on thursday, the u.s. supreme court will hear oral arguments on whether donald trump can remain on the ballot in the state of colorado. be sure to join me thursday evening, at eight pm eastern, immediately after the readout, along with the great rachel maddow and many others, as we break down the arguments and how it affects this year's election. and i'm very proud to announce that they actually's official publication day of my new book. thank -- you for that big up. that means you can pick up the copy of -- the love story that awakened america, right now. and you can see me talk about it later tonight, on the late show with stephen colbert. so much fun, and that is tonight's reidout. chris hayes, rachel maddow, and lawrence o'donnell are next, with special coverage of today's trump immunity ruling. and it starts. right now immunity ruling. and it starts. right no tonight on all in. >> a court has denied trump's argument. >> the d.c. circuit court makes

its ruling. >> for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump. >> citizen trump should stand trial for january 6th. >> this is a unanimous body blow to each and every one of donald trump's arguments. >> tonight, special coverage with rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell, on what today's decision means, and what happens next. >> having immunity is so important, and i hope the supreme court has the courage to do that. >> legal analysis with lisa rubin, -- and joyce vance, and david plouffe on the front runner running to stay out of jail. >> i love that beautiful woman right there with the mugshot. >> plus, congressman adam schiff on the trial of donald trump, and the spectacular failure of house republicans. >> the nays are 2:16. the resolution is -- >> all in starts right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening from new

york, i'm chris hayes, welcome to a special edition of all in, on an enormously consequential day for american rule of law and democracy. just a moment, i will be joined by my good friends rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell to discuss today's landmark ruling by a federal appeals court, against donald trump. in a unanimous opinion, the three judge panel of the d.c. appellate court ruled that donald trump is not immune from being criminally prosecuted for his attempts to steal the 2020 election, and overthrow our democracy. it is a thorough defeat for the ex president, clearing the way for his trial for those alleged crimes to proceed, barring intervention by the supreme court, which we will of course get to in a moment. in their lengthy opinion, the judges explained, quote, for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump. of all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president, no longer

protects them against this prosecution. of course, citizen trump has been charged, on four felony accounts related to his attempt to steal the election, including conspiracy to defraud the united states,. special counsel jack smith brought those charges last summer, and the case was assigned to district judge tanya chutkan, who has been very clear about her desire to move the case along quickly. arguing that there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. she scheduled the trial to begin on march 4th. but of course, donald trump wants to delay as much as possible, in the hopes that he could win the election, land back in the white house before trial could even begin, where he can dismiss this case. from his perch, as the guy who tells the department of justice what to do. and so to that and, he launched an appeal. now this is sort of the crucial thing to understand. it is one of the very few kinds of appeals that are allowed before the trial even starts,

in a federal criminal case. it's called interlocutory appeal. it means you are appealing even before you are tried, right. and in this appeal, he claims that he has absolute immunity, that he cannot even be tried. that he can't even stand trial, he can't be prosecuted for anything he did while he was the president's. this appeal was, from the beginning, clearly a kind of legal hail mary to prevent the trial from starting. it's been pretty clear from the start, he absolutely should lose on the merits. in fact, judge chutkan considered this appeal, and swiftly rejected trump's initial motion to dismiss the charges against him. he and brought his claim to the appeals court, that is one level above judge chutkan. but he put the whole case on hold while those judges considered his legally dubious argument. now, there are some complicated stuff about jurisdiction in the opinion. but you do not have to be a lawyer to appreciate how plainly trump's claim clashes

with the most basic structure of our democratic government. >> could a president ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival? that's an official act, in order to -- >> he would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> but if he weren't? there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that? >> in the chief justices opinion in marbury against madison, and our constitution -- and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause, all clearly presuppose that with the founders were concerned about was not. >> i asked you about a yes or no question. could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached. would he be subject to criminal persecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no? >> my answer is a qualified yes. there is a political process that would have to occur under the structure of our constitution, which would

require impeachment and conviction by the senate. >> so, you've got to get impeached and convicted before, before you could stand trial for having s.e.a.l. team six kill your political rival. that was a month ago. and of course, a former president, and -- basically what they wrote today is that a former president cannot commit a crime while in office, and cannot -- face any legal consequences. the ruling takes down each of trump's claims. one of his main assertions is that the prospect of being prosecuted would, quote, inhibit a sitting president from acting fearlessly and impartially. basically, it would make it too hard to do the job, he would be too stressed to be president. the court counters that every other president in history has somehow managed it. quote, past presidents have understood themselves to be subject to impeachment and criminal liability, at least under certain circumstances. so the possibility of -- an executive action is already in effect. and the former presidents clearly knew that they were not, quote, fully immune from criminal liability. for instance, just look at

