i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. can it help us sleep better and better? please? sleep number does that. 94 percent of smart sleepers report better sleep. and now, the queen sleep number c4 smart bed is only $1,599, save $300. shop now at sleepnumber.com tonight's scaring is kingship is another demonstration of why you vote. not because you like the candidates or want to be their friend, but for harm reduction and control of the supreme court and united states senate. vote. that is tonight's need out. all in with chris hayes starts now. tonight on all in, a president of the united states has to have immunity and the supreme court is going to be rolling on that. >> the supreme court will take

trump's community case. >> this is a momentous decision just to hear this case. tonight, rachel and lawrence o'donnell on the supreme court with their delayed decision and what it means for justice. lisa rubin and kristi on how we got here. the new political reality for an electorate that has stopped trump before. all in starts now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the right wing dominated the supreme court and gave donald trump a gift. the biggest possible gift anyone could give him. the biggest possible gift they have given him yet. trump in violent coup to overthrow democracy. he rallied a supporter system to destroy the capital and he was indicted by our justice department, representative of us, the people, on four federal

felony counts by a grand jury for his role in the insurrection . today, in a single document, the court agreed to consider trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution for the january 6th insurrection, because he was acting in some sense of his official capacity as president. the order itself is not the story. it is the timing. it all comes back to the timing. let's remember that the court case and trial that donald trump over his effort to subvert the constitutional republic was originally set to begin days from now in march. all of that is on hold, because the supreme court wants to hear oral arguments for his immunity claims. are you ready for this? seven weeks from now, april 22nd, 2024 and making it a real

possibility and a likelihood, in fact, that donald trump will not face a trial for the crime of attempting to overthrow the american republic will not face a jury of his peers until after the next election in which he is the likely republican candidate. i want to be crystal clear about the important significance in today's news, because a lot of reporting has missed this. what happened today, this one- page order looks anodyne, right? it is an unmistakable sign from the majority of the trump created court that they are with him. they are going to use their power to make sure that he does not face trial in an election year two and american democracy. until today, it could have gone either way. it was unclear whether they

were going to give him what they wanted and whether they were going to put his shoulder to the wheel on donald trump's behalf. everyone is always understood. the substance of his legal claim is meritless. it lost in the district court level. it lost unanimously the appellate court. three judges and was one appointee. it was bad law under the supreme court on precedent. the point was to never win on the merits. the point was to make a time- consuming hail mary past to attempt to escape accountability. donald trump spent was that the 6-3 majority that he himself created on that court feel him out. they would rob the people's department of justice the opportunity to present evidence . the voters of this country, you and i and the millions of us might be robbed of the information that we need to determine whether the man is guilty of the crime any politician has been accused of

since the civil war. today, the court signaled that they are in cahoots that the plot is on. it is a go. yes, they will take the case. that is when they get to it. they have scheduled it seven weeks from now. keep in mind how this works. donald trump's legal team encouraging and participating in this delay tactic. let's go back to december 1st , 89 days ago. ruled on donald trump's focus immunity claim finding it meritless. days later on december 11th, special prosecutor jack smith anticipated that this claim was no more an attempt to delay and would fail the merits did something unusual and audacious. he went straight to the supreme court skimping an intermediate appellate level and said, let's be clear. you know what i know. what's going on? he's trying to delay and this is likely to land in one.

let's do it now and get to the merits. the public interest in the case is coming to the trial to be preserved and the court said, no. just before christmas. people said at the time, maybe that makes sense, becomes -- because maybe they don't want to get the case because it is so clear-cut. what happened quick syndicates -- they took a while. the clock was ticking the whole time. as a shed on the show over and over, they had a unanimous decision against trump. he is a citizen and not above the law. the decision seemed carefully tailored to give the supreme court an easy choice disabilities to take up the case and to let the lower court ruled in standford if the supreme court wanted to take up the case and the conservative majority of the court is what we are talking about here. they could have done it the day after they got the petition

