like that as we've seen endlessly here. obviously, the attempted theft of a presidential election and an insurrection outweigh this. but here is the thing. the rule of law moves slowly. it grinds slowly. and that's what -- it's gonna have to be patient, but we're gonna have to be persistent in standing up to the broad effects of trumpism. >> all right, jon meacham, thank you so much for your time tonight. that is all in on this monday night. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. i appreciate it, my friend. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. we're really happy to have you here. do you want to see a cute picture?an cuteness is in the eye of the beholder, of course. and this is a picture of a guy, and i'm not saying the guy in

the picture is himself cute. honestly, what would i know?ur not my area of expertise. but i think just as a picture, regardless of the guy, i think -- i think as a picture, this is kind of cute. just in terms of composition. in part because it's got kind of a swirl effect. like on the upper left side of the image, we've got his eye that's looking kind of winky, kind of headed downstream. but then on the lower right side of the image he has the big smirk heading straight up towara his ear. so the whole thing is kind of a swirl, you know? just as a picture, as a mug shot in particular, i think that's not bad. that person is the attorney general of the great state of texas, and that is in fact his mug shot. his name is ken. he was indicted and booked into the collin county jail in texas on felony securities fraud charges a few years ago. those felony charges are still pending against him.lo he is still under indictment on multiple felony counts, but it

hasn't held him back. since that mug shot was taken, l since he has been under felony indictment, mr. ken paxton has run for re-election as texas attorney general twice, and he g has won both times. eventually, presumably he will go on trial on multiple felony counts.ly but at least so far texas republican voters don't mind that he's under indictment. and judging from the look on his face, it doesn't seem to be bugging him much either. even if you just want to stay in texas, there is a whole bunch of these.yo this is the very nice mug shot. the composition isn't good. there's a little too much headroom here, but the tie lookh fantastic. this is the mug shot of a man who was indicted in texas in 2014 while he was serving as governor of texas.le his name is rick. after he was indicted in 2014, he got fingerprinted, he got this nice mug shot taken with the perfect knot in his tie. just a few months later, he t announced he was running for ew president of the united states, while he was still under felony

indictment. in fact, for the duration of his 2016 republican presidential campaign, rick perry was under felony indictment., they did not drop the felony charges against him until a few months after he had dropped out of the presidential race. but even still, no big whoop. donald trump went on to name him secretary of energy for the united states. which is a fact that is still just as amazing to behold as his mug shot is lovely. also staying in texas, do you remember tom delay?yi he was the majority leader of the republican party in the u.s. house of representatives.bl he had to resign that job to have this mug shot taken after a warrant was issued for his arrest in 2005. as mug shots go, though, it's kind of another nice one. not as nice as this one, though. this is former democratic vice presidential nominee and democratic senator john edwardsi that's his mug shot from 2011, looking good, john edwards. m

not looking as good, this is dan, mr. rostenkowski. he was chairman of the ways and means committee in congress for 13 years, until he had to stop doing that, because it was time for him to stop being a congressman and start being s prisoner number 25338-016. it happens. n it happens a lot. here was bernie kerik, the new york police commissioner under rudy giuliani.iu on giuliani's recommendation, president bush tried to make this guy homeland security secretary of the united states u before that had to end in his new designation 210-707. it happens, so much so we have s thing in mind when we think what an elected official's mug shot looks like.

