issue does not have any bearing on his -- the prospects for his cancer to be cured. >> back out of the hospital tomorrow. do we expect the transfer will happen while he's still in the hospital today or transfer when he's back at work tomorrow. >> seems as if it's going to be tomorrow. he may not be out of the hospital tomorrow. that's not clear. >> okay. >> high that's critical he's got a big meeting that was scheduled to be in brussels on wednesday. the ukraine defense contact group. that will be held virtually. it's not clear if he will be able to take part in it. it's an important time because ukraine needs a lot of help and that's what this meeting was to discuss. >> thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, everyone. it is 4:00 here in new york. i'm alisa menendez in for nicolle wallace. a closed door, high stakes

hearing in the case that seeks to hold the ex-president accountable for a stunning breach of national security. prosecutors working for special counsel jack smith are currently in front of judge aileen cannon discussion the clas fide documents case. that is after donald trump himself and attorneys were before the judge earlier today. it is the first time trump has been before the judge overseeing the documents case. the subject of today's hearing according to abc news reporting from this morning, quote, cannon is scheduled to hear arguments on monday for attorneys for trump and two co-defendants on their defense theories of the case and how any classified information might be relevant or helpful to the defense. special counsel jack smith will present arguments to judge cannon outside the presence of trump's attorneys. it's being held in a sensitive compartmented facility known as a scif, a secure room people look at highly sensitive documents. noerz it's the appropriate venue

for the documents that trump hoarded at mar-a-lago in a bathroom, stage and basement. today's hearing could not be happening at a tenser time. special counsel jack smith and team trump clashing over other issues including witnesses. "the guardian" reports special counsel prosecutors produced to donald trump threats to a potential trial witness after a federal judge overseeing his prosecution for classified documents ordered the exhibit turned over despite the prosecutor's objections, people with the matter said. the exhibit a point of contention because it detail tailed threats made against the witness who could testify against the former president at trial. the matter is a subject of a criminal investigation by a u.s. attorney's office. prosecutors have wanted to withhold it from trump's lawyers. and that is where we start today with msnbc host and legal analyst katy fang outside the courthouse in fort pierce, florida, plus former top prosecutor at the department of justice andrew weissmann and

with me at the table lisa ruben, an msnbc legal correspondent. katie, let's start with you. this is a complicate case because we're talking about how to handle the country's most sensitive national security secrets. walk us through what's being discussed today. >> yeah. so the classified information procedures act known as cifa lays out a detailed procedure by which a case is to proceed. what i do mean by that? in order to prove a case if you're a prosecutor you have to meet certain elements of a crime and in order to prove those elements you need evidence. before you get to the trial setting, you have to go through the discovery process. there's a discovery legal standard that's at play right now and that's what's happening behind us in the federal courthouse in fort pierce. special counsel jack smith is attempting to educate, and i want to emphasize that, because aileen cannon is inexperienced when it comes to classified documents and national security cases. jack smith is trying to educate

aileen cannon on the universal documents that are not only irrelevant to the defense, but not helpful to the defense. so the reason why i emphasize those two concepts because that is the legal standard. in order for the defense to be able to obtain this information from the government it has to be relevant and helpful to their defense. now, just because it may be relevant and helpful does not mean that it gets turned over. it may be turned over in a redacted form. it may be turned over in the form of a summary that are used to substitute for that classified information. but what's critical for people to understand about what's happening right now is there is a section called section 4 of sipa that allows the government to meet with a judge on an ex parte basis with the defense present. that took place january 30th. no defendants were present. jack smith tried to explain to aileen cannon the universe of documents he believes or his team believes should be turned over to the defense.

footnote two, you have a defendant who's donald trump who originally had the classification authorization to look at everything that is pretty much at issue right now, but then you have two co-defendants that never had that security classification. there's two different kind of parallel tracks that are happening. what happened this morning from 9:30 to 2:00 was the defense met with aileen cannon without special counsel jack smith's team and said, here's our theories of defense and that is why the government is now back in there this afternoon to deal with perhaps what aileen cannon is presenting to them as being those defenses to justify ultimately what will be her order, ordering jack smith to turn over certain pieces of classified information. >> help us understand how access to these classified documents are determined? >> the first instance, by the judge or the parties? >> you have to separate it in two buckets. as noted, walt nauta and carlos de oliveira, trump's co-defendants in the case, are differently situated than he is. the presumption having never had

access to classified information they shouldn't be given access to any here. we understand that there are about 5500 pages of classified information in this case, and that government largely wants to wall them off from all of it. with with respect to former president trump that may be different, but i think a lot hinges on how much deference aileen cannon is willing to grant to the government when they say to her, the revelation of this information, even to former president trump and his counsel, who would be obliged to review that information in a scif, could only discuss that information in a scif, under an existing order in the case, even granting them that kind of access, with those parameters, is too risky here given the crimes that have already been alleged, which are all about the willful retention of classified information, about perjury against the other defendants, and even though it's uncharged, about the willful disclosure,

for example, of classified information. >> does it become relevant the fact that donald trump reportedly shared classified information with people who didn't have proper clearance? >> i think it is. andrew can probably say more about this, but there's a school of thought that it's influential in two ways. one, it's reflective of his intent when he willfully retained the documents. seeing that he shared it is a good way of backdooring, did donald trump intend to do that? but also, given where we are right now in these proceedings as katie was detailing, it is a way and opportunity for prosecutors to say look at who this person is, can he be trusted? can his lawyers be trusted not to share it with him, given the nature of those relationships? what we've seen occur and transpire between donald trump and his lawyers to date, not just in this case, but in others. >> andrew, you were name-checked. if there's more you want to add please add it.

there is a filing out today in which you have jack smith calling out team trump's attempt to tie the her investigation with the classified documents case here. you have last week trump's attorneys saying, quote, president biden will not be charged and president trump should not have been either. what is jack smith saying in this response, andrew? >> sure. so let me answer that and then i'm just going to add a quick note on the sipa litigation to give people some background. i've done it both as a defense counsel and when i was at the fbi as general counsel. so this is a pretty routine matter. but first, with respect to donald trump's filing, that's a pretty, as policy, you knew he was going to do this to say, i'm just like joe biden and so you know it's unfair that mike pence is not prosecuted and joe biden is not prosecuted, but i'm prosecuted and it's an example of selective prosecution. that's a loser.

even the rob hur report, as flawed as it is in my opinion, goes out of its way to talk about the differences between the allegations against donald trump and the allegations with respect to joe biden. not the least of which is in one situation joe biden's situation is full cooperation and no obstruction and the reverse in the donald trump situation. he can make that motion. it should lose even before judge cannon. and just to give the viewers a sense of what this litigation sort of really is about, this is really standard. so far there's nothing that judge cannon is doing in terms of the process that's really that unusual or different than what you have in a classified documents case where you hear from both sides separately, and what really is going on is the defense is really trying to figure out how to essentially

use gray mail. they basically want to get the judge to get the government to disclose to them classified information that the government really doesn't want to disclose because if the court goes along with the defense and the government is like i just don't think it's worth it, it really makes it hard to prosecute. a lot of times you get a better plea offer or the case doesn't go forward. so the whole point of this cipa statute is to make it hard for the defense to use gray mail. i would suspect that you're -- that donald trump is privately in his private meetings with the judge trying to talk about all of the classified information that he wants to get his hands on, above and beyond what was at mar-a-lago, and to make arguments about why that is vital to his defense and the government is saying no, don't allow that. and that that is exactly why the statute is in play. this is the kind of issue, though, that government is going to take so seriously that if

they think that judge is wrong here, they have a right under the statute to appeal to the 11th circuit as we know the 11th circuit has not been shy in reversing judge cannon. it has happened twice already. it will remain to be seen whether this goes up for their time to the 11th circuit. >> put a pin in that thought. i want to ask you, katie fang, if you think this comparison team trump is trying to make here with the hur report, the gray mail piece of this, if it is as we have seen from trump's piece really meant more as a political argument? >> yeah. it's more for the posturing than it is for the legality. we've always known that donald trump would assert a collective vindictive prosecution argument no matter where he is being prosecuted, no matter what jurisdiction it is. who is the audience? you know, it's the law, the law

is black and white when it comes to this, the judges may interpret the law differently or incorrectly and we've seen that donald trump has tried to make arguments that are legally based upon which he has lost time and time again. aileen cannon has shown she is a receptive and friendly ear to some of the arguments that have come forward from donald trump. to andrew's point, she's gotten it wrong and so i think at this instance you've seen the government ask for permission to file what we call a sir replay. we saw this filing that included new and original arguments never put forth before. jack smith says i need a chance to file a reply to that. that's kind of a side show to really what is at issue here. this case is about classified documents and national security secrets. that is where the focus has to remain. it cannot be dealt with with the political posture org arguments this is selective prosecution and the hur report is not going to give donald trump what he thinks it is.

