because the majority of the judges of the supreme court of the united states are appointed by republican presidents, and judges are appointed by the president. democrats in the minority? i think the media can say that, well, it's entirely possible, as i agree that the decision in favor of bush in 2000, it was more ideological then based on the laws, although bush, quite honestly, in florida there was then a recount , he got about 500 more votes, but there was no clear definition. because it happened for the first time in history, it was not regulated in any way, that's why this was a case where the judges could, based on their beliefs, conscious or subconscious, and i think that if there is a decision in favor of trump in this case, there will be, of course, that there will be a media that will not like it, they will say, which is precisely because three of the justices there are trump appointees and most of the justices are appointed by a republican president. well, again, i think that the vast majority of judges will use the law, but if there is a clear definition in the law, they will

court of the united states support trump, or can it be that the decision of the supreme court will becomeensational and indeed for the first time in history a candidate for the position of president of the united states will not be allowed to participate in the pre-election campaign campaign? look, i'd be happy if it were, but as you just said, i'm not a lawyer, but i think the supreme court in this case... holding trump, unfortunately, well, the fact is that whatever the ideological views, the ideological beliefs of the supreme court justices, they are still judges, and they follow the law. the point is that not allowing trump to run for office, under the third section of the 14th amendment to the united states constitution, because trump has not been found guilty by any court of law that he... he participated in rebellion against the united states, then it is subject to interpretation by specific officials, such as the maine secretary of state state, which is responsible for conducting elections, or a particular court, the supreme court of the state of colorado, which, in response to a

sergey , here the answer lies in the competence of the supreme court of the united states, if he agreesthe court in colorado adopted, then, in fact, then you don't even have to wait for march, then i think that in many states such decisions will be made , which would mean that trump would, realistically... lose his chances of winning, so he could be the republican nominee, but if, say, a few key states say no to him, well that's will mean that he will get rid of very serious support, because we remember, we have the last election, it was an election, as they say, well, yes, nostril to nostril, that is, everything was so close that... here we have to talk about each state be very, very careful and understand that each of them can be decisive, so let 's wait for the decision of the supreme court of the united states, but this will not really be the end of the story, because there are a lot of cases against him, cases even in many cases. not at the review stage, they will be somewhere on the way out in the spring on the 24th, then we will see what will actually happen if these verdicts are

at the supreme court of the united states. i will say this, the supreme court does not want to decide this case. and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible, legitimate way possible, to avoid deciding whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency. having studied the disqualification clause myself for three years now, there are very, very few, if any, off-ramps that would allow the supreme court to avoid a decision in this case. indeed, i believe there are none. section three of the 14th amendment simply could not be any clearer. that the former president is disqualified from the presidency as the colorado supreme court held. >> judge luttig, as you know, we have great respect for you here on the show, and our viewers are grateful to you for your actions before january 6th and your continued articulation of what the law and the constitution says. we thank you again, sir, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, ali. >> judge jay michael luttig is a former federal judge of the united states cou

also the question of public trust, you remember that the supreme court of the united states once made a decision of absolute principle for the future of the country in the case of gore v. bush, when the vice president of the united states, albert gore , tried to... deny the victory of george bush jr. in the election of the head of the american state, the court ruled in favor of bush, not grief, but many people in the american media at that time talked about what the decision was made because there is a conservative majority in the court, and the majority of judges are appointed by presidents, republicans , then movies were made about it, about a stolen victory, it became such a meme, and if the court now makes such a decision in favor of trump, will it not turn out that most of the us media will say that the judges did it precisely because... the majority of the justices of the united states supreme court are appointed by republican presidents, the judges are appointed by the presidents, the democrats are in the minority. and i think the media can do that to speak, completely, is comp

, a lot depends on the decision of the supreme court. of the united states of america. this amendment, which we talked about, has never happened before was not applied. and there has never been a relevant decision of the supreme court regarding the use of this amendment. the more so the use of this amendment in relation to a presidential candidate. that is, obviously, if the supreme court of the united states of america, it will not uphold the decision of the supreme court of colorado, and in that case all these lawsuits, and we know that except for colorado and maine. similar lawsuits. they are in more than ten us states, if the us supreme court does not support this decision, then accordingly these processes will not matter, and the name trump will be on the ballot in all primaries in the united states. if, after all, the us supreme court upholds this decision, it will mean certain problems for the presidential campaign of donald trump, and perhaps, de facto, this presidential campaign will be put on hold. under question, there is still a third option, which experts e