gerald ford's pardon of richard nixon. which both former presidents evidently believed was necessary to avoid nixon's post- resignation indictment. the court also argued there is an important deterrent effect that will be lost, if presidents were totally immune from criminal prosecutions. quote, instead of inhibiting the presidents lawful discretionary action, the prospect of federal criminal liability might serve as a structural benefit to deter possible abuses of power and criminal behavior. in other words, maybe we -- want a system that incentivizes those in power, like the president, to think twice about whether they are committing a felony before they do something. am i doing a crime? is this a felony? should we do this? and of course, our system is built as three coequal branches of government. the president is the head of just one of them. he is not above the other two, he is certainly not above the law. quote, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers, by placing the president beyond the reach of all three

branches. presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute, the judiciary could not reveal. we cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law, for all time thereafter. the appeals court gave donald trump and his lawyers a deadline of february 12th, that's next monday, to appeal this decision to the highest court in the land, the supreme court. that is the last step. and he says he will do that. and then, it will be up to the supreme court justices to decide if they want to take up his case. they don't have to, at all. in fact, they reject most cases that are presented to them. if they say no, which is a possibility, then this ruling just stands, and judge chutkan can get the trial back on schedule and at her discretion, and basically go ahead. if the supreme court does decide to hear trump's case, then he will have secured another delay. now again, the merits of the case remain the same. his argument is incredibly flimsy, almost insultingly so.

and he most likely will not win, i don't think there is five votes on that court for this -- nonsense. but the clock will be running, and that of course is the entire point. i am joined now by rachel maddow, host of the rachel maddow show, and lawrence o'donnell, host of the last word. >> all right, let me get first top line reactions from you rachel to the court's decision. >> well first of all, just kudos on -- nonsense at the end of -- [laughter] i aspire to -- at the end of the monologue, and explanatory one like this. i've, i think chris that the thing that was interesting to me about this ruling, was that from the very beginning, you are right that there is complicated jurisdictional stuff, there is stuff that lawyers will get that other people won't get. but from the very beginning, it was very blunt on stuff that there has been an effort to be fuzzy about, but people in the political arena. it says at the very outset of the ruling, there was not a

peaceful transition of power. the reason the congress was attacked, that resulted from trump's rally, at which thousands, from which thousands of people then march to the capital and attacked congress. he is very blunt about those things, and calls it an unprecedented assault on our system of government. just very blunt about these things, that there have been -- too off of a. and i think that was helpful. but i also just thought that it was helpful, i think for us as a country, in talking about this, that they did outright mock the claims that you have to be impeached and convicted in the senate, before you could be put on trial for committing murder, or committing any of these other crimes. and i think that it is good that they basically rebooted, what i think of as the common sense claim here, which is that other presidents like richard nixon, like even bill clinton, other presidents in their real lives have shown. even trump, in his presidency, has shown, and has articulated

that they knew they could be put on trial after they were out of office. they have all known, it is a common sense thing that many presidents have conceded, including trump himself while he was being impeached. and, those things i think, they just operate in the public sphere, as well as they operate in the law. and we really need, that we need that from the judiciary right now, so people really understand what is going on here. >> yeah, there are two places in particular that nick does site. so the nixon for example which i think is the most famous to all of us, it was the biggest story in the country at the time that ford was prospectively pardoning richard nixon, and literally everyone in the country understood of the reason he was doing that, in the recent nixon was accepting it, was because he was probably going to be indicted in face criminal prosecution. but there was also bill clinton cutting a deal on his way out the door of the white house, to basically have his law license suspended, in exchange basically for not being prosecuted. another point at which clearly he thought it was possible. and then rachel to your point, they also cite trump's own lawyers at this impeachment trial. which i thought was

interesting, whether that was going to -- be saying this doesn't say you can't go indict the guy. i mean literally his other lawyers, different, lawyers say that. so yeah all three of those examples, which i think are sort of common sense historical examples rather than arcane legal ones, are in the opinion, very persuasive. >> so we are talking about president bill clinton, yale law school graduate. president richard nixon, duke law school graduate. they firmly believed. >> yes. [laughter] >> that the president can absolutely be charged with crimes, certainly after leaving office. and so, this is one of those opinions that says to america, it says to every high school history student in america, you are not crazy, it is what you thought, it is what we have always thought for the entire history of the republic, this is the way it is. and if we think back to the beginning of this case, there wasn't a single legal pungent, there wasn't anybody in the right wing anywhere, saying oh

well, you can't indict him, he is completely immune. this notion had never even been advanced by anyone, until trump's lawyers decided to advance it in this case. and so, it kind of took everyone by surprise in how outrageous it was. and what you have here now is the proof that there is a very big difference between what we call a novel case, which is this interesting issue that has never floated up all the way to the supreme court. >> which is thursday, i think it's fair to say? >> and a crazy case, which has absolutely no conceivable basis. >> yeah and there's, in some ways i almost felt like it was, it was sort of a strange thing to read the opinion, because it was incredibly persuasive rachel, and very thorough. it goes through a bunch of stuff. but at some level, the essential point was so ludicrous, that it almost made me mad that. like, this is the way the system works? and it's important that the system work its way through. but there is almost some sense that was like right, of course,

