chris brice very much. that's all in on this tuesday night. alex wagner starts tonight. good evening. alex wagner starts as a fellow browi feel the same way. unfortunately, so much death and destruction becomes abstract and when there is some sort of foothold you have into your own reality i think it makes at once both and easier to be involved in the story. i'm with you on that front. thank. you >> have a good night. >> thanks to you at home for joining me tonight. approximately 140 police officers were injured on january 6th when a violent mob stormed the capitol. one of those officers was gems glancing jing, a 17 year veteran of the capitol police. this is how mr. blossoming described that data pbs news hour. >> you just hear just noise and people running at me as far as i can see. from the crypt to the north side center side of the capital just running after us. as bad as it looks on filled, believe me it was much worse. they can stitch to mega together as much footage as they want to, but i'm telling you, anybody who is in that scrum will tell you, it was much worse in person than anything you want to see on film. >> officer blasting game and another officer became the first members of the capital police force to sue the person they say is expense responsible that attack. not any of the individual rioters, not the far-right groups that helped organize the riot. those officers sued the man at the very top, donald trump, who urged the mob to descend on the capitol with the hope of overturning a legitimate presidential election. now these capitol police officers filed civil lawsuits in march of 2021, that was just two months after the attack. but those lawsuits have been languishing in the federal courts for more than two years now. the d.c. circuit court heard arguments in those cases nearly a year ago but that court still has not issued a ruling. according to statistics from the administrative office of the u.s. courts with tracks this sort of stuff, the deliberation here has taken nearly three times as long as an average ruling for this court the d.c. circuit court. and that delay matters. not just for those capitol police officers seeking accountability here. the extraordinary delay also matters to special counsel jack smith and his federal criminal case against donald trump. and that is because in both the civil cases brought by the capitol police officers and the criminal case brought by jack smith, trump's lawyers have made essentially the same argument. they are using the same line of defense. they argue that donald trump is immune from prosecution. according to their defense, trump's efforts to overturn the election riot the crowd, those efforts were all somehow part of trump's official duties as president, and therefore trump is immune from any liability, criminal or civil. he should not have to stand trial. jeff tanya chutkan is being asked to rule on that very question right now and jack smith's federal case, but anything she decides there could be overruled by the judges on the d.c. circuit court, the ones deciding the merits of that same argument, trump's presidential immunity argument in the capital police officers civil suit. and so judge chutkan is taking her time here. in what some people believe may be an attempt to wade through the d.c. circuit court to issue its very long awaited ruling first. now any decision that trump gets on this from either judge chutkan or the d.c. circuit court could be appealed, and it could be appealed all the way to the supreme court. and remember, it has to be resolved before donald trump goes to trial. but if it goes all the way to the supreme court, it could delay trump's federal trial for weeks or even months. so it really matters what the courts to here and how fast they do it. could they get this all done before the republican convention this summer? could they get done before election day? hello to american voters have to wait before they know whether a man who can be nominated or even elected president before they know whether he is a convicted felon or not? so all of that is playing out as we are learning new details about what special counsel jack smith has in store for donald trump at that criminal trial whenever it starts. abc news has reporting today about what vice president mike pence has told prosecutors and what he might testify to a trial, that trump acted recklessly on january 6th. that pence allegedly told trump there was no idea more un-american than the idea that any one person could decide what electoral votes to count. and when we counting a phone call with donald trump on christmas day, 2020, pence wrote in his book that he told trump, you know khama i don't think i have the authority to change the outcome of the election on january 6th. but pence allegedly told smiths investigators that the camera, that comet should never have been there. pence apparently meant to write that he admonished trump. you know i don't have the authority to change the outcome. some potentially damning testimony from trump's own former vice president. but the question now is will a jury get to consider any of it before the 2024 presidential election? joining me now are to kimberly atkins score, boston globe pinion columnist and joyce vance former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama. both a co-host of the sisters in law podcast. kimberly, let me first start with you. the idea of presidential immunity here. on its face to the casual of adverse observer and i will put myself in that group, it seems sort of press prosperous the trump's actions in and around january six would be part of his official duties. but talk to me about the merits of that line of defense if you would? >> donald trump and his attorneys would essentially have to make the case that is actions leading up to and on that day were a part of his official duties as president of the united states. they wanted it they weren't campaign event, they were outside his duties, it was his job as president when he was speaking at that podium and urging people to go, encourage the members of congress to do what they were doing he was speaking as president. i am with you, i think there is a reason why he didn't get that message from the white house itself. it was because, it was clearly a campaign event at best or something outside of the realm of the presidency. keep in mind, that privilege does not extend to illegality. so if something was -- if he was engaged in some sort of crime that could be seen outside of that. if a judge deems that this was a political and not a part of his duties, that could be outside of