. man, when it rains it really, really pours. the supreme court better find themselves a really big umbrella. tonight, on laura coates live. so don't call it quite a throw back, but all of a sudden it feels like y2k. when the new year hits in 11 days from now, the supreme court will be saying bye to their free time. let's just say the supreme court will be a little bit busy. the nine unelected men and women that sit at the bench in the highest court in the land

now have the power to decide an election. let's all reminisce for a second. they did it back in 2000 with bush v gore: now they may have the chance to do it all over again. today trump asked the high court to sit and think for a bit. to answer whether he has absolute immunity. that's the jack smith case. jack smith wanted a quick answer. he would not rather wait to find out if he can make a case against him. but will that person be considered immune from prosecution. apparently trump loves a good wait. why rush into getting into a case against you? pretty ironic. his lawyers say the case is so important, so paramount to public importance, his lawyers

say the justice moves, it must move in a cautious, deliberative manner.. not at a breakneck speed. that's the immunity question. and the court also gets to decide now the eligibility question. the one coming out of colorado's supreme court decision to take trump off the primary ballot. the supreme court will have to decide whether trump engaged in insurrection or whether the 14th amendment applies to the most powerful office in the country. and those are two really important questions. a few obvious points here first. but these things have to be said anyway. the court as you know, it tilts conservative. we know about the different wings of the court. et cetera. and three of those justices that you see in that little yearbook photo on the right side of lady liberty's seesaw, they were put there by the former president whose fate they may have to decide for the

election. but don't assume everything. my father says you know what happens when you assume. i won't spell it auto. but all, gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett. whatever the court decides, it will leave a whole lot of american voters bitter. the court doesn't have the same popularity shall we say that it had back in 2000. ethics questions. the unraveling of precedent. that had a tad bit to do with all that. right? let's be honest though. either way, the supreme court's reputation is going to take a hit. and you can't ignore the obvious. all these cases moving through, their way through the docket as you at home are of course getting ready to vote. by the time they have decided you might have already cast a ballot. the court's term doesn't end until june? maybe it's the black robes.

maybe they just love to wait to the 11th hour to make a decision because often wait until the end of the term which means you might not know the whole picture when you step inside the ballot box and any delay, no matter how small that delay is, it puts donald trump one day closer to simply being able to at least for the federal cases maybe make them go away if he is successful in becoming the president. that's a maybe, though. george conway, a contributor for the atlantic is here, and former trump attorney tim. i'm glad you are both here. let's talk for a second. taking a step back. who thought we would be here with the supreme court able to weigh in and decide the fate of a presidential election? you are not deciding whether you can vote and what the vote should be. but who is on the ballot. whether he is immune. the colorado case in

particular. >> yeah. >> did that court make the right decision in deciding he can't even be on the ballot? >> well, i was initially skeptical of the claim, the argument that section 3 of the 14th amend. disqualifies trump. not for any legal reason. the federalist society law professors who wrote the seminal article that got this argument going made a pretty compelling case. very methodical, using exactly the kind of interpretive techniques that scalia would have used. i thought it was kind of too good to be true and there must be something. there must be something there that could come up. it would be better politically to see him beaten at the polls rather than to see him excluded but that said, the law is the

law. and unless someone comes up with a coherent counterargument, you have to apply the law. what i saw yesterday and i wrote a piece in the atlantic today, that i recommend to everyone. i read the dissents. these were smart judges. they are dissenting, they are supposed to come up with arguments that really strike at the heart of the majority opinion and they had nothing. particularly as a matter of federal law. >> referee: focused him on two main arguments. it feels premature. no criminal conviction here for insurrection. the other one about the vagueness of the language. the district court in colorado said if the framers wanted to have the 14th amendment apply to the president, why not put the word president in that particular clause? neither seems to hold a lot of weight for everyone universally. but what is your take on that case? >> i think they spent a lot of time talking about whether it applies to the president or not which was not an argument i

found to be particularly availing. the thing that i was surprised at is how much time they took to define what an insurrection is by using webster's dictionary as opposed to title 18 of u.s. code. because the federal government did pass a statute. 2383. it says if you are convicted of this, you have to serve up to ten years in jail and you are disqualified from holding the office of the president. that, their refusal to address that statute. at one point, they just kind of addressed it briefly and said well that doesn't apply because it doesn't say that's the only method. but the reality is, many grand juries sitting here in dc have examined the events of that day and declined to bring charges of insurrection. one brought charges under the related section of 2384. seditious conspiracy.

