastrous debate performance. elected officials willing to give him a few days to prove he's up to a grueling campaign. privately, many of them are questioning whether this was one

bad night or something more serious. good day, everyone. the supreme court has ruled the former president does have some immunity for official acts, but not unofficial acts. adding to jack smith getting the case to trial before the election. the former president calling the decision a win but the decision does not mean the charges against mr. trump will be completely dismissed. the 6-3 conservative majority includes the three justices trump appointed. john roberts saying the president is not above the law but the chief executive may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers and is entitled to presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. in a blisters dissent, justice

sotomayor blassing the decision writing in part -- following today's ruling, further court hearings will need to be held in order to determine what actions by mr. trump are considered official conduct or in other words, what actions would be protected and what actions would not. we begin outside the court with nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent, ken dilanian, and lisa rubin. ken, what more can you tell us about this big decision, at least this morning? >> reporter: ostensibly, this was a 6-3 decision along ideological lines but if you read barrett's concurrents, she saw the case and law different. she was closer to the argument the special counsel made in court than the majority with its sweeping claims of immunity for

all official acts for president. you know, if you listen to the oral arguments in this case, andrea, it's not a surprise they came down in this direction because even special counsel was acknowledging that presidents are immune for certain contact. can't be prosecuted for exercising article ii powers and donald trump's lawyers acknowledged presidents can be prosecuted for private acts and he said some of the allegations in the indictment were private acts. but the devil is in the details. how are official acts defined? the language in this opinion significantly impairs if not shatters the jack smith indictment of donald trump because it goes to the categories of evidence in that indictment and says for example, the whole section about donald trump allegedly using and trying to co-op the justice department to engage in bogus fraud and write letters to the states

claiming there was fraud when they knew there were none. that was clearly an official act according to this supreme court decision. and then donald trump's conversations with vice president pence. this decision says are likely excluded although it allows the prosecutors to come into court and try to rebut that. lastly, donald trump's public statements. everything he said in public about the election, the bogus claims of fraud he made. that is all excluded as official acts. now, what not on its face excludes were the conversations he had with officials where he was exhorting them to investigate bogus allegations of fraud. but he says the decision has to go to the district court, judge chutkan, where she has to hold hearings. this is a significant blow to jack smith's case. whatever happens, it means it cannot go to trial before the

election. even if trump loses and this case goes forward, it's a real question as to whether or not this can survive. >> lisa, let me drill down on some of what ken was just saying. what would be the hours he spent in the dining off the oval office tweeting not calling it off. that tweet that led to them going after mike pence? you know, all of that. now, i think that the call to find 11,800 more votes might be unofficial. >> i think some of the other conduct you mentioned also falls within the category of allegations and evidence that we're not sure how it will be affected by today's ruling because the court things that t

district court has to way. the only thing official has to do with trump's interactions with officials at his justice department and in particular, a series of actions around whether or not he was going to remove the then attorney general, jeff rosen, and replace him with jeff clark. this is out of this indictment but everything else you mentioned even including with respect to vice president trump where there's a presumption that it was official but one the government can rebut, that's all fare game for the further pretrial proceedings that judge chutkan of the d.c. district court will now have to hold in the wake of this opinion, andrea. >> and quick question. can that, those decisions, what's official, what's not, be appealed up to the supreme court for more and more delays? >> they can and in all likelihood, they will be before you get to further pretrial

proceedings. so we're going to have to go through this iterative process about what is and isn't official to hearings before judge chutkan, before this case can really continue on the regular pretrial proceedings, andrea. >> ken and lisa, thank you both so much. joining us now is politico's senior legal affairs writer who is inside the supreme court for today's decision. josh, talk to me about the strong dissents and your other impressions from the way they split. not surprisingly, but the big impact of it. >> yeah, i'm not surprised that there was such a strong division on the court, andrea, between the conservatives and the liberals over this very politically polarizing case. we had sotomayor go on in a dissent for something on the order of 25 minutes, this is a very long time for a dissenter to be declaring their opinion

