joyce vance, andrew weissmann, george conway. s win, friend of ten issues with that you are, and hello to bonnie climate picture behind you. >> do you want one of these? >> one of what? >> one of these, look at this. >> what does it say? in my chiefs. >> yes george, i would like to wear that next week on the show, and thank you guys so much for being here. i appreciate it. andrew joyce, i will get you guys want to. coming up next, ballot battle, florida's supreme court will soon decide about language they could redefine constitutional protections for abortion access in the sunshine state. we are going to discuss that next. ine state. we are going to discuss that next. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. ♪ ♪ sois this yours?w. you ready? surprise! i don't think you can clear this. i got this. it's yours now. there's nothing better than a subway series footlong.

argued a should not before, in front of the supreme court which makes this a key voice for tonight, george conway who also has a new piece out in the atlantic, calling this an airtight ruling against donald trump. george, great have you, hear what i believe this ruling as you put it was masterful? >> it was masterful, because it combined so many elements. it combined constitutional text, traditional president, history, and just sheer logic, and the party's own concessions, trump's own concessions to make just an absolutely cohesive opinion that is just -- leads to the conclusion that he has not okay. it was so well done. also, another aspect of the decision which makes it even more bulletproof, the fact that the narrowly focused on the exact situation in this case. they weighed the potential cost of not having immunity which is what trump talked about, which is the danger of litigation which a criminal litigation which they -- they matched it up against as they are required to do by manatee case law, they matched it against the public interest. the public interest wasn't just the public interest,

george conway explains it all. i'm joined now by george conway, so please, explain it all for us. >> well, i can't really explain it because i've never heard of anything like that before. it is a very common practice when you are hosting a deposition, your counsel provides lunch for everyone else and they provide lunch usually in a separate conference room so both sides can have confidential conversations. and in this particular instance the deposition was held at mar-a-lago for donald trump's convenience. so it would have been perfectly understandable and was perfectly understandable that alina habba and the team of lawyers representing trump ordered lunch for their adversaries. and the same courtesy would be extended if the shoe were on the other foot, and he went bananas because of that. and he started screaming as robbie kaplan describes, screaming at alina habba. tough client there. >> there was this other moment there as i was listening to this whole conversation, and it's obviously not just getting my attent

i should note, before in front of the supreme court, which makes this a key voice for tonight, george conway, who also has a new piece out in "the atlantic" calling this an airtight ruling against donald trump. george, it's great to have you here. why do you believe this ruling, as you put it, was masterful? >> it was masterful because it combined so many elements. it combined constitutional text, traditional precedent, history, and just sheer logic. and the parties' own concessions, trump's own concessions. to make just an absolutely cohesive whole, opinion that is just inexorably -- inexorably leads you to the conclusion that he is not immune. and it was just so well done. and it also -- one other aspect of the decision, which makes it even more bulletproof, is the fact that they narrowly focused on the exact situation in this case. they weighed the potential costs of not having immunity, which is what trump talked about, which is the danger of a floodgate of litigation, of criminal litigation, which they pooh-poohed. and they matched it up against, as they're required to do by immunity ca

george conway is here. george, if this does come to fruition for allen weisselberg, the theme would be here in both guilty pleas, that he was lying on donald trump's behalf, would it not? >> yes. and it's not surprising because that's what donald trump does to people. we've seen numerous circumstances where trump has gotten people to lie or obstruct justice or perform illegal acts to protect him, even sometimes when he hasn't even asked them to do it. they understand what he wants them to do. you see all these people who were indicted, including his own chief of staff at the white house in georgia. we've seen michael cohen. we've seen weisselberg previously. we -- it's just donald trump is just a cloud of deception. and he is -- he creates a culture of lying and deception and illegality wherever he goes. and if you are associated with him, you have to be very, very careful. you're taking a risk. i mean, there are lawyers who are losing their license, threatening -- being threatened with losing their licenses

george conway, thank you for that. we don't know what is going to happen here with, is whether or not he is taking, it but big, picture how do you see it? >> i think he makes a good point, i think this actually will tie trump's hands a bit at the manhattan d.a. trial. because if they were planning on calling allen weisselberg to say for example, donald trump had nothing to do with away these hush money payments were locked, it was me, the cfo, michael cohen the storminess, he can't do that now. he's neutralized. >> it could deny trump a potentially helpful witness? >> exactly, it takes on an oil bird off the table as a potential defense witness. like i said before, in a calling as a prosecutor, the guys who would have at least one conviction, probably two for perjury if he takes this plea. but it also means he can't come in as a surprise witness to try and take the case in trump's favor. >> yes, it is remarkable, we will see what happens here, elie honig, to everyone here, tonight thank you for joining us on that break

