, the appeal goes to a federal court of appeals and we have a number of circuit courts of appeal. and i volunteer to sit with some of those courts of appeal and your only application for relief is with the u.s. supreme court. and their grant of jurisdiction is discretionary and not too many cases are granted. that's how the system works today. and i volunteer periodically to sit on one of the federal courts of appeal and hear a number of cases for two or three days. and today, i went to the supreme court myself, i was here, and i heard a case argued and it just happened to be a case which i had heard as a volunteer judge when i sat on the 9th circuit and heard that case and we rendered a decision and the losers didn't like the results and they filed a petition with the u.s. supreme court, which took the case and it was argued today. so i had the pleasure of sitting in the courtroom and listening to the lawyers argue about the case that i had participated in deciding some months before at the court of appeals level. so that was kind of fun to do, i have to say. and i think what we'v

in terms of the expedited appeal, the d.c. circuit court of appeals tells both sides, special counsel jack smith and donald trump, you have to start actually filing the briefs substantively on this appeal that trump took in terms of presidential immunity. how does this work when it comes to the appellate process for presidential immunity appeal that trump is taking? >> we have dueling courts here right now. what jack smith did is he went to the supreme court with this unusual request that the supreme court here trumps immunity appeal before the court of appeals did. it's an appeal to judicial economies. look, this case is headed in your direction. why don't we just cut to the chase and you hear it. out of an abundance of caution, he tells the supreme court, at the same time i'm asking you to hear the case, i will ask the court of appeals for the district of columbia to expedite their proceedings as well. the district of columbia did just that. trump will have a brief -- on the 20th next week to discuss this issue of whether the supreme cour

of the watergate defendants in washington, d. c.. jack smith asked the supreme court and appeals court today to expedite their appeal to help preserve the trial date, currently scheduled for march 4th in this case. rule 11 of the united states supreme court says that an appeal can bypass the court of appeals and go directly to the u.s. supreme court, quote, upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this case. jack smith uses that key phrase, imperative public importance, multiple times in his petition to the supreme court, beginning on the first page of his argument. and on page ten, jack smith writes, this case involves paradigmatic issue of imperative public importance. the amenability to criminal prosecution of a former president of the united states to conduct undertaken during his presidency. it requires no extended discussion to confirm that this case, involving charges that respondent sought to thwart the peaceful transfer of power through violations

i also sit occasionally with some of the federal courts of appeals. you know the federal court system is consistent. district court in federal cases are tried, and then if the loser appeals, the appeals goes to a federal court of appeals and we have a number of federal circuit courts of appeals scattered around the country. all volunteer to sit with the courts of the appeal and the only application for relief is with the u.s. supreme court. in their grant and jurisdiction is discretionary with the court and not too many cases are granted. so that's how the system works today. i volunteer periodically to sit on one of the federal courts of appeals -- appeals in the period a number of cases. today i went to the supreme court myself, i was here, and i heard a case argued and it just happened to be a case i had heard as a volunteer judge when i sat on the ninth circuit some months back in her that case and we rendered a decision in the loser's didn't like the result and they fired a petition -- filed the petition with the u.s. supreme court and they took t

court of appeals. his plea was purely political so he could meet the opening trial date of march 4 and get a conviction of trump before election day in 2024. many of you didn't appreciate when i explained all this last week. the social media was brutal. i was simply trying to detail how smith has boxed himself in. but it did earn aplos. my commentary from last wecht. from one viewer. that would be donald trump who talked about so-called honesty and dangerous moment in the united states. i'm thinking he was trying to get me fired. and in their brief to the supreme court, hoenig said to me anyone would have to agree smith is acting based on the election calendar. when on thursday smith replied to trump voters if skoe husband, e ignored trump's claim that he's acting with an eye toward the election. instead he vaguely referenced what's in the public's interest and vowed to have the charges promptly resolved. but why not just say the public needs to know if a presidential candidate is a convicted felon bef

