facts that made of the civil case, and deciding whether to charge that criminally. i assume that he has moved on and decided not to, but that is always a possibility as well. so, these cases are all going on, and there are so many of them. sometimes you could forget about one when you focus on another,. >> well let's just say, donald trump showed up to the court room for the engoron case, because it involves his pocketbook. and that means it matters to. him >> -- so you didn't even need an introduction. are >> such a well versed expert in all of this, i am so appreciative of the time. >> before we go, we have a quick note about tomorrow's program. you will not want to mis-c my exclusive sit-down with former -- former secretary of state and former first lady hillary clinton. there is quite a bit to talk about, that is tomorrow at nine pm eastern, 9 am eastern if you live on the other side of the plan. that does it for us, now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening my friend. >> good evening alex, it's law

school night here for this next hour. >> it is. >> we have andrew luck -- laurence tribe. and stanford historian -- jack rakoff, who is an expert on the impeachment clause. all of their previous statements about this case on this program, have been vindicated today, by the appeals court. and so, each guess will get a victory lap, that's how it's going to. work >> quite a ruling, quite vindication. i will be watching. >> thanks alex, thank you. will >> thanks alex, thank you. well donald trump has many bad days ahead of him, as criminal defendant trump. none will be more painful than the days he spends in winston -- daughters -- >> winston chutkan told the new york times that when he won a scholarship to go to high school in jamaica, quote, i wore shoes and experienced

indoor plumbing for the first time in my life. winston chutkan worked very hard, did very well in high school. he went on to become an orthopedic surgeon, one of jamaica's most prominent physicians. when his daughter tanya arrived in washington from jamaica at age 17 to attend george washington university, she fell in love with the city, and has lived there ever since, except for her for three years as a distinguished student at the university of pennsylvania law school, where she was an editor of -- the tanya's younger sister and brother both followed in their father's footsteps, and became physicians. tanya chutkan served as a public defender in washington d.c., where she married another public defender and had two children. she then became a highly compensated member of a large washington law for. president obama appointed tanya chutkan to a federal -- in 2014, her opponent was confirmed by the united states senate, 95 to nothing. she told her sister then, i

have never been so excited to receive a pay cut. tanya chutkan knows that donald trump thinks her blood is poison, and that her children's blood is poison. donald trump says that immigrants like tanya chutkan are poisoning the blood of america, a phrase that donald trump has lifted directly from adolf hitler. but the proof that judge chutkan bears no judicial prejudice against donald trump whatsoever came today, in the form of a court of appeals opinion in an order that affirmed every single word judge tanya chutkan wrote in her 48-page opinion, in december, -- donald trump's claim of immunity for any crimes he committed while president. judge chutkan's opinion said that the presidency, quote, does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass.

there were many winners today, when the court of appeals opinion was issued. special prosecutor jack smith and his brilliant legal team, the framers of the constitution with alexander hamilton being specifically quoted in the opinion, supporting criminal prosecutions in -- . the american people who believe in the rule of law were very big winners today, and the people who believe in donald trump or once again, like donald trump himself, big losers today. but, the individual biggest winner of the day, was judge tanya chutkan, whose work was studied line by line and word by word by donald trump's lawyers, who tried to rip it apart in arguments to a three judge panel of the court of appeals. and each of those judges, including a conservative republican appointed judge, who was hired -- who are members of the federalist society, agreed unanimously agreed, that judge chutkan was right in every word

she wrote, every word. and so, the day is going to come when donald trump stands trial, and judge chutkan's courtroom, where every day he will be looking up at a judge, who he has publicly and personally insulted by calling her a racist and hurling other insults at her. and he will be looking up at a judge who he has accused, along with every other immigrant who donald trump didn't marry, of poisoning the blood of america, and every day donald trump sits in that courtroom, looking up at judge chutkan, he will be looking at her with raging hatred that he will not be allowed to express in that courtroom, and he will be looking at her in abject fear. which he will admit to no one. the appeals court announced at the beginning of their opinion, that they were siding with judge chutkan's denial of donald trump's immunity, the claim of immunity.

