ONLY TODAY'S COURT COULD LOVE. JOINING OUR DISCUSSION NOW IS ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL AND FORMER CHIEF OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. HE IS A MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. ANDREW, YOUR REACTION TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT DECIDE TODAY AND WHAT THEY DID. >> LET'S START WITH THE SNYDER DECISION. THE DISSENT THAT KETANJI BROWN JACKSON WROTE. IT IS SOMETHING I REALLY COMMEND EVERYONE TO READ. IT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH AND SHE TAKES THE MAJORITY TO TASK. I HAD THE SAME REACTION AS SHE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF. BOTH TO JUSTICES THOMAS AND ALITO IN TERMS OF THE MONEY THEY HAVE TAKEN AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF SAYING, YOU SAY YOU ARE AN ORIGINAL LIST WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT. THAT IS THIS IDEA THAT WE WILL ONLY LOOK AT THE TEXT. SHE SAYS OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT THE TEXT. THE TEXT IS A CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE THAT SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL TO PAY BRIBES AND RECEIVE BRIBES AND TO GET REWARDS. SHE SAYS THAT'S IT. WE ARE DONE, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TEXTUAL LIST. THAT IS WHY SHE SAYS ONLY THIS SUPREME COURT. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE INTERPRETING CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE. IT IS NOT A POLICY DEBATE IN THE SUPREME COURT AND SHE CALLS THEM OUT, SAYING YOU ARE HAVING A POLICY DEBATE AND YOU LOSE EVEN ON THE POLICY DEBATE. I MEAN, WHO ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THINKS IT IS FINE TO TAKE A REWARD AS LONG AS YOU TAKE THE MONEY AFTERWARDS? JUST DON'T TAKE IT BEFORE. THAT IS NOW THE LAW BASED ON THIS SUPREME COURT AND OBVIOUSLY THE COURT DID NOT ISSUE ITS IMMUNITY DECISION. YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO QUOTE PAULA POUNDSTONE WHO SAID I CAN'T WAIT TO FIND OUT FROM THE SUPREME COURT WHETHER A PRESIDENT CAN KILL SOMEONE. I MEAN IT IS JUST SO ABSURD THAT THIS WAS NOT DECIDED SIX MONTHS AGO WHEN JACK SMITH ASKED THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE. THIS IS ONE WHERE THE DECISION IS THE DELAY. YES WE WILL GET A DECISION, BUT THE DECISION, ACTUALLY THE FACT THAT IT HAS TAKEN THIS LONG, BECAUSE JACK SMITH WILL HAVE ONE HECK OF A TIME TRYING TO GET THIS TO TRIAL BEFORE THE ELECTION. >> TO GO BACK TO THE BRIBERY CASE, IT WAS $13,000 AFTER THE FACT OF A $1 MILLION CONTRACT TO THE COMPANY. LET'S CHANGE THE NUMBERS. LET'S SAY IT IS A MUCH BIGGER CONTRACT TO A MUCH BIGGER COMPANY AND IT IS $1 MILLION. JUST GIVE YOU $1 MILLION, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AFTERWARDS. THE SUPREME COURT SAYS NO PROBLEM. >> ABSOLUTELY AND KETANJI BROWN JACKSON GOES THROUGH THOSE FACTS AND SAYS YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. HE GAVE OUT, IT WAS ACTUALLY OVER $1 MILLION IN TWO CONTRACTS AND THEN THIS PUBLIC OFFICIAL SHOWS UP AT THE DOOR AND SAYS THAT WILL COST YOU $15,000 AND THE COMPANY GETS IT DOWN TO $13,000 AND THEN WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT COMES AND SAYS WHAT IS THIS, HE LIES REPEATEDLY AND COMES UP WITH A WHOLE SERIES OF FALSE STORIES TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT MONEY. WHY? BECAUSE HE KNOWS IT IS ILLEGAL. SHE SAYING YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING. EVEN IF YOU THINK THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN THIS LAW THAT COULD BE VAGUE, WHERE THERE IS SOME APPLICATION TO SOME PEOPLE WHERE THERE MAY BE A CLAIM, IT IS NOT HIM. AND YET THEY HAVE NOW BASICALLY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ARE ALL FOR SALE. >> AND DONALD TRUMP WANTS TO MAKE THAT MONEY TAX-FREE BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP IS IN NEVADA SAYING HE WANTS TO MAKE TIPS TAX-FREE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE TIPS IN YOUR TAX RETURNS. NOW IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN OFFICIAL AND SOMEONE GIVES YOU $1 MILLION AFTER A DEAL, THAT YOURS, TOO, IS KEEP IT ALL. >> THAT'S JUST THE TIP AND THE IDEA THAT THIS IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE JUSTICE ALITO AND JUSTICE THOMAS VOTING ON, JUST LIKE THEY WILL BE VOTING ON THE JANUARY 6 CASE, YOU KNOW, IT TELLS YOU JUST THE SORRY STATE THAT THE COURTS ARE IN, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE BULWARKS, ONE OF THE KEY CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SORT OF A CROWN JEWEL OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THE COURT'S NEWEST JUDGE, KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, IS TAKING THEM TO TASK IN LANGUAGE THAT IS STRONG AND DESERVEDLY STRONG. >> THAT LINE, ONLY THIS COURT COULD LOVE, THAT IS NOT NORMAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LANGUAGE. B MAKE NO, IT IS CLEAR SHE HAS GOTTEN THERE. REMEMBER SHE SERVED ON THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. ON THE COURT IN D.C. WITH CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES AND TO ME IT IS, IT READS LIKE