0:00

A U.S. Senator destroyed by blackmail.

0:03

He was not bound by the

0:05

truth or by facts. The country's

0:07

most outrageous political demagogue ascending toward

0:10

the peak of American power. Millions

0:13

upon millions of devoted followers. This

0:15

is a story of heroes willing to

0:17

face down tyranny and the risk to the

0:19

country if they fail. Rachel Maddow

0:22

presents Ultra, season two of

0:24

the chart-topping original podcast. Listen

0:26

now on Amazon Music. So

0:30

anything much going on in the

0:32

news? Enjoying these sleepy summer days

0:34

with that much happening? Ugh. All

0:39

right, we've got a bunch of stuff to cover

0:41

tonight. First, the former president of the United States

0:43

is going to be sentenced for 34 felony convictions

0:46

next week on Thursday. The

0:49

prosecutors who brought that case and

0:52

who prosecuted in court that case

0:54

against Donald Trump, they were due

0:56

today to make their

0:58

sentencing recommendation to

1:01

the judge. In a New

1:03

York State case like this, it's

1:05

not the jury that convicted Trump that

1:07

will decide what his sentence is. It's

1:09

the judge who oversaw the case. It's

1:11

Judge Juan Marchand who will sentence Trump.

1:14

The maximum sentence under law that Trump

1:16

could face is four years in prison.

1:19

It's very possible, however, that he might not get any

1:21

prison time at all or if he does get a

1:24

sentence of confinement, it's possible it could be home

1:26

confinement. We just don't know. On

1:29

the one hand, what he's been convicted of

1:31

while it is 34 felonies, it's a

1:34

nonviolent crime. And

1:36

also he's a first-time offender. He's never been

1:38

convicted of anything before. Those

1:40

would certainly cut against him getting any

1:42

significant jail time. On

1:45

the other hand, he does have three

1:47

other major felony criminal cases pending against

1:49

him at this moment. He was fined

1:52

by this judge for multiple violations of

1:54

the court order in this case that

1:56

required him to restrain himself from speaking

1:58

about jurors and witnesses. witnesses and court

2:01

staff and the families of the judge and the

2:03

lawyers in this case. He's

2:05

also shown absolutely no remorse whatsoever, which

2:07

is the thing that judges are supposed

2:10

to consider. So, all of

2:12

those factors serve

2:14

as sort of aggravating context. Those might

2:16

cut in favor of him getting

2:18

jail time. Who knows? This

2:21

is why a person with the job

2:23

title, Judge, makes a decision like this

2:26

and not randos like you or me. Before

2:30

the sentencing, the judge will get

2:32

three pieces of advice, essentially, to

2:34

help him make his decision. He

2:37

will get a

2:39

not-public-facing confidential recommendation

2:41

on Trump's proposed

2:44

sentence from the probation department. He

2:47

will also get a sentencing recommendation from

2:49

Trump's own lawyers, which presumably

2:51

will be that he should get a cookie and a nice

2:53

bag of treats because he's a good boy. And

2:57

presumably, he will also get the

2:59

sentencing recommendation from prosecutors as well.

3:01

There is no rule about whether

3:03

or not the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation

3:05

is made public either before

3:07

the sentencing or during the sentencing or after.

3:09

That is all up to Judge Marchon as

3:11

to whether he tells us what the prosecutors

3:14

are asking for. But

3:16

I can also tell you tonight that it is not

3:18

totally clear when the judge

3:20

is going to get that sentencing

3:22

recommendation from prosecutors. It was due

3:24

in today, but then

3:26

something happened today. Immediately

3:30

following today's seismic Supreme Court

3:32

ruling on presidential immunity, Trump's

3:35

lawyers asked the judge, advised

3:37

the judge in the

3:39

New York criminal case that they are going to

3:41

ask him formally, they're going to file a motion

3:45

asking him essentially to set aside Trump's

3:47

guilty verdict, despite the jury's verdict

3:50

in that case. After

3:53

the prosecution,

3:55

excuse me, after the defense, after

3:57

Trump's lawyers notified the going

4:00

to ask him to set aside the verdict,

4:03

prosecutors then didn't send in their

4:05

sentencing recommendations as they had been

4:07

expected to do. Now,

4:10

as far as we know, the sentencing is still on, but

4:14

there is an element of uncertainty now as to what

4:16

kind of a hitch this might be in

4:18

finishing up this criminal case in which Trump

4:20

has already been convicted. We

4:23

can report tonight that Trump's

4:25

lawyers have asked that the

4:27

sentencing itself be delayed. And

4:31

we expect that Judge Marchon

4:33

will consider delaying the sentence

4:35

after he gets that, both

4:37

that request from Trump's lawyers, but also

4:39

after he hears from the prosecutors on

4:42

that matter. Now

4:44

that prosecutors have delayed submitting

4:46

their sentencing recommendations, does that mean the

4:48

sentencing itself will be delayed? Does that

4:50

mean anything else material in terms of

4:52

the sentence that Trump will likely face

4:54

or when he will hear about it?

4:57

We don't know. We are waiting to

4:59

hear from Judge Marchon. But

5:03

even with all of this new uncertainty, we

5:05

are in this remarkable place now, right?

5:08

We are officially in the middle of this

5:10

mess for the United States of

5:12

America, where the Republican

5:14

party has nominated

5:17

someone for president who set

5:19

off a violent effort to overthrow the government

5:21

the last time he lost an election, who

5:23

was starting off the month of July, 2024,

5:25

the month in which the

5:27

Republican party's gonna hold its nominating convention.

5:30

He's starting off that month with the

5:32

CFO of his company serving time in

5:34

Rikers, with his campaign manager and senior

5:37

White House advisor, Steve Bannon, reporting today

5:39

to federal prison, and who

5:41

himself may be sentenced to Rikers or to

5:43

New York State Prison, depending on what sentence

5:45

he's about to get after his own conviction

5:48

on nearly three dozen felony charges. Excellent

5:51

job, Republican party, great choice.

