i'm gonna be honest. i did work on john kerry's campaign in 2004, and i tried very hard to defeat george bush and her father. four years later, i was a part of the transition when president bush and vice president cheney handed over to barack obama and joe biden, peacefully, by the way. of course liz cheney had a political career of her own. when that would come to be defined by her work on the january 6th committee and her willingness to speak out against donald trump when it wasn't always easy. look, i know that when i sound the alarm about the former president, which i do frequently, there are a lot of people who tune me at. who am not getting through to. but when liz cheney sends that alarm, as loudly as she's doing right now, that's another thing entirely. it's a perfect time to be talking with her, because donald trump is talking a lot about his desire to be a dictator. and that's because he wants to be a dictator. that part is pretty clear. the harder question to answer is, how do we talk about that? because the sad reality is there are people in this country who hear him say things like that, and they like it. as republican senator mitt romney put it, trump's base loves the authoritarian streak. i think they love the idea that he may use the military in domestic matters, and that he will seek revenge and retribution. that's why he's saying it and has the lock nearly on the republican nomination. the senator is right, in my view. even though a dictatorship is antithetical to basically everything the country stands for, a lot of people in trump's base kind of love it. because it makes him sound strong. my friend dan pfeiffer summed up this problem in a great piece out this week, saying that when the world feels out of control, people are willing to sacrifice a lot for the perception of safety and security. we've seen that over and over again in politics. that's why it's so important to call it trump's authoritarian rhetoric. for what it really is. not a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness. authoritarianism isn't actually a governing approach that comes from a position of strength. authoritarians around the world want to control the people they govern because they can't earn their support and they don't respect their votes. it comes from a place of desperation, not a place of leadership. see, donald trump has never had the support of the majority of this country. he lost the popular vote in 2016 by nearly 3 million votes. he lost the popular vote in 2020 by 7 million. and when he lost that election, he tried to steal it. he tries to convince his supporters that elections are rigged before they even happen. that's what's happening right now. because he's afraid he will lose. he threatens to lock up his critics because he can't handle the public disapproval. he talks about going after the media because he's pretty thin skinned. i think we know that. he cries fake news because he can't handle the truth. exaggerates his personal wealth because he's insecure. literally everything that he does is actually a sign of weakness masquerading as strength. now, this facade could of course come from -- donald trump spends much of the next year sitting in a courtroom. especially since the justice system isn't susceptible to the strongman tactics. we saw a sign of urgency from special counsel jack smith just this morning. smith asked the supreme court to decide whether trump is immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. and just hours later, the court said it would consider whether to hear the case on an expedited basis. but here's the thing. there's no certainty he will be held accountable for the election. there's no certainty that the courts will stop this wannabe dictator, which is why this message is so important here. and the message needs to be that we are not talking about a strong leader here, but a week one. joining me now is former republican congresswoman liz cheney. she's the author of the new book oath and honor. it's such a pleasure to be here today -- i want to thank you for speaking out as much as you have. it's not easy to go against the grain of your party. >> thank you for having me, i appreciate it. and these issues really are ones, as we've talked about, that span across party lines. >> i want to start kind of where i ended there, which is about dictators. you have worked around the world, you've worked on national security issues. are some of these impulses, these authoritarian impulses of trump's, are they a sign of strength? are they a sign of weakness, as i said? what are your thoughts? >> you know, i think that the first thing i would say is that we have to be very careful that we don't sort of ignore exactly what you're pointing to. because this is the united states of america, because we've never really had to deal with somebody, we've never had to deal with somebody like this before, it can become too easy to say, well, dictatorship can't happen here. and i think that the really important message in this is about the people who were around him who stopped the very worst of what he was trying to do, we know will not be around him again. in a second term. therefore, he will be fire, far more dangerous in terms