Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Justices Seem Skeptical That Trump Has Absolute Immunity But May Not Green-Light Quick Trial In January 6 Case; Supreme Court Case May Not Resolve Trump Immunity Once And For All. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 25, 2024 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:00]

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, JUSTICE: Even if people agree that some are immunized. If there are other acts that aren't, the case would go forward.

MICHAEL DREEBEN, ATTORNEY FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH: That is right.

JACKSON: All right. Going back to the clear statement argument, I'm struggling with that argument because my understanding was that, when a charged criminal statute is read narrowly in the presidential context to not apply to the president a constitutional question is being avoided.

So that you're doing that to avoid having to deal with the constitutional question. So what is the constitutional question that is being avoided in those kinds of situations?

DREEBEN: A serious one? This is just an application of this court's ordinary construction of criminal statutes that if there is an available interpretation that would avoid a serious constitutional question, the court's preference is to --

JACKSON: Right, and the nature, I guess I'm going at, what is the -- my understanding is that what is being avoided in that situation is the question of whether a former president or, you know, can be held criminally liable for doing the alleged act that is being asserted in that statute consistent with the Constitution.

So we look at the statute, it's got some elements in it, and we're saying, well, geez, if this statute and those elements apply to the president's conduct in this situation, we'd have to answer the question, can the president be held liable consistent with the Constitution for that behavior? Is that right?

DREEBEN: So the first step in that analysis, I just want to --

JACKSON: Yes, please.

DREEBEN: Yes. But the first step is -- JACKSON: OK.

DREEBEN: -- is there ambiguity?

JACKSON: Right.

DREEBEN: And these statutes apply to any person, they apply to whoever. There's no ambiguity in those phrases. This court in Nardone versus United States concluded that similar words to any person --

JACKSON: Yes.

DREEBEN: -- applied to government officials.

JACKSON: All right. Well, let's just assume that we -- I guess I'm just trying to get at we're avoiding a constitutional question if we do that in the ordinary case. And what's confusing to me about this case is that we're not being asked to avoid the constitutional question.

In fact, the question of whether or not the president can be held liable, consistent with the Constitution, or does he have immunity is the question that's being presented to us. So I don't understand how the clear statement kind of analysis, even works.

It seems completely tautological to me for us to hold that presidents cannot be prosecuted under any criminal statute without a clear statement from Congress to avoid the question of whether or not the Constitution allows them to be prosecuted. We'd have to have a reason, right? I mean, we'd have to have a rationale for applying the clear statement rule.

DREEBEN: I think the court would have to have some rationale that's not evident in either the existing doctrine or the text. And just one data point for the court in thinking about how the clear statement rule works. In the United States versus Sun-Diamond, in a case about gratuities that the court is probably familiar with, Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for unanimous court in which he used a hypothetical about what would happen if the president received a sports replica jersey at a typical White House event.

Would that violate Section 201(c)? And the court offered a construction that it had to be for because an official act to avoid that problem. I think if there was such a well-received understanding that presidents are not included in general federal criminal law unless the president is specifically named, which he is not in section 201. Justice Scalia would have thought of that. And some member of the court would have reacted and none did.

JACKSON: All right. Let me go on to ask about what you take the petitioners position to be in this case because we've had a lot of talk about drawing the lines. Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Gorsuch suggested that we should be thinking about blasting game and that within the -- first, we have private versus official and then within official now we have something about core acts versus other acts as we try to figure out, you know, at what level the president is going to have immunity.

But I took the petitioner's argument in this case, not to be inviting us to engage in that kind of analysis. I thought he was arguing that all official acts get immunity. And so I didn't understand us to be having to drill down on which official acts do. And so my question is, why isn't it enough for the purposes of this case, given what the petitioner has argued to just answer the question of whether all official acts get immunity --

DREEBEN: That is enough. And if the court answers that question the way that the government has submitted, that resolves the case.

