looking at both of the questions is very interesting, and staying with it is our cnn analyst jennifer rogers, and do we believe it is a if, if the supreme court is going to take up the issue, and don't they have to? >> i think so. it is a federal constitutional question, and the supreme court is a federal arbiter of what the constitution means, and they are not going to let the secretary of state in maine or the supreme court in colorado define it, and so i believe they will take it up. >> and so in what way will they take it up, and will justice thomas recuse himself, and however, the chief justice of the united states roberts, you would think that he wants a consensus and not to be a 5-4 issue here, and that might mean that he wants a technical way out of this, and what might that be? >> aagree with you, john, they will, and they want it to be if not unanimous that they can mustard. i may go with the reason that the lower court in colorado, the officer component is not meant here, and the office of the presidency is not covered by amendment 14 section 3, and that is the technical reason. i

let's take it over to jennifer rogers.curious to get your thoughts on this appearance by hunter biden, really, a surprise. what do you make of that strategy? >> it's interesting, i mean, i don't know what it is, apr or political strategy but i think it's pretty smart as a legal strategy. hunter biden is fighting two criminal cases already, he certainly doesn't want to have a third for contempt of congress. and i think perhaps jamie raskin said it best in his five minutes or so, talking during the hearing, he has not failed to comply with the subpoena, not only did he show up today but his lawyers have been negotiating in good faith about the appearance since he obtained the subpoena so it would be completely unprecedented for doj to proceed with a criminal case here and i think hunter biden and his team wanted to really put the nail in that coffin, that he should not be criminally charged here, no matter what happens, no matter whether doj handles this as it normally would, or whether they decide to refer this to hunter bi

more perspective from karen freedman agnifilo, also jennifer rogers. also rick hassan, author of the soon to be published new book "a real right to vote: how a constitutional amendment can safeguard american democracy." jennifer, you have oral arguments scheduled to begin february 8th. what does the timing look like to you? >> it's obvious that the court really wanted to jump in quickly here because the primaries are approaching, and everyone's talking about the fact that the decisions were stay. the colorado decision to take trump off the ballot was stayed. so, he won't be off the ballot regardless of how long the court takes with it. but the people won below. i think the court kind of recognizes the stakes with the approaching primaries and really wants to get this done quickly. and the parties have briefed all of this below. it's not like anyone is going to be disadvantaged. the court will have time to decide. they're going to move it really swiftly. that says a lot about what they think about the stakes and how important they are treating this in te

also with us is cnn legal analyst, former federal prosecutor jennifer rogers. and senior legal analyst and former assistant u.s. attorney, elie honig. what's happening in the courtroom? >> things are moving faster than anticipated. e. jean carroll's team has one witness left, her former editor. her testimony lasted an hour and a half to two hours. today, it was 10, 15 minutes. >> do we read into that? >> i think it's that they don't need her full testimony. in the spring, they were talking about several issues, right? there were the allegations of rape, defamation, and damages. here, the jury already decided that trump a ibused e. jean carroll. here, they're looking at a defamatory statement made in 2019. narrow focus for the jury. e jen . jean carroll's lawyers wrapping up the case, introducing exhibits. a deposition before, trump confused e. jean carroll and his ex-wife, marla maples, as well as sort of a press statement. he did not take questions last week, where he attacked the judge and e. jean carroll. they're playing a few exhibits, then it'll be time fo

shan wu in washington and jennifer rogers joins us from new york. thank you for joining us. jennifer, i want to start with you, but i want you both to listen to how the attorneys on both sides of this case responded to that hypothetical that evan talked about from the judge about trump as president and committing a criminal act but was not impeached, was impeached but not convicted, whether he could be found -- could be prosecuted. this is how the attorneys responded. >> what kind of world are we living in if as i understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders his seal team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment, not a criminal act. president sells a pardon, resigns, or is not impeached, not a crime. i think that is extraordinarily frightening future. >> what he is forecasting is a situation where the floodgates will be opened. we're in a situation where we have the prosecution of the chief political opponent who is winning in every poll. in the election upcoming next year and being prosecuted by the administra

with me now is cnn legal analyst jennifer rogers, counselor, great to see you here.he first one, the federal appeals panel that heard arguments three weeks ago, january 9th, over whether donald trump had some presidential im immunity, over january 6th. three weeks no ruling. what's going on? >> i'm surprised, i thought it would be sooner because we have a trial date coming up. listen, it's one of two things, either they're really just trying to put together a comprehensive thorough pervasive opinion that they think that the supreme court did not take on appeal. or there's a dissent. when there's a dissent, judges engage with one another, they try to persuade one another and exchange drafts that makes the procedure longer. it might be a 2 to 1 split on this. >> as you say, it might not change the outcome, but what is the ruling going forward? >> if one has dissented it makes more likely that the u.s. supreme court will take the case. so if one of the judges isn't on board, of the nine judges at least four of them are likely to be on board. >> the one possibility is th

