today at the state capitol building demand ending new laws on the books after that controversial ruling by the alabama supreme court classifying frozen embryos as children plus a must see special report disturbing discovery after cnn spent weeks combing through video of damage in gaza, comparing that with satellite imagery. and two accounts of those who survived strikes in the war ravaged region. and leading this hour, the moment house republicans have been trying to score for months and their impeachment inquiry into joe biden, the president today star witness, the president's son, hunter biden, finally giving closed door testimony as republicans try to connect hunters sketchy business dealings to his father with us now to discuss democratic congressman robert garcia, he's a member of the house oversight committee. he was in the room for hunter biden's testimony today. congressman, thanks for joining us. so hunter biden in his opening statement today, we're told said, quote, i did not involve my father in my business unquote. now, we know he has talked to his dad on speaker phone while meeting with business partners. his dad might have dropped down and be dropped by a meeting or two or dinner or to beyond that, which we've known, did republicans have republicans presented any evidence today that might go beyond that? >> i mean, not a shred of evidence. there has been zero evidence presented by anyone that links of course, the president to any of hunter biden's business dealings thanks what we learned today essentially was that hunter loves his father a lot. he admits his own wrongdoings in the past. he has obviously recovering from addiction himself and he laid out all the information that was asked to them i was there for three plus hours and question after question is zero. evidence was produced at links to president to anything as far as we're concerned, this impeachment sham is over there is nothing else to do. james comer has presented witnesses that end up being spies, russian intelligence, conspiracy theorists, and hunter biden have nothing else to add to they were trying to move on to be quite honest >> all right. congressman robert garcia. thank you so much. i have to leave it there because we have some major breaking news >> cnn breaking >> news, breaking news just into cnn, the us supreme in court has weighed in on one of the cases about former president donald trump. so let's go straight to cnn's paula reid. paula, what is the news from the us supreme court? what did they decide on the immunity case? >> this is this is a massive development, jake, the supreme court has agreed to take up the issue of whether former president trump has immunity from the federal election subversion case that he is facing. now, a unanimous appeals court several weeks ago, issued a scathing opinion, a unanimous opinion say that he did not have immunity that would she you'll tip from the federal election subversion case brought by special counsel, jack smith so he asked the supreme court to pause that lower court decision in the possibility the possibility that they would take up this issue. and now we have learned that the supreme court will take up this issue. this means that they will hear they will hear arguments now it was just a few weeks ago, of course, at the supreme court court took up another appeal from former president trump, that one having to do with whether he could appear on state ballots their states had the authority to remove him from their ballots. now that argument, jake, of course, you remember it went pretty well for former president trump. he is expected to prevail, but on this question whether former president trump has immunity that would shield him from the january 6 case brought by the special counsel, many legal experts and even sources. i've spoken with in and around former president trump's legal team did not expect do not expect that he would prevail on the merits of this. but now the supreme court has agreed to take up this case. now the immediate impact before we even know what they decide is that this will likely further delay that trial we know that trump's strategy has been to try to delay both federal cases until after the 2024 election. because if trump is reelected, he could likely make both of those go away. so this is a very significant the development somewhat unexpected that the supreme court has decided to take up trump's immunity appeal >> it's all right. fascinating stuff. paula reid. thank you so much. cnn senior supreme court plus joan biskupic joins us now, jonah, explain the significance of the move because i think i've heard some court watchers say they thought that it was possible that the court was just going to defer to the appeals court ruling that trump is not immune, but that's not what they're doing. they're going to weigh in, explain absolutely not jake and i think the reason some people were suspecting that some people thought that in the beginning, but i i always thought there would be a 50, 50 chance, but as the days >> war on, we thought why haven't they, if they're going to hear it, why don't they tell us they want to hear i am begin the process and as they delayed for the last two weeks, it seemed like well, maybe they're going to summarily affirm what the dc circuit had done. a very sound opinion, rejecting the immunity claim or maybe they were going to deny it, and that some of the justices were writing descends from that denial. but what they dunn is actually not too surprising. it's just the timing of it that surprising i thought that these justices might think that they need to have the last word on a question of such consequence of the power of in this case, a former president rather than a president. but what they've done now, jake, just to cut through everything that's procedural here is they have effectively ensured that we will not have a verdict on president trump's election subversion allegations before summer because they're not even going to hear this case until the week of april 22. and this is a complicated issue. it will probably take them a couple of weeks to get the opinion out. i mean, if best likely, it would come by the end of june when they typically recess for the session. but then we're already in summer. we're just we're right upon the republican convention time and i just do not see now any kind of chance of a trial as had originally been scheduled for first week in march. jake, what i think could have happened just to try to explain this timing is possibly there had been an effort behind the scenes to try to do something that would have left in place the dc circuit opinion and to see if the chief might have tried chief justice john roberts, might've tried to get some sort of majority around that. but the fact that they delayed even this order, this order that basically just says we're going to take it up, that they delayed it for two weeks, suggests that they certainly did not embrace the urgency that special counsel jack smith tried to impose upon them way back in december when jack smith went to the supreme court and said justices, please take up this case now so that we can get a clear answer. this is yours