versus nixon. >> when the decision came it came with maximum impact. one decision, unanimous, by the chief justice. >> tonight, the inexcusable weight for a trump immunity decision from the supreme court. then -- >> they are great people. great people with a great reputation, i have to say. >> one of the presidents big evangelical boosters resigns after admitting he abused a 12- year-old girl. plus -- >> i think you will get a higher vote than any republican since eisenhower. >> those are winning numbers. those are numbers that say donald trump will be the next president of the united states. >> fox news priming the pump for another stolen election conspiracy. and as trump once again attacks vaccines day >> when you come to the rally as with any event you assume a personal risk. >> a reminder of the deadly superspreader rally four years ago, when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york, i am chris hayes. it is that time of year when donald trump's right wing supreme court waits until the very end of the year to bludgeon us with their decisions. there are 21 opinions remaining. we are all holding our breath for one in particular that has a kind of clock ticking. of course that is trump versus the united states. the former president's claim that he is immune from being criminally prosecuted for anything he did in the white house. all of the justices are adult, grown human beings that can read the newspaper and know that time is of the essence. we are less than five months away from the election when donald trump will have basically a 50-50 shot at taking back the oval office. but at every turn this court, the conservative majority of this court, one has to imagine, has dragged its feet. the federal case against donald trump for his attempt to overtake the election charges him with four felony counts including conspiracy to defraud the united states. it has been on hold for more than six months. the judge in that case, the federal district judge, was forced to pause the case on december 13 of last year amid trump's immunity appeal. that was 189 days ago. the supreme court finally agreed to take the case on february 28. they heard arguments at the end of april and we are still waiting. 112 days have passed with nothing. no decision from the supreme court. no movement toward a trial that can hold donald trump accountable for his attempted insurrection and also demonstrate to voters whether the man is guilty or not guilty of the grave crimes with which he is charged. now to be clear as we often set on the show, the wheels of justice to move slowly, but this is not normal. as law professor leah litman put it in an opinion piece to the new york times today, something is rotten about the justices taking so long. she goes on to explain, quote, mr. trump's lawyers put together a set of arguments that are so outlandish they should not take much time to dispatch. the wall street journal also notes that this term as a whole is moving at a historically slow pace. according to adam feldman, creator of the scotus blog, the justices are completing decisions at the second slowest rate since the 1946 term. keep in mind each justice has a team of very bright and industrious law clerks assisting them and they only work nine months out of the year. it is also worth remembering the last time the supreme court heard a case this pressing, the direct analog, it involved a corrupt republican president. it was in 1974. it had united states in the title. united states versus nixon and that is when then sitting president nixon claimed he was immune from complying with the subpoena in the watergate investigation because of executive privilege. in that case the supreme court managed to move much more expeditiously. >> good evening. the u.s. supreme court acting as swiftly as it ever has. today it announced it will review the special watergate prosecutor's complete against president nixon. it was just one week ago today when he asked the court to rule on the presidents defiance of a subpoena. it was yesterday when the president's lawyer asked the court not to rush to judgment and allow the case to be heard in the court of appeals. but this afternoon the court said it would hear oral arguments in about five weeks which set the stage for a possible confrontation between the president and the high court on the issue of executive privilege. >> at 3:30 the conference ended. 10 minutes later the chief justice issued a single sheet of paper, setting in motion the biggest constitutional test of presidential power since the civil war. in the case now entitled united states of america versus richard nixon, president, the court agreed to settle the question of whether the president can be compelled to furnish evidence to the special prosecutor. bypassing the court of appeals the court said briefs should be submitted june 21 and replies july 1. the historic argument was set for july 8. >> good evening. the supreme court of the united states today heard three hours of arguments that could very well determine president nixon's chances of staying in office for a full term. there were two principal questions before the court. whether mister nixon can be forced to give up an additional 64 white house tapes to the special prosecutor and whether the grand jury was within its jurisdiction when it named the president and unindicted co- conspirator. the argument centered on the release of the additional tapes. >> a decision is expected in a week or two. before the argument one justice was writing and circulating his ideas. another had his clerk prepare a draft opinion. >> president nixon has not yet responded to the decision in the supreme court today which ruled he must immediately turn over tapes of 64 presidential conversations. in a unanimous decision written by the chief justice, the court rejected 8-0 mister nixon's claim of absolute privilege. >> the court said the claim of absolute village would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government. they said it was a very limited intrusion since presidents will rarely be involved in criminal cases. >> five decades ago the court took less than two months to decide president nixon's case. they agreed to hear the case on may 31, 1974. you see it there. they gave each set of lawyers three weeks to file their briefs and then 10 weeks to reply. they heard arguments on july 8 and 16 days later, just over two weeks, they issued the unanimous