, filed his reply to donald trump's effort to stop the trial and the win that jack smith got in that appeals court. they are citing donald trump's alleged effort to perpetuate himself in power, the charged crime strike at the heart of our democracy, and smith says the supreme court should not stay or delay this case, that the trial should commence on the planned schedule, which means if he won, jack smith filing this tonight, that trial could begin in a matter of weeks. this is the big case everyone has been watching. we have a special guest who agreed to jump in unscheduled because we are following two breaking news stories. andrew weissmann has experience in exactly these kinds of probes. he was fbi general counsel, he knows these cases quite well. andrew, welcome. >> good morning. good afternoon, i should say. i'm busy reading as you can tell. there's a 39-page filing that was made just moments ago by jack smith. >> so let's start in that filing, and that's why we go to you in terms of reading it, one of the basic kind of baseline points that jack smith makes early and that you hav

i think jack smith is that he certainly projecting that jack smith by reputation is a hard-driving prosecutor, you, ryan goodman is a former special counsel at the department of defense, and a >> professor at nyu. >> he has gone after a political corruption on both sides of the aisle. democrats and republicans, he's also somebody who served as a war crimes prosecutor and has indicted data sitting president in kosovo. so he's that kind of an individual that moves fast and moves aggressively at the same time that also might come with some risks. >> why is there some criticism that he overreaches? >> well, if you look at jack smith's history, his three highest profile cases for this, all of them have failed either at the trial level or the appellate level. and so the criticism is, well, he's overeager, he's over anxious >> what is going to be one of the toughest hurdles for jack smith's team to overcome everything in this case will turn on what donald trump's state of mind is and whether there was corrupt intent all the facts they played out on national television. the speeches have been played

jack smith took one day. they could go home for valentine's day at dinner. that's how fast they were. for me, the challenging part for jack smith was had to face all the glaring areas in trump's filing while still staying within the supreme court's word count. but nonetheless, this brief today wrote itself. and this question, what we call a stay, it's really the ball game. it's, do you put this trial on pause? because trump's entire strategy, he knows absolute immunity is a total dead loser. it's all about delay. and if he can delay the trial enough, then -- his hope is he can become president and ordered the trial to be stopped. and next. >> neal, in what jack smith filed today, what stood out for you? >> a couple things stood out for me. one is just how muscular jack smith was about the allegations against the president. he didn't mince where it's and say that this would basically put the president totally above the law, that it was inconsistent with our entire tradition for 200 years and the like. so that's one thing. the other is, i think he did a very g

but according to jack smith's indictment, thank you very much. donald trump attempted to wield that influence in an effort to hold onto the presidency how do you view the level of pressure that trump placed on the department of justice? >> does ever been anything like it because donald trump was so desperate bid to hold onto power that he didn't care about the rules >> but leadership at the department of justice did care about the rules and was not bending to the pressure leaders in the department of justice told the former president that there was no outcome determinative fraud for them to launch an investigation to overturn the election. so as part of the pressure campaign and the permanent address, this this is where mr. jeffrey clark kind of rose to prominence. >> jeffrey clark is environmental lawyer lower-level person at the department. he was a completely unremarkable figure >> at a january 6 committee hearing, former acting attorney general, jeffrey rosen, testified about president trump's call to him on christmas eve, 2020. >> did he men

okay. >> then there is this other trial that jack smith is bringing forward. and this other case that involves him for activities after his presidency. this is the culling classified documents case now, for that one that's in florida because that's where this mishandling allegedly took place. and trump has a trumping judge, who has been making rulings that the trump lawyers have liked. what is the status of that one? >> well, that one is right now scheduled to go to start in may, but no one believes that that's coming to happen. i think as matter of fact, on friday when we have a very important court hearing in fort pierce with judge aileen cannon. i think we might get a little bit of clarity on that because it's clear that trump team wants that delayed, but they only want to delete a certain amount of time. katelyn polantz reported just a few days ago that the strategy there is to move the date just a little bit in order to make it difficult for the dc case that the case that is overseen by judge chutkan for that to even get on the calendar. and so the idea j

