or could there still be room for tanya chutkan? curious as to why his team was advocating for that july trial date if they really wanted to try the d.c. trial first. >> right. so i think that july trial date presupposes what the supreme court will not decide the presidential immunity appeal until say, the first week of july, then trump gets three months to preparation for trial. so i think that is the assumption there but look, there are a lot of moving pieces. just because judge cannon set a trial, she did not seem inclined to go with the governments july suggestion. but if she, did that date still wouldn't be written in stone. all sorts of things could come up, where that trial date might not hold, and so at this point it is really difficult to understand and make decisions about whether the president will face any criminal trials other than the one in manhattan. it starts later this month before the election. >> what i also found interesting is there was really no tension between judge aileen cannon down on florida, and donald t

tanya chutkan. no matter what the supreme court does. >> and catherine, he's even managed by having one of his buddies cook up this case against fani willis, they have gotten into the state case that was untouchable for a pardon. that now is being stalled under the immunity defense theory. it's amazing. he's managed to riggle out oteverything but what's in new york. >> his delaying tactics have worked. and he has won, i mean, won in that these, it's highly unlikely, not impossible, but highly improbable that either federal case is going to be tried before the november election date. it's just -- i never want to say never, but i just don't see either of those cases being tried, and quite frankly, the georgia case, which has now gone sideways with personal issues involving the d.a. so the only case will be the manhattan d.a. case. >> we're out of time, but very quickly, david, how many days would it take for donald trump to fill the two seats which alito and clarence thomas will vacate on inauguration

important case, probably, for... is the case of rebellion, the case of the events of january 6, judge tanya chutkan march 4, but the supreme court intervened in the case, trump asked the supreme court to determine, and in general , being the president of the united states, how much he was constrained in his decisions, how limited he was and whether he had full immunity, protection from? accusations until the supreme court decides on this, and the supreme court can also drag out this issue for a long time, especially since who wants to become the one who determines the outcome of the presidential race in the pre-election year, so the date set there is april 22, 2024, but this this is just the beginning of consideration of this issue, and this, too, may still move the deadline after november 2024, maybe to 2020. the fifth year, although there, of course, there are very serious charges of incitement of insurrection, and there are articles under which donald trump can face up to 20 years in prison. well, another important case remains the case of secret documents, what are they talking about, after tru

judge tanya chutkan should have started to consider it on march 4, but the supreme court intervened in court to determine whether or not he was president of the united states. this, too, may all move beyond november 2024, maybe to 2025, although there are, of course, very serious accusations there. and there are articles on which donald trump could face up to 20 years in prison. well, another important matter remains the matter of secret documents, what are we talking about there? after trump left the white house, he took many, many packs of secret secrets with him to marolaga. documents from which the secret stamp was not removed. trump claims that he could do this as the former president of the united states, but after this there was a search by the fbi. some of these documents were still kept in his golf club in badminster in new jersey, there are 30 charges, but the situation there is interesting, it’s interesting like this: firstly, this is florida, florida is a state where trump is incredibly popular, this his home state, how popular trump is can be judged even because now his na

for liberals is probably business. about rebellion, cases about the events of january 6, judge tanya chutkann considering it on march 4, but the supreme court intervened in the case , trump asked the supreme court to determine, and in general, being the president of the united states, how constrained he was in his decisions, how limited he was and whether he had full at least immunity , protection from accusations, while the supreme court is not... in the pre-election year , who wants to become the one who determines the outcome of the presidential race, so the date has been set for april 22 , 2024, but this is only the beginning of consideration of this issue, this can also all move the period after november 2024, maybe for 2025, although there are of course very serious ones... after trump left the white house, he took with him to marolalaga many, many packs of secret documents that had not been stamped secret. trump claims that he could do this as a former president of the united states, but after that. fbi search, some of these documents were kept at his golf club in badminster, new jers

however, he also will very likely look at what not just judge tanya chutkan has done in washington dc, saying that trump it doesn't matter if he claims the first amendment protection, saying the false statements he made after the election were reasonable. that's not enough to dismiss the case. that's what she said in federal court. but it's very likely judge mcafee will also be looking at the us supreme court precedent around this case. it came up multiple times. there was a lot of discussion about what the supreme court has said before. for related to false statements. and in fact, can be protected speech. >> so elliott, do you expect judge mcafee to reject trump's first amendment argument? i really >> do walf and to be clear, the judge probably needs to take a little bit of time and write a lengthy opinion on this given the nature of the important constitutional questions it raises. but john just about every time this issue has come up, judges have consistently found that false statements and statements that are made in furtherance of the conspiracy are not protected speech. one can

