. >> joining us now, ryan rye -- reilly, and lisa rubin. he was admonished for things that could get him in defamation trouble again. and goes out the second night, last night, and basically does the same thing. what's going on here. >> and it wasn't very well planned out. he was searching for words, rambling during his podcast that he does, i guess, every night. this is not someone who you would think should be in front of the camera making bogus claims because he has so much exposure already, and you can't trust he's going to stick with the script because he appears to believe these conspiracy theories. he has not accepted reality despite signing a motion months ago saying that these statements that he made about these two individuals were, indeed, false. >> he's likely to take the stand as early as today. could be today, could be tomorrow. do we have an idea of how he's going to defend himself, and is it going to be effective if it sound like that? >> there are rules in court, the nice thing i enjoy cover about court, you can't have peop

. >> i know we're joined right now by msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. elcome you to the conversation, lisa. what's your interpretation of this? its effect potentially on the election? >> well, certainly this makes it more likely, alex, that the trial of president trump and the federal election interference case will happen much closer to november or not at all because unless the d.c. circuit rules expeditiously and this supreme court agrees to hear it on yet another expedited time frame, the amount of time judge cut chan would have to try to case on a calendar that allows the former president to campaign, for example, by september, which is the window by which the department of justice typically believes that it's not appropriate for them to take any investigative or prosecutorial steps before an election would happen. so first, it makes it less likely that that trial is going to happen. one of the things i'm struck by in seeing this is what we can't make out of it. usually where you've got a situation like this, a very high stakes petition for certify,

former fbi general counsel and msnbc legal analyst, andrew weissmann, and msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubint's talk about donald trump last night. what is the reaction to what he said to sean hannity in the context of everything that he has been saying on the campaign trail and all of the actions he did while he was president, especially in the last few months of his presidency. >> yeah, i mean, his answer last night sort of put this in the idea that it was all just a joke. something that he could laugh off. donald trump has said for months now on the campaign trail specifically, things like he would go after the biden family with the special counsel. he ran in 2016 on locking up hillary clinton. he has often expressed expanded ideas of what the power of the presidency should be and could be under him in a second term. so in that context, the reaction was fairly swift on both sides of the aisle, but especially from democtsnd the biden campaign, really pounced on the comments with a version othe idea when someone shows you who they are, believe them. they put out a statement that donald trum

now garrett haake in washington, and here with me, nbc's vaughn hillyard and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubinrrett, the court has stayed its own decision until january 4th. walk us through this ruling and what it means. >> that's right, and colorado closes that ballot out on january 5th. what this means is that donald trump will stay on this ballot basically unless and until the supreme court acts. and there's every indication including the fact that there are more states with challenges like this working their way through their court system, that the supreme court is going to have to take this up in some capacity, at least that's what colorado's secretary of state said on msnbc last night. let's listen. >> so whether or not the united states supreme court decides to review the case, whether or not they issue a decision by january 5th, if they do review the case, i believe that they will issue some type of order or be cognizant of the fact that we have an election that is quickly approaching. we're a super tuesday state with a january 5th deadline for ballot certification. >> so legally this

let's get right to nbc's ryan reilly outsides courthouse in washington and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin with us. so ryan, why this last minute change from giuliani and his legal team? >> reporter: you know, giuliani's lawyer doesn't seem to have much control of his client. giuliani has made these comments outside of court that have then the next day and the next day again come up in the courtroom and become part of this larger proceeding. so really, i mean, the judge commented earlier this week that by limiting giuliani's testimony and what he could speak about, she felt like she was almost saving him and in this scenario, it almost seems like giuliani is saving himself a little bit here. i'm curious to see what giuliani ends up saying about this to reporters. he's not someone who likes to act like he is under someone else's thumb, someone else's control. his lawyer does not think that he can control his client on the stand and rudy giuliani apparently still believes these lies, these conspiracy theories from fringe internet websites about these two election workers, which led to this a

