congregations just because they were not willing to take on this brawl or mentality. you use the words earlier, a pugilistic, that is in many ways how the evangelical mind has been conditioned to expect something more than just biblical doctrine. it is now we need you to fight against our enemies who are out to get us. >> tim, it's an extraordinary book. the book is the kingdom, in the power, and the glory. thank you for writing it. congratulations. that's our show for tonight. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. as word w >> good evening, alex. we all remember where we were the night that the draft opinion of the supreme courts overturning roe v. wade came out. samuel leto's draft opinion on. never forget running down the hallways here with it in my hands, not believing that we had such a document. tonight, in this hour, i have something almost as good. and it involves what will be the opinion of the supreme court and donald trump's appeal and it is so strong that it is sending me out on the following limb. and andrew weissmann is here to knock me off that limb in a minute, if he feels like it. i am now predicting a unanimous opinion by the supreme court against donald trump on both counts of his appeal. the immunity, double jeopardy, unanimous. i don't see any other way. if clarence thomas doesn't recuse himself and hangs in there, i don't even see how he's gonna be able to find his way toward ruling in donald trump's favor on any of this. this view now comes from this almost equivalent, almost equivalent of the alito late, one of the supreme court justices will decide this, it's going to be aggrieved disappointed for donald trump because this is the supreme court justice appointed by donald trump, who could not be more solidly against donald trump based on what we have already seen him right about exactly this. >> wow. smith, some of it all? >> very close to that. yes. >> this is explosive, lawrence. i am very eager to hear what you have to say, and eager to see what andrew weissmann has said about. it neal katyal said he didn't get was a question that scotus would reject trump's claim of immunity, but there may be but that there may be a point of reporting behind it -- >> now i understand why. i understand why the opinion is so solidly against donald trump among people who already apparently knew what i have just discovered today. >> i don't know what you discovered and i want to know all about. it i will be watching. >> we'll get right to. it >> have a good show. >> we really do have breaking news tonight about one member of the supreme court's opinion about donald trump opinion that he cannot be prosecuted for any crimes committed while he was president of united states. this opinion is very bad news for donald trump, and virtually guarantees that donald trump will lose his appeal of trial court judge tanya chutkan's ruling that presidents of the united states are not above the law and can indeed be charged with crimes that they committed while in office, at least one member of the supreme court has already agreed in writing with judge chutkan's ruling. what makes this an especially crushing setback to donald trump's hopes in the supreme court is that the member of the court fully agrees with judge chutkan is one of the three justices appointed by donald trump. that means there are likely tonight at least four votes against donald trump on the supreme court, but only one more vote is needed to crush the trump appeal. the breaking news of the night is actually 25 years old. in july, 1998, brett kavanaugh wrote a 38-page article for the george town larger in all, complete with 167 footnotes. the title of what is now the most important thing brett kavanaugh ever wrote before becoming a supreme court justice is, the president and the independent counsel. brett kavanaugh reviewed the history of special prosecutor's going back to the administration of president ulysses s grant. on page three of the article brett kavanaugh writes, congress can answer a question that the constitution does not explicitly address. is the president united states subject to criminal indictment while he serves in office. congress should establish that the president can be indicted only after he leaves office voluntarily or is impeached by the house of representatives and convicted and removed by the senate. brett kavanaugh would not advocate that congress pass a nkosi to shuttle law. that sentence alone indicates the supreme court justice brett kavanaugh believes, quote, the president can be indicted only after he leaves office. page 16 of brett kavanaugh's article removes all doubt about what supreme court justice brett kavanaugh actually thinks. quote, the framers thus appeared to anticipate that a president who commits serious wrongdoing should be impeached by the house and removed from office by the senate and then prosecuted thereafter me. the constitution itself seemed to dictate, in addition, that congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the president is the subject of investigation, and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the president has left office. and right there, in writing, brett kavanaugh destroys the totality of donald trump's appeal tonight in state supreme court. brett kavanaugh destroyed the idea that the president cannot be prosecuted after leaving office for crimes committed while in office. simultaneously brett kavanaugh destroys the absurd trump lawyer notion that it would be double jeopardy to prosecute donald trump now after he faced an impeachment trial in the united states senate for essentially the same high crimes. i'm going to read these two sentences again, because these two sentences prove just how quickly the united states supreme court can actually handle this appeal and rightfully authoritative opinion in this appeal because the supreme court's opinion could be written by brett kavanaugh and amount to only these two sentences, the framers this appeared to anticipate that a president who commit serious wrongdoing should be impeached by the house and removed from office by the senate and then prosecuted thereafter. the constitution itself seems to dictate in addition that congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the president is the subject of investigation and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the president has left office. and of course brettkavanaugh's article