>>> IF THE PRESIDENT TOE SIDES HIS RIVAL IS A CORRUPT PERSON AND HE ORDERS THE MILITARY OR ORDERS SOMEONE TO ASSASSINATE HIM, IS THAT WITHIN HIS OFFICIAL ACTS FOR WHICH HE CAN GET IMMUNITY? >> IT WOULD DEPEND HYPOTHETICAL. WE CAN SEE THAT COULD WELL BE AN OFFICIAL ACT. >> YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP. DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER WANTS US ALL TO THINK ORDERING THE MILITARY TO ASSASSINATE A POLITICAL RIVAL COULD BE AN OFFICIAL ACT OF THE PRESIDENCY. MARCUS IS BACK WITH US. CRAZY. >> I MEAN, FOR EITHER OF YOU, ONE OF MY BIGGEST QUESTIONS THAT AS I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHERS OVER THE YEARS, IS THE DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE POWER AND HOW IT EXPANDED. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS MAY -- COULD WHAT HERE. IF THEY PUSH THIS DOWN AND TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT, THIS CASE IS A WRAP. HIS PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT. SO I GUESS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EXPANDED POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, HOW CONCERNED SHOULD PEOPLE BE IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS HERE? >> THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING SINCE DONALD TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE, TEARING DOWN CHECKS AND BALANCES ON DECISIONS HE WAS MAKING. THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO WITH OVERTURNING ELECTION. THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCESS OF CONGRESS TO CERTIFY THE ELECTION AND HE WAS TRYING TO SUBVERT THAT BY GOING TO STATE LEGISLATURES OR PRESSURING THE DOJ. THAT'S THE THEME SINCE 2016. AND THIS IS JUST AT FURTHERANCE AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COURT AND CREDIBILITY OF THE ELECTIONS. AND THESE ARE ALL CORE INSTITUTIONS THAT KEEP THE DEMOCRACY GOING AND IT'S BEEN A CONTINUING DERIFTIVE EFFECT SINCE DONALD TRUMP WAS FIRST ELECTED. >> I WANT TO START WITH YOU BUT I WANT YOUR ANALYSIS IT ANOTHER OBSERVER SAID THEY NEVER SAW JUSTICE ROBERTS SO UNCOMFORTABLE. >> IT FELT TENSE. AND WHEN I TALKED TO MY FAMILY AFTERWARDS, I SAID IT FELT LIKE THE FIRST JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE HEARING YOU COULD CUT THROUGH THE AIR BECAUSE WE WANTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE WE GOT IT RIGHT. IT FELT LIKE THE SUPREME COURT IS HOPING THAT IT GETS IT RIGHT, AND THAT'S WHAT I COULD TELL. IT JUST -- >> WHAT IS RIGHT? IS RIGHT RIGHT BY THE LAW OR RIGHT RIGHT BY. >> I TOLD YOU AGAIN I HOPE THEY GET IT RIGHT BY THE LAW. BUT YOU CAN TELL FOLKS FELT UNCOMFORTABLE AND FELT THE GRAVITY OF THE MOMENT. >> DID THEY LOOK -- WHAT CAN THEY LOOK LIKE. >> YOU HAD JUSTICE WHO IS WERE REALLY LEANED OVER LIKE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THE ADVOCATES. YOU HAD OTHERS TALKING TO EACH OTHER. I MEAN, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY ALIGNED ON WHERE THIS LINE SHOULD BE OR IF THERE SHOULD AND LINE AT ALL. THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THE HYPOTHETICALS WERE OUTRAGEOUS BECAUSE YOU FELT JUSTICE WERE PUTTING MARKERS IN THE SAND OF LIKE WE CANNOT GO THIS FAR. WE CANNOT SAY WE ARE IN A MONARCHY. WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT HAVING A COUP WE CANNOT ALLOW THE DEEP OF POWERS TO EXIST. AND THEN YOU HAD HAD THE CHIEF JUSTICE AS THE OTHER COMMENTARY SAID SITTING THIS QUIET AND LORD KNOWS WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH HIS MIND. THIS A DECISION THAT WILL LIVE ON FOREVER. IT. >> IT IS ABOUT THE LEGACY. >> I THINK IT HAS -- I AM A FASCINATED TO HEAR ALL THAT, ACTUALLY. TRULY FASCINATED