other companies. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. a stunning courtroom attack caught on tape. >> with the laws of -- >> [bleep] >> whoa, whoa, whoa. whoa, hey. >> that moment there was when a judge was about to sentence the defendant for attempted

battery. and we are told she and a court martial were hurt and taken to the hospital after what you saw there. me laura coates, really unbelievable moment there. i hope that that judge is safe tonight. >> it's unbelievable to think about that. you hope that she is safe. but it also reminds you of the danger that many in the judicial branch are facing on a day-to-day basis, not just the supreme court, not just the more high-profile matters, but every single day, what it is like on the front lines of justice. thank you so much, abby. >> thanks, laura. i >> thank you. donald trump, going to the supreme court. but what took him so long? tonight, on "laura coates live" -- now, this is the case we have all been watching and waiting for. some might call it the big kahuna. donald trump asking the united states supreme court, the highest court in all the land,

to overturn the colorado state supreme court ruling that took him off of the ballot under the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause. now, team trump says, one, he is not an insurrectionist. they say, what happened at the capitol on january 6th, the crowds breaking into the capitol, forcing lawmakers to literally run for their lives, threatening to hang the vice president of the united states, was not even an insurrection. quote, the colorado supreme court eastward erred in how it described the -- it was not insurrection. and now, president trump, in no way engaged in insurrection. >> we fight like heck. and if you don't fight like heck, you are not going to have a country anymore. >> i will let you decide what you take from the moments that you all undoubtedly saw on january 6th. but this is not just about colorado.

last week, maine secretary of state removed trump from the primary ballot, team trump appeal that decision in state court yesterday. there is other states, as they say. but wait, there is more. because the oregon supreme court could soon rule on a bid to remove trump to remove trump from their primary and general election ballots because of his role on january 6th. now, the supreme court is in the hot seat now. all nine justices. so, i assuming they don't all recuse himself. but why didn't trump wait until now? if you abandon, what we have seen this kind of trademark, delay, delay, delay strategy. and frankly, what will happen next? i want to bring in noah bookbinder, executive director of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, who brought this case. also joining us is someone i will get to in just a moment here. but noah, let me -- we've talked about this case a

law. you've been very focused on colorado specifically. the fact that he appeals to the supreme court now. are you surprised he even took this long to do? so >> i'm a little surprised. the colorado republican party came in last weekend appealed. and both they and we have asked the supreme court to move very, very quickly. don trump is a little bit behind everybody else. i think it is really important to have clarity, and you have speed so that voters know how this issue is resolved before they have to vote. >> one of the big issues that the trump team is saying is, hold on. the colorado court got that -- minute, the trial court said, he stays on the ballot. it was a supreme -- who is very different. but it's that trial court idea here that, look, he should not be removed because there had not been a finding, a conviction, a criminal charge of insurrection, that the actual language of the constitution does not contemplate a president being someone who could be removed this way.

does that hold any weight for? you >> it really doesn't. the trial court actually held an exhaustive process. there was a five-day trial. there were 15 witnesses. there were thousands of pages of documents. there were hours of video. it was extensive argument from top lawyers on all side. there was a great deal of process. and this idea of not having a conviction is really a red herring over 150 years. courts have, eight occasions, most of them after the civil war, one of them last year, hello held people disqualified under the 14th amendment, and not a single one was convicted of we've been charged with the insurrection. it's a separate thing. this is a qualification. it's not a criminal punishment. it has a separate process. donald trump got that process in a very exhaustive way. >> on that point, and i'll stick with it for a second, because a qualification -- there are some who would look at this and say, this is all about disenfranchising voters. don't they have a right to decide whether what they saw on

january 6th is disqualifying for them or not? it's not the age where the citizenship aspect. it's something different. what about that? >> first of all, i think it is kind of rich for the person who tried to keep himself in power after losing an election, which would have disenfranchised millions and millions of voters, to somehow scream about enforcing the constitution being anti democratic. but what i would also say to that is, the voters had a chance to decide if donald trump should get another term in the white house. they chose not to give him that. and what he did after that is refused to recognize it, ultimately resulting in a violent insurrection. the idea we are going to do the same thing again four years later, and trusted him crowded process and somehow have a have a different result, that is not going to do that same thing, just does not seem to hold. up the framers of the 14th amendment understood that, that somebody who has attacked the democracy is somebody who this country needs to be protected against. that's why they created this clause to begin with. >> that's the supreme court, if they take up fully, will

