looming over democracy, can presidents be held accountable for crimes committed in office. a unanimous ruling by the d.c. court of appeals rejected donald trump's claims of immunitity in the federal election case. the decision by the judges is a stinging rebuke of the ex-president in what has become a months' long push to get the charges against him dismissed. in their ruling, the judges make the point that while donald trump is a former president of the united states, he is in the eyes of the law, just another criminal defendant. for the purposes of this criminal case, frp has become citizen trump with all the -- any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him in this prosecution. prosecuting presidents for things they did in office would have a chilling effect, finding, in fact, the possibility of legal legal accountability would, in fact, be a boost to the rule of law. quote, the risk of criminal liability chilling...

long trial and the skr for a $370 million penalty. engoran is demanding to know by tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. if and what former trump ceo allen weisselberg may have lied about on the stand. he cites recent reporting in "the new york times" that suggests weisselberg is negotiating a deal with manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury. engoron writes this. i, of course, want to know whether mr. weisselberg is changing his tune and is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial. i do not want to ignore anything