he's trying to boot strap with that report and doesn't give him legally or politically the juice he thinks it will give him. >> side show and donald trump. katty phang. the daily beast has some reporting and write back when aileen cannon was a federal prosecutor in south florida cannon worked on case involving a 2015 sting operation that caught two man who planned to rob a fake stash house of half a million of cocaine showing up with two ak-47s. one appealed his conviction claiming he was subject to an unfair selective prosecution on the ground. now that trump is making a similarly spectacular claim, smith's prosecutors have reminded judge cannon that her hard won victory is the very reason she should rule against the former president. defendants can't just demand a government document dump by pointing to some flimsy notion of selective prosecution.

that's what the doj is arguing. is that the type of thing that is compelling to a judge? >> sometimes it is. you have to be careful with it because the judge will oftentimes remember the cases that they litigated as a prosecutor better than you can see them in opinions that are available for public consumption. it's one of those things you have to be careful what you wish for sometimes because i can just as easily see on the other side of an oral argument aileen cannon saying that this case is different from the one before me because the selective prosecution theory in that case was involving racial motivations, for example, and the selective prosecution here is of an entirely different variety. i want to say one other thing about that selective and vindictive prosecution theory. katie is right. he raises it all the time. he has a pending motion on selective and vindictive case in the chutkan case because that case is on hold, but in the florida case it takes on new importance. why? one of the other bases he thinks he can rely on to dismiss the

case doesn't carry the same water in florida. all of the charges, i went through the indictment to confirm this, all of the charges concerned post-presidential acts. any presidential immunity defense, whether it is an absolute immunity defense or caveated on what is official versus unofficial none of them would carry weight even if trump got his way from the supreme court. hence he's putting a lot of next that selective and vindictive basket and trying to get additional discovery from the government that would support it, which is why jack smith is saying wait a second, hold on here, that's not what you said before. you are trying to get a phishing expedition in a motion supported in any event. >> i wanted to save talking about aileen cannon specifically to the end of the conversation and you three would not allow me to do that. you wove your analysis into your other answers. put yourself in jack smith's

shoes. you have a judge with a record of favoring the man who appointed him, who seems to frustrate you at every turn, whose competence has been called into question, which options then do you have when it comes to dealing with judge cannon? >> you know, i think everybody who has been a litigator, whether it's in a criminal matter like katie and i have had or civil matters which lisa and i have had, i think no matter what your litigation experience, you have dealt with judges who are at times difficult or you even think have a pension to one side or the other. the general rule you keep your head down, you're respectful and point out the facts in the law as to why you're right, but when you need to, you appeal them. we've seen the jack smith team do that twice successfully, but

after very respectful arguments and also respectful appeals, and you try to keep your language as you would as any officer of the court, but i think here the law is so strongly in favor of the government when it comes to, for instance, the selective vindictive prosecution, that you really can sort of stress that. i should point out the supreme court has set in the armstrong case an incredibly high standard for when you would be entitled to additional discovery on selective prosecution. this does not come close to it. i think it will be once again another test of the judge. i know i'm not supposed to say the words aileen cannon in this answer, but i think it will be a test to see whether she gets this right, because again, this is the kind of thing i think

that the prosecution really cannot live with certain erroneous decisions and this would be an area where she could trip herself up. i think she's aware of that. >> to the contrary andrew weissmann, this was the one question i was asking you to speak about aileen cannon. katie phang, thank you for spending tile with us. andrew and lisa you are sticking with us. donald trump has just a few hours left to make an appeal to the supreme court asking the justices to take up what was a unanimous decision from an appeals court rejecting his claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. how his moves could impact his other cases as swell. aides of the ex-president floating what plans they have in store for a possible second term, one involving america's immigration policy, planning for a military round up of millions of immigrants led by a private red state army that could be sent directly into blue states. that new reporting ahead. and later in the show, the comment that is sending shutters

down the spines of people here and abroad. donald trump says if re-elected he would allow vladimir putin to attack our allies should they fall behind in military spending. all those stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues after this. hrough thef historic cities and unforgettable scenery with viking. unpack once and get closer to iconic landmarks, local life and cultural treasures. because when you experience europe on a viking longship, you'll spend less time getting there and more time being there. viking. exploring the world in comfort.

spiegel

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. when you shop wayfair, switch today! you get big deals for your home - every day. so big, we'll have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head.

because with savings so real - you can get your dream sofa for half the price. wayfair. it's always a big deal. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ any minute now donald trump is expected to file one last effort to keep his claims of presidential immunity alive. this time to the supreme court. when a federal appeals court rejected the ex-president's argument last week that gave him until today to ask the justices to stay the case. otherwise, the clock will restart.

in that ruling last week the three-judge panel rebuked trump's claims of immunity in the federal election interference case writing, quote, for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump has become citizen trump. all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. we cannot accept the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. with trump's request to have the supreme court step in expected, would put another consequential decision in front of the justices. as "the new york times" notes timing is everything. unless the justices move quickly the trial could be pushed into the heart of the 2024 campaign or past the election. and we are back with andrew and with lisa. lisa, talk me through the different options the court has here. >> the court today, assuming that trump files what we think he's going to file -- >> which is weird he hasn't filed it yet? >> not necessarily. >> if you're donald trump and his legal team you take every minute available to you and

after coming from private practice where we routinely met deadlines at 11:59, i'm not saying i blame them. i think the options here depend on what they file. he's expected to ask the supreme court technically just for a stay or a pause in the lower court proceedings so that he can then file a petition asking the supreme court to review what d.c. circuit did. if you're donald trump you want to elongate that process as long as possible. all you're going to do today in all likelihood is ask for that stay. what the supreme court does in responding to that tells us a lot. because a stay will take five votes, a vote to review a lower court decision takes four. if donald trump doesn't have five votes for a stay, guess what? the clock starts again and judge chutkan doesn't mean she's going to try her case on march 4th but means that clock can start running again with respect to all the pretrial proceedings

that have been on hold and maybe can schedule a trial for eight or nine weeks out, as opposed to beginning on march 4th. >> stay on that point, do you think there's a world in which the court denies trump's application for a stay? >> yes. it is -- this is one where lots of very, very smart people are sort of in a quandary. i won't put myself in the category of the very, very smart people, but i also don't know what they will do. you know, i'll tell you what i think they should do, which is i think they should not take the case. i think that basically if they take the case, it's not going to be because they want to reverse the d.c. circuit. there's no way that donald trump is going to win on that. there's no way he is immune. his arguments have been preposterous. if they grant this, there's a good chance they are de facto giving him immunity because as you noted from "the new york

times" they're delaying things so long. if they really believe that presidents are not immune and the public is entitled to have a speedy trial, that the government is entitled to a speedy trial and the court that set its trial date is entitled to adhere to that, then they should not take this, simply to put it on the d.c.'s circuit decision and say we bless what was done there. i think they should deny it, but i think the other thing they could do is they could take it, but really put it on an expedited basis as other people have noted, when the watergate case happened just to date myself, that was done very, very quickly. but the fear is that they take the case and de facto give donald trump the win, even though they could, you know, say they are affirming the d.c.