to answer. and then once the dc circuit, once it's supreme court said no, we're not coming in and the dc circuit ruled that was another several weeks, so president trump's former president trump's effort to run the clock has a partner in the supreme court at this point, even though jake probably in the end, the justices will agree with the dc circuit and say and reject president former president donald trump's claim of absolute immunity. but what good will that do for and he kind of trial before we're really into the heat of this next presidential election. >> so just, just to recap, joan the us supreme court is not going to just like defer to the appeals court. they are going to hear the argument about whether or not donald trump has immunity. can say that what he did as president is he's immune from prosecution because he was president at the time. do we have any sort of timeline so the court's going to take up the case when are there going to be arguments? >> right? so they've set a time scheduled for briefs to come in, written filings from the two side from a special kind counsel, jack smith, who is representing the united states government here trying to bring this case against donald trump for what happened at the end of the 2020 election cycle before the 2024 election cycle. so there'll be filings from jack smith. they'll be filings from former president donald trump. i'm sure we'll have you cast of amicus briefs coming in trying to argue on both sides, and then the week of april 20 which is toward the end of their current oral arguments sitting for this annual session, they will actually hold our oral arguments. all of our viewers will be able to hear those oral arguments when they're held but i'm telling you jake, you know, it's going to take several weeks after that to get a ruling just the nature of this case. now that they've decided themselves to take it up. >> okay. so the april 22 is the week of oral arguments have been told them they're all be all sorts of arguments that they submitted amicus brief et cetera cetera. when do you think there will be any sort of decision potentially from the us supreme court after april 22. >> you know, if i if i were betting just within minutes of having received this order, i would say last week in june, i'd say the last week in june. i mean, it could come sooner. it could come sooner only be because you know, like it would be great at verdict come sooner because so many folks on both sides with an answer to this. but the fact that they have delayed even taking up the case from the moment when they could've, you know, they were asked to take it up back in december. they were asked to take it up with some sort of urgency even earlier this month and they didn't they waited a couple of weeks. steven, sadly, we're going to come in and so i as i say, i don't think they feel the sense of urgency that the department of justice and jack smith him articulated here. so i'm thinking end of june only jake because that's when they're session typically ends for this year when most of their cases are resolved by the end of june. but then look where we are end of june. and it let's just go back to the trial judge who had wanted to actually hold a trial. she would have to engage in jury selection and then get that started. and, you know, that process takes several weeks and we're right into the thick of the presidential election. so who knows what will happen at that point. but i think the bottom line here is that the justices action today really ensures that we will not have a verdict on whether former president donald trump is guilty or, or even a judge not guilty of the election subversion claim set of and their four counts of election subversion. you know, there's here and see and obstruction. everything that kind of culminated with a january 6 attack at the us capital. we will not have an answer to that anytime soon. that's what this ensures. jake and >> just to reiterate, so nine justices we're going to hear this if chief justice roberts i don't maybe, you know, but do we have any idea the dynamics behind the scenes here as to who? because i can't imagine that the three democratic appointed justices. so to my your and kagan and jackson i can't imagine that they would agree with this. how many people need to hold the position of no, let's just delay delay, delay for that to happen. >> okay. under normal circumstances, it takes just four justices to grant a case, but it also takes five to adhere to any motion and there was a motion, of course, to block the effect of the lower court judgment here in a lower court judgment that i just want to stress again, was unanimous by a panel of the dc circuit that included an appointee of the late president george hw bush and to appointees of president biden, it was a very robust decision against the former president because the former president was really really pushing an extreme argument about absolute immunity once he left office. but you're right. there were probably justices on the left and maybe in the middle of the court who might not have thought that they needed to weigh in on this but at least five thought that this was the way to go to stop all the proceedings and wait for the justices, tear it again. i think there was a good argument that the justices should have the final word in this. it's just that they were given that opportunity several months ago to have the final word in it, but they've waited to this point and the week of april 22 to even hear the arguments on that. >> all right. joan biskupic, our supreme court expert. thank you so much. let's bring in cnn's evan perez, who covers the justice department for us, evan walk us through what this means for the trial. special counsel it'll jack smith wants to try former president trump for trying to steal the election yeah. >> now we won't know it probably according to joan prompt, maybe not even until the end of june, whether or not he can claim immunity. what does that mean? for the scheduling of this trial? assuming that they don't find that he can claim immunity for everything, right. >> well, jake, what this means is that when whenever the supreme court comes back and renders a ruling on this, it means then that let's say let's say they do decide that donald trump does not have immunity they, asked the appeals court had ruled. then this goes back to tanya chutkan, the judge who is overseeing this case, and she's made very clear that she wants to move as quickly as possible, but still, jake, that means you're looking at probably another eight weeks before seven or eight weeks before you can get to trial. it pushes the calendar, it pushes us deep into into august and the possibility, of course, for the justice department that you're gonna be putting the former president of united states, the leading candidate that the presumptive republican nominee on trial during the period where traditionally the job this is department tries to make sure that there is nothing being done to interfere with the election, to appear to be interfering with the election. of course, that only jake that only has to do with things that are initiated by the justice department. this