nothing the supreme court did today changes that. ald trump is now struggling under the weight of a half billion dollars in civil judgments against him in new york, which he told a court today he cannot afford to pay. the appeals court refused to give donald trump more time to find the money. that's next. ext. lurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart

nothing the supreme court did today changes that. d donald trump is now struggling under the weight of a half billion dollars in civil judgments against him in new york, which he told a court today he cannot afford to pay. the appeals court refused to give donald trump more time to find the money. that's next. money. that's next. voices of people with cidp: but living with cidp doesn't have to. when you sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com, you'll find inspiration in real patient stories, helpful tips, reliable information, and more. cidp can be tough. but finding hope just got a little easier. sign up at shiningthroughcidp.com. all: be heard. be hopeful. be you. febreze! hi. i keep my home fresh with febreze fade defy plug. and i use this. febreze has a microchip to digitally control how much scent is released so it doesn't fade. ooh. does mine have a microchip? ...oh. febreze smells first-day fresh for 50 days. that is a shockingly long time. febreze also has a refill reminder light... it even reminds you to refill it? so i never miss

i don't supreme court is taking it up. if you're sitting on the circuit court of appeals, and you're one of the judges that took your time to write a very thoughtful wide-ranging opinion about how this team did not hold water, this immunity claim, sort of like, what are the implications there that the supreme court decided to take it up anyway? >> i'll go you one better. don't forget when the colorado case was argued, when anderson was argued at the supreme court, the court didn't want to touch the question of the insurrection and on trump's responsibility for the insurrection. in fact donald trump's own lawyer was like, yeah that was super bad. so we don't even have a court that wants to touch the merits of how barren january six was. and i would add to that, the american public has seen the january six commission, has seen the impeachment trial. they have seen two e. jean carroll verdicts. they have seen a verdict in new york in the trump financial misconduct case. there is a pile of and refuted evidence, including the fi

that ruling now appealed to the supreme court. is state is an issue of ballot access for donald trump making its way through plenty of state courts and state houses. it with the secretary of state of maine old donald trump should be disqualified from maine's ballot although that held off until the colorado issue is settled. this was last month on msnbc. the main secretary of state explaining that ruling to disqualify donald trump. [video clip] >> my decision is a legal decision under the constitution that i swore to uphold. in my decision, it is 34 pages, people can read it on the website, i make it clear the decision would have been clearer should there have been a conviction or a guilty or not guilty verdict in a criminal court of law. that is not what section three of the 14th amendment says. it says "engaged in insurrection." the events of january 6 were tragic, they were an attack not only on the capital but on members of congress, on the former vice president, and resulted in seven deaths. it was an attack on the peaceful tra

none of them expect actually that the supreme court will overturn the appeals court ruling. not only was it unanimous, it was skating and appear to be written with contemplating the supreme court's review and making it easy for them to affirm their decision. but at this point, even as sources in and around the trump legal team telling me they don't expect to prevail on the merits here. they may prevail again on the strategy of delay. delay, delay because if former president trump is reelected and he hasn't been tried in either one of these federal cases. he can make them go away. and so far, it looks like even though they don't expect to win on the merits, they are winning on the logistics, on the tactics, >> certainly are john, this marks the second time the us supreme court is weighing in on a major trump case that potentially could impact the 2024 presidential electorate after her argument since involving the colorado ballot removal case. so what's your assessment? >> well, you're referring to the fact on february 8th, they heard arguments over whether donald trump could

i'm leaving it up to the supreme court. >> eek as he -- today, he appears poised to win at the supremeourt a this question of ballot eligibility. this comes as the u.s. justice system today was a great day for candidate trump. wolf? >> paula reid, thank you very much. >>> i want to bring in our legal and supreme court experts for more analysis right now. joan biskupic, you were inside the supreme court during the three hours of oral argument. what stood out to you? >> how smoothly went not for the colorado voters' lawyer, but for the justices themselves. i am so accustomed to a lot of ideological tensions along the bench, irrespective of what lawyers are arguing. i didn't feel that. in fact, you could sense really early on, by the rhythm of that argument that the chief was going to have a majority, if not a unanimous covert to rule that the colorado supreme court was wrong to try to keep trump off the ballot. that's not the end of the story, though, of course, because they have to come up with grounds they all agree on. i have to tell you often a supreme court ruling will have splinter

