the supreme court finally put its immunity ruling out saying all presidents not just donald trump are entitled to some form of it. what does it mean for special counsel's jack smith's prosecution and does it punt everything until after the election? we'll talk to a former attorney general bill barr in just a moment. first fox team coverage with shannon premier on the fall-out. and what former president donald trump is staying about that decision. welcome, everybody, neil cavuto. very happy to have you on a very busy new days. now the latest. >> reporter: neil, it is a big decision, a big win today for the trump camp, but it does not mean this case is over, far from it. because now it heads back down to the lower courts and chief justice roberts writing for the majority explains why he said this. the concerns we noted at the outset, the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties thus become more prominent we accordingly remand to the district court, they said that on nearly all the counts although they said charges tied to conversations that president trump had with members of the justice department would fall within his executive constitutional authority and so those would be immune. now, the dissent in the meantime is spelling gloom and disaster over what they see as the real-world impact of these decisions. justice sotomayor writing this, when he uses his official powers in any way under the majority's reasoning, he will now be insulated from criminal prosecution. order the navy seals team six to assassinate a political rival. organizing a military coup to hold on to power, immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune, immune, immune. the majority said that is wholly disproportionate and this tone of doom and fear mongering by the dissent is improper and went on to say the president is not immune for any criminal activity that's unofficial, it's not a part of his official acts, but of course now the trial court will have to figure that out in this case and that is going to take some time. neil. >> neil: indeed. shannon, thank you for that. shannon bream. brian giannis joining us now. >> reporter: former president trump is declaring total victory after this supreme court decision. he's been posting a lot on truth social calling it a big win for america and the constitution and democracy. and he also wrote this, quote, the supreme court totally dismantled most of the charges against me. joe biden should now call off his dogs. our country should now be focused on greatness again. republicans and trump are using this supreme court decision as vindication that all the criminal and civil trials against trump are bogus. listen. >> i think that the democrats again, just like they have done with improvement and other checks and balances in our system, i think they've overplayed their hand, they've hurt our republic in the future. >> reporter: trump and the republican national committee are now fundraising off the scotus decision. the trump campaign has outraised the biden campaign by $81 million over the last two months, since his criminal conviction in new york. multiple fundraising emails today asking for donations including one that reads, quote, president trump has been vindicated, right now we've got them on the ropes, a massive response today could mean joe biden is finished by tomorrow. the trump campaign is trying to ride momentum following biden's debate performance and new polling in michigan showed even before the debate, trump is ahead of biden by 4 points in a head-to-head rematch. as shannon just explained, the decision by the supreme court at best conflicts special prosecutor jack smith's january 6th case and it also could affect the classified documents case here in florida as well as the georgia racketeering case because obviously these lower courts are now going to have to interpret what is an official act and what is an unofficial act that is no longer protected or immune based on this supreme court decision. neil. >> neil: amazing ramifications. brian, thank you very much. with us now is former u.s. attorney general bill barr, what he makes of all of it. attorney general, very good to have you. >> good to see you, neil. >> neil: let me ask you, first off, about what this case comes down to, that donald trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution but only for official acts. is it going to be up to a lower court then to determine the difference? >> that's right. i think this was a very sensible decision that i think most lawyers familiar with this area expected. which is this wept up to the wee court in a very alberta tract posture, the government's broad assertion there was no immunity whosoever but the court is saying here, no, there's absolute immunity acting under the constitution, carrying out an act under the constitution. the government has the burden of showing that it can prosecute him for that without impairing the executive function and finally, there's no immunity for unofficial or private acts. and i think -- and the practical effect of this is that the district court is going to do what it really should have done at the beginning, which is the government should have had it do, do the analysis so the facs go up to the supreme court. as a practical matter, there's not going to be a trial of this case before the election. >> neil: i guess it comes