he was a larger than life country star. he rose to fame in 1993 with his debut single, should have been a cowboy, which has played 3 million times on the radio, making it the most played country song of the 90s. he went on to have 42 top ten hits on billboard's country music chart after that, which he said surprised him, including red solo cup, one of my solo favorites, how do you like me now? ♪ ♪ ♪ he was a staple for so many, including may growing up. i always ask my parents to play his song on the radio when we were in the car, even when my siblings want to listen to whatever was popular in pop music at that time. tonight, country music fans and stars alike, and myself,

raising a red solo cup in toby keith honor. thank you so much for joining us, cnn knows night with abby phillip starts right now! where donald trump won't go, and why. that is tonight on news week! ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening, i am abby philip in new york. tonight, sources say there is one court that donald trump does not want to turn into a campaign circus. that is the supreme court, sources are telling cnn that the former president plans now to avoid the room where it happens when the justices hear arguments about whether his name belongs on the ballots in november. trump may want to stay out of the legal spotlight, but he cannot avoid the harsh glare of yet another potentially crippling legal loss, just today

an appeals court asked and answered the airtight detail. the question with historic implications. our presidents immune from prosecution? the d.c. circuit answered it unanimously, no. the three judge panel took 57 pages to spell out all of the ways that the former president 's lawyers failed to convince them that crimes are not crimes just because you are the leader of the free world. and they often turn the former presidents words against him. the decision trips with derision , and legal theories. they quote said, we collapse the system of power, and set up a striking paradox, by making presidents who are interested with executing the law, the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. joining me now for his reaction to this historic finding, is john you, the former u.s. deputy attorney general. and a professor at law at uc berkeley.

john, what is your reaction to this decisive decision by the appellate lawyer? >> i hope president trump and his lawyers take away the lesson that this appeal has no chance. this is, as you said abby, a watertight opinion. i was reading it very carefully today. it is a very thorough and very good opinion. it goes through great detail not just the text of the constitution of policy arguments, the use of the founders, the federals papers, and i think it does a pretty good job of rejecting the idea that a president, not just president trump, but every president, including the current president, president biden, do not have some kind of lifetime immunity from federal, criminal prosecution. i think it is a real blow to president trump's efforts. but i do not think, and i think most legal observers would agree. i do not think that this argument had much chance. i think most of the courts presidents were against president trump. i don't think that there is a

lot of support for this claim that a president has criminal immunity. he's gonna have to challenge jack smith's prosecution of january six on some other grounds. >> yes the judges were clear that they do think that he could be prosecuted. they wrote, the former president trump's alleged efforts to remain in power, despite losing the 2020 election, are an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. he allegedly ejected himself into a process in which the president has no role. the counting and certifying of the electoral college votes. thereby underline mining constitutionally established procedures, and also the will of the congress. it was available to me john, that the judges here, they were clear that they weren't making a determination about his guilt or innocence, but they did put a lot of weight on just the seriousness of these allegations against him. what do you think that means for the legal fight ahead against this case that the government is bringing against him?

>> one way to think about what president trump was doing here, he was trying to throw a hail mary passed. to try to eliminate all the prosecutions against him, simultaneously. as you say, abby, now that this immunity claim has been rejected, he can go to the supreme court. he might be able to delay his criminal trial. maybe another three or four months? pressing this immunity case all the way to the supreme court. but i think once that claim is rejected finally by the justices, then the criminal trial can go forth. he has got all the defenses that any american, you or me, have when we are put on trial. he has the right to due process, the rights to hearings, reasonable search and seizure. council, so on and so forth. he has a jury of his peers to decide whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt whether he committed these crimes. and he's going to ultimately claim, i, think that these charges do not fit what happened on january 6th.

or that he never did anything on january six other than the species. does all of that time, all of the time in federal court to make these claims. and jack smith will now have the opportunity to bring out all the evidence that he says he has out into the public forum. and the jury is going to see it. and you and me, and all other americans are going to see it. and we can make our decision. >> just like any other regular citizen. which is really something that ties to this decision. john, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you abby. >> but my, and i want to bring in former assistant special watergate prosecutor, acumen, along with former as ty chief at westchester county, the district attorney. you know, me, the court really rejected not just the broad them unity claim but all the various arguments that have been presented. they said it would be a striking

