chutkan's decision came just hours after a three judge panel at the d.c. circuit court of appeals ruled the trump is also not immune from civil liability. that ruling allows for a number of civil suits, not criminal,

tonight the judge, tanya chutkan, has denied two truck drop motions to have the government's case against him thrown out. fair warning, if you have to be watching for mar-a-lago tonight, the catch-up might be flying. judge chutkan begins with a robust takedown of the trump claim that is a former president he is immune from criminal prosecution. here's what it says, quote, whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the united states has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a life long get out of jail free pass. former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. they may be federal to federal mastication, indictment, prosecution, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office, and quote. judge chutkan goes on to explain why in america we have equal justice, quote, the public has an undisputed interest in promoting respect for the law, deterring crime, protecting itself, and rehabilitating offenders. all of those interests would be thwarted by granting former presidents absolute criminal immunity. most

tanya chutkan had a conversation about this as well today. she released information and who decided earlier about campaign. lead i want viewers to compare what they heard the fulton county court to what tanya chutkan wrote. she said when i first term president ops to seek a second term, his campaign to win reelection is not an official presidential act. the office of the presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next, and campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office. tell me how that thinking applies to what we are hearing from trump's attorneys about the fact that he can't be tried while he's campaigning and he certainly can't be tried when he's president, if he's president again. >> that's a really interesting question, because that's extending the analysis a little bit further. the argument that judge chutkan has made is that president trump might be entitled to certain immunity, but candidate trump is not. candidate trump is responsible for his conduct. and so there's an interesting question

to that chutkan wrote, "the defendant's interpretation of the clause collapses under the

out of jail free judge chutkan issue that ruling hours after the d.c. court of finally ruled that donald trump is not protected from civil lawsuits that are trying to hold him liable for the january 6th attack on the capital. it took the appeals court 20 months to issue that relatively simple ruling the, unanimous ruling by a three judge panel, which includes a trump appointed judge this is that donald trump is not entitled to immunity as an elected official because he was speaking as a candidate on january the 6th and not in his official capacity as president. in arguing that the court, wrote, in arguing he's entitled to an immunity in the traces for us, trump does not dispute that he engaged in his alleged actions up to january six in his capacity as a candidate. when he thinks it does not matter. rather, in his view, a president speech on matters of public concern is invariably unofficial function, and he was engaged in that function when

judge chutkan now by law you must stop everything you are doing. they make that argument based on a 5 to 4 decision last term written by justice kavanaugh it doesn't even say any of that. it was a mirror decision regarding arbitration not a criminal trial. so it's pretty much a hail mary argument that they're making here and judge chutkan is not shown a lot of tolerance for that. i don't think she will be playing along here, but of course have we as discussed for several minutes now, once this gets in the hands of the d. c. circuit, once it gets to the hands of the supreme court, higher courts always stay these proceedings once a considering the question. so it depends on way more on who is handling this in the courts above, and what judge chutkan decides what to do. >> that's the point. it seems comical that judge shotgun would be deciding on this day given where she is in the immunity appeal. he could appeal, that it could go to the d. c. circuit, and then to the supreme court. the d. c. circuit as been remarkably generous if you will in issuing

judge chutkan, by law you must stop everything you're doing. and they make that argument based on a 5-4 decision last term written by justice kavanaugh that really doesn't say any of that. it was a narrow decision involving arbitration, not a criminal trial. so it's pretty much a hail mary argument that they're making here. and judge chutkan has not shown a lot of tolerance for that, so i don't think she'll be playing along her. but of course as we've discussed for several minutes now, once this gets into the hands of d.c. circuit, the supreme court, higher courts almost always stay the proceedings, and so it still depends way more on who's handling this in the courts above. >> right, that's the point. judge chutkan, it seems sort of comical she'd be deciding on the stay given where she is on the immunity appeal to begin with. the circuit court has been remarkably generous, if you will, in issuing these stays even on the gag order. it returned to the status quo, which was donald trump was ungagged and continued to make inflammatory, dangerous c

chutkan rejected that argument saying in part, quote,

i think that is the point that judge chutkan is making here. she has reiterated this idea that trump, although a former president, he is still a criminal defendant. and that is something that has been a theme throughout the way that she has handled this case. >> scott, there's another argument that trump makes that is sort of less novel. i think was serious. i think are all pretty unserious, which is this first amendment argument. and to anna's point, they are sort of starting to trot that out in georgia and other places. oh, it's illegal to say an election is stolen? and the point that chutkan makes in her opinion, yeah, certain speech and furtherance of a crime is illegal, that's not protected by the first amendment. you can't say you've got to pay up or my boys are going to come break your head in. well, the first amendment allows me to do it. >> you certainly can't. and you know, if trump believed the election was stolen, he could stand at the highest skyscraper in new york and say that. and his speech is protected. but here, let's think ab