that's special counsel jack smith tried to impose upon them way back in december when jack smith went to the supreme court and said, justices, please take up this case now so that we can get a clear answer. this is yours to answer. and then once the dc circuit once the supreme court said no, we're not coming in and the dc circuit ruled that was another several weeks, so president trump's former president trump's effort to run the clock has a partner in the supreme court at this point, even though jake probably in the end, the justices will agree with the dc circuit and say and reject president, former president donald trump's claim of absolute immunity. >> but >> what good will that do for any kind of trial before we're really into the heat of this next presidential election. >> so just, just to recap, joan the us supreme court is not going to just like defer to the appeals court. they are going to hear the argument about whether or not donald trump has immunity. can say that what he did as president is he's immune from prosecution because he was president at the time. do we have any

now, having said that, jack smith has things he can do. he could make an argument to the judge that 88 days should be shortened, that that time frame she had given before isn't needed. it was too generous. they could also shorten their trial. they could say that we are not going to do -- >> let me jump in. i'm only jumping in because now it's feeling really tactical to me. and andrew, if it's tactical for me, how do other people feel? because these are two legal nerds. so i'm going to say putting tactics a little bit aside, what is the latest you think they could reasonably start this trial? >> i think if it doesn't start by some time in july, i think it is really hard to see the judge saying that they're going to go forward and have him -- i mean at some point there is going to be pressure on the district judge to say am i going to have the leading candidate for one of the parties on trial and not being able to -- you know, has to attend to a trial and should be running for office. at some point that tension, i think, is going to be somet

and jack smith 's brief to the supreme court, jack smith argued there was no need for the supreme court to ue hear the case at all. but if the supreme court was inclined to hear the case, jack smith asked the supreme court not to send the case back for another round at the appeals course, but to set an expedited hearing at the supreme court, schedule that expedited hearing. and that is what the supreme court now is done. leading off our discussion tonight is neal katyal, former acting isu.s. solicitor general and host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. he is a msnbc legal analyst. and neal, i want to begin the way all lawyers begin when they get these notices from the supreme court that they're going to hear your case. they have the supreme court identified four the lawyers on both sides the question, and the only question, they want to hear addressed. and i want to give that question to the audience now. the question is whether, and if so to etwhat extent, does a forr president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts du

it's possible that alvin bragg case would move in the jack smith case would go first, but that calendar sure. as we reported for months, is an ever evolving, changing document and it's just not clear right now when smith's case will go. so as of now, the only trial is actually on the calendar that we are confident will start is march 25th. alvin bragg, we may that we may get an update on that timing tomorrow at this hearing. >> we shall find out elie, i doubt that both the special counsel council's and trump's responses are in what is the likelihood that the us supreme court actually takes this on as opposed to letting the lower court ruling stand well, we'll first of all, in terms of when we'll hear from the supreme court the answer to that is any time they can roll tonight, they can rule tomorrow. they can take a week. they can take two weeks. if we're trying to sort of count heads at the supreme court here and figure out, will they ultimately take this case? it takes five justices to keep the pause on in the district court, but it only takes four for justices to actually grant certio

>> biggest picture, huge win for jack smith. unequivocal win for jack smith. the language in this ruling is very strong. they forcefully reject donald trump's immunity arguments. there's really three major findings that the d.c. court of appeals makes here. first of all, they reject this notion of blanket immunity. they say it is not and cannot be that a president simply can never be charged for anything that happens during his time in office. second, the court of appeals in d.c. says, if we're asking the question whether donald trump's conduct was inside his job as president or outside his job as president, they say he was out of bounds here. he's not covered because high was out of bounds. even if there is am immunity for stuff that's inside the presidency, he's way out of it. fully, they reject this i think ludicrous argument that, well, a president can only be indicted if he has first been impeached by the house and convicted by the senate. remember, that led to the ridiculous hypotheticals about could a president order assassination. so this court of appe

and special counsel jack smith and judge chutkan have also signaled we're looking at something like a three-month trial for this. let's assume 88 days for trump's team to finish their prep before the trial, and let's assume the three months theeded for the trial itself is a nice round 90 days. that comes out to 178 days. that is how long it would take for this trial to actually conclude after we get a decision back from the supreme court. so let's go back to the calender. the election is november 5, an oral argument on trump's presidential immunity claims at the supreme court is set for the week of april 22nd. this would be the fastest possible scenario here as everything stands at present. the supreme court meet monday april 22prnd and they make a decision the next day, tuesday, april 23rd. if we add 178 days to tuesday, april 23rd, that would mean the trial would finish on wednesday, october 16th. 20 days before the general election. that is what we are working with here in the best case scenario. joining me now is neil katyal, former acting solicitor-general of the united states an

