, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. the case that could change the course of the election. and nine justices are ironing their robes as we speak. tonight on "laura coates live." in just a few short hours from now, the supreme court of the united states is going to hear arguments in a historic effort, to one to ban former president trump from the ballot for his

alleged role in the january 6th insurrection. we'll all be able to listen live tomorrow morning. let me make it easy to follow the conversation tomorrow. you've been hearing a lot about the 14th amendment. it's at the center of the case. it has five sections. of the five, you may only really know section one, the one about due process, laws, that one. it's the other white meat, section three. that's the one that's important, the so-called insurrectionist band. at its core it says, you can't hold office if you've engaged in an insurrection. if it were that easy, i wouldn't have to explain it to you, would i? and the supreme court wouldn't take it up. there's a couple words you to pay attention to. it's the words that bring us here today, the court there tomorrow, and that court will dissect these words when trying to understand whether the insurrectionist ban of section three fully does apply to donald

trump. the first words to consider is officer. the big question, is the president of the united states an officer of the united states? you may think you know the answer. but the court has to mull over that one. as for the second big question, is section three self-executing? that's lawyer speak for, can a plaintiff sue to remove someone from the ballot without congress specifically saying they can. that brings me to another word. the third important word, insurrection. we saw what happened on january 6th. we watched what happened live. we're reeling from what we see here today. the third and final question is this -- can former president trump be disqualified from the ballot for having engaged allegedly in insurrection. he's never been criminally

charged of insurrection. and the political process of impeachment, it failed to convict him. but there was a speech, calling out his own vice president and vowing to, quote, fight like hell. will this be enough to answer that question? >> it's time that somebody do something about it. and, mike pence, i hope you stand up for the good of our constitution and the good of our country. if you're not, i will be disappointed with you, i'll tell you right now. something is wrong. can't have happened. and we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> reporter: joining me now, cnn contributor and house republican investigative council, sofia nelson. and gia rossi. i'm glad you're both here.

the supreme court oral arguments are a tricky one, right? they might have preconceived motions based on the briefing. one of the big questions is going to be whether the language of the 14th amendment includes the president of the united states. when you look at this, what do you think? >> it does. unequivocally. to the justices that are original, textous, read the text. and go to article two and that describes who the president is. it sets up the executive branch. you have to read those in tandem. it's clear he is the chief executive officer of the united states. >> here's where the problem is, though. you look at -- you're looking at this. especially with the work you've done, there's been earlier versions of the 14th amendment that had the president of the united states in the language of section three. they didn't end up in the final

version. the secuupreme court is going t look to see if that makes a difference. was the intenlt to be on it or not? i wonder if they say, to fail to mention him directly, is that enough to say, doesn't apply to him? >> the legislative history of this amendment suggests that they did want to include the president, efven though it's no mentioned. jefferson davis, presidentconfe. there was talk he could possibly become president of the united states. or there was a hypothetical he could. and i guarantee you the framers of this amendment were thinking about whether he could be elected, even though he had been disgraced and become president of the united states. it was directed not just at him, but others that were part of the

confe confederacy. and going back to the text, you have to look at what did they intend and the amendment was passed. you have to freeze-frame it like a football game. and the intent is not just to include the low-level minnows but to include the president of the united states. >> you two match very well. >> we do. >> we talked on the phone. >> it looks really good. freeze-frame and replay that. i want to get the oath. we've seen the spectacle of a president taking the oath. and trump said his oath is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, rather than support it. that's the argument he's making. defend and support are synonymous in respects.

i wonder how the con serbtive members of the court going to say it doesn't apply. >> i think it's splitting hairs. i expect they will be unanimous. people probably think that's insane of me. this is a serious question they have got to get right. they will spend a lot of time how this applies. you start parsing out the oath to the constitution, they mean the same. >> is the reason for the so-called reach then tbecause there isn't a leg to stand on? even though you haven't been charged, or engaging in one, that's enough to disqualify you from the ballot. will they go that far? >> they are not. 1869, sam chase issued opinion saying, it has to be enforced by congress.

