And Judge Chuckkin did not mince words in her ruling. Guys, writing in part of Trump's four-year service as commander-in-chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. Kaitlin, Judge Chuckkin, almost seems to relish a little bit getting up in Trump's grill on some of these issues, it seems, if I could use non-legal parlance.

She's a good writer. Yeah, she is. We'll say that. She's a sharp writer. She's a very sharp judge. And in this case, a lot of these cases turn, they win or they lose on what happens before the trial. What the judges do on these big legal questions. Donald Trump was making a very big bid here to get this case tossed saying that because he had been the President at the time that this had happened, he had some protections. He wanted there to be an immunity because of the Constitution, because of the presidency. Judge Chuckin said, This just isn't in the Constitution. It's not what the who wrote the Constitution wanted to allow for presidents, and that if former presidents didn't have the ability to be prosecuted for things that they did in office, then that would not be part of what the Constitution wants us to have as equal justice under law. She says it's essential to be able to bring cases like this to have justice work in this country. And so she deniled Trump these arguments he was making, but this is a really big issue that has to get settled. And now we have the judge ruling on this and saying, let's go.

We're going to move to trial. There are a couple other things she has to look at and say whether she will toss certain charges in this case and some other things. He's argued that this was the.

Big one. Yeah, Shane, it sounds like the Trump defense strategy is to say immunity then, immunity now, immunity forever. I mean, he wants immunity from everything. Thing. What's your analysis of what came down from the judge yesterday?

I think it's a very good analysis, very sound. Just like in the civil matter, the Court of appeals reasoning was very sound too. I do think from my legal analyst perspective, it's a little bit of much to do about nothing on the constitutionality issue. No question it's a constitutional law interpretation, but it's so fact-specific to this particular President. I mean, yeah, it'll arise again the next time we have a former president running for election who is charged with 9/1 counts. He obviously is trying to wield a lot of times the First Amendment as his defense here. It's all pretty much of a red herring, though, because, of course, common sense, non-lawyers would say, Of course, the former president can't have a permanent get-out-of-jail free card, as she wrote. It makes perfect sense not to do that. But our legal system tries to be so fair that no matter how off the argument is, you got to wind through the system that way. And of course, this will cause more delay. But on a legal grounding, it's very, very solid.

Yeah, and I do want to ask you about that point in just a moment. Kaitlin, we also saw a similar ruling from an appeals court on the issue of these civil lawsuits. Sounds like a similar outcome.

Yeah, a lot of people, including Judge Chuckin, were waiting to see what the DC Circuit would do on these civil lawsuits. So a bunch of people had filed lawsuits against Donald Trump trying to hold him accountable for January sixth, that attack on the Capitol. My count, eight lawsuits at the very least were all on hold, waiting for this, including a lawsuit before Judge Chuckin. Just on Wednesday she was saying, We're waiting to see when this is coming. And this decision came out from the DC Circuit saying that there is no ability to have immunity broadly for what Donald Trump was saying and doing while he was the President. There's a difference between presidential speech and campaign speech, even if you're the sitting President running for re-election. There is going to be an opportunity for Donald Trump in these lawsuits to go and argue the facts, whether or not what he said on January sixth was part of his campaign, or whether it was part of his governance. But that decision is another really big one that Judge Chuck can even cite it in her criminal case decision. We have an appeals court weighing in now on this question of immunity, and those cases too are going to be able to go forward at least a little bit.

For now. Yeah, and Shane, do you think we're going to see this issue of presidential immunity end up at the Supreme Court? And to that end, it goes back to the point you were earlier, if they keep throwing these things out in front of these judges, various challenges on all sorts of different grounds, one would think at some point they're going to be successful in delaying some of these trials, and maybe the federal election interference trial that has been scheduled for March may not happen in March if they're successful. What do you think?

I think there is a pretty good chance that they'll be successful in delaying at least some of these trials past the election. The one in Florida about the classified documents issue, it's complicated just on the logistics because there's classified material. In DC, no question Jack Smith tried to really streamline this, maximize the chance of doing it fast. Truckin's moving very fast. I think the Supreme Court probably will take the case just because it's a Screams constitutional issue, even though I wish they wouldn't take it.

And the immunity question in the criminal case in DC with Judge Chuck in January sixth, that has to be settled before Trump goes to trial. It has to be as a right for a criminal defendant.

Yeah, they could decline to take it after court of appeals, but I don't think they would.

Do you think the Supreme Court could come down on the side of Trump and saying, Yes, you have immunity in.

That case? I think legally, it's very unlikely. They haven't shown themselves to be particular fans of his arguments. This one really seems like a no-brainer that that's a weak argument.

All right, very good. Kaitlin, Shane, thanks a lot, guys. Really appreciate it. Thank you.