opinion rejecting president nixon's claim of executive privilege. in total from start to finish, all done in 54 days. 54 days to decide richard nixon's case and we are still waiting for the outcome of donald trump's after 112 days and counting. these are similar cases with similar urgency. president nixon was making a completely historical and constitutional claim of immunity because he did not want to turn over his tapes in the watergate investigation. the court ruled no, the president is not a king and does not get to ignore the laws. donald trump is once again arguing that the president is a type of king who can do anything and everything including ordering assassination of political rivals and not face prosecution unless impeached and convicted. yet the court drags its feet. members of the court knowing full well that every day they delay makes it less possible that trump will stand trial before the election. leah litman is the author of the op-ed, and cohost of the strict scrutiny podcast with melissa murray and my wife, kate shaw. i love this piece partly because you just walked through the timeline, which inspired us to do so as well. why do you not think there is a good faith explanation here that it is complex or that this court is moving slowly because there is some weird battles happening behind the scenes? >> i think this court has lost the benefit of the doubt and presumption of good faith for any number of reasons. one is that they are more than capable of acting quickly even when there is disagreement. the trump disqualification case out of colorado where the colorado state court took him off the ballot, that resulted in a divided opinion and the court was still able to get it out before super tuesday, before people cast their ballots, and within a month of the argument. here there may be division and the court has taken two months. the arguments in the case i think are way more outlandish than any of the arguments on behalf of disqualifying a president who participated in the january 6 insurrection. add to that the indications of the extracurricular activities like justice alito flying multiple stop the steel flags at his house and all of that i think is more than enough indication that this court cannot be trusted to follow the rules and adhere to the legal process when it comes to cases involving donald trump. >> that point about the colorado case is great. i had forgotten that timeframe. there the clock that is ticking as they got to print the ballots for colorado. they send them out, to mail them and of course the notion was if we don't act he is not going to be on the ballot. so the constraining thing they had to do is if we don't act quickly, donald trump won't be on the ballot. in this it is totally flipped. if we don't act, then nothing happens to our guy and they seem to be taking longer. >> yes, that's exactly right and i think if you go back to the oral argument in the trump immunity case, use our republican justices attempt to interject basically every other possibility into this case, aside from the case they were asked to decide. justice alito floated the possibility to the special counsel's office, what if the president made a mistake? could it be prosecuted then as if the movement was some type of hoops that the former president engaged in. if you look back to the nixon case, the supreme court basically said we don't have to resolve everything related to immunity. all we have to say is presidents aren't immune from criminal process based on some generalized definition of confidentiality. >> this is a key point. there was a pointed question in both cases. does nixon have to turn over the tapes? does donald trump have to stand for a trial? there are all kinds of subpoenas one can imagine maybe a president might be able to keep. all kinds of complicated jurisdiction around executive privilege, which is actually a complicated area. they could've done something. they just were answering the question in front of them very quickly. the question is direct and simple in the same way here, that they could answer if they want to quickly. >> right, absolutely. this court routinely takes the path of not deciding as much as i possibly could in some of the cases. in the recent case involving the cheerleader who was punished for off-campus speech, the supreme court basically said look we are not going to decide everything on when students can punish students, we will just say here that it can be penalized. or the court said we don't have to decide what legal test is going to determine whether this requires just compensation, we're just going to say it is subject to some kind of analysis and send it back to the lower court. so the supreme court could easily say we are not going to resolve the outer bounds of immunity, but whatever the outer bounds of presidential immunity are, it does not include a months long effort to overturn the results of the presidential election. >> there's another detail that is easy to lose sight of, too, which drives me nuts and is the fact that jack smith saw this whole thing back in december and 10 days after the appeal -- after the decision and the appeal was filed, or nine days, he says look. we all know you are not going to rule on this. you are not going to defer, so let's do it now. he asks for this judgment to skip the appellate court and they come back and say no. like they could have taken it then. >> that's exactly right and here you have an example where the supreme court was willing to leapfrog the court of appeals in order to benefit the republicans and give donald trump something he wanted. in the waning days of the trump administration when they resumed federal execution, there was a lower court decision that temporarily enjoined one of the executions. the trump administration went to the supreme court and asked them to intervene before the court of appeals weighed in and the supreme court did that to allow the trump administration to execute one of the prisoners. here the special counsel's as we know it will get to the supreme court, why not just do it? and they refused to do so. >> effect about the world is that samuel alito and clarence thomas are conservatives. they would like to retire under a republican president. they are 74 and 75 respectively and there would be a big difference in their lives, personally if donald trump was elected or not. in the realist sense of what are you going to do with the last part