tonight on all in. a president of the united states has to have immunity. and the supreme court is going to be really good at it. >> the supreme will take donald trump's immunity case. >> this is a momentous decision just to hear this case tonight rachel maddow and lawrence on the supreme court their delayed decision, and what it means for justice. plus, lisa rooney, and kristy greenberg on how we got here and david claw from the new political reality for an electorate that has stopped trump before. when all in, starts right now. pierre i by a grand, jerry for his role in that insurrection. well, today, in a single page order released a 5:00, the court agreed to consider trump's manifest weak claim, that he is immune from prosecution for the january 6th insurrection because he was acting in some sense of his official capacity as president. but, the order itself is not the story here, it's the timing it all comes back for the timing. let's remember, the court case the trial of donald trump over his efforts to subvert the constitutional republic, was originally set to begin days from now in march. all that is on hold because of the court wants to hear oral arguments, for trump's immunity claim. ready for this, seven weeks from now. april 22nd, 2020, for making it a real possibility, a likelihood, in fact that donald trump will not face a trial for the crime of attempting to overthrow the american republic. we will not face a jury of his peers until after the next election in which he is the likely republican candidate. i want to be crystal clear here about the important significance. because i think a lot of the reporting has missed this. what happened today, this one page order looks anodyne. right? >> it is an unmistakable sign from the maga majority of the trump created court that they are with him. that they are going to use their power to make sure he does not face trial in an election here, for attempting to end american democracy. until today, it could've gone either way. it was genuinely unclear whether they were going to give him what he wanted, whether they were going to put their shoulder to the wheel on donald trump's behalf. everyone has always understood the substance of his legal claim here is meritless and lost at the district court level. it was lost unanimously in the appellate court, three judges, one of whom is a republican appointee, it is bad law under the supreme court's own presidents and jurisprudence. the point was never to win on the merits. the point was to make a time consuming hail mary pass to attempt to escape accountability. trump's pet was that the 63, madam adore the he himself created on that court what they all know. that they would rob the people's department of justice, the opportunity to present all the evidence of its guilt. that the voters, at this country, you and, i the hundreds and millions of us might be robbed of the information that we need to determine whether the man is guilty of the grievous crime any politicians and accused of since the civil war. today, the court signaled they are in cahoots. that the plot is on. it's a go. yes, they will take up the case. when they get to his. they have scheduled it seven weeks now. but, keep in mind how this works. trump's legal team encouraging anticipating precisely this kind of delay tactic. let's go, back on december 1st federal, judge tanya chutkan ruled on trump's focus immunity claim. finding, it borderless. days later on december 11th special prosecutor jack smith anticipating that this claim was no other attempt to delay and will fail on the merits did something audacious. he went straight to the supreme court skipping an intermediate appellate level and said, look let's be clear here. you know, and i know what's going on. hear trump's trying to delay this is likely in europe. if you're in line to take, and let's do it. now let's get to the. marriage to the republic interest in this case coming a trial can be preserved and the court, said no. just before christmas, they said no. now, people said at the time maybe that makes sense because maybe supreme court justices want to let the lower appellate court, the colleagues in the d.c. circuit away. in and not even take up the case because they're so clear cut. and then what happened? the appellate court did take that. case they had oral arguments, they had, briefs they took a while. the clock was ticking the whole time as we said on this show over and over. and then on february 6th they came out with a unanimous decision against trump. he is citizen trump, he is not above the law. the decision seemed carefully cared to give the supreme court an agency choice to refuse to take up the case, to let the lower court ruling stand. but, if the supreme court wanted to take up the case, and wanted to do an expedited fashion let's be clear when i say the supreme court, the conservative majority are talking about here. they could've done it the day after they got the petition this month. that day. what did they do? no, they burned two and a half weeks for no reason. they weren't producing any paper, they weren't writing any the sensor arguments. it is one page. there it is. they sat around for two weeks. and then the issue, they were going to take this up. they're not gonna schedule arguments for seven weeks from now. that is considerably longer than the expedited review, in colorado the one where he's challenging his right to be on the ballot where what loomed over everyone, donald trump not being on the ballot. the supreme court, wanted expedite quickly. right? they wanted to get that one done, that's going