the appeals court wrote, today we affirm the denial. for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump. the court of appeals knocked down every trump argument on immunity, saying we cannot accept foreign president trump's claim that a president has unbounded the 30 to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, through recognition and implementation of the election results. nor can we sanction -- the contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote, and to have their votes count. the unanimous appeals court's decision used the trump lawyers -- about the impeachment clause against them, saying the strongest evidence against former presidents claim of immunity was found in the peach front clause, because it specifies that presidents -- shall never unless be liable and subject to indictment trial, judgment, and punishment according to the law. the court of appeals swept away

the trump claim that criminal prosecution now would amount to double jeopardy after he was tried in the senate impeachment trial on a similar charge. the court said the impeachment does not result in criminal punishments, and the indictment does not charge the same offense as the account -- . the court crushed the trump argument that a former president can only be prosecuted after being found guilty of the same charge in a senate impeachment trial. the court quoted really member of congress in 1798, saying whether a person tried under an impeachment could be found guilty or acquitted, he is still liable to a prosecution at common law. the court said it would be a striking paradox if the president, who's -- with constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, or the sole officer capable of defining those laws with impunity. four weeks ago, don trump sat in the court of appeals hearing room, looking up at the three women judges who heard this

case. judge karen henderson, judge -- , and judge michelle childs. there was no legal reason for him to be in the room. donald trump is of course profoundly stupid, but still not stupid enough to think that his eyes or his hair or his makeup or his red necktie would intimidate those judges. and surely, the dark, twisted coils of donald trump's brain were still able to process the obvious fact that these three women had complete control over him, in this proceeding. they ended their unanimous opinion on page 57 today, with a fully researched and authoritative pronouncement that unsurprisingly reflects everything we heard them say, in the courtroom that day, looking down at donald trump. quote, we have balanced former president trump's asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interest that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. we conclude that concerns over

public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government, compel the rejection of this claim of immunity in this case. we also have considered his contention, that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertively official action that he took as president to contention that is unsupported by precedent, history, or the text and structure of the constitutional. finally, we are an persuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by double jeopardy principles. accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. so ordered. leading off our discussion tonight, andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel, former chief of the criminal division of the eastern district of new york. he is the co-author of the new book, the trump indictments, the historic charging documents with commentary. available on february 27th. also, neal katyal, former acting u.s. -- general. he is the host of the podcast courtside, with neal katyal and

an msnbc legal analyst. neil, i want to begin with you. as the -- expert here, and i would not presume to focus you with the question. i just want to have us all listen to your reaction to what you think are the important points of this opinion. >> well i think that we could very well, lawrence, we look at the very last words about trump's claims of absolute immunity, from the criminal prosecution. and we could be looking at words that would likely force donald trump to go to a criminal trial, for the january 6th insurrection. and most importantly, have that trial before the presidential election. which makes a lot of sense, because the american people deserve to know exactly what happened on that day. and to me, this decision shows our legal system at its best. we've got three judges with dramatically different political views, dramatically different judicial

philosophies. they come together, they produce this brilliant, methodical, timely opinion. it's a model of good judging. i've always felt there's a difference between law and politics. judge anderson is on this case, she is a very conservative jurist, she voted against donald trump, just as much as the other two judges. and it reminds me of those historic votes that are cast. i remember jeffrey sutton, who was on the shortlist of the supreme court, a very conservative judge, upholds president obama's affordable care act, the first judge to so- called, cross party lines. this is what it is about. i mean, no presidential get out of jail free card in our constitution. this is the essence of what american democracy is, and i do not, think and we can talk about -- i do not think the supreme court is going to touch this with a ten foot pole. >> daniel, talk about right now, in terms of what do you think the elements of the

