♪♪ >>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH THE BREAKING NEWS FROM THE SUPREME COURT. THE 6-3 CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY HAS DECIDED TO HEAR THE CASE OF TRUMP VERSUS THE UNITED STATES ON WHETHER DONALD TRUMP CAN CLAIM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY OVER HIS CRIMINAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE CHARGES. NOW, I WILL REMIND YOU, THE COURT COULD HAVE JUST AFFIRMED THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT'S RULING THAT, NO, A PRESIDENTIAL DOES NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE DECISION TONIGHT. AND WHILE HEARING THE CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ULTIMATELY THEY WILL RULE IN TRUMP'S FAVOR, THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND JUST GAVE TRUMP SOMETHING THAT HE HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVELY FIGHTING FOR, TIME. THE ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE HAVE BEEN SET FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 22nd, NEARLY TWO MONTHS FROM NOW. WHY SO MUCH TIME? AND AFTER THAT, EVEN IN A BEST CASE SCENARIO, IT WILL BE A FEW WEEKS BEFORE A DECISION COMES DOWN. THAT IS THE BEST CASE CONSIDERING WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST SOME OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO DON'T AGREE WITH THE EARLIER RULINGS. OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD NOT BE HEARING THE CASE. AND IF THE COURT DOES DECIDE TO AFFIRM THE EARLIER RULING, AS THEY SHOULD, AND HAND THE CASE BACK TO DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TANYA CHUTKAN, SHE WOULD NEED A FEW MONTHS TO GET THE CASE BACK ON TRACK AND A TRIAL. THAT WOULD TAKE US PAST JULY WHEN DONALD TRUMP IS EXPECTED TO BECOME THE PARTY'S NOMINEE. AND AT THAT POINT, WHAT WILL THE DOJ AND ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND DECIDE TO DO. WILL THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TRIAL THAT WOULD HAVE TO GET UNDER WAY DURING THE HEAT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION? OR WOULD THEY ALLOW TRUMP TO YET AGAIN EVADE ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? JOINING ME NOW IS A POWER HOUSE LEGAL PANEL ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL AND FORMER SENIOR MEMBER OF THE MUELLER PROBE. MELISSA MURRAY, LAW PROFESSOR AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. MAYA WILY, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY AND PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND PAUL BUTLER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. A POWER HOUSE PANEL INDEED. I'M GOING TO GO TO THOSE WHO ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME, ANDREW. I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU. AND I AM -- TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, A BIT DEJECTED BY THIS RULING BECAUSE I'M NOT A LAWYER. I'M A NON-LAWYER ON THIS PANEL. BUT I READ THE DISTRICT COURT RULING. AND IT SEEMED VERY THOROUGH. I HAD YOU ON. I HAD ALL OF YOU ALL ON. AND I THINK WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS THOROUGH AND THAT IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY NEED THE SUPREME COURT TO JUMP IN. BUT NOW THEY HAVE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THEY NEED UNTIL APRIL TO ACTUALLY HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR US? >> I THINK THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO THINK ABOUT IT. ONE IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISION ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. AND THE OTHER IS THE CLOCK, THE TIMELINE. AS YOU POINTED OUT, WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSTANCE, IT IS HARD TO FIND SOMEBODY OTHER THAN ONE OF TRUMP'S DEFENSE COUNSEL WHO IS ACTUALLY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN KILL SOMEBODY BY ORDERING S.E.A.L. TEAM 6 TO KILL A POLITICAL ADVERSARY AND THAT IS OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE PRESIDENT THAT ARE IMMUNE. AND SO, THERE'S VERY LITTLE SUBSTANCE. AND YOU HAVE TWO REALLY SPECTACULAR DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS. SO THEN YOU DEAL WITH THE TIMELINE AND THIS ISSUE OF DOES THE SUPREME COURT SOMEHOW THINK IT NEEDS TO GIVE SORT OF THE STAMP OF APPROVAL, THAT SHOWS THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND, IT SHOULD WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE. THERE IS A LOT TONIGHT TO BE PESSIMISTIC ABOUT. IF THE SUPREME COURT THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THIS CASE DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, IF YOU REMEMBER, JACK SMITH HAD ASKED THE COURT TO TAKE THE CASE DIRECTLY, TO JUMP OVER THE COURT OF APPEALS. AND THEY SAID, NO. IT SHOULD GO IN THE NORMAL ORDER. THE OTHER THING THEY DID IS THEY COULD HAVE SAID -- THEY COULD HAVE RULED ON THIS QUICKER. I MEAN, IT TOOK THEM TWO WEEKS TO DECIDE JUST THIS. AND THEN JOY, TO YOUR NOTE, IS THAT THEY HAVE SCHEDULED THIS IN A CERTAIN WAY, IN AN EXPEDITED FASHION BUT NOT ALL THAT EXPEDITED COMPARED TO BUSH V. GORE. THIS IS TWO MONTHS. I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND, THIS CASE HAS BEEN FULLY BRIEFED. THERE ARE -- IT WAS BRIEFED AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL. IT WAS BRIEFED AT THE COURT OF APPEALS