back to that difference between official and private conduct. what's to stop the president, former or otherwise, from saying everything i do is an official act? >> well, because -- and the dissent by justice sotomayor i think unfairly portrays the majority opinion. the question is what's the function being performed, what's the authority being used, not what instrument is being used. so for example, the president can direct that a case be dropped, that's part of his constitutional authority. but he cannot accept a bribe to do that because that's receiving a bribe. he doesn't have the authority to receive a bribe. another example would be he has the right to go and tell the department of justice to investigate something but an example used by justice sotomayor was, oh, then he can fabricate evidence, give the evidence to the department, and tell them to use that to indict them. he doesn't have authority to fabricate evidence. that's not carrying out an executive function, and the worst example i think, the one that makes no sense whatsoever is the idea he can use seal team six to kill a political opponent. the president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflict and so forth, he has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. he doesn't have authority to go and assassinate people. so whether he uses the seal team or a private hitman, it doesn't matter, it doesn't make it a carrying out of his authority. so all these horror stories really are false. >> neil: maybe so, but it's igniting fears on the left that it's going to empower him, one put it this way, it could empower donald trump to wield executive power in more extreme ways in a second term. what do you think of that, it would embolden him to do the very things that democrats have been pounding? >> well, you know, i would say what the chief justice said in the opinion which is the supreme court has to write an opinion, a timeless opinion, an opinion that covers all situations in the future and that will be good for the country over the long haul. and they can't write opinions tailored to the particular exigencies of the moment. that said, i think that there's ample teeth remaining because they have said that even official acts can be prosecuted if the government can show under the circumstances the particular facts of the case that it would not impair the executive function. >> neil: let me ask you something, when we chatted last time in the studio, you were talking about the fact when push comes to shove, you would support donald trump as the party's nominee, indeed the party's nominee with all the misgivings you had about a second term, it could create a great deal of havoc, having said that, some think this might provide a green light for what some fear could be a donald trump vendetta campaign in a second term, he says success will be his best revenge although he's intimated that he remembers what some have done to him. what do you think of that? >> well, first, you know, i think those concerns are overblown about him seeking personal revenge against people. and second, i think that there are sufficient institutional checks and balances that that's very difficult to do and certainly difficult to do without it being detected. so there are a lot of people in the government, a lot of career employees that have to be involved in any investigation and any presentation of the case to a grand jury and so forth, so the idea that he's going to be able to go out and weaponnize, as they say, the department of justice against his adversaries, you know, i don't think there's a particularly acute risk of that. >> neil: how do you think a second term would go? it's been a very good past five, six days for donald trump. with the meltdown of the president at the debate, people still trying to figure out what happened there, and now these series of decisions that have gone his way, that he would be in a strong place, particularly emboldened if he does get elected with possibly a republican senate, maybe a republican house. already there are signs right now that the house is looking into a lot of this stuff against democratic prosecutors who were going after him, that they would do his bidding. do you think that's a fair shot, that they will do his bidding? >> look, that his appointees will? >> neil: the appointees and that we're already seeing it in a house that wants to go after some of the prosecutors who have been going against him. that they're weaponizing the house now, that they're weaponizing things already. >> well, you know, when i look at his first term, he had a very successful first term. he got a lot of things done against a lot of tremendous opposition. and, you know, i hear a lot of rhetoric about him going after his enemies and so forth, but i don't see any specifics as to that happening during his first term, and i think, you know, i don't minimize trump's flaws and specially a lot of his rhetoric and the effect that that can have on the body politic, but i think, as i said, when i look at the two different choices, for me, it's an easy choice. that i think the threat to democracy and the threat to the united states and the most damage would be done by four more years of biden versus trump. and i think, given the particular problems we face internationally, the problem of the administrative state, the problem of the sluggishness of our