Tonight, rare audio of a court hearing between the former President, Donald Trump's lawyers, and DOJ prosecutors. There were three judges listening to both sides argue over a gag order for Trump and the DOJ's 2020 election interference case. The judges indicating they are likely to restore that gag order despite the Trump team's objections today.

Criminal speech, obviously, is subject to the restrictions. But core political speech, that is core political speech, that's part of campaign speech.

I think that labeling it core political speech begs the question of whether it is, in fact, political speech. Or whether it is political speech aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process. You can't simply label it that.

Outfront now, Ty Cobb, the former Trump White House lawyer. So, Ty, you watched this hearing, and I said it's really rare to even have the opportunity to hear this, right? I mean, it's quotes that come out afterwards or reports from people in the room. You actually could hear it. So what do you think? Do you think the appeals court is going to restore this gag order? What did you hear from the tone and the questioning?

There is no question that the court will ultimately approve a gag order. Whether the court will rewrite the existing gag order or send it down to Judge Chuckin with instructions as to how to write it remains unclear. They could do either. But there will definitely be a gag order in this case. I think a couple of things fit together here. Judge Millet, who is extremely sharp and very skillful judge, made it plain that they needed to work with a very fine scalpel, I think, were her words. And what that said, what that suggests is that they will tweak the existing gag order. And I think most of the tweaking will be around the word targeting or target, as it's used in the existing gag order, refining that in a way that makes plain that, yes, Jack Smith can be criticized. He can be criticized by name, but that he can't be the subject of incitement or invited violence. And as was pointed out in the briefs, the day after Trump said, If you come after me, I'm coming after you. Death threats were sent to her chambers. His words have real consequences. We have dead people on January sixth that compellingly.

Demonstrate that. Right. And also show that there can be an incitement to violence without a direct incitement to violence, right? I mean, it's the codes that matter so much. And I guess that's the subjectivity of it. The hearing was tense at moments, Ty, judges, they did try to drill down on what Trump's team believes he is allowed to say. Your whole point about how do you apply a scalpel here. They specifically brought up, well, how do you handle witnesses who could be called to testify and what Trump may say about those witnesses or say that could influence those witnesses. Here's one of the scenarios that they posed.

What if he instead gets on a stage somewhere or on social media and says that exact same thing? Ms. X, a public figure, is being bothered by the prosecutor. But people who are loyal, honest, patriots don't talk to the government.

He hasn't said that. And it is a mischaracterization to.

Say that. Please answer the question. I'm not suggesting he has said that. To be clear for the record, this is a hypothetical question. I mean.

She made it clear these are posed as hypotheticals. But, Ty, when you've looked through things Trump has said, real things he said, there is a chance you've said, a very real one, that Trump could face jail time for violating a gag order, right?

Yes, absolutely. I don't think his first or second violation of the gag order will find him sent to jail. But I think ultimately his narcissism will get the best of him, and he will violate it until he finds out what the limits of what Judge Chuck and his patients are, is.

Right. And I guess those limits, as you're saying, end up with what could possibly be a night or two or something like that. It's hard to even imagine it, but actually in jail.

Yep. No, I think that's exactly right. And I think the judges were frustrated with both sides a little bit today because of the begaries of their interpretation of the order and the arguments that they were making. But in the end, I think this task boils down to using that scalpel skillfully to demonstrate what target or targeting actually means, and what areas of speech are actually circumscribed by the need to avoid undermining the integrity of the judicial process. I think that task is well within the capability of these judges and Judge Shutkin.

All right. Well, thank you very much, Ty. I appreciate it, as always.

Thank you. Nice to be with you, Aaron. Take care. Thank you. You too.