>> we don't know what every grand juror was presented in. >> doj declined. >> it could be the case. but my point is, would the grand jury as we know are quite secretive. we don't know what they were given to present. but you are absolutely right. jack smith didn't charge him. donald trump is not charged with insurrection in washington dc. >> exactly. the closest they came was seditious conspiracy charges which the colorado supreme court went through their webster dictionary analysis and side sedition is lower than an insurrection. so you have precedent. you have convictions for seditious conspiracy, but not a single charge for insurrection. >> so george, how do you see it? one of the big arguments made is not just the statute and the code. but voters should be the one to decide this. how dare you take it from the ballot. we have all sorts of qualifications for the presidency. age, where you were born. all that part of it. how is this different?

>> i mean, if that would have been a good argument. 157 years ago if you were in congress debating the language to be put into the 14th amendment. the fact of the matter is you are absolutely right. there are a number of qualifications applied to people runs for public office. one of them is the age requirement. that takes away the ability of people to vote for a 30-year- old. but that's life. and this is another requirement. don't engage in insurrection. it is really not that hard a requirement to meet. as far as the interpretation, the proper approach is what justice scalia would have done. to look at the dictionary, you don't have some other statute that maybe, written at a different context for a different purpose. and, instead of looking at how

people understood insurrection. the dissents in the case, in the decision last night, the people who were objecting to the judges, the judges were objecting to the decision, they didn't really go there. >> there was the one dissent. the fact, this was put into the u.s. code, words have meaning. and, as lawyers we can't just sit here and say just because there is an insurrection statute, the federal crime for insurrection, we can look at the dictionary definition instead. no, there are crimes. there are elements. these are things that congress is empowered to put into the u.s. code. and the courts have to follow

them. they can't just make up their own definition saying because we don't like this particular candidate, we are going to use a proven sedition and substitute that for an insurrection because we like using that word. >> final word, george? >> the fact is, they use the word insurrection, they didn't say what ever statute congress uses to prosecute insurrection. they didn't say that it depends on anything congress subsequently did. it's a stand alone provision and it has to be interpreted in terms of the plain meaning of the language. and the plain meaning of the language is justice scalia. you look at the dictionary. and you look at the contemporary dictionaries and the plain meaning of the word. i don't know how you say somebody who foments and encourages people to overthrow the peaceful transition of

power hasn't engaged in insurrection. i just don't see how you could get there. >> we have a preview of what might happening in the supreme court discussions if they take this case. but the question, was mary webster around? how old is this dictionary? do we know? that is rhetorical, i'm kidding. i don't know. >> i take you very seriously laura. i take you so seriously. >> anyway. >> don't go there. >> thank you so much. appreciate both of you. >> always fun. so, what is the supreme court likely to do? let's continue our talk now with derek muller. an election law scholar who is a professor of law at the university of notre dame. derek, thank you so much for joining us, we are talking about the supreme court and what they have ahead of them. they have a conservative majority. we know that. what is your prediction on how these justices might rule on this colorado issue? whether trump can be on the

ballot or not. is it unanimous? is it split? what are your thoughts? >> reporter: there are so many ways for this court to go. that is one of the issues in this case. what is an insurrection? what does it mean to engage in it? does the first amendment protect some of this speech? does congress have to step in? my guess is the supreme court is trying to dispatch this case as quickly as possible. and maybe, as unanimously as possible. if they can find consensus for a unanimous opinion that will result in it, which probably means trump appears on the ballot, they reverse colorado, i think that will be the inclination. but there is a chance they are splintering on the court with so many issues. they are unable to hold that. >> tell me, is it possible for the audience with all the different issues. you had immunity. eligibility. there is a particular order for which the court will consider cases and the process by which

they are receiving and deciding whether to review these cases. but is there a chance that either indicta, the language used inside of an opinion different from the actual issue in question before the court. could they maybe try to resolve this in short order together? and try to consolidate? >> the odds on that are low. especially when you are doling with questions of presidential immunity. you have those momentous cases in the past. and claims of presidential immunity. and i think this trump case will be another one of those. and i think that will be momentous in its own right and this ballot access issue. there were voters who will be going to the polls in a matter of days and starting to vote. so i think they will have to be forced to separate these issues and really draw out this process through june. as painful as that might be for a political matter but there

are so many issues on their plate to consider. >> by the way, not even just judicially or electorally, administratively. these ballots have got to get printed. you can't go to fedex, staples, and just do it in a night. it is a long time for these state to figure out who is on the ballot and changing it is a very big issue. but i wonder politically. what are the implications for trump's reelection campaign of all of these things? i mean, he is a front runner. and by a landslide so far, what do you see as the implications of his reelection and campaign? >> i'm watching the polling in the next week or two to see what happens. on the one hand, you might have voters saying this was another instance of the courts coming after trump. at the same time, this is a very different kind of issue in colorado. it is saying you are ineligible. there is a risk voters around the country look at his candidacy and wonder am i voting for an ineligible