joining me now to discuss is msnbc's not so secret legal weapon the great lisa rubin. of all, what is the upside for people not familiar with chapter 11 filings? what does this get rudy giuliani? >> it gets rudy giuliani two things. the first is it allows him to sort of reorganize his financial world. and some of the things that he has, some of the debts that he owes will hopefully from his perspective be wiped clean or at least reduced to cents on the dollar. it gives him somewhat of a fresh start and allows him to get rid of certain debts and also reduce them. but the more important thing for rudy giuliani at this moment is it freezes every lawsuit that he is facing other than the fulton county indictment against him. it can't freeze criminal lawsuits, and there are certain types of assets that you could recover that won't be freezed by bankruptcy like child support. but rudy doesn't owe anybody and we know that from his filing today. >> it is expensive to be an awful human being. >> it is totally expensive. >> that seems to be the case here. >> you and i are were tal

joining us now former litigator and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. lisa, thank you so much for joining us. i think you're here with us. >> i am ali. and i apologize i'm having some technical difficulties. >> this makes complete and total sense to me. i think the first thing i want to ask you about is just your initial thoughts on this decision and i'd like to know where things are going next. the idea trump is going to appeal, what is that argument going to look like, and where its flaw? >> i think there are a number of arguments trump is going to use. chiefly let's about where he's going and choose next. he's not an officer of the united states in the meaning of the section 3 of the 14th amendment, that's the argument principally he relied on below. it was an argument that the lower court found sursuasive even as they judged him to have been guilty of an insurrection. what was shocking to me about this is that the colorado supreme court by a 4-3 majority decided that donald trump should be disqualified in a very detailed 133-page decision. where we g

joining me now is lisa rubin, and jim todd. thank you both for being with us tonight. t question for you, lisa. no we have two decisions dealing with presidential immunity, the district appeals for the columbia circuit claims that trump's action on january six for the act of a candidate, so he's not immune from civil suit. meanwhile judge tanya chutkan has denied trump's motion to dismiss the election interference case, come claiming that presidential immunity provides no defense. what are these two rulings melle other cases that trump faces? >> these two rulings are really different in a way, not only because one is from an appellate court and one is from a district court, but one arises in the civil context where there already is supreme court precedent, and the other does not. so let's take the chutkan case first. it is considering federal law and federal constitutional defenses. she was very clear to say that her decision deals only with the case before her. she's not necessarily saying that he's not entitled to immunity, for example, in a state prosecution. but wha

msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin is with me. i know you've had time now to start going through the filing in more detail. what have you found? >> there's a concession in this filing from the special counsel's office that trump's appeal of judge tanya chutkan's decision last week on whether he can end the case on grounds of presidential immunity, that appeal effectively stays the trial, and the special counsel's office is now conceding that. that is why they are asking the supreme court to let the leapfrog the initial level of appeals courts in the federal system, the courts of peals. here it would be the d.c. circuit, and immediately take the case through a maneuver before judgment. in the petition, they effectively say, this is a novel question of federal law that this petition presents to you. you have no precedent on whether a former president or current president for that matter can be immune criminally, and therefore, this is not only urgent, but it is novel, and if you're looking for historical precedent as to why you shou

. >> msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin is joining us as well right now. lisa, again, your reaction to this. you heard catherine saying she was shocked and not shocked. how about you. >> there were two arguments that team trump made in their view, that were probably persuasive to the court. other than judge chutkan, no federal court or other court has ever ruled on the issue of whether a former or sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, and therefore team trump argued in its brief, the supreme court would benefit from having at least one more opinion, three more judges to carefully consider the issues and add to the body of law that would be available for them to call upon, even in united states v. nixon in 1974, which led to the turning over of the watergate tapes, there was some history there, the case of aaron burr in the 1800s and a decision involving president nixon, prior to the watergate tapes itself that dealt with the issue that was squarely before the court in that case. that was probably persuasive, and the second reaction is very

and msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin joins me here in new york. it is good to have all of you. monica, she was truly a unique figure in history and the ceremony seemed to reflect that. tell us more about it. >> reporter: absolutely. i think you got there from president biden's comments that there was also this levity, there was, of course, in remembering her remarkable life, looking back at some of these lighter moments perhaps and we got a sense of that as well from chief justice john roberts, who really talked about his long relationship knowing sandra day o'connor, he was somebody who in the department of justice in 1981 helped to prepare sandra day o'connor for her confirmation hearing in the reagan administration and he told a story about what then happened when sandra day o'connor was going through the process of learning that john roberts himself was going to be appointed to the bench. listen to how he told that story. >> reporters asked her what she thought of the nomination. she had nice things to say. but ended by noting that the only problem was i didn't wear a skirt