as they went through every example, as they cited chapter in verse, as they limbed the lines of executive authority jurisprudence from marbury, to youngstown and on and on and on. it was like yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, this is precisely what it looks like to lawrence and -- . >> yes, and it is what we have all known was true all ilana. and you are trying to say that this is, that we shouldn't believe our lying eyes, and the presidency has always been something different. here is all of the ways in which that is not true. that is absolutely right. i will say that, the other piece of this that i was just pleased to read, is that there is an element of the defense that trump has mounted, both in public relations, both as a public relations matter, and as a legal matter to some sense. and i think of it as the mirrored sunglasses problem. like, do we really want to be a

country in which some lieutenant colonel in mirrored sunglasses has every incentive to hold on to power for his entire natural life, because the expectation is that once you are no longer holding the reins of power, you are going to be prosecuted by your political enemies and by your political successors? i mean it's sucks to be a country where former presidents get prosecuted, because that is a lousy thing about countries in which that is a regular dynamic, and in which those prosecutions are politically motivated and they are junk prosecutions, but they are used for political purposes. trump has made that case, both in the courtroom and outside of the courtroom. and i've always felt like it is his strongest point. obviously, the solution to that as a country is don't elect criminals to be presidents. but you also got the judges today, in the d.c. circuit, arguing against it. and saying listen, we have ways in our system of dealing with meritless and harassing prosecution. we have systems within our

judiciary, that prevent that. and so, the idea that once you are prosecuted for crimes, you are going to then prosecute, and everybody is going to prosecute people from nothing from here on out. no, the judiciary is here to make sure that it doesn't happen. and we know that it won't. and seeing that asserted by this panel of judges, to me, it actually made me feel better about that problem, for the first time since this whole merry-go-round started spinning around. >> yeah, and i agree with that. there is something that he says along those lines, about what this will go -- because i want to talk about it. it's actually both a defense, but it's a threat, very plainly a threat about what is going to happen. so if you guys would stick around, we have a lot to get to tonight. former january six committee member congressman adam schiff is here, plus david plouffe, on what this all means for the 24 election. we have a team of incredible lawyers who are still pouring over this decision, and what it means. that is all ahead, don't go anywhere. that is all ahead, don't go anywhere. and remove the waste that weighs you down and also helps lower cholesterol

and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so you can feel lighter and more energetic. lighten everyday the metamucil way. feel less sluggish & weighed down after just 14 days. sign up for the 2 week challenge at metamucil.com meet the traveling trio. the thrill seeker. the soul searcher. and - ahoy! it's the explorer! each helping to protect their money with chase. woah, a lost card isn't keeping this thrill seeker down. lost her card, not the vibe. the soul searcher, is finding his identity, and helping to protect it. hey! oh yeah, the explorer! she's looking to dive deeper... all while chase looks out for her. because these friends have chase. alerts that help check. tools that help protect. one bank that puts you in control. chase. make more of what's yours. if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd rather be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract,

or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ the ladies have been doing a lot of talking recently. she looks great! what they don't know is i got inspire, a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body. i feel refreshed because i'm not struggling with cpap anymore. 100 bucks she got work done. great sleep, at the click of a button. did she get implants? yeah, i got an implant, sheila!! relax, it's inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down...

i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime,

catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e. i'm daniel lurie pand i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to

america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. in its unanimous decision that donald trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, the three judge panel from the d.c. court of appeals writes quote, we cannot accept former president trump's claims that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, the recognition and implementation of election results. still with me tonight, rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell. lawrence, i want to just read this truth social post. do we have that from the last block? it just got taken away from me.

basically, trump has been saying time and time again that if there is no immunity, then every president, to rachel's point in the previous block, then every president will face prosecution afterwards. and that always reads to me as an obvious threat. i mean it seems to me that he is saying, can we show that truth social post? blah blah blah, we must have full immunity heat, a president would be a frayed to act. i know from personal -- even our elections would be -- under siege, save presidential immunity. basically, he is saying i am going to prosecute joe biden if i am elected. that is the way there was always read to me. >> yeah, i wasn't reading it as that future thing, i was just reading it as the kind of dumb trump idea about the way the world works. but you are absolutely right, he is saying this absolutely allows me to do, and i will do it. what's so striking about it is that as the court points out in the opinion, one thing that matters when you say if this happens then this will happen.

