most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. this is cnn breaking news. >> all right, the breaking news. a three-judge federal appeals panel unanimously ruled just releasing this ruling, 57 pages, that donald trump is not immune from criminal prosecution for his actions surrounding january 6th. the judges rejected trump's claim that he cannot be prosecuted for charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election. they write, quote, it would be a striking paradox if the president who alone is vested

with the constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. with us, paula reed, joan biskupic, also a team of the best lawyers on earth. first, to paula reed. tell us what the judges said here. >> reporter: so here, the d.c. circuit court rejecting former president trump's argument that presidential immunity should seeld him from the federal election subversion case. now this outcome was very much expected. he lost on this issue at the trial court, and a month ago when they held oral arguments on this question, the three judges hearing the case appeared quite skeptical of trump's lawyer's arguments that their client enjoyed near absolute immunity for anything that he did while in office. let's listen to this quote now from today's opinion. they say, quote, for the purpose of this criminal case, former

president trump has become citizen trump. with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. but any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. pretty clear there on what they think of his claims of presidential immunity. but this is also very much about timing. the trump legal strategy, while they are litigating some legitimate constitutional questions, they are also trying to do anything they can to delay these federal cases until after the november 2024 election. if trump is re-elected, he could through his attorney general likely make both of these cases go away. that is part of why they want to delay these. and this appeals court heard this case on an expedited schedule, but it still took them a month to issue this opinion. now, they are making up for lost time because they're saying that they're going to send this whole case back down to the trial court next week unless the

supreme court intervenes. now, if the supreme court does not opt to intervene here, if this does go back to the trial court next week, that means that it is likely that this case could go to trial before november. >> all right, i just -- this is happening very quickly, they're asking for the response quickly. what is going to happen next? in other words, how quickly might a case go forward, jack smith's case in particular, go forward? >> so first, we know that the trump team is going to appeal. they issued a statement saying they're going to appeal. what's not clear is if they're going to take sort of a midway step which is to ask the full circuit court of appeals to have a hearing en banc. all of the judges in the circuit would hear the case. many people opt not to do that because if you lost with three judges, unlikely many times you're going to win with the full circuit. here again, it's about anything to delay. they may try that. these three judges have laid out instructions if the trump team does that, or they will appeal to the supreme court. and they have set this deadline

of february 12th, if the supreme court does not intervene by february 12th the circuit is going to send this back to the trial court. after that, when can this find a place on the calendar? well, possibly april. they're going to need a little time to prepare. the case has been on hold. the judge has frozen all the filings and things they need to do to prepare. it could go this spring, possibly this summer if it goes back to judge chutkan next week. >> paula, stand by. i want to bring in our senior supreme court analyst joan biskupic. the supreme court now has to decide by february 12th whether they even want to take this up. what are the considerations here, joan? >> well, first of all, isn't that the deadline for when donald trump has to appeal? because they can't really put a deadline on the supreme court itself. >> paula, can you clear that up? because the panel said if they don't hear from the supreme court by february 12th, they'll kick this back down to the district court.

isn't that correct? >> i'm going to pull up the exact language and we'll read it on air. i'm going to pull it out of their opinion. >> as you look for that, the considerations that this court will make when deciding whether to rule here or whether even to hear arguments. >> right. first of all, the law is on jack smith's side. the precedent on whether a president can be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution after leaving office. the general precedent is on his side. this lower court opinion is very forcefully written. it was unanimous by three judges who embody everyone back from george h.w. bush appointee to two recent biden appointees. it's a very solid opinion, as i said, very robustly written. so it could stand. the justices could say we don't want a part of it. but the justices also, and as i like to remind people, it only

takes four of the nine votes to grant the case. they could decide this is a question that's so important they want to weigh in. or there might be some incentive to at least take some time to decide whether to weigh in. that's why i said it's important to know, is that february 12th deadline for donald trump or for the court. i would think it's more for donald trump but i don't know. because i hadn't seen that part of the order yet. but the justices could decide to back away. look, they already have a very politically charged case they're going to hear on thursday involving donald trump and whether the 14th amendment would bar him from being on state ballots because of an insurrectionist provision in that amendment. so they're going to be very politically charged situation already. they don't like to be involved in any kind of election cases. and their past cases with donald trump have all been fraught and very difficult to resolve, quite a challenge behind the scenes for chief justice john roberts.

