politicized. >> msnbc contributor, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. >> such an important story. >> absolutely. that does it for us this morning. anna cabrera picks up the coverage now. right now, breaking news at a d.c. courthouse. the first hearing in donald trump's federal election case sets a decision. is there any chance this goes to trial before november's vote? plus heartbreak in georgia. four people killed in a school shooting. details of online threats that have the teen suspect on radar last year. also ahead, a high-profile republican says she will vote for kamala harris. liz cheney's strong rebuke of donald trump and her message to fellow gop members. and trump and hairs finally

agree to the debate rules. what we have just learned about next week's presidential faceoff in philadelphia. good morning. great to have you with us. ana cabrera. at a courthouse in washington, d.c., a critical hearing starting right now in donald trump's federal election interference case. the firsts in this case since the supreme court ruled that trump could claim some immunity and since prosecutors charged trump in a superseding indictment. today's hearing will determine how and when this case moves forward. let's bring in justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian, former u.s. attorney barbara mcquaid, and christy greenberg. so ken, lay out for us what we expect to happen today. >> reporter: good morning. this is a scheduling hearing.

and the two sides are going to present their proposals for how to move forward in this case. to answer the question you raised in the opening, there's no chance this case can go to trial before the november election because whatever the judge decides in terms of what she views in bounds, what are official acts and what were presidential acts, that can be appealed pretrial all the way to the supreme court. there's no way that process plays out before the election. but in terms of scheduing, it's important because it may dictate how much of the evidence, how many hearings we'll have on the evidence in the case before the election, and even after the election, if trump wins, because the justice department will continue with this prosecution until the moment he takes office, if he wins. the first dispute is about what issues the come before the judge first. donald trump's lawyers want the judge to take up the question of was jack smith appointed illegally. the judge in florida dismissed the second case on the grounds that the special counsel appointment was illegal and

unconstitutional. so donald trump's lawyers want the judge to hear that issue and decide on it. that seems like a remote possibility because the law in this circuit clearly suggests that judge canon's decision was wrong. it's not just district judges. the appeals court ruled that way also. what jack smith wants the judge to do is immediately go to the issue of what are the presidential acts and whether this superseding indictment, whether that can pass muster because he's he views as official acts ruling, but donald trump's lawyers disagree. they are going to argue a lot of the conduct he's alleging should be out of bounds. that's the main dispute. today is really about scheduling. the lawyers are in the courtroom. donald trump is not here. the lawyers will enter a plea of not guilty to this new superseding indictment, which contains no new allegations. it narrows it down. so we'll see what happens. it's going to be an interesting day.

>> thank you, ken. stay with me. we do have an update from the courtroom the. the judge is on the bench. court is in session. because it's federal court, no cameras, but we are continuing to report out what happens there. so christy, the judge had quite a bit of a waiting period as she waited for the supreme court to make this decision on presidential immunity. how do you see this case moving forward? what will you be watching for specifically today? >> i think the yuj is going to have no time for any of the delay tactics that trump is proposing. he did you want doesn't want to get to it. now i don't even want to brief that. i want to talk about why the special counsel shouldn't here. the supreme court said in its opinion, you have to deal with the immunity issues at the outset of the litigation. they were pretty clear about that. the judge is going to look to get back to business right away. i think she's also going to be skeptical because trump could have made that argument about

the special counsel when he was making the immunity arguments, and he didn't. the law is so clear that there's no argument there. i also think she's going to be very skeptical of his arguments regarding the immunity litigation. he's saying we can't get to briefing for months because i need all the discovery. for jack smith to say you have it, let's get started, i think she will absolutely be no nonsense. look to get this on track quickly. >> there was this ceding indictment. how strong is this case after the supreme court's decision? >> it's plenty strong. i think that the main allegation that's been removed was trump's alleged efforts to abuse the justice department as part of this whole plot. personally as a former doj employee, i found that the most egregious of the charges. it doesn't diminish what's left, which is pressuring state legislators, fake slates of elector, and exploiting the

chaos at the capitol to pressure members of congress to block certification. all of that remains in the case. i also think it's noteworthy that some of the language changed to reflect a different supreme court case. where the supreme court said to obstruct a proceeding, it must involve documents. so it points out it's all about the documents. it's about the slates of electors, the balance that are kept in the big box that was carefully safeguarded by staffers during the chaos at the capitol. so the case remains strong. i think jack smith is itching to dpo. >> i'm just looking at what's happening now inside the courtroom. and the judge did start out making a a joke with donald trump's lawyers noting that he looked rested. it had been almost a year since they had seen each other. so she said you look rested, as he introduced himself and joked telling him to enjoy it while it lasts.