paradox for the president who would take care of the -- what is striking to me about that is that it is just plain common sense. you do not have to be a lawyer to understand that that makes no sense? >> actually abby, i think that's part of what all of us are of in awe of this opinion about, is that it relies on legal precedent, it relies on the constitution, it relies on history, but also so much of it makes sense. and one of the main principles of that, no one is above the law, that's what we're all talking about. that's what john was talking about. but it's also, and especially the president isn't above the law, the former president, because he is the person in the constitution, here she is dedicated with the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully followed. so, you would be the last

person that would say is in [inaudible] and they do such a good job of eradicating trump's favorite argument, his team put out today, about the, this is going to open the slippery slope, this floodgate of criminal prosecutions by any, against any former president by the opposing political party. and they basically really eradicate that. again in such a good way, both using common sense, and history, to say but this has not happened before. because other presidents have not engaged in this kind of conduct. and if there is a chance of that, maybe that's not a bad thing. maybe we should use the criminal law as a deterrent? >> yes, they have not engaged in this kind of conduct. principally because they believe that they were not immune from prosecution. you know nick, the court is very clear. trump is a private citizen, he is not protected in any way. a former trump attorney, not in this particular case, but they

made an argument that they could see potentially this course coming down with some kind of partial ruling about immunity. something they are immune from, some things they are not. that did not happen here. a unanimous decision saying no immunity, period. >> they were really focused on what the allegations were in this complaint. and indictments. they were focused on what he did, and if you read through this opinion, you really, it is almost chilling to read through what he is alleged to have done with respect to trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power in this country. and how he did it and what he did. i mean as you read through this you realize that judge chutkan who is a district court judge now and is gonna be presiding over the trial, she has basically been told that you don't treat this individual like any other citizen who has been put into the federal, criminal justice system. you treat them just like

everybody else, he has all the same rights, he has all the same privileges, but he has no special status. and that is really important. but back in the day, when i was doing the morgan case, it was never even conceived in any fashion whatsoever, that president nixon could not be charged with a crime! we were looking to charge president nixon! we were investigating president nixon! the only reason that he was not charged in the first watergate cover-up trial is because we deferred to the u.s. congress with the impeachment. and then after the impeachment, we had a number of different cases including even tax evasion. and he was pardoned. and once he was pardoned, that was the end of it. so it was never, ever assumed or even considered that there was any time of presidential immunity for that kind of activity. >> that is fascinating. the supreme court will probably

get an appeal, the trump lawyers just have a few days to do that. do you think that this actually would be something that they would take up? an appeals court decision that is as airtight as all these lawyers say that it is? unanimous. >> i think the safest that i could say is that for the court of appeals here did everything that it could possibly have done to try to ensure, frankly, that the supreme court did not need to take it up. they do not need to. it is a novel issue but there is not a disagreement amongst different courts of appeals, they could let this opinion stand. it stands on its own times ten. as we have all been discussing does. that means that they won't take it? i cannot simply or say here and say that. i hope that they don't for a lot of reasons. and again, i think the court of appeals, we all, myself included. why is this taking so long?

but actually it's a remarkably fast time for a court of appeals to have such a thorough, airtight decision. remember, the supreme court did not, jack smith tried to get them to take it. and they did not. and that is in part to get the court of appeals a chance if they had an opinion to rely on. either to say we do not need to take this or to say okay, affirm. i mean they could do that. so there are a bunch of different routes here. and again, the court of appeals did also put in this mechanism by which trump can't do the, i'm going to seek a bond, and do that. they're trying to keep things moving. >> i want to go out on a limb here and say they are not going to take it. donald trump could not have taken a worse time to bring this up in the supreme court, when they have to consider whether or not he could be a viable candidate under the 14th amendment. >> they already have other matters involving donald trump to deal with. nick akerman, and mimi rocah, thank you very much. ahead, you will hear from chris

christie on the immunity decision. and whether he will endorse nikki haley in the presidential race. plus a massive embarrassment for the republican party. why a vote to impeach the head of the homeland security department failed! and breaking news, the head of the rnc is looking to be on her way out of a job! we will hear -- run on mcdaniel!