but in this case, they could decide this lower court opinion will just stand, or they could decide we're going to hear this case. if they decide to hear this case, john and sara, it could take several more weeks if not months. >> all right. joan, you brought up the cases that they're going to take up. one of which has to do with whether he can be on the ballot. but in those cases there have been different opinions all over the place. which is natural for the supreme court to bring up. paula, i want to go back to you. have you determined looking through the document whether or not this is a deadline on donald trump's attorney team and donald trump or whether it's a deadline on the supreme court that in six days there has to be a decision or a filing? >> as we indicated this is a deadline for former president trump. this is a guard against him waiting three, four, five, six weeks maybe even months to file that appeal. then of course, the supreme court does what it wants when it wants. i was going to read the instructions from the circuit

court, but it's pretty deep. i'm going to spare our audience that, but the translation is former president trump has until next week to notify the court he's appealed to the supreme court. if he does that, they'll wait to see what the supreme court does. as i have said, sources close to the trump legal team said they would be surprised if the supreme court takes up this issue. >> what will happen, though, there will be a little time first. because the court will probably want to hear what jack smith says. you know, it's not that the court will immediately on february 12th give us an answer. what they'll do, as paula said, they'll hear from donald trump, presumably by february 12th so he can meet that deadline, and then typically what happens when the court is faced with this kind of petition or emergency action is ask the other side, what do you think? what do you think, jack smith? and presumably, jack smith is going to say no, stay out. you have a very sound forcefully written decision from the d.c. circuit. it hits all the key points of

law. you do not have to intervene. but that process in and of itself is not going to take just a matter of hours or days. that could take a week or two itself. >> excellent. all right, paula reed, joan biskupic, thank you both for explaining that so well. with us now, laura coates, cnn anchor and chief analyst, elie honig, and tim heavy, former lead investigator for the january 6th committee. laura, at a basic level here, this appeals panel has decided something very, very important. the line between what can be considered presidential actions and outside the scope of the presidency or frankly any official job. why is that so important? >> because it goes to the very heart of separation of powers in our system of checks and balances. we do not want any particular actor to have carte blanche, this blank check to do whatever he or she wants to do and never be held to account. one must answer for their

criminal behavior, particularly if one is in a position like a president, like a member of congress. you can go down the line. they took very good care in this opinion, though, to talk about, yes, we would like there to be immunity in certain instances, as it relates to one's official behavior. they talked about judges for a great deal in terms of what their conduct is and how they could be answering for criminal behavior or allegations but fundamentally the question that trump's team was asking and asking the court to find is there was absolute immunity for conduct that occurred while in office. without the guardrails. without the parameters, and that would uproot our discussions about checks and balances. this is a very striking opinion that goes to the very heart of how we view our democracy, which is why there are questions as our colleagues have talked about, whether the supreme court will take it up or not. there is the law that is on the side of jack smith, but more importantly, on the side of checks and balances. and if we were to follow that

thread, john, that suggests that a president has absolute immunity or could simply wait out the impeachment process or if they're not convicted and removed would get away scot-free for whatever behavior, that would really upend our notion of our checks and our balances. >> all right, laura coates, thank you for bringing us through that and these important points. i want to look at the case as a whole. there are three main arguments that donald trump's team has put forward, and they have just been one after the other eviscerated by this court. can you give us what those arguments are and what the response of this court is. >> this is a remarkably forceful ruling. i don't know if there's a good word in here for donald trump in 57 pages. so, the court takes down donald trump's argument in three parts. first of all, they say there is no absolute immunity for the president. it is not and cannot be that a president or former president can never be charged for anything he did from january 20th at noon when he took office

to four years later. that would leave us in a state of lawlessness. they reject absolute immunity. number two, they reject donald trump's argument that well, even if there's limited immunity, i was within the boundaries. they say oh, no, you were not. not only do they say you were outside the boundaries, essentially they say what you did was criminal. >> out snd the boundaries of the job of president. >> exactly. trump's argument is well, i was calling other public officials, coordinating election oversight. that's part of the president's job. what jack smith and this court of appeals panel say, oh, no, what you were doing was well over that line, well out of bounds, and indeed, potentially arguably criminal. the third argument that they reject is donald trump's let's say inventive argument that a former president or president can only be indicted once he's been impeached by the house of representatives and then convicted by the u.s. senate. only then can he be criminally indicted. that was a creative construction that doesn't work for a lot of