ken, you talked about how because of the delay and sort of the backlog of decisions that have to happen before this can go to trial, where does this case go next? >> reporter: it depends on what the judge rules today. if, as we all believe she's interesting in expediting and getting things moving, presumably there could be a hearing or a series of hearings examining this question of what evidence should be in bounds here. what are official acts and what aren't. that's consequential because that may require a lot of evidence to be put in front of the american public. that those who haven't read the indictment are familiar with it. we're going to hear more about how donald trump tried to stay in power by allegedly conspireing to violate the law, to deprive millions of americans of their right to vote, to obstruct congress. that could be a big deal. it could transpire in the courthouse behind us before november. >> the trump legal team strategy

has been delay, delay, delay. the judge did tell trump's lawyers last october to sort of set the tone for how she wants to approach this. this trial will not yield to the election cycle. already today she's saying she won't make a ruling on the schedule, but she's also saying she hopes to get an order out later today. so that also the indicates she wants to move swiftly. realistically, how quickly could this move? >> you're going to see briefing. that's what the special counsel has requested. they said we're ready to go. any time you tell us to, we will file this brief explaining our indictment. why the supreme court's opinion does not affect any of the acts that we have alleged here in the indictment as criminal. so i think she'll set a quick schedule for that briefing to occur. then the real question will be whether or not those hearings happen before the election. i i think the briefing will take some time. it's going to be pretty

intensive. so i think given that there's been some delay in getting to this conference, initially it was supposed to be in august and now we're in september, i'm a bit skeptical we'll get those before the election, but the briefing is going to be substantial. there's going to be a lot of facts laid out there. so even if we don't get to those hearings before the election, i do think there's going to be a lot for the american people to learn from jack smith's briefing. >> and they have this new superseding indictment that's come between that decision and today's hearing. they are going to be talking about that. she did just accept the not guilty plea. the times have pointed out that soon after the indictment was returned to the judge following the supreme court ruling, she told trump when he was in her courtroom, she planned to look on him as a criminal defendant, not as a former president. as for the fact that he was running for office again, that, she said, somewhat dismissively, was his day job. what do you take from that?

>> i think that sends a very important message that no one is above the law. you can't get out of a criminal trial because you're running for president. otherwise, anyone would announce their candidacy and be able to divert their criminal charges. that means she's going to push forward andwater going to see the briefs. some suggested there might be a mini trial where we hear live testimony. i would be surprised if that's the case. i don't think either party wants that. but i do think we're going to get briefs that spell out in detail the allegations and the evidence. the other thing donald trump has requested because of his candidacy is the briefs be filed under seals so the american people do not see the dalking allegations and evidence. i think going back to those words, she's unlikely to grant that because there is a presumption that documents filed in court are to be unsealed and in the public domain.

she's to treat donald trump like every other defendant, we will see the briefs. >> we're just about ten minutes into this hearing. seems to be moving pretty quickly. >> reporter: she does not fool around. she's the exact opposite of judge canon, who ponders and mulls and questions every move by the lawyers and every brief before her. she keeps things moving in her courtroom. so we could be done with this hearing before we thought. >> and assuming no trial before the election, just remind us what happens to this case if trump is elected? what happens if he isn't elected? >> if trump is elected, this case goes away. he will direct his department of justice to dismiss the charges against him. if he's elected, we're done here. that is the same with the florida case. he will direct his department of justice to drop any appeal there. if kamala harris is elected this case will continue.

