i am not asking who, but in terms of leadership that comes next? >> of course not. would say this. i would say the only optimism, the only sign of optimism is that i think likely the leader that comes next will be less competent, right? mitch mcconnell was very good at obstruction in the same way we somewhat kevin mccarthy. kevin mccarthy maybe was not great at his job, he was better at his job than johnson and that presented to the republicans benefit. >> is a house went from kevin mccarthy to mike johnson, the senate goes from mitch mcconnell. >> thank you for helping me ride the chariot into darkness tonight. i appreciate your time. that is our show for tonight. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. neal katyal and harvard law professor laurence tribe. they have a lot to say, and i'm going a to get straight to it. >> do it, i will be watching. >> thank you. gh

boston the fog of today's supreme court news is the hard fact that donald trump is still scheduled to go to trial in manhattan on march 25th to face criminal charges in his first criminal trial, charges that he tried to effect the results of the 2016 presidential election i by making hush money payments to porn star stormy daniels, who will likely become one of the star witnesses against donald trump in that trial, a witness who even donald trump's followers will have no problem understanding what she describes donald trump did with her alone in a hotel room while his wife was pregnant. and when she describes how donald trump delivered his hush money payments to her. and i think r. that the supreme court did today is helping donald trump get out of the crushing weight of half a billion dollars of civil judgments he is now facing in new york. today, donald trump said cihe i not rich enough to pay those

judgments, after previously testifying under oath that he is rich enough to pay those judgments. we will get to those struggles, criminal defendant and civil defendant donald trump is facing a new york later this hour. today, at least four members of the united states supreme court agreed to hear donald trump's appeal arguing that l presidential immunity protects him from criminal prosecution for the charges filed by jack smith against donald trump for crimes leading up to riand on january 6th. it takes only four members of the court to agree to hear a case, and of course it takes a majority of five members of the court to issue an opinion in the case. the supreme court threw out half of donald trump's appeal today and granted a hearing on the other half of the appeal. the part of the appeal the supreme court threw out otoday was donald e trump's claim of double jeopardy on the basis that he is now being prosecuted for some of the same crimes he was charged cwith in his secon

impeachment trial in the united states senate, in which a majority of senators voted to find him guilty, but not the two thirds necessary to convict him. the supreme court gave trump's lawyers three weeks to submit their brief and gave jack smith then three weeks to reply to the trump brief, then the trump lawyers will get a final week for a ffinal written reply, an a week after that the supreme court will hear the arguments in the case on april 22nd. the supreme court is not being asked to provide total and absolute immunity for any and all possible criminal conduct by a president. trump petition to the supreme court only asks for immunity for a presidents official acts or, quote, those performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. the argument trump's lawyers make tbefore the supreme court could be a rerun of some of what we heard in the appeals court.

>> could a president order s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival? that's an official act, an order to seal team six. >> he would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the colonel prosecution. >> but if you aren't,ic there would be bno colonel prosecution, no criminal liability for that? >> the chief justices opinion marbury versus medicine and our constitution and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose what the founders were concerned about is -- >> i ask you a yes or no question, could a president who ordered s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no? >> my answer is qualified yes. >> jack smith one a procedural point with a supreme court today. donald trump's lawyers were not actually asking for the supreme court to hear the case now. the trump lawyers were asking to

send -- for the supreme court to send the case back to the circuit court of appeals for another hearing there before the full 11 judges of the circuit court of appeals. and jack smith 's brief to the supreme court, jack smith argued there was no need for the supreme court to ue hear the case at all. but if the supreme court was inclined to hear the case, jack smith asked the supreme court not to send the case back for another round at the appeals course, but to set an expedited hearing at the supreme court, schedule that expedited hearing. and that is what the supreme court now is done. leading off our discussion tonight is neal katyal, former acting isu.s. solicitor general and host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. he is a msnbc legal analyst. and neal, i want to begin the way all lawyers begin when they get these notices from the supreme court that they're going to hear your case. they have the supreme court identified four the lawyers on both sides the question, and the only question, they want to hear addressed. and i want to give that question to the audience now.

