in relation ship to the appellants property. here is a partial site plan of the subject property and design and location of the new deck. it measures about 14 feet wide and 7 feet in depth in its place, generally at the center of the lot with a five-foot setback to the north and a six-foot setback to the north which is closest to the appellant seize property. and as you can see, there is a setback on the property which results in a setback to building to deck. the deck is minimum in five, there is no one in 8-feet in height and design guidelines, it was approved over-the-counter back in 2017 and the department request that the board deny this appeal on the basis that the permit was issued properly. that concludes my report, happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, we have questions from commissioner swig and lemberg. >> so so i learned about 7 years ago, or 7 or 8 years ago early in my team that contractors do stuff like they don't file for the finalized permit. and many of our issues have been subject to that negligence. bu

we will move to rebuttal the appellate. i wanted the board to know that after the case began and the city said we wanted to you get a permit to repair the fence we did apply for a fence repair permit then a variance to allow the heist fence and planning did, prove to allow it. additional low. . keeps mentioning the gas line it is a permitted line it was permit in the 2015 and does not extend to the 9 feet that dpw is talking about. it goes to a table and the table to the 9 feet they are talking about. thank you. >> i want to clear it with you to make surure willing. are you willing and able to hire a survey or? to allow for an answer on this. >> yes. the facts and the data and not sweared by biechls you are able to do this. >> i would hope that we would. i don't know the cost of that. thank you. >> hear from streets and mapping. i have no further comments. i will not let you. the question raised in public comment about -- surveys use the parameters by the city. it is am that the case or the survey or take a neutral position

the appellant, mr. daniel stefano, the owner of the adjacent property to the east at 519 hearst avenue, is concerned about one work that's underway way exceeding the scope of the permit. and two, the new deck is too tall, too large and will impact his light and privacy to his property. he overhead. please. the graphic at the top is a sanborn map showing the subject property in blue and the appellant's property in red. the aerial photograph below also shows the view of the two properties from the back. here's a site plan of the existing condition and a site plan of the proposed condition. this is where the new stairs will be and the new deck on the site. plan is a line that denotes the 30% rear yard line. this shows you how much the property can build up to under the planning code. here's a zoomed in view of the new deck. as mentioned, the deck will be 14ft wide by seven feet deep. given the lot of the property, um, of 30ft. the new deck will be set back approximately eight feet from the side property li

the appellate court _ they make the decision? it's hard to say. two filed his petition to be heard by the supreme court. there really isn't... the supreme court asked by its own rules, so there's no real timetable for them to decide. however, the fact that the case was unanimous at least leaves open the possibility that they might just say, "we declined to hear this case," in which case the appellate courtjudgment would stand in the case could resume. llhtiii courtjudgment would stand in the case could resume.— case could resume. untilthat decision is — case could resume. untilthat decision is made, _ case could resume. untilthat decision is made, what - case could resume. untilthat decision is made, what doesl case could resume. until that i decision is made, what does the judge at the trial court do? because i think earlier in the week, she put thejurors on hold. in that i think earlier in the week, she put the jurors on hold. in that trial continue? can they start preparing for that trial while it takes a decision?— decision? most likely not. i

lastly, i invite the appellate or the representative of the appellate for a rebuttal argument not to exceed 3 minutes. >> thank you honorable supervisors. richard drury. lisa gibson put it welcome she said the housing element eir didn't analyze the project. that is the purpose of project level eir. that is the whole point. there is no project level eir and the housing element just doesn't cover it. there was also this argument that the gpe is [indiscernible] if you read ceqa back and forth, there is no such thing. this is made up bay by san francisco planning department. there is no such thing. mmd have specific legal requirements. they have to have binding enforcebable mitigation. p circulated for public review and comment which this was not. the gpe was not. their have to impose all feasible mitigation measures, and if there is fair argument between experts on whether a impact is mitigated adequately or not, a eir is required so you have to go to higher level of review. none applies to a g pe because they don't exist. it is made up out of the minds of the planning department and ce