she presumably will have her department of justice continue with this case. there's a new attorney general. that attorney general will understand and appreciate the importance of both of these cases and stay the course. >> thank you so much. please stay close. to the campaign trail next. the high profile republican officially backing kamala harris and her message to fellow members of the gop about the stakes of this election. plus mounting pressure for a cease-fire deal. are benjamin netanyahu's messages causing new confusion? but first, when we're back in 90 seconds, new details on the mass shooting at a georgia high school. the shooter known to law enforcement. the latest from the community in mourning. the latest from the community in mourning (vo) you were diagnosed with thyroid eye disease a long time ago. and year after year, you weathered the storm

and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com. honey... but the gains are pumping! the market's closed. futures don't sleep in the after hours, bro. dad, is mommy a “finance bro?” she switched careers to make money for your weddings. ooh! penny stocks are blowing up. sweetie, grab your piggy bank, we're going all in. let me ask you. for your wedding, do you want a gazebo and a river? uh, i don't... what's a gazebo? something that your mother always wanted and never got. or...you could give these different investment options a shot. the right money moves aren't as aggressive as you think. i'm keeping the vest.

i saw a deceased body on the floor, but it was covered up. and i saw a female with a shot wound to her leg. it was just really traumatic. no matter if there's cops in the school, there's still no safety at all. >> that was a high school sophomore describing the moment she emerged from her classroom

just 24 hours ago after she and her classmates hid a shooter in their school. two classmates and two teachers are now dead. nine others are injured. the 14-year-old suspect is set to be charged as an adult. jesse kir issue is onened the ground. >> reporter: we're told yesterday morning gunshots rang out at the high school behind me here. authorities tell us in the process, four people were killed, two of them 14-year-old students. the other two people killed were teachers. we're told additionally, nine people were shot and rofring from their injuries. we're told by authorities that the nine people injured by gunfire are expected to survive. which is hopeful news amidst all this tragedy. the suspect in the incident surrendered when he was confronted by authorities.

he's now in custody. we're told that at the facility where he is, the first thing he would be going through is a mental and physical evaluation. that's one of the first things. it's unclear where he is in that intake process. we're learning more about the suspect as well. his name is colt gray. 14 years old. a student at the school according to authorities, who is expected to be tried as an adult even though he's 14 years old in the aftermath of this deadly shooting. >> we know the suspects was interviewed by law enforcement in relation to those online threats in may of 2023. what are we learning about how that unfolded and what came of that investigation? >> so we now have an incident report from that series of events over a year ago. according to this incident report, i'm going to read a portion of this for you now. we're going to put it on screen. authorities in this report say colt, the suspect in the shooting, colt assured me he never made any threats to shoot up any school.

i urged the father to keep his firearms locked away and he advised him to keep colt out of school until this matter could be resolved. the father, according to this report, said that school was already out for the year at this point. according to authorities, they have said multiple times there was not probable cause for an arrest in that incident more than a year ago. fast forward to yesterday, now we have four people dead. nine more shot and injured. we're told this was all involving an ar-style weapon. so questions remain about how that weapon got in the boy's possession, how it got into the school and how it led up to a horrific incident in another american community. >> thank you for the reporting. joining us now with more on this is former secret service chief psychologist marissa randozo. she conducted a study on school shootings.

thank you for talking with us today. we know the suspect was on law enforcement's radar a year ago for those online threat, but after theyers and viewed him, they said there was no probable cause for an arrest. could police have done anything differently? >> so in the situation like this, we still have so much that we're worrying about. i don't want to monday morning quarterback, but in situations like this, law enforcement often does not have enough to go on. they don't have enough to be able to say, we can arrest. often times even if they have enough to charge, a prosecutor will say not worth going through prosecution. but in situations like this, this happens more often than people realize. there's a process that law enforcement can do in partnership with the schools to run something called a behavioral threat assessment to see does this person pose a threat of violence to others, maybe harm to themselves. if so, usually that means they are in some sort of crisis. what can we do to get them out of that crisis. so there are laws across many states that actually require this process in the schools now

to say, look, we have a student whose behavior is worrying us a lot. there's not enough for law enforcement to charge and maybe that's not the best way forward any way. but what can we do to keep an eye on this student, figure out are they in crisis and figure out how to help get them off a pathway to violence and on to a better path. >> this suspect is so young, just 14 years old. what do you make of that? >> we have seen even younger. looking at the entirety of the universe of u.s. school shootings, the youngest we saw was 6. then the oldest was even people who had graduated or failed to graduate high school and came back years later to do harm. but what i know about the 14-year-old brain is that's a time when brains for kids are under construction. they cannot think through consequences the same way that adults can. they literally have an impairment in their brains that it's not built yet. that part of the brain that can

