we are all out of time, so no last thing tonight. we have an extra special one for you tomorrow, but for now, i wish you a very good night. from all of us across the network on nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. we will see you tomorrow. tonight on all in. >> i did everything right, and they indicted me. >> a last-ditch attempt to delay trial fails. >> the reason donald is doing this is because he is scared. in fact, the word isn't even scared. he is petrified.

>> tonight, whether new york charges have a chance to stick. then alarming new reporting on a cryptic first family. >> he is wrapping himself in the flag of the united states while his son is collecting the money at the back door. and america in reverse in arizona. >> this archaic law, which was written by men 48 years before arizona even became a state, threatens the lives of countless women. >> tonight's, arizona's attorney general on the abortion ban in her state and how it became law. >> for 54 years, they were trying to get roe v wade terminated, and i did it. >> all in starts right now.

>> we are a week out from the first criminal trial of the next president in american history, and donald trump is doing everything in his power to prevent it from happening. today, he lost before a new york appellate court after trying to argue that his hush money election interference case should be delayed pending his appeal of his gag order in the same case. as a gag order that was issued by a judge because trump cannot stop making threatening and inflammatory statements about people involved in his cases, putting in this case, the judges own daughter. trump also lost a separate appeal to get the case delayed yesterday. a different new york judge declined to postpone the case while trump tries to get it moved out of manhattan to a more favorable jurisdiction. this all comes after he lost yet another appeal last week, which was partially related to his claims of presidential

immunity. the payments happen before he was president, or at least were agreed to before his presidency. he bribed an adult film star. here is the thing. donald trump is incredibly litigious. he has spent his entire career in and out of court. the only thing he seems to enjoy more than suing people is threatening to sue people. >> every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. total fabrication. the events never happened. never. all of these liars will be sued after the election is over. >> i've never seen anybody that lied as much as ted cruz. he doesn't even have the right to serve as president or even run as president. he was born in canada. i will bring that lawsuit if he doesn't apologize. >> are spending hundreds of

millions of dollars on false commercials and it's a disgrace. let's sue them, right? >> and you go four years without threatening to sue somebody? >> is a business tactic for me, and i've been successful. sometimes i use it maybe when i shouldn't, and sometimes i don't. >> in the past, he was not afraid of a protracted legal battle. they all insist right now that he is just chomping at the bit, ready for a fight in this new york case. >> he got into, you know, a donald trump option where he's ready to be competitive on something that he believes is an injustice. i think he is now in the posture that he is ready to fight this. >> this is an all out war. donald trump is the toughest human being i've ever met. >> i'm sorry. here's the thing.

if you actually look at donald trump's actions, he is not standing in the courthouse door saying, bring it on. he is clearly desperate to avoid going to trial. i mean, he is truly throwing everything at the wall to see what will stick. there's one really good reason why he is trying so desperately to wriggle out of this trial, which is that the government has a very good case against him. and the reason we know the government has a very good case is because the issue at hand here, the facts of the charges, have already resulted in someone going to jail. michael cohen was the one, the intermediary who said he pulled off the scheme of structuring these payments to stormy daniels. prosecutors under the trump administration, trumps justice department, said it was illegal. and illegal in a way to benefit trumps campaign. it benefited trumps campaign specifically because the payments came right after the access hollywood tape broke.

if you remember, trump was the weakest he had ever been as a candidate. one more scandal, like a secret affair with a star while his wife was taking care of their four month old newborn -- it would have very likely edit his campaign. one of the great counterfactual of american history. trump had michael cohen interviewer in the election by paying stormy daniels to plead quiet. he went to prison for over a year before securing home confinement during the covid pandemic. this is all just on the record. this is all established, okay? for all of trumps gravity defying improbable's from this -- believe me, i've covered him for a while now. there have been many, legal or otherwise. somewhere deep down, he's just a scared 77-year-old man. you know, toughest guy i've ever met not with banding. is also someone that has launched a whole bunch of people in his orbit to go to

actual prison or jail. really doing it. michael cohen. paul manafort. his accountants that he worked with for decades. rick gates. trump doesn't want to join those ranks. just ask michael cohen. >> he could at the end of that line, he could end up in prison. based on your long years of service with him, how will he process that? >> very poorly. as i like to call them sometimes in my tweets, diaper donald will be filling up that diaper. because this is not something that donald is capable of either understanding or contending with. he, as you stated accurately, he believes he can control every situation. this is not a situation that he has any control over, and that's making him sick to his stomach. >> you think you will feel genuine fear?