i mean, there are ones that are more special than others. the congressman james traficanti mug shot will always be remembered more as kind of a hairdo hall of fame thing than a congressman thing. wow, it's still really something all these years later.s but apart from him, there is something familiar enough about seeing members of congress and governors and senators' mug shots that we recognize them as a look, right? it's a thing. we've seen a lot of these. and none of these mug shots, none of these arrests, arraignments, fingerprinting of these public officials caused the world to end.en the arrest of these governors and senators and congressmen ended up posing zero threat to our republic. as it should be. so why would that be any different now? yes, if former president donald trump is indicted in federal court in d.c., or in state court in georgia, or in state court in new york, or anywhere else, yes,

it would be unprecedented for there to be an indictment issued against a u.s. president or former president. but we should also be real about the extent of exactly how historic this would be. because we arrest public officials all the time in this country, and under the law, there is nothing magical about being a former president. that's not a thing under the law. once you're a former anything, you're then just a citizen again, and you are subject to all the same laws as every other american. i mean, the justice department did tie itself up into knots over multiple decades, sort of contorting itself into all sortg of crazy logic puzzles to contend with the possibility that a sitting president would commit crimes while in office and would get charged and convicted for those crimes. the justice department d absolutely went nuts trying to figure out the implications of that. t who would then be in charge of the country? how much would it hurt the country to have the head of the executive branch wrangling with

his own defense and the legal process and then potentially de trying to govern from prison if he was convicted and sentenced to prison while still serving as president. but all that concern at the justice department about those hypotheticals, all that worry about a criminal serving president was specific to a currently serving president. which is why they instituted a doj rule that said okay, federal prosecutors can't indict someonr while that person is serving as president. but that is the only rule. and it's a very narrow rule. that justice department rule against federal prosecution only applies to the single person who is the president while that person is serving as the president. i mean, even if you're serving currently as vice president or as a supreme court justice or cabinet official or a senator or whatever, fine. you can be indicted. if you are a person who is running for president, you be

indicted. or if you are a person who was formerly president, it's fine. you can be indicted. there is no rule about that because there is no special consequences about that for theh country.nc the only insulation we have ever given a single person from prosecution is for the presideng while that person is serving as president. that's it.t. and so there is nothing technically improper or rule-breaking or illegal about a former president facing charges, even if it hasn't happened before, it doesn't break any rules. h but why has it never happened before? why has no one else before now considered a criminal indictment against a former president? is it because it's so dangerous, it's so unwise, it's so somehow against our system to prosecute a former president?ou or is it just because there's never been one before who has lived this way?

yes, from a historical perspective, an indictment against a former president is unprecedented, but given that e, we're talking about this particular former president, donald j. trump, can you honestly say to yourself that an indictment is a surprise? the first thing that anyone ever knew about his business practices was when he and his father had to settle with the justice department decades ago over accusations that they illegally refused to rent apartments to black people. then, by the time he was entering politics, he was paying another gigantic settlement, a $25 million settlement over fraud claims involving his fake university that he put his name on. then his family charity was shut down and fined millions of dollars as a fraud. then his national security adviser plead guilty to lying to the fbi, twice. then his campaign chairman went to federal prison on fraud charges. c then his deputy campaign

chairman went to federal prison as well. then his personal lawyer went to federal prison on fraud and campaign finance charges.is then his other personal lawyer had his law license suspended on the way to potential disbarment and his longest serving political adviser was convicted on multiple felony counts and sentenced to federal prison for, among other things, witness intimidation.en and his white house senior da adviser was arrested on the yacht of a chinese billionaire, picked up on fraud charges. and it turns out that preceded the chinese billionaire himself being arrested on fraud chargess and as president, he himself was impeached twice, which is a record, with more impeachment votes against him from members of his own party than any other president in history. and even since then, his company, which is literally called the trump organization, was convicted on multiple fraud charges. and his longtime cfo is in rikers as we speak. and when it comes to playing the odds and wondering what the t

stakes are for our country if an indictment in fact comes down for this former president, we literally have to disambiguate the question as to clarify which three jurisdictions under which he is investigation are likely to go first.ri so really is this a surprise?o it's not like this is a normal former president. not just because he's er provocative or extreme or speaks in a way that other -- you elect a guy with this kind of a life record, why would you expect all the criminal justice system activity that has surrounded him his entire life to suddenly evaporate when he entered this new phase of his post public office life? no, america has never before seen the indictment of a former president, but we did elect donald trump to be president, and his life, business, and political milieu are a place in which handcuffs are like seasonal decorations.