today, the supreme court hour. today, the supreme court appellate court. by merely deciding to do this, though, the court has essentially upended the attempt to hold donald trump accountable for his actions to subvert democracy. in fact, the court may have ended that attempt entirely. this decision is also certain to reshape the 2024 presidential race, and it will likely play a determinative role in its outcome. as much as the significance of this ruling is already apparent, the full consequences here hinge on the timing. in it the supreme court said it would hear oral arguments in the case the week of april 22 nd. now, april 22nd is not close to today, and we'll get into exactly why exactly the court didn't choose a date a lot sooner than that, but april 22nd also on its face sort of seems pretty far from the november election. it's not. because when you start crunching the numbers and looking at how a trial could actually time out after the supreme court makes its decision here, the window in which trump could face trial, the window of that happening bef

he had devoted his life to studying the supreme court writing about it. he had close to these judicial icons like oliver wendell holmes and louis brandeis. and he thought was his natural fate. and destiny to lead the court and for the other justices to fall line behind him and the other justices didn't quite see it that way, and that really bothered frankfurter. he was very about it. and in fact, during the war years, during some of the war years, he kept a journal and a diary. and in it he recorded every grievance and perceived insult. and he was very, very unhappy it and he even took to calling the other justices black and douglas and murphy and rutledge the axis. now is at the height of world war two when we're fighting the axis enemies, you know. it's as if after 911 when justice started calling another group of justices al qaida. but it also was not a one way street. for example, there are from douglass to murphy this period where he refers to frankfurter as der fÜhrer and the little --. so there's all of personal enmity then among the justices and. w

he only has until next monday to file that emergency request with the supreme court. they do plan to do that. but essentially, what would the other options or recourse be? >> right, there really aren't that many. so a party who loses a federal court of appeal can typically kid take a case to the whole appeals court, or the supreme court, now as you, noted, kaitlin in their order today, he made very clear that pretty much on monday, this goes back to the trial court unless the supreme court steps in. so we would anticipate the former president would appeal, it is in some way, they are going to end up getting the case, where they decided to get on or ilana is an open question. it is not going to trial on monday, but -- how do you see it in the sense of judge chutkan just took this case off of the court calendar, could we soon see it added back on do you think? >> we could. i mean she would have to first reconvene and get a sense of where things stand in terms of the preparations. i agree with elliott, they are boxed in now because of the way the circuit and sense of cond

supreme court, over to you. first, more on this stunning decision by the supreme court to entertain donald trump's immunity claims. which justices wanted to hear this case, that is coming up next. more than just work. like when it needs to be a big soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry. i'm starting to think this was a bad idea. what! we could find a better gift on etsy's new gift mode. oh! can i see that? ♪ happy birthday... ♪ it's a people cake! don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy. one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food, no family dinners, no special treats, not enough energy to play. all around the world, hunger is affecting children's physical and mental health. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. conflict, inflation and climate have ignit

supreme court.re is also his legislative legacy, the bills passed under the three presidents including the vast majority of trump's agenda, but towering over all of it and likely to last long beyond his tenure and his life is the work of the three justices whose nominations they put there. one of this, gorsuch happened because mcconnell denied president barack obama an opportunity to appoint his justice. the three justices apply the majority that overturned roe v. wade, that wildly unpopular decision. over turned affirmative action in college admissions and have a plan to bring billions in student debt relief to millions and we could go on and on. we cover all of this on the broadcast all of the type. and right now dealing with the slew of incredibly consequential cases involving atashes to a man who disagrees with many of mcconnell's long held foreign policy views. mcconnell even hinted at that distance between themselves and the maga movement at his announcement today. >> the trial works so hard t

the supreme court has spoken. kristen, i'm sure there with be comments and i'm sure you'll get there. >> this was an unanimous decision from this panel on the federal appeals court. there's been speculation one of the reasons it took so long it there was internal dissent. we're not seeing that as we pore through the ruling. i understand you have got some information now about the scheduling here? >> reporter: that's right. going through this with help from our extraordinary team, we now see that the court of appeals is trying to make up for some of the time they lost in the month it took them to issue the decision, setting a very aggressive schedule for sending this back down to the trial court. this case, again, the traditional next step would be asking the full circuit and then going to the supreme court. that can take quite a bit of time even if the courts don't weigh in to get answers and we know part of the trump strategy is delay. here, this case is expected to go back down to the trial court unless the supre