circuit, they could take so long in reaching that result, that donald trump will never see the inside of the courtroom on this, the most important of the criminal cases that he is facing. >> lisa, walk through that timeline one more time. say the justices grant a stay and take up the case on an expedited basis. define what an expedited basis could look like. is there a chance the trial still happens before november? >> there is, even if they take up the case on an expedited basis. let me go back and talk about what expedited means, it means whatever the supreme court says it should mean in addition to the nixon case that andrew was referring to, which was decided in about seven weeks in july of 1974, we also have the bush v. gore example between the florida supreme court's decision and the united states supreme court decision, there were only four days. in between, we had briefing and orm argument and an opinion rendered. the supreme court is able to act

with all deliberate speed when it chooses to. the question is, what it wants to do here and that is something that none of us know. i will say that i think the decision in trump versus vance, which is when the manhattan d.a.'s office was trying to subpoena trump for his financial and tax records, it was a subpoena to his accountants but because they were his records it was essentially a subpoena to him, that was decided 7-2 and in that decision, you see a lot of breadcrumbs for where we are now. why would the supreme court say that the sitting president is entitled to know no deference with respect to a criminal subpoena aimed at investigating him if they actually thought he would be immune from prosecution. embedded in that case, and its decision is an assumption that at some point after leaving office, a former president is amenable to prosecution for certain acts. i think many of us think that this falls within any outer limit that the supreme court could set if it sets one. remember the lower court and

judge chutkan both say there are no constraints on criminal immunity. he doesn't have any. >> right. of course, andrew, the reason i ask all of this, it feels like we have watched doors to accountability open and what i think we are all asking is and watching they periodically get shut and so i think there's a great desire to see this door open for as long as possible and know that even if they choose to grant that stay, that there's still hope on the horizon. i want to read you what dolly writes about the justices potentially dragging this out. quote, while it's impossible to predict how the justices would handle what would otherwise be a straightforward case of presidents not being kings, there is reason to think a majority of the justices might kick the can down the road far enough to help trump evade accountability for november. such a move would be indefensible. not whether a majority will agree with trump, it won't, whether a majority abet trump's efforts to run out the clock, it

might. that is what has people nervous here. >> yeah. let me give you one other possibility which, you know, these are -- this is, you know, we're going to know some time, it could be later this week what the supreme court does, but it is conceivable that they take the case, but they don't grant a stay. in other words if they say we're going to heart case because we're going to basically affirm the d.c. circuit and we do want to have that law out there, we're letting the judge go forward and start scheduling things, because there really aren't the votes, just never going to be five votes to reverse the d.c. circuit. there's so many variables as to how they do it, whether they take it, is one issue, whether they take it and issue a stay, is the other, because the stay is what everyone is focused on because if they don't issue the stay, as lisa correctly points

out, judge chutkan has the green light to go forward. there's a lot of pretrial work that needs to be done. that would mean we would have the trial, you know, i would think in the next couple months, that case would be starting. we could see both the manhattan criminal case go forward at the end of march and then see this case go forward let's say in june. there's a whole variety of possibilities, but everything is going to be contingent on what is the supreme court going to do. are they going to grant that stay or not? the papers are filed. now you can be sure that jack smith has his papers ready to go, like i'm sure they are written and ready, and they will read exactly what donald trump does today. i would expect they could file as soon as tomorrow and say this is front and center before the supreme court on the issue of whether they will grant a stay. >> we will be watching for that

tomorrow. andrew weissmann and lisa ruben, as always, thank you so much for spending time with us. up next, if we think the immigration issues are dividing this country, just wait. toop and donald trump and his aides plan to conduct the largest deportation in history beginning on day one. beginning on day one ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur.

tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. moving forward with node-positive breast cancer is overwhelming. but i never just found my way; i made it. and did all i could to prevent recurrence. verzenio reduces the risk of recurrence of hr-positive, her2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer with a high chance of returning as determined by your doctor when added to hormone therapy. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an anti-diarrheal , and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising.

blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making my own way forward. talk to your doctor about reducing your risk. 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. 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 adding downy unstopables and i apto my wash.message. now i'll be smelling fresh all day long. [sniff] still fresh. ♪♪ get 6x longer-lasting freshness, plus odor protection. try for under $5! nothing brings us together like eggland's best eggs. always so fresh and delicious. plus, superior nutrition. for us, it's eggs any style. as long as they're the best. eggland's best. we have breaking news as we mentioned could happen at any moment. trump has just requested a stay

before the supreme court of the federal election case. lisa ruben is back with us and reading this, as we get it. you've had about a minute and a half. what have you processed? >> one of the things that's important for our viewers to understand is the standard for grants a stay. >> sure. >> and in order to get a stay as opposed to substanley asking for a supreme court review, you have to show there would be harm to you, harm no money could compensate you for, that you would be harmed by just the very act of this case moving forward. the arguments that trump is trying to make here with respect to the stay, aren't just about him, but i notice that he is arguing that his supporters would have their first amendment rights violated by the fact that he would go to trial. i'm confused by that because no one is saying that the trial of former president trump would preclude people from voting for him. no one is saying that a

conviction of former president trump on the charges here would preclude voters from choosing him in the upcoming presidential primaries or in a general election. so one thing that i'm really eager to do is to dig into this argument of how his legal team is conceptualizing the first amendment damage to his supporters from the very fact that he could stand trial in the next months. >> given that we now have this in hand and granted we have done a cursory reading of it. >> at best. >> at best. i'm nothing, you're nothing, if not a quick study, the audience here, of course, is the justices. i get that broadly. i wonder as you craft an argument like this, especially given that there may be some surprises in the way this was crafted, are you strategic about which justices you believe you are messaging to? >> i think you are. i'll give you a couple that i think people -- one of the --

let me step back for a second. one of the reasons there's wide disagreement on what could happen here, everything from the scenario that andrew was laying out for you about how much time the justices could take in terms of kicking this out until october or beyond versus a quick denial of the stay and allowing the case to go forward, there's questions about how certain justices would behave here. the question mark for people that i talk to is justice kavanaugh. justice kavanaugh prior to being appointed to the d.c. circuit when 37 years old, sort of staggering to think about, was the white house staff secretary to former president george w. bush, he holds the office of the presidency in extraordinarily high esteem. he reveres the white housend and the executive office of the president. how that cuts here is something that's hard to understand. is justice kavanaugh going to be a vote for presidents having some degree of criminal immunity

and is he still willing some immunity is appropriate here to rule in this case that allegations against donald trump, if taken as true, as the justices are obliged to do, are so beyond that outer limit that the case against him can go forward? i think he might. >> i want to bring andrew weissmann back into this conversation. hotel california, check out, you never leave. you were reading this along with used on our friend lisa is desperate to do a deep dive into this. i will give her a minute to do that. at first blush what strikes you? >> two things. the first is the incredibly inappropriate first sentence. >> this is deja vu all over again. citing yogi berra. if you were going to be snarky, they might as well have cited

yogi bear. that is just a bizarre way to start on a -- on something they are asking the supreme court, remember this is the -- these are the lawyers for donald trump, where donald trump and his lawyers, have said their position is that the president of the united states can kill people and as long as he hasn't been impeached successfully -- there's impeached and convicted for it -- he cannot be prosecuted. so that, for something this serious, that is a bizarre, really bizarre first sentence and so i think has a real tint here. stressing this argument here about -- they're sort of shifting i think a bit their theory, which is that all of the

actions that are charged by jack smith within the outer bounds of what a president can do, but the problem with that is, a very, very well-represented 11th circuit judge, the chief judge, juts prior, has rejected that in connection with a decision that judge prior wrote in connection with mark meadows. i don't think leading with that kind of argument after leading with -- after the first sentence is yogi berra, going to an argument that you know that judge prior has rejected, both of those are not terribly, in my view, strong ways to start. but i should caveat that with like you, i am sort of speed reading and this is just my initial impression, it may be unfair to the full submission. >> i promise i'm going to go back to lisa in a second so you

can continue your speed reading but i have a question about your analysis, which is why shift your argument here if you're team trump? why take that tack now? >> well, the d.c. circuit was a blowout that the idea that you were sort of leading where this idea that you can have -- that you said to a judge that s.e.a.l. team six could kill people on presidential order is one you have to have a better response. you have to have a better argument than that. and to be fair, it is often the case that as matters go up the chain to the supreme court or even from a district court to a court of appeals, that different lawyers or even the same lawyers, will hone their argument and realize that they have better arguments that are

more responsive to issues raised by the various judges as the case progresses. in some ways it's a sign of good lawyering, that you are thinking about and trying to assess what the strengths and weaknesses are of your argument and how they could respond to questions you would get from various justices or judges along the way. >> lisa, you've had three more minutes. what are you hearing? >> i looked at what his argument is about the irreparable injury to him and legally it's not particularly strong. first he says that if he's immune, he doesn't have to stand trial at all. but for many people, the act of standing trial is a hideous expense, an extraordinarily disruptive to their lives. we're talking about a guy who is using a leadership pac as his slush fund to the tunes of dozens of millions of dollars