opinion, which once carry the strength that will make the supreme court feel the job is done, they don't need us? >> i think the most important piece is constitutional structure. just as our entire system is basically a rebellion against king george the third, and the idea that people could be above the law in our system. there's lots of small points that are made, some of them are really good, like donald trump himself said in this second impeachment, his lawyers said don't impeach him, because he could be criminally prosecuted. and now, he is turning around and saying oh i can't be criminally prosecuted, because i was a former president. there's lots of small things like that. but to me, the ultimate thing is donald trump's citizen trump, that is the way the opinion ruled. and that is a fundamental principle in our anglo american system of government. no person is above the law, everyone is treated equally, it is what the words on the top of

the supreme court say, equal protection under the law. and that is what this decision is all about, it's why don't think the supreme court will take this case. -- i have to say, in reading it, there is a lot of things i didn't know. i didn't know about that congressman who said this 200 years ago. i didn't really know the marbury versus madison linkage to any of, this and there it is. so there is a lot of illumination about historical detail. but there's not a single surprise. there is nothing surprising about it at all. this is the country i thought i was living in. >> yeah, so there's something incredibly affirming about this. but i think one of the reasons neil and i and many many others or not surprised by, this is the claims that donald trump was making are completely unfounded. there is no precedent for them. this is one where everyone says o'donnell, from he is unprecedented. in a court of law, that is not very good. you need to have precedent on

your side, he didn't. i would like to focus on donald trump, he is fond of saying publicly and walking back his claim, i'm only going to be a dictator for a day, i didn't really mean, it is only one day. look at the decision, in terms of what donald trump is saying. it's not one day, his claims, these are not abstract. he is saying i, when i become president, he is saying i should have unbounded authority to commit crimes. i should not have the check of an electorate to remove me. the quote from the court is at bottom, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers, by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. that is a claim to the d.c. circuit, of being a dictator. that that is what he wants, this idea that oh, i didn't really mean, it is only for a day. no, he tried to get the d.c.

circuit to go along with that. so of course that was going to be rejected. but to me what is preposterous is that this is somebody who is actually a serious candidate to run for office, when he is running on something that you now have a unanimous decision saying this is fundamentally, his view is fundamentally antithetical to the american system of justice. >> neil, it seemed also to read as if it were a memo directly to the supreme court. >> 100%. so, this is the d.c. circuit, it's our nation's second highest court. they sent a lot of those judges up to the supreme court, from the chief justice to many other judges. and they are used to their opinions being looked at by the supreme court. this is an opinion that we call in the trade -- proof. they have really taken there, taken steps to make sure that

every i's dotted, every tee's crossed, so that the supreme court doesn't review it. it is an incredibly well balanced opinion, it is a very polite to donald trump's claims, as ludicrous as they are. i think the court goes out of its way not to use the -- dictatorship. i think, but i think andrew is one hunted percent right, that is donald trump's claim at the end of it. and the court of appeals is resoundingly rejecting it. and so, trump is left with basically, he is going to ask the supreme court to hear, it that takes four justices to agree to hear a case. but more importantly, it takes five to agree to what we call -- mandate. which is not letting judge chutkan have control of this case again. it is really unclear to me that he has got even floor -- for votes, let alone five. and trump's best argument, and we will see i'm sure next week, is he is going to say look, if presidents aren't absolutely immune, every president is

going to be indicted when they leave office. now of course, that's never happened before, and as the court of appeals pointed out today, we've gone through 45 presidents, none of them felt they need to be absolutely immune, trump is the first. and indeed, it is such an indictment of trump, and his claim here. trump can't even imagine a presidential administration that could function without leaving evidence of a crime. which says a lot about the way he governs, it says very little about the way any other presidential administration governs. just to take one example, i worked in the obama administration. i never heard of an example of anyone having a lawyer -- from the president to someone who worked from the white house -- or whatever. and in the trump administration, you knew to not just have a, lawyer that lawyer need to hire a lawyer to represent the lawyer who was representing the person in the white house. >> neal katyal, andrew weissmann, thank you both very much for starting off our discussions on this very important legal night in

america. harvard law professor laurence tribe will join us next. tribe will join us next. [sfx: game controller] when occasional heartburn won't let you sleep. [sfx: game controller] get fast relief with tums+ heartburn + sleep support. love food back and fall asleep faster. ♪ tums tums tums tums ♪ okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪)

okay, so here's my most requested hack for stubborn odors. you'll need vinegar, a large salad bowl and... oh, hi! have you tried new tide fabric rinse? it works after your detergent to fight deep odors 3 times better than detergent alone. i love that. try new tide fabric rinse.