the republican party seems to be imploding tonight. and one man is calling the shots. after months of investigating and ill advising the homeland security secretary, a vote to impeach mayorkas over the border crisis has failed into the republican-led house. after that, a stand-alone bill to provide aid to israel, that also failed. and after days of being publicly thrown under the bus by donald trump, the new york times are reporting that the head of the rnc, one ronna mcdaniel, is planning to step down. and apparently, trump is likely to back a election denier to replace her! mark mckinnon joins me now, he is a former bush campaign media advisor, and former mccain presidential advisor. mark, what do you make of this

extraordinary, back to back grubbing that the gop took tonight in their own house nonetheless? >> you think people would look at that and say that these are not serious people. it is a humiliating thing, for the speaker of the house to take and go to the floor, and fail. particularly on something the significant. and let's remember, this is a vote for impeachment. impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. there is no alleged high crime or misdemeanor created by mayorkas. the it is simply a disagreement over border policy. that is a terrible precedent to set in american politics or anywhere for that matter. it is that you throw somebody out and you impeach them simply because you disagree with them. so it is a terrible precedent to be set. obviously they were unsuccessful today, unsuccessful on another boat. you saw nancy pelosi. a lot of politics is just straight map you have. to be able to count the votes.

and speaker jones is having a pretty miserable time of it so far. >> you have to be able to count, for sure. you know, another two failures of the republican leadership in the house was that there was already in ongoing list of complaints against mike johnson and his leadership in just how he was handling everything. some on the far-right threatening his job as speaker. do you foresee this coming back to mike johnson and revisiting this idea of a motion to vacate which is going to essentially kick him out of the job? -- >> yes, the problem is that mike johnson got the keys to the gates of. with the motion to vacate rule in place we know that it takes just a single vote to get the post. and it is clear that the republican caucus does not have any interest in actually passing legislation, and solving problems.

and an immigration bill that donald trump would i guarantee sign in a heartbeat if he got in as president. but they do not clear about that. what they want is a political weapon for donald trump. the problem for mike johnson is that he is in a pincer movement tween whether it's the more centrist republicans for example from new york state, and the freedom caucus members and the real problem at the end of today is that for most of those republican constituents these days, they don't really want them to do anything and that is the problem. they literally would be wanting to have them fail. >> they have a lot of messaging bells, frankly, and also they want to please trump. speaking of though, there is new reporting tonight by cnn in the new york times that the rnc chair woman, ronna mcdaniel is offering to step down after this month south carolina primary. this isn't response the criticism from a lot of republicans and trump. trump is also planning to

install his own leader, including potentially an election denier. i mean, what is there even to say about that? we already know that this was at the heart now of today's republican party. >> well, what there is to say about it is there is no question anymore in the republican party, that the only thing that matters is the loyalty test to donald trump. and they ultimately loyalty tests. is how forward-leaning is the stop the steal movement. and the guy who is a leader in that movement, he served for a very long time. but the fundraising numbers will create a movement. and the writing was on the wall, she got the right move and got out of the way before the actual. and this is just the way that trump had. it >> yes it, is mark we can and great to see you, thank you. up next, chris christie in a candid interview with anderson cooper.

talking about the decision on presidential immunity and the 2024 campaign. i will speak to anderson about it next! plus, what is russian for pr stunt? and is that something that tucker carlson is about to learn? we will discuss it with an expert on russia. just ahead!

♪ ♪ ♪ tonight, an endorsement of a court decision, and an explanation of why and dortmund won't be coming anytime soon for that kayleigh. cnn's anderson cooper sat down with former robin publican presidential candidate, chris christie, for a remarkably candid interview about the campaign. the court cases that might have upended it, and much more. chris christie is also a former prosecutor. i should tell you, who tells anderson that the appeals court decision that was handed down today, about donald trump, got that immunity question just right. >> i think it is a very tight, concise decision. i don't think that there is any grounds for appeal, i do not know why the supreme court would want to take it and i think

what it is going to lead to is a trial later this spring and watching ten. >> you think the trial will actually take place before the election? >> i actually do. for >> before you delay, there is not grounds for an appeal. >> but i read the decision today, and one of the things that the circuit court did was say that he wanted to appeal to the supreme court, he had until monday to do it. usually it is 90 days. they said if you live it until monday, and they don't. they're just going to lift the stay. so i think he has some decisions to make regarding how he wants to approach it. i think he's going to appeal to the supreme court. >> you don't think they would take it up? >> i do not. it is a very tight, and narrow ruling. and i do not think that the supreme court would be looking to take it up, a 30 decision, that in fact i think is the correct decision. christie weighed in on a lingering campaign issue. why he would not try to help