i mean, or meteorology is interested in is hey, if it comes up this way, if the track is this way, that will happen. how do we know that? because we've been studying it for 100 years. we have a couple of hundred of years of this not happening. a couple of hundred of years. and the court was very impressed. the court says we are very impressed with a couple of hundred years of this absolutely not happening. when the presidents is believed that it could. i mean, you can go into these presidencies and discover that yes, franklin roosevelt was worried that this idea might be against the law, therefore he won't do it. harry truman was worried that -- could be against the law, but he didn't, and he found out it was against the law and he couldn't do it. they've always been worried about, is this against the law, and cat and i do? it >> there's also this really interesting section rachel, where it's not just the history of the presidency. but they also do this and apologizing to other positions. and there are a few different examples right. juries, like jurors, we need them to make tough calls and use their discretion.

but there is stuff that they could do that would be criminal, in their official duty. like if someone paid them to vote a certain way, that will be criminal. judges, judges have to make a ton of tough calls. you know that judges, justices -- but also, judges can be prosecuted, and it all seems to work out. like members of congress have to make tough, discretionary calls about what's legal and what's not. that also could be prosecuted. they sort of go through all these other examples again, there are all of these other peoples that have to do difficult stuff, make tough calls about what the law is. and none of them are rendered immune. >> right, and they go back to cases from the 30s, they go through all of those different examples. they go all through all these different presidential examples that we just talked about. including, i mean again, most famously, why did forward need to pardon nixon? i mean, it says in the proclamation, as a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his -- office of president, richard nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial, for

offenses against the united states. it wasn't something we had to read into their state of mind. like, it is explicit in the proclamation. everybody knows that after a president leaves office, he or she can be indicted, and that has always been baked into what presidents have done. so this idea that it will be a new thing, and it will make all presidents afraid and timid. it both is disprove in the law, and they disapprove it historically. and they disprove it in a way that just makes sense to the average american who lawyer, who is trying to understand what is happening with this very radical thing that is going on in the republican party politics, trying to put this guy on the ballot again. >> yeah, and to that point about public audience and judicial audience. because there are two throughout all of this. and they are very frank about different interests at play, right. presidential interest to act with some latitude in a difficult job, the public interest in making sure that people don't try to overturn elections, and ferment violent coup was on the capitol, which they talk about. now we've got this question about the public interest of

this thing getting to trial. so here is the timing. they say that the kurt -- meaning the court clerk, is directed -- to that's basically the possession of the case back to judge tanya chutkan, through february 12th, 2024. and then within that period, the appellant notifies -- he files it to the supreme court. the clerk is directed to withhold issuance to the mandate pending the supreme court -- . which means it now goes to the court, which is a monumental decision, both on the merits but also on the timing. >> yeah, the supreme court is faced with a strange one here. if this was any other litigant, they wouldn't take, it it is just a prosperous claim, in appeals court is dealing effectively with a completely preposterous claim. and so the only reason to take it as well, it is presidential, so maybe we should weigh in. but they have to know that they are going to have s.e.a.l. team six in the hearing, in the supreme court. it is not going to be one question about s.e.a.l. team six. you know, there are going to be several judges who have an

opportunity to question about donald trump's ability to have, as many supreme court justices as he wants, executed, so that he can get the opinions he wants out of the supreme court, and he cannot be prosecuted for that, if he also executes enough united states senators, so that he cannot be found guilty in an impeachment trial. >> >> and so there's. the supreme court goes oh my god, there is a horrible, stupid circus coming our way. all we have to do is deny -- >> and it contrasts a little bit with the, the position of the case, the posture, rachel, going forward. because the case they are going to show here on thursday, they had to take basically. i think we would all, we would sort of all agree, right. we don't want to take the guy off the ballot, so did main -- other states, the highest court in the land is going to be the one that is ultimately going to give us a constitutional ruling on this. they had to get involved, in

this -- to lawrence's point, they simply don't. >> right. and, the mechanics of how that happened and the being important. i mean, you only need for supreme court justices to say yes, we want a hearing. which means you need, i mean you don't need a majority, you only need for. it is easy to imagine them coming up with the four. even if it is impossible to imagine them deciding on the merits in trump's favor. and so, do they want to take the case? they don't have to agree to have an incredible, radical, stupid ruling in order to do donald trump a big favor here, they just have to agree to hear it, and then go slow. and, hope that trump gets elected. in which case all of these cases go away. and that, that seems to me, i don't know what we should expect from this supreme court. it is amazing they're going to get the disqualification issue on thursday, and the immunity issue on monday. i don't know what to expect for them, but certainly if they want to help trump here, they

have lots of ways to do it. >> yeah, we should also say that, this is this quartz posture, has been an incredibly -- one about what they get to say, on what issues of public life they get to say. they have been sticking their noses in all kinds of places, they have been telling executive agencies that they get to say. they have been telling congress that have delegated things like major questions, there is no constitutional doctrine, they've invented it. so, they seem to be a court, at least the conservative majority, that is very much a court that is like, we are going to say -- and i think that sense of, their own grandeur and importance, it is very hard for me to see them, to your point lawrence. i think they don't want the mess, but i think they also want to be the ones who say -- >> and they are the most unpredictable supreme court of our lifetimes. >> yes, i mean, particularly on