court of appeals? >> there is. they can for instance, ask the court to order the stay in the trial for it lifted. that would be a big and significant step. they can try to narrow the time that trump has to ask the supreme court whether or not the courts will indulge those sorts of requests remains to be seen. but it's a limited issue. it's been fully briefed in the district court now fully in the appellate court. they can certainly act to create a timeline that's maybe not the timeline that jack smith originally envisioned, but something closer to it than trump's efforts to delay trial in the case until 2026. >> joyce vance, it's great to spend a couple of minutes with you on this christmas afternoon. still ahead on this holiday, we are following breaking news out of russia. missing opposition leader, alexei navalny, found after weeks. plus, a new round of strikes on gaza as families cling to hope. and president biden having a quiet christmas but we'll have plenty to take on when h gets back to work. we're live at t

tribe, we see what is the essence, or what will be the essence of jack smith's argument to the supreme court on the merits of this appeal of what the trump team response to this is wednesday morning when they actually have to respond to the court of appeals on this very same question. this is one of those documents that i read and i struggle to imagine any response by the trump lawyers. >> well, i can't imagine any coherent response, especially since the argument that is central in this case, the argument that is central in this motion for expedited consideration is not a one-sided ideological argument. it is the argument that says, because no one is above the law, or below the law, it is vital that the american people before voting for the next president of the united states have an answer to whether a jury of his peers designs that donald trump committed this grave crime. if he is innocent, the people deserve to know that. he deserves a bill of good health. if he is found guilty, the people need to know that too. this is one of those rare cases in which it is virtually impossible to make a principled argument about wh

appeals court considering the trump immunity claim. hours ago with the d.c. appeals court ruled in favor of the special counsel's request for an expedited schedule on donald trump's claims of immunity. donald trump now has until december 23rd. that's next saturday. to submit his brief to the appeals court. jack smith and his team get a week to respond to that, and then trump's attorneys -- get their final reply brief in. the decisions on the expedited schedule came hours after filings from trump and smith to the d.c. appeals court this afternoon, apparently the appeals court was not very impressed with this argument from trump's attorneys. quote, even if the court granted expedited consideration, which should not do, it should not adopt the prosecution's proposed schedule, which is facially unreasonable and would make president trump's opening brief do the day after christmas. this proposed hedule would require attorneys and support staff to work around the clock through the holidays, inevitably disrupting family and travel plans. it is as if the special counsel growled with his grinch fing

circuit court of appeals. what is going on here? on one hand, you have the supreme court saying, we are not necessarily going to take up jacks mitt's condition, but will consider and hear from the trump team. meanwhile, the d.c. court of appeals, is still continuing with its activities. >> not just continuing but going in overdrive. jack smith says, you know, you still have it, so, please do a quick briefing schedule. they did, a very quick one, and that shows that there are concerns of trying to move quickly. at the same time, that has not changed the special motion that smith made on monday to the supreme court to say, hey, consider whether to take the case, even before judgment. that includes a judgment in the district of columbia court of appeals. they could still decide the supreme court to grab it, even from the court of appeals, what they have not yet. for now, the court of appeals has, and they are showing every sign of going very quickly, all briefing will be done by january 2nd, and they may will issue a decision within a w

traditionally, it's the district court of appeals and then you seek the supreme court. they're just saying we're gonna do the normal procedure and was one sentence, it was probably majority, you didn't see the scents. the dc circuit court of appeals has really a rocket docket, meaning very clear that they're gonna expedite this case. the oral argument, emotions, it will be done quickly. >> catherine, even if this was a big blow to jack smith, right now donald trump strongest offenses to delay. does this all but guarantee that the march 4th date won't happen? >> oh, it's not happening. it's not happening on march 4th. donald trump winds in that he gets to delay the trial. now it doesn't mean that the trial isn't gonna happen before november 2024. if the d.c. circuit court issues their opinion and the supreme court assuming donald trump loses, or even if the special counsel's, is they'll seek -- supreme court is capable of deciding a case fast when they want to. will it happen in march? i don't see that happening. but it might happen in may, it may happen in june, i'm talk