and probably has not spent a personal dime in defending this case at all. when i look at his filings i see the names of dozens of law firms i recognize many of which have been involved in this case. he says it would radically disrupt his campaign for president if he's forced to stand trial. i wish some of our political colleagues were on air with us right now because i bet folks like garrett haake and vaughn hillyard and jake trailer and others could tell you president trump isn't on the campaign trail that much. he's on during weekends but finds ways to get his messages oupt and the most effective way seems to be truth social which doesn't require him to be in any one particular place and doesn't require him to be in any one particular state. his third argument about the irreparable harm goes back to the first amendment thing. >> for voters. >> the voters are entitled to hear his campaign message as

they decide, making an argument their exercise of first amendment rights is dependent on his right and ability to travel the country. this isn't a guy who is barnstorming america in a bus. we have not seen that donald trump in some time. in fact, trump force one is grounded more often than it is in the air. none of this to me establishing the sort of irreparable harm a good federal court would insist on in grants a stay of any nature at the district or supreme court. >> what it does, andrew, falls in the larger pattern from team trump where they try to say it is not just his first amendment right under attack, supporters' first amendment right under attack, that they are not just coming after him, they're coming after them. that would be a continuation of at least the political argument? >> yeah. i mean, i have maybe a slightly different take than lisa on first read, which is agree with her that legally, i agree with

her analysis, but i think the subtext of what he is saying is, don't worry about the argument that you're going to hear that this could lead to the trial not happening, because that really shouldn't happen anyway, because that trial is going to make it sort of -- is going to interfere with my ability to run for office, so that sort of downside, don't worry about that. i mean, i think that's the subtext of knowing that is the main reason not to take this case, that they're saying he's dealing with that issue. you're going to see that battleground, whereas i think that one thing you'll hear, i think, i hope, from jack smith, is there's statute called the speedy trial act. that is so that federal criminal trials are heard quickly, and that statute is in place not just to protect defendants and

the government so that trials can proceed at a pace, but protect the public's right to a speedy trial, meaning it doesn't matter if even when the government and the defense agrees that a trial should get put off, the judge has to make a finding that it's in the public's interest because it's there to protect our right to a speedy trial, assuming, of course, that that trial can be -- can proceed consistent with due process. so i think you may hear about that, but i also think to lisa's point you're going to hear about how to get a stay, this doesn't really meet the legal standard because there isn't a likelihood of success and there isn't going to be the necessary harm in this case because there really shouldn't be a snowball's chance that this is going to be a decision that reverses the d.c. circuit to say a president of the united states has the

ability to kill people as part of this presidential functions, and i completely agree with lisa that there are justices, not just in the so-called liberal wing of the supreme court, but also ones who are more identified with the conservative wing, who do not see the presidency that way. so in many ways, the way that we are i think seeing so many justices who may be aligned in reversing the colorado disqualification case, we could see the same lopsided decision if the supreme court were to take this, the other way on the immunity issue. >> lisa, help me understand a technical piece of this, you have the trump team asking the court to keep the case paused while he files for enbunk review from the circuit. such a review is rarely granted it requires the judges to vote in favor of the review. seem unlikely he would have the

votesp is it just then a way to delay? >> he's asking for stay pending either a grant of enbunk reverse or the term for review by the supreme court. the reason he's asking for a stay pending review because the d.c. circuit panel that decided this appeal, refused to give it to him and said you have until february 12th to file a motion to stay for the supreme court. but if you file an enbunk petition by then that won't stay the case unless and until a majority of those active judges vote to rehear the case. they were basically trying to say to donald trump, you got to choose a lane and do it fast so that he wouldn't just seek enbunk review run out the clock on that and then turn to the supreme court which in the ordinary course a litigant could. they understood the panel of three judges who upheld judge chutkan if they let him do that, this could go on for months. it's the nightmare scenario for

justice that andrew was sort of playing out in our last segment. i want to say one other thing if i can, is that andrew reminded me as he often does, that in order to get a stay you have to show two things, you have to show the second thing that i talked about which is that you would be irreparably harmed unless you get a stay, but you have to show a likelihood that you will succeed on the merits of your appeal. which means five judges here, again, have to vote that they believe trump is likely to prevail. i just don't see where those five votes are going to come from come from. and so therefore, if he grants the stay -- or if there are five judges who will vote for the likelihood of success, then i think you can assume there will be review of the underlying decision and hopefully it will be swift but not necessarily. if on the other hand there aren't five judges i think you can also assure yourself that maybe they'll get review but it won't be to reverse the d.c. circuit's opinion. >> i want to bring into our

conversation maya wiley, former assistant u.s. attorney and president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. maya wiley, i want to hear from you on the argument that you have team trump making, that this is a first amendment injury to american voters. that's pretty rich coming from the former president. >> yeah. you know, look, it's like saying you can't prosecute me because i have people who have a voice and a vote. which actually goes back to the question of the 14th amendment ballot case more than tone. i mean, imagine any politician arguing that they can take a stance that violates u.s. law and then say you can't do anything about it because i have people who vote for me and that's a first amendment protection. it doesn't really make sense. but i think it goes back to a

pattern we have seen from donald trump himself and from his campaign, which is to regularly assert the first amendment as a way to protect him from conduct which quite frankly and often results in people being offended, concerned, and particularly when it comes to our democracy very concerned about what are the boundaries of power for a president. which is certainly that the president or any elected person has the ability to have their own viewpoints and to share them. but where does it cross the line when it comes to actions that actually undermine the constitution of the united states or our laws? and there really is no first amendment defense to the question of prosecution unless it goes directly -- which you know, donald trump can assert in the criminal prosecution is i didn't violate the law, i didn't

incite insurrection, i didn't incite violence on the capitol that day, it was not a conspiracy. he can assert that and say i was just asserting my first amendment rights. that's very different from the question of should he be tried on an indictment that found sufficient evidence to take him to court. i just want to add one other historic note here, alicia, that i think is really important. you know, during the watergate proceedings leon jaworski after richard nixon resigned when he was considering whether or not they should indict the former president clearly assumed, as did many, that this was something that you could do. you could actually indict a former president. the fact that he's running for office goes back to the points you've already heard from andrew and from lisa, which i agree with. >> there's -- part of what the trump lawyers wrote here,

andrew, that i don't think is particularly surprising but i want to make sure we get to. they write if trump's prosecution is allowed then such prosecutions will recur and become increasingly common, ushering in destructive cycles of recrimination. again, andrew, that's an argument we have heard from team trump before. >> so the level of projection is astounding and the idea, this is sort of hey, if i do this i would indict people all the time. i'm happy to weaponize the department of justice. here's the simple response to that in terms of gee, everyone would do it. well, that's been the law for over 200 years and it hasn't happened. so this parade of horribles of gee, if you allow this to happen we're going to see prosecutions all the time, well, we haven't. as maya wiley just pointed out, everyone has assumed, including, by the way, brett kavanagh, who worked on the starr investigation, that presidents

can be indicted when they're out of office. so this idea that you will see this sort of tit for tat, it hasn't happened. one of the reasons you haven't seen presidents indicted for insurrection is because the lack of presidents who engaged in insurrection. it has nothing to do with the law changing. it has to do with donald trump and his action that's have been charged in this case. so i don't think, to lisa's point, i do not think there will be five votes for this view of the presidency. i don't think they would view this as adhering to what it means to be in democracy. the only reason i could see them taking this case is because they want to be on record saying this about the law, that is, in other words, to have the supreme court setting out what it is that the

d.c. circuit has said. but the problem with that is they don't have the time. that if they were to do that they would be de facto giving donald trump a win. so that is the conundrum that they are in. they may very well want to be upholding that principle, but the d.c. circuit laid out, but this in many ways is exactly the wrong case to do it because they will de facto be saying he is immune because he may not get to trial in time, unless they were to do this very quickly or take the case but not grant a stay. in other words, to let judge chutkan go forward with the pretrial proceedings. >> andrew weissmann, i have about ten seconds left, which is to say snap-a-doodle. how long do you think it will take the supreme court to respond here? >> i'll go out on a limb and say within the week you should be getting a decision. and as i said, i think that jack

smith, i'd be surprised if he does not respond. he has an incredible legal team. i've dealt with the lead lawyer there, michael dreben. you do not get better than michael dreben. i would be surpriseed if there is not a submission by tomorrow. that's how good and fast and adept they are. and that opinions that the supreme court will have it for decision, so it could be even this week that the supreme court will let us know what they're going to do. >> which means, friends, we are going to have to be equally good and equally fast on what already promised to be a very, very busy week. we're going to continue reading this filing. lisa's going to be back with us a little later on. maya and andrew, as always, thank you. still ahead, the alarming remarks from donald trump that is putting the world on edge. much more news still to come. we're going to be right back. we're going to be right back ♪ 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! ♪

