my cravings, they went away. and i was so surprised. you feel that your body is working and functioning the way it should be and you feel energized. golo has improved my life in so many ways. i'm able to stand and actually make dinner. i'm able to clean my house. i'm able to do just simple tasks that a lot of people call simple, but when you're extremely heavy they're not so simple. golo is real and when you take release i'm jonathan, in for alex and follow the plan, it works. wagner. we're following big breaking news this evening. maine's secretary of state, sheena, billows has decided that former president trump is ineligible to appear on that state 2024 republican primary ballot.

because it was an insurrection at the january six. almost three years ago and with a ruling maine has now become the second state, to say that trump is ineligible to appear on the 2024 republican primary ballot. the decision comes after a week of the colorado supreme court issued a similar ruling. and that ruling is now being appealed by both sides the nation's highest court. the nine justices of the supreme court are being position to settle the issue of whether trump's serving as president, under section three of the 14th amendment which bars and the candidate from holding the office who engaged in insurrection. in a, ruling tonight, secretary of state road, and i quote, i have little trouble concluding that the events of january six, 2021 or an insurrection within the meaning of section three of the 14th amendment. the record establishes that mr. trump, over the course of several months in culminating on january six 2021 use the

false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters in direct them to the capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. mr. trump was aware of the likelihood for violence, and at least initially supported its use, given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric, and took no timely action to stop it. the weight of the evidence makes clear that mr. trump was aware of the tender lead by his multi month effort to delegitimized a democratic election, and then chose to light a match. his notes the says that he's aware that it may be struck by the supreme court. she also writes that she has paused the decision to strike trump from the ballot pending a likely trump appeal. tonight, the trump campaign is vowing to appeal in state court, it calls the decision, quote, atrocious adding that it came from, quote, and i am quoting, a leftist and hyperpartisan biden supporting democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of joe biden. in her conclusion, the main

secretary of state writes, quote, i am mindful of that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access, based on section three of the 14th amendment. i am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. the events of january 6th, she wrote, were unprecedented and tragic. they were an attack, not only on the capitol and government, and officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. it occurred with the knowledge and support of the outgoing president. the u. s. constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government. so, we now have two states that have ruled that trump did engaged in insurrection and should not appear on their state's primary by ballots. those decisions will now clearly be appealed up to the

u. s. supreme court, which will decide whether trump is a legitimate candidate entitled to run for and hold the highest office in the land. the question is, how will the nation's highest court rule and when? here with me now is attorney general, harry litman, and mark joseph stern, senior writer covering courts and the law for slate magazine. thank you both very much for being here this evening. let me come to you, your reaction to the decision by the main secretary of state? >> this is obviously a really big deal, and it feels like the dominoes are maybe beginning to fall. when it was just colorado that had gotten a front striking trump from the ballot, if selling the view is no liar but now we have another state that has undertaken a very serious review through the secretary of state's office and reach the same conclusion. the legal analyses are beginning to a point in the same direction, the evidence that trump incited an insurrection in terms of the 14th amendment is starting to

pile up, and so i do wonder if i were a republican primary voter, might i think, you know, it is trump who i support but it is time to start considering an alternative because there is not even a 100% chance that this guy is constitutionally eligible to appear on the ballot in 2024. >> harry, i read lengthy excerpts from the secretary of state's decision but, maybe we should hear from the secretary bellows herself. she was on msnbc in the last hour. listen. >> the record demonstrates that in fact, the events from january six, 2021 which are unprecedented, tragic, in the meeting of section three of the 14th amendment. and finally, in reviewing the facts presented, the evidence, the law, history, we determined under section three of the 14th

amendment that mr. trump engaged in insurrection. and therefore was disqualified. >> so, harry, the main law requires her, the secretary of state to make a decision before this goes to the court. two questions, and mark alluded to this in his answer. but she had to do a review. this is not just some decision that she came up on her own. talk to us about how she came to this decision, and will this decision have any bearing on how the main courts consider this question? >> on the second, yes, it will. they will take it and review it with some deference. how did she come to it? very similar to the colorado supreme court, it is a methodical, really well reasoned opinion, pretty long,