this is prosecutor, lisa rubin and msnbc legal analyst, in court today attempting one of trump's othera, let me start with you, this was wholly expected, we watch this from the beginning. he filed a motion saying you can't try me at all, i have immunity, judge chutkan wrote, i thought a very persuasive opinion saying that is nonsense, we can. now they want to, what? what are they asking be done? >> they're asking for a state of all proceedings before judge chutkan. it's not just a pause in the trial, it's a pause of everything. pretrial motions, discovery, et cetera, until his appeal can be fully resolved. that means not just an appeal to the d.c. circuit, but potentially an appeal to the supreme court. so when you talk about running out the clock, it's certainly possible that we could get through this appellate process and give judge chutkan time before the 2024 election to try this case. but donald trump is going to try every play in the book, both to stay the case pending appeal, and then to delegate that appeal and not expedite it so that he doesn't have to be tried before november

i want to bring in lisa rubin and nbc's vaughn hillyard, both with me here in new york. also with us, former federal prosecutor, renato mariotti. let's start with this breaking news. big move by jack smith. what do you make of it? >> i think it's a brilliant move. essentially what they're saying, we're going to do whatever we can to get a ruling on presidential immunity as we can. first we'll ask the court of appeals to expedite its briefing schedule, but not going to wait for them. in the meantime we're going to ask the supreme court for what's called certiorari where you leapfrog the court of appeals. my friend who is a law professor at the university of texas has written extensively about this. i asked him, how many times has this been used in recent years? it was granted zero times between august 2004 and february of '19. but 19 times since february of 2019. it became a popular procedural maneuver during the trump years. you see the special counsel using it against the same allies that were the big benefactors of this mechanism during the trump years. >> renato, why

now, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard on the politics of all of this, msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, and former acting assistant attorney general for national security and nbc news legal analyst, mary mccord. i will start with you. does the supreme court say, yes, we will weigh in, and we will weigh in quickly? >> i think they will say that they will weigh in. that is fairly unusual procedure to seek what's called certify j they found other cases important enough take directly from a district court ruling without a stop at the circuit court of appeals on the way. what could be more important. the court did this also back in the nixon case, back when a watergate case was going to trial, against someone else involved in watergate, and the special counsel sought documents to subpoena them from president nixon who had refused and sought to quash that subpoena, and because those materials were needed, it was the tapes were needed for that prosecution, this is another case where the special counsel went straight from the district court up to the supreme court. the supreme court took that

. >>> now with us to continue our conversation, msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin and criminal defense attorney and msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos. thank you, guys, for being with us this morning. lisa, i'll start with you. these are charges against hunter biden overnight. how serious are they? >> they're serious charges, including three felony counts and certainly degrees more serious than the counts against him when he had a plea deal over the summer that fell apart. i think it is also important to note that the reason the plea deal fell apart was because the judge in delaware didn't want to be responsible for determining whether hunter had violated the tern terms of the agreement at a later point in time. through that plea agreement, the department of justice wanted to push that on the judge. why? because it was a two-year agreement and they were afraid if donald trump were to be elected, a trump-led department of justice might be retrib tiff with respect to hunter biden. the idea we have gone from there to here demonstrates the gravity of the situation that hunter biden is in. >> in del

lisa rubin, thank you for your coverage and analysis. >> when we're back in 60 seconds, the u.n.urity council's push for a cease fire between israel and hamas as the secretary general warnings of a humanitarian catastrophe in gaza. >>> plus, the start of hanukkah is bringing heightened fears as a man is charged for firing a shotgun outside a new york synagogue. >>> also, what would you do with $22 million? the wild legal filing involving the jacksonville jaguars and what their ex-financial manager allegedly spent the team's money on. >>> and you're not alone if you have had trouble finding certain medications. what's behind the growing drug shortage in our country and why it seems to still be getting worse. eems to still be getting worse. (wife) seriously? a better plan is verizon. (husband) they'd take this mess? (caroler) ♪ very much so. just trade in that old phone. ♪ ♪ for a free 5g phone, plus netflix and max ♪ (wife) you really just should have done that. (caroler) ♪ this didn't land, she didn't like that. ♪ (husband) honey! i immediately get it! (avo) thisole, in any condi

