elated states. so if you reach the point where you say he s incompetent to hold office whether it s because he s committed bribery or treason or supported insurrection, which was designed to prevent the lawful completion of the election, it s essentially a political judgment. at that point it may well be the case, it has to be identifiable crimes. he should indeed be vulnerable do conviction punishment. and at that point a different set of projections were click into play. everything we think about is due process. witnesses, the right to be to all the proceedings the essential safeguards, protected by the bill of rights. but the thing is these are two different procedures. one is designed to reach a political judgment, and the other is to deal with this legal consequences. this isn t s it s not whether or not trump spends rest of his life in jail it s whether or not he should either be allowed
of history and tradition as well as text, another head s method for dealing with history, most historians like myself would argue that it s very inadequate in flawed, and in some ways irresponsible. it s been so much litigated is the best example, the fiction, the theory, of the case of 2000, in the second amendment is about the first to an historian like myself it s nonsense. nobody gives a second thought when the second amendment is being debated the discussing personal right of self-defense. it was all about the and the historians very strong feelings on the subject.
acquitted. the trump lawyers now claim that legally that has to be the end of the matter, and jack smith s case, title united states of america against donald j trump must be dismissed. donald trump lawyers will also make a broader argument about presidential immunity, claiming that a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for anything the president does while in office. this is an echo of what republican president richard nixon said after he resigned from the presidency and accepted a pardon for fear of being prosecuted for the crimes that he committed in office. when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. by definition. exactly. and once again today down trump s criminal defense lawyers filed a motion with the trial judge in that case that is dying to entertain their client donald trump more than it is to impress the judge. the criminal defense lawyers for the 77 year old criminal
court says on the one hand once. differential to and respect all of history and tradition as well as text, another head s method for dealing with history, most historians like myself would argue that it s very inadequate in flawed, and in some ways irresponsible. it s been so much litigated is the best example, the fiction, the theory, of the case of 2000, in the second amendment is about the first to an historian like myself it s nonsense. nobody gives a second thought when the second amendment is being debated the discussing personal right of self-defense. it was all about the and the historians very strong feelings on the subject. but the court has kind of laid down the challenge to deal with
filings that the prosecutors have entered in the court docket after judge chutkan stopped all proceedings in the case while awaiting the outcome in the appeals court, which will issue issue an expedited decision at some point after next tuesday s oral arguments in donald trump s appeal. leading off our discussion, andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former chief of the criminal vision in the eastern district of new york, an msnbc legal analyst, and the co-host of msnbc podcast prosecuted on trump. and andrew, i want to begin with where i ended in that introduction, which is something i have never seen before. you have seen everything. i ve seen a lot but you ve seen everything. every contempt issue that i have seen raised court has always been raised or threatened from the bench, by the judge. i have never seen a party ask a judge to hold the other party in contempt.