ballot. and thank you for watching news night. laura coates live starts right now! a huge legal smackdown for donald trump and the world he least likes to hear, tonight on "laura coates live." ♪ that word is no. a federal appeals court ruling today, no. you do not have immunity for the crimes you allegedly committed during your presidency. no, you do not have unlimited power. and no, you are not above the law. the court could not be any clearer on this point. and i'm quoting here. we cannot accept former president trump's claim that a

president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, recognition and implementation of election results. and going on to say, nor can we sanction his apparent contention that executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and for votes count. the court throwing out arguments he shouldn't have to go on trial on subversion charges. trump wanting to appeal to the supreme court. he has until monday to decide to do that. joining us is normizen and joe moreno. i'm glad you're here with us today. we've been talking about this for the better part of a month, norm, right? the fact it took this long is the surprising aspect. it was a 50-plus page opinion. are you surprised that the outcome was this after this

month? >> no. you and i have agreed from the get-go it can't be right. it's contrary to the whole idea of american law that a president could be absolutely immune. if he sends s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political opponent. why did it take this long? four weeks is fast by any normal standard. but they wanted unanimity, laura. they wanted to get karen henderson, that bush-appointed judge, who is known to be prickly. she asked harder questions at the oral argument to join with judge pan and judge childs. they got that. and the power of the opinion, the depth of the opinion, it's a landmark in what has been a long history of important opinions from the d.c. circuit. >> do we know they were trying

to persuade? is that the reason or the thought? >> that's the assumption. given the speed they scheduled oral argument and the clarity of the views of two of the judges, you have to ask yourself, why did it take four full weeks. pan and childs were in a hurry. must be that they were bringing henderson along and that was the right decision. >> you look at this. it was unanimous. and the court shot down the idea of absolute immunity. the court shot down double- double-jeopardy. they shot down the notions and this is an important part, of whether he was acting in his official capacity, so to speak. they are not convinced that the actions he had taken fell under the scope of a president. is that right? >> that was almost always

decided. that was a footnote that they addressed that. if we're going to go there, if we would consider looking at the nixon case, and put that on the civil acts. it only applies to official acts. this wasn't an accident anyway. this was candidate trump saying he wanted to change them. if we went as far as you want, you don't get there. it wasn't fit in what the supreme court has held as arguably what would fall in presidential immunity. >> the double-jeopardy aspect of it. it was raise at the oral argument after the briefs. the thought was, you can only criminally prosecute a former president or president, if they have been impeached and convicted and removed. that circled with so many

people. does the president to the keep something hidden long enough to avoid impeachment or convince one or two or whatever number for the senate? that couldn't be right. they said, it's not. >> if number of american presidents that have been impeached and accepted is zero. that would be the functional equivalent of giving a president the authority to commit any crime. winning the oval office would be a get out of jail free card. that can't be right now. it turns the language of the impeachment judgment clause. nevertheless, it doesn't say only if. it turns the impeachment judgment clause inside-out. the reason that was in there is expressed in the first 20 or so

pages of the opinion, where they talk about jurisdiction. can we even hear this case now? as an interlocutory appeal. the rule is, you can only hear the case if there's an express constitutional guarantee. they were pointing to the impeachment judgment clause to get that interlocutory appeal. >> interlocutory meaning out of order. let me said step and decide this issue before the meat of the matter. he has until next monday -- trump, not the supreme court. they cannot decide what the calendar is. for trump, he has until next monday to decide if he's going to appeal this case. otherwise, it has no impact on whether the underlying case gets stated even longer and delayed. do you see this expediting

getting back to judge schicken? >> i think right. you can get a hearing? >> the entire court of appeals? >> very rare. if you want to waste a few weeks or months trying to get this hearing, we'll throw this back to judge chalken. we're giving you that period of time when we continue to freeze the case. she kl resume things like pretrial motions and injury selection and that would minimize the delay. >> is that how you see it? >> i think the supreme court on monday 12th, is going to get, in a few short days, is going to get an application for a stay. trump is going to say, hey, pause everything. like the d.c. circuit gave me

the opportunity. pause me to do everything. while i present you an application for the supreme court to hear the underlying merits, like they are hearing in the 14th amendment case. they have that for disqualification this week. then, it gets interesting. that temporary stay will be granted. but i think it's more likely than not that the supreme court says we are not granting ing ce when they refuse to take it up. why would they want to thrust themselves into the middle of this controversy? multiple courts have already held no immunity. the position is absurd to commit political assassinations in america. then, it goes back fast.

