RULING GRANTING PRESIDENTS BROAD IMMUNITY FOR OFFICIAL ACTS. JOINING US NOW NBC’S VAUGHN HILLYARD, ALSO WITH US MSNBC LEGAL CORRESPONDENT LISA RUBIN. LET’S START WITH YOU, LISA, WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS DIFFERENT IN THIS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT VIS-A-VIS THE ORIGINAL ONE? >> THAT’S START WITH THE BIGGEST CHANGE, JOSÉ. THE SUPREME COURT HAD SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S COMMUNICATIONS WITH HIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WERE PART OF HIS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL RESPONDED TO THAT BY TAKING OUT OF THIS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT OVER 15 PARAGRAPHS THAT JUST TALKED ABOUT THE PLAN TO USE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO ESSENTIALLY PUT ITS THUMB ON THE SCALE AND TELL STATE LEGISLATURES THAT THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO ACCEPT THEIR STATE’S SLATE OF ELECTORS, THAT INCLUDES A SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS WITH SENIOR LEADERSHIP AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHO TOLD THE PRESIDENT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD FRAUD.
Read More: Trump ‘scared to death’ to debate Harris and so is his campaign: Analyst
