to unlock toothpaste. >> their own economy is going fine, but they worry about the direction of the economy. i think it will be a challenging year, i think, polling wise if people start to feel better about inflation, how will that translate. >> it could potentially be good later on for president biden if things still keep going well and people settle into this. maybe it will take longer than that. >> gas prices, interest rates, inflation, lots to mull over for investors and voters. >> christine romans, so good to have you onset and in person. so here's my welcome. it's good to have you on the team. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. i'm ari melber, as we track a whole range of big court

developments from trump's many legal problems. we begin with developments about the former president's rough time in court over fraud today. closing arguments underway in the case against trump and his two eldest sons in the entire allegedly fraudulent trump organization. you can see trump in atep dance. he's been in more courtrooms than campaign events. he turned towards cameras every time he could. he lashed out at the judge and the attorney general. and he did his set of grievances. there were closing arguments on behalf of donald trump by trump himself got involved briefly. as we reported on this program yesterday here on msnbc, donald trump is a civil defendant here. his request to speak during closing arguments or give some sort of grand closing statement,

that was denied by the judge for a simple reason. donald trump's own lawyers basically refsed the rules that would bar personal attacks. you can see some of the court sketches as that was all dealt with. now the judge addressed donald trump's side today in a fall-up basically demanding under the rules that any comment donald trump issued, even if not a formal closing argument, would have to be limited to the, quote, facts and law. and trump, who you can see in these sketches, basically started a sort of a rant. he called the case itself a fraud. he's the one on trial for fraud. he began attacks on the attorney general and the judge, who then instructed trump's lawyer, and this just happened today, to control your client. trump got off about five minutes of that before the judge completely cut him off. it was more theatrical than legal.

now during the closing arguments, which are set to wrap up soon, we can also report the new york state lawyers reiterated their case. kevin wallace saying trump's team had the requisite intent that it's clear they set ut to do what they did when it came to this alleged fraud, which includes lying, falsifying many years of financial statements when numbers don't lie. when wallace called trump's witnesses a a murder's row of experts, chris believed objected and says it was a baseball reference, not the more chilling references we have heard in other courtrooms to actual murder. let's get to it with our experts today. former prosecutor andrew weisman and reporter sue craig, who was inside the courtroom. you have had reporters who have to play by all toez rules and come on out. big picture for folks catching

back up. with or without any comment about the defendant trump's outburst, what is happening as they close up the rest of this case here on the fraud. >> i think the big picture is two-fold. one is i think it's the bomb scare at the outset of this morning, which was there was a bomb threat to the judge. the reason i say that is if you step back, we're seeing repeated acts of threatened violence to people who are part of the either state or federal legal system. whether they be prosecutors, family members of those people, and again, today it started that way with without the sort of cry that you'd expect in a civilized

society from both sides about violence not being anything that is should be called for regardless of political party or what your role is in this case. i start with that because it's very easy to get to what is going on. with respect to the facts, i think both sides are basically reiterating the themes that they have said during the case. the briefs are very good in articulating their own position, and so you're sort of getting a nutshell of that today, but orally, with some indications about the court as to where the court is interested. i thought the most interesting thing is when the judge commented that even if there's only one witness to something that donald trumps's lawyers said that means you have to accept that as given because

it's not been rebutted. and the judge said not necessarily if i think that the witness is not credible. and the reason that's important if he makes credibility findings, because this case will definitely be appealed by one side or the other, likely donald trump because it seems like this is going to go against him, those credibility findings are extremely hard for a court of appeals to overturn. there's enormous deference to the findings. i think that's a sign of both what the judge may do and how tough it will be for donald trump to get the decision that he makes overturned. >> all really striking. stay with us. sue has emerged from the courtroom. what happened today? >> thank you. >> reporter: it's crazy down here on a number of levels. you have the trump case going on. i was in the hallway. i ran into wayne lapierre from

the nra. it's a busy day. this morning we talked about the team trump was up and gave their side of the case and what's going on. there was a lot of theater, especially when donald trump got up. then this afternoon, i think we have seen a more calmer version of events of the case from the attorney general side. and they have sort of methodically are going through their case, they are starting off by saying there was fraud. these statements of financial condition that were submitted to the banks, they are fraudulent. then they calmly went through each witness and said why that witness was not credible. they had a slide on the projector. one of the more interesting parts of the afternoon at least for me i was wrapped by it when the attorney general's lawyers started to present a case as to

why donald trump needed these lower interest loans. the argument has been had he submitted these statements of financial condition in order to get better rates a at the banks. and they went through some of the spending that donald trump has been doing recently. there's been a lot of renovations at three properties. he put $250 million into.edu rattle. and the old post office he spent was $225 million on renovations. the picture that the attorney general painted was that donald trump was, in fact, facing a cash crunch. this is important for two reasons. one is the argument is that he needed that, because his net worth would have fallen below a certain point he wouldn't be able to g lending potentially.

as tn second, was listening to it because he i facing coming into a judgment with this judge of penalties going up to 37 million. we're looking at the hundred of millions of dollars range. it was painted by the attorney general of the cash position is not good. it also supports the analysis that we have done at "the new york times" that he doesn't have a lot of cash on hand to meet a penalty of that size. and he is looking potentially -- this is going to be a ways out because it's going to the aappellate court, but he's look ing at having to sell assets in order to pay that fine when that day comes. >> speak more about that. this isn't a forbes article where they are deciding where you rank on a billionaire list or someone on the internet

saying trump says had he has. explain to us in plain english why the government side wanted to prove that in supporting evidence to their larger fraud case. >> think they are trying to show that he was in a cash crunch and he needed these lower rates. he was desperate for cash and it all mattered. so they are just laying out that story as part of his intent as to why this was going on behind the scenes. then i'm looking at it both from that. it's interesting just to see what in court to be laid out how much cash he had on hand, but moving that forward, he doesn't have the sort of cash needed to meet this fine if it comes down without selling any assets. >> let me bring in andrew weisman on that point. there are some people who don't need a power point presentation to prove the idea that donald trump lies or lies about his

money. so your legal analysis of this came up in court with proving the case and as a big picture matter, if he's fined the amount he can't currently cover, it doesn't mean the assets don't exist somewhere. but that's how big a fine it could be. your thoughts? >> those are certainly really interesting points. i think there's two time periods. one is the time period when the loans were taken out. donald trump wouldn't be facing this cash crunch. i could say another mote i have is he's just cheap. any day he can get a loan a at a lower rate is a better day than not getting the loan. >> adrew, there's nothing with strategic frugality.