joining us now, msnbc league analyst, lisa rubin who was in court for donald trump's fraud trial.about this gag order. remind us what it's about and how these judges ruled? >> this is in the federal election interference case, not in the civil fraud trial that i have been watching. judge tanya chutkan had entered a gag order that prevented the parties and their lawyers from talking about or targeting witnesses, reasonably foreseeable witnesses in the case, in so far as it related to their testimony. she had an order that the lawyers could not talk about one another, for example, or courtroom personnel. this is a narrowed order. it essentially says that they can't make public statements. that same group of people can't make public statements or direct others to make public statements about foreseeable witnesses as it relates to the witnesses in the trial. same thing applies to lawyers and staff and court staff and the family members of all of those people. guess who's exempted from that, jack smith himself, they can talk about him. and they can't talk about those people only where

lisa rubin, thank you very much. that is "all in" on this wednesday night.ight" starts right now. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. says of course it's a functional principle of our democracy nobody is above the law and that applies to presidents, too. this is the ultimate test to you, brett kavanaugh, and how committed you are to that principle. >> that is all in for this wednesday night. alex wagner begins right now. >> i'm waiting for the next kate shaw op-ed.

. >> msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin just left the court. tim miller is writer at large for the bulwark and an msnbc political analyst, harry litman is former deputy assistant attorney general and host of "talking feds podcast." great to have all of you here. so lisa, court just broke for lunch. what can you tell us? >> reporter: well, this morning's testimony has been from a man named elitov. his testimony here is equivalent to a one-e person pep rally for donald trump's view of this case. eli bartov is essentially saying all valuation is inherently subjective. it's an art, not a science, and therefore there was nothing materially wrong with trump's financial statements. he pointed to a single error with respect to trump's triplex. he said if you wanted to -- you would continue to perm perpetrate the fraud at $180 million instead of correcting your mistake. at the very end of today's court session right before lunch, the attorney general's office objected to an answer that mr. bartov gave saying he had gone well beyond the scope of his expe

msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, and msnbc contributor, and former u.s.orney and senior fbi official, chuck rosenberg. ken, i'm going to start with d.c. i think that's the most interesting thing for me. what's going on with the appellate court? >> you've got the supreme court and the d.c. court of appeals moving towards hearing this case, although the supreme court has not yet said whether they will actually hear it. they have asked donald trump's lawyers to file a response to jack smith's request that they hear it by wednesday. and so a lot really hinges here on what the supreme court does. they could decide to take this up, and then the appeals court schedule is moot. that's over. the supreme court has it. and then the question will be how long will they take to, you know, schedule arguments and turn around some kind of ruling. history shows us that when the supreme court wants to move fast in consequential cases that impact the entire country, it can do that. in the u.s. versus nixon case, in the bush v gore case that decided the 2000 election, four da

joining us now is lisa rubin to talk more about this. what it could mean. >> so there are three separate lawsuits, yasmin, that all alleged civil liability by former president trump in connection with the events on january 6th. some are brought by members of congress, including eric swalwell and bennie thompson, others are brought by capitol police officers who were injured that day. the import of this decision is that president trump doesn't get to just throw out these lawsuits because he was president on january 6th. even though a president can be entitled to immunity for official acts, the decision that the court is making here is that on the basis of the allegations in front of them, the speech, for example, that he gave from the ellipse on january 6th doesn't qualify as official action, rather it was a campaign speech, and they go on to talk about the difference between actions taken by an incumbent president as a candidate for office and those that he takes in capacity as president and ultimately rule that the allegations here, whi

our own lisa rubin was there, too.d and what the cameras did not catch. >>> new developments as states look to hold fake electors accountable for their part in trying to overturn the 2020 election. why it's omthe beginning. and senate republican turning their backs on crucial aid ukrainians need in its fight against russia, and what they're prioritizing instead. deadline white house continues after a quick break. do not go anywhere. k break. do not go anywhere t now, people like you are losing their freedoms. some in power are suppressing voting rights. banning our kids books from libraries and attacking our right to make private health care decisions. we must act now to defend these freedoms and protect our democracy. and we can't do it without you. we are the american civil liberties union, and we're asking you to join us in protecting our democracy at the national level and in communities like yours. call or go online to myaclu.org to become a guardian of liberty today. your gift of just $19 a month. only $0.63 a da

