judge chutkan will now have to hold a hearing on what's official, what's not official.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 furth

there will be a hearing that judge chutkan can have. that's sort of the small picture but in some ways what people are most focused on. big picture, this is a terrible decision if you think that presidents should be treated like anyone else. this is made up by the court whole cloth. this is not in the constitution. >> let's read sonia sotomayor's dissent before we go to vaughn hillyard on reaction from biden and donald trump. she says today's decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. it makes a mockery of the principle foundational to our constitution and system of government that no man is above the law, relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for, quote, bold and unhesitating action by the president. the court gives former president all the immunity he asked for and more because our constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, i dissent. that is very strongly worded. vaughn hillyard. trump is reacting

how much can judge chutkan get through those holes? we will take that up. i'm michael, i've lost 62 pounds on golo and i have kept it off. most of the weight that i gained was strictly in my belly which is a sign of insulin resistance. but since golo, that weight has completely gone away, as you can tell. thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back. >>> we are back with melissa murray, neal katyal, and andrew weissmann. andrew, i wanted to read a part of the oral argument in this case. in which justice roberts appeared to disagree with his opinion today and agree with just a spirit's dissent from this element of it involving the so-called official act. during the argument, justice robert said if you expunge the official part from the indictment, how do you, i mean, that's like a one legged stool. giving somebody money is not bribery unless you get something in exchange, and if we you get is to become the ambassador to a particular country, that's official. the appointment is within the president's prerogative. andrew, today, in this opin

now, that's up to judge chutkan who does have a long road ahead. me now is former federal prosecutor and senior writer with politico and hugo, investigations reporter with the guardian covering washington and donald trump. gentlemen, good to have you. let's talk the practicalities here. what is the practical framework now for judge chutkan considering the constraints or parameters that come from this immunity ruling. >> i really do not envy her because one of the deficiencies in the supreme court's opinion was that it failed to describe what tools she should actually be bringing to bear. what sort of tools of analysis she should be bringing to bear on the questions they've now kicked back to her. as a practical matter, i see a variety of sources i would be drawing upon if i were in jack smith's shoes. obviously, the court focuses on the constitution and determining whether a core constitutional power was implemented by conduct but we can draw what congress has done in these area. what former presidents have done, what scholars have to say about the

judge chutkan is going to roll.here is no reason to roll that every line of this indictment goes forward except for the paragraph they have given absolute immunity. >> can trump appeal ? >> you will not see this trial for at least two years. this hearing that we will have is massive. it will have to do this. knowing what else was said contemporaneous to the extra communications or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications, these electron tweets. and who is involved in organizing the rally. it could be relevant to the classification of each communication. we, therefore, demanded judge chutkan to find out who organized the rally and get those people in. this is a massive and very long hearing including testimony from people out of state. bringing all the people in from arizona. >> there is conspiracy counselor, three of the four are conspiracy counts. conspiracy lot will not be, what to trump do in this narrow avenue? what was this big conspiracy? that is all evidence. >> there is some question ab

this is up for judge chutkan to decide.y're giving her a test that she can now apply to all of the actions alleged in the indictment. and then once she decides are what are unofficial and official acts, that's going to take some time, that's gonna require litigation briefs from the lawyers, potentially, some oral argument, then they will likely be left with what are unofficial acts or official acts outside the scope of his core constitutional powers. and the reason the trump team's still sees such a quote, major victory here is because they believe that jack smith would still you'll need certain pieces of evidence in order to prove what's left of his case that would be official acts and they believe that they could probably get that tossed out. but what we know that that's clear here is that there's going to be a lot of litigation over the next few weeks and months because i know many people there question is okay. if whatever remains of this case can that go? so before november and it appears unlikely, almost impossible, b

that's going to go down to judge chutkan. this reads and this is the majority of us here, not me included because i'm not a lawyer, but the majority of our legal minds believe that this is a pretty negative ruling for the doj, for the special counsel, a pretty positive ruling for donald trump. of course chuck rosenberg is reading it slightly differently. there is going to be some politics at play here about what this means for the race for the white house. joining us now, nbc news white house correspondent monica alba, nbc news senior national politics reporter jonathan allen, suzanne susan glasser an wiley. is the white house team, the trump campaign team or the biden campaign team reading this as a loss? >> reporter: well, we are hearing from a senior biden campaign adviser first here, katy, and i think that's partially telling as well. we are talking about the politics here, and the white house for its part has been very careful about weighing in on some of these cases that apply to ongoing legal matters, and they want to