>> yes, i think right now he is beyond petrified. >> underneath the bravado isn't elderly man facing the possibility of the same fate so many of his associates. time behind bars. >> in the very same manhattan district attorney's office that is prosecuting trump. a former litigator, non-msnbc legal correspondence. and they join me now. let me start with you, lisa, and i'll move to the appeals with you, katherine. i've been through so many of these. the trial is very likely to start monday. what could possibly happen to make it not start? >> i put that in three buckets for you. there are still buckets pending with judge merchan. one is for pretrial publicity, but he says the trial should be adjourned on that basis. there's also this pending message for the recusal, which could also delay the trial. then there are the motions to the appellate court, including the one that was argued today.

even though a single judge of that court said, while you appeal this gag order, i will not grant you an interim stay. you can argue that to a full panel of this court. those briefs are due monday, the same that we are scheduled to start jury selection. he also is continuing to ask for a change of venue. in addition to adjourning the trial because he says he can't get a fair trial here in manhattan, he wants to move it somewhere else altogether. and taking it to new york's highest court, the court of appeals. i think lots of lawyers for trump doing a hail mary to that court. that could mean appealing today's decision, and that could mean seeking other forms of relief. we don't quite know, but i am watching that docket to see whether trump asks new york's highest court to make this trial stop. >> there are some arrows left, i think it's fair to say. katherine, you worked at the manhattan d.a.s office . it's probably the most famous local prosecutor's office in the

entire country, i think it's fair to say. we watched hours of law and order in our life. you know, we talk about those all the time. 95% of the criminal justice system is people pleading and running through this sort of big plea machine. and a lot of them, spending time in rikers where delay is the last thing in the universe they want. because that's on them. but it's also the case that your office will prosecute people that did have money and affluence and power, and things like that. lots of it. exactly. this level of appeals, this desperate attempt to stop it, is that normal for this profile of defendant, or is this some next level? >> this is the next level. but let me say this -- i am very familiar with the appellate division, the appellate court. and the court of appeals. the judges there, they are all fair and impartial, but they are not dupes. so in new york, there are court

rules that say that if you file a motion with the primary purpose to cause delay, that is considered a frivolous motion, and that can subject you to sanctions. so i am -- i have no doubt that the appellate court -- and if he tries -- if he tries to appeal to the court of appeals, they can decide the issue without staying the trial, and there is absolutely no reason to stay this trial from beginning on april 15th on monday. the only reason is what happens in other trials. someone legitimately gets sick. there's a real earthquake. so barring some unforeseen circumstance, this trial will start on monday. it is clear that these are all just frivolous delayed tactics. >> let me stay with you.

what will start on monday, i think you obviously have a lot of experience with this, having tracked a bunch of cases in this venue and in this office. what starts is jury selection. we got to look at some of the jury questionnaires. i'm going to read some of these and get your impression, katherine and then back to you, lisa, for yours. have you currently follow donald trump on any social media site have done so in the past? do you consider yourself a supporter of any of the following? boys, boogaloo boys, antifa. have you read or listen to audio of any of the following books or podcasts? he was the lawyer in the d.a.s office who wrote a book about it. disloyal, a memoir, mea culpa, people versus donald trump. can you glean anything from this questionnaire? >> well, they are trying -- both sides are trying to parse out people who have an opinion that is so negative against donald trump or so negative against the prosecution that

they can't be fair and impartial, so you just want to get rid of them. so a lot of the publicity has actually been by donald trump, so you may have a lot of people who will say, yeah, i've heard of this case. this is that horrible manhattan d.a.s case that is a witchhunt against donald trump. you don't want those people on the jury. it doesn't matter if they're a democrat or republican, that they can be -- no matter what their political persuasion, that they can be fair and impartial, that they can listen to the judge's instructions, but they will follow the evidence in the courtroom, not what they hear outside. it's important to ask those questions to determine for both sides whether there is an opinion that is so negative against the other side but they can't be fair and impartial. >> most juries, right? are not dealing with a case that is particularly famous, and particularly not an individual who is probably one of the most well-known individuals in the country, if not the world.