lisa rubin joins us now. she's an nbc legal analyst. what's next here?for a bunch of reasons. not only does he not have the opportunity to harm his case, but he's no longer going to be the last word that the judge hears in his affirmative case before he makes a decision. you and i both know, as does everybody else at the table, every time donald trump is a witness for himself, something goes wrong. the examples are multiple of situations in which donald trump has testified in litigation and has done himself grievous harm. everything from the killer tomatoes deposition he gave in the personal injury lawsuit brought by protesters to the e. jean carroll case. they must be breathing a huge sigh of relief today. >> we're now left instead with the last voice being from the experts who suggested that the trump organization behaved appropriately. it's hard to forecast exactly what the judge will think. the judge said it will take a few weeks to make his decision here. where do you see it going now? >> i can tell you what's going to happen next. today the court i

. >> lisa rubin, my colleague here at msnbc who covers legal affairs for us made the point that, she you know, the supreme court, to give one example, can move quickly if they want to. she talked about bush v. gore. buffy gore, they served in, stop counting, we will look at this and expedite the review. which is to say, this is all volitional. >> for sure, the supreme court is fully controlling it. i think that they are, then panda law clerks will be fully considering they wide-ranging possibilities here. they will be considering the particle implications. they may not put that on paper, but i guarantee you that they are thinking about what happens next, what decision they will make here. >> okay, i want to ask you one more question, but i'll save it for next time. rig means bit because abortion case sinc it overturned crow what it could mean for abortio rights and what it means for america next >> it's been a year and a half since overturning roe v. wade, we've seen a consistent theme in abortion politics on the rights. no matter how much republicans claim to penn middleground, acti

join me now is lisa rubin. she's an msnbc legal analyst, a former litigator, and the perfect person to walk us through this and most legal events. lisa, thank you for being here. let's talk about the trial, the award, and what happens next to rudy giuliani, particularly in this case. there were some speculation that the award would not be as big as the plaintiffs were asking for, much bigger. >> it was much bigger. and that is really, ali, due to what we call punitive damages. there are two categories of damages here that the jury could have awarded. when it's compensatory damages. those are meant to compensate for the injuries that the plaintiffs suffers. and then there's a different category of punitive damages, and there's philamena two things. i want to punish the wrongdoer, in the second is to send a message to other people to deter that same kind of conduct in the future by suggesting that if you do something like this, and you do it willfully, as purposefully as rudy giuliani seems to have done, it this c

lisa rubin, thank you very much. that is "all in" on this wednesday night. "alex wagner tonight" starts right now. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. good evening, alex. says of course it's a functional principle of our democracy nobody is above the law and that applies to presidents, too. this is the ultimate test to you, brett kavanaugh, and how committed you are to that principle. >> that is all in for this wednesday night. alex wagner begins right now. >> i'm waiting for the next kate shaw op-ed. married up, dude. >> i sure did. >>> thanks to you at home for joining me this hour. in the year 2000 george bush became the first president in more than 100 years to win the presidency and lose the popular vote. in 2016 donald trump became the second. now, what made both of those v

joining us now, vaughn hillyard, lisa rubin and also steve patterson who is in denver for us. we'll get to you in a moment. give us a sense first with you, vaughn, what is donald trump saying right now? >> there is a lot on the line for donald trump. two major supreme court decisions pending. the supreme court could be ringing in the new year with donald trump and his legal team. for donald trump, he was on the campaign stage yesterday and he made it clear that he is putting pressure on the biden administration and the court system in turning his masses against what he says is political persecution. i think that this filing that just came out from his legal team to the supreme court to try to slow down the trial is just one example. they say that the fact that this case a rises in the vortex of political dispute warns caution, not haste. and donald trump wants to delay this case beyond the march 4 start date. i have to keep coming back to if we expect a three month long trial that will take us right into the heart of the summer. in july the national convention will decide the

lisa rubin outside the courthouse. when we come back, u.s.funding for ukraine could run dry if congress doesn't approve additional emergency aid. we'll look at the likely fight ahead and the risk it poses to ukraine and its fight for democracy if we don't do anything about it. if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. as americans, there's one thing we can all agree on. the promise of our constitution and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. t

