great reputation. >> one of the ex-presidents evangelical boosters resigned after admitting he abused a 12- year-old girl. plus. >> i think he will get a higher vote than any republican since eisenhower. >> the american people want donald trump back in the white house. >> is her winning numbers, the numbers is a donald trump will be the next president of the united states. >> priming them up for another stolen election conspiracy. it as trump once again attacked vaccines >> when you come to the rally,■ as in any event, you assume a personal risk. >> a reminder of his deadly super spreader rally four years ago. when all in starts right now. good evening, from new york. i'm chris hayes. it is that time of year where donald trump's right wing supreme court waits until the very end of the term 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 the united states. the former president's claim that he is immune from being criminally prosecuted while he was in the white house. all the justices are adult grown human beings who can read the newspaper and know that time is of the essence in ?e$is case. we are less than five months away from the election, donald trump will have, if you look at polls now, basically a 50-50 shot at taking back the oval office. but at every turn, this court, conservative majority of this court one has to imagine, has dragged its feet the federal case against donald trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, charged 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, federal district judge tanya chutkan was forced to pause the case all the way back in december 13th of last year amid trump's immunity appeal. that was 189 days ago. the supreme court finally agreed to take up the case on february 28. they heard arguments at the end of april and we are still waiting. 112 days have passed with nothing.■ç no decision from the supreme court. no movement towards a trial that could hold donald trump accountable for his attempt at interaction and also demonstrate to voters whether the man is guilty or not guilty of the grave crimes of which he is charged. now, to be clear, as we have often said on the show, the wheels of justice do move slowly but this is not normal. as law professor leah lippmann puts it in an opinion piece today, something is rotten about the justices taking so long on trump's immunity case. she goes on to explain, quote, mr. trump's lawyers put together a set of arguments that are so outlandish they did take much time to dispatch. wall street journal also notes that this term, as a whole, the whole supreme court term is moving at a historically slow pace, quote. according to adam feldman, creator of the empirical scotusç blog, the justices are completing decisions at the second slowest rate since the 1946 term now, keep in mind, each justice has a team of four very right and and gestures law clerks insisting that, and they only work nine months out of the year. it is all a really worth remembering the last time the supreme court heard a case this pressing, the direct it involved a corrupt republican president. it was a 1974, had united states in the title. united states versus nixon. that, of course, was when then a 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 swiftlyç as it ever has today announced it will review the special watergate prosecutor's complaint against president nixon. it was just one week ago today when leon jaworski asked for the court to rule on the president's defiance of the subpoena. for more white house tapes. 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 weekly 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.■ç in the case now entitled united states of america versus richard nixon president, the court agreed to settle the question whether the president can be compelled to furnish evidence to the watergate peschel prosecutor, bypassing the court of appeals, briefs should be submitted june 21st and replies, july 1st. the historic argument was set for july 8th. >> 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 mr. nixon can be forced to give up an additional 64 white house tapes to the special prosecutor and whether the federal grand jury was within its jurisdiction when it is named the president and unindicted co-conspirator. the thrust of the argument centered on the release of the p& tapes. >> a decision is affected in a week or two point this morning's argument, one justice was reiki writing and circling his ideas. mother had his clerks to draft an opinion. >> good evening, president nixon has not yet responded to the sledgehammer decision of the supreme court today, which ruled that he must immediately turn over tapes of 64 presidential conversations. in an unanimous decision, the court rejected 8-0. mr. nixon's claim of absolute privilege on those tapes. >> the court said the president's claim of absolute will upset the constitutional balance. >> the president have to give away criminal proceedings. limited intrusion rarely involved in criminal cases. >> the court took less than two months■ç president nixon's case they agreed to hear the case on may 31st, 1974. see you there. they gave each set of lawyers and 10 sets after that to reply. heard oral arguments and 60 days later, just two weeks, they issued their anonymous rejecting his claim of executive privilege. all done in 54 days. just 54 days to decide richard nixon poskay's and we're still waiting for the outcome of donald trump's after 112 days and counting. similar urgency. nixon was making a completely ahistorical unconstitutional claim because he did not want to turn over his tapes in the water gate investigation. the president is not a king and does not get to ignore ■çthe la donald trump is once again arguing the president is a kind of king, he can do everything, including ordering the assassination of his political rivals and not face prosecution unless impeached. and yet, the court drags its feet. members of that