and joining me to discuss all this is cnn legal analyst norm eisen. also with us, james zurawski of the atlantic. norm, i want to start off with this news out of michigan tonight. it's such a very different outcome from what we saw in colorado tackling the same basic question of whether the 14th amendment applies to donald trump. how do we make sense of these divergent decisions? >> abby, our different states are a wonderful tapestry of american federalism. and they treat ballot access questions differently. the colorado courts that held that under the laws of that state, an act by that states legislature, they do have the power under the united states constitution to determine donald trump was an insurrectionist. they made that determination. and under the 14th amendment to the united states constitution, insurrectionists may not serve. under colorado law, they decided trump cannot go on the ballot. and michigan has different laws. they do not allow that determination to be made. but very importantly, in michigan, this was for the primary election on

elliot williams, norm eisen, as always, thank you both. want to bring in cnn political analyst maggie haberman. i think the question, as we see all the trump legal team, what are saying -- but how has trump himself debunked the multiple efforts that have been playing out, two of them now successful, at least for now, to get him off the ballot? >> what he's saying publicly is not different to what he saying privately, caitlin. this is undemocratic, this is election interference. as we know, he's very good at projecting what he's accused of back on to other people. it's not surprising hate doing this here. he's not happy about this. it is true that a lot of people around him say this is politically helpful, but it also yet another front they have to fight. that comes when they're fighting any number of them. >> are they worried at all about the point that norm was making there? which is that secretary of state, even if she's a democrat, the colorado supreme court, that january 6th congressional committee, all of these positions of authority

norm eisen, thank you so much for coming up on this christmas eve. we really appreciate it. >> have a wonderful holiday, jim. >> you as well. >>> still to come, u.s. officials warning the border with mexico is at a breaking point as record numbers of migrants arrive seeking asylum. we're live at the border. plus some areas of the u.s. are in for a white christmas, even blizzards. for most it's going to be warm and rainy on this holiday. we'll bring you more next. you're live in the "cnn newsroom." >>> you're looking at live pictures of the fog closing in during this busy holiday weekend. millions of americans are at risk for flooding and blizzard conditions. joining me is cnn meteorologist chad myers. chad, great to see you on this christmas eve. wow, that looks like a lot of nasty weather in the midal /* middle of the country. >> only 134 planes according to flight aware have been canceled today. with all this weather, from minneapolis down to new orleans and houston. 2,000 flights have been delayed, but only 134 actually said no, we're not going. i

i agree with everything norm eisen said about the timeline, and the process. it all depends on how fast this moves, and how fast they come back. one question i would ask you, norm, because you will know this better than me is, can she -- this parallel or the reason she stopped it is because you can't? for the reasons i said. i'm not really sure. >> trump's argument is, i'm totally immune as president. it's a losing argument. >> it is. >> however much time gets eaten up at the end of that -- they are going to say, you are not immune. >> hold on. is it that certain? i think so. he's not president. >> it's inimical to american law, laura. the whole idea is, there should be somebody in charge who -- we started a country in which everybody is subject to the constitution. judge chutkan wrote a very persuasive opinion. there has never been a case holding a president absolutely immune. i think this court, the supreme court, is going to toss that out. for sure, this panel, and the d.c. circuit -- >> -- >> it's a strong panel for the government. they are not going to re

elliott williams, norm eisen, thank you both. for more on this, i want to bring in "new york times" senior political correspondent and cnn's analyst maggie haberman. we see the trump legal team, what they're saying. but how is trump himself viewing the multiple efforts that are playing out, two of them successful at least for now, to get him off the ballot? >> what he's saying is this is undemocratic, this is an effort to -- it's election interference. as we know, he is very good at projecting what he is accused of back onto other people. and it's not surprising he's doing this here. he's not happy about this. and it is true that a lot of people around him see this as politically helpful. but it's also yet another front they have to fight. and that comes when they are fighting any number of them. >> are they worried at all about the point that norm was making there, which was that a secretary of state, even if she is a democrat, the colorado supreme court, the january 6th congressional committee, all of these positions of authori

and norm eisen whom i spoke to last hour says it does not say only the congress, and how would that debate go? >> it is not only on the. >> and so, not only can he be an insurrection, but as the colorado supreme court, the state supreme court co, the higt court said, we can make that determination, and there has to be a rule that everybody can follow, and sgng -- jeremy, saland, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >>> and now, you are seeing where women and newborns barely escaped alive. >>> nikki haley wrapping up a couple of the civil wars and san antonio police are asking for the public's help to identify the couple here and the incidents that led to their death. >>> 't'twas new year's night an confetti streamers and all that jazz. >> new year's night with anderson and andy, live coverage on cnn. >>> all right. new pictures just in to cnn. this is coming from ukraine which has just suffered the largest russian air assault since the russian invasion began two years ago, and you can see the individual there being pulled from the rubble. again, this is kharkiv. we are told that at leas