happy equinox. but whether you like mr. trump or you do not like him, it is both fair play and relevant, and it is starting to feel importanl to remember that our politics broadly is absolutely full of public officials, current and former public officials, both ub parties, neither party, every state in the union. we are full of current and former public officials who have been charged with all kinds of crimes and convicted of everything imaginable. members of congress and senatori and governors, even a serving of attorney general like these guys, but also state legislators, big city mayors, statewide elected officials, e cabinet officials, white house officials. it happens. it happens all the time.ns and while that's bad, well, it turns out we've got a lot of crooks in public office, that doesn't feel great. what's good about it is that we know how to deal with it when it

happens. it doesn't break our system. it does not break our country to bring serious charges against public officials and former public officials. even these exact charges that are reportedly on deck against e former president donald trump in new york.re you will recall that this guy, a former senator, a democratic party vice presidential nominee, he was brought up on charges almost exactly like what's being reported about allegations against former president trump. john edwards was brought up on charges for lying about and concealing a hush money payment that was made to cover up an alleged affair before an m election. those exact charges were brought against a democratic vice presidential nominee and former senator, and you know what? you forgot about it because the country wasn't exactly rocked to its foundations.ot another serving vice president, serving vice president went up against a 40-count felony indictment for crimes committed while he was in office.

with him, they forced him to resign his office as part of a plea deal in federal criminal court. o i did a podcast and a book about it, and it blew everybody's mind because we had completely forgotten about it, because it didn't create a lasting problem for us as a country. it does not bend the constitution, let alone break i to indict criminals for crimes, even when the alleged criminal is someone who has been electedh to a very important job.ne it's run-of-the-mill public corruption law enforcement in this country, and we do it all the time. and there is no reason why a former president should be e magically immune from the same legal system that just in the past three years has put handcuffs on at least 13 state senators, 17 state representatives, 1 serving congressman, 1 former ti congressman, the delaware state auditor, the north carolina republican party chair, too many counselors, aldermans, an executives and mayors to count.s it happens all the time. it really does not have to be

the end of the world.y and anybody telling you that if there is an indictment of this particular former public official, there will be a protest like you've never seen before, there will be civil warr there will be an unstoppable uprising among his supporters ll and violence and all the rest. anybody telling you that is the consequence of him being potentially indicted, well, that person may be wishing for that, but there is no reason that something like that is inevitable.e this is not something coming up that is extraneous to our system that we need to invent something new to contend with. the bottom line here is that prosecuting public officials ann former public officials, it happens all the time in the united states of america. and it never engenders violence. and it never endangers the country, and it doesn't require our legal system to be nd fundamentally rethought or l dismantled.ta unless someone wants to try to gin that up, and that is what we are contending with now with di

this particular former public official. so far the reaction among supporters of former donald trump appears to be fairly muted, at least out in the real world.pe a handful of people turned out this afternoon for what was supposed to be a big protest outside the prosecutor's office in manhattan tonight. according to nbc news reporting on the scene, the reporters to outnumbered the people there to protest by five to one or more. there were a handful of peopleop who reportedly went to trump tower today in manhattan, also to the gold-colored beach club thingie where the president wh lives in south florida and whers you can buy a membership. but, you know, not much more than your average trump in the news day. and we don't know what will happen tomorrow, which is the day he said he expects to be arrested, although that expectation does not appear to be based on anything other than speculation he is hearing in the media. he has called for massive protests in response to his expected arrest. i

there are certainly calls for violence online amid his supporters.nl what the associated press characterized today as incendiary but isolated calls for civil war and violence and killing people.ci but you do also have high profile trump supporters. like this guy, who we do have a mug shot of, disgraced former new york police commissioner and convicted felon bernie kerik, now a high profile trump supporter. he is now calling for law r. enforcement to mutiny, for law enforcement at all levels to refuse to enforce the law if there is any indictment against donald trump. we've also got lots of high profile trump supporters leaning on the governor of florida, tr saying that if trump is indicted and he refuses to voluntarily hs turn himself in, then the florida governor ron desantis should refuse law enforcement cooperation to extradite trump to new york to face charges, that desantis should call out

