chutkan accused matthew ms.ka another january 6 defendants over choosing trump and rejecting his argument that he traveled from texas to washington to engage i in legal political demonstration and chutkan declared in his october 2021 sentencing hearing that he went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from them in total disregard but lawfully conducted an election of capital in support of one man not in support of our country in support of democracy, the case of robert palmer at sentencing chutkan said mr. palmer you made a very good point, the people who exhorted you and encouraged invalid you to take action and delphi have not been charged. that is not the court's positi position, i don't charge anybody and i don't negotiate plea offers anatomy charging decisions i sentence people who pleaded guilty or have been convicted. the issue of who has or who has not been charged is not before me. i don't have any influence of that. i have my opinions but they are not relevant and you are corre

and i think it's for judge chutkan or the d. c. circuit. and that's why i said i think that this shows that the lawyers are really not in control, if they ever were. this kind of filing that you just don't make, and you don't make it at this time. >> andrew weissmann and neal katyal, thank you both very much for starting us off tonight. really appreciate it. thank you. and coming up, in the 21st century, they have been to attempted attacks on the capitol. the first, by al-qaida, led by osama bin laden on 9/11. the second by trump supporters led by trump on january 6th. that's next. [coughing] when caroline has a cough she takes robitussin. so, she can have those one on ones again. hey jim! hey! can we talk about your yoga breaks? sure. get fast, powerful cough relief with robitussin, and find your voice. ♪ robitussin ♪ if you have this... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist.

and i think it's for judge chutkan or the d.c. circuit. and that's why i said i think that this shows that the lawyers are really not in control, if they ever were. this kind of filing that you just don't make, and you don't make it at this time. >> andrew weissmann and neal katyal, thank you both very much for starting us off tonight. really appreciate it. thank you. and coming up, in the 21st century, they have been to attempted attacks on the capitol. the first, by bus al-qaida, led by osama bin laden on 9/11. the second by trump supporters led by trump on january 6th. that's next. at's next. ♪ (man) that looks really high. (woman) it is high. whenever you are ready. (man) are there any snakes? (woman) nope. (man) are you sure? here we go! (vo) it's time to push your limits. (man) okay. (woman) you're doing great! (man) oh, is that a buffalo? (woman) babe, that's a cow. (vo) the all-new subaru crosstrek wilderness. adventure on the edge. moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. i

there's a pending motion to recuse judge chutkan.it's about the fact that the doj is taking the skagway guns trump work in tandem with or against in some way trump's motion to recuse judge chutkan. >> well, look so it's important to note that this motion to recuse was -- excuse me, the motion to recuse was filed after the motion for a gag order. the special counsel had filed that motion previously under seal. i believe it was september 5th. but it only became public yesterday because of the order by judge chutkan. so even though there have been allegations about this motion for a gag order coming in just as trump seeks to recuse judge chutkan, those two things happened at very different points. so there is really not a relationship there in terms of the timing of it all. and i think that certainly judge chutkan will have in the back of her mind the fact that there is this pending motion to recuse, but to be honest, i find it to be a really frivolous motion, and judge chutkan has you know a lot of discretion again about whether or not

in another case, judge chutkan said, to the convicted defendant, you have made a very good point, one that has been made before, that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and valet due to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. the trump lawyers filing said judge chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that president trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying. in a written decision refusing to recuse herself from the case, judge chutkan said, at the outset, it bears noting that the court has never taken the position the defense ascribed to it. that former president trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. and the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar. instead, the defense interprets the courts verbal reiterations of defendant palmer and priola 's arguments about their relative culpability as suggesting a secret core view about defendant's criminality. that inferential leak is not reasonable