this month. that day, what did they do? they burned 2.5 weeks for no reason and word producing any paper or writing any argument. it is one page. there it is. they sat around for two weeks, then they issued one-page order today saying that they were going to take this up and schedule argument for seven weeks from now. that is considerably longer than the expedited review of the 14th amendment case against in colorado. the one where he is challenging his right to be on the ballot. in that case where what over everyone was trinity not being on the ballot. the supreme court wanted to expedite quickly. write? they wanted to get that one done. that ruling is going to come up before call his primary next tuesday and they moved quickly. here, what the maga majority is telling us with this audacious order today is that the fix is in. in some ways for what it

represents about the court, i think it is 100 times worse. it doesn't matter what they rule in merit, but they all know that and everybody knows the score. no one should be in any illusion that any player in this drama is confused about what is happening and has happened. delay is all that matters. the patient is all that matters. no one needs to wonder whether this right-wing court will audaciously and in front of the whole nation use power to run the clock out. that is so faces no legal account ability and that his guilt or innocence cannot be definitively proven to us, the voters. i believe, we have a right to know whether he's guilty or innocent, so that he can return to power without us having knowledge and dismiss the cases from his position and as i quote him here, dictator on day one.

if you were hoping that donald trump's authoritarian disregard for the rule of law was going to be stopped by american institutions and the court at the highest level, that hope is severely diminished today. the modern investigation didn't stop him. criminal prosecutions are not going to stop. supreme court that he helped stack will not stop. today is the starkest proof yet that in the battle between maga and democracy was and is only one thing that could ever truly stop donald trump, which is we the people. americans voting against him and the majority working for what he stands for what he wants to do. with me, my good friend who host the rachel show right here on msnbc. rachel, i will say something.

i am mad at myself for how surprised i was. i was mad at myself as the time clicked and went by, i and a lot of people thought with the informed speculation and people on the court and around the court and studied the court and know the court that there is no way that they could take 2.5 weeks only to say that they will take the case seven weeks from now. what was your reaction? >> i don't think you should be mad at yourself or embarrassed. everybody thought that was the only decent explanation for how long they were taking and that they were going to take up the case and maybe samuel or any of the other real judges was going to be really mad about it and have an angry dissent and for as much time as he could, because it was his last chance to insert delay, which is what wants. if you think about the court as the supreme court of the u.s.

and rational actor and decent one, that was a reasonable supposition and it turns out that they are not that. i feel you in terms of the motion you are bringing to this. the sort of sense of urgency with which you are underscoring with this. it is true. there just isn't any way around it and i feel like for people who haven't been following this and if you are wondering why there is a hair on fire and you haven't been following any incremental bit of progress here , the important question here is not whether the supreme court is going to decide that donald trump and all presidents are immune from prosecution for things that they committed while they were president. it would be fully insane for them to side with trump. this is the case where trump's lawyer was asked by judge florence in the appeals court, are you telling me that a

president could order the assassination of his political rivals? there could be no prosecution for that? that would be okay? not only for the duration of his presidency, but the duration of his life? that would be okay? terms lawyers are like, yeah. they will side with him on immunity and it is unthinkable and besides the point. the conclusion that we can write that now without having to wait for the rolling is that they are ensuring that trump will not face trial and that one when they inevitably role that presidents are immune, what that will child donald trump if by then he is president is that he can never leave the office of the presidency. if he is voted out in 2028, he cannot leave office and he is willing -- he is welcome to commit any crimes as long as he is still president in order to ignore

the result of the election and stay in power for life, because otherwise he will go to prison when he gets out. that is the way this is going to, unless the country votes for president biden and against donald trump in november. >> that point about the incentive structure produced by this is something i haven't even thought about, but it's very clearly correct. the point that rachel made, which is interesting. i talked to people today and watched the reaction. just the courts hope that the kind of anodyne procedural nature means that what they are doing is illegible. they could do this and the news alert is like, the court will take up immunity. that sounds reasonable. i wonder if they can do it in april. that is part of the play. they are insulated. >> i hate to break the mood.