supreme court.and the moment that i said to myself i've seen enough was when elena kagan point-blank asked jason murray, her former clerk, why is it that you think that one state should be able to decide the presidential election for all states? that was the moment in which i knew that this argument was going exactly where we thought it was. everyone is just searching for something to hang their hat on interpretively or otherwise to get to that place. one thing i also found interesting in looking ahead in terms of what's coming down the pike, this is a court that heard argument today about the 14th amendment and trump's qualification for office while it knows that on monday or before former president trump will ask them to stay a d.c. circuit's ruling so that he can appeal their decision with respect to his immunity from prosecution. and that seemed to be very much on the justices' minds today, in particular justice kavanaugh searching to understand are there other ways in which barring impeachment,

they will, in some way or another, overturn this colorado supreme court decision. host: how soon could the court make a decision? guest: that's a good question. this case is been compared to bush versus gore, that was the 2000 presidential election. it was close and came down to florida. the court took a wild before it got involved, but then decided it needed to result -- resolve the theme pretty quickly. heard arguments one day. it did hear arguments in the separate site issue first. but when they heard bush versus gore, they heard arguments one day and decided the next day. that is not going to happen here. there is not quite that urgency, but i think they will strive to resolve it quickly. we won't be waiting until the end of june. it's more likely to be the march super primary date, super tuesday date that includes colorado's primary. former president is on the ballot while these proceedings -- this ruling was stayed. but that's one possibility, to try to get it out by them. host: mark walsh, thank you for your time tonight. now let's turn to all of you and get

supreme court.nd i used to teach a lot at american universities. you mentioned marbury, the notion that the court is trying to find maybe some kind of political moment. it seems to be that part of the problem, why there is such a discussion off-ramp, is because of where the court is at this particular moment in american history. because of the decline of public thinking in the supreme court, and how this supreme court actually doesn't have as much capitalism might have had in prior moments. how do you view it as part of the story? >> i don't know how you restore the credibility or legitimacy of the supreme court. we are going to intervene and stop the manual counting of ballots in the first time in american history because there might not be the exact same interpretive rules being used in one county or another. thereby handing the presidency to george w. bush. in a case where a state supreme is now through excruciating and prolonged fact-finding, there is a candidate disqualified by section three of

the supreme court declined to do that. of course the case went to the appeals court where they rendered a unanimous skating decision, rejecting trump's argument that he had absolute presidential immunity then after the supreme court received a request to pause that decision, they took two weeks before releasing the fact that they are going to hear arguments in late april, which means we probably won't get a decision until late june, and we would need at least two months before that trial starts. so jake, this makes it unlikely, though not impossible that jack smith will be able to bring that case. and while this has been a bad day, it could be a bad week for for jack smith because on friday i'll be down in florida or judge overseeing the other federal prosecution, the mar-a-lago classified documents case, which has penciled in for late may. >> she he is expected to weigh in on scheduling and it is widely expected that that case will also be delayed. again, unclear if he'll be able to bring either one of these cases before t

the florida supreme court had the recall count on december 8th. three days later, december 11th, the court heard oral arguments and a day after that they rushed out their decision. that's five days total from appeal to decision. so the supreme court knows how to act quite quickly even on complex, high-stakes presidential conflicts when it wants to. here, even though they don't need to act that quickly because there's not a handoff of presidential power coming up. it's not going toward january 20th, but here they are on a much slower side. think about all of the precedent you just saw, think about how donald trump's lawyers have said one thing over and over in the jack smith case. it should be delayed. we know that because when the case was first filed they were proposing a trial date of 2025, after the election. they lost that just like they lost the immunity claim, but what the supreme court did late yesterday and even before ruling on the merits of this case was hand the trump lawyers the win they needed on the timeline. so take a look. we mentio