as long as you don't lie to the government or your clients. >> exactly. that's exactly right. there's no crime of being cheap. there is crime if it's a motive for you to put down something false and that's the attorney general's argument. the second point about a cash crunch that might be going on now, i think it's really interesting. remember that a couple things he will face if he has a fine up to $370 million. and that is not only will he have to sell some assets, but it could be forced sales. there could be a monitor ask receiver who goes ahead and requires that. in order for donald trump to appeal, very often the courts of appeals will require a cash bond. and so that issue of can he sort

of wait until the appeal is over to start paying this, that may not be an option. and maybe that is part of the appeal he has to, in fact, put up some of this money in order to take the appeal. >> so sue, having been in ask and out of the courtroom there, did some of that speak to why this might actually bring donald trump into the courtroom. he seems, yes, there's theatrics, but he seems personally invested. i use that term deliberately. >> reporter: i never want to discount the theater when it comes to donald trump. that was part of it today. i have to tell you i have covered his finances now for coming up on a decade. and he cares very deeply about what is going on in downtown manhattan. he has since before the beginning of this trial. and it's already not going his way. they are arguing over smaller

points. this is going to threaten his entire life blod from the way i look at it. there's this word that's been thrown around. and today his own lawyers use that in describing what is going on. he will be put out of business in new york and it will shake the rest of what he owns around the country. largely golf course, some other properties. the foundation of what he owes here, most of his wealth is in the trump of tower. so you can't really overstate how important this is to him. >> you make such interesting points. this has been a long road because it's a complex case. that can happen any way and trump dragged out every part he could. i'm curious if you could speak having yours ebs tensive experience with how that works and also the limits.

she really just kept her eye on the ball and kept moving forward. all the one point he was dragging out the deposition process and saying i'm never going to show up. then she used the lefrs, which is farther than most people go to avoid sitting down. she got that deposition. this is right. it also is a negative inference. and on and on we dpo. i'm curious if you could walk us through that and how we got to hear. folks who don't follow this as closely as the two of you might say, gosh, we're coming into a new year. now they are dealing with all the old trump fraud, which if you believe both the reporting and some of the basics of the case has been going on for a long time. >> sure. i think the american public has got an crash course into the legal system, the good and the

bad. and one of the things we know is cases like the one the attorney general brought, they are lengthy. there's a lengthy investigation before the case is prougt. there's a lengthy pretrial process after the case is brought, where discovery is exchanged. depositions are taken. then the case finally goes to trial. but that can take years. but there is ultimately accountability. so in terms of donald trump, we have seen the trump organization trial, guilty verdicts there, you're seeing the very end of this civil fraud trial. we're expecting a a decision from the judge at the end of this month. so that should be the end of at least the first phase. the trial phase, the most important phase. there is the e. jean carroll case, where we have already seen the first part of that where

there was a civil judgment against donald trump. we're a about to have the second part in that case. one thing that seems clear is that the a the end of march, the manhattan district attorney has a criminal case scheduled. the only reason that would not go forward is if jack smith's march 4th trial date actually sticks. there's a lot of questions about legal appeals, be it looks like we will have one or two or possibly even three of those criminal trials this year before the general election. so while it does take a long time, that is part of our process. certainly for the criminal process, that's part of the due process of law for a defendant to have that time in order to

prepare for the case, but it does look like for those that wanted to see legal accountability, that will occur this year. >> that's the overview. susan craig, we'll let you get back to it. andrew stays with me. there's news on the hup hunn front. the president's son in federal court in california. he just pled not guilty. so we have more on that and donald trump'ses not so humble brag about what he says his judge has achieved in overruling roe v. wade. it's ricochetting in ways he may not have realized. plus the aftershocks of chris christie's unusual exit from the presidential campaign. all those stories and more. we have you covered when we come back. ies and more we have you covered when we come back with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression.

and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta find savings and support at caplyta.com. ♪ ♪ ♪

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company

with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. the will states that mr. marbles will receive everything he needs in perpetuity thanks to autoship from chewy. i always loved that old man. and he gets the summer house. what? shop and get a $30 egift card through january 14th. at chewy. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

legal news for you, hunn new hampshire has pled not guilty. these are for tax charges. the judge proposing that trial start june 20th. now the special counsel appointed by merrick garland, who was appointed by president biden,s accuses president biden's son of basically tax evasion and spending money on everything but his taxes. all of this is coming as both sides had initially been close to a plea agreement ato avoid this trial, but it was dropped. now that's the legal case. they have mernled the cases and smash them together somehow.

republicans holding two committee votes that would hold them in contempt of congress over testifying in the biden impeachment inquiry. hunter biden made waves by doing a surprise counterattack where he said he would testify, but only in public to congress. not in a secret proceeding and he and his aids say risk exploitation for republican propaganda. we're joined by white house correspondent mike memoli in l.a., where hunter biden was for the arraignment. what happened? >> reporter: as i continue to look a at my phone, we're getting live updates from inside the courtroom where this hearing is still underway. and you mentioned this is the headline as we have it so far. that the judge in this case has set an initial trial date of june 20t for this trial on these tax charges to begin. hunter biden also faces a separate set of gun-related charges, which is being handle

theed by a delaware court. so the discussion as it's happening right now behind me in the courthouse is making sure on the part that the lawyer for the son of the president of of the united states that neither of these trials will end up in conflict with each other. now you know, i'm usually a campaign reporter and much more confidentable in a caucus than a courthouse. i look at this trial date of june 20th and think of the political calendar. we're talking about the heat of a presidential year. we're talking about a month before the republican convention, two months before the democratic cob vengs. so how much will these legal proceedings continue to affect president biden as he seeks a second term, put with know the former president is his likely opponent has husband hands full with multiple cases. >> it makes sense. there's a lot of collision on the call dart. i will tell you to take a brief diversion. we know you as a fair reporter.

whether it's a caucus or a courthouse. so that's our view here from the mothership. thank you very much for that report. andrew weisman is still with us. for those who look at a case like this, it is unusual. it is what is supposed to be an independent justice department and using the special counsel for that purpose opening up this prosecution of the son of the current president. that alone is striking. tell us about that situation and then any thoughts you have specifically on these charges, which even if they are not always brought in a criminal setting for taxes, are not nothing. like all defendants, he's presumed innocent in the courtroom, but some of these charges could amount to something serious. >> absolutely. we expect the severity, i do think there are a lot of questions about the gun charge because of its so rare to charge that particular offense having a gun while you're addicted. that's just not a crime that in

my experience over 20 years in the justice department as the head lawyer at the fbi that i have ever seen charged. that is one where you'd normally see some kind of treatment being the kind of remedies. but with respect to tax charges, those are brought. and, yes, hunter biden is presumed innocent a at this point, but he will have a trial. he has ab extremely able defense lawyer, and the jury will decide whether the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. i sort of take the bg picture of this. if you step away from the son of the president is that you really have exhibit a to the fact that joe biden is not engaged in weaponizing the department of justice.

