NOW. >>> GOOD MORNING. IT IS SUNDAY, JULY 7 I AM ALI VELSHI. THE PRINCIPAL NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW IS ONE OF OUR MOST CHERISHED VALUES. THE RULE OF LAW, THE IDEA THAT LOST PLIGHT EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY GOT DISTINGUISHING US FROM THE AUTOCRACIES AND DESPOTS OF THE WORLD. THE DESIRE FOR A JUST AND LEVEL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WAS A DRIVING FORCE BETWEEN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE CREATION OF THE UNITED STATES. THE RISK INSTITUTION WHICH ENSHRINES THE NOTION STANDS AS HIS LAW OF THE LAND TO WHICH EVERYONE FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT TO CITIZENS LIKE YOU AND ME IS BOUND. THIS WEEK, THE SUPREME COURT TOSSED ASIDE A CHERISHED BEDROCK, EFFECTIVELY ANOINTING US WITH AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY. DECLARING A PRESENT'S OFFICIAL ACTS ARE COMPLETELY IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. THE SUPREME COURT, AS THE CHIEF GUARDIAN OF THE AMERICAN RULE OF LAW HAD A CLEAR MANDATE IN TRUMP THE UNITED STATES TO DECLARE A PRESIDENT CANNOT OBSTRUCT THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. INSTEAD, THE CONSERVATIVE SUPERMAJORITY SEEMED TO DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT NOW STANDS ABOVE THE LAW. AS NOTED BY THE LEGAL SCHOLAR -- THE JUSTICES ESSENTIALLY RULED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY SET THE ENTIRE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE, TONYA CHECK, AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER TRUMP'S ACTIONS ON JANUARY 6 WERE OFFICIAL. YESTERDAY VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS UNDERSCORE THE GRAVITY OF THE RULING. >> WHEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ESSENTIALLY TOLD THIS INDIVIDUAL, WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF 34 FELONIES, THAT HE WILL BE IMMUNE FROM ESSENTIALLY THE ACTIVITY HE HAS TOLD US HE IS PREPARED TO ENGAGE IN IF HE GETS BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ALL KNOW. IN 122 DAYS, WE EACH HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY WE WANT TO LIVE IN. >> THE SUPREME COURT DECISION TO REMAND THE CASE ENSURES THAT'S TRUMP'S ELECTION INTERFERENCE TRIAL, IF IT CONTINUES AT ALL WILL EXTEND BEYOND THE NOVEMBER 5 ELECTION GIVING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS, AFTER WHICH HE MAY SHUT DOWN THE CASE ENTIRELY OBVIOUSLY IF HE BECOMES PRESIDENT. BEYOND DELAY, THE DAMAGE TO OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS PROFOUND. THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE BRENDAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE WROTE, QUOTE TRUMP THE UNITED STATES ASTOUNDS IN ITS ALLEGATIONS. GRANTING THE PRESIDENT THE POWER OF A MONARCH. RICHARD NIXON DEFENDED HIS CONDUCT AND WATERGATE TELLING THE INTERVIEW WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, IT MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. EFFECTIVELY, THE SUPREME COURT SUPER MAJORITY HAS ENSHRINED THAT BRAZEN CLAIM. FOR JUSTICES WHO OFTEN WAXED POETIC TO THE IMPORTANT THINGS OF -- TRADITION THEY SEEM TO HAVE SKIPPED THE PART IN OUR HISTORY WITH THE FOUNDERS PUSHED A SERIES OF ESSAYS PUSHING FOR THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. HE MISSED THE PART FOR THE FEDERALIST PAPERS STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT A GOVERNMENT OF MEN. THE BEDROCK NOTION THAT THOSE WHO GOVERN MUST ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW, UNLIKE