Good evening, and welcome to a special hour devoted to the Trump indictments. I'm Melissa Murray.

I'm Andrew Weissman, and we are both.

NYU law professors, MSNBC legal analysts, and now the co authors of the New York Times best selling book, the Trump Indictments, the historic charging documents with commentary. Donald Trump is charged with 88 felony counts in four different jurisdictions. In this hour, we will cover the latest developments in Donald Trump's criminal cases, starting with Fulton County, Georgia Today.

But we'll also zoom out and reflect on whether the american justice system has so far proven whether can meet the challenges of, as we write in our book, the former president's attempt to politicize or corrupt not only our elections, but our american governance and the rule of law. January 6 committee member Jamie Raskin will.

Join us, and later in the hour, we will flip the script and ask an MSNBC anchor the important questions. Chris Hayes will join us to weigh in on the media's role in the event that voters ultimately get to render a verdict on Donald Trump before a jury does. But our breaking news tonight comes out of Fulton County, Georgia, where District Attorney Fonnie Willis has learned that she will not be disqualified from her election interference prosecution against Donald Trump. The case had been imperiled after one of Donald Trump's co defendants alleged an improper romantic relationship between Willis and Nathan Wade, who Willis had hired as a special prosecutor after a multiday hearing last month that saw both Willis and Wade take the stand to defend themselves. Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee issued his decision today in a 23 page order, and Judge McAfee had harsh words for Willis and Wade, writing that the prosecution is now, quote, encumbered by an appearance of impropriety. This appearance is not created by mere status alone, but comes because of specific conduct and impacts more than a mere nebulous public interest because it concerns a public prosecutor. Even if the romantic relationship began after Wade's initial contract in November 2021, the district attorney chose to continue supervising and paying Wade while maintaining such a relationship.

She further allowed the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation. Despite this stinging assessment of Willis's judgment, McAfee ultimately concluded, quote, that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the district attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor. The other alleged grounds for disqualification, including forensic misconduct, are also denied. However, the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team, an appearance that must be removed through the state's selection of one of two options. Nathan Wade exercised one of those options this afternoon when he tendered his resignation.

So joining us now we have Melissa Redmond. She is a former Fulton County, Georgia deputy district attorney and a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. Also with us is Amy Lee Copeland, criminal defense attorney and a former Georgia federal prosecutor. Welcome.

Thank you. Thanks for having.

Good evening, y'all.

So, Amy Lee, let's start with what should we expect next? I was reading this decision, and I was left with trying to understand, is one side or the other going to appeal? The judge seemed to invite all sorts of ethics inquiries with a litany of various places that people could go to complain about what they could allege happened here. And then there's the issue of is Fonny Willis going to stay as sort of the main supervisor of this case, or is there some option where she could give it to, let's say, a deputy to oversee? What do you think is going to happen next? Is this the last we're going to hear of this, or is this the beginning of the saga?

I think it's a little bit of both, Andrew. First of all, to appeal a decision like this in Georgia requires jumping through a number of hoops. The judge would have to issue a certificate of immediate review, and then the court of Appeals would have to agree to take the case. You saw in Wednesday's order where the judge kind of offered to issue a certificate of immediate review on the dismissal of those six counts. On that particular question, he didn't make the offer in this order. So I think it's unlikely he's going to issue this certificate. So I think it's unlikely there's going to be an appeal, although the Trump team will certainly try. It would delay the case significantly. In terms of going forward. I think the DA is simply going to roll up her sleeves and continue onward. She has a deep bench, 1011 people sign off on pleadings. It's a large office. I think there are close to 200 assistant district attorneys in the office. She has people she can look to. Whether she remains the public face of the prosecution or not is up to her, although I suspect she will. I think Rico is her special thing.

She's prosecuted these cases. She's done it successfully, and I'll think she will simply go forward. I understand that those were harsh words, but I'm sure she will heed them and just keep moving forward.

So, Melissa, these were really stinging words from Judge McAfee a true public scolding, if you will. Did Judge McAfee go beyond his remit in calling out the two prosecutors for their relationship, given that he ultimately found that there was no actual conflict of interest here?

