welcome back. more apparent evidence has

emerged of donald trump sweeping post-2020 pressure campaign. stop me if you've heard this before, breonna. then president trump calls a fellow republican and pushes them to block joe biden victory. we know that he did it with vice president pence. we heard the recording of him doing it with georgia secretary of state brian rothberger. now they have a were recording of him pressuring to michigan election workers. >> the difference here is this time it appeared to work. according to the detroit news, hours after to michigan -- certifying the election results they got a call from trump. he urged him not to sign a certification. the pair then refused to sign. in the end it didn't matter, at least not to the outcome of the voting. it could matter to these folks. here we have cnn katelyn polantz tracking out of. this kaitlan, i do want to be clear here. cnn has not independently heard this recording. the detroit news is reporting that it has heard it. what are we learning about it? >> correct. the new thing here, the piece

that is so important with the story out of the detroit news is that the audio exists of this call. this is a call that have been known about. donald trump, november 2020, just after the election called to wayne county officials. that is the county that detroit is in a michigan. essentially pressured them to not certify the election results, his loss of that state. two of the things he said on this call that we are learning because of this detroit news report, the specific wording captured on the audio. we cannot let these people take our country away from us. everybody knows detroit is crooked as. another instance of pressure here. the reason that the audio is so important is everyone knows what donald trump wanted after the 2020 election. there are ongoing investigations, including in michigan, and the federal criminal trial coming up of

donald trump. there is a big question mark of, what is the evidence to show trump's interest in blocking the election results and the steps he took, the exact words he said. will this kind of thing come up in some sort of cases in the future? would it be something that even special counsel jack smith could use at trial? the answer to those questions, we just don't know right now. every time there is specific audio captured of donald trump, like that call with secretary of state brad raffensperger out of georgia, and some of the other instances we have heard of calls, every time there's audio it is the encapsulation of what happened in realtime, not just people recreating what they remember, perhaps even downplaying exactly how forceful donald trump was in pressuring people to let him win. >> we have to think it is only a matter of time now before we hear this recording. we haven't heard it yet but you have to think it is soon. thank you, as always.

we are joined now by former michigan director of elections. chris thomas. now a fellow at the bipartisan election project. chris, stunning stuff, maybe not that surprising. you say there was no legal justification for those canvassers to block certification. what can you tell us? >> there was not any legal basis for doing that. these positions, two democrats into republicans representing their parties. they are required to certify the results of the precinct returns. they check the precinct returns during the 14 days after the election and then certify them. it is a ministerial, non discretionary, position. they do not have authority to

investigate. they do not have the authority to do audits. this is one of the steps in the overall statewide certification process. after they certify, it goes to one of the board state canvassers who certifies the state, and then candidates can request recounts if they are unsatisfied with the results. in this case donald trump did not seek a recount, with all the concern expressed about the votes in detroit, all of the false, they would have been verified had he gone and hadn't asked for a recount. we have seen that everything was above board. he did not do that, he did not ask for that. >> we should just confirm here, the signatures were not necessary in the end. in the end what they risk here was for not. on the call, chris, trump reportedly tried to persuade

these folks by saying, quote, everyone knows detroit is crooked as. is there any evidence to back that up regarding the 2020 results? >> it is just bizarre. there is no history of detroit being crooked in their elections. it is an unfortunate thing for him to say that. he tends to be somewhat ignorant on detroit. he made the allegation that there were more votes in detroit and there were people in the city, which is just patently untrue. we have 500,000 registered voters. we have about 250,000 turn now to vote. this is an ongoing thing. often it is republicans who like to repeat that about detroit. it is just patently untrue. the state came in, they audited. they found that the impact eludes of 174,000 mail ballots,

that was something that was unaccounted for, hardly something that was gonna turn an election. >> chris, it's important to point out, of the key battleground states that trump lost, michigan was one of his largest margins of defeat. why do you think trump was making these kinds of claims? what do you suspect what's going on when detroit said, detroit was crooked as. he made similar comments about philadelphia, and atlanta. >> that is correct. this is not a close election. three full points. that is not a narrow election. -- you can call others of close election, this was not. i have to believe that there were plans for. as you know, he tried to bully

