MOSTLY, THAT WOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS. THEY WOULD BE OUT. THEY WOULD BE OUT OF THE ELECTION. >> THE SECOND WE THREW TO THAT SOUND BITE, WHICH I'M GLAD YOU GOT A CHANCE TO HEAR, WE RECEIVED THE BREAKING NEWS THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THE SUBJECT OF OUR FIRST STORY IN THE LAST HOUR, HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT IT WILL HEAR DONALD TRUMP'S IMMUNITY CASE. IT WILL HEAR THAT CASE ON APRIL 22nd. SO JUDGE LUTTIG, I KNOW THIS IS A CURVEBALL, BUT I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR INTELLECT, WATCHING YOU TESTIFY BEFORE THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE, SO I'M GOING TO THROW YOU THIS CURVEBALL. YOUR REACTION TO THE NEWS JUST BREAKING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MINUTES THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR TRUMP'S IMMUNITY CASE? >> WELL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON, NICOLE. I'M JUST HEARING THIS, AT THIS MOMENT. >> I JUST HEARD IT IN MY EAR AS WE THREW TO THE -- >> LOOK, THIS IS A MOMENTOUS DECISION, JUST TO HEAR THIS CASE. THERE WAS NO REASON IN THIS WORLD FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE THIS CASE. THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAD WRITTEN A MASTERFUL OPINION, DENYING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIMS OF ABSOLUTELY IMMUNITY, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THERE'S NEVER BEEN AN ARGUMENT THAT A FORMER PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES THAT HE COMMITTED WHILE IN OFFICE. ON A MORE PRACTICAL LEVEL, OF COURSE, THE COURT -- THE SUPREME COURT IS CAPABLE OF DECIDING THIS VERY QUICKLY, IN TIME THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT COULD BE TRIED, BEFORE THE ELECTION. BUT TODAY'S DECISION MAKES THAT THAT MUCH MORE UNLIKELY. >> JUST EXPLAIN THAT FORK IN THE ROAD, IF THEY HAD REFUSED TO HEAR IT, THE APPEALS COURT RULING WOULD HAVE HELD, AND THE TRIAL -- JUDGE TANYA CHUTKAN COULD HAVE SCHEDULED HER TRIAL. >> YES, AND THAT IS WHAT I HAD EXPECTED THE COURT TO DO, AS HAD MANY OTHER OBSERVERS OF THE SUPREME COURT, THAT IS WHY IT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT HAD DECIDED TO TAKE THE CASE AND HEAR IT. >> I WANT TO JUST RE-STATE FOR ANYONE JUST JOINING US, NEWS BREAKING JUST IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MINUTES, THAT TRUMP VERSUS THE UNITED STATES WILL BE HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT. THIS IS THE PAPER THAT WE JUST GOT. THE APPLICATION FOR A STAY PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS REFERRED TO HIM BY THE COURT. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REQUEST TO TREAT THE STAY APPLICATION, AS A PETITION FOR WRIT IS GRANTED AND THAT PETITION IS GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION. WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHATEXTENT DOES THE FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FOR ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE. ANDREW WEISMANN HAS JOINED US, UNDERSCORING THE PERIL OF LETTING HIM HAVE EVEN A SINGLE DAY OFF. ANDREW WEISMANN, YOUR REACTION? >> WELL, I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED, BECAUSE IT TOOK THEM SO LONG TO TAKE THE CASE. THE BETTING WAS THAT BECAUSE IT TOOK THEM SO LONG TO EVEN DECIDE TO TAKE THE CASE, THAT WE WERE GOING TO NOT TAKE IT. THE ONLY SORT OF GOOD NEWS FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR A LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY, MEANING THAT THERE WILL BE A TRIAL BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION IS THAT THERE IS EXPEDITE REVIEWED AND THE DECISION SAYS THAT THEY WILL HEAR ARGUMENT THE WEEK OF ZSH I THINK THE THIRD WEEK IN APRIL, THE 22nd. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A SHORTENED TIME FRAME. BUT JUST REMEMBER THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL ISSUE A DECISION SPEEDILY AFTER THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE COLORADO DISQUALIFICATION AND FOR MORE BAD NEWS, SO WE DON'T KNOW THE TIME PERIOD AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENT, THAT THEY WILL RENDER THEIR ULTIMATE DECISION, AND I STILL THINK THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THAT DONALD TRUMP IS IMMUNE FROM THIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, BUT IF THEY, LET'S SAY, TOOK EVEN TWO WEEKS TO MAKE THAT DECISION, THAT BRINGS US INTO MAY. THEY THEN SAY TO JUDGE CHUTKAN, YOU CAN GO FORWARD, THAT'S SORT OF THE BEST-CASE SCENARIO. SHE HAS AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTHS OF WORK, OF PRE-TRIAL WORK THAT SHE HAS INDICATED THAT SHE HAS TO DO, IN ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO LITIGATE A WHOLE VARIETY OF ISSUES. SHE HAS TO PICK A JURY, SHE NEEDS JURY QUESTIONNAIREQUESTIOE TALKING AT THE EARLIEST A COUPLE MONTHS AFTER THAT. SO THAT BRINGS US INTO JULY. SO GOOERGT PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO THE ELECTION. AND THAT'S SORT OF THE BEST-CASE SCENARIO. YOU KNOW, IT COULD -- FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I'M SURPRISED THE SUPREME COURT TOOK THIS LONG JUST TO ISSUE THIS SHORT DECISION ABOUT THE TIMING, YOU KNOW, I'M SORT OF GIVING A BEST-CASE SCENARIO THAT IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS FOR THEM TO RENDER THEIR DECISION, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT TO THE BANK. THAT COULD BE MUCH LONGER. AND SO THIS IS A CASE WHERE THEY COULD BY WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW POCKET VETO THE CASE GOING FORWARD. I THINK THAT WOULD IN MANY WAYS WOULD BE THE VERY WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY. I REALLY DO THINK THAT THE BEST OUTCOME HERE IS TO HAVE A TRIAL, MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PROVE ITS CASE, IF THEY CAN'T, THEN THE DEFENDANT, WHETHER YOU LIKE THAT PERSON OR NOT, IS ACQUITTED, BUT I THINK HAVING A TRIAL IS THE THING THAT'S REQUIRED HERE. AND THE SUPREME COURT, I REALLY FEAR COULD BE POLITICIZING THIS
