plus, what if i told you there was no legal principle more than anything or anyone else in the country that keeps real police reform from basically being possible at all? what if i told you a federal judge just called that widely it use legal doctrine and unconstitutional error? well, that happened this week and it got way too little attention so i will take my glasses off and talk to some lawyers about this stunning ruling and what it could mean in practical terms. then, a remarkable story about what happens when ordinary citizens stand up for their community. ali velshi himself rings us a story of two idaho moms who fought to save their local school district from a fiery take-over. another hour of "velshi" starts right now. good morning. you are watching "velshi" on msnbc. i'm charles coleman jr. filling in for my friend and i like ali velshi and we have a lot to talk about if you want a seat for the hottest event in new york city you better make your way downtown to manhattan and get in line right now. after 20 days in court that featured more than 80 hours of testimony from 22 different witnesses, donald trump's hush money trial will soon come to a closed. less than 48 hours from now, closing arguments will begin in the first ever criminal trial of a former president while some people are spending memorial day weekend at a barbecue or the beach, others are camping out in line right now outside the courthouse at 100 center street for a chance to be in the room where it all happens. there are folks who have been in line literally since court has adjourned on thursday. on the other hand, donald trump the candidate spent his day off on the campaign trail but it didn't turn as well as he hoped. last thursday, he held a modestly attended rally in the south bronx. yesterday, he was relentlessly booed during his appearance at the libertarian conference in washington, d.c. but you can tell that the gravity of this coming week is really weighing heavily on the former president 's mine because he has posted about the trial multiple times on truth social over the weekend tuesday, that will be the last opportunity attorneys on both sides will have to make their case to the jury. by wednesday of this week, they are expected to begin deliberation. let that sink in for a second because we are actually entering both historic and uncharted territory here. up until now, no group of americans has ever been charged with the task of determining the innocence or guilt of a former president in a court of law. this is all going down in less than six months from a crucial election in which the defendant is also a leading presidential candidate. no big deal, right? well, this is anything but a small task but a bird in this case could be just days away. right now, i am joined by tim o'brien, senior executive of opinion at bloomberg and and msn see -- msnbc author as well as my friend susanne craig, a pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter from "the new york times." and the author of the book lucky loser. you have spent a lot of time in court at 100 center street. you have an up close view as to how things have been going. the defense, they spend a lot of time cross-examining michael cohen during this trial and it seems like they may just be relying on the jury thinking that he is not credible. do you think that the defense has done enough to raise the specter of a reasonable doubt given what the prosecution's case laid out for them? >> well, when i think what we are heading into with closing arguments, i think what the government has done is given jurors two paths. one is you can believe some of what michael cohen said despite all you heard i got the defense's case that he has lied on the stand in front of judges and like to banks analyst taxes. then there is also another path that i think they tried to outline for the jury. that is through the evidence. whether it is the documents or the cooperating witnesses that have come forward. i think that have provided two paths, but michael cohen is still crucial because he, you know, despite all the documentary evidence that has come forward, he is still the only witness to have key meetings that you have to buy into that go to the criminal disguise of the documents to a guilty verdict. so it will be, can you still believe michael cohen or do you have to believe some of what he said? i think that is where the jury will have to come to a guilty verdict at the end but they will have a to believe some of what he said even though they have heard he is a liar. >> that is absolutely correct i tend to agree with you. we have talked about michael cohen being the one who connects donald trump to the activity. on some level, maybe not all of his credibility matters but enough of that connection to be created, that nexus to be believable, that will be important for the prosecution. tim, i want to talk you about the idea that donald trump's trajectory in terms of his move he's gone up and out and it had a lot of good days and a lot of bad days and days were the supreme court seems to delay the presidential immunity decision. he has had days were aileen cannon has postponed the trial there. but he also has had days like last night where he give -- gets booed at the libertarian convention. he is having a week that could be really bad for him in terms of his verdict in this case. and what it could mean for him going forward. how do you think his team is preparing for what is ahead given the sort of roller coaster nature of everything he has been facing? >> i think his team will stay and -- that donald trump is being persecuted and is a big them. these are democrats and the far left and american institutions ganging up on him. unfairly. and weaponizing the government. that has been a constant theme in every instance in every court case. victimhood is a powerful message for the trump team. it is one of their main tethers to their voters. you are a victim, you have been vic demise, there are brown people and yellow people coming over the border to take advantage of you. there's a hetero government in washington suffocating your ability to live the life you want and i am in court and i am being persecuted for it. i do think, however, that messaging only goes so far. i think it is useful to remember how