could eat it cold in the morning, that is, he is such a real gourmet in this matter, so yes, michael barrett interesting to do for food, yes, but as i understand it, many crews were already distinguished by the fact that they prepared food themselves on board, so i heard that pizza was prepared on board, rolls were rolled, yes, in my opinion, that’s how once this year they made an easter cake from cookies and oleg artemyev definitely made condensed milk from the cookies, for some reason there is a myth that canned food is over-salted, well, they are really quite salty, if you eat a lot of canned food - on the ground. i was at the approbation, they are ordinary, normal, tasty, at the approbation you try literally a spoonful, just a little bit at a time, but maybe half a jar if no one is looking, but no, i think it’s some kind of myth that they are too salty , no, they are fine, they are not over-salted, our colleagues have them, they are all not not salty, that’s why we don’t have salt, we don’t have it in ration salt, we don’t have it in ration salt, but the americans have it, yes, but the s

most importantly, justice amy coney barrett, when michael dreeben said this would make a president above the law and you must be liable for the crimes he commits, she said i agree. so, that is four justices there that i think are going to reject claims about absolute immunity that trump is making. the question is is there a fifth vote? that would be the chief justice. he was much quieter in this hearing than many. he was sullen, the chief justice. he does have an ability to surprise us and to do the right thing. think about the affordable care act, where he was the fifth vote to uphold president obama's signature initiative right before the 2012 election. he reveres chief justice marshall, who wrote marbury versus madison, which was a decision compromising decision that gave something to everyone. i hold out hope, i know there are all these products and there right now, i hold out hope the chief will do the right thing here, uphold the rule of law, reject trumps claims of absolute immunity and let the struggle go on to the american people can see for themselves. >> andrew, the chief seem

was michael dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsel's office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. that's how i interpreted his statements, at least. >> well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasn't official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. he was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. but trump has argued, total immunity. he has not said, well, some of these are private x. this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. >> we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. we've been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the district court proceeding through the circuit. now at the the us supreme court, that what we're talking about is absolute immunity. yes. but absolute immunity just for a president's official acts in office. i think that's a crucial distinction that's been missed in much of the press coverage around president trump'