joining me now lisa rubin have george conway, conservative attorney. there's a lot to talk about.s coming out of michigan and what they could mean, particularly what they might mean for jack smith's case and other state based cases but also we've got this supreme court denial of cert before judgment, i want to get your reaction to it because we've been sort of asking different legal folks what they think. george, if i'm not mistaken you worked on the jones v. clinton brief on the side of paula jones in a civil context saying president clinton should have to sit for a deposition, he was not entitled to immunity. you guys won that case 9-0, so you know immunity doctrine of the supreme court. what do you make of this cert petition denial? >> i'm the only person i think in the universe that's written a claim of cert of presidential immunity i think. i think today's order is not a big deal. i see a lot of people their hair is on fire. they can just douse their hair in water because this isn't a big deal. i don't think it's really going to affect the trial date that much. the worst case

senior fbi official now an msnbc contributor are, and msnbc legal analyst and not so secret weapon lisa rubin. do you prefer the lorax or the cat and the hat or is the grinch your go to? >> i think this is green eggs and ham tonight. they are endlessly trying to peddle as green eggs and ham this incredibly contradictory story. and yet all of the judges they encounter unlike character in the seuss book do not want to eat green eggs and ham. >> first, i will ask you both, and chuck, let me go to you here. i'm not a lawyer and i did not goer to law school, but citing e grinch and making the excuse of an appeals process should not be expedited because people need to celebrate the christmas holidays seems far-fetched to me. what was your reaction to that? >> i thought it was juvenile. i'm glad you went to lisa first because she was obviously well prepared on the dr. seuss references. i am not. i will tell you. this. on any holiday military officials, federal law enforcement officials, intelligence officials are working. that's what they do. they work because the work is important and the work is n

they spent the last hour or so in the courtroom, lisa rubin is in the courtroom giving us notes from there, talking about his accreditations. he has testified in front of the s.e.c., he has lectured at goldman sachs, appeared numerous times in the double digits as an expert witness. he has also, get this, jose, which is very interesting, appeared as an expert witness for the new york attorney general in a case against exxon. so, certainly a good choice on the defense's part when it comes to this witness, closing it out. we're also told as lisa says engoron was having a love fest with bartof and talking about the nyu affiliation. he's allowing this testimony to move forward. he'll testify for about a day and a half and then, of course, our expectations are for monday and the former president and his testimony. we have not been told anything that he will not be testifying, so we'll be expecting that to happen on monday, jose. >> yasmin, thank you very much. great seeing you. >>> with less than six weeks until the iowa caucuses, four gop contenders made their pitches to voters on the na

i'm quoting -- filing i'm quoting -- i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin, who is onsetstuff from jack smith? >> i think it's really fascinating, chris, because what he's doing is putting trump's lawyers on notice. we have evidence that predates the conspiracy we've alleged and post dates that conspiracy that sheds light on trump's motive and attempt. they plan to introduce evidence that in both 2012 and 2016 in anticipation of the election trump was ceding claims of election fraud. they have evidence in 2016 and 2020 in both occasions when he was a candidate, he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. that, they say, when he did the same in 2020, he knew full well what he was doing. i think the more interesting part of this filing has to do with new evidence they have. they have evidence that on november 4th, an agent of the trump campaign who was unnamed got together with a lawyer in michigan and essentially planned to start a riot at detroit's tsf center where they were counting ballots. sort of akin to the state farm arena in atlanta. they arranged to try

testimony throughout the day and some of the color from inside the courtroom we're getting from lisa rubin. i want to play sound from the former president outside the courtroom. he has made two appearances, one in which he was walking in. another, they took a break. let's take a listen to the former president going after judge engoron. >> we won this case at the appellate division and this judge refuses to acknowledge the appellate division. he said very specifically, we're going forward. because there's something wrong here. nobody's ever seen something like this. when you win at the appellate division, the judge has to be bound by what the decision is. we won at the appellate decision. >> reporter: so testimony so far today inside the courtroom, i just want to tell you, he's getting paid a heck of a lot of money to be an expert witness. he's appeared in front of goldman sachs, the s.e.c. testifying as well. an expert witness for the new york ag. here's what he offered in his testimony, i have reviewed hundreds of statements and i must tell you, i have never seen a statement that provides

