including a husband. former president jimmy carter. and that is tonight's read out. inside with jen psaki starts now. i starts now. >> today something pretty extraordinary happened in the courtroom here in washington. lawyers for donald trump and lawyers from the special counsel's office -- former president should and should not be allowed to say what the criminal case against. the focus of this hearing was the limited gag order on trump. but when you take a step back, you can see that it was about much more than that. it was about how far the first amendment really should go. and how it should be applied to a former president who is also a criminal defendant, who is also a candidate for the presidency once again. the leading one at that. former general counselor for the arts stephensburg handled some very novel legal cases in his day. but never won like this. i am going to ask him all about it in just a moment. and as a new concerns about trump's ability to incite violence continue to surface, former trump white house aide cassidy houston will show -- it here in studio as well. but we do want to start tonight in that federal appeals court here in washington. -- we all listen for two hours over the debate -- geico.com. the key word there is listen. we were hearing everything with our own ears, incredibly important moment of transparency. deeply serves the public interest. especially in a case like. this with a defendant like trump. when misinformation can spread so rapidly and so easily, often by hand. at its core, today was a class dream to values. the right of a candidate to exercise free speech and the read of a judge to ensure justice. listen to this special counsel office argue a gag order here is necessary to protect witnesses and the jury a trial. >> -- there's a causal link between that person and receiving harassment, threats, and intimidation. >> now listen to trump's lawyer make his case against it. >> a gag order in this case installs a single federal district judge as a filter for core political speech, between the leading presidential candidate and virtually every american voter in the united states at the very height of a presidential campaign. the order is unprecedented, and it sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech. >> now, let's remember, as it stands right now, this is already a very narrow gag order. trump is still allowed to criticize the justice department, president biden, we have seen him do a lot of that. and even the judge overseeing this, case judge tanya chutkan. he could say. law he's allowed to maintain that the prosecution itself was a partisan retaliation against. and one of his favorite talking points. he just could not target prosecutors, potential witnesses, or court employees. so really he is still allowed to say quite a bit about this case. quite a bit about a lot of things. and in that way, this gag order is kind of like the first amendment itself. it protects the speech but includes limitations. -- you can't scream fire in a crowd of, you can incite violence action like -- you can't just go out there and tell defamatory lies. there is certain exceptions, and really for good reason. because words are powerful, words carry enormous weight. of course they have an impact. especially when you are a former president. now, trump lawyers tried to argue today that there hasn't been proof linking trump's rhetoric to the violent acts of others. but as one of the judges pointed out, the purpose of a gag order is to actually print those actions before they happen. >> as this trial approaches, the atmosphere is going to be increasingly tense. why does the district court have to wait and see and wait for the threats to come? rather than taking reasonable action in advance? >> now we all know trump has a long history of violent rhetoric, unfortunately i haven't intimating misses publicly. not to mention a pattern of lashing out a judges and juries. just trying to do their job. and that's what they are trying to do here. i think we have a pretty good sense of what he will say in the future. we have seen the real impact of his words as well. so what are we waiting for? for someone to be seriously hurt? for the jury to be tainted? or if we were witness to found out of fear of being punished. yes, it is true that no presidential candidate has dealt with these restrictions before, that's true historically. located especially envelope like this before other. this was a nonresident hearing in middleton on president's political and legal moments. all because of the unprecedented behavior of donald trump. starting us off tonight as former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst chuck rosenberg. chuck, thank you so much for joining me this evening as we are all trying to make sense of this. so, i just wanted to, start you listened to the hearings, what was your biggest take away from it? >> it's exactly what he said, this is a clash of core values. the first amendment on one hand, which is not absolutely, of course, and it could not be, and the imperative that the judge do everything in her power to ensure a fair trial. and these two things may be in conflict because of mr. trump's rhetoric. >> it was a line of questioning today on what trump is allowed to say, including about witnesses like mark milley and mike pence, who were public figures and that was selective one of the points of discussion. what did you make of that discussion today? >> mr. million mister pence are all witnesses. let me say a word about that. i was a prosecutor for a long time, jen. prosecutors are important, defense attorneys are important, judges are important. but when you are talking about a trial that is very outscore, it's hard, the two most important groups of people, the jurors and the witnesses. witnesses are unique to a case. if a judge gets sick, another judge can take the bench. if a prosecutor gets, like another prosecutor can take her place. that is not true with witnesses. so if a judge is going to protect anything in the trial, it has to be the witnesses. and we know that mr. trump's words have consequences. because the people he has singled out for criticism have been threatened. does that to sway the witness from testifying? does he or she changed their testimony