it is husband department of justice who indicted his own son. yes, they appointed a special counsel, which is part of the department of justice, and the charges were brought. he did not interfere with those charges being brought. that's just a remarkably different than the way the trump administration operated in the way in which donald trump is saying he would operate going forward if he were reelected. that's a big picture take away to my mind in terms of two different ways in which presidents and a former president view the rule of la in connection with how they should be interfering or not in criminal cases. and i think this is such an exhibit to that hands-off approach that the current president promised when he was elected that he is really walking the walk when it comes

to even his own son being held to account in the criminal justice system. >> i think that's a fair contrast supported by a lot of the evidence people know. then you have the politics around it. you just described the justice department process, which is supposed to be independent. the special counsels do that. at the psalm time, hunter biden is an individual who a as mentioned is being repeatedly attacked in every which way by the congressional process and trying to get him to testify is part of that legislative political branch process. ed reading from some of the reporting on this, where you're in a bind either way and don't want to be overkoord nating with the president, in which they can't discuss issues. this is reporting from the "new york times" on that whole thing. it says basically biden, the younger son andis legal team, which includes this very

experienced lawy,aw no reason to givhe white house, aka dad, heads up. hunter biden and his team wanted the response they got. oc surprise, ultimately unwillingness republicans to swear him in to testify in public rather than the closed-door deposition the gop demanded. that intersection of congress and law f you will, what do you think of that and the strategy. if it was in a movie, it would sound farfetched, but she's going, no, that's not how we're going to play it. you don't tell your dad. we're not going to tell him. when they say under oath, oh, this just happened, yeah, it just a happened. what do you think of all that? >> i thought it was frankly pretty brilliant.

and i have known abbi lowell for quite some time. the reason i thought it was brilliant is i thought it played in two ways. first, it played in terms of just public sympathy and performance because the whole issue was does congress really want to hear from hunter biden and he's showing up and saying, yep, put me on the the stand. and so it sort of points out, hey, they only really wanted to do it if it was behind closed doors. that doesn't make sense. usually the person who is interested in having it be behind closed doors is the witness for their own privacy take saik. here hunter biden is saying, no, i want to make sure if there are shenanigans, it's in the public eye and i'm not aphrased to testify. i thought it i played well in terms of trying to make that point. but there's another way in which it will play well. if the republican house now

refers the contempt of hunter biden, and there was the fact that he did not comply with the subpoena calling for his private testimony, if they refer that to the department of justice for criminal prosecution, hunter biden's defense lawyer hz a pretty good argument in terms of the department of justice and its discretion to say, really, you're going to enfoce the criminal laws for somebody who is willing to testify in public but not privately? is that how you talk at doj? you look at a motion and go, really? >> yes, exactly. you really say you know what, there are a lot of cases to prosecute. there are a lot of things that cases to bring. and you decide it's not just a question of what you can bring, but that's sort of step one. the second is what cases should you bring. and that argument about he was

willing to testify publicly really goes to that succeed point about the discretion of the department of justice. i think she set this up very on both of those fronts. we'll see how well it plays, but that was the rational for whey why he did what he did. >> appreciate that as well as your fairness and thoughtfulness on all of it. and mike memoli in front of the arraignment, thank you. let me remind everyone. if you want more andrew on the law, prosecuting donald trump is his podcast. they have a deep dive on that monumental and outrageous set of argumentsy the trump lawyers at the coup appeal hearing on immunity and a lot more. you can check that out wherever you get your podcasts or scan the menu code on your screen and check it out. we have a lot more coing up. i'm with you ask then the beat at 6:00 p.m. we're here through 7:00 if you

keep it on. donald trump now bragging about taking away women's rights that could hurt him. president biden also going in on trump's victory lap and saying this is a place for the democrats to go on offense. when we return. e democrats to go on offense when we return

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.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire so we continue to cover what has been at times a high stakes and theatrical conclusion to donald trump's fraud trial.

some calling it a corporate death penalty. that's the stakes. that's the trump defense lawyer seizing on that aggressive term. i can tell you that the new york attorney general will be speaking this hour. we're told any moment. that means, maybe 15 minutes, but we'll bring you that when she a appears on this news worthy day. right now, we turn back to presidential the politics. here was donald trump on fox. >> for 54 years, they were trying to get roe v. wade terminated, and i did it. i'm proud to have done it. they wanted to get it back. you wouldn't have that. there would be no question. >> we did it. we did something that was a miracle. >> one person's miracle is another person's human rights violation and one person's miracle might be an earthquake that continues to rattle the republican party. trump is saying his judges

overturned roe v. wade. many are looking a at that today as a sound byte that is tailor made for boyden and the democrats. that you might be seeing in ads for months to come. consider this backlash that we already know about. two, as trump puts it as judges in his side gutting roe. trump was giving that response after a voter, a republican pick ed by fox was asking about how trump had criticized parts of the antiabortion movement because he was blaming it for republican losses. big states like ohio and other red states where abortion rights battle initiatives have done very well, including even in 18 trump counties from 2020 and basically everywhere that the issue has become something that voters were asked to turn out on in the off year 2023 election cycle. >> thank you, kentucky. >> the people of virginia have

spoken. and what they said was we won't go backwards. >> abortion access is the law of the land in ohio. successfully hearing reproductive freedom into the ohio constitution. >> i'm so happy i don't know what to do with myself. because the majority still rules. >> that is what it has sounded like and looked like in many of the states that have dealt with it this. that's one line for the republican party. groups that organize around choice, liberal progressive groups and the more establishment democratic politicians that actually all united on this, seizing on it. and the issue involves people's bodies. their rights. their health care. and what they or their doctors decide they can do or what politicians get in the way of them doing. and that's why even though we look at this as so-called

politics, we want to show how the politics of this have also affected people's real lives with sometimes difficult implications. i say that by way of introduction to something that kentucky governor's campaign felt they wanted to deal with in a very direct way in the context of talking to people about why your vote and poll i sit matters. they did not mince words. >> after years of sexual abuse, i was 12. anyone who believes there should be no exceptions for rape and incest could never understand what it's like to stand in my shoes. this is to you, daniel cameron. to tell a 12-year-old girl she must have the baby of her stepfather who raped her is unthinkable. i'm speaking out because women and girls need to have options. daniel cameron would give us none. >> if it is difficult to hear, difficult to think about, that

is nothing compared to living through it for the rest of your life. that ads was deemed very effective. not because it was strong on graphic or rhetorical, but because it was true. the biden campaign is not sitting by today. they have already teed up a message online from the president making sure anyone who wasn't watching that fox town hall heard exactly what trump said. biden kind of cast it simply as a policy confession posting online in a reference to trump just like he said, he did it. it's a big important story with a major development from what trump did say he did. and we want to bring in two special guests. the ceo of reproductive freedom for all, and a veteran of the obama campaign.