the florida national guard or id something, or have some other kind of state versus federal arms standoff where i guess trump will hide indefinitely inl his florida house. and then there will be like a war or something i guess to try to stop him from being -- from facing potential charges on falsification of business records? the reason this stuff matters is because it's one thing to wish for, to try to use violence and intimidation to constrain prosecutors.ti that is not something we do in this country, but i think nobody believes that's a rubicon that former president trump doesn't want to cross, not after january 6th. he knows what intimidation and violence by his supporters can do for him. w and so therefore we have to watch that closely, and we're going to be watching very closely the logistics and the e machinations of these possible prosecutions because he is calling for a large-scale r

protest because we know he is not shy about the impact of violence potentially benefitting him and the impact of intimidation in terms of whether or not it can constrain those who he perceives as his enemies. we get that. what's worse than that, though, is if he wants to break the system, if he wants to break the legal system in response to the legal system threatening him. and beyond just threatening violence, you know, that's something that all the other hundreds, all the other thousands of public corruption s and indictments in this country have not previously brought to our door.ct but that is what not just former president trump, but also republicans more broadly are playing with right now. i mean, right now we have republicans in the state legislature in georgia passing themselves a new law by which they empower themselves to remove prosecutors in the middle of cases that the republicans don't like. georgia republicans have passede legislation to undo the

independence of law enforcement in georgia, if that's what it takes to prevent the law being enforced against their leader. today trump's lawyers in georgia filed a motion to have the prosecutor who is leading the investigation into trump, they filed a motion to have her at removed from that case while the bill that will allow republicans in the state legislature to remove her from the case is on its way to that republican governor's desk.to i mean, what do they think is going to be the outcome there ih georgia if they do this, right? they want to set a new standard. as long as there are republicans controlling the state legislature there, prosecutors in georgia can only bring e criminal charges against democrats and not republicans, because if you bring them against republicans, the republicans in the state legislature will take you out of your job.s is that what they're trying to set up? is that how they think things ought to work in georgia in?

that's how things ought to be changed in georgia so they workt like that now.in and the reason that change is justified because well, donald trump might get in trouble for some stuff.ff it's one thing to not want your guy indicted. it's another thing and a very bad thing to threaten violence and intimidation if your guy does get indicted.da excuse me.e. but if your reaction to your guy potentially getting indicted is that you're going get rid of thr system by which people get indicted, that's a bigger problem for the whole country.th and it's not just georgia. federally now we have republicans in congress trying to summon the new york prosecutor to capitol hill to th give testimony as if they've got jurisdiction over him in this matter, as if they as congress can somehow constrain him from bringing new york state charges against an alleged criminal. as if they can somehow stop him from putting people on trial for allegedly breaking new york state law. republican house speaker kevin mccarthy is making these threats against the new york prosecutor he is encouraging republican members of congress who lead

congressional committees that they should haul in this new york prosecutor to try somehow to stop him. and so, yes, we're going to look at all of that tonight, and we're going to get some expert help to try to understand it.tr but we can be clear-eyed and confident here about what's new and what isn't.t about what poses a challenge top our system of government and what is our system of government. and, you know, we've all seen it. every time a public official me gets charged with a crime, they get that look in their eye, right?ed they always say oh, it's political persecution. my enemies are just out to get me because of my position on taxes or gay rights or tort reform or whatever. or they say it's only because r i'm so effective as a champion of the people, that's why they're after me. they all try that kind of an argument. but they end up being memorable only for the quality of their mug shots. e some of them get convicted. some of them get acquitted. some of them get charges dropped. some of them keep committing more crimes and then we get two,

two, two mug shots for price of one. but our system of government can handle it. our system of government can demonstrably handle the prosecution of alleged crimes committed by public officials it and former public officials. it happens all the time. it will not break us.no it does not break us. unless the political right in its support of donald trump decides that the prosecution oft that particular former public official is reason enough to break our system of government, to break the legal system with not just threats of violence and intimidation, but by seizing partisan and political control of prosecutors' offices. if former president trump gets indicted, yes, it's r unprecedented, but there is no inherent crisis in that for us as americans. c watch who tries to make it one. lots to come tonight.

