for $200,000 check that bidens associated say was part of an interest free loan that he paid back. to the idea that now, if he's around other people being enriched that indicates a bribery scam. that is difficult to prove if a court of law and i do get the sense there are moderate republicans who also believe it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes an misdemeanor which would warrant impeachment proceedings. so that is the bar and over the next couple of weeks we'll see whether or not they could get to the point that they could get something that most republicans will vote for. >> we'll see. ryan nobles, thank you very much. and that is going to do it for me. i've been off for two days but nicolle wallace is back in. so welcome back, nicolle. "deadline: white house" starts right now. t now.

[ no audio ] [ no audio ] pables to my wash. now i'll be smelling fresh all day long. [sniff] still fresh. ♪♪ [ no audio ] try for under $5!

hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. - [narrator] this is my coffee shop. delectables lickable treat.

we just moved into a bigger space, brought on another employee, and ordered new branded gear for the team. it was so easy. i just chose my products, added our logo, and placed my order. bring your own team together with custom gear. get started today at customink.com. let's try that again. hi, everybody. just after 4:00 in new york now.

we're sorry about that. we have some technical difficulties. we start again though. with the news that broke on capitol hill. and that is one mitch mcconnell. who ended his tenure today as the longest serving senate leader in history. he'll be gone in a few monthsm but we'll live with his legacy for a very long time. the question before us, what exactly is the price we'll all pay for the single greatest legacy of mcconnell as the head of senate republicans. that is of course the turbo charges conservative majority on the u.s. supreme court. there is also his legislative legacy, the bills passed under the three presidents including the vast majority of trump's agenda, but towering over all of it and likely to last long beyond his tenure and his life is the work of the three justices whose nominations they put there. one of this, gorsuch happened

because mcconnell denied president barack obama an opportunity to appoint his justice. the three justices apply the majority that overturned roe v. wade, that wildly unpopular decision. over turned affirmative action in college admissions and have a plan to bring billions in student debt relief to millions and we could go on and on. we cover all of this on the broadcast all of the type. and right now dealing with the slew of incredibly consequential cases involving atashes to a man who disagrees with many of mcconnell's long held foreign policy views.

mcconnell even hinted at that distance between themselves and the maga movement at his announcement today. >> the trial works so hard to get the national security package passed, earlier this month. believe me, i know the politics within my party at this particular moment. i have many faults. misunderstanding politics is not one of them. >> who is anything that sums up mcconnell's relationship with donald trump and that maga movement. how it defines our politics today will be the moment he pinned the blame or the dead insurrection on donald trump and voting to acquit him during the second impeachment trial. >> president trump's actions -- for a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.

the house accused the former president of quote, insightment. that is a specific term from the criminal law. let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something that i said weeks ago. there is no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. no question about it. >> that is where we start with our favorite experts and friends. democratic senator richard blumenthal is our guest, he sits on the judiciary committee and melissa mary is back and back at the table former u.s. senator and co-host of how to win the 2024 podcast claire mccaskill.

and during that exciting meltdown, you have so many professional and personal experiences, stories and interactions with mcconnell. but what was your first thought today when you saw the announcement. >> that there is trouble in the caucus. i think he is -- here is what -- mitch mcconnell, mitch cares mostly about power, and his party. he is a traditional leader in that way. it is not really about mitch. it is about that he loves being in charge. but so what he's seeing right now is how can he facilitate getting a leader of the senate that is not going to be crazy town. that is not going to be a josh hawley or a rand paul who have all called him liars in public. there is real friction in the caucus. so i think he's trying to give enough time, knowing he probably couldn't get re-elected again if

he wanted to be the leader for the next congress, he probably couldn't get elected again and give someone enough time to gather the votes and to do the things necessary and i'm sure he's hopeful that it is someone who is not in trump's back pocket and they're are now a number of senators that are in trump's back pocket. mitch mcconnell is not one of them and most of the people running to replace him aren't either. >> it is a crowded back pocket. >> it is a crowded back pocket. >> i want to -- look, the editorial choices we make are all a consequence of trump's picks to the supreme court and mcconnell's getting them confirmed, starting with his denial of merrick garland's seat on the court. mcconnell made the point himself that he's really good at reading politics. do you think mcconnell is aware that the reason he's a minority leader and not the majority leader is because of the court's decision on dobbs? >> i think he does know that he's responsible for dobbs.

i think we should not forget, we don't often enough talk about the dark money in politics. it is so corrosive, nicolle. people have no idea who are writing these million dollars checks, multi-million dollars checks behind the curtain and trying to influence our politics and it is all in the dark and that is almost 100% because of mitch mcconnell. >> and before citizen's united he was railing against -- >> doing anything to stop it. and he loved kavanaugh, he thought there should be no limits on any campaign laws, foreign interests ought to be able to give. and he did a couple of things strategically on the supreme court. first of all, the hypocrisy of him saying no to merrick gar land and pushing through amy coney barrett and you knew the kavanaugh stuff would cause big problems for people like me and bill nelson because it turned into such a controversial thing

for states that were not bright blue. >> senator blumenthal, you sort of sit at this full come of dealing with a lot of consequences of decisions that the court makes. what are your first thoughts today when you saw the announcement? >> my first thought was that no person in recent histories had had a more devastating malign effect on americans civil rights and liberties, whether it is gun violence or voting rights, or women's reproductive rights than mitch mcconnell. he has enabled far right capture of the supreme court. an not just of the nation's highest court, but all of the judiciary. one-third of all of the current judges sit on the judiciary by virtue of mitch mcconnell pushing them through. so it is not just the hypocrisy of holding merrick garland for

nine months and then ramming amy coney barrett through this three weeks. it is a judiciary that is far right, activists and young. so they're going to be around for quite a while. and that judiciary environment has changed the legal landscape in america. >> it is such a powerful -- i mean you cut through it much better than i was able to do in my two attempts to set up this conversation. but you're right to broaden it beyond dobbs and beyond abortion. i mean, the inability to speak to the 85% of all americans who would like to see gun safety legislation is because of not just the people who sit on the supreme court, but all of those other judges that mcconnell is responsible for as well. do you feel like we're in a different spot now where the voting public is acutely aware that the supreme court and the federal judicial system is out of step with u.s. public opinion?

>> i feel very strongly that the credibility and stature of the supreme court has crumbled. as a result of dobbs, but also other decisions that you have just said so well, that are out of step, out of alignment with the mainstream of american thought. and they're just getting started. this term could well mean overturning the so-called chevron deference rule. i know it sounds highly technical and obtuse, but what it means you're air and water is less safe. the workplaces of america are going to be more dangerous. experts will no longer have the kind of impact that they do right now in framing american law in the way that it impacts every day americans. so we're only beginning it trend. >> now, i'm glad you brought it up because i think it all swirls around in this bucket of lack of ethics, a plunge, i mean i think the supreme court approval from

the american public was plunged farther and faster than any group in civic life in our countries history since gallop has been asking the question, i think the court has dropped 40 points including the year 2000 when many americans viewed the court as deciding a presidential election. what do you think mcconnell's legacy is when you look at the public really bordering on disapproval, bordering on disdain in this one judicial body? >> you know, nicolle, that is really a profound question because the judiciary branch was supposed to be in the words of our founders, least dangerous. it is not elected. it is for life. and they were supposed to in effect be the fire wall against constitutional violations not the activists policy making branch that they have become. and i think americans deeply recented it at some level that

these unelected lifetime judges are having these impact on their life that is foreign to their values and the daily challenges of their life. and i would say that the legacy of undermining in fact, in some ways crippling the credibility of court, is among the most lasting palline influences and legacy that mitch mcconnell leaves. and the politicization of the whole nominee process. ramming through amy coney barrett right before an election, and in which the nominee and presidential backer was defeated, in some ways is a defiant of american public again, again that undermines the credibility of the court. so i think that is a pretty malign legacy. >> i would be remiss if i didn't ask you, senator, about what is before the united states supreme court right now. today. as we have this conversation. we're waiting to find out if

they will decide whether donald trump has immunity. whether the 14th amendment is as judge luttig said, something that renders a pretty clear judgment on whether trump could be on the ballot. they are, again, at the full crumb of his ambitions. >> and they're also going to be seen and rightly as thoroughly political in the way that they make this decision. you know, i was a law clerk on the united states supreme court for harry blackman. i've argued four cases before the court and i have deep respect and reference for the court and i'm so deeply disappointed and deeply frightened by what has become of the court because i think that it will undermine the stability of our government for generation

tosz come. >> i want to bring you into the conversation. melissa, you have a book out this week about trump's four indictments. those of us on earth one, would rely on the facts and who have to patiently await any defendant, even donald trump, to be affording his due process and go through the process. what we've watched since he first ascended to the presidency and asked jim comey to see to it to let mike flynn go. there was a denial that he was a extra judicial individual or politician, but always a tacit acknowledgment of his expectation to be treated differently. we know from the meticulous work of the one select committee that he saw the supreme court as part of his final solution. we know from mark meadows' texts that trump was eager for it to get to the supreme court. well here we are. what do you think happens next in. >> it is hard to say.