[12:35:03]

I want to make a clarification that I may have left the court with some uncertainty about. The official act analysis that my friend is talking about is the Fitzgerald versus Nixon outer perimeter test, which is extremely protective of the president.

It's not looking at core versus ancillary. It's saying everything the president does is a target for private civil lawsuits. That is not a great thing and therefore they are all cut off.

JACKSON: That's an absolute immunity kind of concept, right?

DREEBEN: Correct. That's right.

JACKSON: Anything that's official in the outer perimeter is not subject to liability.

DREEBEN: That is right.

JACKSON: And so we don't have to then go, well, OK, we have the bucket of official. Now let's figure out which within that might be subject to liability. Not on the theory of absolute immunity, correct?

DREEBEN: Neither on the theory of absolute immunity or on our theory. On his theory, everything's protected. On our theory, there is no immunity. But this is where I would draw the distinction. There are as applied constitutional challenges that you run through the Youngstown framework and this court's customary method of analysis. And you determine whether there's a infringement of Article 2.

So what you're saying is even if we reject the absolute immunity theory, it's not as though the president is, you know, doesn't have the opportunity to make the kinds of arguments that arise as -- at the level of, you know, this particular act or this particular statute has a problem in retrospect.

I think I hear you saying we should not be trying to, in the abstract, set up those boundaries ahead of time as a function of sort of blanket immunity, allow each allegation to be brought and then we would decide in that context.

DREEBEN: Yes, with the additional note that petitioner has never made that argument. And I think it would be up to a district court to decide whether to go that route at this point in the litigation. He's put all of his eggs in the absolute immunity basket.

JACKSON: All right. And if we invite -- you know, if we see the question presented is broader than that, and we do say, let's engage in the core official versus not core and try to figure out the line, is this the right vehicle to hammer out that test? I mean, I understood that the most, if not all, but most of the allegations here, there's really no plausible argument that they would fall into core versus not such that they are immune.

DREEBEN: We don't think there are any core acts that have been alleged in the indictments that would be off limits as a matter of Article 2.

JACKSON: So if we were going to do this kind of analysis, try to figure out what the line is, we should probably wait for a vehicle that actually presents it in a way that allows us to test the different sides of the standard that we'd be creating, right?

DREEBEN: I don't see any need in this case for the court to embark on that analysis.

JACKSON: All right. The final sort of set of questions that I have have to do with what I do take as a very legitimate concern about prosecutorial abuse about future presidents being targeted for things that they have done in office. I take that concern. I think it's a real thing.

But I wonder whether some of it might also be mitigated by the fact that existing administrations have a self-interest in protecting the presidency. That they understand that if they go after the former guy, soon they're going to be the former guy and they will have created precedent. That will be problematic.

So I wonder if you might comment on whether some of the caution from the Justice Department and the prosecutors and whatnot comes from an understanding that they will soon be former presidents as well.

DREEBEN: I think absolutely. And I would locate this as a structural argument that's built into the Constitution itself. The executive branch, I think as this court knows, has executive branch interest that it at times asserts in opposition to Congress so that the proper functioning of the president is protected. And I believe that that value would be operative and is operative in anything as momentous has charging a former president with the crime.

JACKSON: And I would also say, I think, and ask you to comment on, you know, presidents are concerned about being investigated -- evaded and prosecuted and it chills to some extent their, you know, ability to do what they want in office. And that's a concern on one side.

But can you comment on the concern about having a president unbounded while in office, a president who knows that he does not have to ultimately follow the law because there is really nothing more than, say, political accountability in terms of impeachment.

[12:40:02] I mean, we have amicus briefs here from Professor Liederman, for example, who says, you know, a president would not be prohibited by statute from perjuring himself under oath about official matters. From corruptly altering, destroying, or concealing documents to prevent them from being used in an official proceeding, from suborning others to commit perjury, from bribing witnesses or public officials.