i'm kareem abdul-jabbar. i was diagnosed with afib. i love that. when i first noticed symptoms, which kept coming and going, i should have gone to the doctor. instead, i tried to let it pass. if you experience irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or light-headedness, you should talk to your doctor. afib increases the risk of stroke about 5 times. when it comes to your health, this is no time to wait. 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.

today, harvard law professor laurence tribe tweeted, this is the core of the reasoning, citing this passage, beginning on page 40 of the appeals court decision. at bottom, former president trump's stance would collapse our system with separated powers by placing the president

beyond the reach of all -- presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that as to the president, the congress could not legislate the executive could not prosecute, and the judiciary could not review. we cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law, for all time thereafter. careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former presidents from federal prosecution in general, or from immunizing former president trump for the specific charges in the indictment. in so holding, we act not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance. joining us now is professor laurence tribe, who has taught constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. professor tribe, thank you very much for joining us tonight, very important that we can have

you here. i just want to open the mic to your reflections on this opinion, and actually, i'd like to begin with this. because i know you approach this with a cool, professionalism, and evaluating it as any scientist would, looking through a microscope in a lacquered -- at each one of these words. but what did you feel, what did you feel today when you are turning the pages of this opinion? >> i felt pride, that law still means something in this country, that it is not all politics. i felt pride that finally, arguments that made no sense, that we all knew could not prevail, were systematically, and yet politely, dissected, and basically he left on the cutting room floor. what i also felt was a bit of dismay, because in an ordinary world, it wouldn't really have

given trump an opportunity to delay the start of the trial. a trial that was to have begun in judge chutkan's court on march the 4th. why was it delayed? not because there is some serious legal doubt about the proposition that no one is above the law. not with any of trump's arguments having merit. but because the system is so designed, that in all fairness, even a frivolous argument for absolute immunity has to be considered at the outset, because if it were true that the president was immune from trial the way one would be if there were a double jeopardy claim of the kind he foolishly tried to make.

then having a trial would destroy that right before you could vindicate it. so the court methodically went through all of this. it took a month to write a brilliant opinion, that doesn't surprise me, it doesn't even bother me. what bothers me is the thought that now, even with the acceleration of the process where the court says you have to seek a stay by monday, otherwise we are going to be back on track. despite all of that, we still wonder what is going to happen. i agree with the predictions of most of my colleagues, with neal and with alan weisman. i agree that it is unlikely that the course will -- hear the case. in an ordinary world, it would have no reason to hear it. there was no serious argument, the decision is bulletproof,

there is no basis for thinking it would ever be reversed. and yet, if there are five votes on this court to delay, and thereby create the possibility that he won't be tried before the election, if there are five votes to do that, there will be a stay. i don't think it will happen, but what does it say about the current supreme court, and its eagerness to get its hands on everything, to have the last word on everything, that we aren't sure of it? what does it say that we have to wait until monday, watch to see if a stay is granted. if the court were performing its functions in general, as well as these three judges, we wouldn't worry for a moment, we would know that the court would give the back of its hand to any request for a stay. but it is the very fact that we don't know, and the very fact

that tens of millions of our fellow citizens find appealing the idea of someone who says, i couldn't do my job if i had to worry about whether i was committing a crime. the fact that we have millions of people who imagine putting that person into power. that scares me, and it upsets me. and that is one of the things that moved me as i read this. i thought here on the one hand, we have real law. and on the other hand, we have utter lawlessness, chaos, narcissism, selfishness, and a country that just might put that back into power. and so, i was of two minds. >> so, two things here. one is, is the word president enough? is that enough for the supreme court simply to reach down and take this case? the fact that the word president appears in the case. and then secondly, we saw the