nikki haley defeat donald trump. >> would it have helped if you had endorsed her? >> i do not know. i don't know how much endorsements really matter, quite frankly. but that was it really the way i made that decision. >> reporter: you're still not willing to endorse her? >> no. >> why? >> because she is not running against donald trump. and i think the people who support me in this enterprise expect that if i'm going to support someone, they are going to be as aggressive, and as honest, and as direct about donald trump being unfit for the presidency. during the time i was in the race for new hampshire, with governor haley, she would not even say that she would except the vice presidency for him. so it did not seem something that would be a natural fit for me. anderson cooper joins me now. you have interviewed chris christie a couple of times. it's actually not surprising that in addition to what he told you there, he had that hot mic moment just before he got

out of the race. it is not surprising that he would endorse nikki haley in that sense. but does it surprise you that after haley has ramped up her attacks on kristie, that that is not enough for him? or attacks on trump i should say. >> i think his belief is that in the end, she will endorsed donald trump because she wants a future. >> and he's probably not wrong about that. >> right, in his party. and he does not want to be endorsing someone who is then just going to go on and endorsed donald trump. >> right, and one of her top surrogates, has basically made the groundwork for what the endorsement could look like. you also talked to kristie about his book on ronald reagan. i want to play a little bit about what he said about the republican party past and present. >> reporter: in the bookie right many republicans have abandoned their common sense and discernment and jumped into a shabby cult. denying reality, pledging

conspiracy theories, and pledging to an abuser who cares solely about himself. it's about as forward as you can get from ronald reagan? >> i like that, that is pretty good. [laughter] >> reporter: and yet this is the party that you want to head? >> look, what i want to do is change it. and listen, anderson, if you took those words and you went to any number of leaders of our party, privately, and ask them if they agree with it, they say they did. the problem is that they do not want to do the hard work that is necessary to lead and change the party, it means that if you do not raise your hand at the debate in milwaukee, you are going to get booed. they would be willing to do that? he is talking there about raising your hand on the debate stage, and saying that he would vote for trump. despite a conviction, and despite the charges against him. it seems that in the republican party, according to christie,

and just as the facts suggest, you are seeing way more caving to trump than anything else on capitol hill and elsewhere in the landscape? >> yes, and he makes the point that i think anybody in the republican party today knows that this is not the republican party of ronald reagan. and it is very doubtful that ronald reagan could win a primary in some of the states in today's republican party. if you look at the battle, you know, what's happening in congress over the border bill that the senate has. i asked christie about that he was saying look, ronald reagan had make it a compromise. they got together, and made a compromise, he would not have gotten everything that he wanted to get, and he would have moved the ball forward. that is something, which that is just not what the game is today on capitol hill. >> you have to wonder just how much longer that pining for the reagan era is going to last in this republican era. >> i don't know there is any

pining. maybe in some subset of the republican party. but it is a different party now. they have to figure out what comes next as opposed to thinking that somehow they are going to drag it back to be the party of reagan. >> chris christie is making the case with his book that perhaps there is a little bit more room for the reagan era. anderson, thanks so much for sticking around for us. we appreciate it. where in the world's tucker carlson? the former fox host shows up in moscow, streaming lies, and getting ready for a sit down with an accused war criminal!

we're here to interview the president of russia, vladimir putin. >> tucker carlson is lying from the streets of russia, no less. >> reporter: not a single

western journalist has buttered to interview the presidents of the other country on this subject, vladimir putin. >> that is a lie. several outlets including cnn, has requested putin to interview over and over again. >> reporter: most americans have no idea why putin invaded ukraine, or what is schools are now, or even heard his voice. >> another, lie serious news outlets, including cnn, have a porous reported on his word since the war began. including one of his baseless justification for the invasion of ukraine which he initially claimed was to stop the not sees. >> reporter: first, because it's our job, we are in journalism. >> tara carlson is not a journalist, not even close. and his former employer, in a court case, actually agreed. quote, the general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that carlson is not

stating actual facts about the topics that he discusses. and is instead still engaging in exaggeration, and non literal commentary. >> reporter: two years into a war reshaping the entire world, most americans are not informed. they have no real idea what is happening in this region. here in russia, or 600 miles away in ukraine. >> for two years, real journalists have risked their lives to report from the ground, and in ukraine, including two u.s. journalists who are right now, baselessly being detained by vladimir putin. joining me now is founding partner and washington correspondent for putt, julie. julia, thank you for staying up with us. what is it for putin to do this interview with carlson from an american perspective and also his audience back home in russia? >> abby, thank you so much for

