as soon as it's built, all i'm taking is a toothbrush. >> the trinity habitat for their humanity, i see you. congratulations to opal lee. she says she would like her home to become a mute seal. if you see something or someone i should see, tell me. and thank you so much for joining me today. i will see you back here next saturday a at 8:00 a.m. eastern. smerconish is up next. which will trump face first? a jury of his peers or the electorate? i'm michael smerconish. the briefs have been submitted. on tuesday lawyers for president trump and those of the doj

reporting to special counsel jack smith will square off in front of a three-judge pam of the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. at issue whether trump has immunity for conduct he undertook as president or cannot otherwise face prosecution because it would represent double jeopardy. that's the legal issue. but what's most important here is the timing. trial court judge has determined she can't move forward until this issue is resolved. she entered an order on december 13 saying trump's appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would otherwise move the case toward trial. but that stay could be lifted after the outcome of tuesday's argument. for sure, the losing side is going to appeal to the supreme court after perhaps first asking for the first court of the appellate court to hear the matter on bond. the losing party has 90 days to ask for supreme court review. as i detailed before, smith is

eager to get trump tried before the election. trump, on the other hand, wants to run out the clock. he hopes to win the presidency and use his power to end his own prosecution. so how likely that trump is tried before the election? if in the unlikely scenario he wins his immunity or double jeopardy argument this, prosecution will end and jack smith would fight that outcome. what if trump loses in the court of appeals and that decision is promptly announced. it means he can wait three months, the month of may, before even asking the supreme court to hear his appeal. by then the republican nomination fight will likely be long over and it would receive bliss take the supreme court weeks if not months to resolve the matter. only then could the case be returned to the judge for trial making it highly unlikely that trump will be tried before election day. but it's all rather uncertain. now there's a relatively new

wrinkle. the court of appeals accepted an am cows or friend of the court brief from a group called american oversight. lawyers from the firm of arnold andporter argue the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction and this time to hear the appeal, they cite a 1989 supreme court case in which justice scalia wrote for a unanimous court. it this argument swas the panel next week, it could immediately return the case to trial before the judge. and trump would face a jury of his peers before he faces the electorate. joining me now is elie honig, senior legal analyst, former prosecutor, author of "untouchable." nice to see you again. big picture, how many trials might trump realistically face before the election? >> that is the big question. i'm going to give you an ironclad precise answer right now.

probably one, maybe two, could be zero, but that chance is low. but definitely not three or four. we can write off the fulton county d.a.'s case. that is not going to be tried before the election. the d.a. has asked for an august 2024 trial date conceding that would go into 2025, not going to happen. up until recently, it looked like the one that was going to go firsts was jack smith's d.c. federal election subversion indication scheduled for march 4th of this year. but that has major questions about timing. then you have the hush money case scheduled for late march and then you have jack smith's other case, the mar-a-lago classified documents case, scheduled for may. i don't know dominos or chess or musical chairs is the best analogy, but it has elements of all three. >> so you heard my analysis at the outset. i think trump has a long shot at

best. how long is this going to take and when does the judge get to put it back on a trial track? >> i agree with you, first of all. donald trump will lose his immunity argument. but let's play out the timing here. the argument in the court of appeals is set for tuesday. the court of appeals said they are going to rule quickly. let's assume they rule by february 1st. if that happens, he then has 45 days, ordinarily it's a 15 days, but because the united states is a party, he then has 45 days to ask for what we call on bonk review, meaning the entire court of appeals. that brings us into mid-march or so. let's say it takes them a couple weeks whether they do it or don't. now we're into april. and donald trump as the losing party has 90 days to ask the supreme court to take the case.

so that takes us into july and then forget it. that's going to take a couple months. that puts us too late into the summer. even if it goes back in july, this case was stayed with about four months to go before trial. so trump is going to say i'm entitled to at least a few months from when it comes back. there are real questions about the timing. >> you and i are far into the weeds, but it's a good thing. this is really important. what must the judge do during that timetable? the outline that you have just offered, is she just to sit and the stay to continue? or if trump is unsuccessful initially in front of the three-court panel or in front of on bank, can she get back to her trial calendar? >> this is really important. jack smut has asked the court of appeals to issue the mandate five days after they rule on this argument that's coming up.

