how the ghost of bush v. gore looming as the justices weigh trump's eligibility for a second term. >>> and she's the 91-year-old republican who grabbed her constitution after the january 6th attack. what to know about the unlikely woman leading colorado's ballot challenge against donald trump. >>> but we begin with those hours of critical debate at the supreme court that could chart the course of the 2024 election. nbc's garrett haake is following this from the d.c. bureau. also here with me, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official, chuck rosenberg and msnbc contributor. garrett, i have been scrolling the headlines in the major national papers. let's see, "the washington post," supreme court seems poised to allow trump to remain on the colorado ballot. "wall street journal," supreme court appears skeptical of challenges to trump's ballot eligibility and the paper of record, "the new york times." supreme court appears skeptical. what are the big take aways that you're hearing. >> i noticed that trend, too, chr

. >> which we're not in the middle of all this, because they don't -- you know, bush v. gored they're the ones who decide our elections and tomorrow i'm sure they're going to be concerned about the notion that former president trump could be kicked off the ballot and that will viscerally, i think, bother them and it is unclear to me what they'll do with the immunity case. the d.c. circuit gave them the offramp, right? it's so comprehensive, the ruling and so detailed and very clear and so they can just say, hey, let it move right past and let the trial begin. it is unclear. you know, court watchers can count whether there are the requisite for those who want to take it up. >> ancush, you practice law and you speak about law to non-lawyers so i feel where you're coming from because i do a little bit of that, too. the problem with law and legal jargon and the ways lawyers talk is that even simple things get complicated. this ruling, had many pages dealing with banana claims that no lawyer accepts unless they're being paid by donald trump that no one in law school accepts, conse

that's what scotus did in bush v. gore when it told the florida supreme court it couldn't decide how to do its state's election in terms of a presidential election. bush v. gore federalized a presidential election in violation of the united states constitution. that's why al gore lost, because bush got the electoral college votes. the electoral college is dissen franchiing the voters. if you want to do one person one vote under equal protection, you have to have a popular vote. what's happening is they're federalizing elections through what happened today in the colorado case. states should have states' rights. it works for abortion, right? hey, let's kick abortion back to the states. when it comes to not having trump thon ballot, if you want to have a patchwork result, that's exactly what the constitution contemplated and joy, my last word is that it's what the constitution wants. if you don't like it, amend the constitution. >> that was a word, michael steele. i'm going to go to you on that because they seem to love the

we have seen this before, with bush v. gore, when there are votes being counted and they had to rush to make sure they stopped, and then bush was president. we've seen it during the pandemic when they just practically raced to carry challenges to covid restrictions. of course, there are people in the court who i think probably have an interest in delaying. a little bit of a rooting interest, political, ideology, helping donald trump out. one name that just comes to mind is justice clarence thomas , and the reason it comes to mind is that back guy is married to a woman who was texting donald trump's chief of staff about the crew, about stealing the election, and he's not gonna recuse, i don't think, from this case. so this is where we are. the soonest this trial could possibly start as may, and again, that's fine. that's in enough time. not enough time really four republican primary voters, we've already been robbed of their opportunity to know the truth. if the supreme court decides to intervene, then that could be a month. the

i mean, we have seen in bush v gore this court move very expeditiously -- >> because they wanted georgebush to be president. let's just be honest. they moved quickly because they wanted to very quickly install the five of them, including some that are working on this court now that were working for the bush side, they wanted bush to be president. they're like we have to do this fast. go on. sorry. >> i think another consideration, though, is this court doesn't necessarily want to be in the middle of the election. right? so that's definitely something that has to be weighing on at least some faction of the court. and it reminds me of what we saw in the trump versus vance and trump versus mazar cases the congressional subpoena, new york grand jury subpoena cases that were heard in the middle of the pandemic. again, in those cases, really hot button issues, could have had a real influence on the 2020 election if the subpoenas had actually resulted in the production of the evidence that was requested from both congress and from the new york grand jury. and instead what the court did was rem