we just laid out some of the context. your thoughts today? >> we're talking to reporters yesterday before the trump town hall, and we were reminding folks that trump has bragged about overturning roe multiple times. it was not a surprise, but it was fortuitous that he felt the need to triple down on his efforts to overturn roe and to be so confident in bragging about it. i mean, we have always known where trump stood on this. he appointed this extremist supreme court. we have to continue to pin this on him. and the extremist republicans in the senate. we have to get joe biden the congress he needs. that point is critical. we can run a campaign against donald trump. he's making it quite clear what the stakes are in this election, but we also have to tell voters what joe biden and kamala harris will do when elected. they will restore a federal right to abortion.

>> people talk about how donald trump is unpredictable. here donald trump is completely predictable. he sees nikki haley potentially breathing down his neck in new hampshire. he has to shore up that evangelical base in south carolina to basically end the nomination contest. then in the general election, donald trump will sound very pro choice. in fact, i think you might actually use that term to describe himself pro choice. he knows at that point the evangelical base and all those folks will go along with it because they have gone along with every single thing donald trump has ever done. cruelty is part of his brand. so is shamelessness. he's going to be shamesless on this issue movering back and forth, pretending things he said and did did not happen whenever it suits him. mini? >> it's so interesting. i to thely agree. he's prone to pretending when he

needs to that he's a moderate. that he's mixed on the abortion issue. he's been held accountable. but at the end of the day, they always come back to supporting him because he delivered the supreme court that they needed. he will always be beholden to that base. the republican extremist antiabortion base is very strong. you cannot win in that party without their support. >> this is an issue that democrats on the one hand have more of a consistent background on, but on the other hand, have sometimes had a lot of trouble discussing. or they've gotten caught in traps around issues meaning they don't always go on the offense for it. here's a recent biden campaign ad that takes a different attack. take a look. >> i got rid of roe v. wade.

>> i'm the one that got rid of v. wade. >> i was able to do it. i was honored to do it. >> do you believe in punishment for abortion? >> the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. >> for the woman? >> yeah. >> there remains a vital role for the federal government in protecting unborn life. >> nobody has ever done more for right to life than donald trump. roe v. wade, they finally won. >> the iowa bill was signed. they wouldn't have been able to do anything if i wasn't able to do what i did. >> trump is very much like the leo character where he puts on different disguises but keeps getting away with all the disguises. this is one disguise, which actually has real ramifications for people's lives that donald trump has dawned. and i think we should expect in the coming months, as he becomes the nominee, he's going to put

on another disguise. he's going to put on that moderate disguise. it's very important for democrats and joe biden to point this out. this might date me on the show, but my first job in politics was knocking on doors for senator frank. he said if one party is shameless, then the other party better not be spineless. it's a very when somebody does these things, you stand up and call them out. >> mini, final thought? >> we're just a few week was from the anniversary of roe v. wade. what's going to be incouple bent on bant on us is to make it clear the contrast is extreme. we have one former president who overturned roe. we have one who wants to restore federal rights and, rights. so the contrast is clear. we're already at work. >> really interesting. thank you.

chris christie had those fiery parting words. and a message for the republicans still in the race. but he's not 100% consistent either. we have his imperfect legacy and why so many democrats still say they were inspired by his exit speech yesterday. interesting story, when we come back. g story, when we come back you check the singlecare app before you go to the counter. i found the cheaper price with singlecare! yes, you did. see. give it a try. go to singecare.com or download the free app today.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even

a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. when you shop wayfair, you get big deals for your home - every day. so big, we'll have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head. because with savings so real - you can get your dream sofa for half the price. wayfair. it's always a big deal. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ i am proud to be here to endorse donald trump for

president of the united states. there's no one who is better prepared to provide america with the strong leadership that it needs both at home and around the world than donald trump. nee the world than donald trump. the nomination which is why i'm suspending my campaign tonight for president of the united states i know -- i can see it from some of the faces here that i'm disappointing people by doing this, people who believe in our message and believe in what

we're doing. i also know it's the right thing for me to do i want to promise you this, i am going to make sure in no way do i enable donald trump to ever be president of the that's more u important than my own personal ambition. >> there you have it. when it comes to donald trump, chris christie was for him before he was against him. christies announcing in new hampshirenc yesterday, you saw there, his campaign is over. he exits days before the iowa caucus. new polls show nikki haley within potential striking distance of donald trump. jake t amduri has been all arou politics. welcome back, sir. >> glad to be back. >> we started with that arc, because while christie owned it it, it's not a great or clean message. he was not only an imperfect

messenger, i would say he was a hypocrital messenger. the question was did he make a mistake or change his mind, but he knew then it was wrong and that, among other things, weighed him down. it's rare to hear politicians say i was making that mistake for ambition, an honest coping to the problem. what do you see in the tale of chris christie? >> it's been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that leads to virtue. chris christie is constantly going between vice and virtue.

the vice is his ego. he can't see past his own ego. in 2016 he was upset marco rubio was running attack ads on him. as a result hehi helped donald trump win the new hampshire primary andmp then he went and endorsed trump and said nice things about him because his ego needed the flattery of having thela gop nominee and then president, someone whoe calls m and talks to him and whom he advises. if you want to get rid of donald trump, everybody has to unite behind one candidate and consolidate the anti-trump forces in the republican party. that's not happened. christie could play a role in that. he could endorse nikki haley. he could light a fire under her campaign in new hampshire, making sure she wins and then she a has a month between that

and -- >> is he considering that? >>si from what i've heard, that not the case. in fact, he's consistently attacked her and said, you know, that he wants to make sure anybody who he endorses says the truth about trump. these are all signs he's not going to endorse nikki haley. >> he suggested she would get smoked like salmon to make a pacific northwest reference. >> that's right. he basically has consistently and constantly done this. hent prioritizes his own ego abe what he claims he believes in. >> what does it tell you that there's now no trump critic in this primary? >> it's donald trump's party, which we've all known. there's been a lot of discussion as to what's happened to the gop. i've heard those discussions on this network by former

republicans who talked about what's gone wrong. i've not heard an understanding of what's occurred. because ofs globalization and e diversity of america, the old reagan, thatcher model of the right has m collapsed. workers need more protections in a world where they're constantly changing jobs. in a diverse society you can't speak to those white, christian morals. you have to talk about a different way to unite people that come from different races andfe ethnicities. the republican model has collapsed. the only thing that replaced it is donald trump and the maga movement.ma it's terrifying for the country and something we have to worry about going forward. >> really well put and important and reaching beyond our domestic clashes. jake, always good to see you. i want to let you know, it's a

big weekend of coverage at msnbc. one night before the iowa caucus, we have this special, defendant candidate trump. that's a live special hour i'm leading with friends on sunday at 9:00 p.m. up next, the trump fraud trial, letitia james f expectedo speak. i'll see you in a couple minutes.