the supreme court is a supreme court. john roberts has the opinion and of the supreme court and the american public's my in his hands. and he values so supreme court, he is the chief justice. that is his job. >> if very interesting to hear you say that congressman steve cohen, thank you very much for joining us. >> you're welcome, abby. nice to be with you >> and next, the republican who is responsible for changing the architecture of that supreme court announces that he is taking a back venture role on the very same day that the court but he built steps into the spotlight, again, much more ahead on these side sunday >> van jones, it's home find out what is driving the divide in tennessee politics. >> there has been a very active 20 to 30 year effort to separate us. >> the whole story with anderson cooper sunday up on cnn liberty mutual customize my car insurance and i saved hundreds >> that's great. >> i know i've been telling everyone how many people did you tell only pay for what you need >> i know what, it's like to p

for the supreme court. if they decide to take this case, jack smith told the court, if they decide to take the case that -- forced to file their appeals brief ten days after the supreme court agrees to take the case, and that jack smith should then be required to file his brief seven days thereafter, and that the trump lawyers could then be allowed to file a reply brief five days thereafter. that allows a total of three weeks for all of the briefs to be written, submitted to the court, after the day the supreme court agrees to take the case. if today is any indication of the speed of jack smith's team, they probably would not use all seven days to write the brief. so it could be a few days friday than three weeks. it can be done. it has been done. when the stakes for this high once before in 1974, when a criminal president was seeking the protection of the united states supreme court, the united states supreme court quickly and unanimously refused to protect the republican president of the united states. in

i don't believe, neil, you're the supreme court expert so you'll tell us. but i don't believe if a different person filed this kind of far-fetched argument of immunity i'm not sure the court would hear the case, i'm not sure wed we'd get this delay. i turn from the calender to substance because they are linked. explain to us where those claims come down and why that is part of what's important tonight. >> yeah, ari, this is like your banana example. i mean this is pretty preposterous what donald trump is saying. if you think about the essence of our constitution maybe the most critical principle why we fought an american revolution, it was the idea that no person is above the law. that simple phrase is what the complaint was against king george iii was and the like. and what donald trump is doing in this case is saying to the supreme court i'm above the law. and just remember all of trump's, you know, cockamamie claims, when andrew and others were seeking to prosecute him under the mueller report he said you can't indict me because i'm a sitting president an

but let's say that the supreme court does take it up. given all the arguments that trump's attorney made were totally eviscerated by this court today, is there a new legal argument that they could make to the supreme court here? >> no. because they threw everything up in the air and every single argument was methodically and systematically dismantled by this court. there is nothing left. the court addressed even all the bad arguments that trump probably shouldn't have made to this court. and there's just nothing. there's just nothing left for the supreme court to clean up. and i think, you know, if i'm sitting on the supreme court, i'm thinking we don't need this, this is fine. this is a case that can go into the judicial law books, into the case books in law schools for the next 100 years. it's that good. >> you write that this reminded you of the supreme court decision forcing nixon to hand over the watergate tapes. how come? >> because it was sort of the same thing. i mean, nixon was looking for any kind of air, any kind of weakness in

supreme court. so you had some company out there because there were quite a few people waiting to see how this was going to go. >> quite a few people. this went a lot longer than we thought this would go. the justices, even the liberal justices highly pointed questions to the attorney representing the colorado voters, questioning in many ways why donald trump should be taken off the ballot. we thought maybe the oral arguments would go 90 minutes. clearly they went longer than 90 minutes. the chief argument from the trump attorneys, harris and the crew that's on the couch is that taking donald trump off the ballot strips him of his rights as a presidential candidate, plain and simple. the 14th amendment, section 3 bars those from holding federal office in the future who engaged in insurrection while an officer of the united states. the question is whether it specifically applies to the president and his conduct in office. now, voters in colorado sued, aiming to remove him from the ballot over his all

then of course, the supreme court does what it wants when it wants. i was going to read the instructions from the circuit court, but it's pretty deep. i'm going to spare our audience that, but the translation is former president trump has until next week to notify the court he's appealed to the supreme court. if he does that, they'll wait to see what the supreme court does. as i have said, sources close to the trump legal team said they would be surprised if the supreme court takes up this issue. >> what will happen, though, there will be a little time first. because the court will probably want to hear what jack smith says. you know, it's not that the court will immediately on february 12th give us an answer. what they'll do, as paula said, they'll hear from donald trump, presumably by february 12th so he can meet that deadline, and then typically what happens when the court is faced with this kind of petition or emergency action is ask the other side, what do you think? what do you think, jack smith? and presumably, jack smith is going to say no, sta

