you suppress the vote, people don't turn out -- people say, well, i'm not going to appeal to that community because they're not going to turn out. so trisha person is alive and i think it has a great deal to date with a widening differentials in turnout. >> we have got about 20 seconds left, marc. black woman helped win president biden his election in 2020. we are told he stand right now with black voters? >> i think a stand in a good space with black voters. but there is work to do. number one, to remind them of his accomplishments and his promises and his commitments. number two, to talk about what a second biden term would bring. we're in for us that commitment to voting rights. two police accountability. leveling the economic playing field. i would like to say in the state of the union a strong -- >> and we lost marc. thank, you marc morial, for

that really good conversation. we appreciate it. that will do it for me on this edition of alex witt reports. i'll see you tomorrow again at one pm eastern. up next, the beat weekend. he b. welcome to the beat weekend. i am ari melber. let's get right into the headlines. jack smith making new pitch on behalf of the doj on what donald trump must be put on trial before the election. if that sounds like a familiar issue, just remember, jack smith has more than one case against defendant trump. the defendant was done and in federal court today watching as doj prosecutors argued for a july beginning to a trial and the other jack smith case. billy and the way, we discussed a big coup case and the supreme court slowing that down. this is the classified documents case. you probably remember. both and they are saying over at

the doj there is nothing in their roles or process which prevents this trial, on the documents, from occurring and weeks even days before the election. remember, it is trump as a defendant who has been killed in both cases. on the flip side, donald trump 'stame are saying they don't like the idea of this trial happening at all. they offered august as a possible date. we learned about that new development last night. it came to her in a filing. that was a change. today in court, with donald trump sitting there, we saw all of this play out at the hearing. heroes held a new york times pageant. one possibility, accounting for the switch and the trump legal team's strategy, is that trump's lawyers for, quote, seeking to reduce the chances of there being time for the average ex matt case, the election case, to go to trial before election day in november. there is a lot of uncertainty here. you have, of course, a range of possible cases. those are the two jack smith federal cases. there is also a possibility of

a georgia r.i.c.o. trial. today, the judge there heard more arguments about whether or not there's a conflict to remove the d.a. fani willis from that r.i.c.o. case. then you have trump's legal problems in new york. he goes on trial and the hush money case this month, we are in march now. that is coming. up in just a few days, he has to start paying some of the hundreds of millions of dollars he's right up and penalties from the other cases. these four criminal trials are more than any president has ever faced. the civil cases have been huge impact on donald trump. i want to walk through some of that with you tonight. i will tell you straight-up, some of this news happened over the course of the week. here we are, for the night, it's been so busy -- the caucus technique because trump is struggling to even come up with part of the cash cote for what he owes endless for cases. he revealed this week he won't or can't pay the health million dollar judgment and the fraud case in new york. his lawyers put at like this. it would be, quote, impossible

to secure and post a complete bond. they say he might have to sell property to pay this penalty. that is them -- of telling the truth he doesn't or they're trying to deceive a court about his money after a case where he was found liable for fraud, which is deceptions about money. that would be a bad look to say the least. oh this is a blow to someone who's told a lot about being the king of debt and not count even post a full bond. >> i am the king of debt. nobody knows it better than me. i liked it, for me. i've made of fortune using debt. he liked it and in business there are ways of sophisticated investors and entrepreneurs can used it. he stands accused of fraud and a. things that misuse of financial machinations. other people have done it effectively. i'm going to show you something

-- if a truly multibillionaire person we're facing this type of legal problem, say, elon musk, that wouldn't be haggling with the court about partial bond or delaying putting up the money. to be clear, and in fairness to donald trump, like any of a defendant, you are allowed to put up a bond to appeal the case and maybe the total amount will be reduced. maybe the whole thing would be reversed. elon musk wouldn't have the problem with putting up this bond for the purpose of appeal. not only that, trump's problems this week, his lawyers say, we don't have it -- directly contradicts what his lawyers said as recently as last week about trump's supposed net worth. >> this guy is worth a lot of money. billions and billions and billions of dollars. >> of course he has money. he is a billionaire. >> they picked the wrong guy to pick on in my opinion. he's strong, he's resilient, and he happens to have a lot of

