LIVE: Supreme Court rules in Trump immunity case | NBC News

what does it mean while they're doing that here uh let's turn to our chief Washington correspondent, Hy Jackson Darren DC, to remind us all what's at stake here. Craig is the short answer to that question, it is both generational and also very specific. It is generational because it is possible that the Supreme Court will now set a new standard for presidential

immunity

in the future for history, a movement inherited here for generations to come and specifically for former President Trump, obviously it is also deeply important for that

case

of federal interference in the elections against him. what the judges will decide as we watch our team of legal experts there and the correspondents hunched over their laptops examining this decision here and let me explain what the core of this

case

is, whether what the former president did in relation to election interference plan that he supposedly carried out if those acts were not official or official if they were not official, then his lawyer admits that he could be prosecuted for them if they were official, in theory he would be immune from prosecution, that is the case that the former president's team is doing.

Let me give you an example when the former president calls a private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who then spread lies about election fraud. His own lawyer admitted that this would be an unofficial private act. On the other hand, Mr. Trump calls the head of the Republican National Committee to speak. about that fake electors plan, his lawyer insists that that is official, so that is what our team is analyzing here, what specifically the Supreme Court has decided here on each of those matters, now the former president himself in a new interview just published this morning that was recorded. yesterday seemed to downplay the impact of the

immunity

case against him, but remember why this is so critical.

It's about, and I'm speaking politically here, it's about the moment that he, his team is trying to delay this as much as possible. beyond the November election because that's the political reality here: that the former president, in theory, could end up back in the White House in January, in theory, he could pardon himself, it's uncharted territory here, so so we don't want to overlook our skis. On that front, but the timing is so critical that the judge in this case has said that, in fact, she would not move forward with the trial until about 3 months after this case comes to her.

We have been waiting for this decision to be made. not only on the last day of this Supreme Court term, but in the last case on the last day of this Supreme Court term, we know that politically, when the former president faces these legal problems and they are in the headlines, he gets a blessing. When it comes to fundraising after his hush money conviction, remember the state case isn't much different, he raised something like $100 million in the month of May. We're obviously waiting to see any reaction from his campaign. Craig, we'll bring it to you. as soon as we receive it, but I have to tell you that I assume that you are doing the same thing that we are doing in reviewing this decision to determine how it will specifically impact this case against Mr.

Trump Craig and of course uh hello. As we have this conversation, there are several members of the Democratic Party just four days after that lackluster debate performance, let's say, everyone already panicking, one has to wonder what this decision could mean for the sitting president during that angle, let us bring now to our Meet the Press moderator, Kristen Welker, who is also standing by force there in Washington, so Kristen, what do you say about that again? I watched your show yesterday, we heard several Democrats express countless concerns about the current administration and the campaign has any idea how this decision could affect President Biden's campaign in November.

Well, so far we haven't seen these legal cases really affect former President Donald Trump's standing and again, as you say, if the bottom line here is that the cases that have been brought by Jack Smith are delayed until after the US election November, the impact could be that there continues to be this focus on President Biden, his devastating debate performance. Now it's worth pointing out Craig 62% 62% of Americans say Trump should not have immunity for actions he took while in office as president, so this is a small snapshot of how the public views this case, but again in terms of the broader polls we've seen so far, their legal battles haven't affected their polls in terms of what's going on.

Within the president's internal orbit we know that after that debate this weekend he was on a previously scheduled trip to Camp David, his family was taking photographs with the famous photographer Annie Leitz at that meeting at Camp David in which they discussed the consequences of the debate. Just in case what the next steps look like, we're told the family has urged him to stay in this race to fight him publicly. He has been defiant. Kristen supports our team of legal experts. They have been examining this decision. Our senior legal correspondent. Laura. Jared has been researching a 6-3 decision.