the speaker the house and the senate majority leader, offering them trips to washington. neither of them capitulated to his demands. he has a lot of supporters in michigan. people willing to show up in protest on election day, the day after, why he thought he could ever turn that around is beyond me. in fact, he knows he couldn't turn it around. if he could have he would've asked for a recount. >> that is a good point. he could've asked for a recount. chris thomas, thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> let's bring in sue jim page now and polo oliver micah. -- washington bureau chief for usa today. when you look at this through a bit of the goal lands it is not necessarily bad for donald trump. >> it hasn't been so far. this is familiar but shocking

to hear the president trying to pressure to county canvassing officials to flip their decision. these are similar to the charges we have seen before against president trump that have solidified his position as a leader from the republican presidential nomination. they gave him a tough long shield against the republican challengers who would very much like to replace him. i think that while, legally, this could be problematic for him politically so far these kinds of things have been good for him. >> i have to do is look at the campaign statement from the trump campaign about this but, they didn't deny it. it wasn't taken out of context. they said he did it and he was proud to do. it the president and his campaign spokesman was enacting his duties as president. they are saying this is what he is supposed to be doing. i think it's this is a big sign if we find ourselves in the situation in 2024, donald trump the candidate will try to

pressure county officials, state lawmakers, to bend the rules in his favor even if he loses. >> it is the perfect phone call defense trump's just interviewed on a conservative radio show where he talked about the colorado supreme court keeping off the ballot. talk of being about what he had to say. >> if they ever did that it would be so bad for this country, you have no idea. you understand. it would be a big problem for the country. >> i think it would be a 90 reversal of what comes today. >> i think that is the kind of reversal. it should not be given any credit. not even the credit one supreme court justice. >> susan, what do you think he is getting at there when he says, it would be so bad for the country. >> i think he has a point. there are even conservative legal scholars who say the 14th amendment might apply. perhaps he is not eligible to run for the presidency. i think most legal scholars,

maybe political scholars perhaps, political people see this as a really tough case. we want voters to decide who the president is. we do not want judges to decide who the president is that happened in the past it happened in 2000 but it's the kind of thing that would fuel a sense of grievance that donald trump is counting on through his entire career and i think it would risk ripping the country in half. >> it's also interesting when you listen to where democrats are on this they have a comfort level with what the special counsel is doing, right? they have accounts comfort level with the fulton county case. when you look at what is happened with the colorado supreme court they start to get a little on edge, and for good reason. we heard from president biden on this when he was asked what he thought about the colorado supreme court decision. it's true the donald trump engaged in an insurrection. whether not he should be taken

off the ballot he is a little reluctant to go that far and that's in part because of what susan said we don't typically in america want judges to be the ones who decide who can vote for a certain candidate even democrats know that this could have people rally around trump. accused them of trying to take away their vote and take away their voice. that is the same message we are going to be hearing throughout the election. >> susan we are just a few weeks away from the iowa caucuses. you are starting to get to some of the frustration from some of the non-trump candidates. the conversation dam today because of trump's legal problems is almost always about trump. to their detriment. >> braun desantis, once's chief challenger, perhaps it once but not anymore, he says he regrets all these indictments. the worst thing you can happen is year challenger cars been indicted but that is not the way that politics works anymore in this country. >> up is down and down is up

when talking about donald trump, ray? >> thank you, guys. really appreciate it. new cnn analysis is putting the scale of israel's bombardment of gaza into stunning context. you're gonna want to watch this. the idf vows not to let up in its fight against hamas. >> a rare second chance, for men released from prison after the wrongful convictions were tossed out. how they planned to pay that blessing forward.