supreme court acts in 16 days on the case involving richard nixon. there is a history here, when the word president is involved, where the supreme court has acted with lightning speed. >> that's true. and it acted with lightning speed when truman seized the steel -- it acted very quickly. in fact, it leap frogged the court of appeals, and did what it declined to do in this case. it was asked to take the case away from the court of appeals and decided quickly itself, it didn't, it waited for the court of appeals. but the question you asked is the word president enough? it may be. the court that sees itself as having the last word on everything of importance, every major question, is to be decided by the court, and not by expert agencies. that kind of court might think well, if it is the president, then we the supreme court have

got to have the final word. and it's not a healthy system, in which we don't know what is going to happen in that circumstance. >> professor laurence tribe, thank you very much for joining us on this important night, really appreciate it. >> thank you lawrence. >> coming up, we have new reporting indicating that judge tanya chutkan might be considering an august trial for donald trump, in this case. we will get andrew weissmann's expert opinion, as a trial practice in, or -- of -- in the case of the united states of america versus donald j trump. that is next. versus donald j t. that is next.

sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand. and wakes up feeling like himself. get the rest to be your best with non-habit forming zzzquil. ♪ ♪ rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone

and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today. can neuriva support your brain health? mary, janet, hey!! (thinking: eddie, no frasier, frank... frank?) fred! how are you?! fred... fuel up to 7 brain health indicators, including your memory. join the neuriva brain health challenge.

you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... including your memory. 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. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message.

kyle cheney reported yesterday in politico that judge tanya chutkan, quote, told attorneys in another criminal case that she intended to be out of the country in early august, unless trump's trial is underway. i hope not to be in the country on august 5th, chutkan said, in a sparsely attended conference for the other criminal case. one of more than 1200 stemming from the january 6th attack on the capitol. if she is stateside, chutkan added, that will be because i am in trial in another matter that has not yet returned to my calendar. chutkan's comment was a clear reference to the trump case. andrew weissmann, that case might be returning to her calendar pretty soon. >> absolutely, she still could

make her august vacation. >> yes. >> this could come back really soon. i mean, we will know either at the end of next week, possibly the week after, whether the supreme court takes this or not. there are lots of permutations people are spinning out. but there is a good chance that the supreme court just says nope, we are not touching this, it really is a frivolous argument. and this idea of staying in this case, where there is a public right to a speedy trial. just to be clear, it's not the governments right, it's not the defendants rights, it's the public's right to a speedy trial that would be implicated if they take it. it's also possible the court says we are going to take it, but we are not issuing a state. meaning judge chutkan could still go forward. >> so, the supreme court says okay, we will take the case. but there is no stay preventing the movement by the trial court, moving forward. >> exactly. because remember, this is -- they are not going to take this

case. >> is it the supreme court assumption in a situation like that, we are sure we will make our decision before the trial starts, or before it finishes? >> absolutely. and it would also have to be the assumption they are not taking the case because they are going to reverse the d.c. circuit. and there is no way that they would take it for. that the only reason they would take it was this idea that we are the supreme court, we should rule on this, because there is nothing in the supreme court on this issue. what you don't want to see is the irony of them taking this case, because they want to be the ones saying okay, there is no presidential immunity, but de facto if it causes a stay of this case, they will make this former president immune, because he will not have a day in court before the actual election. so the idea that it would be this a vehicle that they would choose seems really wrong headed, to make that point. >> yeah, so in trump's mind, delaying and immunity are two sides of the same coin. >> all of the same.

