MSNBC Legal Analyst Defends SCOTUS Immunity Decision, Pushes Back on Concerns: ‘I Think It’s Logical’

MSNBC legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg said he is finding he’s in the “lonely middle” when it comes to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, pushing back on claims the decision pushes the country into a “constitutional apocalypse.”

Rosenberg joined Willie Geist on Morning Joe on Tuesday to give his take on Monday’s 6-3 opinion, which stated that presidents have absolute immunity for “official acts” taken while in office. Much has been debated about the parameters of such immunity, especially in light of a dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor which suggested a president could kill a political opponent and not be prosecuted.

On Monday, Rosenberg shut down that specific concern and on Tuesday he found himself defending the ruling against critics yet again.

“I think it is logical that some acts are immune, the core constitutional responsibilities of any president, put Mr. Trump aside, ought to be immune from prosecution. Purely private acts ought not be immune,” he told Geist.

Rosenberg, a former U.S. Attorney, said “official acts” would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis and that fear about the ruling may be directly tied to its implications about Trump, including that his Jan. 6 Capitol riot case will not be moving forward before the election.

“I think we have to avoid the following construction: ‘I don’t like Mr. Trump. This opinion is good for Mr. Trump therefore we are on the brink of a constitutional apocalypse,'” he said. “I don’t believe that’s true, but part of Jack Smith’s case is now gone and he’s going to have to fight for the rest. His road to prosecution is longer and bumpier and more narrow.”

Watch above via MSNBC.