obvious reasons. this is why you think back to the oral argument when you had these bizarre scenarios. what if a president ordered the assassination of his rival. the answer from trump's team was a very unconvinces, only if he's been impeached first. i want to read the sents that jumps out to me. here's what the court writes. the court of appeal. quote, at bottom, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. i mean, collapse our system of separation of powers is very strong language. >> tim, you worked with the january 6th committee, which in some ways was a year ahead of the entire legal prosecution process here, but be that as it may, this appeals court panel ruling saying that what donald trump did or is accused of doing, those actions are outside the scope of the presidency. outside official duties.

how does that align with what you found as part of that committee, and the recommendation, the prosecutor r recommendations that you all made? >> it aligns completely. so the committee found that there's evidence of the violations of federal criminal statutes and recommended that the department of justice evaluate them. they did that and brought those charges. and have only developed more evidence beyond that which was available to us. so it's not a surprise. it's frankly consistent with the facts and consistent with the select committee's view of the law. really, really thorough opinion. i just looking at it quickly, it goes through every argument that the former president and his team raised. and the policy behind those arguments. rejects them on the law and the broader policy. essentially rejects the former president's argument that it would impede decision making and deliberations of future presidents if he or she were subject to criminal liability,

and upholds the interest and accountability above that. very, very strong and forceful from what i can tell in 57 pages. entirely consistent with the select committee's finding. >> thank you. because listening to -- we all watched the january 6th committee hearings. and it is interesting going through this because some of the language almost matches the way in which the arguments were made. i want to read something on page 40 of the 57 pages. we cannot accept former president trump's claim that a president has unbound authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power. those are strong -- i mean, they can't be any more clear. can they? >> they say to commit crimes. i mean, that's pretty darn close to the court of appeals saying he committed crimes. they say we don't accept trump's claim he's unbound authority to commit crimes. he's not saying i have unbound authority to commit crimes. what he's saying is i did not

commit a crime. >> he's actually saying both, isn't he? >> i guess he is saying both. in any event, what i did was not a crime. again, there is no ambiguity in the ruling. no, we can see it either way or up to a finder of fact. another thing the court of appeals could have done and did not do, they could have remanded, set this back to the district court and said you need to decide, was this inside or outside the scope of the job of the president because that's a fact intensive inquiry. that would have sidetracked that, the court of appeals did not do that. they said you are well outside the bounds and you don't have the authority to do what you did. >> laura, we have this decision, we're poring through it, analyzing different aspects of it, but once you have done that, what matters most next is whether or not the supreme court takes this up. and what will they base that decision on? or you know, what should they

base that decision on? wi never know what happens behind closed doors. >> i was going to say, you want me to define the prerogative they exercise. they do what they like to do and do not want to weigh in to political matters. but this really isn't a political matter. it's a question of presidential power and checks and balances. it really goes to the heart. remember when we talked about the actual oral argument in the hearing. they talked a lot about marberry v. madison. others probably tried to google what they were talking about. all it meant is the supreme court has every right to weigh in and have judicial review of what they want to review. that precisely could be this case. why? because it's asking a very novel question. does absolute immunity apply to a president for all conduct that occurred while they were in office? we have never had a president who has been indicted in the past, so this is really a matter of first impression. if the supreme court were to take up this case, they would

have to look at the constraints and limitations of what means -- what it means to have an official act. because trump will talk about this, and he has talked about this issue in terms of what he has done leading up to january 6th and beyond as a matter of official duty. it was all because he's the president. remember, the role of the president as the head of the executive branch is to enforce the laws as written. if he believes the laws were being violated somehow, he is suggesting that he was just trying to enforce them and insure that the voter fraud laws, that laws relating to a free and fair election, were not violated. the supreme court has looked at issues around official duties and actions in the past. remember the virginia governor in terms of whether he in interacting with people about whether there were lobbyists or watches given or meetings that were set up, they had to first look at what it means to have official powers and duties. they will likely look at those issues as well here. but i do think at the end of the