court know full well every day they delay makes it less and less possible that trump will stand trial for the insurrection before this next election. the author that new york times op-ed, she is a professor at the university of michigan law school and cohost of the strict scrutiny podcast and she jointly now. it is great to see you. i love this piece partly because you just walk from the timeline, which inspired us to do so, as well. why do you not think there is a good faith explanation here that it's complex, or that this court is moving slowly because they have, ■çthere's some weird sectional battles happening behind the scenes. >> i think this court has lost the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of good faith for any number of reasons. they are more than capable of acting quickly, in a couple of cases where 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 want to cast their ballots and within a month of the oral argument. here there might well be division and that the court has taken two months since oral argument and arguments in the case, i think, are way more out latest then any of the arguments on behalf of disqualifying a president participating in the january 6th insurrection. the qualifications of the justices ■çextracurricular activities like justice alito line multiple stop the steal flags at his house. all that is in more than enough indication that this court just cannot be trusted to actually follow the rules and it here to the legal process when it comes to cases involving donald trump. >> that point about the colorado case is great. i had totally forgotten that timeframe, right? in there, the clock is ticking is they have got to print the ballots, i think, for colorado. they were going to actually vote, they were going to send them out to mail them. of course, if we don't ask, he is not going to be on the ballot. so the constraining thing they had to do was like, if we don't act quickly, donald trump won't be on the ballot. in this, it is totally flat. if we don't act, then nothing happens to our guy. and they seem to be taking longer. ■ç >> yes, that is exactly right and i think if you go back to the oral arguments and the trump immunity case you saw the republican justices attempts to interject, basically every other possibility into this case, aside what they're actually being asked to decide, justice alito floated the possibility to the special counsel access. as of the stop the steal movement was some kind of boopsie that the president had engaged in, or the former president had engaged in this case doesn't involve a simple mistake. and if you look at the nixon case. there the supreme court basically said we don't have the resolve absolutely everything related to immunity. all we have to say is presidents art, and from criminal process based on some generalized definition of confidentiality. >> and this is a really■ç 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 trial. there is all kinds of subpoenas one could imagine maybe a president might be able to keep. there's all sorts of complicated jurisdiction around executive privilege, which is actually a pretty complicated area. they could have done something. just answering the question in front of them very quickly. the question in front of them is very direct and simple in the same way here that they could answer if they want to. >> right, absolutely. this court routinely takes the path of not deciding as much as i possibly could. in some of its cases. in the recent case involving the cheerleader who was published for off-campus speech, the supreme court that were not going to decide everything and say exactly when schools can punish students, we are just going to say here thatç the off-campus speech can be penalized. the court said we don't have to decide what legal test is going to determine where the this taking requires just compensation. we are just going to say it is some kind of analysis and send it back to the lower court. so here the supreme court could easily say, look, are not going to resolve the outer bounds of presidential immunity but whatever that abounds of presidential immunity are they just don't include a month-long effort to overturn the result of the valid presidential election. >> is another detail here which is easy to lose sight of, too, it really drives me nuts which is the fact that jack smith saw this whole thing back in december, you know, 10 days after i think this appeal was, after the check in decision. in the appeal was filed for nine days. he says look, we all know you to rule on this. you are not going to differ. so let's just do it now. and he goes up and he asks for this before judgment to skip the appellate court and they come back and they say no. they could have taken it then. >> that is exactly right. in here, too, have an example where the supreme court was willing to leapfrog the court of appeals in order to and if it the republicans and give donald trump something that he wanted. back in the waning days of the trump administration, when they resumed federal execution, there was a lower court decision of a trial court, a temporarily and enjoined one of the executions. the trump administration went to the supreme court, asked them to intervene■ç before any court of appeals had weighed in and the supreme court did that in order to allow the trump administration to execute one of the federal prisoners. here, the special counsel says, look, we know this case is going to get to the supreme court. why not just do it and they refused to do so. >> the last sort of context here, the fact about the world is that samuel alito and clarence thomas are conservatives. they would like to retire under a republican president. i think we all know that. there are 74 and 75, i believe, respectively it would be a big difference in their lives, personally if donald trump is elected. in the realist sense of what are you going to do with the last part of