the faa is on capitol hill, set to face a grilling soon about his oversight of boeing. after a near disaster last month, the door plug on an alaska airlines jet blew out midair on its way from oregon to california. 177 people were on board that flight. pete muntean is with us now. what do you expect to hear today? >> reporter: we're now going to hear about the ntsb's preliminary report and hearing it will come out affnoon today. significant because preliminary reports usually just the facts of an incident, but ntsb chair told me before this that she hopes to make some news. a lot of intrigue, but still not clear what will be in this. the ntsb has been painstakingly dissecting the door plug that fell off alaska airlines flight 1282 on january 5th and its lab in washington, d.c. they call it destructive testing. the question has focused on the bolts that hold the door plug in place. there were four of them. will the ntsb find they were

properly installed. will the ntsb find they were not there in the first place? remember, both alaska and united airlines found loose bolts on some of their max 9s that were in service but that plane was grounded for about 19 days. the ntsb is also trying to build a timeline of the door plug. we know this, the door plug was built in malaysia, sent to spirit aerosystems in kansas and taken by train to the boeing factory in washington. this is coming out on a big day, when it comes to the other investigation by a different agency looking into this. the faa. and administrator mike whittaker is testifying on capitol hill right now. remember, that agency is now supervising ramped up oversight of boeing since that incident last month, and house lawmakers simply want to know if that is enough. it's prepared testimony, whittaker will say this, going forward, we will have more boots on the ground, closely scrutinizing and monitoring production activities at boeing.

just yesterday, the faa told reporters that it's reimagining a new oversight plan of boeing. the faa says it has about a dozen inspectors at boeing now and they're doing nose to tail and wing tip to wing tip inspections of planes still being built. they just found a new incident on sunday about drills, holes that were drilled improperly when it comes to the window assembly on some 50 max 9s. doesn't affect planes out there now, but could slow delivery. >> keep finding new issues. pete muntean on capitol hill today, thank you very much. sara. new this morning, new york police have released dramatic video of a robbery they say is part of a migrant criminal enterprise. according to police, and take a look at this, these are using stolen mopeds to speed by victims and snatch their cell phones. they then hack into those stolen phones and steal money using illegal transactions. chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst john miller is joining us now.

john, how does this work? that was really disturbing video. do we know if that person is okay that comes flying off the moped? >> she was injured but she's okay. but it is kind of an example of how this works, which is we have a driver on the moped and you have a person on the back. the driver, the getaway driver, the person on the back may jump off and grab somebody, hop back on. may do it on the snatch, which is extraordinarily dangerous. this is a crime pattern we saw emerge a few years ago enlondon. it bedevilled the police in hard to catch, hard to predict citywide pattern and it's emerged here just in the last few months. this was citywide pattern 156, but there's 32 other patterns that are similar involving mopeds, scooters, and snatches going on. and it's a real problem for the police. >> it's really dangerous. it is really scary for the public.

i want to ask you about one of the migrants accused of attacking an nypd officer, because there is also a little bit of video of that. in times square last weekend. supposed to be in court today, but there are others, correct? what's happening in that case? >> so he's ehere for a routine hearing. he was held on bail and ended up being in jail at this time. the other four that were arrested at the same time were released on their own recog recognizance, and it appears according to police, they believe they fled the city under false names on a bus. during the bail hearings at the arrest, the judge alonzo is told by the district attorney, we're not asking for bail, not asking for bail. at one point, she says i can -- this person has two open cases. and they're already on supervised release. i consider them this is a felony now a flight risk to avoid prosecution. and basically begging the district attorney between the

lines to say, do you want to make an application for bail. they say no, continue level one, tier one, which basically means you get to go. you have to call in once a month. and that individual is one of the people who police believe took off on a bus headed for the mexican border a week ago. >> so they were warned by police, look, the others have fled. this person is probably going do the same, and the courts just said we're going to leave it as is, correct? the least amount they will face. >> but not in that order. that was them saying he's got two open cases. and you know, he's considered a flight risk. and they said, well, no bail anyway. he can go. and he is now one of the people who a couple days later they believe under a false name boarded a bus with the other three and took off. >> john miller, there is a lot to discuss here. i'm sure we'll be discussing it through the next days, weeks, and months. >> i think it's important to say