What is Craig's highlight? We have here a historic decision in American history regarding presidential power that will define the limits of that power for generations to come. The divided

court

that now decides here that the former president enjoys some immunity. There is a dispute over how much and to what extent, but what we do know is that this case will now return to the lower

court

for further delineation of what is immune, what is official and what is. not the chief justice accusing his liberal colleagues of adopting a chilling tone that is disproportionate to what the court actually does, so you see a dispute here with liberals saying they have gone much further than they conservatives believe they are really gone. here, but they say the immunity extends to official discussions between the president and his attorney general, but they are going to put it back in the hands of the lower court judge in the trial court to determine to what extent the alleged is entitled Trump's remaining conduct. immunity, remember that this is the case in which he has been accused of trying to overturn the last election through lies and fraud.

He has resisted and has obviously denied any wrongdoing and has said that everything he did was completely within presidential powers, that is if he doesn't do it. offer immunity to presidents then they will essentially be harmed by not being able to do their job well and there will only be a series of recommendations with the next administration Prosecuting the previous one again the conservative majority here says that the president does enjoy some immunity but there is no immunity when It's an unofficial act, for example, let's say the president committed a crime, let's say he killed his wife or robbed a bank while he was in office, that's not immune, but anything that has to do with things that was doing as president as part of those official duties, the conservative majority thinks he is immune and therefore now has to go back to the lower court for further proceedings, which means more delays, which will really have a big effect on when so that this case can be completed. and finished before the November election, there appears to be little to no chance of this case reaching a courtroom before the November election.

I need to review it, it's a long opinion. I want to see what they say, in any case, about the moment because as of right now I don't see them acting with alacrity. I don't see the urgency here yet, but we're going to work to see if they address that in some way and I'm sure the liberals, uh. I'm sure the liberal side of this has something to say about timing. Danny Savalos. I know you've been thinking about the decision too. What do you think of what we heard from the Supreme Court at first glance? This is an opinion that you might read and think, "Oh, there's absolute immunity, so Trump is off the hook," but it's much more nuanced than that—in fact, the court takes a position that was actually conceited by the government on absolute immunity and essentially maintains that there is a type of absolute immunity, but only for basic presidential functions and the government's dban lawyer essentially admitted that in oral argument he didn't call it immunity, he called it something else article two defense, but The judge has said, look if you call it defense or immunity, it is something that the court does today, there is absolute immunity, but only for those basic presidential functions, think about the veto power, the pardon power, a very limited set of powers. core presidential conduct, then we move on to a second area which is all other official conduct other than that core presidential conduct and so I think that's probably the biggest surprise here is that there is what they call a presumptive immunity for all other official conduct presidential functions that don't fall within those official laws uh or excuse those central official presidential functions and then, of course, you have a position that was actually granted by the Trump Council and that is for purely private conduct, there is no immunity whatsoever, for which this is definitely one of those cases where, if once you read the first few lines and you see absolute immunity, you might I think, oh, Trump is completely clear, but that's not the case with this opinion and, in fact , even holding absolute immunity for core presidential functions was something the government itself seemed to concede in oral argument, and Christian is an NBC.

Legal

news

analyst, former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district attorney's office. It would seem that this immunity case really came down to what the president did in his official capacity after the election and what he did in his private capacity, say after the election. The choice is that essentially the thesis here, yes, and looking at the glass as if it were half full, the court says that there is no immunity for an unofficial law, so it is conspiring, supposedly conspiring with private actors, private lawyers to devise a false voter scheme, is that an official. act I doubt it but there will be another time we haven't gone through the whole hearing but if this will go back to the district court and if there is a hearing that will take place will there be a trial before election day?

I doubt it. 99% chance there won't be a trial, there could be this hearing to determine which were official acts versus which were unofficial acts, only for the court to clearly say there is no immunity for unofficial acts and Lord don't bother you while you continue going through the process. Matiz here and try to analyze it um but but but but to that point um this good, the Matiz, let's talk about the Matiz here because you've been predicting from the beginning that this would be a Matiz decision because they are concerned not only about the Trump case not only It's not the case of the former president, but all the cases of presidents in the future, so they kept bringing up the situation of former President Obama and he ordered drone strikes on American citizens abroad and conservatives kept pushing, are you saying ?

