"the beat" on sunday night on iowa caucus eve at 9:00 p.m. eastern, and we'll have cameras rolling backstage with steve and michael steele and everybody else on a big night. you can see some of that if you check us out on tiktok. >> ain't no regular chocolate. >> it's fancy. >> it's the good stuff. >> election night in america. that can only mean one thing. the legend at the map, steve kornacki. >> you go, bing bong. >> bing bong. >> that's it. >> here we are trucking. this is what it looks like when we do a news show from the road. >> going to ari melber if you want us on tiktok or any social media, or don't use the internet. keep it locked tonight, and meet us back here for special coverage at 10:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow. a lot going on. let's buckle up for the big race. "the reidout" with joy reid starts now. tonight on "the reidout" -- >> president trump is still

liable for everything he did while he was in office. didn't get away with anything yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> even mitch mcconnell knew back in 2021 that trump can face criminal charges. well, now, trump's lawyer is making the absurd argument that a president can commit all kinds of heinous crimes and remain immune from prosecution forever. unless he's impeached and convicted. also tonight, trump's rhetoric is having dangerous consequences. as both special counsel jack smith and judge tanya chutkan are targets of swatting. and trump's big hope for 2024, he says he hopes the u.s. economy crashes some time soon. which of course, would leave huge numbers of his maga

supporters jobless and broke. but we begin tonight with a hypothetical question. could a sitting president sell pardons or military secrets or order the navy seals to assassinate a political rival and never face any accountability for what is clearly a criminal act? it seems like an absurd question, right? well, not if you're donald trump's lawyers trying to defend your client for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. their take is that short of facing impeachment in the house and conviction in the u.s. senate, a sitting president is given absolute immunity to commit whatever criminal act he or she wants. >> could a president order seal team 6 to assassin a political rival? that's an off act in order to seal team6? >> he would have to be and would speedily be, you know, impeached

and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> but if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that? i asked you a yes or no questi could a president who ordered seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject torinal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answe no. >> my answer is qualified yes. a political process that would have to occur under the constitution which would require impeachment and conviction. >> i asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could beaken by a president and could be considered official acts and have asked you, would such a prident be subject to criminal prosecution if he's not impeached or convicted. your yes or no answer is no. >> i believe i said qualified yes, if he's impeached and convicted first. >> yes, you heard that right. asked multiple times by one of

the three judges on the d.c. circuit court. trump's lawyer, john sauer, said a president could take a page from vladimir putin's playbook by using the u.s. military like a squad of hitmen, and face no repercussions. sauer claims anything short of upholding such an absolute immunity for a president would open a pandora's box of consequences from which this nation might never recover. understandably, attorney james pierce, the lawyer representing jack smith's office in the case, was taken aback by the exchange. >> what kind of world are we living in if, as i understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders his seal team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment, not a criminal act. president sells a pardon, resigns or is not impeached, not a crime.

i think that is extraordinarily frightening future. >> pearce also argued it would set a dangerous precedent if trump doesn't face tability. >> never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has, with private individuals andsing the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the ral system. and frankly, ifhat kind of fact patte arises again, i think it would be awfully scary if there weren't some sort of mechanism by which to reach that criminally. >> but don't just take it from the special counsel's team that a president does not have absolute immunity. and that once out of office, they can face criminal prosecution. that same argument came from trump's own counsel during his second impeachment trial, and was even brought up during today's hearing. >> after he's out of office, you go and arrest him.

so there is no opportunity where the president of the united states can run rampant in january at the end of his term and go away scot-free. the department of justice does know what to do with such people. there is only the text of the constitution that makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits. >> donald trump was in the courtroom today, described as mostly muted during his lawyer's arguments. though he appears agitated at times during the special counsel's turn. and perhaps for his client's amusement, trump's lawyer made sure to mention in his rebuttal that trump was winning in the polls, which caused trump to become visibly animated. vigorously shaking his head in agreement. so now, it's up to the three-judge panel to decide where this goes next. they could decide that they don't have the jurisdiction to make a decision at this point, which means the case would be