>> recommended. >> my hair isn't even warm. i'm on fire. the most important thing that you said in your opening remarks is that this should not be up to five members of the u.s. supreme court. it is really up to you, the voter, which is a version of what rachel was saying. these four votes, because this piece of paper and all you need are four in the supreme court. these four can be proven less important by the american people in a way that they cast their votes. i personally believe having seen how well president biden did in michigan and how badly trinity did in michigan and other states that president biden will be re-elected, which is why i am not worried at all about the timetable. we have to remind the viewers that the reason everyone is worried about the timetable is because they are worried that trinity

becomes president on january 20th, then on the 21st, he kills both federal cases. let's also remember, which has just been talking about the federal case. donald trump will go to trial in new york city on march 25th on an election interference case for his first presidential election. the star witness will be a star who has a testimony that will be very well understood and in fact we were clearly understood then maybe most of the testimony in jack smith's case. those things will happen. let's talk about how each side won some in this decision. these things are always one page. i will be horrified by that. the only question they will entertain is whether and to what extent does a former president and/or presidential entity from presidential prosecution to involve official acts during his tenure in office? that is the only question you are allowed to talk about.

they just throughout half of donald trump's appeal, which was the double jeopardy. he threw it out. they threw it out right on the single piece of paper, so they are losing already. jack smith won, because jack smith said, i want to go to the supreme court. they weren't asking pretty trump's lawyers were asking to send this case back to the 11th circuit, which is what they were asking for. >> they could have delayed it more than an extra month. >> i don't disagree with you. on this channel of, is this do or die because it he doesn't go to trial? >> first day of the appeal. if you find him guilty, he will go out to the courthouse and say, i'm appealing. he will be standing on the steps sometime in april doing the same thing and maybe even before the supreme court. he will be seen, i will appeal. >> my reaction to it isn't about the implications for what it means for the electoral

chances, but it is a level of craziness from the court. they are moving at this pace and i find it deeply unnerving. think about the court. they move fast when they want to, but move slow when they move slow. >> the court that filed against nixon -- this court as fast for them, but i do agree that this is the most isolated court in the history of the court, so they think that this will appear to be faster >> you just mentioned the nixon court ratio, which spent a lot of time on that period. my wife who has forgotten more about law than i ever know and i basically cheat off of everything. she pointed out to me today that in 1974, it is nixon where the court arguments in the issue of picking three weeks

later and her point about that was, that is the most similar case we have had in history. it is nixon. in terms of the actual opinion, they moved quickly and unanimously. >> the other big -- if we are going to carry forward, when you talk about the court. the creaminess of the court is evident in what they are doing with the pacing. putting this off for seven weeks and sitting on it for two weeks for no reason. obviously, pushing all of the cases that they can push to a point where trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the fedex. got it. it is the timing. it is the idea that the immunity thing is an open question. is presidential immunity and open question? what is the most famous pardon in american history? gerrard for pardoning richard nixon once he was resigned and a former president. why did gerald ford pardon him? as a result, occurring before his resignation as president of

the meeting as a result of stuff he did while president, quote, richard nixon has become liable to possible indictment in trial and whether or not he shall be prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and discussion of the authorized prosecutor. the idea that this is an open question and it might be that a former president can never be tried for something that he did because he was president when he did it is disproven by a plain reading of american history and the whole justification for richard nixon being pardoned in the first place. the idea that it has to be taken up is them saying that the sky is green. i think even for the nonlawyers among us to be able to say, this guy is not green even on our worst day. this is bs and you are doing this as a tactic to help for political friend partisan patron . for you to say that this is something the court needs to decide, because it is unclear in the law is fragrant and they

know it and don't care that we know it. that is disturbing about the future legitimacy of the court. >> can you stay with me for one more block? great. we have a lot more to unpack here on the far-reaching implication of today's supreme court order. we will be back after this. don't go anywhere. their experts replaced my windshield and recalibrated my car's advanced safety system. ♪ acoustic rock music ♪ >> woman: safelite is the one i trust. they focus on safety so i can focus on this view. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

♪♪ we're building a better postal service. all parts working in sync to move your business forward. for more value. more reliability. and more on-time deliveries. the united states postal service crime is reportedly on the built for how you business.

decline in san francisco. we are seeing progress in san francisco. but there is more we must do to address crime and public drug use. law enforcement needs 21st century tools to be more effective in preventing and solving crimes. allow public safety cameras to discourage crime, catch criminals and increase prosecutions. and end excessive paperwork to move officers back to the streets. let's keep san francisco moving in the right direction. yes on prop e. back with me, rachel and lawrence o'donnell as we collectively metabolize the court's decision today that

they will grant what is called certain arguments by donald trump's lawyers about some form of immunity on january 6th, which would mean that he doesn't have to attend the trial and they will hear the arguments on april 22nd. you are confident and we all agree that he will win this on the merits. >> if you look at all of the underlying briefs, you don't see how he can. what this court is going to decide is not the question of, can ever prosecute a president? what they will focus on is, as jack smith identifies in his brief, are these official acts? if they are official acts, can they be charged? it is conceivable that there are some official acts that you can charge as a crime depending on the behavior. the other question is, are these acts just outside or on the perimeter of official? can

we charge a crime? that is the area where this skirt court wants to focus. he gets possible that the one calendar thing that i suspect that they know is that only took the supreme court three weeks after hearing the arguments on him handing over the tapes. that three-week thing will be very visible to them. it is entirely possible that if they take four weeks on may 22nd and delivered an opinion. they go all the way full throttle. they will have provided that delay that everyone was concerned about. it seems impossible that they can allow and look at the indictment and say that every single one of those things is an official act. that is including the phone call to the georgia secretary of state. >> they have contended and i forget who it was. he is the president and as part of his official duties, they

didn't think you would be faithfully executed in georgia, so he made a call down there as president not as a candidate or that they wanted him to find the votes, but in the case of to go back to that and the timeline there, the reason that it was not an election year and it was a question of the fate of the country. the question -- it was a constitutional standoff until the court resolved it. in this case, it's less that we are in a constitutional standoff. the thing i keep coming back to is that the voters have a right to know. it is an obvious core democratic principle, which tonya and jack smith both alluded to it. this isn't an extra legal consideration, but it's actually democratic values that i like, i'm going to a polling booth. is the guy guilty of trying to

overthrow the republic or is he innocent of trying to overthrow the of public the public, which is absolute knowledge. maybe he's not guilty but we should note that, as well. >> there is no issue of law about which we should have any suspense. any supreme court knows. just to be clear, what they are going to be supposedly contending with in all seriousness is a lifelong immunity from prosecution for the president until he dies no matter what crimes he committed while president by virtue of the fact that he was president. really, is there a lot of debate about that? is not an open question? did the pardon of nixon happen? will be dreaming? wasn't an acid trip? it was the 70s. the question is male. what this is is a tactic. how long may the court decide and what would happen

thereafter? keep in mind, in the jack smith case and the case before tonya chicken, the way that it is pasta right now is that neither side is allowed to do anything in trial while these are pending in the appeals. that means, they go fast as they possibly could. let's say that they hear the arguments the week of april 22nd and they decide that they turn it around quickly. it will still be months after the supreme court decides before the case can even start. you get very quickly up to -- can't be taking any legal action that will have an apart effect. this is decided. the delay is a done deal in terms of whether trump will be tried before the election.

that is just a matter of practical math. >> i think part of it comes down to that it has been interesting to watch the system attempts to deal with trump. this question that hung over all of this is two things. one, you get as much as you can afford, which is what he is known for very long. two, the justice delayed and denied cliche is true for a reason. there are piano tuners which pianos and maybe they won after 10 years and got their $19,000. maybe, but does it really matter? >> in the nixon case, we always refer it as a unanimous decision. it was 8-0, because appointed by nixon and recused himself.