this and a tiny percentage of the migrant populous that has come to new york. that's probably 70,000 people here out of 170,000 that have come and gone, this is just a few people. we have to keep underlining that. >> thank you so much. john. all right, we have major breaking news. a federal appeals court in washington, d.c., a panel has just issued the ruling on whether donald trump can be immune from the actions from being prosecuted for the actions he took on january 6th. let's get right to polly reed who has been looking through this ruling. what are you seeing, paula? >> reporter: well, as expected, the d.c. appeals court has ruled that former president trump does not enjoy presidential immunity that would shield him from the federal election subversion case. it's taken about a month to get to this decision. but it was pretty clear during the oral arguments in early january the judges appeared unlikely to agree with trump's

lawyers that he should be shielded by presidential immunity because some of the things he allegedly did occurred while he was still president. his lawyers face really tough questions about whether there were any limitations on their theory of executive power. but john, i want to read you one quote from this decision. they said, quote, this is a three-judge panel. this is an appeals court. for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. but any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. so this again, this was expected. they are affirming what the trial court found when it contemplated this question. but look, just as much as this is about constitutional questions of presidential protections and presidential authority, john, as you know, this is also about timing.

we know former president trump and his legal team, they are trying to do anything they can to delay his criminal cases until after the election. and arguably, they have at least initially been successful here. the judge who would have overseen this trial that was expected to begin in early march, judge tanya chutkan, she's taken it off the calendar because she has to wait until the appeal goes to its final stage before she can start her case. what happens next here? he does have the option to ask the entire appeals court to hear this case. now, the judges here signaling that might actually not work. but he also has the option, of course, to go to the supreme court. now, it is unclear, sources close to the trump legal team say they're not really sure the justices are doing to want to weigh in on this question of immunity. there's a much anticipated oral argument before the justices on thursday related to former president trump's ballot eligibility. and my sources telling me the

trump legal team doesn't really expect the justices are going to want to take up a second trump case, but the longer it takes to get answers on whether the full appeals court will hear this or if the supreme court wants to take it up, the longer this gets delayed and the less likely it is that this case would go to trial before november. now, john, there is absolutely a possibility that this case could still go, but it was a little surprising how long it took the appeals court to get us this answer. again, very much expected. it was signaled during the oral arguments that he was unlikely to prevail here, but the fact that it took them a month, that's a bit of a win for him because it forced the judge to take this case off the calendar and it's unclear how long it's going to take for the supreme court and potentially the full circuit to answer what they're going to do. the longer it takes, the less likely he'll see this federal trial. >> let's break this down into parts because there's a lot going on here. first, the ruling which in some ways is the most important part here. any executive immunity that may

have protected him when he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. he does not have presidential immunity, this appeals court panel ruled. was this unanimous or was there dissent? there was speculation one of the reasons it took so much time is perhaps there was some disagreement. >> yeah, i'm not seeing that either. there were a lot of questions. it's still not clear why it took them so long. they accepted this on an expedited schedule to take a month while in traditional cases, that isn't actually that long, but when given the stakes and the widespread recognition that part of this strategy is to delay this, it was surprising that it took them so long. it's unclear why it took them four weeks to issue this very much expected decision. >> and in the meantime, judge tanya chutkan who was overseeing the district court case, has suspended everything while she waits for this to work through the appeals process. the next step here would be for

the trump team, if they want to create the slowest possible process, the next step would be for them to what? >> so they could try to ask the full appeals court, this was usually the traditional next step in most cases, to hear this. all the entire circuit, every judge who sits on it, to listen to their case. it's called hearing en banc. a lot of folks skip that step, but if the goal is delay, go up each rung of the ladder, but they're signaling that may not work in this case. instead, they would likely appeal to the supreme court. sources close to the trump team tell me they're not confident the justices will want to wade in on this issue of immunity. it's not a terribly strong argument for the former president. as we know, the high court is going to hear oral aurnlts from trump's lawyer on thursday about ballot eligibility. again, my sources telling me the trump team is not confident even if they appeal to the supreme court, they'll take it up, but

the longer it takes to file that appeal, to get an answer from the supreme court, you know, the less likely it is this case could go to trial before the november 2024 election. >> part of the process and the appeal to get the full appeals court to hear it or the supreme court will depend on some of the language in the ruling. we'll let you dig more into the ruling and talk to your sources. so stand by. don't go far. >> this certainly has legal precedence, but there's also a political, huge political component to this. let's go to kristen holmes who is joining us now. have you heard anything from donald trump's team yet? >> reporter: no, this is just now happening in real time. i want to point something out. obviously, this is something his lawyers are pushing for. this is a legal case, but it's also something donald trump himself has become somewhat obsessed with. he's constantly posting on social media that he deserves immunity, that every president should have immunity. in his rallies he's talking about immunity, saying it's unfair for a president to be

charged with something when he was out of office for something he did while he was in office. saying it sets a bad precedent. this is an argument he's really come to focus on and believe in, and one he's trying to sell to voters. we talk about the political implications. we know that donald trump has used these various court cases as campaign stops. we also know that he has turned them into rhetoric really for him to attack biden, to lump all of these different cases together, to say that it is election interference. of course, we expect him to do that here. but he also is selling this message to voters, saying i was acting in my actual capacity during january 6th. again, that's what he is saying to these voters in these speeches, saying he should have full immunity. there are real questions about what exactly this means and what it means politically, how does that argument go. obviously, this is not something he's going to be happy about.