candidate? should i look to nikki haley or ron desantis or somebody else? we never had a situation like this where the front runner facing being thrown off the ballot. i think we will see how voters react. >> that is a important point. you have people thinking about spoiler candidates. if i give that vote to someone who might not prevail, ineligibility factors in to people thinking is it just a wasted vote? that might be the next frontier. professor muller, thanks so much. >> thanks for having me. president biden is now weighing in on the decision in colorado. i knew he would. he said it is clear that trump is an insurrectionist but there is still a big question. how will the voters see it?

it is pretty unprecedented among unprecedented questions. will former president trump even be eligible to be on the ballot? president biden is saying this. >> whether the 14th amendment applies,let the court make that decision. but he certainly supported an insurrection. no question about it. none, zero. and he seems to be doubling down about everything. >> joining me now to discuss, is lawyer and author scott. he has written some of the best sellers you might know. wealth for all the lawyers in the world. burden of proof. and his latest, suspect. he has had a full career as a

prosecutor. i'm so glad to have your voice on tonight. scott, how are you doing? >> i'm doing fine, laura, thank you for having me. >> i'm glad you are here. you heard president biden talk about this. he has been pretty careful recently about when he weighs in and when he doesn't. but we have a sitting president, agrees that his predecessor and the one he is running against really was involved in an insurrection. you can't overstate how significant that is. >> we all know the events of january 6th, 2021 were pretty unique. and you know, when somebody is trying to stop the congress from ratifying the election, i don't know what else you call it but an insurrection. so you know, they enter the capitol by force. it definitely meets the definition. so i'm not surprised to hear what president biden had to say. and i probably would agree with him. >> you know, the colorado

supreme court seems to have a similar viewpoint. the district court in colorado had a similar one in well. the trial court said yeah, it was an insurrection, he engaged in it. but he's got to be on the ballot. the supreme court said yeah, he engaged in insurrection, but he can't be on the ballot. what do you make of that choice? >> the district court in colorado thought because the president is not named in that part of the 14th amendment, that the president wasn't included. and, there are some serious constitutional scholars that think the same thing. you know, the colorado supreme court pointed out the language that is there, any office under the united states has been interpreted many times as including the presidency. >> when you look at this, playing out in the courts right

now. congress comes to mind. could they have done anything in the aftermath of january 6th that frankly could have resolved this before we got here? >> hindsight is always 2020, laura. at the time, i was writing to friends of mine who served in congress and going while don't you use this provision of the 14th amendment and i never got a really good answer. but, the democrats obviously had the votes at that time to pass a bill saying that trump had engaged in insurrection and was disqualified. whether they would have gotten it through the senate. whether they could have overcome a republican filibuster, it depends on what mitch mcconnell would have allowed. but the impeachment ended up being due by the fact that trump was no longer the president. so, you know, hindsight is

2020. the democrats probably went down the wrong road. amend could have tried to pass legislation. that is one of the arguments as to whether the 14th amendment is self-est self-executing. >> another big question. reading the tea leaves in terms of the supreme court. we already know that the 2020 election because of the statement that had been made, had cast a pretty big cloud over the legitimacy for some. a lot of people understand it was not rigged. it was fair and free. joe biden was the duly elected president. but there are many who don't believe that to be the case and there are questions if the supreme court has anything to do about deciding eligibility. immunity, that it might cast additional doubts over the legitimacy. because, they are putting their

thumb on the scale. >> very reluctant. the only thing ability it is that it is someone, intention with the other issue you have been talking about today. whether trump's immunity claims, his claim that he was, that everything he did while he was president, he can't be prosecuted. those claims gained something because of the colorado case. if the court is going to say we want the people to decide, not us, they have to give the people all the facts. and that means certainly, whether or not donald trump is a felon. and speeding the decision on the immunity. allowing the trial to take place

place. is he a felon? we'll know in time. either he will be convicted or acquitted and can campaign without that shadow over him. but the logic for the supreme court says let's get to the immunity issue and allow that trial to take place. >> bureaucracy moving quickly. scott, how novel to think about that very aspect of it. i know i have to go. but i cannot go without asking you about this great piece you have in the atlantic. you were talking a lot about what was going on with joe biden. vanity fair. and the headline, why joe biden, 81 needs to hand over the keys now. you don't think biden should be on the ballot. >> i think that both of the major party candidates are too

