age for the presidential ballot, which they've been doing for many decades, why can't they exclude an oath breaking insurrectionist? >> jason murray, the lawyer representing colorado voters, defending that decision today at the united states supreme court, a big stage for your first time ever before the supreme court. i know that there's pride that goes with it, but i hope you get some rest thereafter and that the adrenaline come down is not too painful. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. >> all right. good luck. much more to come in our coverage of the supreme court hearing today over whether donald trump is disqualified from the ballot. first, a moment for the named plaintiff in this case, whose lawyer we just met, she is 91- year-old colorado republican norma anderson. >> this is very personal to me. i've lived a hell of a long time and i've gone through a lot of presidents. and this is the first one that is trying to destroy the constitution. if they qualify him, they would

have to work very hard to beat him. beat him. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. ok, someone just did laundry... no, i add downy light so the freshness really lasts. yeah, most scented stuff gives me a headache, but this is just right. and i don't like anything. but i like this. get a light scent that lasts with no heavy perfumes or dyes. (music) ( ♪ ♪ ) have heart failure with unresolved symptoms? it may be time to see the bigger picture. heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms, like carpal tunnel syndrome, shortness of breath, and irregular heartbeat

could be something more serious called attr-cm, a rare, underdiagnosed disease that worsens over time. sound like you? call your cardiologist, and ask about attr-cm. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can i make my side softer? call your cardiologist, i like my side firmer. sleep number does that. now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. ends monday. looking for a smarter way to mop?

try the swiffer powermop. ♪♪ an all-in-one cleaning tool, with a 360-degree swivel head that goes places a regular mop just can't. ♪♪ mop smarter with the swiffer powermop.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner mop smarter 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.

>> can i ask you, now that i have the floor, can i ask you to address your first argument, which is the office, officer point. oh, sorry. oh, is that okay if we do this and then we go to -- ? will there be an opportunity to do officer stuff? >> absolutely. [laughter] >> officer stuff. we will get to the officer stuff. let's do it. welcome back to our primetime recap of the supreme court plan recognitions today on whether donald trump's effort to overthrow the government the last time he lost an election is sufficient to keep him from standing for election again, or from serving as president, if indeed he's elected.

every one of us who has ever reported on the with supreme court knows better than to extrapolate from oral arguments to try to define how the justices originally going to rule. we know we're not supposed to do that. but even with that caveat, i think everybody's eyebrows shot up to their hairline today when center-left justice elena kagan said this. >> if they could put most boldly, i think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. in other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is just say it, it sounds awfully national to me. so whatever means there are to enforce, it would suggest that they have to be federal, national means. that seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it? >> no, your honor. because ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the

nation. it's not unusual that questions of national importance come up. >> we would say something along the lines of the state has the power to do it. but i guess i was asking you to go a little bit further and say why should that be the right rule? why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation? >> because article two gives them the power to appoint their own electors as they see fit. but if they're going to use a federal constitutional qualification as a ballot access determinant, then it is creating a federal constitutional question that then this court decides. >> why should one state be able to decide who is the president? for the plaintiffs, challenging whether donald trump can be on the ballot, that starts off as this incredibly damning question from justice elena kagan today. but the lawyer for colorado, and then after him the colorado

solicitor general, and an answer for that concern, saying basically, hey, states decide who gets on the ballot all the time. that's the system. it's not at all uncommon for different states to have different candidates listed for the same election. some smaller party candidates get, on not others. some are kept off eligibility concerns the some states take more seriously than others. it happens. the supreme court can give guidance to make it more uniform, but the states can handle this. the colorado solicitor general, speaking on the same point just moments later said there is a huge amount of disparity and candidates end up on the ballot in different states and every election. just this election, she said, it a candidate to colorado excluded from the primary ballot, who was on the ballot in other states, even though he's not a natural born citizen. that is just a feature of our process. it is not above it. so there's an answer to this

concern we just heard jason murray who had an answer to it a few moments ago. when the justices ex express the concern of the individual states shouldn't be allowed to do something that has profound national consequences it definitely resonates. did the lawyers in the room rebut that concern, answer it in a way that's going to work on any or all of the justices? just the fact the justice kagan asked about it at all mean that this ruling is foretold? joining us is someone who knows these things, senior editor and legal correspondent for slate, also the host of the amicus podcast. great to see you. thank you so much for being with us. >> good to see you. >> is there anything that we have been talking about here tonight that has been like petting account the wrong way for you? feels like we have screwed up, got the wrong way around, or