lastly, i invite the appellate or the representative of the appellate for a rebuttal argument not to exceed 3 minutes. >> thank you honorable supervisors. richard drury. lisa gibson put it welcome she said the housing element eir didn't analyze the project. that is the purpose of project level eir. that is the whole point. there is no project level eir and the housing element just doesn't cover it. there was also this argument that the gpe is [indiscernible] if you read ceqa back and forth, there is no such thing. this is made up bay by san francisco planning department. there is no such thing. mmd have specific legal requirements. they have to have binding enforcebable mitigation. p circulated for public review and comment which this was not. the gpe was not. their have to impose all feasible mitigation measures, and if there is fair argument between experts on whether a impact is mitigated adequately or not, a eir is required so you have to go to higher level of review. none applies to a g pe because they don't exist. it is made up out of the minds of the planning department and ce

>> neil, i think you'd make a fine appellate lawyer. that is maybe the most vulnerable aspect of this opinion. the trump defense team can go to the court of appeals and say look, this trial judge fundamentally misunderstood the nature of valuation. that he thought valuations are very concise and that people that value property all will do so within a very, very narrow range. when in fact, it can be different. you can have 2 professional evaluators looking at the same property and come to two wildly different conclusions. there's not necessarily a fraud going on. could be a different of professional opinion. that's a big theme the trump team going forward in this case as they try to get the verdict overruled. they're going to say this judge didn't understand the nature of the valuation process. he wasn't familiar with how businesses operate, with how people value property and for that reason, you can't sustain this verdverdict. >> neil: john, james office said the banks would have charged trump's businesses more add they had a more accur

there is a possibility they might overturn the appellate court.t is very well reasoned and a complete opinion. it seems logical. it does not make sense a president could call for the sassination of a political rival and ago about his business when not president and not have to face any criminal charges. it doesn't make sense anyone should be above the law. i don't think his chances are good, of winning this. but the delay is -- he's going to move faster than if he had not had a major setback. >> i think that is the point, all of these procedural moves have been about stalling the trial. but it now moves at a quicker pace. can you see as perhaps last week you may not have seen, a situation where this gets to a verdict before the election in november? >> it is not impossible. if the supreme court wants to move quickly, they can. they could conceivably come out with a decision by the end of march. the case could go ahead by may, there could be a verdict. that is assumingverything goes smoothly. and it is not a certainty by any means. >> as it goes on

there are pending matters with regard to that appellate line. there will be a new appellate line on the basis of this figure. the question is whether the appellate judges will show more restraint than this judge. i hope that they will. i don't mean to say that everyone in the new york legal system has been corrupted by political animus. there's very good judges, many good lawyers. this is a time when i think that they have to come forward and throw a flag on the play. it's not that the court was necessarily wrong that there was undervaluation or overvaluation. but the size of this fine and the level of sanctions here is breathtaking. it does raise serious questions, even aside from the evidencery basis used by the court. it goes to at what point does a fine become so excessive that it violates the constitutional rights of an individual. >> martha: it's punitive, right? so the amount of it is so extraordinary that can it be described as an effort to punish the corporation, right? to punish the people involved. i just want to point out that $364 m

>> we can give you the ordinary appeal process for mere motorles who appeal to the appellate decision up to the supreme court. as with all things trump, timelines seem to get compressed when it comes to appeals. again, at the same time, this is not a case that's dependent on an upcoming election like trump's immunity claim, which may need to be resolved in advance of, or in trump's view after an election. this is a case that doesn't really need to be fast tracked when it comes to appeals. we're reading this as we go, but it may be the case that in terms of the business organizations, the cancellation of those business licenses, and i was just talking about this, may not be going forward. instead, it's going to be referred to the independent monitor, retired judge barbara jones. so the business licenses may not be subject to the death penalty, at least in the way that was contemplated or sought, in a sense, by the attorney general in this case. >> you used the term death penalty. i've heard it a lot with relation to this. was this judgment in effect a death penalty if it's upheld? >> i