the swedish court of appeal confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment of iranian citizen hamid nouri. the appeals court also came without really wanting to evaluate and take into account mr. noori's lawyers' judgment in the appeal stage, based on the same findings of the lower court , you confirmed the decision that he was an employee of the judiciary 35 years ago and the swedish court year he was accused of being involved in the executions of hypocrites in the 1960s and was sentenced to life imprisonment after 92 sessions of the trial court. talking against me in all media around the world . one-sided talks have been heard from these opponents of the islamic republic of iran. more than 20 sessions of the appeals court were held due to the protest of the iranian lawyers and soadi nouri, but the judge of the case did not pay attention to the new documents. i have to face 33 years of lies, slander and slander in 4 days. i am accountable to the people of iran and myself for more than 50 months of this iranian citizen's life, according to the claims of 50 witnesses and complainants from

circuit court of appeals is going to go his way on it. then it will be right back in the hands of the supreme court, and they can make a decision at that point whether they want to have an expedited briefing schedule. and depending on outcome, who knows? maybe they don't take it up at all. but that remains to be seen. >> michael, that's a good point on the idea of the why and, of course, process. there's normally an order of things. it goes from the lower court to the appellate court and then can find its way. they tried to leap frog all that as you well know, knowing the gravitas in this entire case. but the d.c. court of appeals, the circuit court is going to hear the oral arguments. it's january 9th. we're showing everyone a calendar right now. it's coming up pretty quickly. it's days before the iowa republican caucuses. the trial is supposed to begin on march 4th. is this likely now they're not going to take up the case to push that trial date out of march and maybe much later? >> yeah. well, i'm glad to be with all of you and happy ho

circuit court of appeals before it can go to the supreme court. ked one of our legal analysts about what exactly this means, and what this means for the pace at which this case will move. i want you to hear his response. >> this may be a case where the d.c. court of appeals gets to this appeal in breakneck speed. and then from there, the appeals to the supreme court, if needed, happens again in breakneck speed. we may be talking about a matter of weeks. and not months. and for that ordinary really, years. this is arguably the most important criminal law issue in american history. >> we know that the appeals court here in d.c. is saying it will hear the case on january 9th. hear argument in the case then. and then we'll see how quickly we get a decision from that court, it's likely that whichever way this court decides, there could be an appeal that would go then to the supreme court. we could see the decision from that body fairly quickly as well, alex. certainly, not the response that the team from jack smith the special prosecutor's office was ho

time where he can say he wants to have the entire court of appeals look at it, then after that period of time, 90 days in which he could decide if he wants to go to the supreme court, but i don't think that will happen. as a way in which the court of appeals can control it. they could say, as what just happened in colorado, we are going to lift the stay on the district court and allow the district court to proceed if you do not petition with an x amount of time so they can easily force him to go to the court quickly or jack smith can do what he suggested, that after the d.c. court of appeals rules, then the supreme court can expedite. and that is the option available to the courts, it is in the courts hand what they want to do. >> do they have the expiration date, do you see a scenario where trump could, if the chips fall, all the chips fall in his direction, could delay beyond the election? >> it is not impossible, but i think not likely. as ryan said, we really have the court in control of how much evidence and how the court proceeds, the trial court, to a greater degree here. and i

in the federal system you've got the trial court, the circuit court of appeals and the supreme court. trump is on trial and asked for immunity. the judge said absolutely not, so he's appealing to the middle court, the circuit court of appeals, but jack smith was trying to jump all the way to the supreme court. they said no today so it will go back to the regular process the way it usually works with the dc circuit court of appeals. oral arguments are scheduled for january 9th but we all know what's going to happen after that. probably go right back to the supreme court. >> take up he probably. its going back to the supreme court. why not just answer the question now? but they want the process as you layout to go forward. >> let's move onto the next one. this one is for you, laura. has any president ever been granted the immunity that trump is asking for? >> no, we're in the wild, wild west, we really are. the reason it's so important is because we have seen when it comes to maybe a civil matter with president clinton, actually before he was in office, a different ball game, this invol

