t. welcome to special edition of "hannity". i'm kellyanne conway, in for sean. and tonight, more bad news for joe biden. anand tonihis doj is lawfare at trump just suffered a serious blowhe in a 6 to 3 decision. the u.s. supreme court ruled cot former president trump does, in fact have immunity from n surrounding form official acts as president. e prthe doj's january 6 case against trump is now in limbo, and a resolution is unlikely until after election as lower courts determine whether or note the charges against trump are even still valid. th meanwhile, trump is now also moving to overturn that new yor york conviction from last month because of this ruling . today on social, celep celebrated calling this decision a, quote, big win forci our constitutionsion and. democracy. proud to be an american. joe, meanwhile, stayed up late tonight until 7:45 p.m. to lash out at the supreme court. in a rare evening speech at thei white house. watcng speech this nation was fd on the principle that there are no kings in america. each each of us is equal before the law. >> no one. no one is above the law. not even the president of united states. today's supreme court decisionnd on presidential immunity that fundamentally changedimmunr all, for all practical purposesa . today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limitpus decist the president can do. this is a fundamentallyhi new principle and it's a dangerous preceden at. >> i know i will respectd the limits of the presidential powers. i havei know for three and a haf years. but any president, including donald trump, will now be free to ignore the law. >> joining us now with reaction is the author of indispensable right free speech in the age of rage, fox news contributor and my former law school professor, jonathan turley. professor turley, thanks for joining me. congratulation pro.s on the new book. i hope everyone checks it out. appreciate it. yes, sirecks. attern there's this pattern with the democrats. with thet to use lawfare to donald trump to have a different standard for donald trump. to nald truand then when things dot go their way, they whine and they complain and theyk th attack the supreme court. sometimes supreme court justicesur have been imperiled v because of it. we have president biden todae y who also would have substantial immunity for official actsenve as president complaining about this. and i'm curious,antial immunit r your reaction to the opinion. i don't think it's much it's ver r the opiy a surprise s of us who want separation of powers. but what's your reaction tonigh for us won ot? well, the opinion was not a surprise, particularly after the oral argument. the court here adopted the middle pat ah. it did rejected the most extreme positions. patwhat the president said tonp in his address was untruresie. i mean, he was talking about how there are no limits wa on what a president can do in office. that's nota true.s no that is what the court was talking about, was it' immunityr core presidential functions. i presumption of immunity for official functions that can be rebuttead. and then there are many things i that will be personal or unofficial actions taken by a president. that's not what presidenactiont biden just told the american people. juold o esta you really wantbi to the rule of law, you mightf want to be clear on what ther law is after this decision. >> and what waons really troubling after the decision was how so mand whaty of these w democratic politicians from senator blumenthalo many to pun on msnbc and cnnpo returnedd cn to these attacks. noteou noted, kellyanne, on these justices. >> and it's really grossly unfair these. you know, i've defended both the liberal justices and the conservativede justices. i've disagreed with all of them at one time or another. all but i respect all of them.tl >> they're all trying to get things right. you ca they'n with their philosophy, but they are trying to get rightthese right and to havehee the these democratic leaders t join this type of mob action against the supreme court in this overheated rhetoric >> really disturbing. >> yes, they made it so k personal. and jonathan turley, i wanted pt to point out for everyone oun and theth bide three dissent dissenters, in their opinion, both made the statement that no one is above the law. in fact, the majoritat no ony st it says the president is not above the law. but congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch. the majority opinionid that that they're all using it almost like a pundit, a talking point. s a puiti found the dissent by sotomayor, kagan and brown to be a little hysterical, if not political. they sai bd that decision makesi a mockery of the constitution. the principlsaide our system of government. it actually protects it. so what do you say i to dissents like that who just sound very politically charged? >> well, i was surprised by the tenor of the dissent by justice sotomayor. i didn't like. e i think that it had morei didn't soundbites and substanced more and exploring what the majority actually said. >> and the other problem is that the dissent doesn't explain reallyd how their ownaw approach might lead to a rather extreme result. i mean, for example, the dissen mightt doesn't have o problem with president obama apparently orderinesg the execution of an american citizen without or a hearing.out you know, if people charged obama with murder, i expectmurd there would be many of these same pundits who would be outrageerd. no they didn't object when it happened. when when you had attorney general eric holder announce that he had a happekill list policy, that anl citizen could be put on that listy th, he got applause and cheers from the audience. >> so we have to look at this the way the supreme court did t to try to find balance. and that's what the constitution is about. mecourt fit's checks and balan. it's about looking at theabout interests of the public and the constitution and coming up with workable solutions. they tried mightily today to find a workable solution, a and that is not a get out of free jail carndd. but there is no questione ja that this is a huge win for trump, practically. >> and the reason is that thesen these cases have gone too far. and jack smith is someone who has always resisted limits as a prosecutor, and that has gotten him unanimously by the supreme court previously. yet s gotts. >> so, yessu, a lot of the whats in this opinion hit below the waterline, jack