34 pages in particular, the piece of it that analyzes whether he is an officer which is the disputed issue between the colorado trial court and supreme court she has a much longer historically incurred analysis. i really think it is hard what she has done under main law. on the other hand, this makes manifest what was layton when as mark said, we had just colorado, which was the u. s. supreme court that is going to know that there is a real potential for a patchwork kind of pattern in the country where some, for different reasons depending on state law, disqualify him, others don't. i think that is going to be anathema to them. and it is a challenge because these are different state law kinds of rulings and they can just willy-nilly slap them down unless they have won federal law principal to do and, for

example, the possibility of saying that he's not an officer i think got more remote today based on her pretty well reasoned analysis. >> mark, whether or not the supreme court has the 6 to 3 conservative, supermajority, the institution of the supreme court says that they don't like patchwork patterns. they don't like to have different courts and different jurisdictions ruling in different ways. so is it inevitable that the supreme court will take this case and how quickly do you think that they will? >> the answer is yes, the supreme court will take up these cases, colorado perhaps more, and hopefully decide them very quickly, because of course, the primaries are right around the corner and this contestant question whether trump is eligible to appear on the ballot. i think the main secretary of state's decision tonight really

creates a problem for the supreme court. you know, if this were just colorado, the supreme court could have found some colorado specific reason to overturn the state supreme court, the say the colorado law didn't provide sufficient due process to donald trump, and that the colorado supreme court did not follow the state's election code correctly. now, we have a completely separate procedure, separate setup election laws, and we have reached the same conclusion. i do think that this is going to force the court to consider going big to consider issuing a big decision that for instance, says that trump did not, by definition, engage in an insurrection. that would be a hugely controversial ruling, but i don't think that the court could -- like it might have just a day ago. it might have to get into the meat of these issues in the country might not like it's answers. >> we will talk more about that colorado ruling, because colorado voters who won a victory at the colorado state supreme court last week, today, petitioned the supreme court to rule quickly. they asked for oral arguments, on january 19th, and a ruling by february 11th. how likely is on schedule? >> the schedule is not that unlikely. by the way, i totally agree

with mark about the complicating factor here. they cannot do a one-off opinion. that is, their party, they intervene below, but the petition everyone is waiting for is trump's. that will come soon. remember, the state the colorado supreme court gave expires on the 4th of january. that request, if he makes it for expedited treatment, or if smith jumps in with that sort of request, that's when i think that you will see the court hopping too. i'm not certain whether this petition will trigger it, but it is a virtual certainty that a, they will decided, be, they will decide it quickly. also, see, they wish they didn't have to for the reasons mark just said. it polarized pinion would really look bad for the court, but they are stuck here. >> mark, how likely is it that justice clarence thomas recused himself from any of these trump related cases? especially the ballot access cases? >> i'd estimate the odds are about 0%. clarence thomas, has of course, participated in previous january 6th related cases even though his wife, jimmy, was involved in trying to overturn the election and was actually at the ellipse on january 6th. i don't think this will be any different, even though the court has put forth what it calls a code of ethics, it is a

non binding unenforceable code. there is no person or a body that can require clarence thomas to recuse. the decision is still in his hands and even though under federal law he clearly should i really don't think that he will. >> harry, we will get your thoughts on something that my opinion colleague ruth markets wrote last week. i am quoting here. the best outcome for the court and the country would be for a unanimous court, preferably an 8 to 0 court with justice clarence thomas recusing himself, to clear the way for trump to run. >> three different things from ruth. first, unanimous. it is clear that it's true. the court knows that they are trying, and it might not be possible. i am with 0. 00, and third, would it be unanimous clearing the way to run? i understand that argument but on the other end, the constitutional, either way they will take a lot of heat. you can also argue it is a clear decision saying that he can't. but the clarity is what really matters, and they are going to, i think, with their natural divide, have trouble coming to a unanimous decision and, they will try, that raises the prospect that the courts already lowered capital will be