and i think as i have been a judge both on the court of appeals and the supreme court. i just see how important it is on multi-member of the court to be able to work toward consensus. so i have that in my mind as something that has really influenced me. >> i think this will be the final question we have asked. take you very much, students, these have been terrific questions that you wrote. in your opinion, how can the legal profession become a more inclusive place for people from historically underrepresented communities? justice barrett: i think law school should be doing everything that they can to make first-generation students feel welcome and give them the help that they need, and the legal profession as well. that should not end in law school with mentoring on that kind of advice. the legal profession, and i encourage all of you who are law students, once you get into the bar, to give your time to mentoring young lawyers and young lawyers who are new to the profession who may not come from families who have lawyers in them or from historically underrepresented comm

circuit court of appeals. he meantime, since he filed this request with the supreme court, the d.c. circuit said they would hear the question on an expedited basis. they have set oral argument in the case for january 9th. if they decide fairly quickly, then we could be back at the supreme court maybe in a month or so, if the court acts quickly or it could be that they take their time and we don't decide the case until june, in which case, the trial will be delayed by that amount. i think the march 4th trial date is in some trouble now. that doesn't mean it can't be tried before the election. we're looking more at a summer trial instead of a spring trial. >> which potentially affects the elector, barbara. i mean, how long would a trial like this take? >> i have assumed it would take about two months, there are five different schemes here, each of which would take the government a week to try. and then make a week for closing arguments and deliberations. i think at the closest, eight weeks, you're right, the prim

but the way that this will now play out is that they're now back in the court of appeals and it will a decision and the supreme court months from now will have another chance to take on this immunity issue if it wants to. the significance of this, it will result in probably delaying that march 4 trial date. >> neil: to how late? what do you think? >> well, my gut tells me at a minimum we're talking the summer. at a minimum. it could go beyond that. it depends how quickly things move in the court of appeals and depends on what the court of appeals says and whether one of the parties tries to get that decision back up in to the supreme court. it's hard for me to see how that march 4 trial date stays in place with today's ruling. >> if the appeals court were to rule in donald trump's favor, that he is indeed immune for prosecution over this, does this make the whole jack smith thing go away? what? >> well, it pretty much would unless, unless the supreme court decides to come in and review that decision. >> neil: that would be unlikely in that event, wouldn't it or not? >> i think it prob

circuit court of appeals. court to take the case directly, to hurry the process up, to skip the appeals court in effect. this is one thing worth noting, the petition to the supreme court was cosigned by this special counsel of record, michael dreeben. you recognize that name? he's a prosecutor who served in the solicitor general's office at doj for over three decades. he has argued more than 100 cases before the u.s. supreme court. you can imagine why jack smith might have wanted to add this guy to this part of this case. well, tonight, the supreme court has responded and said they're going to fast track consideration of whether or not to hear this case. they have ordered donald trump to respond by next week, by wednesday. december 20th. joining us is joyce vance, joyce, great to see you. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> did i understand that correctly? did i explain any of that the wrong way around? >> no, i think you got it just right. michael dreeben is the former deputy solicito

court precedent. what about the horizontal precedent of inferior courts? courts of appeal as a precedent-setting court. three-judge panels can only overrule precede. does that square with your perspective, professor lawson? if so, why? if not, why? >> i have the same problems with that that i have with horizontal precedt at the supreme court level and think about district courts in a circuit -- >> well, they don't make law. district courts don't like when i say that, but district judges don't make law. >> i think if the supreme court is going to do things normally found upon, it's cause the constitution authorizes it to do it, you are panels are not inferior to each other, and therefore, i don't think you can get a textual escape from the obligation to decide cases in accordance with governing. >> what do you think about the notion that by statute, congress, which created those inferior courts, also created a process that would seem to contemplate that that is how it has to operate? >> congress can create whatever structures it wants. what i don't think congress can do is