old to be running for president. and i say that as somebody who will be 75 on my next birthday. i don't think we have to push 80-year-old people off a cliff. but being the president of the united states is a uniquely arduous job and one where you make a deal with the people that you are going to be able to carry on for all four years. it is a calamity when a president either dies or becomes unable to function. when people get into their 80s , the odds begin to mount that one of those things is going to happen. we are ignoring reality. we are playing the emperor's new clothes to pretend either of these will be invulnerable to the effects of age we see so often in the people we love and are close to. neither one of them ought to be

on the ballot for that reason. >> every time i see scott has written something, i encourage everyone to read it in full. and the vanity fair piece is no exception. thank you so much for joining me tonight. >> laura, thanks, always good to be with you. i appreciate it. >> thank you. well look, trump has repeatedly tried to discredit the eligibility of his rivals from barack obama to ted cruz. remember that? but now that it is his own being questioned, well, the irony comes in pretty thick. we'll talk about it next.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. getting sick and tired of cold and flu products that don't work? biovanta is the only number one physician-recommended product chosen over all others, including tylenol, mucinex, zicam, and nyquil / dayquil.

the combat symptoms and boosts immunity. biovanta really works. the former president never met a grievance he wouldn't like. he explains how he can say this tonight. last time the democrats took someone off the ballot was in 1860. they would not allow a man named abraham lincoln to be so much as mentioned in slave states. not quite sure that applies to you. but donald trump is as the kids say big mad. he is mad about the supreme

court ruling taking the blunt side of a number 2 pencil and erasing his name there. he made his political bones trying to disqualify other people from being the president. here is a little crash course. trump 101. he started with a notorious untrue claim that barack obama was not born in the united states. >> why doesn't he show his birth certificate? i really believe there is a birth certificate. look. she is smiling. why doesn't he show his birth certificate? >> you don't seem convinced he has one. >> i'm not convinced he has one. he said, quote, they cannot believe that they are finding. have they found? >> none of your business right now. >> hm. the country saw what happened when donald trump found out. >> president barack obama was

born in the united states. period. >> period. so, what didn't work once, he tried again. but this time, with ted cruz. and it was the exact same thing. >> he was born in canada. and he actually had a canadian passport along with a u.s. passport until just recently. like, within the last couple of years. the problem is that if the democrats bring a lawsuit, the lawsuit could take years to resolve and how do you have a candidate where there is something over the head of the party and that individual? >> ooh. that didn't age well. it also didn't work. didn't matter that it didn't work because donald trump won the primary. when it comes to trump and his voters, the skeletons are not reasons to shy away. they appear to be selling points. i want to bring in joe walsh and former obama white house senior director. so glad to see you here tonight. when you look at it, it is a

bit rich. to think wait a second, you mean now people can't talk about disqualification? >> projection right? he is so good at that. in fact, the same article that talked about how he had copies of hitler's speeches by his desk. and used to read them according to his ex-wife. in that same article, we find out that he was a big proponent of hitler's big lie. the idea if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it. and that is so much of what the donald trump play book is about. get it out there. throw it against the wall. see what sticks. repeat, repeat. and people start to believe. so they believe the grievances. they believe that he is a victim despite the fact that he has been a criminal before he even got into office. >> trump has been talking about yesterday about how the hitler comparisons are not correct. and we have not independently

confirmed the mein kamph story. >> he is a bad person, but his play book is he is the victim. the most persecuted person who ever lived and this colorado ruling plays into that. it is such a political gift for him. >> as in it was the wrong decision? >> as in it will play into this narrative that everybody and their mother is trying to keep him off the ballot. and that is going to help him beyond just his hard crazy base, i'm afraid. >> do you think the same thing? obviously it will be used as fodder her him. you heard the abraham lincoln comparison. is this what you want in terms of getting an advantage for biden or nikki haley? colorado is a blue state. it is not like what happens in colorado will change the

direction of the electoral college. this is also a republican primary ballot measure. so republican party being what it is, he can figure out some other way to manipulate the system has he has done so far. so he doesn't necessarily get anything in terms of changing where democrats need to get votes. it does muddy the waters. nobody, especially the folks who litigated bush v gore, no one wants to see another election go to the supreme court. democrats want as clean an election as possible. throwing the courts when it comes into who is on a ballot. what votes count and don't does make that a little harder to do. >> we are talking about colorado. let's go to another c state. california. we heard from the lieutenant governor there. it is not maybe going to stay in colorado.