kicked back to judge tanya chutkan. they could rule against trump's claims of immunity, which would again bring the case back to judge chutkan. trump would then likely ask the full d.c. circuit court to hear the appeal or appeal the decision directly to the supreme court. but in either case, neither court has to agree to take it up. finally, the three-judge panel could rule in favor of trump, which would likely cause jack smith to file his own challenge to the supreme court. joining me to unpack all of this is congressman jamie raskin of maryland, a former member of the january 6th select committee. and a constitutional law expert, luckily for us. thank you for being here. i just want to remind -- allow our audience to know more about john sauer. he's a lawyer based in st. louis. he once served as a solicitor general for that state. he joined trump's legal team recently and as mississippi's solicitor general, he took part in a last ditch effort to keep trump in power by adding himself on to a texas fight to try to

get the supreme court to toss out the votes in several swing states. just so we understand him. i want to play for you one of the arguments here. because judge henderson, one of the three judges, asked whether or not the oath the president takes to insure the laws are faithfully executed applies to this president. >> i think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws. now, we're at the motion to dismiss stage. the government has charged the specific criminal laws. we have to assume they're true. >> my response to that i think would be to emphasis what they said in marbury. >> this gentleman also clerked

for antonin scalia. your thoughts on whether or not the president must faithfully execute the laws or whether he can commit crimes despite taking that oath. >> well, the whole reason why the president has an oath written for him in the constitution itself is to bind the president to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. the reason why congress has the power to impeach the president but the president doesn't have the power to impeach the congress is precisely because of the suspicion of would-be monarchs and dictators among the founders and we were given the right to remove a president to try to preserve the republic. but it's been understood for decades and decades and decades that the president, of course, has to face criminal culpability if he engages in murder or rape or violence or assassination or attempting to overthrow the union, and in fact, as you pointed out, we got trump's lawyers to admit that at several

points. that became part of their argument, if there's a real problem with trump, they said during the senate impeachment trial, he can of course be criminally prosecuted afterwards. that was also the hook that senator mcconnell hung his hat on, saying we know donald trump was actually morally, ethically responsible for everything that happened that day, but he said this is not over because he can be criminally prosecuted later. now like a three-card monty, they want to turn around and say well, if you're not impeached and convicted first, you can't be convicted later. i think the entire country and certainly the entire judiciary, even clarence thomas, can see through that one. and if i could just add one other thing almost as a point of personal privilege if i could, joy. when i heard donald trump make this argument, all i could think was, they're saying they have a right to engage in political assassination of their rivals. if you can kill one person, certainly you can kill several of them. let's say then they feel likeco

senate, but if they could knock off three people who were going to vote to convict him, he would be all right. then they murder them, then he can't be convicted. then he can't be prosecuted. so i honestly believe this supreme court is not so corrupted it will fall for an argument as corrupt and pernicious as this one. >> the thing about listening to this is there was one moment where it seemed that mr. sauer agreed that in this strange instance where the president, and no president, by the way, who has been impeached has ever been convicted. let's be clear, even andrew johnson, they had him dead to rights, he still survived by one vote. as long as you have enough senators to acquit you, according to mr. sauer, you are above the law. at one point, they kind of seemed to take that back. this is sauer arguing that he kind of argued that yes, you can be convicted if you're convicted in the senate, you can be prosecuted. let's start with that.

this is cut two. >> yourositn is, if president trump had been convicted after his impeachment trial on incitement of insurrection, if he had been convicted, then this prosecution would be entirely proper? >> i would say that if he were impeached and convicted for the same and similar conduct, that would authorize a subsequent prosecution. we have many other issues. >> is that a yes? i think you said in your brief that that impeachment for incitement of insurrection is based on the same or related conduct of which is in the indictment. >> i agree with that. >> so if he had been convicted by the senate, then this prosecution would be entirely proper, correct? >> i would not freeze it that way because there's lots of other problems that we raised. >> he then didn't seem to stick by that. later, there the judge says

you're conceding presidents can be prosecuted. he said specifically if they're impeached and convicted. judge pan, and isn't that also a concession that a president can be criminally prosecuted for an official act because presidents can be impeached for official acts. then he kind of went inalible. at the end, they got into a back and forth where he seemed to take all of that back and say, this case is too flawed. i didn't mean it. he didn't even stick by the idea he presented if convicted, they could be prosecuted. >> well, he's obviously a horrible lawyer, but it's a horrible argument. the argument they're trying to make is that a misreading of the constitution. the constitution says that a president can be impeached by the house of representatives, convicted by two-thirds in the senate and removed from office, but still can be prosecuted and tried and convicted and punished in criminal court. so it's very clear, the framers wanted to insist on the absolute