on the same day the u.n. security council passed a resolution calling for the suspension of fighting and an increase in aid to gaza, israel signaling it is widening its ground offensive in the gaza strip. ordering residents in central gaza to move to shelters for safety. >> the loss of life so far in this war is staggering. according to the moss health industry more than 20,000 people have been killed in gaza since october 7th. we should say that there are some issues with those numbers, yes. they do grossly represent what we are seeing there in gaza. many international

organizations use them because of the. cnn's investigating why that death toll is so high. we have cnn chief executive correspondent, nima al-baghdadi, who has a closer look. we do warn you that some of the images in this room are disturbing. >> reporter: even at a distance, the devastation wrought on gaza is unbiased a couple. >> we are a few hundred meters from gaza but even here you get a sense of the degree of the israeli bombardment of gaza. the sheer intensity and scale. >> this is what that looks like up close. scenes of destruction have become all too familiar. here, the aftermath of another israeli airstrike. this time in late october in the jabalia refugee camp one of the most densely populated residential areas in gaza. the destruction caused by 2000

palm bomb, likely drop by the u.s., four times as powerful as a vast majority the bombs used by the u.s. in its fight against i.s.i.s.. in densely populated gaza, the human cost is in comparable. whole families lived out -- [speaking in a non-english language] >> reporter: jabalya refugee camp is one of the epicenters of the campaign. to understand the complete scale of the disruption in gaza you should look from above. in coordination with artificial intelligence companies, synthetic, cnn was able to locate over 1900 craters left behind by bombardment in just the first months of the war. using a.i., we analyze the diameter of these craters. over 500 of which were greater than 40 feet in diameter. consistent with american made 2000 pound bombs used by the

israeli air force. our analysis covers them on month period through november six in which a staggering 10,000 people are believed to have died. the u.s.'s most senior middle east diplomat testified on november 9th a number of dead could be even higher. >> in this period of conflict, the conditions of war, it is very difficult for any of us to assess about the rate of casualties. are we think they are very high, frankly. it could be that they are even higher than are being cited. >> the u.s. continues to back israel's bombardment. why is the death toll so staggering? because it is not just about the point of impact. this is a crater caused by 2000 pound bomb. the potential kill zone from that crater could spread up to three inches the five meters. that is 1200 feet. an area equivalent of roughly 60 soccer pitches, around 90

american soccer fields. >> reporter: the idf told cnn, in stark contrast to hamas is intentional attack on israeli men, women, and children, the idf follows international law and takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm. is that true? this is just north of the shati refugee camp along the main coast of the red. if you go close so you can see in this small neighborhood at least nine creators consisting with 2000 pound bombs. which means the potential chills own could encompass this entire area. cnn and synthetic analysis of the devastation of gaza shows extensive bombardment. in an area of this densely populated, using these bombs, it is inherently indiscriminate. the human cost continues to solar. surpassing 20,000. >> reporter: many of the dead still unburied, still under the rubble, no and inside. the n and, sderot.

our thanks to nima for that report. in the meantime, and iconic consumer company could soon be another control of japanese corporation. ahead, why a bipartisan group of lawmakers and even the white house is pushing back on that move.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch

mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. the white house is now weighing in on the proposed sale of u.s. steel to a japanese company. saying in the statement that president biden believes the purchase of this iconic american owned company by a foreign entity, even one by close ally, appears to deserve serious kearney based on its potential impact on national security and supply chain

reliability. >> u.s. steel was once the most valuable company in the world. this week it agreed to sell itself to japan's largest steel maker in a multi million dollar deal that triggered backlash from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and from the steel workers themselves. >> there is lots of concerns for us, for the sustainability of our current workforce, and their employment security, and obviously the pensions and their retirement health care of our retirees. besides the white houses security on the national security and domestic supply chain issues, we are certainly concerned about the whole deal. >> with us now is cnn economic commentator, lodging post commentator, catherine rambo. catherine, what are the concerns about? obviously this is a foreign company coming in, trying to buy u.s. steel, which comes with a lot of warm fuzzies in the united states. it has existed at a major american institution for so many years.