that's the only real opinion that addresses the 14th amendment. if i go into predictions, the supreme court will find the most narrow way to rule for trump and i think it's going to be that it has to be executed or enforced by congress. i want to add one thing that's not coming up a lot. the world hold. it says you can't hold office. it does not mean you can't be el elected. you could elect some crazy person in a state or let somebody who is crazy to be president of the united states. then, you have to get over the wh hold turtle. and that's where congress steps in and they can say, you're disqualified and we'll get two-thirds of the vote. that word hold is important. i belt the supreme court will

latch on to that word. >> that's interesting. if the niissue is whether you c hold office and congress can remove that disability, that makes the runs mate of the eventual, if he is the nominee and secures the actual election, very important. there's an important thing that we're not getting to. i'm saying that you got to deal with this issue that colorado as a sovereign state, they have decided he engaged in inl sur recollection. the supreme court has to deal with whether or not they're going to override a sovereign state in their election process. this is a tenth amendment question, too. there's a balance between federalism and state rights and

who gets the superior ground. and it probably goes back to what congress has to do here. i think they have a difficult decision ahead. >> you're right. this is on a state supreme court and a state district court having a fact-finding mission. but i wonder about the engage with insurrection. he hasn't been charged in insurrection. the one led by jack smith has four counts. the fact that that's a part of it and shall having engaged in insurrection, are they going to rely on the colorado finding? >> they don't do fact finding. >> the supreme court tomorrow, i'm predicting, they will stay away of finding insurrection or not finding it. there's many avenues for the supreme court to find that

narrow avenue to rule for trump. i think they will rule for trump in the end. i think it's the self-executing issue. i think they say, congress has to set guardrails. you don't want 50 little insurrection trials going on in the united states at the same time. we have to have a method to the madness. they're going to find a narrow way. congress has to set some guidelines. >> this is not an isolated attempt in colorado. there's other states considering it. and the supreme court is well aware of the problem of patchwork when it comes to issues like this, even if they want to keep their hands clean. thank you. come back. so color-coordinated again. look at this, everyone. people are lining up outside the supreme court tonight, hoping to get a seat for tomorrow's oral arguments. there's jake tapper.

how do americans feel about efforts to keep donald trump off the ballot? we'll break into the magic wall, next. 6

. the arguments before the supreme court tomorrow could set us on the path to making election history. how do voters feel about the effort to disqualify donald trump from office? let's go to harry enten at the magic wall. he's going to bring it to life for us. harry, good to see you. the big question, what happens if the supreme court agrees with the colorado top court and takes donald trump off of the state ballot. how would in a impact his path to nomination? >> colorado is not going to make too much of an impact, in the

primary or the general election. in the primary, donald trump is going to accumulate the delegates necessary to win the nomination. and in the general election, colorado leans democratic. there was the move from the maine secretary general to remove from maine's ballot, maine allocates electoral votes for the winner of the district. and maine leans republican in the fall. colorado no. but maine would be an inter interesting case. >> and a judge is moving along with a major lawsuit to block trump in illinois. how many cases are unrevolved? it could make a measurable difference, could it not?

>> it could. if we look, there's been a lot of cases. litigation moved trump from the ballot. it's pending in 16 states still. it's pending in a lot of states. pending litigation, states less than five points in 2020. we have a slew, eight states, red states like texas, a lot of electoral votes. really red states like west virginia. and swing states, like wisconsin, that biden barely won in '2020 or klcarolina and arizona, as well. the fact is, there's pending litigation in states that could make a difference come the fall, if some of the lawsuits do succeed. >> that's why the supreme court argument is so interesting. they're not just making this

case about colorado. that is the focus, of course. this is going to have implications o other states, as well. the question to me is, how do americans feel about keeping trump off the ballot? do they support this proposition? >> yeah. keeping trump off the ballot. support colorado and make a decision to keep trump off the ballot. look at this even split here. not much of a surprise in our 50/50 nation. 49% of americans do support it, as do 46 that oppose it. really tight. trust the supreme court to make right decisions on legal cases to the 2020 election. 42% has v a great deal or confidence in the supreme court. the vast majority don't have that much trust in the supreme court. 58% have just some or not at all to make the right decisions. >> that ain't good. you have to wonder if that's

recent or has been brewing for a long time. something tells me it's more recent. harry, thank you for the numbers. appreciate that so much. >> appreciate you, laura. listen live as the u.s. supreme court hears the case to remove former president donald trump from the ballot. our coverage is at 9:00 a.m. east. a variation on a theme on capitol hill. talk about all of the -- what was the word? chaos. got a lot of lawmakers ticked off. will the meltdown hurt republicans? we have a panel here to talk to me. we'll be right back.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.