much disagreement i get dismissal -- dismissiveness there was of the january 6th insurrection before the congressional proceedings were aired on television. in a narrative that came into the public realm with evidence and testimony and it was incontrovertible about what occurred there. it was an insurrection. i think if you come out of this week's court case and there will be any other legal proceeding i don't think prior to the election, so this is the only one, it is not the strongest of the cases in play, but the evidence that has been presented is damning. it is hard to believe that there wasn't a record keeping and it's hard to believe that he wasn't philandering behind his wife's back. it's hard to believe that he did not pay money to cover that appeared i think the stretch and this one will be whether that will amount to election interference and the ants -- accents to which he was an architect of all that. >> you know donald trump pretty much as well as anyone else. you have written the book on him even though sue's book will be released. lucky loser. >> i cannot wait to read it. >> we know a mistrial or hung jury or acquittal as far- reaching as that might seem will be a shot in the arm for donald trump and his campaign. he has not paid like someone who really truly believes that he is ahead in the polls, at least feels like he's comfortably ahead in the polls. what does a conviction due? what does that do beyond the narrative. we know what the narrative will be from a victim place, but what does a conviction due to the mood and tone of donald trump and team trump afterwards? regardless of what they maybe sign outside. -- be staying outside? >> i think the voters that matter are moderate independent voters who haven't made their minds up yet. in six or seven swing states favor probably talking to million voters. come november. i think trump's conservative allies and critics have made up their mind about who he is and i don't know that a conviction turns them either way. but i think for a large scope of moderate voters, who care about institutions and care about the rule of law and care about civil conduct and decency, a conviction matters and i think his team knows that. it was interesting to watch trump in the courtroom over the past few weeks. this associate himself from the proceedings. i know there has been a lot of speculation that he was sleeping, but on a number of occasions he was just closing his eyes, leaning back and pretending he wasn't there because there was a former star talking about sex with him in a hotel and of warmer attorney talking about drifting and bookkeeping fraud. and the former publisher of the national enquirer talk about weaponizing that publication against his enemies. it's like when a child his or her finger in your ear when you are correcting them when they are doing something wrong. i can't hear you. i can't hear you. i got that feeling in the courtroom that he is trying to get as far from the facts being presented in front of them because it is embarrassing, demeaning, and much appears to be very true. >> picking up where we left off, i don't have a whole lot of time, sue, i have to ask you. everything tim just talked about , none of it said anything about election interference and that is the narrative that the d.a.'s office wanted to tie into. did they make the case in terms of really framing this the right way that the jury in public understands this is not necessarily about hush money, which isn't illegal, but the falsification of documents as an attempt to influence the election? is that clear? >> that's interesting because i sat through every day of it and i have to say, one of the things i felt the prosecution did an effective job was creating, setting the stage for the election interference but we went through several witnesses. we had david pecker talking about how concerned donald trump was about certain stories not getting out and the catching and killing of stories and hope hicks came in and i thought her testimony was very powerful. just taking us right back into 2016. in the moments that head into the election when that "access hollywood" tape came out and how damaging that was to the campaign. that really set the table then for donald trump and michael cohen and nobody wanting the stories about stormy daniels and karen google and donald trump's relationship with them to come out. i thought when i looked back, i really was left with the idea that the election interference was a strong argument that the prosecution was able to put forward. whether or not we will be able to get to a guilty verdict, because there are a lot of components to it, i don't know, but i thought they did a good job on that point. >> that was tim o'brien and susanne craig setting the table and getting us started on the second hour of "velshi." still ahead, why the rights of diversity is more dangerous and far-reaching than you think are plus, an important ruling that flew under the right of this week what you need to know about a federal judge's scathing rebuke of the notorious legal doctrine that is often used by police to avoid accountability for violence or abuse. then, the story of two women from opposite sides of the political divide coming together in a small act of courage to protect their community. i'm charles coleman jr. and there is more "velshi" after the break. ps remove odors 3x ban detergent alone. it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh♪ downy rinse and refresh. (man) mm, hey, honey. ♪yeahhhh♪ looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. welcome back. it's time for some civil rights talk. last week, a mississippi judge wrote an opinion -- police reform is actually unlawful. this involves the case from 2020 were a police detective accused a man of murder. also the proof was a witness statement of a man under the influence of meth and detective thomas allegedly encourage that witness to select has been green him alina. green always maintained his innocence. the witness recanted the statement admitted that he gave a false statement thinking it would give him leniency for a separate crime. prosecutors dropped the charges but he had already spent nearly two years in jail. when he did, the conditions were horrific. the jail was infested with rodents and