. >>> with us now, former federal prosecutor, jennifer rogers.ounselor, the fact that the judge agreed to hold a hearing on this, does that tell us anything in and of itself? >> not too much. a motion has been made. the judge has to dispose of the motion somehow. the motion is very bare bones. it didn't include any evidence. they said the evidence is coming. i think the judge is saying, let's see what we get. let's sort it out. if there's no evidence forthcoming at the time of the hearing, there was something about information that had to be sealed that had to be unsealed. i think they're thinking if there's meat there, they'll know by the time of the hearing. >> again, we don't know anything about the specific allegations. nothing has been proven. let's just stipulate that. there are questions that have to do with, perhaps, ethics and business practices inside the d.a.'s office in whether the relationship is appropriate or not. but then there are issues about how it should apply to a prosecution and if it matters there. when does it cross the li

. >> all right, jennifer rogers and katelyn polanz, thank tuesday both of you. coming up next a new controversy involving arizona republican candidate kari lake. hear the audio recording that led to the republican state's republican party chairman to resign. >>> in our 2024 lead it's the godfather arizona politic edition. arizona republican party chairman jeff dewit has resigned after seeming to make senate hop hopeful kari lake an offer it turns out she could refuse. the dilly mail published part of a conversation debit seems to tell kari lake there might be financial benefits for her staying out of the high stakes race for the seat of independent senator kyrsten sinema. >> they want to keep you out. >> i know they do. >> but they're willing to put their money where their mouth is in a good way. >> what's going on? who is it? >> cryptic. lake is already endorsed by former president donald trump in this race, and she still falsely insists she won the arizona governor's race in 2022. dewit who's also a former trump campaign official then appeared to ask lake abou

and jennifer rogers, there are legal issues here, because donald trump claims he wants to testify, but the judge has made clear, that he does not think it is a great idea, and if so, it has to be extraordinarily limited and if so, how? >> well, there was a different defamatory statement trial, and it resolved some of issues that would have been here, like, whether or not there was a sexual assault and whether or not trump assaulted her and defamed her when he denied doing so, and those are off of the table, because they have been resolved. so the only thing that is at issue the second defamatory statement, and if trump wants to testify, he is limited to issues related to damages. now, that can include his state of mind when he defamed her, but he cannot say, i did not defame her because i thought that my denials were true and he cannot say, i did not sexually assault her, and how he wants to dance around her is a tough question for the judge to handle it, so all in all, he will not testify, because it is too much of trying to dodge those bullets, and frankly, he won't be able to say th

jennifer rogers is with us. supreme court, as we all know, is designed to settle these constitutional questions that do come up. how do you think they would weigh this issue if they do take up this case? >> yeah. that's a great question, wolf. i mean, this is the u.s. constitution. we're talking about the u.s. supreme court that has the final word on what it means is and they have never spoken on this before so, you know, it's anybody's guess what they do except i think it's fair to say or at least i think despite what looks like a very persuasive opinion from the colorado supreme court and a lot of strong arguments saying that he should be disqualified from the ballot under the plain wording of the provision, i feel that the supreme court is going to find a way to say he stays on the ballot. it could be any of the reasons that kaitlan mentioned, the arguments that he makes, the heel ones, factual ones, but i think that they are going to try to find a way to say that it doesn't apply to him, and i think that the

joining us jennifer rogers. let's start with tomorrow and then go back to yesterday. with tomorrow, donald trump is planning to be back in court for the conclusion of the civil fraud trial. when it comes to this case, because it's an interesting one when you think about it, there's no jury, this is -- everything here is decided by the judge who has been overseeing this the entire time. what does that mean the defense team should be doing with these closing arguments here? >> well, they largely have to do the same thing you would do in a jury trial which is to marshal the evidence that we've heard over the last couple months, the testimony, the documents, and make your legal arguments as to why in the case of donald trump here, there should be no or less damages than the attorney general wants for the fraud that court has already found. they'll try to chip away at the notion there was fraud at all. all of that really is to set up the appeal. if you don't make the arguments below, you can't appeal them. so that's largely what they're going to try to do tomorrow. >> larg