lowered still. >> one more question for you, because ballot access is not the only question that will lend before the supreme court. there's also the question of immunity. presidential immunity. that's what donald trump is arguing in jack smith's case. it is that a case that they can punt? >> no. that is a case that they must decide. the question of presidential immunity goes to something that we call jurisdiction, which means does the court even have the power to hear this case? trump says that he is immune from prosecution for the events of january 6th. and that means that judge chutkan on the trial court literally cannot hear any aspect of the case. they must toss it out into the garbage. the supreme court will need to decide quickly whether or not that is true. and not making a decision would surely allow trump to run out the clock until the election. and that is very much coming to us like a speeding train and --

>> agreed. >> i was going to say, is your 0% 000 likelihood of clarence thomas recusing himself, is very 0. 00% chance that the supreme court rules that he have immunity? >> very close to it. i'm very confident that the supreme court will hold that trump does not have immunity and that he must face trial. >> all right then. i'll take that optimism. harry litman, mark joseph stern, thank you very much for coming to the program this evening. coming up, more news concerning the fake electors plot. new details about the trump campaign is mad dash to get the

fix certificates to d. c. and time for vice president mike pence to count them. that's next. >>

i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. hi, i'm tali, and i lost 85 pounds on golo. all my life i struggled with my weight.

i tried every diet, and i even had weight loss surgery. but, after complication, i had gained everything back extremely fast. i was unhealthy, miserable and depressed. following golo, and taking release, i was able to lose weight gradually and keep it off. i wish i'd started sooner. don't wait, go straight to golo.com. 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. >> one of the central futures

of donald trump's campaign to overturn the 2020 election was a fake electors plot. trump's campaign enlisted the help of republican officials and activists in seven states to try to submit fraudulent election certification documents, documents that would've declared trump the winner of the election. part of that scheme was the mad dash to actually get those fake documents to vice president mike pence so that he could except them in his official role overseeing the election certification process. now, brand-new recordings obtained by cnn detail the extreme lengths they almost went to in order to make it happen. here's a portion of those new recordings in which trump lawyer, kenneth chesebro, explains how the trump campaign almost chartered private jets to get the documents to washington in time. >> how is the campaign? it was alarming, and was chartering, they didn't have to charter a jet but commercial, right? >> that's what it said in my email. >> i forget if they charted but this is like a high level decision to get the michigan and wisconsin votes there. they had to enlist a u. s.

senator to try to expedite it to get it passed their time. >> they have not independently verified. they had to enlist the help of a u. s. senator. the senator that he is talking about is ron johnson who deliver the documents to pence upon their arrival in washington. new details show them how important they were to that scheme. which might be why senator johnson has gone out of his way to avoid answering questions about it. >> how much did you know about what your chief of staff is doing with the alternate slates of electors? >> i can see your screen. >> -- we issued a statement. i don't know what you are even -- >> a non story. joining us now, shannon wu,

former counsel to the attorney general and former federal prosecutor. shannon, thank you very much for coming in this evening. trump's defense has been that these fake docks were a backup in case the courts ruled in their favor, which basically none of them did. does the fact that they were rushing these documents, rushing to get them there, in early january undercut that argument, the backup argument? >> i think it does, because at that point, there's nothing pending. i mean, it's not as though that they are about to have another court hearing. they've lost on everything. it just shows how committed they were to this fraud. that they were still anxious that they didn't trust the u. s. mail because they had ticketed their themselves to make sure that it would arrive there. so it really shows just how many steps they took towards that, and how committed they were towards it. >> these new emails also revealed that the reason why they needed senator ron johnson,

was because they couldn't just walk into the capitol and walk into the house floor and hand things to the vice president, what does that say about how serious they worry about getting these documents to pence? >> they were very serious. they very much understood the procedural aspects here in the timeline that they had to get to him. it wasn't enough just to email them or let them know about it. they wanted to put pence and the position of, here they are. make him choose, at that moment. johnson's involvement really critical to have the u. s. senator help with that. his efforts to distance himself from it, despite asking questions, very weak. he says he was only involved for a few seconds. that is not a defense to the crime. robert is like hey, only held up the bank for a few seconds,

