didn't he would make home he. was slammed against stone column injuring his headed back any watched as rioters wearing make america great again hats listened as he shouted racist slurs at him the actions of the mob on that a traumatized officer blasting gate so much that he still has flask flashbacks. but he still doesn't blame the rioters for what happened that january six he thinks of donald trump himself should be held accountable. >> seeing the timing of events and how things unfolded and to whip up, i mean to feed people incorrect narratives and then to have them come to the city at the time that they're gonna how to certify votes, and then to whip people up and say we're gonna go down pennsylvania avenue and as a president, to use the bully pulpit. >> the election villa jury -- stolen >> what does that mean? the president united states, this is the most -- human being on the planet. most power human being on the planet if he can, if he is not held accountable, can do whatever they want to do, what does that say about our democracy as a whole? >> in 2020, one officer blasting game and another capitol police officer filed a civil lawsuit against trump. they said that they should be awarded financial damages from the former president because of the pain the entered of january six. president trump tried to get the case dismissed, claiming the because he was president at that time he was immune from civil cases related to january six. but today the united states court of appeals the district of columbia rejected that assertion. as a three judge panel put it, when he first term president lobster seek a second term, his campaign to win reelection is not an official presidential act. in other words, the panel decided that trump's actions on january 6th, as alleged in these lawsuits, we're not part of his duties as president. so the lawsuits cannot be thrown out at this stage, and that is a huge deal. in addition to officer blassingame's lawsuit, other police officers have filed lawsuits against trump. trump could try to make the case in court that it is on the evidence he should be held immune. but now, at least, these plaintiffs will get their day in court, and this ruling will make it less likely for any future immunity claims that trump claims to succeed. we're going to get some help from expert, legal experts, unpacking all of this, in just a minute. but first, donald trump's lawyers were back in court today in fulton county, georgia, and they were arguing, yet again, the donald trump deserves special treatment for our justice system because he is running for president. >> can you imagine the notion of the republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is, in summer form or fashion, in a courtroom defending himself? that would be the most effective election interference in the history of united states. >> that was trump attorney steve sat out, arguing that fulton county d.a. fani willis's election interference case against known trump should not take place before the 2024 election. but get this. he also thinks that if trump wins this election than this case can't go to trial after the election either. >> if your client does win the election in 2024, could he even be tried in 2025? but >> the answer to that is, i believe, that under the supremacy clause and his role as president united states, his trial will not take place at all, till after he left his term in office. >> that would be in the year 2029. now, most days a ruling saying donald trump can be sued in civil court for his actions on january 6th or trump's lawyers arguing that he shouldn't see a courtroom until the end of this decade, on most days that would be the biggest pieces of trump legal knows. but presidential immunity has reentered the chat. we've just learned that judge tanya chutkan, the judge in the special counsel jack smith's federal criminal election interference case, as denied don't trump's motion to dismiss that case on the grounds of presidential immunity. now trump is surely going to appeal that decision. but it doesn't look good for the former president. in civil court and criminal court trump and his legal team are trying every route that they can to claim that he is immune from any liability. the question, though, is where do these arguments work? and where do they fit? joining me now is lisa rubin, and jim todd. thank you both for being with us tonight. first question for you, lisa. no we have two decisions dealing with presidential immunity, the district appeals for the columbia circuit claims that trump's action on january six for the act of a candidate, so he's not immune from civil suit. meanwhile judge tanya chutkan has denied trump's motion to dismiss the election interference case, come claiming that presidential immunity provides no defense. what are these two rulings mean, and how will they implicate the other cases that trump faces? >> these two rulings are really different in a way, not only because one is from an appellate court and one is from a district court, but one arises in the civil context where there already is supreme court precedent, and the other does not. so let's take the chutkan peace first. it is considering federal law and federal constitutional defenses. she was very clear to say that her decision deals only with the case before her. she's not necessarily saying that he's not entitled to immunity, for example, in a state prosecution. but what she is saying is the text, the structure, the history of the constitution, affords a president no absolute immunity for apps acts that he takes while he is president, period, full stop. the appellate court's decision is really different because it's nixon versus fitzgerald, the supreme court already said the president is entitled to absolute immunity first official acts in a civil case for damages. and so based on that, the question for the court of appeals was really was donald trump acting in an official capacity with respect to the allegations brought by the members of congress in the police officers who sued him civilly for their injuries? they decided that at this stage, taking allegations made by those plaintiffs as true, as they must on a motion to dismiss, they can't grant him immunity. but he is free to raise his claim of presidential immunity again after discovery, after he collects evidence. there's a look good for him? no. but is he foreclosed from doing so? also no. >> excellent. so, that's probably going to be raised again in the course of a trial, if one should happen there. but back to this ruling from judge tanya chutkan. so gianna, this decision