And he goes on and on and on about the things that a president in office with the knowledge that they have no criminal accountability would do. I see that as a concern that is at least equal to the president being worried, so worried about criminal prosecution that he, you know, is a little bit limited in his ability to function. So can you talk about those competing concerns?

DREEBEN: So, Justice Jackson, I think it would be a sea change to announce a sweeping rule of immunity that no president has had or has needed. I think we have also had a perfectly functioning system that has seen occasional episodes of presidential misconduct.

The Nixon era is the paradigmatic one. The indictment in this case alleges another. For the most part, I believe that the legal regime and the constitutional regime that we have works and to alter it poses more risks.

JACKSON: Thank you.

DREEBEN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Counsel. Rebuttal, Mr. Sauer?

JOHN SAUER, TRUMP'S LAWYER: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Counsel. Counsel, the case is submitted.

JACKSON: The Honorable Court is now adjourned until Thursday, the 9th of May at 10:00.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And the case is submitted. We just heard from the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts. We heard about an hour and 40 minutes of argument. Do I have my math right or? Two hours and 40 minutes, right, I'm sorry.

Time flies when you're having fun. Two hours and 40 minutes of oral arguments in a very momentous U.S. Supreme Court case. Donald J. Trump petitioner versus the United States, in which all nine justices tested the arguments of that of Donald Trump's attorney, as well as that of the attorney representing Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is seeking to prosecute Donald Trump.

But Mr. Trump and his attorneys are claiming that he should have immunity for official acts he committed while he was president. And right now, as we heard from the justices, they realize they're making a decision, not just about this case, but a decision that will have implications for all future U.S. presidents. Let me bring in Laura Coates because it sounded as though some of the justices were more focused on what their ruling might potentially mean for a future president than they were focused on what this meeting would mean for the prosecution of Donald Trump. I don't mean that as a value judgment, I'm just in terms of how they were testing the arguments.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we want that in part to think about the long term consequences of this question. Would a president have immunity? It's not just looking in the past, it's about what would come forward. Now, remember, this really came down to the last few minutes of this oral argument.

Ketanji Brown Jackson asking the question about these competing interests. On the one hand, you have someone like Donald Trump who was saying, listen, every president has got to have immunity. Otherwise, they'll be so afraid to do their actual job. I'm paraphrasing, of course.

And she's saying that's one interest. But the other one is, what do you do with an unbounded president who has no fear of any criminal liability, and the only solution is a political one? How do you balance those two things? And ultimately, the entire discussion today was about that.

But also about, well, what should we be doing in this instance right now? Is this what we can resolve right now? Or is it a matter of us taking it back to the lower court and saying, listen, you guys figure out what's an official act.

You guys figure out what is a personal act. We're not going to go through a list, give you an itemized list of all the things that could be presidential and what could be personal. You figure that out. Now the consequence of that is, is it about the prosecution that would be impacted here today, or about a prospective one in the future?

And that's where you look at the counsel for Trump. We all want to have resolution. We all want to know what the answer is today. But it's in their best interest to have it put off to the future. To think about it not for this moment, but maybe prospectively that buys more and more time.

TAPPER: And then let me bring in Steve Vladeck right now. Steve, is it your judgment that that will probably be where the justices arrive at least five of the nine kicking it back to the appeals court level to have them sort out, OK, what counts as an official action? What does not count as an official action? Do you think that's where this is headed? And how much longer could that take?

[12:45:09]

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jake, I think it is. I mean, I think it probably would actually go all the way back to Judge Chutkan in the trial court. And to me, what's really interesting about the arguments we heard is just how closely Chief Justice John Roberts played his cards to his chest. I mean, I think we heard Justice Amy Coney Barrett really, I think, picking up on the idea of sending this back to the trial court, put in private acts on the prosecutable side of the line. She even got Trump's lawyer to concede.

TAPPER: Yes, you know, what Steve, let me interrupt --

VLADECK: -- some of the indictment.