you're trying to gim the system, that you don't trust the court of appeals because of the composition of it. here the composition of the court of appeals in washington, d.c. is overwhelmingly against trump. it's all like basically rule of law people, which is just a definition against trump. and jack smith is still saying i want to bypass that. and so there's no allegation here and it's just simply a matter of time. i think trump can try with the filing next week, but i don't think it'll go just about as well as his merits argument will. and look just like the one which you flashed on the screen before, a unanimous loss for donald trump or pretty darn close to it. >> neal, i've been really interested in the pretzdential immunity question here not so much because i'm a legal scholar and i'm interested in testing the outside bounds of the law but because it seems like it is a fairly effective delaying mechanism for trump not because of its merits but just because of the way courts work. and i wonder the threat of the deadline march 4th could be push here even the if supreme court takes

. >> i think the court of appeals got it spot on. court of appeals has done is craft a ruling that's as narrow as possible, that protects donald trump's broad first amendment interest, but also protects the trial. i think the best way to understand it is if we look at the history. originally doj asked for an over-broad gag order. judge chutkan wisely rejected that. she instead said, he can say what he wants but he can't talk about court staff or witnesses, and he can't do something that might interfere with the jury. the court of appeals narrowed that a little bit more by saying, he can talk about jack smith, though. really he can say much of what he would want to say to protect himself vigorously in the public. >> the former president has vowed to appeal the gag order ruling. what are the chances of him winning this if it ends up at the supreme court? >> well, i think -- i agree with elie that i think the appellate court drew -- walked a really difficult line and drew the line where they should. i don't think the supreme court would

if he trump lost their he could ask the court of appeals to rehear the case meaning the entire court of appeals tack on another several weeks, maybe months and only then would the supreme court even began its review so there's no way to get all of that done between now and march 4th, which isn't that far away. he's looking to skip the middleman and take it right to the supreme court. >> donald trump's team has been trying to delay this case at every turn. how do you think he will react to this? >> listen, jack smith essentially called his bluff. the number 1 tactic that they've been using is delay. i think this keeps things on course and jack smith by the way intentionally did not mention the election. this is simply about, this is vital public interest moving forward. he very much kept it simple, there's a vital public interest here and he wants to keep it on the scheduled timeline. >> it's hard to imagine this not ending up at the us supreme court anyway, which is not to say they wouldn't just not take it up and defer to the appeals court but how do you think the u.s. supreme court

of a terrorist group are cited in a court with minimal fair trial standards ." the iranian embassy in stockholm called the decision of the swedish court of appeal against hamid nouri as political and announced that it will continue its efforts to achieve the rights of this iranian citizen imprisoned in sweden. yesterday, the court of appeal in sweden confirmed hamid nouri's sentence of life imprisonment. hamid nouri since 2018 in a deception operation designed by the terrorist group manaf. he was taken to sweden and arrested by the swedish police after being accused. not long ago, his first sentence he was sentenced to life imprisonment. the spokesperson of the ministry of foreign affairs also called this sentence unacceptable and condemned it. instructions for issuing electronic account speed. it was announced in the maadian system , the tax affairs organization announced in a notice that from the beginning of december, all legal entities must issue electronic invoices in the maadian system , according to this notice, natural persons with sales of goods and services of more than 18 billion tomans until the end of september 1402 and employees medical professions,

court of appeals is considering this issue of immunity, and i think they say they want all of their information. they may make decisions around the beginning of january. the supreme court has asked for submissions from the trump side by wednesday. and then they will decide whether to take up the issue. so there are two parallel things going on. what happens if the supreme court says, trump is right, he is immune? >> if trump is immune, then this case is over. i think that is an unlikely possibility, but it is a possibility. the possibility is that when you are the president, anything you do it within the scope of your duties's president is protected from criminal liability. but with the lower courts have held here before is that, when he was calling brad raffensperger, and when he had people trying to submit fake electors, he was not acting as president. he was acting as a candidate for president. and those are two different things. so i suspected, ultimately, on the merits that's what we will get. if you say, in the meantime, it could bring a significant delay in the trial. >> reporter: let me