misunderstood? >> not at all. i might quibble with arteries destination wedding metaphor because to me it felt so acutely like a train in speed, where it's just hurtling from one crisis to another. we have a court that's in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. you've got a dobbs leak. even a bad investigation of the dobbs leak. you've got ethics scandals left and, right the first justice asking questions, had his wife testing mark meadows and trying to get state election officials to change votes. all of that is happening, and you sort of feel like the justices are like hurtling their bodies against the sides of the train, just being like, get me off this train. i don't care what the rationale is. i'll go with the one state shouldn't decide rationale, argo with the officer rationale, i'll go with there's

no due process for the president rationale. i don't care, i need to be off. and that anxiety was palpable. >> and ari is saying that's exactly what i mean. >> so whatever way they weren't gonna go to the wedding. >> exactly. >> the train isn't going to end well. so dahlia, my question is, and i have a good question for, you i think we could all see the justices trying desperately to get away from having to do something substantive here that would address the crisis at hand. what is the damage? what's the risk? what's the potential negative consequence of them finding a way to dodge it? >> i think at the most sort of high-minded constitutional law of all it's that this needed to be answered. that is, i think, what colorado was saying, that it's your job to resolve a constitutional question largely a first impression and it is your job to decide for this entire country whether or not the 14th amendment section three is self executing, whether the officer dichotomy holds, whether we can allow insurrectionists to run for office but not hold office. there's a bucket of questions that are exigent questions, and the court, i think, made pretty plain that they would rather,

or at least i counted, i think, five or six votes hanging their hats on this deal be pragmatic argument that we don't want to decide because it will allow shenanigans in other states. so it just seems to me that the downside is, and this was, everybody knew this was a huge vehicle, a big swing case. they have an opportunity to, when they get the immunity case. maybe that's the trade-off here. but this was a huge swing case. we have an unresolved constitutional question. i'm not completely certain that writing, oh, we need enabling legislation lets them out from under that question. >> on that point about the immunity case being right around the corner, we expect that by monday, these judges will be asked to weigh in on whether or not that d. c.

circuit court ruling should stand, the ruling this as unanimously by that panel of appellate judges that president trump doesn't have absolute immunity, that he can be prosecuted in federal court for what he tried after the election. in discussing immunity today, i guess he wasn't trying to bring up immunity. president trump's lawyer awkwardly brought it up with brett kavanaugh. while brett kavanaugh was trying to focus on this question of why president trump wasn't prosecuted for insurrection, and we've been talking about that a little bit tonight, this idea that because trump hasn't been charged specifically with insurrection, that suddenly seemed to create this incredible clarity among all the justices that had that thing happened, then this would be something that there would be an easy answer to when we know what to do when this would be settled in a definitive way.

i just wanted to ask here, your reaction to that. it doesn't seem clear to me why it's necessary for trump to be charged with or convicted of insurrection for the constitution's ban on insurrection serving in office to be effectuated. what did you think of how that part of it was handled? >> i was a little frustrated at how deeply disrespectful i felt that the court was about the process that happened in the colorado trial court. there was a trial on the merits. there were, as you just heard, meaningful findings from that court. the notion that trial courts can't do this thing determine whether there is an insurrection. or even worse, rachel, the notion, and we heard this from the chief justice, heaven forfend we would have to somehow determine whether there was an insurrection. >> us? >> imagine that fell on? us and there was a deep disrespect for what actually happened and i think that deals with one of the things that you all said earlier in the year

round up, which i think is so important. we have a court that, for, i guess the first time in 20 years, found humility today. institutional humility. we can't do it. this was the court that decides air pollution and water pollution and vaccine policies. it is going to determine what emergency room doctors can do when there is an abortion base, and they can do all that stuff and they can't either determine what an insurrection is already for toward trial courts definition. it's very weird in february of 2024 to discover humility. >> exactly. results oriented, as we have been describing. dahlia lithwick, legal editor for slate, host of the amicus broadcast, and my favorite person to talk about the supreme court. thank you for being with us tonight. definitely, i want to bring you in on this. in discussing what happened in the courtroom versus what's going to happen next, i feel like there's, unlike the