>> it is just inconceivable. >> that left three appointees on court doing the opinion and no one out there watching it thought there was anything wrong, because no one suspected that they could possibly be corrupt in the way that they are suspected of it now. no one is suspect to be more corrupted. the senator who got clarence thomas onto the supreme court was senator jack danforth of missouri. he is the republican senator whose job it was to get him through the confirmation process and he did. jack didn't know that anita hill was coming. he could have abandoned clarence thomas, but he didn't. if he did, clarence thomas would not be on the bench. jack danforth has signed a brief to this court against the possible claim of presidential immunity and jack's brief says what kind of constitution would immunize and verify a losing

first-term president to violate federal criminal statutes through official or unofficial acts in efforts to serve a second term. i'm sure that clarence thomas will pay attention to everything , but he will pay attention to what jack danforth has filed and the other justice, as well. >> he might also get a brief on the side from his best friend. best friend, as he deserved in both interviews and text to the chief of staff when asking at the time, was it really true that joe biden had been put on a floating in guantanamo? it turned out not to be true. i think that's for the best. you had to ask. rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell, thank you for scrambling to come join me here in this hour, which is neither of your own. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> what a night.

still ahead, legal defense supreme courts decision and what it means. what we don't know yet. that is next. well ted, well pro. ♪ i am, i cried ♪ ted, well pro. [ laughing ] ♪ i am, said i ♪ ♪ and i am lost and i can't ♪ punch buggy red. ♪ even say why ♪ ♪ i am, i said ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ we're building a better postal service. all parts working in sync to move your business forward. for more value. more reliability. and more on-time deliveries. the united states postal service built for how you business.

millions of children are fighting to survive due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children

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

"overflowing with ideas and energy." that's the san francisco chronicle endorsing democrat katie porter for senate over all other options. porter is "easily the most impressive candidate." "known for her grilling of corporate executives." with "deep policy knowledge." katie porter's housing plan has "bipartisan-friendly ideas to bring homebuilding costs down." and the chronicle praises "her ideas to end soft corruption in politics." let's shake up the senate. with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. democrats agree.

with democrat katie porter. conservative republican steve garvey is the wrong choice for the senate. ...our republican opponent here on this stage has voted for donald trump twice. mr. garvey, you voted for him twice... as your own man, what is your decision? garvey is wrong for california. but garvey's surging in the polls. fox news says garvey would be a boost to republican control of the senate. stop garvey. adam schiff for senate. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. today's a supreme court order is just one page stating, a petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the petition is granted imitate to the following question, whether and if so what extent does a

former president of presidential amenity from criminal prosecution for content alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. short order we did with consequence. you to discuss those consequences msnbc legal correspondent and former federal prosecutor whose deputy chief of the criminal division for the district of new york and i want to start with a poll canvas. what i have noticed today is that people who are not legal nerds and people who have been federal practitioners have a response that is different than folks then you like you and people that i know are genuinely shocked. shocked that they would do this so brazenly. was that your reaction? >> shocked, rage and controlled fury. there is so much about it to be upset about. 12 days that the texans this was fully briefed and they were expediting the review, which of course is not expediting it at all. jack smith said that if you are going to treat this, you should at least set a schedule that

allows us to argue in march. they set it for april 22nd and are essentially making it, so that this is not possible to have the trial before the election. >> i share everything that she just said. i think one of the things that is most upsetting to me is the way that the question is framed. weather and to what extent they enter presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. there are some tells there in the language. as lawyers, our professional hazard is two parts where it is too closely. the phrase alleged to, but by who clicks if you ask jack smith, everything they are alleging is outside of donald trump's official purview as president by interfering with an election over which a president has no administrative

