Hi, this is Jen Rubin, and this is Jen Rubin's green room.

Fresh off the presses, we have the D.C. Circuit's decision on immunity. If you recall,

Judge Chetkin in the D.C. case concerning January 6th ruled that there is not absolute immunity for Donald Trump, that he can be prosecuted

for crimes committed during his presidency. Trump took that up on appeal, and about four weeks

ago or so, there was an oral argument. And since then, there's been much towing and frowing

and complaining and whining that the court was taking

too long. Well, it was worth the wait. It was a unanimous opinion called a per curiam,

meaning for the court as a whole, that suggests that all the judges had some kind of hand

in writing it. And it was unequivocal, it was scholarly,

and I think it's bulletproof. Essentially, the court says it would be absurd. It would collapse

our entire legal structure for Trump to be able to claim that a president is immune forever

for whatever he does in office. And the court, in a 57-page

opinion, I think was quite accurate, quite specific in what Trump was claiming and why that was

absurd. Now, a good deal of the case was taken up, or a good deal of the opinion, was taken

up on whether the court should even be hearing the case on collateral appeal, that is, on

interlocutory appeal before a judgment. And there's a very long legal discussion of that.

If you're interested, go ahead, read that. But what you should really focus on

is pages 39 to 41, and those are the heart of the matter. Where the court defends the rule of long,

the court makes clear that it would be even more absurd to allow Trump to interfere with the transfer

of power and then claim legal immunity from that.

So what happens now?

The court actually put Trump on a very short timeline.

...