it is true that the case will go back to judge chutkan. she will hold hearings and some think that is a silver lining because those hearings can begin soon and the nation can perhaps see sooner than it actually would if there had been a trial in the fall and the nation can see more of the evidence of what donald trump did in the fake electorate's game and the violent mob that he riled up and that is a pale substitute for what people are entitled to and that is a verdict of guilty or not guilty. is the president guilty of, for the first time in her history, organizing an effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor? that we won't have. people will be going to their voting booths and deciding whether to vote for somebody who was already abused these powers. as opposed to someone who though the powers have been handed to them says i don't want to use them and i believe in the rule of law. so making that choice without that evidence. >> i want to read justice jackson's conclusion of her opinion. she said the majority of my

i mean, judge chutkan just got reversed by the u.s. supreme court and there's no calls for her to be removed on that case at this point. so it's possible to me, jim, but again, i think we need to expect patients set here that that happens that a judge's forcibly removed from a case by an appellate court. that happens extraordinarily rarely yeah and kaitlyn polantz, just to go back to you, i mean, what is the next step here? >> do we know i mean, it is essentially just waiting to see what jack smith does next. >> it is indeed, and it may take a little bit of time to get to that point. this case in washington, dc, the january 6, 2020 election case, that's paused until august 2. so there's a couple weeks left there until it kicks up and with this the special counsel's office is going to have to closely read this opinion and make their decisions on what their next steps will be and what their best moves would be. it is very likely that they would appeal something like this because it does cut away a power that the justice department has us

chutkan decides, but she has even get the last word. you realize all of this will be open to appeal once again so trump doesn't like how judge chutkan rules. he can drag it out with another appeal. that's why it's near impossible for this case to be tried, let alone concluded by november immunity by delay donald trump i'm sure is very happy yes, big wins for our constitution and democracy. proud to be an american president. joe biden tonight the seat of the questions about his own campaign delivering i'm pretty rare address to mark the stakes now, the american people have to do what the court should have been willing to do. >> but whatnot the american raft to render a judgment about donald trump's behavior. perhaps most importantly american people must decide they want to entrust the president once again the presidency to donald trump now annoyed, he'll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever you wants to do it so here's my question to you again. >> do you sitting here tonight believe no one is above the law we're talking

judge chutkan has shown a propensity to move quickly to be decisive. based on what we know of her, how do you think she might move forward and how quickly? >> quickly and decisively. that is the tanya chutkan i know from decades ago when i used to try murder cases against her in the courts of washington, d.c. she is smart, she is no nonsense, she's fierce and fearless. that's the way she was as a criminal defense attorney, public defender, that's the way she has been ever since she was appointed to the federal bench. and here is the upside. we're always looking for a little bit of silver lining. these could be very broad evidentiary hearings because she's going to have to tackle questions of, okay, what might be official conduct and what is private conduct. what statements might fall under the immunity that the supreme court has set up and what statements might be free to be used at trial. so, you know, just to decide those issues, jack smith is going to have to lay perhaps not all of his cards on the table, but a whole lot of his evidentiary cards on

two, there likely will be a hearing that judge chutkan has been called on by the supreme court to have to decide what is official conduct and what is an official conduct. at that hearing, although i think there will be lots of disputes about what evidence can be used, a lot of witnesses can be called so you could have a mini trial. that is sort of a small silver lining that there may be that vehicle for people to see additional evidence that did not, during the january 6 hearing. then whatever judge chutkan finds, there likely to be appeals of that as to whether she got her decision correct as to what should be in the official bucket and therefore immune under this case are what is unofficial and therefore not immune under this case. >> harry, you wrote an op-ed for the l.a. times saying this ruling makes it anyone's guess whether trump, not just before the election, but will ever face accountability in this case. how does the decision compared to what you expected to see? >> it is more far-reaching and in particular to that point, it lops off big chunks of the indictment, and it's not

they know the judge chutkan had been really pushing this forward. that she wanted this to happen before the election. and just to give an understanding here, blanketed of why they want this to not happen before the election, that they believe donald trump is elected. he can get rid of not only this case, but the other federal case. in florida. so that is why they were really hoping to push this forward. it also gives them more of this narrative that biden's quote, unquote doj, department of justice is out to get him. and in fact, he did have immunity. all of these all this time. and this is the political argument that he's been saying that biden is trying to come after him. look, it turns out the supreme court court ruled in his favor and i would actually argue that politically the stronger case for them is on friday and that's what we saw when they ruled that the doj had overstepped with some of the people who participated in january 6, that actually helps them less legally, but politically as they paint this big portrait that joe biden is in charg