cash. >> he happens to have a lot of cash. except he doesn't. again, there's a difference between what lives on fox or in public and what i have to say and. even if he's been delaying throwing things -- look at this statement from trump lawyers. properties would likely need to be sold to raise the capital. in other words, they don't have it. whatever the other lawyers, it it was not true according to the lawyers. now the attorney general is not just going to let donald trump slow walk this or lie about it in public. her office has already put his team on notice that trump all but concedes he has insufficient liquid assets to pay, to solidify the judgment. under new york law, that mains letitia james can go ahead and sees things. for example, bank accounts. take control of properties. under the law, when you lose this kind of fraud judgment, when you defy it, it becomes a matter of what the attorney general is willing to do. she's been vocal about her

intent. >> if he does not have funds to pay of a judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms and court. we will ask the judge to seize his assets. >> that is a big warning. on a week when donald trump got some good legal news from the federal side and the supreme court, he's now facing a lot of bad news which affect his business and power and his money. we know this also affects potentially his campaign. because he's been taking funds that otherwise would go to political activities and campaign activities, rewriting them to cover his legal bills. it's or reluctant. because of him. not because of the a.g., those are his bills to pay. in this campaign, at this crucial moment. donald trump has a message this week he cannot pay up. he cannot even get that money to pay the full bond. i mentioned elon musk as one comparison -- a lot of people

have dealt with legal problems and had to pay for bond. in fact, it is something papal with legal experience put openly about. take 21 savage who said, i wear shades so they can't see when i pay the lawyers and the bond fees. they still ask him, can't you front me? 21 basically draw a contrast between people who need to be fronted and people like him who can't afford their bonds. apparently that's something donald trump can't do. he would have to pay this bond, but the, way for a premium faith accompany. that can be about 3% of the judgment as the new york times explained. companies offering appeal bonds might be unwilling to take trump's properties as collateral if a building already has a mortgage or other creditors in one ahead of them. trump has not just law fraud free -- look at. that 355 million is just the

fraud of judgment. the bond i mentioned is only for that. plus 100 million fraud interest. plus the lawyer phase, which he has passed on to his donors. plus the 83 million uc upfront from that defamation loss. we are tracking that as well. ms. carroll, who beat him twice in that case, says she now has serious concerns about trump's cash position and the visibility of collecting payment. we've got someone who spent decades saying he has all this money. his lawyers last week saying he has lost money. recent developments give rise to those concerns, as she writes in a filing. trump tried to bat her with a judge on the fraud case. again, i mentioned, we didn't get into this -- at one point early at this week, he said, what if instead of putting up 400 million, what if i give you 100 million instead of the full amount. that is not how things work. very quickly, the judge said no , you lost, this is not a

negotiation, this is not a thrift store and this is not some real estate deal like that once we are your front guilty of fraud. you owe the bond to cover the entire amount. as we enter the week, labor trying to take this all in and think about these comparisons. donald trump can't pay his bond. donald trump went in court, broad daylight this week, at much of that, and said what if i gave you a quarter of the bond. and the judge said no. we are approaching a baroque era of a potentially st. louis broke real estate mogul that has more in common with comedy than traditional lawyering. >> i scanned your food and it comes to a gazillion dollars. >> elmo has a t-rex and a go fish card. >> i'm a baby -- >> you a $200. >> i can pay putin blocks. >> you are a baby, you're a

man. >> watch this? >> bubble money. >> i want to make sure you get -- >> this is too much for me. i'll give you a fourth all the invoice. >> maybe i'll just pay you a quarter of it. that might be some real housewives stuff, it might be funny in other contexts. but the judge said this is not matter. someone claims to be so rich and is running to be president, just said, of don't have, it could i give you a quarter of it? that's where we are in the new case will trump's in court on the federal case and but look of all the trials i have in this. here we want to take it all together -- molly jong-fast is here to talk about all the cases.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ of course, i did don't lie to me! it says right here, old spice has ridiculously long lasting sweat protection! ok, i lied. noooo! aaaah! ( ♪ ♪ ) start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand.