at chewy. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

i'm ari melber in for nicolle

wallace. today we're following the culmination of the new york civil fraud trial of donald trump. you may say, i've been hearing about this for a while. here's why it's a big deal today. the trial just wrapped. we expect to hear from attorney general letitia james. i mentioned to you that we were told that past the halfway point of the last hour there could be a further delay, but it will help. we will bring it to you because it's a big inflection point in her pursuit of what she calls a fraudulent company. today trump was back in the courtroom for the first part of the day, despite not having to be there. that's his choice. the big surprise was how he ended his time with a five-minute rant that was cut off by the judge. then he held a press conference this afternoon. we did not hear anything particularly newsworthy during his news conference.

we're not going to show a lot of that. attorney general james said the ex president's financial statements were lies, they were deliberately false every year starting in 2011 and running through 2021. we're not talking about rounding errors even for rich people. we're talking about what they call fraud or lies to the tune of over $2 billion. the judge found trump and the organization liable for fraud. the question is the consequences, not whether the fraud occurred. the judge expected to announce all that decision later this month. what does james want? she says, when you take it altogether, the lies, the fraud, the pattern, not one mistake on one tax form, but the decade-long pattern she has proven, that the punishment should be quite severe. she wants a $370 million fine and to bar trump from ever doing

anything with new york real estate. on the trump said they say there's a busy set of calendar obligations coming up and the end of the trial is something that he wanted to show up for, even with iowa just days away. now, where does it go from here and will attorney general james who has been effective get a fine close to what she wants. let's bring in our experts. we have david kelly who ran the southern district of new york as u.s. attorney. we have emily basilon, legal writer for "the new york times." we have tim o'brien, a bloomberg analyst and msnbc analyst and an economic guru when it comes to all things trump. emily, i'm going to start with tim on the numbers and then go to you on the law. i think that's fair. tim, $370 million is not nothing. has attorney general james

worked with the available information? you're one of the people that contributed to the public record on this and proven not only her case, but that the fine should be that stiff? >> i think the issue is the kind of pain it will inflict on him to pay a fine of that amount. he's never been a wealthy as he claimsbe. he's a comfortably rich man, but he's not a multi-billionaire. $370 million i money. the bigger part of the penalty that will hurt him reputationally and in terms of his sense of his legacy is if they're precluded from doing business in the state of new york. he rose to fame and riches on his father's shoulders. his father was an authentic entrepreneur and built the family's real estate holdings that trump made great use of. all that gets tied in a bow and shoved out the door if he loses the case. the wild card here is that judge engoron has a lot of discretion

in terms of deciding what penalty to impose. i've been curious by watching the questions he's asked, particularly today, he's a wild card in this in terms of whether or not he will fully bring the hammer down. the issues at play in this case have been in play during donald trump's whole career. he exaggerates, lies, inflates. he tries to evade authority and the law. this is the first time it's come into a public realm where he's being held accountable for decades of behavior. i don't think there's anything in this case that would surprise people who watched donald trump for a long time. >> the judgment day is finally coming. we have this shot up of where we expect the attorney general to speak. we also have lisa ruben outside the courtroom. what did you hear in this final day? >> reporter: ari, it was quite a doozy of a day. right before the lunch break the

former president was allowed to have his say, a say that judge engoron said yesterday in a well-publicize email he wasn't going to get to have. the remainder of the afternoon was calmer as trump left the courthouse and held his press conference. the attorney general got to make their closing argument. it was focussed on evidence, going through particular testimony of the individual defendants to show that all along they had the intent and motive to defraud financial institutions. the one thing we heard that i thought was particularly effective was that final answer to the no harm, no foul argument that trump's folks have been making. they're making if deutch bank wasn't complaining, why is there a case to begin with if the bank itself thinks there was no injury? kevin wallace for the attorney general's office said bank fraud is a crime in new york no matter

whether or not there's injury to a bank. even if you lie on a credit application, that's a federal crime. just because there's not an injury doesn't prevent that from being a crime that can be punished by 30 years in prison. >> let's jump into -- >> reporter: go ahead. we're going to hear from attorney general james. >> let's jump into that point. we'll jump in when we hear from the attorney general. we're watching the mics like everybody. you're raising something she spoke about before. i want to remind you what she said to the public and have you translate for us how that's continued to resonate in the trial. it's easy to get sort of fatigued, dismissive of all this, but she was forthright saying, when it comes to people's financial opportunities, this is very important. this is not something everyone else gets away with. we're going to play letitia james on that in 2022 as we

watch -- we may not. we're going to listen to her live. why go to a throwback when we can have her live? >> this is our last day in our case against donald trump for persistent and repeated fraud, illegality. this case has never been about politics or personal vendetta or about name calling. this case is about the facts and the law. mr. donald trump violated the law. as you know, the judge has lrpd already found he, in fact, violated the law for repeated fraud over a period of years. so, i want everyone to know the personal attacks really don't bother me. the fact is that this trial has

shown and we have produced evidence about the scope, the scale, the depth, the breadth of the illegality, the fraud that enriched donald trump and his family. i want to thank the judge. i want to thank my team. i want to thank opposing counsel. at the end of the day, the point is simple. no matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, no one is above the law and that the law applies to all of us, equally and fairly. i trust that justice will be done and i'm confident in that. i'm extremely proud of the case that we put on. good evening and thank you. >> closing remarks there from attorney james, relatively brief. that's what we've been waiting.