TAPPER: Let me interrupt right there just to play that soundbite so you can then explain it better to us if we could run SOT 11 (ph) with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMY CONEY BARRETT, JUSTICE: You concede that private acts don't get immunity.

SAUER: We do.

BARRETT: OK. And I want to know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of these acts as private. Petitioner turned to a private attorney, was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenges to the election results. Private?

SAUER: As alleged. I mean, we dispute the allegation, but that --

BARRETT: Of course.

SAUER: -- sounds private to me.

BARRETT: Sounds private. Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge. Private?

SAUER: That also sounds private.

BARRETT: Three private actors, two attorneys, including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding, and petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney directed that effort.

SAUER: You read it quickly. I believe that's private.

BARRETT: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So Steve, just to underline what you're saying here, this is Amy Coney Barrett, the Justice, who Trump appointed, getting Trump's attorney to concede that some of the things that he has been charged with by the Special Counsel Jack Smith, are definitely not covered by immunity. VLADECK: I think that's right, Jake. And the reason why that's so important is because you can build out from there, sending this back to the trial court. And I think the question becomes two fold. First, are there five justices, perhaps Justice Barrett, the three Democratic appointees, and Chief Justice Roberts, who can agree on what the line is that puts those acts on the prosecutable side, and maybe some other things not.

And then, Jake, second, timing. If that agreement exists, if there is at least five votes for that proposition, how quickly can the justices write that opinion, especially if there are separate opinions, concurrences or dissents from the other four Republican appointees, from Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

And so I think, you know, where's John Roberts, and how quickly can he draw a line that at least Justice Barrett and the three Democratic appointees are comfortable with sending him back to the lower court? That's the real takeaway I have after that two-hour and almost fifty minute argument.

TAPPER: Elie, do you agree?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I do, Jake. It looks to me like we could be headed for a Richard Nixon like resolution here, and here's what I mean.

TAPPER: You mean that quickly?

HONIG: Not that quickly --

TAPPER: OK.

HONIG: -- but in terms of the way it comes out. Richard Nixon resolution was within two weeks or so. It's going to take longer. 1974, Richard Nixon gets a subpoena. He says, but I have executive privilege. That was never recognized by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court comes back a couple weeks later, says good news, bad news. Good news is you're right, there is such thing as executive privilege. Bad news, it does not apply to you in this situation, Richard Nixon. And it could well be that this court says for the first time in history, yes, there is such thing as immunity, criminal immunity for the president. However, it does not ultimately apply to you, Donald Trump, on the facts here.

The question is, how much do they have to go through to get there? How much time is it going to take? And I agree, we could well see a remand back to the district court, which will take plenty of time.

TAPPER: All right, let me throw it to Kaitlan Collins right outside the court. Kaitlan?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, Jake, fascinating to listen to those conversations and Trump's attorney making those arguments. I've got my panel back here with me, Paula Reid and Kasie Hunt. And Paula, there was a moment that we were all listening to that, that caught everyone's ear, where it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, essentially asking the reverse of what Trump's team, Trump's attorney was arguing, which was, you know, he's saying, if this is what Jack Smith and the government says it is, then future presidents are going to be chill.

They're not going to be able to make decisions as bold --

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

COLLINS: -- and fearlessly as we've seen presidents do for the last over 200 years. And she kind of reversed that questioning Tim. I want to listen to that moment because it's a few hours ago of what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had to ask to Trump's attorney.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.

[12:50:02]

If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: I mean, that is really reversing their argument, basically turning it on its head.

REID: Yes, exactly. And it acknowledges that the task before the justices right now is to set the standard for criminal liability for all presidents in the future. And it's pretty clear from what we heard that the majority of justices are not willing to just toss out the special counsel's case.

And as you heard there, from her, she's like, you could potentially make the Oval Office, right, this hotbed of crime. And it was interesting, too, from the Trump legal team, we even heard them kind of draw down some of their argument, because Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she got one of Trump's lawyers to concede that not everything in this indictment was an official act that was so significant.