day, a supreme court is hard pressed to find that there is no way to hold accountable an official for criminal behavior that falls outside of the duty of one's official conduct, that goes into the campaigning and the election side, which is no longer part of a presidential duty, but at the end of the day, this supreme court will have a lot to decide. and you asked the question earlier, whether this thursday's oral argument about the 14th amendment and about colorado might meander to that. i bet the trump team will try. they want to have some kind of indication. should i try, do you want to hear from me? remember, february 12th is monday. it's not a distant date in the future. it is monday. they want some inkling. >> laura coates, thank you so much for that. as we're talking about the supreme court and what they may or may not do, you have nine justices there. if you tick down, because elie,

i'm putting you on the spot, if you look at these nine justices and look across the board, can you tell us who you think may, because you only need four to take up a case. who may be the four that take this case up if they do it. >> let's do a head counting here, because that is the magic number, four to take a case. i think thomas and alito, justices thomas and alito are the most likely to want to take this case. i think the three liberal justices are unlikely to want to take this case. so the question is, are there two more who might join with thomas and alito in this scenario? out of justices gorsuch, kavanaugh, and the chief justice, john roberts. it's going to be a play for who can get two of those three on their side in order to take this case. it's interesting to see how the consensus has evolved. my own view included. if you asked me four months ago, will the supreme court take this

case, all of us would say they have to. this is heavy duty constitutional questions. there's no supreme court precedent on it. but i think as the opinions have come back one by one, including today's, and they have been so clear cut and so unambiguous, i would move it down to a 50/50 where it could go really either way, and by the way, if the supreme court does take this case, that could all but erase the chances of this getting tried before the election as a practical matter. >> timothy, you're still with us. i don't want to lose sight of what this is about, federal charges against donald trump for attempting to interfere with the election. talk to us about what you think, what charge you think is the most likely to get a conviction. if this does get to court, what do you think has the best chance? >> yeah, to be clear, all this d.c. circuit opinion does is move it to trial, where the

government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, has to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the former president specifically intended to obstruct, interfere with, or impede an official proceeding of the joint session. the 1512 count is always to me been the strongest, the one most clearly imp licated by the conduct. that's the one we highlighted. a very high standard in any criminal case, as it should be. the court of appeals goes to great lengths to say those factual findings as to whether the elements of the crime have been satisfied will be up to a jury. they don't weigh in on the facts. appellate courts generally do not. look, the evidence is there. we believe, the select committee believed, it was sufficient to merit the referral, the special counsel has gotten additional evidence that makes that potential showing even stronger. it's impossible to predict in a criminal trial, but there's

certainly evidence that would sustain beyond a reasonable doubt a finding of guilt on that obstruction of official proceedings statute. >> all of you, please don't go too far. obviously a lot going on today that really could have a huge impact. >> a huge impact. more on the breaking news of course for you. and we'll just reiterate, a d.c. appeals court has rejected forcefully former president trump's claim of presidential immunity. coming up, how he is responding this morning, and yes, there has been a response. and the political implications to this late breaking ruling.

we begin with breaking news at this half hour mark. a huge loss for donald trump in his legal arguments he is immune from criminal prosecution as a president. a d.c. appeals court has unanimously ruled donald trump isn't immune from criminal prosecution for his actions surrounding january 6th. cnn's kristen holmes is joining us now from washington, d.c. you have gotten some information from the trump team just coming out as we got this 57-page ruling from the d.c. appeals court. what are they saying? >> reporter: sara, the highlight here is they're going to plan to appeal, which isn't that surprising. i'm going to read part of the statement and we can go through it. writes, if immunity is not

granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party without complete immunity, a president of the united states would not be able to properly function. jack smith's prosecution of president trump for his presidential official acts is unconstitutional under immunity and separation of powers. prosecuting a president threatens the bedrock of our republic. president trump will appeal in order to safeguard the presidency and the constitution. our colleague caitkatelyn polan points out the court addressing this, saying at one point it was clear former presidents were aware that they could be charged, saying past presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability. so clearly, they address this because this has been a long-term argument of donald trump's. the other thing to point out, you noted this is a loss.