immunity case, there isn't really a piece issue here. there isn't a lot of scrambling as to what's going to happen next and what effect this will have another cases. this is either going to end it all or it's not. and it feels like it's not. but does that mean that what happened in the courtroom today is essentially beside the point essentially based on this case? >> the concern i think tonight is, what do the american people know? you said it at the top of this broadcast. most people will probably not listening today to the audio for two hours. as sad as that makes us, not every american is watching us right now, although i totally think they should be. and just think about it. during those two hours, there was much debate over what

exactly was in the amendment. what government jobs in previous cases but there is no debate, no discussion, and no decision over whether donald j trump incited an insurrection. and the risk now, if the court rules and favor of donald trump, is a whole lot of americans could say look, they didn't do anything, and that's not the case. so in terms of what happens next, we say every night here, making sure the american people actually know the truth. >> it's very approved, it's important stephanie, that would if we look at the details of, this it's important to understand the nuances between the different justices and whether it's gonna be an 8 to 1 or 6 to 3, and the takeaway of this is they tried to say trump did an insurrection -- >> if he didn't do it -- >> he won that case. if that's the takeaway, people are missing the point, but the court's decision may do damage in terms of how we perceive whether or not the 14th amendment exists, whether insurrection is okay. >> there are many people who are gonna take that take away and say he didn't do it.

the high court said it. >> i thought you made good point about this sudden humility that they found. i'm wondering if they could find it on the mifepristone case. and we're gonna find it in cases where, i mean, they seem to believe that states have a lot of rights when it comes to women's physical body. but they are like, a state, with the state get to do with elections? what kind of everything. and as i was listening to dahlia talk i was thinking about another amendment that was a reconstruction amendment, the 15th amendment. it has what is enabling registration. it's the voting rights act. they have no problem chipping away the voting rights act, which is the enabling legislation, like 100 years later, for trying to enable the 15th amendment, the one that

says that no one shall be denied their right to vote based on race or previous condition of servitude. but they don't have any problem saying that some states can allow you to have voter i. d., some states don't. some states will only vote if you bring your gun license. states are making decisions that give you different outcomes for who comes ax has access to the ballot every day, and only some justice departments, like or bombers, i really litigating on that. and the reason i keep coming back to that is what people are also forgetting is the insurrection was an attempt to deprive 80 million people of their right to vote. it was an attempt to literally disenfranchise 80 million people, disproportionately black folks in detroit, people in georgia, people in arizona, a lot of latinos in arizona. and you're talking about trying to disenfranchise people based on believing that they aren't true americans and that they are the outcomes of their selection shouldn't count. >> i feel like this week, it's thursday right, between today

when it so evident that the court is making political decisions. they're not just extreme textualists. they're not regionalists. they're very much looking at the practical implications of the law. and then monday, when they're gonna get this appeal from trump to hear the immunity case, and this broad speculation that if they ruler trump's favor on the 14th amendment they may not rule in his favor on immunity, making clear that this court takes into account politics when it makes its decisions, and that it is the court's credibility, that is at and nader. both today and what happens, and whatever happens next week, the perception that it's a slap on this wrist, a carrot on his hand, and a stick on the other, makes it so evident to the american public this court is not what it proposes to be. the question, i think, is gonna be somewhere along the line, in some congress yet to be elected, accountability? how did that happen? >> the prospect of unanimous decisions from the court in either direction, which is

remarkable pseudo- bipartisanship. result is riven negotiations. much more to come in a recap of today's historic supreme court hearings. stay with us. >> we understand what we are asking the court to recognize is something extraordinary, which is that for the first time in our nation's history, a major candidate for president of united states is ineligible for that office under the constitution. so we fully expected we were going to get difficult questions. we are confident when the court looks as a law and digs into the issues, it will realize that we are right and apply the law as it is written. is writte i still love f, snowboard, and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust.

