IMMUNE FROM HIS EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE 2020 ELECTION. >> WHICH ONE? >> I HAVE NO IDEA NOR WOULD I SAY IF I HAD AN IDEA. >> LISA RRUBIN, YOUR THOUGHTS? >> I'LL TRY TO PLAY THE ROLE OF STEVE KORNACKI IN BREAKING IT DOWN TO DATA. I HAVE TO PUT A FINER POINT SOMETHING THE JUDGE SAID ABOUT HOW LONG THE SUPREME COURT HAS AND HOW ITS TIMING WOULD AFFECT THE TIMING OF A TRIAL. WHEN THE STAY WAS APPLIED FOR BY DONALD TRUMP, BECAUSE OF THIS ARGUMENT ON IMMUNITY, WE WERE ON DECEMBER 7th AND HE WAS 88 DAYS TO THE ORIGINAL MARCH 4th TRIAL. JUDGE CHUTKAN HAS VERY PUBLICLY COMMITTED HERSELF TO GIVING DONALD TRUMP SEVEN MONTHS TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL. SO THAT 88-DAY PERIOD, THEORETICALLY, IS GOING TO BE ONE THAT SHE'S GOING TO SEEK TO PRESERVE. AND THAT'S WHY THE TIMING HERE IS SO ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL. NOW, TO ANOTHER POINT THAT THE JUDGE MADE, WHEN THIS SUPREME COURT WANTS TO MOVE FAST, IT ABSOLUTELY IS CAPABLE OF IT. GOING BACK TO BUSH V. GORE, THEY WERE FOUR DAYS BETWEEN THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND THE UNITED STATES COURT DECISION WITH BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENTS HERE. AND YET HERE, DONALD TRUMP MADE HIS APPLICATION ON FEBRUARY 12th AND WE'RE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL APRIL 22nd JUST TO HAVE ARGUMENTS. SO I AM NOT OVERLY OPTIMISTIC RIGHT NOW. WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DECISION FROM THE COURT THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE TIME LIKE NEAL OUTLINED LIKE MAY IN ORDER TO HAVE A TRIAL BEFORE THE ELECTION. WHY? BECAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS ALREADY SAID IN PUBLIC FILINGS, THIS IS A TRIAL THEY EXPECT IS GOING TO LAST THREE MONTHS, NOT THE FOUR TO SIX WEEKS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ALVIN BRAGG EXPECTS TO TAKE IT HIS. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, AND MAYBE THIS IS JUST BECAUSE I'M A WORD PARSER, BOTH OF THESE GENTLEMEN KNOW VERY WELL, THAT'S AN OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, BUT THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS ABOUT TO WHAT EXTENT A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOYS PRESIDENTIAL FLUENT FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS. ALLEGED ACCORDING TO WHOM? BECAUSE IF YOU ASK THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WHETHER THE ACTIONS AND CONDUCT IMPLICATED IN THIS INDICTMENT WERE OFFICIAL ACTS, THEIR ANSWER WOULD BE "NO," AND THE COURT'S OBLIGATION IS TO TAKE THE FACTS ALLEGED AS TRUE. SO THE QUESTION I HAVE HERE IS, WHO'S ALLEGING IT? IS IT TRUMP'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY WERE OFFICIAL ACTS? IF WE LOOK BACK AT THE BRIEFING THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED, ACCORDING TO HIM, THESE WERE OFFICIAL ACTS. AND YET THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE TAKES A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW. I'M VERY TROUBLED BY THE WORD "ALLEGED HERE. AND WHAT ROLE IT PLAYS IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. >> I THINK I'M THE ONLY NON-LAWYER IN THE ROOM, NEAL, I'LL USE A LIFELINE AND THROW THAT OVER TO YOU. >> I THINK LISA IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO FOCUS ON THE 88-DAY PERIOD. BECAUSE WHENEVER THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE CASE, THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH EXTRA TIME IS DONALD TRUMP GOING TO GET TO PREPARE. I DON'T READ THE SUPREME COURT'S ORDER AS BARRING JUDGE CHUTKAN FROM ESSENTIALLY SAYING, LOOK, YOU HAVE TO BE ON NOTICE THAT ONCE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES, WE'LL GO TO TRIAL MORE QUICKLY. YOU HAD 88 DAYS BEFORE, BUT THAT WAS WHEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE, AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED ALL 88 DAYS NOW. SO IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT THAT 88-DAY PERIOD CAN BE TRUNCATED. BUT I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT LISA IS SAYING, WHICH IS, THIS IS THE COURT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE MOVING PARTICULARLY QUICKLY SO FAR. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