donald trump thinks this court is in his back pocket they have some element of independence here but i think that everything that was said was right and it is worth underscoring. this is the mcconnell court and the mcconnell courts. not only did mitch mcconnell obstruct the process after louing merrick garland a hearing he stonewalled on the obama lower court nominees and that meant when donald trump became president there 2016, there was a slew of lower court vacancies waiting to be filled and donald trump manages to recap the entire federal judiciary in his image. he has more appointed in one single term that barack obama did in two terms. so that is an enormous legacy and we're living with it to this daym and a lot has been said about amy coney barrett and her rush process. it is not unconstitutional, to me the bigger issue was that we never saw that hearing for merrick garland and what would

have been a liberal 6-3 supermajority became a 5-4 conservative majority and then eventually with the addition of kavanaugh and amy coney barrett with the supermajority we are today. and they may be independent but they're there because of donald trump and mitch mcconnell. >> when you, melissa, see mcconnell try to put some distance between them self-and the maga movement, which you can't separate it from the republican party, the maga movement is today's gop. it so rich with irony for the reasons you're articulating. the maga movement only gets as far as it gets in terms of stripping women of a right they've had for 50 years because mcconnell made sure that trump's picks who didn't come from any of trump's long held admiration for any of these three people, i am pretty sure he didn't know who any of them were. it is all appease.

so i find mcconnell separating himself from maga rich at best. >> there is this amazing clip on c-span and in don parter's ceremony after the robert bork failed confirmation when mcconnell said, they didn't confirm my guy, i'm never going to confirm their people. and it is that same sense of grievance and aggrievement that characterized this maga movement. you have done this and we're going to be obstructive. it is the politics of obstruction and mitch mcconnell is the key player in all of this. he coined the term and made it happen and although he may be distancing himself from the maga movement now, he is essentially its midwife. >> that is so amazing. claire, we are so often hostage to the laws of relativity. the brain has to adapt to the last awful. so i think in these times mcconnell became less scary than ted cruz and hally.

but the truth is mcconnell suffered a special extraordinary humiliation with donald trump when he went after his wife, in the wake of heightened hate climate around asian americans. donald trump attacked elaine chao who served in donald trump's cabinet and mcconnell wouldn't defend her. on top of agreeing to a plan, there was -- >> he stands for the proposition that sometimes the desire for power overwhelms everything to such an extent that you lose your north star. and to me -- >> and do you need a north star to defend your wife. >> exactly. what other north star could be there that you would allow someone to trash your spouse. hawley and cruz did the same thing about his father and his

wife. so it is -- and really, yes, mitch mcconnell said what he should have said, he should have toted to impeach him. he said what he should have said after what happened on january 6. but how many times did mitch mcconnell swallow what he thought in order to hold on to power. how many times was his gut telling him this is wrong. how many meetings was he at in the white house when you knew, this is a man who has no idea what he's doing and he's trying to do things that are against our constitution and what is normal. how many times did he put up with that and say nothing? that really is his legacy. he is the midwife of donald trump. because he allowed it and along with a lot of other republicans in the senate who knew better. they let this morph into the monster that it is today. >> do you think he regrets that vote on impeachment? >> i don't know. that is a good question. that is a good question. i don't know if he regrets it or not. but i think he was reading the tea leaves.

>> if trump had been impeached, he would not be the figure that he is right now politically and mcconnell make stay longer. >> and look what he said today, he said i understand the politics. >> it creates the politics. >> he saw the politics of what was going on with trump and he didn't see a win going after trump the way he should have. because of the politics. so once again, politics over principle. that really, now he likes dark money and unlimited campaign money and wanted to stack the court. but when it came to stopping donald trump, he did not tand up and lead at the moment important moments when the country needed to hear this is wrong, and no president should be doing this. >> senator, i'll give you the last word. i mean, he also refused to reach out when the life looip was thrown him. bob corker was desperate to get attention to donald trump's lack of fitness and wants to limit

his nuclear activities and calling it a day care center and romney went out there and in impeachment one and two. and he also left a lot of people who saw trump exactly the same way that mitch mcconnell did, stranded on the political battlefield. >> they were stranded on the political battlefield but the clip about his denunciation of the january 6 insurrection and trump's role in it, those words were fine. but actions speak louder than words. if he had been in favor of impeachment, if he had used his power, not just to say things about trump on the floor of the senate, but actually to mobilize republicans in favor of impeachment, it would be a different world today. >> absolutely. >> and so, i think that he will be held accountability and judged by history for the approach that claire mccaskill has just put into -- power above

principle and i think that will be among his legacies. >> it is amazing to just play that out in your head. you know, all of things that would be different. senator blumenthal, and claire, thank you so much. we scrambled jets and you all came. thank you so much and for staring for our start stop start. mark meadow has been denied to move his case to federal court. the supreme court is the last chance to get his case moved. and we'll talk about that and plus donald trump telling the court he doesn't have the dough, offering a little bit of the half a billion dollars he owes to cover his bond in that civil fraud case. but breaking in the last two minutes his emergency bid to stay that full judgment has been denied. and later in the broadcast, we continue our series, american autocracy it could happen here.

could our judicial system survive another presidency. we'll put that to michael luttig who said it may already be too late. all of those story and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. i'm an active mom, but when i laughed, lifted or exercised, bladder leaks were holding me back from doing the things i loved. until, i found a bladder specialist that offered me bulkamid - a life-changing and fda approved non-drug solution for my condition called stress incontinence it really works, and the relief can last for years. take the next step at findrealrelief.com

to arrange an appointment with an expert physician to determine if bulkamid is right for you. results and experiences may vary. move beyond the leaks. sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte™. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte™. ask your doctor about caplyta. find savings and support at caplyta.com i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks.

-ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪) whoa, how did you defeat them? and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. with a little kung fu strength and by connecting my devices to the most powerful force of all. skadoosh. hah, huh? cool right? amazing. harness the power of xfinity internet and stay connected to the things you love. ah, they'll be like this for hours. hello dad, hello dad, hello da. uh-oh. good bunnies. ahh!

with the federal court shutting the court today an a bid by a tree trump ally to derail the trump case and his allies. the core has denied a request by

mark meadows to move his case out of fulton county and into federal court. over the last few months, meadows been arguing that the actions that he took are crimes committed in order to overturn an election, were things he did an an official capacity as a foerl official as the white house chief of staff. that argument was soundly rejected in court after court and now the only recourse meadows has left is to take it to the united states supreme court. now here is why getting the case moved matters to meadows and trump ant the other co-defendants. washington post reports this. meadows had hoped a move to federal court to lead to a quick dismissal of the case against him because if he argues in district court as a federal office he's immune from prosecution for acts taken in the course of his normal work. and another potential advantage of the move would have been the

slightly more republican leaning jury pool of the 11th circuit when compared to fulton county, georgia. and the decision could bode poorly for four other defendants seeking removal of their cases to federal court. let bring in tim hazy who is with us at the table and washington correspondent and msnbc contributor, mike schmidt. and analyst barbara mcquade is still here and former u.s. attorney and the book attacks from within, how digs information is targeting america. after we've shown everybody. i'll start with you on mark meadows and we tark about his attorney almost as much as we talk about mark meadows. this is -- and maybe this is unfair. this is just another legal defeat for that team. >> yeah. and i don't know what meadows does now. that is what i would be interested in -- where do you

turn at this point? you have to go to trial. >> yes. >> yeah, you have to eventually face the music and go to trial. he might file an appeal to the supreme court. i can't imagine that the supreme court could take this case. they take cases if there is a split in courts below or a close question federal law. there is neither here. i think they would deny a petition and ultimately meadows will face the music with a trial presentation in state court in atlanta. that is where this is headed. >> and this is why this is frantic on his part. >> it is another attempt to forestall that day. to keep the clock running so that he didn't have to actually have it expire and be sitting in a defendant's chair in that courtroom in front of the jury. it is the playbook for all of them without a substantive defense, delay, delay, and hope that somebody happens that will make the charges go away. but i don't think that is going to happen. >> i can't help but think about meadows' importance to the investigation.