he has really unobsessed over ts idea that presidents should have full immunity. >> but no one is above the law in this country. we'll see what happens. the supreme court has spoken. kristen, i'm sure there with be comments and i'm sure you'll get there. >> this was an unanimous decision from this panel on the federal appeals court. there's been speculation one of the reasons it took so long it there was internal dissent. we're not seeing that as we pore through the ruling. i understand you have got some information now about the scheduling here? >> reporter: that's right. going through this with help from our extraordinary team, we now see that the court of appeals is trying to make up for some of the time they lost in the month it took them to issue the decision, setting a very aggressive schedule for sending this back down to the trial court. this case, again, the traditional next step would be asking the full circuit and then going to the supreme court. that can take quite a bit of time even if the courts don't weigh in to get answers and we know part of the trump strategy

is delay. here, this case is expected to go back down to the trial court unless the supreme court takes some sort of extraordinary measure and intervenes here. this is incredibly significant because on thursday, of course, trump's lawyers are going before the supreme court to argue that he should appear on every ballot in the country. this question of ballot eligibility. this is arguably one of the biggest tests of chief justice john roberts' career. he is likely going to have to try to come up with some sort of compromise across the justices, working to protect also the image of a court that is increasingly under scrutiny over ethics, over questions of partisanship. now, in the same week, they're also going to have this question of whether they want to intervene on trump's behalf to get involved in this immunity question. i will reiterate, i have spoken to multiple sources around the former president. and they are not optimistic. the justices are going to want to wade in on this question of immunity. if they do not, they do not want

to get involved here, this case actually could proceed. they have to find room on the calendar again, pretty quickly, because that was the big question. it took them a while to get us this decision on immunity. what does this mean for the timing of a possible trial? this was expected to go to trial in early march. last week, it was removed from the calendar, but this sets up the possibility that this could go likely not in march, but possibly in april or may. of course, the other big thing is trump is facing four separate criminal cases. the next case that is still on the calendar is the manhattan district attorney's so-called hush money case. that's scheduled to begin in late march. but it is expected if the federal case was to conflict with that, let's say they schedule it in april, the manhattan d.a.'s case is stepping aside. they're setting a very aggressive schedule to make it possible this case could go to trial unless the supreme court intervenes. >> all right, paula reed, stand by for just one moment. this is a really big decision and it's unanimous.

elie honig here, former federal prosecutor, legal jeangenius. you have been poring over this. it's hard to speed read this kind of decision. but what is the big picture here? >> biggest picture, huge win for jack smith. unequivocal win for jack smith. the language in this ruling is very strong. they forcefully reject donald trump's immunity arguments. there's really three major findings that the d.c. court of appeals makes here. first of all, they reject this notion of blanket immunity. they say it is not and cannot be that a president simply can never be charged for anything that happens during his time in office. second, the court of appeals in d.c. says, if we're asking the question whether donald trump's conduct was inside his job as president or outside his job as president, they say he was out of bounds here. he's not covered because high was out of bounds. even if there is am immunity for stuff that's inside the presidency, he's way out of it.

fully, they reject this i think ludicrous argument that, well, a president can only be indicted if he has first been impeached by the house and convicted by the senate. remember, that led to the ridiculous hypotheticals about could a president order assassination. so this court of appeals rejects that. those are the three big prongs of this case. >> i want to follow up on the middle part there. it might have to do with whether the supreme court decides to weigh in here. there have been this range, you know, of decisions now. in state courts, in different federal courts here, that deal with the issue for donald trump and others involved with what happened on january 6th, where their actions part of their federal jobs. >> right. >> or were they outside the scope of their federal jobs? 100% of the rulings at the state level and every federal level has ruled that they were outside the scope of their jobs. there's been unanimity in this. given how unanimous this has been at every level broadly