from the bench. and in the sort of code they use up here, andrea, if you look at the end of her dissent, with fear for our democracy, i dissent. the word respectfully is missing and that's usually a sign of an especially strident disagreement among the justices. the other thing worth mentioning is justice amy coney barrett sort of straying from the doctrine conservative and expressing concerns about the sweep of her conservative colleague's majority opinion. ultimately in the vote count, to have one conservative express reservations doesn't really matter at the end of the day. >> and now the big question is how is judge chutkan, the district court judge, going to apply these new standards? >> right. that is a very big question. and you know, how quickly is she going to be able to do that. barrett's concurring opinion here repeatedly says that there is appeals court review

available for her decisions before a trial. so assuming that that's what the majority was saying here as well, it just becomes very hard to see how not only the charges, but the evidence is going to be sifted by judge chutkan and then those rulings be reviewed by the d.c. circuit court of appeals and maybe come up on emergency basis to the supreme court that that's all going to happen in the next four to five months. it just seems highly unlikely as i know you're other reporters and guests have been saying already. >> you alluded to justice coney barrett, but in particular, she disagreed with justice thomas who wrote in a concurring opinion something that questioned the legitimacy of the special counsel? >> right. justice thomas had his own opinion and this is an argument that trump notably did not raise

in this case but has in the florida classified documents case that basically, the special counsel system the justice department set up after the independent counsel law expired 25 years ago is sort of flawed in various ways, maybe the attorney general doesn't have that kind of authority to appoint a semi independent counsel and maybe the funding for that is flawed as well. but that seemed to be something thomas wanted to opine on here even though it wasn't an issue squarely before the supreme court and explicitly wasn't raised by trump in the lower court. >> josh, thank you so much. and coming up, what's next. what the supreme court's immunity ruling means for jack smith's classified documents case and mar-a-lago. that's next when "andrea mitchell reports" is back in just 90 seconds. stay with us. you're watching msnbc. 90 cosen. stay with us you're watching msnbc.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. [introspective music] recipes. recipes that are more than their ingredients. ♪ [smoke alarm] recipes written by hand and lost to time... can now be analyzed and restored using the power of dell ai. preserving memories and helping to write new ones.

♪ harlem has everything. but i couldn't find pilates anywhere. so i started my own studio. and with the right help, i can make this place i love even better. earn up to 5% cash back on business essentials with the chase ink business cash card from chase for business. our coverage of the supreme court's ruling that donald trump is immune for his official agents as president. the high court rejecting the absolute immunity the former president had claimed. the lower d.c. district court is now going to have to determine which of the four counts the president is facing from jack smith were allegedly committed in his personal capacity or in his presidential capacity. and then how this decision will affect other indictments against him.

joining us now, andrew weissman and marcus childress. and andrew, let me ask you first. i want to read from the majority's opinion by chief justice roberts. he wrote, quote -- rts. he wrote, quote -- >> of the four counts facing donald trump from jack smith, we could talk about the other cases in a moment, which do you think are likely to survive? >> well, it remains to be seen. the, i think the issue here is what evidence will survive. rather than it's possible that all four counts will survive, but not the evidence that jack smith wanted to introduce.

and so i think if you step back, one of the things we always thought going into today's decision that donald trump would not have a criminal trial with respect to the january 6th events before the general election. that this decision was held so long and now you see why. because they had six justices very much leaning in his favor. and so just the delay factor meant that wasn't going happen. but one thing that is clear is there will be a factual hearing that judge chutkan will be able to hold with respect to dividing official from unofficial activity and so i think it's really a question of what evidence will be allowed. but as lisa rubin pointed out, certain things are off the table. so the allegations with respect to the department of justice are off the table.

the former president has been found absolutely immune, which is a really scary thought. just think about that. with the president's interactions with the department of justice are absolutely immune. terrifying decision. that alone is unheard of. but it remains to be seen and for judge chutkan to make the initial decision on the mishearing, but even that is going to be subject to appeals. but at least that is a way for the public to hear additional evidence from the likes of former vice president pence. from prior general counsels and white house counsels who worked for the white house under president trump. a whole series of witnesses that can be heard at that hearing. >> witnesses who can clearly be subpoenaed for that hearing,

whereas some tried to avoid testifying to the january 6th commission, which brings me to you, marcus, as one who worked on that commission. so, what concerns do you have about the prosecution? i saw you nodding that it's not the evidence not the counts. so will that call to georgia to find more votes, is that official or unofficial? and what andrew just said about the justice department, especially from a candidate who's talking about retribution, does that mean that he can pressure the justice department to proceed with indictments and investigations against everyone he's talked about? >> against the january 6th committee. against joe biden. i think sitting in the courtroom