♪everything i do that's for my health is an accomplishment.♪ ♪concerns of getting screened faded away♪ ♪to my astonishment.♪ ♪my doc gave me a script i got it done without a delay.♪ ♪i screened with cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪ two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california.r for cologuard. 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. growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message.

won't stop giving to vladimir putin. he thinks, i'm sure, donald trump thinks this makes him sound strong but it just makes him look like an incredibly weak leader. weak in not bolstering our alliances, weak in undermining our security. we have benefited from that nato alliance as much if not more than any other nation. and for him to belittle it this way, for him to signal to our allies you can't rely on america anymore, it just couldn't be more dangerous and destructive. hi again, everyone. it is 5:00 here in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for nicolle wallace. in the past donald trump has told russian president vladimir putin to go find hillary clinton's e-mails. he's sided with putin over the u.s.'s own intelligence. he has very publicly complimented the russian leader. and he has blasted the nato alliance. all words that were music to putin's ears. as you just heard, congressman adam schiff say, he's the gift

to putin that keeps giving with comments this week no exception. at a rally in south carolina trump brought his nato attacks to a whole new level, making comments that the white house called appalling and unhinged. here is the likely gop presidential candidate over the weekend. >> nato is busted until i came along. i said everybody's going to pay. they said, well, if we don't pay are you still going to protect us? i said absolutely not. they couldn't believe the answer. one of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by russia, will you protect us? i said you didn't pay, you're delinquent? he said yes. let's say that happened. no, i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. you've got to pay. you've got to pay your bills. >> okay. so the reason we played that sound is we want to talk about what we just heard. pretty much the exact opposite of nato's article 5 commitment which says an attack against one is an attack on all.

not only would trump not protect an ally who he believes is not paying enough, but he would actively encourage russia to go after them. nato's secretary-general, jens stoltenberg, slammed the former president's comments. quote, nato remains ready and able to defend all allies. any attack on nato will be met way united and forceful response. any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the u.s., and puts american and european soldiers at increased risk. tom nichols at "the atlantic" writes this about the shock waves of trump's comments. "here in the united states we've become accustomed to treating trump like an angry child, ignoring his outbursts the way parents ignore a toddler who shouts threats and claims to hate mommy and daddy during tantrums. but other nations do not see an overaged juvenile. they see a man who once held the keys to the u.s. nuclear arsenal and who could once again become the commander in chief of the american military. they are watching him because they believe, as they should,

that he is telling them exactly what he will do if he returns to office." and that is where we start this hour with admiral james stavridis, nbc news chief international analyst and former supreme allied commander of nato. admiral, i watched you shake your head throughout that entire introduction, and i understand why. to put this article 5 commitment in perspective, the first and only time it was invoked was afternoon 9/11 and in an e-mail exchange with "the new york times" yesterday poland's foreign minister reiterated that fact and said poland sent a brigade for a decade. we did not send a bill to washington. how would turning our back on our allies make them and the united states more vulnerable? >> i just have to play that sequence in my mind in front of the first supreme allied commander of nato, general eisenhower, who went on to be a president, two-term president of the united states. he would be appalled and astounded that language like

that. it's so foolish and counterproductive. you know, alicia, we've gone from ronald reagan standing up and saying mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall, and he could do that because nato won the cold war. now we hear a presidential candidate say mr. putin, attack nato, do whatever you want to them if they don't pay their dues. and by the way, there are no dues in nato. this is not mar-a-lago country club. each nation builds its own defense budget. they have a goal of about 2%. they should all seek to hit that goal. but the idea this alliance is that we stand together, we fight together, and to the comment from our polish colleague, that brigade, the white eagle brigade fought under my command in afghanistan, fought bravely in a very difficult part of

afghanistan, ghazni, took many, many casualties. why were they there? they were there because the united states of america was attacked. our nato allies, in fact, did not send a bill, nor did they need to. we need to stand together. trump's comments are just beyond the pale. >> admiral, yesterday you heard former gop presidential candidate chris christie speaking about just how much more emboldened donald trump this time around. take a listen. >> what poses as a national security is the possibility he could be president of the united states again. that's what poseses the national security risk because we need to take him at his word, kristen. and the fact is that as i've said earlier, donald trump when he came into office in 2016 was scared. he was afraid to be president. he was afraid of mistakes he would make. he knew he was not ready. and so as a result he listened to a lot of very good people around him like general mattis, general kelly and others, about these issues. in a second term he would not.

>> that is what we know, admiral, right? that another trump term would not have the same guardrails that the first one did. given that context, what worries you most? >> two things. number one, an emboldened putin because part of this would be nato, as trump is withdrawing from it and europe therefore is weakened, the support for ukraine weakens. you can see a scenario in which putin then sweeps across ukraine conferencers it. ukraine is full of oil, gas, wheat, corn, vast upcheck for putin and it emboldens him potentially to keep going. and then secondly, if we have a second trump presidency and he pulls out of nato and his policies are erratic, we won't get our european allies to come with us to help us, for example,

fight houthi pirates in the red sea, to challenge china in the south china sea against their claims of territoriality over that entire vast body of water. nato benefits the united states collectively as an alliance. we need to recognize that. and final thought, alicia, anecdote. i got an e-mail from a british admiral i've known for 30 years asking me does donald trump think nato is some kind of protection racket? think about that for a minute coming from our greatest pool of allies. if we walk away from nato, where are we going to find another pool of allies with a collective capability of nato, $300 billion defense budget collectively second largest in the world, only after the u.s., bigger than china, triple the size of russia? nato is good value for our

engagement. >> i should underscore here, though, admiral, that donald trump is not in power. right? it is the risk of donald trump on the horizon that we all see. this administration, president biden, how do they then reassure our allies given that potential threat? >> all they can do is what they have been doing since the day they came into office. and frankly, this plays to one of joe biden's strengths. people know him around the world. long-term senator on the foreign relations committee. obviously vice president for eight years. when he came to nato when i was supreme allied commander, he was able to literally walk around the big table. he knew everybody at the table. those kind of personal reassurances will be helpful. but make no mistake. the europeans are watching. they are worried. and that undermines all of our security. >> admiral james stavridis, as

always, thank you so much for spending some time with us. i want to bring into our conversation former deputy national security adviser to president obama ben rhodes. also with us, u.s. senator claire mccaskill. ben, i just got to wonder what authorityians like vladimir putin, xi jinping, what they're thinking right now. >> well, i mean, this is exactly what they want. and it's already having impact. i think other countries are beginning to game out the scenario as we were just talking about where the u.s. is basically pulling out of nato and leaving europe to its own devices. and to be clear, the way in which nato is designed, even if all those countries are paying up to the 2% commitment of gdp for their defense, it is still the fact that -- we had contingency plans in the obama administration. in any contingency in which eastern european countries like the baltic states that are along the periphery of nato, in any case in which they're attacked nato's plans involve the united

states providing support. they're not going to be able to defend themselves effectively without the united states. so if you're putin you're thinking, well, i don't need to negotiate anything with ukrainians, i just need to hold the territory i have and play a waiting game for donald trump to come in and then i'll know that the spigot of weapons is going to be totally turned off to the ukrainians. it's already on pause because of the maga people in congress. and then yeah, then i have a field day in ukraine and then i potentially can look at other parts of europe that i might want to start destabilizing or maybe even moving into like ukraine. that's what putin's thinking. and xi jinping is thinking in china, i have an entirely alternative world order mime putting forward, one in which might makes right, one in which i can push around my neighbors, north korea can make a move on south korea, china can make a move on taiwan. and if the united states is out of the business of standing by allies then i think every autocrat in the world is going to make moves that they want. the kind of sense of violence and chaos we're seeing today, that could pale in comparison to what could happen early in the

trump presidency if a putin and a xi jinping and a kim jong un, who he's described as, you know, a close friend of liz, if all those people feel like well, now's the time to make my move. and that's a really scary and dangerous reality for the united states and for the world. >> so claire, given the stakes, given the violence and chaos ben just spoke to, i want you to take a listen to how marco rubio and others are standing by trump's comments. >> he's not the first american president -- in fact, virtually every american president at some point in some way has complained about other countries in nato not doing enough. you know, trump's just the first one to express it in these terms. but i have zero concern because he's been president before. i know exactly what he has done and will do with the nato alliance. but there has to be an alliance. it's not america's defense with a bunch of small junior partners. >> he has zero concerns, claire. in fact, he's so comfortable that he's willing to carry the former president's water. and the reason it was important to me to play that sound is yes,