the question is whether, and if so to etwhat extent, does a forr president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office? how would you address that question? >> well, if i'm jack smith, the prosecutor here, i would say absolutely not, or maybe heck no. and just point to the proud tradition of our constitution, which is at its essence, lawrence, there is one central idea, which is no person is above the law. and what donald trump has done throughout his presidency, before and after, is always a basically his arguments amount to i'm above the law. so when he was president and there was the tmueller report, which outlined ten crimes that he had committed, he said you can't indict me because i'm a sitting president. he then gets voted out of office

, and then he commits crimes on january 6th to try to stay in office, and he says you can't prosecute me because i'm still a sitting president. so none, congress goes and tries to impeach him for this. and his lawyers go to the senate and say, oh no, you can't impeach him, you can only prosecute him after he leaves office. so then, jack smith does exactly that. they prosecute him after he leaves office. and he says, oh no, you can't prosecute me, because i was impeached before and i wasn't convicted, so now i can be prosecuted. it's all just a big shell game. it always adds up to the same thing, donald trump evades the law. and unfortunately today, lawrence, the supreme court put its thumb on the side of saying donald trump, we are going to help you evade the law. there's lots of caveats we can talk about there in a moment, but that is, i think, the upshot of where we are today. >> and do you mean evade the

law simply by the delay in the trial? or are you anticipating, based on what you're seeing in this order intoday, that this court, five justices on this court could actually find some immunity provisions to apply to this case? >> i cannot imagine five justices, lawrence, on the supreme iccourt saying donald trump has anything like a serious legal claim here. it is so antithetical to everything we as lawyers, as as citizens, think about our government. and you know, the clip you just showed before illustrates the consequences. a president can go an assassin's political rival and say it's an official act and you can't prosecute him? that's looney tunes, to put it mildly. so no, i don't think that is the worry. the supreme court agreed to hear this case and set a fairly slow schedule of hearing it on april 22nd. you know l trump wanted a longe

schedule, but still, that's a long time. and for reasons that we can talk about, when you start doing the math, there is a real risk that donald trump could revade justice and evade this prosecution. >> it seems, according to the question that the supreme courtr is asking, that this could be a narrower argument in front of the supreme court. there might -- apparently there will be nothing about double jeopardy. because those are the two questions the trump lawyers brought to the supreme court, the double jeopardy and this immunity for official acts, or as the trump lawyers put it, acts that are at the outer perimeter of official duties. it seems that discussion about the perimeter and what is an official act will be the focus of this argument. >> that's exactly right, donald trump's lawyers have made another argument would double jeopardy, which was even more bogus then their absolute immunity one. releasing s something. you've got to try to come up with gan argument that's weake

then the absolute immunity one. but donald trump's lawyers managed to find it, and the supreme court did not bother wanted to hear that piece of it, you're absolutely right. so it does turn on this t absolute immunity thing. and theun way that the court ha written it -- it says alleged official acts. and by the alleged official acts, they don't mean what the prosecutor is alleging, they mean what donald trump, the former , president, is alleging and the idea that someone can just stand up and say, while, because i was a former president, i'm alleging these are official acts, like try to launch a coup on january 6th, that's an official act, and now you have to evaluate my immunity claim. that can't possibly, lawrence, be what the law is. so i'm not worried about the supreme court ultimately doing the right thing when they hear this case. i'm worried about how long it is going to take for the supreme court to do the right thing urand whether the america public is going to be deprived

in the interim of actually donald trump ever reaching justice. and there's one other point i would make about this, which has to do with prosecutorial norms. because there is an informational asymmetry here. during this whole delay period, while trump, while the supreme court hears trump's case, trump can go out to the cameras and say the case is bogus and attack jack smith and all sorts of stuff. federal prosecutors don't act that way. they only osget to speak throug their filings and their presentation of evidence. so now f with these months and months of delay, that's great for trump. he is going to get to claim he's being persecuted without wi the public ever having the opportunity to actually hear the very persuasive evidence against him, or a jury to hear those things. >> neal, i'm wondering why it took the time it took for the supreme court to issue this one sentence question, which is what the argument is going to be about. so what rgi am wondering about ,