they also took what judge chutkan said out of context. what i mean by that, and she was talking about this one person who is out there still and hasn't been charged, that was in response to the defendant saying, why me? i was just here following the leader. so that was her responding. so you know those facts, and you know when you read the cases they cite, you realize that this is really a loser motion. >> my understanding is, there's clear supreme court precedent on precisely the question here, which is that you can't recuse over this, so it's not a live issue. that said, let's talk about the timing. that's what it's all about. it seems to me there's two strategies here. you want to delay as much as possible, and you want to get some issue up before scotus, prior to trial. am i right on that? that this is not going to be the issue? why not? >> it's to black and white, to open and shut. the idea that a well respected judge is going to be on these papers, as catherine said, that are so weak and flimsy ground and there's the gamesmanship. i

federal judge tanya chutkan denied donald trump's request that she recuse herself from the case. donald trump's lawyers filed a motion requesting her recusal based on two statements she made in court when sentencing two people convicted in the attack on the capitol on january 6th. in one case judge chutkan said during the sentencing that the defendant showed, quote, a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day. in another case judge chutkan said to the convicted defendant, you have made a very good point, one that has been made before, that the people who exhorted you and if couraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged. the trump lawyers filing said judge chutkan has the connection with other cases suggesting that president trump should be prosecuted. such statements before this process began without due process are disqualifying. in her decision refusing to disqualify herself from the case judge chutkan said at the outset it worths noting the defense has never taken the position ascribes to it. and the defense d

although judge chutkan herself was randomly assigned to it just last month. in response to trump team's filing she is giving prosecutors three days to file any opposition. ultimately judge chutkan herself is the only person who will rule on the motion for recusal. and in another court filing yesterday trump's attorneys asked a judge to throw out many of the criminal charges against him in that sprawling georgia election interference case. trump's lawyers filed several motions that piggyback off of arguments already put forth by some of his 18 codefendants. this push to dismiss trump's fulton county charges come as the former president's legal team has indicated that he might try to move the case to federal court. now, his former chief of staff, mark meadows, filed an emergency motion asking a judge to pause an order denying his attempt to remove his criminal case to federal court. it's a lot to keep track of. this comes just days after the judge rejected his bid to move the georgia election interference case to federal court, concluding that meadows, the form

that makes it a grave concern for judge chutkan. >> absolutely. lisa reuben, thank you. harry and charles are sticking with me to talk about trump's burning desire to testify in his own defense for some reason, because apparently, he hasn't done enough damage already with his repeated public confessions. "the reidout" continues after this. ♪♪ we're not an airline, but our network connects global businesses across nearly 160 markets. ♪♪ we're not a startup, but our innovation labs use new technologies to help keep your information secure. ♪♪ we're not architects, but we help build stronger communities. ♪♪ we're not just any bank. we are citi. ♪♪ ♪i'm hearing different ways for me to screen for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪ we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results ma

why is judge chutkan, why would judge chutkan add to this time period here. she's basically throwing an extra week on to a process that her original orders already described how it should be handled. >> yeah, but i think with this motion, at least the part of, it lawrence, we're all guessing because we can't read it all, but i think what this motion is about is what andrew said at the end. this appears to be a warning by jack smith, and i'm really glad to see it, that there is a filing by him that says, defendants don't behave this way. you don't get to attack prosecutors. you don't get to tack witnesses. you don't get to attack judges. and try to poison the jury pool. judge chutkan has already indicated, the best remedy, if trump is gonna do that, is to speed the trial timetable up. and make sure that that trial happens well before the 24th election. that, of course, is trump's nightmare scenario. he's scared like heck that he's gonna actually have to face a jury of his peers before the election. so, when i read this motion, it's basically a shot across the

they want judge chutkan to look at whether judge chutkan believes judge chutkan can hear this case?termine it for herself. something that she already likely already was thinking about as a judge, as most judges do when they look at this. and so, as a legal filing, it does have to be looked at by the judge. and she does appear to want to come to some sort of decision on this pretty quickly. she's asking for the justice department to weigh in. v in the coming days and trump to say what he wants to say again and then we expect to get a decision on this pretty quickly. but as a legal filing, these things rarely succeed. there are standards here about when a judge can recuse themselves. and so, it's not something that happens very typically in a case. in this sort of circumstance, it is possibly a legal filing trump's team wants to make because they believe they need to do this now so they can set themselves up for appeals further down the road. but they also may be wanting to make this as a public statement, saying that, you know, judge chutkan could be hurting this trial or the public'