of his willingness to ignore the rulings of the courts. we've talked about the pardon power, and his willingness to use that if he needs to. and the fact that he always be tried to stay in office once we. nobody can responsibly say, you know, what he won't do that again. he's fit to be president. >> and your book makes that very clear, that we weren't prepared in many ways, and we need to be prepared now. i want to read a part of your book that really stuck out to me. you said, and you touched a little bit on this, certainly, donald trump would run the u. s. government with acting officials who are not and could not be confirmed by the senate. he would obtain a bogus legal opinion allowing him to do it. he would ensure the senate confirmation progress is no longer any check on his authority. the type of resignation threats that may have kept trump at bay before it will no longer be a deterrent. trump will be eager for those who oppose his actions in the justice department and elsewhere to resign. and at the department of defense, you would again install his own team of loyalists. people who would act on his orders without hesitation. that's a pretty stark assessment. i think a lot of people are trying to understand what's the biggest risk and what this all means. somewhat of those things keeps you up at night? >> i think they all do. and what really keeps me up at night is the idea that there are so many people now who seem to have forgotten what he already did once. and who seem not to be focused on how much power we instill in someone as president. and a president who's willing to do the things he's watched him do before certainly will do those things again. i think, you know, the story of the lead up to january 6th and what he was willing to do, for example, with the defense department, the fact that today, still, he is saying, well, mike flynn would be part of the future administration, and mike flynn, of course, said he should deploy the military to seize voting machines, to re-run the election. i mean, and these are not people he's distancing himself from. which, you know, it's an important point. if you look, for example, at the text messages between sean hannity and kayleigh mcenany on january 7th, they were saying no more crazy people. basically, keep trump isolated. keep the crazy people away from him. you know, now he's spending all his time with -- >> surrounding himself -- >> exactly. steve bannon and others -- second term. >> this group of a nail blares as something you've talked about a fair amount in your book. we were talking about pardon power before the show started, and one of the things you talk about in the book is sort of these powers of the presidency. that people aren't maybe aware -- there is pardon power. they're of course is the nuclear codes. there's by a military. are those -- which of those is scariest to you? or what do you think people aren't tracking the most of those powers? >> i think that in many ways, all of them share the common thread, which is it doesn't matter how many guardrails you try to put in place. if you elect a president who's gonna blow through guardrails. and if you look at the constitutional structure, the presidency is checked, according to our framers, by the congress and by the courts. and we're of course now in a situation where we know the republicans that are in the majority in the house, certainly, and many republicans in the senate, won't check him. won't stand up to him. and then, if the courts issue rulings with which he disagrees, you know, he's been clear, and in fact, ignored 61 out of 62 court cases that he lost. it's clear that neither one of those other entities will be able to be a check on his power. >> to check him. so one of the other things you've talked about, and you said this publicly since book came out, is you think he'll try to stay in office. >> right. >> what does that look like? you're so familiar with the powers of the presidency and what enablers could do. how does he do that? >> well, first of all, he tried to do it once. when you think about when he woke up on the morning of january 6th, he knew that he had lost the election. and yet, he thought he was gonna remain in the oval office. he thought he was gonna remain as president after january 20th. and you can imagine a scenario where he could say for the people, you know, we just need to delay the election, as he's already said previously. and suggests that for some reason, there was incurable fraud. and so the election couldn't go forward, and she we should just delay it. and people hear that, they say, but the courts would step in. certainly, a federal court would issue an order saying, no no, you have to go forward with the election. but if the president ignores the court's orders, it doesn't matter that they're compulsory. and i think that's the most important thing for people to recognize. it's not our system, the framework of our constitutional structure depends upon individuals to defend it. and the president is, you know, at the pinnacle of those who are duty bound to defend it. so we're in real ginger if we elect someone like donald trump who won't. >> i do want to turn to the legal cases. you are a lawyer, of course. you