I do believe he went a bit far, and I say that because in his ruling, the first thing he says is that it was evident that the district attorney did absolutely nothing to warrant a belief that she's prosecuting this case or pursuing this case, extending the litigation of this case for any reason other than what her fiduciary duty requires her to do, that she has no personal interest in the litigation of this case. So then, moving on, when he starts discussing the appearance of impropriety, while he finds that whatever appearance there may have been that the defendants didn't conclusively prove would not warrant a disqualification, this mythical reasonable person could believe that if he stays on the case, that perhaps the relationship could resume, perhaps there could continue to be a belief of a financial interest that he found didn't exist to warrant requiring weights removal from the case. So I think he's kind of playing both sides in the order. And I think a lot of the language was unnecessary. But ultimately, I think as harsh as the words he used to describe the unprofessional conduct as he described in the testimony, the thing that was key to me and that the defendants alleged is that she had a personal interest in the case, resulted from this relationship, and produced absolutely no evidence that that was, in fact, the case.

So I think that's what we should focus on.

Can I follow up on this? So it's true, as you say, it seems like it was a bit of a gratuitous scolding. Does that prime any jury pool in Fulton county to essentially be, to disregard, maybe discredit the things that Fonnie Willis puts before them as she goes forward to prosecute this case, has he essentially primed a jury pool to be incredulous of this DA as she goes forward?

I think that remains to be seen. There are two things that I wonder would impact that. One is how far we are from jury selection and how many things will play out before we even get to jury selection. There are many more motions to be heard, many more hearings that will take place all on YouTube for everyone to see. And then how much of this will judge McAfee allow to be presented to the jury? Having found that the defendants have not been prejudiced by any of these allegations, that there has been no personal interest in the litigation of this case, I don't see how it's relevant for any questions to be posed to the jury about what they believe the nature of this relationship was when it started. All of those things that are in dispute that he talked about in the appearance of impropriety section, I don't see how that is relevant to question the jury about. And again, we're very far from jury selection, so we'll see what changes before we get there.

So, Amy Lee, I was wondering if you agreed with that. And also this issue that Melissa raises about we're far from jury selection. What do you think? When do you think a trial could happen? I hate to put you on the spot to predict, but that's what everyone's wondering. What does this mean?

Well, sure. To answer the first question about jury selection, we're going to get a pretty idea about what the Fulton county jury pool thinks about the DA in May. She is up for reelection. She qualified, the order came out after the qualification period. And we'll see if she gets elected. I think she will. I think she has a lot of popular support within the county. Number two, how far out are we? Georgia's conflict rules look to what other cases have been set. This DA has said she needs about a 30 day Runway. And that's it. Right now, the New York case looks like it's set to go sometime in April. And the former president in the classified documents case actually affirmatively asked for a trial setting in August and September after insisting it couldn't be tried until after the, you know, there's a shot if she can jump in sometime this summer. She wanted to try it in August. If she can get that trials date set, then she can go for it. But it remains to be are, we are still seven months away from the election and that's going to be here before we know it, unfortunately.

Melissa Redmond, Amy Lee Copeland, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good night.

Coming up, a former Trump aide could be headed to prison next week. And contrary to what Donald Trump says, prosecuting, convicting, and even imprisoning former leaders accused of serious crimes is, wait for it, totally normal and just, at least in other advanced democracies. So is America just bad at this? We'll discuss with Congressman Jamie Roskin next when the Trump indictments return. Shen Saki, have you ever seen the House this dysfunctional? Rachel Matto, if winning the election is his plan to stay out of prison, what happens in that election if and when he does not win it?

Mondays back to back talk about the.

Stakes of this back and forth given.

Trump's behavior, what do you make of the statement from Hamas? Why they're doing it? What do you think it means?

Inside with Jen Psaki at 08:00 p.m., Eastern, followed by the Rachel Maddow show at 09:00 p.m., Eastern Mondays on MSNBC.