joining us now, ryan reilly outside the courthouse and lisa rubin on set with me.e mode as we await the jury's decision here on damages. walk us through what they are considering. >> so, the jury is basically getting together in a room with eight of them trying to land on these numbers. so there is three numbers they have to consider in connection with this case. the damages that the plaintiffs are asking for are 24 million each, saying that's how much it would cost essentially to repair the damage that was caused to these two individuals who were defamed by rudy giuliani and other parties in the aftermath of the 2020 election and then they could also add punitive damages on top of that, but plaintiffs didn't ask for a spect number there. that will be more up to the jury. they're trying to land on what the right number is. they asked a question yesterday, wanting to take a closer look at the report that laid out how much this would cost to repair. but, you know, safe to say that the lives of these two individuals will never be the same again. so this is something t

msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin is joining us now.his strategy and this evidence they're sharing? >> they're sharing this evidence to give the trump team ample notice. this kind of evidence can be used to show a defendant's prior bad acts or propensity to commit crimes. and what the department is doing here is saying, no, that's not the reasons that we would introduce this evidence. we want to show these acts that happened well before the conspiracy and things that happened after because we think they're illustrative of trump's motive and intent and we think they're relevant and admissible. >> i recall when trump was still a candidate back in 2016 and then during the course of his first term, we often heard from supporters, allies of his, don't take trump seriously. take him literally or maybe it was the opposite, take him seriously, not literally. forgive me. do you think that, the fact that they can point to multiple times people said that that that hurts prosecutors trying to use his words against him? >> no, i don't, because when

. >> joining us now, nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard, msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin and "the york times" adam hiptack whose reporting i just mentioned. adam, i want to begin with you. i think you have some insightful and meaningful detail in this piece. i want to start with when the court decided to take on the issue of abortion and how quickly it became clear that the conservatives had the majority to overturn it within the supreme court. >> well, so the standard account is that ruth bader ginsburg dies, amy coney barrett comes on to the court, and it's inevitable. it's going to happen. but in fact, they take months and months and months of internal deliberations about whether to hear the case. and our reporting shows that justice barrett ultimately voted against hearing the case, so the bear minimum of four justices, it takes four justices to put a case on the docket, did that, and while justice barrett ultimately voted with the majority to undo roe v. wade, our reporting shows that this was a much more complicated enterprise within the court to get it on the docket and the

joining me now is msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. i mean, we all know the scorer.his. what did you think of the brief? >> i thought the brief has other surprises in it, right? because you and i both know that this court here is the, late, delightedly. one of the things that was surprising to me is how sharp their language is about jack smith and his team as partisans here, saying that it's not in the public interest to resolve this by leapfrogging the d.c. circuit, the federal court of appeals that has jurisdiction here, and go straight to the supreme court. rather, it's a partisan interest that jack smith and his team are driving at. that is language that they are using in the campaign domain. they've also used it in other cases. but i haven't seen them use it as sharply as they do in this brief. telling the supreme court, essentially, that jack smith is a tool of the biden administration, and he is doing this to ensure biden's reelection. that's not language that i think will do well, let's say, with the nine justices on this court. >> two of them maybe. >> maybe

lisa rubin, thank you very much. that is "all in" on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> i'm just waiting for the next kate shaw op-ed in the new york times. next kate shaw op-ed in >> she'. >> she is probably better than -- >> beyond. >> thank you. >>> thanks to you at home joining me this hour. >>> in the year 2000, george w. bush became the first president in more than 100 years to win the presidency and lose the popular vote. in 2016, donald trump became the second. now, what made both the two responsible at the expense of the popular vote was the electoral college. but in 2000, it wasn't just that electoral college, it was also the supreme court. the 2000 election came down to the state of florida, the margin between al gore and george bush was 537 votes, a number that remain staggering to this day. and even though al gore has won the popular vote by half 1 million votes, whether those 500 and 3700 votes in florida did or did not get counted would decide the race. and after a flurry of legal challenges and

friday, i was onset -- with lisa rubin, and she said, if trump shows up on monday, right, she anticipated there was a definite possibility that he would back out. i wonder what you think motivated that decision? >> we've seen this again and again, alicia, or donald trump says he's gonna do something, and in the end, my lawyers told me not to do it. it's quite likely to me that he never intended to testify in his own defense whatsoever. putting donald trump on the stand is very, very dangerous for any lawyer. because he has such a loose relationship with the truth. and, so in the same way he wanted to talk to robert mueller, the special counsel, he said he had a speech where he was gonna show -- completely exonerated from january 6th, and once again, i think this shows that it's all talk, and when push comes to shove, under a, he is not gonna be there to testify. >> so given that he's not gonna be the big wetness tomorrow, i wonder what, vibe, we should expect from the trial this week? >> it could be that they're going to best. he was gonna be one of the last, if not the last witness. this