responsibility and nothing about this is official. alleged is by him. the supreme court is essentially giving into his reframing of the question, then the d.c. circuit and ruling said that he has no categorical immunity. they have reframed it whether and if so to what extent? they are opening the door to that there is a possibility that a president could have immunity to song subcategory, but not as to others. all of it suggests that if they resolve the question in donald trump's favor, not only will he likely be immune, but they could have some feeder about sending this back down for further fact-finding's or legal rulings that elongates the process, but doesn't get him closer. >> can i get a question that is impossibly the answer? they know that they are doing

this. i am mentally modeling. they just don't care about that stuff and they want to make sure they get it right. if it doesn't go to trial. the other is like, they have a calendar and are like, if we do it this way, he won't go to trial. the first is bad enough and the second is more cynical. i am inclined to think that it's the second. what do you think? >> if you remember in the oral argument on the 14th amendment issued, asked the question and the lawyers saying that the question you have to confront is why a single state should get to decide who gets to be the president of the u.s.. they are thinking about the consequences. in that oral argument, it is clear that they think about the effects that this will have on the election. the question is the same. why is it that the supreme court should get to have a decision as to whether or not donald

trump will be the president of the united states . make no mistake, that is what it could mean. there are voters who say that it matters to them and whether or not he is convicted of a crime and that they want that information before they vote. this is basically the supreme court saying, we don't care. we don't care that there is a public right to a speedy trial. we don't care that this is information that voters would want to know. by the way, as jack smith said in his papers, it is a radical claim. it is frivolous and this is not some tough question that there is any chance that you would come out and not be clear in your response, but they are taking it up for a reason. they know what they are doing. >> i don't disagree with that at all. i will be more cynical about it. this isn't the only case in which he is advancing a presidential immunity argument. his lawyer has said that he intends to do so in georgia if that case goes forward.

let's put a pin in that, because on friday we will may be no a little bit more about that, but he has also advanced the argument and motion to dismiss in a case against george cannon who has not moved her case with all deliberate speed, but has incrementally moved the ball backwards and further backwards to score a goal for trump. here, judge cannon is having a scheduling conference on friday. the motion was filed on february 22nd two days after briefing was completed on his motion for stay and they knew that the motion was made. judge has a scheduling,. what you think the odds are? couldn't possibly schedule a trial. your honor, our client's right to avoid a trial is at issue and has been taken up by the supreme court. let's stay all proceedings and what you think the odds are? he will say, you are right. >> is a good point. your point about one of the things. i'm glad you brought of

the 14th amendment case. one of the things i think about is, i really try to stay on myself to be fair about this stuff, so what is the right benchmark? the colorado case is a benchmark for expedite. they took it two days later. two days, they decided to take it. keep in mind that they didn't act quick, then you might end up in a situation that donald trump is not on the ballot . can't have that for the reason that said, not having to deal with the public meaning of the document and having to deal with the question of whether one could decide an election for the entire nation. in that case, they take it and they are going to come up with the 14th amendment decision before tuesday when colorado votes. and i write? are they going to dillydally on that one? am i crazy? >> they could. >> they will vote on tuesday. >> they will post the enforcement of the texas

antiabortion statute and wanted a decision from the court on the application to vacate a state of an injunction and they didn't get it by the time it took affect. by their inaction, they allowed the statute to take effect, then they rolled in the way that we predicted. that could happen, too and we could avoid a decision. they cannot know by tuesday. coloradans vote and donald trump is still on the ballot, because that is the status quo. >> that would be bananas. this is bananas, too. >> in the same category. >> the people watching tonight, i would say that you can no longer rely on any institution to save you or democracy. we are the ones that we have been waiting for. you want this democracy to not become an autocracy, then get yourself to a ballot box weekly and fast. >> the question about that expedited review and the 14th amendment, i guess the other

questions come down to, let's talk about the new york case, which is slated for march 25th. it is the only one likely to go to trial now. there is some part of me that is like, i don't know. are they going to pull it out of the hat them? is there a new constitutional right that will be invented to create a delay? >> that will go to trial. they have briefed and made all of the motions. it has been decided by the judge. trumps lawyer tried to delay and was essentially called out by the judge and said, you are not making a legal argument here. your argument about whether this is election interference is not legal argument. in court, a list legal arguments, dismiss that and we are going forward. >> said this and i would like to get your thoughts, because you have been in those courtrooms in the silk is compressible case and i imagine he will be there for the committal case.