it's a legal loss and also a political loss as well. remember last week, judge chutkan took this case, the january 6th case, off of the calendar. that was a huge win for donald trump and their team. their strategy here has been to delay, delay, delay, to push these cases hopefully beyond the 2024 election in november. now, because of this, and because of the tight turnaround they were given by the court, which is february twelfth, that could put that trial back on the calendar. so they're going to, we're not sure what the appeal process is going to look like, but they're going to do whatever they can to try to stay it, to delay this because that is their tactic moving forward. this is a case they're particularly concerned about here in washington, d.c. and one that they really do not want to happen until after the 2024 election. >> kristen holmes, thank you. the argument being made has been addressed by this appeals court. that should be stated over and over and over again. >> i will note, kristen says that the trump team has conducted in delay, delay,

delay. they have also tried to collect, collect, collect. every chance they get, the trump team tries to raise money off this. there's a fund-raising email they sent out already on this from donald trump, looking to make some money off this whole thing. with us now, republican strategist al stewart and opinion contributor and former house republican investigative committee counsel sophia nelson. we talk about the politics of this. why it matters. the recent nbc news poll which is one of the polls that came out over the last week which shows donald trump ahead in a one-on-one matchup against joe biden, shows him losing, i don't know if we have a graphic in the control room, trailing joe biden 45/43 if he is convicted of a felony. so there are potential political ramifications here, where while he's trying to raise money off it, it ain't good for him politically, sophia. >> you know, to set the table for the folks at home, because all these legal opinions i think

confuse the public a little bit. let's set the table. right now as we're talking, the house of representatives is thinking about impeaching the secretary of homeland security over the border crisis. there's a bill on the table that they said is dead on arrival, and then donald trump is arguing to a federal court that he is immune from criminal prosecution forever because he was president of the united states. i mean, it's utterly ridiculous so the politics of this as you say are very fascinating to me because i just don't know where the public is on this. it's kind of all over the place. but i think that the politics are right now in joe biden's favor, and i'm not sure i'm buying into these polls because we're nine months or so out right from the election. and i think that it's going to be a hard sell for the american public to swallow that they're going to accept this president again, a person who the courts is saying, and this opinion is really rough, by the way, that they're basically saying you committed crimes. you were outside of the scope of

your office, and what you did wasn't okay and we're not going to tell you it's okay. >> strong words from the court. and from you, sophia. alice stewart, as you look at this and see this opinion, what are your thoughts on the impact this might have on the trump campaign besides what john is seeing as you're seeing some of these ads come down to say, witch hunt, donate, they're coming for him and you, which is the argument they make over and over. >> as you know, the republican base, which is what he has full control over right now in the gop primary, is in his corner. they believe him when he says that all of these legal entanglements are a product of weaponization of the doj. and overzealous prosecution that are simply going after him because he's a main threat to joe biden. and he says he is taking this for the american people because they'll come after him, they'll come after the american people next. while that is not true, that is

what his base believes. so in the gop primary, this isn't going to have an impact on him. as we move further out and you look at the ruling that came out today, saying that he isn't immune from prosecution. look, most rational people will say you don't need immunity if you haven't violated the law or the constitution. so they're realizing, if he violated the law or the constitution, he should be subject to the judicial system. and we're looking at the latest cnn polls on specifically his legal entanglements. almost half of the people that we polled say that there should be some type of ruling on these cases before an election. and then we see some of them would prefer it, and a smaller number say this would be better if we had some kind of a ruling before the election. but if you break that down into the politics of this, democrats, independents, and republicans, the independents are key in the general election as we head into november. we see 72% of democrats that we

polled say that it's vital to have a verdict in these cases before the election. 52% of independents want to see some type of verdict before november. those are the people that could potentially change their mind, either for donald trump or against him based on a verdict in these cases. so we're seeing a lot of people that do want to see some kind of justice served before they cast a ballot. >> alice was talking about donald trump's base. that's house speaker mike johnson, our manu raju caught up with the house speaker and asked about this appeals court ruling a short time ago. listen. >> i believe that they have been after president trump for partisan political purposes. i think that's obvious. we call it law fare, and there's no other way to describe it. >> strong words. >> just what alice was saying there. i want to caution david chalian, you know, does note that while the polls do show that people might look upon trump differently if he is convicted

of a felony, who knows what would happen ultimately if that took place? you see people like mike johnson who no matter what happens seem to stick by the former president, sophia. >> john, you know, it is dangerous. i have to use that word, and it's a threat to this republic for the speaker of the house of representatives to dismiss a court of appeals that says in this 57-page document how serious this is. it's a threat to the separation of powers. it's a threat to our stability as a republic to allow donald trump to even argue something like this, much less affirm it. so they're just -- i don't know what to say about the republicans. i'm out of words, to be honest. i don't have them. >> alice, you do, i think. as we look at this. hearing from the speaker, and hearing him use some of the same language that donald trump uses and that his campaign uses in a