think through consequences, which is why we have a juvenile justice system. i'll tell you. there's one school shooting that we studied years ago that occurred quite a long time ago, but was handled strictly through the juvenile justice system. the person who went through that came out with seeld record. he went on to become a practicing attorney. so there are things that our juvenile justice system is built to do, but i understand that the public outcry in a case like this is for immediate justice and that the inclination is that we want to charge someone as an adult, even though their brain isn't developed. >> given this is a juvenile suspect, we know that police did interview the suspect's father a year ago when they had the threats. he told them his son didn't have unsupervised access to the guns in their house. under georgia law, minors can cannot possess handgun, but georgia does not have any laws

requiring safe storage. could the parents face charges? sglu don't know the georgia law well enough to know, but what we have seen in other states, parents face charges for failing to take action based on a concern. we certainly saw this in michigan. for failing to store or allowing access. what i know from all the shootings we study, most of the shooters end up getting their weapons from their own home or a relative's home. and even when guns are stored, they often know how to access them. i'm not placing blame here, but i'm just saying that the access piece is one part of the puzzle. the other is if we can limit access, if we can allow temporarily take away an extreme protection order or often times local law enforcement will say, look, we're happy to hold the guns for you until we know there's no longer a concern here. so there are options for how to handle situations like this.

>> how important is the interview with this suspect, who was taken into custody, still alive? how important is that going to be for law enforcement, not just in proceeding with trying this case and gathering evidence, but also learning about what maybe done in the future to prevent this kind of action? >> one of the things that we did was interview school shooters long after their court cases had ended so they could talk candidly with us. we learned a tremendous amount about what could stop them. this interview right now that he's going through, this is for prosecution. so he will likely have legal representation that is going to limit what can be asked. as a law enforcement investigator, what i would want to know is the threat that came into the school moments before or earlier in the day that this was going to be the first of five schools or multiple school shootings that were to occur and this was going to be the first, that would be my primary

concern. really finding out was the student in communication with anyone else at any school. locally, regionally, nationally, had there been contact, was this part of a group that may have been planning to do something similar at individual schools? that would be my first priority as an investigator to try to figure out what the student knows and if there's any other risk to any other schools. >> thank you very much for this conversation. i learned so much through this discussion. up next, we are heading back to the d.c. courthouse for an update on donald trump's election interference case. plus the final countdown to debate day. the rules both sides have now agreed to ahead of that high-stakes showdown.

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. ♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day. time to shine. get paycom and make the unnecessary unnecessary. craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t,

he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities. - [narrator] life with ear ringing sounded like a constant train whistle i couldn't escape. then i started taking lipo flavonoid. with 60 years of clinical experience, it's the number one doctor recommended brand for ear ringing. and now i'm finally free. take back control with lipo flavonoid.

and our top story this morning. inside a federal courtroom in washington, d.c., lawyers for former president trump and jack smith are appearing for the first time since the supreme court immunity ruling before the judge in this federal election interference case. right now they are talking about the schedule for this case and potential next steps. our legal panel is back with us. i first want to start with ken dilanian, who is outside the courthouse. so ken, we know the judge asked multiple questions. what went down? what did we learn? >> reporter: we have already

learned a lot in about 20 minutes. the judge really moves things along. she's told us that she plans to enter an order on scheduing likely by the end of today, not at this hearing, but later today, which is remarkable when you consider the pace at which the judge in florida moves on these things. and she also entertained a proposal from the special counsel that he file an evidentiary proffer on the question of immunity and what acts can be included in the indictment, which the special counsel said would include grand jury transcripts and evidence. then they suggested there wouldn't be a hearing with witnesses before her, but as our legal expert said earlier, this would be in the form of paper briefs, but it would contain a lot of evidence that the american public hasn't seen that. she appears sympathetic to that idea. the lawyers are arguing against it. they are saying it would be prejudice shl and they need to get all kinds of discovery before that paperwork can be filed before the public. she's seeming to be skeptical.

