have a good show. >> thanks, alex. earlier this week potential jurors in washington d.c. in the case of united states america versus donald j trump received preliminary questionnaires about their potential availability for a trial beginning on march 4th, in today donald trump's lawyers filed a motion to block any more preliminary steps in jury selection in that case, and to block everything else in that case, don't holmes lawyers filed a motion this afternoon to request, quote, the automatic state of all district court proceedings in this case, pending the final resolution of donald trump's recently filed appeal from the courts december 1st, 2023, rulings on presidential immunity and double jeopardy. last friday judge tanya chutkan issued a 44-page ruling denying donald trump's motion that he is completely immune from any criminal charges for anything that he may have done while he was president in united states, and that putting him through a criminal trial for his activities leading up to it on january 6th would be double jeopardy after he was impeached by the house of representatives for the same activity and went to trial in the united states senate for the same activity, a trial in which a majority of the senate voted to convict donald trump but not the two thirds majority required by the constitution to convict a president in a senate impeachment trial. a participant in that trial will be joining us later. in the trump motion filed this afternoon, the trump criminal defense lawyers specifically asked to the court, quote, to stay all proceedings in this matter pending appeal, including, but not limited to, pretrial motions, defense disclosures relating to trial defenses and evidence, classified information procedures act hearings, and jury selection. donald trump's criminal defense lawyers use that classic phrase that so often appears in such motions at the beginning, saying that defendant trump respectfully submits this motion. that motion is being submitted to a judge who donald trump has publicly attacked. the trump criminal defense lawyers use that phrase respectfully submit to a judge who they have said should be attacked by donald trump. donald trump and his criminal defense lawyers do not respectfully submit anything. no trump's criminal defense lawyers have professionally disgraced themselves time and time again by disgracefully employee in donald trump's tactics as their own. the founders of the american government believed in an american government by gentleman for a gentleman, all of whom of course had to be white gentlemen. they were incapable of imagining the expansion of the right to vote in america to reach people who were not like them. people who do not think and behave like gentle man of the 18th century. so it was inconceivable to them the voters would ever elect someone like donald trump president to the knighted states, and nothing in their design of government was built sturdily enough to defend against the assault the donald trump has already mounted on this government. the latest branch of the government, on the verge of being humiliated by donald trump, is the judiciary. donald trump publicly etched attacks judges in a way that no one ever has before. and no judge attacked by donald trump knows what to do about it or how to stop it. eight judge attacked by donald trump sits powerless in the face of the attacks. no one in the legal community thought that was possible before donald trump did it. no one notice that there was no law against publicly attacking him threatening judges and laying your case until donald trump did it. and that is not the way donald trump will ultimately humiliate the judiciary. it will be worse than that. they will do it to themselves. a federal judiciary will do it to themselves if they continue to approach trump criminal litigation as business as usual. the circuit court of appeals in washington, d.c., has been considering donald trump's appeal of a very limited gag order on donald trump issued by judge chutkan for five weeks now. and whenever they issue their opinion on that, donald trump is very likely to appeal it to the united states supreme court. when will the appeals court, which seemed during the oral argument in the case to anonymously agree they should be some kind of a gag order, finally issue their opinion? that we have no idea. there is no deadline on their proceedings. the same appeals court has taken two years to issue some opinions. two months is considered fast. the united states supreme court can take the better part of a year at the final stage of such appeals and it doesn't have to be this way. the courts have made it this way. the appeals courts and the supreme court have chosen to move as slowly as they do. in some cases it is understandable that appeals take years, because they are relevant lee low priority flea low priority items on a very crowded docket for judges that have many appeals to decide in many opinions to write. in the cases of criminal defendant donald j trump, all of those other cases on the docket should just be pushed aside. the appeals court should be working on nothing else until they reach that decision. same thing with united states supreme court. they know how to do this but they don't do it. and no one can make them do it. the oral argument on the appeal of judge chutkan's gag order took place two and a half weeks ago. there is no justifiable reason why that opinion has not already been issued. you know how long it took the united states supreme court to rule on a case that decided who would be the next president of the united states? it was an awful case. nothing like bush v. gore had ever come to united states supreme court. none of the judges judges had ever consider the issues presented to them in that case by the very able lawyers who had given unprecedented amounts of time to argue their case, make the oral arguments, to the united states supreme court, which were the very first