reconcile that very issue about what the framers contemplated and whether it was this clause that should apply to presidents as well as other so-called officers who take the oath. i want to bring in krista kayford, a long time colorado republican, and plaintive in the case. she joins us now. krista, since the last time you are on the show, maine also found trump ineligible. oregon might well do the same. i wonder how you are feeling today, now that this is really likely to go before the supreme court. >> this is where was always headed, i believe. this is something the court really needs to weigh in on. they need to weigh in a cut on a couple of different questions, including what -- is he an officer? is he even somebody that this applies to the particular clause of the 14th amendment? we believe it does, when you look at original anguish at the time, there is that we're discussing it.

and a newspaper articles, dictionaries. when you look at all of that, you can see that, yes, at the time, the agreement, the president and the vice president to be included in that clause. we also need to ask the court, this congress need to do anything? there's a section five in which -- congress needs to act. we are saying, no. the plain language of section three says that congress only needs to act to grant amnesty. and that affects state courts, which can, and in many cases, must enforce federal law, that these courts, that the state is the right place for what -- to the degree that congress would act. but we've got states that have laws on the books, including our own that say that unqualified people cannot be on the ballot. and as somebody who is going to be voting in the state, i don't want to see the ballot cluttered up with people who just aren't eligible to run, whether it be former presidents that have already served two terms, or people who are not

actually citizens. one >> point, though, krista kafer, it ought to be a t-shirt. it would be great if congress would act. i just think that should be a sweatshirt, a t-shirt. -- i don't know if that's happening, but there you go. the second point -- actually will remain on the primary ballot, as all this is coming. out if the court finds him ineligible, the -- won't count. but this is a lot of ifs, right? they are going to preserve -- beyond this ballot, obviously moved to administrative action of actually pointing the ballots out and getting out there. are you worried it would provoke his supporters, possibly, to act in a way to suggest that they think this is the courts trying to remove their ability to elect a candidate of their choosing? >> it's not the courts. it's a constitution. the constitution clearly says that if an officeholder who's taken an oath to the constitution decides to go instead of, if you seek insurrection, to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power,

that person is just not eligible. now, i really do want the court to act swiftly. and we are not the only ones that want the court to act swiftly. our attorney general does. the trump administration does, the colorado publican republican party, and certainly all as petitioners want them to act quickly. because the longer they, go the more difficult this becomes. >> krista kafer, really quickly -- and i know this has been really personal -- because it's a very public and publicized case. and i know that track record that passes for laws, and the attention and microscope is not pleasant to be under. do you -- are you experiencing even more backlash now that this has become this particular state of affairs? >> you know, it's been really interesting. i have to admit, i have lost a couple friends over it. but the reaction has been more positive than negative. i have met republicans that i know, democrats that i know,

who say that we are so happy you are insisting on rule of law on the constitution. i've had complete strangers, some who have seen your interview here on cnn, writing me and saying, thank you for doing this. thank you for upholding the constitution. thank you for sticking up for republicans and democrats. because, as noah said, the person who tried to disenfranchise voters last time around, try to overturn an election, and try to subvert the votes of millions of my fellow americans, who voted differently than me, those are the -- we need to stand up for those voters, for our fellow americans. so, by and large, it's been a positive reaction. sure, you are going to get some people who are negative and mean. but you know what? that is on them. >> they say, those are the brakes, i guess. krista kafer and noah bookbinder, thank you so much. i'm going to ask you one more time, noah, is there going to be another state that they are going to bring this action in? last time he told me, maybe. what's the answer? now >> -- we are focusing on colorado.