, filed his reply to donald trump's effort to stop the trial and the win that jack smith got in that appeals court. they are citing donald trump's alleged effort to perpetuate himself in power, the charged crime strike at the heart of our democracy, and smith says the supreme court should not stay or delay this case, that the trial should commence on the planned schedule, which means if he won,

vitamin and supplement brand. >>> finally tonight, that breaking news that crossed this hour in jack smith'sounsel smith now asking for a july 8th trial date in that case. donald trump's lawyers are saying any trial this year is unfair to him as a candidate, but then also relenting and saying if it must happen, they propose august 12th which would be before the election. the trial was originally scheduled for as early as may. what we're seeing in this back and forth is mow jack smith still has other cards to play even as he got a huge setback from the supreme court delaying the coup case. we're going to watch and see what the judge in florida does and whether that trial will get scheduled for before the election. thanks for watching "the beat" with ari melber. "the reidout" with joy reid is up next. . >>> tonight on "the reidout" -- >> it is nothing in the case of biden on thursday, a cynical, sick political stunt by the president and frankly it is beyond disgraceful. we'll be at the border with president trump on thursday. >> what? i'm sorry, did you say something about beyond disgraceful?

sorry, jack smith. i mean, does that seem unusual to you? i don't think unusual even begins to capture it. it's really extraordinary. prosecutors have to be able to protect witnesses, not just in this case but in every case, because we ask people to come forward, detail the truth so we can hold criminals accountable. sometimes criminals aren't super nice people. in this case we've got a defendant who, whether through his fault or through the implications his followers take from his comments, witnesses, people who have spoken out against him, have been exposed to risk. in some cases, speaker pelosi's husband paul comes to mind, exposed to higher because his wife had become one of trump's political targets. so look, if you are a federal judge, what you are doing here is listening to prosecutors. you're carefully evaluating evidence of the law. when they come to you seeing this is so serious that we have an ongoing investigation that we need to protect, you don't then turn that over to donald trump the defendant. >> it seems like there is a cas

jack smith won, because jack smith said, i want to go to the supreme court. they weren't asking pretty trump's lawyers were asking to send this case back to the 11th circuit, which is what they were asking for. >> they could have delayed it more than an extra month. >> i don't disagree with you. on this channel of, is this do or die because it he doesn't go to trial? >> first day of the appeal. if you find him guilty, he will go out to the courthouse and say, i'm appealing. he will be standing on the steps sometime in april doing the same thing and maybe even before the supreme court. he will be seen, i will appeal. >> my reaction to it isn't about the implications for what it means for the electoral chances, but it is a level of craziness from the court. they are moving at this pace and i find it deeply unnerving. think about the court. they move fast when they want to, but move slow when they move slow. >> the court that filed against nixon -- this court as fast for them, but i do agree that this is the most isolated court in the history of the court, so th

they fought jack smith's effort to bypass this very appeals court and tried to have this in which jack smith wanted this heard by the supreme court initially following trump's team appeal of judge chutkan's initial ruling, but for trump's legal team here, there is also a recognition that this three-judge panel, they wrote, in part, former president trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were if proven an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. he allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role. the counting and certifying of the electoral college votes. the question here going forward for trump and his legal team is just exactly when the supreme court, if they were in fact to take up the appeal, when they would hear it and for a trial that could take about three months here, just how far along would that potentially impact his own presidential campaign in the general election campaign ahead of november. >> back to lisa rubin, the argument trump's trying to make that this just opened up a whole can of wo

>> in some sense jack smith has doggedly made the case, time after time, to the court, you've got to do this more quickly. and in some sense, as we have said, we had a little bit of a split the baby today where he doesn't get where he wants, but don trump doesn't get what he wants. whether he can, i don't, know hive of some of this. this was a pretty tight case as compared to the fani willis sprawling case in fulton county. this was a pretty tight case. i suppose there is a way to tighten it, but i think the real thing we have to ask ourselves is, are we going to wait for weeks and weeks and weeks for somebody to write a dissent in this case of the supreme court and then it's coming down at the end of june. what i worry about more than anything is that no matter what judge chutkan or jack smith can do, if you have four votes at the supreme court, or three votes, that want to do the run out the clock play, i think that they can kind of keep this thing starved for much much longer. >> do you read neil, to dolley's point, the fact that they don't seem to be working expeditiously and the