hearing that piece being read allowed, having a former president being prosecuted. it felt weird to hear the court talk about wanting to protect the executive branch from a vindictive successor when the big elephant in the room is the vindictive successor is the individual they're now protecting with this opinion. look, andrew will tell you, we'll alltel you, who's tried cases. you use circumstantial evidence, whether it be communications with one party to prove a greater conspiracy. this seems to really hamstring the ability to use evidence of a continued chronological lie. starting with the pressure in the states. the story makes sense, which is why our hearings for the january 6th committee made sense. it showed the escalation and desperation. if you're not able to show it, it hurts the prosecution from not showing the jury the crime. i still have to digest it, but it did feel like a blow to hear

the rule and the standard that was put out there. >> and andrew, just a quick question. the mar-a-lago case. could the former president argue that that was official in some fashion? that all happened after he left office. >> yeah, i don't see either the new york case, that's the new york state criminal case, being affected by this. or the mar-a-lago case. one is really stuff that happened before he was president or personal, not official conduct while he was president. and then mar-a-lago is all about the illegal retention of documents after he was president. so i don't think those are covered. but i can't stress enough how big a loss this was in terms of they basically said that the civil standard that official presidential conduct, even if it

violates criminal law, is subject to absolute immunity and the only remaining issue is the factual issue about whether certain conduct can be described and accurately described versus official and unofficial. but the court said there's a presumption the activity is official. so this is i think not just a huge loss for this administration, but i just think this is a huge loss in terms of the american public and our relationship to the presidency where the president has given just really a blank check in terms of his conduct. >> and it puts as you were pointing out, the burden of proof on the prosecutor to establish. it also flies in the face of what mitch mcconnell said in justifying his decision to acquit on impeachment. he said we can always go to the courts afterwards, but clearly,

you can't, in many instances. thank you both. and next, panic mode. president biden's family and closest advisers warning of the risks of having an open convention, but what are the donors saying? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." this is msnbc. this is msnbc. hell reports. this is msnbc. sometimes your work shirt needs to be for more than just work. like when it needs to be a big, soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry. ♪ ♪ have you always had trouble losing weight to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. and keeping it off? same. discover the power of wegovy®. ♪ ♪ with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. ♪ ♪ and i'm keeping the weight off. wegovy® helps you lose weight and keep it off. i'm reducing my risk.

wegovy® is the only fda-approved weight-management medicine that's proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. wegovy® shouldn't be used with semaglutide or glp-1 medicines. don't take wegovy® if you or your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop wegovy® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. wegovy® may cause low blood sugar in people with diabetes, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes. tell your provider about vision problems or changes, or if you feel your heart racing while at rest. depression or thoughts of suicide may occur. call your provider right away if you have any mental changes. common side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. with wegovy®, i'm losing weight, i'm keeping it off. and i'm lowering my cv risk. that's the power of we. ♪ ♪

check your cost and coverage before talking to your health care professional about wegovy®. sara federico: at st. jude, we don't care who cures cancer. we just need to advance the cure. it's a bold initiative to try and bump cure rates all around the world, but we should. it is our commitment. we need to do this.

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. today's 6-3 decision

granting donald trump immunity for acts made in his official capacity while president dissenting with the most conservative judges writing quote -- joining me now, lawrence tribe, harvard law school professor emeritus. taught it for decades. professor, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, andrea. >> she did not sign that respectfully, noted in that

dissent. nancy pelosi just reacting saying quote -- today, the supreme court has gone rogue with the decision violating the foundational american principle that no one is above the law. the former president's claim of total immunity is an insult to our founders who declared independence from a king. so what say you about how far reaching this is and damaging to jack smith? >> let me speak at the broader level. i agree with speaker pelosi and justice sotomayor. this is a devastating blow to our system of government. in fact, probably the most eloquent and elaborate dissent, which i haven't seen quoted in the press much. it's that of justice brown jackson who said that it is a five alarm fire for

self-government under democracy. and the reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the constitution upside down. it was suggesting that just because an act is official, that is it's something a president can do, but that others can't do, that creates a cloak of immunity. that's upside down. it is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things that are purely personal. so the sliver that has been left to jack smith, that is taking the threads of this indictment and in a hearing before judge chutkan, trying to show which ones like contacts with rudy giuliani or certain discussions with state officials. which ones are truly private.