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter the #1 pharmacist recommended or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. visit xfinitymobile.com today to learn more.

this is unacceptable. it's $4,000 he appalling allowed the other two in a couple of days >> i thought i made myself clear i'm gonna give you a couple of extra days but it's

gonna cost you another as a reminder not -- >> when you owe, you owe. we are joined by vanity fair is molly jong-fast, an msnbc analyst while welcome, happy friday, how are you? >> good, good to be here i mean, what a montage happening. >> well you are in good company. -- the sopranos, on a friday. i say it's laughable, because that part is there are some issues here for, example of the valid bands, are a new and untested way to look at these issues. there are some issues that are debatable, the supreme court certainly can lawfully take a case. although we've covered how, the way they are doing it is, questionable -- then there is the fraud stuff that is so

dominionist, it is just, obviously the lawyers couldn't talk him out of, it any good lawyer could say if we go, in i'm -- a quarter of the, bond we looked ridiculous, and we will lose. let's not do, it but they have a client who is insistent. and they lost very quickly. i'm curious what you think about the substance of this. we hear so much about pr. molly, what do you think about the substance of donald trump rerouting, donor funds to cover legal fees, while telling the new york court he is not good, for he doesn't have the bond? >> well, what's incredible about this case, which i think is really interesting, is that donald trump has so gotten away with things for so long, he has been impeached twice. he has managed to bully the republican party into submission. though you could see where he thinks okay, i'm just going to pay less. i get away with stuff like that every day. and so, i do kind of see his thinking here. i mean obviously, the idea that the court is the first time where donald trump has been

treated the way everyone else has. i mean, even then, he has been able to delay, things he has been able to get the supreme court to look at things, which most people thought they would never look at. and so, i do think he has had a lot of success, but he is really a case study in what happens when you don't get held to the same account as everyone else. >> yeah, exactly. and, i want to remind people, because this all happened during the, week quickly. while other stuff was going on. it's a big deal. this is from the filing about the hundred million. again, he owes over 400. trump's best ownership interest in new york real estate, ongoing oversight by, it would alone be sufficient, in the heading here, to adequately secure any judgment affirmed. trump's bond would serve as further security. this is one of the, kind of the biggest self owns i've seen in a minute, and i wanted to translate, molly because it's interesting.

the lawyers are saying, he is so rich, he shouldn't have to pay, there is so much real estate. we'll just give you the partial bond. and i mentioned this earlier, it's not trump putting up 100 mill, it's him asking to put up 3% of 100 mill to accompany, because he couldn't put up 3% before. elon musk has had many new clashes, and whatever one thinks of him, he has the money, and we have seen that proven in various ways. and elon musk, a real multi billion, or wouldn't spend as much time and energy, spending lawyer fees or, never to haggle over what for him would be like yet, take it out of one of the many accounts. what do you think about the fact that donald trump is this tight, when i say tight, i mean he is this broke, in terms of real liquidity. >> and what's amazing about this is remember, donald trump's whole presidency is built on a lie that he has unlimited funds, that he is a genius businessman with billions of dollars, right. and again, this is where --

trump gets in real trouble with, defendant trump, defendant trump is not served by candidate trump. like his numbers on the fraud case were much, much higher, because he was a candidate. he went in there and said i have a bazillion dollars. and if he had just gone in there and said i am sorry that we lied, and it was the wrong thing to do. i mean, even the judge said that if there had just been the tiniest bit of contrition. but instead, donald trump has decided that these court cases are really the same as rallies, that he is going because the base loves him in court. that this will somehow help him in a general. now first of all, i actually don't think that will help him in a general, i think that swing voters don't like to see their president in court. i think it is a very strange's bargain to make. but i think he thinks that it helps them. and i think that he has had so many times where he has sort of gotten away with things, or then able to do this, that he is going to keep doing it. back in a moment, with more of

the beat, weekend. moment, withf the beat, weekend. and prevent my migraine attacks all in one. and don't take ifraine allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion and stomach pain. talk to your doctor about nurtec today. jordan's sore nose let out a fiery sneeze, so dad grabbed puffs plus lotion to soothe her with ease. puffs plus lotion is gentle on sensitive skin and locks in moisture to provide soothing relief. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue.