talk about a lot of these in the book. and there is what i think is a surprising but pretty big development today. because pretzel prosecutor jack smith is now asking the supreme court to decide whether donald trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for his alleged crimes committed while in office. that's something he's raised as a way to kind of delay or get himself, of course, out of the legal case. what do you make of smith's decision? was it a wise one? what will it get him? >> i thought it was exactly the right thing to do. i think he's clearly demonstrating that donald trump 's efforts at delay are not ones that he thinks the court should abide. i also don't think that it's a close call at all. the notion that somehow, a president has got complete immunity for criminal activity that he committed while in office. it just strikes me is not a close call. i thought it was the right decision, and i think we've seen the supreme court move very quickly to say that they'll take the case. >> which is interesting. in your book, you also tell us story of how back in january of 2022, when the court granted access to trump's -- i think you are a little more optimistic, i think it's fair to say, about what they might do. and a lot of people, many democrats, are skeptical. this three appointees from trump there. as you look at this case, it seems like they've moved rapidly. how confident are you that they would fully take the case, that they would rule in favor of jack smith? >> you know, i think it's one of the really heartening things about what's happened over the course of the last several years now, that we've seen, almost without exception, judges and justices, and doesn't matter if they were appointed by a democratic president or a republican president. they have been absolutely steadfast in terms of recognizing the threat that donald trump poses in upholding the rule of law. and it was very interesting, as you mentioned, on the committee. you know, i think we saw the sort of traditional analysis of the courts. and i or justices obviously, there's gonna be a ow do -- you daug president? president? thing for the countr but the senate. authority. those ena former colleyou have a lot to s? people suldn'torried i think peoplould b really understand anbe impressed wi our crt and judgestice have opera t recognize and understand thald trump anthe dang blican es are doin every time they out andattack e this notion thehow thesystem isz really damagine, andt' wron >> as we look to next year ob there's gonna be numbgh-profile peopl stifyiin georgia, that wil o levision one ofeople who is edly on at list is vic yo about him a lot i your book. how do you view, h should all vi the p for a former vpresidtestifying againse esident? >> i mn, i ts a sa thing foe coun and the's soment where you sort ofto stop and timagine w it got to te? but the factt you know, the visident p important and patrduty o january 6th, not to d to nald trump's pressure. but thextenth donald trump'overalan to seiz power really did invve sure on the vice presi vely, and he told them this as a pres the senate he saion't have that authority. i don't have thei can' do that lly, iunconstitutional and donald trump, asmany other people who tth listenhing, unwill president was moutspoken publ >> certainly i thinthere are a loof kn need everybodwho, cally onield we need ody explng and i think, you know, thaesid includes the former vice president. >> liz cheney, i have so muc more to ask you, including those enablers and some of you former colleagues in congress. you have a lot to say about in this book. we'll be right back with liz cheney are rechargeable, and have easy to use volume controls, built right in. and unlike so many others, with a push of a button, these hearing aids give you pre-sets for better hearing. in a quiet setting, loud restaurants, or listening to music, you can adjust them to help you hear the best... wherever you are” there's no tools required and no batteries to fumble with! when i first popped them in, i went, wow! i hear everything. simply slip in your rca hearing aids, and instantly hear your world again. grampa, i love you. never miss a moment again. you know rca... the quality is there. you cleared up decades of frustration in a second. order now and we'll ship your pair of fda registered hearing aids in your choice of style with incredible savings. pay as low as only $29 a month! you get a 45-day money back guarantee, free 24/7 us based support, a portable charging case, and free shipping. with rca, you can be hearing better in just days! order yours now! call this number or go to: rcahearingaids.com now i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. hi, i'm ben and i've lost 60 pounds on golo. (guitar music) with other programs i've tried in the past they were unsustainable, just too restrictive. with golo i can enjoy my food and the fear and guilt of eating is gone. we are back with former republican congresswoman liz cheney. so, you do not hold back about some of the in a blaze in congress and your book at all. and when you're writing this book, mike johnson was not known by a lot of people. but, now he certainly is. and i want to talk about him. but first, i