and actually i was wondering, you've talked a little bit about this. but how important were meadows' text messages when you first got them? and if meadows were to ever really cooperate, what doors does meadows unlock that we have not been able to see into? >> the fis question, mike, very important. it gave us a sense as to who the president was talking to. it give us a sense of the real time conversation about their beliefs might be persuasive. so they were crucial to us, in terms of leading us to other witness and give us a sense of the state or rhetoric about election fraud. if we were to cooperate, it would be tremendously important. there was no one closer to president trump over the course of the time between the election and the inauguration than mark meadows. he was in the room when it happened all of the time. now, he said lots of things to

different people. he would say that someone, oh, he's coming around and we're going to get him there. he's going to cooperate with the transition. and then he would say, in his text messages, keep up the faith and fight continues. i saw a clip today of donald trump jr. putting his arm around meadows saying this guy is a fighter. so depending on his audience, he would say different things. if he were to cooperate, he would be tremendously important to jack smith or fanny willis, and we're still having some of the same conversations, but is there a scenario where all of his legal efforts fail and a flood gate opens. if you're arguing you did these things in the official capacity, you're arguing that donald trump told you to do it and you're a bad and dangerous witness to donald trump. >> absolutely, yes. a lot of criminal defendants, ones that seem like the less likely to cooperate, the ones that are hold outs, once there

is no other door to knock upon, once they're all closed, they become really important cooperators. because that same strength, that same fidelity to purpose, when it is flipped an the door opens, to cooperation, it could be tremendous important. maybe he's not in that category. there is some reporting that he has been de briefed by the special counsel and that he's saying these had no merit if he were to testify to that, that is direct evidence of president's state of mind which is the whole ball game in the special counsel case. >> i want to bring barbara mccade into this. i know we're awaiting a lot of things from the supreme court. one of them is for them to decide whether to look at trump's immunity claims and belief that presidential immunity renders him somehow harmless and not liability and not exposed to any criminal prosecution for trying to

overturn an election. what is your sense on the timing of any of that. >> it is really curious to me how much time has passed. because in light of the fact that they decided this case to hold the hearing in this case in an expedited basis, the fact that we're still kind of waiting around to hear what the results of this is, it is a little bit perplexing to me. it strikes me that what the court below decided, since the court of appeals, rejecting this immunity defense is very sound and i have to think they've got, i don't know, at least six or seven votes that would agree with that. it makes me curious as to whether someone is perhaps writing a dissent for that. and perhaps one of the more conservative justices disagrees with that proposition. or, perhaps, more optimistically, chief justice roberts is trying to build a consensus to get everybody on board because he wants to send a strong message up that the president is not immune from criminal prosecution. so, whatever it is they're doing, i wish they could get on with it.

>> the dissenters are writing it in haiku or hieroglyphics and it is taking a long time. whatever the reason and whatever the eventual timing you've argues that is not likely to happen before the election. >> i think that the trial still could happen if the supreme court doesn't take it. but if the supreme court were to take it, it would create yet another delay here. and in that the issue that i constantly come back to and this is directly related to your work, if the justice department had started earlier, would have increased the chances of there being a trial before the election, because you could end up with a situation in which you had a president of the united states, that tries to overturn an election, and then was able to run for re-election before going on trial, and so that person could win and then essentially have that case dismissed against them and completely avoid the criminal justice system. and that is where i think the delay of why it took so long,

you know, they start with the rioters and they don't start with trump on the investigation, it is so important. and it just, because it just would have increased the kanss of us seeing the trial. is that fair. >> i think that is fair. look, there were so many people that had such relevant information for our investigation, that we got to first. bill barr and cassidy hutchinson and sarah matthews who was here with you on monday. people with really important information about the president's state of mind and about his words and deeds before the election and on january 6. and they had not been interviewed. when we were trying to get information about the case, the door kept closing because they have defense lawyers an didn't want to violate the fifth amendment privilege. so it was clear to us, that we were sort of on grounds that have not been walked before by

other investigators. i think it is when the select committee started to present our evident and that that appear to be evident of criminal activity, they caught up. >> was there enough evidence on january 21st of 2021, based on what was publicly known, to open up a criminal investigation into trump? >> to open an investigation, absolutely. yes. i think so. i think there was some reluctance on the part of justice department to do anything that could be perceived as political. which i understand, which i think is frankly a good instinct. but did that go too far and make them hesitant until they were confronted with evidence of criminality. i wasn't there when the zugs were going on but net impact is what you said. had they done that investigation a year or 18 months earlier then by now those cases would have been adjudicated regardless of what the supreme court does about immunity. the fact that we're up against the election is an unfortunate

product of that delay. >> let me give you the last word on this. i think the other pieces, if you take it from the other end of this spectrum, which is what his supporters believe, not doing something was also extremely political. i mean, the instinct and i heard it from senior justice officials from serves under bush and obama and clinton, it is in the dna officials, the doj officials dna to not want to touch politics and it became political not to touch trump. and whether someone is looking over their shoulder with any regrets today. >>? i like to preface any conversation with what we don't know what we don't know. it is quite possible that things were happening what were not reported. but if the justice department waited until they saw what the january 6 committee was doing before they started investigating donald trump, then i would say shame on them. because i think one of things that they should have learned

from looking at hillary clinton emails or donald trump investigation, that you say doing nothing is doing something. and it seems to me then and maybe now that in an effort to achieve what i think merrick garland was said was his mission in the justice department was to restore the independence of the department and restore public confidence. it may have been a little bit reluctant to go down this road until they were confronted with evidence and so i know merrick garland talked about building an investigation from the ground up, and you start with a low level offender and then you flip them and move your way up the chain. but on january 7th of 2021, it was pretty clear that there was criminal activity afoot. in fact, the activity that was even within the department of justice itself with jeffy clark trying to influence something that happened in georgia should have been investigated

immediately. >> barb, we'll show our work. we intended to talk about your brand-new book which is getting so much buzz. it is soaring up the amazon best-seller list before it is even available. it is called attacks from within. how information is striped away. give us the title. congratulations on all of the success you're yet to be sort of available and in people's hot little hands and we're have to have you back tomorrow. we have a great polls from it and things i want to read to you and ask you a mill more questions about. but breaking news changes our plans so we apologize on the front end and we would like to have you back tomorrow to have that conversation. >> thank you. up next for us, donald trump talks about his wealth and of his billions an billions of dollars but today he told a court he can't afford to pay what he's been hit with in the case that he lost this month. a appeals judge ruling moments

ago, too bad. that story is next. ago, too bad that story is next for 44 years. when i have customers come in and ask for something for memory, i recommend prevagen. number one, because it's effective. does not require a prescripti. and i've been taking it quite a while myself and i know it works. and i love it when the customers come back in and tell me, "david, that really works so good for me." makes my day. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

meet the traveling trio. the thrill seeker. the soul searcher. and - ahoy! it's the explorer! each helping to protect their money with chase. woah, a lost card isn't keeping this thrill seeker down. lost her card, not the vibe. the soul searcher, is finding his identity, and helping to protect it. hey! oh yeah, the explorer! she's looking to dive deeper... all while chase looks out for her. because these friends have chase. alerts that help check. tools that help protect. one bank that puts you in control. chase. make more of what's yours.

♪♪ we're building a better postal service. all parts working in sync to move your business forward. with a streamlined shipping network. and new, high-speed processing and delivery centers. for more value. more reliability. and more on-time deliveries. the united states postal service is built for how you business. and how you business is with simple, affordable and reliable shipping. usps ground advantage. (vo) welcome to lobsterfest. is your party ready? ready to attack this new lobster & shrimp stack? affordable and reliable shipping. ready for your lobster lover's dream to come true? they're two of ten lobster creations, only at lobsterfest. plus, cheddar bays for days. but lobsterfest won't last, so hurry in.

earlier this afternoon, a judge in new york denied donald trump's attempt to freeze the civil fraud judgment against him. that means the ex-president must post bond for hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming weeks. the judge declined to address the amount of bond. leaving trump on the hook to post the full thing. the ex-president's lawyers said today that trump was prepared to

post a $100 million bond and had no way, no ability to secure the full amount. trump was however granted a partial stay on part of the ruling from judge arthur engoron which prohibited him and his son to run the trump organization. joining us legal constituent leet lisa ruben and what does this all of this mean. >> so i want to take a step back and say for a second that donald trump never has to post a bond unless he wants to stay enforcement of the judgment. meaning enforcement of the judgment, meaning, he wants to prevent tish james from starting to collect on the $464 million that she was awarded through judge angoron's judgment last week. he has until march 25th to post a bond. under today's order, the judge in the appellate division is essentially saying, no, $100 million is not enough.