>> so, i read this -- opinion the way people in the trade tend to freedom, which is back page. you've always go to the last page to see what is the ruling, that's where you know it is. and -- you know it's there. and you also look for who wrote it. so, i don't know who wrote it. why don't i know who wrote it? >> so it's fascinating. this is what's called -- . which is latin for by the court. >> so it's unanimous, and there's no names on. it >> exactly. and what -- it means in latin is by the court. so i think there is two, my speculation is there are two reasons for that. one, it is saying this is a court decision. it is not about an individual, it is not some judge who you, donald trump, or your elk are going to be able to criticize. this is the court speaking. and so, it is very much like when a jury comes back, and the judge will say to the jury, you have spoken as one.

this is the representation of what the jury as a whole thanks. and so when you have a decision that -- is it is saying that. the second thought i had, that again is educated speculation, is it does not put a target on any judges had, who is the principal writer. and remember, everyone in that courthouse is very aware that judge chutkan has been the subject of death threats, that is not the only judge, there is a real concern about violence, and i could go on and on about that. but this is a way of slightly distancing the court from that. >> so a latin sugary shield to the three judges. and the senior judge on the -- panel is the one who had the right to offer the opinion, if she so chose? >> absolutely, she as the senior judge could've said or assigned to one of the other two judges. >> so here is another thought that i had when i saw that they

gave this a very limited time for an appeal to the full appeals court. and they say if you appeal to the full appeals, court there is no stay of anything. today, the other members of the court are around, to do -- those three check of the other members and say hey, is it okay if we say? this >> there is no question, the park or they said, by the way if you appeal just to us to re- hear it. >> the full bench of 11? >> if you appeal to the full bench, for them to make that representation, they had to have consulted with the chief judge at the very least about making that. and one of the things that signals also to the supreme court is, this is the d.c. circuit. this is everyone standing behind the rule of law in this opinion. it may also explain, i was one of the people chomping at the bit about where is the decision. that piece of needing to circulated, and making sure that everyone understood and agreed with that idea that

there would not be a stay, is something that would have been circulated. >> yeah, which they usually do. it's just that -- in this case, if they wanted to make sure that the entire bench was on board, that was going to add some time to this. so, we have a situation where if the supreme court does take it, as professor tribe just said, in the truman case or certainly in the neck nixon case, they did in 16 days. there's a version of the supreme court, which we haven't seen probably since nixon, where they can act in two weeks. this doesn't seem to be that supreme court. >> it does not. the one thing i can say that is clear is that when judge chutkan gets the greenlight, and she will, i think there is just a remote, negligible chance that the supreme court could take this grant to stay and sit on it. judge chutkan is going to have this trial before the election. >> so in her saying august is interesting, because she is

saying i will start this trial on august 15th, if i have to. she would rather started in july, she doesn't want to start at postelection. but it seems like she is not going to be concerned with one of the other things on donald trump's calendar. >> she has actually said that. she, in one of the pre trial proceedings, said you know what, what your extracurricular activities are is not my concern. you are a criminal defendant, and you will be treated by all criminal defendants. the fact that you are doing things that you think are important to, and may be important to others, is not the issue. again, the public has a right to a speedy trial on these charges. >> andrew weissmann, thank you for joining us on this historic legal night in america. we really appreciate it. today, our next guest was also affirmed by the court of appeals. and it is pulitzer prize- winning historian jack -- he joins us. next winning historian jack -- he joins us. next felite autoglass.

their experts replaced my windshield and recalibrated my car's advanced safety system. ♪ acoustic rock music ♪ >> woman: safelite is the one i trust. they focus on safety so i can focus on this view. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ if advanced lung cancer has you searching for possibilities, discover a different first treatment. immunotherapies work with your immune system to attack cancer. but opdivo plus yervoy is the first combination of 2 immunotherapies for adults newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that has spread, tests positive for pd-l1, and does not have an abnormal egfr or alk gene. opdivo plus yervoy is not chemotherapy, it works differently. it helps your immune system fight cancer in 2 different ways. opdivo and yervoy can cause your immune system to harm healthy parts of your body during and after treatment. these problems can be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have a cough; chest pain; shortness of breath; irregular heartbeat; diarrhea; constipation; severe stomach pain; severe nausea or vomiting; dizziness;