economy, the inflation and so forth, that he's the right person for that job as between the two, and we have to choose between those two individuals. >> neil: indeed. faced with that same choice, attorney general paul brian, the former speaker of the house, now on fox board of directors, he thinks that this is a bridge too far to cross for him. and that he could not support donald trump. i just want you to take a peek at this. >> bill's a good friend of mine. i understand the binary argument, i just don't agree with it, it's just that simple. >> neil: so he can't support it. what do you say? >> well, i hear it, and i know some people who take that position, but with the binary argument means he must feel that biden is a better choice, and that biden will do a better job over the next four years or do less damage to the united states over the next four years. i don't believe that. as i've said, i think it's not about me, it's not about me saying, oh, gee, i've kept my skirts clean and didn't vote for anybody or put a right in or so forth, i feel if one of two people ends up with the office, it's my duty as a voter to do what i can to support the person that i think would do the least damage. >> neil: speaking of people -- comments on donald trump, alexandria ocasio-cortez is saying today it represents an assault on american democracy, it's up to congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian -- what do you make of that? >> i think this idea of going -- i think these opinions were bang-on, they were very reasonable opinions, i'm talking about the immunity opinion, the opinion on the chevron doctrine, cutting that back, also the opinion on the obstruction statute and making sure that that's properly employed and isn't used as a drag net and i think that these were very reasonable opinions that put the law in the right place. and i'm afraid that if anything goes, let's do whatever we can to solve the -- to address the political imperative at the moment, we're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. we're going to do long-term institutional damage to the united states. and i think the supreme court's doing just the opposite. i think they're protecting our institutions and the processes we have against being disfigured by the passions of the moment. >> neil: i think some of the concerns that were expressed don't extend just to democrats, for example, annie cohen barret, another trump appointee did express reservation what they could or could not address, particularly that she felt that trump so-called fake electors scheme was not protected from prosecution. what did you make of that and that some of the nuances here they couldn't get into, didn't get too, and some are frustrated? >> i think she had one area where she disagreed with the majority, and actually the majority didn't say one or other whether the false electors effort or talking to those electors was official or non-official, they left that up to the district court to address. what she was saying was if there's something that's unofficial, an act that's unofficial, they should be able to introduce evidence, certain evidence about his intent behind other official acts, and that's a little bit down in the wires, it gets a little nine there but i think she makes a reasonable argument there. but she wasn't in the majority. >> neil: a lot of these cases could get pushed back or dropped altogether i understand that, but some have even said it applies to this hush money case and the weeding out of the penalty phase or that's coming up on the 11th, that there are some matters in that that means it could at least be broken apart or dropped altogether, for example, any conversations that donald trump had at the time with hope hicks, a key aide, and that that would have to go, wouldn't be allowed, and then that case itself might go. what did you think of that? >> so generally, obviously, most of that stuff happened before he became president. but you're right, i mean, there's certain aspects of things that happened once he became president that were brought into that case but that case is otherwise a mess. there's so much wrong with that case that's even more fundamental than that. that case is going to be reversed on appeal. >> neil: okay. let me just get your take -- finish, i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i was just going to say, there's a fundamental denial of due process for the defense not to know what the crimes were that he supposedly committed. >> neil: that's the time we're going to learn about sentencing for that and do you think marchand is going to put him in jail or make a statement or is it too risky for him to do, what are his legal parameters here? >> well, the left has always surprised me during this thing how far they're willing to go but i would be shocked if he actually tried to put him in jail or sentence him to jail time and certainly if he tried to put him in jail before his appeals, so i think they understand that that's a bridge too far to do that to a major party candidate right in the middle of the election. >> neil: if i can go back to this, i appreciate your patience, but some things i wanted to know and pick your brain on and one was the issue of, you know, donald trump, just turned 78, he would be 82 leading office, some have cynically said he will have full bore power, you dismiss that earlier