is going to be appealed to the d.c. circuit and will probably be appealed even further on to the supreme court. given the composition of the court, given the nature of the d.c. circuit, what is the likely future for judge chutkan's decision? is this going to stand on an appellate review at the intermediate appellate court? >> that's a great question. piggybacking on what lisa said, the same court that decided that the blassingame case today is the court that will hear the appeal from judge chutkan. it's not definite that she'll get the same panel, but it's likely that her decision will be affirmed and that it will go up on appeal to the u.s. supreme court. the reason why i believe it will be affirmed is for, as lisa mentioned, the case that the precedent for allowing a president to face -- trial is kind of a higher standard in that the thinking was at the time, if we're going back to -- versus fitzgerald, or to the clinton and jones case, the idea is that you don't want the sitting president distracted from their duties while they're in office. until there would be official act immunity here in a civil case that we just talked about. the question is a factual one as to whether donald trump was campaigning when this insurrection occurred, when his actions lead to that, or he was acting as president. we all know that, we all know that he was campaigning. in this case, the criminal case, the case is being brought now, is not a sitting president. we don't have the olc memo. and we have this, we have a situation where very strong argument is made here by judge chutkan that both his constitutional claims as well as his claim here for immunity just can't stand. we don't have a monarchy. we don't have divided by the kings, is what she said, this power does not come from god, it comes from the people. and he's not even president right now. >> with that in mind, this is not the only legal case that donald trump is facing. let's pivot to fulton county, georgia, where judge scott mcafee did not set a trial date today. but did you, lisa, get a sense of how he felt about the trump team's scheduling preferences, which could put this trial out to the end of the decade? >> i didn't, melissa. that was actually what surprised me. i think he was trying to see whether there was any room to schedule a trial, a place where the prosecution and the defense might agree. but as you previewed, steve sadow gave him no opening. he said august is way too soon, and anytime after november is too late, and in between, my guy is busy campaigning. and so there was no place. there was much less contentious for example than the lawyers i have been watching in the trump civil fraud trial here in new york. but despite his very polite approach to the bench, he wasn't allowing really for any opportunity to try his client at all. he laid forth the trial schedule and said he's going to try and d.c. emerge, then he's got a trial scheduled in florida in may, and then there after he supposed to be try to new york, i'll pause there and say that's not actually, it actually. there is not more the case in new york still scheduled for march. but the bottom line is, steve saddle wasn't allowing for the possibility this client can be tried in the next year. and judge scott mcafee withheld comments and said okay, we'll set a trial date at late later time it didn't really give anyone there a sense of what he is thinking other than by being deliberate and pausing and not necessarily engaging with it right now, maybe he's trying to postpone some of the more contentious aspects of the proceeding in court. >> jen, do you think we're ever gonna get a sense of a firm trial date in georgia? there's a lot going on there. it's a multi defendant case, lots of things have happened. but the georgia case is the one that many people are looking at. it's the one where donald trump, if he is reelected president, will not have an opportunity to pardon himself. what's the likelihood that we are going to get a firm date, and when would that be? >> i'm really concerned after today's hearing that this might get pushed past the november election. the reason why i say that is, the judge didn't seem confident that august that could actually happen as a date, and now, as you know, by the time we're in august, we're gonna have a republican candidate who is the nominee, and if that is donald trump, i can very well see somehow the judge being convinced that it would make sense to postpone this case. so i'm greatly concerned that the name of the game has always been delay. i enjoy, like everyone else, reading the legal details and nerding out on the arguments here, but the more complex the arguments are, the more complex the discovery is, it just delays things. i'm not sure what we're going to get a date, but i don't think we're gonna get a firm date until february, at the earliest. and that it will probably be after august. >> that is concerning. we've talked about a number of different cases. the one case we haven't really mention is the classified documents case that's pending before a judge aileen cannon. many people have criticize judge cannon for what they view as slow walking this case. there is apparently a forecasted may start date for this trial. but there are a lot of complex issues about how classified information can be introduced into evidence in these cases. that's likely to push this out. all of these decisions have to implicate each other in some way, the scheduling part of this. if judge cannon is going slow on deciding some of these really important issues and setting a date for this trial to start, how is that going to implicate the scheduling of the other cases, like the d.c. election interference case, like the new york hush money trial, and like the georgia election interference case? lisa? >> let's start with the d.c. election interference case, and judge chutkan is determined to try that case in march. unless appellate issues interfere, i think we should expect that she will, in fact, try her case in march. as for the others, if judge cannon doesn't have her trial in may, one of the reasons i think judge -- here in new york, presiding over the hush money case, refuses to give up his own march trial date, is because he is hoping that what i called trial tetris sorts itself out, he may be able to slot himself in some areas. the other thing that happened today that may give some of us hope, is that judge scott mcafee asked the prosecution of fulton county, georgia, how much time we do need to get yourself ready for trial? in other words, if i said, today, that i'm ready to hold