thank you for mentioning the clinton v jones case. one questioner asks -- the references to clinton v jones back memories of a rather sleazy moment in presidential history. can uranus what was at stake -- can you remind us what was at stake in who won. this was a case for paula jones accused president clinton of sexual harassment and she wanted to subpoena him to testify. he said he had immunity having to testify in a civil suit because it would take up too much of hishe said he had immuno testify in a civil suit because it would and p in his abilities for the office of the presidency. -- it would impede his abilities for the office of the presidency. that was rejected, confident that it would not take up too much of his time and he would have to give the information. was thattevens quote they never knew the president would lie under oath, which is why it took up more time. justice kagan also pressed clinton v jones. says you are supposed to treat the present respect the fundamental claim of presidential immunity or the idea the presid

clinton v. jones was a civil case. this is a criminal case. and as this court noted on page 691 of its opinion, if in fact the clinton v. jones case had originated in a state court proceeding, it would raise different issues than separation of powers, concerns over local prejudice, and in footnote 13, this court says that any direct control by a state court over the president may implicate concerns that are different than -- >> justice thomas. >> cuts him off. justice thomas, he goes next. the telephonic format of these supreme court hearings now where the judge -- the justices all ask their questions in turn, it's awkward. it's brusk. it's a very different thing than i think supreme court advocates are used to. for us, the public, so few of us ever get to hear supreme court arguments, being able to dial in and listen in on them is a bit of a revelation, even in a case that's not this historic. but i mean that's chief justice roberts saying to the president's lawyer today, you know, are you saying the president can't even be investigated? you'r

but the clinton v. jones information does bother me and the fact that what i told to dave also apply to the future senator mccarthy asking franklin roosevelt or hear each room in exactly the same questions, that bothers me so what do i do? >> i fully understand the concern. none of the recipients have complained about the burden. the reason they go back a ways because you know -- >> i'm not talking about their burden, i'm talking about the president's burden in having to monitor and decide if there are privileges, figure out what his answers are, to all those documents you are requesting which go in my opinion way, way beyond just tax returns. >> money requires looking at a whole range of financial activities. it's what they do when they are looking at financial sector and what kind of reforms should be made to the banking industry. but let me say one more time there's been no claim of privilege, there's been no claim that there is a burden, no claim whatsoever so those may be relevant in different cases but

that's what i took clinton v jones to be saying. that's the kind of thing the president has to come in and show, a case specific argument about burden on the president. are you making that kind of argument at all? >> yes and no. not just compiling and delivering to the documents to the house. mean undermining and harassing the president. harassing and undermining the president, the point of some of those suits is to harass and undermine the president and the court let them go. they let them proceed. it said the only thing we are going to be concerned about is if you come into us and say, in defending those suits, you will be prevented from performing the responsibilities that we, the nation, need you to perform. are you making an argument of that kind? goes towhen the house the limit of its there, it says probably it could not draw the blood of the president or read his diary. the powers they are seeking in the burden they will impose in the aggregate on the president will, i think, reshape and transform the balance of the separatio

that is clinton v. jones. why not the same here. >> the hypothetical you gave i think proves the point by the time you are to prepare, review, analyze the greatest requests. to require the president of the united states as you've raised in your opinion and in clinton versus jones, that burden is being met just by us being here. but to require the president to have to respond to every single state district attorney -- >> and he would hire a lawyer to list with the burdens are. that wouldn't take a lot of time. and then he wouldn't be burdened because you could go in and save the burdens are. and if you are right, you win that case. they say on the other side there are no burdens? send it back and let them figure out what they are. for instance in this very case on the subpoena found on 118 and 119 of the petition appendix is a list of documents. to meet with the president of the united states. could you imagine just for a moment, justice breyer, let's assume the president were to hire me, but i'm going to call

that doesn't bother me but the clinton v. jones information does bother me. the fact that what i hold today will also apply to a future senator mccarthy asking a future franklin roosevelt or harry truman exactly the same questions, that bothers me, so what do i do? >> we're investigating, for instance, among other things, money laundering. money laundering requires looking at a whole range of financial activity. what we're doing here is exactly the kind of thing that senate and house staff do when they're looking at the financial secretarier and the kinds of reforms should be made to the banking industry. there is no claim that there is a burden. no claim whatsoever, those may be relevant in certain cases but certainly not this one. >> joining me now, msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos here. danny, good morning. great to see you. >> good morning. great to see you. >> we previewed this a bit yesterday. and i put you on the spot, asked you what you thought would happen. and you said, if you were a betting man, your money would be on the president having to rele

that's what i took clinton v. jones's the kind of thing a president has to come to show. are you making that argument at all? >> joining us now, a lawyer who has been there, neal katyal, former acting u.s. solicitor general, who has argued dozens of cases before the united states supreme court. he's also an msnbc legal contributor. so neal, here's my short hand reaction listening to every word. i have a feeling that the supreme court just might protect the tax returns from the congressional subpoena. but it sounded like the manhattan district attorney is going to get those tax returns. >> so first of all, lawrence, i think your viewers, i hope they did listen to the argument as you did, and i urge everyone to do so, because it is really america at its finest. you know, nine justices who are throwing really hard questions, at both sides, and trying to resolve their disputes this way and not in the streets or anything like that. it's such a contrast to president trump's invocation of trump judges and obama judges. because