that. but this like so many things surrounding donald trump and the events leading up to and around january six or so novel, these are things that have never happened in our republic before, we need these courts to evaluate it and make these rulings before going forward. the problem here as you outlined, these appeals could slow the pace of these trials so that they don't happen before the next election. >> yeah. i'm gonna try to not use the phrase interlocutory appeal, but i absolutely understand what you are talking about. and joyce, while kimberly very rightfully point said that these are novel cases, they're also particularly fraught. any decision here is in the one for the history books. do you think that's why the d.c. circuit court is taking so very extraordinarily law to issue a ruling that could have a serious effect on this criminal case? >> yes, it's an interesting question alex. it's tough to say when we look at the statistics from the administrative office of the courts that these appeals are really taking what we might characterize as too long. that's because not all appeals are the same and the d.c. circuit here is some very simple appeals from some very simple basic criminal cases and also here's complicated ones from administrative decisions involving agency functions. so from my point of view, the air mark is not an excessively long period of time. might we read into that that the corners holding these opinions to release them together? i suppose that could be the case but that's not typically how courts would handle the sort of a matter. the civil cases could be decided and the court would make it clear in its opinion that is setting at the standard for civil cases. that would leave the issues still to be decided in the criminal context, the defense is a very similar, they overlap to some extent, but they still have three different nuances when they arrive to civil and criminal amphitheater. so i'm suppose i am not answering your question directly, other to say that we will have to simply have to wait for the courts to do what they are going to do here. they don't give us a lot of advanced warning about what they're thinking is. >> again, to the casual observer here kimberly, it seems like a game of hot potato. judge chutkan is waiting, this decision has to be made before trump goes to trial in the federal case. the d.c. circuit court is doing whatever it is doing but it almost feels like no one really wants to hand down the ruling on this. and i over reading the situation? >> again, joyce is right. we really don't know, only the judges in this case no foreshore. but that could quite possibly be. it could be a combination of all those things. a busy dog had plus this novel question plus it is a hot potato that will be in the annals of history forevermore. some justice as often operate slowly and in this case when all the fraud issues we are talking about in our and play it could be even slower. >> i guess the acceptance that justice works slowly, there is a lot of merit to justice working slowly. but there is a case made in the new york times today that effectively the january 6th trial needs its own rocket docket so reason that a lot of our viewers will understand. or even except for you joyce. this is not a proposal for the courts to act in a partisan fashion. the outcome of the legal process is not the point. the point is that the country deserve to know that outcome before it chooses its leader the, next leader of the free world. the supreme court the, court system move very quickly and bush v. gore. why can it not move expeditiously in this incredibly important, very limited window it has to tell the country whether donald trump is guilty or not? >> yeah, i think that's exactly the question that we should be asking. there is no reason that the courts cannot move that quickly here. what we are now waiting on all four is judge chutkan to rule on some of those motions that could give rise to what we are not calling tonight an interlocutory appeal. on to say and appeal that takes place before the case goes to trial. we let most issues wait until after the criminal case has been resolved, that way if the defendant is acquitted, you don't have to have an appeal. if the defendant is acquitted, he or she can then get their appeal and court resources are not wasted. but here with these constitutional issues, there will be an appeal before trial and we have seen appellate courts act very quickly. the 11th circuit acted very swiftly when it was considering the first trump case in front of aileen cannon wanted -- from using the fruits of the search of mar-a-lago in advancing a criminal case. the 11th circuit acted very rapidly. no reason at the 11th circuit couldn't take a look at these issues which have been thoroughly briefed and a very prompt matter, and while the supreme court has the ability to take the court and hear it, perhaps they will, they can act quickly or they might be satisfied with the court of appeals decision and permit that to stand. so lots of ways for the appellate courts to move this case forward so that trial can begin on schedule in march, if they are have a mind to do that. >> i wonder if and when the trial does get underway, presumably this year kimberly, how damaging do you think the pence testimony might be given what we are learning from that abc reporting this evening? is their expectation that he will be called to the stand? >> yes. he is going to be one of the most crucial witnesses in this case, because he is the highest ranking current or former official who has kyiv and its directly weighing on what donald trump did and said in those days leading up to and on january 6th. i would've loved if he had testified about this under oath before but he rode it in his book, but he's under oath now, having spoke to the prosecutors. and already testifying in a deposition. so this is crucial evidence not, only did donald trump have mike pence telling him that this was not a valid avenue to pursue, but that there were lawyers within the administration who were telling him this as well. he made a choice to pick and choose who he listened to. he listened to the giuliani's and the sydney powell's in his circle as opposed to even his own vice president. that could cut very deeply into his defense that he was only following lawyers advice. you can't just pick and choose lawyers, cherry pick the ones who are telling you what you want to hear from that defense to hold. >> kimberly brings up the name rudy giuliani when i will be remiss choice vie then get your opinion today on the news that the final one is the