george conway, professor rick hasen, thank you for your time this evening. we have lots more ahead tonight, including the machinations inside the department of justice around the report on president biden, classified documents at age. first special counsel jack smith is calling out trump's lawyers big league. more on the mass at mar-a-lago, after the break. the break. from pep in their step to shine in their coats, when people switch their dog's food to the farmer's dog, the effects can seem like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's just smarter, healthier pet food. it's amazing what real food can do. if you have this... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪ tide is busting laundry's biggest myth... that cold water can't c

george conway, professor rick hasen, thank you for your time this evening. we have lots more ahead tonight, including the machinations inside the department of justice around the highly cherry ridge report on president biden, classified documents at age. first special counsel jack smith is calling out trump's lawyers big league. more on the mass at mar-a-lago, after the break. you can replace multiple cleaning products. try dawn powerwash. a test or approve a medication. we didn't have to worry about any of those things thanks to the donations. and our family is forever grateful because it's completely changed our lives. it's time. yes, the time has come for a fresh approach to dog food. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪ ♪3, 4♪ ♪ it's an idea whose time has come. ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ is it possible to count

jean carroll, is spilling some serious tea on a podcast with george conway, who introduced kaplan tojean carroll by the way. carroll when did you see detail about what was like to depose the former president behind closed doors at mar-a-lago. take a listen. >> we have a court reporter, videographer, you are in mar-a- lago. what do you think you will get for lunch? where are you getting lunch? so i said to him, well, i raised this question with your attorneys yesterday, sir. they graciously offered to provide us with lunch. at which point, there was a huge pile of documents and exhibits sitting in front of him. he took the pile and just throw it across the table. he looks at me from across the table and says, see you next tuesday. you could tell that it was kind of a joke. again, like teenage boys will come up with. my colleagues are like, do you know what that means? i'm like, no, what are you talking about? they tell me, and i'm like, oh my god. thank god i did not know, because had i known i would've for sure got an angry. >> my panel is back with me. david, do you want to take thi

she sat down with george conway for his podcast. i want to play some first and then we'll discuss. she's talking about her interactions with the former president. >> he looks at me from across the table and says, see you next tuesday. you could tell it was kind of a joke, again, like teenage boys would come up with. my colleagues are like, do you know what that means? i'm like, no, what are you talking about? they tell me. thank god i didn't know. had i known, i would have gotten angry. we have a court reporter, videography, we're having a lunch break at mar-a-lago. what are you doing for lunch? i said to him, well, i raised this question with your attorneys yesterday, sir, and they graciously offered to provide us with lunch. at which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and threw it across the table. >> i don't know that any of that is all that surprising. it's fascinating to see, pull the curtain back and see what happens in the deposition versus what is nondeposition times. there you go. you know what you're getting. >

. >> they look at, it george conway saying it's airtight but they look at it and say maybe that's what we would write or we wouldn't disagree with that. i think the big question for trump's team tonight, they will definitely appeal this by monday. it's not clear when, exactly, but they have until monday. what argument do they make for the supreme court? because if you read there, there's a 57-page ruling, the eviscerate every ruling that his attorney made in front of the federal appeals court. >> cnn's new reporting that the former president is not gonna go to the supreme court to hear arguments on thursday. >> i don't think that's totally surprising. the supreme court is a different magnitude for him to go and be there than it was even for the e. jean carroll defamation trial or the civil trial here trended. i think it's also a calculation of how that benefits him and which attorneys he's listening to and how he's also balancing the judgment. he's not thrilled after the 83.3 million-dollar verdict. i think it's a question of what the legal maneuvering is here. the sense was, they were