speaking and i think the stringent language we're seeing in this panel ruling, does this make it less likely that the supreme court will get involved? >> i think it does. it's still 100%. we have one more example of a court forcefully rejecting the notion of what donald trump did, mark meadows tried to make this argument, jeffrey clark. everyone who tried to make this argument that what we did was somehow within our jobs is 0 for however many. i think this unanimity makes it more likely the supreme court may say no, we don't need to interfere. john, i'm glad you asked that because i pulled a quote out of the decision that i think goes to that exact point of was donald trump somehow within the scope of his job. the court writes, former president trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election is an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. he allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role, thereby undermining the constitutionally established procedures and the

will of congress. they say not even close. absolutely outside of the bounds here. >> pretty much as clear as you can get it. they go up against all of his ideas. are those the three arguments the trump organization and the trump lawyers are making? do they just completely flash those? >> i don't think trump can say, well, how about argument x that we didn't make? there were six or seven different arguments but they all fall into those three buckets. again, on my first quick read of this, it's a very thorough, really point by point dismantling of trump's argument. >> carol policy is here with us to understand what's going on in this. i want to note, the supreme court this week will hear a separate case dealing with whether or not donald trump can be part of this election, there are a lot of people who think the court will decide, yes, he can be on the ballots. does this provide an opportunity for them to split the baby, to say yeah, we're not going to say he can't be on the ballots, but

on the other hand, we're not going to bother with this immunity thing. >> there's a cynical job that the court doesn't engage in horse trading. getting votes on one and trading for the other. obviously, that's not the way the supreme court is supposed to be, but obviously, so thecolora case that we're going to hear on thursday, i personally believe and i think the sort of consensus is that they will rule in trump's favor that in fact he can remain on the ballot in all 50 states. now, the rationale through which they get there is another story. however, so that obviously would be a pro-trump ruling. this case provides an opportunity to provide sort of a strike against him. i don't think it's really in and of itself as strong of a case for the court to take up, as elie was just noting. it could easily rubber stamp this decision. the reason it took so long, i

think they were crossing their ts, dotting their is, so the court could easily dispose of the review and say we're going to let this stand. so depends on how cynical you are in terms of with the supreme court. >> very. >> yeah. exactly. >> i think everyone is. here's a quote i think really captures the spirit of this ruling. the court writes, quote, at bottom, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. collapse our system of separated powers. so that's a sense of the tenor of this decision. there's not much ambiguity about it. supreme court can take whatever case they want to take. they don't have to take any case. if they don't want it, they just say trump certainly will ask them to take it. they can say pass. >> what's the process? >> the process is ordinarily, a person has 90 days after they lose an argument like this to ask the supreme court to take the case. but paula was just laying out,

here's the mechanics of what the court of appeals did that's going to force trump's hand. they said, i think they said february 12th. on february 12th, unless the supreme court has told us to hold up, this is going back down to the district court. so that's going to force trump's hand to go to the supreme court within the next six days and say i want you to hold it up. >> how many justices have to say they want to take it up? >> four. >> we'll wait to see. they could do the simple thing of not taking up the case, and every court has agreed with this decision, so there's no really other place to go. i understand that paula reed is with us again. you have new information coming in to you, and we want to hear it. what's going on? >> reporter: yeah, what's so fascinating about reading this, hearing the analysis on set. clearly, the court of appeals while they have been knocked for taking so long to come out with this decision, they really are setting it up for the supreme court to make it easy as possible for them to not hear this case. they are giving them a timeline

that overlaps with this question, these oral arguments about ballot eligibility. and the way this opinion is written, let's listen to some of the things they said. quote, former president trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. he allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role. the counting and certifying of electoral college votes. thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of congress. it goes on and on like this for nearly 60 pages. an incredibly strong opinion. so while there have been a lot of questions, even from both sides about what was taking so long, this is an opinion that, again, really sets tup for the supreme court to perhaps not take up this question. even sources close to the former president agree, this is not a terribly strong case. and the larger strategy here is to delay.

and then the court of appeals setting up this schedule to move this along quickly, on the same week that the justices are argument hearing another trump case. a lot of questions of why this took so long, but if you look at the language, the strength of this opinion, it becomes perhaps more clear why it took them so long, even on an expedited schedule to get us this answer. >> the most important thing here is the language, but it's also the unanimity of the court. unanimous means not a single justice looked at this and said, you know, maybe they have a point. every single court, every single justice in this particular case has said no, you're wrong. there is no immunity for you in this kind of case. i want to ask you this. is there anything that donald trump's team can try and go up against? can try and appeal? as an attorney, appeals are -- you almost expect there to be a push for the supreme court. but is there anything now they can pull apart? >> well, certainly, they can make the application for the

