>> -- but i don't know if it is actually resonating with average americans at this moment. i was listening to your conversation as well. but it's fascinating to see how much they are saying the loud part -- where the quiet part out loud, and not actually being taken seriously. >> i agree with you. i think the benefit is, that sound exists for when people start tuning in in september, october. >> that's a good point. i'm here to talk about that a little bit later in the show with -- thank, you alicia menendez. welcome to "ayman". donald trump, in his own words, vowing to be the authoritarian president that we have all been warned about. plus, the unity appeal. the latest legal gambit that could be a crucial date in trump's election interference case. and they may have the votes. but do they have the goods? house republicans want to formally launch their baseless impeachment inquiry after turning up nothing but dads. i am ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. >> this week, donald trump was given the opportunity to tell americans he would not abuse power if he were to win a second term. watch. >> to be clear, do you, in any way, have any plans whatsoever, if we elected president, to abuse power? to break the law? to use the government to go after people? >> you mean like they are using right now? >> let's sit with that just for a minute. the presumptive republican nominee, for the 2024 presidential election, declining to rule out clearly that he would've use power to seek retribution if he returns to the white house. and here's the thing. the host, sean hannity, he really tried to give trump a chance to clarify. but guess what trump did? he doubled down. >> under no circumstances, you are promising america tonight, you would never of use power as retribution under anybody. >> except for day one. he says, you are not going to be a dictator, are you? i say, no, no, no. other than they won. we are closing the border. and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. >> now, the fact that this question is even being asked by a fox -- i don't really want to say news anchor -- but a fox anchor, no less, is astonishing. and his cavalier response should actually serve as a dire warning to everyone who is watching that, not to be dismissed. the twice impeached four times indicted disgraced ex president had long been open about his admiration for fascist dictators of the past, popping the strongmen of the president, and he has been using their tactics, certainly the rhetoric. in recent weeks, trump has echoed the rhetoric of hitler, following his political opponents vermin, declaring that undocumented immigrants were, quote, poisoning the blood of our country. he has also called for a shoplifters to be shot on sight, floated the idea of executing joint chiefs chairman mark milley, the country's top general. and a new analysis from the new york times highlights wh there is real reason to fear this increasingly violent rhetoric. quote, what we different in a second trump administration is not so much his character as his surroundingsforces that somewhat contain his autocratic ndencies in his first term, staff members who w their job as sometimes restraining h, a few congressional republicans episodically willing t criticize or oppose him, a partisan balance on the supreme court that occasionally ruled against him would all be weaker. and the times notes, trump would concentrate greater authority of the executive branch in the white house, ending the independents a of agencies congress set up to operate outside of presidential control, and reducing civil service protections to make it easier to fire and replace tens of thousands of government workers. and we know trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the justice department to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term. his associates are already drafting plans to potentially invoke the insurrection act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations. and so when trump says that he will be a dictator for his first day in office, i, we must believe him. in an essay fothe washington post, editor at large robert kagan warns us to, quote, stop the wishful thking and face the stk ality. there is a clear path to dictatorship in the united states, and it is getting shorter every day. i have an all-star panel here to kick things off tonight. barbara f. walter he's a professor at uc san diego, and an author of how civil wars start and how to stop. them kimberly atkins stohr is an msnbc political analyst and a columnist at the boston globe, and co-host of the #sistersinlaw podcast. charles coleman he's an msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. it's great to see all of. you barbara f. walter, i will start with you, as an expert in authoritarianism. what goes through your mind when you see the former president, someone who could return to the white house in 2024, with realistic chances, admit that he wants to be a dictator, at least from day one of that second term? and at this point, he is not even trying to rule out as -- to go after his enemies and his opponents. how do you interpret all of this? >> this is classic want to be dictator behavior. we see this again and again and again. people who want power, especially people who thrive on it and love the attention -- they often advertise what their intentions are. they don't sneak around. but trump's entire playbook has been to identify weakness, attack weakness. and he has been quite successful in doing that. and the american democratic system has lots of vulnerabilities. and he has identified them. and he is going after them. so, it does not surprise me. you mentioned hitler earlier. i don't think trump is in the same league as hitler. but he is using a similar playbook. hitler told germany and europe exactly what he intended to do. nobody believed him. he wrote in a very long book. people read that book. they still did not believe it. and then he went ahead and executed his plan. and trump is doing exactly the same thing. >> let me just follow up on that really quick, e barbara, about our democracy. about the past two years coming out of the -- term. do you think we really missed an opportunity to really shore up our democracy? to not just rely on the guardrails that really worked the first time around, but to really go back to the drawing board and say, hey, we have some serious loopholes in our system that can be exploited by a trump or trump 2. 