that's really a fig leaf. simply a way for the court to tap itself on the shoulder and say we're not granting absolute immunity. i beg to differ. for all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. it's dangerous and it means we have to be even more careful. never to elect a president who would think let alone say he wants to be a dictator on day one. >> could a president take a bribe with immunity with immunity? >> sure looks like it. the fact that the bribe is for the exercise of one of his core powers like a pardon, creates a cloud that might make the president immune. the difficulty as marcus elaborated, not only are these,

but the court upheld by another majority, 5-4, not 6-3, over the partial dissent over justice barrett, who was establishing a degree of independence. it held by a vote of 5-4. you can't even use evidence of the way the president's core powers have been used. so if for example, a bribe is offered for the president to exercise a core power like the pardon, you might be able to show that money passed hands but you can't introduce evidence of that, of the pardon that ultimately resulted because that is one of the president's core powers. it makes no sense and the two dissents, one by justice sotomayor and one by justice jackson, really rip to shred the threadbare, i'm afraid to say, almost sophomoric and foolish

arguments by the chief justice of the united states fantasizing that even though all presidents in our past have assumed that they would be subject to criminal prosecution even for misconduct that was a crime in interacting with their own justice department. after all, that's what nixon did and why he needed a pardon. even though presidents have assumed that and it hasn't crippled the presidency, maybe presidents would be too cautious unless they were granted this new and unprecedented immunity. again, that's upside down. the real danger as the dissents pointed out is that presidents will no longer be deterred by the criminal law. >> professor, it's indeed a frightening scenario that you're outlining there. thank you very much, sir. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, andrea. and next, defining his

future. the president's chief defender promising the debate will not define her husband's years in the oval office, but what about the next four years? we've heard now from dr. jill biden. more coming. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. watching "anl reports" on msnbc. waiting years for it to grow? meet new pantene pro-v miracles. with our highest concentration of pro-vitamins yet, infused with ingredients like biotin & collagen. strengthens hair bonds and repairs as well as the leading luxury brand without the $60 price tag. ♪♪ for stronger, healthier hair. ♪♪ if you know, you know it's pantene. ♪♪

shop etsy for thoughtful pieces made by real people to bring a little something extra to the ordinary. you know it's pantene. find items that add wow to walls and make you fall in love with your family room again. when you want one-of-a-kind pieces to refresh your home... etsy has it.

the big immunity decision

underscores how high the stakes are after president biden's debate performance. it's causing a chors of calls from his own party to step aside. sources telling nbc news the family rallying around him at camp david this weekend, urging him to keep fighting. dr. jill biden telling vogue magazine that quote, don't let those 90 minutes define the four years he's been president. we will continue to fight. still, some democratic leaders are privately rattled by what they saw thursday even as they defend the president publicly. >> i'm not abandoning joe biden right now for any speculation. biden harris, both of them. i'm enthu enthusiastically supp them as are many of our grass roots people. >> there are honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place, but we're having a serious conversation about what to do. >> do you think president biden

should drop out of this race, senator? >> oh, absolutely not. bad debates happen. as president obama has said. >> and joining me now is the moderator of "meet the press," kristen welker, who of course led that show yesterday. and mike memoli who's been doing all this reporting on the joe biden he knows so well. and "the washington post" foreign affairs columnist, david ignatius, of course has written some provocative columns about all of this. so, mike, first to you. your reporting from this weekend as camp david. there was thursday night, all out panic then the team very quickly explained to people who do know the facts of life that replacing someone who is on the ticket, replacing a presidential nominee at the convention is really tough. and what do you do about kamala

harris? because a lot of these same people are not supportive of her. can you go around her without losing a huge amount of support? so all of that boiling down to what are the donors saying? and there's no way they all acknowledge unless he comes to this himself. >> that's right. >> that he could be replaced. >> the biggest takeaway from all the conversations we've been having is this comes down to one person's vote. president biden needs to make this decision and has to do it on his own terms. that's why some of the leadership publicly is trying to give him that space to do so coming out so unequivocally for him. i spent the weekend talking to some of the people closest to the president and listening to them. the anguish they feel in this moment -- >> it's terribly sad. >> and some anger reported at us