we'll see a similar hearing that judge chutkan will have to have and judge mcafee having to parse through acts alleged and decide which are professional and which were personal. trump did concede that the call to secretary of state antony blinken raffensperger would have been personal. so the case in georgia doesn't go away, but there would still have to be this decision of which acts will come in, which evidence will come in. of course, some of those conversations with the department of justice would no longer be allowed to be overt acts in u furtherance of a conspiracy. we are talking over 140 acts, i think 40 of them are tied specifically to donald trump. so the state will also have to go through their indictment, go through their evidence and see what they're left with and how to proceed with the prosecution of the case when it gets back to judge mcafee. it's another case we'll probably not see the light of day before the election. >> lisa, we call this a decision. clearly it is a decision. it's a weighty decision just in terms of the number of pages. but it makes an ultimate decision

judge chutkan now has a heavy burden to try to figure out what if anything remains in this indictment. it's going to take some time for her to even get the case, schedule a hearing, potentially bring in witnesses and evidence, all of which mr. trump may try to appeal. tom? >> laura jarrett leading us off tonight. laura, thank you for that. hallie jackson is following the politics of all this. hallie, former president trump is already out there declaring victory after this ruling? >> reporter: that's right, tom. calling this a big win for the constitution and democracy, in his words, saying it should end what he describes as the witch hunts against him. that this ruling virtually assures his trial will get pushed until after election day. and politically for him that is a win. but the white house in a new statement says nobody is above the law and that the country needs leaders like president biden who in their words respect the justice system and don't tear it down.

that is fully within judge chutkan's control.ef's opinion, jack smith, the special counsel to really harp on what the chief justice said here. he said, quote, there may be, however, context in which the president, notwithstanding the providence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity, perhaps as a candidate for office or a party leader. and many of the allegations here go to that take, for example, the claim that trump pressured state legislators to have their fake elector scheme that is not something that is an official act any day of any week. the u.s. president has no control over state legislatures. it is fully within the states, it is part of our system of federalism. so those allegations in the complaint to find rather easily will survive the decision today. and i expect, as andrew protected, and his new york times piece, i suspect we will see a fair amount of evidence that the american people can listen to and hear about what donald trump did when it comes to those kinds of allegations what they want be able to h

the judge chutkan case, remember, parts of it remain alive and the ball will be in judge chutkan's courtwithin the time -- as soon as the mandate issues 30 days after the opinion. and so back there, remember that there are schemes that donald trump is alleged to have engamgd engaged in, that do not involve official skates. trying to coerce public officials in states to change their slates of electors, exploiting the delay at the capitol and trying to delay the certification even as the chaos was unfolding there. none of those things are official acts and so i think we'll see some sort of hearing or mini trial on that. i think the other important thing to remember, andrea, is even this decision out of florida is not a decision on the merits. nobody's exonerated donald trump. nobody's saying he didn't do any of these things. that's true in both the washington, d.c., case and the florida case. these are all about legal technicalities, legal defenses, procedural aspects of the cases that are obstacles. these cases are going to be heard. in florida, if there is no legal special counsel, we'll

all of the rest of the indictment goes back to judge chutkan's courtroom and she schedules this. this supreme court has ordered her to have a hearing about the evidence in the case, to determine whether the act in question is an official act, whether it might have some kind of protection or not. >> so andrew, this is not a total home run for trump, correct? >> it's not a total home run but i think those two clips are way too rosy. one, the court has said that there is absolute immunity with respect to what the president does with respect to the department of justice. absolute immunity. the court has also said for official acts, which by the way, were any core acts of which they say very, very broad, anything that involves basically the take care clause and anything that's been designed directly to and exclusively to the president. those are absolutely immune. but even for just ordinary official acts, this presumptive immunity and the test for overcoming that is one that seems very high in terms of the state meeting it. and it's important to note that the court did not say that pr

and judge tanya chutkan in washington dc. she's not going to be able to do anything until that gets back to her. and that's when we would start hearing very likely from the special counsel's office saying how they want to proceed in this case against donald trump, but they asked the supreme court to put the judgment back in the hands of the trial court fourth width or immediately. it didn't happen yesterday. >> steve vladeck, i'm going to bring you in. can you just give us your big legal brain and tell us what your analysis is. first and foremost about what caitlin was just reporting about what's going on in new york, what's going non in jack smith's case and more generally, your thoughts yeah. >> i mean, i think the common theme across all of this is uncertainty. and uncertainty that's going to take time for the courts to hash out. it's going to take time for judge merchan and new york to figure out what, if any impact the supreme court's discussion of evidence in the majority opinion in yesterday's case is going to have on