difficult beyond that? >> this is just ranked political pandering at this point. biden has to show that he has the same nationalistic tendencies that some of the populace, including the united steel workers and the union, want him to demonstrate. look, japan is a strong ally, a good friend to the united states. has proven itself to be as much over and over and over again, including imposing voluntary export restrictions on its semiconductors and our request, essentially. mustering and marshaling the forces to get the indo-pacific economic framework signed, all of that stuff. if i were the japanese government i would be pretty insulted right now. >> you would be insulted? >> yes. >> it's funny, he in that statement he is raising the issue of needing to scrutinize this for a potential national security considerations. what do you think of that? >> again, i think it is political pandering. >> there are no political

considerations? >> there is a committee and inter agency committee that scrutinizes any kind of deal that involves, or of a third threshold, of a deal with a foreign company requiring or merging with the u.s. company. i think it is likely that they would've liked this anyway but the president wouldn't have released a statement about suggesting that there was some great threat to national security. it was the same deal with trump tariffs on steel. they also used the excuse of national security to impose what was essentially a protectionist measure. but -- >> caroline, i'm so sorry to interrupt. we have big breaking news out of the supreme court that we need to go to. i want to go now to the supreme court, john and, has rejected jack smith's request for justices to hear the trump immunity dispute. take us through. this >> breonna, we just got a one sentence order without any recorded voter explanation. they have denied jack smith's request for immediate

consideration of the claim that donald trump should be immune to criminal prosecution for interfering with the 2020 election. trying to disenfranchise millions of voters. the special counsel jack smith laid out a case for why it was compelling for the supreme court to decide this sooner rather than later. just a second ago the supreme court denied it. again, no recorded vote or explanation. it means that this case now stays in a lower appellate court. it could take months before it gets back to the supreme court. it means the trial of donald trump that was supposed to start march 4th will not certainly start on march 4th. >> that is huge. >> joan, what we are talking about here is this is now going to go through the normal appellate process, it will go to the court of appeals. the process will play out. maybe michael to the supreme court after that. for all intents and purposes, this is a legal log jam and the

way of that march start date as you were saying. >> absolutely true. jack smith, on behalf of the federal government has said supreme court you need to resolve the sooner rather than later. please come in now, to this quickly the. the court has said, no. as i said, no explanation. obviously the implication is jack smith, the federal government, they're gonna have to go through the usual hoops of the lower court. that is what is standard procedure. what's the special counsel had tried to argue was that this case was so compelling, so important, to have a former president held accountable for actions from the 2020 election, he did not invoke the 2024 election. here we are right on the eve of that. now this trial of former president donald trump and all of the related proceedings are just gonna go right through to the summer and who knows if it is going to pump round up against the november election. >> let's remind people, joan, what's at the heart of this.

this question of whether donald trump had presidential immunity in his actions surrounding the election. the issue in, jack smith charged him with four felony counts for the interference with the 2020 election. everything up to the january six insurrection of the capital. what donald trump said is he should be immune from this kind of criminal prosecution because any actions taken were part of his official actions. a low court trial judge rejected that. they said, essentially, no one is above the law especially the president, the former president in this case. that was the situation that jack smith has tried to emphasize. no one should be above the law, especially a man who tried to defy the constitution and perpetuate his time in office. >> and, what is fascinating about all of this, we will get

jeff perez to join us on set, as well. the other part of this, joan, which is fascinating is we just got this new story out of the detroit news over the last 24 hours where there are new revelations, at least the revelations are on audio now, donald trump and the chair of the rnc, rhonda mcdaniel, we're trying to pressure those election workers in wayne county to not certify the election results in that county. this feeds right into jack smith's case. that the then president who was not acting as president of the united states, he was just trying to cling to power. >> jack smith made a big point about the former president trying to disenfranchise millions of voters. there was a situation right there in detroit michigan. >> allegations again but those will be tested in trial. that trial where both sides would be able to present their