stay with us. i wish that shaq was my real life big brother. what's up, little bro? turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general.

your brother has landed in the dark lands. and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- they're under bowser's control. hang on, luigi. yes! fire! only in theaters april 5th. rated pg. the republican chairman of three congressional committees sent a letter to the manhattan prosecutor alvin bragg today accusing him of leading a politically motivated prosecution of donald trump, demanding that the prosecutor come to congress to testify about it. of course, as of right now, there is no prosecution of donald trump politically

motivated or otherwise. no charges have been filed. but these three republican congressional committee chairmen say they somehow already know that these charges, which don't exist, they know their horse hockey and they're illegitimate because if these charges, which again, don't exist, were legitimate, they say the federal government would have charged trump already. now this is an interesting point. the new york investigation into the trump campaign having this hush money payment to adult film star stormy daniels, it did start on the federal level. it was the u.s. justice department through sdny, through the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district of new york that prosecuted michael cohen for his role in the hush money scheme, and they got him to plead guilty. but even though federal prosecutors said they had evidence that michael cohen committed that crime at the direction of president trump and for the benefit of president trump, they never charged

president trump. and that was sort of flummoxing for a long time. but we do now, with the benefit of hindsight we do have clarity on how that came to pass. we now know, because the u.s. attorney at sdny at the time has spilled the beans about it, we now know that trump's appointees at the department of justice ordered sdny to stop that investigation, to stop that case after michael cohen was charged. according to former u.s. attorney geoffrey berman, the trump justice department repeatedly interfered with that hush money investigation after michael cohen plead guilty. berman wrote a book about it that spells it all out. he says, quote, when bill barr took over as attorney general in february of 2019, he not only tried to kill the ongoing investigations, but incredibly he suggested that michael cohen's conviction should be reversed. the challenge of the plea as well as the reasoning behind pursuing similar campaign

finance charges against other individuals. so yeah, why did federal prosecutors never pursue this against donald trump? well, sdny was ordered by trump's appointees at main justice to cease all investigative work on campaign finance allegations. so now we have these republican congressmen, these republican committee chairmen in congress threatening the new york prosecutor saying how dare you bring this case? the feds looked at this, and they refused to bring a case against trump. so there must be nothing there. but we know from the historical record that federal prosecutors didn't decide against charging trump after you know, a deep thorough review of the law. they stopped working on the case against trump because they were ordered to stop working on it. by trump's attorney general. and so, yes, now it's years later, and state prosecutors of new york are finally taking this up instead. but it's not like it died a natural death in federal court.

now that it's in state court, what do we know about how it's likely to work there. joining us now is laura jarrett. she is nbc news senior legal correspondent. laura, it's really nice to see you. thanks so much for being here. >> absolutely. thanks, rachel. >> let me just ask you a threshold question that a bunch of people have asked me today. i just want to clear it up because i feel like you understand this stuff as well as anyone. when former president trump said this weekend he is going to be arrested on tuesday, meaning tomorrow, and he called for protests in response, is there any reason to believe that was based on anything real? is it in fact clear to us that he was -- that he was just spitballing, that nobody knows if or when any indictment might actually happen? >> it is our best understanding based on reporting that that was not based in any substantive conversation or any sort of tip-off from the district attorney's office to trump's attorneys. it is our understanding that if in fact there is an indictment, if and when that should happen, the district attorney's office would inform trump's defense

