filing about donald trump. in which she rejects his claim of presidential immunity in the federal case against him. the law firm of weissmann and -- is here to break it all down, and that's coming up first. plus, another example of the former president's authoritarian impulses, as he threatens to make this network pay if he takes back the white house. i'll offer some thoughts about just how dangerous that is. also today, is it possible that the greatest scandal facing the house republican conference this week actually had nothing to do with george santos? congresswoman stacey plaskett is here to talk about a house that is still very much on fire. and later, as lawmakers flee congress at a record pace, the first installment of a new series we're calling the exit interview. congressman -- why he's leaving, what he's learned, and what comes next. ♪ ♪ ♪ so, many, many years ago, a former president was suspected of breaking the law. though he was long out of office at the time, big questions still loomed over his legacy. they wanted to set the record straight. but in trying to justify his actions, he uttered what might be the most fundamentally incorrect line about the boundaries of presidential power. >> when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. >> by definition? >> exactly. >> if a president does it, then it's not illegal. those words have echoed through history, and richard nixon never quite lived them down, but that's exactly what donald trump is now arguing in defense of his effort to overturn the 2020 election. he and his legal team have tried to dismiss the entire criminal case against him based on the faulty legal theory that a president and ever former presidents are entirely immune from criminal prosecution for the actions they took in office. now, that's quite an argument to make. think about it. trump and his lawyers argued that everything that he did to overturn the 2020 election, everything, the attempts at the justice department, the pressure campaign to get his vice president to unilaterally reject the election results, all of it fell under trump's official responsibilities as president. now if that were true, think about this. the president will literally have unchecked power. every president would. in other words, if the president did it, it's not illegal. right? and this isn't just a hail mary legal defense of a man desperate to avoid prison, he desperately wants to avoid prison. it's how donald trump actually views the power of the presidency. >> if president obama is allowed to do what he did with -- then i'm allowed to do whatever i want to do. >> i have the right to do whatever i want as president, but i don't even talk about that. >> it gives me all of these rights. at a level that nobody has ever seen before. >> when somebody's the president of the united states, the authority is total. and that's the way it's got to be. >> the authority is total? >> total. >> the authority is total. not exactly, by the way. but that view of unrestrained presidential power came crashing down late friday evening, when the federal judge presiding over trump's federal election case, tanya chutkan, and denied trump's motion to dismiss the case. and with, it she rejected trumps warped theory of presidential immunity. let's look into this ruling for a moment, because it's quite spicy in how it's written. it's an important development in this case in part because of how she did it, but it also is because of her reasoning. it's a much-needed reminder that no one is above the law, despite all the noise, trump and his allies are trying to make and the argument they are trying to make. as chutkan writes, quote, whatever i sitting president may enjoy, the united states has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass. and in a scathing rebuke to trump's lawyers, she writes, quote, the president's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not grant special latitude to violate them. she continues saying trump's for your service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. of course, trump will inevitably appeal this ruling. we know that. but the appeal must go to the d. c. circuit, which just hours before chutkan's ruling on friday evening, delivered a similar opinion in a separate civil case. deciding that the former president is also not immune from civil suits. it's all part of this tension we are seeing between a former president arguing he should be above the law, and federal judges saying he isn't above the law. and it can feel surreal that this is even a. dispute. i mean, are we a country that everyone is bound by those same rule of law? of course we are. is it not illegal if a president does it? that's why judge chutkan's ruling this week was an important affirmation of what we are supposed to be as a country. in principle, but also in practice. joining me now is our in-house lawford, the great neal katyal, former acting u. s. solicitor general, and andrew weissmann, former council of the fbi and a member of special counsel robert mueller's team. so andrew, this was quite a ruling on friday night. i want to start with you, because in her ruling she references history, she kind of reminds us of core principles relating to equal justice, or that's how i read it. as a non lawyer. but how do you read it, and what does it say about where we are as a country, that a judge even needs to put this in writing? >> i think there are two points. one is this really is an example of the judiciary standing up for the rule of law. and her opinion on friday was magisterial in doing that. in terms of the history of where we are as a country, i think judge chutkan's evoking george washington's farewell speech, i thought, was brilliant. i'm just going to take a moment just to read a little portion of that, because it's just so telling that george washington, as our first president, saw this coming and said with respect to the idea of a president not being subject to the rule of law, being exempt from criminal prosecution, would lead to the following. and i'm quoting from george washington, which judge chutkan quotes from. cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and usurp for themselves the reins of government. that is clearly a reference to the allegations here in the case