why is trump asking for judge chutkan to recuse herself? >> reporter: well, donald trump is trying to get judge chutkan off of overseeing this federal case against him because he says she might not be fair and it could undermine the public's confidence based on what she's done as a judge already related to january 6th cases, so this is a filing coming in today in this case that she's overseeing and so donald trump is asking judge chutkan to remove herself, recruise herself from a case, this type of request is rarely successful, judges ofb are looking at themselves regularly on whether they should recuse and making that determination before a defendant would need to ask but trump is going to the court of judge chutkan and saying, please take yourself off the case, we don't think you're the appropriate person to see this case to trial, the january 6th federal case against donald trump, and the way that he is explaining it is that he is saying she was not fair in her sentencings of other january 6th defendants, rioters to donald trump that she

and judge chutkan has an potential card up her sleeve. she said early, on one of the reasons why this trial may move quicker is because of issues like this. if former president trump is not able to abide by the conditions of his pre trial release, which is what he's on right now, he's on pretrial release, she said that trout that he scheduled will happen perhaps even faster. i think if we see more infractions going forward, i can see judge chutkan revisiting the trial data and saying this case has to get tried before the jury has impacted four witnesses are intimidated, before victims are harassed. >> all right, we just got some video of donald trump talking about this this evening. we're gonna squeeze in a commercial break right here. we will be back with all of our guests and that video, right after this break. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time. ♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk. and help life underwater flourish. ♪ ♪ oh what a good time

i think he has been barreling towards a confrontation with judge chutkan. but one thing i wanted to focus on is what she has always said from the beginning, that, in her courtroom, that there is mr. trump, not president trump. i think that's what this is about. defendant trump has differently rights and limitations, and by virtue of being a defendant, he doesn't have unlimited first amendment rights. he's going to be able to campaign. he's going to be able to talk about this case generally. but what he can't do is follow the same pattern that we saw in our investigation into january 6th committee. as we know, with, for example, cassidy hutchinson, donald trump and his allies are willing to try to intimidate witnesses, to influence testimony, and to push people away from the truth. and judge chutkan, i, think will not let that happen here in this criminal case. >> congressman ted lieu, donald trump has responded to this already, this motion being made public, posting online, saying, biden prosecutor, deranged jack smith, has asked the court to limit the 45th

i think that is really what judge chutkan needs to take into consideration. not just the threat of moving up the trial which, of course, would not be to trump's legal advantage, but to the protection of herself and all of the participants, the jurors, special counsel's themselves. we've seen donald trump stoke and engage people to act in his wishes and interests of violence, and i don't see what would stop him from doing it again. >> renata, this moving up the trial jeopardize the fairness of the trial that donald trump could exploit, if he's convicted? to say, i was not given due process because i was not given a fair amount of time to prepare for this? i mean, on appeal, which i suspect if he is convicted, it would certainly do an appeal. would he be able to argue, look, she moved up the trial, claiming that it was because of my violation of these gag orders? but i get a right to appeal. >> yeah, there's no question that he's going to make that argument, but the constitutional floor, in terms of how much time you need to prepare for trial, is very, very low

this week judge tanya chutkan set a date for trump's trial. we now know it will be monday march 4th, 2024. if that does sound familiar to you, that's probably because you're familiar with politics and it happens to be just one day before what is perhaps the most important day in any presidential primary season. super tuesday. on march 5th, republican voters in over a dozen states are set to cast ballots for their 2024 pick. in total, you've got about one third of all delegates that will be up for grabs on super tuesday. that's more than any other day on the primary calendar. meaning the parties presumptive nominee could very well be decided right then and there, on that day. and since trump's lead over the republicans is growing, that means the disgraced ex president could officially become his party's pick, while his lawyers are in court, fighting for his freedom. just think about that for a moment. it's quite the split screen image. and here's how the atlantic's david graham summed up the impending uncharted political territory that we find