5:55

I love how Democrats are like, oh, how

5:57

did we get into this mess? It's

6:01

true that not understanding how old, 81

6:04

years old, looks sometimes is maybe

6:06

a Democratic Party mistake. But

6:09

Democrats are not the party that picked

6:11

the guy whose charity was shut down

6:13

as a fraud, whose fake university was

6:15

shut down as a fraud, whose business

6:17

was convicted on multiple felony fraud counts,

6:20

whose CFO is quite literally in jail,

6:22

who had one personal lawyer put in

6:24

prison and the other has lost his

6:26

law license, who has been charged under

6:28

the Espionage Act for whatever this is

6:30

that he was doing with highly classified

6:32

documents, including, reportedly, nuclear secrets, who

6:36

was found liable by a jury

6:39

for sexual assault, who

6:41

has been charged with more than a

6:43

dozen felonies under a RICO indictment in

6:45

the state of Georgia, and who really

6:47

has been found guilty by another jury

6:49

of 30-plus felonies for which he is

6:52

now awaiting a possible prison sentence. That's

6:54

who you guys picked. I love that the worry

6:56

in this instance is that the Democrats might have

6:58

made a bad choice for their nominee. Only

7:02

in America. Only in America. I

7:05

will say, in fairness, if the Democrats

7:07

are going to change their nominee, they should

7:10

maybe get on it. Don't

7:12

take advice from me on this, but it seems

7:14

like common sense that just

7:17

waiting a

7:19

while is the worst possible

7:22

solution. If Vice President Kamala

7:24

Harris or anyone else is going to

7:26

take over the top of the ticket

7:28

instead of President Biden, that candidate will

7:30

need enough time to actually run a

7:32

campaign and it's July. So

7:35

I don't know if the Democrats are going to replace

7:37

Joe Biden at the top of the ticket or

7:39

if they should. The only

7:41

person who can make this decision is the

7:43

nominee himself, President Biden himself. But

7:46

I do know that the window to make this

7:48

decision is right now and it's about this wide.

7:52

Speak now or hold your peace, Democrats,

7:54

if you actually want a chance of competing here.

7:58

Because meanwhile, the Republicans are

8:00

delighted to be running their felon. The

8:04

guy who really did sic the rioting

8:06

mob on Congress, they're

8:09

really running him while he

8:11

is awaiting sentencing himself for a whole separate

8:13

set of dozens of unrelated felony charges. The

8:17

case in which those 34 felony convictions against

8:19

him were obtained is a case

8:21

that took years to get into court,

8:23

in part because while Trump was president,

8:26

his Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors

8:29

to stop their investigation of Trump

8:31

in conjunction with that case. We

8:35

know that from the former U.S. Attorney in

8:37

that federal district who wrote about it in

8:39

his book. They

8:41

ordered that investigation stopped. They

8:44

ordered Trump's name and

8:46

descriptions of Trump's involvement in that criminal

8:48

case stripped from

8:51

public-facing documents in that case.

8:54

So it took a while to finally get

8:56

it into court, and it took state court

8:58

prosecutors to do it. But

9:02

now, thanks to the Supreme Court's immunity

9:04

ruling today, we know for sure that

9:06

that is the only case

9:08

for which Trump will face trial before he

9:10

is elected, if ever. And

9:14

it seems important to note, because

9:16

we've now got certainty about that, it seems important

9:19

to note that at the heart of that case,

9:21

at the heart of that New York case in

9:23

which he was convicted of all those felonies, the

9:25

heart of that New York case in which he

9:27

is right now awaiting sentencing, even as he is

9:29

awaiting the Republican National Convention and his nominating speech,

9:31

at the heart of that case is a lie.

9:35

A lie that he is still telling the

9:37

American public, even as he

9:39

gets ready to get sentenced for

9:41

being caught out in that lie and punished for it

9:43

by a jury. He is sticking with

9:45

the lie. He is trying to ride it back to

9:47

the White House. He told the lie again in the debate

9:50

last week. And

9:53

so that's the second thing I want to talk about tonight, which is that

9:56

I'm going to be back here tomorrow at this time.

9:59

I know you are just getting used to me only

10:01

being here on Monday nights instead of five nights a

10:03

week. But sorry,

10:06

I'm here right now. I'm going to be here

10:08

tomorrow at 9 p.m. Eastern. And

10:11

I hope you will come back and watch 9 p.m.

10:13

Eastern tomorrow night, Tuesday night. I

10:15

am doing a special. It

10:18

is an interview with

10:20

the woman who is the subject of that

10:22

ongoing lie from Donald Trump. She was the

10:24

center of the criminal case against him, which

10:27

resulted in his 34 felony convictions and

10:29

that will occasion his potential prison sentence

10:31

next week. She was subpoenaed

10:34

by the prosecution and served as

10:36

the central witness in the prosecution's

10:38

case. I have wanted to interview

10:40

her for a very long time.

10:43

Her testimony in the trial was

10:45

legitimately shocking. She

10:48

would like to elaborate on that testimony. And

10:51

so my interview with her is finally

10:53

happening. My guest tomorrow night right here

10:55

9 p.m. Eastern is Stormy

10:58

Daniels. This will be

11:00

her first U.S. interview since

11:02

the guilty on all counts verdict in

11:04

the case involving Trump's payment to her

11:07

to keep her from speaking out about

11:10

her experience with him. Again,

11:12

her testimony at that criminal trial

11:15

was crucial to his conviction. It

11:17

was legitimately shocking testimony. She

11:19

would like to elaborate on that testimony and she

11:22

will do so here. 9 p.m. tomorrow

11:25

night. We'll talk about the case.

11:27

We'll talk about what's happened since the case. We'll talk

11:29

about what's happened to her because of her role in

11:31

that case. We'll talk about what it

11:33

means for what is

11:35

coming next from Donald Trump if he is

11:38

reelected to the presidency. Again, 9 p.m. Eastern

11:40

tomorrow Tuesday night. I hope you will watch.