the supreme court of the united states, arguing a case. winning would be the ultimate dream, but just making it to that version of the super bowl, separates you, for more than 99% of lawyers who will never come close to presenting a case. to the united states supreme court. -- who will join us tonight, has argued 50 cases, to the united states supreme court, 50. that means, as i just said, neal katyal has written more supreme court briefs than i have read. and so, i am more than eager to hear neal katyal's assessment of the briefs, that have been submitted so far, in the case of donald j trump versus norma anderson -- that is the name of the case, the supreme court will hear next thursday. with donald trump appealing a decision of a supreme court of colorado to ban donald trump from the presidential ballot in colorado, on the basis of section three of the 14th amendment, which bars anyone from holding federal office if they have betrayed an oath to uphold the constitution. today, the board of elections in illinois decided that they don't h

the supreme court of the united states, are going their case. winning would be the ultimate dream, but just making it to that version of the super bowl, separates you, for more than 99% of lawyers who will never come close to presenting a case. to the united states supreme court. neal katyal, will join us tonight, has argued 50 cases, to the united states supreme court, 50. that means, as i just said, neal katyal has written more supreme court briefs than i have read. and so, i am more than eager to hear neal katyal's assessment of the briefs, that have been submitted so far, in the case of donald j trump versus norma anderson -- that is the name of the case, the supreme court will hear next thursday. with donald trump appealing a decision of a supreme court of colorado to ban donald trump from the presidential ballot in colorado, on the basis of section three of the 14th amendment, which bars anyone from holding federal office if they have betrayed an oath to uphold the constitution. today, the board of elections in illinois decided that they d

it is headed to the supreme court of the united states. bellows telling cnn this very point tonight. >> we would welcome the u.s. supreme court making a ruling. i will uphold whatever the courts determine, and acting quickly to resolve this. i think it is in the best interest. >> that sounds like maine or bring it on. donald trump is facing 14 amendment challengers besides maine including colorado, remember that, with the state supreme court ordered has been to be removed from the primary ballot there, which of course much of all but certain to appeal it and of course where will he appeal it? wait for it, the supreme court. notice a theme happening here tonight. of course unclear when that will actually happen, but let's not forget about the big picture here. hello trump is facing 91, 91 felony counts. any one of them could his lead him potentially to land behind bars. there are also the civil cases, two of them, legal woes that most people couldn't even fathom having, and normally in a normal time, most political -- salivating at the thou

believe is in the interest of the country and i have reason to be confident that the supreme court of the united states will see it just that way. >> two tough anniversary this is weekend. the three year anniversary of the january 6 capitol attack yesterday. the three-month anniversary of the hamas terrorist attack on israel. mike pence in a unique position to talk about both of those

on november 5, 24 , in the state of colorado, the supreme court of the state disqualified donald trumpe for the presidency of the united states of america. and forbade him to participate in the state primaries, because the primaries should be held on the 5th march, and this may affect trump's status in the state in the general presidential election. what is this disqualification , does it mean for the course of the presidential campaign, to what extent should this case and this decision be a precedent, because we are talking about trump's involvement in the events of january 6, 2021, when... a mob of his supporters broke into the congressional building and in fact, could this be the reason that trump will not be allowed to the primaries in other states, and as a result, he simply will not be able to run for president? well mr. sergey, here the answer lies in the competence of the us supreme court. if he agrees with the logic. what the court in colorado decided, then, uh, then, actually, you don't even have to wait for march, then, i think, in many states, such decisions will be made, w

in the so-called case of fisher v. the government of the united states states where the supreme courtit is justified... the research of the participants on january 6th like this in this way, how they are being persecuted, and therefore i think that indeed, the issue will be resolved at the level of the supreme court, most experts agree that the supreme court, if it really decides that this is within its jurisdiction, will overturn the decision of the colorado court, and the sole decision of the secretary of state. trump will indeed continue his, his campaign, and if, if the democrats take any other extraordinary steps, then they are of course walking on a knife’s edge, because de facto they are interfering in the electoral processes, in principle they are doing the same the same as joe biden once accused donald trump of interference. in the elections, so i have such a positive forecast regarding donald trump, i think that the same rally effect that helps him gather more and more supporters around him, and it will continue, and the supreme court in the next month there, given that the

, like colorado lend its way to the supreme court of the united states.re are two different processes in two different states. >> and this, of course is all on the 14th amendment and the constitutionality. i guess, adam, first question would be, do you think knowing the court as you do that chief justice roberts is going to avoid a bush v. gore decision on this? and try to decide something with due process, perhaps that there's been no charge of insurrection, or something, to try to get an exit ramp for the court? >> i do think he's going to want to avoid a divisive decision like bush v. gore. he's going to want to avoid the decision that splits 6-3 with the six republican appointees an three democratic appointees in disscent. i don't think he's going to be eager with that with insurrection. so there may be technical ways to avoid the issue by calling it a political question, say, by saying congress has to enact legislation before the courts can act. but it's a tricky, tricky thing. and i think it's quite unwelcome at the court. but at the same time, this