what an incredible split skin between the federal judiciary and the judiciary. federal courts, trump has easily evaded trial and will do so through november. zero ability. >> not only does he face criminal trial, but some of his strategy was not set in stone when he started to litigate the case, the new york committal case. they weren't thinking about consequences of arguments. initially, he tried to remove the case to federal court on grounds and that he was a former federal officer who will try to federal defenses. he lost the motion before federal judge in the southern district of new york and in saying so, he said that the immunity defense was not a colorable one. he initially wanted to appeal, then withdrew. the argument that you make in favor of removal works against you in the 14th amendment cases . you can say you are a former federal officer, then tonight that you are a federal officer in the other. he has no waived his presidential immunity defense in the case that alvin brack is

trying. it's the only one where he has waived it and that is why i don't think there anymore rabbits to pull out of hats. >> that is a great point and one interesting thing to note is that donald trump didn't appoint any of the judges in the new york system , but appointed a bunch of them in the federal system. sort of different situation. thank you very much. still to come, another set in holding tenants and accountable. the one remaining path for american democracy is next. good advice. when stains and odors pile up, it's got to be tide. meet the jennifers. jen x. jen y. and jen z. each planning their future through the chase mobile app. jen x is planning a summer in portugal with some help from j.p. morgan wealth plan. let's go whiskers. jen y is working with a banker to budget for her birthday. you only turn 30 once. and jen z? her credit's golden. hello new apartment.

three jens getting ahead with chase. solutions that grow with you. one bank for now. for later. for life. chase. make more of what's yours. the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention.

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

sleepiness is the most common side effect. it's nice. people focus more on me. ask your doctor about #1 prescribed, once-daily ingrezza. ♪ ingrezza ♪ if you're living with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis, symptoms can sometimes take you out of the moment. now there's skyrizi, so you can show up with clearer skin... ...and show it off. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ with skyrizi, you could take each step with 90% clearer skin. and if you have psoriatic arthritis, skyrizi can help you get moving with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses.

serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to skyrizi, there's nothing like clearer skin and less joint pain, and that means everything. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ask your doctor about how skyrizi could help with your skin or joint symptoms. learn how abbvie could help you save. a force to be reckon with. no, not you saquon. hm? you! your business bank account with quickbooks money, now earns 5% apy. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you business differently.

there have been a litany of efforts of promising of bringing donald trump down in some way. of course the political movement to keep trump out of the white house field in 2016, though not because it failed to secure a majority of americans. but, once he took office, the legal battles against him were fast and furious. they exploded. i think there are a lot of folks who believe that there was some kind of method of accountability, some would be hero that was going to save us from the dictatorial monster in the oval office. remember mike? received $150,000 hush money payment.

he is currently serving a 14 year sentence for stealing millions of dollars from his clients. that trial seems to go perfectly fast enough to make that happen in time. then it was special counsel robert mueller, the investigation to connections between trumps campaign and russia and of course in that report, more's report failed to find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy and it did not come to any conclusion about whether trump, then the sitting president, obstructed justice. that is probably because trump refused to sit for an interview , unlike joe biden who did sit for an interview. two years after trump left office, the manhattan district attorney brought his case against the former president in connection with those hush money payments to stormy daniels. legal experts have said this appears to be the weakest of the cases against trump or at least the one where the outcome seems the most of in the air but it is also probably going to be the only one to actually go to trial before the election. then of course special counsel jack smith brought indictments against trump in the mar-a-lago documents case which if you read the indictment scenes open and shut.