snake, he was fed moldy food and often had to sleep on the floor and was surrounded by const violence and fighting. last year, green suit detective thomas along with the city of jack and hinds county where he was incarcerated, however, detective thomas filed a motion to dismiss the case invoking qualified immunity. that holds that officials including police officers cannot be sued for violating a person's constitutional rights unless they violate, quote, clearly established law. in practical terms, what that means is unless there is another case with identical fact on record, these officials cannot be held accountable. qualified immunity is used often to shield law enforcement from punishment engaging in violent and abusive acts, but now back to desmond green story. the judge called to shut down detective thomas's dismiss -- in doing so, he said her actions violated clearly established law and went on to say that the doctrine itself has, quote, no basis in law. he added that congress's intent to protect citizens from government abuse cannot be overridden by judges who think they know better. as a doctrine, that defies his basic visible qualified immunity is an unconstitutional error. it is past the time for the judiciary to correct this mistake. judge reeves's decision is an important first step in creating the type of accountability that is critical for changing the culture of policing in america. the on the other side of the break, i will speak with the president and executive director of the lawyers committee for civil rights on the law. don't go anywhere. there is more "velshi". we'll be right back. [sfx] water lapping. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [sfx] water splashing. ♪ ♪ [sfx] ambient / laughing. ♪ ♪ sup? -who are you? i'm your inner [sfx] child. get in.hing. listen, what you really need in life is some freakin' torque. what? horsepower keeps you going, but torque gets you going. what happened to my inner child craving love and acceptance? how about you love and accept this? p-p-p-p-powershot! when can i drive? you already are! the dodge hornet r/t... the totally torqued-out crossover. welcome back. joining me now is damien jewett, president and executive director of lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. i'm going to take the glasses off and talk once double rights attorney to another. talk to me about your reaction to judge reeves's decision around qualified immunity at least in this case and out of mississippi. >> it's good to be with you today. my reaction simply was finally. finally a judge is telling the truth from the bench, not just about the facts of a particular case, putting them in context for everyone to understand. devolution on this case and the seat had to be planted somewhere. we will see what happens on appeal. it starts with the federal district court. >> now that we are here, one of the concerns i have and many people will be wondering, where do things go? do you expect to see an appeal? and what is that path looking like going for a particularly within the circuit that this is house? >> definitely we expect to see an appeal that will happen at any time. it's not the kind of case that will settle because the prevailing law has been on the side of police officers. this officer or what ever reason can appeal. i grew up in louisiana within the fifth circuit. probably the most conservative circuit court in the entire country. so, these judges on that circuit certainly will not likely be favorable to these kinds of claims but they have to be forced to wrestle with it and reckon with it in this case is probably bound for the u.s. supreme court. >> i don't want to necessarily tip your hand, but if you are thinking strategy and talk about the fact that the fifth circuit is not necessarily the most friendly, and we know this in terms of a case like this, going the way that many think it should around abolishing the notion of qualified immunity. if you are strategically planning to bring additional cases, do you wait or do you just try and ride this out all the way to the supreme court and see if there is a possibility you may get some language that can be helpful in terms of bringing additional cases? >> civil rights lawyers, we have been trained to be strategic if not rest was. -- not being reckless. forcing a circuit split meeting pushing the issue in various jurisdictions but it starts with people whose rights have been violated and a day in court. as much as we need to say this case to play out, i don't think that should stop anyone else from arguing the same type of theory. that qualified immunity doesn't apply and/or qualified immunity itself is unconstitutional. >> when we talk about culture change in policing, there is this conversation that accountability in and of itself is not going to take place if qualified immunity exists. can you explain for our audience why this is such an important and central question in the overall conversation around policing in america. >> there are two levels here. one, with qualified immunity, the courts have found that the judges have -- don't have to get to the underlying merits of the claim. people who have been wrong in this case by police, don't even get their day in court. qualified immunity bars that from happening but there is another more sinister piece which is this. because of this notion of a clearly established right, narrow and essentially if another case hasn't been decided on the same or similar circumstances or even not decided in that particular jury distant or circuit, the courts have found that it's not established and there is a reasonable officer would have known that they were violating the rights for the law gets stuck and get stuck in place. the law does not evolve and so instances like what happened here in mississippi, unless a judge does what judge reeves did, these rights don't become clearly established to the point where they can be used in favor of litigants in the future and holding the police officers accountable. >> such an important conversation. let's hope that this judgment and opinion by judge reeves is not altogether shortly. thank you, damon hewitt, for joining me today. phil ahead, ali velshi brings us the remarkable story of two women who fought to protect their community by putting asi