On the MSNBC podcast how to win 2024, political experts former senator Claire McCaskell and democratic strategist Jennifer Palmari examined the campaign strategies unfolding in this all important election. The focus is on the voters that are not necessarily in your corner. Now, if Democrats are going to win in 2024, we have to be able to explain what is happening at the border and what the solutions are. Search for how to win 2024 wherever you get your podcast. New episodes every Thursday.

A former Trump White House advisor is now heading to prison while Donald Trump so far has successfully delayed his own day of reckoning, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro must report to prison on Tuesday after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee. Peter Navarro appealed that decision today to the Supreme Court, whose justices, of course, include Clarence Thomas, whose wife was, wait for it at Donald Trump's rally to overturn the election on January 6.

Donald Trump repeatedly says that it is unprecedented to indict a former president. And he's right. It is unprecedented. What's also unprecedented is Trump's conduct, his alleged crimes against the people he was elected to serve. Those, too, are unprecedented, at least in the United States. As we point out in our book, recent history provides several examples of other advanced democracies that have criminally prosecuted, convicted, and even imprisoned its former leaders. France has prosecuted two former presidents and one prime minister for corruption. Last month, an appeals court upheld the guilty verdict for former french president Nicholas Sarcozi for illegally financing his 2012 presidential campaign. Sarcozi was sentenced to six months in prison, but he remains free on appeal. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was also convicted in 2012 of tax fraud, false accounting and embezzlement and sentenced to a ban on holding elective office. He also received prison time, although because of his advanced age, he was 76 at the time, he was exempted from actually being imprisoned. Former israeli prime minister Ayod Omert served 16 months of a 27 month prison sentence after being convicted of fraud, corruption and obstruction of justice. And in Argentina, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner was, as we discuss in our book, not simply convicted in December 2022 of corruption for awarding public contracts during her presidency.

She was also sentenced to six years in jail and disqualified from holding further public office. And down in Brazil, Trump's buddy hire, Bolsonaro, has also been barred from running for future office for eight years after he refused to concede his lost election and his supporters then attacked Brazil's congress. Sounds familiar.

Well, another big news today. Mike Pence, who defied Donald Trump on January 6 after he refused to concede, said today he will not endorse Trump in 2024. And that was the first question we had for Congressman Jamie Raskin when we spoke to him earlier today.

It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year. I made it clear that there were profound differences between me and President Trump on a range of issues, and not just our difference on my constitutional duties that I exercised on January the 6th, Donald Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on during our four years. And that's why I cannot in good conscience endorse Donald Trump in this campaign.

Joining us now is democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He was a member of the January 6 select committee and serves as a lead impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Welcome.

Thanks for having me.

So we have some breaking news today because the vice president, for the former president, announced that he would not be endorsing Donald Trump, which itself is kind of amazing. Maybe it's not surprising given what Cassidy Hutchinson wrote about in her book enough, which is they're calling for the president to be hanged. The president is okay with it. He doesn't want to do anything. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. He thinks Mike is a traitor. This is crazy. We need to be doing something more. So, congressman, as a lawyer and somebody who's steeped in american legal systems and sort of how we are doing, how do you think we're doing compared to other countries that have managed to hold political leaders to account? France, Argentina, Italy? We don't seem to be able to do that. And we have his own vice president saying that he's not going to endorse him and we still haven't been able to bring him to trial.

Well, we're still in the middle of the fight, obviously. And I'm hoping that a year from now, we'll be able to look back on it and acknowledge that our institutions were resilient enough and our people fought hard enough to repel the fascist menace within. But it does feel strange that Donald Trump is still floating as a candidate when his own vice president refuses to endorse him, simply because Donald Trump sent a violent insurrectionist mob chanting hang Mike Pence into the Capitol when we were trying to accomplish the peaceful transfer power. So I imagine it feels very tough and difficult when you're in the middle of one of these struggles anywhere. But, yeah, it's certainly disturbing that things are as close as they are. But Remember, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes, three, six to 232 in the electoral college. And commanding majorities of Americans reject what Trump and his cult followers have to sell, like an antichoice, anti environment, anti union program. The problem is that they've got all these antidemocratic devices that they're able to use to keep themselves in the running, like voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering of state and federal districts, corporate dark money, the filibuster, and so on.