as you know the court and as you see what they issued today, is it possible that they were struggling to get to four, that there were three and they were working on getting a fourth and it took them a while tog get t a fourth? or is it possible that there may be well more than four, including people who have different incentives for this, including possible, you know, justices appointed by democratic presidents who think, you know, something this big the supreme court should have the last word on it. and then, how long would it take a group of supreme court justices to negotiate the exact wording of that question they issued to esthe lawyers today? >> lawrence, i'm totally baffled by why it took this long. the supreme court can act more quickly. it did in the colorado case. it can relate the question presented very fast. and i have a lot of institutional respect for the supreme court. i was there this morning

arguing waa different case with my team. but you know, this is a little bit troubling. the best, i think, point i can come up with is donald trump did something last week which might have put some fuel on the fire of the supreme court hearing this case, which is he directed his lawyers in the mar-a-lago stolen documents case to file another bogus absolute immunity claim there. and what that might have done is say to the supreme court, look, this decision that we are being asked to review is from washington, d.c.. and yes, it's , our nation's second highest court, but it only governs washington, d.c.. florida and the court of appeals there might come to a different result, and we could have some conflict on this big legal issue. and so therefore, we, the supreme court, should hear this issue to set a rule for the entire nation. that's the best i can come up with for why the timing is what it is. but i am very concerned that the court has set an april 22nd

hearing date here, they could've moved more quickly. -- bush versus gore, that whole case went to the supreme court on two different times, all within a 36-day period, briefing, decisions, everything. >> neal, i want to go back to that point, because our thinking about that t today. you and others raised it, when donald trump raise that immunity defense in florida, instantly laura started saying oh, this means the supreme court is probably going to have to take it. because the district court of appeals in washington d.c. is not going to be a controlling opinion for the 11th circuit down there, where that cases. so there's a certain logic. my question about that is is that could be an issue that ketanji brown jackson wants to handle. that's one of the areas where it seems to me there is a wide range of members of the court who might say, you know, if he's raising this immunity in two different jurisdictions, we

just have to take it. >> yeah, i agree with that. i guess the thing i would say to the guother side though is w said it for on april 22nd argument? why take so long? >> and neal, is that completely up to the chief justice, the scheduling? >> it's generally as a matter of practice is, but i don't think you do something without the support of his colleagues. i think maybe the best thing we can hope for is that the chief and other justices feel like, look, there is still a lot of room in the joints, that we can decide this case quickly, and that there's two other actors here could trump create their killer. just chutkan has said, look, l i'm going to give trump 88 days from the time the immunity cases decided to the actual start of trial. but she said that well before the supreme court agreed to hear the case. and now trump has got many more months to prepare for trial. and the other is jack smith said this trial could take 2 to 3 months, but he has lots of

options available to truncated the trial and make it go more quickly. so it's still very possible that the court could hear this case r and still have donald trp tried before the election. but the math is a bit more difficult now. >> neal katyal, i cannot thank you enough for extending your workday all the way past ten pm to join us on this important night. >> thank you. >> thanks, neal. and oucoming up, harvard constitutional law professor laurence tribe will join our discussion next. join our discussion next. ...can delight them all. protect yourself against rsv... ...with pfizer's abrysvo a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic... ...reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask about pfizer's abrysvo®. because every breath matters. transform your skin in one simple step.