to come up before colorado next week and move quickly. with the maga majority, was telling us that this audacious writer today is that the fix is in. in some, ways for what it represents about the court. it doesn't matter really with the merits with they know that everyone knows the score here. they know. delay, was all that matters -- the right wing, court will they shut the, frequently, in front of the whole nation use their power to run the clock. out, so that donald trump faces no legal accountability. or innocence will not be definitively prove it, to us the voters. why believe have a right to know whether the man is guilty. >> so that he can return to powder. and dismiss, from his position, as him here. dictator, on day one. if you are hoping that donald trump, so authoritarian disregard, for the rule of law is going to be law for americans institution and the court of the highest level. . more investigation, to stop, him to congressional impeachments did not stop him for prosecutions are not gonna stop him. supreme court, he helped to stack, will not stop him. today is the starkest proof yet, that in the zero-sum battle between maga, and democracy there, was only one thing that could ever truly stop donald trump and that is we, the people. americans voting against. him a majority. voting against what he stands for and what he wants to do. with me, tonight my good friends rachel maddow, and lawrence o'donnell. host of the rachel maddow show and last word to right here on msnbc. rachel, i will say something. i am mad at myself for how surprised i was. i was mad at myself, as the time clicked, went, by two and a half weeks i, and i think a lot of people thought and this was within form speculation with people respect, people of clicked on the court, been around the, court studied the, courts know the court, there is no way they can take two and a half weeks only then to say, we are taking the case seven weeks from now. what was your reaction? >> i mean, i don't think you should be mad at yourself. i don't think you should be embarrassed. i think everybody sort of thought that was the only kind of decent explanation for how long they were taking. that they were going to not take up the case, that may be samuel little, one of the other real maga judges was going to be really not about. it kind of angry. dissent was fighting for as much as he could because it was his last chance to insert delay, which of, course is what trump wants. i think, if you think about the court as the supreme court of the united states, and a rational actor, and a decent, one that was a reasonable deposition. and it just turns out they're not bad. , and chris, i feel you. in terms of the emotion that you're bringing to this right now. and that the sort of sense of urgency, in what year underscoring what this means it's true. it just isn't any way around. it and i feel, like for people who haven't been following this if you want to know why there is a fire reaction to this if you haven't been following every incremental bit of progress here, the important question here is not whether the supreme court is going to decide that donald trump and all presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes they committed while they were president. i mean it would be fully insane for them to actually side with trump, here, right. remember this is the case for trump's lawyers was asked by judge florence pans in the appeals court, are you telling me that this guy, that a president could order the assassination of his political rivals? and there could be no prosecution from it? that that would be okay. we have to let that go. not only for the duration of his presidency or the duration of his life. that would be okay in trump's, alerts are basically like. the idea that they're going to side with him on immunity is unthinkable, and also beside the point. what we can come -- without having to wait for the ruling, they're ensuring that trump will not face trial. and when they inevitably rule, the presidents aren't immune for prosecution. as president, is that he can never leave the office and it is voted out in 2028 he cannot leave office, and he's welcome to commit any crime he wants to as long as he is still president, and to ignore the result of that election and stay in power for life because otherwise he's going to go to prison when he gets out. that is the way, this is going to go, unless the country votes trump out. votes for biden, and against trump in november. >> yes, the point about the incentive structure produced by, this is when i haven't even thought about. it's very, clearly correct and there's also, lawrence, the point that rachael made which i was inching towards, i was watching people's reaction to the news and just this courts hope that the anodyne procedural nature means that what they're doing is illegible, that they can do. this, unlike the news is that the court will take up the immunity argument. that sounds reasonable. what are they gonna do? it, well in april that is part of the play. here they're insulated from the backlash. well, you know, i hate to break the mood. >> please, break the mood buddy. >> so, my hair isn't even. one but, here's why. here's. why and let me just work backwards. because the most important thing you said, in your opening remarks is that this outcome should not be up to five members of the united states of the supreme court. it's really up to you, the voters, and that's a version of what rachel was saying. these, votes these for votes, because this piece of paper all you need is for votes to turn up this piece of