. >> george conway, i want you to take a listen to the lawyer for the colorado voters responding to atice kavanaugh. >> what about the idea we should think about democracy? think about the right of the people i to elect candidates of their choice, letting the people decide? your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. >> this case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply section three as written. the reason that we are here is that president trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million americans that voted vote against him. the constitution doesn't require he should get be given another chance. >> i know you agree with that, you said yes exactly, but i don't know the justice kavanaugh -- >> i agree with that, but all also think it's interesting that the solution the supreme court seems to be headed towards does not respond to that. it is saying that somebody else is going to disenfranchise the voters, be at the congress on january 6th, via the federal court, we don't know what off- ramp -- what the off ramp they're taking is going to go. they are not

i want to get perspective now from conservative lawyer george conway, serves on the board of visitors for the federalist society. what's your concern about this harassment in the mar-a-lago documents case? is there something else the judge should be doing? >> obviously this is a situation where anything involving donald trump you run the risk of witness intimidation. remember the e. jean carroll case, which was a civil case not some kind of a federal racketeering criminal case. and the judge felt compelled to have an anonymous jury, and that's just something never seen even in most criminal cases with violent offenders. and so that's why it is very, very disturbing this judge does not appear at least in the eyes of the special counsel taking into account the witnesses that they could be intimidated, could be harmed. because we've seen donald trump in the past stir up anger and stir up people to do things that they shouldn't do that want -- in an effort to help him. so i do share the concerns people are expressing about what the judge is doing here. i might add that this is not the fir

and george conway joins us, conservative lawyer and contributing writer at the atlantic.s a must read piece out today. katie, let's start with you. we have waited weeks for this decision. many lawyers were getting more and more anxious thinking this was not going to go the way they thought it should. what stands out to you? >> one of the first things that stands out to me is that this is an opinion that all three judges on the panel have signed on to. they are not showing any -- there is no daylight between them. they all agree on every single one of these points. it makes it really strong in terms of whether or not this is a thing that should be appealed to the supreme court and whether or not the supreme court will take it. they've also put in a tiny mechanism for donald trump. he can't continue to draw this. out there saying you either need to appeal to the supreme court in the next few days, or you need to say you want to bring this to the entire appeals court here in washington, d.c.. if you take the latter option, that's fine. but the trial can start in february. so

i want to bring in more experts on the election subversion case against trump and, george conway, let me start with you. this panel meticulously rejected trump's defenses and at one point they called him citizen trump. not president or former president, citizen trump. do you think this is a strong enough ruling to withstand appeal? >> absolutely. both strong and very narrow and that's what makes it difficult for him to take up to the supreme court. strong opinion. it's air tight. it's methodical. it disposes of every single one of trump's arguments in a methodical fashion, even the stupid arguments, and treats them with respect but is biting nonetheless. at the same time, they narrowly crafted the opinion to deal with one circumstance and one circumstance only and it's where a former president is being indicted for having tried to stop the peaceful transition of power. and that's a very narrow opinion. that's another reason why the supreme court may not take this case. if they don't take this case, we're headed for a trial no later than june. >> historic, indeed. very significant. ell

. >> george conway tells it like it is. apparently, they ran into each other at a party. july, so the month after donald trump defamed her. she was -- people were coming up to her saying, you should do this, you should do that. george said, think about it. let me give you the name of a lawyer. he gave her my name. we had never met at that point. i don't think we ever had a case with each other. i knew who he was. i took the call. i met her the next day. i said, this is the right case. let's do it. >> edie windsor, the defense of marriage act overturned. >> i've been ways i've been saying this lately, e. jean and e.d., they're very similar in that they both have the perfect factual situation to bring the cases they brought. e. jean was this beautiful, charismatic successful woman, didn't have a previous wrip donald trump and didn't want one. what happened was so horribly violent and terrible because it was just coincidental and e.d. because she'd been in this marriage to a quadriplegic from multiple sclerosis for so many years is exactly the kind of spouse anyone would wan

>> no, look, coming into the argument, you know, like george conway and others, they make good sense think that hearing what the justices say today, you know, you've got to kind of -- it's like a cold water splash in the face to be an advocate and say, geez, maybe they have something there. maybe it's not a political off ramp, maybe it's a well-reasoned off ramp. >> interesting. well, you're reminding folks, and maybe young lawyers, what makes for effective lawyering. when you ran the sdny you used the same skills you shared with us. you read up on the case, you had a view, you listened to the oral arguments and your view adjusted with the facts and arguments as they developed. it sounds like good lawyering, david. >> that having been said, look, i also think there's ways to come out with a pretty solid reasoning the other way. you know, it's a tough call, but i do think that it seems like there's a lot of alignment on the court and my guess is they're going to try to come out with a precurian unanimous decision. >> yeah. >> i think they can do it pretty narrowly without hitting too