because of it? if you are going to protect anything, jen, protect the witness. >> this is such an interesting and important, point as a non lawyer. that is obviously not violence than someone acting on, it that's scary and everyone wants to prevent that. but it's also about not having witnesses not participate or drop out, or change what they do. right? that's a big part of this? >> that's exactly right. without witnesses you literally don't have a trial. the folks who saw, something heard something, read something, you know, those are the people who are court to a trial. and while you are, right the judge's original case, the one that is currently stated, which is sort of off trending on the side was narrow. perhaps a court of appeals narrows. but i cannot imagine that they are going to permit mr. trump to attack witnesses. again, the very core, the very fabric of a trial or the men and women who take the stand, put their hand in the air, and promised to tell the truth. without them, you don't have a justice system. >> so it sounds like you are just saying that you think they may narrow it, and what would that look like exactly? >> while it will probably look a lot like the gag order that you have now. the one that's on appeal. except that, perhaps, you permit mr. trump to criticize the prosecutors. i was a prosecutor, i don't like being criticize. i certainly don't like being threatened. but i can live with it. but i could not abide anyone threatening one-way witnesses. that is a step too far. so if you ask for lawyers to read a gag order, each one might do it a little differently. and now you have had four judges weigh in on it, it may look a little bit different. but you need one in this case, because a judge has not just the authority to ensure a fair trial, but the obligation to ensure a fair trial. and it seems unfortunately in this case that we are going to ensure a fair trial, the only ways to -- what mr. trump says in advance. >> and what could, i mean, the court the question, is what could the consequences be. because they have behaviors and really did change. how do they consider that? >> great question, let's say we get over the drafting issue with what the gag order looks like. and then the judge has to actually enforce it. hard to believe that mr. trump will radically a change his behavior. so assume, jen, that he continues to threaten witnesses. right? then what does the judge do? if she has a couple of options. great? she could hold him in civil contempt, she could seek to have him held in criminal contempt, but that requires a whole different and more complicated proceeding. if it's only civil contempt, which is an effort to get someone to comply with an order. she could referendum, she could find him. but it is going to be very hard, once we get past this, hurdle and we will, to enforce the order. >> that is the big question, chuck rosenberg, thank you so much as always. happy thanksgiving to you as well. from warren today's hearing a want to bring in ben ginsburg. he is the former general counsel for the republican national committee, and he testified before the house committee investigating january 6th. so ben, thank you again for joining me this evening. i want to start, this gag order has been kind of on again and off again for more than a month, we have all been kind of watching it, trying to follow it closely. where do you think, because you've been watching, this the court will draw the line between free speech and something that could compromise the proceeding as we have just been talking about -- >> they'll be free speech, there will be no bullying, devil is in the details. so my guess is, what we are gonna see or up until the trial actually starts's orders given, prosecutors or trump lawyers going to court to try and demand it. and it will be a back and forth. and as you can shop just discussed, the actual enforcement of a violation of a gag order is really, really difficult. >> that seems to be a very difficult part of it. it sounds like what you are saying is that we are not looking at an end, even when there is a ruling here. but there is going to be a lot of back and forth over the next couple of months. is that what we should expect? >> yeah, i think it is. on the subject of the gag order. i mean, donald trump as obviously blended in his political campaign with his trial. i think he's approaching the trials, this may be his best form for his politics, putting aside the wisdom of that judge means that he is going to say things that may not line up with everybody's interpretation of what a gag order is. so you will have a lot of these hearings back and forth. >> yeah, when we ask you about the wisdom of the judgment, because it seems like outside of the courtroom, maybe sometimes even inside the courtroom, the arguments being made by trump and his team is that this is good for them. that this is helping them politically. do you agree with that? >> i think it is true for the primaries, it's obviously not hurting him at all, and really helping him in the primaries. but the general election is going to be different. the general election, assuming that both parties can drive their bases out. it will come down to maybe a couple of hundred thousand swing voters in florida, six, maybe seven states. those swing voters are all suburban, moderate, republicans. and the harshness of the rhetoric is, i think, playing differently on the years of suburban parents than it does with deep republican base in the primaries. >> it's certainly something, in such a different electorate to your point. back to what happened in the courtroom today. the judge is not only pressed trump's lawyer, but also the special counsel's office on the scope of the order. they were kind of tough on both as i was listening. this exchange, which i want to listen to, came after the judge brought up mark milley's book, criticizing trump. when asked whether he would be able to respond to. it so let's listen to that in case people haven't heard, and then we will talk to live side. >> so what's not fair game, he cancomment. >>es. >> and you can comment very ically, what can he not do you? >> use the sort of inflammatory language that poses a significant riskthat they have harassment an intimidation. if i had more