supreme court. i think sort of trump makes his lawyers tend to sometimes make some frivolous arguments that arguments they do make that are meritorious sometimes get sweeped up in that sort of ideology. this was not a sort of superfluous or crazy argument to make. presidential immunity is not in the constitution, but it's been around since 1983, nixon v. fitzgerald in the civil context. expanding this aperture to include criminal immunity is not crazy. it was a far -- it was an argument that ultimately ended up losing, but not a frivolous argument to make. tanya chutkan, sort of against her will, had to sort of say hands off this case. she put a stay on everything. the trump team even refused to accept discovery in this case. they said we don't even want to move forward with anything. the date was taken off the books. she, of any of these judges in

any of the criminal cases with trump, was the one that really wanted to get this in. sort of before the deadline. so we'll see if she can get this back on track. it looks likely. >> elie honig, again, we have to wait and see or hear from the supreme court or hear nothing from the supreme court. >> if they deny it, they'll say it. >> if they do deny it then, how quickly can this get before the district court? >> a great question. so remember, this case had been set for trial for many months for march 4th. that was the date we all had circled on our calendars. last week, judge chutkan recognizing the reality, we have been sidetracked for two month with this, from the time the appeal was filed until now, said it can't happen march 4th. the question is how quickly can she get it back. it's all a bunch of moving parts. the manhattan d.a.'s hush money case is currently scheduled for march 25th. so let's assume that goes as scheduled. that will take us through april maybe into may. you can't put the trial back to

back, you can't finish one trial and have the next one three days later. i think if it gets back down to judge chutkan in the next week or so, i would expect her to schedule a trial date for late may, june, somewhere in there. and you're getting really close to that sort of red zone near the election, but she does seem intent on trying this if possible before the election. >> that's before the convention, so before there's sort of actual nominee for president there. so she can make the case, you're just a citizen. >> i think this really increases the chances this gets tried before the election. i'm thinking late spring/summer. >> alvin bragg has been outspoken about his ability to take a back seat to the federal cases, should that present itself. i'll be interested to see what position he takes now that this is kind of getting back on track. i would personally like to see this case, the federal case, go before the manhattan case. >> i think alvin bragg would too. almost everybody would. >> to be fair, i think everyone, maybe including donald trump just to see where this is going

and how it's going to end. let's brin in joan because we're talking about the possibility of whether or not the supreme court would take up this case if it was pushed to do so, can you give us some sense of what you think when you look at how this particular case has gone through the courts and this unanimous ruling, whether or not you think the supreme court would actually say, yeah, we're taking this up, or no, you made the decision. we're not weighing in. >> thanks, sara. a couple different minds here because i agree with what elie and carolyn had said about how forcefully this is written, how definitively it's written, and it's unanimous. i think all of those things say, you know, here we are with a word that can be considered final. supreme court, we have laid out everything. we have taken apart these arguments. and i also want to just say as a threshold matter, is that donald trump was really fighting precedent here. so this decision is not surprising given where the law

had been previously. so for those reasons, it could be the kind of case that the supreme court says, let's just keep it as it is. we already have -- we're in the middle of a major term. we're also going to be handling this colorado insurrectionist case, whether donald trump can be on the ballot or not. but there's another competing idea here that the supreme court is the last word. and when special counsel jack smith first went to the supreme court back in december, urging the justices to take it up before the d.c. circuit did, he made a pretty compelling case about the supreme court's assessment being necessary here. this was the kind of dispute that brought us all to the apex of presidential powers or the apex of whether a president is going to try to be above the law. and we now have a series of judges who have said no, the president is not above the law in this kind of situation.

and there just might be some interest among some of the justices to say we need to have the last word here. i think it could be close. they only need four votes, as elie said, to grant the case, but they'll probably be enough momentum to say there's no reason to take it up now because it's not like we have another case coming up like that right now. let it go to trial. let that proceed, but i would have to say, sara and folks, i'm just a little bit split given the importance of the question overall and how jack smith himself had set it up originally. the justices could tack a pass. there would be a lot of incentive to take a pass given everything they're deciding right now, especially in the trump realm, but it just takes four. it just takes four. >> joan is split. ladies and gentlemen, we will be watching to see what happens.