the process moves on, the clock is ticking and the question becomes, does the appellate court factor election is, and in theory, they shouldn't. in reality it's hard to believe they don't. >> george: do you think we'll see a trial on the january 6th case this year? >> it's hard to say. i think, george, we're unfortunately focusing on appellate court where we should be focusing on the supreme court which in december received a poe -- petition from jack smith on december 11th or so asking them to take the case ahead of appellate review in order to keep the schedule, and the supreme court declined to do so. of course, the supreme court has done this before and many times during the trump administration. they did it in the case involving the secretary of commerce's deposition. they did it in the travel ban case. they did it in the unc -- the university of north carolina affirmative action case. they did it in the case of young people suing under climate change. they did it in daca. why did they not do it in this case of paramount public interest involving whether or not the president can

the process moves on, the clock is ticking and the question becomes, does the appellate court factor the election is, and in theory, they shouldn't. in reality it's hard to believe they don't. >> george: do you think we'll see a trial on the january 6th case this year? >> it's hard to say. i think, george, we're unfortunately focusing on appellate court where we should be focusing on the supreme court which in december received a petition from jack smith on december 11th or so asking them to take the case ahead of appellate review in order to keep the schedule, and the supreme court declined to do so. of course, the supreme court has done this before and many times during the trump administration. they did it in the case involving the secretary of commerce's deposition. they did it in the travel ban case. they did it in the unc -- the university of north carolina affirmative action case. they did it in the case of young people suing under climate change. they did it in daca. why did they not do it in this case of paramount public interest involving whether or not the president can be

so it's really a comprehensive judgment here and the appellate court will have some things to take a look at, but the notion that no business in new york has ever been subject to this, no person has ever been subject to this is just not true. >> and jennifer, you expect object that as this goes through the appeals process, this judgment will take a haircut >> i think it might certainly it's just such a huge judgment and when the expert witnesses were testifying about the differences in valuation, there's just not a lot of certainty. they're the judge actually commented on on that when he was talking about materiality, he actually quoted the famous justice potter statement from supreme court on obscenity saying it's, you know, when you see it. so materiality is, you know, it when you see it, even if you can't pinpoint an amount of difference in valuation that is material or not. so i think that with some of that wiggle room room there in the numbers, you may see the appellate court finding some places where they cut down the judgment award. >> rebecca, the numbers here are staggering

step two on that matter would be the appellate court.'d like to do is be on number three, step three, the supreme court, or back in the appellate court. but by all means, rachel, to avoid step one, the trial court. >> what do you make of the strength of his argument and the strength of this filing overall and this approach? >> there's different arguments. the underlying argument he has absolute immunity i think is a weak argument. it's been heard twice now, once at the district court level, once at the appellate court level. a total of four judges have ruled on it. all four have agreed there's noimator whatsoever. procedurally it's like a bank shot. he wants to have another shot at the appellate court en banc where all judges sit together, all 11 and hear his appeal yet again. and if he loses there, not to go back down to the trial court but go back up to the supreme court. what do i make of it, i don't think it's very compelling. i think everyone understand what you outlined in the ordinary course of justice which the trump team wrote m

tom, couldn't an appellate court overturn or modify this fine as disproportionate? what's the restitution for? the state didn't identify any victim losses. the new york law doesn't require a showing of any victims or harm or damages so that anyone was defrauded. what do you think? >> it can be a dangerous combination and this case illustrates what can happen and people engaged in what they consider ordinary business dealings and ultimately results in a judgment that probably will be north of $400 million with interest plus prohibition on conducting business. look, your question, i do think that trump defense team will have strong arguments on appeal. i think it's an uphill battle, no question, but i think they can argue that the judge fundamentally misunderstood what evaluation involves and he took an ordinary business agreement and made it a basis for 400 million judgment. even if the judgment of fraud stands and the amount is disproportionate and should be reduced. liz: stay with tom for just a second, gene and leo, i'll be back to you in a second. trump said his