she said at one point, you can get your discovery and we can file this paperwork. that seems to be the direction she's headed in. if that's true, that will be consequential for the election because we will see new evidence in this case, which is already a substantial indictment that's been before the public. now we're going to see what's behind that indictment potentially in some cases. the testimony the from actual witnesses, other kinds of evidence that could make news and be consequential in the presidential election. >> and as you're speaking, there are questions right now with trump's lawyers. the judge peppering trump's lawyer about how he sees things moving forward. i want you to take a look at that google doc and come back to you with the latest details on that specifically. feel free to look down while i talk to our legal analysts about what we learned from the q&a involving the special counsel lawyer by the name of thomas

wyndham. one of the lead investigators in this particular case. is it unusual for a judge to call a prosecutor to the stand to answer her questions? >> not at all. this is standard and routine. i thought her initial question to prosecutor windom is why should we do this in a different order? usually, the indictment is filed and if there's a challenge to that indictment, a motion to dismiss, defense goes first. and what special counsel is saying, this isn't really an ordinary process here. this is different because of the immunity decision. we really need to go first. we need to lay out why we think our indictment is justified in light of the supreme court's decision. we're going tfferevidence. we're going to have written exhibits. and then we'll give donald trump the opportunity to respond. he's saying he wants discovery. we produced discovery, but we're going to lay out all our cards here and he can respond. then you can have the benefit of all that briefing and then you

can decide. do you need a hearing. do you need to hear from witnesses. do you need more? >> what's your take on what we're hearing in this court hearing so far? >> i think this is going exactly as we would have expected it to. in the briefs that were filed before this hearing, jack smith laid out what he wanted to do in terms of proceeding. proceeding on the papers, submitting the evidence, and donald trump made it clear that his goal was delay, delay, delay. we're hearing more of the same today. there isn't more evidence. there's now less. so they have all of the material that they need to go forward. it's really the courtroom equivalent of saying my dog ate my homework. i think that certainly the judge will give the trump lawyers an opportunity to speak their mind, but i think by the end of the day, what we're going to see is a briefing schedule given the government a deadline to submit

its brief, given the trump lawyers to submit their response and then the government a chance for a reply brief, and a hearing date that gets set. the real question i'll be looking for is whether that date is before election day. >> ken, as the hearing continues with representing donald trump now facing these questions. what is he having to answer to? >> he's going to postpone this thing. what the judge the said was interesting. as i read it, the supreme court ruling requires us to deal with immunity meaning immediately. under your schedule, we wouldn't begin briefing until december. why? we don't have his answer yet on the google doc, but essentially, she's saying we need to move this along. we need to deal with this question of what are official acts, what the supreme court ruling allows in this case and

what it disqualifies. we need to have evidence on that before her. she's going to make a decision. and another thing that the special counsel said is we know there's going to be an interlocutory appeal. an appeal of whatever the judge decides up to potentially to the supreme court. we only want one. we want to delay this as little as possible. let's craft this so that whatever donald trump's side is apeelg, it's going to be in one appeal to get it done. this is only relevant if donald trump loses the election, because as we established earlier, if he wins, he makes these cases go away. if he loses, the special counsel is trying to craft a path forward to win this case in spite of the immunity decision by the supreme court. >> as i'm reading the notes being inserted into this google document in realtime, it almost sounds like donald trump's lawyers are asking for some kind of a mini trial almost before deciding how to proceed. because the judge asks, you want witness and testimony and

cross-examination? we have to deal with these issues. we want a process where we're entitled to full and fair discovery and we go first to argue our motion to dismiss. we feel your honor is going to dismiss this indictment after you hear from us in our motion papers. so what do you make of that? >> i found this to be an odd argument that they made in their joint report to the court. it seems like he's making it to the judge. he says essentially we should have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses. it would be prejudice to donald trump to submit this brief with exhibits and written proffers, examples of what their evidence is without us getting an opportunity to present our own witnesses and cross examine theirs. that sounds like you're asking for a mini trial, which seems like would not be in donald trump's interest, particularly before the election.