we are focusing on main. and let's see what happens here. >> all right, fine. i'll let that stand. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> just a short while ago, on cnn, colorado secretary of state did respond to the appeal. >> it does not make sense to allow the president to engage in insurrection and get off scot-free. a president, the person who has arguably the most power in this country, should not be able to do that type of action and run again, when every other elected official would be barred from doing so. donald trump is basically arguing to the united states supreme court that he did not engage an insurrection. but, even if he, did it's okay. he can still be president again. i disagree with that. regardless of my sentiments, this is a big case in front of the united states supreme court. and i do believe that the united states supreme court should tell the american people whether a president engaged in

insurrection and then -- run for that office. >> joining me now to discuss, former january 6th investigative counsel marcus childress and also former trump attorney tim parlatore as well. tim, let's take a step back for a moment. because this is a very consequential moment. any idea of taking someone off a ballot is going to be important, and let alone a presidential election year. it may be just now that trump is appealing to the supreme court but we all knew it was going to end up there anyway. but the fact, tim, that he's -- convicted of insurrection. this is a congressional issue. it's up to them to do something about it. does that hold wait for you? >> i think it does. one of the things that i was expecting in this brief that was addressed in the gop brief a little bit more, is that there was congressional action on this. congress did impeach him for insurrection.

he had a trial. he was acquitted. and that is something that i would expect him to argue is -- that should be in control of. here moreover, congress has passed it's going to -- be 18 usc 23 83 that -- incorporated this 14th amendment section into the criminal code and gave it a procedure, which is indictment and criminal trial. the fact that they expanded the definition beyond the 14th amendment to basically any anybody, not just officers, of the united states, anybody who engages in an insurrection is formally board. >> that's part of his argument, right? and part of it, marcus is, hold on, the constitution has areas where they discuss directly what should happen to a president. in this particular clause -- an officer, an oath, but the word president does not appear. and we all know in law school interpretation of the law, the courts are going to look, as you mentioned, tim, at the

context, at the legislative history perhaps, or the intent behind. it or the conversations around it. is it going to be enough to say, because the founding fathers left out the word president, that is it? that's all the marbles? >> -- enough. i -- when you go back to when this was actually passed after the civil war, i think it's unfathomable that robert e. lee could have engaged run for president after someone who -- couldn't run for president back, and because he engaged in -- also engaged in the same conduct and should not be able to run for president. i do want to touch on the self executing congressional act for -- as well. i read it a little differently. this is part of the reconstruction era amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. they'll have language in them about congress can further legislate to enforce the conduct where the behavior in the amendment. the 13th amendment apologists abolishes slavery. the 14th amendment is --

we don't say you have to do further congressional action so the -- fine kind of the same structure and has a shell language. if you engage in insurrection, or rebellion, you shall be disqualified from the office, president or -- or being elected. so, i think that is something to be considered more than a historical context of the amendment, and i think the supreme court will engage in a review, similar to what tim just said, with some of the laws that have been passed. and hopefully they're reconstruction -- >> but some would argue on that point, about self executing, which i know is a fancy way of saying, i don't have to do anything for this to work. it's going to be on its own. but if it is true that the self executing, say, the 15th amendment, and some would look at the voting rights act and say -- why is that even there then? why is there congressional legislation to ensure that the rights are not circumscribed in some way or in any way undermine? but the issue -- i think you make a very strong point, marcus childress, and i want you to respond, tim --

hold on, and you really need to have congressional action here according to what the arguments are, to suggest that we have to wait for this slow, bureaucratic machine, which is congress, as we all know? >> right. >> to decide whether trump can be on a state ballot, where states are in charge of running their elections? >> and that, i guess, is we are the trump brief today kind of tried to draw the distinction between being on the ballot and actually holding the office. and so, whether that is going to be a violent point, i don't know. but it is an interesting issue of, you can -- the constitution also has some provision for, once you have a president-elect, that gets presented to congress and congress has a look at that and say, is this person qualified? there is a provision right in there saying that if the president-elect fails to meet the qualifications for the office, and they are going to install the vice president

elect, at that point. >> oh, gosh. who is that going to be right now? >> i had a moment where i was thinking, who is going to be the running mate? i know who the democrats side will be. but i have to process the rest of that this evening. marcus, back to you though, on this point. these are states that run these elections. the supreme court is going to have to make some statement at some point if they want to resolve. it otherwise, it will have to be a very fulsome response, or 49 other states are going to be lining up to figure out what is going to happen in their. that's just not sustainable. do you think the supreme court will, one, take up this issue? and number two, do you think that they are now going to lead towards finding that he should remain on the ballot or? not >> -- some type of guidance so that we don't have splits between the states. i think this is an issue that is right for the supreme court to provide a decision on. i think it is going to be tough. and i will be curious to see if the supreme court actually analyzes this, because i don't