there might be just one word for what we're seeing on capitol hill today. that word, drumroll, please, chaos. >> we've got to sit down together -- because the american people sent us here to do that. >> partisanship won. the senate has failed arizona. shameful p. >> it's more than disappointing. it's dangerous. extremely dangerous what we're doing today. this has to be reversed and the people should demand it. >> it is shameful and embarrassing to see maga radicalism take hold here in the senate. >> the senate's long-awaited, carefully negotiated and the big word here, bipartisan, bipartisan border bill, it is dead. a foreign aid package was

collateral damage in all of this. josh holley put it, quote, it's been a disaster. why would republicans say we want more of this? let's talk about what the voters might want with former communication director for kamala harris, ashley etteien. and political analyst for cnn, coleman hughes. he's the author of the book, "the race of politics." and the cover is red. i love it. scott, are you feeling good tonight? this is a trick question. f feeling good about what republicans did on the hill? >> it's not over. i put a glass half-full spin on it. sometimes bills don't pass. there's negotiating over the foreign aid package, the plan "b" option. it got 58 votes.

they're negotiating how to get that done. if that gets done, that will be a step in the right direction for priorities that a lot of republicans have. what will be left undone is the border and immigration piece that continues to be left undone. for the american people, this has become a major problem, a major issue and a major crisis under a democratic negotiation that for three years a border is secure. now, the election is coming and the border is not secure. >> is that really what it is? they delayed to wait for right now for republicans to impoed in their own voting? >> i think the problem exacerbated and got worse overtime. i travel ail over and you can see migrants all over the country. democrat ic governors and mayor to take action. it got to a boiling point and

the president had to do something. but the issue you talked about, is republicans don't want to take yes for an answer. biden did classic clinton triangulation. he gave the republicans everything they wanted. it was a conservative wish list. but he put them in a position to tell him no. now, it puts this at their doorstep, the open border on republicans. the question is whether he can do that alone. he's not proven that he can promulgate an effective message. thanks, scott for agreeing on that one. the pressure is on him to make the case. but he's well positioned to do that. >> every american should listen to the speech that senator lankford gave today. it was disturbing.

before they looked at the bill, they said, we will destroy you. they said donald trump killed it and told them not to do it and they fell in line. that's where reare were the rest of the year until the election. >> what does that mean? we've seen what happened to speaker mccarthy when he crossed the aisle. he no longer has a gavel. now, lankford, one of the most conservative in the caucus. has been villainized for what's happened so far. who wants to negotiate? >> it's now personal. that's what we're missing in all this. there's a personal element that takes us away from bipartisanship and gets things done. >> this is why congress has such low approval ratings right now. both parties have egg on their face. republicans for rejecting a

pretty sensible and tough bill on the border that would have gone a long way to cushing this emergency. and democrats, frankly, for the second donald trump was out of office, bidened wanted to signal he was not going to be trump at the border and he took his foot off the pedal. that was an example of part s partisanship obvious both sides. this makes perfect sense for american people to be upset with congress. >> this is why we can't have nice things. why there's plastic on the couch. president biden said in new york, republicans have to decide who they serve. are they here to solve problems or just weaponize them. the question of who do you serve? sounds like it might be trump. >> who does he serve? he is the one that's struggling

on this issue. 70% of people, believe this is a crisis, believe it's a top issue and he's failed on this. what has he been doing for three years? this became urgent to him when it was a boat anchor on his re-election campaign. it didn't matter to him when he gave free health care to immigrants. on day one when he reversed donald trump's policies. he would go to the american people and say, i messed up, shouldn't have reversed those. i will reverse my actions and fire my homeland security secretary for being a failure. now, i'm ready to negotiate. that's an ounce of good faith. >> he says i'm the one to blame and fire the one who exduetted the policy. that failed by the way. another thing for failed for what speaker johnson tried to do. this has been an issue for a

number of years and other administrations, too. to the point of what's taken so long, how do you respond to that in terms of why? >> why? >> why there was not sooner action, to scott's point? >> the president came into office and implored congress to pass bills to address this issue. the way we address this is for congress to take action. republicans campaigned on the border. spent millions and millions of dollars in ads bashing the president for an open border. and here we are at a point now, where they have an opportunity to take a bill they wrote, they drafted, to solvele this particular problem. the person with the most egg on

their face is speaker johnson. why would you bring a bill when you don't have enough votes for it. this will only get worse and create a bigger opportunity for the president. we've seen border crossings increase as the weather changes and gets warmer. this is a problem for johnson that he put himself in a box. >> the math wasn't mathing. that's a problem. i talked about your book. it is fascinating. you talk about end of race politics. some talk about gender issues as a proxy on race and beyond. how do you hope to change the conversation about race and politics? >> this word color blind has become a dirty word for many people. it's good we're talking about this to today. we've gotten deep into the 14th amendment today.