attack on the capitol on january 6th, in which they were injured, then, late friday night, judge chutkan, presiding over the criminal case of united states of america versus donald j trump, wrote that she, quote, cannot conclude that our constitution cloaks former presidents with absolute immunity for any federal crimes they committed while in office. nothing in the constitution's text or allocation of government powers requires exempting former presidents from that solemn process, and neither the people, who adopted the constitution, nor those who have safeguarded across generations, have ever understood it to do so. defendants for your service as commander in chief did not put still on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. no man in this country, not even the former president, is so high that he is above the law. judge chutkan noted donald trump's unique status as the only former president of the united states to be charged with crimes, saying, defendant argues, in essence, that because no other former presidents have been

no matter what, judge chutkan has issued a stay. the thing is frozen in time as it stands right now. and i wonder how surprising you think that is on the part of judge chutkan and how meaningful it is in terms of trump's broader goals and delay everything here. >> it is not surprising in that jack smith effectively conceded that that was the right result. that an appeal on a motion to dismiss where the questions presented are ones of constitutional import. his presidential immunity argument is effectively a constitutional one. he's saying yes, i acknowledge that that deprives the trial court of jurisdiction and things have to pause. at the same time, what is notable about judge chutkan's decision today is her carving out a room for her still to exert some authority over the gag order which she can still in force and over trump's conditions of release. those are the rules by which he has to play as a free person having been criminally indicted. and over the protective order that governs the voluminous discovery that he complained of,

talk to us about what judge chutkan had to say today. >> anderson, chutkan has been out of it that this case will go to trial in march. tonight, she saying, look, that might slide. she's had to put the proceedings on hold. and she has to do this because you really can't put on a case when the court of appeals is considering issues that could render the entire thing moot. this is also what we saw earlier this week, special counsel jack smith asked the supreme court to just step in and decide these issues. so they can go to trial on time. notably tonight, the court of appeals, which is the next scheduled step, unless the supreme court weighs in, they set an expedited schedule for hearing these matters. even if they move quickly, ultimately, the supreme court is gonna have to weigh in before the trial can begin. >> why is the supreme court considering whether part of a federal obstruction law can be used to generate six cases? >> this is so interesting, they've decided to look at a certain part of federal obstruction law. and depending on how they define that, and how they decide that that

judge tanya chutkan of the d.c.d donald trump's request for a stay of all proceedings in his d.c. criminal case writing that trump's appeal on presidential immunity grounds has forced her hand. all pending deadlines and court dates in that case will be stayed but not vacated. this is about the appeal to the supreme court that donald trump has presidential immunity. donald trump didn't appeal to the supreme court, jack smith did. the supreme court said yes, it will consider considering it. it will ask donald trump's team to come up with a response to jack smith by next wednesday, i believe. december 20th, and now judge chutkan is saying until the supreme court rules on this, she's going to put everything on hold. she's not vacating it. it's going to put everything on hold. back with us, msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, did i get that right? >> you did. and what i would say about this order, it's a very short opinion and order, katy. it's three pages long. is judge chutkan is saying that the trial is stayed and pretri

that is what tanya chutkan did. it is the honorable thing to do. >> with that -- >> and again -- the who've ill hooville -- >> rocket docket -- and the supreme court, it's going to be decided, i think, the most likely, nobody knows for sure -- the ads cluster around 60 days -- and you just go from march, to april, to may, maybe to june you can still get a trial in before the election. and that's -- >> of course, all of this while judge chutkan maybe pausing it, those who are building the case and preparing the trial, are not stopping, or they ought not to stop -- kenneth chesebro, for example, we heard the audio tape -- information about what he is telling those in different states. that is a very important point. because the witnesses, those who might testify against trump and other actors, they will not have a pause in preparation. they will still be held to account for that guilty plea, for what they must say on trial truthfully. they don't have a break. >> while you were prosecuting, you know the prosecutors don

