The answer, if you're wondering, is no. A president cannot order Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent with absolute immunity from prosecution in the future. Remember that striking hypothetical that was posed just one month ago to Trump's attorney by a panel of judges that that attorney then went on and actually tried to defend, even hypothetically? Well, today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals took a sledgehammer, not to touch us to that, but to really all of Donald Trump's community claims. The former President, whom the judges referred to in this decision as Citizen Trump for the purposes of this case, can be criminally tried by the special counsel, Jack Smith, for trying to overturn the 2020 election. Tonight, the trial that was just taken off the calendar last week could potentially be back on that calendar very soon. More on the scheduling and what that looks like in a moment. But right now, what we are seeing is Trump furiously posting on social media, continuing float many of the same claims that were rejected by the court today, such as this one, saying, Without presidential immunity, the presidency will lose its power and prestige. Contrast that with what is actually in the decision that everyone should read today, saying, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers.

Trump is also arguing tonight that a President of the United States must have full immunity in order to properly function. That's not what the appeals court says. Instead, really just writing the opposite, saying that, Instead of inhibiting the President's lawful discretionary action, the prospect of federal criminal liability might instead serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior. In this ruling, the three-judge panel also referred to something that was in the judge's ruling, the federal judge who is overseeing the 2020 case, that's Judge Chuck, can remember, and what she said. This is from the ruling today, I'm quoting, Every President will face difficult decisions. Whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them. Here tonight, to start us off, conservative attorney who has been arguing or who has argued, I should note before, in front of the Supreme Court, which makes us a key voice for tonight. George Conway, who also has a new piece out in The Atlantic, calling this an air-tight ruling against Donald Trump. George, it's great to have you here. Why do you believe this ruling, as you put it, was masterful?

It was because it combined so many elements. It combined constitutional text, judicial precedent, history, and just sheer logic, and the party's own concessions, Trump's own concessions, to make just an absolutely cohesive of hole, an opinion that is just inexerably leads you to the conclusion that he is not immune. It was just so well done. Also, one other aspect of the decision, which makes it even more bulletproof, is the fact that they narrowly focused on the exact situation in this case. They weighed the potential costs of not having immunity, which is what Trump talked about, which is the danger of a floodgate of litigation, of criminal litigation, which they pooh-poohed. They matched it up against, as they were required to do by the immunity case law, they matched it up against the public interest. The public interest wasn't just the public interest in the enforcement, generally, of the criminal law, but this was the public's interest in constitutional democracy and in the peaceful transition of power. When you weigh the two up against each other, there's just no question.

The real question here is, how does the Supreme Court read this? Because Trump's team says they do plan to appeal it. I mean, you say that it doesn't require further review.

Yeah, it doesn't because I don't... I mean, this opinion is so good and so clear, so comprehensive. There's nothing in it that could be possibly attacked. I don't see how even the Supreme Court could write... I don't see how any judge, any court, anywhere, including the Supreme Court, could write a better opinion that more accurately states what the law is and should be. As a Well, I don't think it's worth the court's time to deal with it at this point. If Trump is convicted, which I think he will be, they can actually review this after his conviction. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court already has its hands full. On Thursday, it's going to hear the argument in the disqualification case from Colorado, where the court in Colorado held that Trump couldn't be on the ballot because he was an insurrectionist.

Yeah. We don't know what they're going to do, but let's say that the Supreme Court does take it up. Given all of the arguments that Trump's attorney made were totally eviscerated by this court today, is there a new legal argument that they could make to the Supreme Court here?

No, because they threw everything up in the air and every single argument was methodically and systematically dismantled by this court. There is nothing left. The court addressed even all the bad arguments that Trump probably shouldn't have made to this court. And there's just nothing. There's just nothing left for the Supreme Court to clean up. I think if I'm sitting on the Supreme Court, I'm thinking, We don't need this. This is fine. This is a case that can go into the judicial law books, into the casebooks and law schools for for the next 100 years. It's that good.

You write that this reminded you of the Supreme Court decision, forcing Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes. How come?

Because it was the same thing. I mean, Nixon was looking for any air, any weakness in the opinion. He was sitting, he was up early in the morning in San Clemente, and Al Hague, his chief of Staff, General Hague, called him up to tell him the Supreme Court had just handed down the decision. He asked, Well, is there any air in it? Nixon asked, and Hague said, No, nothing. Tight as a drum. In this case, this opinion is even tighter than the Supreme Court's opinion in the United States against Nixon. I just don't see how Trump can get this thing overturned. He might be able to delay a little, but I think the Supreme Court is going to see right through that, and there's a good chance it may not even take this case. And if that's the case, then this case, this immunity appeal, could be over within a couple of weeks, and we could have a trial as early as late May or early June.

Yeah, it's a remarkable development, George Conway, fascinating piece in the Atlantic. Thank you for starting us off tonight. And I'm joined now by an attorney who used to represent former President Donald Trump, Tempala Tori. Welcome back to The Source. Are you surprised that Trump lost here?

No, it's not surprising what the result is. I was a little bit surprised that they ruled it on the merits. I thought that they may go for jurisdiction and just say, This is premature. Come back to us after the case is over, which would have then really removed the ability to even go to the Supreme Court right now. It did surprise me that they went to the merits, but not what the bottom line was.

I mean, yeah, they spent a lot of this ruling on the jurisdiction, if anyone's reading that. But on the merits itself, I mean, Trump is responding to this today by saying the presidency is going to lose power and prestige when the court says it's actually an important check on the presidency if they're not immune. He says a president must have full immunity to properly function. They say that's not supported by history or logic, that he was just carrying out his official acts. They say what's alleged is not an official act, that it was instead, they say, true an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. If it does go to the Supreme Court, let me ask what I asked George Conway, which is what argument does his legal team have left?

The big thing that I thought that this decision was missing was a more detailed discussion of what the left and right limits would be of immunity. I think that it gave a little bit short shrift to the idea of when you're out of office, that it doesn't apply anymore. So I think that the Supreme Court could clarify those points. And one thing to understand is that the Supreme Court doesn't just take cases to overturn them. And there was a case several years ago in the Clinton Administration that the circuit decided an issue of privilege, and the Supreme Court decided not to take it. But Justice Gainsberg gave a very strong dissent where she said, Issues like this that affect the privileges and immunities related to the presidency is something that should be coming from the Supreme Court, not just from the circuit. And so even if the Supreme Court were to take it and affirm it entirely, it is something because it affects the President that there is a belief that it should come from the Supreme Court, not just the circuit.

Do you believe that? Do you think it should go to the Supreme Court after reading this opinion or this ruling today?

I do see a value in the Supreme Court weighing in and potentially clarifying what type conduct would or wouldn't be under the immunity. I don't think that it's going to affect the outcome. I don't think it's going to change what's going to happen in this trial. I think that the Supreme Court would have to make that decision really based on the law and the precedent, whereas a lot of people want to make the decision based on the schedule of getting the trial done before the election.

But you're saying you do think the case will ultimately go to trial, even if it does go to the Supreme Court?

I believe that the Supreme Court is not going to overturn it and find the blanket immunity that the former President is.