this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion

and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are. >> president trump engaged in insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack our capitol and disenfranchise over 80 million people who voted against him. in doing so, president trump disqualified himself from holding office. that's not something we are doing to him. that is not something any court is doing to him. that is something he did to himself, under our constitution. >> disenfranchising 80 million people who voted for his opponent, and was, in fact, the winner of that election. tonight's special edition of the last word with lawrence o'donnell starts at 10:30 pm eastern tonight. so you have that to look

forward to. if you leave a note for your boss in the morning as to why you are sleepier than usual, just let me know. i'll sign them for. you welcome back. meanwhile to our primetime recap of the supreme court's today. this historic case about whether former president donald trump did himself out of a job, did him self out of holding office again when he participated in an insurrection against the united states. an insurrection against united states is not just a mean thing to say. it's also a crime for which you can be charged in federal court. add to these arguments justice brett kavanaugh raised the issue of that possible federal prosecution. it made sense in context, but it was clearly a sensitive subject for president trump's

lawyer. >> just to be clear, under 23 83 you agree that someone could be prosecuted for insurrection by federal prosecutors and if convicted could be or shall be disqualified from office? >> yes, but the only cavett caveat that i would add is the client is arguing he has presidential immunity, so we're not gonna concede that he should be prosecuted. >> understood. asking the question of the theory of 2383. >> one could be prosecuted for insurrection. one could be prosecuted. not him. of course he couldn't be prosecuted for anything. not saying anything one way or the other about whether donald trump might have committed the crime of insurrection, whether he might be immune from that prosecution for that crime, even if he did it. that of course is a sensitive issue for a sitting supreme court justice to discuss with anyone, given that that is an issue that the supreme court will be taking up by monday as in several days from now. joining us once again, our friend andrew weissmann, former general counsel for the fbi. when the senior prosecutors on robert mueller special investigation. thank you for sticking with us. what do you think about the fact that donald trump was never charged with insurrection or any insurrection related crimes? that is something that the january six investigation in congress suggested he should be charged with after their very detailed investigation. >> that would've been one of the crime is referred by congress to the department of justice. one crime that has, as a penalty, upon conviction, that

the person shall be, not be able to run for office. they are disqualified. so there is a lot of discussion today, as you have been noting, that that is essentially a form of the congressional federally congressional enabling statute for this constitutional provision. i sink there are probably two reasons that this department of justice did not charge it. remember the special counsel's part of the department of justice. i think one is that that crime had not been charged for many years and so this idea that they're reaching back to that crime to single out donald trump, which would certainly be an attack. there's an answer to that, which is we've never been in that situation before. but i think the other is, if you think that there's a claim of politics now, if you brought that charge, the idea is that has that penalty, you are avoiding all that. and i think that's really worth

taking a step back to note that if you think about what we are seeing with comparing this justice department, both in the discussion we're having now about the fact they didn't charge insurrection, they did not seek to make it disqualifying for donald trump, and relate that also to what you saw in the special counsel report today, this is the justice department that appointed a special counsel for the sitting president, appointed a special counsel with respect to a sitting presidents son. you did not have merrick garland, for instance, issue a purported summary of the report saying, obviously, that something on my mind today. for my work with the mueller investigation. if you just compare the propriety and sense of what the department of justice should be

doing or not, and even if you disagree with, it it's clear they are trying to adhere to the rule of law and appropriate functions of the department of justice. and it just is in striking contrast to the trump administration, where they appointed the department of justice appointed a special counsel and basically every single day that that council existed there was the constant threat that donald trump would get rid of the special counsel. so it's just remarkable how different the two justice departments are behaving. that was my take on what i was thinking about, the

insurrection charge that was raised in the oral arguments today. >> let me also ask you about the other thing that came up i think a bit awkwardly in that exchange between the justice and the lawyer, which was this question of immunity. obviously the supreme court, within just the next days, is going to consider whether or not to leave standing that this ruling this or donald trump doesn't have immunity from prosecution. i think, i mean, i don't know, i think the common wisdom is that they won't take it up, but also that the circuit courts ruling against trump is not in much danger. again, it's a peanut gallery. who knows? we'll see how it goes once the court makes its own decision. do you think there's any interplay for the justices, between what they handled today, this issue of trump's qualifications to be on the ballot, and this next thing that is coming down the pike to them, this issue of immunity? do you think that one of them being so near on the horizon has an effect at all in terms

of how they handle these issues? >> these are people. they are humans. and yes, people are saying well maybe they will take it because they want to show that they're even, they'll give with one hand and take with another. they clearly wouldn't take that case just to reverse the d. c. circuit. that's just not going to happen. they would want to put their imprimatur on that issue. in living today, they would say we don't want any more cases in my own view that's the way to go because it would be odd to take a case where it might be vindicating the idea that no president is above the law, that the unremarkable proposition that a president cannot kill people with impunity. it's just almost incredible that we're having that discussion. but if they were to take the case to vindicate that, in many ways de facto they would be undermining it because it would delay the case that is actually