fainting; eye problems; extreme tiredness; changes in appetite, thirst or urine; rash; itching; confusion; memory problems; muscle pain or weakness; joint pain; flushing; or fever. these are not all the possible side effects. problems can occur together and more often when opdivo is used with yervoy. tell your doctor about all medical conditions including immune or nervous system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ or stem cell transplant, or received chest radiation. your search for 2 immunotherapies starts here. ask your doctor about opdivo plus yervoy. a chance to live longer. (sigh) (snoring) if you struggle with cpap... you should check out inspire. honey? inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information

at inspiresleep.com i'm getting vaccinated... ...with pfizer's pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine. so am i. because i'm at risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. i already got a pneumonia vaccine, ...but i'm asking about the added protection of prevnar 20®. if you're 19 or older with certain chronic conditions... ...like asthma, diabetes, copd, or heart disease,... ...or are 65 or older, you are at increased... ...risk for pneumococcal pneumonia. prevnar 20® is approved in adults... ...to help prevent infections from 20 strains of the bacteria... ...that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. in just one dose. don't get prevnar 20® if you've had a severe... ...allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. adults with weakened immune systems... ... may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain and swelling at the injection site,... ... muscle pain, fatigue, headache, and joint pain. i want to be able to keep my plans. i don't want to risk ending up in the hospital with pneumococcal pneumonia. that's why i chose prevnar 20®. ask your doctor or pharmacist about the pfizer vaccine...

...for pneumococcal pneumonia. are you taking the right multi-vitamin? with new chapter, you get excellent quality, organic ingredients, and fermentation. fermentation? yes. feel the difference with 20 plus nutrients your body can absorb. so you can do you. learn more at newchapter.com. [music “this little light of mine”] in the world's poorest places, children with cleft conditions live in darkness and shame. your body can absorb. they're shunned, outcast, living in pain. you can reach out and change the life of a suffering child right now. a surgery that take as little as forty five minutes and your act of love can change a child's life forever. please call, scan or go online to give a new smile. thousands of children are waiting.

pulitzer prize-winning, stanford astoria -- is an expert on the constitution impeachment clause and three weeks ago on this program, he told us it was a no-brainer, that's a professors phrase. a no-brainer for the court to decide that a former president can be criminally prosecuted without having first been convicted in an appeasement child for the same charge. today, the court of appeals sided with him saying that a former president may be criminally prosecuted in federal court without any requirement that he first be

impeached and convicted for the same conduct. joining us now is a jack, professor of history and american studies, professor of political science at stanford university. he won the pulitzer prize in history for his book, original meanings, politics and ideas and the making of the constitution. professor break off, thank you so much for joining us tonight. i want to get the historians reading of this opinion today to what grade you would give it from the historian perspective? >> i would give it an a or a plus, the first half for two thirds of the opinion. beyond the historian scan, the courthouse makes careful efforts to define jurisdiction, to say jurisdiction was legitimate, to lay out the basis for the ruling.

before i engage in disguise vision, we would not do introduced or insect myself. having said that, the first thing i would say beyond that, and the dapa hind a my original comment was that there are a lot of issues of constitutional blow off which are different by the constitution and ingenious efforts to take the tax and run with it as far as you can, depending on what point you want to prove. as far as myself, we spend most of the time thinking about contacts. it's hard to interpret any tax without an aesthetic the contacts under which it was were, in adopted, discussed or so on. you take a ladder position, as i said a few weeks ago, it was a no-brainer, in the sense, he refuted to take seriously. it's almost impossible to come up with an argument, if you're

well versus. divided on the constitution. i've not heard you come up with any argument that was sustained for trump's case, hard to imagine what purpose with they have been trying to serve from future criminal prosecution, particularly with impeachment. whether impeachment is succeeded or not, the fast this -- the framework is politically distinguish. >> the court pointed out in effect to the trump lawyers, in response to trump lawyers and their opinion today that there is 200 years of american history that is proving them wrong about what they are saying, especially what they are predicting, if a president does not have complete immunity. >> the former president has been making here after, the point, that these prosecutions,