it's donald trump. but it's also a republican party that has been remade in his image. people who are in power right now who believe in his entire america first ideology. they are equally dangerous. >> yeah. what's occurred in the senate in the last few days is startling to me. up until now mitch mcconnell has been able to hold together the majority of the republican caucus for sanity when it relates to foreign policy. now, keep in mind this is a republican party of reagan and eisenhower. this is a republican party that used to lecture us about freedom, about the right to vote, about freedom of speech and freedom of religion and how important it was to stand with our allies in terms of democracies because of bad guys like putin and kim jong un and xi and all the autocrats that trump worships. now look what's happening. you have a vote and you have lindsey graham, one of the

biggest hawks in the armed services committee, served in the military. you have tom cotton, couldn't be more hawkish. served in the military. you have people like that that are now voting against aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan. it is bonkers. it is hard to explain. and when marco rubio says that, i call b.s. because the reason nothing happened his first term is because general mattis was there. because general kelly was there. they were stopping him. milley was there, stopping him from doing this crazy stuff. he's not going to do that again. he's going to put sycophants in there. it's going to be peter navarro and all those nuts that are going to surround him doing whatever he wants to do. so he can go down the same road of being an autocrat just like the people he admires across the world. >> and then there's the taliban, which is -- there has been

legislative efforts to curtail his power. from the "new york times," foreseeing the possibility of an american retreat from the world if mr. trump returns to office, congress recently passed legislation barring any president from withdrawing from the nato treaty without senate approval. but mr. trump would not even need to formally quit the alliance to render it pointless." help me understand that, ben. >> well, look, the congress could pass a bill saying we can't formally withdraw from nato without congressional approval. fine. so then the u.s. will remain a member of the alliance. but you know, i was in the white house for eight years. stuff doesn't happen if the commander in chief doesn't sign off on it. so let me just give you really quickly three scenarios. a scenario in which russia's grinding down the ukrainians and they're not getting resupplied. then they take kyiv. donald trump's not going to lift a finger. what happens then if donald trump -- sorry, if vladimir putin -- confused two guys that have a lot in common. if vladimir putin decides to make a move on other european

countries like the baltic states, small countries that are along that border. and starts moving in so-called pro-russian separatists and then the russian military moves in. if donald trump doesn't authorize the u.s. military to provide support to those baltic countries, it doesn't matter if we're still on the list of countries in nato. he's not going to do that. i don't think anybody bel he will. and i'll add another one to this mix because i mentioned it earlier. there have been very worrying reports in recent months of north korea being more emboldened because of its close alliance with russia, because of the way in i with china's moved away from the united states. kim jong un could decide to make a move on south korea, where there are u.s. troops, by the way. does anybody believe that donald trump would go to war with his friend, who he wrote love letters with, kim jong un, in that scenario? and again, i think americans are right to ask questions about, well, what's in our interest and should these countries pay more for the defense, and we can talk about that. but the implications for the united states, i mean, even if you're just talking about the economy, imagine the disruption,

the economic circumstances of the united states if taiwan semiconductor industries, south koreans' role in the global economy, europe is engulfed in a war. that's going to have shock waves, earthquake underneath the global economy never mind obviously putting at risk the values that americans are supposed to stand for. so it doesn't really matter if congress tries to make itself feel better by saying they have to stay in nato under donald trump. he's not going to come to the aid of those allies and everybody knows it, alicia. >> well, to underscore, claire, what ben is saying. we were talking on the show about how the upcoming election is about saving american democracy. this latest comment from trump, it reminds us that yes, it is about democracy here, it is also about saving democracy abroad. >> yeah. and i think people need to remember that the foreign policy that was all about ronald reagan and strength through the cold war and checking the ussr and

dealing with a much weakened bad guy -- and don't forget, putin's a bad guy. he's a thug. he's a murderer. he kills people who disagrees with him. he assassinates people who try to hold him accountable. there is no freedom in russia. there is no freedom in china. so really what we're talking about here is we're talking about a situation where you have a republican party that is abandoning the very things that define them as a party for years. and you've got a guy leading the parade that doesn't understand that it's our national security ultimately that's at stake here. we are only as safe as other democracies around the world. and don't kid yourself. these bad guys aren't going to stop at kyiv. they're not going to stop at estonia. he'll keep going. poland and other countries in europe would be in jeopardy. and we would do nothing? we would do nothing to protect those countries that really do

respect freedom? that's just astounding to me. and the republicans in the senate that are going along on this ride should be ashamed of themselves. >> ben rhodes, claire mccaskill. claire, i am so sad that we didn't get to sit here and talk about your super bowl victory. that would have been a much more fun conversation. thank you both so much for getting us started. when we return, the disgraced ex-president once again reverting to a familiar pattern, disparaging the men and women of the united states military. this time it was about nikki haley's husband. and their response was swift and it was sharp. that is ahead. plus a live update from the middle east, where two hostages have been freed and a deal to release the rest may be getting closer. we continue to pore through the requests by donald trump to the supreme court to block the ruling protecting his claim of immunity in the election interference case. we'll have more on that later in the hour. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. n't go anywhe. t once? kayak. i like to do things myself.

i do my own searching. it isn't efficient. use kayak. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. aaaaaaaahhhh! kayak. search one and done. t-mobile built a 5g network so powerful, it goes beyond the expected. and now, t-mobile 5g internet for homes and businesses is here. just 50 bucks a month with no exploding bills or annual contracts.

introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. it can help you get clearer skin. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla.

the ex-president's disturbing attacks over the weekend went even beyond america's nato allies to yet again our very own service members. when he questioned the whereabouts of nikki haley's husband, major michael hailey, who is currently serving a year-long active duty deployment in africa with the south carolina army national guard. of which donald trump is well aware. and this amounts to just the latest in trump's long and very public history of disparaging comments about military heroes and active duty troops. despite never having served a day in his life thanks to five controversial deferments from the vietnam war. after quickly firing back over the weekend here's what haley said this afternoon. take a listen. >> this wasn't a slip of the

tongue for trump. when he goes off his teleprompter that's him speaking from the heart. and it's a pattern. donald trump's never come anywhere near a military uniform. apparently, he had bone spurs and that's why he couldn't serve. he's never had to lay on the ground like a military man or woman would. he's never had to fight for survival like so many of them sacrifice to go do. the most harm he's ever come across is whether a golf ball hits him on a golf cart. and you're going to go and mock our men and women in the military? i don't care what party you're in. that's not okay. >> president joe biden too had this to say about trump's disrespect of military members. "we know he thinks our troops are suckers. this guy wouldn't know service to this country if it slapped him in the face." joining our conversation, retired u.s. marine corps lieutenant and founder of democratic majority action pac amy mcgrath. and with me at the table founder

of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america and host of the independent americans podcast, paul rieckhoff. amy, we've been here before. we've talked about all this unsurprising but just as alarming. your reaction to what you've heard from the former president. >> this is just another one in a long line of donald trump giving the middle finger to those people who have served this country and their families. i mean, this is what he's done. look, in the past he's called veterans suckers and losers. he went to the war -- the graves of war dead, american war dead in europe and turned to the person next to him and said, you know, i don't get it, what was in it for them? why did they do this? you know, he doesn't understand what service is. he famously mocked john mccain and said "i only like people who weren't captured." he wouldn't sit next to a wounded post-9/11 veteran during

a parade because he said it looked bad for him. i mean, seriously. this is the guy who wants to be commander in chief again. and the most disturbing thing about all of this to me is really not donald trump. he's shown us who he is. it's the fact that republicans in congress and republican leaders around the united states still follow this man. after -- where is the party that used to be the party of national security, that used to be the party of veterans, and they're still following him. every single republican member of congress should be made -- should answer this question. why do you follow a man that disparages veterans as much as donald trump does? >> especially, paul, when you have nikki haley setting up such a distinct contrast. right? talking very clearly about the sacrifices that she and her family have made in the name of service to this country, talking about the fact that donald trump

has no such experience, doesn't even have reverence for that service. and the line between them is not partisan. they are both republicans. so that should give republicans an opportunity to line up behind her, even if you're not going to say she's my candidate, to just say i stand with her in terms of how i see people who have chosen to serve this country. >> they should. but they won't. donald trump is a disgusting human being. he's a terrible person. and it's revealed time and time again. but especially when he continues to be a political flame thrower against people in uniform. it happened with john mccain. it happened with it happened with the khan family. alex vindman. it happens over and over again. it shows how he has no integrity. it shows how he has no honor. i also think it's bad politically. i think this is exactly the kind of thing that drives away moderate republicans which are still out there, drives away independents especially, and in swing states. 50% of veterans are independent. these are the people that he's fighting tooth and nail against biden for.