so i don't think that's where the judge is going to go. i think she's going to follow what the special counsel is offering, which is lay it all out in writing. if i need that hearing, if i need to hear from witnesses, if you want to present witnesses as well, then we can get there. but let me just lay out all the cards first and see where we are. one thing i will say is it is a breath of fresh air. theeds are the kinds of questions you'd expect a judge to ask to keep things on track, to keep things moving along to stop that delay. it's so different from judge canon, where it was a lot of questions and then just putting off making a decision. the fact that she's saying you're getting an order from me today means she's keeping this moving. >> and she says, let's discuss the sensitive time. i have said before, the election is not relevant here. the court is not kshed with the electoral schedule, she said. that's a direct quote. she says if you're talking about timing of legal issues with relation to when the election is, that's not something i'm

going to consider. quote, oh, i'm definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute. what's your reaction to that? >> i think she's made it clear all along that she is going to keep this case on trial and not be desueded in any way by the election schedule. one thing to remember is when people are concerned about whether this might in some way have some influence on the election. it is not just a defendant who has a right to a speedy trial. the public also has a right to the speedy trial. a judge is obligated to advances to that right. so for her to sit back and say we're going to let this election play out and we'll pick up where we left off would be to violate that constitutional right. the other thing i want to point out. if donald trump is elected in november, he will order his department of justice to dismiss this case. i want to pause and recognize

how extraordinary that statement is. we are assuming that donald trump will direct his justice department to kill a legitimate case. that would have been unthinkable just in 2017 when donald trump was president and robert mueller was investigating this case. but now hemoempowered by the supreme court's immunity decision to direct his department of justice to do anything illegal. >> when you talk about moving forward in this case, despite the election, help us understand why that would be appropriate when in the past we have talked about this rule with the justice department not taking actions that could potentially influence an election within a certain timetable. here we are just two months from the election. >> yeah, so the department of justice has as unwritten policy. it's a practice that within 60 days of an election, it should not initiate new criminal charges. and that's because in 60 days,

there's not really an opportunity for a defendant to defend him or herself. so if you conduct a search at their home on the eve of the election, it suggests that there's some sort of cloud of suspicion over this person. or if you file an indictment, it could have an effect on the electorate. this is a case that's been pending for well over a year. so in this instance, to stop everything because there's an election going on would really be to put the cart before the horse. this case has been proceeding the justice department did file well in advance of trial, and the court is advancing that right to a speedy trial. >> thank you, all. please stay close. we continue to follow the hearing now about 40 minutes underway. up next on "ana cabrera reports," another clue we're in unchartered political territory. a cheney has endorsed a democrat. could it move republican voters hesitant to go blue?

emergen-c crystals pop and fizz when you throw them back. and who doesn't love a good throwback? ♪♪ now with vitamin d for the dark days of winter.

sglnchtsz can you believe it. election day is exactly two months away. the first and possibly only debate is just about five days out. the rules for that abc news faceoff have finally been set, including the controversial muted microphones. former president trump is already claiming he won't be treated fairly that night. today he will speak at an

economic luncheon new york. vice president harris picks up her debate prep on the trail in pittsburgh. and last night, she picked up a prominent republican backer. >> as a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the constitution, i have thought deeply about this. because of the danger that donald trump poses, not only am i not voting for donald trump, but i will be voting for kamala harris. >> joining us now, vaughn hillyard awaiting trump's remarks. and republican strategist susan del percio, bacile smikle is here as well. vaughn, trump and vice president harris finally agreed to the debate rules. what are we learning? >> reporter: we're learning that the debate rules are going to look a lot like they did for the joe biden and donald trump debate this we saw back in june. and after some back and forth, the original terms that were put forward by the trump campaign.

and abc releasing those terms in part. there are no prewritten notes allowed for a response. each individual will have two minutes for their rebuttal. they will have an additional two minutes. then there's also the muted mic situation, their mic will turn to mute. so for the campaign pain, they should expect a debate to look like that, the one that we saw in june here. and when we're looking at the diementalics of this, this is different than we have his tortically seen in presidential debates. we should not expect to at least as the public to hear any interruptions from one candidate over the other. but this was a lot of back and forth. donald trump over the last 24 hours has made claims that he's putting into the right wing media system that abc is going

to be providing questions and answers to kamala harris. we are now less than a week until that debate. there was last night set to be potentially a debate that was going to be hosted by fox. kamala harris' campaign did not agree, so donald trump appeared for what was billed as a town hall with sean hanity. >> any reaction from team trump to liz cheney's endorsement of vice president harris? >>. >> reporter: we're waiting to hear from donald trump specifically. jd vance while out in arizona did respond saying the campaign had no interest in the endorsement of liz cheney, suggesting that it was people like her responsible for american troops losing their lives in war. and that she represented a republican party. it's no longer trump's republican party. so liz cheney, who helped helm the select committee efforts,