>> the question, is she 5-4 or 4-5. it may make the difference. >> all right, let's go back to paula reed who i do understand has heard now from the special counsel jack smith's office, and as joan points out, the special counsel who at one point really wanted the supreme court to take this up, i imagine they may have a different view of that now, paula. >> yeah, joan makes such a good point. when joan is split, you know it's complicated. joan makes a great point that back a couple months ago, the special counsel thought it was imperative the supreme court step in, resolve this question. but that was as much about the constitutional question as it was about really timing. that was why jack smith wanted to go right to the supreme court. don't let the trump team go through all of these steps, drag this out. because that would raise the possibility that this might not go to trial before the november 2024 election. so he was really going to the supreme court just to resolve the issue once and for all. now, it is likely that the trump team will appeal this to the supreme court. not only to exercise their rights but also to draw this out.

again, i have talked to sources close to the trump team and they know that this is not their strongest argument. nor is it their strongest case. they knew they were likely going to lose after the appellate arguments. and they would be surprised if the supreme court takes up this issue. especially in the same week that the justices are already hearing a different case on trump's ballot eligibility. a much stronger argument for the former president, one that many legal experts expect that he will likely prevail on. so it's a surprise, and the special counsel's office right now are declining to comment on any of this, but i can say in a report that it would be a surprise to the trump team if the supreme court agreed also to take up this question of immunity. we'll see what they do. we absolutely expect the trump team will appeal, but it could be a surprise, and the appeals court has set up a tight turnaround to send this whole case back to the trial court where it could then proceed to a trial before the november 2024 election which is of course what

the special counsel's office has been advocating for. >> this is a legal story but also a political story, a huge one. i know you'll be watching all the details. let's get to laura coates. i'm curious when you look at this decision, what stands out to you and what does it tell you about where all of the courts are and what is going to particularly happen in this particular case against donald trump. >> well, take a step back and just look at weight of this decision. we have been waiting for weeks after a very, very intriguing and compelling oral argument where it was very clear from the get-go that these justices were completely skeptical of any argument that gave this enormous amount of power and a carte blanche really to a president of the united states. think of all the hypotheticals about whether you could order the s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate an opponent or a political opponent. whether you had this entire authority to completely undermine the checks and balances. and the questions about what the

parameters of a president power would look like. what is in the scope of presidential functions and duties. and they have rejected it outright. it was expected frankly among many constitutional scholars that there would not be this notion of wide and absolute presidential immunity. having said that, there are of course going to be parameters in terms of things within the scope of one's employment, as the president of the united states. we do want to protect the ability of a president to act. but in orders like this, in discussions that were had on that bench in that courtroom and even in this written opinion, sara, it is very clear that this does not present the circumstances in which we're willing to let go of checks and balances. remember what immunity really means. it means that you don't -- you can do no wrong. no one can hold you to account. and all you would have to do is to wait out the political process, maybe of impeachment, and they have rejected that as well, to suggest this idea that

all i have to do is to wait it out or have to be impeached and convicted first before anyone can act really was a farce. and this does not pull any punches whatsoever. they are very clear eyed. for a supreme court to take up a case, they want to know there is a controversy, that there is some level of disagreement. they don't want to deal with issues of the first nature at first blush. they want to know there's some underlying reason why you need these nine supreme court justices to decide an issue. and so far, we have not seen that indication that they will. as my colleagues have pointed out, so astutely, the idea that this court, the supreme court wants to weigh in to a political discussion, you can just forget that. but remember, this isn't truly political. is it? this is what are the powers and liberties and the ability to hold to account a member of a different branch of government.

that goes to the very core of our separation of powers. this is an unbelievable moment in american history, and this court has made clear that as we all know it, and the theory of immunity, it does not apply absolutely to a president of the united states. >> thank you so much, laura. correctly noting right now, this is a legal document and a legal matter. though with immense political implications. because every poll out there that we take, while some have donald trump ahead right now, when they ask the question, would you be more on less likely to vote for donald trump for president if convicted of a crime, a conviction hurts him. and usually drops substantial amounts of points in polling. to that end, and i'm not going to ask our lawyers here, our fantastic attorneys here, for political opinions, but in terms of a jury pool, elie honig, in washington, d.c., where how likely is a conviction or where

and a conviction on any of these cases most likely? >> it's all about the jury. and if we look at just the data in washington, d.c., that is the single most unfavorable federal district for donald trump in the country, if we go by 2020 election results, which i think are a useful proxy. in 2020, donald trump got just over 5%, i think it's 5.3% of the vote in d.c. meaning about 95% of d.c. residents voted against donald trump. so he's going to have a tough road in front of that jury. i have to add this. he better get his act together behavior wise in front of a jury. look at two weeks ago in front of the e. jean carroll jury. he's stomping out of the courtroom, muttering under his breath. i mean, you try that in front of a criminal jury and the consequences are much worse than a huge civil verdict. but it's a tough jury pool for donald trump, no question about it. that said, there's no game playing. if you're jack smith, where else are you going to try this case?