paper. these four votes can be proven, less important by the american people in the way they cast their own votes in november. i personally believe, having seen how well joe biden did in michigan, having seen how badly donald trump did in michigan. and in the other states. that joe biden is going to be reelected and that is why i am not worried at all about the timetable. because you have to remind the viewers, the reason everyone is worried about the timetable is that they're worried about trump becoming president, and on the 21st, he kills both federal cases. , but let's also remember, and i know that this was just talking about the federal case so far. donald trump is going to trial in new york city on march 25th on an election interference case of his first president. >> that is also true, and the star witness is going to be porn star, stormy daniels who's going to be very well understood by every trump voter, in fact way more clearly understood that maybe most of the ten testimony injects in this case. so, those things are going to happen. let's talk about how each side won something in this decision by the court. and, by the way, these things are always one page. , so i'm not gonna be horrified by that. they are saying that the only question they are going to entertain is whether, and to what extent, does a former president enjoy presidential unity from criminal prosecution from conduct to involve official acts from his tenure in office. that's the only question here a lot to talk about in the supreme court. you know what that means? they just threw out half of donald trump's appeal. which was the double jeopardy. >> yes, correct. >> they threw it out. they threw it out right on that single piece of paper. so they're losing already. jack smith won here to. because jack smith said i want to go straight to the supreme court. they weren't asking to go to the supreme court. trump's lawyers were asking to send this case back to the 11th circuit. that's what they were actually asking for. the supreme court, said no. >> okay. >> but they could've delayed, it more than an extra month by sending it back to the circuit. >> so, i don't disagree with. you on this sort of channel of, is this door die for the, company because if he doesn't go to trial he's going to, when i don't agree with you. >> i agree, it's like the first day of the peel. if you find him guilty on, that he's gonna grow up in the courthouse and, say i'm appealing. by the, way will be standing on the courthouse steps, probably sometime in april doing the same thing. doing the same, thing maybe before the supreme court rules. he's gonna say, i'm gonna peel what stormy daniels. >> with, me i think my reaction to it isn't necessarily for the implication that it means for the electoral chances of donald trump. it is a level of craziness from the court. that, they are moving at the. space that i find deeply unnerving. you know what i mean? it's because, the court, but the thing about the court as they move fast, when they want to move fast and they move so when they want to move. so >> this particular court does never move that fast. when we look at the court that was filed against nixon, we look again bush records. but, this court, it is fast for. them, but i do agree that this is the most isolated court in the history of the court. so, they think that this is going to appear to be fast. >> you just referenced a knicks in court. and, he spent a lot of time on that, period. so, kate my wife who has forgotten about law more than 11. no and basically just shut off for everything pointed out to me today that, in 74, i think this usb nixon that the court for arguments, in july and the issue opinion three weeks later her point about that was just that the most similar case that we had in our history is usb nixon. , and in terms of the actual opinion moved quite quickly on. that and it was a unanimous. >> well, yes, and the other big mix, we're gonna carry forward a thing from nixon, here but when you talk about the craziness of the court, the creating this of the court is evident on what they're doing with the pacing here, right? like putting this off for seven weeks, sitting on it for two, weeks for no reason. obviously pushing all of the cases that they can, push pushing them to the point where trump will be standing for election before any of us have heard the verdicts in any of those cases. got. it it's the timing. but it's also the idea that the immunity thing is an open question. right? his presidential immunity really an open question because what is the most famous part in american history? gerald, ford pardoning richard nixon, once he had resigned and was a former president. why did gerald ford pardon jarred nixon? quote, as a result of certain acts, or mission, occurring before his resignation as president, meaning, as a result of stuff he did while president, quote, richard nixon has become liable to possible indictment. whether or not he shall be so prosecuted, depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury, and the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. so, the idea that this is an open question, that it might be that former president can never be tried for something that he did because he was president when he did it is disproven by a plane reading of american history. and, the whole justification for richard nixon in the first place. so, the idea that this has to be taken up is them saying the sky is. green, and i think even for the non lawyers among, us to be able to say this guy is not, green even on a worst day, this is bs. you are doing this as