case was initiated last year and of course, donald trump's appeals and his delay tactics have brought us to this point. so really, it is not of their own doing that. we're going to be smack in the middle of this, but it really does put the justice department in a tough place and you can bet donald trump is going to keep making that point. jake the next few months, which is that the justice department is trying to put him on trial in the middle of his campaign. and then of course, we're talking about after he has presumptively we'll have become the nominee just to go back to what joan was pointing out, jake, we're also looking at another part of the very crowded calendar for donald trump. these briefs are due the deadlines that the supreme court has set march 19 for some of these filings, initial filings the final filings have to be brought in by april 15. of course. that's in the middle of donald trump's other criminal trial. the one that's supposed to start at the end of march in new york, right? in manhattan where the where that case is supposed to get going on on the hush money allegations. and so donald trump is going to be dealing with that case prism presumably, that case will not be done by the time the supreme court will have these oral arguments in the week, what they say here is in the week of april 22, a very crowded calendar for the leading republican nominee for president. and of course, for the justice system, which is trying to hold him accountable for these alleged crimes that they say he committed. so it's not clear how how this is going to turn out, but you can see how much more crowded the supreme court has made that calendar over the next few months, jake. >> all right. evan helped me here because i want to help our viewers at home. yeah. >> understand because it's difficult to keep all these trump legal problems straight. we should be giving out like baseball cards or nothing for them. all right. so today we're right now. we're talking about the donald trump donald trump being prosecuted by the federal government, by the jack smith for his role in the attack on the capitol right and he's claimed immunity. and the us supreme court says, we're going to hear the case about whether or not he has immunity. oral arguments will be in april joan, our supreme court expert says joan biskupic says, that means they're probably won't be a decision until the end of june you're saying that jury selection and everything will take two months after that, am i right? right. >> the way the calendar had set up that the judge, john chinese, tanya chutkan had set up the calendar. jake was to give the teams the two sides about seven to eight weeks of pretrial preparation and so we would assume that whenever this this this comes down and if donald trump loses, right, that calendar restarts and that's, we're talking about another seven or eight weeks, so yeah. >> so just so i mean, obviously, if the supreme court says donald trump has immunity, then it's amancio. that's the end of that case. but if they say no, he doesn't. that's end of june theoretically, that means end of july and august and have august the trial could start, but then there is this rule in i don't know if it's an official role or a tradition, but that the us justice department is not supposed to be doing prosecutions that close to an election, although i think it's what is it like 100 days or something, right? >> it's jenna generally the the count the the clock starts running somewhere. people interpreted in different ways, jake labor day as she had labor day ish again, the you know, i asked the attorney general merrick garland just that very question, just a few weeks ago when we were in texas and uvalde and asked him that question and he pointed out that the justice department initiated this prosecution. jack smith brought this case last year and the only reason why we're here is because donald trump has succeeded in his efforts to delay things. >> so >> everything is roses for the former president right now. >> it's obviously going to be quite disingenuous when he says were delayed delay, delay, right? oh, my god, it's labor day ish we can't have a trial now, when he's the one he's the reason, but that doesn't matter. that's still a legal technique. and his lawyers are doing it, right? effective. okay. so that's that's one trial. one trial? >> the one in atlanta. we've been covering separately. i don't want to get into that. that has to do with fani willis and tmi. >> we don't have a trial date yet. yeah. on that one, jake but she has been trying to push for some kind of trials sometime this league this year. okay. >> then there is the >> one that's going to take place in new york with the district attorney, alvin bragg. that's about hush money payments to stormy daniels and whether donald trump was not honest in the tax code. it's a lot of legal experts consider this the weakest of all of them. this is okay. then there is also down that one jake starts in the next month that starts at at the end, of march. and so that's when, that's the first really the first criminal trial that is supposed to get started with donald trump as a defendant. and that one >> would have a financial penalty if anything. that's not that's not nobody is alleging asserting the jail time. okay. >> then there is this other trial that jack smith is bringing forward. and this other case that involves him for activities after his presidency. this is the culling classified documents case now, for that one that's in florida because that's where this mishandling allegedly took place. and trump has a trumping judge, who has been making rulings that the trump lawyers have liked. what is the status of that one? >> well, that one is right now scheduled to go to start in may, but no one believes that that's coming to happen. i think as matter of fact, on friday when we have a very important court hearing in fort pierce with judge aileen cannon. i think we might get a little bit of clarity on that because it's clear that trump team wants that delayed, but they only want to delete a certain amount of time. katelyn polantz reported just a few days ago that the strategy there is to move the date just a little bit in order to make it difficult for the dc case that the case that is overseen by judge chutkan for that to even get on the calendar. and so the idea jake, is that friday on friday, we'll see how amenable this judges to moving the the calendar date for that trial, the classified documents, case for that to be moved, perhaps a few weeks are a couple of months. and again, right now, that is supposed to start in may, but just based on the classified documents and the complexities of those documents and all the issues that are presented there. it's clear that that case will not start in may. >> all right. very very complicated stuff, but today we're focused is located than your kid's school calendar, jake >> well, i don't know about bad, but but it is very confident located and it does also illustrate that when people talk about how there's two tier system of justice in this country. they're not wrong. now it's not political per say. if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford