TOP LINES? ANYONE GIVE ME TOP LINES ON THIS DECISION? >> GO AHEAD. >> I'VE GOT A WHOLE TABLE OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO READ THROUGH IT BEFORE WE GIVE YOU ANY BIG BREAKING HEADLINES. CHUCK, TALKS TO ME ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY HERE. GO BROAD LINES, AS LISA AND ANDREW READ THROUGH THIS. >> I WILL BIDE THEM SOME TIME. THE COMPLEXITIES. YOU LAID IT OUT NICELY AT THE BEGINNING, KATY, THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS. FULL IMMUNITY, NO IMMUNITY OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN WHERE A PRESIDENT GETS IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL ACTS. >> TOP TOP LINE TAKEAWAY, NOT FULLY IMMUNE. SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING. >> SO THAT POINT A PRESIDENT IS NOT FULLY IMMUNE. THE HARD PART, THE COMPLEXITY IS WHAT IS AN OFFICIAL ACT AND WHO GETS TO DECIDE IT. THAT WILL BE SORT OF THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS. >> SO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL ACTS, NOT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR NON-OFFICIAL ACTS. YOU KNOW WE'RE GETTING INTO BREAKING NEWS BECAUSE THE BACKGROUND BEHIND US TURNED RED. >> THIS IS 6-3, THE THREE LIBERAL JUSTICES ARE IN DISSENT, SOTOMAYOR AND KAGAN AND JACKSON JOINED. JACKSON FILED A DISSENTING OPINION. IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE WIN FOR DONALD TRUMP. >> SO IT'S CONSERVATIVES VERSUS LIBERALS. >> YES. THERE'S A LINE IN HERE ABOUT IT IS TRUE THAT PERSONAL ACTS ARE NOT IMMUNE. OFFICIAL ACTS CAN BE IMMUNE. THERE'S A PRESUMPTION -- >> PRESUMES OF IMMUNITY. >> HE'S ENTITLED TO AT LEAST PRESUMPTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR HIS OFFICIAL ACTS. >> THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM. >> THERE'S WIGGLE ROOM, BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S DISSENT. THE IDEA OF PRESUMPTION IS ONE WHERE -- THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED. IT'S CLEAR THAT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. >> IT'S WHAT JACKSON WAS ARGUING. IF YOU GIVE THEM A PRESUMPTION OF IMMUNITY, IT ALLOWS THEM TO MAYBE GO FARTHER THAN THEY WOULD KNOWING THAT THE LAW DOES HANGOVER THEIR HEAD JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY. >> THE THING I HAVE TO STILL READ IS HOW DO YOU REPUT THAT PRESUMPTION. THE STRONGER THE PRESUMPTION, THE MORE IT'S ACTUAL IMMUNITY. >> NEAL, I WANT TO BRING YOU IN AS WELL. >> AS I'M PREEDING IT, AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S VERY COMPLICATED. IT'S A 6-3 DECISION THAT DOES SIDE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON A VARIETY OF THINGS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MUCH OF THE INDICTMENT THAT JACK SMITH HAS IS ABOUT TRUMP PRESSURING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN MANY OFFICIAL WAYS. THE COURT SAYS THAT WAS PART OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AS PRESIDENT, AND HE IS IMMUNE FOR THAT. ANOTHER PART OF THE INDICTMENT IS ABOUT TRUMP AND WHAT HE DID WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FALSE CERTIFICATION OF ELECTORS AND STOPPING THE JANUARY 6th CERTIFICATION. WITH THAT THE COURT SAYS, THE MAJORITY SAYS THAT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE. THAT'S REMAND IT BACK, MEANING GIVE IT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESUMES OF IMMUNITY HAS BEEN OVER COME BY WHAT JACK SMITH HAS BEEN ABLE TO ADDUCE ABOUT THIS NOT BEING AN OFFICIAL ACT. THERE'S A THIRD BUCKET OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE INDICTMENT WHICH ARE ABOUT WHETHER TRUMP PRESSURED STATE OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE PARTIES AND MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN HIS SCHEME ON JANUARY 6th, AND WITH RESPECT TO THAT, THE COURT AGAIN SENDS THAT BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR AN EVALUATION OF WHETHER THAT OVERCOMES THE PRESUMPTION OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY AND WHETHER THOSE ACTS ARE OFFICIAL OR NOT. SO, AGAIN, THERE MAY BE CAVEATS BECAUSE I'M READING THIS PRETTY QUICKLY. IT MEANS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IS GOING TO HAVE THE HEARING THAT ANDREW HAS MENTIONED ABOUT -- AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DECIDE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. THAT CAN TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE ELECTION, BUP IT DOES MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A TRIAL TO BEGIN BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. >> BUT IT DOES, GIVEN THE -- TRYING TO SEE THE SILVER LINING, IT GIVES THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO SEE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT JACK SMITH HAS COMPILED SINCE THE INDICTMENT. GIVING ME A FACE. >> YES AND NO. THIS MAY BE THE MOST DAMAGING PART TO JACK SMITH OF THE WHOLE SYLLABUS. ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE HOLDING TODAY IS IN ANALYZING WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDUCT ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT IS OFFICIAL AND THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION OR PERSONAL, THE DISTRICT COURT HAS TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OR PRIVATE RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT OR HIS ADVISERS THAT PROBE HIS -- >> STATE OF MIND? >> NO, NO, WITHOUT OFFICIAL CONDUCT. IN OTHER WORDS, ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE THAT TOUCHES ON OFFICIAL CONDUCT FROM AN EVIDENTIARY PERSPECTIVE ALSO HAS TO BE EXCLUDED. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF JACK SMITH AND HIS TEAM IN THERAPY REPLY BRIEF. >> IS IT EXCLUDED FROM THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE THEY CAN PRERNT AT TRIAL? AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU CAN USE SPEECH, PROTECTED BY FREE SPEECH IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU CAN USE SPEECH AS EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL AGAINST SOMEBODY. YOU CAN VIEW THINGS PROTECTED AS PART OF THE BUILD-UP FOR WOOIP THERE'S WRONGDOING. >> MAYBE THAT'S THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO THIS MINI TRIAL WE HAVE ALL BEEN DISCUSSING THIS MORNING. BUT AT TRIAL ITSELF, TESTIMONY OR PRIVATE RECORDS OF THE PRESIDENT OR HIS ADVISERS THAT PROESH OFFICIAL CONDUCT THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION MAY NOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. >> LET'S BRING IN YAMICHE ALCINDOR. YOU HAVE MORE TOP LINES FOR US AS WELL. >> WELL, THIS IS, AS YOU SAID, A REALLY HISTORIC DAY HERE. THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT SETTING A BRAND NEW STANDARD FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. THEY'RE SAYING HERE, AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, HE'S ENTITLED, THE PRESIDENT, TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL ACTS. SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE CONTACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CONTACT WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT. WE KNOW IN THE CASE OF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP HE'S ALLEGED AND WE KNOW HE DID THIS, IN SOME CASES HE WAS PRESSURING HIS VICE PRESIDENT TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE 2020 ELECTION. HE WAS ALSO LOOKING TO POSSIBLY INSTALL SOMEONE AT THE DOJ WHO WOULD OVERTURN OR SEEK TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE 2020 ELECTION. TODAY THE SUPREME COURT IS SAYING THOSE ARE OFFICIAL ACTS AND LIKELY ARE GOING TO BE IMMUNE. THERE IS GOING TO BE, AS YOU SAID, THIS MINI TRIAL TO DECIDE WHAT ARE OFFICIAL ACTION AND NOT OFFICIAL ACTS. AS I'M READING THROUGH THIS DECISION, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TIMES WHERE PEOPLE SAID, WELL, WHAT IF HE TAKES A BRIBERY, THE PRESIDENT, FOR APPOINTING AN AMBASSADOR, TRIES TO BRIBE SOMEONE TO KILL SOMEONE WHO IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT. IT SOUNDED LIKE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SAYING WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTITUTIONAL ABILITIES LIKE APPOINTING AMBASSADORS, THOSE ARE OFFICIAL ACTS THAT WOULD BE IMMUNE. POSSIBLY WHEN HE'S ACTING AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AS A CANDIDATE, THOSE ACTS MIGHT NOT BE IMMUNE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALSO POINT OUT HERE THAT NOT ALL ACTS HERE ARE IMMUNITY. THEY'RE SETTING THE STANDARD, BUT ALSO THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT ACTION ARE OFFICIAL AND WHAT AREN'T. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SAYING HERE, THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR HIM ESSENTIALLY. HE WAS SAYING THAT THE THINGS THAT HE WAS DOING TO TRY TO PROBE THE GOVERNMENT ESSENTIALLY TO GET HIM TO WIN THE 2020 ELECTION WHEN, IN FACT, HE HAD LOST, THAT THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE IMMUNE. IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH TODAY THE SUPREME COURT IS TAKING HIS SIDE IN A BIG WAY. THIS REALLY DOES COMPLICATE -- NOT IMPERIL, BUT COMPLICATE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TRIAL HERE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S PUSH TO GET A TRIAL HERE AND THE PUSH