So it's really a race between the will of the majority, which is clearly on the side of democracy and freedom in almost every case, versus their ability to manipulate with this bag of tricks they've got.

Representative Raskin, you mentioned a number of anti democratic devices that are being used right now. Some might argue that the Supreme Court itself is being used in a way that is antidemocratic. I wanted to ask you a little bit about Trump versus Anderson. The recent case where the Supreme Court invalidated the Colorado disqualification of Donald Trump as a member of the January 6 committee. You referred charges on the Insurrection act to Congress and to or from Congress to the DOJ. The special counsel didn't actually charge insurrection. Do you think that was a mistake, given that if insurrection had been charged, that would have been a federal charge based on a congressional statute designed to implement the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, and perhaps the Supreme Court would have found some room going forward to allow Congress to have spoken on the question of whether Donald Trump should be disqualified.

Well, Congress did speak. We voted in Congress to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection against the Constitution, and we took it over to the Senate. And the Senate voted 57 to 43 in the most sweeping bipartisan vote in a presidential impeachment trial in the Senate in US history. To convict. Although Trump beat the constitutional spread by ten votes, because you've got to convict by two thirds. But in any event, you do have commanding bipartisan, bicameral majorities, establishing as a legislative fact that Donald Trump did it, he participated in insurrection. So, no, I don't think there are any magic words that could have been used by the Congress, or that could have taken place that would convince this court. They clearly wanted to punt on the section three of the 14th Amendment issue. And they punted all the way down the field over to Congress, saying, it's really up to Congress to decide. Although every other part of the 14th Amendment is self executing, the Equal Protection clause itself in section one is self executing. If the government violates your equal protection rights, you can just go to court and sue. You don't need to be suing under a statute that's been passed by Congress under section five.

And so we just said it's the same thing under section three. It is a clear constitutional directive that if you've violated your oath of office by engaging in insurrection or rebellion, you can never hold office again. And yet, this court of textualists and originalists was staring right at the text. It understood the undisputed original meaning and purposes of section three of the 14th Amendment. And they simply said, oh, there's nothing they can do. There's nothing the states can do. Congress has to act, knowing that right now the Republic can still retain this slender majority, but still a majority in the House. And so Mike Johnson's not going to be interested in doing anything. But still, we've got to legislate, to put a mechanism in place so we can deal with office holders who become insurrectionists and try to overthrow our system of government.

Congressman, speaking of dealing with people who are sort of enablers and seeking to overthrow our system of government, you mentioned that there was a lot of people who joined you in terms of finding there was an insurrection. But day in and day out, what is it like to be serving with people who were not in that camp who are supporting and enabling the. Not counting votes and are enabling, what's going on now? One, how does it feel? And two, is there anything that can be done within either parts of Congress to deal with that problem? People who are taking an oath of office but don't seem to be complying with it?

Yeah, it's like we've been watching our GOP colleagues sleepwalking into fascism, and it's just step by step, they accepted unacceptable and intolerable things, beginning with things like, oh, you can grab women by their private parts, or calling third world countries blank hole countries or the muslim ban. And then each step, they say, well, I'll go along with this, I'll go along with that. And then one day, they're just like people waking up on the basement floor of a religious cult, asking how they got there. It's depressing. I mean, I had a lot more republican friends before. A lot of the ones who did not want to go along with the authoritarianism and the Putin worship and being in league with autocrats got out and they left. And so it's really just a handful left who I feel I can engage with in a common political enterprise because a lot of them are willing to go with Donald Trump in trying to attack the constitutional order from the outside. So that's why I feel like with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzeger and Mitt Romney, the ones who are willing to stand up for the constitution, we have to hold close to those people, because when you look at the history of fascism, it's very hard to beat a fascist or authoritarian movement with one political party.

You need to unite people across the political spectrum. So we have to be acting in concert as much as we can with the Lincoln project and the moderate Republicans, the independents who've had enough. And every day I hear from people like that. And so we just have to keep building our ranks and not being sectarian in how we approach this.

Congressman, thank you so much for joining us and for your words.

I appreciate it. Great being with you guys.