in your state supreme courts, and the supreme court of the united states. how did that influence your decision making, understanding this was not a routine decision for you, this is possibly one of the most consequential decisions you and other secretaries of state will ever make in the history of this country? >> this is the process. this is the rule of law, under the oath that i swore to uphold the constitution. so, on the last patient decision, i voluntarily suspended the fact of my decision, pending appeal to the superior court. and indeed, welcoming u.s. supreme court engaging, because our job as election officials isn't to make that loss. our job is to follow the law. no matter where the law takes us, and to do us the courts direct. that is what we will do under the law and the constitution, which is the only consideration we could have. >> and i notice you said this a few times. that's where you have decided what you're going to be driven by. there are differing opinions in the united states, even in your own state, it's elicited a mix of reactions,

mischief. today, by the way, it was the same decision of the supreme court of the united states, wherending in its national guard in order to take control of part of the border, it is clear that this decision was not understood in texas, but i think that some intensity of contradictions can reduce , especially if in the next few weeks congress manages to agree on migration reform, but there is the main problem - there is an endless flow of migrants, it is unclear what to do with them, and congress cannot agree, well , there is some progress towards them... after all, we agreed, i mean there are republicans and democrats, so somewhere in february we will most likely see something, well then, in that case , the issue with ukrainian tranches will somehow be resolved, but i think that kiev will not they will allocate some kind of super-colossal money, or maybe 11 billion, 12 billion, which some people are talking about now, and ukrainian lobbyists in washington, in particular mrs. markarova, but the poso ukraine in washington, perhaps it will be larger amounts, 20 billion euros, 20 billion

you have a supreme court of the united states for a reason. i think that they understand the magnitude and gravity of this decision, hence the extradited schedule. look at what they're doing, victor. they're making a determination, they being the supreme court of the united states, consisting of nine justices, six of which we know to be conservative, to expedite this case. february 8th will be oral argument on the case. wow, super tuesday being march 5th. unbelievable. and so i think they understand the nature of what's happening here. yes, this case is about colorado and whether colorado supreme court, that state court erred in its determination, but more broadly this is about challenges throughout the country, those that are pending, those that are cropping up regularly. we know michigan, in terms of what's happening there. we know about wisconsin, we know about the issues in terms of maine and the secretary of state. we know about massachusetts just recently, what they're doing. we know about illinois. i can go on. so the essence of what i'

there is such a situation that, despite the fact that the supreme court of the united states ruled onis necessary to ... comply with its order and take away the barbed wire that the national guard of the state of texas has placed on the border with mexico, in one of the parks, on the border with the rio grande river, here we see it on the screen now, the governor of the state, referring to the fact that there is such a provision both in the constitution of the united states and in the constitution of the state of texas, because the state... has its own constitution, this, as we remember, was once the independent republic of texas, which ceased to exist only in 1845 to be a republic and joined the united states of america as the 28th state, and before that it separated from mexico, so there is a lot of latin american population there, the fact is that in the last months, in the last two years, let's say up to 2 million, no... legal emigrants tried to infiltrate the territory of the united states from the territory of mexico, it is not only mexicans, and not so many, there are many vene

>> first of all we are talking about the supreme court of the united states and we are talking about constitution and the constitution trumps everything. maybe trumpism the word i should use. >> it's appropriate tonight. go ahead. >> if the supreme court decides trump is constitutionally unable to run for president, all of the other procedural things don't matter. if the constitution steps in, then it overcomes any other concern that might arise. >> they could say i know you have a printing deadline, but we are not on your schedule, so you could maybe change that or reprint a huge cost to the state, but you're not entirely convinced that the supreme court is going to say he is off the ballot, why? >> lots of reasons. broadly speaking there are three ways this could play out. one, the court could say he's off the ballot. he committed in insurrection and the constitution says if you do that, you are out. i don't think that is likely. still there is a 6-3 republican super majority. the court is likely to be cautious about a case of this magnitude and there are real reasons one could dis

supreme court of the united states. not have to take up the case, but it is something as momentous as this, it just might. caitriona: let's have a look at the issues at stake in this case. we can speak to emily, who was a lecturer at yale law school. thank you for joining us. this concept of presidential immunity that former president donald trump is saying is long-established, just where does it come from originally? emily: it comes from principles in american law that have been applied before to presidential conduct, mostly law that courts have created. the idea is if you are a president or another important federal official and you are doing things in the course of your official duties, then y should not be prosecuted for them. the question in this case is whether the kind of relationship, prosecutors interference with the election that former president trump was doing, whether that was in the course of his official duties. caitriona: is there any precedent for presidential immunity actually being used? can you give

andrii, we will go into detail. and expand, here the supreme court of the united states of america willthe issue of disqualification of ex-president trump from the primaries, the basis for this is the events of january 6 , 2021, i will remind you, this is the storming of the capitol by supporters of the ex-president, the american media write about it, and the meaning and the scope of the 14th amendment to the constitution will be considered by the us supreme court on february 8, for the first time, i will remind you, it was adopted shortly after the civil war and was hardly applied. this amendment prohibits officials who participated in insurgents or mutineers to hold public office in the united states. the court's decision will have a significant impact on the course of the presidential campaign in the united states. this year, i will add, and according to journalists, it may either bury trump's chances for election or re-election, or, on the contrary, encourage him and his supporters even more . so, how do you rate the chances, mr. andriy, that the decision will be... by the supreme c