on, to go after enemies and he stressed himself his best revenge will be success. but others look at his age when he's leaving office and he wouldn't have to worry about punishment, it would be an afterthought to him, so he might be emboldened to do that, no matter what you say. what do you say? >> i would say the president acts through people and maybe he wouldn't worry about it, although i think he would, but the people that are around him and are being asked to do things, certainly i think they're going to make sure that they're behaving within the law or, yeah, they're behaving within the law. i understand people's concern, especially given his frequency incendiary rhetoric, i'm just saying having experienced working with the person and being a subordinate of his, ban bannon says i'm the first to go to prison under president trump, i don't lose any sleep about that. >> neil: i think he's in prison right now himself. [ laughter ] let me ask you finally -- i don't mean to make light of that. if you were attorney general coming in and donald trump was the newly-elected president, second term, and he's saying all these cases i want them dropped, i want you to make them go away, what would you do? >> um... i guess -- if i felt i wasn't able to drop them, i wouldn't accept the position. >> neil: you think that's part of the interview cycle going on now, future a.g. -- >> i doubt it. on the january 6th trial, i've said all along that i felt that was not a compelling case and if i had been attorney general i don't think i would have brought it. and now it's sort of falling apart bit by bit, the obstruction statute they used has been knocked out, now you have the immunity issue. it's a very flimsy case, and i don't think it is a compelling case. i think there's an argument for dropping that case just on discretionary grounds. on the document case, i've said all along that i thought there was a strong basis for that case. on the other hand, you're in a situation now where they have refused to bring a case against biden for having those documents and now you have this disparate treatment and so, you know, there's arguments just to sort of cool the political temperature here in the country and a deep feeling that there are two standards about not moving forward with that case. so there are plausible arguments to make for the exercise of the a.g.'s discretion not to pursue those cases but i think the president at the end of the day does have authority to say drop those cases. >> neil: and if one attorney general do it, others might, richard nixon went through a few, that's when it comes down to, right? >> i assume he's smart enough to put someone in the office who he feels would feel those cases shouldn't go forward. >> neil: interesting. bill barr, thank you very much. always good seeing you. >> yep. >> neil: we'll have more after this. >> thanks, neil. every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. they're quitting the kibble. and kicking the cans. and feeding their dogs dog food that's actually well, food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/realfood maria and julio thought their life would never slow down. then one day, it finally did. you were made to find inner peace. we were made to track flight prices to paradise. call leaffilter today. and never clean out clogged gutters again. leaffilter's technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good. guaranteed. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. ♪ my back got injured very bad. i was off work for about a year. i heard about relief factor from my wife... i took it every day, three times a day, for three weeks. ...look at her and i said, "the pain is gone." and she said, "i'm glad it helped." i said, "no, you don't understand. it's gone." you, too, can feel better every day with relief factor, a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. call or go online now and get 35% off your first order. with absorbine pro, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free. absorbine pro. [ ♪♪ ] >> neil: a lot of things are closely looked at post this court decision today specifically now what to make of the president on trial ahead of the election. that's probably less likely for the time being. gillian turner has more. >> reporter: hi, neil. biden world is lashing out today in the wake of the supreme court ruling giving president trump partial immunity and the president's allies are closing ranks tightly in the wake of more calls for the president himself to step down. but in response to more people today calling for the commander in chief to take himself out of the race, take a listen to what allies are saying. >> i don't regret my endorsement because donald trump is an existential threat to this country. >> felons aren't welcome in the u.s. armed forces why would we want one as our commander in chief. >> reporter: even the secretary of state normally tight-lipped on politics went on defense for the president. listen. >> what the world knows, the world has experienced over three-and-a-half years, not one night, is exactly the kind of leadership that he's brought to bear. >> reporter: the president's inner circle huddled to camp david over the weekend reportedly telling him he's the only democrat who can beat trump in 2024. but biden himself has not always believed that. >> do you think there is any democrat