let's talk more about this with cnn legal analyst norm eisen. >>> norm, starting with this expert testimony that you heard there, what is your analysis of how much weight this will have? >> well, and we know experts are, sometimes, available for hire. mr. bartov is a academic who works in this field. there has been substantial testimony that the financial statements are fraudulent. to attempt to justify them defies the witnesses who have testified that they are fraudulent, the exports for the state, the judges own finding where he had already granted partial summary judgment of fraud. and, if i may say so, common sense. how can you say that an apartment that is a little more than 10,000 square feet is 30,000 square feet? i don't care how many professors come in, are they going to put a math professor on next to say that 30,000 and 10,000 are equal? i think the weight of the evidence is that there were material misstatements. not just of the apartment, but 40 wall street, seven spraying, mar-a-lago. this case is going to be lost by donald trump. the battle will be on appeal. the reason trump

joining us now to talk about this is norm eisen.s house judiciary special counsel in the first impeachment trial. thank you for being with us. let's talk about what you make about this attorneys arguing that he has absolute immunity. that has been something across all his legal problems that he continues to try to make that case. >> it is a very tough argument in american law to say that a president is absolutely immune. there is no legal authority for this. and the trial court judge threw it out. looking at the prior history of the panel of the court of appeals, the d.c. circuit that is about to hear this on an extraordinarily fast time line. it will be fully briefed and there will be argument on january 9th. that court is likely to throw this out as well. i think the supreme court will look at the argument that there is absolute immunity. but trump's focus is not just on succeeding, it's to burn as much time on the calendar as possible. >> let's remind everyone that all of these cases, this in particular, was scheduled to come up

norm eisen, great to have you on. >>> and texas is looking to sue over the immigration law as they areooking to help and flying dozens of immigrants north. >>> and looking to kick off 2024, the security steps that the nypd is looking to implement to make sure that the celebration goes off smoothly. that is next. >>> this morning, three democratic mayors from new york, chicago and denver are making urgent pleas for federal help as they are dealing with the surge of migrants in their cities. the mayors all spoke to cnn. >>> the meeting with the white house i think much more could be done and with all of our national leaders from the decompression strategy and making sure that the cost of this is not falling on the everyday taxpayers, and it is not just our cities, but from brownsville, to el paso to houston to chicago to denver, and this is an issue that is just seeing playing out on the streetsfs of our cities. >> we have infrastructure in our local communities that are not designed to ckcarry such a burd. the local municipalities are not structured to carry the weight of a crisis like

. >> joining us now to discuss this, cnn legal analyst, norm eisen. it sounds as if what we are hearing from the attorney, rudy giuliani could be charged again for defaming these women heading out of the courtroom. >> that's right, jim. he made comments not just as he was leaving the courthouse but other comments during the week of the damages trial that reiterated the falsehood that the women had engaged in some form of wrongdoing with respect to the 2020 election. that's nonsense. it's false. it has been found by the court to be defamatory, and he exposed that again. it probably depends on whether he keeps it up, and if he does he should expect a high likelihood of another defamation suit. >> what are you saying, the election workers legal team, the attorney, also seems to be indicating they may be targeting other people in trump world, perhaps even the former president himself, and going after him on defamation, which is a process trump has been through before. what do you make of those prospects? >> well, the case that the two election workers bro

eisen.hat have the two sides argued today so far, nick? >> reporter: this is the first time we're seeing trump's attorneys in court in this case. they're saying this indictment should be thrown out based on the first amendment. what his high-profile criminal defense attorney is arguing is that when president trump, after he lost the 2020 election, began peddling conspiracy theories, claiming there was widespread voter fraud, that that at its core was political speech protected by the first amendment. in a legal finding on monday, they said the speech should not be count earned by an indictment from the fulton county district attorney's office. but the state responding saying, while it sounds good to claim there's political persecution here, this is about laws that were broken and crimes committed. another big headline had to do with scheduling. in a recent interview, the district attorney, fani will liles, told "the washington post" she wants this trial with trump and his co-defendants to st

for more, we have cnn legal analyst norm eisen. i want to read that quote to get your reaction. trump's lawyers argued in the filing before any single prosecutor could ask a court to sit in judgment of the president's conduct, congress must have approved of it byism impeaching and convicting the president. that didn't happen here so president trump has absolute immunity. what's your reaction to that? >> well, danny, it's silly. of course, i worked on the first impeachment of donald trump and the constitution says that impeachment proceedings don't preclude later criminal process. but it doesn't say that impeachment proceedings and a conviction are required for later criminal process like so often with president trump and his lawyers they have taken the constitutional text and distorted it. why now, why are they making this silly argument, which they repeat again in their new brief filed very late last night at the direction of the d.c. circuit. this d.c. circuit case is moving on a rocket docket. why do they do that? when it comes down to presidential immunity, they know they ha

. >> norm eisen specken plainly here on cnn.nk you. >>> and now, george santos is arriving at court, and could a plea deal be on the horizon? >>> and now s, president zelensy at capitol hill. >>> and now s, more fighting as israrael says ththey h have e fe weweapons stasashes. >>> moments ago, expelled congressman george santos arrived at a federal court in new york attending a status hearing as a new court filing revealing that he is in talks with prosecutors about a possible plea deal. brynn gingras has more. >> yes, 23 federal charges is what the former congressman is facing. and among those, he is accused of stealing from his donors to enrich his own life and personal lifestyle. today is a status conference hearing and in the past, what we have seen is that the prosecutors are turning over pages and pages of evidence, and some of those are pages of documents, and we expect more exchanges of documents, but in what the prosecutors have hinted is that they want to strike a deal. they have asked for another status hearing in 30