criminal liability of presidents in all cases. they flip it over and say it stands for the proposition that if you are impeached, as donald trump was, and not quite convicted, he beat the constitutional spread, 57-43, we were ten votes short, then at that point, you can't be criminally prosecuted again. nobody has ever tried to make such an outlandish argument before, and as we're saying, it would lead to the most perverse consequences like the president simply assassinates his rivals and then kills the requisite number of house members and senators that he needs to kill in order to prevent himself from being impeached and convicted, and then presto, he's got complete immunity and impunity and he's a dictator. he's vladimir putin or president xi, and of course, that's what donald trump wants. >> the thing about this, it's shocking to me that a man walked into a district court and made these arguments, but to your point, if donald trump were to

win this, on this matter, that would mean, as you just said, that if he came back into office, he would have a license to kill. he would have a license to use the military to kill whoever he wanted, and at least according to his lawyer, to steal state secrets and to sell pardons. that is not a president. that is a dictator. >> that's absolutely right. and i think that the argument in this case, joy, is so outrageous, so extreme, and so autocratic that it might even shock the most obsequious sycophants to donald trump on the supreme court to look seriously at section 3 of the 14th amendment in the colorado case. because do they want to have blood on their hands if they're the ones responsible for putting donald trump on the ballot against the clear text of the constitution and then god forbid, for some reason, he's able to get back into office and

then, well, god help us all because who knows what would happen at that point. i think this actually activates the court to take a very serious look, and i'm not just talking about the liberals and moderates but even the most extreme conservatives on the court to take a serious look at section 3 of the 14th amendment and why it's in the constitution. >> yeah, indeed. congressman jamie raskin, thank you very much. much appreciated, as always. and up next on "the reidout," and delay we go. trump's legal strategy comes into focus as he tries to take advantage of nixon era guidelines about presidential immunity. stay with us. one. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk.

adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider.

common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. the power goes out and we still have wifi biktarvy can go with you. to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data

and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. . the opposing counsel used the phrase above the law, saying that an immunity doctrine for criminal immunity would place the president above the law. i would just direct the court's attention to what the supreme court said in nixon against

fitzgerald. that immunity sets the official above the law as, quote, rhetorically chilling but wholly unjustified. >> in today's hearing, donald trump's legal team made several references to another former president, richard nixon. specifically a 1982 supreme court case, where nixon was personally sued by a defense department whistleblower who claimed he was wrongfully terminated. the court ruled in nixon's favor, stating a former president is immune from lawsuits in civil cases, and that such immunity extends to all acts within the outer perimeter of his duties of office. the ruling did not, however, mention criminal charges. nor how overturning a democratic election so they can stay in office forever counts as any part of the perimeters of a president's official duty. meanwhile, the special counsel also cited nixon, although a completely different case, to bolster their argument. referencing u.s. v. nixon, the

1974 supreme court decision that forced the president to comply with a criminal subpoena for his white house tapes in the watergate scandal. joining me now is paul butler, former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst. mary mccord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, and cohost of the prosecuting donald trump podcast, and nick ackerman, former watergate assistant special prosecutor. and nick, i'm going to start with you since we did make a nixon reference. what did you make of the dual uses of richard nixon's former cases by the counsel for jack smith's office and the counsel for trump? >> well, it's just amazing how much richard nixon is still haunting us after all these years. 50 years since richard nixon. but i think it's pretty clear. this whole business about immunity is really total nonsense. you go back to the 1974 opinion where the supreme court unanimously ordered richard

nixon to produce his tapes. it's pretty clear throughout that the supreme court is basing that ruling on the notion that the president is not above the law. that the president has to answer the same in the criminal system as any other citizen. in fact, recently, the 11th 6t in the case overruling the judge in florida on the classified documents case made it quite clear that donald trump has to be treated just like any other defendant in the criminal system facing charges in federal court. so it seems to me that we have a whole different situation with respect to a criminal charge. and when you come right down to it, this case has one and only one purpose for donald trump, and that is to try and delay his day of reckoning. and try to keep from having a jury decide if he's guilty. he knows darn well once a jury is selected and once the