the first proponent of the 14th amendment, wendell phillips, president of the american anti-slavery society, he was the first american public figure to use color blind in his proposing. what he meant was the state should have no business recognizing or discriminating in any direction, when it comes to its citizens. this is where i trace the history of color blindness to. not to conservatives or reactionaries but to the most radical anti-slavery activists of the 1860s. from there, you can go back and read martin luther king's great book "why we can't wait" yes, we have to address the legacy of slavery and racial inequality. and the best way to do that is not with policy that chris kram nates but policy that attacks

poverty and will affect black americans. nowadays you would include hispanic americans. democrats and people on the left would reapproach color blind. >> i can't wait to read it. hope everyone does, as well. coleman, thank you. thank you to everyone on the panel. i give drinks to other people besides just scott at the table. >> we don't have the budget to hand out much. you can look at the mug. hold the mug and put the mug back. a big spike of crime in oakland leading some companies to warn their employees not to leave the building for lunch. serious. people afraid to go outside. what is behind the surge? we'll explore it, next.

a once-bustling city now facing a surge of violence. crime in oak laland, california was up in several categories last year, as crime fell in other major cities.

several businesses have had to close up shop. here's cnn's veronica miracle. >> reporter: chaotic scenes from oakland, california, a city now notorious for its violent crime. one of the worst parts of the city, once a thriving road with chain stores and local businesses, it's now an area many avoid. customers are scared so they're not staying to eat. >> they order to food but to go. >> reporter: one year after opening, cindy's business has been broken into twice. her customers targeted countless times. >> for my customers, broke the windows of the car and take everything. >> reporter: if store is down the street from this raising cane's. autho employees say they do drive through only. this cage is where employees park their cars. there's signs everywhere telling people to eat and leave. the burger chain in and out will

be closing this location, not from lack of business but customers and associates are regularly victimized by car break-ins, property damage, theft and armed robberies. in 2023, oakland police recorded increases in balturglaries, robberies and auto thefts by 40% than the year prior. several companies across oakland have announced safety concerns. kaiser permanente telling its workers in a leaked memo, not to leave the building for lunch or hold meetings downtown. >> it creates this avalanche of people afraid to go out, which actually creates -- makes it a worse problem. >> reporter: sherry is a third generation oaklander. what's it like seeing restaurant after restaurant close on this block? >> it's heartbreaking. >> reporter: this represents hundreds of businesses as the executive director of a business collective. more than half of the businesses

she recently surveyed said they were closer or believing oakland. >> to see oakland transition from a thriving community to starting to look like a ghost down is just devastating. >> reporter: the organization and other business districts want city leaders to make policy changes that would allow oakland police to operate more effectively. she says businesses like this home decor store experienced repeated break-ins. groups of people organized and strategic. captured on city-wide cameras hit several businesses at a time. crime that is changing the local economy. she believes it's part of the reason the oakland first friday street fair put on to showcase businesses has been cut down for the first time in ten years. >> it makes you emotional just thinking about it. >> i don't want to see it go away. >> reporter: the city is taking action. the oakland mayor in office one

year, facing a recall from dissatisfied voters. but her office increased the number of police across the city. they saw a 23% reduction in autoburglaries in 2023 than the year before. they have working alongside community members at all levels to deploy resources strategically to combat activity. nigel joins immigrated to the u.s. one of his raestaurants was ransacked that fall. he worked with other business owners to find solutions and bring them to city leaders. you achieved your american dream in oakland. >> yes. >> reporter: you want others to do the same? >> yes. there's folks that can't go anywhere. they need to make the city thrive. i'm one of the folks. not that i can't go anywhere. but i don't want to go anywhere. i'm 100% committed to oakland being a place where people can thrive and achieve their dreams.