quotes thenstitution in full support of his position article one, section three, clause seven, quote, judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extendfuher than to reva from officed disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trt, or profit the united state but the partyicte shall never less be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and ment according to law. so the constitution said that after leaving the presidency, donald trump is, quote, subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. it's all over. it's all over. the presidential immunity wisdom trump's constitutionally illiterate criminal defense lawyers have invented is a fiction that will likely be crushed by the supreme court unanimously. any member of the supreme court trying to rule for donald trump will have to find a way to rewrite the light of the constitution says that a former president is subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. it cannot be done. you cannot re-write that line. donald trump will be going to trial in the case of united states of america versus donald j trump, possibly on the schedule dated march 4th if the supreme court acts quickly enough in this appeal, which the court in the past is known how to do. donald trump is definitely going to trial in the case of georgia versus donald trump. donald trump will definitely go to trial the criminal case of new york versus donald trump for business fraud, and donald trump is going to trial in the criminal case of united states of america versus donald j trump in federal court in florida, where the federal judge in that case appointed by donald trump will continue to do everything she possibly can to delay the trial and held on trump in any way she possibly can. brett kavanaugh won't be doing that for donald trump. brett kavanaugh destroy donald trump's appeal in writing 25 years ago. there is no more important trump legal news tonight than the words supreme court justice brett kavanaugh wrote 25 years ago. you don't feel discussions night is andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel former chief of the criminal division in the eastern district of new york. he's the co-host of the msnbc podcast prosecuting donald trump. also with this barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and law professor at the university of michigan law school. she is also the co-host of the podcast hashtag sisters in law. they are both msnbc legal analysts. and andrew, with the guidance of justice kavanaugh, i just can't see how it's anything but unanimous. >> okay, so i agree with you that the supreme court is, i think, gonna take this. they're gonna have a decision that's expedited, and i think on the double jeopardy part of the issue it's hard to see how it would be unanimous. it's such a clear issue. on the other part, you only need five. i'll be happy with five. whether the court, there are certain justices who are stragglers and in dissent, so be it. it doesn't matter as long as you get to five. that's the famous sort of mike sandra day o'connor were saying what's it like being on the supreme court and she said you want to know what it's like? five. it's all about how you get to five. i'm a little bit sanguine then you are with respect to the kavanaugh article. this is why. the court has already said, with respect to civil liability, of the president, that he has civil liability, or she, eventually, will have civil liability if the president has acted within the outer perimeter of his authority. and so the issue for the court here i think will not be so much can a former president not be prosecuted no matter what he did, in other words if he goes on fifth avenue and shoot somebody, that clearly brett kavanaugh saying saying that you can be prosecuted for that. as a current president. the issue will be this issue of the outer perimeter. whether the immunity will be like civil liability, where as long as the president was acting within the functions of the office of the presidency van wilkie enjoy the same immunity that he has in the civil realm in the criminal realm? that's something the d.c. circuit was recently dealing with. and so i think that will be the issue, less than a categorical bald faced claim by trump's lawyers that no matter what he dies, even if you kill somebody on fifth avenue. so i think that kavanaugh's article is useful for the broad claim, but it doesn't answer the narrow climb. having said, this is like super nerdy because at the end of the day, i do think they will be at least five justices who say that in this case, the case can go forward. >> barb mcquade, the trump lawyers are not arguing a narrow point here. they have said he can do absolutely anything and you cannot prosecute him if he does it while he is president. >> that's right. that claim is absurd. we heard that once before when the manhattan district attorney was issuing subpoenas to investigate donald trump back a couple of years ago. the supreme court rejected that argument that the president couldn't be investigated in a criminal case. that was a sitting president. but here i think the answer is going to be, as andrew says, more focused on whether this was in his capacity as president has not or not. as we have seen judge chutkan right, as we saw the d.c. circuit court of appeals right in a civil matter, when donald trump was pushing to change the outcome of the election as alleged in the indictment, he was acting as a candidate. he was wearing his hat as a campaigner. he was not executing the duties of the presidency. because he wasn't acting in that role, none of his conduct is covered by any immunity that he might have. >> and andrew, i can just hear it now, when we're in the supreme court argument on this. and justice kavanaugh asks any question at all of the government, these words from justice kavanaugh 25 years ago are going to be repeated, if not already in the brief. >> absolutely. he's going to be very aware. all the other justices are going to be very aware. and of course everyone already knows he was part of a sort of type of special counsel and so he has written and has views that he has voiced about this not exact predicament, but pretty darn close. that's why i just think he and justice roberts, i think, are going to be, at least those two, we will be joining those three so-called liberal justices. and that gets you to five. who cares after that? and