i'm not guilty. just doesn't fly. >> also what doesn't fly is his saying, as we saw, in the video clip, this is a non story, this is a known story, i'm sorry. but the subverted election is not a long story. so, i mean, thought might play in the court of public opinion. but in the court of law, that's not going to play out at all. >> at the moment he has not been charged, and jack smith, as we know, is doing a very narrow type of case trying to push it across the finish line as he can, it's getting harder for him. but in terms of some sort of legal defense, for johnson's involvement, illegal defense that this was just the alternative slate, if we needed it, it just does not add up to that in court. >> let's talk more about can chesebro. because he's not cooperating with all of these state investigations on fake electors. should we assume that this

means that he is also cooperating with the federal investigation? >> it's hard to assume. if i was his lawyer, i certainly wouldn't want him to be hanging out there on the federal charges while he was talking to the state people. from what we have heard in the reporting is that it seems like he's doing a little bit of finger pointing and minimizing his own culpability here. and if he is really one of the first main cooperators and that is really the benefit that he gets from being first and the door. he can say it wasn't me, they misled me on that, but if i were jack smith would give me some pause as to how credible he is going to be not to fully fall in the sword and say i was misled about some of these things. >> what a surprise you if chesebro were cooperating with the federal investigation?

even though his way tied up in the george investigation? >> that wouldn't surprise me at all. it is hard because the case has been moving so quickly on so many different fronts. but what would surprise me is if his lawyers let him do this piecemeal. a defense lawyer would want to have a global agreement in place. he's going to talk with everybody and there is no surprise charges later. we just don't know what this communication has been. >> the special counsel, jack smith, has until saturday, and saturday's, actually is not new years eve, its new years eve eve. to file his response to trump's immunity appeal in d. c. . this d. c. circuit court of appeals. what should we expect in his filing, do you think? >> i think you will press the point so far historically this has no basis for saying that the former president is completely immune from criminal prosecution.

that it does not exist. for the supreme court this is kind of a win-win situation kicking it back to the circuit court. because they do not look too anxious to decide the case and the to get the benefit of some good analysis by the court of appeals as well. but i think that you are going to look to smith to show us why there is no basis for making this kind of a very over broad argument. i don't think that the supreme court is ultimately going to want to make that big of a ruling. >> in the last block, we had both harry litman and mark joseph stern say that there was a 0. 00% chance that the supreme court would say that a president has immunity. but donald trump has immunity from prosecution. do you share that assessment? >> i'm a little bit more worried than there. they could still try to slice and dice at more narrowly. trump has made the argument more that he said he was within the, quote, outer perimeter of legal jargon that still somehow it and the scope of his

presidential duties. the president isn't completely immune but there is wiggle room to say, maybe what he was doing here could have been under the official duties. and that would save him on that point. >> would save him? i'm not sure if it would save the country. thank you very much for coming in this evening and coming up. pop quiz, you ready? what was the cause of the united states civil war? think about it. because after the break, we will help you compare notes with republican presidential candidate, nikki haley, who is facing a lot of heat for getting that answer and her efforts to clean it up oh so very wrong. that's next.

>> the lack of care that has been on display for the last year and a half has created an incredible amount of chaos. buses arriving not just in the city of chicago, but in surrounding communities as well. some neighborhoods, as far reaching as an hour and a half outside of the city of chicago. assisted by the governor of texas. literally chopping families off in the middle of nowhere. >> that was chicago mayor, brandon johnson, this week in a joint briefing with the mayors of new york city and denver. the texas governor -- of busing scores of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers from the southern u.

s. border to cities where democrats are in charge. democratic mayor say that those cities have reached a tipping point. they're asking the federal government for more support and they have taken legal action to try to limit of its program. this week, new york city mayor, eric adams, issued an executive order that buses carrying migrants can arrive in the city and mandating advanced notice. the move follows chicago mayor, brandon johnson's passing of the city law which allows officials to impound buses that drop off migrants within a permit, or outside of approved hours and locations.