so they're signaling to judge chutkan i'm not going to we're not going to leave you with a lot and you hadn't really interesting exchange just that with little scharf kaitlan, where he seemed to suggest that there's going to be so little left in this case that it's not even going to be enough to support criminal charges. i'm not quite sure it's going to be that extensive, but whatever is left of this indictment, it's going to look like swiss cheese. it's going to have holes all over. and as andy said, the supreme of course said, you can't even use prosecutors, can't even use evidence of an official act even to just explain this to a jury, even to just fill out the narrative. so if this case survives, it's going to be just barely justice. amy coney barrett, though, was skeptical of that, disagreed with that, which was notable. >> and that's the that's the best let's example, it's the bribery examples. so if you accused the president of bribery, that's of course taking a bribe and returned for performing an official act you could essentially enter evidence of the acceptance of the bride

judge chutkan has moved incredibly fast. there was still the potential that she wouldn't care about the politics that she would try to rush this before the election now, they don't believe that's possible and for them, that as a win. also, this gives donald trump's the leeway to not have to focus on a bunch of trials and those legal issues, but to actually focus on the campaign. what do hearing hans regardless of the details of this court case, which matter immensely, let's not sort of gloss over this just as a big picture. this does take the conversation wave from the debate and regardless of what adjective we use to describe the bait when we say it's dismal, disaster is difficult, bad, not a great night, i think is a fair way to put it it does shift the conversation back to what the biden campaign wants to talk about, which is democracy, which is where the country is headed, and what sort of presidency we can expect from donald trump's so at least in the conversation change, i agree with you, donald trump's had a pretty go

so, judge chutkan, in a tough spot here, she's just been reversed by the united states supreme court. they've sent the case back to her. they told her your job is to go through for the first time in history and decide which presidential acts are official. therefore, immunized, and which are not official. they again, some broad hints as to how they expect her to do, but she has to figure this out on the fly. i think what we're going to see, we're not going to see it because there's no cameras in federal court. but i think what's going to happen is going to be like a mini trial. i think the prosecution will put on live witnesses, including potentially some very important explosive witnesses. and i think judge chutkan, based on that, is going to then have to go through the indictment and the evidence and decide some parts are in some parts are out. i think the big question is how much is even left on the page there for jack smith to use in light of yesterday's ruling, that's right. >> how clear cut or not? is official versus not official acts? >> well, that's where the whole nexus is rig

and judge chutkan can make a factual determination based upon a supreme court's ruling of whether certain facts should come in to evidence. i think the big elephant in the room during court yesterday was that supreme court was making a ruling without necessarily considering the facts and circumstances of what actually happened leading up to january and six, they are making a ruling about presidential power without looking exactly what candidate trump was doing between november of 2020 and january 6, 2021. and i think that's how the lower court is going to distinguish the ruling from yesterday with what actually happened in 2020. >> do you think it is plausible that the court was actually doing this just based on law textbooks and not based on the context in which we live because i think a lot of voters find that implausible at this point you know, it, i think a lot of times our courts and lawyers, i'll just take the hit can be a little aloof from what's going on in the real-world, right? and i think that's where the lower court is. it's different. i think lower court district court, which

district judge tonia chutkan who is overseeing this case to hold evidentiary hearings or mini trials in the near future and they could feature testimonies from former vice president mike pence to see which charges against trump can survive. today a new guardian report details trump's legal strategy to prevent any of that from coming to pass. trump's lawyers are ready to argue the judge doesn't need to call witnesses to determine whether trump's conduct is immune, that she can just decide that based on legal arguments alone. and even if the judge decides to go ahead with those hearings, trump's defense is planning on using executive privilege to block the testimony of key witnesses. joining me now to uncap all this is also a senior writer for politico magazine. please help me understand whether this is feasible scenario that judge chutkan doesn't feed to call on witnesses or have a proper hearing. is that possible? >> it should not be possible. if i were trump's lawyers i'd be making the same type of argument. if you read the opinion there's some things quite striking, which is they l

they could have done this on the evidentiary record before judge chutkan.you would have had real facts to rule on. here, an indictment is not evidence. it is simply a listing of allegations. the idea that somehow you have to get that evidence out before you even put it before a jury, for even put it out so the defense gets a second crack at the evidence when it goes to the jury is contrary to how our system works. david: is there any way judge chutkan can get this resolved quickly? >> i don't see it. i know she said three months. this is a simple case, one defendant. i know judges in the southern district of new york that would have put this to trial in 30 days. i think it is ready to go to trial. it is a question of how quickly this issue about official acts can be decided. to me, it is a no-brainer. just read the indictment. the government can backup those allegations with very specific evidence, much of which has already been presented to the public in the january 6 committee hearings. kailey: fair point. we are viewing this through the lens of what the