- i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! deserves puffs indeed. what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line.

get help reaching your goals with j.p. morgan wealth plan, a digital money coach in the chase mobile® app. use it to set and track your goals, big and small... and see how changes you make today... could help put them within reach. from your first big move to retiring poolside - and the other goals along the way. wealth plan can help get you there. ♪ j.p. morgan wealth management. i launched our campaign at this union hall. ♪ let's go win this thing! then we hit the road and never stopped. you shared with me your frustration at working harder to barely get by and afford a place to live. your fears for our democracy and freedoms and your dreams for yourself, your family, and the future. it is not too late to realize those dreams. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message because together we can still get big things done.

here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. 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.

in december, the supreme court first responded to this same question about whether to hear any of this, rejecting jack smith's request to say if you do need to look at this, even though it's been a losing argument for trump, the idea that he has made up immunity, please fast-track. they said no. and then trump appealed to the court to intervene, and it's spent another two weeks, just waiting around, and finally issuing that one page order last. night and that order didn't exactly say hey, we will hold this hearing right away. it pushed the argument date out to the very last three available days of oral arguments on the entire court calendar this term, for late april, which as the new york times put, it clearly bolsters donald from's delay strategy. now, if you are watching this, but you are not always following how the supreme court

works, you might say okay news anchor, okay ari, obviously that's not very fast, but is that just how it is? now the people with permanent tenure in robes, moving at their own slow delivery pace. how do you know that's any different than other times? how does that prove something abnormal, or as some critics have said, flatly partisan about this particular republican-leaning court? well, we will show you the evidence. you will make up your own minds. but when the court is dealing with exactly similar circumstances, both candidates for president, big clashes, things that could affect an election. one coming up, or one recently finished. we know the supreme court, which operates on precedent, has all of the ability, and all of the knowledge, and all of the tradition of acting as fast as it needs to. take just one recent example that i told you about, where i warned people who are thinking oh, this is going to affect everything, the colorado case about the taliban.

i told viewers before it ever went to the court, that it didn't have a lot of precedent, so it was unlikely to kick trump off of the ballot. here is a different point tonight. that case, which turned out to be pretty trump friendly from the oral arguments, was one where the court knew exactly how to act quickly. >> the supreme announced it will hold oral arguments on the case, next month, on february the 8th. which to be clear, in supreme court time, is light speed. >> the fast schedule, by the supreme court standards, but by no means an unreasonable schedule. >> the time table is definitely expedited, in supreme court land. the only timeline by which they have to operate is really their own. >> and we will show you what that looks like? . trump appealed that case, and two days later, january 5th, the court took it. two days. they said oh, we will take, it and then promptly schedule those oral arguments that we covered. the headlines out of that hearing were very clear.

the court is likely to side with trump. so on a trump friendly case, where he wanted fast action, they moved fast. this is a case where trump wants to move slowly. because in that other case, he needs to get back on the ballot. in this case, he just wants the trial to go away. and the last time the supreme court had to weigh in on an actual presidential election that had occurred, just -- in the ballot thing that's coming up, it was the very famous case in 2000, of bush v. gore. i told you we will show you the evidence tonight, and then you can look at precedent. the court at the judges claimed they used precedent. well in an important election case, with all those consequences, and also complexities, the court again showed it could act with real speed and urgency on a significant presidential election issue. >> the stunning announcement from the u.s. supreme court, granting an emergency request from the bush lawyers. >> this may well be the single most historic decision of the -- court. >> both of these men believe they should be the next president of the united states,

based on the law, and on the politics. >> i think there is a general expectation that the court will act very quickly. >> the u.s. supreme court has just released its ruling. >> the recounts would not continue, it's an all-out victory for the bush team. >> there you see some of our msnbc veterans. -- in front of the court. and boy, did they act quickly. we will show you the timeline. the florida supreme court had that recount call on december 8th. three days later, december 11th, the court heard oral arguments, and a day after that, they rushed out their decision. that's five days total from appeal to decision. so the supreme court knows how to act quite quickly, even on complex, high stakes presidential conflicts, when it wants to. here, even though they don't need to act that quickly, because there is not a handoff of presidential power coming up. it's not going towards january 20th. but here, they are on a much more slow side. think about all the president you just saw. think about how donald trump's