Coming up, big news today regarding Donald Trump's trial date for his first criminal trial in Manhattan. That's next when the Trump indictment continues.

There comes a point when yesterday's words become today's consequences. MSNBC Films presents canceled, a story that explores how sometimes comments go too far and how reactions can go even further.

All of a sudden, I'm getting attacked by my community.

Canceled the story of cancel culture, part of the turning Point documentary series from executive producer Trevor Noah. Sunday, April 7, at 09:00 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC. What if millions of black Americans had been compensated for slavery? Join me, Tremaine Lee, as I explore the untold story of one of the only black Americans who ever was. I talk to his descendants and discuss how reparations forever change their family's trajectory. And imagine a reality where reparations are paid to the rest of black America. Into America presents uncounted millions the power of reparations, a black history month series. All episodes available now.

Welcome back to our special hour on the Trump indictments. Well, Monday, March 25, was supposed to be the first day of jurisdiction in Donald Trump's criminal trial for business fraud related to his efforts to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election.

But today, Judge Juan Rachan has agreed to delay the start of the trial for 30 days, postponing it until mid April after it was revealed that the Southern District of New York had failed to produce tens of thousands of pages of documents to the defense. All of those documents have now been turned over and Judge Merchan has set a hearing on these discovery issues for March 25. And in doing so, he said, quote, the court will set the new trial date if necessary when it rules on the defendant's motion. Following the hearing, of course, the Trump lawyers said in their filing today that the delay of the trial should not, quote, obscure the need to dismiss the indictment as a whole. Also today, Manhattan prosecutors asked Judge merchant to deny Trump's motion to delay the trial until after the United States Supreme Court rules on immunity. As they say, quote, defendant's immunity argument is untimely and can be rejected at this stage. On that basis alone, defendant has provided no valid reason for waiting until a mere two and a half weeks before trial to raise this immunity argument when he has long been aware of the defense, end quote.

Andrew, I have so many questions. First of all, what on earth is going on in the southern district of New York? How long does it take you to produce documents in an actual criminal trial?

What is going on? That's like the polite version of what.

You know what I actually thinking?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

And I'm pretty sure that Alvin Bragg and Damon Williams had that conversation. So let me just describe first the legal issue that is before Judge Mershan, why he is going to have a hearing on the 25th, the day that we're going to have a trial, he is going to have a hearing. There is a relatively new law in New York state, and it requires the prosecutors to turn over all of these defense documents in a very timely way. It's very pro defense, but in a good way. And there's a sanction if the DA does not do that. And that can include dismissing the case.

So this trial, or, I'm sorry, this hearing is going to be about whether or not that happened and whether this case should be dismissed. And it's likely to be dismissed if it's determined that it's Bragg's fault. But it doesn't seem like it's Bragg's fault.

Yeah, so I wouldn't say it is likely. But step number one is, is there anything that's Bragg's fault? And that is where even though there's going to be this discussion of like, this first tranche of documents, this second tranche of documents, this third tranche of.

Documents, a lot of tranches.

Yeah, well, it's going to be tranche warfare.

Stop.

Okay, stop. But what is going to happen is the DA, as he has written so far, is he is saying he asked for these documents from the southern district of New York, wait for it, over a year ago. So the thing that I cannot answer is, what in God's green earth is happening? So that is really the issue. Know, whose fault is, you know, is there a legal issue here where the defense can capitalize on it? I doubt that is the case, but the southern District of New York may look very bad at the end of this. So I have a question for you.

Oh, do you?

I do.

Okay.

So it had to do with the immunity question that you raised.

Also a delayed situation.

Exactly. And it also involves me saying, what in God's green earth is happening? Which is, I don't understand the delay in the Supreme Court. So you have the government saying, I want this to be decided quickly. The public has a right to a speedy trial. I want to get to trial and say that one way or the other, there's a decision. You would think that if Donald Trump is saying, I'm immune, I shouldn't suffer the appropriate of a criminal case. I don't want to have a gag order, that he would want this decided on that issue, not the trial date, but on the immunity issue, quickly. But that's not what's happening. So what's going on with your Supreme Court?