>> i think the idea, that hypothetical continues to resonate with all of us. you risk losing your credibility if you do not answer the question in the obvious about what you cannot do. thank you both so much. i want to turn to what the precedent means for the landmark ruling. does it set a precedent for litigation. joining me now, john dean. i've been talking to you about this for a long time. we were wondering when the ruling would come out. what's your reaction tonight that this d.c. circuit court of appeals is saying no absolute immunity, mr. president ? >> not surprised with the cans. pleased with the opinion. it was thoughtful. knocking down every single thing that trump had raised. some could have been answered with an emoji, they treated

politely and flushed out. as norm said, it is a hand mark decision that will be cited for many years. >> i think a john dean emoji in my mind, has the glasses and a tie. >> the appeals court pointed to former president nixon. nixon's name was cited 14 times in this ruling. one excerpt the court points out this -- as the nixon court explained wholly immunizing the president would disturb the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions. a remark about checks and bal

balances. what's your reaction? >> i paused reading the opinion and ran a control-f2 to see how many times nixon was mentioned. it was 14 times, there was a judge nixon that was mentioned. i was interested in the cases they drew upon. they drew upon the fitzgerald case. this will replace. that's the civil immunity case. they drew upon u.s. versus nixon, where nixon was forced to turn over the tapes that resulted in his resignation. there's a lot of history in those cases they pull down through this case to the present. it's applicable law. >> if they are thinking about history. donald trump claims this goes to the future. it puts a presidency at risk.

he's arguing on social media, john, that, quote, a president will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite party's vicious retribution after leaving office. do you think this will have a chilling effect on a president and his staff? >> i don't. that shows trump's frame of mind. if he gets back in, he's planning to indict everybody he can indict, including as he has said, joe biden. he's thinking other people think like he does when we don't. we made it several hundred years without that kind of mentality. so, this is just trump thinking. and it's not the norm. >> well, we know that this d.c. circuit court is saying, look. this is not carte blanche. there is no absolute immunity. there's no double jeopardy. impeachment was not a criminal proceeding. what you were involved in was

not office or official duty. john dean, thank you so much. >> thanks, laura. coming up, the skoupreme cot of it all. will the highest court in the land take up this case? should they? it's their prerogative. we'll break it all down, next.

well, it's another bad day for donald trump. as a federal appeals court denies his claim he is immune from prosecution for crimes he allegedly committed while still in office. rejecting arguments he shouldn't have to go to trial on election subversion charges. the three judges ws strongly writing in their decision,

trump's stance would collapse our system of powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. trump has vowed to appeal. how will all of this play out with these nine justices in the supreme court? the author of "the nine: inside the secret world of the secret service" is jeffrey toobin. good to see you, my friend. we were wondering when this opinion was going to come out. the court has difficult decisions. will they weigh in? will they take up this case or say, all right. you've decided. we want our hands to be clean. what do you think? >> there's two big issues that the supreme court has to decide. one the procedural and one is substantive. the peerl question is, do they grant the stay? do they say, we want to think about this and consider this in the normal course of business. then, they have the issue of

which tway they want to rule on this case. the procedural is maybe more important than the substantive. if they grant a stay and decide this case at the end of june, as at the end of the term, even if they decide against donald trump, that will effectively make this case impossible to try before the end of -- before the election. that's why this is an interesting and complicated question. the procedural question about the stay, that requires five votes. deciding to take the case only takes four votes. are there five votes to grant the stay? that's the question. there's at least two votes. clarence thomas and samuel alito have been with trump down the line. in virtually every case. and the question is, can trump