smith. >> and he's going to have a struggle. and what is the practical effect? professor turley, in the minute or so we have left practica the january six case against donald trump on the convictions in new york that we all witnessed at the end of may. what is your practical effect here? because i would remindiewers the viewers they love to talk waout treason and insurrection of which donald trump has beenoi chargechd with. well, if fisher was a right hook last week, this was a haymaker today for jack smith. i mean, i think he's going to have a real difficult jack te getting that case off the ground, certainly before the electiondi. a as for manhattan, i think that braxton argue that there is a much lesser extent of reliance upon it covered areas, and he'll probably make what is often called the harmless error argument that even if you take that material oue oftet, f that testimony, we had ample evidence. merchan is likely to favorablea towards that view. but all of theseely cases havef be reviewed. but it's jack smith's case that i think just had the wings ripped off. and he's got to find a waycase to see if he can salvage that. >> amazing. jonathan turley, always breakr it down for us. thank you so much. predictably, democrats and the mainstream media were outragedte by today's supreme court ruling. coeir plot to convict donalded u trump, washington, d.c., before the election has been foiled an majority leader chuck schumer, who once violently threatened o supreme court justices on the steps of the supreme court building , called today's disgr decision disgraceful. meanwhilace, aoc is vowing to impeach the justices. and on cable news, the hysteria and fear mongering was extreme. >> take a look. the supreme court is functioning and it is basically giving a green lighk.>> supret for criminal acy in the oval office under certain circumstanceights, whic i think given the present state of our country, is verky scary. the president's interactions with the department of justice absolutely immune. terrifying decision. >> for all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. it's dangerous this is. >> professor, it's indeed a frightening scenario that you're outlining there. >> the president becomesg. king in that in that circumstance. and it's jus presidentt incomprehensible that the supreme court could come to such judgment.court >> trump's supreme court hasco decreed him a king suc, and now it's just up to voters to say, do you want ther nowe are no guardrails now, second term for trump. >> there are no guardrails. we've been on the steady march of acceptance and normalization of political violence. >> now it's almost codified. i guess, you know, y, president biden are acting within the scope of his official duties, could dispatch the militarofy to taken out the conservative justices take immunet, and he'd think so far, joe, really bad terrible week is just getting worse. here now to respond, senior adviser to donald j. trump. alan barber and fox news legal analyst gregg jarrett. t welcome to both of you. greg. chuck schumeoth ofr actually sad the supreme court today in this immunity decision, quote, approved treason the sup and insurrection. they did no such thing courtr bn be donald trump's never been charged with either one. soh one how do we square a legal opinion upholding the constitution, e the hysterical punditry coming elons?ll the way up in the democratic echelons? >> well, i suspect all of those people that you just cited and played clips of haven't actually read the full opinion, alipswhich is quite lengthy.e and if they did, they couldn't comprehend i tt because the exaggerated vitriol, this apocalyptic doom from the left would be comical if it weren'tld so. you're right. schumer called it a sad day for democrac iy. a sa >> it's the opposite. democracy functions better when thery ie are guardrails whicho the high court enunciated and thenbett he amped up the delirium by claiming, as you point out, kellyanne, the justices approved insurrection and treason, which of course they didn't. and forgetting that trumpdidn is charged with neither. >> in truth, this really was'tgt a well-reasoneinarged wid, commd decision. the supreme court did exactly as they said the y. they extended civil immunity. the presidents have had d 42 years to criminal culpabilitesidentsy. here same reasoning. there's nothing shocking in this immunity for in official acts. no immunity for unofficial acts. off you know, the earth is note going to stop spinning on its axis tomorro wilw despite the liberal hysteria. they need to stop the pearl clutching, there's no doubt.ly-a >> and alina, i'm aonn: c. nyon to the extent anyone listens to her anymore, the people in the south bronx didn't listen to hesr in last week'sd o primary.ed she tried to sav te jamaal bowmt of all people. today she's talkino saveg treas, treason, bribery, other and misdemeanors. she's saying she's going to impeach the supreme court justices becauseabout trn and bt get her way on an immunity case. this seems like dangerous rhetoric not ge, but what's the practical implication of a sitting member of congress moving impeach justices? ices well, it's not surprising, honestly. kellyanne they are soer desperate. they realized after the debate, they've realized afterhe their failing days in ages that are soros backed and backed by radical left that they have no chance. owr the truth of the matte is we have to keep fighting. we can't get lackadaisical because there matt thae are peoi aoc who came from being gha bartender who is now jumping around in the bronx, screaming at the top of her lungs. raround in the let's just rememm and call donald trump what they are themselves. this is insurrection behavior. this is behaviort theythemselv r in the american people, to believe that the suprem te court, which we have always respected and i respect the dissent. i respect both the majority and the dissent as an attorney, but also as anboth american. i do i agree with it? no, i don't agree with the dissent. i of people likehe aoc is the exact behavior that they would like of peoplthe american people to k maat maga, republicans, maga americans, people that love this country, that tha at is wht we are and that is just frankly, false. they are calling us what that tha. they are because they don't want us to look at themselves. that is why they're afraid because if donald trump and when donald trump wins the election in novemberes becan we show up and speak our