case like this where 57 pages, three judges, many multiple courts who have said the same exact thing. what do you think about the speaker's response there? >> look, that is to be expected. he will say that. any house gop member, any senate gop member will certainly say that publicly. but in conversations privately with rational republicans, they look at this from the standpoint that each of these legal cases are different. there are different levels of culpability on his part and some they do view as overzealous prosecution. but we can't look at all of them with the same brush. they're unique and distinct in and of themselves. but republicans understand anyone serving in public office, if you show any sign you're not in full support of donald trump and his view that this is weaponization of the doj, and he is a victim in all of this, then you will face retribution from donald trump and many of his

supporters. so the rule or the wording in d.c. is to follow along with donald trump and say -- and recognize what he says is he is a victim, but many realize behind the scenes that there is something to be said for some of these cases and it's really important to make sure that the justice system play out here, and more importantly than anything else with regard to the integrity of our elections, we need to make sure that the american people understand that we do have free and fair elections and the integrity of our elections is stellar, and we need to make sure that people have confidence so they can head to the elections and the ballot booth in november with confidence that things will be conducted fairly. >> interesting. there is still a republican running against donald trump for president, nikki haley. will nikki haley quote from this appeals court ruling as she campaigns against donald trump on the trail in south carolina? will she finally weigh in on these court rulings and these cases in a more strenuous way?

we'll see. alice and sophia, thank you both very much. just ahead, of course, we're going to continue to comb through this huge amount of papers here. 57 pages. the ruling from the d.c. appeals court. a panel of judges unanimously rejecting former president trump's claims of presidential immunity. and in just a few moments, president biden is going to give remarks from the white house on the senate's bipartisan border deal. stay with us.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.'

xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e.

we told you this was going to happen. president biden set to speak on the senate's bipartisan border deal as the deal is on the brink of completely falling apart. this as house republicans are poised to impeach homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas over the very issue at the border. let's get right to priscilla alvarez. what are we expecting? >> reporter: well, sara, border politics is taking center stage for a white house that has grappled with immigration as a political vulnerability going into november of 2024. now, president biden was here in the state of nevada yesterday, where he spoke at length about this border deal, which may give us a preview as to what he's going to tell reporters today. he said that republicans need to help him, that he's called for resources at the u.s./mexico border and additional authorities and republicans have

stopped him along the way. he also said house republicans should follow the senate, the senate being the chamber that introduced this package and he noted his disappointment it didn't include legal documentation for children brought to the states. immigration reform packages, so clearly, the president upset that the republicans are pushing back against what is a very tough border deal that his team along with senate negotiators worked to hammer out. and of course, this also comes as here in nevada voters are submitting their ballots in the primary, a test of where president biden stands with latinos. >> again, priscilla alvarez, thank you very much. we're waiting to hear from president biden who will address this issue, address the bipartisan border deal that may not even get a vote in the u.s. senate. we'll see what happens there. waiting for president biden. stick around.

in breaking news, an appeals court has unanimously rejected donald trump's claim he is immune from criminal prosecution for his actions surrounding january 6th. the trump team now has six days to appeal that ruling to the supreme court. cnn anchor kaitlan collins with a special guest appearance before noon. you are hearing from the trump team on whether they think the supreme court will take this up. >> they do. i've been texting other judges and lawyers who are not sure on what the supreme court is going to do here. the reason they're not sure is because this being a unanimous ruling and just how lengthy and well crafted it is that they believe this is a tough argument

for the supreme court to reves, if it were to do that. so we are hearing from the trump team they are taking it to the supreme court. they have until next monday to do so. it's not clear if they'll use all their time and wait until february 12th to do so, but they will go to the supreme court. that is where it's still an open question. it's not convincing to them that they will win it if it goes to the supreme court. we don't even know ith supreme court would take it up. they have to make that decision as well. there are a lot of steps here. what's most alarming for trump team is that february 12th date, because it seems to be this effort to undercut the efforts by the trump team to use all these appeals to delay, delay, delay, now saying you have until next monday, and only if you do that will you get a stay of our rejection of your claim here. >> i want to remind people they have already said they'll appeal this. and they came out with a statement, kristen holmes said, every future president to leave

