ON WHY IT SEEMS LIKE THE JUSTICES ARE GOING TO SEND THIS CASE BACK TO THE LOWER COURTS. HOW IT IS THAT THEY SORT OF SHOWED THERE CARDS ON THAT TODAY. BUT BEFORE WE GO TOO MUCH FURTHER, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS. LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW IT WENT. >> ACTUALLY I HAVE A LOT. >> OKAY. WE'VE GOT A SPECIAL. START AT THE TOP. >> WELL, I FOUND IT, VISCERALLY I FOUND IT AS ONE OF THOSE HANDFUL OF MOMENTS THAT FELT LIKE GENUINE VERTIGO. ALMOST LIKE A PHYSICAL SENSATION LIKE AM I LOSING MY MIND? WHAT IS GOING ON? THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT THIS AND WHY DID THIS GIVE THIS SENSE OF DISTRESS? I THINK THE REASON IS THIS. DONALD TRUMP'S FRAMING OF THIS PROSECUTION IS THAT WHAT IS EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT IT IS THE PROSECUTION. WHEREAS THE LOWER COURTS AND THE REST OF US, I BELIEVE, WHAT IS EXTRAORDINARY ARE THE ACTIONS THAT TOOK TO WARRANT THE PROSECUTION. WHAT ARE UNPRECEDENTED ARE THE ACTIONS AT ISSUE, THE FIRST PEACEFUL IT -- FIRST ATTEMPT TO STOP THE PEACEFUL TRANSITION OF POWER. NOT THAT I -- NOT THAT AN INDICTMENT WAS BROUGHT. BUT THE COURT ADOPTED THE NOTION THAT WHAT WAS NEW AND EXTRAORDINARY IS THE PROSECUTION ITSELF AND IN SO DOING WHAT THEY DID, AS YOU SAID QUITE WELL, ADOPTED THE MOST CYNICAL SORT OF AUTHORITARIAN AND RELATIVISTIC VIEW OF ALL OF THIS THAT TRUMP HIMSELF ADOPTS, WHICH IS THAT ANY PROSECUTOR CAN PROSECUTE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING. AND WE SAW THIS IN THE COLORADO CASE AS WELL. THIS ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE BELOW THIS COURT IS AUSTERE, GENERALLY, WITH THEIR IMPECCABLE VISION. EVERYONE BELOW THEM ARE POLITICAL HACKS. WELL, THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT DIDN'T WANT TRUMP ON THE BALLOT. ANY PROSECUTOR COULD PROSECUTE ANYONE AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? A DEMOCRAT GETS PROSECUTED BY A REPUBLICAN. ALL OF THESE POLITICAL HACKS EVERYWHERE. WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO SEE CLEARLY. WE DON'T TRUST THIS PROCESS BENEATH US WITH THE DISTRICT COURT AND APPELLATE COURT AND PROSECUTOR AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND PRESIDENT WHO APPOINTED HIM AND COLORADO SUPREME COURT. ALL OF THAT, NO, WE GET TO SAY. NEVER CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE THE POLITICAL HACKS. THAT THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN REGULAR ORDER HERE ARE ALL OF THE LOWER BODIES THAT PRODUCED THIS TO THE SITUATION AND IN SO DOING WHAT IT FELT LIKE WAS ALMOST A PHILOSOPHICAL ENDORSEMENT OF THE WORST ASPECTS OF TRUMP, WHICH IS THAT THIS IS JUST ALL POWER POLITICS, BUT NONE OF THIS ACTUALLY ADHERES TO ANY SET OF REGULARITY OR RULES OF LAW. THAT THE REASON THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED BEFORE IS BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AS PARTISAN A PROSECUTOR AS JACK SMITH. THAT THAT IS WHAT IS UNPRECEDENTED? THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT HE DID? SO TO WALK INTO THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND THESE PEOPLE WITH ALL THIS POWER. THE CREATIVE MINDS THAT BROUGHT YOU A 12-YEAR-OLD GIVING BIRTH -- TO LISTEN TO THESE FOLKS AND FIND THEM IN THE HIGHEST HALLS OF POWER, ADOPTING THE MOST AUTHORITARIAN AND CYNICAL VISION OF THIS WAS GENUINELY SHOCKING. >> LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, I WANT TO GO TO YOU NEXT. KATIE WAS IN THE COURTROOM AND HEARD THE ARGUMENTS. YOU'RE A LAWYER JUST LIKE KATIE. WE WILL MAKE YOU GUYS GO LAST, BUT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE AS MUCH ANXIETY AS YOU DO ABOUT THIS, CHRIS. I WANT TO GO TO YOU, LAWRENCE, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MAN -- I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THROW COLD WATER ON MY FEELINGS AND CHRIS'S. >> SO, THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM IN ANY OF THIS. >> GOD BLESS YOU, MY CHILD. >> AS LONG AS JOE BIDEN IS REELECTED. BECAUSE IF THAT WAS A GIVEN FACT, IF