>> reporter: veronica miracle, cnn, oakland, california. >> thank you for that. up next, sentenced to two decades in prison, held responsible for someone else's crimes. now, the story that's personal to me. back in a moment.

abuse and justice and finally freedom. candice smith was 24 years old when she was sentenced to two

decades in prison. it was 1994 and the war on drugs was as rampant as it was racist. and peter hall was a drug dealer. she did not commit his crimes. she had no history of violence. not a single offense. still, none of that mattered. why? because of mandatory minimum sentence guidelines spp she was held accountable for his actions. she was 24 years old. she was sentenced to 24 years. she was released in 2000 after six years in prison. her life story is a movie, premiering february 22nd b.e.t. plus. here's an exclusive clip. >> what's going on? >> i don't know. >> okay.

>> could you at least tell us what you're looking for? >> peter hall, also known as palef hall. >> he's not in a dresser drawer. >> do you know his whereabouts? >> no, sir, we do not. >> people ask me why i became a prosecutor. the reason is here. and her name is kemba smith. and the director of that film. i am thrilled to have both of you here today. i told you this before, in 1994, its was that "emerge" magazine, that said "kemba's nightmare." and my mother gave it to us three daughters in our household and said, i need you to read this and understand what could be in life. it has always stuck with me. it changed my trajectory and for

so many young women. now, a new generation will learn your story. what does it feel like? >> it feels surreal. i have to let go of my own feelings. not everyone wants to put their past decisions that weren't the best and being in abusive relationship during college. it feels good to be here. thank you. it's bigger than just me, like you said. one of the characters in my film, michelle west, she has a clemency position in. she was sentenced to two life sentences plus 50 years and is sitting in federal prison. once i was released and all this galvanizing and momentum with my story and it took the president of the united states to release me, i had a sense of survivor's guilt because so much was done for me. there were other women in

similar situations that deserve a second chance as well. i continue to be a human face for those i left behind. >> you wattle wi lbattle with s built today. >> she's still there and there's so many other people i'm fighting. with my movie, there will be a social impact campaign that's launched along with it. and some of the things we would like to do, the federal government to do and states across the country, is to look at second-look legislation, governors to exercise their power of clemency, to give other people second chances. >> this has been your big priority, as well, even making the film. you can't take it lightly. a 24-year-old, in prison for crimes she didn't commit. young and dumb like we all have been and maybe will be again. and to think about the relatability and the consequences.

you brought out the multidimensionality and brought it on film. >> that's important as a story keller from my perspective. my background is in anthropology at howard university. and i learned that we are not all one note. in story telling, you have a one-note villain and a one-note hero. that's not life. when we're able to tell stories such as kemba's, we have to be conscientious because it is a bio-pic because he's are people with family and kids that are living today. we need to make sure we're not causing drama to them, as well. showing the layers of individual, they're still a human being. no one wakes up and wants to be

a drug dealer one day. there's circumstances. heaven forbid we have to make decisions like that. we can't truly sit and say we would never do that, until you're placed in that circumstance. as a story teller, as a filmmaker, i think it's our det duty to take that care. >> so people do sit in judgment. i've been a prosecutor. i was hoping to be a kconduit ad a voice for people. think they, they would never. they think they're better than the circumstances they are around. i wonder.

you had several lifetimes since that 24-year-old inside of you, when you look back now, do you judge her? >> i don't judge her. i understand that she was a young, naive, impressionable college student. i made some choices that weren't the best. i was a survivor. i was indicted by federal government that didn't take into consideration, the fact i was being abused. and the domestic violence a aspect. i feel as if that's mitigating circumstances that the prosecutor should have taken into consideration. i accept responsibility for the choices that were made. that's why i'm transparent about my story. i want young people not to go down the same path. it's been my mission to

highlight the prosecutorial conduct that happened where i turned myself in seven months pregnant and the prosecutor said he would grant me a bond to give birth to my son. and he promised if i pled guilty i would get 24 months. it's important for me to let people know what happened and how easy it is to get caught up. >> i'm proud of you, kemba. i'm proud of this movie. i think this story needs to be hold. frankly, our stories are not a monolith and are more expansiex. i'm glad this is coming to light. thank you so much. >> thank you, laura. thank you all for watching. our coverage continues.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs. with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once.

join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win.