BECAUSE MAYBE HE HAS BEEN READING POLLING AND REALIZES THIS IS A POLITICALLY PERILOUS SITUATION FOR THE SUPREME COURT. AND YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, EXCUSE ME ON THURSDAY, YOU KNOW THE SCENE MUST HAVE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE AND A THIRD OF THE JUSTICES ON THE COURT WERE APPOINTED BY TRUMP. THOMAS SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE AND HE SHOULD BE RECUSED AND HIS WIFE IS A VICTIM OF THE CRIMES HAVING BEEN DUPED BY TRUMP AND ALLIES OF FALSE CLAIMS OF ELECTION AND THOMAS WAS THERE LISTENING TO THE CASE AND AGAIN IT WAS A DISGRACE. >> I AM JUST GOING TO PLAY THIS PIECE OF SOUND. THIS IS JUSTICE KAVANAUGH ON THE NIXON PARDON. HE HAD THIS EXCHANGE WITH THE LAWYER FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS REPRESENTING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ON THURSDAY. >> PRESIDENT FORD'S PARDON. VERY CONTROVERSIAL IN THE MOMENT. >> YES. >> HUGELY UNPOPULAR PROBABLY WHY HE LOST IN '76. >> YES. >> NOW LOOKED UPON AS ONE OF THE BETTER DECISIONS IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY, THINK, BY MOST PEOPLE. IF HE'S THINKING ABOUT, WELL, IF I GRANT THIS PARDON TO RICHARD NIXON, COULD I BE INVESTIGATED MYSELF FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ON THE THEORY THAT I'M INTERFERING WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF RICHARD NIXON. >> SO THIS WOULD FALL INTO THAT SMALL COURT AREA THAT I MENTIONED IS TO JUSTICE KAGAN AND JUSTICE GORSUCH. >> ONE OF OUR HISTORIANS I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE AGREE ABOUT THE PARDON OF NIXON BY FORD. BUT, MANY OTHER THINGS CAME UP IN THIS CONVERSATION. CAN A PRESIDENT PARDON HIMSELF. IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE WEIGHING IN ON HERE? AND IT WAS JUSTICE JACKSON THAT AT THE END BROUGHT THE CONVERSATION BACK TO WHY CAN'T WE JUST DECIDE THE QUESTION BEFORE US. >> I JUST -- YOU ARE RIGHT TO BE ASKING THAT QUESTION. THE THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT FRAMING ALL OF THIS FRAMING ABOUT OVERSETTING RULE FOR THE FUTURE AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICALS, THAT'S A DELIBERATE CHOICE THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES MADE AND CAN AND DO ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INDICTMENT, AND RESOLVE THE CASE IN FRONT OF THEM. THEY ARE DELIBERATELY COMPLICATING THIS. >> THAT'S BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOWER COURT RULINGS AND THE QUESTIONS THE SUPREME COURT. LOWER COURTS WERE FOCUS ON THE CRIMES AT HAND. CAN A PRESIDENT BE IMMUNED FOR TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE ELECTION AND WE DIDN'T HEARD A THE LOVE FACTS ABOUT THE CRIMES AT HAND. >> THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR. >> THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT. >> >> I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE CASE. WELL, WHY ARE WE HERE. >> THAT'S CONCERNING BECAUSE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PREVENTING THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT IN THE FUTURE, AND AS MANY ADVOCATES SAID, FOR 200 YEARS WE HAVE HAVE. >> HAD THE CONDUCT IN THE COUNTRY WHY ARE WE CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE. AGAIN, THAT GOES ON THE DIFFICULTTIVE EFFECT OF DONALD TRUMP'S ACTIONS IN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PROSPECT WE COULD LOOK AT IT AGAIN. >> IF YOU WERE PART OF THE 70% OF AMERICANS WHO AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND YOU WATCH WHAT TRANSPIRED THIS WEEK IN COURT, WHAT IS LEFT AS RECOURSE? THERE'S COURT REFORM, THERE'S STACKING THE COURT? WHAT IS THE PATH BECAUSE CLEARLY SOMETHING