if the court of appeals issues the mandate, that means the case goes back down to the judge, which would free her up to begin carry ing on with pretrial proceedings. first of all, will the court of appeals issue a mandate? and if they do, donald trump is going to fight that. he's going to say, no, i get a chance to go to the supreme court. everything should remainstayed. pepding the outcome of my final appeal up to the supreme court. so that's another really make or break decision point. >> at what point do we get so clo ez to the election the doj says it's 60 or 90 days, it's never been clear, we have our own internal guideline and we don't think this case ought to be tried so close to the general election. >> so doj has a long standing policy and practice of not

taking over investigative steps. not announcing an indictment or a search warrant depending who you ask of the election. i think once you get into the late summer, i think doj and the courts will say this is just too close. let's say you tried to start a trial of donald trump in august. are you really going to have him on trial physically removed throughout the entire general election campaign, september, october, potentially on ask through election day. so i see a sort of drop dead date of july, mid-to late july. if they don't start by then, it has to go a after the election. >> final 30 seconds. hearing your analysis, which i grately respect, the moon and stars would have to line up for jack smith to get donald trump tried before the election. that's my take with. is it yours? >> i think he's going to need some help.

he's going to need help from either the court of appeals or the supreme court or the judge. i think there's a good chance jack smith tries one of his cases. but let's keep an eye on the manhattan da's case. the forgotten hush money case, if the case on federal election subversion moves out, there's going to be a gap in the calendar. the da has made clear he's said on the record, i'm ready to go. that might not be ideal for those hoping to hang a conviction on donald trump, but that one maybe the first one tried. >> donald trump is watching and he hopes you're right. when all is said and done, a 7-year-old case based on a porn payoff is the only thing for which he's tried before the election. i wouldn't even oppose it. put us on trial for that. i appreciate it. now for more on trump and scotus, i want to turn to lauren

lessig. they will review the decision of removing trump from that ballot with oral arguments scheduled for february 8th. here's what the professor recently wrote about trump and the colorado challenge. quote, donald trump is an astou astoundingly dangerous candidate. he's a pathological liar with clear authoritarian instincts. were he elected to a second term, the damage he would do to the constitutions of our republic is profound. his reelection would be worse than any event in the history of america to launch the civil war. so it might surprise you that his piece was one of several cited by trump's lawyers in their petition to the supreme court a about the colorado case. and that's because despite everything i just quoted for you, the title the of the professor's piece is this. the supreme court must unanimously strike down trump's

ballot removal. >> professor, thank you for being here. you think trump's election would be catastrophic, but so too would be his removal from the ballot. >> because the constitution does not give a state judge or a state court the power to remove a federal officer absent some federal legislation that congress enacted to describe how that is done. and that conclusion is pretty clear and this case should be immediately reversed so we get on to the political question of whether this man ought to be elected president. >> you often hear people say just apply the law. i'm going to put on the screen section 3 of the 14th amendment. you know it well. i'm not sure if you'll be able to read along with me. but it says it begins no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or a elector of president or vice president or hold any office.

i have highlighted aspects of this. on one hand, you say, well, it refers to senator or representative or even elector, but it doesn't say president. on the other hand, it does say hold any office and he has held an office. it does say take an oath and he's taken an oath. it does say officer is the president not an officer. it's ambiguous at best, right? >> i think it's ambiguous at best. i'm willing to concede that congress would have the power to pass a law that says here's the procedure by which a president or senator or representative could be excluded from the ballot based on the claim they have engage d in insurrection. but the point is the supreme court in section 2 has made clear that it's not going to interpret section 2 without congressional authorization through some statute. i think the same reasoning applies to section 3. because it's not appropriate for the court to make up the rules

that it's going to apply to determine whether insurrection has been committed, how exactly you prove such a fact and so therefore, the question isn't whether the constitution authorizes the exclusion, the question is whether it authorizes the exclusion by a state court without any statute from congress that says this is how you go through the procedure to exclude someone. >> professor, you know that some trump supporters say this is all undemocratic. the idea that a secretary of state would make a decision to remove him from the ballot. and then you get those like judge looudic i guess who say what could be more democratic than enforcing the constitution of the united states. how do you see that issue? >> i think he's one of the greatest judges we have. but the question is what the constitution permits a judge to