also remember, judge chutkan has another potential card uppers leave. as she said early on, one of the reasons why this trial may move quicker is because of issues like this. if former president trump is not able to abide by the conditions of his pre trial release, which is what he is on right now, he is on pre-trial release, then she said that trial will happen perhaps even faster. i think that if we see more infections going forward i could see judge chutkan revisiting that trial date and saying this case has to get tried before the jury is impacted, before witnesses are intimidated, before victims are harassed. >> all right, we just got some video of donald trump talking about this this evening, we're going to squeeze in our commercial break right here and we'll be back with all of our guests and that video right after this break. after this break ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 2

obviously judge chutkan decides whether judge chutkan will recuse herself here. is the likelihood of that happening? >> well, caitlin, when you don't have the law you argue the facts. if you don't have the facts, you argue the law. and if you have neither the facts or the law on your side you pound the table and yell like. that is what has happened here. this is yelling like heck to get judge chutkan off of this case. the claim it is because she is not impartial. of course, what they are relying on is the word she has used incentives saying those who have been convicted by juries and the involvement in the insurrection, so what they are really afraid of and what with his recusal motion or disqualification motion is all about, they don't want to judge chutkan on this case, not because they believe that she will be a fair. the trial just makes rulings on emotions, it is the jury that will decide whether or not donald trump will be convicted. what they're are worried about is if he is convicted, that she will be the sentencing judge and they have seen how she has re

evening, we begin tonight with breaking news, the former president calling out federal judge tanya chutkan to recruits herself from his case. that, a warning from his attorneys who say in their request, quote, only at this trial is administered by a judge who appears entirely impartial, could the public ever except the outcome as justice. as one of the federal cases against him, there's also breaking news in the georgia case, where trump and his attorneys have just filed a motion to have the entire indictments thrown out. cnn's paula reid joins us with more on that. so, let's talk about trump's request for the judge in the federal case for us to recruit herself. >> anderson, judge tanya chutkan was randomly assigned oversee the trump election subversion case. she was appointed by former president obama, she's been on the bench for about a decade. she has made her opinions and her views on the capitol attack pretty clear, as she has overseen multiple trials of rioters. she's also really earned a reputation for being pretty harsh when it comes to sentencing. kendis filing, trump's lawyers ar

he has repeatedly attacked judge chutkan personally.called the obama appointee, quote, a biased judge, highly partisan. his lawyers are trying to get her kicked off the case. i will note that when it comes to the other federal judge overseeing a trial against him, florida district judge aileen cannon, who he appointed in the waning days of his administration, as he was blocking the coup, actually. he's notably refrain from attacking her. and really doesn't seem to want to get her removed in this case. in the attempted coup case, his attack jack smith and the prosecutors, calling them a litany of derogatory names. trump established that attacking and threatening the prosecutors in this case would be his de facto method of fighting the case just three days after he was indicted, when he posted this in all caps, quote, if you go after me, i'm coming after you. now, what do you think the prosecutors in that office do with that? in fact, in this newly unsealed filing tonight, jack smith includes a screenshot of that post. he includes several

is judge chutkan herself.p's lawyers. in the legal filing trump's attorneys write although judge chutkan may genuinely intend to give president trump a fair trial and believe she can do so her public statements unavoidbly taint the proceedings regardless of the outcome. that's a pretty far cry from what trump has written calling chutkan, highly partisan, very biased and unfair. what kinds of things will she be considering when she makes her decision and i think a lot of folks agree with you, that she's not likely to recuse herself, but what is she supposed to look at? >> yeah. so the test for recusal is whether a reasonable person would fairly doubt the judge's impartiality. i think if you look at these statements she's made in court they cite as the basis for arguing she is tainted, are really just cases about the defendants who have come before her in some of the january 6th cases. they themselves have blamed donald trump and said he's the one who made me do this. the judge has said things like, look, he's n