production-- court's and clinton versus jones that the decision wouldn't have much of an impact on the presidency has been borne out by history? >> my view of the chronology in clinton v jones is that i think country to some people view of history, i think the district court, following this court's decision, kept a rather close reign on discovery in this case and later granted summary judgment in favor of the president long before trial. a only came out later in brief deposition that president committed perjury, which is what led to the impeachment proceedings and other travails he had. i don't think it is this court's opinion that led to this problem, it was his decision to lie under oath. this court's conclusion in both nixon and clinton that they get -- that you cannot accept the notion there would be a parade of horrible scum across the board, his still has borne out over history. >> justice sotomayor? not sureotomayor: i am i understood your statement earlier that the only difference between -- there are two differences, one in the articulation of special needs or heightened standard, but you said it is the burden of proof, to you have already conceded one of my

that's clinton v jones. why not the same here? >> justice briar, the hypothetical you just gave proves the point. by the time you were to prepare, review, analyze the various requests just in these three cases that we have today shows the burdensome nature. and then to require the president of the united states as you raised in your opinion in clinton versus jones, that burden is being met just by us being here. but to require the president to have to respond to each and every state district attorney that would -- >> no, he would hire you and he would hire a lawyer to list what the burdens are. that wouldn't take a lot of time. and then he wouldn't be burdened because you would go in and say what the burdens are. and if you're right, you win that case. they're saying the other side, there are no burdens here? >> well -- >> you say there are. send it back and let them figure out what they are. >> i think doing that establishes the problem with analysis of case by case analysis. for instance, in this very case in this subpoena found

one so what do you make of all of that and how did you hear the justices trying to distinguish clinton v jones? >> i think i got much more play in this argument and in the prior one. one of the interesting things is at the court then was sensitive to the possibility of the president being targeted but also require the president to do an initial showing of burden what is going on is to bears the burden and when. so the president and solicitor general the president once the absolutee immunity i didn't get much sense of interest of that but i thought that they agreed with that that there was concerned and then the question of the solicitor general would say given that potential there should be a high and showing. of course clinton versus jones said first had to show the burden on the presidency and then specifically so already to move us beyond clinton versus jones so among the justices of the court my sense is they are trying to figure out what the standards should be so you have many different variables first you could way the burdens of that differently. on the one hand it's a possibility of p

but the clinton v. jones information does bother me.d today will also apply to a future senator mccarthy asking me future franklin roosevelt or harry truman exactly the same questions, that bothers me. so what i do? >> the president got his day in the supreme court yesterday as his lawyers argued to keep from disclosing his financial records to house committees and a new york grand jury. joining us now, nbc news and msnbc law analysts and editor and chief of law fair benjamin wh wittes. and barbara mcquade. thank you both for being with us. >> ben, worried about his 0% review, he's dragged in a bookshelf in that blue mass. so congratulations. >> that looks good. >> congratulations. >> room raider, eat your heart out. i -- i revel -- i was told yesterday that the only other person who'd only ever got ann zero from room raider was mitch mcconnell. so i have finally found something that i have in common with mitch mcconnell. >> there you go. well, let's talk about just absolute fascinating cases, the cases before the supreme court yesterda

the court has already done away with that argument in the clinton v. jones case. >> whether it was kavanaugh or gorsuch, they all seemed a bit skeptical, not understanding, how do you create a civil versus criminal standard. i mean, they were poking a lot of holes through that argument. i think your take there -- we'll see, you never know when you try to interrupt this stuff in realtime. it was a fascinating dichotomy. cy vance feels a lot better today than nancy pelosi? >> i think what they'll say is, you have to demonstrate some specific need, show you need this stuff now. the president's -- whatever the records you're going through, you have to be some sort of heightened standard, but still willing to entertain it. >> fascinating there. pete williams, thank you very much. katy, over to you. >> and chuck, after a quick break, we'll get more reaction on today's coronavirus hearing from a member of the committee, indiana senator mike braun. plus, dr. john torres joins us to talk about the new covid-related illness we're seeing in children. what do parents ne

for the president was the second one because part of the preceding -- former cases came up, clinton v paula jones president was pushed to commit to having a deposition and all kinds of things. the president tried to distinguish some of those cases. if you can't prosecute the president while he's sitting in office, so we will see. that decision comes in late june and that of course is right in the middle of the presidential election. >> ed: also, curing whether or not electors need to actually vote when the electoral college meets. whether they need to vote for the candidate that their state voted for which some people scratch their head and say, aren't they supposed to do that? >> it's so weird, we never hear much from these electors, they make up the vote, the electoral college is what actually elects the president. but there are a number of these electors around washington state and colorado who said i want to go there and do something else. one of them is very vocal saying i didn't want president trump to win so i thought if i could get a coalition of people who could throw their vote to a pos