trying to hold them accountable for crimes. so in some ways it's the worst possible vehicle for them to be putting their imprimatur on. >> just as humans, even if the only thing about the three justices appointed by donald trump knowing they're sitting there for a couple of hours like they were today it would have to happen again pretty soon, and you have to spend the whole time talking about donald trump murdering people, murdering individuals, they'd be like named people who would be murdered in hypotheticals. they would have to sit and engage with it in order to come to, even if it was a predetermine conclusion. i can't imagine if you're amy coney barrett that that's a fun way to spend a tuesday after today. >> absolutely. if you just look at today, it was a bloodless discussion today, where there was limited discussion about the actual insurrection. it was so interesting hearing from counsel for colorado, with us tonight, where he actually gave so much more color to end discussion about what actually happened on january 6th. that didn't happen in the

supreme court. and i can see them very much not wanting it to happen in those hallowed halls. >> yes, exactly. and always, one former general counsel to the fbi and our stalwart friend on nights like this. andrew, thank you very much. i do think that, and this is to your point alex, it's impossible to think that these justices are going to handle these issues in isolation. this has to affect their willingness to take on the immunity case. i don't think anybody expects that they're going to overturn that appeals court ruling. if they're gonna say that donald trump relieves immune from prosecution even if he murders his political opponents. so i put themselves through this again? >> and the reality that just sort of take here up to put their stamp on it is going to hand trump a by further delaying the case, that's another political consideration. i think it's important for people who feel dejected by the likelihood that the supreme

court isn't going to rule in the prosecution's favor on the 14th amendment case. if you're looking for political accountability for donald trump, the 14th amendment situation, if you will, was always going to be problematic and complicated and maybe result in a situation that would have created even more civil strife in this country. the immunity saying, the federal case that jack smith has built against trump, very narrow, it's built for speed. we don't know when it's go to trial, but it very well could go to trial in the summer. he could get convicted. that could be real accountability, in a sort of final way. i think people are looking for that in this moment. the absolutely absurd defenses he has mounted, vis-@-vis his behavior around january 6th. >> i never liked to speak into -- but i am not, i don't think the justice department has covered itself in glory an any of this, to be honest. i think it was totally appropriate to appoint a

special counsel in the case of the current sitting president's handling of documents. that is the justice department. it's the guy he appointed. it's running doj. in the case of the former president, it's not clear why he needed the special counsel in three years, and to avoid the most obvious charge, which was 23 83, insurrection. and i think the outcome of the colorado case prove that it was a winnable case. in five days improve the donald trump did violate the law when it comes to insurrection, that he was an insurrectionist, and by not just being direct, and not doing the job that he's getting the big bucks for, merrick garland, he has caused us to have to wait three years

to have the supreme court avoid doing the obvious as well. and the truth is, he could've just been charged with insurrection by the current justice department, and it would've been adjudicated and over by now, and this will not be a question. and you can only win one. >> i didn't mention the name merrick garland, i think jack smith took this up as quickly as he could. >> yes he did. >> two and a half years, that's gonna be the true question. >> all right, a recap of today's arguments and supreme court continues in just a moment. stay with us. >> if president trump were appointed to an office today, if he were appointed as a state judge, he could not hold that office, which shows that the disability exists now. the fact that the congress has a power to remove the disability doesn't negate the present qualification, nor does it implicitly bestow on president trump a constitutional right to run for

offices that he cannot hold. ca.

