it is just a 900 page argument for expanded unfettered executive power. if you tacket that lid on ron desantis' plans that's what he's arguing for, too. i think we need to have a conversation about what does it mean to be a republican now and how has that changed and what are people implicitly accept when they say i just want a strong president. >> thank you both. that is "all in" a on thursday night. alex wagner tonight begins right now. >> it still astounds me these are legitimate conversations we're having with our livelihoods. thanks to you at home for joining me this evening. the former president of the united states is a free man. he can go anywhere he chooses. today he chose to attend his civil fraud trial in new york city. >> this is weaponization of justice. this is something that nobody's ever seen to this extent. it's called election interference. it's a sad day for our country when things like this can take place. i'm sitting in a courthouse instead of being in iowa where i should be. >> again, no one compelled mr. trump to be in that courthouse today. he could have gone to iowa. he has a private plane. he could have gone to both iowa and new york if he wanted to. but donald trump came to new york because he likes to use his trials as soapboxes for his presidential campaign. and the biggest one of all, the biggest soapbox of them all is the federal trial over alleged 2020 election subversion, which is set to take place in march of next year right as campaign season is in full swing. and that would setup a dynamic, a split screen, if you will, that no one in this country has ever seen before. "the new york times" today reports trump's d.c. trial would almost certainly fuse trump's role as a defendant with his role as presidential candidate. it would transform the steps of the federal courthouse into a site for daily impromptu campaign rallies, and it would place the legal case and the race for the white house on a direct collision course, each one increasingly capable of shaping the other. that's sort of what we saw in new york city, the beta test of that dynamic. but there's a very live question right now as to whether that case even goes to trial before the 2024 election. because while donald trump may enjoy the spectacle of a campaign rally on the courthouse steps, he is very much still doing everything in his power to avoid becoming a convicted criminal. and today trump's lawyers made a significant attempt to delay his d.c. federal trial in a move that may very well end up succeeding. as have been covering on this show in recent days, trump has been trying to get this case thrown out on the grounds he is immune from prosecution for anything he did as president. in trump's mind the presidency is a shield against nearly everything. but the judge here, judge tanya chutkan, rejected that argument last week in a forceful ruling. she wrote defendant's four-year 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. but today trump is appealing that ruling saying he wants a higher court to weigh in on that same question. and importantly he is asking judge chutkan to freeze all further proceedings in this case until that issue is resolved. now, last night we told you about these jury selection forms that have already gone out in the mail to potential jurors in washington, d.c. but if trump succeeds in pausing this case, there will be no jury selection in the near future. no jury selection, pretrial motion, disclosures about pretrial. all that necessary and time consuming preparation would come to a grinding halt, which would inevitably have the effect of delaying the trial itself. but trump may also have another goal in mind. trump could try to appeal his presidential immunity defense all the way to the supreme court where he presumably hopes that the conservative majority, a re appointed by donald trump himself, that they would rule in his favor. what the supreme court would actually do here is anyone's guess. if they rule in trump's favor then the case is over, caput. but if they rule against trump, then judge chutkan would have a choice to make. getting a high court to issue a ruling would likely delay this case for weeks or even months. so then judge chutkan would have to decide whether to hold the proceeding during the heart of campaign season. such a move would no doubt prompt furious outbursts from mr. trump who would be obligated to be in courtroom every day and not campaigning. so that tantrum slash pep rally you saw today, the outbursts we've seen for weeks outside mr. trump's trial in new york those would become frequent. joining me now mimi roca. also with us a senior writer. mark, i'm going to go to you right now so that i can continue to cough and ask you what your assessment is about how long the d.c. circuit court may take to adjudicate this issue. >> you know, it really depends on what panel of judges takes this case, and it's randomly assigned. there are four republican appointed skbrujs on the d.c. circuit who have shown some inclination to running interference for trump to varying degrees. if two of those judges land on the panel, that panel could draw out the process. they could take a really long time to hear the case, issue a decision. in the past cases in the d.c. circuit these cases have gone on by chance to other panels which have worked quickly to expedite the process because they don't want to delay justice. if this lands in the hands of conservative justice on that court we could be waiting for months and months until we get a decision, and all that time judge chutkan's decisions would certainly be stayedch. >> mimi, it feels there aren't any good options here. >> i think the best case scenario is that the court of appeals rules quickly. this sounds a bit naive but i'm going to say it. this is motion any lawyer would file. we've talked many times about trump using appeals as a delay tactic. this is a real issue that they have a -- it makes sense that they're appealing it. it's not frivolous. >> yeah. >> i don't think ultimately on the merits he will win, and i think it's important that the court of appeals he's appealing to has already ruled on this in the civil context and said he does not have immunity. now, civil and criminal are very different. i think it's a decent argument. one way of thinking about