. >> one thing it's worth reminding ourselves is in any normal situation, the fact that an appellate court takes a few weeks to issue a decision is lightning speed. sometimes it can take months and months and months. sometimes even over a year before you get a decision. here the reason that everyone thinks each day that goes by you are going what on god's green earth is taking so long is because they understand that there's -- there was a trial date set and the circuit court itself had set an expedited briefing and hearing. people briefed this case during the holidays and over the new year's holiday. that is what i think leads everyone to think it should come down any day now. there are three je judges decid

trump has made clear that if he loses at the appellate level, he plans to appeal again, to the supremert. and judge chutkan has made clear that if donald trump does appeal to the highest court in the land, she will keep this case frozen, unable to proceed until there is a decision from the supreme court. but it has been 50 days, and we don't even have an appeals court ruling yet. and as political reports, again today the longer it takes for the appeals court to rule, the likely or the supreme court would punch the issue into the fall, effectively ruling out a trial before the election. can anything be done here? joining me now, michael schmidt, new york times investigative reporter, and our not-so-secret weapon, msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. thank you both for being. here every night, lisa, we say is this the night? is this the night that the appeals court will reach a decision in this immunity case and granted the hearing was january nine, so far goose egg. nothing. >> refreshing. >> apple are or whatever the pc version is. what is happening here, in your estimation? >> i can only h

it's been heard twice now, once at the district court level, once at the appellate court level.ll of them have agreed there is no merit to it whatsoever. procedurally, however, that is like you say, a bank shot. he wants to try and have another shot at the appellate court on bond with all of the judges sitting together, all 11, and hear his appeal yet again. and if he loses their, not to go back down through the trial court, but then to go up to the supreme court. what do i make of it? i don't think it is very compelling. i think everyone understands that what you outlined, that in the ordinary course of justice, as the trump team wrote, means as slow as possible. and i hope the supreme court does not grant that portion of his request. >> in terms of -- i know it's always folly to predict any court decisions, certainly the supreme court. but do you think that there is anything that we saw at work in their consideration of his ballot eligibility gaetz, the oral arguments that we saw on thursday? is there anything to extrapolate from these arguments and what we saw in their approa

nobody has a lawyerly career like this where you know on the one hand he was a magnificent appellatelawyer. he argued i don't know, 25 cases to the supreme court in won all but three of them. he was also a fantastic trial lawyer. he roamed around the american south when it was not easy as a black man to travel around the american south, appearing in the small-town courtrooms, where you know, he and his colleagues were the only black faces, and where they were not treated very often with the appropriate respect, and where sometimes they face real physical dangers, and he had stories about that, but he was a great sort of little town trial lawyer, as well as sometimes coming up to the podium of the supreme court, so he had all the skills in one, and it was really something to learn from him. >> listening to you, when i think of his opinions, they emphasize the facts. [indiscernible conversation] >> he cared about the facts, he cared about how law worked on the ground about how law affected people where they live. he did not think that the law as some sort of abstract, you know, he did

step two would be the appellate court.ep three, the supreme court or back in the appellate court. by all means rachel to avoid step one the trial court. >> what do you make of the strength of his argument and the strength of this filing over all in this approach? >> well there are different arguments. the underlying argument he has absolute immunity i think is a deep argument. it's been heard twice now. one at the district court level. one at the appellate court level. all four have agreed there's no merit to it whatsoever. procedurally whatsoever, that's a bank shot. he wants to have a trial court and hear his appeal yet again. if he loses there, not to go back down to the trial court but to go up to the supreme court. what do i make of it? i don't think it's very compelling. i think everyone understands what you outlined that in the court of justice, in the trump hopes, as slow as possible. >> it's hard to predict any court's decision. particularly the supreme court. do you think there's anything we saw at work in the co

it's been hurt twice now, once at the district court level, once at the appellate court level.ed to there is no merit to it whatsoever. procedurally however, that is like you say, a bank shot. he wants to try and have another shot at the appellate court, on bank, with all of the judges sitting together, all 11, and hear his appeal yet again. and if he loses there, not to go back down to the trial court, but then to go up to the supreme court. what do i make of? it i don't think it's very compelling. i think everyone understands what you outlined, that in the ordinary course of justice, and as slow as possible. and i hope the supreme court does not grant that portion of that request. >> in terms of, i know it's always folly to predict any courts decision, particularly the supreme court. but, do you think that there is anything that we saw at work in their consideration of his ballot eligibility case, the oral arguments that we saw on thursday. is there anything to extrapolate from, in those arguments, and what we saw of the justices and their approach to these matters, that migh