>> we've been told that if what colorado did here is provoke other states to retaliate, then they're going to potentially exclude another candidate from the ballot. what about that situation? >> your honor, i think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately, that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th amendment. courts will review those decisions. this court may review some of

them. but i don't think that this court should take those threats to seriously, in its resolution of this case. >> you don't think there's a serious threat? >> i think we have -- >> we should proceed on the assumption that it's not a serious threat. >> i think we have institutions in a place to handle those types of allegations. >> one of several moments into these landmark supreme court argument, justices raised the prospect of one state pulls a candidate's name of the ballot, other states will retaliate and pull other candidates means off the ballot for no good reason. and wouldn't that be terrible? this is a case that former president trump makes public all the time. the rejoinder to it is the obvious one. we heard there from colorado solicitor general, the rejoinder true it is, well, no, we're still operating with the rule of law here. and if there is no good reason for throwing somebody off the ballot, the courts won't allow it. just like they won't allow retaliatory prosecutions for no good reason, or any of the

other things that trump is threatening. joining us now, nbc news presidential historian michael beschloss. michael, thanks for being with us tonight. >> same here. thank you, rachel. >> i wanted to ask you both about the substance of today's hearing, and i think most heroes believe the trump will not be strike off the ballot, but also this larger point that i think was illustrated by that exchange we just played, which is, so much of what's happening from a country reckoning with donald trump is the country reckoning with his bluster, his threats, and the fear of what he might do if he is held to account. and that's right up on the supreme court's doorstep. >> that's for sure. and we just heard that the words in that clip. we've got to have faith in our institutions. well, that's true in general, but i keep on remembering, both

when i was listening today and also listening to all of you talk tonight, what just as robert jackson said in 1949. he said the constitution is not a suicide pact. and what he meant by that is the constitution deals with all sorts of issues but if you can't protect your country against threats like rebellion and insurrection, such as we saw in the civil war, and we saw on the 6th of january the none of the rest of this matters. so looking at it historically, the civil war, it's a matter of grim record that confederacy tried to take down a republic, tried to take down our democracy, break it up into two or more countries, one of which would be a big slave holding republic, the union army was able to prevent that. narrowly. but what happened, as you know from your reading of history, is that after the civil war ended, jefferson davis was actually saying, and this was a direct quote, the leader of the confederacy, supposedly defeated, what he said was, i confederacy was not defeated in

this war. we won a victory and we were cheated of it. so he tried to deal with that by getting ex confederates elected to federal office, elected to state office, and so that's one of the reasons we've got this 14th amendment, which wise the congress and the states putting themselves on the line in a constitutional amendment, saying we've got to protect our country and ensure that an insurrection like the 1860s never happens again. all i am saying is, here we are in 2024, donald trump has committed an effort at insurrection and almost succeeded in 2021. he is now saying i will do it again if you elect me president. i may have a dictatorship. i may suspend the constitution. how much more a warning to we need? >> in terms of the supreme court taking what appears to be its approach to this today,

again, we're reading the tea leaves in terms of the way the justices behaved in the questions they asked, but if they choose to absent themselves arms process and say hey we hope the 14th amendment takes care of itself, we hope insurrectionism as self- defense. in history other parallels? are there things we should be looking to in terms of the supreme court walking away from confrontations with clear and present danger like this? >> absolutely. the supreme court knew in the dred scott decision in 1857 what they were unleashing by saying that slavery would go on forever. this court is beginning to remind me a little bit about the court that brought us the dred scott decision. and all i am saying is, for someone to say let's just have faith in our institutions, our institutions did not work in the 1860s. they almost didn't work in 2021. if the supreme court does not

act, if colorado does not prevail, then we are basically saying, leave it to the voters. and all i can say is, to people watching us tonight, voters, donald trump has said he wants to take down this republic. is that okay with you? it almost happened before, twice. are we going to let it happen a third time this november? >> nbc news presidential historian michael beschloss, thank you. >> i want to add to what michael said. one of the strange things today was that arguments sort of for affirming colorado tend to be historical, textual, and the others are practical. if we pull on this thread this thing will happen. what was totally missing were practical and prudential considerations on the other side. let's forget about the text of the 14th amendment. let's just think about if you let this guy on the ballot. let's say that we have an election in which donald trump's pulling ahead, going into election day, but the

polls are wrong and he loses. let's say that we have an election in which joe biden wins 270 electoral votes to donald trump's 268. totally impossible. that means every state is a deciding state. let's say one of those states was decided by 5000 votes. or, is in the case of florida in 2000 -- what about 2000 votes? what do you think is going to happen under those conditions? what do you think will happen to the country if this man is in that position under those conditions? >> a bigger mob with better weapons. in just a few moments, my colleague lawrence o'donnell will take the reins with a special edition of the last world word. don't go away. go away.

two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter.

i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

>> in this hour you are going to hear from all of the highest level experts you should expect to hear from on this program about an historic supreme court case, ha