who can beat donald trump other than you? >> probably 50 of them. >> you do believe that -- >> i'm not the only one that can beat him but i will defeat him. >> reporter: the biden campaign rang a five-alarm fire warning today reacting to the supreme court decision giving trump partial immunity. >> since that fateful day trump has only grown more unhinged and now he's unchecked thanks to this ruling today by the supreme court. >> it's not just the biggest threat in a generation it is far and away the biggest threat since the civil war. >> reporter: there is now reporting, neil, from reuters that the president and his team are considering the possibility of giving a town hall-style forum some time this month to try and reassure voters who may have been unsettled by the debate last week so hoping to get more on that this afternoon, neil. >> neil: thank you, gillian for that, a beautiful day outside the white house there. when we come back, this latest terror threat that has the military bases around the world, u.s. military bases in particular, at the highest alert level, in some cases in decades. what the former commander makes of that after this. i'm andrea, and this is why i switched to shopify. it gave me so much peace of mind. if we make a change, my site's not going to go down. and just knowing that i have a platform that we can rely on, that is gold to us. start your free trial today. >> starting the second half with a bang. nasdaq in record territory. optimism steady as she goes. we get a better idea later in ththise week.at fotrr now, the bull's run. so, no more sweating all night... no kicking off the covers... or blasting the air conditioning. because only the tempur-pedic breeze is made with our one-of-a-kind cooling technology that pulls heat away from your body. so, the mattress feels up to 10° cooler all night long. during our july 4th sale, save $500 on tempur-breeze mattresses, and sleep cool and comfortable, all summer long. learn more at tempurpedic.com. with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. 30,000 followers tina in a boutique hotel. or 30,000 steps tina in a mountain cabin. ooh! booking.com booking.yeah the future is not just going to happen. you have to make it. and if you want a successful business, all it takes is an idea, and now becomes the future where you grew a dream into a reality. the all new godaddy airo. put your business online in minutes with the power of ai. >> neil: all right. keeping track of it, a military alert right now that's gone out that has bases in europe, particularly american bases in europe on high alert for a possible terror attack. not much more we can attach to that outside that it is real and it is widespread. with us now is the former u.s. incom commander, great book, the melting point high command and lore in the 21st century. that's a military career to look back on. commander, thank you for joining us. let me first get your take on this latest threat, it's an unprprecedented threat coming aa weird time, given we're worried for our border, what do you make of that? >> i think violent extremist organizations and isis, fundamental to their view of the world, is the intent to attack united states. we saw successful attacks straight out just outside moscow a couple months ago. there's no reason to believe that we're exempt from that threat so i think it's probably just prudent planning by our intelligence community and the department of defense based on threats that i don't read anymore so i'm not aware of it on a day-to-day basis but i go back to the fact we take isis at face value when they say they want to attack us and hurt us in the united states and wherever we are so i think it's probably good, sound, prudent action. >> neil: you were really direct operational responsibility for the strikes that ultimately took out khomenei and age-old lore you go after the bad guys, the bad guys go back after you and these attacks on iranian generals and the rest in this on-going war between israel and you name it, is going to incite this response. do you buy that? >> actually, the iranians respond to force. the iranians know and respect the use of force. and iran tends to be deterred when they're confronted with firm action. the israelis took firm action, iran tried to reach back out and hurt israel with an attack on the airfield, that attack was unsuccessful. and the israelis i think were very reasonable in their response which allowed the iranians room to de-escalate which i think was very important but i think in the case of soleimani and other cases, the fundamental goal of iran is to protect their ruthless theo accuratic government and they will not take action to bring it to the brink of being destroyed. you have to be firm, consistent, you have to be relentless. >> neil: there are mixed vibes much of the world is getting about where we stand as a country on some of these military matters, and the debate maybe brought them into focus commander and a lot of people were saying of that, that the president energy didn't look too good, nikki haley said on the president's performance, our enemies just saw that they have between now and january 20th to do whatever it is they want to do. what did you make of that? >> well, i'll tell you, neil, the american people can make their own decisions based on what they saw during the debate. one thing i can tell