>> well, i think that this statute presents significant appellate issues. when the appellate court looks at this case they have to look at the legislative intent behind this statute, was it meant to go after specific businesses without any complaining parties coming forward? and again, this is a civil case. there's fraud allegations, but certainly, there's never been a criminal charge of fraud defense trump or the trump organization. i think on appeal, the appellate courts look at legal issues, but the trial court's findings of fact and if there are clear erroneous findings of facts in terms of valuations they'll look at the applicable statute and if it's to be used in this way. i find specious myself. $354 million fine and it could run as high as $450 million with back interest. how much of that does the former president have to put up as he tries to fight this on appeal? >> neil, i think he's going to have to put up a large amount or take out some kind of bond consistent with new york state law and i've got to tell you, katie is one smart lawyer, i think

and that could even further elongate the case beyondfu the appellate process.pe so i think behind the scenes the two judges would like to get there in aju simpler, easier wa more akin to judge chutkan ruled in her own ruling and ruling putting some pressure on karen henderson, the most senior of these judges, to get onboard. >> politico does talk about what thees judges can do behind the scenes to pressure. if there's a hold out, how muchical they needle her, and would they even needle her to come to a conclusion with whatever she'sa writing given w it's still the month of january but in the judicial system, this is like still -- we're still working it relatively expeditiously. >> we are. all oral argument in this matter was january 9th. typically it's different how you and i needle -- >> like how i needle you. >> i wasn't going to say that. how we needle each other. they send the drafts back and forth and they see if they can draft. it's a very legalistic dialogue and intellectual argument not could you please pick it up for god sake, karen henderson. >> michael, it seems to me on on

andrew appel is that professor at princeton.'s research includes voting technology and regularly writes and comments in scholarly journals, blogs, media, and the national academies of sciences engineering and medicine 2018 report securing the vote protecting american democracy. matt masterson is the director of information integrity at microsoft. he previously served as the senior cyber security adviser at the department of homeland security formally served as the chair of the u.s. election assistance commission and served in various positions of the ohio secretary of state's office where he oversaw voting system certification efforts and helped develop their online voter registration system. i will pass it over to kim. >> thank you rick and thank you to the safeguarding democracy project here at ucla for this opportunity to be on the panel and like neil kelly i want to stay on time for liz so i will be reading my remarks with a quick overview of cisa and thinking what i think election officials should be focusing on in 2024. cis

and that could even further along the case on the appellate process. so i think that's behind the scenes, the two judges would like to get there, in an easier way more akin to judge chutkan putting some pressure on judge anderson. to try to get on board and see if they could do something. >> political does talk about was the judges can view the hind these seems to pressure if there is a holdout, how much can they needle her and would be even needle her to come to a conclusion with whatever she is writing given now, -- >> typically, the appellate judges knew each other in very different then -- >> i wasn't going to say that. were they doing thunder are trying to see if they can agree to legal reasoning. if a very legal dialogue an intellectual argument's, not could you please pick up -- it would be michael schmidt. it seems to me on one hand, there's a broad part of the american public that is saying -- >> donald trump would exploited the sun to the ends of the, earth and certainly within the balance of the legal system. do you think that it is importan

nobody has a lawyerly career like this where you know on the one hand he was a magnificent appellate lawyer. he argued i don't know, 25 cases to the supreme court in won all but three of them. he was also a fantastic trial lawyer. he roamed around the american south when it was not easy as a black man to travel around the american south, appearing in the small-town courtrooms, where you know, he and his colleagues were the only black faces, and where they were not treated very often with the appropriate respect, and where sometimes they face real physical dangers, and he had stories about that, but he was a great sort of little town trial lawyer, as well as sometimes coming up to the podium of the supreme court, so he had all the skills in one, and it was really something to learn from him. >> listening to you, when i think of his opinions, they emphasize the facts. [indiscernible conversation] >> he cared about the facts, he cared about how law worked on the ground about how law affected people where they live. he did not think that the law as some sort of abstract, you know, he did