has been vocal ever since legaling congress that donald trump should be nowhere near the white house. as you heard last night, indicating she will be voting for kamala harris, which is a striking difference in tenor coming from her compared to four years ago when kamala harris was selected by joe biden to be the vp running mate. she sent out a statement at the time that was vocal in ore opposition to kamala harris as a political figure. a lot has changed in four years. >> vaughn hillyard, thank you. susan, do you see this cheney announcement changing any minds? i'm thinking nikki haley supporters? >> what it will probably do is act more like a permission slip to those republicans who weren't going to vote for trump, but were going to stay home. that's where the movement may go. she's not certainly changing independents or right-leaning or moderates even, but she can get some people out there maybe to say, wow, i really never saw myself doing this, but i will

actually go out and vote for the vice president. >> also, she talked about doing that, what you just said versus writing in a protest vote. somebody whose vote won't make a difference when it's just the matchup between kamala harris and donald trump. bacile, trump said he doesn't need more voters. should his team be worried about harris pulling some of these votes in on the margins? >> he may feel confident that his base is secure, but we're not talking about either candidate's base. we're talking about some of the persuadable voters in a handful of states that may have stayed home were it not maybe for a liz cheney endorsement, an open endorsement. so i agree what susan said. what we're looking at here is the ability for kamala harris to create a coalition that if for no other reason in the before or after this election, they come together to do this one thing. that's vote for kamala harris

for the presidency. so when i always say that campaigns are additive, you're supposed to grow your base beyond what you started with, that's what donald trump is not doing. he seems to double down on policies that shrink his base. that's where an endorsement of liz cheney helps. >> joe biden had that coalition too. he had a -- republicans have voted for joe biden in 2020. this is maybe they are not happy with harris, but they will -- that's where the cheney endorsement can be there. it's more of a continuation of the coalition of 2020. >> let's look ahead to the debate. there's a lot of anticipation. we all know what a debate can do for a race. look at what happened last time around and how much has changed because of that debate and since then. we have the ground rules now, including the mutes microphones, which both sides have agreed to now. do you see that being a big factor? we know kamala harris didn't want to agree to that rule. >> that's because it serves the vice president very well to be able to come back and make her

point. she's very good at the get go coming out. at the end of the day, she's so disciplined and knows how to manage her time and her words that i think she will be able the to watch the clock, deliver the shot she wants to, whereas donald trump will just get flat out cut off. >> donald trump isn't happy already. ahead of the debate, he's trying to lower expectations claiming that the deck is stacked against him. here he was with sean hanity last night. take a look. >> reporter:. >> i think a lot of people are going to be watching to see how unfair they are. i agreed to do it because they wouldn't do any other network. the other thing is her best friend is the head of the network. her husband's best friend is married to the head of the network. and they are going to get the questions. i have already heard they are going to get the questions in advance. >> to be clear, abc came out

today and really directly refuted that saying, no topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or the candidates. basil, what dough you think he's trying to do? >> it's his go-to move. i'm going to make sure that people think that there's no legitimacy to what's about to happen. that's his go-to move. what i also found interesting is he did this with sean hannity in front of his audience. that's also his go-to move. this debate will not have an audience. it gives kamala harris an opportunity to further make him the outlier that she's worked so hard to make him in the last couple weeks. make him the outlier, make him the person that does gives kama harris an opportunity to further make him that outlier that she has in the last couple of weeks. make him the outlier, make him the person not doing well to stand up to the kind of credibility she has. and you don't get the process reaction from the crowd, deal

delegitimize and that creates that juxtaposition very well. >> thanks so much. next here on "ana cabrera reports" more on the courtroom campaign trail, collision happening today. we're turning back to d.c. and the courthouse for more new details on the trump interference election case hearing happening right now. your moments are worth protecting against rsv. if you're 75 or older, or 60 or older with certain chronic conditions. you're at higher risk of being hospitalized from rsv. and there are no prescription rsv treatments. you have options. ask your doctor about pfizer's rsv vaccine. because moments like these matter. (vo) you've got your sunday obsession and we got you now with verizon, get nfl sunday ticket from youtube tv on us... and a great deal on galaxy z fold6... for a total value of twelve hundred and fifty dollars. only on verizon.