and i think these things continue to pile up and drive those people away. and he continues to attack all kinds of other groups that are popular. he attacks travis kelce. he attacks taylor swift. but these are people who have devoted followings and constituencies. if you keep attacking people you're going to drive people away. and i think it's going to pile up for him in november. >> i'm not going to play you the sound, amy, of all of the times that he has disparaged members of the armed services between your recitation and paul's i think we got sort of a complete picture of the number of times he has done that. it matters, though, in terms of morale, right? to have a once commander in chief of the military act as though he doesn't have regard for that military. act as though he doesn't understand the sacrifices of that military. there are all these questions about recruitment for the u.s. military. you even had nikki haley sitting around after a debate talking about how it's because men aren't as strong as men used to be. that's not it. it's about the fact that you want to feel that the sacrifice

is understood and honored by those in power. >> absolutely. i mean, the fact that he said what he said in disparaging veterans, democrats certainly need to be talking about this. but it makes -- it makes it hard to recruit. i mean, who wants to go into a military where the commander in chief thinks so poorly of you putting on the uniform? and the sacrifices that you have to make and your family has to make to serve this country. and the commander in chief himself doesn't get it, doesn't understand it? i mean, it's just a slap in the face. it's going to hurt recruitment. and the bigger piece here is sort of what you were talking about earlier. >> yes. >> with trump's remarks about pulling out of nato. it's one thing to disparage veterans. it's another thing to make some of the most dangerous remarks that i think i've ever heard a president or former president

make in terms of our national security in my lifetime. and it's not just americans listening. it's our allies. but you'd better believe that our veterans are listening to that too. because you know what? they fought to secure the world that we all live in right now. those folks that fought in the cold war and won the cold war, it was their sacrifices that got us here. and i'll tell you what, that is something that democrats need to be talking about over and over again here in 2024. >> i'm so glad that amy connected the dots between what we were talking about and what we're talking about now because it's all part and parcel. right? it is about a lack of patriotism. it is about not understanding what it means to be a leader in the free world. and quite frankly it's a disinterest. >> and a lack of discipline. right? or maybe even total corruption. >> and the stakes are very high. >> as high as possible. we're talking about nato alliances. we're talking about enemies with nukes. we're talking about critical alliances that are holding the line for freedom right now in places like ukraine.

i think that this cuts to the core of what this country's all about. but the question that amy poses is the right one. can biden and the democrats weaponize this? can they break through their communications echo chambers and take this to the american people? they've got to figure out ways to be more effective than biden. they've got to find other surrogates. they've got to find new forms of communication to weaponize this kind of content because this is effective. but the question is do republicans see it? do independents see it? do people not watching this network see it? and i think that's the challenge for biden throughout the spring and the summer is to use that to his advantage and to press it in the next couple of months. >> find a trusted messenger who would take that message to voters. amy mcgrath, paul rieckhoff, as always, thank you both so much for being with us. when we return we're going to shift gears, go live to the middle east, where israeli forces have freed two hostages in a deadly raid into gaza. raising hopes for a deal to free the rest of those being held by hamas. that is next.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

my mental health was much better. but i struggled with uncontrollable movements called td, tardive dyskinesia. td can be caused by some mental health meds. and it's unlikely to improve without treatment. i felt like my movements were in the spotlight. #1-prescribed ingrezza is the only td treatment for adults that's always one pill, once daily. ingrezza 80 mg is proven to reduce td movements in 7 out of 10 people. people taking ingrezza can stay on most mental health meds. ingrezza can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have thoughts of suicide. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including angioedema, potential heart rhythm problems, and abnormal movements. report fevers, stiff muscles, or problems thinking as these may be life threatening. sleepiness is the most common side effect. it's nice. people focus more on me. ask your doctor about #1 prescribed, once-daily ingrezza.

♪ ingrezza ♪ your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

not only do we pray for peace, we're actively working for peace, security and dignity for both the palestinian people and the israeli people. i'm working on this day and night. many people there have been displaced, displaced multiple times. fleeing the violence to the north. and now they're packed into rafah. exposed and vulnerable. they need to be protected. we've also been clear from the start, we oppose any forced displacement of palestinians from gaza. >> that was president biden last

hour sharing publicly what he told israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu yesterday, that a military operation by israel in rafah, gaza's southernmost city, should not proceed without a, quote, credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of more than 1 million people sheltering there. it comes as the result of israeli airstrikes overnight in rafah raised new questions and hope for the remaining hostages and at the same time growing concern for the population in rafah, gaza's southernmost city. these images from today show large craters left in the ground by those strikes that killed 67 people in rafah. that number according to the hamas-run health ministry. israel says it rescued two israeli hostages during the operation, which aimed to disengage troops and hit hamas's targets. the head of the u.n. agency for refugees tells nbc news that the expected large-scale ground incursion of rafah by israel would be, quote, catastrophic for the population of gaza. joining us now, nbc news foreign

correspondent raf sanchez for us in tel aviv. raf, what more do we know? >> reporter: well, alicia, the israeli military says at 1:49 a.m. this morning israeli special forces stormed into an apartment building in rafah. they went up to the second floor, where they found a locked door, which they breached with explosives. they say they went inside and found those two hostages, fernando marman and louis har, being held by three hamas guards, who they killed. they got the hostages out safely bringing them to an improvised helicopter landing pad. you can see on your screen there the moment those two hostages were reunited with their families at a hospital here in the greater tel aviv area. they've been held for 129 days. they were both kidnapped from the same kibbutz on october 7th. and doctors say that they are in good condition, all things considered. but as you mentioned, the israeli air force carrying out a

wave of strikes in rafah as those israeli commandos were pulling out of the city. those strikes killing dozens of palestinians including a number of civilians. and our cameras were actually in the al kuwaiti hospital, which is basically the only functioning hospital still in rafah, as the wounded were being carried in. they saw an emergency room that is totally overwhelmed. a story we have seen at hospital after hospital all over the gaza strip. and all of this comes as you said with the potential for a very large-scale israeli ground offensive looming over the city of rafah right now despite those warnings from president biden. alicia? >> i was going to say, raf, you heard that sound from the president saying that a military operation by israel in rafah should not proceed without a, quote, credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of the more than 1 million people sheltering there. that language still gentler than what he is reportedly saying behind closed doors about netanyahu, about his frustration

with netanyahu. what are you learning about the conversations happening between this administration and israeli leaders? >> reporter: well, alicia, our colleagues at the white house are reporting that behind closed doors with close aides, with democratic donors president biden is deeply, deeply frustrated with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. he feels that the prime minister not doing enough quickly enough on the situation in gaza, both with the hostages and in terms of humanitarian aid. what's notable is there's a lot of frustration apparently in the white house that israel is not changing its policy and yet while we are hearing this increasingly strong language from the president there has been a reluctance so far from the biden administration to use the significant policy leverage that it has over israel to try to affect policy outcomes. israel very dependent on the

united states for ammunition. israel very dependent on the united states for diplomatic cover at the united nations and other international fora. and you have heard democratic members of congress, you have heard progressive activists saying the u.s. needs to use that leverage to push israel to reduce casualties inside of gaza and eventually get to an ultimate ceasefire. and so far that has been something the biden administration has not been willing to do. alicia? >> raf, when it comes to the hostage negotiations, what are you watching for this week? >> reporter: so all eyes on cairo, the egyptian capital. cia director bill burns will be there tomorrow. he's expected to meet a number of his counterparts from across the region. from egypt, from qatar, potentially also from israel. and they are looking to close what the president said earlier at the white house are still pretty significant gaps between israel and hamas on a potential