before her, with respect to donald trump. >> it's pretty stunning. given that was literally hundreds of years ago, as everyone knows, what that could see ahead to and what our founders were thinking about. neil, one of the big questions here is of course what happens now? and there is this theory, of course, that this will go to the supreme court. you've said this ruling is such a slam dunk that the supreme court, they're not likely to take it up. given how many cases you've argued, i thought that really stuck out to me. why don't you think they would? >> because everything donald trump says, like in those clips you just showed, is bogus. like, 100 percent bogus, jen. i've talked constitutional law 20 times at georgetown, i've been the president's top lawyer before the supreme court, and i can tell you nobody thinks that this is the law. and not even a student in 20 years would defend this kind of richard nixon-esque principal that donald trump is saying. we should take trump's argument for what it is. this is not a good faith argument about the constitution, because no scholar would support that. this is just about delay. remember, when he was president, he said i can't be tried because i'm a sitting president. now he's saying i can't be tried because i'm running to be president, and later he said his lawyers have said in georgia, just this week, if he wins the election, he can't be tried until 2029. basically they're saying that donald trump can't be tried on any day of the week that ends in the letter y. it's ridiculous. now, we will go up to the d. c. circuit, to the court of appeals, where i suspect it will be rejected pretty quickly because of that ruling you mentioned earlier on the civil case. i think that will control this. and then the supreme court has the choice to hear this case or not. and there's just not any real good argument on the merits for donald trump, and so i think they can dispose of this case quickly, and i think the trial can proceed on march 4th as it should. >> so, andrew, as neil referenced, i don't think anyone here is validating, and people wouldn't validate the legal argument, but it only requires four justices to agree to take up a case, right? to the supreme court. and many of them are trump appointees. i know this isn't how it supposed to work, but this is why i want to ask the question. do you agree they wouldn't take it up, and if they did, what could -- what impact could that have? how could that help trump? even if it didn't rule in his favor. >> the only way that the march 4th trial is not going to happen, because judge chutkan is adamant, she's going to have it on that date. and jury selection is actually starting in january, just a few weeks from now, is whether the d. c. circuit is going to move with -- and whether the supreme court is going to take the case and issue a stay. i think this is an instance where, as martin luther king said, just is too long delayed, is justice denied. it's imperative that the judiciary act quickly on this. i totally agree with my law partner for the show, neil, that this is not a meritorious claim. i am worried about speed, though. this is a failing in our judicial system that the former president takes advantage of. it's truly imperative that justice be meted out quickly here, if the american public is going to see accountability in this case. whichever way the jury decides, it's important to have that accountability. >> so, neil, in terms of the process here, you know, what does the timeline look like? the delay here, you brought this up, andrew brought this up. what are we looking at, and what concerns you the most about that possibility? >> well, i think to the extent that trump wants to try and seek a stay of the trial, he'd have to go to the court pretty quickly, to the d. c. circuit, and seek that, and then seek a quick appeal. i do think that the circuit will order a quick briefing and quick arguments on that. and then i suspect trump will lose, and then he will try to take it to the supreme court. again, i think all of that can be done very, very quickly. and, you know, sure, jen, you're right that there are several trump appointees on the court, but i think it's important to remember that those very appointees voted against trump, for example, when he tried to claim executive privilege over the january 6th committee, all of the trump appointees rejected that. it was an 8 to 1 -- with the independent state legislator case -- you saw the republican appointed justices still siding with the vast majority of the court to say this theory was bogus. so i think that there's, particularly for a case like this, in which there's really no decent argument that donald trump has, i don't see this as slowing down a trial, and i i think andrew is absolutely right. the american public deserve answers, and if trump is convicted and convinced he did nothing wrong, then go prove that up to the jury, he's going to have to do have every advantage at his disposal, because the criminal justice system bends totally in favor of defendants. the prosecution has to convince all 12 jurors that trump is guilty, and under the most difficult standard in the law, beyond a reasonable doubt. >> that's such an important reminder, and you're the expert on this too and how this case has been argued, as frustrated as we can all be at sometimes with the supreme court and its decisions. i want to ask you before i let you guys go, trump's legal team also argue that because he wasn't convicted during his impeachment, he should not be able to face criminal prosecution. there's all sorts of issues with that, but explain why that doesn't hold up. >> well, what he's referring to is the double jeopardy clause, where you can't be tried twice for the same crime. the problem for him is the reason this is such a frivolous argument is an impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. but even if it were, even if you assume that, what he was being impeached for is insurrection, and that is not what he is charged with. so in the technical rules of double jeopardy, it doesn't apply. this is one of the really frivolous arguments that is disposed of by judge chutkan. i can't see any court agreeing with donald trump's position on this. it's really nothing to worry about in