11:44

Now, as we await Trump's

11:47

sentencing in that case, this immunity ruling

11:49

today from the Supreme Court is at

11:51

hand and

11:53

I'm not a lawyer. It is as

11:56

far as I can tell in my layman's understanding.

11:59

It is

12:02

as radical as anything I have ever seen

12:04

from the United States Supreme Court. I

12:07

can certainly tell you that it is

12:09

profoundly worse. It is a profoundly worse

12:12

ruling than even the most pessimistic observers

12:14

predicted. There was

12:16

essentially one substantial aspect of immunity for Trump

12:18

that Trump and his lawyers put to the

12:20

court that they did not get. That

12:23

was this sort of internally contradictory

12:25

confusing proposal they'd made that a president

12:27

could only be criminally prosecuted for crimes

12:30

if you first impeached him in the

12:32

House and convicted him in the Senate.

12:34

The implication was that any

12:37

failed impeachment effort would effectively

12:39

immunize that behavior for

12:41

life. That

12:44

thing about impeachment being connected in that

12:46

way to a criminal prosecution, the court

12:48

threw that out as nonsense. But

12:51

they gave him everything else he asked for and more. They

12:54

gave him immunity in every other way that he asked

12:56

for it, including for things his own lawyer conceded

12:59

weren't among Trump's official acts

13:01

as president. Things that

13:04

Trump's lawyer conceded were private acts

13:06

were described in today's majority ruling

13:09

as things for which Trump might

13:11

nevertheless potentially get

13:13

immunity. Here's

13:16

how Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her

13:18

dissent today. She said that

13:20

the court, quote, refuses to designate any

13:22

course of conduct alleged in the indictment

13:25

as private despite concessions from Trump's counsel.

13:28

She continues, when asked about allegations

13:30

that private actors helped implement a

13:32

plan to submit fraudulent slates of

13:35

presidential electors to obstruct the certification

13:37

proceeding and Trump and a co-conspirator

13:39

attorney directed that effort, Trump's counsel

13:42

conceded the alleged conduct by Trump

13:45

was private. She

13:47

then says, quote, only the majority, meaning

13:49

only the majority ruling in the court

13:52

today thinks that organizing

13:54

fraudulent slates of electors might

13:56

qualify as an official act of

13:58

the president. In

14:01

other words, Trump may be even more

14:03

protected from prosecution on the fake electors

14:05

thing than even Trump asked for. Justice

14:10

Sotomayor's dissent is being cited widely

14:12

today, not only

14:14

because of its heat, it

14:16

is considerably hot, but

14:19

also because of the light that it

14:21

sheds on the practical consequences of this

14:23

ruling from the majority. She

14:26

says, quote, looking beyond the fate

14:28

of this particular prosecution, the long-term

14:30

consequences of today's decision are stark.

14:34

The court effectively creates a law-free zone

14:36

around the president, upsetting the status quo

14:38

that has existed since the founding. This

14:41

new official act's immunity now lies about

14:43

like a loaded weapon for any president

14:45

that wishes to place his own interests,

14:47

his own political survival, or his own

14:50

financial gain above the interests of the

14:52

nation. The president of

14:54

the United States is the most powerful

14:56

person in the country and possibly the

14:58

world. When he uses his official powers

15:00

in any way under the majority's reasoning,

15:02

he now will be insulated from criminal

15:05

prosecution. Orders the Navy's SEAL

15:07

Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune.

15:10

Organizes a military coup to hold onto

15:12

power? Immune. Takes a bribe in

15:15

exchange for a pardon? Immune.

15:17

Immune, immune, immune. Let the president

15:20

violate the law. Let him exploit

15:22

the trappings of his office for

15:24

personal gain. Let him use his

15:26

official power for evil ends. Because

15:29

if he knew that he may one day face

15:31

liability for breaking the law, he might not be

15:33

as bold and fearless as we would like him

15:35

to be. That's the majority's

15:37

message today. Even if

15:39

these nightmare scenarios never play out, and

15:41

I pray they never do, the damage

15:43

has been done. The relationship between the

15:45

president and the people he serves has

15:47

shifted irrevocably. In every use of

15:49

official power, the president is

15:52

now a king above the law. She

15:55

closes, quote, never in the history of

15:57

our republic has a president had reason

15:59

to believe that he would be a

16:01

immune from criminal prosecution if he used

16:03

the trappings of his office to violate

16:05

the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all

16:07

former presidents will be cloaked in such

16:09

immunity. If the occupant of that office

16:11

misuses official power for personal gain, the

16:14

criminal law that the rest of us

16:16

must abide will not provide

16:18

a backstop. She

16:20

says, quote, with fear for our democracy, I dissent.

16:26

Justice Sotomayor's dissent was joined today

16:28

by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson,

16:31

the three of

16:33

them, and through Justice Sotomayor's writing this

16:35

dissent. They have at least done us

16:37

the favor of writing what's kind of

16:39

a speaking dissent. It spells out not

16:41

in legalese, but in plain English the

16:44

stark consequences of this ruling

16:46

today. To

16:49

his credit, actually, President Biden did the same

16:51

tonight at the White House. He said, quote,

16:53

today's decision almost certainly means there's no limits

16:55

to what a president can do. This

16:57

is a fundamentally new principle and it's a dangerous

16:59

precedent. The power of the office will no longer

17:02

be constrained by the law, even

17:04

the Supreme Court of the United

17:06

States. The only limits will be

17:08

self-imposed by the president alone. But

17:14

there are two practical consequences of

17:16

this ruling that

17:18

I feel like I need help in understanding tonight. I am

17:20

worried about both of them, I have to tell you, but

17:22

I feel like I need expert

17:25

advice in terms of understanding what they really mean.