lawyers who can pull off these gymnastics and delay technique peaks and all the things that trump's lawyers who are in this, in this case very able. this is what they are able to do as opposed to mom and pop smith watching at home >> you and me, right. and here's the issue, jake, look, i mean, we've in this country, we've always for certainly for a couple of centuries claim that no one is above the law. and i got to tell you, like right now, you have to ask that question, right? because the fact that he is a former president gets him a lot of deference. it is getting is getting him a lot of deference within our system. and people would argue that it should right? because you are a former president, you should get at least to be heard on this very important constitutional question. but what it does mean for practical reasons is that you can delay things in a way that anybody else would not be able yeah. >> all right. fascinating stuff. evan perez, thanks so much. we'll come back to you when you've got more to report, let's bring in cnn's kaitlan collins. now, she's the anchor of what's. the name of the show? >> did you >> forget know i'm want you i want you to say it on tv with your big smiling face source. the source at 09:00 p.m. eastern kaitlan. the trump team. how are they reacting to this news? i gotta be pretty psyched. i would think, well, i mean, speaking >> of the david, shall we were texting them right now and talking to them. they were just as on edge waiting to see what was going to happen you're obviously worst-case scenario for them would have been if the supreme court denied this and then that case would have been able to know the us supreme appeals court got it right? >> yeah. it would have been a disaster. and after that unanimous ruling came out from the appeals court, they were not sure what the supreme court was going to decide here because it was well argued, it was unanimous and it kind of put the trump team on their backfoot in the sense of what was going to happen here, you can't really predict, but they feel that this is at least a win for now. we're hearing from them of course, it remains to be seen what this looks like with the expedited basis, but this is exactly to their game plan, to what evan was saying there from katelyn polantz, what we've been hearing is that what they would like to do? obviously delay they delay delay has been their entire legal strategy, but is to get that documents case in florida push just enough to where if they lose on the merits here and they fully expect that they will lose on the parents in the sense of this, they make no bones about that. but it doesn't matter because if they lose on the merits. but when when it comes to the timing and delaying this, that's a win in their books. >> sure. and i mean, i don't mean to be a cynic, but the fact that they are the ones delaying and delaying and delaying and delaying, pushing this case to the point that if the supreme court ultimately rules the way we think they will, which is no, you don't have immunity for any anything you do as president. and then the case this goes forward on the schedule that joan and evan have posited, which is oral arguments in april, final decision ruling in june, and then two months or so before the trial starts. even though the reason it would start so late is because of trump's legal maneuvering. we do expect, right, that they will then say, hey, this is really late. you can't have a you can't have a trial. now, we're in the middle of the presidential campaign. >> yeah, that's exactly what they plan to argue. and there are not cynical when they make very clear that that is what their strategy is here and what they're going to try to do. i think it also just speaks to the entire strategy here of what they've looked to do, how they've tried to rely on the supreme court with this. and it is notable though that they think that they'll lose on the merits of this argument, ridiculous argument. you can't you can't. i mean, literally they were saying that a president could. and this is not did not make this up. this was actually in the trial that a precedent could order the assassination of eff, political opponent using seal team six, and he would not face any legal repercussions unless he were impeached and convicted first, which is preposterous, and it's also a question that we've never seen this supreme court answer. what is the president's level of immunity? in this brief order seems to say that they'll get into the extent to which they believe that goes to and what that looks like. and so we'll ultimately see what they decide here on the merits. >> so you heard joan biskupic suggests that she would guess that after april or oral arguments and the attitude of the us supreme court, which is not to take this case up with any urgency. that she anticipates ruling will probably come down into june, which is when the court usually issues its rulings and then breaks for the summer. and that's only a few weeks away from the republican national convention in july. >> yeah. >> and judge chutkan has said, they've when this trial was still moving on case, it was about two months of discovery. so not only that, there could be other delays as well, i mean, they've sought to take other measures here by that time. obviously, donald trump now we're approaching super tuesday and is all but the nominee, obviously, nikki haley is still in this race, but we're seeing, you know, how that's actually playing out for her. i don't think it's an understatement to or an overstatement to say that what the supreme court has decided here today with this decision, just to hear this it could be a seminal moment in this election of what this actually looks like. the jack smith's case could not go to trial before the election, or it could be so close to it that the full case would not actually be able to be heard and tried by the time voters are casting their ballots in november. and it could be ultimately a major deciding point and what happens come november? >> yeah. >> no, i mean, it just happened. so we don't have any historical perspective on it, but it is certainly possible that in a year you and i will be looking back at this exact conversation and saying that was the day that everything changed. yeah. and i think that's what's important because >> there are so many legal cases and obviously we stay on top of them we're reporting them out. we talk about them at length regular people aren't and i think if you're looking at this and you're wondering, what does this moment mean? it's a huge moment for what trump's legal troubles could actually look like, whether they fuel him into the white house yet again, or whether or not they play a major obstacle in that. and obviously, jack smith has not said the word election in his filing but they've made clear they're trying to move with urgency. >> he asked the >> supreme court to move with urgency here. it still went to this appeals court. first, you have flatly rejected trump's argument, but the idea that now the supreme court is going to hear this, but it could, in the end, still hurt him by not letting his case actually go