You know, what that would mean is that Obama could be prosecuted for doing something like that, ordering a drone strike so clearly as part of his duties as commander and chief of the right, and I think that's kind of like with what they were struggling with is how do they make a rule that would not only apply to the Trump case but would apply to all cases in the future and they seem to have thought that they have made that order but of course as far as just functionally to what it relates to Mr. Trump? It's a huge victory for him because at least they've drawn some battle lines and they've come back to say at least some things about his interactions with his attorney general, those kinds of things are immune.

The District Court, this will be rejected, yes, that court will now do it. use the Supreme Court's guidance to guide his decision and the ball will be in her court in a way she hasn't seen this case for the better part of 7 months. Remember everything has been on ice. While the court was dealing with this and special prosecutor Jack Smith had asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on this much sooner so that there would be a chance to do all of this, he wanted this case to be over in March, but of course Of course, a time the court took it, none of the lower courts had jurisdiction, so obviously it's going to take a while before she gets back into the situation, she's going to have to bring everyone in, they'll have a chance to do. arguments from her and then, even at that point, saying, "You know, she presents a rule about what's left of this accusation." Even if it's a little bit, if the president doesn't like that decision, then he could try to appeal that I.

I'm not saying he would win, I'm not even saying the court would accept it, but he could still try again to maintain the delays, the delay is thestrategy, okay, hold on, I know you guys are still reading and perusing our Chief Washington correspondent Hari Jackson joins me now once again, so I mean, this is what President Biden had made central to his campaign, the January 6 insurrection, this idea that Donald Trump's re-election would pose perhaps an existential threat to democracy itself. What does this decision mean, if anything, given that argument? It's a great question. Craig and I'm going to address it, but I want to give you a little bit of developing

news

coming to us and literally the last 30 seconds while they were talking.

Here we are now listening for the first time to the former president himself on his social platform, right, I'm going to read his entire post, it's short, it seems to be a reaction obviously to this decision that comes out today, he says it's great to win for our Constitution and democracy, proud to be an American, that's it. It's all, those two sentences, obviously, this question of whether it is in fact a big victory for him is something that we continue to examine, it is clearly at least a partial victory simply based on what the moment seems like. about this issue here and the interesting thing here is what the former president is talking about, what we are seeing in this decision itself, the coming and going of some of the judges, for example, the liberals who dissented here, one of them, Judge.

The mayor says this decision makes a mockery of the fundamental principle of our Constitution and our system of government that no man is above the law and is being seen in some of liberal descent this suggestion that the majority gave to Donald Trump everything I wanted here. now, obviously, the chief justice is rejecting that saying that that is not the case, that the statement that the former president's team made went far beyond what the court ended up giving him, but the bottom line is that the former president is interpreting this as a victory in terms of your question about how this affects the race and the central argument that the president has been making as President Biden against former President Trump, he is absolutely right that this is part and parcel of the case for character of the fitness case that the Biden team has been doing here, you've heard some real criticism from top Democrats about the fact that they think the Supreme Court took this case it took so long to resolve it, you know, they waited until the last day to come out and present this. decision forward when there has been a sense of urgency, they believe in this, and they have seen it constantly since March, when this first came up, this frustration with the way the court decided here, they are seeing it in part of the liberal ascendancy you're seeing it, uh, in those previous conversations and those previous statements from the Democrats fit into where the Biden Camp has been on this all along, they remembered January 6, they tried to press this case on the issue of January 6 from January. was one of the few ads Camp Biden ran during that obviously widely watched debate Thursday night trying to argue that because of what Donald Trump did in and around the 2020 election in and around the Insurrection in the capital makes him disqualified from holding office, the former president downplayed this in that same debate.

