All right, just into CNN. Prosecutors in Georgia are asking a judge to set a date for Donald Trump's state-level election subversion trial. Let's get the latest details from CNN. Jessica Schneider, who is working the story for us. Jessica, what dates are Fulton County prosecutors.

Asking for? Well, the Fulton County DA is asking for this trial to start August fifth, 2024. That would actually be just days after the Republican convention and three months before the general election. So prosecutors have already said they expect Trump's Georgia trial to last several months. So that would mean if they, in fact, start in early August, it could extend past election day. And this request would also mean that all four of Trump's criminal trials could be slated to start in 2024. Two of them starting in March, one in May, and then this Georgia case in August, if that goes forward. Trump's team tonight already firing back. They're saying they oppose that August start date, and they've asked the judge in that case to set a hearing on this trial start date issue. So, Wolf, it's ultimately the judge who will make the final decision here.

Jessica, I understand we're also awaiting a major ruling from a Colorado judge on an effort to remove Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado.

What can you tell us? We're actually, Wolf, expecting a ruling by 7:45 Eastern time tonight out of Colorado. The challenge is in this case, they want a court order that would block the Secretary of state in Colorado from putting Trump's name on the ballot in that state. And what they're citing is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It bans anyone from holding office if they have, quote, engaged in insurrection or rebellion. And the people bringing this suit say that applies to Trump for his actions on January sixth. The problem is this section has actually never been applied to a candidate for President, and in fact, it's only been applied a couple of times since the 1800s. Also recently, several judges in Michigan, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, they've rejected similar lawsuits by groups who have tried to take Trump's name off the ballot there. In those cases, the judges have said it's either too early to decide that in the election cycle, or in one case they ruled it was really a political question that needed to be decided by Congress and not the courts. But either way, Wolf, it does seem like that this is an issue.

No matter the ruling tonight from Colorado, this could likely get to the Supreme Court possibly in the next few months.

We will wait and watch. Thank you very much, Jessica Schneider, for that. I want to get some analysis from our legal and political experts right now. Jennifer Rogers, I'll start with you. Is this August fifth start date for the Georgia election subversion case at all realistic?

I don't think it's going to happen, Wolf. I mean, I don't envy the judge having to decide this. There are 16 other and he is not officially the nominee yet, but that said, he has all these other trials scheduled. The polls have him way ahead. He's very likely to be the nominee. There's just no way that the nominee for the president can be put on trial through the election itself and potentially into the year that he might take office if he wins. I suspect prosecutors will not get what they want here and the judge will schedule it for after the election.

Let me bring Ellie Honey into this conversation. Ellie, the DA, Fani Willis, knows that date would mean the trial is going on during the heart of the presidential election season. So why is her office suggesting this?

Well, Wolf, I think it's a completely unrealistic request by the DA's office here. If we do this simple math here, if we start a trial in August, the DA's office itself has said they believe it will take four months to try this case. The judge actually said he believes it will take double that. But let's just use four months. That means we'll be on trial August, September, October, and through November during the election. And keep in mind, because this is a criminal trial, Donald Trump has to be physically present. So what the DA is proposing to do is to physically remove Donald Trump from the campaign trail, from the convention, through the election. I don't see any realistic way the state judge in Georgia allows that, and if he does, it's unprecedented. But it wouldn't shock me if the federal court stepped in and said, You simply cannot do this. I don't think it's at all realistic.

Gloria Borger is with us as well. Gloria does this August fifth proposed date play into Trump's hands as he rails against this prosecution, calling it politically motivated?

Yeah, of course it does. As Ellie was just outlining, this runs right into the election. He'd be in and out of an Atlanta courtroom during the heat of election season, even potentially past election day. I think it's very unrealistic, but it allows Donald Trump and his attorneys to claim that the reason she set this date is political and that it's not arbitrary, it is political, and that she wants this to go on during the election. So I suspect that'll be part of their argument.

Ellie, let's get back to the Colorado judge. He's let this case get much further along than similar cases in other states. This Constitution's 14th Amendment, so-called insurrectionist case. What is that signal to you about how she might rule?

Yeah, well, so there's a chance that this judge does rule against Donald Trump in the coming minutes and hours, precisely for that reason, because this judge has allowed this case to go much farther than anyone else has before. So far we've seen essentially appeals made to various secretaries of state, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have uniformly rejected this, said it's not up to us to unilaterally remove someone from the ballot. And we've seen judges in at least three other states, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, also dismissed these cases. Now, this judge in Colorado did hold a full trial, which suggests to me there's a reasonable, perhaps better than reasonable chance that the Colorado judge does rule against Donald Trump. But if that happens, it will absolutely be appealed, and I think there's a very good chance it gets reversed.

Jennifer, if she does decide against Trump on this issue, how likely is it this decision will be overturned, let's say, by the Supreme Court?

Yeah, well, that's hard to say, Wolf, because there's just no precedent at the wall on this. We don't even know whether this lawsuit is the proper mechanism for trying to enforce this provision of the Constitution. While the plaintiffs actually have a pretty compelling legal argument, if you just look at the constitutional language and you look at the historical record, it's just so out of the box as far as what we've seen in litigation. It's just hard to see even this judge, much less any appellate court agreeing to take out a leading candidate for President. I think they would just decide to let the voters do it ultimately with the ballot box.

So from a political standpoint, Gloria, would the judge actually be doing Trump a favor by ruling to keep him off the ballot?

Well, I don't know that the judge would be doing Trump a favor. I mean, nobody wants to be ruled that you can't be on the ballot when you're a contender for the presidency. And don't forget, of course, if this were to continue, there are electoral votes at stake here. But I do agree with my colleagues here that they would appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. And you see whether the court wants to get involved in putting people on ballots or not. And I think this judge listened to the arguments clearly, but I think if she rules against him, it won't be the last time this is in court.