suspect the reason, we know the courts of appeals hold cases and take their time dealing with cases. there was one dealing with president trump's taxes and congress requested the taxes and the appeal was held at the court of appeals level for more than a year. jack smith says we cannot afford this kind of delay and we need these things decided well before the election including a child. >> what is the next milepost here. are we going to know in weeks or perhaps by next spring? >> you answered it. we could know within weeks with respect to the immunity issue. we could know within two or three weeks and we could note not until the end of june whether the supreme court ties up all the loose ends and releases its decisions. we just don't know which of these two will come to an end and when. the longer these things dangle the more everyone is concerned to whether we go forward and the law that we are talking about is allowable. all of these things remain unclear right now waiting for the supreme court, three justices of whom were appointed by president trump. those justices have often gone

circuit court of appeals. en handling this case, this iteration of this case fairly expeditiously oral arguments start january 9th. but i think it took them 20 months to decide the presidential immunity defense and in the civil case against trump. do you have any reason to believe, a, that it's going to take that long, or, b, that they'll permit at state to remain in place, which has effectively frozen all the pretrial movement necessary to keep that trains on the track. >> right. we have to understand what this motion is to take a look at those questions because of the motion to dismiss that trump filed on the basis of presidential immunity is dispositive motion. in other words, if he wins the indictment, and it's dismissed, this case is over. that's what sets this motion aside than other motions that judge chutkan has before her. and it's why that stay was issued in the first place because there's a feeling that when you have the dispositive motion like this, or you have got a right to take appeal in advance

on december 6, 2023, the western commercial court of appeal. an appeal against the decision of the economic court of the lviv region, which recognized the illegal state registration of land at 5 st. yura square in lviv, is being considered here. the decision of the lviv city council on the transfer of the metropolitan gardens to the greek catholic church was declared illegal and canceled by the state court, as well as the decision of the state registrar, and the city continues to fight. for more than three years of almost fifty court sessions. supreme court, and here the case is again on appeal. we believe that the decision of the first instance as of today is legal, and the appeal at that time, lviv city, is simple. why did this land become a delicacy for those willing to take it away from communities? all residents of lviv, and even tourists, know about the residence of the greek-catholic metropolitans and a real architectural gem. 18th century st. george's cathedral. the building that is next to us is the metropolitan chambers in which metrop

stop, i've been divested of jurisdiction, and nothing more can happen until we hear from the court of appealsk which is very interesting. we get a couple of orders recently. one is that the supreme court set an expedited schedule to hear from donald trump about whether they should do an expedited review and leapfrog the court of appeals. so that could happen and make things move fairly quickly. and the other of course is the d.c. court of appeals has also agreed to hear the case quickly. >> that of course, barbara, you hit the nail on the head there. this is the trial most expected to happen and conclude before the election. voters would know its outcome before going to the ballot boxes. this is one of the four set to be that way. we'll now see if the delays change at all. another showdown over abortion is making its way now to the supreme court. after justices agreed to hear the biden administration's appeal of a ruling that would limit access to mifepristone, the pill used in more than half of abortions across the u.s. the decision will determine whether patients can continue to use the dru

the so-called anti-corruption prosecutor's office exposed four judges of the kyiv court of appeal for receiving a $35,000 bribe for making a decision. the investigation established that the judge of the kyiv court of appeal the court offered one of the parties in the case to satisfy the complaint regarding the cancellation of the seizure of the private company's property. for this, he and the trio of judges in the case had to be paid by the company representative. the mediator-judge kept part of the $10,000 bribe for himself, and put $25 in a box. from the pendant for further transmission to colleagues. they, after receiving the funds , divided them among themselves. judges yury sliva, viktor glynyany and ihor palenyk exposed for bribery. judge vyacheslav dzyubin acted as mediator. the anti-corruption center , citing its own sources, reports that the judges had to make a decision on canceling the seizure of the property of one of the companies in the case of the ex-president of motorsich vyacheslav boguslaev. let us remind you that he is suspected of collaborative activities. and aidi