lawyers have said one thing over and over in the jack smith case. it should be delayed. we know that, because when the case was first filed, they were proposing a trial date of 2025, after the election. they lost, that just like they lost the immunity claim. but with the supreme court did, late yesterday, even before ruling on the merits of this case, was hand the trump lawyers the when they needed on a timeline. so take a look. we mentioned february 12th, trump asked scotus to intervene. they took over two weeks, not two days like in the other case, to just grant the -- that we learned last night. and then put the oral arguments at april 22nd, the last possible week on this calendar, in seven weeks out from today. this is a win for trump, because delay is -- . for donald trump's lawyers, delay means when. i've shown you our, timeline here of all of the cases. by scheduling this case at the end of april, we have the president and -- the expertise to know that that means the

ruling might not come until late june. and then, if the supreme court upholds is lost, murmur he's already lost on the immunity issue both times it's been heard. well, only then would these pre trial proceedings began. because these court not only delay the case, but issued what's called a stay, which just means a freeze of any other actions in the prep to the trial. now, if you want to play this all the way out it gets pretty simple here. the trial date could land as late as eight -- and even if the court does rule before late june, the justices have already delayed this thing by months, possibly preventing any such trials. so i will repeat what i mentioned, because it is the bottom line. if you said okay already, that's a lot of different calendar talk, here is the bottom line. very few people expect this court to make up new precedent that says politicians can never be prosecuted. that's just not what people think is going to happen. and as mentioned, nixon took a

pardon, precisely because he could be prosecuted. but they may very well issue a late opinion, that claims you can put politicians on trial, while acting to moot and prevent this very trials of this politician. how? how would that ever make sense? >> so, does that mean that there is no trials left? not exactly. donald trump, unlike every other former president in both parties, created so much criminal evidence on himself, that he is actually facing, as you may have heard, more than one criminal indictments. so there is still a criminal trial over those hush money payments, and how they were characterized in new york. that trial is scheduled for march 25th next month. we can tell you tonight though, that trial, the one you see now on our calendar there, might be the only one that actually goes down before the 2024 election. there is no supreme to deal with it or delay it. it is scheduled, and it is now the only one that is scheduled. so it could take on an even

larger significance. you take this all together tonight, and what you see in the evidence that i've shown you is the court not only can move more quickly, but it has. it moved more quickly recently, in a case that it wanted speed on. it moved quickly in very controversial matters like bush v. gore, where knew that roughly half the country, or one of the political parties, was probably going to be pretty unhappy. so why is it, on this case, with a very simple losing argument, our presidents immune, do they never go to jail? are they immune for life, do they live in a dictatorship? none of these have been close calls in history. on such a simple matter, why are they suddenly going so slowly, in a way that only helps one person, a person who is a criminal defendant, getting special treatment to delay at the very criminal trial that the current justice department has said is a matter of national import. we have two excellent experts on this, one legal, one political, given how political the court has been, when we come back. has been, wh wene come back. this isn't charmin!

no wonder i don't feel as clean. hurry up dad! i'm trying! this cheap stuff is too thin! here's charmin ultra strong! ahhh! my bottom's been saved! woohoo! with its diamond weave texture, charmin ultra strong cleans better with fewer sheets and less effort. what's everybody waiting for? this? we all go, why not enjoy the go with charmin. and for a shower-fresh clean feeling try charmin flushable wipes! choose advil liqui-gels for faster, stronger and longer-lasting relief than tylenol rapid release gels because advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. so for faster pain relief, advil the pain away. when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq.

check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save.

and we are back with our experts. we have some breaking news that we are going to get into in the mar-a-lago trial. but first, i want to get both of our experts here on what we just went through, which was a supreme court case. david kelly and jason johnson, we've got new filings, cause there's so much going on on florida mar-a-lago. so i'm going to get that queue in a second, david, basically