do absent congressional action. the 14th amendment section 5 says it's congress that shall enforce the 14th amendment through appropriate legislation. what we know is a that means in some cases we need congress to pass a law before judges can step in and enforce the provisions of the amendment. so again, i'm happy to say there could be a law that says here's how you exclude a president, but i don't think without a law a judge, especially a state court judge, can exclude him. never before have we seen state court judges excludeing even state's officers without some authorizing legislation from the state. so this is a principle about limiting the scope of judicial power. it's not a principle about limbing the reach of the constitution. >> you argued and published for medium. i'm going to put up what you published. you said the decision to remove trump would have none of these

characteristics. there's no clear line for applying rebellion. there's no clear statement that it applies to the president. there's no popular long standing understanding confirming its application. there's no clear procedure for determining the facts if congress decides he engage d in insurrection, but florida decides he did not. is the court to then engage in fact finding of its own. and what you have most articulated is a desire that this be a 9-0 decision. even if they take the position that you don't think is correct, you don't want to see a split. explain that. >> i'm deeply concerned about the consequences of this decision for the supreme court. many people say forget the supreme court. i get ta. but as a law professor, it's important to me that the supreme court sustain its authority as a critical element of our government and acting in wits that are not political. i would disagree with the

decision to remove donald trump. if they do that, they should do that unanimously so people don't think it's a partisan judgment by just judges that don't like donald trump. and the same thing the other way around. if they decide to remove him, i hope -- i mean keep him, i hope all nine justices would say the is same thing so we can move beyond the question of whether this is a judgment by republican justices who are conservative justices to a judgment about this is a judgment by justice who is are applying the law about limiting their own authority absent congressional authorization through a statute. >> you have inspire d today's poll question at smerconish.com. i'm asking where is donald trump more vulnerable via constitution? we're putting it on the screen. where is former president trump more vulnerable in the realm of

constitutional interpretation or at the ballot box? you get the final word on that. go ahead. >> i hope it's at the ballot box. that's how a democracy needs to function. i fear that 23 if the court kicks him off, we'll have the next ten years of an argument about whether judges changed our democracy by removing the leading candidate in the republican party. >> professor, thank you so much. nice to have you and your former pupil here in the same segment. >> great to see you. >> hit me up on social media i'll read sol responses throughout the course of the program. this comes from x. can you please take off your appeasing hat and start standing up for this country and our collective future. i'm not even reading anymore. i'm just going to say this. you heard from two brilliant minds in elie honig and lawrence lessig analyzing what's most important as we approach now 2024. and it's not so much what's

going to happen in iowa or. it's not so much what's going to happen in new hampshire. it's what's going to happen in the courts on tuesday in d.c. and the court of appeals. when we get to that argument relative to colorado and maine, you ought to be thanking me for presenting to you the content that allows you to follow along what's really going to determine the outcome of the 2024 election. up ahead, thug back to when he was president generally speaking. would you say donald trump's policies helped or hurt you personally? and what about biden's policies? surprising results. we have renowned iowa pollster coming up. trump has a lead in iowa, but does that mean it's a lock? and with the intensifying political polarization, is america headed to an economic and societal crises?

that's the warning from my next guest, the former governor of indiana and president of purdue. if you haven't signed up for my free newsletter, check that out. that's the type of exclusive content you get in this case from steve breen talking about the national debt.

is a major economic and social crisis in america inevitable? that's the thesis of a recent piece in the "washington post" by mitch daniels. former governor of indiana and president emeritus of purdue university. daniel cites a variety of experts that predict our pile-up of crises, debt, fundamental disagreement, it's going to lead to a revolution or reset or a turning, as has happened in the past. one democratic historian compares it to upheavals in the 1960s, 1920s this redefined america. had joints me now. thank you for being here. we don't know our history, so we think that things that worry you can't happen again. isn't that it? >> that's certainly a reason that people might find this surprising. we have lived in relatively f dwrou look a all the way back

through history, relatively happy and peaceful and prosperous times. than anything humanity has seen before. so but these things do happen. it doesn't mean they can't and there aren't reasons to worry. >> which worries you more, the economic considerations or the societal/cultural? >> i think the economic. they are both very, very troubling. but of all the forecasts that i i chronicled in the piece, i hope they are all wrong and i hope i'm wrong, but the one that is the most obvious and certain is mathematically certain we're going to have a terrible crunch with the bills we have, the debts we have run up and the commitments we have made. we have passed the point where we can deal with them without

some very bone jarring sets of events. so a that one, i think, is completely unavoidable and make the most eminent. >> so you published this work coincide ing with, and i'm sure you put it to bed before the figures came out, but this week brought the announce the the the we passed the line of $34 trillion in national debt. it's a hard issue, i think, for voters to wrap their heads around. what does it really have to do with me? they hear worry about it time and time again, but the country hasn't done anything about it. >> $34 trillion, i was stunned at $12, $14, $16 trillion. we have become desensitized to these numbers. what people can get their head around is that there's going to be a betrayal of the promises that have been made.