but texas governor abbott doesn't appear to interested in coordinated with city officials to help them better process migrant arrivals. some city mayors began setting regulations on his bus in program, texas has responded by sending one of chicago's mayor is referring to rogue buses to the suburbs of chicago instead of leaving asylum seekers stranded. last week, abbott chartered a plane for more than 100 asylum seekers, and flew them from el paso to chicago's o'hare airport. joining me now, immigration reporter for the chicago tribune. thank you very much for being here this evening. you know, democratic mayors are not saying, you know, don't send the migrants here. they are just asking for coordination to avoid migrants from arriving in the middle of the night being dropped off in the middle of nowhere. what effect is chicago's new ordinance having on the crisis? >> yeah, so the new ordinance, like you said, it is just

asking for coordination, really, with officials from texas. so, buses are being sent to municipalities, in all different municipalities. migrants are being dropped off on the roads, and they are walking, you know, 53 miles and illinois. they were dropped off at a gas station and they were told that they are in chicago. basically, buses are being sent from texas to avoid being seized and impounded. and they are being sent to these municipalities with really no coordination. since the city rules were in stated, texas has not been talking at all to city officials here in chicago. >> as you said, these buses are being sent unannounced, an approved locations, governor abbott is also taking a page out of florida governor, ron desantis's playbook and charting flights to transport

asylum seekers. democratic mayor say that this creates chaos and puts migrants safety at risk. you just outlined one example. over the weekend more than 100 people arrived in the suburbs on buses before taking trains to chicago. officials say that they were given no heads up. is the cruelty the point of abbott's program? it does not seem like there's any real solution to what he is doing. >> right. is the cruelty the point? i think, i don't know what the point is. i think the point might be to send a message about sanctuary cities being able to respond to their promises, or for how they helped these people. i think that the city of chicago was really simply

asking for more coordination, and municipalities do not have infrastructure. so it is backfiring because municipalities have less emergency management support than city of chicago does. the city of chicago right now has 17 shelters around all different neighborhoods. open for up to -- their sheltering 15, 000 people close to. that is 7000 -- over 7000 children have arrived since the mission began. that's a lot of people. and i think that is what they sort of need to keep front of mind. that these are real people. if the mission is -- go ahead. >> now let me ask you this. and i apologize for asking you an opinionated question. you are a new reporter, but immigration is your beat. i am wondering, these migrants who are being dumped there in chicago, and now outside of chicago, can you give us an insight into what you are hearing from them? >> yeah. i feel really fortunate. i am really close with one particular family because me

and a colleague photo, we went to texas and we actually went on a bus with a family and a train from el paso to chicago. so, i mean, i think that my biggest take away from that experience and that story, we don't know what it was like to have checked over seven countries, and we only know what it was like to be on a bus for 32 hours. but when we got to chicago station, there's just such an element of fear, you don't know where to go, who did turn to. that is just something that i think we all need to remember because migrants, when they get to chicago, they do not know where to go. they don't speak english. so they don't have any connections. a lot of venezuelans have no connections, unlike ukrainians or other types of immigrants

who have arrived in the city of chicago over the years. >> i am so glad that i asked you that last question, because you brought some humanity to this story that we are all watching. thank you very much for coming to the program this evening. >> thanks for having me so much. >> ahead tonight, what caused the civil war? nikki haley says that today it was a given that the answer is slavery. so much so that there was no need to mention it. halle's cleanup tour in the state, that is next. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. ♪♪

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ get it with gurus. cargurus.

hi, i'm kim, and i lost 67 pounds on golo. when i go out with people, get it with gurus. they expect me to eat like a bird. they are shocked by the amount of food i eat while losing weight. with golo, i don't need a cheat day because i get to eat the foods i like >> the republican presidential any day of the week.

primary field is filled with so many extreme candidates that former south carolina governor and former u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley is seen as the moderate of the bunch. but yesterday we got a reminder of what moderate means among the republican presidential candidates these days. >> what was the cause of the united states civil war?