get three more votes from brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett or -- >> kneel gorsuch. >> justice gorsuch and chief justice roberts? that's -- it's just a hard question. i don't know. this is such an unusual situation. >> i mean, we're in the wild, wild west. i'm surprised a tumbleweed has not gone across the screen as we look at the novel things happening. and one would say, this court does not want to venture into politics. they are probably reeling over the bush v. gore and hanging chads. this case does go to an issue the supreme court does want to be involved in. it's the question of separation of powers. not so much an election year, but whether there can be a check or balance on the head of the executive branch. shouldn't the court weigh in on

an issue like that? >> back in the day, i was covering the recount in florida. we were having these discussions about will the supreme court want to get involved? i remember people saying, they want to be above the fray. they don't want to be involved. of course,they did get involved. here, it's a similar scenario. there will be members of that court that say, the magnitude of this issue is such this is why we have a supreme court. and if they get strofed in that way, that will be very good news for trump if they grant this stay if he loses the case. i think the ins cushional interest of the supreme court in resolving this question is something that trump has going for him. whether that's five votes for a stay, i don't know.

but the point you make about the supreme court wanting to address a profoundly important issue is something that will push them towards taking this case. even though, this issue is pretty easy, i think. the idea that donald trump can commit any crime he wants and never be prosecuted for it is a crazy idea. it's an important question. that's something at least some of the justices are going to want to address. >> remind the audience, a stay means they will be able to delay having any trial until the supreme court has resolved the case, which could take months and months, depending on the calendar and their own prerogative. you're right, talk about the fundamental issue, whether a president while in office can engage in behavior that is outside of the scope of his or her eventually beauties and still not be prosecuted. on thursday, as you know, the supreme court will hear arguments on the case about the 14th amendment.

whether trump is eligible to run in the colorado presidential primary. there's sources telling cnn that trump is not expected to be in that room. i wuonder if he knows how serios it is, or if presence is not necessary or won't be televised. it's not recorded. is it a smart move for him to attend that oral argument? it's the supreme court, not the everyday court he's been in recently. >> i have enough respect for the court. i don't think it makes difference if he shows up there. i don't think it will move any votes. they're going to decide what they're going to decide. and unlike the immunity question that the d.c. circuit decided today. the question of whether the states can exclude trump from

the ballot, that's something this court has never addressed. never anything close. i'd venture to guess, most of the justices had not thought about section 3 of the 13th amendment because there hasn't been a supreme court case about it essentially ever. this is something that was directed at the civil war. and its after-math and has not come up since. it is part of the constitution. and there's a good argument that it applies to trump in this. whether trump's attendance will affect the outcome, something tells me no. >> the nation that he has not been charged with insurrection i wonder what impact that will have. these are different cases. how am i surprised?

when you note the distinctions between the checks and balances and immunity and whether someone can remain on a ballot for a general election. jeffrey toobin, thank you so much. ahead, a verdict that could have huge implications for importants. the mother of michigan school shooter ethan crumbley. the family of one of the survivors joins me next.

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.

there was an unpresented verdict today in michigan. jennifer crumbley, the mother of school shooter ethan crumbley. it took four days to find her guilty for four counts of involuntary manslaughter. her son killed four students in november 2021. he is currently serving a life sentence with no chance of parole.

jennifer's husband will go on trial next month. jennifer will be sentenced in april. the prosecution charged that she was grossly negligent. for failing to get an adequate mental health treatment in spite of the warning signs and red flags. this may have been the moment that decided the case. >> i asked myself if i would have done anything differently. and i wouldn't have. >> if you could change what happened, would you? >> absolutely. i wish he would have killed us instead. >> i want to bring in meghan and gregory. and the families that are suing james and jennifer crumbley. thanks for being here. i'm glad year speaking again. i have been thinking a great deal about your son, keegan.