$100 million and the continued presence of a monitor in your organization doesn't secure your assets to the attorney general's satisfaction, and it doesn't do it to the law's satisfaction either. therefore, i'm going to grant you a temporary stay as to your ability to lend -- i'm sorry, to borrow money, your sons can continue to operate the business, but with respect to any bond that you're going to post after march 25th, to get that stay of enforcement, you're going to owe the whole thing, and possibly more so, because new york courts typically will require in excess of 100% in the form of an undertaking. >> so, vaughn used this word "conditioning." i'm going to borrow it and use it. we're all conditioned to see trump as a political houdini, and a legal one who gets out of account abilitiability for everything. is he likely to get out of accountability for the money he owes? >> i don't think so. first of all, i don't think he will win on appeal, but even as to this limited issue, which is going to go to a five-judge

panel of new york state's appeals court, will the get the stay on the conditions that he wants? i don't believe so, because the law is pretty clear. if you want to stay, of an order that directs you to pay an amount certain, you have to post an undertaking or a bond in that amount. there's really not getting around that. and he tried sort of have this creative argument that the monitor, plus $100 million should be enough to make his assets safe and secure and preserve them nor the attorney general, should she win on appeal. but i think that the two issues are inextricably interrelated, as tim knows. you don't get a stay unless you can also show that you're likely to succeed on the merits. and here on the merits of the argument, i think the attorney general has the better of it. >> you know, pete strzok wrote a book called "compromise," i think. there's always been concerns about where trump's money comes from, now he owes a lot of money, and doesn't look like he'll get out of it. what are the national security implications of trump having to

pony up this kind of money? >> he has a lot of assets that are illiquid. i mean, his argument essentially was, i only have $100 million in cash, but he has all of these properties that he could sell, and he has the ability to access capital from financial institutions. having a president leveraged, having a potentially president, a return to the white house for president trump owing a lot of money to financial institutions is a national security threat. so anytime a person has debt, it subjects them to blackmail or pressure. >> and he already has hundreds of millions of dollars existing debt with respect to buildings that he nominally owns, but where he has you know, mortgages that are still in payment. and we can see that, nicole, he files disclosure forms with the office of government ethics as a federal candidate now. so as of april of 2023, you can see what donald trump lists as his liabilities. you add that up, and even though he's giving ranges and not

particular dollar amounts, the likely result is that he's already on the hook for hundreds of millions. they may not be due tomorrow -- >> that's not illegal. it's certainly permissible for businesspeople to take out loans against properties as collateral, that's all fine. that's not what he's been found guilty of by the judge in the new york civil case, but it does create a national security -- >> it's a political question. i guess i raise this, mike, because i think as part of this trial, he or his sons said, well, the saudis would pay a gazillion dollars for mar-a-lago. he has invoked what foreign governments would pay for his assets. >> i think my understanding is if they would come in and try to pay this or someone else, it's an unprecedented area. we don't really know. is that true? >> that is true. and when i speak to folks at the attorney general's office and i ask them, will it be transparent to you, even if it's not to us who is doing the paying here, they say, we don't know. >> so like to the point that the

law didn't contemplate a situation, in which someone would owe so much money, and we wouldn't know where that money actually came from, or whether that was problematic. >> well, i think in the ordinary course, people go to sureties or insurers that will post a bond. >> the saudis -- >> and not to a foreign government or to a sovereign wealth fund of a federal government. we're in unchartered waters here, as we often are with all things donald trump and the law. >> and i guess i raise this because, everyone says, oh, everything trump does -- >> last time we were here, we were talking about, trump is going to use the courthouse for a podium. there are legitimate political policy, national security questions about where his money comes from, as a candidate for public office. >> yeah, absolutely. a president who's beholden to foreign interests creates a national security vulnerability. if he owes the saudi government "x" millions of dollars, because they posted a bond in a civil judgment in new york city, they have leverage over him. that is sort of old-fashioned.

i think understandable to people. if you owe someone money, that person has power or influence over you. the law doesn't contemplate this, mike, as you said. the law says you owe "x," you get "x" and give it to the course. and looking behind the source of "x" is not something that -- correct me if i'm wrong, but the law really doesn't look beyond. he has to post this surety or this bond, but the source of it i'm not sure will be exactly transparent. >> and what we thought we would get in the mueller report, which, you know, where pete strzok, when he starts as the lead agent for mueller wants to do a manhattan-project style investigation into donald trump's finances, and what andy mccabe thinks will be this counterintelligence investigation into trump never happens. so the mueller report is not a report about donald trump's financial ties to russia. i mean, there's some stuff in there, about the michael cohen stuff, and the trump, hotel moscow, whatever. but at the end of the day, what pete strzok wanted to do and

andy mccabe thought was going to happen didn't happen. so we can sit here -- >> and it matters. in that time capsule, it matters, because here we go again. here we go again. to be continued. thank you all for joining us at the table. when we come back, former judge michael ludig will be here at the table. can the american judiciary withstand another four years of donald trump? we'll talk about that after a very short break. don't go anywhere. at after a very short break don't go anywhere. he thinks his flaky red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. ned? otezla can help you get clearer skin, and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. 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. with clearer skin, movie night, is a groovy night. ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. everywhere but the seat. the seat is leather. alan, we get it. you love your bike. we do, too. that's why we're america's number-one motorcycle insurer. but do you have to wedge it into everything? what? i don't do that. this reminds me of my bike. the wolf was about the size of my new motorcycle. have you seen it, by the way? happy birthday, grandma! really? look how the brushstrokes follow the line of the gas tank. -hey! -hey! brought my plus-one. jamie?

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening.

trump is in awe of putin. when you see trump with putin, as i have on a few occasions,

he's like the 12-year-old boy that goes to high school and meets the captain of the football team. my hero! it is really creepy. it's really creepy. the scary thing is that for countries like australia and many european countries, we may find ourselves -- are we going to find ourselves not dealing just with two autocracies in russia and china, but what is trump's america going to look like? this is a guy leading a party that is no longer committed to democracy as we understand it. >> there you have it, everybody. it's 5:00 in new york. the world is watching and the world is very worried, as worried about trump's america as they are about china and russia. worried that if trump wins a second term, he will model his governing of the united states of america after the object of

his affection, vladimir putin, and all of putin's autocratic ways and policies and practices. trump compliments and praises the russian president to such a degree, because he wants to be just like him, with absolute power. former australian prime minister malcolm turnbull delivering that warning you just heard, that we just played, from his firsthand experience of seeing it, i might add, it only underscores how very real and substantial the threat trump poses to democracy truly is, in the eyes of the people who saw him before at this moment. it's a fact made no clearer than by the ex-president's attacks on the united states justice system and the rule of law. the very system that holds our country together with laws that ensures that every one of us is held to the same legal standards. just one the former president seeks on a daily basis to

manipulate to his benefit and to turn and weaponize against his enemies. he is outspoken about his plans to do this. >> you say they have weaponized the justice department, they've weaponized the fbi. would you do the same if you're re-elected? >> if they do this, they've already done it, but if you want to follow through on this, it could certainly happen in reverse. if i happen to be president and see someone who's doing well and beating me very badly, i say, go down and indict them. mostly, that would be -- you know, they would be out of business. they would be out. they would be out of the election. >> the second we threw to that sound bite, which i'm glad you got a chance to hear, we received the breaking news that the united states supreme court, the subject of our first story in the last hour, has just announced that it will hear donald trump's immunity case. it will hear that case on april 22nd. so judge luttig, i know this is

a curveball, but i know a little bit about your intellect, watching you testify before the january 6th select committee, so i'm going to throw you this curveball. your reaction to the news just breaking in the last couple of minutes that the united states supreme court will hear trump's immunity case? >> well, thank you for having me with you this afternoon, nicole. i'm just hearing this, at this moment. >> i just heard it in my ear as we threw to the -- >> look, this is a momentous decision, just to hear this case. there was no reason in this world for the supreme court to take this case. the three-judge panel of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia had written a masterful opinion, denying that the president's claims of absolutely immunity, under the constitution and the