0, and we have to work extremely fast in the two years that we had complete control of government to actually shore up our democracy -- have we missed that opportunity? >> you know, i wish i could say we had the opportunity. there actually was no opportunity. we thought, with the democrats in the white house, and the democrats having a majority in the house and the senate, that we -- that the democrats could potentially get some reforms pushed through. but we found out very quickly that they did not have the votes. even controlling all three branches of government, and with the desire to reform and strengthen the system, the biden administration in its first two years could not do that. we also know that the republican party has no interest in eliminating those weaknesses of democracy. because they disproportionately benefit from them. they benefit from an electoral college that gives a bigger voice to rural americans. they benefit from the senate and the fact that it gives a disproportionate voice to rural america. they benefit from the filibuster and gerrymandering. so, all of these things will allow them to maintain control of power even if their constituents declined. and their constituents are essentially white americans, white rural americans. and they are the ones who benefit from the current system. >> you teed me a perfectly for the question that i wanted to ask you, kimberly, which is that when you watch that interaction between trump and hannity, people in the audience practically cheering when trump refused to rule out abusing power to go after his enemies. how does this kind of thing resonate with the public? his supporters are obviously not seeing the threat and the dangers that he poses to our country, and perhaps, against them one day. >> they don't. because they see him as on their side. even a dictator, apparently, is fine, so long as he is their dictator and speaking in a way that they believe is right. but what we are also seeing, from trump very frankly saying that on day one he would be a dictator, is what he has done consistently. because, to date, he has not been held responsible for his actions. we call the debate in 2020 when asked if he would accept the results of the election. he said, we will see. i will keep you in suspense. he has always telegraphed exactly what he wants to do, from keeping people out of the country based on their religion or ethnicity, from using force on protesters in the street. he has always embraced this autocratic style. and he has never been held accountable for it to date. we will see what happens in the criminal cases arising from january 6th. but, to him, he already has no guardrails. the fact that he was unable to carry out just overturning the result of an election before was based on the fact that democracy held together by a thread, because he was not completely surrounded by those who support him. the next time, he will be. >> yeah, i was going to say, we owe our thanks to dan quayle, who convinced mike pence not to do the wrong thing on january 6th. that's how close we got to the end of our democracy. charles coleman, i've got to play for you this liz cheney soundbite. she spoke to our colleague rachel maddow this week, and a new book -- the very thing that we are talking about on this program. but take a listen to this. >> imagine this situation where the people around him, the lawyers that he has hired and the administration, you may have some who would -- you imagine them stepping up and saying, we can't take that action, we can't do that for legal reasons. and the president, combining those, his determination to ignore the rulings of the courts, with the -- who do his bidding. and it's a really toxic and very dangerous mix. >> charles, your reaction to what liz cheney is warning of their? >> well, we ayman mohyeldin, one of the things that troubles me about this entire conversation, that details from that conversation you just had with kimberly, that is much as we can see what may be coming, we are not developing strategies that -- our government is written in a way that has checks and balances. so, where is everyone's concerned about trump, we are not having a conversation about trumpism. this is not a snake we are, if you cut off its head, it is simply going to die. another woman sprout. so, we have to figure out, what is it we are doing to address the sentiment that is giving donald trump so much fuel and so much power? and we have just checks and balances. we have to turn our attention to electing legislators at the federal level that are going to appeal to the rule of law. every seat in congress, all 435 of them is -- our up for reelection this coming election cycle. so, what that means is, in addition to addressing an issue regarding donald trump and whatever it is that he may bring, there need to be safeguards and guardrails that are elected at the federal level who are not afraid to do the right thing, even if it means impeaching and removing a person from office, if they are abusing their power. >> all right, we are going to squeeze in a quick break. barbara walter, thank you so much for joining us. kimberly atkins stohr, and charles coleman, stick around. after the break we are going to continue our conversation. coming, up how a trump appeal can actually throw off a crucial timeline in the federal sentence here's case. barks] oh. no it's just a bunny! calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ i've never been healthier. only pay for what you need. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (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. the power goes out, and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book. who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up. plus, now through december 31st, eligible xfinity rewards members can get 25% off when some important a storm ready wifi device. breaking news developing. university pennsylvania let scale face create fierce criticism from the white house -- high-profile alumni over -- congressional hearing about antisemitism. >> it is called for the genocide of jews violate pence rules or code of conduct? yes or no? >> if the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes. >> i am asking specifically calling for the genocide of jews. does that constitute bullying or harassment? >> if it is directed in severe pervasive, it is. >> the answer is yes? >> it is a context dependent decision, congresswoman. >> pennsylvania governor shapiro said that michael's response was -- with the ceo of the financial firms storage holding sent a letter to the university of thursday threatening to pull up 100 million dollar donation unless mcgill was removed as president. as of now, no word has been given on the future status of her counterparts at harvard university and m. i. t. who were also criticized for their responses to similar questions around campus, antisemitism at the hearing. turning now to an update in the federal election interference case, donald trump filed a notice on thursday saying that he will appeal judge chutkan's ruling that he doesn't have immunity. this is a small procedural step. is that emotion a domino effect that will ultimately decide whether or not this case makes it to trial by the set date of march 4th of 2020, forever. a federal appeals court and possibly supreme court will now have to weigh in on this issue, which will likely lead to weeks law, if not months long, delays. in a separate filing, the ex president is also asking for a clause on all further proceeding in the case until they appeal is resolved. trump's legal team says that this case should be thrown out unconstitutional grounds as presidential immunity, which judge chutkan denied last friday. special counsel jack smith's team has argued that trump's immunity claims would improperly place u.s. presidents above the law. kimberly atkins storage, how schools men are back with us. charles, i will get your thoughts back on this. on a practical level, walk me through the appeals process here. what difference narrows might play out, might look like, when it comes to a trial date? how much of a delay can we expect? >> there are a number of things that can occur between now and the time that this appeal was decided that can alternately affect the march 4th trial date. it is important to understand that beyond those scenarios, this is not the last attempt that we are going to see from donald trump's defense team to try to get this case thrown out. this is, essentially, summing from the fences but the immunity argument because, as you noted, there is a world in which if this decision was granted by the appeals court, the case essentially dies and goes away. i think that that is an unlikely scenario to occur. as i said before, i expect that his defense team has additional tricks up their sleep, which is natural. that is something to be expected. you are supposed to exhaust every potential remedy for your client and be a zealous advocate on a good faith basis for doing so. the question of good faith basis is one that people like myself and kimberly might debate point ad nauseam. what we are looking at right now, we know that this is something that could potentially delay, but not excessively. i'm not expecting this to ultimately be a three or five month delay. it could be a couple of weeks. even without it, you are still going to see something else which is likely going to push that raw faith, march 4th date, a little bit further into the future. >> kimberly, last friday you had a federal appeals court ruled against trump's immunity claims in civil cases seeking to hold him accountable for january 6th. could this play a role in how the judges will approach the criminal case? it's so, how concerned are you that their decision on the civil matter to 20-minute -- months to reach? >> yeah, so, it was a long time in waiting for that decision that finally came down. the immunity issue is going to be a crucial one. i do agree with charles that it will not necessarily derail the criminal case, but it could be one of the factors that leads it to be delayed because as the immunity issue, which applies to across the board in these cases, is appealed, there are a lot of unanswered questions. of course, a trial can't proceed because this is something that needs to be determined before the trial can move forward. does not mean that it stops everything? does it stop, you know, examination of potential jurors? does it stop discovery in the case or trump moving forward? can that move forward while we wait for these decisions so that once they come down, the travel is ready to go if they rule in the prosecution's favor? i also think that the way that these opinions, both the appeals court opinion as well as judge chutkan's opinion, they were written very carefully in a way that, i think, could signal as these cases go up the appeals court, that it is imminently reasonable for both the appellate court and the supreme court to rule that there is no get out of free jail card -- get out of jail free card, for anyone has a president to commit crimes. even sometimes a speech can be a component of a crime. the first amendment doesn't get you out of it. having been impeached in the past, that is a political process. that does not trigger double jeopardy. these are reasonable constitutional interpretations. i think that carefulness with which these decisions were reported is good news. i think for the prosecution. there might be a delay, but i don't think they can delay this forever. >> charles, this notice also comes on the heel of prosecutors releasing a court filing, which lays out how they planned to use trump's own words against dimitrov. there's no shortage of his truck words on that. how telling is it that trump tries again and again to get the case dismissed on the heels of prosecutors evidence filings? >> listen, prosecutors can say that they want to use whatever they want to. that doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to come int