court around the end of january. the court accepts with an expedited schedule would be my best guest. and that's a very, very fast timeline for the court of appealsre's likely even more business before the supreme court to decide if trump's name can appear on some state ballots, maine, colorado have both decided trump cannot appear on their primary ballots because of his actions leading up to and on january 6th. and colorado, it was the states supreme court that together made that decision, while in maine, it was just the secretary of state. different mechanics and how they actually made these decisions. can you talk to us about the differences and what can they mean moving forward? >> sure. i think the fact of the differences, stephen, it's what matters the most. from the supreme court's point of view, and by the way, i like that immunity case. i think they really need this one like a hole in the head, whichever way they seem to put their thumb on, one side or the other of the scale. the fact that there is now two, or more, although i should note that the maine case still has to wind its way through the maine courts. for the supreme court, oh, m

he will now get to go to the court of appeals. that will take a few weeks, they set a very quick briefing schedule. the supreme court might take it then. this does not mean the supreme court will never take this case. they are just going to have the court of appeals take it first. what this does as evan said makes the march 4th trial date almost impossible to hold. i think this means the trial date will be pushed back, perhaps substantially. >> john, you're still with us, do you want to response to what ali is saying? we are not getting a resolution on the immunity issue. we are getting an resolution on whether not this will be expedited. i think the supreme court, eventually, is gonna have to decide this. they are the only bench that can decide this. i would just respond to what ali said about the trump lawyers arguments. jack smith had a chance to come back and respond to trump's lawyers claims that he wasn't specific enough. he didn't even try to take that. on what he wanted to take on was the very important first principles que

court. >> there's always questions too about what her jurisdiction would be over the court of this appeals process. special counsel jack smith, part of his argument pointed to a watergate area decision where they rejected president nixon's claims of presidential privilege. if you're a supreme court justice here, would you also have rejected smith's argument? >> i would have accepted the case. we know during the supreme court conference, it takes four justices to agree to an expedited appeal. the d.c. court of appeals is going to hear oral argument in january, and it may take months for them to issue a decision. unless this case gets on the court's calendar and there's oral argument by april, the supreme court isn't going to hear this case. the question is does the stay stay in place? is there a pause in the proceedings? >> that's part of what jack smith was arguing, that the gravity of this case requires the supreme court to look at it right now or as soon as possible as owe pposed to going through appeals process. now, the appeals arguments are scheduled for january 9th. you alluded to wh

and then we have 23rd for the court of appeals. ossible that the supreme court could rule more quickly than bypass at the court of appeals. we know what the arguments are. jack smith set and his papers for the expedited appeal, we already know the arguments. maybe, too bad, so sad, if it bumps into your holiday plans, but this is largely briefed already. it's not going to be any new arguments. so, i don't think that there will be any real surprises, and we will see, there is plenty of precedent. although there is a unique context, a former president prosecuted criminally, there is a lot of precedent in favor of forming that ruling. >> lisa rubin, my colleague here at msnbc who covers legal affairs for us made the point that, she said, you know, the supreme court, to give one example, can move quickly if they want to. she talked about bush v. gore. buffy gore, they served in, stop counting, we will look at this and expedite the review. which is to say, this is all volitional. >> for sure, the supreme court is fully controlling it. i

circuit court of appeals. etitions the supreme court to take the case directly, to hurry the process up, to skip the appeals court in effect. this is one thing worth noting, the petition to the supreme court was cosigned by this special counsel of record, michael dreeben. you recognize that name? he's a prosecutor who served in the solicitor general's office at doj for over three decades. he has argued more than 100 cases before the u.s. supreme court. you can imagine why jack smith might have wanted to add this guy to this part of this case. well, tonight, the supreme court has responded and said they're going to fast track consideration of whether or not to hear this case. they have ordered donald trump to respond by next week, by wednesday. december 20th. joining us is joyce vance, joyce, great to see you. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> did i understand that correctly? did i explain any of that the wrong way around? >> no, i think you got it just right. michael dreeben is the f

