>>> today harvard law professor,
laurence tribe tweeted, this is
the core of the reasoning,
citing this passage, beginning
on page 40 of the appeals court
decision.
at bottom, former president
trump's stance would collapse
our system with separated
powers by placing the president
beyond the reach of all --
presidential immunity against
federal indictment would mean
that as to the president, the
congress could not legislate
the executive could not
prosecute, and the judiciary
could not review.
we cannot accept that the
office of the presidency places
its former occupants above the
law, for all time thereafter.
careful evaluation of these
concerns leads us to conclude
that there is no functional
justification for immunizing
former presidents from federal
prosecution in general, or from
immunizing former president
trump for the specific charges
in the indictment.
in so holding, we act not in
derogation of the separation of
powers, but to maintain their
proper balance.
joining us now is...