. >> george conway joins us now. do you think is going to happen during the oral arguments today? how do you expect the supreme court to rule? what would be the fallout if donald trump were kept off of the ballot? >> well, i'm not going to hazard a guess on what the supreme court is going to do. i will say this, though, i came as someone who was kind of skeptical about this argument. i read the article, the law review article that started this ball rolling written by two federal society conservative law professors, and i said, that's interesting. i thought, well, there must be some kind of, to use the phrase, off-ramp here. there must be some argument against it. when the colorado supreme court came down with its decision, and i'd been listening to judge luttig off along and he said, there is no off-ramp. i said, i'll take your word for it. when i read the opinion of the colorado supreme court and saw the dissents, and i looked there first to see what the off-ramp would be for the supreme court, and i did not see a g

conservative lawyer, george conway, is here to tell us all about it. >>> welcome to the lead. today we start with our law and justice lead at the historic trial for the parent of a mass shooter that killed four classmates in 2021. right now closing arguments are in the way in the jennifer crumley's trial and she faces four counts of involuntary manslaughter. earlier today she faced an aggressive cross-examination by prosecutors where she acknowledged she did not tell school officials that her son was given a gun for christmas. that same gun was used in the deadly school shooting. >> you don't deny that he did not tell the school officials about the gun? >> no, we had stated we went to the shooting range on saturday. >> you did not tell them you had gotten them the christmas gift? >> i do not think it was relevant. >> you did not go home to look for that firearm? >> we would not have a reason to. >> jean casarez starts us off with a closer look at the cross examination and closing arguments. >> you are the last adult to have possession of a gun? >> correct. >> reporter: the mot

it was a devastating takedown of the former president's case, one that attorney george conway describesng. after the ruling came down, he said by writing such a strong opinion the d.c. circuit may have h hastened the day that donald trump thought he would have. the best course of action would be for the supreme court to deny a stay and deny review altogether. in a matter of days, and that could mean a trial in the united states from donald trump. even former trump white house lawyer ty cobb agreed. >> this is an epic opinion. it's an opinion, if it's the last word on these issues, as it may be depending on what the supreme court does, will be studied in law schools for years. >> i think it will give the supreme court some pause because it gets these issues right. while it's compelling, historic, monumental, it doesn't sweep too broadly. they only decided the few issues they need to decide. >> trump has until monday to appeal the immunity ruling, which he has said he will do. then we'll see if the u.s. supreme court agrees with conway and cobb. that's where we start with congresswoman zo

it's interesting, molly, that you do have conservative lawyers, judge luttig, i'm thinking of george conwayut also said we need to reimagine a conservative legal movement that actually gives opportunity to people who want an alternative to all of this. but the fact that you haven't heard that from leonard leo, the fact that you haven't heard that from mitch mcconnell, what does that tell you? >> i mean, they're not very brave. right? this is such an interesting moment because you know, sometimes we're critical about mainstream reporting, we say they focus more on the odds than on the stakes. but this is a really great example of pro-democracy journalism. right? they're focusing on the stakes. they're showing us exactly what the plans are for 2024. and i think it's really important to appreciate that because that is really important. i would say the federalist society in the first trump term, they really treated trump like a useful idiot. right? he was sort of -- he did what they wanted. they got what they wanted from him. now, i mean, you could see he's sort of rejected them and is sort of

and after that we will have george conway, and others. come back, we will get going tomorrow morning. [applause] >> today, watch c-span's campaign live coverage of the south carolina gop presidential primary, unfiltered and uninterrupted, beginning with a simulcast of south carolina educational television's coverage, hearing from a local political analysts, experts, and reporters across the palmetto state and that primary results as they come in. candidate speeches and we will get your reaction on social media and by taking your calls, they south carolina gop presidential primary at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, a free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org/campaign 2024. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, discuss the latest issues, government, politics, and public policy. from across the country, coming up sunday morning, we will talk about the news from campaign 2024 was a republican pollster -- with a republican and democratic pollster. and we discussed the second anniversary of ru

now to two opposing views on the legal merits of the trump ballot ban, conservative lawyer george conwayback with us along with jim schultz, a former associate and white house counsel under president trump. jim, let me start with you. what do you think is trump's strongest argument today on why he should not be disqualified? >> there will be three arguments that will be made that i think that one is straight up that -- that he is -- he does not -- doesn't apply to the president of the united states, the argument there being that there are certain folks that are enumerated, and even when they were debating this, when this was passed, they actually had president and vice president in the legislation and they took it out, and typically when you -- when legislation is passed like this and you enumerate certain offices, the top office holder is first. here they started with the senate and went to the house and went to the presidential electors and went to the state officials. they walked all the way down the line and then -- and they used a catch-all phrase in between. the question is does th