He basically talked about the world being respected on January 6th. He has defended some of the people who were arrested for going to the capital that day. Craig. I can tell you this this. The decision means that this argument, this discussion on January 6, goes nowhere in this political campaign, taking into account, of course, that voters have consistently said that it is not necessarily what happened around electoral fraud that is that motivates your vote, there are much more of those lies. Kitchen table topics like economic inflation and the immigration crash here in the studio. Again we must note the speed with which our legal team is processing and distilling this quite remarkable information.

Of a non-legal kind, how much have we been able to? From the decision so far we have been able to deduce where this immunity is, where the scope and limit of immunity end. Have we been able to deduce anything about it? Yes, we can eliminate broad principles and you could really divide them into three main categories and, of course, Of course, my colleagues will tell me if I miss the point here, but you can really say that there is a core presidential conduct to which there is absolute immunity and then you have a circle that includes everything else that is not that core presidential conduct. for which there is what is called presumptive immunity, let's go back to that core presidential immunity because there are a lot of really interesting factual determinations in this opinion, even though a lot of things come back to the court on remand for determination.

Here's an example you might remember. In the indictment there is an allegation that Trump met with members of the Doj uh to supposedly get them to change or investigate the election to benefit Trump and allegedly may have threatened to replace the Attorney General with someone else who would do his bidding. That's a great example because the court says you can't investigate his motive while he's communicating with members of the Justice Department, which is the president's core executive function, and he's immune from that conduct and people who might remember it. those accusations. in the indictment I mean the circumstances, at least supposedly and as alleged, did not appear to be investigating an election for the benefit of the election, they appeared to be for the benefit of Trump and yet the court says that's the kind of things that because it falls within the central power of the executive, there is absolute immunity, then they go through other factual determinations and, of course, you asked about the last area and it would be purely private, unofficial conduct, and there is no immunity at all for that , except to return this case.

They're bringing it back with some instructions and taking some of the work away from the lower court and a great example of that is here in the syllabus where the Department of Justice communicates that meeting, that's the kind of thing that is the conduct central presidential. and therefore absolutely absolutely immune even though the circumstances really didn't seem that good for then-President Trump, okay, Danny, standing by. I want to bring in NBC News legal analyst Melissa Murray. Melissa previously served as Sonia Sor's paralegal and is going strong. by me a second Melissa because her former boss is writing and warning about her ancestry in part when the president uses his official powers in any way according to the majority's reasoning, he will now be isolated from criminal prosecution, he orders the Navy SEAL team to assassinate a political rival immune organizes a military coup to stay in power immune accepts a bribe in exchange for forgiveness immune immune immune immune again those words written by judge Sonia Sor uh, what do you think so far of what you've been able to learn? the decision Melissa so I've done a quick review of the decision Craig I don't know if this is completely neutral I think everyone is right that the court has decided here that official actions may be entitled to a presumption of immunity and unofficial actions They are not, but this court actually does a lot to outline how certain aspects of the indictment against Donald Trump indicate official conduct for which he would be presumptively immune, so, for example, one of the things that the opinion specifically discusses are those conversations that Donald Trump allegedly had with Mike Pence to persuade him to stop the Electoral College, the court here says that whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they are engaging in official conduct and therefore in those conversations which apparently, according to Jack Smith, had nothing to do with each other. with the official duties, however, they are part of the official duties of the president because they occur with someone who is part of his millu as president and it is up to the government to rebut that presumption of immunity, so while this is going to go back to Judge Chucken and I think which is exactly right that this will certainly delay the start of this trial and we will probably not have a trial here.