introducing paula's choice mandelic and lactic acid aha liquid exfoliant. resurface texture & tone without irritation. 100% saw smoother, softer, brighter skin. available at paula's choice and sephora. hey you, with the small business... ...whoa... you've got all kinds of bright ideas, that your customers need to know about. constant contact makes it easy. with everything from managing your social posts, and events, to email and sms marketing. constant contact delivers all the tools you need to help your business grow. get started today at constantcontact.com constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

hi, i'm greg. i live in bloomington, illinois. i'm not an actor. i'm just a regular person. some people say, "why should i take prevagen? i don't have a problem with my memory." memory loss is, is not something that occurs overnight. i started noticing subtle lapses in memory. i want people to know that prevagen has worked for me. it's helped my memory. it's helped my cognitive qualities. give it a try. i want it to help you just like it has helped me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. when migraine strikes you're faced with a choice. ride it out with the tradeoffs of treating? or push through the pain and symptoms? with ubrelvy, there's another option. one dose works fast to eliminate migraine pain treat it anytime, anywhere. without worrying where you are or if it's too late.

do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. migraine pain relief starts with u. ask about ubrelvy. learn how abbvie could help you save. ma, ma, ma— ( clears throat ) for fast sore throat relief, try vicks vapocool drops. with two times more menthol per drop, and powerful vicks vapors to vaporize sore throat pain. vicks vapocool drops. crime is reportedly on the.

decline in san francisco. we are seeing progress in san francisco. but there is more we must do to address crime and public drug use. law enforcement needs 21st century tools to be more effective in preventing and solving crimes. allow public safety cameras to discourage crime, catch criminals and increase prosecutions. and end excessive paperwork to move officers back to the streets. let's keep san francisco moving in the right direction. yes on prop e.

and joining our discussion now is professor laurence tribe , who has taught constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. professor tribe, so glad to have you here tonight on this important night. what is your reaction to the supreme court deciding to hear this case? >> well, i was quite convinced, given how long they were taking, that they were likely to decide to hear it. what i didn't know and what is very disappointing is they would formulate the question presented at a level of enormous abstraction so that the delay that we've already seen may just be the beginning. but the question presented is now whether and to what extent does a president have immunity after he leaves office, from criminal

prosecution, for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure? well, of course donald trump alleges that everything was an official act. jack smith is at the opposite end. instead of that, if they really had any interest in expedition, any interest in satisfying the public need to get this trial going and to have a verdict one way or another before the election, they would've asked a narrower question. they would have simply asked whether a president charged with criminally seeking to remain in office beyond the end of his term has absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in that vein. that would have been the right question to ask. and it could only have had one answer. this question is so sweeping that there are a lot of ways of

answering. yes, the president might have some degree of immunity force some official acts. but that is not the real issue. john roberts long ago said that if a case doesn't require you to address a particular question, then as a federal judicial official, you shouldn't answer that question, you shouldn't reach out. by reaching out in this way, the court has guaranteed not only that there would be this bizarre delay, they could've taken this issue before -- back and last december. not only that there be that delay, but now the delay until late april before hearing the case. there is no reason to have that several month delay. in the bush v. gore case, everything move ten times as fast. this is a much simpler matter. it could've been result quite quickly. and the really weird

thing is that essentially everyone knows where the story has to end. they cannot be the case that when a president is in office and tries to remain in office after losing an election and commits the crimes that are involved in that that he is forever amin from prosecution. yet that is what would have to happen to give this president immunity. so since we know that that is where the story has to end, to drag it out this way and have a virtual guarantee that the court won't decide anything until late june, it might decide this broad legal question and send the case back to the d.c. circuit, even if it doesn't, know trial is likely to begin before october. in any event, no verdict of either kind, acquit or convict, is likely to happen before the election. and as a result, the people of the united states are

confronted with basically a supreme court that is suppressing evidence, suppressing evidence that they need in order to decide intelligently whether the person they are voting for is guilty of the extreme felony of trying to steal an election and remain in office. that's an unconscionable way to proceed. and yet, that is what the supreme court has arranged. by the way it's organized its case. >> so your focusing on the exact words of the question, the supreme court gives the lawyers the question they want them to address. >> right. >> you are focusing on the part where it says alleged to involve prosecution for conduct, alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. that seems, the way you are reading it, to open the supreme court to arguments about each particular bit of evidence in the case. was it unofficial act