two weeks ago, the judge in that case, judge tanya chutkan, denied trump's claim that the entire case be null and void because of, quote, presidential immunity. trump's lawyers immediately appealed that decision and asked judge chutkan to stay the case until the appeals court can rule on the question of immunity. today, judge chutkan granted that request and she clarified exactly what that means for the future of this case. if jurisdiction is returned to this court, the court will, consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties, consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for march 4th, 2024. so this case is on hold until the immunity question makes its way through the appeals process. once that is done, judge chutkan will see whether the trial schedule still works, or if it has to be delayed. that means that the final decision on this appeal and how quickly that decision is made is very much a live issue that could potentially delay or even destroy the s

appeals court reinstated the limit gag order that was based on donald trump by a tanya chutkan in special counsel jack smith's case against a former president for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. in a 68-page opinion, judge persha -- wrote, quote, like any other criminal defendant mr. trump as a constitutional right to speak. also like any other trump defended, mr. trump does not have an unlimited right to speak. in particular, the public has a compelling interest in ensuring that the criminal proceedings against mr. trump is not obstructed, hindered or tonight, but is fairly conducted and resolved according to the judgment of an impartial jury based only on the evidence introduced through the court, and quote. now, under the new conditions that the gag order, donald trump is prohibited from making any public statements about witnesses, court staff, lawyers, their families.nsel staff or but in a break from judge chutkan's original gag order, trump is now free to resume is verbal attacks on jack smith. quote, the order should not have restricted speech about the spec

and i'm quoting from george washington, which judge chutkan quotes from. cunning, ambitious, and an principled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and usurp for themselves the reins of government. that is clearly a reference to the allegations here in the case before her, with respect to donald trump. >> it's pretty stunning. given that was literally hundreds of years ago, as everyone knows, what that could see ahead to and what our founders were thinking about. neil, one of the big questions here is of course what happens now? and there is this theory, of course, that this will go to the supreme court. you've said this ruling is such a slam dunk at the supreme court, that they're not likely to take it up. given how many cases you've argued, i thought that really stuck out to me. why don't you think they would. >> because everything donald trump says, like in those clips you just showed, is bogus. like, 100 percent bogus, jen. i've talked constitutional law 20 times at georgetown, i've been the presidents top lawyer before the supreme c

so let's take the chutkan peace first. it is considering federal law and federal constitutional defenses. she was very clear to say that her decision deals only with the case before her. she's not necessarily saying that he's not entitled to immunity, for example, in a state prosecution. but what she is saying is the text, the structure, the history of the constitution, affords a president no absolute immunity for apps acts that he takes while he is president, period, full stop. the appellate court's decision is really different because it's nixon versus fitzgerald, the supreme court already said the president is entitled to absolute immunity first official acts in a civil case for damages. and so based on that, the question for the court of appeals was really was donald trump acting in an official capacity with respect to the allegations brought by the members of congress in the police officers who sued him civilly for their injuries? they decided that at this stage, taking allegations made by those plaintiffs as true, as

chat chutkan's moving very fast. i think the supreme court will probably take the case, just because it screams constitutional issue, i wish they wouldn't take it. >> yeah. and the immunity question in the criminal case in d.c. with judge chutkan january 6th, that has to be settled before trump goes to trial. it has to be as a right for a criminal defendant. >> yeah, they could decline to take it to the court of appeals, but i don't think they will. >> do you think the supreme court could say, yes, you have immunity in that case? >> i think it's legally very unlikely. they haven't been fans of his arguments and this seems like a no brainer. >> allll right, very good. thank you, guys, really appreciate it. >>> coming up, we're following some breaking news. a news conference in los angeles under way right now. we're going to show it to you -- there it is -- about a possible serial killer targeting the homeless. we'll break that down for you in just a few moments. you're live in the "cnn newsroom." >>> breaking news. po

back to this judge chutkan. dc judge of liberal persuasion but, while trump 's appeal issues of presidential immunity and while they appeal issue of double jeopardy, chutkan said he will stop the presses and postpone any court hearings until the supreme court make up their mine, i guess that is true for the federal court, the u.s. court of appeals even though special counsel trying to get around it walk us through this this came out yesterday. as your show hit. and -- i don't know it sounded interesting and promising. >> yes, i yes, it is interesting. default position of federal law is that you try whole case including the litigation in the trial court first, then after it is all over, if there is a conviction a jury verdict and a sentence then the whole thing go to the court of appeals, there are hain full of issues that courts allow you to get pretrial appeal on. and one of them is immunity, because if you have immunity from prosecution the offense is having the trial, not just potentially getting convicted. t