think anybody is really disputing that former president did -- >> well, he is. he saying, i didn't engage an insurrection. >> his brief is actually funny on that point. because, he says -- he uses the example of former president trump didn't tell people to go into the capitol. but then it ignores the whole big lie that he's frightened -- washington d.c., and not telling people to go home for the three hours. so, it is an argument. but it's not a very fulsome argument. and so, i find it hard, when the 14th amendment is -- objection three -- is all about engaging in insurrection or rebellion for you not to get into the facts related to the very essence of that amendment. and since -- that argument in this brief wise president trump was actually pretty late in the brief. it shows that it was not the argument they are really hanging their hat. on and i don't see what the supreme court really analyze this issue without considering the insurrection piece of it. >> well, then, i'll be curious. because, as you all know, they are not a trial court. they don't want to do a trial. but this is all going to come.

up i bet they do not want any part of this. but sorry, supreme court justices, you are up. and marcus childress, tim parlatore, thank you both so much. look, no matter how this case actually ends up, and we don't know how it's going to -- we don't know what. all this is certainly perhaps not the way joe biden wants to. when so, how will it all play out in the race for the white house? i'm going to talk about it next.

>> fatal legal blow or political adrenaline shot? while trump's 14th amendment appeal is going to have a very big consequences, both in the courtroom and, of course, on the campaign trail. going to talk about it all, former white house senior adviser now your hike nayerra haq and -- democratic strategist in particular, you don't want the assumption that you are winning only because trump is not on the ballot. you want to be able to say, i beat you, trump, fair and square, again. is this problematic politically for them to have all these removals? >> who is going to argue about the fair and square, if he does

indeed win the electoral college and biden win the popular vote, like he did last time? the idea is democrats and want us to get to the supreme court. >> they don't! >> they don't want this litigated all the way up. that the court, once again, like they didn't corvey bush, decides to -- for an older class of democrats it's giving them heartburn right now of imagining that election day all over again. but at the end of the day, this is about republican primaries. right? it's not actually going to impact the number of people that would turn out for trump on the republican side of the aisle. >> and i think it helps trump politically, even in the general. >> you think so? >> oh, god, yeah. because laura, to the average voter, this just isn't fair. it's not part of the democratic process even though we know it is. but to the average folks out there, it is not. and that is going to, i think, embolden trump. i think it will help him politically beyond his base. >> you know, the not fair part, you think is, the voters don't

have a chance to decide whether they want to elect him? >> yes. >> the qualification aspect of it? >> -- elect him anyway in a primary. primaries are close political systems and you have to be registered as a republican, and then actually care enough to want to go vote in the primary. we are not talking about the general ballot and trump being kicked off their. his name -- he is on the path to be the nominee for the republican party. right? and there is nothing he could do that would make his base any happier than he's already -- >> he's going to be the nominee. but if he were kicked off a state in the general election, that would help him politically. >> that's really telling. because 91 indictments and counting does not affect him. but speaking of iowa, in particular and which we will be talking, about in 12 days from now -- i want to play a bit of what happened when one i will voter asked ron desantis what i think is, really, the million dollar

question. >> why haven't you gone -- you've gone pretty soft on him. >> but what do you think -- because i have articulated all the differences time and time again on the campaign trail. with the media wants is, they want republican candidates who just kind of what smear him personally and do that. that's just not how i roll. >> hold on. it is kind of how he rolls. i'll remind people, for a second, he said that nikki haley can't, quote, handle basic questions. he led the charge against bud light. remember that with dylan mulvaney and the -- you've got disney, yves got ap courses. he's not one to be the wall flower. >> it's how he has rolled from the beginning. like nikki haley, neither one of, them laura, have run to try to beat trump. >> why, though? why, joe walsh? >> because if you go after -- look at chris christie! if you go after trump, you have no room in the republican

party. you are no longer viable. chris christie can never be the nominee, because he's attacking trump. nikki haley and desantis knew that. so, they've tried to play this careful dance that will not work. >> with they have forgotten that the majority of the general electorate is unaffiliated. there's a whole bunch of folks who are turned off of partisan politics right now. and the rising electorate is young, it is diverse. and that is going to continue to be a problem for the republican party that keep scorching trump and going further and further right-wing. >> he so easy to criticize, laura, because he's a bad candidate. but in his defense, it was almost an impossible road to begin with. because you can't criticize trump and. when >> political grace is apparently how joe walsh roles. thank you so much. nayyera haq and joe walsh, thank you so much. coming up, tomorrow night on cnn, live, back-to-back republican presidential town halls in iowa. first, with the person we were just talking about ron desantis, moderated by cnn's kaitlan

