At first, i wasnt sure. But i have come to believe that he knew well he had lost the election. And now, what i think is important is the government assumed the burden of proving that. The government, in the indictment, takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasnt stolen through fraud. They have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats a high bar. That leads me to believe that were only seeing the tip of the iceberg. You believe jack smith has more . I believe he has a lot more. Lets bring in Michael Cohen, Donald Trumps former fixer and attorney. Hes a principal of crisis. Hes the author of the New York Times best seller, revenge how donald trump weaponized the Department Of Justice against his critics. Michael, great to have you here tonight. You heard the former Attorney General, he believes that donald trump knew he lost the election. And what do you think about that being a defense, that his attorneys are going to say, h
thank you for joining us this evening. it took nearly a month to get it, but we finally have it. the d.c. circuit court of appeals has ruled on presidential immunity. donald trump s last best attempt to evade a criminal trial for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. in his unanimous ruling written by all three federal appeals court judges overseeing this case two biden appointees and one appointee of president george h.w. bush. those judges spell it out in no uncertain terms a former president cannot be prosecuted is worthless. quoting from the ruling, it would be a striking paradox if the president alone is vested with the constitutional duty to take care the laws be faithfully executed where the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. we cannot accept former president trump s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power in recognition and implementation of electio
The Appeals Court hearing on Donald Trumps Immunity Hearing has wrapped up. The threejudge appellant panel facing this big question can the former president be held criminally responsible for actions that he took while in office to overturn the 2020 election loss. We heard a remarkable argument from trumps team who heard the argument that prosecuting a former president would open up a pandoras box as john sauer said that working in the capacity as alleged in the indictment by jack smith, the Special Counsels office pushing back on that. This notion that we are all of the sudden going to be seeing a floodgate, i think that, again, the careful investigations in the clinton era didnt result in any charges. The fact that this investigation did doesnt reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive titfortat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. Cnns evan perez joins us now. Evan, you were inside of that
classified documents. the special counsel found evidence that president biden, quote, willfully retaineds classified materials found no reason to press criminal charges. drew distinction between the criminal probe of handling of documents and his findings regarding president biden. the long standing justice department priniple that you cannot indict a sitting president does not apply and would not bring charges even if joe biden were no longer president. we ll have more on that later in the program. we begin with a hearing at the nation s highest court. an historic hearing for some very big questions about the constitution. the future of our democracy and at the heart of the case, a request from voters for some accountability for an unprecedented insurrection. first up, jonathan mitchell, the attorney for donald trump, argued among other things, that january 6th was not an insurrection. it was a riot. he also argued that the president is not technically an officer of the unit
we start in washington, where the us supreme court is hearing a case, that could potentially stop donald trump running in the 2024 presidential election. it is a legal first those bringing the case are using the 14th amendment of the constitution, it is a legal first. those bringing the case are using the 14th amendment of the constitution, arguing he is disqualified from standing because he commited insurrection on january the 6th, trying to overturn the result of the 2020 election. that was successfully argued in the state of colorado in december, where he s been removed from the ballot. donald trump and his attorneys are arguing that any effort to stop him running is antidemocratic. the us supreme court is hearing about 80 minutes of oral argument today. we ve been bringing you details from inside the court as proceedings continue. they have about 20 minutes to go, we think. thejustices have given little indication over the last few weeks where they stand on the issue,