there would be a hearing before judge chutkan about whether or not the hearing could happen.ircuit and then any decision from the d.c. circuit could be appealed to the supreme court. the supreme court, however, does not have to take this. again, so many americans are up in arms about this immunity decision. 75% of americans don't believe that the president should have complete immunity from criminal prosecution and they worry that although the court has not given the president complete immunity, it's opened a quite wide door to the president having immunity from criminal liability in the future and they're understandably upset about it. i wonder if the court which has to rely on public opinion to some degree for its own legitimacy, might think twice about taking up this case and handing another win to donald trump, but the delay is really where all of the action is. >> i believe it is -- the chances that they would take the case and protect him again are 100%. i don't think they care at all. i don't think they care at all. they have shown in the way they write and respond to

if you are judge chutkan this morning, you're feeling how about that assignment? >> you're feeling very despondent about that assignment. you've just been given 119 pages that lays down some very broad principles without a whole lot of guidance. and you've been told that one of the things you can't consider in determining what's official versus personal is motive or purpose. that was a really big deal at the oral argument here. chief justice roberts giving the example of, what if a president, for example, is charged with bribery? the act of bribery itself is a personal act, accepting the money. but let's say a president is bribed for appointing someone to an ambassadorship? that's an official act. he was trying to untangle the oral argument. is that a personal act or official act? the majority is saying in a situation like that, the motive or the purpose for which someone does something that arguably could be official can't be considered in untangling what's personal or official. that will mean that a lot of what we consider to be unofficial actions, if taken at t

what are the justices saying should happen in judge chutkan's courtroom? and when and what will that look like to an american public that really is actively considering right now whether to send this particular felon back to the white house thanks to the republican party of the united states? p joining us now is nina n totenberg. she is npr legal affairs correspondent.en she is a long-term supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling.on it's a real pleasure and honor to have you with us tonight. thank you so much for making wi time to be here. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answer to alll your questions. h >> well, let me ask about those last couple of points first. can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, what the ruling said today about a conversation between a president and justice department officials. >> well, what the court said is that the president is unlike -- the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government, the house and senate have hundreds of members. the judiciary has h

while they left for another day judge chutkan's determination what constitutes private conduct.y barrett saying in her concurrence in part that she considers the fake elector scheme, for example, to be entirely private, that there's not much analysis for judge chutkan to do because the president of the united states doesn't play any role in the administration of federal elections, for example. so i don't think it's total exoneration. what it more looks like to me is total abdication by the supreme court, sort of foisting off onto judge chutkan determinations that they give her very little guidance about, other than that she can't consider the former president's motive or purpose in distinguishing between official and private. >> and lisa, getting back to the new york case, alvin bragg, didn't even object to a delay. given what we know about his office, how would you expect for them to respond as this case moves along? >> i think what we're going to see in their brief, ryan, is two things. the first thing that they're going to say is these aren't official acts, that the evidence

but this is going to be something out of a dickens novel, because judge chutkan will have to hold a hearingever part she rules against donald trump on, he will appeal, we will be back then in the dc circuit, we will be back then in the supreme court, rinse and repeat, they are now filing motion motions for juan merchan in new york state, god knows how he will claim that the act he did with stormy daniels were official acts, but nevertheless, there will be a hearing on that, and, you know, meanwhile, time ticks by and donald trump remains a candidate. there will be no further trials before november. the justice system was simply not up to handling donald trump and that is something that all of the judges and justices need to confront. >> that is the understatement of all of this. the justice system was not prepared to handle donald trump and seemingly still not the case, dave. and largely, because you have little nuggets left by the justices in their dissents and opinions. you have clarence thomas-- thomas's opinions on special counsel, noting, if there is no law establishing the office, tha

withton what chutkan, so -- tonya chutkan.decision on immunity, we now divide acts into official acts versus personal acts, and applying it to these two cases you think his handling of classifieded documents and taking them to mar-a-lago or saying they are, you know, classifieded or unclassified, easier argument to say, hey, that's an official act so, therefore, i'm immune. and whatever happens in the d.c. case, how he campaigned, what he had to say that day, we'll see, personal if or potential. -- personal or official? >> i think that's right, will, both in terms of the substance and in terms of the audience. i think judge cannon has given trump some very favor if, rulings so far, and i expect that to continue. judge chutkan has been more skeptical. she, of course, denied immunity in the first instance. will: right. >> the d.c. court also denied, so just reading the tea leaves a little bit, i think judge cannon's the more favorable draw. will: and this is how the supreme court's immunity decision affects those two cases, not