collins, and -- nikki haley, moderated by cnn erin burnett's. i -- will be here, along with abby phillip when they wrap up. what would you do on vacation? what did you do on vacation? what are you going to do on vacation again? well, congress is in session, and scores of house republicans are -- in hopes of tuturning up t the t on joeoe biden. i'm onon the case,e, next.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data

and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. so i'm going to tell you something, frankly, that you already probably know, but it does bear repeating. and of course, something that every american certainly knows. there is a crisis at the border. we've all seen these pictures, thousands and thousands of desperate people every single day. more than 225,000 just last month alone. and though those numbers have begun to drop from a stunning 10,000 migrants every single day in december, closer to 2500 now, there are more than 11,700 migrant children who right now are in federal government custody. we can't go on like this.

it's not sustainable, except we do, and it is sustaining. but all that happens over and over as photo ops. the latest? house speaker mike johnson taken the opportunity to knock president biden. >> this industry can come to an end if the biden administration can do its job, and they refused to do it. >> well, you know who else refuses to perhaps do their jobs? many would say house republicans. yes, the very lawmakers speaker johnson leads. because a growing number of them are telling cnn they are not going to vote for the complex immigration deal that's in the works in the senate. congressman troy nehls, a texas republican, saying the quiet part out loud, quote, let me tell you, i'm not willing to do to damn much right now to help a democrat in to help joe biden's approval rating. that's a quote. now, some house republican members are now threatening to

shut down the government over the border issue. meanwhile, this unintentional photo op, migrants crossing the border in just as the house gop delegation arrived in eagle pass, texas, today, perhaps not inadvertent, but was supposed to be seen for reasons that they went down there. and we've all seen this before time and time again, the various photo opportunities at the border. president biden, remember, visited just about a year ago now for his first time as president, and mostly focusing on enforcement issues. vice president kamala harris visiting in june of 2021, after telling nbc this. >> you haven't been to the border? >> and i haven't been to europe. [laughter] i don't understand the point that you're making. i am not discounting the importance of the border. >> congresswoman alexandria ocasio cortez was there back in 2019. donald trump visiting the border multiple times when he

was president. and remember, once even signing a portion of his beloved wall with a sharpie. and remember, then first lady melania trump visited texas when she was wearing that really don't care, do you, jacket. and we can't forget rick perry and sean hannity and ron desantis and ted cruz. we've seen a lot of this before, photo ops at the border. but is it all nothing but some kind of political chess piece, especially during a presidential election year? what is the solution and is anyone even trying to come up with one? well, joining me now, congressman henry cuellar of texas. i'm so glad that you are here with us today, congressman. surely you have been following not just today but over the days, the weeks, the months, the years the success of presidential administration's. you represent a border district, congressman. and the big question for so

many people tonight is how much longer can this sort of posturing go on when there are real consequences in cities like yours? >> absolutely, there are real consequences every single day. you know, what new york and chicago and washington, d.c., are experiencing, we've been experiencing this for almost ten years or longer than that. we see this every day. and what we don't want is we don't want political narratives, where people come down and take a few photos, and then fit those images in their political narratives. what we want is real solutions -- so we can solve this, but it's going to be bipartisan. we can't have the speaker say h.r.2 for nothing. the legislative process doesn't work that way. we've got to be able to compromise, give a little bit, get out of our comfort zones, and get the job done. >> let's talk about how one can get the job done, because that's really the meat of the

matter here. i want to take a look at some of the policies that senate negotiators are even considering. notably, by the way, one of the policies would include shutting the border when migration spikes. would you be in favor of that particular policy? >> i don't know if they're talking about shutting down the border. i think shutting down the border completely doesn't work. you know, what we see at the border is we want to let legitimate trade and tourism come in and keep the bad things out, or the drugs coming in. when there are talks about, it there are people who have legitimate asylum claims. and we can have law in order and still be respectful of those asylum claims. but keep in mind, that in the last 25 years, 87% of those asylum claims are going to be rejected. so there's got to be a better way that we can do this work at the very beginning instead of giving a false hope, a false promise to people that we will