I think it's a much more dramatic sea change than some are allowing. Basically, this is saying that every time the president does it. something in the scope of the office maybe even where we assume it's presumptively official and the judge, the mayor is right, that's a big SE change from what we've had in the past. I think it's completely inconsistent with the constitutional principle that the president is not a king in waiting, former misists, whereas for the people who are looking right now at the right side of their screen, um, that was the scene that is playing out. developing outside the courthouse there in Washington DC right now, as you can see, a handful of protesters have gathered to protest the Supreme Court's 63rd decision that former President Trump is, in fact, immune from some acts official, since the president is not immune to unofficial acts.

Let's bring Jennifer's pet. Jennifer is an associate professor of law at Catholic University, where she also previously worked. as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and before that, she was a law clerk to Brett Kavanaugh, before he sat on the high court, Jennifer, thank you very much for your time, too, what do you think of the decision so far? You have come to understand it again as we are in the process of trying to analyze the various nuances. Thank you very much Craig. I believe that today's decision by the Court reflects the extraordinary and unprecedented nature of the prosecution.

Here we have a presidential administration that is overseeing. and oversee the criminal prosecution of the president's current political rival, and I think that the judges in writing the decision today and in the way they defined the official act are showing that they are very aware that this decision will have an impact on the scope and the role of the presidency perhaps for decades to come, and then how will this play out in the lower court? Well, Danny and Melissa and others have been saying that they are acts that are within the president's primary duties and that may include receiving advice from his advisors, but also things like the pardon power to appoint or nominate officials, but a relatively subset limited of duties, those for which he will have absolute immunity, so they are off the table for criminal prosecution, but there is a much larger well of official activities that I consider the court defines.

Is there anything that F that the president could be doing while he is in office where he could do it, unless it is clear, manifestly relentlessly clear, that it is a private act? There is a presumptive immunity and what that does is that it shifts the burden of proof to the government in preventive detention in the district court. It has to demonstrate that by initiating that process for that official act there will be no burden on the role of the presidency and so I think, as people are pointing out, it will make the impeachment on the impeachment below um much more fact intensive um but the court I think has made a measured decision here today but also one that reflects the historic nature of the issues that were raised.

Alright. Support me again as we continue to analyze. As far as the legal ramifications, potentially a precedent that's being set here, potentially let's get back to the political side of this as well once again. Meet the press moderator, Kristen Welker, she joins me now, um, Chris and I imagine answers are starting to come in from both sides of the aisle. Legislators are weighing what if there is something or are hearing about what this decision could mean here we are if my calculations are correct about 17 or 18 weeks away from a presidential election well again Craig as everyone has said this will almost certainly mean a delay in these cases that former President Trump was facing we are getting our first reaction from the Biden campaign, Craig, and gives you an idea of ​​their thinking and their strategy going forward, let me read you a portion of what they say, quote from today's ruling.

Don't change the facts, so let's be very clear about what happened on January 6th. Donald Trump broke down after losing the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the same reason he stood by while the mob violently attacked the capital: he believes he is above the law and is willing to do anything to win and keep the can. That's significant, because, of course, that's been the crux of the presidency. Biden's argument for why he deserves another four years in office has sought to portray Trump as a threat to the nation's democracy, as someone who potentially risks carrying out another January 6, so he is Of course, the Democrats are doubling down. argument and go deeper into that argument, but therein lies the crux of the crisis within the Democratic Party that, as a result ofThat devastating President Biden debate calls into question the absolute panic within the Democratic Party about whether President Biden is the best messenger, the best person. to take on this fight, I can tell you privately that Democrats are expressing concerns: one person tells me they can't win, another says this race is effectively over, so of course the questions become: could I abandon that process ? incredibly difficult, incredibly challenging, and again, you're right.

Now we've seen a defiant President Biden, AR Kelly O'Donnell, report that sources within the campaign are potentially considering more interviews, more public visibility, but that's really the crux of this crisis. Craig, it's okay, Kristen, we'll get back to you in just a moment. just a moment here again, we just heard from dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts, who also writes here again, at least in part with respect to the president's exercise of his basic constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute, the Chief Justice goes on to say, quote the The president does not enjoy immunity for his unofficial acts and not everything the president does is official.