17:27

And so I'm going to ask for some help on two

17:30

things in particular. The

17:32

first is this, which is not from the dissent, but

17:34

from the actual ruling. It's

17:38

talking about the part of the federal indictment

17:40

against Trump for the overthrowing the

17:42

government staff, for the January 6th stuff,

17:44

the part of the indictment that relates

17:46

to him trying to use the Justice

17:48

Department, trying to employ the Justice

17:50

Department basically as a tool in his

17:53

scheme to overthrow the government and hold

17:55

on to power after he lost the

17:57

election. On

17:59

that point, specifically, the ruling says

18:02

this, quote, the indictments allegations that

18:04

the requested investigations were shams or

18:06

proposed for an improper purpose. Do

18:10

not divest the president of exclusive

18:12

authority over the investigative and prosecutorial

18:14

functions of the Justice Department and

18:16

its officials. Because the

18:19

president cannot be prosecuted for

18:21

conduct within his exclusive constitutional

18:23

authority, Trump is absolutely immune

18:25

from prosecution for the alleged

18:27

conduct involving his discussions

18:30

with Justice Department officials. Absolutely

18:33

immune from

18:35

anything related to his discussions with

18:38

Justice Department officials. My

18:41

question is, doesn't

18:43

that mean the president, any president here is

18:45

being given overt carte blanche from the court,

18:48

that he or she can tell the Justice

18:50

Department to do anything for any reason, and

18:53

it can never be reviewed for the life of

18:55

that president? Because

18:58

if so, among other things, Richard Nixon would

19:00

like his presidency back, please. If

19:04

everything that happens between a

19:07

president and his Justice Department

19:09

is absolutely immune from the

19:12

criminal law, is absolutely immune from

19:14

not only the prosecution but investigation

19:16

by the courts as a potentially

19:18

criminal matter. That

19:20

means that the president can do things with the

19:22

Justice Department and

19:26

that, I mean, what's the limit? My

19:30

second question is about what happens next

19:33

in that federal case, referenced there

19:35

about January 6th. The

19:38

justices and the majority today, with

19:40

Chief Justice Roberts writing for them,

19:42

said explicitly that they want portions

19:44

of this case sent back to

19:46

the district court. So

19:48

not the part that relates to Trump

19:50

talking to Justice Department officials, but

19:53

the other parts of it, they

19:55

want those parts of the indictment sent

19:57

back to the district court, meaning to

19:59

back to Judge- Tanya Chutkin's courtroom in

20:02

Washington, D.C., essentially for her to determine

20:04

in her courtroom whether or

20:06

not Trump's actions, as

20:08

described in the indictment, were official and

20:11

therefore immune, or were they

20:13

not official? Which might mean that

20:15

charges on those matters can go ahead. What

20:18

does that mean exactly? What are the

20:20

justices saying should happen in

20:22

Judge Chutkin's courtroom and when? And

20:25

what will that look like to

20:27

an American public that really is

20:29

actively considering right now whether to send

20:31

this particular felon back to

20:33

the White House thanks to the Republican Party

20:35

of the United States? Joining

20:38

us now is Nina Totenberg. She's NPR legal

20:40

affairs correspondent. She's a longtime Supreme Court reporter

20:42

who is there today for

20:45

the ruling. Ms. Totenberg, it's a real pleasure and honor to

20:47

have you with us tonight. Thank you so much for making

20:49

time to be here. I'm very

20:51

pleased to be here. I hope I have the

20:53

answers to all your questions. Let

20:57

me ask about those last couple of points

20:59

first. Can you explain

21:01

a little bit about what the

21:04

justices in the majority, what the

21:06

ruling said today about a conversation

21:09

between a president and Justice Department

21:11

officials? Well,

21:13

what the court said is that the

21:16

president is unlike, the

21:19

presidency is unlike the other two branches

21:21

of government. The House and

21:23

Senate have hundreds of members. The

21:26

judiciary has hundreds of judges and

21:28

at the top of it are

21:31

nine Supreme Court justices. But the

21:33

president is just one person and

21:36

he controls the entire executive

21:38

branch is basically what Chief

21:40

Justice Roberts said. And

21:42

that means he controls the Justice

21:44

Department too. And

21:46

he can call up the Justice Department

21:48

and say, do this or

21:50

don't do this. At least as

21:53

I understood what the Chief Justice

21:55

was saying. That is within his

21:57

prerogative as the chief executive.

22:00

of the United States of America. And

22:04

it's true that those of us who lived

22:06

through Watergate thought we had seen

22:09

the Supreme Court say, well, you can't really

22:12

corrupt the FBI and

22:14

the rule of law through

22:17

by ordering various members of

22:20

the Justice Department to do corrupt things. But

22:23

that, in fact, seems to be what

22:25

the court is saying today is

22:28

sort of off the table. And

22:31

that is a very huge difference

22:34

from what those of us who've been around

22:36

longer than we care to admit, thought

22:39

the rule of law was

22:41

at least after Watergate. When

22:45

it comes to stopping

22:48

and starting criminal

22:50

prosecutions or investigations for

22:53

improper purposes, that's scary.

22:57

I think particularly given the kinds of campaign

22:59

rhetoric that we've heard from Mr. Trump heading

23:02

into a potential second term. But I

23:04

also think about the other things that the Justice

23:06

Department does. I mean, I think about the use

23:09

of force by

23:17

the Justice Department and what the

23:19

president could order in that regard. The

23:21

hypotheticals involving the worst case scenarios, assassination

23:23

of political rivals in these things are

23:26

always brought up in terms of the

23:28

military, but the US

23:30

military doesn't have any sort

23:32

of deployable force in

23:34

the United States absent an invocation of the

23:36

Insurrection Act. It would be the

23:39

federal law enforcement agencies that are employed

23:41

to use force, including deadly force against

23:43

America on American soil. And it would

23:45

seem to at least edge into the

23:47

president having immunity for improperly ordering that

23:49

sort of thing as well. I

23:53

think that's at least a reasonable conclusion.