want to spend some time talking about kevin mccarthy. and i want to play some sound from an interview he did just this weekend. >> can you count on your support? >> yes. >> that's an endorsement? >> i will support the president. i will support president trump. >> would you be willing to serve in the trump cabinet? >> and the right position. look, if i'm the best person for the job, yes. >> i mean, watching that, i was thinking, why? you're leaving congress, so why? >> yeah. i mean, i can't explain it. it's pathetic. there is sort of an element of, it doesn't really matter what donald trump has done to the country, what donald trump has done to the congress, donald trump has done to kevin mccarthy -- >> to him! >> yeah. it's just kind of going back for more. and i think it's sad, but i also think history is going to show that kevin's unwilling to do the right thing, sort of each time that decision came, did real damage. >> unquestionably. you've said that kevin mccarthy's successor, mike johnson, cannot remain speaker through 2025. and we know the role from your book and from a lot of reporting that he played around january 6th, as an enabler. you're very familiar with the power of the speakership. so breakdown for us, what could he do? why is that so it's concerning? >> well, the new congress will be sworn in on january 3rd. then, on january 6th, 2025, the joint session will happen where the electoral votes are counted. and, being in a situation where you have the speaker of the house who's already shown that he's willing to do things he knows to be wrong in order to placate donald trump, presents a real risk. and especially if you begin to think about, what does it mean, potentially, if no candidate gets 270? if the election is thrown into the house? if you're in a situation where the speaker can give more leeway to people who want to make objections can make that easier to do? there is a whole series of things that we could find ourselves depending upon the majority, depending upon a speaker who is already demonstrated he won't stand up against donald trump. >> you've also said that he's smarter than kevin mccarthy. which maybe is a compliment, except to me, it's a little scarier. is he more dangerous? >> i found mike, and i say this with sadness, because he was a friend of mine, but i found his role was very destructive. because he's an attorney, and because he portrayed himself to the conference as a constitutional lawyer. and so he would make assertions that we had no basis in the constitution, no basis in law, they were factually inaccurate, but then he would, you know, sort of do that by claiming he was a constitutional lawyer, and he was able to get people to listen to him. he's also just very duplicitous in terms of dealing with issues of various significant and grave importance. >> and that could be a big risk coming up if he's still the speaker. i also want to ask you about mitch mcconnell. because you clearly admire him, i've known him for a long time. you also express in your book some disappointment with moments when he didn't stand up for democracy. do you worry that if trump is reelected, mitch mcconnell would, despite his personal failings, which i think everybody can gas, would also not stand up? and not prevent some of these authoritarian tendencies were seen? >> i certainly would like to hope that he will. and, you know, as i write in the book about the fact that i've known him for decades, and i think even his political opponents in washington have respected the way that, you know, he's been able to maintain his leadership of the republicans, and side of the master operator. but his political judgment, he made, you know, big mistakes that matter a lot when he voted not to convict. it was also, i think, a tragic mistake when -- that trial could begin more quickly. if the senate republicans were trying to decide that trump being out of office meant that he could not be convicted, then he should've had the trial sooner. and i think in both of those cases, you know, and again, with great respect for mitch, i think his assessment all along was that trump will go away. and i think he thought maybe the impeachment vote in the house was enough. and certainly, trump has to be defeated. he's not just going to go away. >> and if he were to be reelected, he certainly wouldn't have gone away. so you have to be in a position will help make a decision. >> not just mitch, but there are many republicans now who say, well, we know the danger. but then, the next question is, would you vote for him if he were the nominee? and people need to recognize that suggesting we would vote for him after seeing what he's done -- indefensible. >> i want to ask you about physical safety. because you talk in your book about threats he received and pets your family also received. nothing comparable to you, but i've received threats as a mom. names of my kids, home address. are you still receiving a large number of threats? >> certainly. they still come. i think that a couple of things about these threats that people need to focus on, one is certainly to be in a situation where the threats are coming because of the actions of the former president of the united states is