Today, something pretty extraordinary happened in the courtroom here in Washington.

Lawyers for Donald Trump and lawyers from the special counsel's office made their arguments about what the former president should and should not be allowed to say about the

criminal case against him. The focus of this hearing was the limited gag order imposed on Trump.

When you take a step back, you can see that it was about much more than that. It was about

how far the First Amendment really should go and how it should be applied to a former president,

who is also a criminal defendant, who is also a criminal defendant,

who is also a candidate for the presidency once again, and the leading one at that.

Former General Counsel for the RNC, Ben Ginsburg, has handled some very novel legal cases in his day,

but never one like this.

I'm going to ask him all about all of it in just a moment.

And as new concerns about Trump's ability to incite violence

continue to surface, former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson is going to join me right here

in studio as well. But we do want to start tonight in that federal appeals court here in Washington,

where for over two hours today, we listened, we all listened to a debate over the constitutionality of a gag order on Donald Trump.

And the key word there is listened.

We heard everything with our own ears, which was an incredibly important moment of transparency,

one that deeply serves the public interest, especially in a case like this,

and with a defendant like Trump, where misinformation can spread

so rapidly and so easily, often by him. And at its core, today was a clash between two

values, the right of a candidate to exercise free speech and the right of a judge to ensure

for fair justice. Listen to the special counsel's office argue why a gag order

here is necessary to protect witnesses and a jury at trial. When the defendant engaged in

...