attorneys that their client needs to surrender and turn himself in. but based off of our reporting and everything else that everyone else has reported, that has not happened. >> and of course it's possible that the d.a. will not ask for an indictment. >> sure. >> or that the grand jury won't return one. looking at that prospect, do you think there is any reason to expect that those sort of questions, those foundational questions about whether there will be charges at all, are there any reason to expect that those prospects changed today with the sort of surprise witness who we saw come in to testify today? >> so we saw robert costello come in, this sort of quasi legal adviser to trump's former lawyer/fixer michael cohen. and as best as we can tell, costello was there for one purpose, which was to discredit cohen's version of events in front of the grand jury.

in fact if you see cohen as the linchpin to the state prosecution's case, because he is the one who of course actually makes the payment to stormy daniels for $130,000 in the days leading up to the 2016 election. if in fact you believe that cohen is the linchpin to this, then this guy comes in to say he can't be believed. he told me a different version of events soon after the feds raided his office. and so the idea being that this was sort done to muddy the waters in front of the grand jury. our best evidence for why perhaps the grand jury did not find that tale perhaps persuasive is the fact that michael cohen did not go back in for yet another shot in front of the grand jury because we now know that he was not going back again, at least according to he and his lawyers' statements today. if in fact the grand jury had found what costello said to be problematic or curious or wanted to hear more, they certainly could have said please, let us hear more from michael cohen.

have him explain all of these emails that costello is offering that is not happening, rachel. >> laura jarrett, nbc news senior legal correspondent. laura, i know you're watching this really closely, and that is a still unfolding story. thanks for helping us understand the state of play. >> of course. all right, we've got much more to get to here tonight. stay with us. plan b helps prevent pregnancy before it starts, and it won't impact your ability to get pregnant in the future. find it yourself in the family planning aisle no prescription, no id. i've got this. ♪♪

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a

life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

in georgia, fulton county district attorney fani willis

convened a special grand jury last year to determine whether trump and his allies broke georgia law when they attempted to overturn the election laws in georgia and have trump declared the winner even though he had lost. that special grand jury delivered its report, the report reportedly recommended multiple indictments, although we don't know who it recommended indictments for. well, today, in a motion filed in court in georgia, lawyers for former president trump asked the court to quash that report. and importantly, they asked the court to kick the prosecutor, d.a. fani willis off the case. block the report of the special grand jury and remove the district attorney who has been leading the investigation. now, you might remember that republicans in the georgia state legislature have passed a bill both through the house and the senate that would allow them to remove prosecutors who do things that republicans don't like. the georgia republican governor is expected to sign that bill once it reaches his desk.

the question is, if you're in georgia law enforcement, if you're a georgia citizen, or if you're just an american looking at georgia republicans blazing this trail through the forest, what does this mean? what we're seeing now in georgia is beyond just the former president and his supporters inveighing against a prosecution that threatens him. this is a very fundamental shot at the independence of law enforcement and effectively the division of powers in our government. it's not quite a done deal in georgia because the governor has not yet signed this law. but this is the new milieu in which prosecutorial decisions are being made in georgia, knowing that this is coming down the pike. joining us now is michael moore, he's a former attorney for the middle district. mr. moore, it's really nice to see you. thanks for being here. >> i'm glad to be with you. thank you. >> let me first get your reaction to this filing in the fulton county investigation today.

the former president's lawyers filed a motion asking to basically throw out the report from the special grand jury which reportedly recommended more than a dozen indictments. they also want to throw out the district attorney fani willis, who has been leading the investigation. they want her and her entire office disqualified from this case. is this a run-of-the-mill motion? does everybody do this in every case or is this important? >> i really think they picked a box of match with a ghost. there is not much that can be said about special grand jury report. we don't use special grand juries very often in this state. we have to use criminal injuries for indictments. the special grand jury allowed the district attorney to use subpoena power, to bring reluctant witnesses in to talk to them to find out what was going on, but she didn't have to do it. and so essentially the motion today says well, let's make her throw that report in the trash can.