(jalen hurts) see you sunday! you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

♪♪ we are back with the very latest from the d.c. courtroom where judge tonya chutkan is working on scheduling issues in former president trump's election interference team. trump's team pushing for more delays because of the election. judge chutkan saying the election isn't relevant to their work. and back with us nbc's ken dilanian and former prosecutor christy greenberg. ken, bring us up to speed. what's the very late of the? >> reporter: ana, there's a

fascinating scene that leads to how judge chutkan approaches the case. john lauro, the lawyer for donald trump at one point said we're talking about the presidency of the united states? and judge chutkan said we're not talking about the presidency, i'm talking about a full-on indictment. what you're trying to do is the evidence in the case so not to impinge on the election. later when john lauro got back up, she said, i don't want to hear any more about the election. she made it clear here in contrast to judge aileen cannon who seemed to think that donald trump had to be treated differently. judge chutkan said that has nothing to do with these proceedings and shouldn't affect it. and then questions about the vice president pence, and the delaying motions.

wants to be a separate motion to dismiss out of bounds and immunity. the special counsel is responding that is not at all what the supreme court says. they left that in the argument because they say mike pence was acting as the president of the senate, not the vice president. and donald trump was acting as a vice presidential candidate, not as the president. and saying this is all one part of one big argument with proffers and court papers about what's in and what's out. judge chutkan should make a decision, it will be appealed. and that should be the end of it. donald trump's lawyers want multilayers that delay the case. >> ken dilanian, thank you for your reporting, giving the nitty-gritty details coming from the hearing. christy, let's pick up where ken left off with the issue to the pence conversations in trump. and his involvement in the entire case. laura was trying to argue for immunity on the trump/pence

conversations. do you think that qualifies amid the rules for presidential immunity? >> so, that aspect, those conversations between the president and then vice president pence, those are under the opinion considered official acts to which there's a presumption of immunity. but the supreme court said prosecutors can rebutt that immunity by showing these doesn't impinge in any way on the executive branch. so where you have pence acting instead as the president of the senate, that really has nothing to with the executive branch at all. i expect that's what the special counsel's office is going to be able to show. the one piece that really doesn't make sense to me, this argument that trump's lawyer is making that if you decide that the pence piece of the indictment goes away, then the whole indictment goes away. >> yeah. >> that's just wrong. there are multiple other schemes is here.

the fake elector, that had nothing to do with the mike pence conversation. even if judge chutkan agrees that, hey, these seem like official act where is there's immunity there's a whole lost other allegations in the immunity that could remain so his argument is flawed. >> so then the special couns can be tapped to come up with is official and what's not and convince the judge that their view is right. how complicated could that be? >> it's very complicated and the supreme court said as much that this is going to be really challenging for you and didn't really provide a whole lot of guidance for poor judge chutkan how she's going to do this. one clear from the readout from the court that we're getting is that judge chutkan paid no mind to the delay tactics. she's saying let's get this forward, there have been delays of over a year here working its

way through appeals. we're in no way sprinting towards the finish line here, but we do need to move the case forward. i expect the order for today will said the schedule. and i don't believe donald trump as lawyers are transparent the way it's working. >> there's now questions about the legitimacy of jack smith appointment. judge chutkan is saying to john lauro you didn't challenge special counsel jack smith in the case so why now? lauro is pointing to the concurrence in the ruling by eileen cannon, dismissing that separate case about the one in miami in mar-a-lago, involving the classified documents. so, do you see this argument and this path now working in judge chutkan's courtroom? >> judge chutkan is asking the right question. if this was such an argument

that special counsel jack smith appointed by the attorney general why didn't you make it before. you had a bunch of different motions to dismiss on a number of different grounds. why didn't you make it before? the reason is clear, because it's a loser. >> but justice thomas suggested it could be a legitimate motion to dismiss. >> he did. he did that without any briefing. neither party, not even trump, had raised this argument to justice thomas. and he took it upon himself to decide in concurrence that this was an issue when it hadn't been briefed. that is highly irregular. and improper. >> kristi greenberg, i have a thousands questions for you. but that's going to do it for our coverage now. i hand off to my colleague jose diaz-balart who picks up our

covege