a tactic to help your political friend. your partisan patriot and for you to say that this was something the court needs to decide. because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flare grint, flagrant -- and they know. what i, and they don't care that we. no it, and that is disturbing about the future of the court. >> all right, rachel, lawrence, can you guys stay with me one more block? can you do that? not gonna let you go? >> yes. >> great, we have a lot more to impact here on the far reaching implications of today's supreme court, which lawrence will be right back after. this do not going to wear. be right back after. this do not going to wear. back with rachel maddow and lawrence o'donnell as we collectively metabolized the court's decision today that they will grant, what's called -- they will take up arguments by donald trump's lawyers about some form of immunity that covers his actions on january six, that would mean that he doesn't have the same trial and that he will hear those oral arguments on april 22nd. you seem confident, i think it plays all three of, us we think he's not going to win this on merits. >> i don't see it. if you look at all the underlining brood so far, you don't see. that, and what this court is going to decide is not the question of can you never prosecute a president, what they're gonna focus on is this question, as jack smith identifies with the, breathe is a central question that trump lawyers are asking, is are these official acts? and if they are official acts, can they be charged as a crime? because it's conceivable that there are some official acts that you could charges a crime. but we don't know what that behavior is. the other question is is are these actions just, outsider on the perimeter of an official act? and if it is, can we charge a crime? that's the area where this court wants to focus. , and i think it's entirely possible that the one calendar thing that i suspect they know it's that it only took the supreme court three weeks after hearing the arguments on nixon having to hand over the tapes. so that three-week thing is going to be very visible to them, as the finish line. so it's entirely possible we're sitting here on, if they take four weeks, may 22nd. , and they have delivered an opinion that allows jack smith to go all the way full throttle. they will have provided that delay, that everyone is concerned. about, but it seems impossible that they can allow, that they could look at the indictment and say, every single one of those things is an official act. >> including the phone call to the georgia secretary of state. which they have contended. i forgot, who was saying this but he's the president, it's part of his official duties elasticity that he wouldn't be faithfully executed. so, he just made a call down there, as president. not as a candidate, not because he wanted them to find the votes but in the case of the u.s. phoenix and to go back to that, point about the timeline there, the reason that it was not an election year, it was a question of election. but it was a question of this fate of the country. because everything hung in the battlefield. their status of the tapes, basically. the question wasn't essentially a constitutional standoff, until the court resolved it. in this case to, me it's a less that we're in a constitutional standoff. because i don't think we are. the thing i just keep coming back to, the voters don't have a right to know. it's such an obvious core democratic principle, which by the, way tanya chutkan, -- have both alluded to. this isn't some extra legal consideration. it is actually like court, a democratic value that, i'm going to go in a polling booth. is the guy guilty of trying to overturn the republic? or is he, again, innocent of trying to report from the republic. which is as important knowledge. to be. clear maybe he's not guilty. we should know that as well. >> i mean there is no substance of issue of law about, which we should have in the expensive, right? and the supreme court knows that we. won't, again just to be, clear what they are going to be, supposedly contending with on all of their seriousness is a lifelong immunity from prosecution for a president until he died. no matter what crimes he committed while he was president by virtue of the fact that he was president. and so that really, is there a lot of debate about? that is that really an open question? did the pardon of nixon happen? were we dreaming? was it a asked trip? it was the 70s. i mean, the substantive nature of the case is nil. and, so what this is it is a tactic. and, you're right in terms of how long the court might decide what would happen thereafter. , but keep in mind in the jack smith case, the case before tanya chutkan, the way that it's polished right now is that neither side is allowed to do anything to prepare for trial while these things are pending in the appeals. and, so that means that, let's say it does go as fast as they possibly could, let's say they hear these arguments the week of april 22nd and they decide on may 1st and they turn around incredibly quickly, it will still be months. >> right, 90 days on the clock. >> correct, before the chutkan case can even start. and you get very quickly up to 60 days before the election, upon justice department rule saying you can't be taking any legal action that's going to have an important effect on the election. . , and so, this delay is decided the delay is a done deal in terms of whether trump is going to be tried before the election that is just a matter of practical math. >> there is also just, i think