be here in four, five, six years, go in front of an immigration judge and then be told your asylum claim is rejected. >> i mean, not to mention the date that many people have to even go before an immigration judge can be years away, some as late or as early as 2027, just for example. and you mentioned the economy and the impact it would take on it if there is border closures. i mean eagle pass, el paso, according to access reporting, account for 33 point 95 billion dollars annually in trade. that's a very significant amount of money we're talking about here. and yet, that is one of the prospects being floated in the negotiations. you also say, congressman, that your constituents want congress to take action. of course, everyone is looking to congress. you, i'm sure, are aware of that as a member of congress, that everyone is looking towards what's happening there. but now, some of the 60 house republicans, led by speaker johnson, they are threatening to shut the government down

over the border crisis. and you have to wonder in an all or nothing sort of approach like this, is that considered a move of a party serious about truly negotiating? >> no, they're not. because they've said h.r.2 or nothing, number one. number two, you've got some members of the republican party that are saying we don't want to make something work to make the president look better. in other words, they want to keep this political issue going for the election for the november election. and finally, the last thing that is important to note is that the last two appropriation bills where we increased homeland appropriations, homeland appropriations by 50%, billions of dollars that we added, except for five or four republicans who are still in congress right now, everyone voted no. so how can you be serious when he voted for the last two

appropriations for homeland and voted no, except for five members that are still serving right now? >> congressman henry cuellar, thank you so much, i know you've got your work cut out for you. >> thank you, laura. well, court documents revealing the names of nearly 200 people connected to the late accused sex trafficker jeffrey epstein. we w will tell y you who is s ot list, nextxt.

hundreds of pages of unsealed documents released publicly tonight, documents that include the names nearly 200 people connected to the late accused sex trafficker jeffrey epstein and his accomplice ghislaine maxwell. the documents come from a 2015 lawsuit by one of their accusers, and some of the names connected to epstein, while, they are big. let's discuss with cnn legal analyst joey jackson an attorney and legal affairs commentator areva martin as well. so glad to have both of you here in the new year, although not for this crazy reason. but joey, let me begin with you for a second here. former president bill clinton was mentioned in the deposition that claim that epstein said that clinton, quote, he likes them young. to be clear, clinton, he

himself is not to be accused of crimes with epstein. and a spokesperson confirmed clinton had flown on epstein's private plane decades ago, but knew nothing of, quote, epstein's terrible crimes. but what does it mean to have documents like this, joey, in public? >> yeah, so, laura, good evening to you. you know, the reality is no one wants their name associated with epstein at all, obviously, for personal reasons, professional regions, reputation reasons, reasons relating to additional civil inquiries, for issues relating to additional criminal inquiries. but i think a statement like he likes them young, while horrifying to say the least, could mean a lot of different things. and it could mean something certainly of an innocence variety. he's a person who potentially likes the younger women, not necessarily underage women. so i'm not sure bill clinton is a particularly liking the fact that this came out.

certainly ms. giuffre, who initiated this lawsuit, said she had no dealings or interactions with him. and as you mention, laura, there's nothing of a criminal or civil friday to embroil or implicate him. but just the mere fact of an association with a person like this is obviously troubling and problematic to say the very least. >> that's why so many people look at something like this, of course, this deposition, and you cringe from the criminal context and the civil context of what this would mean, areva. i mean, a deposition from that same woman claimed that epstein once said, quote, we will call up trump when pilots need to land in atlantic city. they don't necessarily have all the details of what that means, we go to the casino from there, and when asked, she said she never gave a massage to trump. but the number of people, the number of very powerful people that are put into this orbit is pretty staggering, areva. >> yeah, it's really disgusting, laura, to say the least. and the other sad thing about the story is that this is become a pawn in the very --

partisan political war we see playing out in the media every day. and rather than focus on how this man, jeffrey epstein, was allowed to get away with praying on and abusing young girls for so many years is all about this got you moment. and we've seen so many republican activists and elected officials, marjorie taylor greene, donald trump jr., announcing that there is going to be some bombshell information of bill clinton, rather than focusing on how did this happen and how do we make sure teenage girls are never ever preyed upon, and that predators like epstein are not allowed to go free for a number of years that we know he did not face any serious consequences? >> in fact, joey, the person who is serving time is ghislaine maxwell. there is a bit of a irony in that it is a woman who is held to account for the actions, although she was accused of being only -- not only complicit, but facilitating some this behavior as well. when you look at this, joey,