. >> this was made to the first department of the appellate division. the equivalent of a federal circuit court of appeals. they did have an argument today in front of justice neil singh of that court, and he will make a decision by the close of business, whether to grant a temporary stay. then an application for a longer term stay will go to a full panel of the court. remember, trump has until march 25th, katy. that's the date on which the current automatic stay that any party would get under new york law is going to be gone. you get a stay on enforcement of any judgment that requires money for 30 days. after march 25th, all bets are off. if the full appellate division doesn't act by march 25th and justice singh doesn't give the stay, the judge can move ahead and start collecting. there's a lot of time between then and now. i raise that. that's the operative day. >> let me ask you, what happens if it does run out, and tish james starts collecting, how does she start collect something. >> one of the ways she starts collecting is by identifying what trum

the appellate court did take that. case they had oral arguments, they had, briefs they took a while. the clock was ticking the whole time as we said on this show over and over. and then on february 6th they came out with a unanimous decision against trump. he is citizen trump, he is not above the law. the decision seemed carefully cared to give the supreme court an agency choice to refuse to take up the case, to let the lower court ruling stand. but, if the supreme court wanted to take up the case, and wanted to do an expedited fashion let's be clear when i say the supreme court, the conservative majority are talking about here. they could've done it the day after they got the petition this month. that day. what did they do? no, they burned two and a half weeks for no reason. they weren't producing any paper, they weren't writing any the sensor arguments. it is one page. there it is. they sat around for two weeks. and then the issue, they were going to take this up. they're not gonna schedule arguments for seven weeks

that's the ordinary course, two, three years for the appellate chain of review. i would hope, again, if that's where this ends up that would move more quickly. >> move more quickly. interestingly, ryan, you would get a verdict on the day before halloween theoretically or sooner. you could get a verdict as late as that. never mind the appeals process, you wouldn't get necessarily sentenced obviously. >> right. >> that's a whole process, too. you would simply get guilty or innocent verdict from the jury. >> that's right. the american public would know what a unanimous jury finds and what they're finding him guilty of if they find him guilty because then we can already calculate what the likely conviction is. >> sentencing ranges, et cetera. ankush, you identify minimum security prison in florida that could likely be where trump would go if he's convicted. in pensacola, eight hours away from mar-a-lago. you spent some time looking at this. it's a nice place for a prison. tennis, volleyball, sunbathing, gazebo and you've got to do a job, landscaping, working in the k

as a non- lawyer, my understanding is in order to get to the new york appellate court mr.ust post some kind of guarantee surety bond in order to cover payments if the trial judges ever confirmed. stay with me on this, folks for this will be a bond secured with collateral. collateral could be cash, credit from banks or other investment type assets including real estate. essentially, now stay with me on this, one party has to guarantee another party's obligation to a third party. making this potentially even more difficult. in other words, when the party has to guarantee mr. trump's obligation to the satisfaction of the court in order to get into the court of appeals. the decision by the way bans any borrowing from new york banks. that makes it even tougher. i don't know if that allows insurance companies or not to guarantee i just don't know. the sum total here can be up to 400 million bucks including interest. and then presumably the money for the bond will be deposited to the court and held in escrow pending the actual appeal. these hyper punitive conditions reveal again

be the first appellate court to look at this, has a very complete record and can act expeditiously. i am not quite so optimistic about the question of time. i think these things do take time and these issues are complicated. >> i wonder how much time you really have during an election year and the impact i think that that will have on people and i'm sure we went to find out. no one can speculate, but obviously, we've seen this before. we know we've been talking about the various cases that he's involved with and it seems to sort of -- his supporters and whatnot are not taken aback by accusations, allegations, and we don't know what would be the outcome, obviously, with this latest development. i want to turn to katrina and go back to you in terms of if you believe that trump is being made an example of. you heard rikki talk about the associated press report and having a strong argument for not being treated before like other folks, but obviously not having this kind of money we are talking about with over 300 million dollars. >> reporter: another part of this opinion that stood out