>> first of all, we are talking about the supreme court of the united states, and we're talking aboutstitution. and the constitution trumps everything. maybe trump isn't the word i should use. >> it's appropriate tonight. go ahead. >> the constitution is the supreme law of the land. so like if the supreme court decides that trump is constitutionally unable to run for president, all the other procedural niceties don't matter. like if the constitution steps in, then it overcomes any other concern that might arise. >> they could conceivably say, okay, i know you have a printing deadline, but we're in the on your schedule. so you can maybe change that or maybe reprint at huge cost, by the way, to the state. but you're not entirely convinced that the supreme court is going to say he's off the ballot. why? >> i mean lots of reasons. broadly speaks there's three ways this can play out. one is the court could say, all right. he's off the ballot. he committed an insurrection. the constitution says if you do that, you're out. i don't think that's likely. i mean there's a 6-3 republican supermaj

ban the supreme court of the united states and the president of the united states of america. and 26as, declaring that they have every right to do what they do, ignoring the decision of the constitutional court. there has already been talk of a constitutional crisis in the united states; in general, the logical continuation of this constitutional crisis was what happened in congress. usa sound like a statement the one made by mejari taylor greene. let's listen to her. when i said that we need a national divorce, this is what i meant, and there is serious confirmation of this. national divorce is meant, a divorce between republican and democratic states. they won’t allow it, although, well, in general, the term invasion is very interesting. is happening inside the country, usually it is always completely ignored, what was thrown at with money, was decided with money, they threw money at blm, they decided to increase welfare there, everyone calmed down, somewhere else money, well, that is, they threw in pieces of paper, while no one fundamentally solved any of the problems that arose i

supreme court of the united states. not have to take up the case, but it is something as momentous as this, it just might. caitriona: let's have a look at the issues at stake in this case. we can speak to emily, who was a lecturer at yale law school. thank you for joining us. this concept of presidential immunity that former president donald trump is saying is long-established, just where does it come from originally? emily: it comes from principles in american law that have been applied before to presidential conduct, mostly law that courts have created. the idea is if you are a president or another important federal official and you are doing things in the course of your official duties, then you should not be prosecuted for them. the question in this case is whether the kind of relationship, prosecutors interference with the election that former president trump was doing, whether that was in the course of his official duties. caitriona: is there any precedent for presidential immunity actually being used? can you giv

united states supreme court to overturn the colorado supreme court decision to ban donald trump fromot in that state. secretary of state griswold's next. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. it's lying dormant, waiting... and could reactivate. shingles strikes as a painful, blistering rash that can last for weeks. and it could wake at any time. think you're not at risk for shingles? it's time to wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention. [dice dreams game] yes, eva. the famous longoria, made it to the reunion, i see. we wouldn't miss it for the world, tia lupe. but what about your husband? is he here? no. unfortunately, he couldn't make it. she attacked him last night. you attacked your husband?

not drastically, but to some extent depending on what the supreme court of the united states decidesn the colorado court decision, banning trump from participating in the maine primaries, where is it, so the vice-governor of the state. decided whether the secretary of state, let's say the secretary of state of the state, decided to keep trump from the republican primary, and if the supreme court rules in favor of the state of florida and the state of maine, then a slightly new situation will arise , especially if there are other lawsuits trump the american voter will lose, then, too, at least a part of it, even those who are going now. according to ex-president trump, they will make for themselves, at least in part, will draw conclusions, and these conclusions will always be in favor ex-president trump. nikki haley for ukraine, as it will be. regarding trump, we understand that, for example, if putin is waiting for trump's victory, then he expects that trump will not be favorable to ukraine, and we, in principle, remember his statements. what kind of person is president biden, we alr

its national guard, the decision of the supreme court of the united states, the feds have. the right are removing the barriers, of course, the illegal immigrants are right there, they are fleeing there in droves, the reaction of texas, texas says, we will stand our ground, and some congressmen from texas say that if this continues, especially if biden wins the next election, texas will simply secede from the united states of america, well, really in fact , the logic of the actions of the court and the central american government is as follows: with the state and the state protects its borders, when the subjects protect their borders, this is already close to the collapse of the state, but the paradox is that the central the authorities today are not guarding the border, they are just cutting the wire and allowing an incredibly huge number of illegal migrants to enter the united states of america, the figure of 12 million people was announced, this is very, this is very, very much, it doesn’t even matter for what reason the democrats are are doing, it is important that they... do it a