the question of precedent, which is what this entire opinion rests solely on, which is also somewhat worrying. rachel maddow, lawrence o'donnell, what a -- to have you both. >> let's do this all the time. >> thank you very much, we appreciate. >> this was awesome, thank you chris. >> all right, we are going to be together again for our primetime special on the other gigantic court case trump is facing. you could see not just me, lawrence, and rachel, but of course our good friends alex wagner, joy lee -- we will be all together, as trump stares down his biggest court loss today. our expert legal team and -- to break all that down, next. -- t break all that down, next. i'm starting to think this was a bad idea. what! we could find a better gift on etsy's new gift mode. oh! can i see that? ♪ happy birthday... ♪ it's a people cake! don't panic. gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy.

■ if you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. ■ ■if you're happy and you know it, ride your bike. ■ ■ if you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it. ■ if you're happy and you know it, smile big and bright. ■ thousands of kids just like me, are happy every day. and it's all because of generous people like you, who support shriners hospitals for children every month. all you have to do is call the number on your screen or go online to loveshriners.org right now with your monthly gift. because of people like you shriners hospitals for children is able to make an everyday miracle happen for kids like me. ■ if you're happy and you know it, dance around. ■ ■ if you're happy and you know it, play a song. if you're happy and you know it, ■

and your face will surely show it. ■ ■ if you're happy and you know it, take a shot. ■ and when you call or go online right now to donate $19 a month or more, we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you and a reminder of all the smiles you're bringing to kids faces every day. will today be the day you send your love to the rescue? when you call the number on your screen right now and give as little as $19 a month, just $0.63 a day, you'll be making a life changing difference for a child just like sarah. your monthly gift today could change your life forever. because of you, we are happy and we know it. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. please call or go online right now to give if operators are busy, please wait patiently or go to loveshriners.org right away

♪(song in french)♪ (♪♪) book in the hotels.com app to find your perfect somewhere.

you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... book in the hotels.com app we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

so earlier, today d.c. court of appeals unanimously rule that content is not immune from criminal prosecution for his attempt to steal the 2020 election. 57-page opinion by three judges, two appointed by president joe biden, won by president george h. w. bush, is so thorough and painstaking, it doesn't leave a ton of wiggle room or outstanding legal questions. but there are new questions about what this all means. and crucially, what might happen next and at what pace. here to work through all that, harry litman, former u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania -- of the pardon of justice. joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama, katie fain -- prosecutor in the state attorney's office in florida's miami-dade county, and of course now is the host of the katie phang show. on saturdays at noon here on

msnbc. and lisa rubin here at the table -- on -- legal analyst. all right, so we've got this power team here, and i'm going to basically say, we will stipulate on the merits of this opinion, which is thorough and good and basically gets it right. i think we sort of all agree, i think we all thought that going in. the big question is, these procedural questions going forward. so, let me start with you lisa at the table here. about, what does specifically the court, the d.c. court hand the supreme court, in terms of you have till february 12th, and then what? >> so the question about what he has until february 12th to do, i think is a little bit poorly understood right now. he needs to file a motion for a stay, pending his petition -- which is a petition for supreme court review. but, that petition, for stay, requires five votes, not the four votes required to review

the case. so the whole kit and caboodle here, if it were, is those five votes. if he doesn't have the, four justices could say let's review the case. but if there is no state, in the d.c. circuit issues the mandate, which is a fancy way of saying at kicks it back down to judge chutkan, for pre trial proceedings. >> so absent a stay, harry, the procedural posture is, you could imagine a parallel track. so tanya chutkan hands the mandate back, which means she's got the football in her hands, right. she has possession of the case in its control. maybe there is a certain process happening, on -- across the street from the u.s. capital. but for the -- purposes, that doesn't matter. the big question is if he gets a stay, then what? >> 100%. so first case i ever worked on as a clerk up, there there are four votes to grant, but it was a death penalty case, they couldn't get the fit for a stay, and he was executed. so the rule of five versus the

rule of four matters here. >> that's a good point. >> but i think given this case and the topic, i don't think only four will vote. let's say five votes -- for the first thing that will happen is it will be presented to chief justice roberts, who is the circuit judge for the d.c. circuit. he will refer to the court, and they will decide whether to grant. they might in this case, it is unusual, treat trump's motion for a state as a petition for -- , especially since jack smith is already moved for it. so they could even move more quickly. one thing is certain, if they take the case, it will be an expedited schedule. nevertheless, it means that they will have the case till around june, and that translates into trial -- judge chutkan around september in the very heat of the election, which will give rise to other legal challenges. if they deny, and if you put a gun to my head, my best guess is they will deny. then it is backed with judge chutkan, by june or so.