our safety net programs, particularly social security, medicare, we're not going to have the money to pay for them. we'll never be able at that point to tax the nation sufficiently enough to keep all those promises. that's going to be, to me, an economic catastrophe of some order, but even worse than that, a moment of social betrayal. people are going to want to know who was at at the switch when we ran down that track. >> here's some of the thinking that you cited in your piece in the post. i'll put it on the screen. in the fourth turning is here, demographic historian neil howe arrived at a similar conclusion. his view springs from a conviction that human history follows highly predictable cycles based on the typical human life span of 80 years or so, and the differing exp

experiences of four generations within that span. the next turning, he predicts, is due in about 2033. it will resemble those in the 1760s, 1850s, 1920s, howe writes that produced bone-jarring crises that american society emerged wholly transformed. why did you find that predictive? >> i don't know if it's predictive, but it's interesting. i thus it's probably a little overdrawn. maybe sort of forcing facts into a theory that he has. back to your first question, it's worth reading because it teaches a lot of history. it teaches that these sorts of crises do happen. and it may have the elements of the next one right in front of us. >> governor, you also write that social cohesion tends to come from matters of crises like that, which worries you. i'm not convinced that's going to happen. jeff greenfield, the deep-thinking historian, looked

into is this within the last year or two, wrote about it and said, it's really only when we're attacked. think december 7, think 9/11. we might not necessarily all saddle up together, god forbid if this happens. >> i think that's right. we saw a temporary unification of the con country after 9/11, but it didn't last long. some of us thought that the pandemic, another threat to the entire nation, might bring to it about some degree of collective identity and collective action. instead, people went to their political corners and made their own medical judgments sometimes that way. so that was not very encouraging. on the other hand, we can see this happen, look at israel. there are places that society that argues more vigorously maybe than even ours. but they have come together at a moment of attack and a moment of

national danger in a way that shows how that can happen that's a last way you would want to restore a sense of national moral and in this together attitude here. but that sometimes is what it takes. >> governor, here is a social media reaction from the world of x. put it on the screen. that's a nice and optimistic way to start the new year, says bill. you would tell bill what? >> i understand bill. i'll just repeat, i hope all these folks are wrong. i hope that the con lugs i draw is wrong. i have been an optimist and a dozen years ago i wrote a highly optimistic book. we can deal with these problems we have as adults. adults make choices. adults make ends meet. adults prepare for the future.

they don't plunder their children's future, as we have been doing. we have 12 years ago past since i wrote that. and in all honesty, i can't make the same assertions now. we have two candidates for president, who apparently are on their way to the finals. both are sworn to make it worse. both are saying that they won't touch any of the entitlement programs, which is where all the money is. people sooner or later will figure out the mortal enemies of social security and medicare and other such safety net programs are the people who say don't change them. i won't touch them. when you're a passenger in the car heading over the canyon wall, what you don't want is somebody putting it on cruise control or stepping on the gasp. you want somebody to turn the wheel. right now, we don't have leadership that shows any indication of willingness to do that.

>> now bill is really bummed out. governor, thank you for being here. i appreciate your expertise. thank you. >> apologies to bill. thank you for having me. >> make sure you're voting at smerconish.com on the poll question. where is former president trump more vulnerable, in the realm of constitutional interpretation, think the colorado or maine cases, or at the ballot box? up ahead, all eyes are on iowa now that the caucus is only nine days a away. plus will iowans overlook nikki haley's recent comments about the proi marry process? >> you said about the primary process that while iowa goes first, new hampshire corrects it. >> oh, my gosh. >> my next guest is a public researcher who conducted the latest iowa pollll for the " "d moinines registeter." we'l'll get her r take on ththe of the racace, next. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. ♪ ♪