article 16 of the european convention against trafficking did not assist the appellant in establishing. the non—punishment principle also did not assist ms begum. there is no authority to suggest that the principle of non—punishment extends beyond criminal prosecutions. to extend the principle to a deprivation decision would go beyond incremental development of the relevant jurisprudence. incremental development of the relevantjurisprudence. the investigative duty, and the argument that any investigation into these respective trafficking in 2015, could only be affected if ms begum were present in the united kingdom was not, in ourjudgment, and obviously material consideration for the secretary of state when making the secretary of state when making the deprivation decisions, three reasons for this, one, the deprivation decisions, three reasons forthis, one, it the deprivation decisions, three reasons for this, one, it would be tantamount to an obligation to repatriate, two, it would be inconsistent with the supreme court's decision that the secretary of state was not required to enter

remember, in the appellate court.y strict time constriction on the trump lawyers to file directly with the supreme court, not the whole appellate court, right? >> well, that was sort of novel here. they didn't great the stay but they created effectively or constructively a stay by setting it for argument. trump has gotten what he has wanted. and that this is not going to be heard until the end of april. and then all bets are off when they might issue a decision. they could issue it before june. but, there's obviously some justices here who have a lot of -- to talk about on this issue. >> bret: yeah. okay. let's talk about the political stories of the day. brit, senator mitch mcconnell announcing he is, you know, going to november, but he will step down as leader, minority leader now. they are hoping, republicans are, to be majority leader position. >> brit: bret, i don't go back to the days of lyndon johnson but i have been covering this stuff in washington for a long time. and mitch mcconnell, i think, was much the m

as a non- lawyer, my understanding is in order to get to the new york appellate court mr.t post some kind of guarantee surety bond in order to cover payments if the trial judges ever confirmed. stay with me on this, folks for this will be a bond secured with collateral. collateral could be cash, credit from banks or other investment type assets including real estate. essentially, now stay with me on this, one party has to guarantee another party's obligation to a third party. making this potentially even more difficult. in other words, when the party has to guarantee mr. trump's obligation to the satisfaction of the court in order to get into the court of appeals. the decision by the way bans any borrowing from new york banks. that makes it even tougher. i don't know if that allows insurance companies or not to guarantee i just don't know. the sum total here can be up to 400 million bucks including interest. and then presumably the money for the bond will be deposited to the court and held in escrow pending the actual appeal. these hyper punitive conditions reveal again th

the realist in me is not banking on a sweeping appellate win for trump.terial relief but i won't hold my breath on the other penalties. what do you say? >> i welcome him to be part of the legal team if he knows the case better than the theme that tried it. i've been on the case for three years. i can tell you right now, there are truly no facts that support any of these decisions. that again, i can say, will be made very clear in our appeal. >> martha: we look forward to seeing the next move in this very very complicated game of chess that has a lot of people's attention. it's an extraordinary number and it's unbelievable that there's not another step before that money has to change hands. we'll see what happens. we'll be watching. thanks, alina habba for joining us. good to see you. thank you. so chicago mayor brandon johnson meets the wrath of black residents in his city who say that the city is prioritizing migrants over people in their communities who need help themselves. we'll play you some very fiery sound from this meeting that just happened. you'

today, the supreme court appellate court. by merely deciding to do this, though, the court has essentially upended the attempt to hold donald trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. in fact, the court may have ended that attempt entirely. this decision is also certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race, and it will likely play a determinative role in its outcome. as much as the significance of this ruling is already apparent, the full consequences here hinge on the timing. in it the supreme court said it would hear oral arguments in the case the week of april 22 nd. now, april 22nd is not close to today, and we'll get into exactly why exactly the court didn't choose a date a lot sooner than that, but april 22nd also on its face sort of seems pretty far from the november election. it's not. because when you start crunching the numbers and looking at how a trial could actually time out after the supreme court makes its decision here, the window in which trump could face trial, the window of that happening bef

