katie phang, lisa rubin, and laura jarrett. katie, from your spot in the courtroom what do you think of stormy daniels? how did she do from actually seeing her live as opposed to reading it cold? >> she did a spectacular job. stormy daniels testimony did not come across as rehearsed. whether you liked her or not because of the sincerity it didn't seem she rehearsed or practiced her testimony. preparing with lawyers is totally different, but she prepared for that, and she did a great job, and i think shoe knew even though i call it a detour -- not a sideshow but a detour. the case took a detour to explore what happens between her and donald trump, because you had to create the foundation why that payment was made by michael cohen and how it got to the level of the business records being falsified, but you needed to have that dialogue, and what's really important is everyone likes to say this is paper case but it is about humanity in some way, people's courage, involvement with others, extra marital affairs, hush money payments.

but as lisa rubin pointed out, certain things are off the table.the allegations with respect to the department of justice are off the table. the former president has been found absolutely immune, which is a really scary thought. just think about that. with the president's interactions with the department of justice are absolutely immune. terrifying decision. that alone is unheard of. but it remains to be seen and for judge chutkan to make the initial decision on the mishearing, but even that is going to be subject to appeals. but at least that is a way for the public to hear additional evidence from the likes of former vice president pence. from prior general counsels and white house counsels who worked for the white house under president trump. a whole series of witnesses that can be heard at that hearing. >> witnesses who can clearly be subpoenaed for that hearing, whereas some tried to avoid testifying to the january 6th commission, which brings me to you, marcus, as one who worked on that commission. so, what concerns do you have about the pros

here to break it all down, msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin.s not. so they're not asking for the case to be thrown out because donald trump was indicted for acts that he committed during his presidency. it's pretty obvious to you, me and our viewership that that's not what's going on here. there's a lesser known facet of that supreme court presidential immunity ruling that says evidence of a person's official acts can't be considered either where we're talking about a former or current president, and that's where things get complicated. the entire motion by trump's team is predicated on their argument that the trial evidence here included a number of things that really related to trump's period of his presidency and things that he did that they argue are part of his official conduct as president. >> and so when it comes to official conduct, for example, would the judge here judge merchan or an appeals court have to have a hearing over him signing checks when he was in the office that are connected to stormy daniels? >> so the checks are not par

where does this leave us now, lisa rubin? i think a lot of people were surprised, perhaps by the extent of this holding yesterday. what's your final assessment now after what we've seen yesterday? >> based on yesterday's opinion, a big chunk of the indictment is going to have to come out. that's the allegations having to do with donald trump's interactions with the department of justice. the pressure campaign on mike pence is much at risk. that's the second category of allegations the court says will be a high bar to rebut the presumption of official immunity there. then you've got everything else. that includes the fake elector scheme. i am heartened to some extent that justice barrett in her concurrence drops a footnote and says, none of that should ever be considered official. not only did you have a concession that it wasn't at oral argument, but, also, the president has no role in the administration of federal elections. it should never have been considered or even thought of as remotely official. we'll see how judge chu

let's get right to nbc news legal correspondent lisa rubin. give us the big picture, what this means for presidential power and equal responsibility under the law? >> chris, today the supreme court is taking off the table in large measure the possibility of prosecuting a president for what they do when they're in office, and the consequences for presidential authority are vast as some of the dissenters have noted. it means that rather than fearing prosecution after their conclusion of term in office, many presidents will be largely immune for what they do while they're in office. and that's because the court took off the table anything that comes within a president's core constitutional authority. that's everything from the pardon power to vetoing legislation, to appointing and removing officers, and it even encompasses, for example, his direction of the department of justice as an executive agency. that's one bucket of allegations in this indictment that this court did give clear guidance on saying that the president is absolutely immune for

lisa rubin is here with me. ryan, what do we know about these impeachment articles?happens next? >> reporter: this comes from congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez from new york city. she's filed two articles of impeachment against justice alito and justice thomas. these articles of impeachment are not based in any of the decisions that either of these two justices have made, but instead, specifically about their conduct around the office. for instance, in both thomas and alito's case, she's accusing them of not properly disclosing financial benefits and gifts they were given by donors and others. in some cases, people who had business before the court or had a political interest in some of the issues before the court. she's also doing that in the case of clarence thomas, saying that he refused to recuse himself from certain cases that his spouse had a vested interest in as well. his wife ginni was very much involved in the stop the steal effort, the effort to overturn the 2020 election and things along those lines. she's also accusing justice alito as well of refus

msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin is here. chuck rosenberg is also still with me.a, what does this mean for jack smith's ability to move the case forward? >> it's a very interesting question and a very open one. at the least we'll see hearings before judge chutkan in terms of at least three of the buckets of allegations here and whether or not they constitute official or unofficial conduct. but remember, one of the things that the court does at the very outset is to say he's certainly absolutely immune from one bucket of allegations, and that's with respect to his interactions with the department of justice. we know that for sure will be off the table, not only in terms of the charged conduct, but also in terms of what evidence can be considered at trial because that is a part of this ruling as well. the court saying anything that constitutes an official act for which the department does not overcome the presumption here, that also can't even by considered by the jury as evidence at trial, for example, of what the former president knew or what he intended to do. i

i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. lisa, your thoughts. >> i woke this morning, jose, to this. it was a late night for me. i'm kind of astonished. the reason i'm astonished has as much to do with judge cannon as the issue that caused her to dismiss. this motion was argued to her extensively over the course of two days last month. do you recall those oral arguments she expressed what many observers, including nbc news, thought was serious news about the legitimacy of the arguments that donald trump's lawyers were making to her. not only have two other circuits already ruled on this issue, but she herself really questioned trump's lawyers about this appointments clause issue, and specifically about whether or not jack smith was legitimately an inferior officer or whether or not he was exercising such authority that his appointment both was unconstitutional and violative of the statutes that merrick garland cited when he appointed them. that having been said, you'll remember in the supreme court's decision on presidential

joining me is msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin.little bit more, how much weight do you think it carries with judge merchan? >> reporter: part of it carries weight and part of it doesn't. the argument, as you just said, if you are entitled to immunity based on your official acts, that is not just immunity from criminal liability, you also have immunity from those acts being introduced as evidence even for the things you do that or wholly and squarely personal, like the things for which trump was charged in the hush money verdict. they are saying it was the d.a. to introduce a host of evidence that dates back to trump's time at the white house converting from hope hicks and madeleine westerhout, testament and conversations with trump, even his tweets and government ethics disclosure. some of that is well overstated and overblown. on the other hand, they make the argument for the back end of the brief a lot of folks are overlooking, what they're saying is, the court, in their majority opinion said, if you're going to exclude evidence

depending on his answer, we'll have the sentencing on december 18th. >> lisa rubin, catherine christian massive park fire explodes, spanning 120,000 acres, after being sparked by a man who pushed a flaming car into a ravine. a live report on where containment efforts stand now. >>> first, you can watch the best parts of our shore anytime on you tube, go to msnbc/jansing, stay close, more "chris jansing reports" just after this. jansing reports" jut after this ♪ ♪ not every decision you make will be as good as getting a volkswagen at the savvy vw summer sales event. 2024 volkswagen models cost less to maintain than honda. get 1.9% apr financing or a $2500 customer bonus on a new 2024 tiguan. (♪♪) (♪♪) voltaren... for long lasting arthritis pain relief. (♪♪) what does a robot know about love? it takes a human arth to translatelief. that leap in our hearts into something we can see and hold. etsy. (♪♪) greatness hurts. but with care... ...you can keep chasing it. that's tylenol. that's care without limits. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help

. >> joining us now is msnbc's legal correspondent lisa rubin who watched that trial unfold from inside manhattan courthouse. also with us, former assistant manhattan district attorney and msnbc legal analyst catherine christian and brendan buck, the former aide to then speakers john boehner and paul ryan. he's also an msnbc political analyst. so lisa, what happens between now and september 18th? is there a possibility of the whole case could eventually be thrown out? >> andrea, there's a possibility that the verdict can be set aside but is it likely? no. between now and september 18th, each party will submit briefs and really what the issue is is whether or not judge juan merchan improperly admitted evidence of actions that donald trump took while he was president that would qualify as official acts under the supreme court's decision earlier this week. in that ruling, the supreme court saying not only is a former president immune for official acts that he took from prosecution, i mean, immune from prosecution, but he is also immune in the sense that evidence of his official conduct can

joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. good morning. what exactly is this all about?the wake of a liability verdict against him in the amount of $148 million last december owed to two georgia election workers declared bankruptcy here in the southern district of new york. today's hearing is about who gets to control that bankruptcy and what kind of information his creditors are entitled to. they have accused him of delay, of bad faith, of hiding assets and information and they have different proposed solutions to it. one group of creditors wants the case to be dismissed outright. and that would allow them to enforce their judgment. another wants a trustee to be appointed to oversee the process and this morning in a surprise filing right before the hearing began, rudy giuliani said that he would also support dismissing his bankruptcy case. why and what the consequences of that would be, we still don't know. >> lisa rubin, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> as world leaders gather in d.c. for the nato summit, donald trump is once again attacking the al

joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin.of alvin bragg? >> i don't. i think alvin bragg feels secure about his case, and the reason is as follows, katy. the former president isn't saying he's immune from prosecution. he's immune from official acts evidence in this case. it was a series of testimony from former white house aides or tweets he issued when he was in the white house. that's all that they're fighting about now. and alvin bragg's team says even if you took all of that out of the case, the mountains of evidence that they presented would have been enough for a jury to have concluded donald trump was amply guilty on all 34 counts. >> i guess i'm a bit of a layman when we're talking about this. i don't understand how if some of the evidence is flawed or inadmissible according to this ruling, how can a conviction stand if that was part of the evidence that was used to convict the person? >> so the law essentially says that you can do what's called a harmless error analysis, that you're basically looking, is there enough

msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin.st hours before the opening ceremony. look at this guy. willie geist standing by live in new jersey. we'll check in with him next on "morning joe." rsey we'll check in with him next on "morning joe." e for a fresh apph to pet food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food. what does a robot know about love? it takes a human to translate that leap in our hearts into something we can see and hold. etsy. why do couples choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. and now, save 40% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus special financing. shop now at sleepnumber.com ♪ music ♪ ♪ unnecessary action hero! ♪ ♪ unnecessary. ♪ was that necessary? no. neither is missing your daughter's competition to do payroll. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you don't have to miss your daughter's big day. time

let's bring in former litigator and nbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin.at do these months now by trump's legal team? >> i wasn't surprised that there was a delay of some sort. that trump would allow there to be a briefing on the verdict particularly after the new york da's office said they would consent to that briefing. what surprised me was the amount of delay that were postponing the sentencing if that happens at all. those were the judge's words, not mine, till september 18th. that was the surprise. >> so, july 11th, originally scheduled that was a week from now, september 18 that it could be later than that. so, what is the link here, as you look at it, between the supreme court's decision on presidential immunity and what we are seeing now. what could trump's team argue, could they argue for a new trial? >> they are not even arguing for a new trial. they are arguing to set aside the verdict completely and their argument is this. that the supreme court's decision doesn't just and for the president having immunity from prosecution for his official act

lisa rubin is here, our msnbc legal correspondent. axe's political reporter hans nichol and mckay hopkins, staff writer for the atlantic and msnbc political contributor. lisa, it's legal which means you are definitely going first tonight. what are the actual chances that this conviction gets set aside, and how come the prosecution just signed off on the sentencing delay? i would have thought they would've fought this thing. >> it's not clear to me that they signed off on the sentencing delay, at least all the way to september. i think they were willing to take a little bit of a delay for briefing on the question of whether to set aside the verdict, whether or not september was a surprise to them, we will learn, i suppose, at a later point in time. as to the chances of setting aside the verdict, i think it's a nonfrivolous motion based on how transformative the supreme court's opinion was, and in particular, there is a portion of that opinion that says when an act is official, not only can you not prosecute, you can't even use evidence

let's bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and investigative reporter at "the new york timesoth of you covered the hush money trial from the courtroom. lisa, what happens now? >> ryan, we're going to see briefing from both sides. first we'll see the brief from the former president on july 10, and then we'll see a brief from the manhattan d.a.'s office on the 24th of july, and then we've been promised by judge merchan a decision by september 6th. and of course that decision is going to be principally about how the supreme court decision affects the motion to set aside this verdict. not because donald trump is necessarily immune for the acts that he's been charged with but the argument goes like this. the supreme court held that a former president is entitled to immunity not just for his official acts conduct but to the extent that somebody wants to introduce evidence of his official acts even in a case that charges purely private conduct, that evidence can't be admitted and the argument that the former president's lawyers are making is that the evidence in this case included a

lisa rubin is here, our msnbc legal correspondent, axios political reporter hans nichols. lisa, it's legal, which means you are definitely going first tonight. what are the actual chances that this conviction gets set aside, and how can the prosecution just sign off on the sentencing delay? i would have thought they would have fought this thing. >> it's not clear to me, so let me take the second part first. it's not clear to me that they signed up on the sentencing delay all the way until september. i think they were willing to take a little bit of a delay for briefing on the question of whether or not to set aside the verdict. whether or not september was a surprise to them, we will learn at a later point in time. as to the chances of this setting aside the verdict, i think it's a nonfrivolous motion based on how transformative the supreme court's opinion was, and in particular, the portion of the opinion that says, when an act is official, not only can you not prosecute it, you can't even use evidence of it to prove someone's knowledge or intent, or anything else, for th