23:55

I don't know whether the court would

23:57

agree with that, but you know, Those

24:00

of us who were at the original,

24:02

at the oral argument, understood that the

24:04

court was going to, as it

24:07

were, divide the baby. It was

24:09

very clear that a majority of the

24:11

justices thought that

24:13

at least this case should

24:15

go back to the trial judge, and

24:18

she should decide which of these

24:20

things were official actions and

24:22

which weren't. And if they were

24:24

official actions, they were much more likely

24:27

to be protected, the president

24:29

was much more likely to be protected from

24:32

any sort of prosecution

24:35

than if they were not

24:37

official actions. But

24:40

the court went much further to the

24:42

astonishment of, I think, those of us

24:44

who were at the oral argument and

24:46

lots of scholars that I talk to

24:48

today on both sides of

24:50

the aisle, so to speak, who thought

24:53

this was way more deferential

24:56

to the president's power than

24:59

any of them had expected. But

25:02

if you look at five

25:04

of those six justices spent

25:07

their entire lives before becoming

25:09

judges, as most

25:12

of their lives, at least, being

25:14

acolytes to presidents. They worked

25:16

in the White House. They

25:18

worked in the Justice Department

25:20

and top positions. Brett

25:23

Kavanaugh was staff

25:26

secretary, I think was his title.

25:28

He's the guy who decided what the president and

25:31

who the president saw and the materials that

25:33

went into the president. And

25:35

most of these guys felt,

25:40

for all of their lives, that

25:42

the presidents were being harassed, by

25:46

the opposition party, harassed by plaintiffs,

25:48

harassed in all kinds of ways

25:51

that made their jobs very difficult

25:53

to do. And

25:55

that is reflected in this decision

25:57

today, and the only member of

26:00

the conservative supermajority who

26:03

dissented at all was

26:05

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who did

26:08

not have that experience, and

26:10

who said, look, if you can

26:12

show that

26:15

he accepted a bribe, you

26:18

have to be able to present that

26:20

evidence in court. You can't limit the

26:22

evidence, because this opinion, besides everything else,

26:24

says, not only is the

26:26

president basically

26:29

immune for prosecution for a great many

26:31

things. For

26:33

those things that you can prosecute him

26:36

for, you can't use

26:38

the evidence of his

26:40

wrongdoing if

26:45

it involved official acts in order to

26:47

prove to a jury that

26:50

he did something bad. And she

26:52

said, that's basically where I'm getting off this

26:54

boat. I don't agree with you. I agree

26:56

with the dissenters. But

26:59

even with her dissenting on that point, there's

27:02

still five justices. There's still five votes for

27:04

what happens. Astonishing.

27:06

It's, as you say, the

27:08

astonishment that you saw among legal observers

27:11

today. I don't qualify as a

27:13

legal observer. I'm just a person, but

27:15

the astonishment is real. Nina

27:18

Totenberg, NPR legal affairs correspondent, national

27:20

treasure. It's always an honor

27:22

to have you here, whatever you can be here. Thank you so

27:24

much. And it's always great for my ego

27:26

when you introduce me that way. Thanks

27:29

so much for having me. Take

27:31

care. All right, we've got much more

27:33

to come here tonight on this very, very big news day. We've

27:35

got a lot of guests stacked up, a lot of stuff to

27:37

say, a lot of stuff to cover. Don't

27:39

go away. Saturday,

27:44

September 7th, it's MSNBC

27:46

Live Democracy 2024. Our

27:49

premier live audience event

27:51

with your favorite MSNBC

27:53

hosts. Visit msnbc.com/democracy 2024

27:56

to buy your tickets. Here

27:59

on MSNBC. We are staying on

28:01

top of several fast-moving stories. Today's

28:03

news requires more facts. A new

28:05

report finds the climate crisis is

28:07

getting much worse. More context. We

28:09

are seeing record numbers of people

28:11

crossing into the United States, just

28:13

in the southern border. And

28:16

more ground covered. The mission will continue

28:18

to carry out regime change in the

28:20

Gaza Strip. The world's never been harder

28:22

to understand. That's why it's never been

28:24

more important to try MSNBC. Understand

28:28

more. I

28:32

concur with Justice Sotomayor's dissent today.

28:36

She hears what she said. She said, in every use of

28:38

a visual power, the president

28:40

is now a king above the law. With

28:44

fear for our democracy, I dissent.

28:47

End of quote. Associate

28:50

the American people, dissent. I

28:53

dissent. President

28:55

Biden tonight at the White House responding to the

28:57

Supreme Court's ruling that hands presidents,

29:01

including himself, absolute

29:03

immunity from prosecution for anything they

29:05

can successfully argue was an official

29:07

act. The president

29:10

name-checked Justice Sonia Sotomayor's blistering dissent,

29:12

which she delivered from the bench

29:14

at the court today. That dissent

29:16

started, quote, today's decision to grant

29:19

former president's criminal immunity reshapes the

29:21

institution of the presidency. It makes

29:23

a mockery of the principle, foundational

29:25

to our Constitution and system of

29:28

government, that no man is above the law.

29:30

Relying on little more than its own

29:33

misguided wisdom about the need for bold

29:35

and unhesitating action by the president, the

29:37

court gives former President Trump all the

29:39

immunity he asked for and more. She

29:43

said, quote, because our Constitution does

29:45

not shield a former president from

29:47

answering for criminal and treasonous acts,

29:50

I dissent. And

29:52

she laid out the basis for her

29:54

dissent. Normally when Supreme Court justices dissent,

29:57

they use the word respectfully, saying, I

29:59

respectfully dissent. Today, Justice Sotomayor and also

30:01

Justice Katanji Brown Jackson each struck the

30:04

word respectfully and just wrote, I dissent.

30:07

And that is the kind of reaction we

30:09

are seeing from legal scholars and experts everywhere

30:11

today. NPR's veteran legal correspondent

30:14

Nina Totenberg just telling us moments ago

30:16

that legal observers and experts,

30:18

including what she described as sort of the

30:20

both sides of the aisle, meaning both sides

30:22

of the ideological number line, were

30:25

in her words, astonished by

30:27

how radical this ruling was today. Cheryl

30:30

An Eiffel, the former president and director counsel

30:32

of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, she responded

30:34

to the ruling today by saying this. She

30:37

said, quote, today's decision in Trump versus

30:39

United States is a grotesque and hideous

30:42

distortion of the rule of law by

30:44

a majority of the highest court of

30:46

the most powerful democracy in the world.