witnesses start testifying, including his own vice president, who is going to testify against him, his lawyers that were in the white house are going to testify against him, that at that point, he is completely gone, and he's on the way to the big house. he knows that, and that's why he's trying to delay this as much as possible. >> mary, i have to, since you did work in the national security realm as a prosecutor, get your take and your response to mr. sauer's argument that a president could steal national security documents, check, could sell pardons, and could use seal team 6 to murder their political opponents or arguably any american they wanted or anyone they wanted, and not be subject to prosecution ever, ever, ever. >> i think that's fundamentally nothing that the framers could have ever expected or anticipated. it's true that a president does have substantial sort of leeway

to engage in national security and foreign affairs under the constitution. but that is not leeway to commit crimes such as abusing and misusing the military for political purposes or to commit murder. and i think the nixon cases that were cited show also the important distinction between civil cases for money damages like the nixon versus fitzgerald case, and criminal cases like the case that the special counsel back then was investigating and prosecuting against the watergate burglars. the court made clear that there is a need for a president when in office to be able to make decisions without constantly worrying about being sued civilly for money damages. and that's why in nixon versus fitzgerald the court held that in view of the special nature of the president's duties it's appropriate to recognize absolute immunity for acts that the president engages in within

the outer perimeter of his official duties. but a marked contrast to that, the supreme court rejected absolute immunity when nixon complying with the subpoena to provide tapes that he had, white house tapes, that had been subpoenaed as evidence in that criminal prosecution. what the report said there, and i'm going to look over here to read it exactly, is that neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications without more can sustain an absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process in all circumstances. so the court made this distinction, and the dramatic questions that judge pan asked today about ordering seal team 6 to murder a political opponent, i think, really illustrate why there can't possibly be that kind of immunity. it's nothing our framers would have ever expected.

it is nothing that should be count countenanced under our constitution. >> should barack obama be prosecuted for dropping drone strikes, you know, the clinton case was brought up, that he was spared prosecution for lying about monica lewinsky, but when i am listening to it, i think about the police immunity, where they have this broad immunity to kill, but if a police officer goes home and kills his wife, that immunity ends there. they don't have a broad immunity to just go kill anyone they want. they suddenly can be prosecuted. and even in some cases like with the george floyd killers, they can be prosecuted even when they're acting in their official capacity. >> that's exactly right, and that's based on a doctrine called statory immunity, which the supreme court made up as opposed to the impeachment, which is part of the constitution. so trump's argument that he can't be prosecuted unless he's

first impeached by the house and convicted by the senate, it goes against the text of the constitution, it really flips that argument on its head. if the text says that if a president is impeached by the house and then convicted by the senate, that's the most that the senate can do to him, but then goes on to say that he or she can be prosecuted in a court of law for a crime. it also goes against the constitutional design, the whole point of separation of powers, so the president doesn't have this absolute immunity, and finally, joy, it goes against history. we can talk about another nixon incident, remember then president ford pardoned richard nixon because there was nothing an understanding that a former president couldn't be prosecuted. nixon was pardoned precisely to save him from a criminal prosecution. >> and nick, that i think is a key point, because a pardon

implies guilt. it implies you did the crime and you're being pardoned for your criminal acts. nixon said when a president does it, it's not illegal. that wasn't even true for him. by the way, no president who has been impeached was ever convicted. has ever been convicted. so you would almost have zero chance of being prosecuted if you become president. it's for you, nick. >> oh, yeah, that's absolutely correct. i mean, it just is a totally different system. the impeachment proceeding is a purely civil matter to remove somebody from office. that's all it is. they're just deciding whether he's committed high crimes, misdemeanors, and whether there's a basis to remove him from office. that's totally separate from a criminal proceeding. even the example that was given today, actually was probably one of the best examples that was given by the government with respect to watergate, where richard nixon in his official

capacity was calling the cia or having his chief assistant call the cia in order to call the fbi to get them to stop the investigation into the watergate burglars that would have led to the white house. those were all official acts, as donald trump would phrase it, but that is the key tape, that tape with richard nixon and his aides talking about doing those official acts is what resulted in him resigning at the end of the day. and it certainly would have resulted in him being convicted of various serious crimes including obstruction of justice. we were prepared throughout that prosecution and that investigation to indict richard nixon. the only reason we didn't indict him is because the house was actively looking at impeachment. we were simply holding back to let the house do its thing, and our plan was to move in

afterwards. and within a couple weeks after richard nixon resigned he was pardoned by gerald ford. i don't need that pardon, i have immunity. that didn't happen. >> otherwise, he would have been prosecuted just like donald trump is being prosecuted. paul, mary, nick, thank you all three very much. coming up, as tempting as it is to ignore trump's inflammatory rhetoric, his words are having real world consequences. moroon that next. that next

hi, i'm michael, i've lost 62 pounds on golo and i have kept it off. most of the weight that i gained was strictly in my belly which is a sign of insulin resistance. but since golo, that weight has completely gone away, as you can tell. thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back.