listen to this. >> we have never had a former president indicted for anything. but donald trump has been indicted four times. a 91 felony counts. this is the highly unusual situation. and for the courts, the court in colorado to make a determination he meets the threshold as an insurrectionist, we absolutely have to consider that in determining whether or not he is qualified to be on the ballot in california. >> that is pretty important that they are even considering exploring it. california obviously, too, but if one state does it or another and another. it becomes the blue prince. >> if the supreme court confirms the colorado ruling, look. donald trump, to me, is an insurrectionist. i think he participated in and committed in inrecollection. but who am i? i'm just a former congressman. we need the supreme court or

congress. we need. i don't want just a state supreme court or two in split decisions telling me what insurrection is. >> congress could have done that. there was a opportunity for multiple senators to remove trump from office. this is the problem with this case is that it could be right on the merits. it it could have a valid argument. but it feels like such a last straw to hold someone accountable. >> yeah. >> well look at that beautiful agreement. oh my goodness. should we all start braiding each other's hair? >> on that note, glad to have you here. look what we are doing. the governor trying to take matters into his own hands. but many people are crying foul

over greg abbott's latest moves. what does the el paso mayor think about all this? i will ask him. he is my guest, next.

the battle over immigration reform is playing out in congress. frankly across the whole country, the nation is grappling with a surge of migrants. thousands of migrants in eagle pass texas have unlawfully crossed the border daily over the last week. the migrant crisis is getting worse by the day. the volume of illegal crossings has gotten so bad, the government had to close railway crossings in the area. my next guest is the mayor of el paso, oscar leaser. thanks for being with us this evening. everyone is watching very closely what's happening in your community and beyond. the crossings i understand at the border are higher than ever. we are talking record setting numbers. tell me what is it like there right now where you are?

>> we are getting about 1500 a day. the numbers had slowed down. after thanksgiving the numbers continued to increase. every day, we experience about 1500 a day. >> how is that sustainable for your community? what are you doing to address that or absorb people? >> it is not sustainable for any community and it is really important that we understand that the immigration process is broken. and that we have to treat everybody with dignity and respect when they do come into our country. but they are not coming to el paso. they are coming to the united states and it is important that we help them get to the destination and work with them. we make sure people are not out on the streets at night with no bed to sleep in. and we work with them to make sure they get to their destination. at the end of the day,

everything we have been working for, no community, no country can really withstand the broken immigration process that we looked at today. it has been broken quite a while. and you were talking about congress has to really address it. and they can't just be fixed here. they have to be fixed in the countries where they were originated. it will be really important. and, we have been working with the federal government. and getting the proper funding to make sure it is not on the back of the local taxpayers. less than 1% of the people who cross the border stay in el paso. they are here to come to the united states, make a better life and be able to work so we help them be able to find work and get work that will continue to be a big crisis for our country. >> the idea of using el paso as a stopover into the rest of the

united states is a very important thing to think about. we use the wording anity and it sticks in my mind. you heard the former president using pretty extreme rhetoric in recent days. invoking a phrase once used about immigration. around immigration by hitler talking about the poisoning the blood of our country when it comes to those who come here and are immigrants. you know, that is very disturbing for so many to here. and then try to instill the rest of the world that we believe in a dignified migration process. >> absolutely. and it is time we start focusing on fixing the process. fixing the immigration process and we can talk about remarks that are not going to fix it. but we need to fix a broken process.

we need to stop putting a band aid on it. we continue to see record numbers. it is time to change that we are doing today. and move forward working with the over countries to be able to fix it. >> governor abbott enacted a law giving local law enforcement the power to arrest and deport. is that something you think will be effective if your community or does it present challenges in terms of how law enforcement will have that amount of power? >> you know, we are talking about sb4. we don't have the manpower, we need to work on the safety of our community. for us to be able to profile, we wouldn't do it. that is not something we will do talking to the police chief.

the sheriff. and make sure that we continue to work in a way that we are not going to be able to do the immigration. we are not going to enforce emigration law so we can't do that. >> thank you for sharing what it is like. thanks so much. >> thank you. i'm very proud of my community. we treat people the way they need to be treated. >> thank you so much. a group of americans arriving tonight from venezuela as part of a prisoner swap including one we talked about on this very show. what led the biden administration to make a deal with venezuela's strong man is next.

tonight, there is a major development in a story we have been following closely. savoy wright. an american wrongfully held in venezuela since october has been returned to the united states. he is one of ten americans freed in a deal between the biden administration and venezuela. he was mistreated in detention. here is what he said when he landed in texas.

>> free at last. thank god all-star mighty. free at last. i didn't think it would make it out. it is scary to be in a place when you are used to having freedoms and you are locked into a cell, sometimes with four other people. very tiny cell. >> reporter: now as part of the deal to free the detainees, the u.s. agreed to free a venezuelan strong man. thanks so much for watching. our coverage continues.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today.