it, though, is actually in a criminal context a court would be less likely to give immunity than in a civil one. anyone can file a civil case and they don't want to open the flood gates. criminal cases as we have seen in history against a sitting president or former sitting president are very rare. so i think there is a good chance that the court of appeals can rule quickly and get this moving. what happens at the supreme court is a bigger unknown. but, again, they have deferred on other cases related to trump and summarily affirmed the court of appeals and not wanted to weigh in on this. this is a more important legal question, so we will have to see. >> you know, mark, when we talk about the supreme court, it is a big question mark, which i think surprises some people that have seen other positions this court has taken on important conservative matters. what is your expectation here about who might be the -- who are the allies that trump might have on the high court? is it justice thomas? is it justice kavanaugh? is it more than the two of them? who do you think would be most sympathetic to his argument here? >> look, we've seen time and again justice thomas almost always votes with donald trump when he takes some case to the supreme court seeking to thwart a subpoena or indictment or any kind of lawsuit. justice thomas is there walking arm in arm with him and to a lesser degree so is justice alito. and both of them have expressed views they really do think this president or former president now is under this unfair assault that treats him almost illegitimately and they feel some independent obligation as the third branch to stand up to that. justices kavanaugh and gorsuch are interesting. they have indicated some concern from protecting the president from invasive lawsuits. the criminal question remains very much open. and as mimi alluded to, it's a very different case. it's not one that the supreme court ever dealt with squarely when trump was president when it really did try to dodge these issues. so one thing that i think is important to understand about this appeal is that it goes to judge chutkan it was jurisdiction to hear this case. it goes to the question of whether she even has the power to carry on here or whether trump is completely immune, and so the entire case has to be thrown out. i think the gravity of that question, it's so different from can this evidence be introduced, can this witness testify. this is the whole deal right here, and i think the gravity of that will give some of the justices pause and make them want to take on this case and really hear full arguments, full briefing, and issue a decision on the merits. that could take until june, at which point it might really be too late for a trial. even the justice kavanaugh and gorsuch ultimately come out against trump on this question, they might think it's serious enough to take it under consideration, and that alone could run out the clock. >> by dint they're taking it out is a strategy. the supreme court we all remember bush v. gore it took them like a day to issue an opinion on that. >> that's when they normally do come down with their decisions. you know, look, this is a different scenario. this is an interlocutory appeal. there is an indictment pending, a trial set, there are jurors. even a partisan supreme court, even a partisan justice, if they have any shred for the institutional respect for the court system has to recognize that this isn't something they can wait six months on, i don't think. it should be an expedited appeal because it's not like bush v. gore where it's about the election. it's about a pending criminal indictment where jurors have already been called. and i do think -- >> well, it is about the 2024 election, too, in some ways. there's the thinking that the american public should have some conclusion to all this. >> absolutely, those arguments as well. but also i do think there's a decent argument that we're going to have to see the briefing and how judge chutkan rules, whether she can even proceed now with the case. >> and i want to talk about that because there are sort of parallel hurdles here. there's the ultimate question of whether or not he has immunity. but, mark, there's a question of whether or not trump can grind everything to a halt. i think it was very interesting judge chutkan moved forward with the jury selection process. i think the letters went out end of last week, almost this week as a signal of hey, look, the work is starting. the machinery of justice is cranking along. what do you think the likelihood is that a stay is granted here and all of the preparations for this march 4th trial grinds to a halt? >> i think it's quite unlikely that judge chutkan would grant such a sweeping stay. a more limited stay is within the realm of possibility, but trump's lawyers are arguing here that there is a mandatory freeze on all proceedings as soon as they even file the appeal. so trump's lawyers say, hey, we're going to the d.c. circuit now. judge chutkan, by law you must stop everything you're doing. and they make that argument based on a 5-4 decision last term written by justice kavanaugh that really doesn't say any of that. it was a narrow decision involving arbitration, not a criminal trial. so it's pretty much a hail mary argument that they're making here. and judge chutkan has not shown a lot of tolerance for that, so i don't think she'll be playing along her. but of course as we've discussed for several minutes now, once this gets into the hands of d.c. circuit, the supreme court, higher courts almost always stay the proceedings, and so it still depends way more on who's handling this in the courts above. >> right, that's the point. judge chutkan, it seems sort of comical she'd be deciding on the stay given where she is on the immunity appeal to begin with. the circuit court has been remarkably generous, if you will, in issuing these stays even on the gag order. it returned to the status quo, which was donald trump was ungagged and continued to make inflammatory, dangerous comments about court officials when he was ungagged. this is less immediately perilous to any perp, so could they, yes, we should stop everything on appeal? >> i'd be very interested to see the government's response to the motion because, yeah, i think when you have an appeal