> as a fellow brown graduate, i feel the same way. you know, unfortu"> > as a fellow brown graduate, i feel the same way. you know, unfortu" property="og:description"> > as a fellow brown graduate, i feel the same way. you know, unfortu">
>> rich price, thank you very much. that is "all in" on this tuesday night. >> as a fellow brown graduate, i feel the same way. you know, unfortunately so much death and destruction becomes abstract. and when there's some sort of foothold you have into your own reality i think it makes it at once difficult and easier to be involved in the story. so i'm with you on that my friend. thanks to you at home for joining me this evening. approximately 140 police officers were injured on january 6th when a violent mob stormed the capitol. one of those officers was james, a 17-year veteran of the capitol police. this is how he described that day to pbs news outlet. >> we just hear just noise and people running at me as far as i can see from the crypt all the way to the north side of the capitol is running at us. as bad as it looks on film, believe me it was much worse. they can stitch together as much footage as they want to, but i can tell you and anybody who was in that scrum will tell you, it was much worse in person than anything you're going to see on film. >> the officer and another fellow officer became the first members of the capitol police force to sue the person they say is responsible for that attack, not any of the individual rioters, and not the far right groups who helped organize the riot. those officers sued the man at the very top, donald trump, who urged them onto 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, which tracks this sort of stuff, the deliberation here has taken nearly three times as long as an average ruling from 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 sieve cases brought by those 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 rile up the crowd, but those efforts were 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. judge tanya chutkan is being asked to rule on that very question right now in 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 capitol police officer's civil suit. and so judge chutkan is taking her time here in what some people believe might be an attempt to wait for 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 criminal trial for weeks or even months. so it really matters what the courts do here and how fast they do it. could they get this all done before the republican convention this summer? could they get it done before election day? how long do american voters have to wait before they know whether a man who could be dominated or even elected president, before they know whether he is a convicted felon or not. so all of that is playing out as we're learning new details unt 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 at trial, that trump acted recklessly on january 6th, that pence allegedly told trump there was no idea un-american than the idea any one person could decide what electoral votes to count. and when we're counting a phone call with donald trump on christmas day 2020, pence wrote in his book that he told trump, you know, coma, i don't think i have the authority to change the outcome of the election on january 6th. but pence allegedly told smith's investigators that the coma, that coma should never have been there. pence apparently meant to write that he admonished trump, you know i don't think i have the authority to change the outcome. so potentially damning testimony here 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 kimberley at kins, and joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama. both are co-hosts of "the sisters-in-law" podcast. on its face to the casual observer and i will put myself in that group it seems sort of preposterous trumps actions in and around january 6th would be one of his official duties. talk to me about the merits of that line, if you would. >> so donald trump and his attorneys would essentially have to make the case that his actions leading up to and on that day were a part of his official duties as president of the united states. they weren't a campaign event. they weren't outside of those 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's a reason why he didn't give 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 privilegedize not extend to illegality. if something was -- if he was engaged in some sort of crime, that could be seen outside of that. if a judge deems this was a political and not a part of his duties, that could be outside of that. but because this like so many things surrounding donald trump and the events leading up and on january 6th are so novel, these are thing said that have never happened in our republic before, we need these courts to evaluate it and make these rulings before going forward. and the prn here as you outline these interlocutory appeals could slow the pace of these trials so that they don't happen before the next election. >> yeah, i'm going to try to not use the phrase interlocutory appeal, but i absolutely understand what you are talking about. and joyce, while kimberley i think very rightfully points out these are novel cases, they're also particularly fraught, right? any decision here is going to be one for the history book. do you think that's why the d.c. circuit court is taking so very extraordinarily long to issue a ruling that could have a serious effect on this federal criminal case? >> yes, so it's an interesting question, alex. it's tough to say when we look at the statistics from the administrative office of the courts 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 hears simple cases and also hears complicated ones. so from my point of view the year mark isn't an excessively unreasonable amount of time. that's not how typically courts could matter this kind of matter. the civil case would be decided and the court could setout the issue. the defenses are very similar. they overlap to some extent, but they still have very different nuances when they arrive in the civil and criminal amphitheater. so i suppose i'm not answering your question directly other than to say we'll stingily have to wait for the courts to do what they have do do here. >> again, to the casual observer here, kimberley, it sort of 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 what it's doing, but it almost feels like no one wants to hand down the ruling on this. >> joyce, is right we really don't know. only the judge in this case knows for sure, but that could possibly be -- it could be a combination of all of those things, a busy docket plus this novel question, plus it is a hot potato that will be in the anals of history forevermore. it can be even slower. >> i guess the sort of acceptance that justice works its way -- there's a lot of merit to justice working slowly, but there's a case made in "the new york times" today that effectively the january 6th trial needs its own rocket docket for i think one of the reasons a lot of our viewers will understand. this is not a proposal for the courts to act in a partisan fashion. the outcome of the legal process is not the pointch the point is that the country deserves to know that outcome before it chooses the next leader of infree world. i mean the supreme court, the court system moved very quickly in bush v. gore. why can it not move expeditiously to tell the court whether donald trump is guilty or not? >> yeah, i think that's exactly the question we should be asking. and there's no reason that the courts can't move quickly here. what we're wait on now is for judge chutkan to rule on some of these motions that could give rise to what we're not calling tonight an interlocutory appeal. i'll just say it, an appeal that takes place before the case goes to trial. we let most issues wait until after the criminal case has been resolved, if the defendant is quan victed he or she can get their appeal and court resources aren't wasted. but here with these constitutional issues, there will be an appeal before trial. and we've seen appellate courts act very quickly. the 11th circuit acted swiftly when it was considering the first trump case