when president donald trump was asking vice president mike pence to change the electoral vote count? was it an official act when he was calling the secretary of state of georgia? is that where the supreme court could end up here, evaluating each action described in the indictment? >> or laying out a blueprint and sending the case back to the court of appeals to evaluate the allegations. so that this is a formula for indefinite delay. i'm focusing also on the fact that the court asks whether and if so to what extent is their immunity. the question of whether the immunity is absolute or reaches only to a certain extent is a complicated question, the only complicated question in this case. it's the only one the d.c. circuit punted on. and it may be the one the u.s. supreme court focuses on, namely what is the contour of the

presidents official duties? what kinds of official duties are a mean from criminal prosecution? it's an open season for legal scholars, legal philosophers, not the kind of think that a court that is supposed to be deciding case before it ought to decide. this is a way of making it a much more complicated case, where the bottom line at the very end of all this back and forth is fairly clear, quite evident. the president can't have the absolute immunity to steal an election by obstructing the proceedings of congress, up to and including fomenting violence. that can't be immune from prosecution. yet that is exactly what jack smith says he has the power to prosecute. so there is plenty of fault to go around here.

merrick garland waited too long before appointing a special counsel. the special counsel proceeded with all deliberate speed. but even he could've gone a bit faster. this indictment could've been brought someone earlier. the case could've been narrowed, perhaps it will be after the supreme court has it say. but if donald trump is reelected, the case goes away, so that even if we all agree that presidents cannot be kings, they can't be above the law after they leave, they're just citizens. even if we all agree with that, in every practical sense, this president will have ended up being above the law, because he will have managed to use the procedural gimmicks and figures of the legal system to avoid being held accountable before he could again assume office and make the whole trial go away. it's not the way a country that is concerned to preserve the rule of law and constitutional

democracy would proceed. and i think the court bears some real responsibility for proceeding the way it has. >> the trump lawyers made two arguments to get to the supreme court. one was the double jeopardy argument that you can't prosecute him now because he was impeached and tried in the senate for the same charges. the court apparently has just thrown that out. they don't want that addressed at all. so that they've seemed to have already dismissed. but the other part of it, the way the trump lawyers phrased it , are these charges, or what the things he's accused of, do they fall within his official duties, or are they called within the perimeter, within the outer perimeter of the official acts of our president? and it seems to me that trying to define where the outer perimeter is, what that means in a case like this, would be not easy.

>> not easy at all, i had not necessary to resolve the actual case before the court. whatever the outer perimeter is, certainly the attempt to the attempt to get the vice president to essentially name him the next president by tossing the next election into the house, where we know the majority of the delegations were controlled by the republicans, try to get the vice president to do that and then when he refused to do it, fomenting a violent mob to cause delay, those things cannot be immune from prosecution, or else we have a formula for any sitting president to essentially stay in office permanently, like killing his opponent or by killing senators in an impeachment trial. the range of possibilities is mind- boggling. and there's no reason for the court to have opened up that

pandora's box, except a desire to delay on behalf of donald trump. and that is obviously not a legitimate reason to proceed the way the court did. >> harvard constitutional law professor laurence tribe, thank you very much for joining us on this important night. >> thank, you lawrence. >> thank you. and coming up, why hasn't clarence thomas announced his recusal from this case? clarence thomas's wife was a witness to some of the things donald trump did that are described in jack smith's indictment of donald trump. congressman dan goldman has called on justice thomas to recuse himself. congressman goldman joins us next. us next. 12 hours!! mucinex dm gives you 12 hours of relief from chest congestion and any cough, day or night. mucinex dm. it's comeback season. now try mucinex instasoothe sore throat medicated drops.

i know what it's like to perform through pain. if you're like me, one of the millions suffering from pain caused by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks. treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. i was stuck. unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressant.

vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save.

rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals,

nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪)

in 1974, when richard nixon's presidency hung in the balance, the united states supreme court decided that richard nixon must turn over it tape recordings of his conversations in the oval office to criminal investigators. richard nixon knew that those tape recordings contained evidence, indeed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of crimes committed by richard nixon. richard nixon also knew that four of the nine justices on the supreme court who are deciding his fate were appointed by richard nixon. one of those justices, william rehnquist, recused from the nixon case because he had served

in the nixon administration with some of the officials were complicit in nixon's crimes. the supreme court decision in that case was 8 to 0, ordering richard nixon to turn over his tapes. justice clarence thomas lives with the woman who was complicit in the crimes, white house chief of staff mark meadows is now accused of and the crimes donald trump is now accused of. justice thomas's wife urged them on in written text messages, urge them on in committing those crimes that they are now accused of and doing anything they possibly could illegally, if necessary, to overthrow the results of the presidential election. we'll clarence thomas to follow william rehnquist's example and recuse from this case? joining our discussion now is democratic congressman daniel goldman of new york. congressman goldman, i know you have in effect demanded clarence thomas's recusal, but he doesn't seem to follow any

the precedents on this issue that we've seen from other justices. >> no, and i think we have our answer. if he were to recuse, we would have seen it in today's order. and he's not. and it is absolutely baffling, lawrence, not just because of the president of chief justice rehnquist, or nine justice rehnquist, as you pointed out, but the fact that his wife was involved in the conduct that underlies the criminal charges against donald trump, about which he is seeking immunity from the supreme court. and clarence thomas has not recused himself is perhaps the greatest ethical lapse that we've seen in a supreme court justice. and under the new guise of impeachment that this house republican majority has created, with the impeachment of secretary mayorkas, if the democrats win the house next

year, i think we are going to have to think about a what our actions are in terms of raining in this rogue supreme court, bringing judicial reform and ethics back to the court so its credibility is restored, and even up to and including the possible impeachment of clarence thomas, the cause he continues to flout basic common sense rules of ethics for any judge, much less a supreme court justice. >> clarence thomas's wife was with donald trump, was in his presence, when he committed some of the acts that are considered part of the criminal conspiracy in the case that the supreme court is going to consider. she was there when donald trump was giving his speech to his followers, telling them to go to the capitol and fight like hell. if she was there clapping for that, clapping for that, just like all the trump followers were.

she, like donald trump, did not go to the capitol, that she was there when he urged them on. and here is clarence thomas considering a case that includes that evidence about his wife. >> as well as text messages where she's urging mark meadows, the presidents chief of staff, to do whatever he possibly can to keep donald trump in office, which is exactly what he is charged with criminally doing, by using false and fraudulent means in order to maintain his position as the president of the united states and interfere with an election. it is, one might -- i don't know the evidence here, lawrence, but this would be somebody that as a former prosecutor i would consider referring to as an unindicted coconspirator, which means there is some complicity, there is some actions that link such a person to the crime that is being charged. and the notion

that clarence thomas would rule on a case where his wife maybe an unindicted coconspirator is perhaps the greatest ethical lapse that we've seen. and lapses not even the right word, it is a true flouting of the code of ethics, rules of ethics, of basic common sense ethical guidelines. and the supreme court has demonstrated that it cannot police itself. congress must in act, and republicans must get on board with an acting some sort of judicial reform so there is a code of ethical conduct that applies to supreme court justices, as it does to all other federal judges. but this is a true crisis of credibility on the supreme court right now. >> and it is just stunning to compare it to the rehnquist standard. it was not anyone in rehnquist's family. it was not rehnquist's wife. that's not why he was recusing.

he was recusing because he had once worked for attorney general john mitchell, who looked like he was in the line of culpability and the nixon conspiracy, and indeed was. john mitchell, first attorney general in history to be convicted of a crime, sentenced to prison. and justice rehnquist wanted to be nowhere close to that. and clarence thomas is so much closer, so much closer to what this case is about. >> he's so much closer, and he has now demonstrated a pattern of ethical, financial disclosure issues and problems and lapses that have been documented in quite great detail by excellent investigative reporting over the past couple of years. where he has clearly using his position for his own financial benefit, and now he is using his position to potentially protect his wife from criminal conduct.