jack smith won here to. because jack smith said i want to go straight to the supreme court. they weren't asking to go to the supreme court. trump's lawyers were asking to send this case back to the 11th circuit. that's what they were actually asking for. the supreme court, said no. >> okay. >> but they could've delayed, it more than an extra month by sending it back to the circuit. >> so, i don't disagree with. you on this sort of channel of, is this door die for the, company because if he doesn't go to trial he's going to, when i don't agree with you. >> i agree, it's like the first day of the peel. if you find him guilty on, that he's gonna grow up in the courthouse and, say i'm appealing. by the, way will be standing on the courthouse steps, probably sometime in april doing the same thing. doing the same, thing maybe before the supreme court rules. he's gonna say, i'm gonna peel what stormy daniels. >> with, me i think my reaction to it isn't necessarily for the implication that it means for the electoral chances of donald trump. it is a level of craziness from the court.

put yourself in jack smith's shoes. you have a judge with a record of favoring the man who appointed him, who seems to frustrate you at every turn, whose competence has been called into question, which options then do you have when it comes to dealing with judge cannon? >> you know, i think everybody who has been a litigator, whether it's in a criminal matter like katie and i have had or civil matters which lisa and i have had, i think no matter what your litigation experience, you have dealt with judges who are at times difficult or you even think have a pension to one side or the other. the general rule you keep your head down, you're respectful and point out the facts in the law as to why you're right, but when you need to, you appeal them. we've seen the jack smith team do that twice successfully, but after very respectful arguments and also respectful appeals, and you try to keep your language as you would as any officer of the court, but i think here the law is so strongly in favor of the government when it comes

remember, by the way, two months ago, jack smith said to the supreme court, only you can decide this case. you, the supreme court and you alone have to resolve this. >> all right. elie honig. thank you so much. appreciate it. much more reaction to his big break can you news ahead in the next hour? our coverage continues now, in the situation room with one wolf blitzer, i'll see you soon claims major decision that certain further delay his federal election subversion trial tonight we're breaking down the massive impact of the high court's announcement. welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer, a urine the situation room the skis cnn, breaking news. >> let's get straight to the breaking news. a pivotal moment in the special counsel's election subversion case against donald trump, the us supreme court announcing it will hear arguments on trump's claims of immunity. cnn's team of journalists is covering this truly historic moment from every angle. first, i want to bring in cnn's chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. paula, how is th

you special counsel jack smith.- to provide trump's legal team with an unredacted piece of discovery that could expose sensitive information, including the names of potential witnesses all thanks to a new order from judge aileen cannon. earlier this week, special counsel jack smith issued a scathing response to cannons willing to share evidence with trump's team, calling it quote, clear error and saying the move would potentially expose the witnesses to significant immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment. and this is just the tip of the iceberg. forget another historic week for the twice impeached quadruple indicted ex president. the dc circuit court of appeals unanimously ruled that citizen trump is not immune to prosecution for his treasonous acts on january six. trump's legal team has until monday to file an application for eight -- of the mandate mueller to petition the supreme court who we know just heard oral arguments on thursday as to whether the twice impeached quadruple indicted disgraced

maybe that means something to trump followers, but jack smith has absolutely no meaning. proceeding, it's said jack smith's brief says the defendants nonetheless label the referral as sham, the defendants do not explain what a sham referral might be, much less what legal significance it might have. far from being a sham, the referral became necessary after months of efforts including several rounds of communications with trump representatives, failed to confirm that trump had returned any and all classified information that he removed from the white house. bradley, it's just one of those unique challenges that jack smith's team is facing is that they have to take on this weird rhetoric, trumpian rhetoric within legal filings that normally don't have that kind of thing. >> yes, and most lawyers especially in this kind of high profile manner would not use that kind of language. you always run the risk that the judge is going to smack you down a little bit, i certainly have been all that being told legal pleadings are not a place for political hyperbole. you must handle your

what do you think, jack smith? and presumably, jack smith is going to say no, stay out. you have a very sound forcefully written decision from the d.c. circuit. it hits all the key points of law. you do not have to intervene. but that process in and of itself is not going to take just a matter of hours or days. that could take a week or two itself. >> excellent. all right, paula reed, joan biskupic, thank you both for explaining that so well. with us now, laura coates, cnn anchor and chief analyst, elie honig, and tim heavy, former lead investigator for the january 6th committee. laura, at a basic level here, this appeals panel has decided something very, very important. the line between what can be considered presidential actions and outside the scope of the presidency or frankly any official job. why is that so important? >> because it goes to the very heart of separation of powers in our system of checks and balances. we do not want any particular actor to have carte blanche, this blank check to do whatever he or she wants to do and never be held to account. one must

