In a new filing, Special Counsel Jack Smith proposes moving the trial date from May 20th to July eighth. The former President's attorneys who repeatedly pressed to delay the timeline of the trial have filed their own motion. They again demand that the trial happen after the presidential election. But, and this is a surprising new development, they say if it can't wait until after the election, then they propose August 12th of this year for the former President and a co-defendant, and September ninth for another co-defendant. Judge Eileen Canon is expected to address the trial date during a hearing tomorrow. That comes the same day that we learn that Jack Smith wants to be able to ask prospective jurors whether they believe the 2020 election was stolen. I want to get some perspective now on all this from former federal prosecutor Ellie Honig, and former Nixon White House Council, John Dean. What do you make of this July eighth day?

That's a really interesting development that there could be some agreement here between the parties to do a trial in July or August. If that's the deal, I think I see why each side might be interested in that. It tells me, first of all, that Jack Smith has now concluded that it's very unlikely he's going to get his January sixth trial. We just saw the Supreme Court take that case yesterday. I think he's done the math and seen that that's essentially a done deal in terms of trying it before the election. This would allow Jack Smith to at least try the Mar-a-Lago case before the election. From Trump's team perspective, they get the win of moving the January sixth trial till after trial, till after the election. It allows them. They would go ahead with the Florida trial, the Mar-a-Lago trial, but you're going to have a good jury there if you're Donald Trump, you're going to have half that jury is going to be Trump supporters, Trump voters.

There's also questions about the judge.

The judge has been good for Trump. I think if you're Trump's lawyer, and we've had reporting on this, you're feeling pretty good about your chances in Florida.

The August 12th date, which they say that could be a fallback option, the Trump team. How long a trial are we looking at?

This feels to me, and I know the parties put in different requests and estimates. I think Trump's team said 8-10 weeks. I think DOJ said 6-8 weeks. I think you're looking at a 6-8 week trial. I think that's a good estimate, but that We're doing the math here. That would take you from August into September into October. We could have a verdict in that scenario really close to election day.

John, what do you think is at play here? Do you think the Trump team sees the judge as being more favorable to him? They'd rather deal with her this summer than Judge Chutkin?

I think that's a real possibility that they think that there is still a outstanding possibility she could be removed from this case. There are some motions in front of her that they're going to be dealt with tomorrow. If If she rules the wrong way, Jack Smith might seek to remove her. There's a motion to reconsider evidence that would be made available on witnesses and jurors that is pretty sensitive, and particularly in a case of this high profile. So that hasn't been resolved yet, will possibly be resolved tomorrow. But I also think, Anderson, that they have undoubtedly polled this case vis-a-vis the Washington, DC, January sixth case and found Probably that with their base, this is less severe, less interest, what have you, than the election interference case.

Ellie, what are you expecting from this hearing tomorrow? Do you think we'll have an actual answer on the timeline?

I do think so. It's about time that the judge set a specific trial date. We're far enough out. The other thing I'm watching for is the parties are now negotiating and disagreeing about what should they ask the prospective jurors, the people who are potentially going to decide this case. What each side is trying to do, if you look at their proposed questions, is essentially identify jurors who are going to be hostile to them so that the parties can eliminate those jurors.

Jack Smith wanted to ask about in the documents case, if they believe the 2020 election.

Which has nothing to do with the documents case, but It's almost a perfect proxy for whether someone supports Trump or not. The idea from either side is you want to get rid of those jurors.

You think they'll be allowed to?

Ask that question? It's a weird one to me because it has nothing to do with the case. There will be other ways that the parties can learn about where where the prospective jurors sit. They can ask them, Are you registered as a Republican or Democrat? Do you have strong feelings about any of the parties? That one seems out of left field for me, but they're going to be trying to suss out basically, What does this person think about Donald Trump?

John, is that appropriate for them to do?

I think they certainly can get to the bottom of who these jurors are. They'll want to. It's not an inappropriate question. As Alex says, it's really just a weird question, as the litmus test it might be because it shows their respect for the rule of law in many ways, and it could be a disqualifier for the government would toss that juror if they could not run out of preempts to remove them. I think that the government and Trump have been doing a lot of research on what jury they want for this case. It's a sophisticated case in some regards. It's a lay down case in others because it's very document heavy and it's pretty clear. It's a pretty simple case, but it's also politically going to be very embarrassing for Donald Trump.