earlier, a decision of the judicial, supreme court in the united states is the point at the end of anyase, but according to the history of the united states, this is the last point, the supreme court could sort it out for years. vermont, a republican state, well, i mean where the governor is a republican, not here are 25 other states that support texas, one supported this one, and look, now on the map, pay attention to how the united states, they are no longer based on the principle of being for slaves, against slaves, and so on, they are splitting along purely territorial principles, then there’s more one important decision, the quality of returning to national status, well , should texas return to a separate state of a sovereign state, naturally the national committee of the republican party did not agree to this. this is simply our sacred duty, as fighters for true democracy, independence and sovereignty, the simple fact is, we must, well, we must, first of all, recognize, no, texas is an independent state, what difference does it make what they announce, the embassy should show the

they fundamentally, but to a certain extent, depend on what the supreme court of the united states decides on the court decision of the state of colorado, to prohibit trump from participating in the primaries in the primaries and in the state of maine, where he is, therefore, the vice governor of state, decided whether the secretary of state, let's say the state secretary of state, decided not to allow. er, trump is a republican primary, and if the supreme court decides in favor of the state of florida and the state of ment, then a slightly new situation will arise , especially if trump loses other lawsuits there, then, too, the american voter, at least part of him, even those who now follow ex-president trump, they will draw conclusions for themselves, at least in part, and these conclusions will not always be correct. ex-president trump, nikki haley for ukraine, what it will be, about trump, we understand that, for example, if putin is waiting for trump's victory, then he expects that trump will not be favorable to ukraine, and we, in principle, remember him a statement that, as presiden

it is thought that, for example, the law and the ruling passed by the supreme court of the united states in 2010 according to which the support of foreign terrorist organizations is explicitly included in american laws. for example, at the same time, there was a case where mr. javed iqbal was convicted for cooperating with al-minar network in america, or the laws that exist in other countries, for example, france, well , there are very broad laws, for example, article 24 of the french press law says explicitly inciting and supporting terrorist crimes and terrorist acts, as well as justifying and defending them , are criminalized and punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros . there he explicitly forbids praise and encouragement from terrorist acts, how long? we have seen it before. it was two or three months ago that a 17-year-old boy came to the city of nottingham in the united kingdom and supported one of the terrorist acts and was a member of a telegram group. he was convicted in the court. it was cut, it was up to 12 months of imprisonment , that is , there are

the day before , the supreme court of the united states of america announced that it will begin consideration the case of trump's disqualification on february 8. 7 tons of humanitarian and medical aid were dropped from the plane for the residents of the gas strip. the cargo was equipped with special navigation systems. thanks to this, they could be remotely sent to the field hospital in the city of hanyounis, and humanitarian aid was prepared by jordan together with france. the president of the latter, emmanuel macron , emphasized that the humanitarian situation in the enclave remains critical. jordan used to deliver a humanitarian aid for gas in this way, but france joined it for the first time. however, paris has already sent 100 tons of aid to gaza residents by land. it is currently unknown whether he supported this operation? israel. the number of victims of the earthquake in japan exceeded a hundred. almost half a thousand people were injured, more than two hundred more are considered missing, - informed the prime minister of the country, fumio kishida. in several cities , search and res

i think that is why the supreme court of the united states will take this up to prevent exactly what you were talking about from happening. >> andrew, very quickly, i have to ask, i'm a political science professor, i look at the entire planet. it galls me, that every time we talk about trump trials, this comes to mind. last year, july 2023, brazil's bolsonaro was barred from running for office until 2030. he lost the election in 2022 on january 8th his right wing supporters went and attacked the capital. it took less than six months for the brazilian supreme court to say, hey, this guy engaged in insurrection. are we feeling in this country? that were running up and almost the three year anniversary of trump of january six, and trump is not in, jail when a country like the brazil, where we we think we have a stronger institutional democracy than they do, they seem to have handled this in six months. >> i love people that look at the international perspective, because americans are so parochial. we think obviously this is a great country but we are not the first country on the globe w

now we are looking at the method which i lay right in the lap of the supreme court of the united states which is allowing states to experiment with different methods. ever since the pharmaceutical company in europe cut off the drug they had been using, the supreme court allowed them to use different methods, try this out, see if this works, so, now you have the ag of alabama saying yes t worked and we are going to use it. you are a human being liing on that gurney. it is always torture and cruel punishment. >> i always wondered, sister, i am familiar with your work. i always wondered about what it is like and the work you have done, you work with death row inmates for decades. what is it like when you are in these rooms? when you are asked to be a spiritual advisory. what is that process like legistically. >> i know why i am there, the total focus is on them. for them to look at my face as it happens because my face is saying to them, you are a son of god, you are a human being. they know i am resisting the death in every way that i can. but, in terms of costliness, do we often think of