unprecedented. we also saw, in congress, and myself personally, the connection between when tucker d say something on fox about me personally, or about another member, you would see the threats -- when it happened, but it's something people need to understand. the power of the lies that people are propagating. >> one of the things that trump has threatened, or has been reported, is that he will seek retribution. there's a threat of rapid should be russian, that he will go after his enemies. are you where you're gonna be on that list? >> i don't think about that. because i think it's so important for the whole country, for the future of the country, for the future of our kids, that, you know, he never get to that place. one of the really stark moments for me in the last couple of years was having dinner with my husband and my sons, and looking at my sons, and realizing, you know, maybe they won't be able to take for granted that we live in a country with a peaceful transfer of power. and that sudden realization that we've all, all generations of americans, have known that that wasn't something that you had to worry about. now, we do have to worry about it. and so i think making sure that we kind of come back, pull back from that a bit, is -- >> not worried about the enemies list. i might be on it too, who knows. you've been asked a lot of times about what your future holds, and i know you're not gonna tell me anything particularly new about whether you're gonna run -- you're welcome, to of course. or endorsed joe biden, or whatever you may do. even dressed democrats before. do you have a timeline on when you might make a decision? >> i think over the course of the next couple of months, we will know more about who the republican nominee is going to be. who the democratic nominee is going to be. i think it clearly looks like we're headed in a particular direction on both sides. but i think, you know, understanding sort of how the major parties play out, i don't want to assume that we can't beat donald trump in the primaries. because nobody's voted yet. but it certainly looks like we're gonna have to beat him in the general. and for me, the decision will be, what are the most important things that we need to do most effectively to beat him? >> congresswoman liz cheney, thank you so much for joining me this evening, and for writing the book you wrote and speaking up. the book's oath and honor, and it's available wherever you get your books. up next, much more on jack smith's request for the supreme court to rule on trump's claim of presidential immunity. breaking tonight, the supreme court is already asking trump's team to respond. we just talked about that. i'll dive in more to that and much more with my friend preet bharara, the -- southern district of new york. this much more to get to during this hour. stay with us, we'll be right back. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. back. they taught us the again that history certainly has a way of rhyming. they're with me as we roll back the clock for a moment. nearly 50 years ago, a special prosecutor, not unlike jack smith, was hot on the case investigating the watergate scandal. i conspiracies a vast reached deep into the nixon white house. but in prosecuting the case against nixon's closest athens, he reached an impasse over nixon's refusal to turn over the now infamous white house tapes. when nixon kind executive privilege to withhold that evidence, the watergate special prosecutor made a very bold move. >> late this afternoon, there was a stunning in completely unexpected development in the battle. -- waging to get presidential tapes. he went directly to the supreme court and asked it to intervene on his behalf. >> the decision to bring this question straight to the supreme court came is a bit of a shock to most observers at the time. it was a necessary move, not only because of imperative public importance, but also to ensure that the case would be resolved as quickly as possible to permit the trial to proceed as scheduled. just 61 days later, this is what happened. >> good morning. the supreme court has just ruled on the tapes controversy, and -- has that really? >> it is a unanimous decision, doug. 8 to 0. justice -- ordering the president of the united states to turn over the tapes. >> let casey just heard them talking about, the united states versus nixon, was not only taken up and decided on the quick timetable, it also set a crucial precedent and eliminating a presidents claims of executive power. now, nearly 50 years later, that is exactly where we once again find ourselves. as donald trump claims even more expensive presidential powers than nixon ever did. even long out of office. back in october, trump's legal team filed a motion to outright dismissed the federal elections case, setting an absolute immunity from prosecution for actions that he took while president. but earlier this month, the presiding federal judge, tanya chutkan, forcibly rejected that notion. she wrote in her decision, quote, whatever immunities the sitting president may enjoy, that position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass. trump's team has appealed that decision to the d. c. circuit, where the case