what is your read on what chutkan we'll do here?uch is this a real possibility, given her comments in previous january six cases that i mentioned a moment ago, versus how much trump is a typically cynical trump delay tactic? >> i wouldn't expect this motion to have a very high likelihood of success. it would go before her in the first instance objectively. i don't think the motion is particularly strong. perhaps judge chutkan had to do it all over again again, would have phrased some of those comments differently. but i don't think it's seriously calls into question her impartiality. i don't expect it to slow things down much at all because this a particular complicated issue. she seems very keen to move things along. and she is very capable, it seems, of doing more than one thing at the same time. so it's a long shot. but, of course, you know, trump has multiple audiences, has he is navigating all of these cases. some of this may be about an earnest effort to get judge chutkan removed from the case, republic assumption, preserving

judge gertner, what's your reaction to the recusal request for judge chutkan? >> it's not surprising, but as paula said, it's not likely to succeed. the judge will make her own decision. and then the -- certainly trump could appeal. but every judge who has sentenced any of the january 6th demonstrators had to make a relative determination. where is this person relative to higher ups who may or may not be before me? where is this person relative to the nature of the crime? was this just, you know, a demonstration or was this essentially an attempted coup? i'm not certain that her remarks are any different than the remarks of any other district court, district of columbia court judge, republican or democrat, who's had to deal with these cases. >> andrew, as you noted earlier, the former president says, only if the trial is administered by a judge who appears entirely impartial could the public accept the kwoutcome as justice. is that a threat? >> anderson, i think at minimum it's a bit rich for the defendant, who has made, you know, a career out of attacking the

they argue that statements from judge tanya chutkan in other january 6th cases are, quote, inherently disqualifying. it is up to chutkan if she'll remain on the case or if another judge will be assigned. >>> flash flooding hit the northeast last night as storms moved through the region. rhode island's emergency least 30 water rescues were conducted in providence. >>> and apple is expected to unveil the iphone 15 today at the company's annual keynote event at headquarters in california. it will be livestreamed online beginning at 10:00 a.m. local time. >>> for more, download the cbs news app on your cell phone or connected tv. >>> it's tuesday, september 12th, 2023. this is the "cbs morning news." >>> sifting through the rubble. rescuers work around the clock to find those still alive in morocco as the earthquake death toll nears 3,000. >>> dramatic rescue. the american caver who suffered a medical emergency deep underground is hoisted to safety. the latest on his condition. >>> superstar sidelined. quarterback aaron rodgers gets injured on the first drive of his season. we'll tell you

judge chutkan's used to say, those are not or being said.id a sentencing. >> the president really talks about that within the courtroom, it was particularly scrutinized for a high bar, as a pose to public announcements, and might be presidential. it was speaking about, and it was going with there speaking. they did not address it to trump's guilt, of where that they should be charged. they made by those defendants, and are trying to lessen their guilt, saving their influence. so, the idea that as the court sets out an order, simply suggesting that the court may be suggesting that, that, really, is very far from meeting the standard. >> she is at a sentencing for the defendant in christine creola who is found guilty, for her role on january six, going inside of the capitol. lawyers asking for leniency, saying the trump, and his inner circle, or convince the election has been stolen. he writes, the former president was free at the time of sentencing, and undisputed fact, amongst which creola had relied for, her medication argument. but it went

judge chutkan has no reason to recuse herself.ump team just filed i would say is probably frivolous minus one. they have found two sentences essentially that judge chutkan othered during the course of sentencing. other folks who had attacked the capitol. and what she was doing was appropriately commented on the defenses. those defendants had offered. including, i was answering donald trump's call and he has not been held accountable. and she said, and i'm paraphrasing. you make a good point but that does not entitle you to a lesser sentence. and what is really interesting staff, i have read this motion from the trump defense team forward and backwards. there is not a single case that serves as precedent for the position that they are advocating. what you do when you look for precedent is you look across the country at any appellate court opinions, where a judge has said something that is at least loosely similar to what judge chutkan said in that court denounced it. and said that the judge should have recused. there is not a singl