both sides putting forward their proposed trial dates. but given that this is the first time hearing from both of you on the other big case, the supreme court case, i want to get your reaction. first david, on this slow timeline. >> well look ari, you as always, you make a very compelling case, when you lay out all of the evidence, to suggest that the supreme court is playing a little bit of a game here. let me throw maybe some counter arguments to that. number one, we are going to have -- to the colorado case, and in the bush v. gore case, you had real deadlines, external to the case. meaning that in the colorado case, it means that when the states get the ballots done, and when they get them out, they have a hard deadline external to the case. bush v. gore, they had to get somebody -- in the presidents office. in this case, what you have is really a desire by the government to proceed at a certain time, when there is no legal requirement to do that. you've got plenty of time with a speedy trial clock. so i don't know that there is

any deadline other than a preference. and the reality is look, while >> i'll let you finish, i'll let you finish. but jack smith's folks would argue david that you have a tradition of at least no political action of -- you have practical realities, and it's not the case has to be done by the election, because of some political reason, of course, that would be -- but rather, it is a case about whether this criminal defendant stole an election. so, there is a great interest in the united states government to protect elections. go ahead. >> i think they get -- at the supreme court, and then kind of blatantly engages in politics. and no matter how they decide the case, how they decided to proceed, if they go with smith, or they go with trump. there is no winning for them here, right. because if they went with jack smith, then everybody claims that they're playing politics, and putting this thumb on the scale of the government.

and if they do it the way they've done it, people claim they -- put the thumb on the scale for trump. so i don't know that there's any real way out for them here, without getting the type of criticism they are getting. so, we will see. >> well, again, i'll go back and forth with you. but david, you are using the shorthand of saying who they go with. all donald trump cares about is avoiding the trial by the election. if they do something that does that, then they've gone with trump. as i said to viewers moments ago, and i'm happy to hear any counter argument. what is, what is, what is the legal value, david, of a president that says you can't put him on trial, but we won't let you? >> yeah, so again, i think look, i'm just trying to throw -- not that i disagree, it's -- the arguments that are being presented. but on the other side of it, i do think that in those other cases you have cited, there is kind of an external non-case issue, that kind of drives the

decision, as opposed to when this needs to be tried. and the point you raised are really, again, more political issues and they are hard and fast rules that need to be addressed, in kind of an expedited basis. so, that is my view on that. look, i was disappointed because frankly, i think immunity issue is a layup. and i think that the district, the d.c. circuit court wrote in extremely compelling, comprehensive opinion, that i can't see the supreme court overturning. that having been said, the supreme court now is catching the issue in a much -- than either the d.c. circuit court, did or any of the parties did, which is whether or not there is immunity for conduct alleged to involve official acts. but what concerns me about that is whether or not the supreme court ultimately kicks it back. not with really a final decision so much as a direction to the district courts, to make findings in advance as to whether or not the acts for

which he is being prosecuted involved official acts. >> but all told, again, i think these are all issues that could be dealt with post, conviction on direct appeal. >> right so. >> and as judge lip accent, i agree with judge lydick. i am surprised that they even took this case. >> while legally, that it needed to. take it they didn't need to take the case. >> yeah, and i've heard it said in public oh, well big case, the supreme court eventually has to weigh in on. it sure, but not before a trial. jason, i will remind, people there was a republican governor who is convicted, and some of the ways that the prosecution went at him were deemed ultimately questionable, fine. the supreme court dealt with that after he was not incarcerated before the supreme court process. this is a way early to delay it, and so jason, i turn to you, our lonely nation turns to you. not because you have practice law as long as david kelly, or prosecuted as many tough cases

as david kelly. or, run the southern district of new york like david kelly, who azar my people as my former boss. but jason, because i wonder whether the supreme court is acting in a way, that will ultimately be deemed by the evidence to look more partisan and legal, and what are your political thoughts on that? >> it's absolute partisan. this is garbage. and honestly ari, i think the public at large, and democrats in the white house. and frankly, elena kagan, and ketanji brown jackson, and sonia sotomayor, should be standing up and screaming right now. this is an absolute disgusting abuse of power. and let me make this clear for the non lawyers out there. because i have -- the one lawyer who's here. i'm explaining this, i'm on campus right. it's like explaining this case to my students today. and they are literally saying well, why is this taking so long? this isn't that complicated. i literally had to show them a video from lethal weapon to about a diplomatic immunity to explain how silly presidential