30:49

The national and global implications

30:51

of upending this core principle

30:54

of democracy is potentially catastrophic

30:56

national and global implications. Catastrophic.

31:00

Joining us now is Cheryl An Eiffel. She

31:02

is now the Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. distinguished

31:04

chair in civil rights at Howard Law School.

31:08

Ms. Eiffel, it makes me happy to see your face.

31:10

I'm really glad that you could be here tonight of

31:12

all nights. Thank you for making the time. Of

31:16

course. So Justice

31:18

Roberts criticized the

31:21

liberal justices' dissent today.

31:24

They were striking a tone of

31:27

chilling doom, essentially saying, calm down,

31:29

ladies, accusing them of

31:31

overreacting and portraying this ruling's consequences

31:33

as something that they are not.

31:36

You clearly think the consequences of this

31:38

ruling are, in your words, potentially catastrophic.

31:40

Can you explain why you think so?

31:45

Yeah, I do. I do. Thank you so

31:47

much, Rachel, for having me. That

31:49

was part of what was so disturbing about

31:51

Chief Justice Roberts' opinion. You know,

31:53

if you're going to burn the house down, don't

31:55

be mad that people call it arson. You

31:59

know, this decision— is—I talked

32:02

about it being—you know, having catastrophic

32:04

consequences, because precisely of

32:06

what Justice Sotomayor says about the rule of law.

32:09

There is no question about the rule—what the

32:11

rule of law means. It means that the

32:13

law applies equally to all, rich and poor,

32:17

high-born and low-born, black,

32:19

white, Latino. It

32:22

means that the one—that one principle

32:24

of law applies to everyone equally.

32:27

And the president, once he is no longer

32:29

a president, is a citizen of the United

32:32

States, and therefore the presumption is

32:34

that he is covered as well by the rule

32:36

of law. To shatter

32:38

that today is so

32:40

incredibly shocking that I think

32:42

many people are back on their heels. And

32:45

I say that it has global implications,

32:47

because our country is

32:49

a tremendously influential country

32:51

because of our power, because of our history,

32:54

because of our national identity that

32:56

we have worked so hard to

33:01

press to other nations. We have

33:03

held ourselves up as an exemplar

33:05

of democracy. And for the

33:07

highest court in our land to send a signal, not

33:10

only to those in this country, but to the rest

33:12

of the world, that the rule

33:14

of law is something that can be

33:16

interrupted for a president of

33:18

your same political party is incredibly

33:20

dangerous. And the worst part

33:23

of it, Rachel, is this is not a

33:25

theoretical conversation. We actually have

33:27

experience with former President Trump. We

33:30

know what he is capable of.

33:32

We know the kind of excesses

33:34

that he would like to and

33:36

did engage in as president. So

33:39

this is not a case in which the

33:41

court did not have before it the evidence

33:44

of someone who would dangerously use the power

33:46

that they so recklessly put in the hands

33:48

of any president today. I

33:50

was interested in the way that

33:53

Justice Sotomayor and her dissent kept going back

33:55

to the particularities of the indictment and Trump's

33:57

conduct, as if to say this is not

33:59

a case. theoretical matter. This is not something

34:01

that we are describing or deciding in the

34:05

abstract. I think making

34:07

that exact point implicitly. Let

34:10

me ask you about a very dark potential

34:14

consequence of this, and this again

34:16

was raised explicitly by Justice Sotomayor.

34:19

The implications of the hypothetical

34:22

assassination scenario, let's

34:25

say a president ordered an

34:27

element of the military to carry out an

34:30

attack on somebody who

34:32

he saw as a danger or as a

34:34

political rival. The

34:37

justices seem to have made clear that

34:40

if the order to kill the person could

34:42

be construed as something that was official, that

34:45

the immunity matter is settled and that would

34:47

actually be something for which a president could

34:49

never be prosecuted. Is

34:52

it that simple? I mean, how would that actually work

34:55

in the legal system? You

34:59

know, it seems impossible to imagine that

35:01

that could be what they mean, although

35:03

the plain reading of what they wrote,

35:05

that is what they mean. And we

35:07

have a former president who you remember

35:09

asked his defense secretary why they

35:12

couldn't just shoot protesters, Black Lives

35:14

Matter protesters in the legs. This

35:17

is someone who actually thinks in that

35:19

way. Now, one of the things that

35:21

held Trump back when he was president

35:23

was that very often the people around him would

35:26

not carry out the things he asked them to

35:28

do. He asked his White House counsel over and

35:30

over again to fire Jeff Sessions, and he wouldn't

35:32

do it. He constantly asked

35:34

people to do things, and they would ignore

35:37

him, knowing that he wouldn't He

35:40

wouldn't do it himself because he was at

35:42

that time unsure of his liability. Now

35:44

he is sure that this Supreme Court thinks

35:47

he would have no liability. So, first of

35:49

all, we have a category of things he

35:51

can do himself. He can strip military

35:54

members from their ranks for

35:56

not following his orders. He

35:58

can accept cash. bribes,

36:00

for pardons. There's a

36:03

whole bunch of things he can do. But

36:05

then he also can order others to do

36:07

things. And the people that he's going to

36:09

have, if he is elected in his Cabinet

36:12

in his second round, are going to be

36:14

people of considerably less restraint than those he

36:16

had the first time around, and they were

36:18

not particularly restrained. So what

36:21

this court has opened up to

36:23

us is a true danger. It

36:25

has unleashed the full power of

36:27

someone who has shown themselves to

36:29

be utterly unfit to lead this

36:31

country, someone who has no regard

36:33

for restraint or ethics, and

36:36

the fact that you can litigate

36:38

it later, the fact that you can, you

36:41

know, return to the district court, or

36:43

that you can address these

36:45

matters in a lower court to make

36:48

their way back up to the Supreme Court,

36:50

won't change the fact that people will be

36:52

harmed, that people can be harmed, and that

36:54

our systems of government and that the rule

36:56

of law can be even further degraded. Somewhere

36:59

along the way, there are a majority of

37:01

justices on this court who decided that they

37:03

needed to be the last word on everything,

37:06

that they could no longer trust the apparatus

37:08

of democracy. They could no longer trust federal

37:10

agencies, thus overturning Chevron. They could no longer

37:12

trust women to make decisions about their bodies.