to trial is a remarkable moment. >> and then of course, if he wins, they'll have it dismissed. because he will be the president where he could lose. i mean, we don't know, but that is obviously what they are. >> no, no. i mean, if he wins the presidency, right and they haven't front and they haven't tried him. >> yeah. >> he then they've delayed ultimately deciding cases where the case then the case has gone both that and the classified documents and people at home, we're talking about the continent except earlier with evan about like, no man is above the law and no person is above law. that's supposed to be the ethos of the united states. those watching this show earlier saw senator an old clip, clip of mitch mcconnell from january 2021 and talking about how donald trump was culpable, he was responsible for what happened on january 6, but he was not going to vote vote to impeach him, not to convict him. it would be left up to the courts. now we see the courts and the system to observers out there might seem a little gamed. it might seem a little like, oh, so there's no accountability for some people, but also how notable that and that's a great point. how notable this is coming the day that senator mitch mcconnell announces he's stepping down from republican can leadership because the reason three of those justices are on the supreme court that trump picked were because of mitch mcconnell. and the way he helped shepherd them and also stop the attorney general now from becoming a supreme court justice potentially, i mean, it's just a remarkable pulisic moment when you step back and look at how old the different puzzle pieces have shaped what is happening right now, right? >> and just for folks out there to remember, the seat that donald trump first filled was vacated when ruth bader ginsburg died during the barack obama presidency. and mitch mcconnell than the republican leader of the senate said, we're not going to have hearings. we're not going to we're not going to fill that seat. and the supreme court did not have nine justices for a long period of time. he said he was just going to wait for the next president to be elected. this was a new role that he invented. and then at the end the trump presidency died. yeah, yeah. >> at the end of the trump presidency he then went back and change the rules to fill it with amy coney barrett. so two of those justices are under these circumstances through the three trump justices. >> yeah, it's remarkable to look at that picture and also to see mitch mcconnell and trump's relationship and how it went from that symbiosis of putting a supreme court justice. there and having the hearings and two now, when he's stepping down from gop leadership, he's completely out of touch with the trump wing, which is the majority wing of his party. now rbg died during trump. i'm sorry. >> she was the one who every connie barrett place. yeah. i'm sorry. what was what was the one? it was merrick garland's in the scalia using my justices who died at the end of obama. scalia died and they wanted to fill it >> anyway, what merrick garland >> merrick garland and he didn't get it. my, my point being, i apologize while jayson doing this all live here. my point being that mitch mcconnell really helped donald trump fill at least one, if not two, of those seats under circumstances, the democrats really hated democrats really hated. >> he also helped with kevin all too though when his, his nomination was on the brink, i mean, they helped hold it and make sure that that he did not withdraw his nomination and he obviously, in the moments where i've special coverage anyway, it's just remarkable to look at the big picture, what the day of that he's know i take your point. my point is and instead of disparaging mitch mcconnell, donald trump should be sending him a muffin mascot basket. >> and i don't even think he's commented on the fact that he's stepping down from republican you don't i mean, the supreme court, which has been shaped by mitch mcconnell, just did donald trump a huge failure. >> yet i don't know. they would have done had merrick garland been on that court, as democrats think he should have been in any case, kaitlan collins of the source, 09:00 p.m. eastern. always great to see you. the breaking news us supreme court has agreed to hear arguments over donald trump's claim of presidential immunity. the week of april 20 seconds. that's about seven weeks. this is in the federal election subversion case, brought on by special counsel jack smith. we're going to take a short break. we'll be right back. >> eliot spitzer crusading governor by day, wanted to be present in the united states. client number nine by night's this guy who was a crusader there are against human sex trafficking is actually a customer, united states of scandal with jake tapper. new episodes sunday at nine on cnn >> start your day with nature me. >> the number one >> pharmacist recommended vitamin supplement brand. >> why didn't we do this last year for your fermenting migraine and cuba and look at me now, you'll never truly forget greenblatt zero migraine days are possible, don't take if allergic to be let down. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and sleepiness >> she liptak there, forget you get migraine medicine this making you uncomfortable. >> good >> when you've got type two diabetes like me, you have up to four times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or worse death even when meeting your a1c goal. this comfort can help you act. i'm not trying to scare you. >> i'm >> empowering you to get real with your healthcare provider, talk to them about lowering your risk of strobe heart attack, or death >> what's your sap >> that's why vision works, makes it >> simple to schedule an eye exam that works for you even if you have a big trip to plan around. >> meghan, see you right now. >> that's convenient. >> vision works. >> see the difference, see idp disrupts cid p derails. >> let's be honest >> he sucks but living to see idp doesn't have to. >> when you sign up at shining through cid p.com, you'll find information and real patients stories helpful tips, reliable information, and more >> cdp can be tough. >> but finding hope just got a little easier. >> sign up a shining through, cip.com >> be heard, be hopeful the eu. >> it's, odd how an instant things can transform out of bounds. in a freefall i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. >> go. >> standing the test of time >> me and you was introduced you keep your head held half just like mom thomas just to stay was my sister son had gone to meet again. we need to look like we pulled home, >> but you see that? >> really pity 13. no screening exclusively on max >> not flossing. well, then add the wo of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is five times more effective than floss at reducing plaque above the gum line for a cleaner health well for your mouth. this three field, the world >> it's just your mother and i went different thing which is why we got sling tv so we can watch live and free tv on one app that's right thing is really keeping this family together. you >> have no idea? >> i had no idea >> why choose asleep numbers? smart bad? >> can it keep me warm when i'm cold? >> wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number. does that >> can i make my side soft? >> i think my side firmer sleep number. >> does that can help us sleep better and better >> sleep number does that 94% of smart sleepers report better sleep? and now the queen's sleep number c4 smart, that is only 15, 99 save $300. shop now at sleep number.com, this situation with wolf blitzer didn't night at six point cnn closed captioning brought to you by mesobook.com our firm. has offered a free book about mesothelioma for over ten years. mesothelioma is really all we do. >> 80087 to 4901 and we're back with our breaking news. >> the us supreme court has decided they will hear arguments on donald trump's claim of immunity. he claims he cannot be prosecuted in the 2020 election subversion case because everything he did during that period, he was president for therefore or he is immune from prosecution. let's bring back cnn's paula reid. paula, do we have a response now from the special counsel, jack smith, who wanted this trial expedited, wanted the us supreme court to hear it early and now is finding that president trump, former president trump's delay, delay, delay strategy it is working >> we do not have an official response yet, jake, and that could be because they're furious and need to collect their thoughts and then put something on paper. now this is the second time the supreme court has rejected jack smith's request. because court to just step in and decide this question of immunity once and for all, so that he could move forward with this prosecution. he asked them months ago to weigh in on this issue. not to wait for this to go through the appeals process so that he could bring this case to trial swiftly, saying that it was in the public interest for this case to be tried and decided soon. the supreme court declined to do that. of course the case went to the appeals court where they rendered a unanimous skating decision, rejecting trump's argument that he had absolute presidential immunity then after the supreme court received a request to pause that decision, they took two weeks before releasing the fact that they are going to hear arguments in late april, which means we probably won't get a decision until late june, and we would need at least two months before that trial starts. so jake, this makes it unlikely, though not impossible that jack smith will be able to bring that case. and while this has been a bad day, it could be a bad week for for jack smith because on friday i'll be down in florida or judge overseeing the other federal prosecution, the mar-a-lago classified documents case, which has penciled in for late may. >> she he is expected to weigh in on scheduling and it is widely expected that that case will also be delayed. again, unclear if he'll be able to bring either one of these cases before the election >> all right, paula, thanks so much. let's turn now to former trump attorney tim parlatore. tim good to see you as always, what is your reaction? to the us supreme court announcing that they will hear the trump immunity case, oral arguments the week of april 22 >> it's interesting to me. i mean, it certainly tracks you know, what the supreme court will want to do for an issue like this you know, there was a decision back in the late '90s where justice ginsburg said, when it comes to issues of presidential immunity and privileges, that's something that should be decided by the supreme court and not by the circuit. and so it does make sense that they are tracking that exact same reasoning to bring this case up there. now whether they'll actually change the ruling is different. different story. they very well may go through it and then reach a very similar conclusion to the circuit. >> so assuming that this schedule, the timeline looks like this arguments april 22, decision end of june 7 to eight weeks for the court case to begin, assuming that the us a supreme court decides that donald trump does not have immunity, which i think a lot of people expect will be their ultimate decision that puts it end of august for that trial to begin. do you think that the trump team will bull successfully argue, hey, you can't try us. it's labor day. we got a presidential race going on on here. or do you think that the justice department is going to ultimately rule? you're the one that's been delaying it for a year. we wanted to do this in 2023 well, remember the right to speedy trial is something that is for the defendant, not the government. and so i do think that this does push it out to the stage and the timeline that you just laid out, that's if everything goes according to plan and that's it. there's no other delays. and so i think that it could go out a little little bit further than that. ultimately, the closer you get to the election itself, the more it does tend to look like. and support the notion that it's an election interference tactic. so i do i personally believe that this decision takes the january 6 trial off the board as far as doing it before the election >> really, you think that that's it, like it's not going to happen before the election. the only way it will go forward is let's be honest. >> if >> if donald trump loses the election and then, and then the court case continues in your view. >> i think so. i mean, you've got to remember if you look at the time when a normal federal criminal case would come to trial, especially one with a similar amount of discovery the only reason that this case would ever be tried in under two years is because of the election case of this magnitude would normally not have a trial until at least two years after the initial arrest. and so i think when you push things out, to this extend through the supreme court decision, and it's also interesting looking at the order, the way that they kind of limited the question for them to argue. i think that it could end up being something where they could issue a decision and remanded down potentially even for a pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine which parts of the case would fall under a potential immunity in which one from what >> i would add, how much time to the timeline here >> that could add a few months >> few months? >> what about just the on its face disingenuousness about the idea like that the trumps strategy, and i'm not saying that any lawyer wouldn't do it, nor that i wouldn't want them to do it for me. we're in this circumstance, but it is on its face disingenuous to try to delay, delay, delay. and then when the trial actually goes forward to then say you can't have the trial right now. this is horrible timing. the presidential elections in three months. i mean, it could have taken place in 2023 it could have. >> but like i said, >> a case election and politics aside, a case of this magnitude, never gets tried that quickly. i mean, the idea of them pushing to try it within a year of the indictment coming down is just completely unheard of. so that's a strategy. it only gets heard that quickly when the defense essentially waves motions, wants to go forward very quickly, invokes