she's obviously trying to signal that the courtroom is where they're doing most of the talking. she didn't delve into the specifics of the case and much of what our experts are reporting. lisa, you're nearby. we watched -- we don't have lisa. david kelly, former u.s. attorney for the southern district joins us. david, as mentioned, that was careful remarks. when you ran the sdny you would often say, look, don't expect dramatic speeches or long speeches because the trial is where you'll hear the arguments. now that we wrapped in court today, how strong do you think the case is and do you expect the judge to go to the $300 million mark in the fine? >> you know, it's an interesting question, ari. the two big points for the defense aside from the political

motivation, which don't get you anywhere, but the two big issues are the intent to defraud and they point to michael cohen as being an incredible witness and then no harm, no foul. i think there's some -- in the latter argument there's some weight there that could temper the judge in terms of how high he goes. i think there's something to that argument. >> interesting. >> look, it's a hard thing to call, how he's going to go on this. i think viscerally if i'm the judge, i would have that weighing on my mind. i don't have a victim. i have banks who did admit to being victims of fraud. i have a system in place where everybody plays the same game. they juice it up on the former

president's side and the banks say, sure, that's what the value is. let's do our own valuations, but we'll give him the money because he's a big whale. >> you're referring to the classic, don't hate the player, hate the game defense? >> yeah, there's something to that. i think that, look, there's no hard and fast formula. he could say, you know, let's take the formula that says, take the interest rate they would have gotten had they been honest in their disclosures and give the delta, pay the difference between the application of that interest rate and what they ultimately got on the inflated financials. there's a kind of hard and fast formula out there for him to use. that wouldn't take him sky high, but i think that viscerally you have to say, it's hard to apply

that when i don't have a victim and i have everybody playing the same game. it's a corrupt system. it can't go unpunished even if it's the game everybody plays. at the same time i think that does suggest that maybe not going as high as an appropriate formula would permit is appropriate here in the judge's discretion. >> interesting. lisa? >> reporter: you know, i think david is right. the attorney general has given that formula to the judge, that's how they get to $168 million roughly of the $370 million that they're seeking here. i also agree with david that they're not likely to get all of that $370 million. there are a number of mitigating factors the judge was interested in. one of them was whether or not donald trump jr. and eric trump had the requisite intent to result in some of the relief

that the attorney general's office is seeking from them. part of that award has to do with their own profits. for example, when the old post office lease was sold, donald trump himself made roughly $140 million. each of the adult children got a $4 million distribution on that. the judge was interested in the relief against the kids, and particularly against donald trump jr. who he said he saw no evidence that donald trump jr. intended to defraud anyone. the attorney general's response was, well, if anything, he exhibited a level of recklessness that is so high that he should at least be prohibited from being an officer or director of this company for five years. there's hope he can be rehabilitated. if you stick your head in the sand, does that mean you didn't intend this? when you were as willfully ignorant as donald trump jr. was, doesn't mean you're not

culpable. i think you'll see a hair cut in that fine. >> emily and tim, your thoughts on this colloquy we're having right now. the fraud part is straightforward and it's been established according to the court process. yet the severity and the penalty is what this whole thing boils down to. emily, you heard david kelly say, don't hate the player, hate the game because the real estate game in new york, for anyone who's been near it, it's not always 100% accurate. that's true for a studio apartment as well as a luxury pad. how do you see that legally, emily? >> the judge has a huge amount of discretion here as far as choosing a number.

the number will affect how well this trial serves as a deterrence in future cases. once you catch someone and you go after them, if the penalty is low, that suggests there's no risk of violating the law here. i think the judge will be thinking about that. i also agree with tim that the real reputational hit here is the idea that the trump organization, the trumps, cannot do real estate business anymore in new york. as tim was saying, that's how they built their business enterprise. given how much donald trump puts stock in the idea of his own business success, given how much he exaggerates it, being called to task on that by this judge, that's why he showed up in court today. it's why he cares about this trial. it's a civil trial. he's not facing criminal penalties. it goes to the heart of who he says he is when he's talking to the american people.

>> you know, even if the banks weren't damaged here, you're not allowed to misrepresent the state of your finances to someone who's lending you money. even if they end up on damage, there should be a standard there you can't enter into a business relationship contractually on false grounds. if the banks weren't damaged this round, let's not forget donald trump's entire business empire in the early 1990s he almost went personally bankrupt. banks had to write-off billions of dollars in loans and did suffer as a result of that. the statute of limitations has run, but donald trump has had a history of misrepresenting himself to businesses in an any number of endeavors.

we can through trump university and his foundation, he's misrepresented himself over and over. >> with trump university, there were real victims. they were able to testify and they were suing. he ultimately paid out $50 million. >> i agree with david that the issue of whether the banks were harmed is material and important. when we litigated with trump, he sued me, i said he was worth less than a billion dollar. he said he was worth 6 billion. we got deutch bank records. they did their own due diligence and represented he was worth about $780 million. if trump's lawyers had been sharp enough to request a jury trial, they might have ended up in a better place.

>> didn't they reason a new york jury wasn't going to work for them? >> we could go back and forth on that all day. what they didn't get to do was tell the story to someone other than the judge. that might have been useful to them. at the end of the day, donald trump -- this judge is a new yorker. this judge is aware of donald trump's track record. that may influence him just as much as the facts in front of him right now in this case. he's a wild card. >> david, before we lose you, we're going to go into the s.e.a.l. team 6 immunity issue later in the hour. you know your way around federal courtrooms and appeals courts. i haven't heard from you yet on that. any thoughts you have about both the possible vindication of that legal theory which has no precedent we've ever seen and, b, do you think as a fellow attorney that the lawyer was

advancing a real legal claim or doing pyrotechnics on behalf of the defendant trump? >> i don't want to comment on it. i heard the former acting solicitor general characterize that argument in the strict legal term that he called a joke and neil's a smart lawyer. >> there you have it. sometimes it's crisp. david quoting neil. i want to thank david kelly is my former law firm boss. i didn't mention that earlier. emily, tim, i appreciate you joining us. we've been doing our programming notes. our friend and colleague lawrence o'donnell is holding a special front tracking all the legal cases with, quote, defendant donald trump. when we come back, we have congressman goldman here and a lot going on and also why the donald trump we've seen recently

in his fox town hall is different than the donald trump that voters and people on the right are seeing and what that contrast tells us as we wait for a federal appeals court ruling, whenever that may come. we'll be right back. creamy, delicious fage total yogurt.

i found a cheaper price on my meds with singlecare. did you say singlecare? i use singlecare. whenever my customers ask me if there's a cheaper price on their meds. i always tell them about singlecare. i found a cheaper price with singlecare! i know. download the singlecare app free today.

here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch join t mobile providersople taki for your business.cy but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device.

oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. donald trump facing some of his most illegal cases ever. he's facing a likely loss on appeal. republicans in country trying to turn the tables by launching an

impeachment against president biden. while there are limited questions about the secrecy surrounding defense secretary lloyd austin about his health problems. some house republicans are calling for his impeachment too. it's a theme. we're joined by congressman dana goldman of new york. why so much impeachment? >> it seems to be en vogue. it's retribution, ari, for the fact that donald trump was impeached two times. what you see in the house, and it's different in the senate, this house republican majority is completely controlled by donald trump. they're operating at his direction with marjorie taylor greene and maga mike johnson leading the charge. they want to distract from the fact that they can't govern,

they can't pass a budget, they can't do anything to help the american people. they want to distract with these political shenanigans using impeachment as if it's a regular lawsuit for any disagreement they may have with the government. essentially to say or show, oh, we're doing something even though there's no basis for any of the impeachments they are bringing forward or talking about. >> do you ever get any sort of larger context or real talk from any of the members of the other side of the aisle on all of this when they're not in public? >> sure. i mean, we talk about it. i think privately they will acknowledge this is a political exercise. in fact, some have acknowledged that public this, that this is all about trying to help donald trump win the 2024 election and to give him fodder for the

campaign to even the score and to give him something that he can tout on the campaign trail. they're open about that in public and in private. the problem is it demeans what is a very, very important clause of the constitution, the impeachment clause. it's used very infrequently in history. when you look at an impeachment of joe biden that has absolutely no evidence connecting joe biden to any of the conduct that they're talking about and you look at an impeachment of a cabinet secretary, secretary mayorkas, you start to realize if this goes forward the impeachment clause might as well be thrown out of the constitution. >> you're sort of speaking about where if that solemn process, which is a high bar to yank

someone out of office, because a synonym for i disagree with you or don't like you, it falls apart. if you put aside that substantive concern, do you think it's ultimately better that republicans are spending so much energy on these things that have no sign of winning over the super majority in the senate rather than if they were spending this time and energy doing other things? >> i wish they would discuss meaningful solutions. the house is controlled by the republicans, but the senate and presidency are controlled by democrats. that requires bipartisan negotiations and discussions to solve the problems that the american people have. democrats are very eager to have those conversations. we acknowledge, recognize and are concerned about the situation at the border.

we would like to address it with solutions rather than spend our time in the homeland security committee which should be involved in negotiations related to the border policy that secretary mayorkas himself are doing. we should be in those discussions trying to figure out a way to solve the issue. the republicans want to use it as a political -- they don't want to solve the problems. they're operating in bad faith. everything they do is purely political. it's not to try to solve the real issues facing the american people. >> finally, congressman, viewers may remember, many of us remember, how much you joined us before you took this post. curious how it's going for you and how do you compare being on msnbc talking about government to being in government on msnbc talking about government? >> well, it's been a very

interesting year. certainly far more surprising on many issues than i would expect, far more interesting and in some respects much more frustrating. there's such obvious and common sense solutions to so many of our problems that unfortunately we can't get the majority to discuss with us. it is -- it's nice, at least for me and myself to be in the arena, to be trying to move the needle forward, trying to get results, trying to expose these republican investigations for the complete bogus shams they are so the american people can truly see which party is out to do good for them and which party is out for itself and that very clearly right now is the republican party. we are hoping to flip the house in november, take over the -- keep the senate, keep the presidency and get some legislation passed. >> congressman goldman, good to

see you. when we return, the stark difference between trump in and out of the courtroom. stay with us. testing them and...fermenting. fermenting? yeah, like kombucha or yogurt and we formulate everything so, your body can really truly absorb the natural goodness that's what we do so you can do you new chapter. wellness well done to a child, this is what conflict looks like. children in ukraine are caught in the crossfire of war, forced to flee their homes. a steady stream of refugees has been coming across all day. it's basically cold. lacking clean water and sanitation. exposed to injury, hunger. exhausted and shell shocked from what they've been through.

every dollar you give can help bring a meal, a blanket, or simply hope to a child living in conflict. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month, that's just $0.33 a day. we cannot forget the children in places like syria, born in refugee camps, playing in refugee camps, thinking of the camps as home. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today with your gift of $10 a month. your gift can help children like ara in afghanistan, where nearly 20 years of conflict have forced the people into extreme poverty. weakened and unable to hold herself up, ara was brought to a save the children's center, where she was diagnosed and treated for severe malnutrition. every dollar helps. please call or go online to givenowtosave.org today

with your gift of $10 a month. just $0.33 a day. and thanks to special government grants that are available now, every dollar you give can multiply up to ten times the impact. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special save the children tote bag to show you won't forget the children who are living their lives in conflict. every war is a war against children. please give now.

the attorney general is a corrupt person, a terrible person. it's a witch hunt. it's an unfair trial. the fraud was on behalf of the court. the court was the fraudster in

this case. this is a weaponization of justice. this is something that nobody's ever seen to this extent. it's a disgrace. they should pay me damages. that's the way it should be. >> donald trump going on and on about what he doesn't like about this process. beyond his quotes, well, you could see a few feet behind him where he was speaking in front of the court doors. exaggeration and lies don't work there. trump can talk and talk about the people involved in putting him on trial. he can try to argue from a pr perspective that with his rhetoric he's putting them on trial. that's rhetoric. they're not on trial, not the ag and the judge. when you see trump talking in front of the microphone at a friendly fox town hall, that's the theater. he tried to be more restrained and more friendly, even at times kind of a softer side, if you

want to call it that, that was very different from the real donald trump who has been attacking everyone who dares to do their nonpartisan jobs or hold him accountable or push back on his past efforts to overthrow the government. with that contrast in mind, we want to bring in tim miller who has experience on republican campaigns and columnist for "the boston globe" kimberly atkins store. tim, what do you think about that contrast? i don't say this to compliment the viewers of "deadline" who i know from watching the show with nicolle, they are highly informed. what do you say to remind people that not everyone is as informed? if trump is, quote, unquote, playing nice in the fox town hall people don't see the other

stuff. the casual voter might say he saw in the town hall he can be held accountable and abhors violence. >> i suffered through the town hall on fox and there were two main observations i had. fox for a while was cooling to donald trump. it was his fault they had to pay a $787 million settlement. it wasn't totally his fault. they went along with it. it was his big lie that caused them that settlement. they were ready to move on to desantis, but last night it was very friendly. that has real implications just for the people who are going to consume this campaign only through the prism of fox and related outlets. the other thing that worried me is trump was -- his wiles don't

work on me. the people in the crowd were laughing. he was joking with the hosts who were not pressing him harshly. the people who see this trump might hear the very accurate alarm that many of us have, talking about his threats to the country and say, well, that guy is a good performer. he doesn't seem that alarming to me. that's the big challenge for the biden campaign and those of us on the prodemocracy side who see the truth about trump is to educate people in the ten months ahead. >> kimberly? >> i think that's exactly right. ari, i'm concerned when i hear voters, even voters who say they won't vote for trump, republicans who believe that the court cases against him are nonsense, are political, are somehow in themselves anti-democratic moves by

democrats who are afraid of him winning. that terrifies me for all the reasons that tim just laid out. when in actuality, donald trump is the person you see railing in courtroom hallways and in front of courthouses deflecting and projecting saying, it's him who has been defrauded. it's him who has the government weaponized against him. he's either done that himself or has promised to do that. even arguments that were made, i was struck on tuesday when his attorney argued that a president can't be held accountable if a president orders the assassination of his political enemy under the questioning of judge flores pan. she got right to the heart, not just of the case and how terrible his argument was, but who he is as a candidate and what he is promising. the threat to democracy was on full view there.