So the question is, why is the Supreme Court moving at a glacial pace? And to answer it, I have brought in some reserves. So joining us now are my extraordinary co hosts on the strict scrutiny podcast, University of Michigan law professor Leah Lippman and University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. Welcome, ladies. Leah, I'm going to go straight to you. What on earth is going on with your boys at one first street?

Well, I think they are the best co counsel that Donald Trump's lawyers have ever had because they have just given him what he wants most, which is to delay the trial. What they did is they sat on his petition for Sir Sharari and application to stay the DC circuit's decision that had denied him immunity for almost two weeks before deciding that they were going.

To take up the case.

Then they scheduled the case for two months after that, but not until the very end of the term, at the end of April. So that has just added on a ton of time to the delay. And they are again giving him what he wants, which is risking no trial before the election.

I have a question for Kate then. Were you surprised at all that there wasn't some sort of dissent or concurrence or note or some signal from any of the justices who may have been less sympathetic to that stance that Leah has set out, that some signal, or do you think maybe they bartered that for the schedule that we currently have?

I do think that the April 25 hearing date is probably the result of compromise and negotiation that was happening behind the scenes. I mean, I am sure that some of the justices were appalled at the date end of April, 2 months after the decision to act on this application and really getting up against impossibility when it comes to pretrial proceedings and then an actual trial. The justices are acutely aware of what it takes to get a case to trial when the case has already been on hold since December. So I'm sure there was some unhappiness, but I have to imagine that there were some justices that wanted to delay even further, maybe into next term, which was what Trump was asking for. And so this did feel like a compromise. And it could still be if the justices rule quickly after the April 25 arguments, and if they do, we could still be on track for a trial. But that is the big question, and obviously, we won't know until they hear the case argued.

So, Kate, can I follow up with that? There's another case that's being argued the same week as the immunity question, and it's going to be argued, I believe, on Monday, and it's Fisher versus United States. And there it's a case brought by a rank and file January 6 defendant who argues that the statute under which he was charged was not intended to be used in a situation like January 6. And incidentally, this is the same statute that Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump under in the January 6 election interference case. Is there a relationship or is part of the explanation for why the court has delayed this to April 25, the fact that they at least want to hear arguments on the Fisher case first?

Potentially. And it's right that that is the same statute that is at issue in a couple of the charges that Jack Smith brought against Trump for the January 6 events. So they're not unrelated. And in theory, if the court finds that there is a fatal flaw in the way those charges were brought in that case and in the Trump case as well, then those charges fall away. But it doesn't completely eliminate the case against Donald Trump. So I think either way, they have to now, having taken it up, answer the immunity question, and to my mind, it's not a hard question. This argument for absolute immunity is baseless. It doesn't have any support in the court's precedents or in constitutional structure or theory, and I expect ultimately they'll reject it. But of course, time is everything here. And if they reject it at the end of June, I'm not sure we can still get to a trial by election day.

Leah, do you think it's possible that instead of the sort of up or down decision, that they might do what they did in a sort of related case in the DC circuit, which is send it back to Judge Chuck and for fact finding about what is an official act and what is not an official act, which, to kate's point, would make it absolutely clear that this is never going to trial before the election.

That's a very real possibility. I mean, when the DC circuit issued their decision, they basically assumed, well, even assuming that this falls under the definition of official act as broad that it is, the immunity wouldn't cover this. But it's possible that the Supreme Court would say, well, actually, no, that's wrong. There is this definition of official immunity that grants a precedent immunity. But in order to figure out whether the indictments cover that, you, court need to actually make some additional findings to determine whether Trump's conduct actually falls within that definition. In which case that adds an additional layer of briefing to the pretrial motions that Judge Chuckin had already contemplated would possibly take 80 days. And so that makes a trial before the election, I think, really impossible.

Really grim stuff. Leah Lippman and Kate Shaw, the best ladies in the business and my strict scrutiny podcast co hosts, thank you so much for joining us.