case is no months away. >> what is your take away from this? this came down pretty quickly. if i'm not mistaken jack smith asked once, then asked again and said, hey, we really need you to give us something on this. the supreme court said, okay. >> the supreme court actually gave these tight deadline to both sides to weigh in before making this decision. it was clear that somebody, john roberts, perhaps others, on the court did want to at least take a look at this and decide whether to consider this for request. what we see here now is well, we know that the appeals court has also decided to move very quickly. they set very tight guidelines. and they have scheduled january 9th oral arguments on the very same questions. it is quite possible that some of the other justices thought, let's wait for that. let me just say this. smith makes a pretty strong

argument here. this case, if you comparative precedent, right? 1974, the nixon case. those urgent questions being pushed for the court at that point. they took a look at that case, they expect that it is. they skipped over the appellate process. they heard that case in two months and they rendered a disillusioned 16 days after ornaments. what jack smith said in his request is, here the stakes are at least that's high if not higher for a resolution to come. we all know the electoral calendar, we know that the bow to being printed, literally, in the next few weeks. the question that is before this court is really, really, urgent. i think that this means clearly the march 4th trial is in grave danger of not happening at that point. it will most likely not be

anywhere near there because of this process. these lawyers can move quickly if they choose to do so. >> i wanted to look at it through a political lens but quickly i want to bring in ali honing real quick. we have him on the phone. we should look at the legal side of this before we look at it through the political lens. ali, i wonder if you think this may have had some bearing on the supreme court's decision. in fairness it is a very short ruling. we do not know the reason behind it. jack smith said he was explaining why he wanted this expedited. he did not give a specific reason in his filing other than to talk about the public interest. the problem here is he could not invoke the 2024 election. what a lot of people look at this they say, maybe it should be expedited. they say maybe it should be on trial before the election. people who are voting yes or no until trump have a full picture of what's going on here. do you think that had a bearing? his argument maybe not as strong as it could've been?

>> breonna, i think that is exactly the biggest weakness in jack smith's argument that this needed to be expedited. let's remember the party who is asking the supreme court unusual here was jack smith. he was saying we want to skip the port of appeals, it will not happen. now the next step will be the court of appeals. jack smith was saying we want to have you take the supreme court take on this keith mediately. if you were gonna take on this request, legally, you, jack smith, and bear the burden of explaining specifically why there is a need for speed here. jack smith, because he has been unwilling and remains unwilling to acknowledge that he wants to try this case before the election instead, if you look at his briefs, arguing this vague generality around speed is good. public interest. but he never says because we need to get this in before the election. in his brief donald trump's lawyers attack that. all the check smith has offered up here is generality that wouldn't find any case.

we do not offer a specific reason. breonna, as you say we do not know the specific reason why the supreme court has turned us down for now but it is really important to keep in mind that the next step will be the court of appeals. donald trump lost the argument at the trial court. he will now get to go to the court of appeals. that will take a few weeks, they set a very quick briefing schedule. the supreme court might take it then. this does not mean the supreme court will never take this case. they are just going to have the court of appeals take it first. what this does as evan said makes the march 4th trial date almost impossible to hold. i think this means the trial date will be pushed back, perhaps substantially. >> john, you're still with us, do you want to response to what ali is saying? we are not getting a resolution on the immunity issue. we are getting an resolution on whether not this will be expedited. i think the supreme court, eventually, is gonna have to decide this. they are the only bench that

can decide this. i would just respond to what ali said about the trump lawyers arguments. jack smith had a chance to come back and respond to trump's lawyers claims that he wasn't specific enough. he didn't even try to take that. on what he wanted to take on was the very important first principles question here involving the separation of powers. involving presidential shield from criminal prosecution. he likened it to some of the wittiest issues out there. essentially saying, i don't need to be specific on why. this is such a big question, a former president trying to allude accountability for his actions. we need an answer on that, sooner rather than later. finally, jim, to your initial point there is no way that this doesn't go back to the u.s. supreme court. no matter what the appellate court does, the supreme court

is gonna have to resolve this once and for all in this case of donald trump. >> as they should. >> we have to sneak in a quick break and then it is all you and jeff and norm eisen who joined us, as well. so much to report on here. the supreme court rejecting jack smith's request of the expedite this question of presidential immunity and whether it applies to donald trump when it comes to election subversion. we are going to get in a quick break, as i mentioned. we are back in a few moments. huge legal and political implicatations here.e. we w will be looooking at alallf them.

this is cnn breaking news.