. >> but according to cnn legal analyst norm eisen, who i spoke with in the last hour, it may not be on hold for very long. >> as i look at the calendar, i don't think this is going to prevent jack smith from trying his case in 2024. and here's why. why did the d.c. circuit order trump to file his brief before midnight a couple days before christmas, on the holiday weekend? because they are in a big hurry. they want the case fully briefed, and they're going to have an oral argument on january 9th. they'll decide within days after that. and then guess what happens? back at the supreme court. so, i think we're most likely seeing a short delay, shortish. of course nobody knows for sure, but most likely 60 to 90 days, and then trump will be back in front of the judge and that d.c. jury. >> you heard norm say it. the date we're watching is the appeals court planning to hear oral arguments on january 9th. cnn political analyst julian zelizer, i want your reaction on that late-night filing, trump driving home that presidential immunity claim again saying because congress did not impeach and

. >>> with us analyst norm eisen, served as house committee chairman during trump's first impeachment hearing. >> i want to talk about the state supreme court issue. what's the significance of the appeal? >> the significance of the appeal, john, is that there's a very substantial unresolved question about whether states can themselves apply the 14th amendment. i thought the colorado courts, the trial court and the colorado supreme court made a powerful case that donald trump had engaged in insurrection according to things like his 187 minutes of inaction while the capital was under attack. and indeed calling out the insurrection but at 2:24 a tweet that targeted mike pence put him in danger of his life. the question is not so much the factual one, whether donald trump is -- did insurrection or even the legal one, whether it was 14th amendment insurrection. but what power do the states have particularly in the primary process under their own law to apply the 14th amendment. and that's why you're seeing these divergent views. michigan saying we don't. colorado saying we do. and now we'l

let me bring back norm eisen. what we are hearing now is a lot of public statements and this fight is going to continue, and i just heard chairman comer say we have piles of questions in documents there only going as far to say i think we're going to get you in there to see it. where do you think this goes next? >> well, chairman comer, chairman jordan got some pretty tough questioning from the press. they were not able to answer this key question, kate. in all of those piles of bank statements and financial records, where is the connection of joe biden to any of the alleged wrongdoing? there's been no financial connection. they talked about the loans, but those were do you cumented transactions and they had the burisma matter that we were talking about, but that is just wrong, kate, that that has been looked at for years and the request to fire that prosecutor, that chairman jordan was talking about, came from the european union and the united states of america. are we now to suppose that hunter biden influenced

norm eisen, let me start with what happened in michigan, this ruling we saw.re's a key difference between what happened in michigan and the colorado supreme court's decision. in colorado, we saw an actual trial happen. we saw the facts put on display, trump attorneys arguing in court, pushing back on it in trump's role in 2020. in michigan they tried to have a trial as well but turned down by the court. what do you make of this decision by the high court in michigan today? >> well, kaitlan, part of the unique characteristic of governance in america is that every state has slightly different laws on how they handle ballot qualification, both in the primary election and in the general. colorado allows a determination under its state law of whether an individual is eligible or not. michigan decided for the primary that it did not have the leeway to block trump, whether or not he's constitutionally disqualified under the 14th amendment, prohibiting insurrectionists from serving on the ballot. the question is still open in michigan as to the general election, and w

. >> we have to sneak in a quick break and then it is all you and jeff and norm eisen who joined us, as well. so much to report on here. the supreme court rejecting jack smith's request of the expedite this question of presidential immunity and whether it applies to donald trump when it comes to election subversion. we are going to get in a quick break, as i mentioned. we are back in a few moments. huge legal and political implicatations here.e. we w will be looooking at alallf them. this is cnn breaking news. >> breaking news coming to us from the supreme court. they have rejected a request by special counsel jack smith to expedite a decision on former president trump's presidential immunity when it comes to alleged crimes he may have committed in office. does he have presidential unity? it's not that they will ultimately decide that. but they are not going to do that quickly as jack smith had asked them to do. this is really important. it speaks, jeff zeleny, to the politics of this. which is of the utmost importance. what this is going to do is it will likely push the trial date.

. >> norm eisen, are you surprised by this decision? >> well, wolf, the law and the politics have collided. in this instance, law has won. there's a logic to the decision. the 14th amendment provides that insurrectionists may not hold office. the lower court found that donald trump had engaged in insurrection activity. that's consonant with what the january 6th committee found. and so the only question was, legally, did this apply to a president? the supreme court said it did. i think because of the earth-shaking nature of the holding, we thought that politics might militate against it. but the courts, as they should do, have put on blinkers and applied the constitution. now it will be up to the supreme court to have the final word. >> yeah, the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution says, i'm quoting, "no person shall hold any office who, having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." pre