so it's a different kind of thing that is happening here for lawyers than most cases. the only version we've had of that is the e. jean carroll civil trial where they did have a jury with the same challenges. i wonder how you think that informs what is going to happen. >> it happened twice. right? and so we seen this process play out twice, and judge merchan has a benefit of watching judge kaplan do this. one of the things that is interesting here is he's not asking things like, have you made a political contribution? he's really trying to get at some of the deeper intensity of feeling that, not just in isolation, but in the aggregate would disqualify a juror. maybe it's not disqualifying for sample that somebody, one of the questions asks, ever signed up for or been signed up for or subscribe to any email run by or behalf of any trump group or organization? that's important, because the

former president ends up constant grazing solicitations that talk about this case and others. but with that in and of itself be disqualifying? maybe not, what have you attended a rally? what does your media diet look like? are you watching steady newsmax all day long? they are looking for sort of a number of different factors that, together, form a composite of who a person is that shows that they are unable to be impartial despite the fact that just about every living person in this country has an opinion one way or the other about donald trump. >> i'm going to go out on a limb and say, if you are an oath keeper, probably put a line through that one. thank you both, appreciate it. after the arizona supreme court upholds the country strictest abortion ban, chris mays joins me on this program with what comes next. but first, as republicans desperately clamored to find corruption in the biden family,

a look into the foreign ties of donald trump's family next. y n

“look at all those snacks!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.” “(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app and use promo code viva to get $20 off your first purchase.” ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

>> we shouldn't have people in office that are betraying their country. they're paying loads of cash to adversaries around the world. >> selling official favors for tens of millions of dollars. >> his son is collecting the money at the back door. >> i think every american has a problem with the fact that our presidents family was selling access to him to our enemies around the world.

if you are a single issue voter on the questions of the candidates having family members that trade on their name and influence to make lucrative deals with foreign governments that have adversarial relationships with the u.s., or get about hunter biden. republicans have done nothing on him anyway. your number one concern right now should be donald trump son- in-law, jared kushner. a new deep dive on his foreign wealth investment firm in the new york times covers the old classics like the chinese ambassador, a friendship with the saudi crown prince, who later gave jared's investment firm $2 billion against the advice of his own finance experts. the board that reviews investments for the saudi sovereign wealth fund. the times goes further than that you show that as a once and possibly future trump administration official, jared kushner is open for business everywhere. 99% of the money placed in him by investors has come from foreign sources. that's 99% of $3 billion, with a b. jared's firm makes $40

million a year managing that fund. they have not invested a lot of funds that he has received. he did and his partner in that deal is part owner of israel's only domestic putting him in business with executives who are also major shareholders and israeli military contractors whose vessels have been used in the war in gaza. joining me now is eric lipton. eric, great reporting. i just want to start at the most basic level. kushner comes from this big real estate family that is a sort of legendary one, and one that has had its ups and downs and controversy. what is this business? what is the value proposition here on paper that he is doing? >> i mean, he has hired some pretty experienced people in the growth equity world to evaluate more than 1000 different businesses and to put money into them and to take basically the sovereign wealth

funds money, a couple billion dollars of it, and look for a way to make them even bigger profit. that's his mission. he came into this without having a great deal of experience as a private equity guy, and now he has got a $3 billion private equity fund that has been funded mostly from saudi arabia and the uae and some other folks. >> yeah. and that money, again, we know the reporting on the saudi investment that this sort of internal board that sort of reviews investments and said it's not a good idea, and they had red flags, those were overridden. the big lion's share is from those three countries that have the sovereign wealth funds that are essentially -- you know, they are controlled by the ruling family, right? >> right. the issue which i talked with him about was down there in his office at the new headquarters is that these are the same people that he was engaging with when he was helping the

trump administration negotiate, you know, the abraham accords. they are relationships that he first met these folks and established in that process. so these are the same people that he went back to and now our funding his equity company. >> you had this line that i thought was interesting. as the son-in-law of the president, healed an advantage over more seasoned colleagues in the government. top officials from autocratic governments understood the role of family members as first. say more about that. >> the son-in-law is a pretty popular concept that we seen before that, the son-in-law in turkey, kushner was involved with the son-in-law of boredom on, and -- or the son of. i think the notion that your family is a top adviser or trusted adviser, someone you can deal with and do dealmaking with, is popular in countries that are not as democratic as the united states. and so i think that was

something that, you know, brought him some chips when it came to negotiating with folks in the middle east. he was pushing aside the secretary of state to deal directly with some of the leaders in the middle east. >> you know, it's possible to construct counter histories. but from what you said in the reporting i read, i don't think it's implausible to say that, but for his time in the white house where he had this special status as the son-in-law of the president of the united states where he was given this wide portfolio that put him in contact -- a private equity fund of $3 billion were most of your investments are coming, it's very difficult to imagine what jared kushner is up to in 2024 if that hadn't happened. >> the most likely path was to go back into real estate