And so that's kind of the bad news for Trump, right? But the good news is that Chief Justice John Roberts clearly believes that the lower courts did not do enough to suss out exactly what is an official act versus a private act. So what they're setting up here is likely the justices are going to come up with some sort of test and then send it back down to the lower courts for more litigation. And what that means is that we could, maybe, all be sitting here again in a year after more litigation at the lower court level. Or, if Trump is re-elected, he can make this case go away. So even if he's not likely poised for a legal win at the high court, strategically, it sounded like this is going to be a win for him.

COLLINS: Yes, I mean, Kasie, this is such the most brazen argument that I think we heard from Trump's team today was when Justice Kagan was asking, OK, well, if there is basically a military coup, if the president orders the military to stage a coup --

KASIE HUNT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes.

COLLINS: -- then, you know, you're still saying that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached and then convicted that that's the only basically mechanism for that. But, I mean, if that's -- it's theoretical. But if it actually happened, you know, what's to say, OK, well, he, you know, bars the House and the Senate from impeaching him?

I mean, what they were doing really does test the bounds of the presidency.

HUNT: Well, I mean, how theoretical is it exactly? I mean, we're sitting here after January 6th, which was in the minds of many a very clear attempted coup. I mean, that's kind of what this case is all about at the bottom of it. And this theory that they were putting forward, this argument that they were putting forward about, well, actually, if you did that, it would encourage presidents.

If you didn't grant immunity, it would encourage presidents to stage coups because they would be trying to protect themselves, is really a little bit head spinning, to be quite honest. I did think the Kagan exchange of everything we heard here, and I have to say, one of the things that came out of the pandemic era, getting to listen to these arguments.

REID: Yes.

HUNT: I know, Paula, you sat in the court and done it many times, but it's really just so fascinating to be able to do it. But the thing that really cut through for me in terms of what is easy to understand was exactly what Kagan was saying, where she kind of went through and forced them to say, well, what about this?

What about, you know, if you try to bribe, you know, an ambassador that might not have been Kagan, but --

REID: Roberts.

HUNT: Roberts, yes. Like, those kind of clear examples of potential conduct, for example, the SEAL Team Six thing that cut through from the lower court arguments, I feel like those are the things we're going to be talking about here in the months to come.

COLLINS: Yes. And we've seen how that has persisted from, you know, the D.C. appeals court where one judge was the one who posed the question about SEAL Team Six. Now that has become a pervasive line of questioning.

Kasie and Paula, stand by, we'll get back to this conversation in a moment.

Anderson, to you in New York.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, Kaitlan, thanks so much.

I want to bring in Doris Kearns Goodwin into this conversation, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, is the author of the remarkable new book, "An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s." Doris, thanks so much for being with us today.

It is such an incredible day. You have this sort of split screen moment of -- on the one hand, you have this case going on in New York. The former president, a criminal defendant in New York, while the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether he's immune in a separate criminal matter. Can you put this into perspective for us? I mean, have we seen something like this before?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I mean, I've been trying to imagine what it would be like 50 years from now or 100 years from now, when historians are trying to put this into perspective. And what it really comes down to, we have to remember, is the most important thing is that all these actions, especially in the indictments on Jack Smith's side, relate to the failure of the former president to accept the loss of his presidency.

Something that every other president has been willing to do, every other candidate's been willing to do, and I think that's where the history will judge. I mean, think about how hard it is to lose that election if you're a candidate.

President Carter said when he lost it, I promised you I would never tell you a lie, but I have to tell you now, this hurts. It really hurts. But I deeply respect what the people have done. I respect the system, and therefore, I give my congratulations to Reagan.

[12:55:02]

When Gore lost after 31 days of a disputed election, the Supreme Court decided against him. He said, I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, but it's the law of the land. We're talking about the rule of law. And similarly, when Hillary Clinton lost a heartbreaking election, she said, we not only respect the tradition of the peaceful transition of power, but we cherish it.