what are the justices saying should happen in judge chutkan's courtroom? and when and what will that look like to an american public that really is actively considering right now whether to send this particular felon back to the white house thanks to the republican party of the united states? joining us now is nina totenberg. she is npr legal affairs correspondent. she is a long-term supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling. it's a real pleasure and honor to have you with us tonight. thank you so much for making time to be here. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answer to all your questions. >> well, let me ask about those last couple of points first. can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, what the ruling said today about a conversation between a president and justice department officials? >> well, what the court said is that the president is unlike -- the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government, the house and senate have hundreds of members. the judiciary has hundreds of jud

so that's where i see the kind of guideposts being for judge chutkan. >> again, we're expecting to hear from president biden later this hour. we'll leave that conversation there. loyola law professor jessica levinson, always appreciate your insight. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> all right. shifting now to our weather and give you a live look at the san francisco skyline this afternoon. a little bit hazy. the heat has arrived as much of the bay area braces for days of high temperatures. >> and that brings us in with meteorologist rosemary oroczo, who's talking about those dangerous conditions. yes, the advisories are stacking up, guys. >> in addition to the heat, we have fire danger. we have poor air quality that will be developing. in fact, there is already the possibility of a spare the air day for tomorrow. that's what is anticipated. giving you a live look here at the golden gate bridge, where we do have plenty of blue sky today. a beautiful one out there today. temperatures are running warm already for our inland cities. take a look at concord reporting 100 degrees. you ge

and that's why we need to have that hearing before judge chutkan as soon as possible. it's kind of a mini-trial to go through these allegations of 2020 attempted coup and make that determination. the nation and indeed the world is now waiting to see what the judge will do to make that assessment. >> yeah. we're all holding our breath. that norm eisen always a pleasure to have you on. appreciate your analysis thanks, rosemary you as house democrat alexandria ocasio-cortez is seeking articles of impeachment against supreme court justices. she wrote on x the supreme court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. she added that the ruling represents an assault on america while casie it's up to congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. i intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our turn. okay. as you're cortes did not say which justices should be impeached, but her references to corruption align with democratic allegations against samuel alito and clarence thomas are again, beryl has strengthened into the category five storm a

now judge chutkan will have to look up the indictment. there will be argument from the parties.is likely that she may want to hear from some of the witnesses to make the fine line distinctions between what is official conduct, court conduct that the constitution only requires the president to undertake. what is the bucket of conduct that would be public conduct, official conduct by a present but perhaps in an area of shared responsibility with congress or others. the judge has to decide whether that presumptive immunity will stay in place. of course, she might find that some of this conduct is personal conduct. conduct that i would have described before we saw this opinion is conduct committed by candidate trump, not as is official capacity. the court has created a lot of wiggle room. she will have to distinguish between all of those and then the supreme court gets another crack to save whether they believe she got a right or not. >> are you surprised at all by the washington post reported that the doj plans to move up with all federal cases up to inauguration day. if the electi

so i think either judge chutkan or an appeals court or the supreme court will wind up dismissing the january 6 case because it involves official conduct. judge gertner, i so you've kind of shaking your head about that, but i want to read you part of sort of my oral dissent where she lists potential illegal conduct by future president could be shielded from prosecution by the ruling orders. she says orders the navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival immune, organized as a military coup to hold onto power. immune takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon. immune. she correct? >> there's no question that he'd been inoculated. official acts have been inoculated. and even as to the non official acts, even to the private actors, the state electoral officials that trump called, you have to prove that there's no danger of intrusion on the authority of the executive branch. in other words, the bar, they have said is flight hi. there are still some room. i don't agree with jeff, but one of the things that's going to happen is that they've created such a complex factual test that even

and judge chutkan judge chutkan has been moving very quickly. she has said she wants to get this case out there now they don't feel like that is possible. they believe that regardless of what happens, there's going to have to be a number of different forms of litigation. it's going to be tossed around. chuck is going to have to go through and decide what our official acts, what are unofficial acts? there's obviously going to be back-and-forth over that. this is going to prolong the process past that november election and just a reminder of why they want this to be pushed past the november election. the hope here is that donald trump wins. and then once he's in the white house, he can get rid of both of the federal lawsuits. but this is part of the reason why they they are viewing this as such a win right now because it means he doesn't have to deal with these legal issues anymore ahead of that flexion when you're talking to your sources, if he were to win reelection and these were going on he would write me, is there any question there was duly