but instead of proceedings in judge tanya chutkan's courtroom on monday what we got was an expedited ruling by the supreme court saying states cannot remove donald trump from their ballots for engaging in insurrection under the 14th amendment. and today the court announced it will hear oral arguments over trump's presidential immunity claim seven weeks from now on april 25th, which is the very last day of the court's term. joining me now is the chair of civil rights at howard university. i should also note she filed an amicus brief in the trump case which was of course recently decided by the court. it's great to see you. thank you for being here in new york. i'm not going to ask you to tell me the good news because i think it's truly bad news here. the very last day of the court's term is when they're going to hear this immunity claim contrasted with the relatively quick time frame with the 14th amendment ruling. how do you interpret that decision? >> it's very much consistent with this court's refusal to be moved from the narrative as it has tried to create that we are somehow impe

and the district judge, in that case tanya chutkan, heard arguments and issued a very well reasoned ruling saying nobody it, doesn't work that. way quote, whatever immunity's a sitting president may enjoy, the united states has learned chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass. and then the special counsel prosecuting case, jack smith, did something a little novel and even audacious. rather than waiting for donald trump to appeal that ruling to the d. c. circuit, which is the next step up the ladder, smith said hey, we all know this is going to end up in the supreme court. let's just cooling court now. let's do it. let's have it out. and he applied for the rare procedural mechanism that's called cert before a judgment. what it means is you can leapfrog a step. you leapfrogging the appellate court and you rush straight to the doors of the supreme court to save time in this case. and also because you know it's going to end up there. and when he tried to do that the supreme court responded, no, no, no, we're going to let the appeals run

i think about three words, there abigail joe shrike, the woman who called tanya chutkan's chambers shortly after the federal election interference indictment was handed down, and made a threat to her voicemail that is so ugly that i won't repeat it here, except to say she is now under indictment herself. we used to live in a world where the threats to judges wherefrom actual litigants before them, that is the situation in which judge solace found herself when her son was murdered by somebody who had been a litigant before her. that was also the case in the case of federal judge joan, who still serves on the bench, and whose husband and mother were murdered by someone who had been a litigant before her, and even years before then, there was a federal district judge in new york who was murdered in his backyard by the father of a woman who had a case against him that he had dismissed, but we are far from that now. the threats to judges and their families are no longer even coming from actual litigants, they are coming from adherence to every word that those litigants utter and words that they

district court judge tanya chutkan in a separate federal prosecution. georgia prosecutors noted the earlier ruling in court on thursday. they also argued trump's comments should not be considered on their own but as part of a series of actions aimed to advance crimes including racketeering. the judge did not rule on the argument yesterday. >>> still ahead here on "way too early," republican house oversight chairman james comer makes another attempt to keep the impeachment inquiry into president biden in the headlines. >>> plus, national security reporter for politico alex ward joins me with insight on the state of the war in ukraine. and in just a few minutes we'll be joined with jeff mason of reuters, a white house correspondent in the room last night for that radio city fund-raiser. all that and a check on sports and weather when we come right back. check on sports and weather when we come right back a mystery! jessie loves playing detective. but the real mystery was her irritated skin. so, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it cleans better, and

the idea is to make it impossible for the judge in that case, tanya chutkan, to jam a trial down before the election by using things that are out of her control. trump's team believes the mar-a- lago case, if it is moved to july, could box out judge chutkan from putting the federal election subversion case on the schedule. it looks like that is trump's strategy here. makes sense to me. at the end of the day, this is his classic delay strategy with a few more bells and whistles, admittedly. instead, what actually confused me today was special counsel jack smith's strategy. smith's team asked for the mar- a-lago classified documents case to start on july 8th. i do not know about you, but that also feels uncomfortably close to the very small window in which the special counsel's federal election interference case could start and finish before the november election. so what is the special counsel thinking here? is there an order of operations? are there any special legal avenues to expedite any of this? something that would allow both of these cases to go to trial before november? well i ha