would again be decided before being bogged down in another unlikely appeal. which brings us to this moment in history. today, special counsel jack smith, like his predecessor during watergate, cut to the chase and went directly to the supreme court. he asked for an aspirated ruling on trump's claim of immunity. to, quote, ensure that that should provide the expeditious resolution that this case warrants, as it did in united states versus nixon. if the court were to take up this question, it could roll well before the scheduled march 4th trial date. and that's pretty key. because as many have pointed out, trump's strategy here is to delay these proceedings for as long as he can't. past the election. he can't escape justice, but he can certainly slow walk it. there's a saying in legal circles. when that you're probably already familiar with. justice to lead is justice denied. if trump or to delay the trial in till after the 2024 election and win the white house, he could evade justice. for another four years. it's part of what i was talking about with liz cheney. and we know what damage he's capable of doing in the meantime. former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, preet bharara, is standing by, and he's coming up next. , and he's coming up next. i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. so here's the big question. is donald trump immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case? well, today's special counsel, jack smith, ask the supreme court to quickly decide on that question before trump stands trial in march when it's scheduled. and tonight, the supreme court said it would consider whether to hear the case on an expedited basis, asking trump's team to respond to jack smith petition by january seven -- southern district of new york, he's also the host of the podcast, stay tuned. -- i had to come to new york to be in person with you. i want to start there. the move today by jack smith, it seems to me like kind of a power move. how do you read it? >> i think it's a wise move. i think it's a necessary move. as you are talking about with liz cheney earlier in the program, there is a clock. and it's taking. and it's ticking, i guess it's not ticking faster than it otherwise ticks, but it's taking. and if donald trump can delay the trial in this or any of the other cases, particularly the federal cases past the election, there are multiple bases on which he can avoid accountability altogether. and so, jack smith and his team have said before, when they're advocating for an early child date, and they have a march 24th 2024 trial date -- the public does as well. so i think it's an important and critical move, and whether or not he sees justice, donald trump in this particular case, which i think -- before any criminal cases against him, is the most profoundly important. and i think it cuts to the heart of democracy moreso than all of the others. whether he will see a courtroom and adjudication in a free and open system like we have in this country before the election, depends on what the supreme court does in this matter. >> you're making it sound very pivotal, and it's very pivotal. >> i think it is. >> it is. >> because the timing, because of how long things take. >> let me ask you about that. the supreme court seemed to come back pretty quickly to say they would consider it. they may consider it. >> they're asking for the other sides of. >> the acts skiing for the other sides view by december 20th. so what are we looking at in terms of timing of when we will know if they will take up the case? and they would have to than decide before early march. >> i think the supreme court as indicated by quickly asking for the other side's point of view on this that they'll make a decision about whether or not they'll take the case. i think before the end of the year. you're asking for december 20th, we have the holidays coming up, you know, we don't know that for sure. but on the other hand, think about the timeline to the supreme court does not take the case. as people may appreciate, we have three levels of courts in the federal system. the district court, that court made a decision. usually, then it goes to the appellate court before it goes to the supreme court. by bypassing the appellate court, he's trying to get a quick decision. now if it goes back to the appellate court, that could take weeks, if not months to decide. and then, the former president would have another opportunity to go to the supreme court, and that takes another few months. now we're talking about late spring, summer, perhaps even longer? if the supreme court does not take this up, we have a real question about whether or not he faces justice in trial in this matter at all. >> and as you just said, jack smith simultaneously asked the appellate court to expedite. right? at the same time. so the supreme court could decide still not to take up the case. this is all -- >> built in suspenders. >> built-in suspenders. four of them have to decide, right? to take it up? so, we all know that trump is doing this to delay. delay tactics. that's to his benefit. to get it passed the election. does the supreme court way that in? how do they weigh that? >> so, the supreme court