this trial, how many days or weeks do you need to be trial ready? the answer from the prosecution was, 30 days. so it's always possible, i suppose, that if judge cannon, as many expect, be included, doesn't stick to that may trial date, scott mcafee may in fact say to the fulton county deese d.a.'s office, hey, you guys ready to go in 30 days? because we have some time for a trial. >> anything could happen. one person might slide into take another person's trial date. that's really helpful. lisa rubin and jen taub, thank you so much. lots more ahead on the show, including a voting contra congress that sent representative george santos packing. what does this mean for the gop's already razor-thin majority in the house? and later, the war between israel and hamas rages again after the collapse of weeklong cease-fi. what that means for hostages and civilians in the region. stay with us. s in the region. stay with us stay with us >> tide is busting laundry's biggest myth... that cold water can't clean. - food fight!! - food fight!! ♪♪ cold water, on those stains? welp, only one way to find out... tide cleans better in cold than the leading bargain detergent in warm. ♪♪ cold water can't clean tough stains? i'd say that myth is- busted! i always wanted to say that! (car engine revs) turn to cold, with tide. (engine accelerating) (texting clicks) (tires squeal) (glass shattering) (loose gravel clanking) >> bipartisanship is in short supply on capitol hill. but representative george santos managed to do the impossible. he united lawmakers behind a common goal, expelling him from the house of representatives. >> george santos is a liar. >> it fabricated his qualifications, his background. >> he has manufactured his entire life. >> he blatantly stole from his campaign. >> he is a perpetrator of a massive fraud on his constituents and the american people. >> he can defend himself in a court of law, but for the purposes of this body, he's got to go. >> george santos reported lies unlocked wrongdoing brought together members on both sides of the aisle in a rare act of bipartisanship. that said, this is still a republican party guided by donald trump's principles. so santos's actions weren't a deal breaker for everyone. >> i'll oppose the george santos expulsion. >> but what? because santos was buying botox and onlyfans, we gotta throw him out? >> that swamp water is very murky. but for george santos, there doesn't appear to be a safe lily pad. >> the congressional equivalent of a public crucifixion. >> and today, just before the house was set to vote on george santos is expulsion, new accusations surfaced. in a letter to house republicans, gop congressman max miller said that the sanders campaign had charged hughes and his mother's credit cards without their approval. the judges were in amounts that exceeded fec limits. miller added that he had seen a list of names that included other house members who he believes were also charged by this campaign. maybe all of that was the straw that broke the elephants back, because after those accusations were made, george santos was expelled from congress in a vote of 311 to 114. santos was present in the chamber and conveniently was wearing his coat during the vote. he walked out as the vote cleared a two thirds supermajority. he quickly left the grounds of the capital, pushing past reporters without offering comment. george santos is set to go to trial next september and his new york congressional seat is now vacant. the special election to fill that seat will no doubt be hotly contested. joining us to assess all of this is mark leibovich, staff writer for the atlantic. mark, thank you so much for being here. first, up george santos did not talk to any of the press on his way out of the capital today. do you believe he is just going to go back to a quiet private life? >> well, it doesn't sound like he had a very quiet life to begin with. it's unclear whether to believe and what not to believe, obviously, but no, i think george santos is someone who remains dangerous to the republican party. i think that was probably the reason a lot of republicans wound up voting for him. there weren't enough, but you go to fairmount of support. but almost half the caucus. he basically, well, he's dangerous. he's going to give interviews, obviously. he's not gonna be silent for much longer. and if the last few days are any indication, he seems pretty ready to name names and tell stories. the question is, i wouldn't say there's a lot of credibility but anyone who has been on the inside of this sanctum and who has seen things and who's in a position to tell stories is a loose cannon. so i think they will obviously be some nervous members right now, seeing what his next moves are. >> you alluded to this a little bit. it seems likely that some of the republican leadership might be worried about the kinds of details that george santos might tall. but some in the leadership noted that the decision to vote not to expel santos was predicated on this idea of a slippery slope, that he's expelled in a circumstance and doesn't involve a criminal conviction. this opens the door to censure or expel other members of the house for other kinds of reasons that don't arise at the level of criminal wrongdoing. what do you make of that claim? we have seen an uptick in these kinds of ethics claims in the house. is it likely that we're going to see a flood of them before long? >> maybe not a flood. i think what you do have to say is the george santos case is pretty egregious. he was dead to rights across the board. just a serial fabrications, the fraud perpetrated, it goes in all directions and you couple that with just his conduct in office which is bizarre to say the least. i would say it's a pretty strong case against him with, whether he was convicted or not. i would be shocked if any of the republican members are being disingenuous here. but i think that this is probably a combination of having a really slim majority to begin with and not wanting to lose his seat, or just also, the slippery slope, meaning it could actually affect others close to them or them themselves. >> one republican leader who surely should be worried is mike johnson, who has had a disruptive beginning to his new tenure as speaker of the house. what are the chances that he can keep his fractious caucus in line in advance of their agenda when there are so few votes to spare? >> it was extremely kick challenging to begin with, as we have seen in his short tenure, and certainly as we saw in speaker mccarthy's tenure. it's really tough, especially with this caucus