in front of aileen cannon that involved whether trump could prevent the justice department from useding the fruits of the search at mar-a-lago in advancing that criminal case. the 11th circuit acted very rapidly. no reason the 11th circuit couldn't take a look at these issues which have been thoroughly briefed in a very prompt manner. and while the supreme court has the ability to take the case and hear it, and perhaps they will, they could 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 a trial could begin on schedule in march if they're of a mind to do that. >> i wonder if and when the trial gets under way presumably this year, kimberley, how damaging do you think the pence testimony might be given what we are learning from that abc reporting this evening? i mean is your 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 key evidence directly weighing on what donald trump did or said in those days leading up to and on january 6th. i mean he probably would have loved if he testified about this under oath before as he wrote in his book, but he's under oath now. and already testified in a deposition. this is crucial evidence not only did donald trump have mike pence telling him this was not a valid avenue to pursue but that there were lawyers within the administration who were telling him this, too, and he made a choice to pick and choose who he listened to. that could cut deeply into his defense he was only following lawyers advice. you can't just pick and choose lawyers, cherry pick the ones telling you what you want to hear for that defense to hold. >> kimberley brings up the name rudy giuliani, and i'd be remiss, joyce, if i.e. get your opinion on the news today that fannie willis, the d.a. down in fulton county, there's news she's prepared to offer plea deal or left the plea deal door open, if you will, to all the named coconspiratorteres in that fulton county case except donald trump, rudy giuliani, and mark meadows. to some extent trump doesn't surprise me being a name on that list. but i was surprised giuliani and meadows are not people she's seeking to turn into prosecution witnesses. were you? >> no, not at all. i think she's certainly not looking to hand out deals to them. in a rico case there's 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 rico scheme. in some ways and we've seen trump already trying to do this with some of the codefendants and you give the general of the defendants, in this case trump the opportunity to say i didn't know anything about it, i was sitting in the oval office trying to carry on the nation's business while rudy giuliani and mark meadows were freelancing. so seating them all at the defendant's table together you really kneecap the ability to do that and particularly when you you've got many of the lower level defendants cooperating. i think willis has four right now. she's certainly trying to get more of those codefendants to become cooperating witnesses. they all continue to point the finger at different one of the defendants. that looks like a good rico case. >> that rico case not held up by the same d.c. circuit court of appeals or the deliberations of judge chutkan on all of it. we have a lot more this evening including the world's richest man, elon musk, resurrecting the pizza gate conspiracy theory. and a temporary cease-fire in gaza while negotiators including a high ranking american tries to extend that truce. we'll talk to cia director john brennen about the possibility of a lasting peace. that's next. ennen about the posf a lasting peace. that's next. rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. in order for small businesses to thrive, rsv? they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to a $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yep, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network and that powers more businesses than anyone else. learn how you can get $1000 back for your business today. comcast business. powering possibilities. on the fifth day of the now extended cease-fire between israel and hamas, 12 hostages held captive by hamas were released, ten israelis, and two thai nationals. this video shows some of them crossing out of gaza into egypt including one 17-year-old girl carrying a pet dog. there were no americans among them according to the white house. nine american hostages remain in gaza. in exchange for today's hostage release, israel released 30 palestinians who were being held inside israeli prisons. according to the israeli military, the 12 hostages have arrived safely in israel where their families eagerly await reunions like this one. the young boy seen here hugging his mother is 12-year-old, an israeli french citizen. he was released yesterday, but his father remains captive somewhere inside gaza. now, the truce that allowed for these exchanges is set to expire tomorrow night. but tonight cia director burns is in qatar for a new round of negotiations aimed at freeing more hostages. a diplomat with knowledge of those talks tells nbc news that groups other than women and children are part of those hostage discussions. joining me now is john brennen, the former director of the cia and now an msnbc national security and intelligence analyst. director brennen, thank you for being here. one thing that's struck me as an interesting sort of facet of all of this is that these negotiations are being led by a representative from mosad and one from the cia, of course, in addition to the qataris. how unusual is that set of talks, if you will, between mosad and the cia? >> well, cia has had very strong and long-standing ties to mosad, and so 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 egyptians. the cias has close contacts with the cia and qatari. therefore mosad also has dealings with the egyptians and qataris. unsurprising these sensitive negotiations are taking place in intelligence channels. i think there's great confidence in the players, the head of mosad as well as director burns are very close. and i do believe the progress that's been made over the last five days is a result of hammering out these discussions and the terms of the arrangements. and the terms of the agreement have been followed through so far. so tomorrow is going to be a very critical day, the sixth day of this truce and the exchange of hostages and prisoners. and i'm 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 sort of the next group of hostages might be after all of the women -- the remaining women and children have been freed from hamas custody or custody of other cadical groups? >> well, i think 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 rather insistent that any extension of the truce involved the release of ten additional hostages. now, after the scheduled release of hostages tomorrow, i think the number of hostages will be about 150, 153 or so. so the numbers are coming down, which is good. and hamas may try to draw this truce out and offer fewer hostages for every day that the truce will 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 israel will relaunch the military campaign. and so i do believe that hamas wants to be able to make as much preparation as possible for that eventual day. >> how significant a challenge is it that nearly a quarter of the hostages that remain in captivity are not actually in hamas custody? >> it's difficult. one of the things that i think is a positive i think hamas leadership still maintains command and control over hamas units that had control of these hostages that have been released so far. whether or not the palestine islamic jihad and other terrorist organizations in gaza are going to be willing to give up their hostages to hamas, that's a real question mark. and there are reports that some of these hostages including the israeli military personnel, were traded and sold moopg these various gaza militant organizations. so hamas may be trying to use this period of time to try to gather under their command and control more of these hostages they can in fact trade to the israelis. >> the administration -- the biden administration has been encouraging if not urging israel to fight surgery, that is the term being reported in "the new york