the defendant's right to speedy trial because they know that they're going to go to frustrate acquittal so i don't really see that being something that really going to do much here. they're going to push it out. and at the end of the day, they have so much other stuff on the calendar at that time that i just don't see it being something that for this case to have any you know, legitimacy will be able to be tried during that time line. >> but how would that be delayed? i mean, who would make the decision to delay it because attorney general garland has said, we put in for the motion in 2023 to have this be speedier than it is. it's president trump's attorneys who are pushing this delay strategy. who would be the final arbiter to say we're not going to have this trial in august, september because of the presidential election well it's if they solely go in there and say, we don't want to have it because the election >> then it could go forward if they're smart, what they're going to do is say, we have the election, we have all these other scheduling and things plus the case has been on hold for all this time. we haven't been going through the discovery. we haven't been filing motions. there are still other things to be done >> and election >> aside you if you just say to the judge, given the volume of discovery, we cannot be ready to try this case on that time and the defendant has the right to be able to be prepared for trial yeah, that's something that's going to be very difficult to say no to tim parlatore, always good to have you on. thank you, sara. appreciate your time >> thank you. >> more of the big breaking news as major decision from the us supreme court taking up trump's immunity case, we'll be right back. >> one, our change. how you see the world. >> we made it to the bottom of the world >> every sunday night, cnn it's best journalists tell the whole story. the whole story with anderson cooper, sunday at eight on cnn, she founded the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for sheath found star tick to a once-daily pill for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis for the chance at clear or almost clear scan, it's like the feeling of finding your back is back. we're finding psoriasis can't deny the split vendor of these once-daily sertich two was proven better, getting more people clear skin than the leading to don't take if you're allergic to so tick to serious reactions can occur. so tiktok can lower your ability to fight infections including tb, syria he is infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your dr. if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to so take two is a tick to inhibitor, tick to as part of the jak family, it's not known as it took two has the same risks as dark inhibitors. fine. what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. >> there's we won so tick tubes, so ask for it by name so clearly you, so tick to meet the traveling trio of thrill seeker the soul searcher. and if the explorer, each helping to protect their money with chase lost card isn't keeping this thrill seeker down. >> lost her >> card, not the vibe the sole searchers finding his identity and helping to protect it >> oh, yeah. the explorer. she's looking to dive deeper. all while chase looks out for her, because these friends have chased alerts that health check tools that help protect one bank that puts you in control. >> chase make more of what's yours. >> i met with the turbotax expert because i had two full-time jobs, lawyering and mimi count on me, mia, i'll file your taxes for you with 100% accuracy guaranteed. let a turbotax full service expert do your taxes as soon as today, we try ok. symptoms key. kelvin inflammation might be to blame over the counter. wide drops can provide temporary relief dry can provide lasting relief. he targets inflammation. they can i'll just draw it. treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use it allergic disease, common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort, or blurred vision when applied in unusual taste sensation by way, ask your dr. about a 90 day prescription and pay as little as $0 >> some people just know that the best rate for you who is the rate based on you with asd? >> not one based on paul, you don't want arrive with sarah >> that's day anyway. >> and you don't want to rate based on >> ben, he's got some important business take care of why would you pay rate based on anyone else with all state you're connected to a rate based on you oh, crap. >> now we gotta get france something. >> wait. we could use etsys new gift mode. >> all right done let' so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get an eligible 5g phone on us. switch to xfinity mobile today! create great work with freelancers, fiber >> i'm melanie zanona on capitol hill, and this is cnn and we're back with our big breaking news. the us supreme court has announced that they will hear arguments over donald trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution in the 2020 election subversion case against him because he was president at the time let's bring in steve vladeck is cnn legal analyst and professor at the university of texas, law school. steve. >> what's your >> reaction to the announcement? >> yeah jake, when we talked about this couple of weeks ago, we had always thought that this was one of the possibilities that would come out at the supreme court that they would take up the case on an accelerated basis what i think is striking about the order is that it took this long to get only this and it really suggests that there there was probably a real debate inside the court over the last two weeks about some effort to reach some kind of more definitive conclusion, perhaps a summary decision affirming the dc circuit. and that that effort fell apart and what that really suggests is that they're at least a couple of justices in the middle, whether it's a justice brett kavanaugh, or a justice amy coney barrett, who might be very, very unsympathetic to former president trump's immunity claim on the merits, but who also wanted the court to give it due consideration and that's why we're seeing the court tick this step today. >> this is obviously not the only case involving trump that the us supreme court is weighing. this also the decision about whether or not to keep trump off ballots because states have decided that trump's ineligible for office because of the fourth, 14th amendment's ban on insurrectionists what's the latest on that? why haven't they made an announcement on that today as well >> yeah. i mean, what's striking about that rule end of jfk's how fast the court moved to hold argument in that case. i mean, it really was about five weeks from when the court took that case up to what it her argument versus in this case and the immunity case, really closer to seven or eight weeks and yet, even though it's now i've been gosh, three weeks tomorrow since there are arguments still no decision. jake, what that suggests to me is that the court really doesn't feel like it's in a hurry. you know, president trump is going to be on the ballot on tuesday in colorado. i don't think the