What can we deduce from what seems to be again? Obviously I'm the only person at the table without a legal title, but that would seem a little ambiguous - it's partly because some of the things he supposedly did have a mix of a bit official law and a bit unofficial and clearly if he's pressuring your attorney general, your prosecutor. The general is really there by virtue of the fact that he put him there correctly, so he is someone who works at the pleasure of the presidents effectively or if he is lobbying his vice president and pressuring him to disrupt the vote counting in Congress .your vice president has to serve a constitutional role but also as part of the executive branch, so the idea is that you can really do whatever you want with your attorney general or your vice president, but when it comes to, for example, putting pressure on a state official, calling former Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and saying I want you to find me 11,000 votes, that's where I think it gets complicated and that's where I think she's going to have some work to do on remand, Katherine, we were talking. before we went back to the year 63 decision here once again a fall of ideological lines based on what we heard during oral arguments about two months ago now, based on what we heard during those arguments, are you at all surprised that the decision itself was 63?

In fact, I'm a little surprised before I say "I expected it to be 90 and then everyone would have their own agreement, so I'm a little surprised that I mean the principle of defense, I mean absolute immunity for official acts, presumptive immunity for you". I know the quasi and then none for the unofficial, but it's not a shocking decision, um, the way the oral argument went and Judge Chuckin, who moves very quickly, unlike another judge, I think he will do the best I can, there will be no trial. I will say it emphatically before the election, yes, but there may be a hearing before the election and then that is important because there will be people who will testify about the pressure that was put on them, supposedly, you know the vice president of the United States, May. testify because even though the decision said that the pressure on him deserves some presumptive immunity, it is still a question whether that is protected or not and then that is a question of fact that judge chuckin will have to determine all the correct legal ramifications, regardless of Right now let's talk a little more about the possible political ramifications of this decision and for that we bring in Hogan Gidley, former deputy press secretary of the White House, from the Trump administration, we also have Simone Sanders Townsen, former senior advisor and Vice President Harris' chief spokesperson.

Also, I'll start with you, Simone, because again here we are just four days after that. Beyond the dismal performance of the sitting president during that debate and now what would seem to be at least potentially more bad news for this. Administration, no, yes, Craig, you know, yesterday I was in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, along with Melissa Murray, who you just met, and we were talking to black women in the suburbs of Montgomery County and one of the things that they spontaneously mentioned was the Supreme Court and I guess that conversation with what we're seeing from this decision today is uh and I'm looking at the statements from Biden campaign officials.

I'm actually looking forward to waiting and seeing what the president's official statement is. from the president's statement as well as the vice president's statement on this particular question, you know, like Hogan. I worked in the White House. I was deputy assistant to the president, senior advisor and spokesperson for the vice president and staff. are are and also the families of um, the president and the vice president, they all receive, we all receive briefings about ethics and what is legal and what is not legal and about our positions and how we should not use our positions in a in a way that, Frankly, it is not in line with what we must do to serve the American people, and in reading this decision and simply scanning it, it appears that I am referring only to the example given in the decision. about having a meeting with the Department of Justice, regardless of the topic of that meeting, which is an official event that is covered and that to me goes against the guidance that the staff who work and support the president and the vice president, regardless of um who are they so I'm I think I'm shocked and I really read and look at the tea leaves um from the perspective of someone who used to work in the white house but politically I think this is just voters those voters.

In Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, they were very aware of what they felt the Supreme Court had been doing, how they felt it was overreaching and how that motivated them this November, uh, Hogan, uh, we heard from his former boss a few years ago. moments. a statement on social truth, starting what you would assume would be a big victory, but here's what Hogan, as you know, in the past when legal decisions have been made that haven't necessarily been favorable to the former president that he's been. able to raise a lot of money with those decisions uh it would seem like this decision might make it a little bit more difficult to do it this time no I don't think so largely because of what you talked about early on with Simone which is the debate performance with Joe Biden last week, which is so abysmal.

