This is the Tom Hartman program.

Michael Dreeben, the counselor to Jack Smith, basically, to the special counsel, is arguing before the Supreme Court

that Donald Trump and future presidents should not enjoy absolute immunity.

The conservative justices, particularly Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, all seem to be arguing, and

Roberts to some extent, that really we think maybe he should have immunity.

It's getting really bizarre bizarre and this is a major

absolutely historic. Right now Neil Gorsuch is speaking I'm going to play you know I don't

expect this to last more than another 15 or 20 minutes I'm going to play it for you so that you can

just listen in on this moment of history. Here it is.

Yes, and I think I would start by looking at the statutes.

That's Michael Dreeber, the attorney for the special counsel.

The president's conduct.

And for example, the statute that prohibits fraud to defeat the lawful functions of the United States.

The statute defines what the United States.

The statute defines what the purpose is that the defendant has to have in mind.

It has to be to defeat something that the United States is doing,

and it has to be by deception.

I don't think that that gets us into the realm of motive hunting in the area where we are

as concerned, I think, as the court would be about doing something that would undermine the presidency and the executive branch.

And 1512C2, we may have different views on the clarity and the scope of that statute I think if the court does

interpret corruptly as involving a consciousness of wrongdoing and elevates that

to consciousness of illegality then we're in a different realm.

...