trumps efforts to steal the 2020 election, thanks to trump appointed judge, and now the supreme court. it is likely neither trial will happen before november. new york attorney general letitia james achieved one of the only legal wins against trump and it was huge, of judgment against him in a civil fraud case. trump is a feeling, he has not paid a cent yet. this one successfully sued him for defamation, she won more than $80 defamation from trump was found liable of defaming and sexually abusing her. a jury found she was telling the truth. he is still trying to avoid paying for that one. so, here we are, it is 2024. donald trump, if you have been following the news, i suspect you have, is once again almost certain to be the republican nominee for president. the election is eight months away, all of his efforts to wriggle out of legal criminal -- criminal legal accountability have sort of worked so far. like i said at the top of the

show, it is hard to believe that i ever allowed myself to think it would be otherwise. right? this is how it has gone. but here's the thing. the most important thing. the only thing that has ever worked to stop donald trump is you and me. and i mean that in the sense of the world of voters. americans, the pro-democracy majority in america showing up the polls and in the streets and in civil society to protest donald trump and to vote against him. the democracy he wants so badly to destroy, that is the only way this will end. david puff was a campaign manager for the 2008 obama campaign, later served as a senior advisor to president obama and he joins me now. there is a dictatorship quality to the legal stuff that is transfixing and compelling. but there is nothing you or people can do about what

happened there. what they can do about it is how they participate in american democracy and one of the remarkable stories of every -- since that first march, the first weekend of 2017, is how much people had. >> there is no calvary, the only calvary is the voters. i think any good campaign weather for mayor or president, does not count on any external events. in fact a good campaign plans for potentially negative ones. we are where we are which is where there is going to be no asset event that prevents him from taking the oval office on january 20th. it is on voters, at the end of the day i think that it is going to be a scary few days here as people process this. but then they get to organizing and at the end of the day, clearly there is a pro- democratic majority. it is out there in all battleground states, probably anywhere from 50 to 54%. you have got to find a way to put it together so you keep this guy out of office. >> why are you confident?

it was there in 2020. >> yes, i think on abortion. i think on tax cuts, on democracy, there is a whole set of issues. we have a challenged candidate because of his age but at the end of the day, he is starting to talk about that more openly, bearhug trump which is okay for the two old white guys were wrestling for it but that is really similar defend but i actually think this in a way helps focus the mind which is there is no easy offering. there is no one else who is going to save the country and at the end of the day when you look at the battleground states, you can get there and i would just remind, a poll right now that shows trump up 46-44 is 90% of the allocated vote, not 100%. i think trump is probably closer to his healing in polls right now than biden is, biden has a lot of work to do, no

question about that. but i do think that it exists there. that is the important thing in elections, i have imparted some elections where you need a miracle to happen to get to 50%. i don't think biden needs that. >> that is a good point. you just mentioned biden coming out, i have got this feeling about, do you ever go -- let's say you go to a reunion, okay? you have not seen someone in 15 years, it is like, you have aged or you have gotten work done or there are 1 million different ways they might see a person and be like, i have not seen you in a while, you look different. it strikes me there is a little bit of that with biden which is that the longer he has gone between public appearances and being in the mix somewhere that kind of sets in whereas if you do it the opposite, you're registering from joe biden every day, joe biden is 81 years old, no one is pretending otherwise, that is what he sounds like. >> that is such an important point because i think no voter that we really care about being indecisive is watching in eclipse, they don't watch press conferences or sunday shows, so whether it is seth meyers, late night, he is starting to do more short form videos to respond to trump, the more of

that, you basically have got to cover the entire field and be everywhere so you can make a compelling argument. but also to normalize, yeah, it is not the same guys from 16 but this is who he is. >> it is always great to have you here in person, have a great evening. that is all in on this wednesday night. you can catch me later tonight on the late show with stephen colbert her. although, also, it is fine if not. i can never get enough. >> you know who else can't get enough? i bet you my parents are will be watching that. >> that is what parents and fellow colleagues are for, unwavering support. i am here for you. as i have been for a quarter of a millennium. or, a century. it feels like a marohn and am. a long time. thanks to you at home for