As you probably know by now, Donald Trump has been claiming something so extreme, so far-fetched, and so absurd, you think it would have been laughed out of the court.

That is, of course, Trump's arguments that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for practically anything they may do well in office.

And I literally mean anything.

In fact, according to Trump's lawyers, that immunity is so broad, it allows the president to

assassinate a political rival and face virtually zero consequences. That's the argument they've

been making. But as ridiculous as that may be, the question of presidential immunity is now before the Supreme Court, which delayed Trump's federal trial in D.C. and is set to hear his appeal later this month. Their decision and the timing of that decision could determine whether Trump is ever held accountable for his actions on and around January 6th. Now, in a scathing, I mean scathing,

I've been reading it, rebuke of the former president, special counsel Jack Smith is hitting back

hard. In a filing with the Supreme Court that came down literally minutes ago, good thing I'm a

fast reader, and so is Lisa Rubin and Cheryl and Eifle, prosecutors stated that, quote, the president's

constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not entail a general

right to violate them. Smith shreds Trump's argument that criminal statutes somehow don't

apply to presidents, saying, quote, that radical suggestion, which would free the president from virtually

all criminal law, even crimes such as bribery, murder, treason, and sedition is unfounded. And there's a lot more,

and we're going to get into it right now. Because joining me now is MSNBC legal correspondent,

Lisa Rubin, and Cheryl Ann Eiffel, former president of the NWAACP legal defense

fund, two brilliant female legal eagles. So grateful to be here with both of you. Lisa, I just want

to start with you. I know this literally just came down minutes ago, but you're both brilliant lawyers.

I'm so grateful to you both for being here. Give me your immediate reaction to this new filing

from the

special counsel. You know, Jen, the thing that struck me immediately is some of the concessions

that are here, because some of these arguments we've seen before, right? This is the third time

that the special counsel's office is briefing this issue of presidential immunity before

...