supreme court oral arguments in history that were allowed to be broadcast live on radio, because the supreme court apparently considered that to be the most important arguments in the history of the supreme court. one day it took the supreme exactly one day after those oral arguments to issue their decision in what they were, in effect, declaring was the most important case that they ever heard. the supreme court scheduled those arguments the way they did that, the way they did it quickly, they were ineffective declaring this is the most important thing we have ever done. and after what the supreme court was essentially declaring was the most important argument they ever heard, they took exactly one day. to decide the case and issue their opinion, making george w. bush presidency the night in states. they know how to do it when they want to do it. the question donald trump is now presenting to the judiciary is, will they do it? will they do the right thing? we have seen some very fast appeals of the horrendous rulings made by a trump appointed judge in florida who has been handling the criminal case jacks mitt has brought against donald trump on espionage charges. they have quickly issued written opinions overruling that judge. but the time the dc circuit court of appeals is taking on a gag order is a very very bad sign for how they will handle the other appeals to donald trump now respectfully summits to them. donald trump is presenting the appeals court with novel and important issues, but they are not complex issues. the appeals court should be able to expedite the appeal and issue an opinion within days of the oral argument in the case, and then the united states supreme court should move very quickly on donald trump's appeal to the native state supreme court of that decision, if there is one. donald trump is testing these appeals courts including the supreme court, and he is betting that like the trial judge is currently being attacked by donald trump, the federal appeals court in washington, d.c., the united states recorded, do not know how to handle donald trump. leading off our discussion is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law. she's a co-host of the podcast hashtag sisters in law. also melissa murray, professor of law at new york university. they are both msnbc legal analysts. joyce vance, to the appeal that donald trump's lawyers have filed, they are, in effect, insisting, they don't even bother to put it in his request, they are insisting that judge chutkan stop everything in the case, do absolutely nothing now that they have filed this appeal on the issue, the issues that they believe should absolutely stop the proceedings. what do you make of their appeal? judge chutkan has given jack smith an expedited time schedule for filing his response to it by sunday night. >> yeah, so the argument, lawrence, is essentially a technical legal argument. trump's lawyers are saying that the district court, the trial court, is divested of any jurisdiction to continue ruling on anything involved in the trial. now this issue is on appeal. they cite some very standard case law. there's a supreme court case, for instance, the says that. during an appeal the trial court loses its jurisdiction over any matters that are related to the appeal. trump's lawyers say that because the questions are asking the appellate court to decide this issue of immunity, would mean that if they win trump wouldn't have to stand trial, wouldn't be subjected to any other proceedings, that everything should go on halt, as of now. and one of the major problems is that they face in their argument is that they are citing civil cases and civil laws. and there are different equities to be considered in a criminal case. including, among other things, the public's right to a speedy trial and the very unique nature of these proceedings, which i think you do a fabulous job of outlining. the future of the country hangs in balance. much of the proceedings that trump is complaining about have already been taken place. evidence has been disclosed by the january six committee. there is not really any additional damage that he is subjected to. if the judge is permitted to rule on motions and have this case proceed towards trial so that pending the outcome of this appeal the case will be ready to go if the court is permitted to exceed. >> melissa murray, are there criminal case law precedents for what donald trump's lawyers are asking for? >> well, this is really an unprecedented certainly not one who's been four different cases we are in and as joyce says in a criminal case versus a civil case, but i take your point that the need for a speedy trial the need for finality, when it's not just a former president, but also a current presidential candidate in the fact that we have an election looming means that the judges really need to move with some sense of expedition, and we aren't seeing that. some of these cases, or some of these motions, present some and some present motions that are stupid the double jeopardy question could've been resolved because the proceeding the donald trump's, the impeachment proceedings are not criminal proceedings. and so there really is no double jeopardy issue there. he hasn't been tried for the same fora. some of these issues are novel and summer just pulled out there to distract, delay, and ultimately to get all of this beyond the election where if donald trump wins he it won't matter anymore. >> joyce vance, i'm so glad i mentioned the double jeopardy piece because we have seen these very same impeachment procedure is used for federal judges if they get into serious trouble. we've seen federal judges convicted, in court, of taking bribes and getting impeached by congress. and nobody ever said, wait, you have to pick. you can only do one of those. you can't have these two procedures against the federal judge. >> yeah, i want to associate myself with melissa's comment that the double