every president henceforth will be vulnerable to a similar or unfair, politically co-opted, falsely resumed, highly duplicity prosecution. it's nonsense. we got down this far, without having anything comparable, in a situation that we're in now. it's what makes me think, with trump, you can't reason at all by way of comparison. there is no figure in american history to which trump or for that matter, to his maga base, and there is no basis of comparison, we are dealing with a unique set of circumstances. the six appellate court, in the care that it took to write its thorough and prudent decision and opinion is as submitted, has that very much in mind. i think where they put the gravitas of the moment that we're living in, and as your guests tonight said, neal and

larry and andrew and so on. i think the courts awareness of what is at stake for the republic, i think informs in several powerful ways the decision of the issue. >> i was reading richard nixon statement today when he accepted his pardon from former president ford. the appeals court opinion sites those two presidents as believing that the former president nixon needed a pardon so that he would not be prosecuted, and in that nixon statement, he says, i accept to the pardon, which was an active accepted see made of this offer protection from current prosecution. he goes on to say that he sorry. he gets vague about what exactly he sorry about. there are plenty of words in there that are unimaginable for donald trump. nixon is the closest we have to a donald trump, before donald

trump. when you read the nixon acceptance of the partisan statement, you realize, oh yeah, nixon isn't a completely different universe from donald trump. he actually does think that there is a right and wrong. he does think that he did wrong, and he does know that he needed this part. >> nixon spent the remainder of his life in writing. what struck me is a curious event, why would you have a burglary in 1972, with nixon in 56, not d.c., when he ran so far ahead of the government, the kind of put yourself at risk, and then to compound it by -- which he was knowledgeable from the beginning, it seems such a colossal error of judgment. nixon was a shrewd politician. he first committed the initial error that compounded with the obstruction of justice. still, as a historian, it's a

problem to solve. >> the thing about trump though is that he never accepts that there are actual consequences. mixon excepted data shunt of consequences. he accepted the notion that the supreme court can tell him what to do. he knew when he listened to the tapes, that he was running big risk in these things that he was doing. he was indeed worried about the law, and he was indeed worried about getting the fbi to look the other way. that was a part of what he was doing, because he knew it was against the law. >> dealing with trump's personality, a psychology, all of the destruction really his whole life, from boyhood on, the biographer psychologists and how many other social scientists will be working on for decades to come, assuming we get there all this. >> that's a point -- i would like to close on this point. this is the kind of case and opinion that is so valuable to

future she story and look at the figure out this puzzle. they will have this 57-page document along with so many others that are so clear. talk about what those kinds of gems will look like to historians, who are finding them, looking at the 100 years from now. >> i think the real gem involves thinking very clearly about the different purposes of criminal trials and impeachments. and, in the sense that the current proceedings as well, because now, we're tied to a limited presidential election. the opinion addresses this, on page 52, it says the impeachment is a political process that is instigated and overseen by the congress. at the end, it's a political process that there is urgency when a president as miss behaved in the way that nixon did, back in 1972, where trump clearly has. it's a defeat at the republic

that concerns us most. the individual liability of the perpetrator, that's another story. i think keeping that distinction in mind is something that all citizens, academics, scholars, and politicians really need to think. >> jack rick off, thank you very much for joining us on this important night. >> thank you, lawrence. >> we'll be right back. right b and longer-lasting relief than tylenol rapid release gels because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. so for faster pain relief, advil the pain away.

♪ 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! ♪ nice to meet ya. my name is david. i've been a pharmacist for 44 years. when i have customers come in and ask for something for memory, i recommend prevagen. number one, because it's effective. does not require a prescription. and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i know it works. and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day.

prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. ♪♪ vicks vapostick provides soothing, non-medicated vicks vapors. easy to apply for the whole family. vicks vapostick. and try vicks vaposhower for steamy vicks vapors.

the nights last where it is the last word that the court of appeals said today about judge tanya chutkan's ruling about donald trump's claim of immunity. the appeals court says that that really is affirmed. that is tonight's last word. the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts right now. phanie ruhle starts right now. tonight, donald trump sweeping claims of immunity rejected by a federal appeals court. what happens next for the former presidents delayed tactics. and then polls closed in about his primary.