supreme court? >> harris: leo terrell said something might be in the ruling that would communicate that for that not to happen for the 11 or more states. sandra has made it to her studio. "america reports" now. >> question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. so whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national means. >> no, your honor, because ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation. >> sandra: all right, so any moment now we are expecting to hear directly from the white house. its first reaction to the landmark oral arguments at the supreme court that we all just heard moments ago that could alter the course of the country. hello, welcome everyone, a lot at stake. i'm sandra smith in new york and yes, i did make it up to studio k. >> john: did you take the elevator

so he asked the supreme court to pause that lower court decision in the possibility the possibility that they would take up this issue. and now we have learned that the supreme court will take up this issue. this means that they will hear they will hear arguments. now, it was just a few weeks ago, of course, that the supreme court court took up another appeal from former president trump, that one having to do with whether he could appear on state ballots, whether states had the authority to remove him from their ballots. now that that argument, j. of course, you remember it went pretty well for former president trump he is expected to prevail, but on this question of whether former president trump has immunity that would shield him from the january 6 capon, the special counsel, many legal experts and even sources. i've spoken with in and around former president trump's legal team did not expect, do not expect that he would prevail on the merits of this. but now the supreme court has agreed hey, to take up this case. now the immediate impact before we even know what they decide is that th

supreme court to decide in favor of donald trump. at the same time is percolating this other case about, does donald trump have immunity? which should arrive at the court the next week. you could imagine a world in which the court -- the gravity of the court, the center of the court, that's the chief, justice barrett, kavanaugh saying, look, our principal is to reduce the temperature about the supreme court, stay out of decisions wherever we can. the way to do that, the path forward is to say trump wins, the 14th amendment is not self-executing because of the technical argument. you need congress to act. we will stay out, basically, of that. won't disturb the finding that donald trump was an insurrectionist. that's one state's court finding. leave it on this technical point about self-execution. then when it comes to the absolute immunity case say, we can't be the court that stops this trial from happening before the presidential election. so we're just going to deny -- >> neil, i'm sorry. we have the former president speaking right n

the supreme court consider. they consider the single a question they're considering is whether and to what extent a former president is immune from criminal liability for alleged acts, official acts. so you're right, that's part of the question. >> can i wonder your perspective because let's say that the supreme court comes out and makes their decision on this june 1. and then judge chutkan gets the case moving, that they do actually scheduled this trial before the election. but if it is scheduled, then for say, september and trump's team is arguing, well, it's too close to the election that's election interference. i mean, can they in good faith make that argument given they're the ones who sought this delay in the first place. >> well, i don't think they saw delay in this case. that is by taking up the immunity. >> definitely did. they'll openly admit that they wanted to be delayed. >> no question. they have said that. i just mean by taking the appeal in the immunity issue, i don't think that this was foisted

if the supreme court decides we will not take this case and supreme court watchers think of the supreme court decides that from can stay on the ballot in colorado for instance, he might get an unfavorable ruling on the immunity thing and they might refuse to hear the case. when the supreme court in effect decides whether to hear the case or not. if they decide not to take the case in the immunity question, jurisdiction go straight back to the district court and the judge can restart the clock and say you have three months from today to prepare for trial and i will set up ryle -- a trial date in may. if the supreme court waits late into the summer, it could be in july we get a decision postconvention, then we will not have a trial before the election. host: the georgia case and what we saw last week in georgia, what does that mean for the timing on when or if that case comes to trial? guest: that is the one case we don't have a tentative trial date set. it has already been scrambled little bit because the situation there in essence, the district attorney, had a romantic relationship with