HE WAS RUNNING WITH THE 18 POINT LEAD IN THE POLLS THAT BILL CLINTON HAD AT A CERTAIN POINT, THERE WOULD BE A LOT LESS NERVOUSNESS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE WOULD KNOW EVENTUALLY THIS PROCESS WILL WORK AND IF THEY SEND IT BACK, THE JUDGE CAN HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ACTUALLY BRING WITNESSES IN IN THE WAY THAT SHE CAN'T NOW AND SO THERE WOULD THEN BE SOME ACTUAL UNDER OATH TESTIMONY ABOUT ALL OF THIS STUFF BEFORE THE ELECTION. AND THEN EVENTUALLY YOU GET THROUGH ALL OF THIS PROSECUTION. I ACTUALLY THINK JOE BIDEN IS GOING TO BE REELECTED, SO I AM NOT TERRIBLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THEY WILL DO IN TERMS OF SLOWING THIS DOWN, BUT WHAT YOU SAW, THE FUNDAMENTALS OF WHAT YOU SAW AND WERE DISCOVERED CLEARLY TODAY IS THAT THERE IS A GROUP ON THE SUPREME COURT WHO BELIEVE THAT THEIR DUTY IS TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND THERE IS A POSSIBLY LARGER GROUP WHO BELIEVE THEIR DUTY IS TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT, NOT ALL PRESIDENTS. THE PRESIDENT NAMED TRUMP. AND THAT THAT INTENSITY LAUNCHES THOSE FEVER DREAMS THAT WE HEARD FROM ALITO AND GORSUCH ABOUT EVERY PRESIDENT NOW WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEIR PREDECESSOR IS PROSECUTED. THEY WERE ADOPTING THE TRUMP NOTION, BY THE WAY, THAT THIS IS A BIDEN PROSECUTION AND THAT THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION WILL, OBVIOUSLY PROSECUTE THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT. TO DO THAT THEY HAD TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE 2030 YEARS OF HISTORY THAT PRECEDED THE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENCY. THAT ALL HAD TO BE IGNORED AND THEY DID WILLFULLY IGNORE IT. THESE ARE GUYS WHO PRETEND THEY ARE AMATEUR AT LEAST HISTORIANS WHO PAY ATTENTION TO ALL OF THESE THINGS. SO IT WAS THAT TORTURED PROCESS, BUT WOULD ALSO EMERGE REALLY CLEARLY WAS NOT A SINGLE JUSTICE BOUGHT THE TRUMP ARGUMENT. THE TRUMP ARGUMENT IS NOT -- IT IS FOR ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND EVERY ONE OF THEM BASICALLY FOUND A WAY OF SAYING THAT IS RIDICULOUS AND THE ALITO WAY INCLUDED THAT THING THAT YOU SHOWED WHERE HE KEPT SAYING I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE FACTS. THE GOOD SIDE OF THAT COIN IS, THESE FACTS ARE SO BAD, I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THEM. THAT IS THE GOOD SIDE. >> I THINK THOMAS MAY BE THE EXCEPTION AND MAY THINK ALL PRESIDENTS ARE CRIMINALS. EVERYBODY IS LIKE ME. >> THAT IS A GREAT MYSTERY. HE DIDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF OR MAYBE HIS DEFINITION OF RECUSAL AS I WILL TALK THE LEAST. CLARENCE THOMAS SPOKE ONLY THREE TIMES. HE DID NOT ASK A PARAGRAPH WORTH OF QUESTIONS. THE ONLY THING HE RAISED THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF WHAT ANYONE ELSE MENTIONED WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS NOT EVEN BEFORE THE COURT, WHICH WAS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF JACK SMITH. THAT IS NOT EVEN BEFORE THE COURT AND THOMAS ASKED ABOUT THAT, SO HE REMAINS THE MOST MYSTERIOUS ON THE COURT TODAY. >> I THINK THAT WE OVERTHINK THEM. I THINK WHEN YOU WORK FOR A PRESIDENT YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE JUST GUYS AND GIRLS AND THESE PARTICULAR GUYS CONSUME ALL OF THIS AND I THINK WHAT WAS CLEAR TODAY IS THEY WILL DIRECTLY QUOTE SEGMENTS FROM ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS. ALITO GIVE SPEECHES IN FRONT OF CONSERVATIVES AND I AM SURE CONSERVATIVES IN THE AUDIENCE WHO DON'T WATCH ANY OF OUR PROGRAMS. PARAGRAPHS FROM ALL OF OUR SCRIPTS I HAVE HEARD IN ALITO'S RANTS. THEY ARE BOUND TO TRUMP IN THEIR FEELINGS OF BEING PERSECUTED TO A PERSON. SO, IN TRUMP'S IMMUNITY CLAIM WHICH HAS MYRIAD LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND LAYERS TO IT, THEY FOUND COMMON CAUSE WITH THE FEELING OF PERSECUTION AND THAT IS WHAT THEY SPOKE TO TODAY. THAT IS WHERE HE FOUND A RECEPTIVE AUDIENCE. WHAT IS AMAZING TO ME IS THAT FEDERAL JUDGE