she can throw it in the trash can. she is not bound by it. it is no more a recommendation any more than it was written on a sticky note and stuck on her office door. she doesn't have to do anything that the special grand jury recommended. in fact, she has complete discretion to look at the facts, to look at the law, to make decisions about which individuals she may want to bring charges against, and on what offenses. so we're going to see this. there is going to be more and more of these pretrial motions. sort of that's the best to be expected. again, they sort of file something meaningless. and when they fall back and want to talk about vagueness and the constitutional provisions and that the law is not very clear, and maybe it was abused, they're really just taking a shot hoping that maybe they'll catch some appellate judge's ear somewhere. i don't see much to come from it. it is interesting that they kind of talk about well, some of the information that she got, she wouldn't have otherwise gotten. that's more of like a fourth amendment search and a poisonous tree argument that gets made in cases all the time.

just not something that's going to carry the day for them here. >> what do you think about this project that's coming out of the legislature? so this is, as far as i understand it, for the first time the georgia legislature effectively giving itself the power to stop a prosecution that they don't like in state court. and there is a few steps along the way. they sort of appoint people to a commission that then makes a decision like that based on stated criteria that are very vague. but effectively, what it boils down to is it lets georgia legislatures stop prosecutions and stop prosecutors that they don't like. what do you make of this? >> you know, i think it's shameful. but think about the history of what the republican legislature has done. i mean, when the lines for voting got too long, what did they do? they passed a law that said to people who were waiting in line couldn't be given a drink of water. when the ballots got swept away that let them win the election,

what did they do? they passed a law that maybe we're going to appoint our own special elections, which is ironic given republicans are typically for local control. they decided here they would be able to take over the boards of election. so now, when there is a prosecution and they lost an election, there is a prosecution and investigation into the possible theft of that election, they're passing a law that says we don't like the outcome of that, so we may want to take that over too with another prosecutor. what it is to me, i think we ought to call it what it is. it's racist. it's not racist because we happen to have a black female prosecutor. it's racist because it is a shot at minimizing and decreasing the influence of the minority vote here in this state as the democratic vote. and so i guess they're making the decision somehow that those voters can't select their own prosecutors. the district attorney are constitutionally elected officers. they have discretion in what they're going to do. i do notice that it's interesting that the legislature has yet to pass a law that i'm

aware of that says if we think some legislature is not doing what they should do, that we can remove them quite as easy as they want them. so i just think it's shameful. it's interesting to me as well that one of the chambers, the lieutenant governor leads the senate. and of course you may remember that his name came up during the fake elector process. and lo and behold, here this session, while we have people having trouble with economics and finances and all the other things that go on building businesses' back, we're going to pass laws now that we can replace investigators who looked at people who were leaders in the general assembly. >> if i had found out i was a potential target in a criminal investigation, i might award myself the power to remove that investigator from his or her job too. it's not that hard to unwind. michael moore, former u.s. attorney for the middle district of georgia, it's great to have you here tonight, sir. thank you. >> it's a great pleasure. thank you, rachel. >> we'll be right back. stay with us.

there is a better way to manage diabetes.

the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back.

after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music) have you thought about your wish?

i wish that shaq was my real life big brother. awe. what's up little bro? ♪♪ i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you! ♪♪ turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. mom! for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage make the right call and go with the general. hi, this is tameka taylor from project 1599, a civil rights organization founded by jack burkman and jacob wohl. mail-in vetting -- voting sounds great. if you vote by mail, your personal information will be part of a public database that will be used by the police department to track down old warrants and be used by credit