this is one where to try and analogize this in a civil context is one where i would strongly urge everyone to read judge chutkan's decision, because she just goes chapter and verse through the text, the structure, the history, and then the logic of why it makes no sense to apply the same rules of civil immunity that former president enjoys in the criminal context, because of course criminal context is much more serious. we as the public shouldn't be tolerating that and there is nothing in the constitution, to be clear, the constitution is silent about presidential immunity. so all this would be invented by the court, the same court doesn't want to invent writes about a woman's right to choose. for them they would really be creating yet another right when it suits them. i don't think they will have five votes in the court to support donald trump's position. >> meanwhile, barbara there is wrangling between jack smith and the trump criminal fence lawyers about what exactly can happen in this case while an appeal is pending. can any more discovery go on? does it all have to shut down? but it seemed like this is a largely academic point at this stage, since the supreme court seems to be moving very quickly here. >> it is and it isn't. even quickly for the supreme court is probably gonna be weeks and not days. they've asked for the response brief from donald trump as to whether the court should even take up the question by december 20th. and so to keep things moving for that march 4th trial date, i think jack smith wants to continue. a number things need to be done to resolve some other pending motions. they want to get on with our motion practice into classified information procedures act, without shots about how they're gonna handle classified information. there are notices that need to be filed for expert testimony and other things. i think jack smith wants to keep that rolling. donald trump's lawyers are saying, no i'll things must halt while this is on appeal. i think it's clear the trial can't take place until the appeal is decided. i don't think it's clear that the pre trial proceedings have to stop as well. >> barbara mcquade, andrew weissmann, please stay with us. we're gonna squeeze in a commercial break. when we come back there is defendant giuliani news from the sidewalks of washington d.c. where he has said things that have gotten him into more legal trouble in the last 24 hours. we gal trouble in the last 24 hours. we before you decide... with the freestyle libre 2 system know your glucose level and where it's headed. no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. and lower your a1c. the number one doctor prescribed cgm. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us at bombas, we're obsessed with comfort. quality. movement. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and shop our big holiday sale. shingles. some describe it as pulsing electric shocks or sharp, stabbing pains. ♪♪ 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. (boy) i think this is going to work... if you're 50 years or older, (vo) small businesses like this learning center... (smb) there's only one way to find out. (vo) ...help communities thrive. that's why wells fargo has donated roughly $420 million dollars to diverse small business owners. (smb) back to alpha, plant. (vo) when a bank does what it says... (smb) lights on guys. (vo) ...small businesses can reach new heights. doing gets it done. wells fargo, the bank of doing. ♪ [man struggles] i need some sleep. ♪ [man relieved] if you struggle with cpap, you should check out inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com oh... stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh! hmmm... kind of needs to be more, squiggly? perfect! so now, do you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? [ chuckling ] with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event. >> the civil equivalent of the death penalty. that is what one of giuliani's defense lawyer says will happen to adolf giuliani as the washington d.c. jury awards millions of dollars in damages to two women who successfully already sued rudolph giuliani for defamation. a federal civil jury in washington d.c. is now considering how much money they will force rudolph giuliani to pay the farmer of fulton county election we workers ruby freeman and her daughter shaye moss for lies giuliani told about them. whatever the jury may have been no considering went up, when plaintiffs were able to show the jury now this video of giuliani committing defamation against the two women once again last night outside the courthouse. new >> whatever happened to them, which is unfortunate for other people overreacting, but everything i said is true. >> do you regret what you did not? of >> course i don't regret it. i told the truth. >> what a sick, sick. man read off giuliani's own lawyer has already said in court yesterday that ruby freeman and shaye moss are, quote, good people. that's his phrase. federal judge beryl howell questioned giuliani's lawyer today about how giuliani could have stood outside the courthouse last night and committed exactly the same offense against ruby freeman and shaye moss that has him facing a damages judgment now. the new york times reports, mr. sibley the lawyer also jested that the long days in the court room could be taking a toll on mr. giuliani, 79. judge howell asked mr. simply if he was concerned about his clients age or mental capacity issues. mr. simply said he had not seen evidence of that yet. we'd off to the enemy is facing criminal charges in georgia for his attacks on these same women. at the age of 79, a remainder of rudolph giuliani's life will be in the hands of tours in washington d.c. and georgia, who could decide that the final chapter of his life will be spent bankrupt and in prison. andrew eisman, vibe mcquade, are back with us. andrew, needless to say none of us have ever seen anything like rudolph giuliani, and there he is doing on the courthouse steps but he is charged with in the courtroom. >> so this is a man who used to be a senior official of the justice department. he used to be the u.s. attorney in the southern district of new york. he was the mayor of this city. it is a real sign, almost an example, an illustration of what has happened in this country when you see me in terms of how he has changed in terms of his conduct. this is one also where i was thinking the ru