>> well, don't come with an easy question, or anything. i think the cause of the civil war was basically how government was going to run the freedoms, what people could and couldn't do. >> actually, governor, it was an incredibly easy question. unfortunately for haley, her response conspicuously lacked the only correct answer. >> in the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery. >> what do you want me to say about slavery? >> what do you want me to say about slavery. that is the supposed moderate and the republican primary right now. so weak. and today, after a wave of backlash for her comments, healy attempted a cleanup tour.

here she was on the new hampshire radio show this morning. >> of course the civil war was about slavery. we know that that's the easy part of it. what i was saying was, what does it mean to us today? what it means to us today is about freedom. that's what that was all about. it was about individual freedom. it was about economic freedom. it was about individual rights. >> sure. the civil war was about individual freedom. unless you are an enslaved black person whose freedom was denied at birth. sure, it was about economic freedom, unless you are an enslaved black person who's nation building labor was bred violently coerced and uncompensated. sure, it was individual rights, unless you were enslaved in a nation where chunk of the country succeeded from the union and went to war because they wanted to continue to deny you those very freedoms. and nikki haley should know all of that. haley was the governor of south carolina, the first state to succeed in the civil war. a state that made its reasoning incredibly clear. the opening sentence of south carolina's 1860 promptly proclamation succeeding from the union directly mentions slavery, and the proclamation goes on to cite, quote, increasing hostility on the part of nuance leave holding states to the institution of slavery as the states explicit reason for leaving the union. when haley was asked about the

cause of this civil war back then, in 2010, she described it as a fight over, quote, tradition versus change. >> i think it was tradition resist shane. it's the way i see it. >> traditional resist --? what >> an individual rights and liberty of people. >> whose rights, nikki haley? which people? what tradition? the tradition of slavery? that is the republican party's moderate primary candidate. joining me now, jaime harrison, chair of the democratic national committee. chairman harrison, thank you for being here this evening. like nikki haley, you are from

south carolina. were you surprised by your former governors framing of the civil war? >> not surprised at all, jonathan. any black person in south carolina always knew this is who nikki haley is. she has told us who she is time and time again. when she tried to justify celebrating confederate history month by -- black history month in south carolina. she made the same whitewashing comments in the civil war in the past. again, as you said, arguing that it was tradition versus change. so, i'm glad that the rest of the country had taken the rose colored lenses off as it relates to nikki haley. but there is nothing that has moderate about her. it is all about ambition. it's all about power. and she will take away individual freedoms and rights in order to get that power. again, she epitomizes what maga extremism is in the republican party right now. when you think about it, donald

trump is now parroting hitler, talking about a poisoning of the blood of the nation. you've got ron desantis, so interesting that he has beat nikki haley upon this can comment, but he was saying that the slavery benefited the slaves. these are the front runners in the republican party right now. these maga extremists. all of these apples are rotten. you can pick one of them, but they're all rotten. this contest, this election is going to be about individuals, joe biden, kamala harris, who stand up to protect the freedoms of americans, and individuals like nikki haley and donald trump and ron desantis, who are actively attacking and destroying those freedoms. >> because you mentioned ron desantis, you've given me the opportunity to switch gears. i want to talk to you about something nikki haley said today at a town hall, where she was specifically asked if she would pardon donald trump if you are president and he were convicted in one of his many criminal cases. listen to this. >> he asked if i would pardon trump. and i have answered this before. i would pardon trump. what in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail

that continues to divide our country. what's in the best interests of our country would be to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him. >> can we move on if trump were pardoned? with the exception of chris christie, is the entire goal of the primary field tonight alienate trump's base, which is really the base of the gop? >> pretty much. it's so amazing, jonathan, that the rule of law is important to the republicans when it applies to everyone but themselves. they are always seeking the rule of law for somebody else. they're seeking the rule of law for dictators. but anytime the it applies to them, the misgivings and what they are doing, we need to give them a pass. but again, this is just a penalizing the extremism in this country that we see with maga republicans. this election boiled down to very clear contrasts. hope for sister, your progress versus chaos, the future versus the past. that's what people have to make the decision on, where they want to go. do they believe in america's best days are anchored by the pastor, do they believe our best days are in the future? joe biden got into this race because he knew that we are in the battle for the soul of this