it is shocking when you actually just say the words that a supreme court justice has not recused himself from a case in which his wife may be an unindicted coconspirator. i am not a constitutional or supreme court historian, but i certainly do not know of a situation like this. >> congressman daniel goldman, thank you very much for joining our discussion tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. coming up, despite today's action at the supreme court, criminal defendant donald trump is going to trial in his first criminal trial, which will be in manhattan, just three weeks from now. nothing the supreme court did today changes that. and donald trump is now struggling under the weight of a half billion dollars in civil judgments against him in new york, which he told a court today he cannot afford to pay. the appeals court refused to give donald trump more time to find the money. that's next. ext. lurged a little

because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone.

♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

children are the greatest joy and our best hope for a better future. friends, they are the future. but did you know that millions of kids right here in our own backyard are facing hunger every day without healthy food it's harder to grow, to thrive, to feel their best. the impact when children don't have enough to eat is tremendous, because when you're hungry and your basic needs aren't being met, you cannot learn. that's why i'm here now, asking you to join me in helping end child hunger in america. this is a problem we know how to solve and we can do it better by supporting no kid hungry for just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month. you can help provide healthy meals

like a good breakfast in class to power kids through their days. breakfast in the classroom contributes to kids being more focused, which leads to higher grades, test scores and simply just their well-being. ensuring all kids get a good breakfast and other nutritious food is a beautiful thing. it's a game changer and you can help make it happen when you join me in supporting no kid hungry today. that food is not just food. it's energy, health, confidence, hope, and even love. yes, love. so please call now or go online to helpnokidhungry.org right now give $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. and when you use your credit card, you'll get this special team t-shirt to show that you're helping kids build a brighter future for themselves. thank you. families are struggling to make ends meet. these are hard times, but together we can help connect america's

kids with meals. so please call now or go online to give. thank you. donald trump's first criminal trial is now less than a month away in manhattan where donald trump will face charges of tampering with the 2016 presidential election by hiding from voters at the truth about his relationship with porn star stormy daniels while he was campaigning for president by delivering hush money payments to her. district attorney alvin bragg charged donald trump with

business fraud for trying to cover up the hush money payments that he gave to -- stormy daniels to hide their relationship so voters would not know about their relationship in 2016. that case is still going to trial, and there is nothing today's decision about the supreme court can do about that. also in new york today, donald trump said under oath that he does not have enough money to cover the civil judgments against him after saying under oath earlier, now he does have enough money. today in new york appeals court refused to delay donald trump's obligation to pay that judgment or put up the money to the court for that judgment so that he can then appeal that civil fraud judgment against him in new york which is as of tonight 400 and $64 million. -- joyce vance, former prosecutor and university of alabama law school. also -- bloomberg opinion and other of trump nation. they are both msnbc analysts.

joyce, i want to begin with the manhattan criminal trial which remains very much on track and is now without a doubt the very first criminal case that will be going to trial against donald trump. in a way it's extension of what we have already seen in the civil fraud trial, but this is a criminal business fraud that he is charged with to cover up payments to stormy daniels. >> you know, it is a criminal business fraud, but i've yet more akin to election interference case. this is donald trump's origin story. this is the first election for president, and what is happening, the access hollywood tape that is released, he's concerned about how women voters are viewing him, and so he tries to keep evidence of his payments -- he tries to keep evidence of his relationship with stormy daniels out of the hands of voters as they are preparing to go to the polls. he does that in a sense by cooking books that his

business, but this is a lot more than a business fraud case. this is really about election interference. >> and tim o'brien, i don't see any way donald trump can take in the witness stand in a case like this where he would be open to questions under oath in a criminal proceeding about how he handles his business records. >> no i mean he is an attorney's worst nightmare, he lies, he tries to joust with -- he does not discipline. i can't imagine they would want to have him on the stand where he would just sit there like yosemite sam -- and i wouldn't expect to see that at all have been. >> so, joyce, donald trump under oath in a pretrial deposition said he has at least $400 million in cash, now when he needs that, in order to proceed with an appeal he needs to post the amount of money that is involved in the case in the judgment of the case in order to appeal, suddenly