laws of the united states, there's never been an argument that a former president is immune from prosecution for crimes that he committed while in office. on a more practical level, of course, the court -- the supreme court is capable of deciding this very quickly, in time that the former president could be tried, before the election. but today's decision makes that that much more unlikely. >> just explain that fork in the road, if they had refused to hear it, the appeals court ruling would have held, and the trial -- judge tanya chutkan could have scheduled her trial. >> yes, and that is what i had expected the court to do, as had many other observers of the supreme court, that is why it is very significant that the court had decided to take the case and

hear it. >> i want to just re-state for anyone just joining us, news breaking just in the last couple of minutes, that trump versus the united states will be heard by the supreme court. this is the paper that we just got. the application for a stay presented to the chief justice is referred to him by the court. the special counsel's request to treat the stay application, as a petition for writ is granted and that petition is granted, limited to the following question. whether and if so to whatextent does the former president enjoy presidential immunity for acts during his tenure in office. andrew weismann has joined us, underscoring the peril of letting him have even a single day off. andrew weismann, your reaction? >> well, i'm a little surprised, because it took them so long to take the case. the betting was that because it took them so long to even decide

to take the case, that we were going to not take it. the only sort of good news for those people who are looking for a legal accountability, meaning that there will be a trial before the general election is that there is expedite reviewed and the decision says that they will hear argument the week of zsh i think the third week in april, the 22nd. so, you know, that is a shortened time frame. but just remember that does not mean they will issue a decision speedily after that, you know, we are still waiting for the decision with respect to the colorado disqualification and for more bad news, so we don't know the time period after the oral argument, that they will render their ultimate decision, and i still think that there's no way that they're going to say that donald trump is immune from this criminal prosecution, but

if they, let's say, took even two weeks to make that decision, that brings us into may. they then say to judge chutkan, you can go forward, that's sort of the best-case scenario. she has at least a couple of months of work, of pre-trial work that she has indicated that she has to do, in order for the parties to litigate a whole variety of issues. she has to pick a jury, she needs jury questionnairequestioe talking at the earliest a couple months after that. so that brings us into july. so gooergt perilously close to the election. and that's sort of the best-case scenario. you know, it could -- for the same reason that i'm surprised the supreme court took this long just to issue this short decision about the timing, you know, i'm sort of giving a best-case scenario that it's just a couple of weeks for them to render their decision, but that's, you know, you can't take that to the bank.

that could be much longer. and so this is a case where they could by what they're doing now pocket veto the case going forward. i think that would in many ways would be the very worst possible outcome for the citizens of this country. i really do think that the best outcome here is to have a trial, make sure that, you know, the government has to prove its case, if they can't, then the defendant, whether you like that person or not, is acquitted, but i think having a trial is the thing that's required here. and the supreme court, i really fear could be politicizing this in terms of the timing they're imposing on the district court. >> you know, andrew weismann, at the end of -- let me pull back the curtain a little bit on what's going on in here. we grabbed lisa and ruben in the

hallway. and judge luttig will stay and make sense of this historic decision for the united states supreme court tyke up an argument that i know jack smith that would be akin to trump saying, you know, s.e.a.l. team 6, those are my guys, who can kill whoever they damn well please. they're going to hear this case. the supreme court isn't particularly opaque. they may have reasons for wanting to go to the extraordinary step of hearing something that's been decided in all my understanding pretty solid legal grounds in the other direction against donald trump's claims of immunity. but andrew weismann, the conversation that tim and lisa and mike and i had at the end of last hour was about how historic and consequential the decision not to look at donald trump, at least publicly, not in any way that donald trump knew he was under criminal investigation, for the crimes, the alleged crimes around january 6th, until after the extraordinary work of

the congressional investigation led by liz cheney and chairman thompson and tim heaphy and others. >> well, just to say something humorous before we get to this very serious topic -- >> please. >> -- which is, even, nicole, even when i'm not on, i was watching you. so i actually -- >> so you should just -- you should just give in and come down here every day -- we'll have that conversation at 6:00. >> exactly. okay. exactly. but that is really fair that -- and we've talking about it, that in many ways, the timing issue that we're confronting is very much a product of, you know, this is an opinion, and i would say, it's an educated opinion. i don't know for sure, but i do think that the department of justice could have acted faster. and so i think that is not the

special counsel's fault. i think the special counsel, from the moment he was appointed, it's very hard to fault him. i also feel like judge chutkan has balanced also very carefully the rights of the defendant to have time to prepare for a case that is fundamental to due process, but i feel like this is something that i really feel like the supreme court does not act quickly, they are really undermining the rule of law. i will say one thing to note is that they did expedite -- remember, the position that was made by donald trump was only with respect to an application for a stay. they were trying drag this out. and the government said, you shouldn't take the case, but if

you are going to take the case, you should treat the application for a stay as sort of asking for the whole ball of wax, both a stay and seeking to appeal and that is what the supreme court is doing. so they are not buying into dragging it out. they have said, we're going to take your application for a stay as seeking to appeal the whole decision. and we're going to decide that at once and decide it on a fast-track so all of that is, you know, on the sort of plus side in terms of what we're seeing here that they didn't fall into the, we're going to do things as slow as possible. the other thing donald trump had asked for is he said said, you should send it back to the d.c. circuit so the full court can decide. they didn't do that either. in terms of, they didn't give donald trump nearly what he was

asking for, but, big picture for him is, it's again more delay and he is a master at using due process and the legal system to defeek win, even -- you know, win, essentially the ultimate war, even if it's not really right on any of the things he's saying. so here it very well could be that he is not immune. i'm certainly going to defer to judge luttig on this, who's much, much more esteemed and educated on all of this, but i think he and i agree on this, which is that i don't think the supreme court is going to say that he's immune, but it's really a question of timing about when they say it, because if they say it too late, it is de facto granting this former president immunity. >> judge? >> nicole, it's unimaginable to me that the supreme court will decide this case before the last

day of the term, which typically is around july 1st. if that's true, then it's equally unimaginable to me that the former president will be tried before the election in november. >> that's shocking. >> we don't know, but it's my belief that the clock would not take the case, i infer that there must be some dissent on the court by some number of the justices on the question of whether the president, this president has absolute immunity for the particular offenses against the united states with which he's been charged by jack smith. >> now, who could that be? >> it could be.

>> just based on past writings and what we know about them? >> as i said, i don't understand there to be an argument at aller for any absolute immunity but, as my colleagues and i wrote in a brief court of appeals, and also to the supreme court, if there's one thing that the former president can never be immune from prosecution for, it's for his effort to overturn the 2020 election and remain in power beyond the constitutionally prescribed four years. if the supreme court were to hold that the former president is immune from prosecution for that then i don't even know what to say. >> do you believe that clarence thomas in sending messages, contemoraneous text messages

and e-mails to state legislatures in states that trump's side viewed as contested that never really were? >> based on his decisions to like matters in the past, i do not expect that he did or will recuse himself from decision on this question, either. >> should he? >> that's for him to decide together with his colleagues in the supreme court. >> this is an extraordinary moment. the united states supreme courter >> sending to white house chief of staff mark meadows, who today was denied the opportunity to

move his case to federal court is one of nine human beings will decide whether trump has immunity over an insurrection. >> and mrs. thomas told us that she didn't discuss this with her husband. they keep their professional lives separate. whether or not that is -- ivanka trump that she didn't discuss january 6th with her husband either. hard to know -- >> which is actually fine. and give them the benefit of the doubt and say they did, but this is about a court that's 20% less esteemed in the views of the american people than it was in 2020 after it decided bush v. gore. >> your point about esteem is a good one, because while this sets the trial back, as judge luttig said, chances of it happening before the election are at best questionable, maybe even unlikely. if the supreme court does affirm resoundingly, even with one or two on the other side, the concept that a president is not immune, then it does give the prosecution ultimately arguably more legitimacy. and if the ultimate audience here is not just the jury that