trump's comments come as tensions between jack smith and the judge could be coming to ahead. ossibly overturn two of the judge's decisions, including her decision to unseal the identities of two dozen potential witnesses. he has already asked for reconsideration of her decision. a case previews what could happen with that decision saying it will be a dramatic ruling. either she reverses her position, which would be an admission she was mistaken about the law, or she leaves her ruling in place, putting individuals in jeopardy and twisting the law to help trump. at that point, smith may have enough ammunition to seek her reassignment. joining me at the table is lisa rubin. andrew weisman is back with us. do you buy that smith could be contemplating having the case reassigned? >> i think contemplate is possible. whether he is planning on it is a different story. a lot handles. . how she handles things in the pipeline. one is as discussed in that piece you were just referencing, how she handles these classified information procedure act highway hearings that have happened. another

0.0, the question of house jack smith fan, remember jack smith asked for this case to be taken by the supreme court back in december. they could have addressed the case and sort of jumped over the appeals court. >> and i think they could have because then then it would have answered why they are intervening here because i don't think it's bad that they're intervening generally to say were the supreme court, we should have the last word on it. but the point is that they've delayed it. actually, i would predict right now, they will probably affirm the dc circuit >> didn't get up >> if they're going to be because they are the supreme court and they want to have the last word enough of them. let's remember who's on this court also? there is a 6-3 conservative liberal majority, but it's not just that it breaks down along ideology that way without a lot of justices, several of them who've worked in the executive branch, who takes, who take the idea of separation of powers and executive authority seriously. so i'm sure there's some very substantive reasons to get in bob the only question is

what does jack smith do now?told the supreme court in no uncertain terms it's, quote, imperative public importance that trump's claims of immunity be resolved by this court. how he backs away from that now is hard to say. my guess is he tries to split the baby with the bath water, that he says the stay is not called for. you want to take the case, take the case. it's important for the public to hear from the supreme court before there's a trial and possibly a conviction. don't slow us down. we wasted two months since the time we filed this petition on december 11th. >> if you're jack smith, joyce, what do you do? >> jack smith has on his team one of the best appellate lawyers in the country. it's safe to say they knew this moment would come. they would make the argument for the court to take cert before the court of appeals could act. lisa is correct, i think, to make the point that it's possible that there won't be a stay here. that would take the vote of five supreme court justices. it's not entirely clear ther

because jack smith is asking them effectively to move it along. look, we don't believe he has immune midi everyone agrees that he's probably not going to win on the merits, so he's not entitled to a pause and jack smith says, look, let us get on with this trial, but if you must take this up on the merits, at least two oral arguments in march and move this along as expeditiously as possible. so now we're looking not only what the supreme court does, but how quickly do they do but even if they do decide they want to take up this case, consider it on the merits. will they move on that expedited timeline or will they drag this out? because if they drag it out, it's unlikely that jack smith is going to be able to bring his case before the election. and that's significant, he says in this filing, because the nation should be able to see the resolution of this case, he argues, but also if trump is re-elected jack smith and this case will likely no longer he will no longer exist in that job. yeah. even if he loses on the merits of the supreme court, he co

this time is jack smith. his new warning and moments, plus what it was like to be inside the courtroom for thursday's supreme court arguments. and when is an insurrection just a riot? the former spokesperson for the january 6th committee gives me her take. me her take. >>> to all of you, from msnbc headquarters in new york, welcome to alex witt reports. breaking news from the mar-a- lago classified documents case. special counsel jack smith has until today to hand over active discovery to trump's legal team that smith orange could endanger more than two dozen witnesses. judge aileen cannon issued an order late yesterday after reviewing a scathing legal filing submitted by smith earlier this week. which called her rolling a clear ever and warrant disclosing entities of numerous potential witnesses would expose them to significant and immediate risks of threat intimidation and harassment. smith has until the end of this day to comply with her older. we have several reporters and analysts and place for you cover