consider what happened in texas late last year prosecutors say a woman threatened to kill judge tanya chutkan. that is the judge overseeing trump's federal election case right here in washington, dc the woman left a voicemail that said, and i'm quoting year. if trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you. so tread lightly. >> be now, she pled guilty and is now serving three years in prison. so again, you got to understand that sitting federal judges do not come out and regularly speak on television. that's why some have called this appearance by this judge nothing short than an act of bravery and, it also raised a question for retired judge michael luttig. the question of why it had to be a sitting judge to be the one to speak out when frankly, there are so many others who could or should no one no one single person in a position of responsibility to >> address this issue has done so for of courage and wat of will and until or unless we as a nation address this issue then we're careening toward the effective end of the rule of law. and in america >> joining me now, former jan

on december 1st, 89 days ago, federal judge tanya chutkan ruled on trump's bogus immunity claim, finding it, correctly, meritless. days later, on december 11th, special prosecutor jack smith, anticipating that this claim was no more than an attempt to delay, and would fail on the merits, did something unusual, he did something audacious. he went straight to the supreme court, skipping an intermediate appellate level. he said look, let's be clear here, you know and i know what's going on. trump is trying to delay, this is likely to land in your lap. if you are inclined to take it, let's do it now, let's get to the merits. the public interest in this case, coming to trial can be preserved. and the court said nope, just before christmas they said nope. now people set at the time, well, maybe that makes sense, because maybe supreme court justices want to let the lower appellate court, they are colonies in the d.c. circuit, way in, and not even take up the case, because it is so clear cut. and then what happened? the appellate court did take up the case, they heard oral arguments, they got br

we know, jose, judge juan marshawn in new york had collaboration with tanya chutkan, judge chutkan in d.c. when it came to choosing march 25th. we know the d.c. trial is on hold waiting for a decision from the supreme court, the hearing, that public hearing that will go forward on april 22nd. we wonder if there is going to be collaboration between this judge aileen cannon and the three other judges in the other cases when the date will be set. and/or will she say today because of this immunity motion that the former president's attorneys filed last week that now stands in front of the supreme court, will they indefinitely put this trial on hold until they get a decision from the supreme court? and if she doesn't and chooses the end of the summer, could that then push any chance of a d.c. trial going forward beyond the election? because they will interact with each other or overlap with each other. those are some things we're watching for today. and the big news that comes out of this will be the date, if a date is set for this trial, jose. >> so many overlapping potentially overlappin

then will we be in a position where, for instance, judge tanya chutkan in the district of columbia mightable to try the flagship case that federal prosecutors have brought, the election interference case against trump. >> vaughn hillyard, let's talk about the campaign. so how will this -- let's say that this starts with jury selection april 15th and donald trump is sitting there in the courtroom, stuck there for however long this trial lasts. how is that going to affect his campaigning outside of the benefit that he seems to be getting politically anytime he's in a courtroom, by playing the victim card? what's on the calendar april, may? i think you're coming up on the pennsylvania primary in may. what else is there? or the end of april. >> right. i think there is a two-part answer to this, andrea. number one, what is donald trump going to say he is precluded from partaing in, versus what is the reality for donald trump actually? this trial going to last monday through thursday, potentially up to six weeks. donald trump did not have to appear in the courtroom over the course of the last

judge, tanya chutkan has been bullish about bringing that case to trial. the justice department today opened the possibility of that they would be willing to try him even in september or october. when judge chutkan be open to that or this go back to the supreme court judge gertner, i mean, there are legitimate questions about the classified material at the heart of this case. that is a complicating factor in the florida case >> it is a complicating factor, but one of the things that is clear, usually a new judge facing a classified documents case usually seeds to the prosecution. i don't think that that's necessarily a good thing, but, uh, but that's what happens, will usually defer to the prosecution's view of what should be classified after all, what judges schooled and national security issues. the irony of this case is that this is a judge who's doing just the opposite, whose tilting to the defense rather than tilting to the prosecution. there are complicated issues, but you know, this is in one sense, the easiest of all the cases. so these are case, th