>> you bring up january 6th, and i know why, because that's where this happened. the people of d.c. were there. they live there, they watched this in horror. there was a lot. i have been in the courts there, the federal courts, watching the cases against those who were involved in january 6th. i don't think they have lost a case. >> i don't believe there's been an acquittal. >> and so obviously, this is a political talking point you just gave to the trump team because they have already brought this up. >> they had it themselves. they didn't need it from me. let me throw in one other wrinkle that goes to jack smith's charges. jack smith has brought four charges, four federal charges in this case. two of them are for obstruction. the problem is there's now a real legal question over whether that obstruction statute applies to january 6th because a whole bunch of the rioters were charged with that, and all the lower judges said of course, obstruction can apply. but the supreme court has taken that case, which suggests to me

there's a good chance the supreme court says no, obstruction does not apply to january 6th, which would endanger two of jack smith's four charges. the two most serious ones. >> let me through this out there. there will be arguments before the supreme court this week on an election case having to do with donald trump. do trump's lawyers now before the supreme court try to say things that may or may not influence the immunity decision? >> yeah, i mean, look, it's three dimensional chess. and there are lots of moving parts here. i think likely the trump lawyers are going to make the argument, look, the overall argument of did he engage in an insurrection? did he participate in that sort of event? i don't think ultimately that is what the supreme court is going to make its decision on. i think they will just like we have all been noting, they don't want to touch political issues. and even though it is a legal issue, it's also political. my guess is they're going to make this decision on sort of procedural grounds, either that

he's not an officer for the purposes of section 3 of the 14th amendment. something along those grounds or that congress is the one that needs to implement any type of legislation, having to do with this, but i think just one point on the jury issue, in donald trump's last trial with a jury, which was the e. jean carroll case, one of his criminal defense attorneys was there with his jury consultants, so there's a cottage industry around juries. they're going to put a lot of resources into picking a jury if it eventually gets to that point. >> i want to ask about the jury because challenges are a big thing. each attorney gets a chance to challenge a juror they don't like. in some of the cases i felt like they got an extra challenge because you know the players in this case. you have likely an opinion about the person in this case. and i watched that happen. and i saw juries that were very, very even. there were people who were

republicans, people who had supported donald trump in some way in d.c. so a lot of people will look and say okay, it's over. but the jury is the jury. they have to look at the facts of the case, correct? you see challenges being an issue? >> first things first, we believe in our juries, as finders of fact. we entrust them to do this, and we ought to assume they can put aside, do what they're told. put aside your personal beliefs, and decide only on what you hear in the courtroom. let's talk about jury selection because it is very high-stakes, very tricky to do. like a mega high stakes very unpredictable game show almost, where the lawyers are given very limited information about all potential jurors. you know a few things about them. probably know a little more about them in this case than normal. you have to make a judgment, is this person going to be able -- really, you're thinking is he on my side. the way it works is there's two reasons a potential juror can be thrown out of the pool. one is for cause. if they're obviously biased, if

they are a doctor and have to do rounds and can't be missing the next six weeks for a trial. so you get rid of all those people. and people who come in and say i'm wildly biased. i love donald trump, would never vote against him. i hate donald trump -- >> and that happened in some of the cases. >> then you're left with your remaining pool. then you get into what you were referring to, the strikes. and each side gets a set number. usually the defendant gets more than the prosecution. typically, it starts in the federal system, ten of those strikes for the defendant and six for the prosecution. but judges can give more usually to the defendant because they're the ones with constitutional interests can you take turns. the judge goes who are you striking? we'll strike number 48, defense, who are you striking? 11 and 72. and you end up with your 12. >> this is what we're going to do? we have this 57-page ruling in our hands right now. we're going to pore through this ruling line by line, page by page in the next 3 1/2 minutes. laura coates is in washington doing the same right now.

after a quick break, we will come back and discuss this more. hey, if you have questions out there, text us. tweet us. tweet laura coates. >> you're going to give them your number. >> we'll give you answers after the break.

all right, the breaking news, a federal appeals court panel in washington, d.c. has ruled that donald trump does not have immunity for crimes he may have committed around january 6th. according to them, if it were up to them, that he would be allowed to go on trial in federal district court.