A KING. THE FOUNDERS REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THAT PRESIDENTS HAVE NO SPECIAL IMMUNITY AS NOTED BY HISTORIANS WHO SUBMITTED A BRIEF TO THE COURT. NONE OF THIS SEEMED TO MATTER TO THIS PARTICULAR SUPREME COURT. WITH ITS ALARMING RECORD OF SHREDDING PRECEDENT AND ROLLING BACK HARD WON RIGHTS AND CONSTRAINTS ON JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. FROM THE OUTSET THE CASE WAS STACKED AGAINST THE PEOPLE. FLAGS IN THE INSURRECTION WERE SEEN FLYING OUTSIDE THE HOMES OF JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO. THE WIFE OF JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING OF JANUARY 6. -- PARTIAL CONCURRENCE WHICH PROPOSED A NARROWER FORM OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. IN HIS LATEST PIECE FOR THE ATLANTIC TITLED, SOMETHING HAS GONE DEEPLY WRONG AT THE SUPREME COURT, MY NEXT GUEST RIGHTS QUOTE, INSTEAD OF PROPERLY STARTING WITH THE CONSTITUTION TEXT AND STRUCTURE, THE COURT HAS ENDED UP REPEALING THEM. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW OR AT LEAST NO ONE SHOULD BE. THAT PRESIDENTS, NOT EX- PRESIDENTS AND NOT JUSTICES EITHER. THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF IS OUR HIGHEST LOVE. JURISTS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM MUST PRIORITIZE THAT LETTER AND SPIRIT ABOVE ALL ELSE. IN TRUMP THE UNITED STATES, THE COURT FAILED TO DO THIS AND FAILED TO LIVE UP TO AMERICAN IDEALS, NONPARTISAN JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW. I AM NOW JOINED BY THE AUTHOR OF THAT PIECE, A PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE AT YALE UNIVERSITY. A HOST OF THE PODCAST -- CONSTITUTION. THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL IMPORTANT BOOKS INCLUDING WORDS THAT MADE US. WAIT TO HAVE YOU HERE IN PERSON. YOU ARE SOMEONE UNDER WHOM MANY OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS AND LEGAL MINDS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE READ OR STUDIED FROM. TO HAVE YOU TAKE A STRONG POSITION ON THIS REINFORCES THE IDEA THAT MANY OF US NONLAWYERS HAVE THAT THIS FELT WEIRD AND RUN. >> ONE OF THE WORST DECISIONS IN ALL OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. AND SINCE YOU MENTIONED, MY STUDENTS, I AM PROUD YOU HAVE ONE OF THEM ON EARLIER KERMIT ROOSEVELT. ALSO HAD A GRAPHIC FROM ANOTHER ONE, WILLIAM BODE. WILLIAM IS A FEDERAL SOCIETY SUPERSTAR. HE CLERKED FOR JOHN ROBERTS. HE IS CONSERVATIVE, THE MOST CITED PERSON BY THE COURT ITSELF UNDER AGE 50. HE IS THE FORMER TEACHING ASSISTANT OF MINE. VERY PROUD OF HIM AND VERY CRITICAL OF THIS CASE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOUR AUDIENCE TO READ THAT ONE. --, ONE OF MY OTHER PROTIGIS, CLERKED FOR THOMAS AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ALSO I THINK ONE OF THE FIVE MOST CITED PEOPLE BY THE SUPREME COURT, WINNER OF FEDERAL SOCIETY AWARDS, CONSERVATIVE, CITED BY THE DISSENTERS IN THIS CASE. THE COURT SAYS IT BELIEVES IN ORIGINAL IS IN. LET'S HOLD THEM TO THAT. THE DISSENTERS MADE A COMPELLING CASE. THIS IS SHORT, YOU CAN READ IT. IT TALKS ABOUT BRIBERY. IT SAYS, IN A PRESIDENT ACCEPTS A BRIBE FOR EXAMPLE, HE CAN BE IMPEACHED ONE DAY SHE. AND AFTER IMPEACHMENT, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. AND YET THE COURT SOMEHOW SAID NO, EVERY PRESIDENT COMMITS BRIBERY, WE COULD NEVER ACTUALLY HAVE, ONCE OUT OF OFFICE, CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THAT EX-PRESIDENT. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID IT IS MAKING THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF UNCONSTITUTIONAL. READ IT FOR YOURSELVES. >> AS WE OFTEN SAY AND I KNOW YOU AND MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU CARRY THEM. >> MULTIPLE COPIES I AM SURE I HAVE THREE OR FOUR MORE. >> THEY ARE SMALL AND EASY TO CARRY AND FANTASTIC. I LOVE IT. >> HE HAS THREE CONSTITUTIONS IN HIS POCKET. WILLIAM BODE, YOU TALKED ABOUT HIS PIECE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. LET ME READ THAT TO YOU. IT SAYS THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE STATESMANSHIP IS A FORM OF THE KIND OF OUTCOME ORIENTED POLICYMAKING THE COURT DISPARAGES IN OTHER CONTACTS. IT TRUSTS STATES TO HANDLE THE HOMELESSNESS SITUATION BUT NOT -- FINES FOR SECURITIES FRAUD BUT NOT PUNISHMENT FOR ABUSE OF THE PRESIDENCY. EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION TRUSTS JURIES WITH BOTH. WHEN DEALING WITH MR. TRUMP IN PARTICULAR THE COURT IS SO SURE OUR OTHER INSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE TRUSTED IT FAILS TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR. IT IS PROFOUND. WHAT SHOULD BE READ OUT OF THIS? >> THAT AN IMMINENT CONSERVATIVE HE LOVED BY THE FEDERAL SOCIETY AND JOHN ROBERTS IS SAYING FRIENDS, YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR. AND THEY HAVE CREDIBILITY, CONSERVATIVES WITH OTHER CONSERVATIVES IN A WAY THAT LIBERALS FRANKLY DO NOT. THAT WAS COURAGEOUS. A PROFILE IN COURAGE AND I HOPE THE JUSTICES LISTEN. >> IF YOU ARE AN OPTIMIST ABOUT THIS AND YOU SAY OKAY, JUDGE CHUTKAN OR OTHER JUDGES CAN MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT WAS AN OFFICIAL ACT AND WHAT DID NOT. RUDY GIULIANI DID NOT HAVE A ROLE IN THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME, SIDNEY POWELL DO NOT HAVE A ROLE. TO THE EXTENT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT TWO MEDICATIONS WITH OFFICIALS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE PROTECTED AS OFFICIAL ACTS, HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ARE COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY BUT YOU ARE IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME? >> THERE WAS AN INCOHERENCE IN FOOTNOTE THREE. THE AUDIENCE CAN READ THE OPINIONS THEMSELVES OF THE MAJORITY AND PAGE 18 THEY SAY MOTIVE DOES NOT MATTER. THE WORD BRIBERY IN THE CONSTITUTION TELLS US MOTIVE MATTERS. IT CAME UP WITH SOMETHING NOT JUST IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS INCOHERENT AND CONTRADICTORY. 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, ACTUALLY AND THESE WERE RELIGIOUS KIDS, ACTUALLY. AND THEY WERE BEING PUNISHED FOR FOLLOWING THEIR FAITH AND EXERCISING THEIR FREE EXPRESSION RIGHTS. THERE WAS A MASSIVE PUSHBACK, LONDON'S TALKED ABOUT IT LIKE YOU AND I ARE DOING AND THE COURT REVERSED ITSELF TWO YEARS LATER IN A FAMOUS CASE WEST VIRGINIA VERSUS BARNETT. THEY SAID ACTUALLY, WE MADE A MISTAKE. TOOK ANOTHER LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION AND WE REALIZED IT SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE SAID BEFORE. >> INTERESTING, YOU HAVE GIVEN US HOPE. GOOD TO SEE YOU, THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE TIME TO BE WITH US , AND BRINGING, I HAVE NOW COUNTED FOUR CONSTITUTIONS AND HE IS NOT CLEARED ALL OF HIS POCKETS YET. PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE AT YALE UNIVERSITY, HOST OF THE CONSTITUTION PODCAST AND AUTHOR OF MULTIPLE IMPORTANT BOOKS ABOUT THE
