chuck rosenberg, thank you very much. you love to see it. next, arizona secretary of state, adrienne fontes, will join us on his push for the justice department to protect election workers from what he calls domestic terrorism. you are watching the weekends. the weekends. get help reaching your goals with j.p. morgan wealth plan, a digital money coach in the chase mobile® app. use it to set and track your goals, big and small... and see how changes you make today... could help put them within reach. from your first big move to retiring poolside - and the other goals along the way. wealth plan can help get you there. ♪ j.p. morgan wealth management. you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... ♪ we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to h

chuck rosenberg, thank you again for your wisdom, chuck. i appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >>> still ahead tonight, what would you do with $100 hill wherein? one conservative media executive who famously disdains print media just used that sum of cash to buy a newspaper, a really important newspaper. and that could mean some big changes. that's next. and that could mean some big changes. that's next. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insur

joining me now is chuck rosenberg, msnbc contributor and former u.s. ing here. we know that ms. carroll is asking for $10 million in damages plus punitive damages. it's unclear what the jury is going to decide. but i wonder how you think the outbursts here factor into the jury's process and indeed the judges threshold for taking trump out of his courtroom. >> great questions, alex. at least the outburst so far have not been the presence of the jurors. the jury has been out of the courtroom when those exchanges took place. although they may have heard some of the things he said and that ms. carroll's attorneys complain about. but the outburst were in front of the judge. so how does it affect the judge? courtrooms, federal courtrooms in particular, are serious places. they are governed by rules and procedures. and judges are used to having their orders abided. so this may help mr. trump politically. it may help them in some world outside of the courtroom. but it's inconceivable, alex, that it helped them inside the courtroom. >> can i ask though, because

attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg, also with me is former senior advisor to president obama and co-host of "pod save america." i was shocked and astounlded and not in a good way by trump's legal team in the courtroom. is there anything that they said that struck you as particularly meritus? >> no. >> full stop. >> they were very clear what they were going to do. in an appellate case both sides filed briefs. the judge's clerks read the briefs and nerds like me read the briefs. the things the trump team argued today were all in their briefs. i think they made a legal and strategic mistake, alex, i think in that elitist position you described. no, i wasn't surprised today. i think that's the corner they painted themselves into. >> dan, are you winning when you can order seal team six to assassinate your political rivals. i think and i knowdentially i'm loathe to say this because we're talking about donald trump, dan. it feels like the -- the articulation of a strategy of ultimate and total impunity even in a situation where commandos are assassinating rivals, feels like t

attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. also with me is former senior adviser to president obama and co-host of pod save america, dan pfeiffer. gentlemen, thank you for being here. chuck, i was astounded and not in a good way by what was said by trump's legal team today in the courtroom. was there anything that they said that struck you as particularly merit us? >> no. >> full stop. >> but i wasn't astounded, because they were very clear about what they were going to do in an appellate case, you on both sides filed briefs. judges read the briefs, the judges clerks read the briefs, and nerd life me reads the briefs, and the things that the trump team argued today were all in their brief. i think they made a strategic and legal mistake, alex, by taking that absolutist position that you just described. so no, i wasn't really surprised today. i think that's the corner that they painted themselves into. >> dan, are you winning when you are arguing that the president can order seal team six to assassinate your political rivals and

. >> reporter: paul, yesterday chuck rosenberg was here and he said something that i guess i had never heard before, and i want to play it for you. it is of what chuck rosenberg said about the 20th amendment. >> there is yet another provision the 20th amendment that conson plates his problem. if a president is elected, but not qualified to serve, maybe he hasn't been 14 years a resident, maybe he is not yet 35, maybe she is an insurrectionist and she has been disqualified in the 20th amendment says that the vice president serves until the president qualifies. >> reporter: so yesterday, i guess the development was that i realized let's just say the court does not come down and file on the immunity issue, but they don't come down squarely on the 14th amendment issue. the 20th amendment and kicks in, and there is congress, because congress did have a two thirds vote. but then again, after november, there is a new congress. paul,, cleans help me understand what the court is going through. are we going to lean on the amendments on this one? >> i don't think so, but that does focus on the im

attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. thoughts on what is happening in illinois today, these new cases keep popping up, so how much pressure is this putting on the supreme court to make a ruling very swiftly after next week's arguments and can they come out with a ruling that is really a one size fits all? >> well, i think they have to, ana. i think the supreme court has to resolve this in a way that gives us uniformity. whether you love mr. trump or loathe mr. trump, want him on or off the ballot, it is difficult to have 50 states doing 50 different things. this is where the supreme court could lay down one set of rules and that all the states could then follow it. >> chuck, i want to ask you about what we are awaiting here in new york in trump's civil fraud case, the judge saying he hoped to have a decision by the end of the month, which is tomorrow, so could come at any moment, the new york attorney general is arguing trump should have to pay $370 million, be banned from doing business in new york permanently, this jud