case how much is left of the case against trump then do you think yeah that's the question the judge chutkan will have to answer that. >> special counsel will argue, kate, that the vast majority of the conduct was undertaken in his role as a candidate for office, not as president and justice roberts opinion actually explicitly says there are things that they president does that are not official undertaken in his role as a political candidate. this is the argument that mark meadows made in the georgia case, arguing for immunity there and the judge, they are rejected the argument that all of that campaign activity was official, and i think you'll hear the very same argument in front of judge chutkan. most of what is alleged in the special counsel's indictment, special counsel will argue, i think persuasively is not official conduct, but it's rather activity that the president did as a candidate for reelection, not in his official capacity as president thank you both for coming on. >> it's really as good to see you inherit, hear from you today you are seeing a new central starts now are we seei

so the supreme court has articulated a test that judge chutkan now has to apply. she has to literally go through the allegations in the indictment and consider the evidence that the special counsel intends to present and determine whether or not it should or should not be admissible or bear upon the presence the former president's culpability, given the fact that there is this son of immunity, i think that opens the door for the special counsel to present essentially, his entire case in a federal courtroom in washington soon late this summer or this fall. so all of the evidence that we developed and the additional evidence that the special counsel develop because i do believe they have a bit more than we were able to obtain with the congressional investigation should be presented in a federal courtroom this fall michael, i played with trump's legal team is now very quickly saying they plan to use the supreme court's decision to channel challenges. guilty verdict in the new york criminal trial. what do you think of that? >> i, think it's a really poor argument. i u

i think chutkan probably is going to have a very different view of some of these things more along the lines of the dissenters so we'll see what happens. >> all right. thanks to both you for being here really appreciate it. i want to bring in to guests watching the 2024 race closely between today's supreme court decision and all the talk about biden's debate performance. where do they see the race now? plus, what could biden do in the coming days to change the narrative if anything? >> july 4 cnn concert, which comes to coast fireworks and show-stopping performances by keith urban, a shot at wrexham. the killers t, chris young, reo speed wagon invoke came brown you can girls. and many more celebrate, go forwards in america. a cnn concert event thursday, july 4, x seven eastern oh, and see it in i've never once had to wait for insurance to approve a test or approved medication, you didn't have to worry about any those things. >> thanks to the donations and our family is forever grateful because it's completely changed our lives this is the most exciting moment in painting when the frond

. >> and what this means practically those judge chutkan has a lot of big decisions to make, which is when it comes to trump's influence campaign on mike pence, his outreach and influence on state officials, people like the governor of georgia, brian kemp, and also his speech on the ellipse that day yeah the supreme court gave some guidance, some loose guidance to judge chutkan, but you can see where they expect her to go. they basically said the court today said trump's communications with doj. those are going to be covered. he's immune, his conversations with the vp probably are going to be covered, even a speech on the ellipse, they say is probably going to be covered too. so they're signaling the judge, chuck and i'm not going we're not gonna leave you with a lot and you hadn't really interesting exchange does not with little scharf, kaitlyn, where he seemed to suggest that there's gonna be so little left in this case that it's not even going to be enough to support criminal charges. i'm not quite sure it's going to be that extensive, but whatever is left of this indictment, it's

so i think either judge chutkan or an appeals court or the supreme court will wind up dismissing the january 6 case because it involves official conduct. judge gertner, i said you've kind of shaking your head about that, but i want to read you part of sotomayor's descent where she lists potential illegal conduct by future president could be shielded from prosecution by the ruling orders. she says orders the navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival, immune, organized as a military coup to hold onto power it takes a bribe in exchange for pardon, immune. she correct. >> there's no question that he'd been inoculated. official acts have been inoculated. and even as to the non official acts, even to the private actors the state electoral officials that trump called, you have to prove that there's no danger of intrusion and on the authority of the executive branch. in other words, the bar, they have said is quite high. there are still some room i don't agree with jeff, but one of the things that's going to happen is that they've created such a complex factual test that even as ju

so i think either judge chutkan or an appeals court or the supreme court will wind up dismissing the january 6 case because it involves official conduct. judge girder, i say you've kind of shaking your head about that, but i want to read you part of sotomayor's dissent where she lists potential illegal conduct by future president. it could be shielded from prosecution by the ruling orders. she says orders the navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival, immune, organized as a military coup to hold onto power it takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune. she correct there's no question that he'd been inoculated. >> official acts have been inoculated. and even as to the non official acts, even to the private actors, the state electoral officials that trump called, you have to prove that there's no danger of intrusion shown on the authority of the executive branch. in other words, the bar, they have said is quite high. there are still some room i don't agree with jeff, but one of the things that's going to happen is that they've created such a complex factual test that even