he's been warned in the federal case here in washington, the case over team by by judge tanya tanya chutkane's going to be a great reluctance by judges to take the ultimate punishment, which is to throw him behind bars, right? that is a thing that we've seen done in other cases but i think you're going see, uh, judges really, really try to make sure that he abides by these rules but most defendants have no trouble abiding why can't trump appeal. his lawyers appeal this gag order. >> he can certainly try. i mean, he's a big fan of trying to appeal things even when they're ordinarily not appealed and even though he has i would say pretty low odds of success he does have a political objective here to save and fighting over them based on the courts may ultimately be something is quite happy to do because it further his narrative of being attacked in restrained by process. >> got a lot of experience in this area. what does this gag order suggest, if anything, to you about how the judge is likely to approach the trial. that's coming up next month. >> well, it sounds like the judge wants to hold t

know for sure, but it suggests that decision is probably then going to come in june and judge tanya chutkan has said that she will provide the parties with three more months to prepare for trial. that means we're talking end of summer coinciding with labor day, the traditional start of the final sprint toward election day. the first debate is scheduled for september 16 at texas state university, and voting begins as early as september 23. states minnesota, virginia, and south dakota but the doj has a standing policy of not taking certain actions close in time to an election five recent attorneys general have all signed the same memo affirming the importance of keeping politics out of investigations and criminal charges republican michael mukasey in 2008, democrats eric holder in 2012, loretta lynch in 2016 republican bill barr in 2020, and democrat merrick garland in 2022 they've all used the same language including this paragraph, quote, simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of the federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. i'm

in response to this argument, the georgia prosecutors here's pointed to this decision by judge tanya chutkan in that federal case in dc what do you make of them invoking that? >> and it's back to the conversation you and i had off cameras. people didn't see it's about how confusing some of this can be. a lot of people may not realize that that is a federal case, not a state case, but a judge reviewing similar charges against the former president. totally different court. now, what a judge and a federal judge in washington dc says or writes, has no bearing on what happens in a georgia state courtroom. it's a different jurisdiction, a different sovereign. it doesn't matter, but it's persuasive. she's talking about the first amendment and shooting down this idea that the first amendment, free speech rights allow you to lie and commit crimes and so i think it's valuable. i would have done it. i would have pointed to it and said, look, they're court's not just in atlanta, georgia, all around the country. and at the federal and state level, who are making this argument that you can't hide behind t

they are also be ensuring that if she picks that up, tanya chutkan will never get to try the case before, before the election because there won't be enough time after the supreme court decides with an august 12th date for both cases to be tried before the election. >> kristy, judge cannon is a trump appointee, and he is more likely to have a more favorable jury pool in florida versus in washington, d.c., with the election interference case, right? do you think part of the p strategy would b would be to th this august 12th date and maybe get this trial underway first to officially kick those other trials to later? >> i don't think trump has any expectation that this trial will happen before the election. he put out a date there. i think the only reason that there are dates is, as lisa said, just to make sure that if, in fact, the supreme court rules and there can be a trial in the d.c. case, that the calendar is clogged. it's interesting because walt nauta actually is unavailable on that august 12th date. he's available in september, but they didn't say all three of us could be going forw

cases that he's seen before him and the threats to him but the fact that his colleague, judge tanya chutkandistrict bench in d.c. has herself been a victim of threats so much so that someone is currently being prosecuted for the things that they have said on her voice mail and the communications that they have sent to her chambers. that's an environment in which no judge, state, federal, lifetime tenure or elected should have to live with. >> lisa rubin and ryan reilly, thank you for a very important conversation. >>> new video out of florida showing good samaritans rushing to help the driver of a flipped suv, it happened in daytona beach after that suv collided with another car. within moments eight strangers rushed to the intersection and helped push the car and flip it back upright. if you can believe it or not, no one was seriously hurt. >>> a stark cover of the wall street journal today marking its reporter evan gershkovich's detention in russia one year later. we'll talk about the impact it's had on journalism coming out of moscow. evan's friend will join me here next. me here next of

which judge tanya chutkan, because although these are two separate entities, one state and once federal she is saying it oughtta go to a jury, decide whether they believe you've proven your case that it's knowingly false state and it's an important distinction i'm glad you're asking that question. it's important distinction that folks understand the difference between federal cases, state cases, and what matters now, judge chutkan, as you pointed out, it's a federal court in washington, dc that actually believe or not even though it's a federal court has no bearing on what happens in atlanta, they don't know whats called precedential value, what she rules, doesn't matter. and atlanta, that said it's still persuasive. they are reading her opinion. they're relying on her judgment and she's ruled on this already in effect, said no, as a politician, simply by being a politician, you don't automatically get immune from prosecution. simply by being an office. and so that is certainly an opinion they're going to look to. and maybe even site or rely on the hearing wrapped today with no ruling.