has been appearing to be more political lately. certainly, it's been ideological. more so in recent times that in times past. whether or not it's engaging in partisan faith brutish is meme for donald trump, you know, in this matter, i think it would be a weird thing. because whatever the supreme court thinks about trying to have a result, people think results oriented outcome -- bush v. gore back in 2000, supreme court also does think it's supreme. and it is the final arbiter on all sorts of things, particularly very important things. and this is certainly a very important thing. so i think the interest, no matter how partisan ideologically may think some of the justices are, some people think that they are, that would overrides that is their interest in being the prime adjudicators of things that are important. and this would be that. the issue of whether or not on a substantive level, forget about the procedure in the timing, whether or not a president of the united states, based on activity he engaged in, has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution even when he's not the president anymore. that's an important issue. i think it's readily decide -able. but it remains important. first impression in the supreme court. i think they're going to take the opportunity to decide. >> you think they're gonna take up the case? >> i do. but, you, know predictions are what you paid for them. and you paid for nothing from mine. >> i didn't. i'll buy you a diet coke later. donald trump, he does not want this to be expedited, of course. we know why. but is there a legal argument to make? what is the argument they'll make? -- >> it's an extraordinary thing -- jacks mitt and his acceleration to the supreme court acknowledge that. you acknowledge when you're doing something extraordinary. and he said this is an extraordinary request. but he also said this is an extraordinary case. and time again, we've seen in these legal matters regarding donald trump, whether it's in new york state, whether it's in georgia, whether it's florida, whether it's washington, d. c., one side says this is extraordinary, and you can't -- this relief here seeking, or this action you take is extraordinary, and the response, i think, was quite persuasive. yeah. these are extraordinary times, extraordinary circumstances. and the conduct that the former president engaged in also is extraordinary. when that comes, out it's unclear, but that's the argument to make. there's no reason to do something that has been -- mentioned the nixon case. that's an example of a bypassing of the appellate court. there are a few others. the jacks mitt in his team site in the petition. but it's a very, very unusual. because usually, courts are incremental. there's a process. there's a hierarchy. unless there is a very good, very good reason of national importance to do otherwise, that's what they stick with. >> preet bharara, stay right where we are. not just because i'm gonna buy a diet coke, because we're gonna talk about rudy giuliani, who spent today in court today as well. the judge ruled that he defamed georgia election workers. but a jury is going to decide how much he has to pay them. we're back after this. get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. one small smoothie is $14.63, please. $14 girl, what is you doing? but making smoothies is such a hassle. not with blendjet. what's going on? shhhh. hold that thought. just pour in some milk, throw in some frozen fruit, and in 20 seconds you've got yourself a nutritiou and delicious smoothie. mmm! tastes just like the ones they sell here. and for a whole lot less. i'm ruined. awww. kick your expensive smoothie bar habit to the curb. order yours now at blendjet.com. first time i connected with kim, she told me that her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. just like in donald trump's i'm here to thank you. civil fraud trial, a case against rudy giuliani has already basically been decided. the only question is how much giuliani, like trump, will have to pay. today, giuliani was in court for a trial to determine how much he has to pay -- spreading lies about election workers in georgia. you might remember ruby freeman and her daughter. they stuck with me. the testified to the january six committee about the torrents of threats and racist abuse they suffered after giuliani used video footage of them working during the 2020 election count to push lies about the election results. >> a lot of threats. wishing death upon me. telling me that, you know, i'll be in jail with my mother, and saying things like, be glad it's 2020 and not 1920. >> i've lost my name and i've lost my reputation. i've lost my sense of security. >> as i mentioned, giuliani was already found liable for defamation, and now a jury will decide how much he's going to pay. there's also a question of whether he can pay it. lawyers for freeman and moss today said that they want, quote, a punishment for giuliani's outrageous conduct and deter him and others from engaging in that kind of conduct again. giuliani's lawyer said the amount plaintiffs are seeking is the civil equivalent of the death penalty. it will, they said, be the end of giuliani. preet bharara is back with