>>> WE ARE FOLLOWING BREAKING NEWS. THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED IN A 6-3 DECISION THAT A PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AGAINST PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS BUT THEY ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR UNOFFICIAL EX. DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE IS IMMUNE ON JANUARY 6 BECAUSE HE WAS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT IS THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THAT EVEN THE PRESIDENT. THE DECISION IS EXPECTED TO HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON SOME OF TRUMPS OTHER CASES AS WELL. LET'S BRING IN CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT JAN CRAWFORD WHO IS WITH US FROM WASHINGTON. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE BEEN TALKING FOR A GOOD PART OF THE MORNING ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS BUT WHAT ARE THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDED THAT ARE IN YOUR IMMEDIATE VIEWPOINT? >> THIS GOES BACK TO THE JUDGE WHO WILL HAVE HER WORK CUT OUT FOR HER. SHE WILL GET SOME PAPERS FROM SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH ABOUT WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN UNOFFICIAL ACT AND THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL COULD GO FORWARD WITH THAT WITH A TRIAL AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. THIS IS, NO DOUBT, A WIN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SLAMDUNK VICTORY. IT REJECTS HIS MOST SWEEPING ARGUMENTS ABOUT IMMUNITY AND HE ARGUED HE WAS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT CONVICTED BY THE SENATE AND THE COURT SAYS FLATLY IN THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE THAT IT FINDS NO SUPPORT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION. THEY COMPLETELY SAY THEY THE GOVERNMENT ARGUMENT AS WELL. THEY HAVE TAKEN THIS MIDDLE GROUND, LIKE WE THOUGHT THEY WOULD DO. THEY HAVE GIVEN THE LOWER COURT JUDGE MORE OF A ROAD MAP ON THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED UNOFFICIAL. SO FOR EXAMPLE, CONVERSATIONS WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THOSE ARE CORE DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENT TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW THERE WERE OTHER PURPOSES TO IT, FOR EXAMPLE, DID TRUMP HAVE ANY BUSINESS TALKING TO THE VICE PRESIDENT ABOUT CERTIFICATION? THAT IS NOT SOMETHING DELEGATED TO THE PRESIDENT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. THAT WILL BE PART OF HOW THEY PARSE THAT. IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME AND IT WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR A TRIAL TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE NOVEMBER BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT JACK SMITH CAN COME BACK TO SAY I AM GOING TO STREAMLINE THIS INDICTMENT. SHE WILL THEN MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON WHICH OF THOSE SPECIFIC CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS ARE UNOFFICIAL THAT CAN GO FORWARD WITH GUIDANCE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS HANDED DOWN TODAY. AND TRUMP WILL THEN BE ABLE TO TRY TO APPEAL THAT AND THE D.C. CIRCUIT WILL QUICKLY SAY, I BELIEVE, NO. AND WHEN IT GETS TO THE COURT, IF WE UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME COURT, WHAT JOHN ROBERTS WANTS TO DO IS HAVE THE SUPREME COURT OUT OF THE ELECTION. AND I THINK, WHAT HE HAS GIVEN THEM IS A CLEAR ROAD MAC -- ROAD MAP AND WHATEVER COMES BACK TO THE COURT, AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN THE ROAD MAP, THEY WILL NOT TAKE THIS BACK UP. SO WHATEVER HAPPENS NEXT, OFFICIAL VERSUS UNOFFICIAL COULD BE APPEALED BUT IT COULD GO VERY QUICKLY UP AND BACK DOWN. >> YOU MENTIONED COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT OR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. DOES CHIEF ROBERTS DECISION LAYOUT IN THIS SO-CALLED ROAD MAP WHETHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH SECRETARIES OF STATES OR STATE LEGISLATURES WILL BE OFFICIAL OR UNOFFICIAL? >> YES. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT JACK SMITH WILL STILL TRY TO ARGUE AND THAT CAME UP IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT WITH JUSTICE BARRETT FOLLOWED BY JUSTICE KAGAN WHERE THEY REALLY GOT TRUMP'S LAWYER TO CONCEDE THAT THERE HAS BEEN FRAUDULENCE, WORKING TO SUBMIT FRAUDULENT CIVIL LECTORS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HIS LAWYER CONCEDED OUR UNOFFICIAL CONDUCT. SO SMITH WILL OBVIOUSLY FOCUS ON THOSE AND THEY ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT. >> JAN CRAWFORD, THANK YOU SO MUCH. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT SCOTT McFARLANE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE TRIAL OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT? >> THEY ARE SENDING THIS MATTER BACK WITH ALL KINDS OF BEAR TRAPS. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, TANYA CHUTKAN DOES NOT EXACTLY HAVE AN OPEN CALENDAR IN PERPETUITY AND THEY WILL ASK HER TO HEAR ARGUMENTS ON ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES. AND ALL OF THAT RAISES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS TRIAL WILL BE SLOW DOWN PROHIBITIVELY OVER A MATTER OF MONTHS, NOT DAYS OR WEEKS. IF YOU RECALL, JUDGE CHUTKAN SET THIS THING FOR TRIAL ON MARCH 4th, 2024, SAYING WHEN SHE WAS FIRST PRESENTED THE IDEA OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THAT IT WAS BONKERS. YOU DON'T GET GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD BECAUSE YOU ARE FORMER PRESIDENT. BUT THE MATTERS WILL COME BACK TO HER TO ADJUDICATE. THERE ARE A FEW THINGS TO NOTE. SHE KEPT A PARTICULARLY, UNIQUELY HIM A CRISP CALENDAR WHEN SHE WAS FIRST DEALING WITH THIS CASE IN AUGUST OF 2023. SHE MOVED FLUIDLY THROUGH ALL THE DEFENSE CHALLENGES, KEPT TIGHT DEADLINES AND ENSURE THAT PARTIES KEPT TIGHT DEADLINES. SHE MOVED SWIFTLY. IT IS UNCLEAR HOW SWIFTLY SHE CAN MOVE THROUGH WHAT IS ABOUT TO COME TO HER. A 100+ PAGE SUPREME COURT OPINION, AS LONG AS OTHER MATTERS, SHE HAS AN ELECTION WEEK TRIAL ON A JANUARY 6 BRYANT CASE. SHE HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE CASES COMING UP FOR STATUS CONFERENCES OR SENTENCING. FINDING TIME ON HER CALENDAR WILL BE AS MUCH ART AS IT IS SCIENCE. THIS WILL REALLY SLOW DOWN, I WOULD SAY WELL INTO 2025. >> DO WE KNOW WHAT THIS WILL MEAN FOR THE OTHER CASES TRUMP IS FACING LIKE THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE. AND SPEAKING OF THAT CASE, JUSTICE THOMAS WROTE IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION, WHETHER BRINGING IT TO QUESTION THE FUNDING OF JACK SMITH, WHICH IS A QUESTION THAT JUDGE CANNON'S COURTROOM IS TRYING TO DECIDE. >> IT IS THE ACTS OF A FORMER PRESIDENT, NOT A SITTING PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. THERE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE IS NOT A THREAT THAT THE TRUMP TEAM CAN PULL ON WHAT IS ALREADY A SLUGGISH CASE. THE JUDGE SPENT ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF BANDWIDTH ON SOME OF THE LESSER CHALLENGES, SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM COULD TRY TO BUY SOME TIME. BUT THOSE ARE ALLEGED ACTS OF A FORMER PRESIDENT, NOT A SITTING PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. AS FOR THE CASES IN WASHINGTON, D.C., THE CONTRAST IS JUST STRIKING AS WE SIT HERE TODAY. TRUMP'S WHITE HOUSE AIDE, STEVE BANNON, IS REPORTING TO PRISON TODAY. HE DID NOT ENJOY THE IMMUNITY THAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY BE ENJOYING. THERE ARE 1400 U.S. CAPITOL RIOT DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED, NOT ENJOYING THE TYPE OF IMMUNITY DONALD TRUMP MIGHT BE ENJOYING. SOME ARE IN PRISON TODAY AND SOME WILL BE FACING THE PROSPECT OF PRISON IN THE COMING MONTHS. SOME HAVE ALREADY SERVED YEARS. IT IS QUITE NOTEWORTHY, THE CONTRAST BETWEEN WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS ENJOYING AFTER THIS SUPREME COURT RULING AND ALL THOSE OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES CONNECTED TO JANUARY 6th AND WHAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCED. >> SCOTT McFARLANE, THANK YOU. LET'S BRING IN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR JESSICA LEVINSON FOR MORE ON THIS. JESSICA, I JUST WANT TO PULL UP, IF YOU WILL BEAR WITH ME HOW JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR BEGAN HER DISSENT. SHE SAID, AGAIN, BEAR WITH ME, LET ME FIND IT, I'M GOING TO PULL UP A DIFFERENT PART OF THE DISSENT. THERE WE GO." TODAY'S DECISION TO GRANT FORMER PRESIDENTS CRIMINAL IMMUNITY RESHAPES THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY. TODAY'S DECISION TO GRANT FORMER PRESIDENTS CRIMINAL IMMUNITY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DOUBLED UP. HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE HER DISSENT? >> OBVIOUSLY SHE IS VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS DECISION AND WE COULD SEE THIS TELEGRAPH THROUGHOUT THE ORAL ARGUMENTS WHERE, I THINK THE LENSES SHE WAS COMING FROM IS THAT NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY SAY THAT WHEN IT COMES TO SOMEONE WHO IS HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THAT THEY ENJOY IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION? I THINK WHAT SHE IS SAYING IS THAT THERE IS JUST SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT CRIMINAL CASES. THAT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN SAYING, WE CAN HOLD A PRESIDENT OR FORMER PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IS HIGHER THAN FOR INSTANCE IT IS IN CIVIL SUITS, WHERE WE KNOW THERE IS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY BASED ON OFFICIAL ACTS. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR IS JUST VIEWING THIS VERY IMPORTANT PROBLEM, I WOULD ARGUE, THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS IN WHICH SHE IS MUCH MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC, ON PROSECUTORS, OF SAYING THAT THERE IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO IS OR WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE MAJORITY IS JUST VIEWING THIS QUESTION THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS. SAYING, PRESIDENTS ARE DIFFERENT. AND WHEN IT COMES TO CERTAIN THINGS THAT ONLY PRESIDENTS CAN DO, FOR INSTANCE, THEY SHOULD ENJOY IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IN PART, BECAUSE, IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP NECESSARILY, IT'S THAT WE ARE WORRIED THAT ANY CURRENT OR FORMER PRESIDENT COULD BE SUBJECT TO A VARIETY OF CRIMINAL CASES THAT COULD UNDERMINE THEIR ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS. SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FRAME THIS OTHER THAN REALLY DIFFERENT LENSES TO VIEW THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. >> DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH OVER WHETHER A PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED IF HE OR SHE WAS IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED FIRST. DID THE DECISION ADDRESS THAT? >> YES. THE ARGUMENT FORMER PRESIDENT PUT FORWARD, SAYING, I HAVE TO FIRST BE IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE AND CONVICTED I THE SENATE, IS NOT AN ARGUMENT THE SUPREME WERE ADOPTED. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY WAS SAYING. THE MAJORITY SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WHICH IS THEY DID GIVE THE FORMER PRESIDENT WIN IN TERMS OF FINDING SOME IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON THE IDEA THAT YOU FIRST NEED TO BE IMPEACHED AND THEN CONVICTED. IT IS BASED ON WHAT THEY VIEW AS FRANKLY A SEPARATION OF POWERS CONCERNS AND THE NEED TO PROTECT, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL BUT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND FORMER PRESIDENTS. WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE WE WOULD EACH DRAW THE LINE BUT IT IS A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. THEY DID NOT ADOPT, AND WE CAN SEE THIS IN ORAL ARGUMENTS, THEY DID NOT ADOPT THE ARGUMENT THAT NO CRIMINAL EXECUTION UNLESS YOU ARE FIRST IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED. >> WE DISCUSSED WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENTS OTHER CASES. BUT HAVE YOU BEGUN TO VIEW THIS DECISION IN THE LENS OF WHAT DEFENDANTS ARE FACING IN GEORGIA AND ARIZONA FOR RACKETEERING, FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, FORGERY? >> THAT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. THE GEORGIA CASE IS MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL D.C. INTERFERENCE CASE AND I THINK SCOTT LAID OUT VERY CLEARLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN FLORIDA. FOR THE GEORGIA CASE, AGAIN, THAT IS IN SOME WAYS THE STATE ANALOG TO THE FEDERAL CASE. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS. IS THE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH THINGS WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE CORE FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENCY, THINGS ONLY A PRESIDENT CAN DO? THEN THERE IS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. IS THE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH OFFICIAL ACTS? THEN THERE IS AT LEAST A PRESUMPTION OF IMMUNITY. AND THEN, ARE THESE PRIVATE OR UNOFFICIAL ACTS, NO IMMUNITY AND THIS MEANS BONNIE WILLIS WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CASE. AND WE KNOW FOR OF VARIETY OF REASONS THAT CASE STALLED OUT. MY BIG TAKE AWAY IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT PROVIDED A ROAD MAP THAT WAS MORE DETAILED THAN WHAT I ANTICIPATED WHEN IT CAME TO CHARGES IN THE FEDERAL CASE. THIS ROAD MAP WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO APPLY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE CASES MOVING FORWARD BEFORE THE ELECTION. WE KNOW DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ELECTION, IT MIGHT MEAN THAT NO CASES MOVE FORWARD. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATE CASE MOVING FORWARD VERSUS THE FEDERAL CASE, BUT THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE FOR PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME. I DIDN'T THINK YESTERDAY AND I DON'T