saying gee, i can't afford, it i just don't have that much money. what happens next? >> yes, so, look in the whole point here is donald trump can appeal this judgment. he has a right to do that. the question is what happens while he is taking the appeal. can the new york attorney general go ahead and try to collect her 400 and $64 million in judgment against him, and the answer there is that if he does not post a bond or pay the full amount into the court fund, then she can begin to collect the -- she has already indicated she has her eye on a couple of trump properties in new york. so presumably his out leading the bush and talking to lenders of last resort trying to get a bond in place by the march 25 deadline, but if you can't come up with, it if he really is in his own words from this motion today, if he really is struggling financially, then we could have the specter of him facing a criminal trial in manhattan, while his teams

begins to execute and try to collect her judgment against him at the same time. >> and, tim, might that be double trump's play in the, and just he can't put up the bond, there let tish james try to take one of these buildings and auction it off knowing that can be a long process he could have various ways to fight legally along the way? >> well perhaps, but that is a crazy gambit, because -- control of those properties, one of the things we are seeing in this case is as always with donald, trump there is now a public referendum on his wealth. he spent you know, 55, more so his 78 years lying or lobbying about how much money he has, and not when push comes to show, a man whose routinely said he is multi billionaire is having trouble scratching up several hundred million dollars to make a court judgment. as one new yorker one set of trump, i wouldn't believe anything coming out of his

mouth, even if his tongue was notarized. so all of his proclamations that he had several hundred million dollars in cash, they don't appear to be true. that means he then has to go to hard property and tried to sell, it and that is complex. for example his most valuable building in new york, and the one in san francisco, he's the minority partner in those. the major real estate firm owns most of those properties. -- spell out his night without his partner allowing him to, and everybody in new york realest eight or anyone who has a property now knows he is going to be spelling under duress if he asks. he is not going to get a good price for some of these properties. he's arrived in this place because he and his lawyers decided fairly early on to try to beat up the judge in this case, and the judge came down with a very hard -- >> and of course, joyce vance, the mayor attorney general's office has specialist in the

office who know how to do exactly this, how to pursue assets like this, and sees them from defendants like donald trump. >> sherry does, and i would be stunned if she hasn't been making book on him from day one trying to figure out precisely how she would collect this judgment. it is great to get a judgment, but what is really meaningful is when you are able to return the money that is being discouraged from a fraudulent business like this to taxpayers. she has made it clear, even with her tweets where she has been totaling up to the early additional increments of interest, she is focused on the collection phase of this litigation. >> tim, quickly, before you go, one of those tweets every date from the -- issues in a tweet, and it is just a, number it is just how much money he owes today, this is how much interest went up today. >> i imagine it feels like a hot needle being in children his brain every time he hears the number or someone tells him

about it, because it is a reminder that a man who had this -- about evading the law now has been pulled in tightly to its grasp, and there is a big dollar sign attached to that. she is making hay off that every time. >> joyce vance, tim o'brien, thank you very much for joining us tonight. thank you. >> thanks lawrence. >> we will be right back. right but, you also can't leave covered in hair. with bounce pet, you can cuddle and brush that hair off. bounce, it's the sheet.

when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting

or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. sorry body, for knowing about active ingredients, but giving 100% of them to my face. sorry for never checking the temperature first. for replacing sunlight with blue light, and denim with no stretch. sorry for dry shaves, dry days, and fast fashion that makes you crawl. sorry for all the picking, popping, and rinsing off, but never giving back. but fear no more, body.

all those ingredients you've been missing? you can now get. dove body washes with active serums. get dove or get foamo. oh... stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh!

that is tonight's last word. the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. tonight, historic news from the supreme court. the justices will take up donald trump's immunity claim for today's decision means for jack smith's timeline, and at the election. and senate republicans blocked a measure to protect ivf treatments when the growing backlash from the alabama supreme court decision. then mitch mcconnell's