that all republican supreme court in texas promptly of greed to hear the appeal. that stayed at a lower court ruling, practical effect of that is that kate was once again legally blocked from being able to get an worsen in texas. and then the supreme court just sat on it, they didn't nothing. they blocked the ruling, allowing her abortion on friday, and they just sat on it all weekend. today, who knows when they would have gotten around to finally making some sort of decision on it. she's already 20 weeks pregnant, she has been in and out of the emergency room at least four times with complications from this pregnancy. today her legal counsel for center for reproductive rights announced that she finally was effectively forced to flee, she left the state to go to some safer place where there isn't a ban like this one that republicans have in texas. nancy nor that the chief executive center production for a president of raved i've been representing her in this case, that kate desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives, and recover at home surrounded by

thirty years of practicing law what is the motivation for jack smith to say supreme court ignoring the court of appealsing at case law their ruling in their decision-making and procedure. why are we in a hurry? because of november 2024. because a democratic party is prosecuting this case. not the department of justice but the democratic party and i find it offensive if this case is heard by the supreme court it should be sent back to the court of appeals. the proceeding should stay in the process work. donald trump was absolutely right. but they are doing to him they will do to anyone who loves this country, who believes in the constitution they want to tear up the constitution they want to ignore the constitution. you mentioned all the rights that were violated against donald trump. they do not care. they do not care because you know what it's all about? it's about power and control. the democrats, the left wing at the progress of one power and control. if we do not keep our eye on the constitution that will tear it up, they will destroy it and say where is it? we lost it. they are not interested in t

or the supreme court but if the court of appeals gives us stay with a short fuse which is just what the colorado court did a few days ago that will hand him and and that's going to be the real lookout. will they keep him from delaying? they seem to be on his game and worried about letting things trail along too long. >> you mentioned two of these important cases that i'm sure to end up before the supreme court which really thrusts the high court back into the center of a presidential election. not the place that the justices want to be. on that note it's really in them interesting piece making the keys in this that no matter how the justices decide on the election related cases if you will speaking with one voice maybe more important than ever. the universe in which the court splits the difference for example keeping mr. trump on the ballot while refusing to endorse if not affirmatively his conduct in spurning his cane like flame to total immunity could go a long way towards reducing the temperature of the coming election cycle. suc

circuit court of appeals. oral arguments begin january 9. if you are gaming this out, just by virtue of their recent behavior on this topic, it seems like trump could not win at the d.c. circuit court of appeals, which means he appeals at the supreme court and they take it up or they don't and allow the circuit court decision to stand. is that right? the big question is -- go ahead. >> there's one extra piece before you get to the supreme court, which is that he could seek what's called review. the panel is three judges in the d.c. circuit. if he loses -- i think he will lose there. if he does, he can then seek review of the whole court. i don't think the whole court will hear it. but that's also a potential delay. once that's decided, he can then seek supreme court review. all of that could be truncated. the key issue, the main issue that's causing the problem for jack smith is that there's an automatic stay in effect. the d.c. circuit can get rid of that when we issue their decision and say that at least the litigation can go forward. remem

that the revelation claims of a terrorist group are cited in a court with minimum fair trial standards." the iranian embassy in stockholm called the swedish court of appeal'sdecision against hamid nouri political and announced that it will continue its efforts to secure the rights of this iranian citizen imprisoned in sweden. yesterday, the court of appeal. he was taken to saudi arabia in a deception operation designed by the terrorist hacking group, and after being accused by the swedish police , he was arrested not long ago and sentenced to life imprisonment. the spokesperson of the ministry of foreign affairs also called this sentence unacceptable and condemned it. the instructions for issuing electronic invoices were announced in the maadian system. tax administration in an announcement announced that from the beginning of the date, all natural and legal entities must issue electronic invoices in the maadiyan system. according to this announcement , natural persons with sales of goods and services more than 18 billion tomans until the end. pharmacy and sellers of medical equipment, gold, jewelry and platinum and sellers of minerals are required to issu