you it's not the united states military responsibility or role to comment on that and it's not good for retired generals to jump with comments on that. the american people have the opportunity to make up their own minds on that but i tell you this, it would be a mistake to think the united states is weak and feckless. we're capable of holding up our end of all our alliances and we're capable of supporting our friends wherever in the world that is. >> neil: you've challenged your cha commander in chief, you blame policy changes for this tragedy during our withdrawal from afghanistan, when you look back at that and lessons learned, we are out of afghanistan but at an enormous price. do you think we would be better off if we still had troops there in one way, shape or form? >> neil, i do. i felt that at the time. i feel it now. i thought and argue a small residual presence in afghanistan would give us the ability to keep our boot on the neck of organizations like isis and isis k and i'll say it, if you're worrying about surviving the night it's hard to plan an attack on detroit or any other american city so with a modicum of support we would have done those things. we chose not to do those things and absolutely the province of constitutional leadership to make those decisions. i would argue that we might be in a better -- we might be in a better place against isis threats had we not completely left. >> neil: finally, commander, i wonder what you make right now of the move on the part of the far right across europe and france winning this first round of elections, we don't know how it will finish next week but it is impressive and the one common theme among those of the far right is they want to quit funding wars without end. ukraine comes to mind, even among some of the nato countries themselves that are tiring of it. to say nothing of steering back from what the israeli tensions with hamas, what do you make of that change and. >> neil, i'm not a political analyst, i'm a military officer but i would tell you that all that discussion was one half of the equation. the other half of the equation is what is vladimir putin and what is russia doing? and i predict they're going to press and continue to press. so you need to make a decision where you're going to stop them. you can stop them in ukraine or think about stopping them on the borders of poland or on the rhyne but i predict russia does not stop pressing. when we talk about enough of this, it's only half the equation we're thinking about and we need to be a little more -- have a little bit more of a long view considering these problems. >> neil: all right. you got into great detail in your book "the melting point," commander mckenzie, thank you again. >> thanks, neil, great to be with you this afternoon. >> neil: same here. in the meantime, the biden folks and those around him politically and family and others are trying to rally around him. >> reporter: neil, the supreme court decision came just at the right time for team biden and any democrat who really doesn't want to talk about what happened with the debate last week including one governor who is hitting back at reports that joe biden may have lost her state. next. hi, i'm greg. i live in bloomington, illinois. i'm not an actor. i'm just a regular person. some people say, "why should i take prevagen? i don't have a problem with my memory." memory loss is, is not something that occurs overnight. i started noticing subtle lapses in memory. i want people to know that prevagen has worked for me. it's helped my memory. it's helped my cognitive qualities. give it a try. i want it to help you just like it has helped me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. subject 1: i love you. [music playing] i love you. beckett: i love you too. subject 2: beckett's amazing. he's a miracle child. in the mornings, he'll wake up, and he'll roll the shades up. and da da, it's time to get up. it's a bright, beautiful day. beckett: right. subject 1: you look great. the first of the year, he started going, i have to sit down. i'm dizzy, mommy. he couldn't walk straight. his head was starting to be cocked. make a wish. a month after his third birthday, he got diagnosed with atrt brain cancer. all you can think of is, my kid's not going to live. [cristina perri, "a thousand years"] i have died every day waiting for you darling don't be afraid i have loved you for a thousand years i'll love you for a thousand more you are really tough. subject 3: families never receive a bill from saint jude for treatment, travel, housing, or food so they can focus on helping their child live. subject 1: the fact that saint jude doesn't bill is a godsend. and the fact that we don't have to ask for help here makes things a lot easier to go through what we have to go through with beckett. beckett: i wish my cancer was gone. subject 3: for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the lifesaving research and treatment these kids need. (singing) i have died every day waiting for you. subject 1: the fact that they are researching and they are saving these children, it's so important. we wouldn't be where we are without saint jude. and in turn, we wouldn't be where we are without those people that have donated. they're the reason why my son's still alive. subject 3: you can help saint jude save the lives of children like beckett. [music