immunity is. this is not complicated. it is very clear, that we have an absolutely corrupted supreme court. that at least three of the judges have financial dealings that we can't explain. gorsuch, kavanaugh, and clarence thomas. and rather than the court demonstrating that the only audience that matters is the american people, they have shown that the only audience that matters is republicans. that is the problem with this. it's not complicated, it doesn't require a lot of legalese. they are stalling in order to allow donald trump to get into the white house, or at least have a chance to get into the white house. and given the fact that a third of the court was put into office, and put in the to the positions by him, it's not that hard to tell. so already, the concern that i have, frankly, is not what's going to happen legally, but the fact that we have a government that has taken so much time to hold this man accountable, that we may never see, he may never see the jail. this is as real as it gets. he may never see jail. and it's going to be because we can't trust our supreme court, and merrick garland didn't do his job. >> so that's, that's on the

politics. and then david, my control room and i, at my producers and i, we were talking just as we're going into this convo, that we just got this proposed schedule on the other case. so i want to keep both of you going, into this other related case news. jack smith mar-a-lago documents case. they want now, on the doj side, a july 8th trial date. now trump, his side proposing an august 12th date. this is new tonight. that would still be interesting, before the presidential election. that trial was originally slated for late may. so david, i know you are getting this as we are, because this just crossed from -- and these are the filings. so again, the doj saying, let's start the mar-a-lago documents case in july. trump saying august. your reaction? >> well my first reaction is, i was thinking last, night when this ruling came out from the supreme court, that about jack smith, i tried to get this trial document case trial. but the election case scheduled, or the first business day after the july.

fourth because you'll know, you have a ruling -- on the -- by then. you can't have one defendant on trial, into courtrooms at the same time. so, i'm a little bit surprised that they did this. it's also interesting to, because i think what this tells us, that the trump camp probably sees being on trial in the documents case as good for his campaign. because, instead of trying to delay it as they have in the past, past the election, they are saying bring it on now, and they can basically run on this. if he gets convicted, he can, he thinks he can probably pardon himself. but he thinks is probably a good opportunity to get free campaign, free airtime, and get his base all stirred up right on the eve of the election. so. >> and david, david with that said. let me jump in and ask, when trump says okay, august, which is -- tonight. we have heard a lot of talk

here, just in the last day, about them ducking, delaying, avoiding a trial. if this is what's coming down the pike, obviously the difference here on paper would seem to be thin. okay, it's a couple of weeks apart, jack smith and trump. but does this mean that we are very likely to see the -- case then begin before the fall? or could the judge still do other things? >> the judge still could do other things. it's, and i think with this particular judge, it is pretty hard to predict where she comes out. my guess is they're -- betting that she goes with the trump proposed dayton with the smith proposed state. it's going to depend on her calendar. but again, what surprises me most about this is that, it's what it tells us i think that jacks mitt is saying, there ain't no way i'm getting to this election case before the election. >> fascinating. and again, it's been a flurry of filings. because this leading candidate for the republican nomination

is also a defendant in several different jurisdictions. david, i'm going to tell you this. and i'm not just saying this because of our history. we appreciate your arguments, and your counter arguments. >> when we come back, -- choice, and your rights. stay with us. -- choice, and your rights. stay with us. can i make my side softer? i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. save 40% on the sleep number special edition smart bed. plus, zero percent interest for 48 months. shop now at sleepnumber.com

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? if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect. new parodontax active gum repair breath freshener. clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease. a new toothpaste from parodontax, the gum experts. who's the chameleon? the most powerful, shape- shifting, sorceress.m nothing like anyone you've ever faced. [ evil laughter ] i eat powerful sorceresses for breakfast. what is it you're holding? a cookie. ah! one last dragon warrior smackdown. oh! ah!