any supreme court knows.clear, what they are going to be supposedly contending with in all seriousness is a lifelong immunity from prosecution for the president until he dies no matter what crimes he committed while president by virtue of the fact that he was president. really, is there a lot of debate about that? is not an open question? did the pardon of nixon happen? will be dreaming? wasn't an acid trip? it was the 70s. the question is male. what this is is a tactic. how long may the court decide and what would happen thereafter? keep in mind, in the jack smith case and the case before tonya chicken, the way that it is pasta right now is that neither side is allowed to do anything in trial while these are pending in the appeals. that means, they go fast as they possibly could. let's say that they hear the arguments the week of april 22nd and they decide that they turn it around quickly. it will still be months after the supreme court decides before the case can even start. you get very quickly up to -- ca

today, the supreme court hour. today, the supreme court

the one takeaway here is that it's clear they are trying a different approach to the supreme court arguments, to the highest court in the land. >> it's going to be so fascinating. thank you both. see you throughout the day during our special coverage. trump's attorneys have argued removing his name from the state ballot would, quote, disenfranchise millions of americans. listen to what one of the opposing attorneys told erin burnett. >> this is the farthest thing from anti-democratic. last time president trump was on the ballot, he ignored the will of 80 million u.s. voters. summoned a mob to attack the capitol during the otherwise peaceful transition of presidential power. section 3 of the 14th amendment is one of the few self-defense mechanisms the constitution has to ensure our democracy remains viable. >> joining us is trump's defense lawyer during the second impeachment trial. i appreciate you being here. a point of fact, you have been arguing cases like this for a long time. not exactly the same, but about access to being on the ballot. you have at one point represented the national de

so people want to hear from the supreme court. e matter, such as, did that go to sort of the heart of the matter, such as did the colorado court determine that mr. trump engaged in insurrection. insurrection is undefined in the constitution, engage in is undefined, and the theory here has been mostly that trump incited that insurrection and that incitement constituted direct participation or engagement. we'll see if they ask core questions, and i'm sure that they will, about whether section 3 actually applies to the office of the presidency. the -- mr. trump has made an argument that might seem sort of illogical to a layperson, that very technical argument that the use of the word office under the united states and officer of the united states do not include the president of the united states, and historically i think we'll hear arguments about how back in 1866 when this amendment was being considered, senator moral, who was a proponent of the amendment was asked why doesn't it include the president, and he called attention to his

and for her to say that the supreme court -- i hate to say this, but the supreme court has no trust inamerica in the sense you can't believe they're not going to make a hack choice because they got there the way they did, and i think they're intimidating the other three justices as to how they handle, for example, barring trump from being on the ballot. so america is in a situation which we've gotten ourselves in this by not dealing with the problems as they arose, one by one. >> i'm only smiling -- why am i smiling? there's probably layers. once is how much i like and look up to you because you're john flannery. i'm smiling because we don't have the evidence. we're watching that case. >> are you questioning my credibility? >> not your credibility, counselor. just you're laying it out, and we will see. we'll follow that evidence, because we've been covering that case as well. but we value your views and we don't have all one note views here. i hope you're having a great weekend and thank you for joining us. >> thank you for allowing me to join you. i enjoyed it. thank you very much. >>

you're right, too, there may be any number of cases going to the supreme court. yet convinced they're going to hear the immunity claim. they don't have to. you have a very well reasoned opinion from the d.c. circuit court below. there might not be a reason for the supreme court to wade into that now. we shall see. reclaiming some of that middle ground, and being perceived as claiming some of that middle ground, i think, could be valuable to us as a society. >> chuck, it's so good to have you here. ian, jonathan lemire, thank you all so much. once again, we appreciate it. following today's historic oral arguments on whether donald trump's name should remain on colorado's primary ball lot. the former president is due in las vegas, where he'll be rally supporters on caucus day. vaughn hillyard is on the ground. what are we hearing? what are we expecting. >> reporter: yeah, chris, look -- >> i'm sorry, i have to interrupt you. we have breaking news on the special counsel report. julie tsirkin is on the hill for us. what can you tell us. >> >> reporter: house judiciary