nation. he has a sense of moral clarity. these people don't have any core values other than destroying the freedoms of individuals in this country and gaining power. we see it in the lackluster performance of the republicans in congress. the biggest do nothing congress in the history of do-nothing congresses. we see it in the leadership on the campaign trail. you're going to get gaffe after gaffe and they're just gonna tell us exactly who they are. so folks, believe them. believe them. but the one thing that they should know, jonathan, we won't go back. we're not going back to the old days, the old past. we are going to fight like hell to make sure that we protect the freedoms that we have gained in this country. we will let nikki haley, dawn, traveling desantis take us back. >> i know i'm not going back, that's for sure. the mc chair jaime harrison, thank you very much for coming on tonight. >> thank you. >> we have one more story for you tonight, how president biden's historic judicial appointments helped reshape the courts in 2023. more on that, right after the

break. sometimes your work shirt needs to be for more than just work. like when it needs to be a big soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry.

♪ ♪ and ♪ ♪ter.

♪ ♪ >> this is sunshine sykes. she is the first navajo nation citizen every pointed to the federal bench. judge sykes was confirmed in may of 2022. this is -- quraishi. he became the first muslim american federal judge in june, 2021. the appointments of judge sykes and judge quraishi, represent

major mice milestones in our federal judiciary. according to our reporter genevieve, andrea the 166 judges that biden's confirms since taking office, to those are women, at 108, and two thirds of people of color, at 110. that alone is an extraordinary feat given, again, a white and male the nations courts have always been. biden also prioritized diversity of professional backgrounds. he put 30 people into lifetime federal judgeships who have strong backgrounds and protecting people civil rights, including public defenders and civil rights attorneys. but is all of this enough to outweigh the mark donald trump left on the federal judiciary? joining me now is senior politics reporter for huffpost. jennifer, thank you so much for being here tonight. great to see you. so, talk about the long term impact of these appointments, especially given how many appointments president trump

had in his tenure when the folks he appointed we're, a lot of them were unqualified and a lot of them were in their 30s and early 40s. us being able to serve on the bench for decades. >> i think if you want to look at the comparison to biden, like you said before, he had some good news this year and some bad news this year, and a big question for 2024. as you pointed out, the good news is that unprecedented diversity of people do these lifetime federal judgeships. like you, so two thirds are women, two thirds of people of color. he put a record numbers of civil rights attorneys and public defenders on the bench. then look at the bad news for biden. the bad news is for the first time since he has been president, the pace of his judicial nominations slowed it

slipped behind where trump was at this point in his presidency. so in this past year biden came from 69 federal judges to lifetime seats, and at this point in trump's tenure, in his third year, he confirmed 102. so that's dozens apart. the big question now is, whether he can catch up to and surpassed trump's numbers in his final year in office and the end of his term. we oftentimes see a president legacy as defined by the number of judges he puts on the federal bench. these are people on the court that are on the bench for decades after a president leaves. it's on biden and senate democrats to pick up the pace in 2024, use every opportunity they can to pack nominees and hearings, give them both on the floor, for biden to keep the nominations flying through. i talked to some judicial experts and some progressive advocacy groups just further takes, and the consensus appears to be among all that it's possible that if biden and senate democrats keep their eye on the ball, in 2024 and don't get distracted by election year politics, that they could just keep cranking out these changes and getting them through. but i can't say enough how much

the presidents judicial legacy really matters. when they're gone, when the president is gone, these people, as we're seeing today, these are the people making calls on all the nations appeals courts and district courts across the country that are affecting millions of people every day way after these people have left the white house. so this is a crucial year for a biden, beyond an election year. >> right. a crucial year because he still has nearly 100 court vacancies heading into 2024. thank you very much for coming to the show this evening. that will do it for me. it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, jonathan. we have maine's secretary of state joining us after she made history today by saying trump be on the presidential ballot there. it seems like a really fast 24 hours ago that you and i were having our first d