so now we're looking at the method, which i lay right in the lap of the supreme court of the united states, which is allowing states to experiment with different methods. ever since the pharmaceutical company in europe cut off the drug they had been using, the supreme court allows them to use different methods. try this out, see if this works. so now you have the a.g. of alabama saying, yep, it worked and we're going to use it. you're a he can lying on that gurney so it's always torture, always cruel punishment. >> i've always wondered, sister, i'm so familiar with your work and advocacy. i've always wondered what it is like. you've worked with death row inmates for decades. and what is it like when you're in these rooms, when you're asked to be a spiritual advisor? what is that process like logistically but emotionally at those times? >> yeah. well, one of the things is i know what my mission is. i know who i am there. and the total focus is on them. and for them to look at my face as it happens because my face is saying to them you are a son of god, you are a human being. and they know i

the day before, the supreme court of the united states of america announced that it would begin hearing the case on trump's disqualification on february 8. such was the morning in ukraine. read more on our website espresso.tv, also on our social networks. join, put your preferences, my colleagues oksana vysochanska and marta oliarnyk will continue the conversation with analytics, don't switch, stay with the espresso team. 12:11, greetings to all viewers of espresso, greetings to those who are joining us at this moment. marta oliyarnyk, oksana vysochenska, we are working for you today. and further, and now we will add to our air our first guest of this hour, artem lysogor, the head of the luhansk regional military administration is already in touch with us, we welcome you, mr. artem, yes, good day and glory to ukraine, to the heroes, glory, mr. artem, please tell us how the situation looks now in luhansk region, we remember that there were forecasts, in particular there were data from the telegram, from intelligence that increased shelling is possible in... the country on the eve of chri

i think that is why the supreme court of the united states will take this up to prevent exactly whatlking about from happening. >> andrew, very quickly, i have to ask, i'm a political science professor, i look at the entire planet. it galls me, that every time we talk about trump trials, this comes to mind. last year, july 2023, brazil's bolsonaro was barred from running for office until 2030. he lost the election in 2022 on january 8th his right wing supporters went and attacked the capital. it took less than six months for the brazilian supreme court to say, hey, this guy engaged in insurrection. are we feeling in this country? that were running up and almost the three year anniversary of trump of january six, and trump is not in, jail when a country like the brazil, where we we think we have a stronger institutional democracy than they do, they seem to have handled this in six months. >> i love people that look at the international perspective, because americans are so parochial. we think obviously this is a great country but we are not the first country on the globe who has had t

the border again, they said that they will not comply with the decision of the supreme court of thequirements in carrying out his constitutional duties, violated his oath to faithfully implement the immigration laws passed by congress, and instructed his agencies to ignore federal laws that require the detention of illegals. to live by the mind of this deep state, which is not accountable to anyone, which does not tell at all what it does, where it spends money, puts up some fake politicians who blurt out everything in the interests of the deep state, so everything relates to this quote by kant, which was carried out, that they stopped living with their mind, and those who stopped living with their mind are those who have no sovereignty, because when you are sovereign, you... act in your own interests and your own, you need your mind, well, you also need to have your own mind, when you look at biden, somehow even live, live biden live with your mind, well, america lives like that with the mind of its president, who also draws in they are getting deeper and deeper into the middle eas

supreme court - of the united states. the court house. where does presidential immunity begin and end? we will look at the arguments heard in court today, and the implications of the court's pending decision. also tonight — postmasters were told that only they had access to their post office it systems. but was that strictly true? the union representing the postmasters say they believe not

opportunity to appeal this to the supreme court of the united states.rom the us, involving the defence secretary, lloyd austin. if you remember, there was a bit of confusion over a hospital stay that mr austin endured it which was kept apparently from president biden. it emerged that it took president biden a few days to learn of the defence secretary's hospital stay, there's a bit of secrecy surrounding it. we've now had some confirmation from the pentagon that mr austin had actually been admitted to hospital to walter reed hospitalfor been admitted to hospital to walter reed hospital for complications with a minimally invasive procedure, which we believe was to do with his prostate. we are being told that mr austin never lost consciousness and never underwent general anaesthesia during this procedure to treat him for prostate cancer. this is of course in response to a little bit of criticism that he suffered from the fact that he didn't disclose he'd been admitted to hospital at the time. the white house confirming that he will not be fired despite th