join the millions of people taking back♪ ♪eir privacy ♪ ♪ will former president trump secure the gop presidential nomination sooner than expected? the iowa caucuses are only nine days away, but rather than trade jabs on stage during the next debate hosted by cnn, the former president is and current front runner will participate in a counterprogramming event in des moines, who could blame him

given the situation. the latest poll out of the "des moines register" conducted by my next guest shows trump holding a lead over nikki haley and ron desantis with 51% of the vote among likely caucus goers despite a key endorsement from kim reynolds, desantis still sits in second position at 19%. that same poll also finds 73% of likely republican caucus goers believe that trump can beat boiden regardless of his legal challenges, which is up from 65% back in october. on thursday governor desantis was quick to dismiss his poor polling numbers in the hawkeye state. >> those polls have never predicted the caucus because it's hard to determine who is going to show up. so that's why i don't think we put any stock in that. the people that swoop in and do a rally here or there, the people that just spend gobs of money on television, it typically doesn't work.

>> if trump were to win the iowa caucus, is it game over for ron desantis and nikki haley? joining me is iowa pollster and public opinion researcher jay ann celer is. the site has been called the best pollster in politics. thank you so much for being here. in your experience, has any candidate for either party ever been in the position that trump finds himself today and lost iowa? >> yes, but, so it never at this stage of the cycle has anyone cracked the 50% mark. bob dole many years ago polled at 50%, but that was early on. and then the excompetition heat up and he didn't end up where he started out. so this is late in the cycle for someone to be above 50%. >> i remember conversation in 2016 where trump opponents would

say those who didn't want him to win the nomination, if only the field would consolidate. here we are in 2024. there really has been consolidation of the field, but it hasn't hurt him. what's your analysis of that? >> our december poll up end ed the conventional wisdom in several ways. people thought as candidates who were not named trump dropped out, that would mean that the non-trump candidates who remained would do better. the only candidate who did better was ron desantis, and it was just by 3%. in fact, donald trump's standing improved by 8%. so the idea that fewer candidates would hurt trump, our poll would defy that. >> i think to many of us who watch the trump rallies, we think it's jury st an opportuni for him to come out and deliver one liners and enthuse his base,

but i know from reading of some of your analysis, there's much more going on at those rallies from ab organizational standpoint than meets the eye. will you speak to that? >> this is what i'm hearing anecdotally. it harkens back to the rallies that george w. bush was holding close to the caucus. it wasn't just let's a all get together and feel good. it was marching orders. there were instructions. it was how to get your commitment card signed. and go out and talk to your friends and neighbors, bring them all to caucus. i think the planning in place with those rallies is to overwhelm even what current polling might be showing. >> defying expectations, we always want to know who is going to defy expectations in iowa. so the caucus is nine days away. ten days from now, who perhaps will have defied those expectations? >> i think that's anybody's

call. if you remember 2012, a candidate name d rick santorum was polling in single digits all through the cycle until the first day of our final precaucus poll. he got double digits. the next night, more, more, until the trajectory had him coming up and almost meeting mitt romney. and rick santorum won the iowa caucus. he came from out of nowhere. we have seen it happen. that little whisper in my ear says it could happen again. who knows. anything could happen. >> you're an unaligned pollster. a finding relative to the general election is i think stunning. i'm going to put it on the screen and read it aloud to the audience. question was asked, generally speaking, would you say that president biden's policies have helped or hurt you personally. he comes out at a net negative

30%. and yet when donald trump is referenced, thinking back to when when he was president, generally speaking, would you say that donald trump's policies helped or hurt you personally, he's at plus 12%. analyze that data. first of all, does it comport with what you're find ing in iowa? >> we have not asked that identical question. what ily say is the people supportive of trump are articulate in things that i have observed that they liked the policy. thinker life was better under that. i cannot tell you that it matched what we were poll ing about him at the time he was president. so i think there's sometimes there's a halo effect on the memory of the candidate that you like that when that person was in charge, things had to have been better. >> via the "des moines register," i read your polling

