THAT WE WOULD BE CREATING, RIGHT QUESTION >> I DON'T SEE ANY NEED IN THIS CASE FOR THE COURT TO EMBARK ON THAT --. >> JOINING OUR DISCUSSION IS PROFESSOR LAURENCE TRIBE, WHO HAS TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL FOR FIVE DECADES. PROFESSOR, JUSTICE JACKSON SEEMED TO BE GETTING AT THE POINT THAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY DOESN'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS CASE OTHER THAN TO SIMPLY SAY THERE IS NOTHING PRESENTED HERE FOR WHICH DONALD TRUMP CANNOT BE PROSECUTED. >> SHE IS EXACTLY RIGHT. AND, THAT WAS, FOR ME, THE PIVOTAL MOMENT. MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT WAS QUITE DEPRESSING IN THE SENSE THAT IT REALLY AMOUNTED TO FOUR JUSTICES, BRETT KAVANAUGH, SAMUEL ALITO, CORSETS, THOMAS IN SEARCH OF A LIFELINE FOR DONALD TRUMP. THAT WAS EMBARRASSING. MUCH OF IT SEEMED TO BE KIND OF LIKE A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE. THEY JUST WANTED THE HYPOTHETICALS IN THE AIR AND ALMOST DRAFT A NEW LAW FOR SOME KIND OF IMMUNITY. BUT, JACKSON GOT TO THE POINT. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS OUR JOB AND OUR JOB IS TO DECIDE THE CASE BEFORE US AND ON THE FACT BEFORE US, THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE CASE FOR IMMUNITY. IF WE TAKE A STEP BACK THAT IS SOMETHING THE COURT COULD AND SHOULD HAVE DONE BACK IN DECEMBER SO WE COULD NOW BE MAYBE IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL. IT IS A SHAMEFUL PERFORMANCE BY THE COURT. BASICALLY BUYING THE TIME THAT DONALD TRUMP WANTED. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD, LAWRENCE, I DO THINK THAT NEAL KATYAL AND ANDREW WISEMAN ARE RIGHT THAT IT MIGHT BE A SILVER LINING, OR AT LEAST A HALF SILVER LINING THAT IS IF JUSTICE OF BARRETT'S REPEATED POINT THAT WE COULD DECIDE THIS IMMEDIATELY AND HAVE A HEARING QUICKLY ON THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE LINE BETWEEN OFFICIAL ACTS AND PRIVATE CAMPAIGN ACTS IS DRAWN AND THAT KIND OF HEARING WOULD BE ONE IN WHICH THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT 88 DAYS, AS JUDGE CHUTKAN HAS SAID SHE WOULD IF THE CASE IS SENT BACK FOR TRIAL SOMEDAY, THEY COULD GO RIGHT AWAY, HOLD THAT HEARING, AND AT LEAST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEFORE THE ELECTION WOULD SEE ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT AS LIZ CHENEY POINTED OUT, THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE WASN'T ABLE TO GET. SO, THAT IS A SLIGHT CONSOLATION. >> I WANT TO LISTEN TO ONE THING THAT JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH SUGGESTED IN HIS WILD IMAGININGS OF THIS WORLD IN WHICH EVERY PRESIDENT IS WORRIED ABOUT BEING PROSECUTED AND HE WONDERED WOULDN'T THEY ALL JUST PARDON THEMSELVES? LET'S LISTEN TO THIS. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PRESIDENTS WERE UNDER FEAR AND THAT THEIR SUCCESSORS WOULD CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE THEM FOR THEIR ACTS IN OFFICE, WHETHER IT IS, WHETHER THEY ARE ENGAGED IN DRONE STRIKES, ALL THE HYPOTHETICALS, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM? IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE ONE OF THE INCENTIVES THAT MIGHT BE CREATED IS FOR PRESIDENTS TO TRY TO PARDON THEMSELVES. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? >> THAT IS, I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT UNTIL YOUR HONOR ASKED IT. THAT IS ONE INCENTIVE THAT MIGHT BE CREATED. >> THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANYONE TO THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH'S IMAGINED IT. >> DONALD TRUMP HAS IMAGINED IT, NO DOUBT. HE IS PROBABLY SURPRISED THAT HIS LAWYER PRETENDED NOT TO HAVE IMAGINED IT. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF LITERATURE ABOUT IT AS JUSTICE JACKSON SAID AT THAT POINT, COME ON, THAT IS RIDICULOUS. THERE IS A PRINCIPAL HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD THAT NOBODY CAN BE A JUDGE IN HIS OR HER OWN CASE. THE COURT HAS NEVER HELD THAT A SELF PARDON WOULD BE ILLEGITIMATE. BUT, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. THE VERY IDEA THAT NEIL GORSUCH AND SAMUEL ALITO AS WELL WERE KIND OF IMAGINING THE PRESIDENCY AS A BUNCH OF CROOKS, TYPICAL THINKING THE WAY THE MOB THANKS, I WILL JUST PARDON MYSELF ON THE WAY OUT. THAT JUST SHOWS HOW PATHETIC IT HAS ALL GOTTEN. THE SO-CALLED LIBERAL JUSTICES WERE TAKING THEIR JOB SERIOUSLY, SO IS JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT. BUT, THE GUYS ON THE COURT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR WHOM I ALWAYS HOLD OUT SOME HOPE, HE WAS A STUDENT OF MINE AND I SORT OF PREDICTED HE WOULD BE THE FINAL VOTE TO UPHOLD THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, I AM A LITTLE LESS SANGUINE HERE BECAUSE HE MADE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS DURING THE ARGUMENTS SUGGESTING THAT HE THOUGHT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD NOT DONE A GREAT JOB, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A UNANIMOUS, BIPARTISAN DECISION, QUITE BRILLIANT OPINION. HE SAID IT WAS A LITTLE CIRCULAR. HE CLEARLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING MORE ON REMAND. THE MAIN POINT IS THEY COULD HAVE DECIDED IT ALL BACK IN DECEMBER. IF THEY FELT A NEED TO WEIGH IN, THE DIDN'T NEED TO WAIT FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS AT ALL. IN CASE AFTER CASE, THE COURT HAS SIMPLY PICKED A CASE AND DECIDED IT AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT. THEY DID THAT IN THE NIXON TAPES CASE, THEY DID THAT IN THE PENTAGON PAPERS CASE. IT HAS BECOME A MORE COMMON PRACTICE. INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, THEY STRETCHED IT OUT, THEY REPHRASED THE QUESTION TO MAKE IT VERY BROAD, ABSTRACT, ACADEMIC, ALMOST. AND THEN THEY SET THE ARGUMENT FOR THE LAST POSSIBLE DAY THIS TERM. IT IS REALLY SHAMEFUL. EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE NINE JUSTICES COURT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND NONE OF THEM INDICATED THEY WOULD SAY THAT THEY AGREED WITH THE EXTREME TRUMP POSITION THAT HE IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM ANY PROSECUTION FOR WHAT HE DOES, HOWEVER CRIMINAL, WHILE IN OFFICE, NONETHELESS, EVEN THOUGH THAT IT IS GOING TO BE THE BOTTOM LINE DOWN THE ROAD, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IF HE'S REELECTED AND PICKS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO DOES HIS BIDDING, YOU WON'T EVEN HAVE TO DO THIS CRAZY SELF PARDON BUSINESS. HE WILL SIMPLY GET RID OF THE CASE BY HAVING AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO FIRES ANY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WHO WOULD KEEP THE CASE GOING. AND THEN, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR EVERYTHING THAT HE MIGHT DO AND, AS JUSTICE JACKSON POINTS OUT, WE HAVE A NEW CRIME CENTER IN THE OVAL OFFICE. ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO BASICALLY LAUNDER ALL OF HIS OR HER CRIMES BECOMES PRESIDENT PROBABLY BY HIDING EMBARRASSING INFORMATION OR THE KIND OF THING THAT IS GOING ON IN THE TRIAL IN MANHATTAN, BECOMES PRESIDENT,