37:15

They could no longer trust university officials to

37:17

decide how to build their classes. And they

37:19

could no longer trust the

37:22

political system to decide

37:24

fairly how to pick their representatives so

37:26

they couldn't interfere with partisan gerrymandering. Now

37:28

they've decided that determining whether or not

37:30

the law covers the president of the

37:33

United States and how much it does

37:35

and when it does and when it

37:37

doesn't is fully in their hands.

37:40

And they have just cut a wide swath

37:42

of the president's actions,

37:45

powers, official and unofficial, that they

37:47

have deemed barred from

37:49

criminal prosecution. It's stunning. And

37:52

I hope people understand how significant this is, how

37:55

much this day is one that will be remembered

37:57

as one that is a

37:59

very important issue. It has very serious

38:01

consequences for our understanding of the rule

38:03

of law in this country. We had

38:05

better wake up and understand the consequences

38:07

of this election and understand the consequences

38:09

of having allowed a Supreme Court to

38:12

have this kind of power in which

38:14

they believe they cannot be checked by

38:16

any level of government in our society

38:18

and not trust the American people to

38:20

make decisions for themselves. I'm

38:22

so alarmed. I'm so disturbed.

38:24

But I would say I feel also

38:26

a sense of resolve. I think they

38:28

have fully shown themselves. This court has

38:30

played its hand. Anyone pretending

38:33

that we don't know what's going on with this

38:35

court is doing that, is pretending. And

38:38

I think we now have to get very serious about what

38:40

it means. We are allowed to protect our democracy, and we

38:42

have to do so. We have to do so at the

38:44

ballot box. And then once we

38:46

prevail in elections, we have to make real

38:49

decisions about what we want to do to

38:51

ensure the Supreme Court is ethical, that the

38:53

Supreme Court is acting in a way that

38:55

is democratic, and we have to pass laws

38:57

that will close all of these loopholes that

38:59

have been left open because we had the

39:01

temerity to believe that norms and ethics would

39:03

guard us against certain kinds of conduct. That

39:06

has not proven to be true, and so

39:08

we have a lot of work to do.

39:11

Yeah. And in the very near term, in four

39:13

months, we will be making a

39:15

decision about whether—about who

39:17

should be in the Oval Office holding what

39:20

is now effectively unlimited and tyrannical power

39:22

and what kind of person ought

39:25

to be entrusted with that, which nobody should

39:27

ever be entrusted with, but now that's

39:30

what we have. Cheryl and Eiffel, Howard

39:32

Law School, again, seeing you here

39:34

is a comfort to me because I

39:36

trust you and I believe in you. Same to me. And

39:39

I am grateful for your wisdom tonight. Thank

39:41

you. All right. We've got

39:43

more news here ahead tonight, including what Cheryl and Eiffel was

39:45

just talking about in terms of some of this going back

39:47

to the district court. The

39:49

expectation now that there actually will

39:51

be, of all things, a big

39:53

evidentiary hearing, sort of a mini

39:55

trial, on Trump's

39:58

federal criminal indictment related to

40:00

January. That is an ironic

40:02

and interesting next phase,

40:04

given what happened today at the Supreme Court.

40:07

We'll talk about that with Adam Schiff and

40:09

much more to come, stay with us tonight. Saturday,

40:14

September 7th, it's MSNBC

40:16

Live Democracy 2024, our

40:19

premier live audience event

40:21

with your favorite MSNBC

40:24

hosts. Visit msnbc.com/democracy 2024

40:26

to buy your tickets. When

40:29

news breaks, go beyond the headlines with

40:31

the new MSNBC app. Get real time

40:34

analysis from live blogs to in-depth essays,

40:36

video highlights from your favorite shows and

40:38

hosts and the latest updates on the

40:41

2024 election. Go

40:43

beyond the what to understand

40:45

the why. Download the app

40:47

now at msnbc.com/app. He

40:52

said immediately, quote, today's Supreme Court

40:54

decision on Donald Trump's immunity claim

40:56

is far worse than anything I

40:58

imagined. Under this ruling, a

41:00

president can order the assassination or jailing of

41:02

their political rival and be immune. They can

41:04

take a bribe in exchange for an official

41:07

act and still be immune. They can organize

41:09

a military coup to hold onto power and

41:11

still be immune. Quote, if that sounds mad,

41:13

that's because it is. That

41:16

was the response today from Congressman Adam

41:18

Schiff, who knows something about trying to

41:20

hold a president accountable. He was the

41:23

lead prosecutor in the first impeachment of

41:25

Trump. He then served on the January

41:27

6th investigation in Congress after Trump left

41:29

office. Schiff has been a very frequent

41:31

target of very explicit threats from Trump.

41:33

Trump once posted ominously that Schiff, quote,

41:36

has not paid the price yet for

41:39

what he has done to our country. He

41:41

also suggested Schiff should be arrested for

41:43

treason. That was just days after he

41:45

appeared to fantasize publicly about executing traitors.

41:49

He said, not just Schiff, but all

41:51

members of the January 6th investigation should

41:53

be put in jail. Schiff

41:55

and his colleagues say they are preparing for Trump

41:58

to follow through on these threats if he becomes

42:00

president. president again, thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling,

42:02

a second term President Trump would

42:05

have broad new immunity from prosecution

42:07

for actions he might take against

42:09

his political enemies. And

42:13

with looking at the ruling in one

42:15

very straightforward way, it looks like he would have that

42:17

immunity almost without limit. Joining us

42:19

now is Congressman Adam Schiff, member of House

42:21

Judiciary Committee, the Democratic nominee in this year's

42:23

U.S. Senate race in California. Mr.