part of it too comes down to -- it has been interesting to watch the system attempt to deal with trump, legally, right? and this sort of question that's hung over is over two things, one you get as much processes you can afford which is a thing donald trump's known from very early on. and two is that the justice delayed, justice denied clichi is true for a reason. you, know there are piano tuners who tuned -- and, said maybe they won after ten. years and they got their $19,000. maybe. but, biden doesn't really matter? you know, so by the way in the nixon case, we always referred to it as a unanimous decision, to turn over the tapes. it was eight to nothing. because, justice ryan appointed by nixon recused himself. . by the way -- >> which is just inconceivable. >> that left three nixon appointees on the court doing that opinion. and no one out there, watching it thought that there was anything wrong with it at the time because no one suspected that they could possibly be corrupted in the way they are suspected outbid now. and no one suspected of being corrupted more than clarence thomas. the senator, who got clarence thomas on to the supreme court, was then -- whose job it, was as a friend of clarence thomas to get him through the confirmation process, and he did. . jack danforth didn't know anita hill was coming. jack danforth could have abandoned clarence thomas, on anita hill's testimony. but he didn't. if he did, clarence thomas would not be on that bench. jack danforth has signed an amicus brief, to this court against the possibly claim the presidential immunity and jack danforth brief says, what kind of constitution with immunize and, there, faye in bold in a losing first term president to violate federal criminal statutes through either official or unofficial acts in efforts to serve a second term. this is, i'm sure clarence thomas is gonna pay attention to everything. but he is going to pay attention to what jack danforth just filed. more importantly the other justices will. he might also get an amicus brief on the side. from his best. foreign, and as he deserve, they were both in interviews, and in text to the chief of staff. one asking the chief of staff, at the time, mark meadows, wasn't really true that joe biden and the traitors had been put on a floating flotilla in guantanamo. it turned out not to be true. which i think is for the best. but you had to ask. rachel maddow, and lawrence o'donnell. thank you for scrambling to come join me here in this. our which is neither of your own. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> what a night chris, what a night. thanks chris. >> still ahead, a deep legal dive in the supreme court decision. what that means. what we don't know yet. that's next. yet. that's next. which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. today's supreme court alert is just one pages. stating the quote, a petition for serturini's granted and position is granted limited the following question. whether into so it's the extent of former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution from a conduct and lead to involve official acts during his tenure in office. short order, we did with consequences. you have to discuss those consequences, and legal ramifications, lisa, reuben and kristy greenberg former federal prosecutor who's deputy chief of the criminal division for the southern district of new york. and i want to start with a little bit of a poll canvas, what i've noticed today is the people who are not legal nerds and people who have been federal practitioners, their response to the news this different than folks like you who, are and the people that i know who are like you, are genuinely shocked. . shocked, shocked. that they would do this so brazenly, was that your reaction? >> shocked, rage, try controlled fury. there's [laughter] so much about. it to be upset. about their 12 days that they took since this was fully briefed, to come out with the decision saying they were expediting the review. which of, course is not expediting the review at. all, and jack smith said, if you are going to treat this as a right of -- you, showed at, least set a schedule that allows us to argue it in. march they set this for april 22nd. they're essentially making it so that this is really not possible to have this trial before the election. >> i share everything that kristie just said. i think one of the things that's most upsetting to me is, as christy just alluded, to the way that the question is framed, weather, and if so to what extent of former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. there are some tells there in the language. and, of course -- as lawyers, our professional occupational hazard is to, quote closely -- but it alleged to, alleged by home. if you ask jack smith, everything that they are alleging here is outside of donald trump's official purview, as president. by interfering with an election over which a president has no administrative responsibility nothing about this is official. so alleged to, is by him the supreme court's, essentially, giving into his reframing up the question. and then. the d.c. circuit and their ruling said, he has no categorical immunity. , again they have refrained. it weather and if so, to what extent. they are opening the door to, there is a possibility that the president could have some immunity to some sub category of official actions but not as to others. all of which suggest that if they resolve that question, in donald trump's favor not only will he likely be immuned but they could have some -- about sending this back down to judge