>> okay, joyce, do you think they are going to deny? >> you know, i think it is a tough call, chris. i could find an awful lot of ways to get to four on this court, for a lot of different reasons. and i think the best we can do is say that sometimes, our crystal balls are faulty, and we have to wait and see what happens. one of the problems that, and i think harry gets precisely at this, is that if the court does hear it. let's say even the liberal wing of the court feels like this is an issue that the courts have never decided before, it's important to have their stamp on this issue about presidential immunity. an opinion could be delayed, if there are dissents, and the dissenters could take their time. on the other hand, if the court is single-minded in its purpose here, it is possible that they could expedite it and turn out a quick decision. they did it in bush v. bought -- the election contest in florida. they did it in watergate. ultimately, this is up to the whims of the justice system.

>> and katie, the justices here being nine individuals, and the -- counting five of those four. but then also the question of, like the degree to which people who are not the majority can delay. i mean that is sort of the question to timmy's, if you get the case, and you schedule expedited arguments, it's all at the clock at this point. and then, there is, i mean you know my wife -- and i've known people that have, and i've been around the court a bit. you know basically, the clock is ticking for what, the last day in june that they release arguments, that's basically the one deadline? and the big cases are always on the last day. maybe they move to july once in all, at our notes they ever have. but that's about it, you go to july 1st, and then to harry's point, if your job is to delay, and you want to delay, you just want to delay for whatever reason, you could probably get this to the end of june, right? >> yeah, so it's pretty

convoluted. and you and i and the rest of this panel could spend hours talking about the different iterations of how this could play out. but the reason why i think that scotus is going to take it, chris, is that even the circuit court in its opinion noted that this is an issue of first impression. and any supreme court is going to want to take an issue of first impression, put it -- and make sure that it is the final word. especially to be able to put to bed and to rest any other defenses raised by donald trump and other jurisdictions, as for presidential immunity. so in this instance, it, i think that they are going to take it. now all of that being said, to joyce's point, there is a way by which this can be addressed more quickly than waiting to get something by the end of june. and frankly, we as members of the judiciary, or as members of america that have a judiciary, they are not bound by the idea that because there is a presidential election in november, that that necessarily means that you cannot continue begin a trial, and continue, at

chris. you could start, and have it go. and not to mention the fact that trump has other cases, right. so this is not the end all be, all when it comes to a trial calendar for donald trump. >> i mean my own feeling, this is just me talking as a citizen, basically. about a country i love, which is basically eu that there is this enormous, it's just this obvious, enormously important matter of public import, in both directions. i keep saying this, but i don't mean it disingenuously. it's not like this has to happen so you can get trump. if the man is innocent of the crimes that he has been accused of, voters are entitled to that knowledge. they are entitled -- in that direction. obviously before interesting him to take office again, particular if he is knocked off the ballot, and arguments are going to happen on thursday. and so again, my feeling, i guess lisa's like, we start to get into dangerous timing territory if the court -- grants. like, to me, it becomes a genuine open question.

does the trial happen before election night? >> i think it is a genuine open question. and though i would like to believe, as harry said earlier, that if the court grants -- it would do so on an expedited basis, there is the possibility that it doesn't do so, that it pulls what i would call a dobbs maneuver, where they agree to hear the case. but because of concerns about election interference, they hold off on even agreeing to hear the case for some period of months, and don't even hear it until the next term. that's what i call -- the scenario. >> that would be so outrageous. >> it would be. >> and cynical, in such a violation of the democratic commitment. like, i can't believe -- >> -- and didn't tell anybody. and on the public dockets, said they were still considering it. so yes, i am being cynical right now. but this is -- cynical. >> so very quickly, that is the worst-case scenario, i think. harry, your gut says that they find a way not to grant -- and they don't grant the stay? >> right well, that would be

the same thing. but a very important point, you are right, the hubris -- said they want to take. it but their desire not to be responsible for the election is very strong, even in their own selfish interest on the other side. so you have to weigh both of those, even if you have a craven view of the supreme court. >> or at harry litman, joyce vance, katie phang and lisa rubin, what a great group, thank you all we really appreciate it. still to come, congressman adam schiff joins me on the d.c. court ruling, and what it means for the health of our democracy. plus, what comes next after today's spectacular republican failure in the house. next. republican failure in the house. next. get help with j.p morgan personal advisors. hey, david! ready to get started? work with advisors who create a plan with you, and help you find the right investments. so great getting to know you, let's take a look at your new investment plan. ok, great! this should have you moving in the right direction. thanks jen. get ongoing advice; and manage your investments in the chase mobile app.

you always got your mind on the green. not you. you! your business bank account with quickbooks money now earns 5% apy. (♪♪) that's how you business differently. intuit quickbooks. ♪♪ with fastsigns, signage that gets you noticed turns hot lots into homes. ♪♪ fastsigns. make your statement.

♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪ ♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms

of infection in your legs or feet. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪ ♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪ only unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans come with the ucard - one simple member card that opens doors where it matters for you. what if we need to see a doctor away from home? ucard gets you in with medicare advantage's largest national provider network. how 'bout using it at the pharmacy? yes - your ucard is all you need. huh - that's easy! can it help keep my smile looking good? yep! use your ucard at the dentist. say cheese! get access to what matters with the ucard only from unitedhealthcare. hi. my name is kim and i am 41 years old.

i've been given the opportunity to work from home, so that means lots of video calls. i see myself more and i definitely see those deeper lines. i'm still kim and i got botox® cosmetic. i wanted to keep the expressions that i would normally have, you know, you're on camera and the only person they can look at is you. i was really happy with the results. i look like me just with fewer lines. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com.

it has been almost 150 years since the house impeached a cabinet member. it is only happen once, and that was for a sprawling reconstruction era kickback scheme, that there were dozens of witnesses who could testify to the details of. tonight, house republicans tried to do it for only the second time in american history, and it just failed, like fell on their faces, spectacularly, stunningly. they called the vote to impeach secretary of homeland security alejandro mayorkas. again, for nothing in particular, other than their objections to his policy and the biden policy on the border. it was a complete political stunt and -- it's still, somehow the republican majority screwed up their -- own. >> on this vote, the ea start to 14, and the nays are 2:16. the resolution is not adopted.

>> congressman adam schiff from california was the -- for the first impeachment of donald, trump served on the january 6th committee, he is also a candidate for senate in 2024. and he joins me now. congressman, when i covered congress between i think 2007 and 2011, there was one bill that found -- failed on the house, that was tarp, it was a huge deal, post bail out. you probably remember it was a big deal when it failed. i feel like they do this every few months. now i just, i just don't understand what they are doing. how did this happen to them? >> it is really baffling, the number one rule of being speaker's know how to count, know how to count. and the fact that they would bring this up, something as potentially consequential as an impeachment of a cabinet official, and not have counted their votes is really inexplicable. but then, the whole conduct of the impeachment proceedings

against joe biden, against secretary mayorkas, is basically impeachment proceedings in search of a subject. they want to impeach biden, but they couldn't come with any evidence, the highly publicized image of chairman comer, the chairman with his hand over his head, with basically a face plant, is a great metaphor for their entire conduct in this congress, in particular the impeachment proceedings. but failed to come up with anything on joe biden. it's, who else can we impeach? and they settled on -- . and even then they couldn't do that. next week, i think we are going to impeach a ham sandwich, and who knows where this is going to end. >> it does look like there is some notion that steve scalise, who was missing today i think for medical procedures, will return tomorrow. i think they are going to take this vote again, i think they probably will have the votes tomorrow, although you never know with the republican house leadership.

what's the consequence here? i mean this does not happen, it's been 150 years since this happened, and the last guy i believe -- was caught red- handed, clearly committing high crimes and misdemeanors. what does it mean for the country for them to do this if they could pull it off tomorrow? >> it's another norm broken, it's another abuse of congressional processes, which ought to be the most serious process. and that is to remove someone from office through impeachment. so essentially, they are going to turn this into yet another political tool. as i said on the house floor, when you find evidence that a cabinet official or the president has withheld money from an ally at war to extort them to help you cheat in an election, or let an insurrection against our government, then impeach them. but until you do, stop wasting everybody's time. and i think what they will do, and are doing, is lowering the bar. essentially, the way they have -- the way they have with

expulsion and other things, to basically say we are going to use these political tools whenever we find it useful. and that is just damaging to the institution. >> you know, the president who, as you know, lost his case before the d.c. court of appeals today about immunity. he has this to say, and i think it relates actually to impeachment. which is to use these processes as explicit partisan weapons. and to complain about them being used as explicit partisan weapons, so that you can do the same, so that you can create that as a sort of base line of behavior. he says if immunity is not granted to a president, every president that leaves office would be immediately indicted by the opposing party. without complete immunity, the president of united states would not be able to properly function. which, that reads to me like a threat, basically. how does it sound to you? >> it does sound like a threat. and here is the thing about today, and i think the significance of this ruling. first, it shouldn't be a hard decision, it really wasn't a

hard decision for the court of appeals. as they pointed out in their opinion, the ultimate check on a presidency is being able to vote them out of office. and if you could commit crimes to prevent being thrown out of office, then there is no check left in the constitution. this was not a hard decision, even for the republican appointed court of appeals judge in this case. it should not, and i think will not be a hard decision for the supreme court. but the rub is the one you discussed earlier, and that is do they delay, so that this gets pushed into next year, when trump could if he were successful -- make the whole thing go away? or do they do their duty and deny -- or take it up and move quickly? i have confidence that even this terrible, reactionary court, on the merits, is not going to say the president is above the law. but i am less confident that they will act with any kind -- of, it may be there -- to