on the situation because this is a real shock to the system. the time he spent with his family this weekend is so critical. because if he's going to be influenced to change course here, it's not going to be because of an anonymous donor, because of "the new york times" editorial board. it's going to be because of the decision he made. but his campaign leadership stressing he is not going anywhere, is also underscoring the complexity of changing course at this point. that there is no west wing type scenario in which michelle obama comes back to the table here. most likely, this would end up with vice president harris stepping in. but again, underscoring that's not going to happen, but president biden is staying in the race. >> david ignatius, you wrote this back in september. that he should not run. and you followed that up writing in your column, if he has the strength and wisdom to step aside, the democrats will have two months to choose another candidate. it will be a wide open and noisy race, but that will be invigorating for the country. it's never too late to do the right thing.

clearly, his family was angry with you last fall. they're rallying around him. arguably, he's not going to do anything as long as dr. biden and the members of his family say that he's okay to run. >> andrea, i think the initial reaction in the post debate days has been what you expect from the biden team. certainly what i saw last september when i wrote that first piece suggesting that there was time to think about stepping back. which was for people to circle the wagons, rally around the president. this is a proud, official family. one of the sort of tenants of the team biden is that we're always underestimated, overlooked. people don't think we're going to make it then we do. they feel that was the case in 2020. in the midterms in 2022.

so i think we're seeing that again. what one very prominent senator said to me over the weekend in explaining what he wanted to say to the president was look, you have a chance to cement your legacy as a great president and leader if you step back now before it could be a disastrous november election and help the party move in to a new era with newer, younger leadership. that's your chance. your chance to be the great joe biden that you want to be. and i think that is the message that a number of people are carrying to the president and his inner circle. whether that will be successful, right now, you'd have to guess no. he's a tough, stubborn guy and he thinks he can win. nobody else is going to convince him he's wrong. if that's what he deeply believes. >> and in fact, if others try to persuade him, it would backfire.

most people who know him well know that would make him dig in harder. the question though kristen that chuck todd raised on your show yesterday was is this a one off? was this a bad night? surely a bad night, but is this one bad night or is this an indicator of a bigger problem, a medical problem, and that really is concerning a lot of leaders who maybe supporting him publicly because they feel it will just backfire if they don't. but are very concerned that there's something else going on. >> you hit the nail on the head, andrea. i've spoken to people so deeply concerned about what they witnessed on thursday night to democrats who say is he capable of serving out the remainder of his term. forgetting about another four years in office. publicly, those speaking, the party is closing ranks behind him, giving him space as you say to make this decision, but i am told the reality is they are

also, while they're going to fight for him if he stays in the race, they're going to be focused on keeping the house, the senate, and thinking about strategy heading into 2028 because there's so much concern about his ability to win and to beat trump. particularly if there's another debate, andrea. >> and there is quite a big possibility, mike, that the donors may switch their money to keep the house. the senate is very tough to keep given the dynamics this year. of how many seats are up and at play on the democratic side. the house, they were confident about winning the house but if this is a complete washout for them, they would then be very, very concerned about no check or balance on a potential donald trump. >> and i think that's where one of the questions we're asking is what does today's supreme court decision signal to the party. does it underscore the stakes across the board? if biden doesn't make the

decision to step aside, does it lead people to say we can't push you aside, but we can steer our resources to save the house and the senate. i think what one donor told me was spend some time with the president this weekend. we're going to make this decision not out of emotion, but data. they're going to wait to see where the money is and where the polls show him. >> he's got big events next week. the nato leaders. you've got 30 leaders coming. he's going to be standing for long periods of time for the opening ceremonies starting on tuesday. this is, he's got some heavy lifts coming up. and we've all noticed that he is very scripted, you know. he was great north carolina but that was a telepromter. he's been using note cards with foreign leaders. in the oval office. and you know, he has not released his full medical report and their argument is

justifiably, look at what donald trump released. calling him the healthiest president in american history. but you know. >> andrea, his staff his handlers, if you will, are going to be taking the very best care of him. they move him from event to event. one criticism i heard from a close associate of the president was he just had been traveling so hard in the weeks before the debate. he was exhausted. he's been on the road too much. the one thing i would just say in my part of the discussion is at the end of the day as much we're talking about what joe biden's talking about with his wife and family, this isn't about joe biden. it's about what's best for the country. as long as they keep that in front of their minds, they'll make the decisions. >> and kristen, one final point. >> i have spoken to some top