most people, at least a lot of people don't see it, not enough people. >> tim, what does it tell you about the fox primary that trump strikes a different note than in court or on "bannon war room"? >> you can see it from his attacks on nikki haley. he recognizes he needs to win back over that -- whatever you want to call it, the establishment republican. i call them "the wall street journal" reading republican. many of us have been disappointed with the ways in which that class of republicans has enabled him over the course of the last eight years. trump recognizes he needs to hold on to the maga base and that mentally -- he slips. he's trump. he's impulsive. mentally he's trying to bring that group into the fold.

that's a key swing group. can joe biden win over 20% of nikki haley voters? that might be determining and i think trump was trying to reach that voter last night with trumpy aside mixed in there and some crazy comments because, of course, he's donald trump. he was actively trying to reach that voter. >> kimberly? >> yeah, i think that is right. i don't know that donald trump is such a political tactician that he's thinking about peeling off 10% here and 20% there. i think he's so used to doing what he has been doing for six years and having it work out the first time, not work the second, but he denied it didn't work out the second time. he's so fueled by personal grievance and so far that's been -- that has kept the core

of his base intact and made it difficult for his opponents to get a foothold. we have to wait and see what happens in iowa and new hampshire. he thinks he won both elections that he was in, including the one he claims falsely was fraudulent. he's doubling down, tripling down and surrounding himself with people who are in for it and letting the others fall away. so far it keeps him at the top of the polls. we'll see how long that lasts. >> kimberly, you referred to people who may not be trump supporters, but have a view of the court proceedings as a blur or whether it's real or whether it's politics as usual. the counterpoint to that is not only whether or not there are guilty verdicts, defendant trump is presumed innocent, but what we're learning along the way. we learned that trump's lawyer

takes the position that basically the president can have americans killed and then can't be prosecuted in most cases. i want to ask how important is it that we deal with that as a public matter, regardless of the outcome of that case. that case could be delayed for months. we have that claim right now. what do we do about that? i'll ask you both that, but we're going to take a quick break and your answers on the other side. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis, help make trading feel effortless.

and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeache would he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and prosecuted first. >> i've asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts and i've asked you would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he's not impeached. your yes or no answer is no. >> i believe i said qualified yes if he's impeached or convicted. >> the judge determining if you look at what trump's lawyers are claiming, the answer is no. there's no way to prosecute a president who assassinates americans through s.e.a.l. team

6 unless something happens, unless there was a senate conviction of said president. that's never happened, so the trigger doesn't exist. if you're out assassinating american rivals in the judge's hypothetical, that includes members of the u.s. senate, that's one of a hundred problems with this. your thoughts, tim, on whether this fact finding process where people are seeing what the president and his team say they can do whether that affects people in our society as they decide how to vote? >> i'm with you guys. the experts set up a preposterous legal argument there. the political side of this is real. i don't like falling into this place of oh, nothing matters, it's donald trump. that's not right. voters have short memories. people get shaken by a

particular fact or set of facts. you saw this in donald trump's polls throughout his presidency. i think him saying in his press conference today, he was asked about this argument. he basically said, yeah, i don't think the president should be able to be prosecuted. that's potentially very damaging. it's an argument that should be used against him and i think he's risking losing certain demographics of voters. back to what kimberly said before, i kind of agree with her. he's not a tactician. oh, i have to say this to appeal to this person. he has a lizard brain. he's at a rally. he wants to make them cheer. he's in front of "wall street journal" republicans. he wants them to like him. that has to be used against him when he's making these preposterous, outlandish

arguments to certain groups, that that's used against him with voters. >> kimberly, warning someone of a potential crime, let alone murder or assassination, doesn't cover you. if he were elected, they would be in many forums saying, we said this was part of the new plan. we talked about it and we've diluted and degenerated public accountability where people say, oh, that's old news, whatever it might be. i want to play an extended set of remarks by a democratic senator because there has to be room and capacity for outrage when things are outrageous. take a listen. >> trump's lawyers said something this week

. trump and his team believe he can commit any crime and get away with it without any consequences whatsoever. when asked by a federal judge if a president could be prosecuted for ordering s.e.a.l. team 6 to assassinate a political rival, trump's lawyer responded, quote, he would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution could proceed. trump's team is in court arguing it's up to congress, that the political system not the justice system should render judgment, even on statutory crimes.

>> kimberly? >> i would call this a spaghetti argument. you throw whatever argument you can at the judge and hope one sticks when you know your case is bad. here the stakes are so high that i can't treat it so lightly. i was chilled during this exchange in the same way. that's why as i stated in my column in the boston globe this is a legal loser but americans ignore it to their own peril. you ask how can we convince people this is important? i have a fear that people understand the stakes already and feel like i'm shouting into the abyss. who people listen to are people

they trust. they listen to their family, people in their churches, people in their community. it's up to them. talk to the people in your lives about this. this is not a popularity contest. this is a choice. this is too important to ignore. >> it doesn't have been to be a hypothetical when you look at issues around choice and policing and blm. we can have civil discourse. surely this merits that. you're referring to whether people have the facts or what nicolle calls living here on earth. i want to thank you both for being part of our special coverage. we have a break. we'll be anchoring "the beat" as well. stay with us. well stay with us

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children.

and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives.

please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today.

jute. we've been following a lot of legal and political news, but there's major news in the world of sports. two football coaching legend parting ways with their teams. nick saban retiring, and his mentor, bill blix, leaving the patriots after 24 years and six super bowl wins. at 71, he's just 15 quinns away from the all-time victory leader in the nfl, which we're told he may pursue that title with another franchise. the coach is a legend from sports to culture. you may recall that cuevo take the air out the ball, walking with the sacks. take the air out the ball so i

can flects check, yeah, bill blix. if there's every a time to quote those bars, we thought tonight as we look back on the great career that's still continuing. i do have a programming note. thank you for letting me spend time here on behalf of nicolle, but i'll bet in my regular spot, we have news and break down the developments, when we come back. developments, when we come back. cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? we were loading our suv when... crack! safelite came right to us, and we could see exactly when they'd arrive

with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ .. ..

♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) with the push of a button, constant contact's ai tools help you know what to say, even when you don't. hi! constant contact. helping the small stand tall.