there is a certain jurisdictional element here that, okay, the appeal is happening now, you can't go forward. i do agree there could be a more limited stay. it doesn't mean that juries -- the jury selection process here is going to take forever so that's why she started it. maybe that can continue because that doesn't involve the parties. there are maybe certain ways -- this is also unprecedented that it's hard to know. i will say the d.c. circuit has also been pretty remarkably fast. that's not unusual for them, and they have continued that. so that i think is hopeful. >> well, there are a lot of what-ifs. i'm not one to quote donald rumsfeld, but known unknown in this case. thank you both for your expertise and wisdom in unpacking all this. i appreciate it. we have lots more tonight. you've heard the alarm bells all week about donald trump's revenge plans should he win re-election, and now we have a look at all the tools at his disposable if he gets back into the white house. >> but first revisionism is in full swing from the republican courthouse to the presidential primary. we'll have more on that coming up next. primary. we'll have more on that coming up next. since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. today a former california police chief turned january 6th rioter was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison for his role on the attack on the capitol. during his sentencing he launched into a rant after federal prosecutors referred to him as a poster child for january 6th conspiracy theories. in response he told the court that he felt like he was live in a parallel universe and that he believed the capitol insurrection was a setup by the cia, the fbi, and the department of homeland security. his source for that was this guy. >> why am i the only person on the stage at least who can say january 6th now does look like it was an inside job, that the 2020 election was indeed stolen by big tech, that the 2016 election, the one that trump won for sure, was also one that was stolen from him by the national security establishment. >> vivek ramaswamy is unbelievably but somehow also not surprisingly not the only republican to embrace the january 6th tinfoil hat nery. in a recent court filing lawyers for donald trump reveal that he plans to make january 6th conspiracy theories part of his defense in the federal 2020 election interference case as proof trump's legal team has asked the justice department for all documents regarding individuals like ray epps, falsely claiming that epps was an undercover agent and that january 6th was a false flag event. joining us now is mark liebovich, staff writer at the atlantic. we watched conspiracy theories take hold. and i think there's been discussion this week how to stop the plaidness and in particular if the toothpaste can be put back into the tube with some more extreme positions of the gop here. i wonder when you have someone like jivek ramaswamy saying stuff on the national stage when he's one of the leading candidates running for the republican nomination, you see the realtime effect that has. can the tath paste be put back in the tube? >> viramaswamy at this late date is still up on that stage. it seems a lot of republicans are tuning him out, which is obviously a good thing. obviously as we saw from those legal proceedings in california, people listen to this stuff. people believe it. and the fact is, you know, for the last seven years this has been coming from the most powerful, the most vocal, visible figure in the republican party, donald trump. he is the conspiracy theorist in chief in the party, and it's obviously trickled down a great deal. and for as long as that continues, there will be a market for someone like that. i would like to think that as people move closer to actually thinking about who they're going to vote for, people might take this more seriously. i think if in fact someone raises these conspiracy theories in a court, you know, it probably won't get a very -- you know, a very serious consideration from a judge. i have a feeling as a legal defense that's not going to work very much. the fact is if you look at polls what republican voters believe, it's quite often very much out of touch with the reality of things on the ground. >> and yeah, and it's not just out of touch but way ibin another universe. not just january 6th a peaceful gathering, january 6th being an inside job is a someone who wants to hold the highest office in the land. there's been talk or calls, if you will, from democrats and republicans alike that more republicans need to raise their hands and call out fellow republicans for being liars. i want to play some sound from chris christie last night, and this is what he had to say on the topic of donald trump. >> i look at my watch now. we're 17 minutes into this debate and except for your little speech in the beginning, we've had these three acting as if the race is between the four of us. the fifth guy who doesn't have the guts to show up and stand here, he's the one who as you just put it is way ahead in the polls, and yet i've got these three guys all seemingly to compete with voeld vodemort, or he who shall not be named. >> so far chris christie is very lonely in this job. when and how does this dynamic change if ever? >> i don't think it's going to change certainly through this election cycle. chris christie is probably not going to win the republican nomination. he's not getting a lot of traction in the polls. at least he's getting on the stage. i do think despite the calls he drop out and maybe endorse someone like nicky hailhy who has a better chance of beating trump, he's playing a role as a reality check in these debates and given what his message has been. it's probably not going to be a winning message, but it's extremely important in the same way there have been truth tellers in the republican party. liz cheney's book is number one on the amazon list now. there are a lot of people making responsible arguments whether in journalism, politics, presidential candidates in the case of kristi. ultimately he was saying, his point is the people who could actually beat donald trump, mainly ron desantis and nikki haley, essentially like the play for second place at this point because there's nowhere near trump in the polls and don't