chutkan, for further fact finding. , or legal rulings that elongates the process. but doesn't get him any closer to trial. >> okay, can i ask you a question that's impossible to answer? okay, here it goes. . they know what they are doing, right? here's what i'm mentally modeling. i'm mentally modeling alito. and one way is that they just don't care about that stuff. and they want to make sure that they get it right and, if it doesn't go to trial, they'll be. dan the other it's like they have a calendar and they're like if we do it this, way he is not going to go to trial. and now the first is bad enough. the second to even more cynical and i'm inclined to think it's not the second but what do you think? >> if you remember, and the argument, on the 14th amendment issue justice kagan asked that question of the lawyers saying that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should get to decide who gets to be the president of the united states, well they are thinking about the consequences. >> correct. >> in that oral argument, it was very clear what they think about the effect that this is going to have on the election. well, the question here is the same. why is it that the supreme court should get to have a decision, as to whether or not donald trump is going to be the president of the united states. because, make no mistake, that is what this could mean. there are plenty of voters who say that it matters to them. whether or not he is convicted of a crime. , and that they want that information before they vote. , and this is basically the supreme court saying, no, we do not care. we do not care that there is a public right to a speedy trial. we don't care that this is information that voters would want to know this is, eight by the way as jack smith said in his papers. it's a radical claim. it is frivolous. this is not some tough question, that, really there is any chance that he would come. out and not be clear in the response they are taking this up for reason. they know what they are doing. >> and i'll just agree with that. in fact, i'll be even more simple about. it for donald trump this isn't the only case in which he's advancing the presidential immunity argument. his lawyers say that he intends to do so in georgia, if that case goes forward. let's put a pin in. that because on friday will know maybe a little bit more about that. but he's also advance that argument in a motion to dismiss, in the case before judge cannon. who has not moved her case with all deliberate speed but has incrementally moved the ball backwards, and further backwards, and further backwards to score a goal for trump. and here, judge cannon is having a scheduling conference on friday. the motion was filed on february 22nd two days after briefing was completed on trump's motion for a state. they knew the motion was made. judge cannon has a scheduling conference on friday. what do you think the odds are that trump's lawyers in that further the case said that we couldn't possibly schedule a trial now. your honor, our country is very obvious to avoid that and has been taken up by the supreme court. let state all proceedings in this case and what do you think the odds are that she'll say, you're right? >> that's a very good point in your point about one of the things i'm glad you brought of the 14th amendment case because one of the things i keep thinking about is that i really try to stay on myself, to be fair about this. stuff so, what is the right benchmark? what's a benchmark for fairness. and i think that for this, case people said the colorado case is a benchmark. they took that, case two days later. two days they decided to take. it and now keep in mind the valence of that cases that they didn't at quick you might end up in a situation where donald trump is not on the ballot. and, no can't of that. for the reasons that kick instead. not having to do with the original public meeting document having to do with the brass question of whether one state can decide an election for an entire nation. fine, in that, case in two days they take it and they are going to come up with the 14th amendment decision before tuesday when colorado votes am i right? or are they just going to delete dolly on that one? am i going crazy? >> they could. we have a decision made on tuesday, they will impose the decision of texas antiabortion statute wanted a decision from the court on their application to vacate i believe a stay of an injection. and they didn't get it by the time the statue took effect, right. , unsold by their inaction they allowed the statute to take. effect and then they are after, they, ruled in the way that we predicted they. what that could happen here too. we could avoid a decision. they could not rule by. tuesday in which, case colorado's vote and donald trump is still on the ballot because that is the status quo. i wouldn't have -- >> that would be bananas. >> but chris, this is bananas. two and you know what? >> it's the same category of not. >> correct, and what i would say to people watching tonight is, you can no longer rely on any institution to save, you or save democracy. we are the ones, we have been waiting for. you want this democracy to not become a autocracy, get yourself to a ballot box illegally and fast. >> the question about that expedited review, and the 14th amendment, i guess the other question, now comes down to, let's talk about the new year case which is dated for march 25th. it's the only one i think, likely to go to trial now. but then there's some part of me, there's some part of me, is their rabbit that could be pulled out