when you purchase a pair of bombas socks, tees, or underwear, you also donate one to someone facing homelessness. one purchased equals one donated. 100 million donations and counting. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order. honestly, i was scared when i was told age 100 million donations and counting. related macular degeneration could jeopardize my vision. great. one more thing to worry about. it was all too hard to deal with in the beginning, but making a plan with my doctor to add precision was easy.

preservision areds2 contains the exact nei recommended, clinically proven nutrient formula to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. thanks to preservision, i feel better that i'm doing something about it like millions of others. preservision. ♪♪ it's two things a young man want to be, a cowboy or a gangster. and a gangster's out of style. i got back to my roots. we come from a long line of cowboys. my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my aunt even rode horses. when i see all of us out here on this ranch i see how far our legacy can go. now on sale at ancestry.

trump's dangerous rhetoric is ramping up against his perceived enemies including two key figures in his 2020 election case. both those figures, judge tanya chutkan and jack smith, also happen to be the latest victims of swatting. on sunday, police and fire trucks showed up at judge chutkan's home. swatting is the term for filing false reports to the police to set off a threatening or potentially dangerous response by officers. incidents of swatting have become more common in recent years. special counsel jack smith who has overseen the prosecution of trump in two federal cases was also the target of an attempted swatting at his maryland residence on christmas day. according to law enforcement sources, someone called 911 and claimed that smith had shot his wife. luckily, police were waved off

by smith's protective detail. last week, attorney general merrick garland raised the very issue of dangerous rhetoric and its consequences. >> just yesterday, we arrested and charged an individual with threatening to kill a member of congress and his children. this is just a small snapshot of a larger trend that has included threats of violence against those who administer our elections, insure our safe travel, teach our children, report the news, represent their constituents, and keep our communities safe. these threats of violence are unacceptable. they threaten the fabric of our democracy. >> the attorney general did not share the name of the congress member who received those threats but did share in the final month of 2023, the department investigated and charged individuals with making violent threats against fbi agents, federal judges, a

supreme court justice, presidential candidates, members of congress, members of the military, and election workers. several bomb threats were also made against courthouses across the country. joining me now is anthony coley, msnbc legal analyst and former senior adviser to attorney general merrick garland. anthony, good to see you. we're seeing this ramp up and it's hard to imagine that it is not related to donald trump. >> right, that's exactly right. this is extraordinarily dangerous rhetoric, joy. this is stuff that undermines rule of law, it weakens our democratic institutions and it actually pulls us apart at a time where we should be trying to come together to solve big issues. it's important to note zooming out for a second, why donald trump is using this rhetoric. it's clear to me and i think to you and your viewers that he's running for president to stay out of prison. >> correct. >> and so his problem, the problem for him is he's got an extraordinarily uphill battle in the court of law, so in his

mind, he's resorted to using this incendiary rhetoric on the campaign trail to try to impact the legal outcome. so for him, these cases and the campaign trail, they're one and the same, they're inextricably linked. he says things like, and you talked about this once before, things like they're after you. i'm just standing in the way. or he says, i got indicted because of you. just putting aside everything he did to cause these prosecutions themselves. the last thing i said about this is the bottom line, he is running for president, as i said, to stay out of prison, but he's going to do anything and everything necessary to do that, and that means this is a no holds barred fight for him. so we're seeing him trying to delay, delay, delay this case. you talked about this a bit in your previous segment, to try to

get to january of next year. >> right. >> so he can then order it dismissed. in the meantime, he's using this deceptive, incendiary rhetoric to impact what happens on the campaign trail, to effect legal outcomes. >> two sound bites, the first is something donald trump said last night, he posted this on truth social, which sounds like a threat against the current president. >> joe would be ripe for indictment. we have a manchurian candidate in joe biden. we have to get him out. by weaponizing the doj against his political opponent, me. joe biden has opened a giant pandora's box. and he has to be careful because that can happen to him also. the next president, whoever that may be, has a statute of limitations that go back six years. that's a long time, joe. you have to be very careful. >> the cuts are really weird, but let's look at something he said to your point, this was actually the day after the