Listen to this court case like so many others, it really has lasting ramifications not only for Donald Trump but for presidents in the future and that was outlined by the justices in I would say this opinion is a big win for Donald Trump, but it's also a big victory for the American people, in large part because of a section I noticed where they said, basically, a common sense solution here, but they said the presumption of immunity applies. For everyone in the Oval Office, that's important because if it weren't, lawyers on the Republican side would be multimillionaires by the end of the year for suing Barack Obama for things he did by harassing American citizens or spying on Trump.

They are going after Joe Biden after he left office for ignoring the law at the southern border. They are also criminally pursuing Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, which never happened. This would be a perpetual system of massive judicial malice for decades to come against former presidents. for making those decisions and one of the things that I thought stood out to me with all due respect is fair to compare those AF mention scenarios to the former president essentially asking an elected representative in the state of Georgia to come out. and finding me thousands of votes is a fair comparison, well let me ask you, is it a fair comparison to say asking someone to look for votes in Georgia, where they had all kinds of cases of illegalities, irregularities, anomalies, do you think it's not the same as Barack Obama buzzing and killing an American citizen.

I would say that his problem is much worse than Donald Trump's, so those are the problems that now will not be litigated in the future because the court has ruled that presidents of all stripes have that presumption of immunity, but in addition to that , I found it fascinating that conversations between any president and his advisors and the Department of Justice were also not admissible in court and that the president's motives could not be questioned or litigated rather because if they could, then, as I mentioned that everyone lawyers on the republican side would go after every former democrat president and say that everything they did by definition was political and that they should be able to sue and jail them.

I think this settles the dust a little and we can move on. knowing that the Constitution and the American people are much safer now than they were yesterday Hogan gley, you have been consistent after the appeals court decision was announced. I remember you saying you thought the whole thing was fake at first glance, Hogan. Thanks again, Hogan, who maintains that um uh, this is I'm quoting your words, not mine, a big victory for the American people is that objectively speaking it's a fair assessment, well, that's a political statement, so I'll just say which is a great victory for democracy. and that's how it works, you go to the Supreme Court, you get a decision and then you have to respect the decision.

This is a victory for Trump in the sense that we can read this opinion and even talk about the facts that are identified and I keep coming back to those discussions with the example of the Department of Justice, but no Supreme Court opinion can imagine all the possible factual scenarios that could arise, so now Trump's defense will present that argument and take into account that in terms of the non-fundamental acts for which there would be absolute immunity but the other the other official acts for which there is a presumption of Trump immunity begins with the winning seat in the lower court and I say this because the Supreme Court is going to require the government to prove it.

They have what is called the burden and they often teach you in the law that whoever has the burden wins 9/ 10 of the case, the government has the burden of proving that this conduct is unofficial and therefore not entitled to immunity, so like Trump. goes back to the lower courts, his mission will be to describe all conduct in the indictment as somehow official and making that argument will not be an uphill climb for them because again the burden falls on the government, so as you can imagine . that after this opinion the Trump team is meeting and saying how do we frame every act in the impeachment in any impeachment as tangentially official poss conduct because the court has now said that the motive behind the decision cannot be investigated, it must be analyze behavior. and say if it's official.

I think the real question for Jack Smith is whether there's anything left in this accusation that's worth it. Processing their entire project was to do it before November 5th because in the event that the former president was re-elected, Jack Smith leaves, the whole case leaves, everything is gone, so the kind of rush here from the point Jack Smith's point of view was knowing that he will be out of a job and that this whole case and the classified documents case will be eliminated, it may still be. prosecuted in Georgia, although that one is also indefinitely on hold, he has already been convicted here in New York, but the federal cases, if the former president were re-elected, are completely eliminated, so I think the challenge for Smith is to see is there something here worth simplifying to the extent that he can and that's not even clear to me if he can do it for all the reasons chis um described, but to the extent that there is something left here, is it worth doing to try to get it? done before he's out of a job, if the former president is re-elected, that's fine, I was going to say, and Trump's lawyers are going to fight not to have this hearing because that would require Trump to sit in a courtroom while he could be out campaigning. so you can expect them to argue that it should be postponed, yes, okay, my big thanks to all of you here in the studio and to all the other correspondents, contributors and lawyers who have joined me for the last few minutes again.