. >> you know, we are going to bring in lisa rubin. i know that you were asked maybe an hour and some change ago by ali velshi about this decision. we were waiting for it to come. i know a lot of us have waiting for it come in. glen was talking about the presidential qualifications clause of article 2. again, if we are going to strictly read those -- the text of those clauses, if we are going to strictly look at the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment to glen's point, to the idea that you don't get presidential immunity if you participate in criminal conduct like donald trump did, you should be disqualified from being able to run for office and to be on a ballot. >> sure. that's the whole crux of what's going on here in this decision, right, is the parsing of the language in section 3 and particularly the meaning of the phrase an officer of the united states. it was donald trump's argument here that he didn't qualify as an officer of the united states that had the drafters of the constitution meant to include the president and

. >> joining us now, former litigator, legal analyst lisa rubin. was in the courtroom yesterday. great to see you. we're going to hear from the defendant himself on monday with some testimony, but tell us about what you saw yesterday. the trump team bringing in an expert, a tax attorney, who said, effectively, as defense teams will find someone to say for them from time to time, what he did wasn't so bad, actually. >> an accounting professor at the stern school of business came in yesterday and gave all the testimony that trump could have dreamed of. he essentially said there was nothing wrong with the financial statements from 2011 to 2021. he found no indicia of fraud, no gap violations. those are the accounting standards that govern how the financial statements have to be presented. he also said that they contained a warning to anybody reading them to do your own diligence, and he compared it to the surgeon general's warning on a box of cigarettes. if i were the trump organization, for example, i might not want to be compared to a health hazard,

lisa rubin, what do you make of this? >> alicia, there's real doozies here. yes, the supreme court should -- this is an issue of first impression, but not now. all of his reasons is sometime, but not now don't care a lot of wear. he claims the special counsel has suffered no injury that would justify the expedition of the review, but, of course, the stay occasioned by judge chutkan's opinion is a real injury. it means no pretrial proceedings, much less the trial itself can happen. they also say that jack smith ace invocation is nakedly a partisan interest. i want to push back on that. all members of the public would be benefited by understanding whether donald trump will face criminal liability here, and special if he is quiblgted before they make their decision they ballot box. you know that in that numbs published a poll say, saying 58% of primary voters polled believe that donald trump committed very serious crimes, but even more importantly, 32% of the republican voters in that poll say, if trump isn't convicted, he shouldn't be the nominee, so the notion

committee and at the table, nbc news justice reporter and author, ryan riley and msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. could not think of better people to be with us today. lisa, break down this ruling. what does it mean? >> essentially confirms what jack smith's team told her over the weekend. the trial cannot go forward until trump's assertion of constitutional immunity is resolved either by the d.c. circuit or by the supreme court. at the same time, she's giving jack smith's team what they said they wanted. they are saying to her you still have jurisdiction to enforce the basic rules of this proceeding. that means you can enforce his conditions of release, which are the circumstances under which he's still a free man having been indicted and maybe most importantly, you can enforce the protective order. trump has been given 13 million some pages of discovery in this case and a protective order precludes him from sharing with the public. like regina george. he still needs to keep those materials secret until further order by the court. so this is essentially what jack smith's office told her should

. >> i want to bring into our conversation lisa rubin, who has increase on have you ashley humphriesersed engineered it, how much would it cost to restore them to where their reputations were before this all took place. the damage here is reedly widespread. i've been reading shay moss's testimony. this damage was so extensive, to the extent she went to a chick-fil-a, the person who interviewed her there, turned his laptop and faced it with her, and the word "fraud" across it, what's going on? can you explain this? her life was destroyed by this. the reputational campaign that would have to be mounted to put her back to where she was before december 4th, 2020, would be considerable. that's what professor humphries tried to do here. >> and the damage to the democracy, there's been damage to our institutions. those are themes we come back to over and over again. >> he said when he looked into these things, he had a background, it's somebody if convinces you. it's another if we say we investigated it, and we were the top federal investigators who broke up the mob. he brought all of that