donald trump is now asking judge chutkan to recuse herself from the federal election subversion casest him. straight to our senior legal affairs correspondent. so what is trump saying in this filing? >> well, judge chutkan is an obama appointee who was randomly assigned to oversee the trump election subversion case, but she's been outspoken about the capitol attack. she has overseen several cases related to this. different prosecutions where she oversaw a case against a rioter as well as sentencing. she has said things that the trump team believes should disqualify her in this case. for example, they point to a quote from an october 2022 sentencing where she said quote, the people who mobbed that capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man. not to the constitution. it's a blind loyalty to one person who by the way, remains free to this day. now the trump lawyers argue in this filing that the fact that she said that means she does not want him to be free and that she has bias. also pointed to another quote from december of 2021 where she said the people who exhorted you and en

neil chutkan -- we are waiting for trump's response from the team.ng for chutkan to make a decision about this protective order. we how does all of this way into that? his continued threats. >> trump was already on thin ice beforehand and remember that chutkan right from the start when she first brought him into the court and had the first hearing, he was burned. you have to stay within the lines. trump has been pushing those lines dramatically over the last six weeks. this tweet is further evidence of that. i have been hoping that chutkan won't call donald trump directly in the court and look at him and say you can't do that. it's not the way any criminal trial can operate. you are not special. you are a criminal defendant, donald trump. not president donald trump. >> we are waiting for the deadline tomorrow for trump's team to respond here. what are you anticipating the argument will be as they respond to the gag order request? re spond to the gag order >> a lot of whining about free speech and the first amendment. the first amendment does not prev

attorneys for the former president moved to have tanya chutkan recuse herself.gence correspondent, ken dilanian, and also an msnbc legal analyst. what kind of statements are trump's attorneys pointing to when it comes to them thinking tanya chutkan recusing herself. >> well, she has been known as a tough sentencer in the january 6th riots, and she made comments that seemed to elude to former president trump. in one case she told the defendant that the cap capitol rioters were pledged to one person, and what trump's lawyers are saying is that those comments seem to suggest that she believes donald trump was complicit in the capitol riots, and therefore can't be neutral. >> what can come into play when judges recuse themselves? >> they have to step down only when their impartialality. he requested why it was only the little fish being prosecuted for january 6th, and the judge said that was a good point but she doesn't have any influence over the charging decisions of the prosecutors. josÉ, i think trump's lawyers have to know this is a losing motion, but defense a

now judge chutkan has to make that determination.dy ordered trump to refrain from disparaging comments. that was during his arraignment. now the special counsel wants the judge to issue this official order in writing prohibiting trump from naming witnesses, making statements about them or really making any statements about anyone, including attorneys and maybe even potential jurors that are disparaging or intimidating. this is significant. it's a significant request from the special counsel because even though the judge warned trump once, this is asking the judge to make this order ironclad against trump and there could be repercussions if he violates this order. >> with me now to talk more about this is shan wu a former prosecutor and a defense attorney. so that's an interesting point jessica made. the warning has already come verbally. so if chutkan decides to put it in writing, how different would such a gag order or warning be? >> it's an important foundation the prosecution has been laying. they have been alert to this from the

>> well, this is a particular case from donald trump is settled to get this judge tanya chutkan off of the case that is set to go to trial next year, but it is an opinion worth noting, because this judge is asked to address political attacks that donald trump has brought into the courtroom, and something that is a tactic that he has tried in a number of the cases, and it continues on with the judges and the prosecutors are having to grapple with. in this particular case, he was trying to say that the judge chutkan should not be on the case, because of the sentences she had already imposed and sentencing two capitol riot defendants to jail time, and in those case k two of the capitol rioters had argued with the sentences that they should shift the blame to trump, and not fully responsible because for some reason they were at the capitol for donald trump, and she had rejected that in the sentencing, and now also rejecting donald trump's request here. one of the things she writes in the opinion is that her statements in the sentencing arose not as the defendant speculates from the news, b