42:26

Schiff, it's a real pleasure to have you here. Thank you for taking

42:28

time. Good to be with

42:30

you. I feel like

42:32

the seriousness of this ruling is sort of slowly

42:34

sinking in over the course of the day. I

42:36

think the initial headline suggested that it might have

42:38

had limited scope. But as your reaction

42:40

indicates, and I think as we're all starting

42:42

to understand now, this is one

42:45

of the most far reaching approaches they could

42:47

have taken to this issue and goes far

42:49

beyond what even I think conservative observers thought

42:51

they would do. Do you think that's fair?

42:55

I think that's more than fair. It really

42:57

is difficult to overstate what

43:00

a dangerous precedent they have set,

43:02

how they have essentially unshackled the

43:04

presidency to commit crimes. The

43:07

court really, without missing words, has

43:09

told the American people a president

43:12

of the United States is fully

43:14

authorized to commit crime. It

43:16

is simple as that. The court has

43:18

found that the rule of law applies to everyone

43:21

with one exception. It does not apply to the

43:23

president of the United States. The

43:25

very person most in need

43:27

of constraint, because of course the president of

43:29

the United States has the ability by virtue

43:31

of the powers of that office to

43:34

do the most damage by violating the

43:36

law. So I don't think anyone could

43:38

overstate just how destructive this president is,

43:41

that it comes a

43:43

few days before July 4th, if

43:45

you know, is another body blow. I'm

43:47

usually an optimistic person, but it

43:50

is hard not to see this as

43:52

a dangerous precedent that will haunt us. And

43:55

I would not be surprised if the

43:57

Roberts Court is one day. termed

44:00

the infamous Roberts Court for this decision

44:02

among others. One

44:05

of the practical consequences of this ruling

44:08

is that for

44:10

many of the provisions in

44:12

the federal indictment of Donald

44:14

Trump for January 6th for trying to

44:17

overthrow the government in order to stay in power, the

44:19

Supreme Court has essentially told

44:21

the district court, told the trial

44:24

court, Judge Chanya Chutkin in

44:26

Washington, D.C., that she should

44:28

hold evidentiary hearings on

44:30

what Trump did and whether the things that he

44:32

did that are part of that indictment should

44:35

be considered as official acts and therefore

44:37

immune or whether they should be unofficial

44:40

acts and I'm not quite sure if those

44:42

are immune too, but they wanted to do factual

44:44

hearings on what he did. What

44:47

are you expecting from

44:49

that implication of today's ruling? What should

44:51

the public expect? Well,

44:54

I don't think the public should expect to find

44:57

much comfort in that. The

44:59

Supreme Court did a few things today. It

45:01

not only opened the door to presidential

45:03

crime, but it also delayed any accountability

45:05

for Donald Trump. It waited

45:08

such a long time to issue, really to the

45:10

very end to issue this decision. It remanded it

45:12

to the lower court. It

45:15

set such tight boundaries over

45:18

what actions the court could even consider

45:20

to be personal in nature and non-official

45:22

in nature as to thoroughly constrain

45:24

the lower court. It held

45:26

a whole categories of conduct like that

45:28

involving the Justice Department essentially off limits

45:30

for the district court to even consider.

45:34

Those hearings are not going to be like the January

45:36

6th committee because they're not going to be public. And

45:40

the most dire consequence of all

45:42

of this is that accountability is

45:44

being pushed off until after the

45:46

election. And should Donald

45:48

Trump be elected, that accountability in

45:50

the form of this prosecution

45:53

will probably never come. A

45:56

president can now lose

45:58

an election, seek to over- return the

46:00

election, violate the law and constitution. And

46:02

this Supreme Court has said, there is

46:04

nothing the American people can do about

46:06

it. And I find

46:09

cold comfort in the remand. I think it's

46:11

just a delay tactic. They went

46:13

so out of their way, even to limit

46:15

what evidence the court could hear. The

46:17

conversation between Donald Trump, for example, and

46:20

the Deputy Attorney General, the acting Attorney

46:22

General, where he says, just say

46:24

the election was corrupt, and leave the

46:26

rest to me and the Republican Congressman, that

46:29

can't even be admitted in evidence at

46:31

those hearings under this rule. This

46:34

free court said, you can't consider the president's

46:36

motive. You can't consider the president's actions

46:39

and words, if it has

46:41

the patina of officiality. So

46:44

I take very little comfort in the remand and

46:47

the power of the district court to sort this out. Congressman

46:51

Amshiff, I appreciate you taking

46:53

time to talk through this and for being

46:55

as blunt as you are. I agree with

46:58

you in terms of those implications and it's

47:00

not worth sticking our heads in the sand

47:02

about it. Congressman Sir, thank you very

47:04

much. Thank you. All

47:07

right, we'll be right back. Stay with us. Just

47:15

a reminder before I go tonight, I

47:17

will be back here tomorrow, Tuesday night,

47:19

for a special event. Tomorrow night, starting

47:21

at 9 p.m. Eastern, from 9 p.m.

47:23

to 11 p.m. Eastern, I

47:26

have an interview with Stormy Daniels.

47:29

The case about, the criminal

47:31

case about the payment to her to

47:33

stop her from talking about her experience

47:35

with Donald Trump, is

47:37

the case that will result in his sentencing on

47:40

34 felony convictions next week. In

47:42

this interview, which is the first American

47:44

interview she has done since her testimony

47:46

in that case, she will describe her

47:48

experience of testifying against Trump in that

47:50

trial. She will elaborate on her testimony,

47:52

which was legitimately shocking. She

47:55

will talk about the threats and harassment

47:57

that have gone along with her standing

47:59

up. to him. I will

48:01

tell you the interview is not easy

48:03

material. It is not

48:06

necessarily something you want to watch with your

48:08

kids. But

48:10

I will tell you she has

48:12

a very compelling story to take,

48:14

story to tell. She's

48:16

also excellent company. She's really, really funny. You're

48:18

going to want to hear what she says,

48:20

but that's tomorrow night, 9pm to 11pm Eastern

48:23

here on MSNBC. That's going to do it for me for now.