Hey everyone it is 4 o'clock in New York. I'm Elissy Menendez in for

Nicole Wallace. The question of when Donald Trump's rhetoric crosses the line was the subject of a pivotal court hearing today in the federal election interference case.

Prosecutors and attorneys for Donald Trump met in front of a three-judge panel in the US Court of Appeals for the DC

Circuit for oral arguments.

The substance was the validity of a gag order imposed on the ex-president that limits

what Donald Trump can say in public about prosecutors,

witnesses, and court staff at the heart of arguments today. How do you balance the

First Amendment rights of a defendant who's also a former president and

frontrunner for the Republican nomination

with the need to protect prosecutors or witnesses and prevent the derailing of the

justice system. Trump attorney, John Sower, was grilled by the judges for more than an hour.

Judges push back on the idea that Judge Tanya Chutkin, who's overseeing the case,

had no right to step in with a gag order.

So essentially what the district court is finding is we have a past pattern when the defendant speaks on this subject threats follow and now he's making similar statements again.

We're months out from the trial.

This is predictably going to intensify as well as the threats.

And so why isn't the district court justified

in taking a proactive measure, not waiting for more and more threats to accurately

occur and stepping in to protect the integrity of the trial.

The panel also did not buy the idea that Trump's status as a presidential candidate

meant that there could be no restraints on what it is he says in public.

I don't hear you giving any weight at all to the interest in a fair trial and am I right that you don't

...