yeah the supreme court gave some guidance, some loose guidance to judge chutkan, but you can see where they expect durde go. >> they basically said the court today said trump's communications with doj. those are going to be covered. he's immune his conversations with the vp probably are going to be covered, even a speech on the ellipse they say is probably going to be covered two. so they're signaling to judge chuck and i'm not going to we're not going to leave you with a lot and you hadn't really interesting exchange just that with low scharf kaitlyn, where he seemed to suggest that there's gonna be so little left in this case that it's not even going to be enough to support criminal charges. i'm not quite sure it's going to be that extensive, but whatever is left of this indictment, it's going to look like swiss cheese. it's going to have holes all over. and as andy said, the supreme of course said, you can't even use prosecutors, can't even use evidence of an official act even to just explain this to a jury, even to just fill out the narrative. so if this case survives, it's going t

because the ball is in judge chutkan it was court, right? and she can have these evidentiary hearings. and i wonder if you think we should be expecting mini trials. is the public going to get some sort of smaller bite sized version of the trial in one of these hearings, or is that overestimating the sort of information we're actually going to get made public? >> so bring on the mini trials. i think there is no reason here for jack smith to really hold anything back. this is for all the marbles, right? you have most of the indictment that is at least still in play, so he's going to have to bring out his witnesses, his documents to be able to prove these are, in fact, either official acts but you rebut the presumption of immunity, or that they're unofficial acts. those hearings should happen before the election. there's no reason to delay. you'll expect there's some briefing over the summer, but come fall we should be seeing these hearings, and there's a lot still at play here. donald trump's attempts to pressure mike pence to count these -- y

i do not envy judge chutkan because trying to make sense of this pile will be difficult. here is what i am most hoping for. because of the incoherence, she will do her best to issue a. late back up. it is not about donald trump. it is about going for. it is about the future of the republic last this long. i am hopeful that they will go back up in the court actually even has the integrity i believe it does, and i believe in the court will say we made a mistake. we have taken an oath to this. we believe in this. we have said we believe in this. there have been times in history where the court actually reversed itself. >> i was going to say does it happen -- >> i will give you a specific example. today, the government cannot force people, students to pledge allegiance to the flag. some of them have religious objections to that. and others have philosophical objections. it is bedrock constitutional. the government cannot force students to pledge allegiance. the supreme court originally in a case in 1941 said that is perfectly fine. then, there was an outrage, people saying no

presidential immunity in a more nuanced way that will send it back to the obama appointed judge tanya chutkanch 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

what are the justices saying should happen in judge tanya chutkan's courtroom , and the public, actively considering whether to send this particular felon to the white house, thanks to the republican party of the united states. nina, long time supreme court reporter who was there today for the ruling, it's a really special honor to have you tonight. >> i'm very pleased to be here. i hope i have the answers to all your questions. >> can you explain a little bit about what the justices in the majority, with the rulings said today about conversation between the president and justice department officials? >> well, what the court said is that the president, the presidency is unlike the other two branches of government, the house and senate have hundreds of members, the judiciary has hundreds of judges, and at the top of it are nine supreme court justices, but the president is just one person, and he controls the entire executive branch. it's basically what chief justice roberts said. and, that means he controls the justice department, too. and he can call up the justice department and say, do

judge tonya chutkan could set a trial date before the election.ut trump would assert a right of appellate review. if granted, that means the litigation would tie up the case for weeks, if not months. and would would chutkan make ht in the courtroom during the campaign in the outrage i think would be deafening. so, you know, this is a difficult case. i think the department of justice given what happened friday, given what i think will happen today, should throw in the towel, dismiss the case. and as john yoo and john shew in op-ed today fox news said, can you blame it on the supreme court, if you want. but this was never a legitimate case brought against trump. >> steve: let's see what happened at the supreme court. we got shannon bream live in front "fox & friends" later on today. gregg, thank you very much for joining us on this very busy first day of july. >> gregg: thank you. >> steve: thank you, sir. all right. >> lawrence: brian, it looks like he actually made it to north dakota. we were worried. >> steve: on a horse. >> brian: first time. >>

there's the potential of having an evidentiary hearing before judge chutkan to determine the extent tothe indictments still apply or what evidence is admissible. you could potentially see some of the evidence brought forward in a public setting inside of the courtroom or some even potential witnesses coming forward as soon as september or october. there is the potential that that doesn't happen before november 5th either. for donald trump and his team, they feel like they have been able to sidestep any potential major blows. of course, the guilty verdict was not -- did not do their campaign any favors. at the same time, donald trump, while sidestepping some of the facts around the case, is going to be able to over the next four months, as we will likely seen the campaign stage next week when he goes to florida and into pennsylvania, try to use the supreme court case to make the case to the public at large that these charges should have never been brought against him in the first place, which is, of course, only partway true if you look at the supreme court decision. >> joyce, quickly,