of your golden years, that is something that is clearly the case for both of those men. i'm not saying it affects their decision, i'm just saying that it is a thing out in the world that hangs over them. >> that is absolutely right and the recent secretly recorded conversation, mrs. alito suggested that once justice alito was off the court to get fly whatever flag she wanted . so it seems there are multiple benefits. where he could step down and be replaced by a 30-year-old activist and his wife can fly whatever flag she wants. >> not just whatever she wanted, a specific flag she conjured in her head that is yellow and white and says shame in italian. leah litman, thank you very much. still ahead, the trump spiritual advisor and mega- church pastor who had to step down after molesting a 12-year- old girl. first, four years after his deadly rally in tulsa, donald trump's new plan to endanger the health of fellow americans. that's next. that's next. or a...people person. but he is an "i can solve this in 4 different ways" person. and that person... is impossible to replace. you need clem. clem needs benefits. work with principal so we can help you help clem with a retirement and benefits plan that's right for him. let our expertise round out yours. [coughing] copd hasn't been pretty. it's tough to breathe and tough to keep wondering if this is as good as it gets. but trelegy has shown me that there's still beauty and breath to be had. because with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open and prevents future flare-ups. and with one dose a day, trelegy improves lung function so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful. you can't leave without cuddles. but, you also can't leave covered in hair. with bounce pet, you can cuddle and brush that hair off. bounce, it's the sheet. san francisco's been through tough times. london breed led us through the pandemic, declaring an emergency before anyone else, saving thousands of lives. from growing up in the western addition housing projects to becoming mayor, london has never given up on the city that raised her. london is getting people off the streets and into care. london never gave up on me. i found a home, and my life is on the right track. london made it super easy for me to open my small business, by cutting city fees. and she's reinventing downtown to make our city vibrant again. she's building 82,000 new homes and helping first time homebuyers, just like us. and london's hiring hundreds of police officers, and arresting drug dealers. san francisco has been through difficult times, but our hard work is paying off. working together, we're building a better future for the city we all love. ad paid for by re-elect mayor london breed 2024. financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org. if you don't make a habit of listening to donald trump on the campaign trail, you might not realize how many policy promises he is making for his second term. they range from the unthinkable like his pledge to raise everyone's taxes on 10% for all goods purchased overseas to the outright ridiculous and catastrophic, like his plan to replace all income tax with a tariff on imported goods which one estimate says would amount to a 150% tax increase. last night trump once again paid lip service to an extreme plan possibly as destructive as any he has pitched before. >> i will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask. there you go. and i will keep -- who even thinks you have to say this stuff? >> trump is been making this pledge almost verbatim for over a year, so this is a policy. like the other policies i mentioned a moment ago i think it is not getting the attention it deserved. public school districts nationwide by their nature receive federal funding and they have required all kinds of vaccine mandates for years. we all know that, right? but we all know donald trump isn't thinking about the chicken pots. he is throwing red meat to his base, which is increasingly radicalized against covid vaccines, but also in a spillover effect, all vaccines and radicalized against public health measures to prevent mass illness. mark my words if this were to come to pass it would almost certainly ensure massive outbreaks of infectious diseases including measles and mumps and, yes, covid. it has become clear that is bad as the ex-president's handling of covid was four years ago, whatever we get from a potential second trump administration will be even worse. on the show we have been doing a recurring segment where we answer this simple question. >> remember ronald reagan talking about jimmy carter? >> ronald reagan use to ask a day >> are you better off? >> are you better off? >> are you better off? >> better off. >> better off. >> better off. >> then you were four years ago? >> it is a question being posed by so many trump supporters. are you better off than you were four years ago as if we don't remember four years ago today. with all this in mind i think it is worth taking a look back at what this country was going through this time in 2020. >> we begin with a chilling statement from the head of the world health organization today that started with the words, the pandemic is accelerating. >> we are struggling inside the hospital to staff our covid patients. our icu patients. >> covid deaths passed a staggering 120,000 today and there is no sign the virus is letting up. >> is a hospital we are overwhelmed. we are at capacity. we are increasing numbers every day. >> there are talks of crisis nurses coming in soon. >> it was amid that context with the virus spreading out of control that donald trump decided to return to the campaign trail. originally has come back rally was scheduled for four years ago today, juneteenth, 2020, in tulsa, oklahoma. the trump administration scheduled to return at the side of the 1921 massacre in tulsa on the holiday commemorating the end of slavery, at least as it was announced in texas. the resounding backlash was so overwhelming that trump had to back off and change the date, so instead the rally was held one day later on june 20, 2020. >> for months now large gatherings have been canceled. no concerts, no stadiums filled with sporting events but tonight in tulsa, oklahoma, and arena is packed with thousands rallying for president trump's reelection. >> the president left late today for a destination he has not seen in 110 days, the campaign trail. >> the event in oklah