democrats who say there would be relief if he stepped down. everyone said to me everyone's counting on kamala harris because her poll numbers are below president biden's, but if she were to be the one to carry this torch into november, there could be a method of reintroducing her to the country. that could be effective with independents, with moderates, with those critical suburban women that are necessary for winning the white house. we'll have to see how it plays out because publicly speaking, his aides, his family, defiant he's not going anywhere. >> thanks to all of you. next, the legal ramifications. what the supreme court's ruling on immunity means for the other cases that donald trump is still facing. that's next. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" and we'll be right back. this is msnbc. this is msnbc. e right back this is msnbc. so i use nervive. nervive's clinical dose of ala reduces nerve discomfort in as little as seven days. now i can help again feel the difference with nervive.

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

♪ [suspenseful music] trains. [whoosh] ♪ trains that use the power of dell ai and intel. clearing the way, [rumble] [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong.

what does the immunity decision mean for the other criminal cases former president trump is still facing? joining us now, former manhattan assistant d.a. catherine christian and former district attorney barbara mcquade. barbara, i want to ask you about the classified documents case and the interference in the election in fulton county. could there be an argument that he packed and took those documents while he was still president, or is it the holding of the documents after he was warned by the archives, after he was warned by the fbi and

ignoring everything so it reached a subpoena, is that the obstruction, the hietding of it, all of that evidence, is that evidence still protected from being thrown out, do you think? >> i think the case will be largely intact, andrea, because he's charged with post-presidential conduct. that is unlawfully retaining documents after he left the white house and obstructing the investigation. now, there was one part of the court's ruling today which said that prosecutors can't even use official acts as evidence of the person's motive. and so to the extent that prosecutors were planning to use statements that donald trump made while he was still in office or conduct that he engaged in, that would have to be left out of the case, but i think the indictment as it stands with this additional guidance should be intact. >> for instance, some of the things he said and did showing how casual he was about

classification, that evidence could be knocked down. so, catherine, it's increasingly obvious now that there's not going to be the january 6th trial before the election. what do you see as the scenario? judge chutkan will now have to hold a hearing on what's official, what's not official. he, if it's adverse to him, can appeal -- either side could appeal to the supreme court, correct, the appeals court and then the supreme court? >> yes, exactly. i also think, andrea, that trump's attorneys are going to fight very hard not to hold a hearing because the hearing is going to take more than a day, that donald trump should not be pulled off the campaign trail for this hearing. you better believe they're going to do that. but there will be no trial

before election night. that's just not going to happen. this hearing can be done before election day. if judge chutkan, who is a very efficient judge, disagrees he can't be moved off the campaign trail, we will have this hearing, which is important. the allegations will come out and the public will hear what donald trump allegedly did. >> but, barbara, this trial -- the trial will not take place before the election, and the way things are going with eileen cannon, that's not going to happen before the election. what about fulton county? >> i think fulton county has now been further delayed as well. because that case relies on many of the same allegations we see in the federal case. even though trump can't pardon himself for a state case, can't have his officials dismiss a state case, this immunity

argument would apply in a state case. just as judge chutkan has to engage in an evidentiary hearing, i think we're going to have to see the same thing in georgia. >> what a day. what a year for the skourlt. at some point we can absorb everything that's happened including chevron which we haven't even begun to dig into and all those implications. catherine christian, barbara mcquade, thank you very much. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." follow the show on social media @mitchellreports. you can watch us on youtube. go to msnbc.com/andre "chris jansing reports" starts right after this. "chris jansing reports" starts right after this because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. so for faster pain relief, advil the pain away.

(♪♪) [shaking] itchy pet? (♪♪) with chewy, save 20% on your first pharmacy order so you can put an end to the itch. get flea and tick medication delivered right to your door. [panting] (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... so my tech and my network need to keep up. get flea and tick medication delivered right to your door. thank you, verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (aaron) so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on.

[coughing] copd isn't pretty. i'm out of breath, and often out of the picture. but this is my story. ( ♪♪ ) and with once-daily trelegy, it can still be beautiful. because with 3 medicines in 1 inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open for a full 24 hours and prevents future flare-ups. trelegy also improves lung function,

so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ [laughing] ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful, all day and night.

good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. a loaded gun. that's what one dissenting justice calls today's stunning supreme court decision on