lisa rubin joins me now. so where do things stand now? >> former president trump is set for july 11th based on the letter his lawyer sent to judge merchan of new york's criminal court, essentially to put that on hold. why? because they say the conviction was obtained by the official acts evidence. in other words, evidence of things he did while president that were part of his official duties. that includes tweets he issued with respect to michael cohen. a financial disclosure form. they are now asking judge merchan to set aside the verdict on that basis. the manhattan d.a.'s office says they don't oppose the time necessary to brief that issue. they'll submit their brief, they agree, on july 24th. we're now just waiting to hear from the judge as to whether the sentencing will be postponed. >> thank you. >>> now to some terrifying moments an an air europa flight. tom, this is insane. what happened here? >> yeah. pretty dramatic. that was a boeing 787, 385 on board. it hit severe turbulence over the atlantic ocean. so severe, passengers were

rubin. they are here for the whole hour along with nbc and -- msnbc hosts. >> obviously some of these that attention and they were maybe the most important witnesses but maybe the defendants last witness, bob castillo, i heard that was a big bomb but what was your impression of what they did that people may not get of just these accounts and hearing from us about what was technically said and what was the demeanor and tone? >> the most important part of the witness that you can't get from reading the transcripts are watching the coverage is the entrance and exit. all of the witnesses were brought into a side door instead of the traditional back door where you walk along the entirety of the gallery and walk through the center and then the witness stand. here, each and every witness no matter hostile or friendly toward donald trump had to walk by his first row of surrogates into the courtroom. and those of them who had counsel, they then followed thereafter. in some cases, trump wanted to have

joining me is msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. can you flush out this argument more.ry with judge merchan. >> some of it carries weight. the argument is that if you are entitled to immunity based on your official acts, that is not just immunity from criminal liability. you also have immunity from those actively introduces events for even the things you do that are wholly and squarely personal, like the things for which trump was charged with and hush money verdict. they are saying it was impermissible for the d.a. to introduce a host of evidence that dates back to his time in the white house. everything from hope hicks and metal and whist testimony about conversations with trump to even his tweets and government ethics disclosure that he filled out. some of that is well overstated and overblown. on the other hand, they make an argument toward the back end of their brief that a lot of folks are overlooking. they are saying the court and majority said that if you are going to exclude evidence or make determinations about immunity, you have to do at the outset of the cas

joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin, former fbi general krounl and senior member of the mueller probe, andrew weissmann, and former u.s. attorney and senior official, chuck rosenberg. i think everyone is not in agreement at this table. that makes this an interesting conversation. i read through the opinion myself, and as i said at the top, it felt circular in the arguments that the constitution, the majority argues, implies, it doesn't say so in the constitution, but they argue it implies a president has to have immunity to be energetic to make decisions, he needs it in order to do the job of the presidency, and that you can't question it even when he is trying to use that same power to violate the constitution. as you read through this, as i said, it was hard to look toward the future, and it felt more like an opinion that was squared solely on the present and the present case and the present or the present candidate for the gop nomination who's running for office again, donald trump. >> so, you know, at the oral argument, there was a lot of discussion about essenti

joining us now, msnbc legal correspondent, lisa rubin. if such is necessary. wow. >> yeah. he's agreed to take some briefing about whether or not the verdict should be set aside on the grounds that during the trial, he admitted evidence that the trump folks are now saying is official acts of evidence. as you know from yesterday during your 10:00 hour when we broke the story of the supreme court ruling, i said then, one of the biggest things about this is the exclusion of evidence on the ground that a president can't be immune if you are also allowed to introduce evidence of his official acts to prosecute things that are personal or private. that's no immunity at all said the majority. well, now the trump people are putting that to the test saying to judge merchan, you allowed evidence to come in that was reflective of his official actions. tweets in 2018, a financial disclosure, even testimony about conversations he had with aides like hope hicks by the time he took the office of president. >> they're prompting me to say who are you who is so wide in the ways of the law. yo