we're not so different, you and i. skadoosh. stand back. i'm gonna kick my butt. violence, violence. republicans, please, if anybody is watching, keep doing what you're doing. and you are guaranteeing, in november, we will just call the headline the next day gop, are ip. >> gop, are ip. that is from the michigan man himself, michael moore. as michigan votes tonight. he is talk about what actually affects people out in the voting public because we just had a discussion earlier tonight about how some things could be very out here, only for us news observers, news junkies. and then there's other things that cut right to the heart of how people live. and this is one of those things. it affects american families,

it affects peoples rights, parents rights. but it's also politically a crisis for republicans, because the highest court in the land in alabama used the republican- led decision overturning roe, to go even further, and try to interfere with people's family planning, and ivf fertility solutions. now, republicans say that's not at all what they want. embryos, are maybe not children. now, they are effectively blocking access to ivf treatments for hopeful parents in that state, because of, again, what the supreme court did, because of the republican appointees. you cannot have one without the other, and you don't get to run away from the legal results as a factual matter. michael moore is saying many voters will realize exactly how this works. three fertility clinics are already closed, the -- largest among them. and, republicans efforts to respond to, again, i want to be clear, what their justices and their multi decade push to overturn roe has brought. well, their reactions have been scattered. >> i think life should be protected, all the way through. >> we need to have more.

kids >> ivf is used to have more children. >> well, that's for a another conversation. >> are you come from with ivf as a procedure? >> i am. >> i mean, embryos to me are babies. >> the alabama legislature should pass laws to protect the clinics. and you can believe anything you want to -- and how it should and. >> you can believe what you want about when life begins. here is the problem. you don't get to act on your beliefs, if the government is coming in and taking away your right to act on that. when you're a parent, or a woman, or in this case families that have already gone way down the line in the process of trying to have kids this way. because, until they overturned roe, and until these courts and judges got, involved mostly male judges by the way, until that, your beliefs weren't being trampled. now senator graham is doing a trick, and i just want to briefly decoded. he's saying oh gosh, the legislature could should come in -- but why would the legislature need to come in at

all? if these are to people's family decisions, exercising their own family planning rights, why don't we just leave the government elevate to begin with? that's kind of a traditional conservative way to put it. but the point is, let people have kids, or not. let people go to -- fertility solutions, or not. but again, let the families do it without the government getting involved at all. -- twisting self into knots, and also reversing his years long call for, guess what, a federal abortion ban. indeed, he has done, this is not just a random interview response. in every congress since 2013, we check, graham has introduced that kind of abortion legislation. because republicans are losing on all of these issues, suddenly he has pulled a bill that he claimed to support. meanwhile in florida, republicans also backtracking. they had a new bill, that they said would define a fetus as an unborn child, and that gets into all these ivf issues. here is florida's republican congress, -- excuse me byron donalds, on meet the press.

>> like any type of -- on capitol hill, i want to see the devil in the details. but, yes i could broadly, i feel like i could broadly support that. because like i said, ivf is something that is so critical to a lot of couples, that helps them make great families. our country needs that. >> our country needs that, but it is the republican party and it's judges that are going the opposite direction. a lot of double talk. a lot of democrats though are reminding everyone that the person trying to get back in the white house, donald trump, is the person who appointed the judges that got us into this situation. there are literal billboards reminding everyone that abortion access and ivf are being targeted. you mentioned michigan in the political context, these are in many states, including michigan among seven other swing states. republicans know they are losing, on these issues, everywhere there's been no votes. again, it all started with the supreme court, overturning roe. so now that you have republicans running around saying let's have the politicians stay out of, that

they are lying, they know they were the ones who got us here, after pushing this very agenda for decades. now, we are in just the first few years of living under it. the question for voters is, do you want more of this? >> thanks for watching the beat weekend. be sure to join us weekdays at six pm eastern. the beat, on msnbc. eastern. the beat, on msnbc. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain.

ask about nurtec odt. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. before my doctor and i chose breztri for my copd, i had bad days. [cough] flare—ups that could permanently damage my lungs. with breztri, things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing. starting within 5 minutes, i noticed my lung function improved. it helped improve my symptoms, and breztri was even proven to reduce flare—ups, including those that could send me to the hospital.

so now i look forward to more good days. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. can't afford your medication? astrazeneca may be able to help. ask your doctor about breztri. this election is about who shares your values. let me share mine. i'm the only candidate with a record of taking on maga republicans, and winning. when they overturned roe, i secured abortion rights in our state constitution.

when trump attacked our lgbtq and asian neighbors, i strengthened our hate crime laws. i fought for all of us struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living. i'm evan low, and i approve this message for all of our shared values. democrats agree. 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. good evening and welcome to