donald trump rejected judge tanya chutkan says the ex president is not immune for prosecution related to the capitol insurrection. then, donald trump silenced the gag order in his civil fraud trial has been reinstated, and power to the people, activists are pushing abortion rights measures to beat critical swing state ballots in 2024. i'm ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. >>> we begin this hour with major news out of washington d. c., breaking late last, night u.s. district judge tanya chutkan has denied two of trump 's motions to dismiss the federal elections interference case that was brought forth against him. first, chutkan world presidents do not have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution that falls within their responsibilities, except i impeached and convicted in the senate. quote, whatever immunity is a sitting president may enjoy, the united states has only one chief executive out of, time and that position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free card. chutkan also said, trump's indictment also does not violate the first amendment rejecting a second motion to

what's happening at the trial level before judge chutkan in washington, d.c. is trump essentially wanted her to pause everything. the justice department said no, we're doing a bunch with appeals. they're going to the supreme court. they're trying to get an order very quickly. determining what is happening here and what judge chutkan said is the trial date is still standing. it's still march 4th but that doesn't mean that the rest of the things that are happening in this case don't have to pause. while the supreme court determines if they want to do anything, what the appeals court above her might do and so now essentially all of the things that donald trump's lawyers would have to do to show up in court to determine to get to trial, they're not going to have to do that right now. but there's still a gag order over trump and bail conditions and this case still exists and the trial date still is in march. >> very interesting. the supreme court meanwhile is taking up a different issue that could potentially impact trump's criminal charges. tell us about that. >>

also rejected his broad claims of presidenti immunity, which prompted tanya chutkan, the jue and jack smith's federal write, quote, defendants for your service as commander-in-chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens, and quote. those legal losses haven't curbed his legal team's efforts to escape or at least postpone his prosecutions. at a hearing on friday, his lawyers went as far as to argue a trial in the fulton county, georgia case this year, would constitute election interference. >> can you imagine the notion of the republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is in some form or fancy in a courtroom? that would be the most effective election interference in the history of the united states. >> now, let fulton county judge scott mcafee make the final judgment on that. these recent rulings and arguments are reminders that there are still a number of complex issues to resolve as america, for the first time, considers the prosecution of a former president who i

the judge, judge chutkan, wrote really a, quite a an opinion. she knew it would be reviewed by the supreme court ultimately. this is an historic writing. she engaged in. and it's well done. i don't think it is reversible. >> and i was going to say, how do you see this playing out, if this goes all the way to the supreme court? do you think it will go to the supreme court? >> the question on the court is, of course, trump's tactic is to try to delay. i don't think she's given him much room to delay. to delay, they have to get a stay from the court of appeals in the district of columbia that says, hey, you have to halt the criminal trial. i think the opinion is strong enough that they might deny his effort to get a stay and discovery will go on in the case. the proceedings will go on. and so it will not tie, it won't tie the case up as it goes forward on the appellate process. you know, a president, any defendant is entitled on a fundamental issue like immunity to actually go to appeal and see if indeed that is the case. i think it will be expedit

it affirmed him whether it's judge chutkan or the d.c. on friday, whether it is beryl howell, the former chief judge who has been admonishing and holding rudy giuliani to account. you have some of the examples of judges. i should say, the 11th circuit judges who were appointed by both parties, where people could act out of principle. another thing she talked about, and jen talked about, this idea, for donald trump to get away with this, he has to have enablers. what you are seeing in the courts is a place where facts and law matter, or people are rising to the occasion, where they're not enabling that kind of lawless behavior, and that kind of ignorance of the facts. that is if you are looking for a bright light in this time, that is a place you can look. >> barb mcquade, it would include the 60 or so judges who made rulings in all those phony election cases that donald trump brought. >> yeah. sometimes, the judiciary is referred to as the least dangerous branch. it could be incredibly dangerous branch if the judges were not respecting th

>> they're asking for a state of all proceedings before judge chutkan. it's not just a pause in the trial, it's a pause of everything. pretrial motions, discovery, et cetera, until his appeal can be fully resolved. that means not just an appeal to the d. c. circuit, but potentially an appeal to the supreme court. so when you talk about running out the clock, it's certainly possible that we could get through this appellate process and give judge chutkan time before the 2024 election to try this case. but donald trump is going to try every play in the book, both to stay the case pending appeal, and then to delegate that appeal and not expedite it so that he doesn't have to be tried before november, in the hopes that by january he can stop this case dead in its tracks. >> now we get into some complicated procedural questions, but hang with me here. chutkan, i think, i'm going to bet, is going to say no, i'm not gonna do that. you're free to do an appeal. we'll keep things moving along. we've got till march. you do your appeal. the trains could move on paral

