The federal judge overseen the former President's indictment on election interference has denied his attempt to dismiss charges based on a claim of presidential immunity. At one point in her ruling, the judge, Tanya Cutkin writes, Defendant's four-year service as commander and chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. This decision comes the same day as another setback for the former President of Federal Court in Washington. A three-judge appeals court panel decided he can be sued in civil court related to his actions during the January sixth riot at the Capitol. The decision was unanimous, sought to distinguish between campaign speech and official actions of a President. It's a victory for the Capitol police and lawmakers behind three separate cases affected by the decision, and there's others who may now seek civil damages as well. Perspective and all this from scene and political analyst Maggie Haberman, senior political correspondent for The New York Times, also the author of Confidence Man, the making of Donald Trump and the breaking of America. Also Caroline Policey, she's a white-collar criminal defense attorney. She's also a lecturer at Columbia Law School.

How big, Maggie, of a blow to the former President is this?

Look, it was always a long shot that this was going to go through or that Chuckin was going to rule on his side. She's made very clear in previous rulings how she views some of the claims that Trump has been making or his lawyers have been making. But what this does do is it starts the clock on an appeal that they are going to have go through the courts, possibly go up to the Supreme Court. It's no one knows how the Supreme Court will rule. If they will even take it up, they don't have to. They have generally not sided with Trump on any of his election-related issues. They obviously have on other issues. If they send this back or if they rule against him, the clock then starts on the trial, but this buys time for his team. This is not a surprising ruling, but it is a very lengthy ruling, and it refers to the Nixon pardon. It refers to a number of things that counter what Trump's team is arguing.

Carolina, what stood out to you in these rulings?

Yeah, I think, look, earlier today when the DC Circuit came out with the ruling with respect to the civil context, that was an easier bar to meet. Presidential immunity is really a thing that has been recognized by the Supreme Court since Nixon versus Fitzgerald. Trump was trying to push it further in the criminal context. Not surprising that Chuckin waited, I think, for her superiors to come out with the ruling this afternoon. And then immediately, I agree with Maggie, I think she wants to keep that March fourth trial date. This is the one thing that could potentially throw a wrench in those plans if the case is somehow stayed, pending, and appeal. Certainly, I think he certainly will appeal this ruling as well as the DC circuit ruling, and I think it is right for Supreme Court review.

So do you think it's likely it would be stayed?

Just as Maggie was saying, you never know what the Supreme Court is going to do. They can take it, they cannot. They could stay, they could not. But I think that that is the question mark here with respect to that. It's looking like more and more like that's going to be the only trial that will get in under the gun before the election.

Is it clear to you, Maggie, what other arguments the President might make to try to get this thrown out?

I think this was a big one. I think getting it thrown out is going to be very, very hard. This was really it. This was the shot. It's possible. Someone was suggesting to me today that the Supreme Court could take up the gag order issue that seems a little less likely than this one just because this is a presidential power issue, and it's a little broader. The other one is specific to Trump as a defendant. I think this is it in terms of their shot of getting it thrown out entirely. Next up becomes just trying for an acquittal or trying for a hung jury or trying... Those are their best hope. This is a case that being tried in DC, Trump's allies and advisors think is unlikely to go his way just based on the events and based on what the jewelry pool will be. But that's.

Down the road. There was also, Maggie, the pretrial hearing in the Georgia election case, what stood out to you there?

Well, it was interesting listening to this argument that the trial had to start. I think it was some suggestion. It should start in 2029 or something like that. I mean, well, well, well down the road. What you've heard over and over again from the Trump lawyers is there's such a volume of discovery. This is such an exotic case, and they've said this in various ones. We need time to go through everything for discovery. We need time to look at the evidence in the Mar-Lago documents case. There are clearance issues there. There actually are in the January sixth case, too, although it's a little less so. But it doesn't surprise me that they're talking about a delay. A delay of that much was surprising to me, and I would be mostly surprised if it works.

In Georgia, the President's attorneys are arguing that this violates Trump's free speech, right?

Yeah. By the way, they made that argument today in the check-in motion as well, which she denied. But the 2029 date, that was under the scenario in which the judge asked Trump lawyers, Well, what would happen if you were to be elected President? Essentially, it would stop the clock on that time to prosecute. But I have a different perspective because I'm a defense attorney. I think the August 2024 date is a bit aggressive. There's a backlog in the criminal, in Fulton County, Georgia, criminal court, and it cuts both ways. Any criminal defendant shouldn't be above the law. I think Fani Willis is trying to push this case through. She wants to get it in before the election. I think it's pretty apparent.

Maggie, which of these cases do you think the former President is most concerned about?

I think he's concerned about all of them, honestly. I think that he's more concerned about the federal ones. The documents case in particular concerns him, except for the judge in that case, which is one of his own appointees, and the fact that it's a more favorable jury pool just based on the counties around the courthouse. The January sixth case angers him for a variety of reasons, and you can see it when he talks about the election. It relates to an event that he considered humiliating, which is having to leave the White House. I think all of these things tie together. He's angry about the Manhattan indictment for different reasons. There's no case that makes him feel good here. They're all bad. But they are most concerned right now about the January sixth one because they think that's the one that's likely as next.

Basically, the humiliation is having to leave the White House as opposed to the humiliation of having his supporters break into the Congress.

We've heard him defend that. That is not something that I have heard him sound any concession of shame about publicly. To the point about fairness versus a speedy trial, though, I think that you are going to hear that over and over again, and it is the one place or a place where the Trump team has a legitimate point about the fact that Trump does have the same rights as any other defendant.

Caroline, Policey, thanks so much. Maggie Hammerman, thank you.