and think about not just the big names that were on here, you know, you mentioned prince andrew and others who are mentioned, obviously, but what about the victims who have tried to stay anonymous? when this goes public, when this is available publicly as it is, did they have any recourse here? >> you know, so they really do. and i think the press has done a pretty favorable job in terms of keeping the victims not more victimized and protecting the privacy. and otherwise, coming out and saying, look, we will identify victims if they identify themselves. and even the court has given the indication that the court will keep victims still redacted, as we know in legal parlance, areva, laura, that means away from public view, they're blacked out, you can't see them. so obviously, look, if you're a victim in this case, there were so many victims, that have the courage, the fortitude, to come together to move forward, to seek accountability, to seek damages for iran, does it make it better. but our legal system awards

money, and certainly the rectum sense for that is important. but i think it's also important to protect their privacy going forward so they can have a semblance of life and peace as more and more information gets revealed in the coming days and weeks. >> really, quick areva, obviously this is somebody at the center of massive conspiracy theories online. and i just wonder what the impact of a release like this is going to do to those conspiracy theorists and the fuel it might provide? >> yeah, i hope it sets the record straight that this was a horrific crime carried out by a sexual predator. and we need to do more to protect girls so when predators like jeffrey epstein engage in this kind of conduct, that to be held to account. >> we shall see. joey jackson, areva martin, think you both for joining me tonight, nice to see you. >> thanks, as always. well, the former harvard president claudine gay breaking her silence a day after her resignation. more on what she's saying tonight,t, and a statark warning she'e's isissuing, nexext.

harvard's former president claudine gay defending her reputation tonight, warning of coordinated attacks to undermine, quote, public feet and pillars of american society, including academia. in a new york times op-ed, she describes her decision to step down, writing, in part, quote, for weeks, both high and the

institution which i've devoted my professional life have been under attack. my character and intelligence have been impugned. my commitment to fighting antisemitism has been questioned. my inbox as been flooded with invective, including death threats. i've been called the n-word more times than i care to count. now, gay admits she made mistakes, and in her congressional testimony about antisemitism on campuses, she should have been more forceful in denouncing calls for genocide of jewish people. she also just allegations of plagiarism, claiming she never misrepresented her research findings. but gay also condemns her critics for pushing what she calls, quote, tired racial stereotypes about black talent and temperament, unquote. well, thank you all for watching. our coverage continues.

- [young alec] my favorite people in shriners are the doctors and the nurses, because they help people through life. - [adult alec] wow, i was a really cute kid, (laughs) but it's true. shriners hospitals for children is awesome. the first time i went to shriners hospitals for children,

i was two months old. because of their care, now i live a full, independent life. i got my driver's license, and i'm going to college. when you call right now, and give just $19 a month, only 63 cents a day, we'll send you this adorable blanket as your reminder of the journey you helped me make, and the journey you're helping other kids make too. - it's amazing to know that there's someone looking out for me and my family. - and it isn't just the doctors and nurses who have been looking out for me. it was you. pick up your phone or go to loveshriners.org, and you'll be a part of something special too. tonight, on three 60, there's breaking news the former president tells the supreme court there's no 13th amendment case or giving off

colorado's ballot, and says the capitol attack was no insurrection. also breaking tonight, we also have just gotten court documents expected to reveal the names of nearly 200 people connected to the late sex trafficker jeffrey epstein. we will tell you what we're finding so far. and what u.s. officials are saying tonight but who might be responsible for the bomb blast in iran that killed more than 100 people at a memorial ceremony for an adarius kerik mastermind. good evening, thanks for joining us, we begin with breaking news, a story that as we said at the top of last night's program could reshape the president campaign and a whole lot more, including how a truly central part of the constitution is applied. late today, attorneys for the former president filed an appeal of the colorado decision barring him from the 2024 ballot. they're filing underscores the stakes of the case, describe the colorado ruling as, quote, the first time in history the united states that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for a leading major party presidential candidate. cnn's evan perez joins us now. so