. >>> donald trump is appealing district court judge tanya chutkan's denial of his motion to dismiss his d.c. indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. you'll recall last week the judge said that trump's position as president did not give him license to commit crimes. she wrote, quote, defendants for your service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. trump's appeal was expected but sets up a fight that could reach all the way up to the supreme court. it raises a very important question. could this impact the start of the trial, scheduled currently for march 4th? now less than three months away.

like what could chutkan actually say, what could her ruling be? could she basically say, hey, anysi reference to undercover agents is thrown out? would that limit to what trump would say in trial? what's a ruling actually like. >> that's definitely it because these are rulings you could otherwise make during the heat of the trial,de and smith is saying let's do this up front and let's get this off the table. look, if you're doing -- it's notou simply these things as ry detailed are far-fetched, they're illegally irrelevant. the jury'sga job is to decide t truth or i falsity of the charg, not to nullify the charges for some political sympathy. so if she has made this ruling, andhi i believe she will, and a ryan saysan they've done it in other settings, then when trump -- and i believe he will -- try tuesday inject it in one way or another. did you think that possibly bi -- objection, your honor, sustained. so itje shuts it down right awa because there's already a ruling inal place and she can rapp on e lawyer's knuckles right away. ifs she has said

judge chutkan's ruling.people are going to be referring to it and people will refer to it subsequently in legal settings and otherwise. but she quotes from 1947 opinion from the former supreme court justice frankfurter in which he says, "if one m can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. that means first chaos, then tyranny." which seems to be kind of the point for donald trump. he seemed to have been otherwise missing the point that he does think he's that man who can decide what the law is. >> yeah, ali. ultimately, that's the underlying danger of donald trump, someone who sees himself as above the law and in this case has made that argument explicit. it's kind of the ultimate nixonian defense, that if i did it i can't be held liable. i am nowhere near the attorney that mary and andrew are, but i would say this. this is one of those arguments in cases that interweaves perfectly with donald trump's political interest as well, and it's because of this. we always know that donald tru

the district judge tanya chutkan rejected that. ordinarily what would happen next is donald trump would appeal up to the court of appeals and then maybe up to the u.s. supreme court. however, what jack smith has done here is ask to do a shortcut, basically he says i want to skip the court of appeals, u.s. supreme court, i want you to take the case directly. it's something they don't do often, but they do from time to time. a couple major things happened yesterday. first of all, the court of appeals issued a ruling saying if we get the case, if we don't get skipped, we're going to mega expedite this thing. judge chutkan said while all of this is playing out, i'm going on pause. she's actually legally required to do that. doj and donald trump agreed that she had to do that, and she said, yes, you're right. she has to stop everything she's doing while this case is playing out through the appeals. >> so then the question becomes how does that impact, a trial that was set to begin in march. the trump campaign for its part saying this is

what could chutkan actually say? what could her ruling be? would she be able to say hey, any reference to undercover agents is thrown out? with that limit what trump could actually say at trial? what's a ruling he would actually like to come down before we hear some of the rules about january 6th? >> that's definitely it. these are rulings that you could otherwise make during the trial, during the heat of the trial, and smith is saying let's do this up front and get this off the table. so look, it's not simply that these things, as ryan detailed, are farfetched. they are legally irrelevant. the jury's job is to decide the truth or falsity of the charges, not to nullify the charges for some political sympathy. so if she has made this ruling, and i believe she will, and as ryan says they have done it in other settings, then, when trump, and i believe he, will tries to inject it in one way or another, did you think possibly that biden -- objection your honor. sustained. it shuts it down right away because there is already a ruling in place and y

chutkan's decision came just hours after a three judge panel at the d.c. circuit court of appeals ruled the trump is also not immune from civil liability. that ruling allows for a number of civil suits, not criminal, civil suits that are seeking to hold trump accountable for the events of january six, including ones that were filed by capitol police officers and members of congress. now these opinions on the presidential immunity question will likely be read and studied for years to come. they addressed one of the unaddressed questions that's come as the judicial bodies consider for the first time the prosecution of a former president of united states who is also currently campaigning for another four years in the white house. it also highlights that trump's far reaching attempts to escape prosecution are continuing, when i was also in full display in a courtroom in atlanta, georgia yesterday, where trump's lawyer steve sat all appeared for the first time. and argued in setting a trial date right now in fulton county's election interference case. now in fu