court in this case called the appellate division along with briefs and the like. york appeals themselves are very slow. that having been said, one of the dangers to donald trump of these civil legal penalties is that, unlike the federal criminal cases, which he very well could cause or wipe clean if re-elected, he cannot simply erase civil liabilities regardless of what court they come from, a state or federal court, just by virtue of being re-elected. so while he might have a long runway to appeal, he will not be able to fully escape a judgment that is upheld by an appellate court or twor here no matter how hard he tries in both this case and the e. jean carroll case. in terms of the bond, you're right to say he would likely have to give an insurer, for example, 20% of what's already owed. more importantly, that 20% isn't all. any insurer that gets involved here would want collateral in the form, for example, of one of his real estate assets. the problem is trump is not allowed currently to transfer those assets without the permission or knowledge of the independ

appellate court ruling on immunity.the third section of the 14th amendment have led lots of folks, like scholars like lawrence, a harvard law professor, not at all a fan of donald trump, to argue that trump should stay on the ballot. writing, if this court is to preserve its integrity, it must unanimously reject the colorado supreme court's judgment because section 3 of the 14th amendment does not apply to donald trump. he adds that intentionally excluding the president makes perfect sense because if state officials from blue states can remove red state candidates or vice versus that state bears no cost instead gains a political victory. such behavior is to lead to a tit for tat and break down of our entire electoral system. how to steal a presidential election, a book, a warning not a how-to and comes out next week. professor, great to see you. i have profound and tremendous respect for your thinking and one of the people i respect a lot who are weary of this case and think trump should be kept on the ballot. why? >> w

um we appealed it up to the appellate level. the appellate court made an initial decision to allow this past november election to proceed as it has for the last previous four elections. we're going to be in front of that court soon. stay tuned. we'll see what happens. it was good to hear that the city was able to reach a settlement with the center for medicare and medicaid services are meant laguna honda could still operate. how did you manage to reach that agreement? it was not an easy conversation . just a little bit of background. so laguna honda has been an incredibly important institution in san francisco for 150 years, taking care of our most vulnerable patients are frail, very elderly patients, many of whom are at end of life. and a few years ago, there were some issues in that hospital. some violations of rules that we very much want to make sure don't get violated. there were folks that weren't using proper ppe, who are bringing cigarette lighters into the facility, who might have brought some contraband into the facili

is there a sense of -- the lack of urgency generally in the appellate division and in the appellate worldme and i wonder if it is alarming to you. >> well, i think it is a larming. there's a lot that might go to explaining it. i think that of the cases the one concerning the classified documents is the one where the prosecution probably has the lightest lift to establish guilt because basically he has the documents. he did not turn them over. there it is. but, it's also the most complicated in terms of evidence because so much of the evidence in this case is going to be classified and there's all kinds of procedures and protocols for dealing with it, as you just suggested. and the defendant has certain rights here. he has to be able to see the evidence against him. should that evidence be shown to him in a skiff, where it's protected or can it be out in the open? what sorts of protocols do we take to ensure it's not further disseminated and insecure as it was at mar-a-lago. all of those are real questions and they're before a judge who is a trump appointee. that's not really the issue. th

that has been thoroughly litigated in district court and federal appellate court. by nearly deciding to do this, by side setting side whatever the courts final ruling, is the court has upended the attempt to hold on trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. in fact, the court may have ended that attempt entirely. this decision is almost certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race, and it will likely pay a determinative role in its outcome. but as much as the significance of this ruling is already apparent, the full consequences here hinge on the timing. now in its ruling tonight, the court said it would hear oral arguments in the case the week of april 22nd. now april 22nd is not close to today. and we will get into why exactly the court didn't choose a day that is a lot sooner than that. but april 22nd, on its face, seems pretty far from the november election. it's not. because when you start crunching the numbers and looking at how a trial could actually timeout avid the supreme court makes its decision here, the window in which trump could face t