the question is what is judge chutkan going to do about it? she has not issued the gag order. it's pending before her. i agree she is likely to do something. trump will violate that order and then the question is what does the judge do then? she's got the option of locking him up, holding him in contempt, imagine the firestorm that would create. she could also fine him for example $10,000 every time he violates. $20,000 the next time. she said during the arrangement that she would move up the trial if he acted the way that he usually acts with the threats and stuff. but now the trial is set for march 2024. not a lot of room to move it up even if she wanted to. >> matthew, do you foresee any realistic legal punishment that would stop donald trump from saying whatever he wants? there is a clear political upside to talking about smith and others and any fundraising off of it. he gets the crowds riled up and arguably any punishment would just feed into that. what do you think? >> first, any time donald trump calls somebody a de ranged lunatic i think about the idea al capone would

so, how does this affect whether judge chutkan imposes a gag order?i think it goes back towards judge chutkan said at one of the very first hearings in this case. which is, his campaign demands need to yield to a status as a criminal defendant. this is exactly what the topic is going to be at the oral arguments scheduled in two weeks time on this matter. it's not clear if trump actually broke the law because, in order to buy a gun in south carolina, you're gonna be a state resident. there's no indication that trump actually bought, it or actually came into its possession. but there's a general theme here, alex, the general theme is that he continues to seek special treatment for himself, and that's exactly the sort of thing that article three judges, in the district of columbia, thoroughly dislike. especially when their high profile cases. >> okay, hugo, thank you so much for weighing in and all that. we've been keeping a very close eye on the house chambers. we've got more on that right now. we'll see you again soon. we're going back to capitol hill,

this is not a good case for forcing judge chutkan to recuse. legal standard is whether a reasonable person out in the community watching her behavior would lack confidence she could conduct proceedings fairly. that's not a trump supporter. that's just a reasonable, objective person watching her behavior. trump's lawyers have pulled some convenient quotes out of context from hearings in january 6th cases. but when you read her transcripts and watch her behavior over the course of these cases, you see a former defense lawyer -- that's judge chutkan's background -- who has been exceedingly fair to defendants, extending them every courtesy and every possibility to make out their case. her comments when they have come have been accurate. they have reflected the facts. this effort to taint her as someone who has an ax to grind against the former president i think will be unavailing. i would expect her to deny the request. perhaps there will be an effort to appeal her ruling. i don't think that the court of appeals will force her to recuse either. and

what do you make of judge chutkan's response here?dn't think that judge chutkan was going to remove herself from this case, particularly not for any reason related to previous january 6th defendants. i think that people need to understand it's very common that judges will deal with issues that are overlapping with cases that they may not have already heard or may end up on their docket at some point, and so this is no surprise that judge chutkan, number one, is being faced with this issue and this question, nor is it a surprise that she responded in the way that she did. it's also important to understand it's not a surprise that donald trump and his legal team sought to try to have her removed from this case because this is number of -- this is among the different legal maneuvers that i initially predicted donald trump's team would seek to impose to elongate the trial and move as soon as they could. >> did they get that in that regard? >> they didn't. i don't think they understood or expected that it was going to get further than this

they argue that statements from judge tanya chutkan and other january 6th cases are, quote, inherentlyalifying. it is up to chutkan if she'll remain on the case or if another judge will be assigned. >>> flash flooding hit the northeast as storms moved through the region. rhode island's emergency management agency said at least 30 water rescues were conducted in providence. >>> and apple is expected to unveil the iphone 15 today at the company's annual keynote event at headquarters in california. it will be livestreamed online beginning at 10:00 a.m. local time. >>> for more, download the cbs news app on your cell phone or connected tv. i'm olivia gazis, cbs news, new york. >> announcer: this is the "cbs overnight news." >>> we begin tonight overseas with a race against time as rescue teams in morocco scour the rubble in a furious search for survivors. the area's strongest earthquake in more than a century has killed nearly 3,000 with thousands more injured. but those numbers are expected to rise in the hours and days ahead. the destruction and devastation are beyond words with at least