deal to get a ceasefire in gaza and release at least some of those 130 or so hostages still being held by hamas. in terms of those gaps there has been a long-running disagreement between israel and hamas over the length of any ceasefire. israel has said this war in gaza will not end until hamas is destroyed and that any ceasefire has to be temporary, that its fight will resume on the other side. hamas is saying that it will not release hostages until there is a pathway to a permanent ceasefire. and so the difficult task that cia director bill burns and those other intelligence officials face tomorrow is how to close what feels like a pretty zero-sum set of differences at this moment between israel and hamas. alicia? >> raf sanchez for us in tel aviv. raf, as always, thank you. when we return, we're going to have -- we've been reading through donald trump's request to the supreme court to block the ruling rejecting his

immunity claim in the election interference case. we're going to have more on that breaking story after a quick break. eak.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly

gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to hungerstopsnow.org to help save lives today. donald trump has asked the supreme court to intervene in a last ditch request. in a filing today he asked the the justices to put a hold on last week's ruling from an appeals court rejecting his broad claims of presidential immunity. trump also asked for the court to keep the election

interference case paused while he asks for the full bench of the circuit court to hear his appeal. it sets up the nation's highest court to determine whether and how fast this trial will proceed. back with me at the table is msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin, who took a short break so that she could actually read this. what struck you now that you've had a chance to sit down with it? >> one of the things that struck me is the ways in which trump is trying to go around that d.c. circuit panel that decided this case. they had set this up so that trump would only get to pause lower court proceedings if he went directly to the supreme court and asked for a stay. but if he asked for what is often an interim type of relief, asking the full circuit court to rehear this case, they said no, no, no, we're not going to stay it in that instance. what trump is asking for now is give me a stay so that i can pursue both options and maybe even go to the d.c. circuit full

court first. that's going to be a loser of an application. if you just do the numbers of the active judges on that federal appeals court that oversees the trial court in d.c., the number of judges appointed by or nominated by democratic presidents versus the number of judges nominated by republican presidents, the democrats far outweigh the conservatives here. that is likely not to go anywhere for him. that same full panel did not want to even rehear the gag order appeal when he asked them to do so. so i think this is a long way of saying, alicia, he's trying to buy every last minute that he can knowing that in the end this is a court that is unlikely to side with him on the immunity issue because of breadcrumbs that they've left in the past. >> so given that he's like a supermarket sweepstakes contestant but with time rather than with goods and is just trying to grab as much as he possibly can, what do you think the court does? where does this go next?

>> i think that request, that you stay this either pending his request to the supreme court for review or his going first to the d.c. circuit, is likely to aggravate the justices. i didn't think his stay request was a winner in the first instance. i'm more doubly convinced of that now given his sort of ha, ha, i'm going to get a fast one over on you and i'm going to ask you to stay this regardless of which path i take. you and i always talk about trump legal stuff as being a choose your own adventure type of book. he is trying to have it both ways and say i'd like to go to chapter 5 and i'd like to go to chapter 8. >> that is why i thought andrew weissmann's option was sort of interesting, the possibility that they choose not to stay it. right? they say this trial can proceed. but we are going to take up this question of presidential immunity. in some ways is the most robust answering of the accountability

question. >> yes. although i will tell you that they can respond to that accountability question at a later stage too. one of the things that was litigated below -- >> how much later? >> after a conviction. right? so one of the questions that really this depends on is is it appropriate at this stage in the proceedings for a court to review an order that he is not immune, or is that an issue that can only be reviewed post-conviction? even if he doesn't get the court to take the case now, it's possible that after conviction he'll go back to them and say wait a second, i was immune, you should have decided it then. and they can always decide that a ruling on immunity was never something that either judge chutkan or the d.c. circuit should have decided in the first place, vacate it, let the case go forward and then invite trump to come back in the end. i don't think they'll do so. i think the option that andrew laid out is a much smarter path for all involved, particularly because it allows the supreme court to have a say before the

election and doesn't preclude the trial from going forward before the election. >> for our friends and viewers who were not with us when this news broke, one of the pieces we found most interesting in this filing was the argument from team trump that this was actually about the first amendment rights of voters, which it takes some real chutzpah for donald trump and trump's team to suddenly be making the argument that this is injurious to voters' right? >> yeah. even though that's one of my favorite words. the question is supposed to be on an application for a stay, what is the what is the irreparable harm to the person who wants supreme court review? not what is irreparable harm to others. but the cortes opposed to be applying is just about his irreparable harm. but if, price he knows that that's not enough. so he tries to make this elastic and say, well what about the voters? people who want to vote in this election and still have a

choice to make their first amendment political association rights are infringed if i'm capped off the campaign trail. because then they won't have a full and fair opportunity to hear my message. that's flatten ember of ways. first of all, that assumes that donald trump has to go somewhere to have this message be heard. you and i both know donald trump still has one of the largest electronic medic megaphones that the world has seen. and he exercised it every day via this platform called truth social, and the ways in which other people amplify his message in mainstream media and on social media. but to go back to your point, you are right. there is something perverse about donald trump having concerns for the virus in this election, given what the underlying predicate of this case is. the underlying predicate of this case is that donald trump engineered and participated in the conspiracy to subvert the will of 80 million voters.

and the chutzpah in that, as you just said -- it's tremendous. it deserves everything i can muster. >> i've just gotta get this and. the new york cases, they don't affect? this >> lets the other thing. for anybody watching at home who's like, oh no, hing hinges on this immunity appeal, and actually doesn't. trump already tried to make an immunity argument in that new york hush money case. it was rejected by a federal judge who said that immunity defense, as applied to the hush money case, wasn't even colorable. meaning it didn't pass the smell test. it wasn't blush where they. in florida, in the classified documents case, because all the conduct in that case -- after trump left the presidency, there is no presidential immunity argument that should apply to that case. we obviously have judge aileen cannon who has granted trump lots of latitude in that case. if there's a will, that might be a way. but presidential i'm unity is not supposed to applied to the

acts of a former president after they leave office. >> lisa rubin, a mere two hours ago, i asked you if it was strange that we had not yet gotten this filing from team trump. and i feel like that answer has boomeranged back on us. as always, thank, you my friend. we're gonna take a quick break. we'll be right back. be right b. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust. ♪ ♪ wake up, gotta go! c'mon, c'mon. -gracie, c'mon. let's go! guys, c'mon! mom, c'mon! mia! [ engine revving ] ♪ ♪ my favorite color is... [ imitating trombone ] because, it's like a family thing! [ engine revving ] ♪ ♪ made it!

mom! leave running behind, behind. the new turbocharged volkswagen atlas. does life beautifully. i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ it's odd how in an instant things can transform. slipping out of balance into freefall. i'm glad i found stability amidst it all. gold. standing the test of time.

>> woman: what's my safelite story? gold. i'm a photographer. and when i'm driving, i see inspiration right through my glass. so when my windshield cracked, it had to be fixed right.

i scheduled with safelite 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. ♪ the judge overseeing the fulton county election interference case has decided to move forward with a hearing -- allegations that fulton county d.a. fani willis engaged in an improper personal relationship

with the lead prosecutor and the case, nathan wade. i -- asked the judge to cancel the hearing and reject motions from donald trump and other codefendants for seeking to disqualify her from the case. judge scott mac -- already admitted to the relationship. the primary remaining question is whether she benefited financially from wades hiring, adding, quote, i think it's clear the disqualification can occur if the evidence produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one. that hearing is set for this thursday. another break for us. we'll be right back. be right b. to break new ground, ♪♪ and turn a raw piece of land, ♪♪ into a place her family can call home. ♪♪ every 1 series tractor is built to put you at ease. you just have to get in the seat. learn more at johndeere.com/getintheseat 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. (♪♪) only unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans come with the ucard — one simple member card that opens doors for what matters. how 'bout using it at the pharmacy? yes — your ucard is all you need. (impressed) huh — that's easy! the all-in-one ucard, only from unitedhealthcare. everyone say, “space pod.” cheese. [door creaks open] [ominous music] (♪♪) [ding] meanwhile, at a vrbo... when other vacation rentals are just for likes, try one you'll actually like.

(vo) welcome to lobsterfest. is your party ready? ready to tango with tails when other vacation rentals are just for likes, on tails on tails? try lobster lover's dream with two lobster tails and lobster & shrimp linguini it's one of ten next-level lobster creations red lobster. is your party ready?

thank you for spending part of your monday with us. we are so grateful. the beat with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, alicia. thank you so much. we begin with this breaking news on the coup trial in the supreme court. breaking tonight here on the east coast, donald trump has formally asked the supreme court to oversee, take a case, and block or overturn that big ruling that made