LEVEL. AND IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT IS THINKING, OH, YOU KNOW I HADN'T REALLY BEEN FOLLOWING THE NEWS. I HADN'T REALLY READ ALL THESE CASES. THIS IS ONE WHERE THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE COURT FROM SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS NEXT WEEK OR TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. SO, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF REASONS TO BE VERY PESSIMISTIC. NOT MAYBE SO MUCH ABOUT THE ULTIMATE DECISION, BUT THE ULTIMATE DECISION IS ALMOST IRRELEVANT BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY WERE TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT IS NOT IMMUNE BY DELAYING IT SO MUCH, THEY ARE DE FACTO SAYING THAT THIS FORMER PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE. AND THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY HAVING A SORT OF DE FACTO VETO ON THE GRAND JURY PROCESS AND THE RULE OF LAW BY JUST SITTING ON THE CASE IN THE WAY THEY HAVE. BUT I THINK I'VE NOW MONOPOLIZED THIS REALLY STELLAR PANEL TOO MUCH. >> NO, YOU HAVE NOT. I THINK YOUR POINTS WERE VERY WELL MADE AND IMPORTANT TO MAKE. MELISSA, YOU DID CLERK FOR THE GREAT SONIA SOTOMAYOR. MICHAEL LUDIC WAS ON WITH NICOLE WALLACE EARLIER AND HE SAID SOMETHING I THINK SEEMS TRUE AND CHILLING. HE SAID THAT FOR THEM TO HAVE TAKEN THIS CASE AT ALL MEANS THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THAT BODY, OF THOSE NINE, WHO ACTUALLY THINK THAT DONALD TRUMP DOES HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, THAT THERE'S A QUESTION. IT IS NOT A UNANIMOUS, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY HAVE SORT OF ALREADY CONFERRED AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT, YEAH, HE DOES, HE DOES HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. >> THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO READ THIS JOY. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT ANDREW SAID. THIS CASE HAS BEEN FULLY BRIEFED. BOTH AT THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL, D.C. CIRCUIT COURT LEVEL AND FULLY BELIEVED SINCE FEBRUARY 15th, TWO WEEKS AGO. THEY HAD AMPLE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS AND THE DECISION BELOW AT THE D.C. COURT, WAS VERY CAREFUL, VERY METHODICAL AND WENT THROUGH ALL OF TRUMP'S ARGUMENTS MANY WERE SPECIOUS TO THE POINT OF BEING STUPID. AND THEY DEALT WITH THEM FAIRLY. AND GAVE THEM MORE ATTENTION AND FRANKLY THEY DESERVE. BUT HERE WE ARE. THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO HEAR THIS CASE ON APRIL 22nd. AGAIN, MONTHS FROM NOW. THIS IS AS ANDREW SAYS, A VICTORY FOR DONALD TRUMP, BECAUSE IT IS A DELAY, A SIGNIFICANT DELAY THAT WILL MAKE IT MUCH HARDER FOR THIS CASE TO GO TO TRIAL. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? AND WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE INTERNAL WORKINGS OF THE COURT? I THINK THAT'S HARDER TO SAY. BUT, SURELY WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT WHO ARE PERHAPS MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE POSITION THAT A FORMER OFFICE, ONCE HE IS OUT OF OFFICE, ENJOYS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ACTS HE TOOK DURING THE PRESIDENCY AND THEY WANT TO HEAR THAT QUESTION. WHAT ANDREW SAID ABOUT THE D.C. COURT, JUDGE FLORENCE PAN COULD A PRESIDENT ORDER S.E.A.L. TEAM 6 TO ASSASSINATE A POLITICAL RIVAL AND ENJOY ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND THE LAWYER HEDGED. I WONDER IF THAT WAS A KIND OF POISON PILL THAT GALVANIZED BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT FLANKS OF THIS COURT THAT THE RIGHT, YES, WE WILL DEFINITELY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND THE LEFT, WE MUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND MAKE CLEAR THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND IN THAT WAY THAT REALLY DEVASTATING HYPOTHETICAL MAY HAVE SET THE STAGE FOR MAKING SURE THE COURT TOOK THIS UP. I SAID THAT WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST BRIEFED AND DECIDED BY THE D.C. CIRCUIT THAT I THOUGHT THAT HYPOTHETICAL MEANT THAT THIS COULD WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT IF ONLY TO CONFIRM THAT WAS NOT THE CASE AND HERE WE ARE. >> AND HERE WE ARE. LET ME COME TO THE TABLE. I'LL START WITH YOU, PAUL. THE JUDGE TONYA CHUTKAN LAID OUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO PUT THIS CASE THROUGH, TO GIVE DONALD TRUMP AND JACK SMITH BOTH ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE 88 DAYS OF PREPARATION FOR A TRIAL THAT COULD LAST FOUR MONTHS, THREE MONTHS. WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT A TIMELINE THAT TAKES US WAY PAST THE JULY CONVENTION, RIGHT UP TO THE ELECTION. SOMETHING LIKE OCTOBER. THAT'S WHERE WE STAND. >> IF IT IS OCTOBER, THE TRIAL COULD START THEN. IT WOULD RUN THROUGH THE ELECTION. BUT NOT THROUGH INAUGURATION DAY. THAT'S OUR BEST HOPE, JOY. OUR NATION HAS TO TURN ITS AFRAID EYES TO JUDGE CHUTKAN. SHE SAID THAT SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT A DEFENDANT'S DAY JOB. SHE SAYS THAT A CRIMINAL TRIAL MUST TAKE PRECEDENT. AND SO, HOWEVER LATE IT IS, I'M HOPING BASED ON HER BELIEF IN THE SYSTEM, THE RULE OF LAW, AND THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW, THAT IF THE COURT ACTUALLY ALLOWS THIS CASE TO GO