attorney and msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg, a man who, trust me, did not just fall off a turnip truckterday and wind up inside the studios of 30 rock like me. chuck, we're lafrlaughing abouts defense, and i think for valid reasons, but why don't you take us through it legally. any chance that donald trump is going to prevail on that point or any of these points that mika read? >> you know, joe, you're laughing about it because it is laughable. i mean, defense attorneys can write what they want. they can file what they want. it doesn't really matter because, at the end of the day, assuming this case goes to trial in georgia, there's going to be 12 men and women in the jury box who are going to decide what they think of this defense. now, you know, there's -- it's clear ignorance of the law is not a defense, but more than that, he tried to steal an election. he did it in a number of ways, by submitting slates of fake electors, by putting pressure on local officials, by trying to get vice president pence on that awful day in january to halt the vote and to substitute his lectors for the

we're joined by nbc's ken dilanian outside the courthouse along with analysts chuck rosenberg and lisa rubin. what can we expect based on arguments put forward in advance by both sides? >> reporter: to set the scene, because donald trump is here in person the security has really been ramped up. there's a much greater police presence. in terms of in the courtroom, this is a long shot for donald trump, this idea that a former president can't be prosecuted for any acts whited while serving in offense, it's belied by the fact that gerald ford pardoned richard nixon. this three-judge panel is an all-female panel with two judges appointed by president biden and one appointed by former president george h.w. bush. in addition to arguing immunity, trump lawyers are also making the argument that this produce is improper under double jeopardy. >> ken, i need to interrupt you because the hearing is starting. let's listen in right now. >> our jurisdiction was challenged by an amicus. you are not questioning our collateral order jurisdiction? [indiscernible] >> also, you have either abandoned or not

attorney and former msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg and dave aaronberg. chuck, i'll start with you. the lawyers have asked the superior court in maine to vacate, saying it's undemocratic, she doesn't have standing to do this on her own. how do you see this playing out? >> if you just want to focus on maine, willie, under maine law, the superior court has to move quickly and to hear the case but, of course, if the united states supreme court comes along and stays all of the various state proceedings and you still have unresolved state proceedings in almost 20 different states, then maine will put its litigation on hold, and i hope and i expect we'll get a single ruling from the united states supreme court. we're talking colorado, maine and michigan have done, and they've done different things, if the united states supreme court steps in, which i think they ought to, one ruling that sets the standard across the country. whether you loathe mr. trump or love mr. trump, you have or might have proceedings in 60 states and that's really untenable. i expect maine

but, look, if you wanted fwrav as the, you would have gotten joyce vance or chuck rosenberg on here.i was still in college. don't do the math. it's scary. but this is something that happens maybe once in a lifetime, maybe the last time in my lifetime. here we are. i have to say go blue. >> it should be a fun one tonight and sort of refreshing to have a non-s.e.c. championship game, michigan versus washington this evening. >>> back to the legal news. let's start with trump's argument for immunity and the hearing tomorrow. what do you expect happens tomorrow? do you think trump has any validity. >> oral argument is flashing, but it's done in the briefing. it's available online. really basically this immunity argument, the trump side isn't arguing for absolute immunity for absolutely everything the president does. that would be ridiculous. they're arguing instead -- the key words to think about are outer perimeter. in other words, was what trump did, his conduct, this is where the key issue will lie, is what he did, the facts of his conduct. does it fall within the outer perimeter of a

let's ask chuck rosenberg, george conway and u.s. special kor response for bbc news katty kay. >> i think they painted themselves into a corner by taking this absolutist position that was simple, silly and wrong the notion that the only way you can prosecute a former president in this case if he's impeached in the house and convicted in the senate, then you can proceed is utter nonsense, they lacked any subtlety. you read their briefs and i'm a nerd who read their briefs before the argument, i saw this coming, they painted themselves into a corner, so the questions that we heard from the judges are exactly the questions you would expect, judges love to test hypothetical, they love to trot out the most ridiculous example. you don't expect a good litigator to take it at face value, you'd expect them to distinguish it. it was a ridiculous answer and it exposes to fallacy i think of their argue zblmt is there anything, no matter how outrageous the president could do and not be immune, no, he could have s.e.a.l. team 6 kill an opponent. t

let's bring in chuck rosenberg. let's talk about this idea of opening a pandora's box. trump's seem cited president bush, president obama, president biden, to say if you prosecute donald trump, if he's not immune, then you can prosecute any president for any actions they take for orders they give while in office. >> yes, if they're criminals. if they committed crimes. that's not the case. often in my opponents when i was a federal prosecutor, counsel on the other side talked about this pandora's box. sort of a signal that they didn't have the law on their side. the judges don't have to decide all those other cases. but the judges have to decide is the case in front of them. right? whether or not mr. trump has immunity for what he did. right? is it absolute? no, absolutely not. is it qualified? maybe under some farfetched scenario, there could be qualified immunity. there certainly is in a civil context, but the president allegedly did here according to the indictment was try and overturn a fair and free election. that is outside of his official duties as the president.