card companies to collect outstanding debt. the cdc is even pushing to give preference for mail-in voting to track people for mandatory vaccines. don't be convinced into giving your private information to the man. stay safe and beware of vote by mail. >> absolutely none of that is true, that is all complete and total bullpucky. if you vote by mail, they're not coming for your credit card debts. they're not coming to give you mandatory shots. none of that is true. excuse me. but in 2020, that call went out to thousands of mostly black voters in cities across the midwest and the northeast. the purpose of the robocall is not hard to figure out. it was meant to scare black voters out of voting by mail, maybe scare them out of voting at all. and it was no mystery who was behind it. the names were literally in the robocall there was no civil rights organization. it was just a couple of pro-trump right-wing activists who actually put their name on the call. but what they did there, that was a crime. that was criminal voter suppression. and i can say that with confidence, because just a few

months ago the two men who made that call plead guilty to felony charges in ohio related to sending out those calls to voters in cleveland. also in michigan, the same two men are charged with a felony for sending out those calls in detroit. just a couple of weeks ago, a federal judge in new york ruled that those calls violated the kk k act by violating the civil rights of black voters. that ruling came in a civil case brought by new york attorney general tish james who said she wants the two men to pay nearly $3 million in penalties in that civil case that would be on top of the $5 million penalty the fcc has already proposed for them, which would be the largest fine for a robocall in u.s. history. that's how it's been going for those guys. for that robocall they sent out, trying to scare black voters out of casting their ballots effectively to trick black voters out of legally voting. well, today new case, same idea. and it concerns in this case not a robocall, but images like

these ones. and this is from 2016. you see there it says avoid the line, vote from home. text hillary to this number. vote for hillary and be a part of history. and then down at the bottom, it says paid for by hillary for president 2016. it's pretty obvious who this fake ad is targeted at. the picture is an african american woman holding an african americans for hillary sign. and of course all of the claims in this ad are bunk. you can't vote by text message. this ad was not paid for by the hillary clinton campaign. but wouldn't you know it, according to federal prosecutors, nearly 5,000 americans actually followed the advice on this thing and texted that number, texted hillary to that number, presumably thinking that was how they were casting their vote in 2016. and that's how their hillary clinton vote would be recorded. and because nearly 5,000 people did that, there are now criminal

charges associated with that fake meme. prosecutors contend that that is criminal voter suppression. i mean, as an observer here, honestly, that's how you would teach the concept of voter suppression to second graders, right? so it's not hard to see why this became a criminal case, but now it is. today in federal court in the eastern district of new york, which is federal court in brooklyn, the right-wing activist who created and disseminated that fake ad to try to help donald trump, that ad and others like it, he went on trial today. he is charged with conspiring to spread misinformation designed to deprive others of their right to vote. given what he did, given the content that is the subject of the criminal case, it's easy to see what prosecutors' contention is here. what you might not expect is that this has now become a cause celebre on the political right,

this guy who has been charged with this voter suppression scheme. primetime hosts on the fox news channel and twitter's nihilist billionaire owner elon musk have been inveighing against this prosecution as if there is nothing wrong with what this guy did. one fox news personality called this trial, this is an actual quote, the single greatest assault on free speech and rights in this country's modern history. opening statements began today. the defense says the defendant will be taking the stand himself during the trial. again, the trial started today. this is one to keep an eye on. has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call

coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. hi, i'm tony hawk, and like many of you, i take a statin to reduce cholesterol, but statins can also deplete coq10 levels. that's why my doctor recommended qunol coq10. qunol has the number one cardiologist recommended form of coq10. qunol. the brand i trust.

give your small business one tech solution that checks all the boxes. it's all here with the comcast business complete connectivity solution. peace of mind with cyberthreat security. the power of the largest, fastest reliable network. plus, save up to 75% a year with comcast business mobile. the complete connectivity solution. from the company powered by the next generation 10g network. get started for just $49 a month.

and ask about an $800 prepaid card. comcast business. powering possibilities™. all right, that's going to do it for us tonight. thanks for being here. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. if they want to go after donald trump, and they have solid evidence, so be it. but michael cohen is far from solid evidence. this