i m ari melber. we begin with breaking news. donald trump s federal trial is back on because this court is ruling against defendant trump today. they re green lighting the trial sought by special counsel jack smith. this spruling sets a precedent for holding a former president accountable. we have special coverage we ve been working on since this broke early on the east coast today. we start with the basics. you don t need to be a lawyer or constitutional scholar to understand this. the ruling rejects donald trump s very far-fetched arguments that his job history as president should mean he could never be arrested, indicted or tried for anything related to his time in office. trump s lawyers argued he should basically retain a kind of permanent immunity from the fact he used to be president. the court is rejecting that today. we re going to begin, like i said, with the clarity of this single spare sentence. quote, for the purpose of this criminal case, former president trump
middle of a blizzard. the elements are all break whatever i need to. i don t even know what negative 15 is. tonight, the defendant in the over hurled election trial takes a break from the courtroom to head to the iowa caucuses. then, every day, mike johnson gets closer and closer to this deal, brings me closer and closer to vacating the chair. brand-new house speaker already on the outs of the maga caucus, as democrats demand an accounting of the trump presidency. you don t care about the principle that our governmental leaders should not be on the tape from foreign governments. that s outrageous. congressman jamie raskin joins me tonight, plus i was hoping that this film could spark conversation, the part of a conversation that we should be having in this country, this year, right now. director ava duvernay, on her brand-new film, origin. all in starts right now. good evening, from new york, i m chris hayes. it is here, well, almost here, on monda
dealing with hamas, or getting the hostages home. what we are seeing now is not the best way to do that. ben rhodes, thank you for spending time with me tonight. that s our show for tonight. now the time is my last word with ali velshi. in for lawrence. i hope a lot of people listened to what been says. he s put a lot of thought into this. i want to continue this conversation in a little while with ayman criminal case of united states of america versus donald trump. the special counsel and his team are asking the supreme court to grant an expedited review of trump s claims that his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election fall within the, quote, outer perimeter, and quote, of his official duties as president, and he is therefore immune from prosecution. yesterday, trump filed at the supreme court urging them to stay away from the issue for now and let the d.c. appeals court ruled on it first. in an 11-page reply, trump s filing, smith tells the supreme co
dealing with hamas, or getting the hostages home. what we are seeing now is not the best way to do that. ben rhodes, thank you for spending time with me tonight. that s our show for tonight. now the time is my last word with ali velshi. i hope a lot of people listen to what ben says. we ll continue this a little later. but you have a good evening, my friend. tonight the special counsel jack smith is once again making his case for the supreme court to weigh in on donald trump s claims of presidential immunity in the criminal case of united states of america versus donald trump. the special counsel and his team are asking the supreme court to grant an expedited review of trump s claims that his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election fall within the, quote, outer primitive perimeter, end quote, of his official duties as president and easier for immune from prosecution. yesterday fog filed a brief before the supreme court urging them to stay way for the issue
for the d.c. circuit. i think they re not going to sit on it. the big question is, and i think that we all everyone is expecting him to lose. yes. maybe three or, at least two on, but there s some judges on the panel. the big course there s a big washington post tiktok on this, is timing, what do they do on timing? what is your anticipation of what they will do or what do you think they should do timing wise? so i think this is all about timing. i think everyone discusses the merits of this. there are no merits to this. it s a preposterous notion. i ve never been as convinced that the supreme court may take a pass on this, as when i heard the oral argument, because it was so frivolous that as much as you think the supreme court might want to weigh in on this to make it absolutely clear, if you listen to the argument, it was childish. everything, though, for donald trump, is he could be like, yeah, you know what, i m losing the battle, and winning the war,