MORE STRUCTURAL IS NECESSARY. >> I THINK AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION AND ITS LEGACY, I THINK IT WAS -- IT WILL GO DOWN AS HAVING BEEN A HISTORIC MISCALCULATION. >> BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. >> BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO NOT HAVE MADE AEST AT SUPREME COURT. THEY PUT TOGETHER A COMMISSION THAT PRODUCED A REPORT NO ONE RED IT WAS NOT A SERIOUS EFFORT. >> WHY? BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BIDEN I WORKED FOR HIM AT THAT TIME I WAS A PART OF THE TRANSITION, AND I WORKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND I KNOW FOR A FACT AND YOU BEEN ASKING THE QUESTIONS THERE I WAS THERE. HE HIMSELF DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT IS AN AVENUE THAT SHOULD BE EXPLORED. YOU KNOW, JOE BIDEN IS SOMEBODY THAT BELIEVES THAT IN THE RULES AND LAWS AND SYSTEMS, AND ONE COULD ARGUE, IT'S TIME TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. >> I MEAN, YEAH, I AM AWARE OF THAT VIEW AND HE IS HOLDING THE WRONG VIEW. THIS COURT IS RUNNING ROUGH SHOT THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION. THEY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THEY OVERTURNED ROE, THEY HAVE INVALIDATED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND HIGHER EDUCATION, AND BASICALLY LEGALIZED SAME SEX DISCRIMINATION AND THREW OUT PART OF THE BIDEN SIGNATURE DOMESTIC POLICY EFFORT ON THE STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS PLAN AND NOW THEY ARE POISED TO ISSUE A RULING THAT WILL CHANGE THE LAW WHICH HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS. WOO ASSUMED A PRESIDENT COULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED AFTER LEAVING OFFICE TO NOW COME UP WITH SOME CRAZY NEW DOCTRINE. AND. >> TO SAY NOTHING OF THE IDAHO CASE THAT THEY ARE LISTENING TO RIGHT NOW WHICH IS LIKE ALL OF THEIR CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST. >> YEAH, AND ITS LIKE YEAH WE DON'T WANT TO SAVE WOMEN. >> THE CASES COMING BACK TO THEM AFTER DOBBS IS A MESS. AND THIS IMMUNITY RULING IF IT COMES OUT AS MOST OF US EXPECTING, IT WILL GO DOWN AS A PRACTICAL EFFECT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER. AS A SEQUEL TO BUSH VERSUS GORE. >> I SAW OUR GOOD FRIEND ANDREW WEISSMAN TALKING ABOUT THE LOWER COURTS WHAT THEY CAN DO AND THAT'S WHERE I AM HOPING EYE GOES. THOSE OF US TRYING THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS YOU CAN GET MORE EVIDENCE THAN FOR A JURY. AND SO IF THIS IS REMANDED, I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN LEARN OF THE FACT THAT. >> YOU ARE SIGNATURE. >> I AM. >> YOU MIGHT AS -- >> I AM TRYING. >> SOMETIMES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT COURT AND YOU LOOK AT VOLLEY, IT GETS FRAMED AS IT WAS NOT A GOOD DAY FOR JACK SMITH'S TEAM, WHICH WAS THERE ANYTHING DRIVEN AT THE TEAM THAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY. >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND PUT ON ONE OF THE BETTER ORAL ARGUE MINUTES I EVER LISTENED TO OR WITNESSED. >> HE WAS EXCELLENT. >> EXCELLENT. AND IN FACT, WAS ABLE TO GO WHERE THE COURT WAS GOING WITH THE HYPOTHETICALS TO HIS FALL BACK POSITION OF GOING WITH JUSTICE BARRETT. THAT'S A PRIVATE ACT WE CAN TRY IT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE OUTER PERIMETER. THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD HAVE DONE. AND THAT'S WHY THEY SPENT AND HOUR AND 45 MINUTES WITH HIM AND SHORT OF A HOUR WITH TRUMP'S ATTORNEY BECAUSE HE WAS THAT GOOD ON HIS FEET AND I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND THE LINE THAT THEY CAN MAKE THIS OPINION WITH WHICH I THINK WE KNOW IS PROBABLY