For those of you who might join us on a 63 decision, the Supreme Court ruling that former President Trump is immune from official access, the president is not immune from unofficial acts, of course, the decision will continue to be analyzed and examined for the next few hours, but for now that will conclude this NBC News special report. We'll have more news from NBC on our broadcast network now online at nbcnews.com and, of course, a full recap tonight on NBC Nightly News for now, although I'm Craig Melvin. thanks for watching good Monday morning thanks for joining us I'm Joe Frier The Savannah Sellers will be with me shortly so let's recap this important breaking news coming out of the Supreme Court on the last day of the term in the lastNow the high court issued this 63rd ruling along ideological lines that says former President Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts committed while he was president but not for unofficial acts.

Now this complicated case will return to a lower court that will have to decide what is official. And what he is not, Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty to a 4-count indictment in the federal election interference case that was brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Let's bring in NBC News legal analyst Angela Sadella to learn more about this. So, Angela, what does this decision mean at its core? This will go back to the lower court. Does the prosecution have the burden here of trying to say? Hey, this is official, this is not official, yes, it really seems so, and we received very good guidance here on the differentiation between What could be unofficial and what is official here, the court explicitly says something so interesting that it is that we cannot investigate the motives of the president or the former president or whoever is being tried for presidential actions to decide whether or not those actions are official or unofficial because they are too intrusive.

The second orientation between unofficial and official is that any type of violation of a general law cannot be presumptively unofficial, which means that simply because the president appears to have violated some law or There is a statute that is a very violation clear that in itself also doesn't mean official or unofficial, so these two guidelines that the court shot down are quite interesting to give Trump some power here and they are not going to examine his intentions Joe, that's a big problem. Conclusion The chances of this case going to trial before the election are virtually zero now, that is absolutely correct because the bigger question here about where any liability or immunity exists goes back and forth to the district court.

That will take a long time. Both parties have to prepare their own briefs. Your arguments. Chuckin can make many decisions and remember that they can all be appealed again so all of those decisions can continue to be questioned. Joe, it's okay, Angela. Cadella appreciates her analysis this morning of this great Supreme Court decision. Thanks.Now to our other big story this weekend or this morning, the 4th of July holiday travel season got off to a great start this weekend and this morning the TSA is predicting that a record number of passengers will travel during The next few days and it's a chaotic start Severe weather has delayed or canceled flights from coast to coast, while a major hurricane also threatens several islands in the Caribbean NBC Sam Brock is on top of everything joined us from Miami International Airport Sam, good morning, Joseph, good morning, chaos like As usual in Miami, you know you mentioned it was pretty complicated over the course of the weekend, over 8,000 delays, guys, and this is the TSA that has made three of its five biggest projection days of all time in the last week at around the same time.

We have a Category 3 hurricane, Hurricane Barrel, approaching the Winward Islands, with threatening light winds and storm surge. The Fourth of July holiday travel season has certainly been a big hit with the first fireworks arriving in the form of a barrage of storms across the country on Sunday. More than 8,000 flights across the United States were delayed and more than 2,500 were canceled. Travelers got a taste of the hectic Christmas crisis. Our flight to Seattle was delayed 7 hours. Ground stops were issued Sunday at all major New York-area airports, JFK LaGuardia and Newark. its drivers in Connecticut had to deal with flooded streets and tangled power lines in the west, flash flood evacuations in Ruid Doo, New Mexico, the same area.