>> breaking news coming to us from the supreme court. they have rejected a request by special counsel jack smith to expedite a decision on former president trump's presidential immunity when it comes to alleged crimes he may have committed in office. does he have presidential unity? it's not that they will ultimately decide that. but they are not going to do that quickly as jack smith had asked them to do. this is really important. it speaks, jeff zeleny, to the politics of this. which is of the utmost importance. what this is going to do is it will likely push the trial date. let's look at how it affects things. >> one thing it does not change is the dates of the primary election. those are fast. if you walk through it, the oral arguments at the appellate level will be the 9th of january. they have a caucus is up in the republican -- on january 14th. a week later it's the new hampshire primary. and evan was saying earlier this almost certainly delays

the actual start date of the trial, march 4th, right before super tuesday. that is the day he could, potentially -- a very important day on the calendar. after that it is winner-take-all. he, or whoever, winds all of the delegates from the state. the early part of the primary process, january in february, is rain port and. the bottom line on what all this means is the voting will be well underway long before this likely hits a courtroom in terms of a trial. that is significant because the arrival of the former president will say that voters should have all the information here. they may not. >> norm, what is your take on all of this? is this a supreme punt by the supreme court? the ball just canada back in their laps anyway in short order. >> it is. it is going to be back at the supreme court, very likely in january. we know that the case is working through the ordinary courts. it should not come as a surprise. smith was really asking for

unusual relief. it is relief that was sometimes granted by the supreme court against joe biden on some of his moves. still, it is very unusual, very rare. it is on a rocket docket in the d.c. circuit, appellate court a first resort from judge chutkan. as jeff says, they will have oral arguments on the ninth. they will likely issue a decision in days. it will go back to the supreme court. i think the bottom line is probably we are looking at 60 to 90-day delay in the commencement of judge chutkan's trial. that is assuming, as most experts feel, the presidential immunity arguments the merits of them are weak. trump loses. we go back to trial. it means one other thing. the first trial of donald trump may not be the 2020 election interference case. it may be the 2016 election

interference case. new york state court alvin bragg saying hush money payments were made and covered up, over 30 felonies. donald trump, he alleges, did not want to lose the 2016 election. another six scandal after access hollywood. that case may now go first. >> the merits of this argument, that he has this presidential immunity, listen, i think we all know the president is not gonna be totally immune. he is not supposed to feel to commit crimes. americans know that, right? that is not part of the american fabric. the merits, as weak as they may be, high him time with what is happening now. and that flies him strength. >> absolutely. all of these very separate cases, the ones we've been talking about, they are not necessarily separate in the minds of voters. when i talk to the republican voters they believe it is one giant cabal conspiracy against him. of course it is in every

jurisdiction. it is totally separate. politically for him this has made the former president much stronger. you talked about the alan bragg case. before that, last april, he actually had some weaknesses. some of his rivals were gaining ground and traction. this has completely rally the troops and the base around him. that is why this is likely to continue longer than it ever hits a courtroom. >> of the question, after all, they already agreed to take up whether to take it up in an expedited fashion, rather, i think the point norm made about the d.c. circuit, the important thing is that happened after the petition before a judgment occurred and before the court,