essentially draw this out. and once again, let donald trump deny justice by delaying justice. >> congressman adam schiff, democrat of california, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> david plouffe is a campaign manager for president obama's 2008 presidential run, and served as senior adviser for the president. he joins me now. how are you? >> chris, good to see you. >> so, there's a few things that i think i have a good read on the politics of. like abortion rights right now, it's pretty clear, it just shows up election after election. i also think the polling has shown, american voters are not going to be psyched to vote for a man, as a major party nominee for president, if he is convicted of federal crimes in an election year. that seems pretty clear as well. but everything short of that, i don't know. what do you, what do you think? >> well today, it's just a cluster. and so, i think to make the

republicans and trump pay full political price for that come next fall, you know you're going to have to -- which is that if you elect these people, they will be -- but more than that, trump is just going to be focused on -- settling scores, and won't do anything to help your bottom line, your paycheck, your health care. so even with the border deal, i thought biden's speech was strong today. but that's not even the first -- in the first inning, you've got to stay at it because, most people who are going to decide this election are paying zero attention -- to. so you've got to feed it to them and feed it to them and feed them. but at the end of the day, i think that now trump has got a huge lead over biden on the border, but i don't think we can expect biden to -- . but if it could make some progress on, and people look like trump's just completely full of it, i think there is some potential political benefit there. >> so, there is a border deal that was negotiated by -- a group of senators. trump comes out, kills it. and it is endorsed by a bunch of conservatives.

the border patrol union comes out for, the wall street journal today, the editorial board. i guess my question is there are two ways to think about this with mayorkas. they clearly, the way you generally think about this issue's aliens. you want to raise issues salient on issues you have an advantage of, right. you want people talking at the border not abortion, if you are republicans. so the question then becomes at the democratic side, how do you deal with that? they are impeaching mayorkas to raise the salient. can you jiu-jitsu this somehow so that you are not just basically raising the saliency of an issue you are losing? >> well i think you can. and listen, having been through campaigns, you've got a set of issues, maybe character, or you've got an advantage. but you are not on, offense you are not on the ball all the time. so you've got to play defense too. so i think immigration is a very salient issue with voters. and not just from the hard right. so i think biden now and democrats generally have to say listen, this has been a big problem for a long time. trump actually made it worse,

we actually had a bunch of solution that would have given us a chance. and because he said he didn't want to help biden. and by the way, that is what he is doing as president. he is not going to be focused on solving a single problem for anyone in this country, but creating problems for his political enemies. so i think that is a way potentially where it also gives biden and democrats and answer. every time they are asked by a reporter or a voter on the border, they can say we had a set of solutions. by the way with a lot of republicans on board, and trump killed. it >> what do you think about the unpredictability into the political calendar of the possibility of mistrials? like, no one's ever dealt with this, but i don't know, if he goes on trial in september? i just i don't know. i mean my gut says don't overthink it chris, it is not good for you. if he goes >> on that would be my -- . >> right. but then i don't know, sometimes i read the polling and i'm just like wow, man i don't know. >> it's unprecedented. i will say this, i may be wrong about this. but i think it will help him with turnout. i think it will hurt him with swing voters you know if we are

talking -- about. and so that is the math, that comes into play here. so i think at the end of the day for the biden campaign, you just have to control what you can control. you can't control the timing of. this >> do you think short of trial, any of this stuff penetrates? or is it the job? i mean, one of the -- default beliefs of the political class of democratic consultants, is that everyone has already priced in this guy. you've got to run on other, stuff and let his -- do his thing. and i am not quite sold on that. i actually think he will have really forgotten who he, is and i think you actually do have to -- >> i'm not sold on that at all. i'll give you an example from 2000. innate barack obama was to -- what we found in the general election against mccain, is that if we stop running biography -- you always have to remind people okay, and so -- >> that's a great example. >> you've got to raise the stakes. >> who is that guy? again >> i think at the end of, that when you talk about abortion or health care or foreign policy and all that stuff, i think

this is going to come down to enough people saying i can't do it again. and with trump, and you've got to put it >> and you've got to remember what the first time was like, which people block a understand, because it is unpleasant. david plouffe, as always, we are glad to have you here. before we go, a special programming note about tomorrow night. i will be back here at seven pm, for a special our preview and what to expect from the supreme court hears arguments on whether the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment means that trump is ineligible to be on that ballot. that is a special supreme court preview at seven pm tomorrow, before an hour of regular all in, which i will also be hosting. and then on thursday, we're going to have the oral arguments -- that evening, the whole msnbc primetime gang will be here for a special night of coverage hosted by rachel maddow. be sure to tune in for that to. that is all in on this season. -- who will be joining us thirst night for all that, we'll be seeing this to each ot