CARTER IN CALIFORNIA WAS LIKE, THE FARTHER WE GET, THE MORE MURKY IT GETS. BUT IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH, TRUMP CLEARLY COMMITTED THE CRIMES AND FEDERAL JUDGES SAID MORE LIKELY THAN NOT HE COMMITTED FELONIES. HE AND THAT EASTMAN GUY AND THE FURTHER WE GET THE MORE THE PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THIS BRANCH, EVERYONE SAID THE COURTS HELD. I THINK AFTER TODAY WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THAT NOTION THAT THE COURTS HELD AND AFTER TODAY WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THE NOTION THAT THERE IS SOME COMPLICATED LEGAL THEORY. THEY FEEL HIM AND FEEL PERSECUTED LIKE HE DOES. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY DARK DAY FOR THE SUPREME COURT. I DON'T THINK THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES COMPORTED THEMSELVES WELL AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE A BACK AND FORTH I AM NOT SURE THAT THE OTHER SIDE MOVED IT BACK ENOUGH AND I THINK THIS WILL MATTER IN HISTORY, BECAUSE YOU WILL STUDY SOME OF THESE PRECEDENTS. THE LAST TIME WE WERE ALL GATHERED ON A SUPREME COURT DAY IT WAS THE COLORADO CASE AND THE REASON LEGALLY, NOT POLITICS, LEGALLY THAT EXPERTS WOULD SAY THAT WAS UNLIKELY TO GO AGAINST TRUMP WAS THAT THERE WASN'T ANY PRECEDENT FOR BOOTING HIM OFF THE BALLOT. NOW WE ARE GATHERED TODAY. THERE IS ZERO PRECEDENT FOR THIS KIND OF BLANKET IMMUNITY AND THERE IS ANTI-PRECEDENT. NIXON AND OTHERS TAKING PART IN SAND STRIKING A DEAL WITH BILL CLINTON ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OTHERWISE HE COULD BE PROSECUTED. BIPARTISAN EXAMPLES, DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS. AND AGAINST ALL OF THAT THE TEST IS, OKAY, TRUMP MIGHT NOT BENEFIT AS MUCH, BUT DO THE RULES HOLD. BASED ON THE QUESTIONING, AND I AGREE WITH YOUR CAVEAT, THE RULES DID NOT HOLD FOR MOST OF THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES. JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS A SLOW SCANDAL GOING. THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION ON ONE SIDE, BUT ALSO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OVERSEEING AN INCREASINGLY PARTISAN MAGA COURT AND HE CAN'T STAND IDLY BY. THIS IS ON HIM AS WELL. ONE MORE WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW THAT WE DID NOT GET TO UNOFFICIAL ACTS. THERE CAN BE POTENTIAL OFFICIAL ACTS THAT WOULD BE HARDER TO PROSECUTE. NONE OF THESE ARE THOSE. SO THE FACT THAT COULD HAPPEN, WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH WAR OR ORDER A DRONE STRIKE AND IT KILLS SOMEONE ABROAD -- >> OR REVIEWABLE PARDON AUTHORITY. >> OR YOU MAKE IN ORDER AND IT DOES TAKE AN AMERICAN LIFE. THIS IS NOT THAT. I AM REMINDED OF THE CLASSIC AARON SORKIN LINE FROM SOCIAL NETWORK. IF YOU INVENTED FACEBOOK YOU WOULD HAVE INVENTED FACEBOOK AND IF THESE WERE OFFICIAL ACTS THEY WOULD BE OFFICIAL ACTS AND THE REASON IS YOU POINTED OUT IN THE EXCELLENT OPENING THAT NONE OF THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WANTED TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR THEIR JOB, WHICH IS TO REVIEW THE LAW AND FIND FACTS. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO NEAR THE FACTS. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ACT TO GET PEOPLE TO STORM THE CAPITAL AND ASSASSINATE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WORKS FOR YOU AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL ACT WHEN YOU ARE DOWN BY THREE STATES AND IT HAS ALL BEEN CERTIFIED TO PUT IN A LECTOR FRAUD, WHICH WAS INDICTED AGAIN YESTERDAY WITH MORE PEOPLE. I WOULD DEFEND ANY PRESIDENT INCLUDING THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S RIGHT TO NOT HAVE WARTIME ATTACKS REVIEWED IN DOMESTIC COURT. THAT IS NOT HAPPENING AND I DON'T THINK THEY NEED TO SPIN THEIR WHEELS PRETENDING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN. THE FACTS IN FRONT OF THEM THEY WILLFULLY IGNORED IN A WAY THAT I WILL CLOSE BY SAYING, BECAUSE I DID WAIT, THAT WHAT DEPRESSED ME THE MOST WAS NOT ABOUT THE UPCOMING ELECTI