playing] [ ♪♪ ] >> neil: all right. rallying around the president of the united states by rallying against the supreme court immunity decision. aishah hasnie has more from washington. what's going on here? >> reporter: neil, it came at really just the right time for democrats who were desperately looking for something to rally around. a nice distraction from all that debate talk, and something really to rally the base around. watch this. >> this supreme court with these conservative-leaning justices appointed by donald trump seem to top every expectation that we have that it can't get any worse. >> reporter: yeah, so now they get to talk about this when they go on tv. also moments ago, governor whitmer respond to go a politico report she thinks michigan is quote no long erwinable for biden, she now says this, anyone who claims i would say that we can't win michigan is full of, well, i won't say the word, let's go. according to reports, though, there is concern coming from rank and file members that people of course who have races to win in november they're worried about this. while governors and democrat leadership rally around president biden, there are other reports that others are worried. here's leader jefferies admitting he's got to go calm the caucus next week. >> we're in the process of having conversations with various parts of the house democratic caucus, that's on-going, that will continue. we are in recess next week for the 4th of july holiday, so we'll have to have those conversations over the phone and virtually. >> reporter: also when congress returns on monday, neil, we could see some immediate drama. progressive fire brand aoc says that she will file articles of impeachment over this scotus ruling although she didn't say which justice or justices she was targeting. but that will be a story to watch next week. neil. >> neil: indeed. bill barr not too keen on where that's going. but thank you very much, aishah hasnie following those developments. we're following the earliest category 4 hurricane in recorded history. it's in the caribbean right now, and it is nasty. the latest after this. in our family there was a passion for glass making that's passed down through the generations. on ancestry i was able to actually put together our family tree. each person is a glass worker. we stood on some pretty broad shoulders to get to where we are today. oh, my leaffilter? i just scheduled an appointment online and the inspection was a breeze. they explained everything. leaffilter's technology protects your gutters for good! now my home is protected. call 833 leaffilter or visit leaffilter.com [ ♪♪ ] >> neil: you know, we've had category 4 storms before, hurricanes of that heft, but never this early in the season and apparently it's going to be a busy season. don't say our hurricane specialist didn't warn you. brian, what are we looking at here? >> we're looking at something completely unprecedented and extraordinary, neil. people have been down there in barbed for almost 400 years and we have -- barbados -- records going back hundreds of years and no storm of this intense at this time of year has ever occurred so this is really something new. here's the advisory, just came in from the hurricane center, they are still anticipating 150 miles an hour winds, that's what they're analyzing the satellite at. pressure going down so, yes, this still has an opportunity to intensify even a little stronger but it's out in the open waters of the caribbean now after going through those caribbean islands. let me show you the map here and you can see where it passed through the caribbean islands right here. let me go close up and i'll show you what it looked like as it was doing that and what you can see in there is there's over this island and there are different almost like tornadoes rotating around the center as it goes. this is what happens in superpowerful hurricanes and when they go through these islands, were thinking it's a catastrophic event that occurred there on those small islands in the grenadines. hot off the press here, the thinking is it's going to maintain this super strength here into tomorrow morning and then begin a slow, weakening trend as we go through the week. they have a hurricane watch in effect for jamaica but this is going to be generally in the open waters. then we get into the big question, what's going to happen toward the weekend? the thinking is that the hurricane will indeed weaken, the winds and the environment here are just not as conducive for a strong hurricane, but big question marks in the gulf of mexico. it's not out of the question and this storm could slow down and begin to drift to the north toward texas over the weekend as a weaker storm but over the warm waters of the gulf, it opens up lots of possibilities. i would say the odds favorite going into mexico but maybe one in three chance of going to the north and have some effect on the texas coast, that looks like that would be sunday into monday. all right. neil, that's the bottom line. so we'll keep an eye on it for our trends in texas for later on in the week. >> neil: i have a feeling you're going to have a very busy summer following all of this. but thank god, you're good at it. bryan norcross, thank you very much. in the meantime, we're trying to discern exactly what the supreme court ruled today when it said there is a difference