the supreme court of the united states needs to fix thisi this is establishing a dangerous precedent.a: horace my mentioned at the top of the show but realy quickly usa today suffolk poll n trump's favor for keep voting o blocs. biden claims 63% of black voters but that is a huge decline from the 87% he carried in 2020. similar stories among hispanic voters. horace, if this holds, what is l this going to look like in november? >> our founders gave us the greatest concept of self-government, imagine, not since the old greek civilization has there been this idea.th and when it was premised on the simple idea, every single citizen gets to make the decision about the policies. we had a civil war that lost more lives than any war wehave americans have been in to make sure that we vindicate this. it is highly rich that the left is using the 14th amendment, which protects and pushes backn against the very claims that democrats made in the 17th and 18th century to then say today in the 21st century and black americans, latinos, women, young people are rushing mightily to say, "we want a right

united states supreme court with 6-3 vote stopped him from doing so. but he sought another way. and he has forgiven $132 billion to 3.4 million people in student loan debt. but nobody writes about that. nobody talks about that. i'm still hearing from people that as recent as yesterday that we did not -- he did not keep his promise on student loan debt relief and he has. 80% of what he said he would do, he has done and is continuing to do it and people don't focus on that. the only focus on that 20% affected by the court decision rather than what he did to get beyond the court decision. he's done the same thing when it comes to the judiciary. he stood right across from emanuel church and said if given the opportunity, he would put an african american woman on the supreme court. he has done that. but he went even further. and put a south carolinian, african american woman on the second highest court of the land. a south carolinian, african american woman on the fourth circuit court of appeals. he's appointed more african american women to the courts of a

and i have reason to be confident that the supreme court of the united states will see it that way. >> two tough anniversaries this weekend, three year anniversary of the january 6 capitol attack, the three month anniversary of the october 7 hamas terrorist attack on israel. mike pence in unique position to talk about both of those issues on this sunday. we thank you for your time. >> thank you, jake. >>> president biden is headed to the key state of south carolina tomorrow. has he lost ground with the voters he needs to win re-election? south carolina congressman jim clyburn will join me next. >>> and with a week to go, is a surprise brewing in iowa? we'll try to read the tea leaves. >>> welcome back. i'm jake tapper. the republican caucuses and primary process begins next week. but with president biden facing political headwinds, he is trying to skip ahead and go right to the general election, trying to paint a stark contrast with former president trump over democracy and political violence. tomorrow he will speak at mother emanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina where a wh

integrity and reputation of the supreme court of the united states, if you do not have overwhelming majority ruling, you are going to have accusations that the court is being partisan. this is a constitutionalist court, i don't like calling it conservative. originalist judges and they judge fairly, if you don't have all or most judges, it will look partisan and seems to me democrats are trying to with justice thomas, trying to discredit the court. i worry about that. >> harris: that is interesting, republicans are in the majority. >> kayleigh: you have to step aside brett kavanaugh or amy comey barrett. i am waiting for calls and will continue to wait. >> harris: i'll wait with you. do we need to bring doritos. coming up, new reporting on criticism from barack obama on the structure of the biden campaign. he told them they are not winning. on his concern about former president trump's strength as a 2024 rival. stay tuned. [ applause ] the day you get your clearchoice dental implants changes your struggle with missing teeth forever. it changes how you eat, how you feel, and how you enjoy life

the supreme court of the united states did not say texas cannot put up this wire., based upon a procedural ruling the federal government to take it down. so we can go back on this back and forth for as long as potentially possible. we will be watching it. meantime, want to get your thoughts on this. the florida house just approved a bill to ban social media for kids under t the age of 16. if it makes it to desantis' desk and he signs bill platforms anyone younger than 16, regardless of parental approval require platforms use a third party service to age. terminate accounts for users under 16. final thoughts for you, a.g. moody on the importance of a bill like this? >> i think you're going to see leaders all over the nation that are parents. we all have children. folks are getting to our children, adults that want to do them harm are getting to our children through social media. our children are being exposed to inappropriate material. they are being addicted online. we have to do something to stand up for our kids. i'm proud of the state of florida who is exploring

recognize the possibility that in the 50 united states, with 50 different secretaries of state, 50 differentd states, that the different states could reasonably end up with different opinions about this? >> that could happen. every state has different laws on the books, different procedures, some states all-out disqualified or unqualified candidates on to their presidential primaries. states like colorado, we do not allow that. and that's why i think it's so important for the supreme court to step in. you know, this is a big question. it's novel. it's unprecedented. because usually, we do not have presidents trying to steal the presidency. usually, we do not have people who engage an insurrection run for president. but now that we do, i do think it's important for the supreme court to act quickly. i filed a brief yesterday urging their expediency, and i hope that they will do exactly that. >> colorado secretary of state jena griswold in the center of history tonight. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> and coming up, federal appeals court judges appointed by donald trump las