office would be immediately indicted by the new party. they go on with the deranged jack smith's prosecution, using the same language donald trump does. do you think they've been preparing for this? this is not a surprise. court after court has ruled against them. now you're at the d.c. court of appeals. they, again, ruled against them. have they already started dealing with this? >> the arguments did not go well for them. when trump's attorneys were there in front of the three judges, it was a brutal day for his team. but they are rejecting every argument that trump is making on the ideal -- on the idea he has this immunity, on the idea it has a chilling effect. they say that's ridiculous, there's already impeachment and the threat of removal from office that is creating that kind of, you know, thinking on a president. they say essentially this idea that it would, you know, allow future presidents to then just

be charged frivolously, which is what he's warning there, they say that's not the case here. there's not that threat here that the trump team claims there is. and this is really scathing. when you're reading through this, and this is what trump's team is paying close attention to, because if it goes to the supreme court, they'll be looking at this decision, but they say he lacked any lawful ch discretionary immunity, that he is liable for his conduct. the idea he would have immunity, president could not legislate, the executive branch could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review. basically, the entire basis of american democracy. >> the trump team, there's a fair amount of chest thumping, not a legal term, in these court cases. they like to say they're not worried if they get before a court. is that true? how worried are they about this case going forward? >> they're incredibly worried about it happening before the election, not just the case

itself but it happening before the election. they will be brazen about it. their tactic is delay, delay, delay. that is why they have sought this so much. they had this idea last week when this answer was taking so long that they were really in the clear, that only the alvin bragg case, scheduled for the end of march in manhattan, was going to happen. they're also going to try to dli v delay that from starting march 24th, by the way. they kind of had this idea they succeeded in this tactic. right now, i think it's an open question given how quickly this came back and the deadline they have now set up, saying you have until next monday to file your appeal to the supreme court. >> if they do end up trying to push the bragg case, which is the lesser of the two cases when you look at the country as a whole, that could open the door for this case to go forward almost in its place in the next few months. we will see. >> yeah. and just the idea he would be on trial for this case, which is one of the biggest threats, i think is a very scary prospect for them.

>> kaitlan collins, thank you. >> special guest star, kaitlan collins. what happens in vegas right now is being seen by millions as the pregame party for super bowl lviii kicks off. >> las vegas. >> my favorite vegas moment is roulette. >> am i allowed to talk about winning money?

♪ all right. this year's super bowl, john, is really dancing right now. it has more star power than usual. last night at the big game's opening night in las vegas, cnn's coy wire asked some of the chiefs and 49ers about one woman that you may or may not have heard of, taylor swift. >> living the dream. >> in las vegas! for super bowl lviii! >> reporter: extra hype in the first-ever super bowl in vegas, baby, a place known for putting on a show and making memories. >> there's nobody that has a better show than las vegas, right. it's like the mecca of the world

for entertainment. >> reporter: less than a decade ago, the nfl would have scoffed at the idea of holding a super bowl in sin city. oh, how the craps tables have turned. >> am i allowed to talk about winning money? >> i've kind of had a bad track record in las vegas. >> my favorite moment in vegas, winning roulette. >> we come out here for labor day weekend and just get ridiculous. that was -- i mean, the people that were involved in that know who they are. >> there's this great restaurant called toko magera. the food there was absolutely phenomenal. >> the chiefs looking to double down and become the first repeat champs in nearly 20 years. the 49ers are looking to parlay a win into an nfl record-tying sixth super bowl title. but there is that one aspect of the game that the players just can't seem to -- ♪ shake it off ♪ >> she's part of chiefs kingdom right now. it's seeing her enjoy the game of football knowing it's kind of

new to her life. >> we're not trying to get wrapped up in us against taylor swift or anything like that. >> this album title resonates with your character or persona most? >> "red." >> why? >> because i get sunburned a lot. >> fearless. love her. >> fearless lover? combining the two? >> fearless lover. >> the "anti-hero" song is pretty sweet. i would say that, but i do love "love story." it gets me every single time. >> nfl money, i'm pretty sure they show it on tv as much as they do. they sew her more than the players sometimes. >> reporter: the players are aware of the taylor swift effect. 97 of the most top 100 programs watched in 2023 were football. we're five days away from this year's biggest show of them all. >> coy wire, thank you so much. this has been a ck