but of course jack smith could file a response before a week goes by.g. they knew this was coming. they knew trump would be filing his request by monday. i have to think that they are crossing the tees and dotting the eyes at this moment and will likely beat the deadline by quite a bit. >> assuming jack smith files before the line on the 20th, what do you expect in terms of indications for how the court is thinking of trump's appeal here? >> you know, it's difficult to say because they can go in a lot of different directions. the thing that they could do that would, i think, give us the best stance, is to simply deny the stay, treated as a petition for certiorari review, and to say we're going to let the lower court decision to stand. that would be a loud response to what they think of it. on the other hand, they could decide they want to grant a stay, they are going to let donald trump even take it to the full court of appeals below, and then before the u.s. supreme court, that would be the other extreme suggesting he's on a very slow boat. in that cas

then, jack smith asked the supreme court to hurry up. tonight's filing from the

and again, jack smith and his team turned that on their head.y say the public's interest in a speedy trial here is greater than any interest that trump could have in delaying it, particularly given that what he is accused of doing here is subverting the democratic will of tens of millions of voters. in other words, you claim to stand for the interests of a certain segment of voters. but the accusations at the heart of this case are about your willingness to disenfranchise the tens of millions of people who never voted for you in the first instance. >> so, we're all getting a legal education thanks to donald trump getting indicted over and over and over again. one of the terms that you legal eagles throw around is grant cert. standing for sers yoir. what the supreme court can and cannot do. what is that? and what can the supreme court do next? >> trump's petition that jack smith replied to is formally a motion to stay all proceedings while he works on and then submits what you referred to as a petition for sergs yar. that's a fancy way of asking

look, i'm dubious of jack smith's motives. it's clear to everyone always breaking news here on this right to the person's face >> my criticism of jack smith is obviously he's pushing to get this in before the election. i think for good reason, but there's a level of disingenuousness in his refusal to say that's why i argue in the piece that i think they mentioned here that he should just say it say what we all know and say what the vast majority of american people understand to believe is correct that he's pushing to get this done before trial, before the election, excuse me. >> can we talk about what the supreme court is looking at here because there are a few different pathways they can take. one of them, john d, and already laid out for us, we will cross it off the list, which is that they could just say no thanks, we're not taking this up. they could deny trump's request to pause this. what else do could they do here? so this application today was just for his john dean said for a stay to put this put this on hold in supre

in which case he may never have to face jack smith. it all on this case that's because the supreme court now says it is going to decide whether donald trump, as a former president, has immunity from being criminally prosecuted for the actions that he took while he was in office, that includes his attempt to overthrow a free and fair election in 2020. the supreme court waited weeks to announce this decision and did not schedule arguments until the week of april 22. and let's two months from where we sit today. this is after that a federal appeals court issued that blistering, but also an importantly unanimous ruling saying that citizen trump is not immune a president of this country has to have, immunity or they're not going to be able to function in office when they talk about >> threat to democracy she that's your real threat to democracy and i feel that as a president, you have to have immunity >> we're hearing from sources tonight that trump and his team view this as a win for now course, they've been working repeating to push his f

the last night from jack smith to the supreme court, he stacked up to the supreme court everything that trump has faced on this presidential immunity claim, trial judges decisions that's been lost. smith pointed out the appeals court opinion that's also been a loss for him. the founding fathers, nobody who wrote the constitution or the federalist papers was four presidential immunity and then former president's. they were a little bit afraid of the idea of criminal prosecution. and we're clearly acknowledging they could be prosecuted. richard nixon leaving office. there were a lot of citations in that about history and how trump is doing something very different just to point to clarity, what does that oh, that's it. >> it's a scared face for the former >> president's know. >> i got that. i got bullets. thank you. as always, my friend >> it's kind of say that you just made my morning kaitlan collins. thank you very much for that with us now, cnn senior legal analyst, elie honig, republican strategist, doug heye, and cnn political analyst coleman hughes. thank you very much, guys. great

jack smith's filing. yeah.remain critical of this about jack smith he is all consuming li possessed with trying this case before the election. there are legitimate reasons for that, but he won't say it instead and he does it again in the filing that just came in. it's all these bromides and generalities about, well, there's a general need. everyone knows what he's doing. everyone knows what the judges let me read you what he said. he's delaying the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interests in a speedy and fair verdict, a compelling interest in every criminal case. and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results the presidential election, including through the use of official power. >> there it is again, he's done this over and over when all he needs to set it is it's really important that we tried this before the election and i don't know how this is going to play