your golden years, that is something that is just clearly the case for both of those men. i'm not saying it affects their decisions. i'm just saying that is a thing that is out there in the world. that hangs over all of us. >> that is absolutely right. and in the recently secretly recorded between the alito's and the journalist, this is alito basically suggested that once justice alito thought the court she will be able to fly ■ whatever flag she wanted. it seems like there are multiple benefits and the situation and donald trump is re-elected, where he could step down and be replaced by some 30- year-old rights activist and his wife can fly whatever flag she wanted. >> a very specific design that she has in her head. thank you very much. >> thanks. still ahead, a trump spiritual adviser and mega church pastor just had to step down after molesting a 12-year- old girl. but first, four years after his deadly rally in too, donald trump's new plan to endanger the health of fellow americans. that is next. >> is your the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. if you don't make a habit of listening to donald trump on the campaign trail, then you might not realize quite how many policy promises he is making for his second term. they range from the politically unthinkable, like ■zis pledge t raise everyone's taxes by 10% on all goods purchased from overseas, to the outright ridiculous and possibly catastrophic, like his plan to replace all income tax with a tariff on imported goods, which in early estimates that would amount to 150% tax increase on most things. 150%. lastly, trump once again paid lip service to an extreme plan, possibly as destructive as any he has pitched before. >> and i will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or mask. and i will keep leaving things you have to say this stuff? >> trump has been making this pledge for years, it is not a slip of the tongue. this is a policy. unlike those of the policies i mentioned a oo it is not actually getting the attention it deserves. so 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 is in thinking about the chickenpox here, he is throwing red meat to his base which has been increasingly radicalized against the covid vaccines but also in a kind of spillover effect, all vaccines. and radicalized against any common sense public health measures to prevent mass illness. so mark my words, if this plan were to come to pass, it will almost certainly ensure massive outbreaks of various diseases, including measles and mumps and yes, covid. it has become clear that as bad as the x president's handling of covid was four years ago, whenever we got from potential's second trump administration will be even worse. now on the show, wg■have been doing a segment where we answer, this simple question. >> remember ronald reagan talk about general jimmy carter? >> are you better off? >> are you better off? >> are you better off? >> are you better off? >> they are better off. >> be better off? >> better off? >> better off? >> better off? >> better off? >> better off? than you were four years ago? >> the 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 do 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. patients, regular icu patients. >> covered deaths in our country passed a staggering 127,000 today. >> we at the hospital are overwhelmed. we are at capacity. we are increasing numbers every day. >> there is talks of crisis nurses coming in soon. >> that was, of course, a full blown crisis and it was admit that context that donald trump decided to return to the campaign trail. originally his big comeback rally was scheduled for exactly four years ago today, juneteenth, 2020 in tulsa, oklahoma. the trump administration scheduled its grand return on the site of one of the most infamous antilock terror attacks in this nation's history. on the holiday commemoratkn the end of . was announced in texas. the resounding backlash was so overwhelming, trump actually had to back off and change the day. instead, the rally was held one day later on june 20th, 2020. >> for months now, large gatherings have been canceled, no concerts, no stadiums built for sporting events. but tonight in tulsa, oklahoma, and arena is packed with thousands rallying for president trump's re-election. >> the president left washington late today for a destination he has not seen in 110 days, the campaign trail. >> the event in oklahoma is unbelievable. >> we have seen an increase in positive cases, which we expected when we reopen. >> today we learned six members of the president's advance team tested positive for coronavirus. >> again, remember, there's no so the case fatality races like 10 times .6 members of the president's team was, if nothing else, a preview of what is to come. but trump supporters lined up to see you there president's triumphant return to the trail. >> it is just a great honor that trump would choose to come here. >> there is a fire risk with this many people here, i understand that. but i felt this is an opportunity i'm not going to get another chance like this in my life. >> we have to go. >> those supporters, of course, were egged on by the white house itself, which downplayed the obvious risk of holding a large, in person, and/or rally during a pandemic. >> they will be given a mass, it is up to them whether to that decision. cdc guidelines are recommended but not required. when you come to ■çthe rally, a in any event, you assume a personal risk. that is just what you do. >> that calculate was also apparently made by former president herman cain, who attended the rally in person. kane was hospitalized with covid less than two weeks later. he ultimately lost his battle with the virus the following month. kane would not be the only one hospitalized after the rally. it was a super spreader event with the state public health apartment conceding that it was likely caused a massive surge in cases in the following weeks. tha