for president acting in a private capacity versus an official capacity. exactly what is that difference? after this. ♪ ♪ have you always had trouble losing weight and keeping it off? same. discover the power of wegovy®. ♪ ♪ with wegovy®, i lost 35 pounds. and some lost over 46 pounds. ♪ ♪ and i'm keeping the weight off. wegovy® helps you lose weight and keep it off. i'm reducing my risk. wegovy® is the only fda-approved weight-management medicine that's proven to reduce risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with known heart disease and with either obesity or overweight. wegovy® shouldn't be used with semaglutide or glp-1 medicines. don't take wegovy® if you or your family had medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop wegovy® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis and gallbladder problems. wegovy® may cause low blood sugar in people with diabetes, especially if you take medicines to treat diabetes. tell your provider about vision problems or changes, or if you feel your heart racing while at rest. depression or thoughts of suicide may occur. call your provider right away if you have any mental changes. common side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. with wegovy®, i'm losing weight, i'm keeping it off. and i'm lowering my cv risk. that's the power of we. ♪ ♪ check your cost and coverage before talking to your health care professional about wegovy®. >> he doesn't have authority to assassinate people. whether he uses the seal team or a private hit man, it doesn't matter. it doesn't make it a carrying out of his authority. all of these horror stories really are false. >> what you are hearing from the white house, joe biden and others who say this decision on the part of the supreme court to cause or protect the former president from any sort of attack -- on immunity, has been hit a couple different ways. this is the former federal prosecutor of constitutional law attorney. what bill barr is saying is that these are overblown and the president -- a sense of a green light to do whatever he or she wants in the future because they got it today. what do you make of that? >> i think it's hyperbolic and not what the court held. the court did not really make any conclusive findings aside from the idea that when a president speaks with their attorney general and the department of justice employees, that they are immune from that, but aside from that finding, everything else was left to the district court to further elucidate the facts on remand. we don't know for sure how that will play out, but essentially there needs to be of further fact-finding about what may or may not be an official or unofficial act. >> it could be litigated for decades, right? that distinction, private and conduct -- it's a lawyer's dream. >> it could be litigated for a very long time. after the trial court makes a determination about something being unofficial or unofficial act, it is appealable pretrial because it deals with whether somebody could be subject to prosecution in the first place. they cannot proceed to trial if it's bound to be an unofficial act before there is an appellate court findings of the trial court's determination. >> alexander across the el cortez go after these, presumably those of the who voted for this. didn't single any out in particular, but did want to get impeachment proceedings going against them. what do you make of that? >> i would call that hyperbolic. i think this opinion was very fair, and in fact the court did not summarily end the january 6th prosecution or any prosecution for that matter, but laid out a rule that would theoretically allow for the present or former president to be prosecuted for unofficial acts, and even in justice cody barrett's concurrence, suggested that some of the charged offenses may very well fall within that realm. i think this was a moderate decision and not subject to impeachment proceedings against justices. >> she was angry that this couldn't encompass this story. it was a separate issue. let me get your take them, katie, on what this means for the cases that are pending. one issue that they have pushed off until after the election. could you make a case that they have pushed off on whether donald trump is elected or not, that these are done? >> in terms of the practical timelines, i think that's probably very likely, because what needs to happen at this point in terms of the fact-finding again is appealable before trial, even after the court has the case back. timelinewise and practically speaking for litigation purposes it's going to be pushed out past election even if it gets to trial. >> we have this next week on the hush money trial, but some have even raised the conversations that the president had. it was out there in this case. it's in this new case environment. do buy that this case as well could be thrown out? >> i have always believed the new york case implicated the immunity case because the charge acts in the new york case dealt with acts that were undertaken while he was in office, the payments that were made and subsequent bookkeeping. i certainly think that it would apply to at least have an analysis of those facts, and determine if they are inside or outside of his initial conduct. >> thank you very much. a busy day for you as well. that will do it here. now comes "the five." ♪ ♪ >> dana: i'm dana perino,