of the hat there? is there some new constitutional right that will be invented to create some delay there? >> that's going to go to trial. they have briefed, they have made all of their motions it's been decided by the judge and trump's lawyer tried to delay. and was essentially called out by the judge. and he, said you are not making a legal argument. here he said your argument about saying this is election interference. it's not a legal argument. in, court i listen to legal arguments. i'm dismissing that. we are going forward. so i have confidence it. will >> mark said, this i'd like to get your thoughts on. this because you've been in those near courtrooms, in the e. jean carroll case. i imagine they'll be that criminal case. because what an incredible split screen before the new york judiciary, in federal, courts trump as easily abated, trial will do so for november. zero count ability. in your, courts he owes a huge civil penalty and faces trial. >> not only does he face a criminal trial but, some of his strategy wasn't set in stone when he started to litigate that case. the new york criminal case. they weren't thinking about the consequences of arguments that they were making. so, initially he tried to remove that case to federal courts on the ground now he was a former federal officer who was going to trial on federal defenses. he lost that motion before federal, judge in the southern district of. new york, and in saying, so he said trump's immunity defense was not a colorable one. trump initially wanted to appeal. that and then he withdrew the appeal. why? because the argument to make in favor of removal works against you in the 14th amendment, cases right? you can see your former federal officer in one context and then deny your formal federal officer in the other. but the option of that, chris he has now weaved his presidential immunity defense in the case that alvin bragg is trying. it's the only one where he's waved. it, and that is why i don't think there anymore rabbits to pull out of the path here in new york. >> that's a great point, one interesting thing to note is that donald trump didn't appoint any of the judges in the new york system. but appointed a bunch of them in the federal system. sort of different situation, when we come up. still to come, in the face of yet another setback, and holding donald trump accountable the one remaining path for american democracy is next. american democracy is next. do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. call coventry direct to learn more. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. our friend sold their policy to help pay their medical bills, and that got me thinking. maybe selling our policy could help with our retirement. i'm skeptical, so i did some research and called coventry direct. they explained life insurance is a valuable asset that can be sold. we learned we could sell all of our policy, or keep part of it with no future payments. who knew? we sold our policy. now we can relax and enjoy our retirement as we had planned. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. since the day donald trump descended the golden escalator at trump tower, to announce his first run for president, there have been a litany of efforts to promise the possibility of bringing him down at some point, right? of ending this entire ridiculous and destructive charade. of course, the political movement, to keep trump out of the white house failed in 2016 though. not because it failed to secure a majority of americans. but, once he took office, the legal battles against him were fast and furious, right, they exploded and i think there's a lot of folks who believed that there was some kind of method of accountability. some would-be hero, that was going to save us from the dictatorial monster, an oval office. there was the lawyer for deltona, star daniel received 130 dollar hush money payment from trump to remain silent about their alleged affair. he's, currently in federal prison serving a sentence for stealing millions of dollars from his client. that trial seemed to go perfectly fast enough, to make that happen in the meantime. and, then there was special counsel rob mueller, the investigation to connections between the trump campaign and russia. and of course in that report, mueller's report failed to find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. and it did not come to any conclusion about whether, trump the sitting president obstructed justice but that's partly because trump refused to sit for an interview unlike joe, biden who did sit for an interview years. later two years after trump left office, manhattan district attorney brought his case against former trump in connection with the hush money payment to stormy daniels. so legal experts have said this appears to be the weakest of the case against trump or at least the one where the outcome seems the most up in the air but it's also probably going to be the only want to actually go to trial before the election. and, then of course, special counsel jack smith brought indictments against trump in the mar-a-lago documents case which, if you read the indictment, it seems open and shut. , and trump's efforts to steal the 2020 election. thanks to trump appointed judge, evening cannon and now the supreme court it is likely neither trial will happen before november. new york attorney general, letitia james achieved one of the only legal wins against trump and it was huge securing a 454 million dollar judgment against him and civil fraud case. trump's, appealing he has not paid a cent yet. e. jean carroll, successfully