me. i want to start by asking you about something giuliani said today. which was pretty eye-popping. he said it outside of the courthouse just a few hours ago. we're gonna play, and we'll talk about it after. >> when i testify, you get the whole story, and it will be definitively clear that what i said was true. >> do you regret what you did? >> of course i don't regret it. i told the truth. >> first of -- all >> he said that today? >> he said that today. so there's a poor guy nodding but behind him, nodding, that's a separate question. how did the court look at that? how did they watch that? do they, doesn't matter? >> look, i think if he takes the stand and his lawyers have said that he may take the stand, there might be other ways to get it done. it's a very bizarre thing to deny or what the court has already found, and what he and his lawyers seem to have already conceded. they engage in falsehoods, as you pointed out. this is only about the damages. it's quite literally an exercise in damage control. damages control, as lawyers would say. i don't know why he says the things he said. maybe that's why he's in the predicament season, because he doesn't control what he says. but literally, he's in a position where he could find that the jury will rule against him to the tune of up to $43 million, because he doesn't watch his tone. >> he also said today that he isn't responsible for how people responded to the claim against freeman and moss, and the threats and abuse. maybe that's a part of his defense. how will that work? >> i was struck earlier in the conversation that you had with liz cheney. because this is a piece of some of the other stories you've heard. you have these famous people who have large, huge audiences on social media, they have huge platforms. and they lie about other people, sometimes about people who can defend themselves, who themselves have platforms, in the cases of the mother and daughter election workers, they don't have platforms. they just are subject to, you, know horrible, abrasive, abuse of harassment, death threats, and the person who has the platform, the largest bullhorn, who's under the lie -- i didn't cause those other cops to say those things. well, all of that is foreseeable. all of that is knowable. all of that is rationally understood. it's gonna be the thing that's gonna befall these people who you lie and back. so to the extent that he's arguing -- it's not gonna go very far with the jury. >> one of the hopes that was expressed by the lawyers for ruby and shaye is that this will deter giuliani and others. it's hard to bet on giuliani -- giuliani and others. >> lawyers talk about specific deterrents and general deterrence. you, know i don't know that giuliani -- based on that clip you just showed, he doesn't seem to be deterred. maybe when he's completely broke as opposed to mostly broke, he will be more deterred. it seems to me that much of this is going towards general deterrence, and making sure that other people see rudy giuliani and others, including in the election and voting machines case, they -- maybe i should be careful about what i say. and if i don't have, you know, a sense of ethics or integrity on my own, maybe the pocketbook punishment is what's gonna deter me. >> what if he can't pay the money? >> while, that happens all the time. there are people who don't have enough money to pay, certainly -- $43 million. but you can garnish wages, you can take property, and you can make sure that he spends every remaining year of his life in pursuit of paying the judgment back. >> do you think that if this case is ruled upon, we will see less threats against election workers outside of giuliani? >> you know, i would hope that would be so. maybe it would deter some people. the problem is, you have these cases, and you continue to have people like donald trump and others engage and threatening behavior, maligning behavior. it doesn't seem -- you, know we keep talking about all these cases related to the election of 2020. and in georgia, and in washington, d. c.. and i was thinking on my way here, based on some of the reporting on scene washington post, rolling stone, other places, i think there's a reasonable likelihood that whether or not donald trump gets reelected as president in 2024, you engage in conduct that itself constitutes crimes going forward. >> that's a place to. and prepare our, thanks so much for being here. >> that's for having me. >> that does it for me. the rachel maddow show starts right now. hey, rachel. hey, rachel. hey, rachel. hey, rachel. hey, rachel. hey, rachel. hey, rachel. and i was thinking on my way here, based on some of the reporting on scene washington post, rolling stone, other places, i think there's a reasonable likelihood that whether or not donald trump gets reelected as president in 2024, you engage in conduct that itself constitutes crimes going forward. >> that's a place to. and prepare our, thanks so much for being here. >> that's for having me. >> that does it for me. the rachel maddow show starts right now. hey, rachel. joining us this hour really happy to have you here. so it was june 1942, which means obviously we are in the thick of it in terms of world war 2 june 1942 in a