d.a. down in fulton county georgia, is that she's willing to offer plea deals are as left the door open if you will to all the named coconspirators in that fulton county case except donald trump, rudy giuliani and mark meadows. to some extent it does nick surprise me being an atlas but i was surprised that giuliani and metals are not people she seeking to turn into prosecution witnesses. were you? >> no. not at all. i think she is certainly not looking to hand out deals to them. in a r.i.c.o. case there is a lot of advantage to trying the people at the top, the general and the lieutenants together, to get in all of the evidence about the r.i.c.o. scheme. in some ways, and we have seen trump already doing this with some of the co-defendants who are cooperating, if they are all cooperating against you then you give that general, the defendant, the opportunity to say they were all doing this, i didn't know anything, i was sitting in the oval office trying to carry on the nation's business on rudy giuliani and mark meadows were freelancing. so by seating them all of the defendants table together, you really kneecap the ellipse you to do that, particularly when you've got many of the lower level defendants cooperating. i think willis has for right now. she is certainly trying to get more of those codefendants to become cooperating witnesses. they all continue to point the finger at different ones of the defendants. that looks like a good r.i.c.o. case. >> that r.i.c.o. case not held up by the same dc circuit court of appeals are the deliberations of judge chutkan on president trump's immunity defense. kimberly, joyce, thank you for being here tonight. we have a lot more this evening, including the world's richest man, elon musk, resurrecting the pizzagate conspiracy theory. plus, more hostages freed in the temporary cease-fire in gaza while negotiators, including high-ranking american, try to extend that truce. we'll talk to former cia director john brennan about the possibility of a more lasting peace. that's next. e lastin peace. that's next. >> hi, i'm jason and i've lost 202 pounds on golo. so the first time i ever seen a golo advertisement, i said, "yeah, whatever. there's no way this works like this." and threw it to the side. a couple weeks later, i seen it again after getting not so pleasant news from my physician. i was 424 pounds, and my doctor was recommending weight loss surgery. to avoid the surgery, i had to make a change. so i decided to go with golo and it's changed my life. when i first started golo and taking release, my cravings, they went away. and i was so surprised. you feel that your body is working and functioning the way it should be and you feel energized. golo has improved my life in so many ways. i'm able to stand and actually make dinner. i'm able to clean my house. i'm able to do just simple tasks that a lot of people call simple, but when you're extremely heavy they're not so simple. golo is real and when you take release >> on the fifth day of the now and follow the plan, it works. extended cease-fire between israel and hamas, 12 hostages held captive by hamas were released. ten israelis and to tie nationals. this video shows some of them crossing out of gaza into egypt, including 1:17 year old girl carrying a pat dog. there were no americans among the according to the white house. nine american hostages remain in gaza in. in exchange for today's hostage release, israel released 30 palestinians who were being held inside israeli prisons. according to the israeli military, and 12 hostages have arrived safely in israel, where their families eagerly await reunions like this one. the young boy scene here hugging his mother's 12-year-old eaton yahalomi, an israeli friend citizen. eaton was released yesterday but his father remains captive inside gaza. the truth little out these exchanges essential expire tomorrow night. but tonight cia director william burns is in doha, qatar, in round of new negotiations. a diplomat with knowledge of those talks tells abc news that groups other than women and children are part of those hostage discussions. joining me now is john brennan, former director of the cia and now an msnbc national security and intelligence analyst. director brennan, thank you for being here. one thing that has struck me over an interesting facet of all of this is that these negotiations are being led by a representative from mossad and one from the cia, of course in addition to the qataris. how unusual is that set of talks, if you will, between mossad in the cia? >> well, the cia has had very strong and long-standing ties to mossad and it's not surprising to me that cia is involved heavily in these discussions because the negotiations with hamas are taking place through intermediaries. in this case it's mostly the qataris, but also the egyptians. the cia also has contacts, some very close relations between qataris and egyptian intelligence. so their form aside, the external intelligence organization of israel, also has dealings with egyptians and the qataris. again, it's unsurprising with these very sensitive negotiations are taking place in intelligence channels. i think with great confidence in the mossad, i think they're very close, the leaders, and i believe that progress was made over the last few days as a result of hammering of these discussions and the terms of the arrangements. the terms of the agreement have been followed through so far. tomorrow is going to be a very critical day. the sixth day of this truce, and the exchange of hostages and prisoners. i am confident that director burns is doing all he can to extend that truce and to get more of these hostages free. >> can i ask you what you would assume that the sort of next group of hostages might be after all the women, after the remaining women and children have been freed from hamas custody in custody of other radical groups? >> i think hamas hamas is going to keep the israeli defense force personnel. they're not going to give those up. certainly at this point. the israelis have been insistent that any extension of the truce involves the release of tim additional hostages. after the scheduled release of hostages tomorrow, i think the number of hostages will be about 150, 153. the numbers are coming down, which is good. hamas may try to draw out this truce and offer fewer hostages for every day that the truce can be extended. clearly, i think, hamas wants to buy additional time. it is using the time to reposition its forces and i think to prepare for the day after the truce given that netanyahu is determined and has said publicly that isr