that unfold rest of the year. harris: you were talking about what happens to the businesses. leo terrell was navigating breaking news and said there is good news for trump camp and maybe victory delayed depending how things turn out. he said final chapter has not been written yet, appellate makes that decision. in the meantime, his business and money are not in trust, the kids businesses are not in trust. that is good, nobody can own that stuff now. they can t start making movement and leticia james sitting there like a chest erred cat, she did not speak today. waiting for the moment to take down the banner and gold letters on west side of manhattan on trump tower. that sits until the appellate process goes through, big stripe
and you could see concurrence from judge henderson, if they were unanimously could affect the prospects for a remand, and remand might entail a subsequent round of appeals under the remanded standard by trump and a little bit more delay. it also could affect whether the supreme court takes review. so that lower level, there was some drama. i think people were basically not confident about the way in which the panel, the panel will reject his claim. they will do it quickly. the exact rationale is a little bit uncertain, i d say. i just be clear on the definition of a rebound, remained is when an appellate sends it back down one level and they say we are going to put we want you to reassess this issue, but with these sort of parameters. and you heard jack smith attorney say, no, no, no, that s a terrible idea, let s not open that can of worms. like, you guys should affirm, and on and let s get on with the trial. if he s got appealed, he makes them after judgment, just like everyone e
legal rulings. they are technical. they don t get into the nitty-gritty of who the defendant s. it s not a situation where it will be introduced in open court. all of that to say what he will hope to do is to hold a press conference on the courthouse steps. appellate judges less so than trial judges have tolerance for that sort of a stunt. backtrack, when he tells people, joe biden is keeping him in these trials to keep him off the campaign trail, donald trump is choosing to be in court. mark, what about the fact that trump is not arguing that he didn t do any of the things he is accused of doing? everything is that he has immunity for whatever he may have done, not that, i am innocent. right, this question of presidential immunity goes to the jurisdiction over that case. whether a judge can even hold a single hearing, let alone a full trial, on these charges. if he wins on presidential
of that to say what he will hope to do is to hold a press conference on the courthouse steps. appellate judges less so than trial judges have tolerance for that sort of a stunt. backtrack, when he tells people, joe biden is keeping him in these trials to keep him off the campaign trail, donald trump is choosing to be in court. mark, what about the fact that trump is not arguing that he didn t do any of the things he is accused of doing? everything is that he has immunity for whatever he may have done, not that, i am innocent. right, this question of presidential immunity goes to the jurisdiction over that case. whether a judge can even hold a single hearing, let alone a full trial, on these charges. if he wins on presidential immunity, the whole case gets thrown out and he has prevailed. if he contested the facts but said, okay, the trial can move forward, he would have to go through, yes, an entire criminal trial of many hearings, jury selection, the whole nine yards. he doesn t w
argument, but they made it with a very broad overreaching notion that the president is absolutely immune because he was the president and as jack smith pointed out in his filings, not only is there no, you know, jurisprudence precedent for that, but from a common sense standpoint, that really creates a very dangerous situation. i mean, anytime you grant immunity in any sense to people, even when prosecutors give immunity, it s a gamble because what you re doing is creating an incentive for people to engage in bad behavior because you re giving them a pass on the behavior. it doesn t make sense from a constitutional standpoint, doesn t make sense from a legal precedent standpoint and it doesn t make any sense from a policy or common sense standpoint. all right. so jack smith tried to get the supreme court to answer this question, they said, no, got to go through the appellate level first but you expect that ultimately this will get back to the supreme court and that s where we will ge