has maintained most of judge tanya chutkan gag order against them. trump cnn paul reid joins us now. paula, at the center this argument judge chutkan was concerned that trump's rhetoric could threaten witnesses or create more danger for federal ploys. trump's argument was he has the first amendment and he's running for political office. ultimately, the appeals court appearing to side with judge chutkan. >> that is right. here the federal appellate court has largely affirmed this gag order that limits former president trump's ability to publicly criticize court staff, prosecutors, and potential witnesses in the election subversion case. the gag order had been suspended while this appeal was working its way through the courts. in oral arguments right before thanksgiving these judges expressed some skepticism over whether this gag order really interfered with trump's first amendment right. as he noted, these restrictions were put in place by judge tanya chutkan. she is the judge overseeing the election subversion case here in d.c. scheduled to go to tri

judge chutkan's previous order barred statements, quote, targeting witnesses, the new version prohibits public statements about known or roamly foreseeable witnesses in the proceeding. the -- judge patricia mai will. litt writing -- we do not allow such an order lightly. there is a strong public interest in what he has to say, but mr. trump is also an

donald trump appealed a decision by the trial court judge, tanya chutkan, in which judge chutkan denied donald trump's claim of complete immunity from criminal charges from any conduct during his time as president of the united states and his claim that he was immune from prosecution in the january 6th case because donald trump's lawyers say that that would be double jeopardy because donald trump already was subjected to an impeachment trial in the united states senate on essentially the same charges. last week, this appeal by donald trump seemed like business as usual, when the federal court system, with the united states court of appeals and washington, d. c. having jurisdiction over the trump appeal. with an unlimited amount of time, to consider that appeal. and as i complained on this program last week, the appeals court could take a year to decide an appeal like that if they wanted to. and after the appeals court decision came down, losing side will surely appeal to the united states supreme court which could then take, who knows, another year. jack smith decided not to play that g

judge tanya chutkan, who is handling the federal election case in d.c. ruled against trump earlier on that issue this month. saying, quote, the court cannot conclude that our constitution quotes former presidents with absentee unity for any federal crimes they committed while in office, and quote. trump quickly appealed to the d.c. court of appeals, which agreed to take it up on an expedited basis, and because the court of appeals agreed to do so, chutkan acknowledge that the court of appeals now has jurisdiction over the case. which means that chutkan has to pause her proceedings until the court of appeals hands down its decision on this one specifically, the question regarding immunity. all that really means is that the pretrial motions, and the deadlines in chutkan's case are, at the moment, irrelevant. they will be re-once the issue is resolved. but this is not a setback for the prosecution. it does not necessarily mean the trial will be delayed. chutkan herself left the door open to keeping the original march 4th start date for the trial. at the sam

as we have seen judge chutkan right, as we saw the d.c. circuit court of appeals right in a civil matter, when donald trump was pushing to change the outcome of the election as alleged in the indictment, he was acting as a candidate. he was wearing his hat as a campaigner. he was not executing the duties of the presidency. because he wasn't acting in that role, none of his conduct is covered by any immunity that he might have. >> and andrew, i can just hear it now, when we're in the supreme court argument on this. and justice kavanaugh asks any question at all of the government, these words from justice kavanaugh 25 years ago are going to be repeated, if not already in the brief. >> absolutely. he's going to be very aware. all the other justices are going to be very aware. and of course everyone already knows he was part of a sort of type of special counsel and so he has written and has views that he has voiced about this not exact predicament, but pretty darn close. that's why i just think he and justice roberts, i think, are going to be,

judge tanya chutkan refused to dismiss trump's charges in the election subversion case in washington, d.c. she said the constitution does not grant presidents absolute immunity from federal crimes committed while in office. >> now she is also stressing that the position doesn't confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass, the issue must likely be settled by an appeals court above the judge before trump's criminal trial.

now, in response to judge chutkan's ruling in the d.c. case, the rhetoric amped up a little bit more. he said that the,uo, radical democrats and president joe biden are trying to, quote, set a dangerous presidents that would cripple future presidential administrations and our country as a whole, in their desperate effort to interfere in the 2024 presidential election action. there you have it. let's not forget, that he is at the same time as these cases are making their way through the courts, also running in the 2024 presidential election, trying to get through this primary, and then on to the general. look, these two rulings are troublesome for the former president. the federal appeals court ruling allows a number of pending cases that we're waiting for what the three judge panel were going to do, that we're waiting to proceed. now, they can move forward, because of what happened here. the ruling from judge chutkan rejects one of trump's best and only claims to try to dismiss this d.c. case. now it is absolutely moving forward. one line