he lived through this tragedy. you told me he was scarred and changed by seeing justin shilling's final moments. they were hiding in the bathroom together. he texted you in a group chat as it was happening. how are you feeling and your family feeling tonight, now that the verdict has come down of a guilty verdict for his mother? >> we are ecstatic. for us, this just proves there was the gross negligence we believe was there. it is a huge win for oxford, for the four families. for the entire community. to know there's some accountability, finally, at this point. >> chad, thinking about what it's been like for so many members of the community for broadly, let alone your son. he's had to go to therapy for

years. the survivor's guilt you're talking about. he could do nothing to change this and yet, he felt that in his heart. between ethan crumbley with a life sentence and without parole. does keegan feel justice being served? will this help him? >> that's a complicated question to answer. while we try to remain private in our family life, keegan is working through his own recovery right now. it's a complex ptsd. we talked about with trauma, it doesn't respect time. the good news is, he's relatively shielded from this. as he processes through his emotions and he really feels what the emotions come out from

that day -- he was angry with the parents. he shared that with us openly. he didn't really lead into his anger as much before. he suppressed it. and i think we as parents, hold this all at a much -- we feel the gravity of it. he's still working through what this has impacted him personally in our family. it's hard. there's not closure right now. it's one more step. one more accountability measure. >> that's important. i thank you for your honesty. for so many reasons, this will be a work in progress. a moment that will touch all of our lives, let alone your community and personal life for the reasons you have said.

the sentencing is coming up. she is facing up to 15 years in prison, megan. there will be a time for victim impact statements. the community can talk about what this has done. they will offer a suggestion for the judge for the case. have you given a thought of what you think is appropriate for her sentence? >> to be honest, i haven't gotten to that yet. i haven't thought through what i think is appropriate. in my mind, she's served two years. there's four children that are no longer with their families. if she gave her 15 years, i would not be sad. >> when you think about this and what's to come, there's another

trial coming up. it is the husband of jennifer crumbley, who is also facing charges for what happened on that fateful day. looking ahead to this moment, he will go to trial in march. do you think that he'll face the same guilty verdict in that trial then? that's a huge jump forward, as you know. a lot of evidence depends on the jury and so forth. we know the evidence. we think the evidence is overwhelming against m mr. crumbley. he had extreme difficulties without getting him the help. he's going to see the same fate. unlike a lot of people in this process, i'm not shocked and worried about future parents being charged for crimes their kid did.

that's not what happened here. that's how it's been labeled by certain people. these people, in this case, jennifer crumbley was found guilty of her peers in oakland county, her home county, because of the things she did completely wrong and the things she didn't do completely wrong. one of which happened to be, obviously, supporting the gun being purchased for this young man. she, her, going to the shooting range days before and not ever telling the school personnel about that gun. huge problem. >> what an important point you raised. chad, megan, i give you the last word on this. i keep going through my mind as a mommy. thinking about how all of our kids are having active shooter drills as part of the curriculum. the way we had recess was standard. they are having active shooter drills.

we look at oh parents and wonder how this could have happened. it's continuing to happen. as you look at this verdict and the implications of the possibility this could send the message that red flags could not and should not be ignored, what depose through your mind? >> i'm thankful for that. i hope that parents are paying attention. and taking mental health seriously. taking care of your children is so important. chad and i are raising five children. i'm not worrying about if i'm going to go to jail because i did something wrong. our goal is to get our children to adulthood. teach them how to contribute to society. my hope is that people are watching and if you see things with your child, do something about him. our child told us he was having

struggles, like chad told you, the survivor's guilt is a lot. we immediately got him help. it wasn't even a question. >> the part i would add, is we, all parents have a duty and we're not all equipped. you have to take a partner. you have to ask for help. you have to identify the signs. it is a sad, sad world right now that our kids have to grow up in. they are becoming conditioned for it. and the society and the public are becoming tone deaf. as uncomfortable as we are saying what we do publicly here, it's important not to be tone deaf. we have to take this serious. mental health, as megan said, is so important. >> megan and chad, ben johnson, thank you. i can't tell you how important and impactful it is to continue

to have these conversations. and for parents to have these honest conversations about what we're trying to do. we're often times building a plane while flying in the plane. just talking about how you're providing for your children and what it takes to do so. and the care, thank you for that honesty tonight. thank you so much. all of you. >> thank you. next, he was cexonerated after 4 years of imprisonment. now, about to get $25 million in a settlement. ronnie long is my guest in a moment.