Coming up, it is possible that the american voters might render a judgment on Donald Trump's most serious criminal charges before any jury has the chance to in 2024. That's next, when the Trump indictments returns, the day the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, therefore delaying the start of Trump's criminal trial for his alleged crimes to overturn the 2020 election. Former attorney general Eric Holder posted, there is no cavalry coming, no miracle, no saviors. In the end, we, the american people, not any of our institutions, have to save our democracy by voting in defense of that democracy this fall. We are the cavalry. The responsibility is ours.

General Holder may prove prescient on this. All of the charges against Donald Trump are unlikely to be resolved in a court of law. Indeed, many of them are unlikely to even get to trial. Ultimately, it will be left to the individual voter to make a decision about these disputed facts when they go into the booth to cast their ballots. We're lawyers, so we're often focused on what happens inside the courtroom. And often judges and lawyers go to great lengths to keep what's going on in public from infecting what's happening in the courtroom. But here it may be the case that what might have happened in a courtroom will ultimately shape how the public views these allegations, the defendant and his candidacy. Which means that the media will play a huge role in how the public receives the information contained in these indictments and processes it in the lead up to the election. So how should the media approach that task? Well, tonight we thought we would flip the script. Usually we're in the guest chair fielding legal questions from MSNBC anchors, but tonight, the tables have turned.

Thank God.

Yes, we will be talking to an MSNBC anchor about how they plan to approach these issues.

Joining us now is Chris Hayes, host of all in with Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Hi, Chris. It's fun to be here. So, as Melissa said, when I was thinking about my prior life as a trial lawyer, I was on these high profile matters where what we were focused on is how to deal with what was going on outside the courtroom and not letting that affect what is happening inside the courtroom. And that's what judges do when they're trying to figure out how do you screen out jurors who can't be fair. And it struck me we're in the reverse situation now. And one question we had for you is, are we focused too much on trials and what is happening in the courtroom? And is that sort of too myopic?

No, I don't think it is. In fact, I would like to give you a more Pollyannash view of this, but I actually think there's no replacement for a trial. So I think that the trial, as a matter of sort of finding a fact and law in the public domain as judged under the constitutional's due process protections in front of a jury of one's peers is really important in a category all its own that cannot be replicated or substituted by the press. And I honestly think that's in some ways, there's a certain amount of information that the press can't provide that only a trial can. And I mean this in both directions, and I keep saying this, but I truly mean it, which is if a jury were to acquit Donald Trump of these crimes, whichever they are, that's incredibly significant information for a voting public. Same goes for conviction. But in both cases, that bit of information can't be replicated by the media.

It just can't.

I completely agree with you that a jury trial is probably the best mechanism we have for resolving disputed questions of fact. But I think it's very unlikely we are going to get to a jury trial in at least three of these cases, that's for sure. So given the kind of misinformation and disinformation with which our current political milieu is plagued, how are we going to mediate these different levels of facts, disputed facts, so that when the voter does go to the voting booth that they're able to make an informed decision? Like, how will the media approach that and sort of sift through all of the disinformation?

I don't know. I mean, the media is a hard thing to talk about right now because it's as fractured as I think I've experienced it in my adult life. I think the information environment in the year 2024 is as almost as opaque as it's ever been, partly because of how many people are getting news from algorithms that aren't transparent.

Right.

Like Rush Limbaugh. Right. Rush Limbaugh was on the air forever. Anyone could just go and figure out what Rush Limbaugh was saying and how many people were listening. No one knows how many people are watching a given video. Right. On a TikTok or on reels. For me, here's the most important thing and the real problem. The source of the word news is new. And old things fade in memory. And without the focusing event of a trial, the things that he did are old.

Yeah.

And yet what the evidence shows in public opinion data is that people's memory of that is fading. And it is important to remind people of the COVID response of January 6. Everything happened during that tumultuous year of 2020. And I worry that the news will be chasing new things as opposed to doing, I think, its civic duty to remind people what actually did happen.

It just seems so od that the mechanism that we have right now that we're sort of hoping will break through and get people to think and focus is a criminal trial. Because what I used to do is this is about proof beyond a reasonable doubt about whether someone could be locked up. This is a very different issue about how do you get facts out there in a debate about facts and what somebody did and what really happened? For whether someone should have the privilege of running for office. Yes.