sued him for defamation. she won more than $80 million in damages for trump was found liable of the feeling and sexually abusing. or he said that he raped her, in addressing, room and the jury found that she was telling the truth. of, course he still trying to avoid paying for that one. so, here we, are it's 2020. for donald trump if you've been following the news, i suspect you have is, once again almost certain to be the republican nominee for president. the election is eight months away all of this efforts to wiggle out of legal criminal accountability have sort of worked so far. like, i said it's hard to believe that i ever allowed myself to think it would be otherwise. right? this is how it's going. but, here's the thing, here's the thing. most important thing. the only thing that has ever worked to stop donald trump is you and me. and i mean that in the sense of the role of voters. americans. the pro democracy majority of america, showing up the polls. and, in the streets and in the civil society to protest donald trump and to vote against him. the democracy wants to badly to destroy. that is the only way that this will work. david plouffe is a campaign manager for the 2008 obama campaign, later served as a senior vice obama and he joins me now. there is a kind of spectator ship, called legal stuff that is transfixed earning and compelling. but there is nothing you nor people can do about what happens there. what they can do about it is how they participate in american democracy and one of the remarkable stories since i. march into the weekend of 2017 is how much people have -- >> it's a reminder, there's no calgary, the only calgary as the voters. in any good campaign, whether for, mayor or president doesn't count on any fair works of the event. in, fact the good campaign plans for potentially negative. so, i think, you know, we are where we are. which is, there is going to be no outside event that prevents him from taking walks on january 20th, and unleashing hell at the end of our democracy. so it's on voters. and, at the end of the day, i think that is going to be a scary few days. here as people process this. but, then i think they'll get to organizing and at the end of the day there is, clearly as you mentioned a pro democratic. it is out there and, of course six battleground. states anywhere from 50, to 54%. . you just have to find a way to put it together. so you keep this guy out of office. >> are you confident? there because it was there in 2020? >> yes, and i think on abortion, i think on tax cuts and i think on democracy i think on a whole set of issues, listen, we have a challenge to candidate because of his age but at the end of the day he's going to talk about that more openly. a bear hug, trump which is okay with too old white guys, wrestling for. but that's where some of it. and but i actually, think this in the, way it helps focus the mind there is no easy offering them there is no way to offer an account of the day you look now in the battleground states. you can get there, and i would just remind a poll right now that trump is up 46 to 44 is 90% of the allocated. but not 100 percent. , and i do think trump is closer to stealing the polls right, now than biden. is biden has a lot of work to do. no question about. that, but i do think that it exists there and that's the important, election that's only part of some elections where you need a miracle to. happen to get to 50. person i don't think biden needs. that >> yes, it's a good point you just mentioned biden coming out and i've got this feeling, about the ever, go you go to a reunion. okay. and you haven't seen someone in 15. years it's, like wow. you have aged. or you've gotten work done. or i don't, know there's 1 million different ways that you might see a person and, say i haven't seen you in a. what you look different. it strikes me that there is a little bit of that with biden. which is that, the longer he's gone between public appearances, the more that kind of sets in whereas, if you do with the, opposite you're just hearing from joe biden every day. joe biden is 81 years old. no one's pretending otherwise. that's what he sounds. like >> that's important. chris because no voter that we really care, about those being decisive, it's actually watching any of the clips that he says before he gets anything. they don't watch sunday shows, they might even watch a state of the union. it might be set, meyers lay, 90 started with short form videos to respond that they were -- the moral, that you basically got to cover the entire, feel and be everywhere. you can make a compelling argument and a conscious but also to normalize, yes, it's not the same thing. but this is who he is. >> david, it's always great to have your in-person. have a great evening. thank you. that is all in on this wednesday night. you can catch me again later tonight, if you did not get enough. on the late, show with stephen colbert. the, also it's fine if you have gotten enough. but if you haven't. first alex wagner tonight starts right now. >> i can never get. enough >> you know who else can't get enough? my parents. watching my parents were, like, okay i think they watched it, twice a listen to the podcast. and they give it to. us >> yes, that's what fellow colleagues are for. unrelenting, behaving support. and, i am here for. you >> thank you. >> thank you. >> -- for a quarter of a millennium. it feels like a millennium. it's been a long time. >> all right, thank you my friend. and thanks to at-home for joining me this hour. today, the supreme court hour. today, the supreme court