special counsel unsealed the 37-count indictment against him. this was in june of 2023. here he is. >> this vicious persecution is a travesty of justice. because in the end, they're not coming after me, they're coming after you. i'm just standing in their way. here i am, standing in their way. i always will. >> so to your point, it's, a, poisoning the jury pool, trying to get any future jury to think this isn't about him, this is about me. also, this open threat that if he gets back in, he's going to use the judiciary to go after president biden and maybe more than that. >> alarming rhetoric and also classic trump. this is a man who is known to have an enemies list. this is a man who says his favorite bible verse, i don't think he reads the bible, but he claims his favorite is an eye for an eye. what makes this rhetoric so troubling right now, joy, is if elected he would possibly undermine decades and decades of

american jurisprudence where facts and law determine prosecution. i want to be very clear here about joe biden. joe biden had nothing to do with this prosecution. this was a decision that was made independently by special counsel jack smith. he exercised his own prosecutorial discretion. >> and the grand jury. >> right, to determine whether or not to bring charges in this case. i was at doj at the time when the attorney general made this decision. he put distance between himself as a member of joe biden's cabinet and this decision to reassure the american people that whatever decision was appropriate, it was indisputably determined by facts and the law. the bottom line here is if donald trump wants to blame anybody, he needs to look in the mirror. he was the one who ignored the facts, who worked around the law, and now he's on the cusp of criminal accountability. >> you know what, one way to avoid being prosecuted, don't commit crimes. a good way to stay out of jail.

thank you very much. up next, have you been enjoying the biden economy with its rising wages, low unemployment, and plummeting inflation? well, somebody wants all that goodness to end. lickety split. i'm not going to tell you who it is, but his initials are donald trump. we'll be right back.

♪ ♪ every day can be extraordinary with rich, creamy, delicious fage total yogurt. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell?

only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

as he so often does, donald

trump said what he really means about the american economy. in a friendly interview with former fox host lou dobbs on the my pillow guy's streaming network, i can't believe i just used those words, trump gave his prediction for the next year. >> we have an economy that's incredible. we have an economy that's so fragile. the only reason it's running now is it's running off the fumes of what we did. it's just running off the fumes. and when there's a crash, i hope it's going to be during this next 12 months, because i don't want to be herbert hoover. >> incredible that -- a few things to unpack. he doesn't want to be herbert hoover was he was president in the stock market crash of 1929 which led to the great depression. to be clear, trump is 100% calling for economic calamity just not on his watch. number two, while it's true that voters do have concerns about the economy, there's no meat to

trump's claim that the economy is fragil after all, the economy exceeded expectations in 2023, and last week, the u.s. got yet another strong jobs report, capping off a year of steady gains for the jobs market, although trump has been trying to magically think into existence a biden crash nce the 2020 election and his maga flank in the house is certainly dng its part to help. but the far right once again threatening to blow up a proposed government spending deal to fce a partial shutdown xt week, or else republican speaker mike johnson could suffer the same fate as kevin mccarthy and lose his job. because apparently, now one of the litmus tests for the maga republican party is willingness to crash the economy, just as the party is fully pro insurrection three years after the january 6th attack. take louisiana republican clay higgins for example. who tweeted that he would brief mike pence on how it was an fbi inside job and use their bond over jesus to prove it. that coming just days after elise stefanik, the fourth

highest ranking republican in the house, called january 6th insurrectionists hostages. because republicans are desperate to pivot away from the one issue they don't want to talk about, abortion. but a funny thing happened on the way to finding a reasonable alternative to donald trump on that topic. since the supreme court sent abortion rights back to the states overturning roe v. wade, republicans seem to think, well, actually, how about a federal ban? including the reasonable former south carolina governor nikki haley. >> ambassador haley, your name was invoked. would you support a 15-week federal limit? >> i would support anything that would pass. i will sign anything where we can get 60 senate votes. >> coming up after the break, nikki haleycoming up after the h less than a week into the republican iowa caucuses, nikki haley is still trying to explain what she really means about the federal abortion ban. about the federal abortion ban about the federal abortion ban >> dude?

dog food in the fridge? it's not dog food. it's freshpet. real meat. real veggies. real weird. >> with less than a week until he was bad luck anyway.