investing. and maybe start a fund, but not with $3 billion of mostly middle eastern money. i think that it is only because of his experience in the white house that the sovereign wealth funds were putting the amount of money into his fund that occurred. the thing that we were really focused on was, is now put $1.2 billion of that $3 billion that has now been invested. that's really what he was about to look at. the israeli car company, the dubai real estate company, the burger king -- you know, franchise in brazil that has been funded with abu dhabi as a co-party there. what has he actually invested in, and what are some of the potential conflict of interest that emerge now that he's doing business in a real way with those monies? >> it is sort of hard to evaluate necessarily whether they are good or bad invest just sort of on paper.

what you see is a potential conflict of having this -- it will grow as a portfolio of investments across the world doing business with different kinds of folks as investing partners in different societies and governments? >> for example, in serbia and albania, he is now negotiating contract that could be worth billions of dollars. he's going to get concessions from the government that will give him access to government controlled lands, to build -- you know, luxury resort hotels on. it's hard to know, with the governments of serbia and albania give him those concessions? in some way to try to say to the united states, we are on your team. he said if they did that, that would be stupid. he said he's not asking for any special favors. but the problem is, if he's the son-in-law of the potential future president, it can give the impression that it's being done for that reason. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. donald trump tries to have it both ways on abortion while arizona supreme court upholds the strictest abortion law in the country. we talked to that states attorney general what this means for reproductive rights. .

is my firm belief that the coverage of this presidential campaign in 2020 or should be more straight forward than

almost any in american history going all the way back to the election of 1892. and that is because you don't have to ask, what with this young arkansas governor or that arizona senator you if they were elected president ? which is always going to be at some level speculative. in this case, both of this year's candidates for the first time since 1982 not only have record as president, they have the most current records possible. the best way to cover this campaign between these two men is to look at what those records are. and the difference is between the two candidates is incredibly stark when you take a hard look at what they did while in office. it's true on abortion, it's true on labor and on taxes and environmental regulation. one of the places it's clearest is on immigration. that is where we start in a brand-new series we are launching today. it's called 2024, the stakes. as always, you can listen by scanning that qr code on your

screen, and on the inaugural episode of this new series out today, i spoke with aaron melnick . he is a policy director of the american immigration counsel. we spoke about the very different records of biden and trump when it comes to immigration, particularly immigrants who try to come to this country through the visa process. >> the trump administration was a restriction based administration. their goal is to/immigration to the united states. so did they succeed? the trump administration succeeded in reducing the inflows of illegal immigrants, like the number of visas folks were able to get to the various legal means. >> absolutely. visa issuance fell every single year in the trump administration. cratered in 2020 because of the coven 19 pandemic, but even setting that aside, there was a steep drop in immigration through the legal immigration system. he also hollowed it out. there was a hiring freeze in

u.s. citizenship and immigration services. when president biden took office, there's about 1000 fewer adjudicators than they needed to get things back on track. >> those are the parts of the details around the government that really show you what a second term would be like for both of these men. it was so clarifying on the differences between biden and trump and how they use the power of the government, and what it would mean for either. you can listen to it by scanning the qr code on your screen or search why is this happening wherever you get our podcast. this is part of a series we do through now and november, covering another policy wait for the candidates could be not more more different. reproductive rights. just yesterday, donald trump tried to sweep under the rug the fact the engineer of the overturning of roe versus wade, the decision the consigned tens of millions of women live in states where they have no rights over their own body and now face the most horrifying,

excruciating choices. today in arizona, one of the most significant states for the presidential elections, the state supreme court upheld a law banning abortion in almost all cases. a lot of it was passed back in 1864. the attorney general of arizona who fought for that law joins me on that next. next. “i guess'n than you.“ "(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app to get great deals on last-minute tickets.” i still love to surf, snowboard, “download the gametime app and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust. what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

the brand-new law of the land in the seat of arizona banning nearly all abortions was put into effect in the

olden times. in 1864 when this band first went on the books, arizona wasn't even a state. it had just become a territory of the united states one year prior. the population of the entire area, which includes part of what is now nevada, included less than 2000 people. less than 250 people lived in phoenix. there were two times as many cattle in the territory. in 1864, america was made up of 36 states. certainly no alaska or hawaii. arizona would not be admitted to the union for almost 50 years. we were still in the midst of a civil war. abraham lincoln was president and he had just signed the emancipation proclamation. slave labor remained legal and would for another year until the 13th amendment was ratified. african-americans could not vote, women could not vote. it took 56 more years for that to change. in 1865, we didn't have light bulbs. the number one movie was,

nothing. there were obviously no movies. but in 1864, arizona convened its very first territorial legislature and passed a near- total ban on abortion. it was codified in 1901 and again in 1913 after arizona became a date. today, the state supreme court upheld that very same law, turning back the clock 160 years for women. 20 now is arizona attorney general chris mays that said she will not prosecute anyone or doctors. good to have you. let me just start with a legal question, because i think a lot of people are confused. how is it possible to unfreeze a law from 1864 and have it be the law of the land? what was the question before the supreme court, and what position did your office take? >> thanks for having me. the legal question was really whether the 1864 territorial

total abortion ban with no exceptions for incest took precedence or was the law that the supreme court should choose over a much more recently adopted 15 week ban, much more recently as in this century, a few years ago. the legislature passed that band. we were obviously arguing, the 15 week ban, though it is imperfect and had no exceptions, should take, you know, should be implemented. if you are going to have to implement an abortion ban over in 1864 law. unfortunately, the supreme court dominated by pretty extreme justices, it looked like, chose 1864. >> so what does this mean now for the residents of your

state? >> look. chris, this is an existential crisis for our residents. and i think, you know, millions of arizonans, men and women, republicans, democrats, independents, woke up this morning to a decision that drags us back to 1864. and though i have said i will not prosecute anyone under this draconian law, we obviously know that it is going to have a chilling effect on reproductive access, reproductive health care access, on abortion access, and we've already had attorneys general from others dates reach out to me to offer their help, and i've had the vice president of the united states reach out to me today to offer her help. this is a crisis for our state, and it is chaotic, to be honest

with you. we are going to continue to fight this decision by the supreme court. were going to do everything i can as ag, and not everything is on the table. nothing is off the table. were going to continue to fight this in the courts wherever we can, and we are going to try to help women in the period between now and when arizona will have a ballot initiative on the ballot in november that i believe will allow arizonans to enshrine reproductive rights and abortion access in our constitution. >> i was just going to talk about the possibility of this 2023 polling out of arizona state. had 62% of arizonans saying abortion should always be legal with minor restrictions. i would imagine there would be some polling this week, and that number is probably even higher. this would be a ballot initiative in the state, and that would override this

decision, right? is it a state constitutional amendment? >> absolutely. it's a constitutional amendment, and it would override this decision. i really think, you know, this is a terrible, terrible decision coming out of the supreme court here. this is a political earthquake that i think extreme republicans are going to regret. they are going to regret this come november. i believe that ballot initiative is going to pass. i believe arizonans are resoundingly going to make it clear that they don't want to be dragged back into 1864. i believe it makes it very possible that our legislature would be flipped and certainly, ruben gallego who is running for the united states senate could benefit from this as well, as could joe biden and kamala harris. >> the president put the statement out today, millions

of arizonans which fails to protect women even if the health is at risk, the ruling is a result of the extreme agenda who are committed to ripping away women's freedom. this is going to be an acute crisis in the next few months. i got to imagine, you know, this is now, i think, the most extreme ban in the country, right? it has to be. >> i think it probably is, chris. and that's why i'm going to be in communication with my colleagues, my ag colleagues around arizona, california, new mexico, colorado, nevada to see what we can do with our partner states to help women who probably are going to have to flee arizona in the next few months. there will be about a 45 to 60 day stay in this decision, we believe, do to another court

case. we are still going to have this period were abortion care could come to almost a total halt. and so we are going to need our surroundings dates to take in women who need reproductive care. >> truly shocking. an appalling decision out of your state. arizona attorney general chris mays. thanks so much for spending time with us. still ahead, as trump continues to golf the legal system, special counsel jack smith makes his case to the supreme court next. next.

special counsel jack smith is asking the supreme court to reject donald trump's claim for immunity. last night, smith submitted a 66 page brief laying out an argument that is been successful at both the district court level and before the three-judge panel at the d.c. circuit that the d.c. president does not have immunity for acts committed during his presidency. i really like this one. the president's constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general right to violate them. does not reflect the understanding the presidents are immune from current liability, and instead underscores the unprecedented nature of petitioner's alleged conduct. and he argues a

bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law, including the president. this all comes in advance of oral argument scheduled for april 25th. while the eagle issues here are not complex, this is about whether the supreme court will act swiftly enough for trump to face trial before the election or whether they will basically bail them out by delaying. and second, the jack smith and his team both have to argue against absolute immunity, three of whom were appointed by donald trump. served as chief of the federal division of the u.s. attorney's office. she's also cohost of the prosecuting donald trump podcast, and she joins me now. mary, your top line impressions of this brief from jack smith's office? >> is a very strong brief. i think it's the best brief that the government has filed in this series of briefs, because remember, first they briefed in the trial court before george redken.

and they briefed it before the d.c. circuit and prevailed there, and this reef is very strong. it goes through all of the arguments made before, but in a somewhat of a different level of clarity, and i'm not trying to say there was anything wrong with the previous briefs. but there is no constitutional authority for this. history does not support mr. trump's arguments. they batted back and you argument me for the first time by mr. trump that criminal statutes don't apply to him unless they clearly say they apply to a president. that would mean i think there are only two criminal statutes that refer to the president. they can do anything. but i think in terms of top line, the other thing that is so important about this brief is the fallback argument. i hope and expect that jack smith will win on the primary argument that there just simply is no immunity from criminal prosecution for a former president. but this fallback argument is, even if there is some sort of

immunity for official acts, this case should be remanded to the trial court because the evidence of things done potentially in mr. trump's official capacity, let's say the conversations he had with his own department of justice this, those can still be used as evidence of the can's piercy and the schemes charged, which are involved purely private conduct mr. trump and other private actors. you know, other attorneys that he conspired with to do the fraudulent elector scheme, to pressure state legislatures, to convince mike pence to, you know, not approve the vote and to actually send it back to the states. so what he said is, even if you don't agree that there is no immunity at all, you can send it back for trial, and the judge can make evidentiary rulings and issued jury instructions that make clear that any evidence about official act just as evidence

for this private conduct that is charged. and protect his rights that way. and so i think that was an important point to make here, and it's different than what we've seen in previous briefs. >> correct me if i'm wrong here, but i'm just saying my understanding so i can get my arms around this is at both the district court level and the three-judge panel of the district circuit, or is no absolute immunity here. this is fairly straightforward. the question presented that they announced, here is what we are considering. it seemed to indicate interest in this notion that there might be some official act that are immune. and maybe -- where does the boundary lie? what i'm hearing from you is, smith is responding to -- to some of the alarming presented language to say, if that's the place you are going to go, here's why we can still cordon off this case as a legitimate prosecution, even if you want to create some new and heretofore unannounced version

of official immunity. >> that's right. because, again, we don't want and what jack smith doesn't want is a rematch to have the judges as a sort of illegal matter decide, was everything charged part of his official acts? because jack smith's point is, that would be all factual, and that can be dealt with at trial. >> again, the elephant in the room here is, everyone knows the clock is ticking. every knows that a remand the judge can make would kill it to before the election. everyone knows that, and jack smith knows that. whatever you're going to do here, don't do that. even though they can do it if they want to make sure it doesn't happen before the election. >> if they were to remand and ask -- and suggest that the judge has to apply some sort of test and review the allegations and make some sort of ruling in

advance of trial, that is something that he undoubtedly would appeal again, and that is to your point, making it really impossible to get to trial. i think they are right in the arguments they are making, and it reminds me of the arguments we saw up in new york, where the d.a. alvin bragg case were mr. trump tried to argue, there are things alleged here in the statement of fact that i am charged with that are part of my official acts. and what the d.a. there said was, you can have evidence of official act that is evidence of your violation of law. you just can't be prosecuted, potentially, may be, for your acts. >> i thought this was well stated in the brief. even assuming that a foreign president is entitled, that immunity should not be held for this prosecution. a president's a legend scheme to thwart the peaceful transfer of power was lawfully elected successor is the paradigmatic example of conduct that should

be not immunized even if other conduct should be. i read that and was like, yeah. well said. >> absolutely. there are briefs saying that, you know, other frankly conservative former jurors and legislators saying, you know what? you don't have to answer difficult questions whether this might be a close case, because this is not a close case. >> there's nothing the court loves more than reaching out and answering things they don't have to. thank you very much. appreciate it. that is all in on this tuesday night. good evening, alex. >> april 25th. mark your calendar. >> thanks. >> thanks. of 18? do you live in arizona have you join your local criminal hunting posse because it is actually required by law men in arizona join a local criminal hunting posse i'm quoting from the territory of