from december. am i correct in saying there will be one more this you're soon to drop within the next nine days, a final poll? >> if history is any guide, we do a final poll right up close to the caucuses. >> thank you so much for being here. appreciate your expertise and analysis. checking in on social media comments now. what do we have? from the world of x or twitter. third party candidates will decide the 2024 presidential race, so answer to the poll question will will depend on what that will look like. we we still have robert f. kennedy jr. out there. the news was that he qualified for the utah ballot. i think that the great challenge for him is whether he's going to be able to get on a sufficient number of ballots to really be im impactful in this ritz. by the way, i did a radio interview with the head of the libertarian party a month or so ago where she did not rule out the prospect that rfk could also

make a bid to be their candidate. keep your eye on that. and you have no labels. you have joe lieberman, that whole effort. they say they are not going to determine until the spring whether they are going to move forward, but third party candidacies i think for the first time since '92 are going to play a significant role. still to come, more of your best is and worst comments. don't frgt to vote on today's poll question. where is former president trump more vulnerable in the realm of constitutional interpretation, think colorado or maine, or is it at the ballot box? while you're there, sign up for the free daily newsletter.

make sure you the follow me in all the usual places on social media. i do enjoy responding in realtime. i don't see them in advance. to your social media reactions,

what do we have? from x, let the people decide if trump should be president. i dislike him, but i dislike biden's policies more. partisan state hacks should not remove candidates from the ballot. i come to the same conclusion, but not through the same logic. that's not the way that i would phrase it. i'm in the same category as professor lessig. hence, today's poll question at smerconish.com. i don't think the way for those who want the to defeat trump is to defeat him through the secretary of state of colorado and the supreme court saying we're going to disqualify him from the ballot. can i put the 14th amendment back on the screen. do you have that handy? it's ambiguous at best. no person shall be a senator or representative in congress or a elector of president is and vice president, leave it up there for a second. they articulate senator, they articulate representative, they

articulate elector, but they don't say president. you can say, wait a minute, did the president take an oath. yeah, he did. is he an officer of the united states, i would think so. but it's ambiguous, but i don't think that's the way to which defeat donald trump, those who want to defeat donald trump. not through that mechanism. it's not the same for the four indictments. the four indictments are the not going to remove him from the ballot. the they are going to provide you, if there's a trial, with information that you need to go make a decision before you cast a ballot. but it shouldn't be through the 14th amendment application. what else? trump is running out the clock with his judges on scotus. i don't think that's necessarily the case. i would be disappointed if it breaks 6-3 in terms of how this

turns out. is he running out the clock, absolutely. many people criticized me and said why are you critical of jack smith because i have been critical of jack smith in not flat out saying that he wants to try trump before the election. he doesn't say that, but that's the basis for trying to get expedited review of of the cases that i'm discussing here. and people have said, why don't you criticize trump because trump is try og to run out the clock. he is trying to run out the clock for sure. my answer is to say because the case against donald trump is united states vs. donald trump. it's like all of us. we can't speak for trump, but we can speak for our government. i don't think the government should hide the ball in that regard. flat out tell people, we want the case tried because we think the voters need to know this information before they cast a ballot as between er still to come, the final results of the poll question from smerconish.com.

i will be curious to see the rule. where, where is donald trump more vulnerable? is it in the legal challenges that we've been discussing or is it, you know, when he stands before the electorate? by the way, if you subscribe to the daily knews letter you will get exclusive editorial cartoons like this commentary from the great rob rogers. really great. well done. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie.

and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. so there's the results so far of today's poll question. at smerconish.com. i like the voting, trump tower 5,293. i was worried it was a bit egg headish. where is former president donald trump more vulnerable. 59% say he is more vulnerable at the ballot box. i'm thinking tomorrow's poll question will be which will he face first, a jury of his peers or the electorate. social media, we have just a couple of seconds left. what do we have? from the world of x, why invite comments then don't read them because you're offended. people are frustrated because

you are arguing process when so much at stake, will america elect a con man, criminal, liar, thief? hey, i read all of yours or just about. i got halfway through and knew the gist. i read all of yours. give me a break. process is important in this particular instance. let me make this crystal clear. i believe that donald trump's immunity argument in front of the court of appeals for the dc circuit is a stone-cold loser. so too do i believe his argument in front of the dc court of appeals for the dc circuit on double jeopardy. but what is most important in that case is how long is it going to take to run its course, because that will determine whether there is a trial before the american electorate gets to weigh in in that case. that's what i was laying out for you. okay. see you next week. thanks. ♪ ♪ to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs

and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. ♪ ♪