month. adam klasfeld thank you for the fireworks report. we appreciate it. thank you for having me. donald trump is now facing four different criminal trial dates. the first trial date is march 4th and washington, d. c.. the federal prosecution by special prosecutor jack smith of alleged crimes committed by donald trump leading up to and on january 6th. the next scheduled trial date is march 25th in new york city, when manhattan attorney alvin bragg has charged donald trump with falsifying business records by making secret payoffs to porn star stormy daniels. the next trial date is may 20th in the southern district of florida for violations of the espionage act and illegal possession of classified documents. judge attorney has proposed on august 5th trial date in atlanta georgia in the election fraud conspiracy case against donald trump there but the judge in that case has not yet set the date for trial. on the civil side of defendant trump s docket, he is next civil trial starts
the year ahead for criminal defendant trump is neal katyal, former acting host of the and andrew weissmann is still with us. it seems like the first trial date object smith prosecution in washington is like you to be delayed since that is what, that s the case that the being appealed on the immunity argument. it may be that the most solid trial date we are looking at there is the march 25th trial date in manhattan. so, lawrence, first of all let me read you react to all those descriptions in all of those cases. trump is the biggest litigation magnet, and for my profession lawyers this would be a great jobs program, having paid his lawyers, but unfortunately he doesn t. that s why he gets into some of the hot water he s in, including today in new york. i think it s still possible for march 4th or close to that to be the trial date in the january 6th federal prosecution brought by jack smith special counsel in front of judge chutkan. the reason that people think there is going to be
trial, judgment, punishment into law. that s if you take the negative inference, correct? the language supports from the very beginning that is a natural ordinary meaning of the impeachment judgment clause. genius discussion now is jack rakove, professor of history and american studies and professor of political science at stanford university. he won the pulitzer prize in history for the book original meanings, politics and ideas in the making of the constitution. professor rakove, thank you for joining us tonight. and of course, i was thinking of you when i was listening to donald trump s lawyer make that statement about the original intent of the impeachment clause. you have the floor, professor. i hope that s not guilt by association on my part. i was thinking, the argument seems so absurd that it s almost impossible to take it seriously. the constitution is quite
imposed, trump stands to spend his life in court trying not to pay. the trial ended today in trumpian style which is to say full of ridiculous goofiness and unprofessionalism of both donald trump and his lawyers. donald trump s lawyers did not request a jury trial in the case, but that did not stop them or donald trump from complaining that they weren t getting a jury trial. they specifically did not request. that is as goofy as lawyering gets. the lawyers donald trump paid shows chose not to have a jury trial. for donald trump to complain about not having a jury trial is for donald trump to confess that he is the single stupidest client ever to appear in that courtroom. days ago donald trump claimed that he wanted to present himself the final arguments in this case. the judge in the case went along with that game and imposed, of course, the standard rules for such presentations, the same rules that apply to lawyers and court, which donald trump refused to
interpretation of the impeachment judgment clause? that is, if he s correct, then that the impeachment judgment clause includes this impeachment first rule, then he wins? and if he s wrong, if we think the impeachment judgment clause does not contain impeachment first oral, then he loses? article one section three of the u.s. constitution says, judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, for profit under united states, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. appeals court judge michelle childs told on trump s lawyer that the impeachment clause does not explicitly say what donald trump s lawyer claimed it says. you re not giving me anything that says explicitly in the references that you cite. only the party convicted shall be subject to indictment,