the supreme court now has until february 12th to decide whether they want to weigh in here. we're not sure whether they will or not. if they don't, this goes back to the district court and a trial will happen in the federal election interference charges against donald trump. we are getting new reaction from the trump camp. let's get to kristen holmes for that. >> reporter: yeah, we finally got a statement here. notably, they do say that they are going to appeal and appeal quickly. this is the statement from trump campaign spokesperson. if immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party without complete immunity, a president of the united states would not be able to properly function. deranged jack smith's prosecution of donald trump for his presidential acts is unconstitutional under the doctrine of presidential immunity and the separation of powers. prosecuting a president for acts

threatens the bedrock of our republic. donald trump respectfully disagrees with the decision and will appeal it. again there, seems to be arguing that presidents in general are above the law. that is something that obviously, these judges did not agree with. as we noted, supreme court, they will be able to appeal this before february 12th to the supreme court. unclear whether or not they will take this up, as you know, they are already hearing arguments in the 14th amendment case this thursday. this argument of immunity has been a key part of donald trump's political strategy. he has really doubled down on this idea that presidents should really be able to get away with whatever it is that they do while they are in office. obviously in this case, he was talking about what happened on january 6th and around the election meddling saying he was doing that in his official capacity. but clearly, these judges disagreed with that. donald trump saying that they will in fact appeal. >> they also said it was not his

official capacity and that's one of the arguments being made at this point in time. >> kristen, thank you very much. >> let's get to laura coates who is like everyone at the desk poring over this, how many pages? >> 57. >> he's on it. 57-page decision by the appeals court and the district of columbia. what stands out to you as you read through it? there of the arguments as you heard donald trump's team is going to make in the appeal have been discussed in this very document. >> they have been. absolute immunity rejected. a president does not enjoy absolute immunity. there are checks and balances for behavior that was criminal or alleged is criminal during the term of office. that's a very huge consideration. there's another part. we have lived through impeachments, and i do mean the plural impeachments now with the former president. the last of which involved some of the same underlying facts which led up to january 6th and on january 6th. the legal team tried to make the claim that, hold on, we have double jeopardy here.

we have already been through a trial as it relates to donald trump and the conduct occurring on or before and on the actual day of january 6th. and for that reason, you can't try us again. that's the principle. this court rejected that. they said first of all, an impeachment is not criminal. it's a political vehicle. it has always been considered as such and rill remain as such. even if we were to assume this is a criminal proceeding which it is not, there's a thing called a blockburger test. that's a fancy way of saying we're going to compare and contrast the crime you're alleged to have committed in the criminal court and one in the other context. are the elements that are required to prove the case the same? are there different things we have to prove? if there are different things or additional charges or elements, they're not the same case. therefore, even if an impeachment were criminal, which it is not, they are different and there's not a double jeopardy attachment.

this undermines fatally any argument that suggests, hold on, whatever you do in the political context will essentially absolve you and immunize you in the criminal courts as well. that's a very important notion in a world we now live in where we have multiple impeachments over the course of years. fundamentally, this is a huge decision. the timeline they have given him to appeal, february 12th, a very quick turnaround. if this supreme court opts not to take up this case, if he chooses not to appeal the case, it goes right back to the judge who has made very clear she wants this case to go smoothly and quickly. and has set a very aggressive calendar to do such that is in line with other cases involving january 6th. fundamentally, jack smith only charged four different counts against his former president. it was streamlined intentionally. will it make a difference now? the supreme court may opt to weigh in. we'll see. >> i want to dig in, in the

minute left we have, about the statement the trump team just made there. they said that jack smith's prosecution of president trump for his presidential official acts is unconstitutional. the weakness of that argument as decided now by a series of state and federal courts is they keep on saying that this was not a presidential or official act. period. >> yeah, so the trump legal team's argument really grew out of this civil jurisprudence in the supreme court decision 40 years ago, which declared civil immunity. for presidents, they made these arguments like they didn't want a chilling effect, a lot of arguments you hear in the context of presidential in terms of making decisions that maybe those tough decisions. also, they argue it would stop a slew of litigation. we always hear about this wave of civil litigation that really wouldn't be a problem in the criminal context because you need a prosecution to indict one

case. we have double jeopardy in this country. there can only really be one criminal case stemming from a specific action, and you need a grand jury to indict. it's not like there would be this issue. among a lot of other reasons, those were two fatal flaws in the legal team's argument. they want to have it both ways. they're trying to gloss over that difference and the supreme court said stop right there. this is not the same. this is not the same context, and we're ruling differently in this context. >> hello, elie honig. we have lots more to talk about. we have 57 pages to go through, and the response from donald trump sort of going through that. we will be right back, and we'll have a lot more information for you coming back after the break.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line

of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. this is cnn breaking news. >> all right, the breaking news. a three-judge federal appeals panel unanimously ruled just releasing this ruling, 57 pages, that donald trump is not immune from criminal prosecution for his actions surrounding january 6th. the judges rejected trump's claim that he cannot be prosecuted for charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election. they write, quote, it would be a striking paradox if the president whe