sits and hears the allegations, but america, in terms of the sort of the rule of law and does it matter, then maybe one of the weird silver linings of this is while delay, it does give the potential imprompter of the supreme court of the well-reasoned d.c. circuit opinion and it emphasizes 100%, unequivocally, the president is not above the law. we keep doing that. >> we keep doing that. a case so open and shut, bill barr can't stop telling everyone how screwed trump is legally. it's like a race to the bottom to talk about all of these delays, it could be a good thing, it could win over the trump voters. i saw some of the trump voters in vaughn hillyard's reporting from the field. i mean, they're in with putin now. >> delay is a bad thing, there's no question. accountability requires adjudication of this case, his day in court, vigorous cross-examination, the presumption of innocence. it is time to get there and this

makes that more unlikely to happen before the election. i hope that it does, as andrew said. there are some silver linings here in terms of the expedited consideration. they'll hear it the week of april 22nd. they could decide quickly before the end of the term. judge luttig knows better than i, but prosecutors never like delay. prosecutors want to go fast. i wish that the prosecutors at the department of justice had moved faster, but now they want to move as fast as possible and this makes that harder. >> so a on a day with tectonic plates of history-making decisions coming our way, we couldn't have that conversation without our good friend, former acting solicitor general neal katyal who joins us by fun. so, neal, with one piece of paper and a story behind it that we don't know at this point. we don't know how it came to be that the john roberts supreme court decided to hear this case

trump's claim that he has totally immunity. your reaction? >> so the court is -- has agreed to hear this case, and obviously, the case raises important issues, but issues that are really, nicole, quite easy to decide. and it was, i think, laid bare in the court of appeals, when donald trump's lawyers said that this argument would mean the president has the power to send out navy s.e.a.l. 6 to go and kill someone, including his political opponent. that is just a preposterous view of the law. i don't think the supreme court needed to hear it, but here we are. and i think the most important thing is that they decide this case quickly so that the american people will know and have a trial with donald trump as the defendant, before a jury of his appears. and i am concerned that april 22nd makes that harder, but it is certainly not impossible. and so i think between now and april 22nd, my hope is that the justices and their law clerks

are spending all of their time thinking through these issues, weighing every possible argument. i think the answer, as i say, is pretty easy, at the end of the day. and so that decision could come quickly, even within the first week or two of may, and lead the prosecution to resume, but it is concerning and i'm a bit surprised that the court agreed to hear this case, because it has such little merit. >> what do you think happened, neal? why do you think they decided to hear it? >> i think one thing that happened is that trump's lawyers in the mar-a-lago case in florida made their similar cockamamy absolute immunity claim and i think one of the concerns that the court may have had is that the d.c. court of appeals, the nation's second highest court in washington, d.c., doesn't necessarily govern what happens at mar-a-lago, and so they might have been worried that there would be conflicted legal rulings on this question.

and so, i think, for that reason, they may have said that they felt the need to step in. but i can't imagine that donald trump is going to win this case. it just does not, you know, it is such a crazy view of the law, it may be like what, you know, putin's russia law might be, but it is not the law in america and so i think it's an easy case at the end of the day. >> you have that much face in the conservative justices? >> i do have faith in this court when it comes to rule of law issues. remember, this is the court that donald trump went to repeatedly in 2020 in the election claiming all sorts of ridiculous election fraud and things like that and all of the supreme court throughout all of those, this is the supreme court that when the january 6th committee said that donald trump doesn't have executive privilege, that went to the supreme court and the supreme court rejected that 8-1. it's the court that last year,

when i argued a case with very powerful republican backers behind it, that had we lost, would have changed really the dynamics of power and entrenched the republican party, the justices 6-3 voted against that. so, you know, maybe in a close case, some people may feel differently. this is not a close case. >> neal, judge luttig laid out a timeline where he doesn't believe the supreme court will make a decision until the end of their term around july 1st. is that a timeline that you think is a real possibility? >> judge luttig is absolutely right that it could go until july 1st, i just don't think it will. i think this is a set of fairly easy considerations for the court, they obviously felt need to hear the case, but that doesn't mean that the decision should take that long. and indeed, i think, here, the nation's need to have this adjudicated, particularly, as i suspect, the supreme court is going to say donald trump does

not have absolute immunity and must stand trial, in that circumstance, i think the justices will feel a strong need to get that out. and you may have -- sometimes you have, nicole, dissenting justices who are writing an opinion that disagrees with the majority and and that can hold things up, but the court has the power to release their majority opinion, waiting for the defense. and if that's what the circumstances require, they can do it. >> you see that "top gun: maverick" style, we have need for speed, can the supreme court do that? >> there's no question the supreme court can do it, but i think at this point, nicole, what we want to focus your viewers and listeners on is what i mentioned earlier. this is not a question of whether a president has absolute immunity writ large for any crime that he commits while in office. it is now a single issue before

the supreme court. does the former president have absolute immunity for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the obstruction of the official proceeding of the joint session of congress, in the counting of the electoral votes. that's the single specific, very specific issue that will be decided by the supreme court. and that's why my colleagues and i filed what would be considered a very, very narrow brief saying that if there's one thing that a president can never be immune from, it's violation of the executive vesting claus of the constitution. >> you think the supreme court justices will see it that way. >> that is the question today presented for the first time. i have to believe that there are

some number of justices, maybe not even more than one, who believes that this president is immune from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. >> which one? >> i have no idea nor would i say if i had an idea. >> lisa rrubin, your thoughts? >> i'll try to play the role of steve kornacki in breaking it down to data. i have to put a finer point something the judge said about how long the supreme court has and how its timing would affect the timing of a trial. when the stay was applied for by donald trump, because of this argument on immunity, we were on december 7th and he was 88 days to the original march 4th trial. judge chutkan has very publicly committed herself to giving donald trump seven months to prepare for trial. so that 88-day period, theoretically, is going to be one that she's going to seek to

preserve. and that's why the timing here is so absolutely crucial. now, to another point that the judge made, when this supreme court wants to move fast, it absolutely is capable of it. going back to bush v. gore, they were four days between the supreme court decision and the united states court decision with briefing and oral arguments here. and yet here, donald trump made his application on february 12th and we're going to wait until april 22nd just to have arguments. so i am not overly optimistic right now. we would have to have a decision from the court that is more in line with the time like neal outlined like may in order to have a trial before the election. why? because the special counsel has already said in public filings, this is a trial they expect is going to last three months, not the four to six weeks, for example, that alvin bragg expects to take it his. the other thing i want to point out, and maybe this is just

because i'm a word parser, both of these gentlemen know very well, that's an occupational hazard, but the question presented is about to what extent a former president enjoys presidential fluent from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. alleged according to whom? because if you ask the special counsel whether the actions and conduct implicated in this indictment were official acts, their answer would be "no," and the court's obligation is to take the facts alleged as true. so the question i have here is, who's alleging it? is it trump's allegations that they were official acts? if we look back at the briefing that's already occurred, according to him, these were official acts. and yet the special counsel's office takes a very different view. i'm very troubled by the word "alleged here. and what role it plays in the disposition of this case. >> i think i'm the only

non-lawyer in the room, neal, i'll use a lifeline and throw that over to you. >> i think lisa is absolutely right to focus on the 88-day period. because whenever the supreme court decides the case, the question is how much extra time is donald trump going to get to prepare. i don't read the supreme court's order as barring judge chutkan from essentially saying, look, you have to be on notice that once the supreme court decides, we'll go to trial more quickly. you had 88 days before, but that was when before the supreme court agreed to hear the case, and you don't necessarily need all 88 days now. so it's certainly possible that that 88-day period can be truncated. but i very much agree with the spirit of what lisa is saying, which is, this is the court that does not appear to be moving particularly quickly so far. they have the ability to act quickly once they hear the case and realize how bogus donald trump's arguments are, but right now, indications are that they are slowing this thing down and that is definitely a troubling

sign. >> judge, i -- i don't want to bring it to a base political level, but it is my duty to do so. trump's desire for the supreme court to get involved on and around the january 6th period, is a matter of public record. it's evidence created and developed by liz cheney and the members and the investigators. the justices' anger at what i talked about, the 20% drop in public approval since the -- in the aftermath of the supreme court deciding bush v. gore is something they talk about everywhere they go. they complain and bemoan the press coverage of the court. clarence thomas' spouse' active work in being part of the conditions that trump sought to create in the country, to have support for overturning a presidential election, and ending the american transition of a peaceful transfer of power