and it's important that unanimity with no descent for saying, look, we would like to have, as they normally have a full judgment and opinion by the d.c. circuit that will help us out that is about three weeks. i think in general, the court will be looking in the polarized cases to speak without allow of dissent. i think they agree let's give it a few weeks, and we'll give it that opinion. it doesn't mean they don't think it's not important and rather they will take it and take the full treatment that helps them in short order. >> they have to be mindful of the campaign. >> of course, they are very mindful. for jack smith and the department, this is increasingly uncomfortable, because we were looking at a trial right before super tuesday, and now we're talking about a trial getting pushed further and further into

the summer and closer to the summer, and when the justice department typically tries to go quiet about anything politics, about anything that could tilt an election, there's a whole sensitivity about it -- >> before the jim comey issue. >> sure, before the jim comey issue. that is why the justice department is pushing hard for this, because they are trying to get out of the way. they are pointing out that they didn't address it, but everybody knows it, and i don't need to address the question, and for the justice department, they're really trying to get out of the way for the election. >> we need to take a quick break -- i'm so sorry. we're moving in time, because we have a lot to explore, but the supreme court rejected jack smith's decision to exduty the decision on presidential immunity when it comes to

donald trump, which very likely means it's going to push this election subversion trial that was supposed to be in march or still scheduduled in m march, at of impatatience herere. we'll l take a quiuick breakak e back with h more.

>> welcome back to the breaking news. the supreme court rejecting the special counsel's request to hear trump's presidential immunity dispute quickly, although, norm icen, as we were getting to you before the last break, this doesn't mean it's not going to happen, but every delay for donald trump is a win. >> i think there is a break point that jeff and evan were referring to that comes on labor day, and there is an unwritten doj rule, some say it's a 90 day rule or a 60 day rule that

they're not to initiate this and we're talking about a 60 or 90-delay in this trial. we may get another 2016 election subversion case and roll into this case in may or june. it's estimated to be eight or 12 weeks if we're right about there being no absolute presidential immunity, which to me is a crazy idea, and then you're going to get this trial and get it on the books before labor day, and the polling suggests that once there's one conviction, much less possibly two, we don't know if there will be a conviction, that is a different kind of break point. the american people say hey, a candidate that is convicted, that is very different. they don't like that. >> but if something significant happens by labor day, the republican convention, whoever ask nominated is july 18th when someone accepts the republican

nomination in washington. and this is just one of the cases, they don't line up as perfectly as one would like, so voters will not have all the information, but that is not a surprise. that has not changed that. we knew it would be a split screen between the courtrooms and various jurisdictions and the campaign. >> let's talk a little bit about the collision course so all of this is on, because not only is this -- obviously, this is an important question, but there is the important question raise bid the state supreme court of colorado, and we assume and we expect that donald trump is going to appeal that decision to the supreme court and that will come sometime in the next few weeks, so now, we're talking about -- you know, the justices will have to consider this hugely important question of presidential immunity but also whether the fact that one state court found that he is an insurrectionist, they can strike him from the ballot, which is a huge thing for the ballot.

>> can you explain this, the delay now goes to the appellate court date, june 9th, and we're expecting a 60 or 90 day delay for the spit ball trial, why does it create that? >> obviously, the appellate court has to have oral argument and, they have to consider that we are -- you know, norm is optimistic, we might see a decision within days -- it is possible. typically, those decisions take a couple of weeks, so every week that that happens, then that counts, and it begins a new clock for, you know, however that decision goes, we assume it's going to be appealed to the supreme court, and there will be briefs. you know, that whole process will begin again, which sets you back another few weeks, and donald trump -- let's remember, he proposed a trial date in 2026, so he has no interest in

getting this any time soon. >> yeah. if he's elected, it's very likely he will order his doj drop these cases or try pardoning himself. one other point, evan, on the timing question, we're assuming that the supreme court will take cert. i think you'll see that opinion maybe in the end of the week, so 16, 17, and but in many of the democracy cases on donald trump, they just slammed the door on him, so they may say cert denied and that speeds things up again. >> all right, hang with us and we'll be back in a moment with the breaking news of the supreme court saying no to jack smith's, special counsel request for expediting the presidential immunity for donald trump. we'll be right back.