i was presidential caucuses, nikki haley is still trying to sell herself as an alternative to donald trump. and ron's six-week abortion ban desantis on the subject of abortion. last night showed iowa voters into town hall on fox that the fellas don't know how to talk about abortion. >> whatever 60 senators bring to me, at whatever level, we will support, because the only way we're going to do it is if we find consensus on the federal level. and i think we will find consensus on banning late term abortions. and i think we will find consensus that state law should stay say 12 in the gets an abortion that she's going to deal jail or getting the death penalty. that's where we will find consensus. >> joining me, matthew dowd, msnbc political analyst analyst and former republican strategist. let me read you this piece from the new yorker article about what does seem to be a case of a woman in texas dying as a result of not getting an

abortion. none of the records for when she lived acknowledged given her multiple underlying abortions, -- only the autopsy put it plainly. pregnancy creates stress on the heart and can exacerbate underlying heart disease and create a hypertensive cases. naming pregnancy is a fighter in her death. some of the medical coumba professionals have been haunted by the question of whether or omissions were committed. they've asked themselves as a responsibility for her death resulted in part with the new law is that suppress free discussion among doctors and with patients about therapeutic abortion, had fear of legal repercussions trumped compassionate care. this woman had what would've been considered a late term abortion. she didn't have one, and she died. is that going to become a story that haunts republicans going into selections? >> yeah, i think it's gonna become multiple stories in this. and in my own personal story from years ago the trauma that happens in the course of this because of state laws is going to be repeated over and over

and over again, whether it's the death of somebody or it's just what a couple or a woman has to go through in the midst of this, whether she has to flee the state, whatever happens to be, and this goes to your lead in on this. the republicans don't seem to care who gets hurt. thousands of people died from covid because of republicans and on trump's stance on this. thousands of people are dying from gun violence because of a refusal to do anything about gun reform. now they've pursue a policy on abortion that are resulting in the same trauma, the same victims. they don't care. >> the thing about it is, nikki haley is supposed to be the alternative. but she has said she would assign a six-week abortion ban where she still governor of south carolina, same as ron desantis. she has said she would sign a six-week abortion more ban, national, she has no concern

about. that she is on the side of more and more guns in the streets. she's on the same side is trump on most of these issues. but what is supposed to be her unique selling proposition? >> that's the saying about people like nikki haley and haley. i would put in people like kellyanne conway. they think it's a communications problem. they think that's a marketing issue here. it's like a restaurant who is poisoning people and they said i think the problem is we need to change the color of the menu and really range the tables. that's what they think the problem is. when the problem is your poisoning people. in this case you're hurting people. it's this idea that somehow marketing or words will fix a fundamental problem which is taking away a freedom for over half the population of the country. >> the thing i have heard from some people, though, is that donald trump is such a danger to democracy that they would take and nikki haley just because she would be terrible on policy. should be terrible for women. terrible for people of color. she's not sure whether slavery

happened, but she would leave office when her term was over. she wouldn't threatened to kill her opponents or jail them. and her normality as a republican is enough. do you think there are enough of those republicans? it does look like she's getting closer new hampshire. do you think she has a shot at being the normal alternative? not a great alternative, but at least normal, and maybe defeating trump? >> there is no normal republican today so it would be the non-trump person. i actually think in many ways that what nikki haley presents is actually in some ways worse than donald trump because we understand who donald trump is. but nikki haley puts on this idea that she is somehow a leader and somehow has integrity and enables it agrees with donald trump every single step of the way. that, to me, donald trump is who he is. we can see it. we have it. he talks about it. but nikki haley puts on a halo and then walks around and does

exactly what donald trump wants. i don't think there is room in the republican party for somebody non-trump, but it's probably only 20 or 25%. the problem nikki haley has is that every state after new prop new hampshire doesn't allow independents, really restricts independents from voting. donald trump is going to win republicans in new hampshire probably by 25 points. the only way she is competitive is what ultimately doesn't happen in south carolina, in nevada, in texas, in alabama, in the aftermath. so my view is, if she surprises in new hampshire, there's not a path forward or a bunch of independents are gonna come out and vote republican primaries. >> guess who we didn't talk about? because he has no shot? the governor of florida. >> it's amazing. he may be out of this race within the next two weeks. >> yeah. and probably no future in florida either. matthew dowd, i think we're running over. that is gh