court of the united states.thing as momentous as this, they “ustmiaht. , �* ., , something as momentous as this, they “ustmiaht. , ., ,~ just might. gary o'donoghue they are in washington- _ britain's foreign secretary david cameron has said he's worried that israel might have taken action in gaza that breached international law. lord cameron was taking questions from parliament's foreign affairs committee. let's listen to the exchange from that hearing in the last hour. in any realm, in any respect. so you've never had a piece of paper put in front of you by a foreign office lawyer that says that israel is in breach of its international humanitarian commitments under international humanitarian law? look, i — the reason for not answering this question. i can't recall every single bit of paper that's been put in front of me. i see — i look at everything. i mean, of course, there are lots of things that have happened where you think, well, surely that is that was something that shouldn't have happened. and so i do

to go back to the supreme court decision, the united states versus the supreme court of texas.atute that provided the government shall take into custody any alien that has committed an aggravated -- it is not discretionary that they shall take into custody. we are talking about human trafficking, money laundering, firearms offenses. these are serious crimes. the statute in question requires that it be mandatory, not discretionary. what the court says is that an officer cannot rely on the fact of conviction. the dhs memorandum says, directly contrary to the statute -- this is a quote from the court. dhs personnel shall not rely on the fact that conviction is going to pass the law. we cannot have a felony. you cannot take that into account. that is not prosecutorial discretion. it takes away the discretion. going back to oral arguments made before the court -- i found this very fascinating. during the debate, biden's general responded to kavanaugh and said instead of judicial review, you are saying they don't have standings that congress would have to resort to impeachment or dra

i agree with the secretary that this seems to be calling for the supreme court of the united states totake this case, and i think they have to. this is a constitutional issue with enormous consequences where we just do not know the answer. if the supreme court does not take this case, you already nicely highlighted the chaos within main, imagine the chaos now across all 50 states where some -- have not, there are doing a but if in prestigious, all arriving at different results, we really need the supreme court and i think tampa needs to agree on this we need the supreme court to do its job here. >> certainly, ali, stay with us if you will. tonight, new allegations of corruption against embattled democratic senator bob menendez. new york law maker was already accused of abusing his powerful position to secretly ate the government of egypt in exchange for bribes. now he's accused of also taking bribes to help qatar. remember those good was that authorities say they found in his house, when apparently there are more. prosecutors now seat menendez and his wife were also involved in an atte

her lead opinion and i use that term and fisher versus usa is now under review by the supreme court ofates and she has more to say about her brain ha is been assigned to several panels for appeals filed by generate six defendants. just last week denied the appeal of alfred who is that? he was convicted by washington d.c. jury of four misdemeanors and sentenced by judge shokin 12 months in prison. he must've done something hardly bebad in a concurring opinion te panel including him agreed to the following the trial evidence indicated that during alfred's brief time is never violent nor destructive would confirm his convictions that could rationally find it on authorized president in the capitol part of unruly mob contributed to disruption of the electoral certification and jeopardize public safety. he was inside their 11 minutes roaming around absolutely nothing. let's get to the subject. you opinion's an issue both concluded absolutely not one was written by the office of legal counsel the brain trust under the nixon administration the other was written under the clinton administration

her lead opinion and i use that term and fisher versus usa is now under review by the supreme court of and she has more to say about her brain ha is been assigned to several panels for appeals filed by generate six defendants. just last week denied the appeal of alfred who is that? he was convicted by washington d.c. jury of four misdemeanors and sentenced by judge shokin 12 months in prison. he must've done something hardly bebad in a concurring opinion te panel including him agreed to the following the trial evidence indicated that during alfred's brief time is never violent nor destructive would confirm his convictions that could rationally find it on authorized president in the capitol part of unruly mob contributed to disruption of the electoral certification and jeopardize public safety. he was inside their 11 minutes roaming around absolutely nothing. let's get to the subject. you opinion's an issue both concluded absolutely not one was written by the office of legal counsel the brain trust under the nixon administration the other was written under the clinton administration. th

i think this immunity issue will have to go to the supreme court of the united states. >> laura: 81%republicans t believe trump should be -- >> that is what so sad appear in immunity for presidential actions, they transcend thet particular person that issue. 81% of democrats happy with the thought president biden could be criminally charged by some grand jury in texas after his term in office is over? that is the pandora's box that v has been open now. if we start to say presidents have no immunity for theirt' actions with the outer perimetet of their office commit is open season on the president. >> laura: all right, chris, great to see you on both issues mexico and of course illegal questions. >>vere i'm a twofer. wor >> laura: obama is back and he is worriedext.. we will explain. newt gingrich is next. ♪ ♪ but i'm also a mother of four. and as entrepreneurs, we weigh the cost of every decision. medical bills are no longer a worry for our family. so i can focus on my calling and our family. joining christian health care ministries was one of the best decisions we ever made. we're t