>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, I PROO APPRECIATE THAT, YOU ALSO APPRECIATE WE'RE WRITING A RULE FOR THE AGES. AS YOU INDICATED THIS CASE HAS HUGE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY, THE FUTURE OF THE PRESIDENCY, FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY IN MY VIEW. >> WITH US NOW TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT YAMICHE ALCINDOR AND GLEN KIRSCHNER. HOW SOON COULD THE SUPREME COURT RULE ON THIS? >> IT IS A KEY QUESTION. FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE SUPREME COURT COULD DO. THEY COULD KICK IT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH WOULD THEN, OF COURSE, MAKE THIS SORT OF BE DELAYED WHICH IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP WANTS. THEY COULD ALSO RULE IN JUNE, AND THAT'S WHEN WE EXPECT THEM TO RULE IN JUNE, AROUND THE SUMMER THAT THIS IS ALL SORT OF NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THEY'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH IN THE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IN THE WAY THAT TRUMP'S LAWYERS WANT IT. IT IS JUST NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD. WHATEVER THEY DECIDE, IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL TRIAL, LET'S SAY THEY DO SIDE WITH JACK SMITH AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL, TRIAL WOULD START ABOUT THREE MONTHS AFTER THAT, AND IT IS ESTIMATED THAT A TRIAL COULD TAKE UP TO 12 WEEKS. ALL THIS TIMING IS CRITICAL, OF COURSE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW 192 DAYS AWAY FROM NOVEMBER 5th, ELECTION DAY. IT IS NOT A LOT OF TIME HERE AND THE JUSTICES IN SOME WAYS REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. AS YOU SAID, YOU PLAYED THAT CLIP OF NEIL GORSUCH SAYING WHATEVER THEY WRITE, THEY'RE WRITING A RULE FOR THE AGES. OVER AND OVER AGAIN WE HEARD THE JUSTICES AND LAWYERS TALK ABOUT THE STAKES OF THIS CASE. SO IT WILL BE REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS AS ELECTION DAY COMES UPON US. >> YAMICHE ALCINDOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GLEN, TRUMP'S LAWYER CONCEDED DURING THE ARGUMENTS THAT SOME OF THE ACTS THAT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF WERE NOT OFFICIAL ACTS. HERE IS AN EXCHANGE. >> THE PETITIONER TURNED TO A PRIVATE ATTORNEY, WAS WILLING TO SPREAD FALSE CLAIMS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO SPEARHEAD HIS CHALLENGES TO THE ELECTION RESULTS. PRIVATE? PETITIONER CONSPIRED WITH ANOTHER PRIVATE ATTORNEY WHO CAUSED THE FILING IN COURT OF VERIFICATION SIGNED BY PETITIONER THAT CONTAINED FALSE ALLEGATIONS TO SUPPORT A CHALLENGE. >> THAT ALSO SOUNDS PRIVATE. >> JUSTICE KAGAN HAD THAT SAME KIND OF LINE OF QUESTIONING WITH TRUMP'S ATTORNEY. GLEN, HOW DO YOU SEE THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING AND WHAT DOES IT TELL YOU ABOUT THE POSSIBLE DECISIONS THAT BOTH CONEY BARRETT AND KAGAN COULD HAVE ON THIS? >> YEAH, GREAT QUESTION, JOSE. THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT CONCESSION BY DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY. AND WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TRIAL TO MOVE FORWARD, EVEN IF ONLY ON THOSE THINGS THAT THE ATTORNEY CONCEDED WERE NOT OFFICIAL ACTS. SO, EVEN UNDER DONALD TRUMP'S THEORY, AS ARTICULATED THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY, THE PROSECUTION COULD PROCEED ON THOSE NONOFFICIAL ACTS. OF COURSE, THAT WOULD ONLY BE GIVING JACK SMITH HALF A LOAF WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIMES THAT HE HAS INDICTED AND THE CRIMES THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED WITH A TRIAL. BUT HERE IS THE CHALLENGE. ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE PURELY ACADEMIC BECAUSE EVEN IF DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY AGREED, YEAH, THE CHARGES WITH -- RELATING TO THESE NONOFFICIAL ACTS COULD MOVE FORWARD, THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT GIVES JUDGE TANYA CHUTKAN THE CASE BACK SO SHE CAN MOVE FORWARD WHETHER ON HALF OF THE CHARGES OR ALL OF THE CHARGES. SO WE WILL BE TREADING JUSTICE WATER UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT INDICATES JUDGE CHUTKAN CAN NOW PUT HER CASE BACK ON THE TRIAL TRACK AND MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF A TRIAL. >> BUT, GLEN, SO WHO AND HOW WOULD BE DECIDING WHAT WERE PRIVATE AND WHAT WERE PUBLIC ACTIONS DURING THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY? IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED, RIGHT? >> IT WOULD. THE DEVIL IS DEFINITELY IN THOSE PARTICULAR DETAILS. SO I SEE THE SUPREME COURT DOING ONE OF REALLY THREE THINGS. ONE, RULING THAT A PRESIDENT HAS COMPLETE IMMUNITY AGAINST PROSECUTION, HE CAN COMMIT ALL THE CRIMES HE WANTS AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND HE CAN NEVER BE PROSECUTED. I THINK THE MAJORITY SENTIMENT IS THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT ANYTHING PAST THE SUPREME COURT. THE OTHER COULD BE A MIDDLE GROUND, THEY CAN SAY, LISTEN, WE NEED SOME COURT, SOME FINDER OF FACT, TO DECIDE WHAT IS AN OFFICIAL ACT AND WHAT IS NOT. CONCRETELY, AND THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, SO WE WILL REMAND THE CASE BACK TO JUDGE CHUTKAN, TO HOLD EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS ON THAT, AND THEN ONCE SHE HAS DECIDED IN HER JUDGMENT WHAT IS OFFICIAL AND WHAT'S NOT OFFICIAL, SHE WILL SEND THE CASE BACK TO US AND THEN WE CAN ISSUE A COMPLETE OPINION KNOWING WHAT THE FACTUAL LANDSCAPE IS, BUT, JOSE, THAT WILL TAKE A VERY LONG TIME, SO, I THINK ANY HOPES OF A TRIAL BEFORE THE UPCOMING ELECTION HAVE BEEN DASHED AT THIS POINT, THE THIRD OPTION IS THEY CAN JUST SAY, LISTEN, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR IT IN THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE CASE LAW OR IN THE