>> i don't know that jack smith will do that. i do h think, that if he does n reconsider, he's likely to take that up. because witnesses lives are at risk and he has kind of got to try to hatake it higher. i don't, know that at this point, even though i know this would be a third, time that he would ask for her recusal. because the standard is really, really hard to meet. i think there are enough things that she has done in the record that we can look at him think were unreasonable and think they show bias to trump but they should have an argument. she would have an attorney to argue on her side of this, that you have an argument that she's just managing her cases and in the way she sees fit and she hasn't done anything to show such a bias that she has to be removed. i think would be a heavy lift for her. >> it is something to watch. that was the latest news. some other big news that happened this week was robert hur, the special counsel assigned to investigate president biden's handling of classified documents, when he was a cit

jack smith's side is essentially saying this is about the election.ting to rush it along essentially because we're inside of an election year. does that politicize his argument at all, do you think? >> i would say jack smith's argument is the public has an interest in a speedy trial, they are entitled to all the information before they cast their ballot. it's trump's folks who are saying they are politicizing this. they are showing an appearance of partisan misconduct here by appearing to rush this along. but again, the retort to that is we don't have a stake in the outcome one way or the other in terms of the election. we just want all the voters here to understand what it is and who it is that they're voting for before they're called upon to make that decision. >> joyce, i want to talk about the colorado ballot ruling as well, and the justices in their oral arguments and i'm sure you agree with this as well, seemed somewhat skeptical throughout that hearing, and i want to play a little bit of what we have from that and then have you react on the oth

it was unanimous, three judges siding with jack smith. the d.c. circuit is considered the key court of appeals in the nation with expertise on government issues and in a ruling says trump is waging an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. the court discussed the evidence that drum stands accused of injecting himself into a process in which the president has no role, accounting and certifying of the electoral college votes, undermining constitutionally established procedures. so, if your argument is, hey, i was just president, in fact you're doing something where you have no role, because the presidency, as powerful as it is, is a government role. we've been at this for a long time in this country. there have been limits established. for instance, the president storms the capitol and says he wants to vote in congress, that's not part of the presidential role. that might sound far fetched except when you you remember a bunch of the ex-president's supporters did storm the capitol and in testimony in the january 6th hearings, he wa

or how could jack smith speed it up?it's really jack smith because any criminal case it's really the prosecutor that decides how many people am i bringing to trial and how many counts and what counts am i bringing. so really you're always looking at number of people but you're also looking at what am i going after them on. >> right. >> and so, you know, i think if you're a jack smith and paul will also have a lot of ideas with this seasoned prosecutor, i was on the civil side, you're thinking what's my strongest case that's my best case that i can get out there quickly so i can help the judge shorten the calendar on this. i want to go back to this last point that paul made and that you're making, look, clarence thomas should be recused. he should not be able to preside over this case. and if we had binding ethics rules. >> come on. >> not this stuff they have where they say we will self police and decide, he would not be sitting over this case at all. >> yeah. very quickly, melissa, you have thoughts on the motives. >> t

the risk is to civilians, that is why jack smith is in office. that is why that team's career people, they will appeal that. i think that the best hope for why cannon will reverse herself on this is because she does not want to get slapped down again. i agree completely with him that legally she's dead wrong. >> tat is humiliating to be clear to reverse. it's not the appeals court said you were wrong. she literally has to say you know the thing i decided a month ago i was wrong, and you were right. >> that does happen. and i would say this would be the third time this has happened. as a friend of mine who's a judge said after the first two -- it is in a case this high profile to get it wrong so many times. and it's always wrong for trump. even handedly you're showing you're not ready for prime time. this is really as i said looking very skewed. >> i would love to get your thoughts on what's happening with the trial date here, right? she has i think it's a march 1st hearing to basically decide whether the may 20th trial date moves or not. why hasn

you have the fact that jack smith is dialing up the heat on the mar-a-lago case. you can almost sense the walls beginning to close in and it's not, you know, we used to talk go this calendar and it was sort of far in the future. there are weeks and days ahead. we are now really in it and if it feels that way for us as people who are watching, it must feel that way to the person who is at the center of the storm. >> you got to think so. these are the two foundations of his empire, right, both staying out of jail, and as the rev was saying, up to $250 million and what that means to post a bond then which he'll have to do and potentially not being able to participate in the real estate business. even for donald trump, even as the weeks have been, this is another week in legal hell that's coming, and the supreme court motion for a stay and immunity, except if he's able to wrangle it for a delay, that's going to go against him on the merits, and that's just really calamitous for the whole criminal side of the equation. he's getting a one-two punch like none other in th