obviously judge chutkan decides if judge chutkan will recuse herself here.likelihood of that happening? >> well, kaitlan, when you don't have the law, you argue the facts. when you don't have the facts, you argue the law. and if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, you pound the table and yell like hell. and that's what has happened here. this is yelling like hell to get judge chutkan off of this case. and they claim it's because she's not impartial. of course, what they're relying on is the word she has used in sentencing those who have been convicted by juries in involvement in the insurrection. so, what they're really afraid of and what this recusal motion or disqualification motion is all about, they don't want judge chutkan on this case. not because they believe that she won't be fair. the trial judge just makes rulings on motions. it is the jury that will decide whether or not donald trump should be convicted. what they're worried about is if he's quicked, that she will be the sentencing judge. and they've seen how she has responded to

judge chutkan established emotions schedule. i believe all motions need to be filed by appellate particular date in october or november. there's a briefing schedule already laid out. i think she participated when she sat the trial date, the filing of the motions. but the question then will become weather, let's assume she denies a motion to dismiss. the president will say, this is all protected conduct. president of the united states, i can't be prosecuted for things that i do in my official capacity. if she says no, i disagree, this was beyond your official capacity. the question will become, does that get appealed immediately, or does that wait for the direct appeal? a lot of issues that are invents of trial are not appealed immediately. they wait until the event of a conviction and they get folded into the appeal of a conviction. that is uncertain. i do not know exactly what kind of motions he will file and whether they will be immediately appealable. so that is one possible delay. i don't think the filing of motions will be.

and it's -- >> there's nothing agree just -- >> exactly. >> part of -- judge chutkan's, judge chutkanrse, the d.c. district court judge, who has the other federal case, the january 6th case, has been on the bench for a long time, over a decade. judge cannon, i think this is like her third case, maybe? or fourth criminal case? i've got to imagine, it just takes that -- it took me longer to make a cable news show when i started ten years ago than it does now. i have got to imagine that's part of it as well, charitably speaking. >> yeah, i think that's fair. cases -- federal cases are complicated, even when they are typically more routine. this case is not going to be routine. the entire world is watching judge cannon. so, that could be reason as well. we are not going to have much inside unless she gives us insight into what is motivating her. >> yeah. and, to your point as well, though, it also shows up, that, unless you are affirmatively determined in the way that i think we got signals from judge chutkan -- like, you don't have to be colluding with donald trump and some active sense.

i mean, look at some of chutkan's past remarks. they're deeply troubling.om the bench in a j-6 trial, she accused the defendant of having blind loyalty to one person, and i'm quoting here, who remains free to this day. all right, what's she saying? she's saying that trump belongs behind bars without a trial, and she pronounced him guilty in the court of public opinion in a statement widely reported. so, you know, these are legitimate questions raised by trump's lawyers. she won't recuse herself, and that will simply add to the perception that this case isen -- is unfair. larry: on this recausal business, because i'm not a lawyer, is there no higher power here? is there no appeal? i mean, it's kind of goofy, as you point out. she's in charge of whether she should ree cause herself. isn't there somebody else in the world who should say, look, you've been biased and you're not qualified to run this case? the levin says she's not even qualified to be a judge. >> yeah. well, it's a two-step process. you go to the judge first in hopes that she'll actually be neut

now, chutkan is one of the toughest punishers of those defendants. here are just some of the comments that trump's team is citing to make that claim. quote, the people that mob the capitol that were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man, not the constitution, it's blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day. and in another statement, she said that the people who encouraged and rallied rioters to go to the capitol have not been charged, adding that she has her own opinions, but they're not relevant to the case. and finally, when she rejected trump's attempts to block white house records over the attack, she said, quote, presidents are not kings, and the plaintiff's not president. let's discuss this in more with former manhattan district attorney cy vance. he began the investigation that led to donald trump's indictment related to a hush money payment to adult film star stormy daniels in 2016. cy is in studio here with us. thanks for joining us. you are obviously very familiar with trump's tactics of really the defense tactic