you noted, what they're trying to do is delay this to the point where it makes it impossible for tanya chutkan and the dc trial to find find room on the calendar. they know that obviously, given the fact that this that the that the immunity question is now before the supreme court we anticipate that what they're going to do is look for something that will make sure that that the dc judge doesn't have room on the calendar between now and november to sketch chilling new trial. and so what jack smith is doing here in making this request is trying to at least have the judge in in in florida put a put on the calendar a date of july 8th. now, we don't know whether she'll go for this. there are a lot of complicated issues because this has to do with classified info aileen cannon, the judge, there has pretty much been been helpful with the former president and his legal strategy, so we don't know where she's going to go. but you also see this in another ruling in another filing today from the special counsel, one of the things that they raised in a filing today erin, is that they want to ask jurors ab

he's been the most vocally angry about whether it's the prosecution down in georgia, the judge, tanya chutkan here in dc in the dc case. >> but i think it's the classified documents one that to me there are implications for your average voter there that are this is how we're storing our documents. now. >> this makes me feel very unsafe. this feels like it was very avoidable if the documents just been given back, he made this mess himself >> and because it is i think tied to national security, i think that's why if you are an independent voter, it makes trump seem reckless potentially. oh, my gosh, we're gonna put this guy back in charge of our national security again now, because there's so much around this case, it's classified that i'm unsure exactly how much the public will see about it, but i somewhat agree with that assessment that i could wind up being the one that has the biggest impact. >> things >> she has a point that was one when you fimbriae when it first broke, that was the case where the most republicans had to veil, but still critiques more than the other ones. i think in a str

and i'm not sure that tanya chutkan is going to judge chutkan is going to give a care about the upcoming election. she's going to want to administer justice in this case one way or the other. so i do believe that we see this priority election, but it's going to be darn close there's going to be a whole lot of controversy surrounding it, whichever decision judge cut. chuck, it makes in terms of when this things hurt. >> and jim, what do you say to all those americans out there are watching this who are frustrated and say trump is getting away with breaking the law that he files appeal after appeal, he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about. i mean, isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? i mean, just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things. and so kingdom come well, actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. well, that provide practical purposes. it doesn't that doesn't happen. i mean, the vast

that will be up to judge tanya chutkan, if and when the cases returned to her. in that instance, i believe that judge chutkan would proceed even if we are well into general election territory at that point. john? >> lisa, by the way i called the hamilton reference, joyce vance, let me ask you, you said yesterday you think it's unlikely that we see this trial before the election for all the reasons that lisa just laid out. what kind of a timeline given your experience in the court is realistic for people to expect here? >> right, i mean, it's possible that there could be an aggressive timeline where the sun and the moon and stars lineup and the case gets to trial. but, i will tell you, willie, 25 years of trying cases at the doj these things don't run like clockwork. for one thing there is some administrative time that it takes after the supreme court issues its ruling to get the mandate back to the district th court so that judge chutkan can get back to work. it would be a mistake for her, and i don't think we will see her give trump any less time for trial that

she's the one who called tanya chutkan's chambers and made a threat to her voicemail that it is so uglyon't repeat it here except to say ms. sharai is now under indictment herself. we used to live in a world where the threats to judges were from actual litigants before them. that's the situation in which judge salas found herself when her son was murdered by somebody who had been a litigant before her. this was also the case in the case of federal judge joan lefkow, who's husband and mother were murdered by someone who had been a litigant before there. years before then, there was a federal district judge in new york who was murdered in his backyard by the father of a woman who had a sex bias case against him that he had dismissed. but we're far afield from that now. the threats to judges and their families are now longer even coming from actual litigants. they are coming from adherents to every word that those litigants utter and words that they might not be uttering at all but people in their universes are uttering as surrogates on their behalf without any fingerprints on it, without