justices, as we talked about during the oral argument right after it are inclined to change that status quo and so it might be that this is now, you know, some version of the compromise that we've been talking about, where the court is looking at a way of handing down decisions in these two cases that end up giving trump one win and one loss. object. the problem is that this is going to feel to a lot of folks watching at home, like the court is byham, former president trump, another 78 weeks. gosh, maybe even three months when you factor in how long it will take the court to rule of delay in the january 6 prosecution, even in a context in which i still think it's likely that trump is going to lose and i think this gets to the broader problem, which is as these cases get backed up against the timing of the election year, every little delay on the court's part looks like it is nefarious, looks like it's substantive, and bode's at least in the short-term well, for former president trump. >> all right. steve vladeck. good to see you. thank you so much. we'll be right back. >> that's how you make like never even happened. >> servpro duma sorry, body for knowing about active ingredients. but giving 100% of them to my face. sorry, for never checking the temperature first. her replacing sunlight with blue light and denim with nose stretch. sorry for dry shaves, dry days, and fast fashion that makes you crawl. sorry for all the picking, popping, and rinsing off, but never giving back. but fear no more body. all those ingredients you've been missing. you can now get dove body wash this was active zeros, get dove or get fomo shoes advil, liquid gels for faster, stronger, and longer lasting relief, then allen all rapid release gels because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. so for faster pain relief, advil, the pain away, terabytes heads makes all your moves count, whether you bought a house or starting an award-winning tv show >> that's right. we guarantee 100% accurate taxes. >> she's good. >> have county connie, hi, there >> tourists tourists that turned into scientist tourist, taking photos that are analyzed by so researchers can help life underwater. >> clarissa >> it's easy to get lost in investment research introducing jpmorgan personal advisers, hey, david, connect with an advisor to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals. okay, great. >> jpmorgan wealth management with thyroid disease. >> i hid >> from the camera and i wanted to hide from the world for years. i thought my ted was beyond help. but then i asked my dr. about to pesa to pesa is the only medicine that treats ted at the source, not just the symptoms in a clinical study, more than eight out of ten patients taking depressor had less i bulging to pesa is an infusion and may cause and fusion reactions. tell your dr. right away, if you experience high blood pressure sure fast heartbeat, shortness of breath, or muscle pain before treatment, tell your dr. if you have diabetes, ibd, or pregnant or planning to become pregnant to resume right? his blood sugar and maybe worse than ibd to pesa may cause severe hearing problems, which may be permanent >> now, i'm ready to be seen again this month. it's a pass a.com to find a ted is 18065102 direct redefining insurance i'm elizabeth wagmeister in los angeles >> in this is >> cnn. >> though, week of april 22. that's when the us supreme court is now set to hear oral arguments in the federal election subversion case against donald trump cnn senior legal analyst elie honig has been patiently standing by and just to be clear, elliot, what they're gonna not gonna be hearing arguments in the case itself. they're going to be hearing arguments about whether or not donald trump has immunity from prosecution. >> and >> then there would be the trial presumably months after that. what's your reaction to this decision? >> well, jake, i think this is clearly a big win for donald trump and a major setback for jack smith in terms of what i think is the big question on people's mind, is there any chance now that this case gets tried before the election? i think my answer there is the slightest sliver of a chance, but no more than that. and here's why if we do our calendar math path here, let's say that we get a ruling in this case around june 1, which is what joan biskupic and other supreme court experts have said is a reasonable approximation. the trial judge can't then just say, okay, now we're going to start trial two weeks for now, june 15, because at the moment this case was stayed or paused in the trial court, they were three months out. i think it's 88 days out from trial. and so that's all time that the parties need for discovery for preparation for motions. so let's say we get a ruling june 1, the earliest they can realistically even try to start this trial would be mid to late august and now you're looking at a trial. and again, with the general election happening, that will be happening august, september, october, even perhaps right up to the election day. that is a very fraught possibility, i think for all parties. >> but how would it happen that it wouldn't go forward because let's let's let's write let's assume the schedule that you just said and the trial can begin around late labor day. who is going to say call it off >> so there's gonna be one main relevant party here, and that's the judge judge chutkan, when she gets this case back, if donald trump loses the immunity argument, it will be up to her whether to set a trial date. now, donald trump is going to argue for sure. you can't try me in september, october, november of an election year. that's unfair to me that violates doj policy that you try not to influence elections. doj may agree with that or doj may say, sorry, tough luck. let's try this thing now. but that decision is going to come down to the district judge, judge chutkan, how close is she willing to go? oh, to the election itself >> does trump have any chance he think to actually win this immunity argument >> i don't think so. and i haven't heard from any serious observer that does think so, but it's important that people realize this is an argument that we don't know the answer to the supreme court has recognized a form of civil immunity for certain federal officials, including the president going back 40 or so years, so long as they're acting within the scope of their federal job, what we don't know is a is there any form of criminal immunity? supreme court's never actually ruled on that. and if so, was donald trump acting within the scope of his job? i don't think there's a good argument here that trump was within the scope of his job, but this is an unknown question and unknown issue and i think that's exactly why the supreme court decided that they needed to take this. remember, by the way, two months ago, jack smith said to the supreme court, only you can decide this case. you, the supreme court and you alone have to resolve this. >> all right. elie honig. thank you so much. appreciate it. much more reaction to his big break can you news ahead in the next hour? our coverage continues now, in the situation room with one wolf blitzer, i'll see you soon