calling out the law is. there are so many of them in that video that it's hard to get out all of them. but i'm glad that you dismantled most of the important brands. i think that's what's really shocking about this is the way that he kind of just walks right into moscow and presents himself on the silver platter to the kremlin, doing the kremlin's job of misinforming, just informing the american population. putin, from the very beginning of this war has been able to basically create a bridge to american right wingers, and conservatives like tucker carlson saying that he is fighting gender neutral bathrooms in ukraine, saying that he is fighting gender roles in ukraine, basically singling out that there is an ideological affinity, and i am iroquois. in fact, if you recall, when putin invaded ukraine in 2022,

tucker carlson went on his show on fox news, and said, hey, why are we aligning ourselves with ukraine when we should be allies of putin? we have the same ideas as him, and he should be our friend. >> who do you think is winning this propaganda war given everything that he laid out? and also just, by the, way the fact that right now u.s. aid for ukraine is stalled in washington because of u.s. opposition? >> well, i think so far, putin is winning. mostly because people in the west are tired, they have war fatigue, there is another war, a harder war happening in gaza right now. and a few republicans on the right are doing, or actually a lot of them are doing donald trump's bidding because he does not like ukraine. he likes volodymyr putin. and he has told them to hold off fighting for ukraine. that there should be no more money for ukraine. so all of that disinformation, all of that buttering up of the

american right-wing, and of donald trump, and people close to him has really paid off handsomely for vladimir putin because ukrainian troops are right now, as we speak, running out of ammunition, running out of men. in the middle of a horrible, deadly winter. >> yes, and tucker carlson doing the propaganda work of basically russia state media for them here as well, julia, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you abby. up next! the senate immigration deal is now apparently on the verge of collapse. and president biden directly calls out donald trump! we will talk to two lawmakers on both sides of the aisle about what is going on on capitol hill!

♪ ♪ ♪ tonight, a republican failure to follow through on a brighter promise. the gop says they tried to impeach the homeland secretary, they did not. and it's an irony laced outcome. the republicans want to hold someone, especially biden, accountable for the border, but the point man responsible for the migrant crisis, and you have republicans they also do not want to hold themselves accountable for aboard a bill that is stuck now on the road to nowhere. joining me now is democratic congressman, henry cuellar of

congress, and also republican congresswoman nicole eliot aukus of new york. congressman, congresswoman, thank you for joining us tonight. and thanks for joining together from capitol hill. congresswoman, i want to start with you. the congress is calling this bill, the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades. my question to you is do you support it? >> if you're talking about the senate bill, i do not support that bill as is. i think that there are some good components to it, i think that our border security which we have in may is much better and stronger and it requires the president to reinstate the remaining remain in mexico clause. it also requires that it take catch and release. those are the two most important at the border. >> what is a steal with catch and release? the fundamental question still is is this the only piece of

legislation dealing with border security? even the wall street journal calls it the most important on this issue in decades. why would this not be enough to have your support right now? >> because it still allows for thousands of individuals. you have to remember that everyone individual that crosses through that border is paying the drug cartels to smuggle in. the only one coming to the border should be canadians and mexicans. everyone else should go through another country and go through asylum there. that would be the best thing involved, including the migrants. i am for support, for increasing asylum to -- and expediting those cases so people can know if they qualify or they don't, if they get qualified they get authorization, and if they don't then they get deported. and also increasing visas. employer sponsored visas, family sponsored visas, to meet our labor shortage in economic

needs here in the united states is incredibly important. we can agree on that as well. but it is not the only bill because we passed the house border security act in may, chuck schumer won't bring that bill for up for a vote either. so what i can say is we passed our bill in the senate and move forward and pass that bill if that's what the priorities are. and then we can reconcile the differences. but to say that we should be taking the senate bill without any input from the house? i do not think that is fair. >> i should note that the senate bill that we are talking about is one that was negotiated by both republicans and democrats. that's the reason why this is such a coptic of conversation. >> not in the house. >> but, i want to. i want to go to congressman cuellar on this. because, this congresswoman nicole malliotakis is on the right side of this issue, expressing a similar sentiment that i have heard on the left, which is that this bill does not have all of the priorities