to, say he would've done it. but with any reference to their testimut if that this person, youknow, is a coward, a liar, or treason, and deserves punishment. but -- i think that would still violate it. >> so they clearly also pushed back against the special counsel's argument, it sounds like the scope of it. do you think chuck was just saying he thinks it will be narrowed. what do you expect the judge will do in this case? >> yeah, i agree with that, i think it'll be narrowed. i think you've got to allow a presidential candidate some ability to criticize the people of the other party who are bringing these cases against him. and so there is going to be some leeway, but it will be narrowed in terms of the people who we can say. but as you heard in that back and forth. the devil is going to be in the details in terms of the actual words that are used. >> ben ginsburg, thank you so much for joining me this evening, i really appreciate it. coming, up brand new audio of donald trump when -- cassidy hutchinson gave to the january 6th committee about what the former president wanted to do that day. former white house aide cassidy hutchison is standing by here in the studio, and she joins me after a quick break. echers slip-ins. i just step in and go. sitting? doesn't matter. i don't even have to touch them. ooo, gangsta. in a hurry? there's not a faster, easier way to put on shoes. they know a 10 when they see it. when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. (♪♪) honey... honey... dayquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu symptom relief with a honey-licious taste. because life doesn't stop for a cold. dayquil honey, the daytime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, fever, honey-licious, power through your day, medicine. at the heart of the arguments made before the d.c. appeals court today was the impact of donald trump's words. and whether they can lead to violence. we are still waiting to see with this panel judges would determine in that specific case. but others have answered this question before. in a 2022 case involving trump's civil liability on january 6th, a u.s. district judge compared to trump's january 6th speech, to quote, telling an excited mom that corn meal -- in front of the cornelius home. and that the speech could reasonably viewed as a call for collective action. i love the corn dealer reference there. another district judge in a criminal case against the january 6th defendants said trump's words absolutely stoked the flames of fear and discontent and explicitly encouraged there was at the rally to go to the capitol and fight. later on friday, a judge on colorado -- trump that administration. it's also worth remembering, trump didn't just cause the events of january six, he also wanted to participate in them, he wanted to go. you'll be watching those in the spring of 2022 that he would've gone in a minute if a secret service had let him. a few months later in testimony before the january six committee, former white house aide cassidy hutchison who is sitting right here with me told me -- more of the story. >> when the president got in the east, he was under the impression from mr. meadows that the off-the-record movement from the capital is still possible and likely to happen, when it had been relayed to him, we are, not we don't have the assets to do it. it is not secure. we are going back to the west wing. the president had a very strong and very angry response to that. the president says going to the effective i am the effing president, taking up to the capitol. >> now recently released audio donald trump speaking with jonathan carl of abc ne reveals that trump thought he would be welcomed by -- >> i was going to, and the secret service said you can't. and by the time, i would have, and then when you get back, i said i wanted to go, back i was thinking about going back during the problem stuff, doing it myself. secret service didn't like that idea too much. >> -- >> i would have been very well received -- former trump white house aide cassidy hutchinson. thank you so much for being here with me. every time i watch that footage of you testifying, i just think about a courageous that wasn't how much poise that required. so i hope when you watch, and that's how you feel as well. i wanted to talk to you about trump's words. -- that was essentially their argument, january six was a clear example of people following -- does he recognize the impact of his word? >> thank you for having, meghan. yes, i absolutely believe that he knows the impact it was words and i believe he has -- >> you have heard him say i know people listen to me? >> i think that is evident from just how he has been able to get away with how often he has tweeted and the rhetoric of his tweets. they'll trump knows the impact his words have. he knew he would put out the tweet on december 19th, thousand and 20, when he summoned the mob to come to washington d.c.. but he was going to expect a crowd. that is why he continued pushing and pushing and pushing that rhetoric and pushing those invitations to all of his supporters that ended up coming to washington d.c. on january 6th. so when donald trump says something, i think that we as a nation do a big disservice to our own constituents and our neighbors when we don't take what he says that face all you. >> it's so important for people to remember, you talk in your, but you are right or the impact of trump's -- including how trump's tweet about his vice president on january 6th promoted chants of hang mike pence, something that is haunting every time i hear it. you also write that according to mark meadows trump said that he deserves it. really scary, it's scary -- you know a number of the people, former colleagues who are going to be witnesses. are you nervous about their safety when you hear trump's words and you see what he is doing out there, publicly. >> yes, sam, and i know from my experience to, you know, the american people should not ever have to live in fear of retribution from a president of the united states or a former president of the united states. president is, here elected to protect people. not to incite violence on those people. i think about my pay myself, but more importantly i think both men like rusty bowers