You're saying it should be a different standard.

Yes.

Should you be locked up and should you be president? Shouldn't be the same standard, right?

Yeah, that's where I'm going.

Yeah. Someone should be able to say, like, I'm not going to vote for you for president. I'm not sure if I could convict you in a court of law, but.

I suspect you've done enough bad preponderance of the evidence standard that we're.

Yes. Or even, I mean, people, the voters can make up their mind however they want. But yes, it is strange that that is the situation we find ourselves in, particularly when you go back and you look at the January 6 committee's report, right, where a lot of this really was through a quite detailed process brought forth to the public in a way that wasn't just news reports and it wasn't quite a full trial, but it was an official proceeding with sworn testimony that said, end discovery and all that stuff that said, hey, look, this is the story.

So to point, like, there are two different questions. Like, should Donald Trump lose his liberty, or should Donald Trump lose an election? Is it really the job of the public to sift through the first question and instead, should we have allowed the public just really focus on the second one by maybe having an actual impeachment trial? That made sense. That was a real proceeding where we didn't have this partisan factions, but we actually got to the meat of an impeachment trial and made a decision about whether or not this person should serve in office.

I mean, I thought the impeachment trial, fast as it was, presented a pretty good case for the fact that he incited an insurrection against the US and got more bipartisan votes than any impeachment trial in history. I think that should he be locked up or deprived of his liberty is a fairly important signaling aspect in a political question.

And.

I think there's a sense you've seen this with Senator Robert Hernandez, you've seen it with others, right? Where people can be indicted and still serve an office and do a lot of things. A conviction means something different to a public. It just does. And I don't think it's crazy that.

That would be the case.

Well, that's a lot for us to think about and lots for the media to do going forward. Thank you so much, Chris Hayes, for joining us tonight.

Up next, we have something to say about Donald Trump and defendants'rights. Yes, you heard that correctly. We're going to make the case for defendant Trump. That's next. A final thought. Donald Trump is charged with historic crimes and he's allowed to defend himself vigorously with competent counsel and all of the tools that are afforded to him. That is the rights that our constitution gives him and all of us, the Trump defense, the strategy to delay, to try and seek a stay to appeal, that's something that he is entitled to try to do. That is a right that he has. These are charges that he can make in court, and that is a process that our system affords him and all of us.

Nevertheless, the fact of these incessant delays suggests a defendant who maybe isn't actually that interested in having his day in court. The question of immunity is instructive on this. The United States Supreme Court has slated oral arguments on the immunity question for the end of April. And as we've discussed, we don't actually know when they will render a decision. That should be a concern for all of us. Most importantly, it should be a concern for defendant Trump. Any defendant who has actually raised a defense of immunity should want to know if he will prevail on that defense, if he is actually immunized from criminal liability, even in circumstances like this one, where the questions are unprecedented and are questions of first impression. The fact that the Supreme Court and Donald Trump see no problem with this significant delay, that is the real question. But please don't take our word for it.

So it's actually imperative, I think, that the public read the indictments for themselves, that Donald Trump seems in no hurry, as Melissa said, to respond to. And we hope that you will take the time to consider the charges against Donald Trump and make up your own mind. What we try to do in the book, in our commentary and insider tips in a cast of characters, is make this as easily digestible and as understandable as possible for lawyers and non lawyers alike. We understand that there are various rationales for the decisions that were made by prosecutors, and we try to reveal those in this book.

And again, as part of that educative mission, we've tried in this hour to explain some of those choices and the implications for all of these delays. And we are so grateful to all of you for joining us for this hour long special. We really appreciate it. I'm Melissa Murray.

I'm Andrew Weissman. Good night. Hey, it's Chris Hayes.

This week on my podcast, why is this happening? Author and philosopher Judith Butler on their new book, who's Afraid of Gender?

The question of gender is fundamentally linked with the future of our democratic world. And we would be, I think, making a mistake by imagining that it's simply identity politics or that it's fragmenting the left or that it's an artificial notion. It is not.

That's this week on why is this happening? Search for why is this happening? Wherever you're listening right now and subscribe.