jeopardy argument is stupid. >> thank you. >> it has some legal content because the law that are frivolous appeal does not divest the district courts jurisdiction. and so i think the double jeopardy part of trump's appeal can be set aside. it certainly does not substantiate the argument that the trial court can't proceed. and really the only thing that the judge needs to take up here is the immunity argument, where trump says i've got presidential immunity so you can't prosecute me. that argument is not frivolous. i think it's probably a loser, but it's an argument that is made in good faith. >> joyce, in your experience in tax evasion prosecutions, how many of them involved a defendant by the time they go to trial who has paid all of the taxes in question? as we're seeing with hunter biden's indictment tonight in california for tax evasion. >> you know, lawrence, i spent 25 years of the justice department. my office prosecuted a steady diet of tax evasion cases. typically when you have a defendant who had paid the money back, the case was handled as a civil matter. the government had gotten what it wanted. there was frankly no reason to use our office-limited resources to engage in a criminal prosecution after have been resolved. i haven't had time to study this indictment thoroughly. i understand that it involves a conspiracy to conceal over 1 million dollars in income. that's a serious matter. so we'll have to take a look at it. but it's hard to escape the conclusion that one of the primary reasons this case was pursued was because of the defendants last name. >> melissa murray, i assume we will be hearing from defendant trump about defendant biden now. >> again, defendant trump is playing into different courts. there are all of these various proceedings in courts of law. but of course he is playing to the court of public opinion. again, rehashing this hunter biden scenario now with the overlay of a criminal indictment, to criminal indictments if you count the gun charges. perhaps levels the playing field a bit when you're a former president facing four different criminal indictments while on the campaign trail. >> tonight lost cool conducted by professors joyce vance and melissa murray. thank you both very much for starting off our discussions tonight. >> thank you, lawrence. >> coming up, congressman eric swalwell beat donald trump in an appeals court on its civil litigation around involving january 6th. he was also one of the senate prosecutors, in effect, of donald trump, in donald trump's last impeachment trial. he will join us next. ment trial he will join us next >> that was fast. mucinex. available on doordash. it's comeback season. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ struggling with the highs and lows of bipolar 1? ask about vraylar. because you are greater than your bipolar 1, and you can help take control of your symptoms - with vraylar. some medicines only treat the lows or highs. vraylar treats depressive, acute manic, and mixed episodes of bipolar 1 in adults. proven, full-spectrum relief for all bipolar 1 symptoms. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles or confusion which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. sleepiness and stomach issues are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie (car engine revs) save. (engine accelerating) (texting clicks) (tires squeal) (glass shattering) (loose gravel clanking) last >> by the friday federal federal judge tanya chutkan denied on trump's claim that he is judge judge chutkan denied immune from criminal donald trump's prosecution claim that he's immune to federal, a ruling, prosecution which as we discussed, and the ruling we have he is now appealing. judge just discussed is just appealing. chutkan's ruling judge says shotguns ruling in that whatever says that whatever immunity duties immunity a sitting a sitting president may enjoy, the president might united states has enjoy, united only one chief executive states only has anytime, and one executive chief that position does not come out of time and, for a lifelong get out of jail position does not free confer a lifelong get paths. out of jail free judge chutkan issue that ruling hours after the d.c. court of finally ruled that donald trump is not protected from civil lawsuits that are trying to hold him liable for the january 6th attack on the capital. it took the appeals court 20 months to issue that relatively simple ruling the, unanimous ruling by a three judge panel, which includes a trump appointed judge this is that donald trump is not entitled to immunity as an elected official because he was speaking as a candidate on january the 6th and not in his official capacity as president. in arguing that the court, wrote, in arguing he's entitled to an immunity in the traces for us, trump does not dispute that he engaged in his alleged actions up to january six in his capacity as a candidate. when he thinks it does not matter. rather, in his view, a president speech on matters of public concern is invariably unofficial function, and he was engaged in that function when he spoke at the january 6th rally and in the lead up to that day. we cannot accept that rationale. jay discussion is congressman eric swalwell, a member of the house judiciary committee and served as an impeachment manager in the senate trial of donald trump for violations of his oath of office. let's weaken with the 20 months. the same appeals court is now handling the appeals in the criminal litigation against donald trump in washington, d.c.. they routinely take 20 months to reach their decisions. is there anything about those 20 months that makes sense to you in waiting for that decision in and in your case suing donald trump for what he did on january 6th, you've read the product of the 20 months work. how did that take 20 months? >> the delay has been a costly. because of the witnesses you want to call and depose and get evidence from, that is all be