And this is the unprecedented thing, is this is the first time that any president didn't accept any candidate the loss. And that's why we're here today. That's why this immunity case is taking place. And that's, I think, what history will focus on when they look back on this time. I'd love to be there to figure out how it all turned out.

COOPER: Well, I mean, Trump's lawyers argued today in front of the Supreme Court that he can't be prosecuted for official acts. And then said that ordering a political assassination or carrying out a coup could maybe be interpreted as official acts.

You know, there was that famous exchange that Richard Nixon had with David Frost. And I just want to play that because it sort of speaks to this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, 37TH U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

DAVID FROST, TV HOST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: I'm wondering what your thoughts are.

GOODWIN: I think the framers would be rolling over in their beds if they heard him say something like that. I mean, the whole idea of the Constitution, they put the Congress as Act I rather than the presidency. There were checks and balances on a president.

The idea that simply by ascending to that office you can do whatever you want and that makes it a law? I mean, that's an absurd thought. And we're not really dealing with that right now. My guess is what everybody else is saying, that the Supreme Court will reject that idea of absolute immunity, but somehow throw it back on the courts, the lower courts, which means it'll be delayed and the accountability will never be had.

And the only hope for that, I think, is what Abraham Lincoln said is if the rule of law is not followed, that that's the most important thing that a democracy will be failing at. He gave a famous speech in the 1830s about mob law having replaced the rule of law. And he said, let reverence for the law be taught to the children by their mothers.

Let it be taught in the schools. Let it be taught in the bully pulpit. And that's the way we'll be able to get out of a problem that we have when a possible dictator might arise. So now the real challenge, I think, for our country is we're left, we didn't have it on January 6th, I thought that would educate the country as to the failure of the rule of law by not agreeing to the transition of power.

I thought it would happen with the Senate hearings. Now it's going to have to happen during the election. And what Lincoln would say is it's so important to somehow educate the country, go back to the founding, go back to the Constitution, and educate the country as to what's happened here.

And then the people will have that power, not a jury of 12, but the people will have that power in November to get that accountability in case President Trump were to win the election again, and then make the case go away as we've said that it might. COOPER: Well, I mean, it's so interesting you're drawing parallels between our moment today and the situation facing Abraham Lincoln. I mean, obviously, look ahead of the Civil War and during the Civil War and after the country was incredibly divided. Did -- I mean, how does it compare to the divisions we see today?

You know, I was looking at the demonstrations on college campuses, which we were reporting on yesterday. And then you think back to the demonstrations which took place on the Columbia campus in the 1960s, where students were actually even taking over buildings and holding, you know, officials from the college kind of hostage. How do you see the parallels?

GOODWIN: Well, I think the important thing when we look at these parallels, they're never exact, but we can learn from them. I mean, that's why history is so important. And one of the things that Lincoln said at the start of the Civil War, which relates to this whole transition of power, he said the central issue they were fighting for then was if the South that lost that election could decide they could secede from the union because they didn't accept the results of the election, then democracy would be an absurdity.

It was impossible to have a popular government. We're not at that state where it's motion, where states are succeeding because they didn't accept the decision of the election. But we're at a state where we're -- we could be a continuing sense of questioning the results of elections time after time after time after time when one party loses.

And that's why this has to be decided in the right way. But that's the great thing we can learn from history. We can learn what mistakes were made and hopefully we can change those because we still have a chance to write our own chapter for this next part of our history.

COOPER: Yes. Doris Kearns Goodwin, it's always great to talk to you. Thank you so much, Doris.

GOODWIN: You are so welcome.

COOPER: Let's go back to Jake in D.C. Jake?

TAPPER: If you're just joining us, welcome to CNN's special coverage of Donald Trump's historic immunity battle before the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments wrapped up a short while ago after about two hours, 40 minutes.

The justices sounded skeptical about Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.