supreme court today, there is this other case which is the u.s. t of appeals which is under the u.s. supreme court, has said that donald trump is not immune from prosecution in a separate case of january 6 case. and donald trump as steve referenced is going to appeal that to the u.s. supreme court and the guess that the legal minds here are making is that the court will just decide to not even hear that argument. >> by the way, that is on monday that they have a deadline to actually file something on the trump team. not a deadline for the supreme court. they have their own private -- but what it is telling them is figure out that it will not have an impact -- >> i have to interrupt. i'm told donald trump is talking out legal matters. >> it is election interference and really very sad. i thought the presentation today was a very good one. i think that it was well received. i hope it was well received. you have millions of people that are out there wanting to vote and they happen to want to vote for me or the republican party. and whatever you want t

the supreme court will hear his appeal over presidential immunity in the federal election interference case in april. earlier this month, a panel of circuit court judges ruled against trump, then given the chance to ask the supreme court to take t the case. here is my colleague laura jarrett. >> tonight the u.s. supreme court deciding to weigh in on a critical issue that could make or break the special counsel's former president trump, agreeing to decide whether mr. trump must be shielded from prosecution by claiming presidential immunity for the acts he tech leading up to january six. those acts, the basis for the criminal election interference case he is now facing in federal court. the move further delayed any trial in the case, flikely for months. if mitzvah trump wins, the charges could be dismissed. arguments now set for the week of april 22nd, an appeals court had ruled against him saying former president trump has become citizen trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. but mr. trump hoped the supreme court would put that on pause saying he was being wron

supreme court. you'll recall that special counsel jack smith had intended and requested that the supreme court be the initial ones to hear donald trump's appeal and bypass the appeals court. that did not happen. that is all but effectively slowed down this case. you said judge chutkan acknowledged the march 4th trial start date would be pushed back. we are looking at that anywhere from as late as april or may now beginning here. but when we're talking about what has actually been determined by the court here, ana, this is notable, not only just in this case, but also for future presidents who serve in the oval office. you'll recall that donald trump's attorney had made the case to the appeals court that a president can only be charged with crimes if he were to be then impeached and convicted by the u.s. congress. making the case that donald trump, that did not happen. when the senate voted to not convict him after the house voted to impeach him on those january 6th charges. now, donald trump over th

. >> most of the work of the supreme court as we know is low visibility.nes about it. there are countless tax cases that move through the supreme court in a given year. clarence thomas ruling on every single one of them. those cases involve questions of compliance. the notion that you have a non- tax law compliant justice ruling in such cases is just stunning. >> if anybody else had come before the united states supreme court with the argument that they didn't understand when they stopped paying the interest on alone, there's a principle they had never repaid, and that was not a discharge of that indebtedness and therefore not income, they would be left of the courtroom by these very justices. but when they are the ones who were involved in, it then suddenly it all gets very peculiar. so if the judicial conference really has an important role here. also getting to the bottom of these donations by the billionaires. why on earth a billionaire spending money to influence either the court or political elections should be able to use pretax money to exert their

that is the best case considering we know that there are at least some of the supreme court justices don't agree with the earlier rulings. otherwise, they would not be hearing the case. and if the court does decide to affirm the earlier ruling, as they should, and hand the case back to district court judge tanya chutkan, she would need a few months to get the case back on track and a trial. that would take us past july when donald trump is expected to become the party's nominee. and at that point, what will the doj and attorney general merrick garland decide to do. will they move forward with the trial that would have to get under way during the heat of the general election? or would they allow trump to yet again evade accountability before the presidential election? joining me now is a power house legal panel andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the mueller probe. melissa murray, law professor at new york university and msnbc legal analyst. maya wily, former u.s. assistant attorney and president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and hum

supreme court. justices hearing the colorado ballot case tomorrow, but could they soon have another trump case on their hands? >>> and later, a guilty verdict for the mother of the michigan shooter. the foreperson of that jury talking about their decision that made history. ♪♪ >>> hello and thank you for being here. it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. we begin on capitol hill where republicans are in disarray after an embarrassing series of setbacks. the bid to impeach alejandro mayorkas failed dramatically late yesterday as democrat al green, a widely expected no-show rushed straight from the hospital to the house floor without even shoes on his feet to sink the bill. it marked a stunning and significant setback for house speaker mike johnson with just enough republicans joining all democrats to vote no. now, minutes later, speaker johnson's stand-alone bill for aid to israel also failed, and today gop divisions still threaten to sink a broader bipartisan senate deal for t