‘Frightening Scenario!’ MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Alarmed By Trump ‘Absolute Immunity’ Ruling

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell expressed alarm after Professor Laurence Tribe outlined the contours of the Supreme Court decision granting “absolute immunity” for official acts in a case against former President Donald Trump .

At about 10:30 Monday morning, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 ruling granting “absolute immunity” in the “exercise of his core constitutional powers,” and other powers and restrictions.

On Monday’s edition of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports , Mitchell asked Tribe to game out a situation in which a president took a bribe — but Tribe took it to a place that Mitchell found “frightening”:

ANDREA MITCHELL: Professor Tribe. Could a president take a bribe with impunity? With immunity?

PROF. LAURENCE TRIBE: Sure looks like it. Unless he is impeached and convicted for bribery.

The fact that the bribe is for the exercise of one of his core powers, like a pardon, creates a cloud that might make the president immune.

The difficulty is, as Andrew Weissman and as Marcos have carefully elaborated, not only are these acts immune, but the court held by another majority, 5 to 4, not 6 to 3, over the partial dissent of Justice Barrett, who was establishing a degree of independence.

It held by a vote of 5 to 4. You can’t even use evidence of the way the president’s core powers have been used.

So if, for example, the bribe is offered for the president to exercise a core power like the pardon, you might be able to show that money passed hands, but you can’t introduce evidence of that, of the pardon that ultimately resulted, because that is one of the president’s core powers. It makes no sense.

And the two dissents, one by Justice Sotomayor and one by Justice Jackson, really rip to shred the threadbare, I’m afraid to say, almost sophomoric and foolish arguments by the chief justice of the United States, fantasizing that even though all presidents in our past have assumed that they would be subject to criminal prosecution even for misconduct, that was a crime in interacting with their own Justice Department.

After all, that’s what Nixon did, and that’s why he needed a pardon.

Even though all presidents have assumed that and it hasn’t crippled the presidency, maybe presidents would be too cautious unless they were granted this new and unprecedented immunity.

Again, that’s upside down. The real danger, as the dissents pointed out, is the presidents will no longer be deterred by the criminal law.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Lawrence Tribe, professor, it’s indeed a frightening scenario that you’re outlining there! Thank you very much, sir. Thanks for joining us.

Watch above via MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports .