>>> SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH WASTED NO TIME RESPONDING TO THE SUPREME COURT OVER DONALD TRUMP'S REQUEST FOR A STAY IN HIS ON GOING EFFORTS TO DELAY HIS FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE WITH THE BOGUS CLAIM OF PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. IT COMES AFTER ONLY ONE DAY -- IT COMES ONE DAY AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER FROM THE COURT AND SIX DAYS AHEAD OF THE DEADLINE. OUT OF THE GATE, SMITH SETS THE TONE WRITING, THE CHARGED CRIME STRIKE AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND GOES ON TO DESCRIBE THE IRREPARABLE HARM THAT WOULD BE CAUSE TO THAT VERY DEMOCRACY IF TRUMP'S CLAIMS OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WERE UPHELD OR EVEN FURTHER DELAYED. SMITH WRITES, QUOTE, THAT POSITION FINDS NO SUPPORT IN CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT, SEPARATION OF POWERS, PRINCIPLES, HISTORY OR LOGIC. AND IF THAT RADICAL CLAIM WERE ACCEPTED, IT WOULD UP END UNDERSTANDING ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY THAT HAVE PREVAILED THROUGHOUT HISTORY WHILE UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW. PARTICULARLY WHERE, AS HERE, A FORMER PRESIDENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES TO REMAIN IN OFFICE, DESPITE LOSING AN ELECTION. THEREBY SEEKS TO SUBVERT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES FOR TRANSFERRING POWER AND TO DISENFRANCHISE MILLIONS OF VOTERS. JOINING ME NOW IS MSNBC LEGAL CORRESPONDENT LISA RUBEN. LISA, YOU HAVE BEEN DOGGEDLY GOING THROUGH THIS FILING. I HAVE HIT SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. GIVE US MORE OF WHAT YOU'VE READ THUS FAR. >> YOU KNOW, JOY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRIKES ME IN READING THIS IS THE WAY IN WHICH JACK SMITH AND HIS TEAM SO RAPIDLY BUT ALSO EFFECTIVELY SUBVERTED AND TURNED ON THEIR HEADS SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT PRESIDENT -- FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS WERE MAKING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ECHOS THROUGHOUT THE BRIEFS THAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SUBMITTED IS A PRESIDENT IS SPECIAL. HE SHOULD BE TREATED SPECIALLY AND DIFFERENTLY. AND JACK SMITH SORT OF DOESN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. HE JUST TAKES A DIFFERENT TACK AT IT. YES, PRESIDENTS ARE SPECIAL. WE INDELL THEM WITH ALL SORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, INCLUDING THE POWER TO TAKE CARE THAT HIS POWERS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED AND TO RESPECT AND VENERATE THE CONSTITUTION, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. AND WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE HERE, MR. FORMER PRESIDENT, IS OF -- THIS IS THE QUOTE, UNPARALLELED GRAVITY THAT NECESSITATES TRYING THIS CASE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, NOT THE DELAY THAT YOU ARE BEGGING FOR. ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK HE SAYS THAT IS REALLY INTERESTING, IT'S REALLY WHAT HE DOESN'T SAY, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BRIEF TO THE SUPREME COURT WASSY FUSE WITH REFERENCES TO HIS CANDIDACY. TALKED HOW HE WAS THE REPUBLICAN FRONT-RUNNER AND INDEED THE LEADING CANDIDATE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE HAD AN INTEREST IN A STAY BECAUSE ONE OF THE GROUPS THAT WOULD BE IRREPARABLY HARMED FROM A TRIAL WOULD BE HIS VOTERS, HIS SUPPORTERS WHO WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIM AND HEAR HIS POLITICAL MESSAGES. AND AGAIN, JACK SMITH AND HIS TEAM TURNED THAT ON THEIR HEAD. THEY SAY THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A SPEEDY TRIAL HERE IS GREATER THAN ANY INTEREST THAT TRUMP COULD HAVE IN DELAYING IT, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THAT WHAT HE IS ACCUSED OF DOING HERE IS SUBVERTING THE DEMOCRATIC WILL OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF VOTERS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CLAIM TO STAND FOR THE INTERESTS OF A CERTAIN SEGMENT OF VOTERS. BUT THE ACCUSATIONS AT THE HEART OF THIS CASE ARE ABOUT YOUR WILLINGNESS TO DISENFRANCHISE THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO NEVER VOTED FOR YOU IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. >> SO, WE'RE ALL GETTING A LEGAL EDUCATION THANKS TO DONALD TRUMP GETTING INDICTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. ONE OF THE TERMS THAT YOU LEGAL EAGLES THROW AROUND IS GRANT CERT. STANDING FOR SERS YOIR. WHAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN AND CANNOT DO. WHAT IS THAT? AND WHAT CAN THE SUPREME COURT DO NEXT? >> TRUMP'S PETITION THAT JACK SMITH REPLIED TO IS FORMALLY A MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS WHILE HE WORKS ON AND THEN SUBMITS WHAT YOU REFERRED TO AS A PETITION FOR SERGS YAR. THAT'S A FANCY WAY OF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW A CASE AND UNLIKE FEDERAL APPEALS COURTS THAT DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, THEY WILL TAKE AN APPEAL WHERE THE LAW PROVIDES FOR AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS DISCRETION OVER WHICH CASES THEY TAKE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JACK SMITH WAS SORT OF BOXED IN BY WAS THE FACT THAT IN DECEMBER, HE TOO ASKED THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE CASE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IN FACT, HE TRIED TO LEAPFROG THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT WHICH HAS JURISDICTION HERE, THE D.C. CIRCUIT. HE COULDN'T SAY THE CASE WASN'T WORTHY OF REVIEW. WHAT HE INSTEAD SAID IS THIS CASE IS NOT DESERVING OF A STAY. BUT IF YOU DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH VOTES TO GRANT CERT, TREAT TRUMP'S MOTION FOR A STAY AS IF IT WERE A CERT PETITION SO THAT WE CAN EXPEDITE BRIEFING AND GET ON WITH THIS AND YOU CAN HOLD ORAL ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE, CONSISTENT WITH HOW YOU'VE BEHAVED IN OTHER EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS BY MARCH. >> GOT IT. AND SO, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOPEFULLY THE SUPREME COURT HEARING IT BY MARCH. NOW COULD THEY JUST SAY, NO? COULD THEY JUST NOT HEAR IT? AND IF THEY DECIDED NOT TO HEAR IT, THEN WHAT? >> FIRST OF ALL, JOY, THEY CAN DECIDE AS SOON AS THEY WANT TO OR EVEN WHEN THEY GET A REPLY FROM DONALD TRUMP ON THIS MOTION FOR A STAY THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GRANT A STAY AND EFFECTIVELY THAT'S THE WHOLE GAME. BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT GRANTING A STAY, THIS GOES BACK TO TONYA CHUTKAN EVEN IF ULTIMATELY THEY ARE GOING TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO REVIEW THE CASE. HOWEVER, THEY CAN TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS THEY WANT. THAT IS A NIGHTMARISH SCENARIO THAT SOME OF OUR JOURNALISTIC COLLEAGUES HAVE FLOATED. THEY COULD, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSIDER THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO DECIDE THIS CASE BY THE END OF THE SUPREME COURT TERM AND HOLD IT OVER UNTIL OCTOBER. I THINK THE PUBLIC PRESSURE ON THEM TO ACT DECISIVELY IS TOO STRONG AND THEY WILL DO SOMETHING. THE NEXT FEW DAYS, COUPLE OF WEEKS TO LET US KNOW WHERE THEIR HEADS ARE AT. >> YEAH. I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO USE S.E.A.L. TEAM 6 TO KILL A MAN, HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS. I HEAR THAT. >> I HEAR THAT. BUT THEY CAN DENY A STAY AND BY DENYING A STAY, LEAVING THE D.C. CIRCUIT'S OPINION IN FORCE THAT EFFECTIVELY ANSWERS THAT SAME QUESTION, RIGHT? IT WAS THAT CIRCUIT THAT SAID TO TRUMP, ARE YOU SAYING THAT S.E.A.L. TEAM 6 COULD BE USED TO KILL YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT? AND THEY SAID, NO. >> YEAH, YEAH. WELL, THAT WOULD