of people on both sides they, of the extremes here frankly, and at this point it seems that this bill is dead already before it is even launched. would that be in your view missed opportunity to do something on this issue rather than nothing? >> yes, when you look at whether we've dealt with immigration, or border security, there has been certain times where we have had great opportunities to do something. i think this is one of them, i do agree with my colleague that i don't agree, i will support the senate bill but i do want to have a little bit of input since i live at the border, and i think that we can work out some differences but you are right. this bill is probably one of the most conservative border bills that i've seen, it is got a lot of democrats away from their comfort zones, now it does not mean that the left is happy with this, but at the same time i think it is something that we need to address. >> congresswoman, president biden today was pretty clear that he would blame republicans

for failing to do anything on the border security part of this despite complaining about it for years. given that this is a rejection, quite a lot of's border security measures. >> as i said, we are looking for a solution but it has to be between both the house and the senate. not that the senate gives us something where we have no input, and does not fully address the issue. and president biden knows that he has authority right now to end this crisis today. he created it via executive order. he passed 60 policy changes and that's why we have this mess that we have today. we've never met under any other president, republican or democrat. so quite frankly, he with the current authority he has, can end the catch and release. he can make sure that people apply for the next safe country and not take this treacherous journey and pay the drug cartels. he has the ability to do this right now. we don't even need legislation. >> congresswoman. congresswoman. i do have to ask you though why will congress not just do their

jobs? i do not understand why. i don't understand why the answer is always president biden should just do it. it is also congresses responsibility. why? >> abby the loss of the house. >> they should come together to come with legislation and get it to pass. >> the question should be why won't president biden do his job? because he has the addicts thing authority. and the only reason why the senate in the house have to do everything here is because he won't do anything in his authority. now we have to pass something to require the president to do it. because right now it is his discretion to take these actions. >> congressman cuellar i want to bring you into this. because both you and the congresswoman are actually complaining about the same thing fundamentally which is that the process here, that congressional leaders took is one that does not involve adequate consultation props to border states or with the house . congressman cuellar, was this a leadership failure on the part

of leadership in both changers to do this the right way? >> listen, the republicans passed it to with out the input from the democrats. the senate right now is trying to pass a bill without the input of the house. if we let the process work we can sit down because i have looked at h.r.2 and i have looked at the border bell, not every single page but the general concepts. there is actually some things that we agree on. we do agree, we just have to figure out one of those points, catch and release. and we have to put funding into the appropriations. i will say this that we cannot just say president just, up close the border. because if we do not have the beds to hold people than there are going to be released. we do not have enough beds, we do not have enough airplanes to deport people. we do not have enough judges, immigration judges, we do not

have enough asylum officers at the border. so it is a policy change and a funding area that we need to look at. >> congresswoman malliotakis, could you just for his second response to what the congressman is saying? you cannot close down the border. that is something that i hear a lot from your republican colleagues. that they want to see happen. he says that it does not work? >> well, you can make sure that there is only the people that is supposed to be coming through the southern border. meaning the mexicans, and canadians, that can claim asylum from the next safe country. so i can agree that there are things that we agree on. i'm certainly for trying to come to allow a resolution. and i think he is right about needing to add immigration judges. these cases, we have a ten-year backlog. i have a constituent who applied for asylum in 2017. and she has been pushed further down the line. we do need to resolve this backlog. but how do we do that if we continue to allow an

unsustainable flow? which is why we have to get to an agreement there. >> all right, congresswoman malliotakis, congressman cuellar , thank you very much for joining us on this issue. >> thank you! >> thank you so much. good evening. >> and the polls have just closed in nevada's democratic and republican primaries. we will have the latest from there, next!

moments ago, polls closing in nevada in the democratic and the republican primaries there. the first results are expected in the next few hours. but it doesn't matter much, at

least on the republican side because they also have a caucus. this saturday. and the gop has chosen to award the delegates via the caucus says, not through today's primary. trump also chose not to appear on the primary ballot. but he will be on the caucus ballot. and thank you for watching news night. laura coates live starts right now! ♪ ♪ ♪ a huge legal smackdown for donald trump. and the word that he lease likes to hear. tonight on laura coates live! ♪ ♪ ♪ that word is no. a federal appellate court ruling today, now, you do not have immunity from the crimes you allegedly committed during your presidency. no, you do not have unlimited power. and no, you are not above the law. a court could not be any clear