tonight, in our exonerated series, i want to introduce you to mr. ronnie long. he served 44 years, 3 months and 17 days for a crime he did not commit. last month, he had a civil lawsuit in the north carolina state bureau of investigations for $25 million. it is the second-largest wrongful conviction settlement ever. still, no amount of money can right this wrong. no amount of money can compensate someone for losing 44 years of their life. why was he locked up to begin with? let me take you back to 1976, when long was convicted of raping a 54-year-old white woman. that conviction was handed down by an all-white jury.

it wasn't until 2020 when long's commission was vacated, it was revealed that evidence had been suppressed, including semen samples and fingernails from the crime scene. those samples did not match long's. the evidence was withheld by law enforcement. ronnie long and the lawyer from the wrongful convictions clinic. thank you for joining us. hearing what has happened to you is unbelievable to imagine. you were released from prison on august 27th, 2020. and you bought yourself the car you always wanted. you're hoping to buy a home with you and your whif. what was the first thing you did after regaining your freedom and knowing it had been fully vacated?

>> i give praise and honor to the greater creator. i appreciate you. i appreciate you people. cnn, having me on. i first went to see my mother and father. my mother and father died. first thing i did was go visit their grave and let them know that i was going to carry on. my father and mother died with a breaken heart, it was a pressure to be there. the things i went through, i wasn't able to see that far. >> jamie, i want to ask you. can you bring me into this quest for ronnie's release? at what point did you realize there was evidence that could have exonerated him that had been withheld? >> when i got involved in the

case, we had learned, a prior attorney had worked on state court litigation and uncovered that they had a bunch of evidence that was suppressed. once we obtained the reports for, indicated that it all pointed away from ronnie. what he was telling everybody he was innocent, the evidence supported. eat it was learned 40 fingerprints taken at the scene were compared against long. they were believed to be the fingerprints of the perpetrator of the crime. he was excluded from each and every one. that trial in 1976, none of this evidence was known to a jury. and law enforcement officers took the stand and testified

that all the evidence in the case hadn't been tested, hadn't been brought to the lab, knowing it had been brought to the lab. it excluded d ronnie as the possible person. >> you weren't released until 2020, mr. long. my head is getting ready to explode just hearing about this evidence being withheld. the jury not knowing about this exculpatory evidence. it did exclude you. if you could speak to those people and go back and understand what was going through their head at the moment, what would you say to those people that held things back at trial? and the jury itself. all white, what would you say looking back? i would say, each and every step

they took, it was malicious and there was intent. how do you go to a grand jury and get an indictment with no evidence? the evidence you collected from the crime scene excluded. what did you present to the grand jury to get an indictment? out of 90 people in the courtroom, you have three or four that are black. how did you come to this conclusion? from that question, i understand that people police hid at the county commissioner's office and started deleting names from the master list. of prospective jurors. this is how i ended up with an all-white jury.

two injustices that were done here. not just to my family. but to the victim's family. >> jamie, let me end with you here. i can't think of anything more profound than what ronnie just said, of the justices and the questions he's asking. the fact this was 44 years, i can't help but wonder how many other ronnie longs are there? >> ronnie's case was a racially charged case in the south in 1976. he was just released in august of 2020. he's not the only black person serving time in a prison in the south dating back to a time when the racial legacy of this country is one that we shouldn't and can't be proud of.

obviously, to the extent that racism was alive and well in the south, following the dismantles of jim crow, that legacy lives on with records to people who are in prison that date back to that time. >> mr. ronnie long, jamie, thank you much for being here and for making us all the more aware of what has happened. i'm sorry to have met you this way, but i'm certainly glad we have met, mr. long. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for having us. >> we'll be right back.

we have breaking news tonight. cnn projects president joe biden will win nevada's democratic presidential primary. adding delegates in the first of the west contest, as he marches toward his party's 2024 nomination. nikki haley was on the ballot, and not former president donald trump. the state gop decided to award its delegates through caucuses that trump is likely to win on thursday. thank you for watching. i'll be live on instagram in a couple of minutes. tune in for our after-show. our coverage continues.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our 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.