this argument. >> andrew weizmann and neal katyal, always a pleasure. i always learn something. thank you for joining us this afternoon. coming up, congresswoman stacey plaskett on all of the chaos in the house from george santos to some very concerning new information about speaker mike johnson. plus, my thoughts and an in-depth conversation about why we should pay close attention to donald trump's tax on this network, and other media, and later, congressman dan kildee joins me for the show's very first exit interview. featuring lawmakers who are calling it quits. we're just getting started this hour, just getting started this hour, we will be right back. this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ if you're 50 years or older, (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone? a better plan is verizon. (dad) no way they'd take this wreck. (carolers) ♪ yes, they will, in any condition. ♪ ♪ get iphone 15 pro and ipad and apple watch - all on them! ♪ (mom) please forgive him. (carolers) ♪ it's all good - just a little awkward. ♪ (soloist) think we'll wrap this up. (vo) for a limited time, turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. that's up to $1700 in value. only on verizon. when you have chronic kidney disease... ...there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. when you have chronic kidney disease, it's time to ask your doctor for farxiga. because there are places you want to be. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ why give your family just ordinary eggs when they can enjoy the best? eggland's best. the only eggs with more fresh and delicious taste. plus, superior nutrition. because the way we care is anything but ordinary. ♪♪ dove invited women who wanted their damaged hair trimmed. yes, i need a trim. i just want to be able to cut the damage. we tried dove instead. so, still need that trim? oh my gosh! okay. i am actually shocked i don't need a haircut. don't trim daily damage. stop it with dove. so on friday, george santos was officially expelled from the house of representatives. you've probably heard quite a bit about this by now, because it is getting a ton of attention. and there's a lot of material to work with, to be fair. he used campaign funds for botox, and onlyfans, you can't make it up sometimes, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. but as this candle engulfing george santos continues to get a whole lot of oxygen and a whole lot of attention, i think we need to spend less time talking about the no name congressman from new york who never had any real power to begin with, and certainly doesn't now, and more time talking about the man who is currently second in line for the presidency. as first reported by cnn, speaker mike johnson wrote the forward for and publicly -- revivalist manifesto. this is a book, in case you haven't read it, you probably haven't, that gives credence to baseless conspiracy theories like the pizzagate host, which falsely claimed top gun migrants were involved in a pedophile ring -- it implies that supreme court chief justice -- connected to sex trafficker jeffrey ex's team. it also defends podcast or joe rogan from racism charges -- buttigieg, calling him a, quote, queer choice, very subtle there, for the cabinet position, and it refers to low income voters as unsophisticated. and a forward for this book that propagates all those awful things, johnson wrote that the author, quote, presents a valuable and timely contribution, because he has managed here to articulate wow what millions of conscientious, freedom loving americans are sensing. now, i wouldn't exactly coke conspiracy theories and homophobic insults valuable untimely, but apparently, our house speaker what. and johnson doubled down on his support for this book and what it stands for, saying on his podcast, quote, i obviously believe in the product, why wouldn't have written the forward. so i endorse the work. mike johnson's views are dangerous. it doesn't get much clear than that. so even though all the details surrounding george santos are kind of funny and very salacious and a little weird, we all need to stop paying as much attention to scientists, and start paying more attention to mike johnson. just, me it'll metal more during forward. geno is stacey plaskett of the u.s. virgin islands. it's great to be here with you. thank you for joining me on set here. i wanted to get your reaction, start with some of the details i just went through. and there's a lot we've also learned about speaker johnson over the course of the last couple of months. how concerning is it all to you, given he's second in line to the presidency? >> it's very disturbing to hear all of these allegations. and mike johnson has been very quiet, right? about who he really is. and it hasn't been many people who are aware of who this individual was. but i think the vote itself to make him speaker and the unanimous vote, really tells you where the republican conference is. that this is the type of person that they really wanted. they want someone with that ideology. they just want them to be quiet and go about meticulously taking away individuals rights to do that. and so, i'm not surprised that mike johnson is there, and i have a bet that he is going to stay through the election >> through next year? >> through next year. >> not survive. >> i think he's going to survive because that's who they want, should trump lose again, prayerfully, and he challenge the election. if he wants to have mike johnson standing on that speaker's podium, when that happens, because of his beliefs, not only in these crazy conspiracy theories, but in his orchestrating of the denial of the election. >> this is such an important point, and liz cheney, of all people, i bet you never thought we would be talking about liz cheney and maybe agreeing with her on something, but we have for a while. but i want to play something that she said about mike johnson, and get your thoughts on it. so let's play that first. >> mike was willing time and again to ignore the rulings of the courts, to ignore what state and federal courts had done and said about the elections in these states, in order to attempt to do donald trump's bidding. >> the speaker of the house is a collaborator to overthrow the last el