is in the public record. it's not an attack on clarence thomas for me to raise it, not denied by virginia thomas herself. what's about to happen inside the walls of the supreme court? >> the first thing i would say, nicole, is that the effort to disqualify a former president under section iii of the 14th amendment is completely disanalogous to bush versus gore. whatever else, it's crystal clear that the former president is a disqualifiable under section iii from running for the presidency again in 2024. and we've had the argument now in the supreme court and the one thing that was clear, the one thing is that the supreme court will never decide whether the former president is disqualified under the 14th amendment. not now, and not ever. so then that brings me to the

immunity case. it's on the continuum sits between bush versus gore and the 14th amendment case in this respect. as i said, there was no reason whatsoever for the court to take this case, unless there were dissents from the view taken by the united states court of appeals for the district of colombia circuit. that's why, though we never know, i feel all but certain that there are some number of justices prepared to hold that the former president is immune from prosecution for the specific offenses that's been charged by jack smith. and that's why i'm comfortable saying that this decision will never come down before the last day. because there will be dissents -- >> it's july 1st. >> or at most, concurrences. >> and look, andrew weismann, i

keep coming back to this, because, i'll grab the short stick and i'll just say it, trump wins. his legal strategy is never to defend himself on the merits, ever. never has been. not in mueller, not in when he wanted to come and answer question and lie. he ultimately lies in writing. not in mar-a-lago. his defense is to say, when you're famous, they let you do it, same thing we heard him say in his own words on the "access hollywood" tape, about grabbing women you know where, between the legs. so again, the legal strategy, he trotted it out with mueller, perfected it, maybe, mar-a-lago documents and here we go. we now have wittingly or unwittingly, an assist in the delay legal strategy from the supreme court today. >> i couldn't agree more, and i think what you're hearing from people like neal and me is

trying to grasp at some hope, because there is the hope that they would decide this quickly and thus, you know, you do tack on those 88 days. that's why i was saying, you know, no matter when they decide, the trial isn't going to start for likely two to two and a half months at the earliest. so if judge luttig is right, you have essentially a de facto veto over this case. i think they may, of course, be dissents, saying that the president, the former president should be immune. i don't think that will be the majority. i agree completely with neal that i don't think there will be five votes for that. i actually think it would be shocking -- i mean, unfortunately, i think it will happen, but i don't think there should be any votes for it. it's really fundamentally at odds with what this country

stands for. but all of that, this whole legal debate is something that, nicole, you quite rightly are saying, put that all aside, even if they do that and they announce this, you know, trumpets blaring about how the presidency is not above the law and they issue sweeping wonderful language that we all read and think, this feels great, this is the supreme court standing for the rule of law, they might be standing for it in principle and undermining it in fact, because if it results in a trial that could not start before, let's say, september, that is something that is going to lead to, even if it did start them, you're not going to have a result before the general election, in all likelihood. if -- >> we're going to fix andrew weismann's feed there. and so does merrick garland -- let's go with judge luttig's

timing, july 1st, we have a decision. how many months did judge chutkan say she'd give trump? >> she said she would give him seven months overall. we had 88 days left. >> so, does merrick garland let jack smith prosecute his case? >> i think merrick garland absolutely will press through jack smith to get the case resolved as soon as possible. i think there's an argument that given intervening events, she could truncate the 88 days. that's not law of the case. she doesn't have to give him a full seven months. she could say, given the amount of time that has passed, the parties have had a large, fulsome opportunity to review all of the discovery, we're going to give you a shorter time frame between the supreme court resolution and a trial date. there's no question that though whenever this happens, whether there's a decision in may or on july 1st, it's bumping up closer and closer to the election. the department of justice policy is you don't take any kind of investigative action within a

reasonable period of the election. >> 60 days. >> it's been interpreted to be 60 days, it's not in the manual, it's a reasonable period. >> neither is not prosecuting a president. >> we're in new territory here. but the justice department will keep pressing. they'll fire their briefs in this case, vigorously argue against appeal. i think there's an interesting question about the word "alleged." let's assume that the supreme court does find that there is immunity for official acts. does that make whether or not these are official acts a question of law for the judge to decide or a question of fact for the jury to decide. in other words, could a case still go forward, even in the unlikely event that the supreme court says there is immunity for official acts, on the question of whether these are official acts. so does that make a jury factual thing. >> you have to get calling mike

pence the p-word -- >> or is it something outside, like sending s.e.a.l. team 6 to -- it could arguably be a factual question for jury members. >> let me say this with respect to all of your brilliant legal minds, that are made out of much bigger beams than whatever is between my ears. how do we get here? how are we actually talking about the possibility that a jury will have to decide if an insurrection is part of an official act? >> the facts put us here. we've never had the legal system tested in this way by president of the united states, who supported an insurrection. that's what put us here. it's not the supreme court, not the department of justice, it is what happened on the ground. that is unprecedented. and we haven't dealt with that. let me take it to its natural extension. how can anyone argue that the rule of law can handle donald trump? >> i think the rule of law, if our country, if our democracy is going to stand for something, has to withstand this. >> you guys are doing like a jenga on the last brick scenario, where there's maybe a teeny sliver of a chance that he stands trial for crimes that he

barely denies committing. >> yeah, and it is difficult and tardy, there's no question. i wish it had happened sooner, but it's grinding forward. and again, while it's not -- it's not going fast enough, it is happening. he will not, ultimately, i don't think, be able to stay out of that chair, in that courtroom in d.c., in front of a group of 12 people and judge chutkan, whatever his status is at that time, president, candidate-elect, i doubt it, but he's going to get there, nicole, at some point. >> can i play devil's advocate for a second? the part of my mind that is a believer in the rule of law is really tested by today. and one of the other reasons it's tested is because this isn't the only case in which a presidential immunity defense is being pressed. you'll remember judge aileen canon has a scheduling conference on friday march 1st to determine what the schedule will look like going ahead in her case. right now that case is scheduled for may 20th.

nobody that i know with a law degree believes that that will happen on may 20th, in part because the briefing that needs to happen under the classified information procedures act couldn't possibly happen by may 20th. but now she has an excuse to stay the whole thing. why? because the presidential immunity motion that donald trump has made in her case to dismiss the indictment is now an issue that will be resolved by the supreme court. so what does aileen canon do? aileen canon will do what aileen canon has been doing, which is to give trump all of the scheduling delays thus far that he has wanted. do not be surprised when todd blanche and chris kise on friday ask aileen cannon to indefinitely stay her case. and so i am worried about whether we are going to get to a point where this case can be tried before the election. i don't think that's a misplaced worry. i would like to tell you that every bone in my legal body believes the rule of law will be

upheld. but this is a person who time and again has abused every process that the law affords him. and to the extent that there are things that can be done after donald trump is no longer a candidate and hopefully is no longer in office, the post-donald trump reforms that need to be made, we need to take a very good look at the rules for civil and criminal procedure and appellate procedure. and see if all of the time that is afforded a litigant is necessary, given how he has abused those deadlines, time and again, to escape the rule of law. >> i mean, i think we should nax after we look at the presidential power to pardon. i mean, there are all sorts of things. we want to clean the house after it's flooded. we want to dust now. i guess this gets to your testimony before the january -- you described him then as a clear and present danger. here we have exhibit 547. >> that's right, nicole.

the former president has tested america's democracy, the constitution, and the rule of law to the breaking point for the past 3 1/2 years and he's determined to test it beyond the breaking point before the election, up to and including the election, as he and others of his supporters have said, they are unwilling to accept the election results in 2024. and if they need, they will replay what they attempted in 2020 and failed. and this time, hope to succeed. but back on the question of the day, if we just do the math and you start from the proposition that i've advanced, that this case just cannot be decided before july 1st, then at best, a

trial would begin on october 1st. >> a month before an election. >> there's just no way, even that jack smith would want this trial to begin on october 1st, a month before the election. >> let me bring one more favorite expert and friend into our conversation, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the department of justice and the other half of the prosecuting donald trump podcast, mary mccord is with us. mary, your reaction and/or jump right in. >> sure, i've been sitting here, ready to jump off my seat listening to you. i wish i was at the table. so i have some concerns that spin off on some of the things that lisa and tim both said, because when i look at the question presented here, the question on which the court actually accepted the petition, the court said it was limited. and i'm going to read it again, right? it's whether and if so to what

extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to have involved official acts during his tenure in office. now, i want to believe that the court will decide the question that judge luttig says they should decide, which is, is president trump immune from prosecution, for basically involving himself in a multi-faceted conspiracy to overturn the will of the people, overturn the results of the election involving the fraudulent elector scheme, the pressure on state legislatures, the pressure on vice president pence. but it is possible that the court will simply answer a question about whether there's immunity for official acts, and not decide whether what mr. trump did was within the outer perimeter of his official acts. and that question could go back down to judge chutkan, and if that was perceived to be a legal question, and not something to go to the jury, judge chutkan,

who you may recall, when she ruled on the immunity motion, she said, i don't have to decide whether -- i'm not going to make the decision about whether this was within the scope of official acts, because i'm finding the president doesn't have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. so play this out. if they were to send this back to judge chutkan, it is possible that she would issue a ruling and mr. trump's attorneys would take it right back up again. and i do not want to throw, you know, cold water on the prospect of getting to trial. and so that's why i hope, and i know jack smith will argue to the supreme court, you do not need to send this question back, you can decide this yourself. but if they don't, we could -- there's no way that we would get to a trial before the election. and again, i hope that doesn't happen, but it's an interesting way they've raised this question. >> mary, you know and understand the justices and how they might respond and what this might

mean, better than i do. i mean, what -- if you're jack smith, how are you gaming out that scenario? >> well, i will say jack smith put a footnote actually in his opposition to the stay that said, essentially, this very thing. you don't have to take this case to decide bigger issues about whether a president could ever be immune for things that he does within the scope of his official acts, because all you have to decide in this case is whether you can be immune, or essentially, this conspiracy to overthrow the will of the people. and that's also a point that was made in judge luttig's excellent amicus brief that i read, which made clear, you don't have to decide in every instance, in every case, a supreme court, would a president never be immune from criminal prosecution or things done in the scope of their official acts. just decide facts on this case. and so jack smith will definitely be arguing that and i think many justices will feel like they do need to answer that question, but there may be some who don't.

those who want to delay it, those who are the dissenters, as judge luttig and andrew and others have talked about, who want to delay it, they will say, in the ordinary course, we wouldn't decide this question that hadn't been decided below. we'll send it back. >> mary, we had vaughn hillyard on yesterday, talking about something that was shocking to me, but maybe more familiar to you, and that's the climate in the country. and vaughn was talking on and off camera about a reporter gets asked to go out into the field and get reaction to the debate over financial assistance for the war in ukraine. and that's not the conversation people are having. what they're having is, especially at trump rallies, i saw tucker carlson's interview with putin, i think we should give ukraine back, i like him, that was one woman. but she was representative of a world view from trump supporters. trump supporters in vaughn's description and reporting have been, quote, conditioned to see the world the way they now see it over eight years. and one of the things they've

been conditioned to be very accepting of is that political violence is sometimes necessary. what does the decision of a july 1st decision from the supreme court, a possible october 1st trial date, and the trump base's own admission that political violence is sometimes necessary look like from a homeland security, domestic violence extremism standpoint? >> well, as you know, mr. trump has been using these criminal prosecutions, you know, as part of his rallying pitch. i'm a victim, i'm being persecuted, i will be your retribution when i come into office. i will weaponize the department of justice. he's comparing himself to navalny, who was by most people's opinion, murdered by the kremlin, yet here we are with his, you know, this opportunity, if he gets, you know, a decision in july that frees this up to potential go to

trial, and judge chutkan sets that trial, when we're at that point getting closer and closer and closer by the day to the election, you can imagine how he is going to double down on this victimization and urge people to take action. now, the good thing is, he certainly urged people to take action with each indictment, you know, when he was -- when the search warrant was first executed in mar-a-lago, he urged action, and unfortunately, there was some action. there was an attack on an fbi field office in cincinnati, but, you know, very few people came out in protest and arraignment. he urged action in new york to his indictment there, in d.c. in response to his indictment here, in fwa in response to his indictment there. people came out, but there was nothing like january 6th and i think nothing like what he was expecting. and i think -- i think frankly wanting. so my hope is that notwithstanding he's going to double down and triple down as we get closer and closer to the election about how he's being

politically persecuted, i think there are at least some people they may say when they're answering polls violence might be necessary to achieve to save america for example or to prevent donald trump from being criminally prosecuted. i think a lot of people are also worried about being prosecuted themselves. i've watched getting upwards of 1,500 people getting prosecuted after january 6th. and most people who talk a big talk still don't really want to get prosecute asked go to prison. >> but mary, i guess at that point we could be in the part of the trump campaign story where he's promising all of them he'll pardon them. >> absolutely. i mean he's making those promises basically right now and calling to the january 6th rioters, calling them political prisoners, calling them hostages. things that are just incredible to imagine. so, yeah, i think that will be part of his stump speech, if you

were, as we get closer and closer to the election. >> the person at the table who investigated the last acts of trump, the last official acts. but the column response is so chilling. what would you suggest people prepare for having been inside those emotional sort of post-fact trump called their response -- >> yeah, it used to be coated and it's more explicit now and therefore more dangerous now. and it creates a tremendous challenge for law enforcement. it's extremely difficult at all-times for law enforcement to protect against extremists. when it's the president of the united states with a kind of following or a former president of the united states, a candidate for president of the united states with his following it makes it harder. anytime there's a court appearance the amount of planning and security apparatus

and movements choreographed and goes into this, it's a tremendous strain of the system. we've been talking about legal strains on the system. there are practical constraints on the system just in terms of keeping people safe. the threats, the doxing, the kinds of risks people are taking are tremendously dangerous and on the rise. so this creates a whole panoply of challenges, safety challenges. we're not going to be asleep at the switch anymore like frankly a lot of agencies were on january 6th. we're going to be prepared asked mindful of the possibility because it is so much more explicit and a pattern. but the amount of resources and people and amount of attention going to be paid to that tremendous. >> andrew weissman. >> so two quick things that i think people should anticipate jack smith doing because there's no way someone like jack smith

and michael dreeben aren't thinking through how to get this case to trial before the general election. right now they're preparing a motion that as soon as the supreme court has made its decision they basically tell judge chutkan we please revisit this one-to-one. this 88 days lisa correctly pointed out they can seek to say is not needed here. the other thing they could do is slim down their case. it is true that they anticipated this case to take three months. that's not something that is set in stone if they think they want to get it to trial and want results that's something in their control to a large extent in terms of how they tried this case. you can be sure i'm just thinking about what would be going on in their minds right now is gaming out all of the various scenarios and what levers they have to still pull in order to get this case to

trial. >> judge? >> nicolle, america fought one revolution almost 250 years ago in order there would never be another revolution. and the constitution prescribes that there will not be another revolution. but the intellectual underpinnings of the maga movement, the intellectual underpinnings sound literally in revolution. and they compare what they are about, those people to the revolution that we had in 1776. that is what's at issue in the next nine months. >> you get the last word. >> i think about sitting on my couch on january 6th, 2021, watching a building that i love -- i was a house and senate aide before i became a lawyer --

watching a build that i loved plundered, and i think about what the judge is saying now and the intellectual underpinnings of the maga movement and thinking about what that could look like, and i am beyond terrified, nicolle, right now for our country. this is not a moment i hoped would come, this is not a moment i expected would come. i honestly thought that there would be enough votes on the court not to take this case for no other reason than bad facts make bad law. and the facts here as tim noted earlier could not be worse. if there was a context in which you wanted to decide the bounds of presidential immunity, it's not this case. >> this was not our plan for the hour, but news happens. we will have to come back. we'll have our conversation we planned today that is if on cue we're at the table for this momentous historic day, so thank you for being here. you two were on your way out and we pulled you back.

that's the way it goes around here as andrew and mary can tell you. lisa neil katyal, mary mccord, andrew weissman, this is when we need you most. our coverage of our breaks news continues on "the beat" with ari melber. don't go away. it's going to be a long night. don't go away. it's going to be a long night. tide is busting laundry's biggest myth... that cold water can't clean. cold water, on those stains? ♪♪ cold water can't clean tough stains?

i'd say that myth is busted. turn to cold, with tide. 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. (♪♪) ♪♪ when you're a small business owner, your to-do list can be...a lot.

♪♪ [ cellphone whooshes ] [ sighs ] that's why progressive makes it easy to save with a commercial auto quote online so you can take on all your others to-dos. already did. see if you could save at progressivecommercial.com. is it possible to count on my internet see if you could save like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with our 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data.

moaire dida twoo? - your data, too. there's even round-the-clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. it's happening. get started for $49 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. and fresh from the supreme court we begin with breaking news. the united states supreme court will hear donald trump's attempt to