minds ou will inices, this s this country, we'll get t back to the america we know. >> kellyanne, i think it's particularlhe y dangerous, greg and elena, when you have members of one branch of government, the congress, highly critical of a supreme court decision that's about the executive branch, it just seemss a little it just seems extra odious when i hear them pop ofaf . while we have two great legal minds here, i really want to tap into your brains and asan about any of the legal implications and considerations teto asksurrounding joe biden and perhaps be replaced on the ticket. so what about the ballot rules in some of the states? are they still available? has it close and sd? s it what is it that either of you know about how that would work? ow greg. then you, sure. obviously, we know the dnc changed their rules a year and a half ago. there's this is a complicated situation, kellyanne. it's not hal a two minute respo, but i think we have to think ane about the implications. either he's the presumptive nominee. if hav he were to back out and t or try, let's say, for the dnc to replace him, there would be a lot of implications forld the biden campaign. they'd probably be lawsuits, as we saw when they tried e t ofionsto take trump off thet and failed. tr's not going to go down easy either way. and frankly, i think more importantly, politically and pr wise for the democratic party, it's not a good look to go over a blackk to female to ignore her position as a vp and then try and usurp it because their candidate, frankly, can't walk or speak properly. eak propi'm sure greg could spep more to it, but i think it would be incredibly damagingea. >> i think they're also, frankly, in a lose lose situation at the moment. greg, it is true that kamala job harris is job protection for joe biden in choosing. dehe chose one of three peopleas in the whole country who could not upstage him. i'm nochose t even sure the othr two were. i'll come up with it later. but how do you see all this >>ho splaying? >> you know, the wall street anl journal said today, imagine if i biden had actually picked a competennet vicely pic president instead of checking a political identitykea comp ths that would have changed the equation dramatically. to your question, there are two major problems with a replacement candidate in early voting states.otin there are early ballot deadlines that are replacement would miss. it is a huge problem. they'd to go to court to getgo that changed. but the other problem is a monetary t get. you know, joe biden is sitting on a $200 million war chest of donations, but under federal finance laws, he is not allowedn to transfer to a replacement candidate. >> so, you know, he'de star be starting from zero, whoever it is. and ti andi you if, you know, if he drops out, there is going to be chaos and mayhem on the floor of the democratic national in august in chicago. it's going to make them mayhem ou t on the streets look tames look by comparison. >> they may be stuck t with aleena and greg. excellent conversation. thanks for joining us. and coming up, top democrats are urging the party to stand t behind biden, but is it too little too late? >> we'll hear from ari fleischer, mark penn, reince priebus and mike huckabee as more of this special edition of "hannity" continues e after the break. >> get them, isaac. okay. he's been okay. >> when i saw that ethan was not breathing, i determined that i needed to use something to remove the obstruction from his airway. >> it's very important for every household to have a life. everyone should have one in their home. anything can happen at any moment. i want my friends and family and the people that i serve to know that we have this device to potentially save lives. protect your family. go to live, packnett. go to fact dot net or call eight seven, seven life that anybody who owns property should worry about home title theft. there's no other crime that is so easy, so quick and so lucrative. your home, your equity, your peace of mind can all be stolen in one fell swoop by home title thieves like matthew cox. nobody thinks that i can take their house. nobody thinks that. believe it or not, a single page document is all it takes to transfer proof of ownership out of your name. people think there's a whole huge process, but the truth is, it's a one page document, but it still must get through one final barrier. the county clerk, when someone comes in with fraudulent deed, if it's notarized and all the spaces are filled in, we by statute have to accept it. we cannot give it back to them and say, we know this is fraudulent. we're not going to file it. that's against the law. it's public records. it's a recording system. they don't make a phone call. they record it. that's all they do. bottom line is, yes, it happens. and we stop it from happening. and it only takes once for it to sting. you. and it's a very sad thing to watch. you've put your love into the house and all of a sudden it might not be yours. it's a devastating crime for pennies a day. >> home title lock will monitor your title nonstop, alerting you to suspicious activity. >> if you can get a warning, notice that this first step has happened. you can stop the rest. this person from somewhere in new york stole our property. so i was surprised. i talked to my father about it. he advised me that he had taken out home title lock about eight months earlier. we logged in home, tied a lock, and he had five alerts. immediately we contacted them and. within about two weeks, the deed was put back in. my parent's. if you give us a call right now and mentioned promotional code lock, we'll give you your first 30 days of protection. absolutely free on tide title lock lived up to every promise they made. go online or call now. 1-800- 6731633 and sign up today. >> democrats scrambling while furloughed continues after to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. lean absolutely free. that's b o 82 215215. welcome back to this special edition of "hannity". e grow despite growing calls for him to step aside after thursday'si debate performance, joe biden remains defiant. according to a new axiosdefian report, biden has zero interest in stepping down. and according to a report from the new york times, the biden family huddled at campom the david and encouraged joe to stick it out, stay in the race. one of the strongest voices at the table the, his son, huntr biden, who himself is facing years prison after re