back with us, lisa rubin, maya wiley, joining us, katie phang, msnbc legal contributor and host of the katie phang show here on msnbc and paul butler, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at georgetown university and an msnbc legal analyst. we're getting his camera set up. there he is. all right, you guys are coming into the table. there are a couple of places that we i think need to go. one of them is on whether the special counsel is constitutional. justice thomas weighed in on that. there's also questions about one of the areas of core immunity that the supreme court outlined, and that is the president's interactions, his charge of the department of justice. so these kind of blend together. first let's talk special counsel, katie. >> so i was alarmed to see that, lisa and i were talking about it during the break, that it came up during oral arguments that i was at at scotus. but as a blip on the radar, and the reason why i'm concerned is it kind of invites an issue from judge aileen cannon in florida in the classified documents case. i was just in court where donal

legal correspondent lisa rubin is following this story.kruptcy, yet there are questions about his lifestyle. what can you tell us about this? >> there are, as you note, questions not only about his lifestyle and his spending, but even the disclosures he's making. and they are ruby freeman, the two georgia election workers who won a defamation verdict against rudy giuliani in december prompts him to declare bankruptcy in the first place. there was a turn of events. they want to dismiss the bankruptcy case. they say rudy giuliani is playing fast and loose with process that he's abusing the bankruptcy court and today to everyone's surprise, rudy giuliani agreed. his case should be dismissed. what will that mean if the judge agrees? it will mean they can immediately begin to enforce their judgment. but without the oversight of the bankruptcy court, they will have to do their own investigative work to find out where his assets are, to whom he's made payments, and if there are more assets than they even know about. >> for a lot of people who are

, andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and with me here in studio msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and former deputy chief of the nypd division, kristy greenberg. >> we have jake sherman, an msnbc contributor. along with me here onset is mark short, former chief of staff to former vice president mike pence. ken, aileen cannon said that the special prosecutor, the special counsel appointed to this case was not constitutional. explain it to us. >> first, i want to say that this ruling says nothing about the merits of the case, nothing about mishandling classified documents or obstruction of justice. it dismisses the case entirely on technical grounds. cannon wrote the central question was, is there a statute in the united states codes that authorizes appointment of jack smith. she wrote that the answer is no. the bottom line is this, the appointments clause is a stems from the separation of powers and it gives to congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vefting appointment power for inferior officers. the special counsel's position, she added, effectively usur

i'm joined by msnbc legal xant lisa rubin, former fbi general counsel andrew weissmann, former u.s. attorney and senior u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg. also with us, forming acting solicitor general neal katyal. first let's go to nbc's yamiche alcindor outside the supreme court. yamiche, lay it all out for us. >> reporter: this is sure to be a consequential day at the supreme court where judges are set to decide on the trump immunity case. all of this is connected to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election with special counsel jack smith saying he broke the law when he was trying to get people to do things like, get fake electors and trying to get the justice department to take actions that would allow him to hold on to power in the 2020 election. there are big questions before the supreme court. there are four cases along with this one. it could change the presidency as we know it here in america given the powers that this presidency might have after this ruling. any minute now we could get that decision. we'll be standing by to figureout what's going on here and what the decision

want to welcome legal correspondent lisa rubin who has joined us here.ust because i want to underscore what the congressman was saying. chief justice roberts and talking about evidence and i love to get your thoughts says, the answers immunity is the entitlement to not to have to answer for his conagra presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. putting a whole bunch of evidence outside of the purview , which is over and above the prosecutorial immunity. >> this is not something everyone that was legitimate on the table. jack smith address the issue of evidence in his reply brief prior to or garments with the last two pages but even if you grant some immunity, here are things you should not do. you should not take evidence of official acts off the table. yet, they did so anyway. in f but note they say, something that is a matter of public record, the fact of taking an official act can still come into evidence. testimony are private records of a present with respect to those official acts, those are off limit

msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin, thank you very much. >>> and still ahead, president biden now has north carolina where the latino population is growing, but the turnout is shrinking. nbc's morgan radford with her reporting from there and whether the president's messaging is resonating with latino voters. >>> plus, it's time to rip off the band-aid. that's what former democratic congressman tim ryan says, arguing for kamala harris to be the democratic nominee. he'll join us to make that case and tell us why he's lost confidence in biden's ability to defeat donald trump. >>> "morning joe" will be right back. t back e so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. 30,000 followers tina in a boutique hotel. or 30,000 steps tina in a mountain cabin. ooh! booking.com booking.yeah ♪♪ ♪♪ >>> beautiful live picture of the white house at 6:50 on this wednesday, july 3rd. just ahead of the fourth of july celebrations across the country. the biden campaign is ramping up its efforts in north carolina. donald trump won north in 2020, but fewer than 75,000 votes. now democrats and republ