bush v. gore they had to get someone in president -- or the president's office.e what you have is a desire by the government to proceed at a certain time when there's no legal requirement to do that. you've got plenty of time running out of the speedy trial clock, so i don't know that there is any deadline other than kind of a preference, and the reality is, look, no matter -- >> i'll let you finish, but jack smith's folks would argue, david, that you have a tradition of at least no political-themed action of 60 days. you have practical realities and it's not that the case has to be done by the election because of some political reason, of course, that would be untoward, but rather it's a case about whether this criminal defendant stole an election. so there is a great interest to the united states government to protect elections. >> the supreme court then kind of blatantly engages in politics, right? and no matter how they decide the case here, how they decide to proceed either they go with smith or they go with trump. they no winning for them here, right? becau

they don't want to have a repeat of what happened during bush v. gore where a lot of poorly reasoned arguments were invoked and it was a very partisan appearing move because it was partisan. >> all right. john dean, we'll leave it there. great to see you. thanks so much. >> thanks, fred. >>> still to come, while on the trail in south carolina, former president trump taking a swipe at nikki haley's husband. how she's responding. >>> and the countdown to the super bowl is on. what usher is sharing about his halftime show performance. >>> with just two weeks until south carolina voters head to the polls for the republican presidential primary, donald trump is keeping up his strategy of personal attacks against his opponents but going a step further this time and taking a swipe at nikki haley's husband who is deployed overseas. trump also saying he would encourage russia to attack american allies if they hadn't met their financial commitments to nato. elena has details. >> reporter: former president trump on saturday said that he would encourage russia to q

but it is an interesting open question and the biggest since bush v. gore. so it will be interesting. >> yeah, that is what i here from democrats who -- they obviously don't want trump to be elected. they worry if you eliminate him from the ballot, you with pouring gasoline on what is already a tinderbox of political division in the country. of course there are progressives a other and others who believe he should be barred from the white house. but definitely push/pull here. let's talk about what we saw play out in the senate last night. i want to show you a little bit of what james lankford had to say in the wake of this because he of course spearheaded this negotiation on the part of mitch mcconnell, he poured so much of his own political capital, again this very conservative senator from oklahoma, and it just blew up in his face. watch what he said. >> i had a popular commentator four weeks ago that i talked to that told me flat out if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, i will do whatever i can to destroy

i think this case, while the legal issues it deals with their different from those of bush v gore, it does have in common the fact that it's in the middle of an election season and the court probably took the case on accelerated basis because they want to have a definitive resolution relatively weekly. whether they achieve that depends in part on what exactly in majority of justices are able to agree on. host: george is next, john, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe you said that a conviction of insurrection is not necessary because the people who engage in insurrection during the civil war were not given a trial. if you remember, you create an insurrection if you are part of the confederate army. if you don't have a conviction in a court of law of insurrection, you leave it up to people's judgment as to whether or not someone is guilty of insurrection. if i'm in a position of authority and i can make the determination as to whether or not someone deserves to be on the ballot, i could say that joe biden participated in insurrection because he allowed 13 or 14 million people

what about florida in bush v. gore in the year 2000? our whole system delegates enormous power to the states under article two of the 12 minute. it gives them anonymous power to run even the presidential election. and then running that election, they really need to obey the constitution. part of which is section three of the 14th amendment. now there were other aspects of the case that i found intriguing but why don't you ask me what you have in mind and i will rather engage in a consultation then a soliloquy. >> you did touch on one of the things that i was struck by which is the miracle of the one state. how could that possibly be in an election. for me what was so strange about it was that was raised in that room, in that room where not just one state decided, but one person because it was a 54 decision in bush v. gore and one of the people in that decision, clarence thomas, was sitting on that bench. and so that means that a 54 decision. it literally came down to one person. whoever that fifth vote was. decided to the president of t

it's not like bush v. gore. they still as neil said they have the ability to do it, but if you look at the data of what they've been doing, it's not a good time line. and so i think, you know, it remains to be seen what the supreme court will do. but i do think if you're judge chutkan and if you are jack smith, you're thinking long and hard about in judge chutkan's case how do you adhere to due process for donald trump and get the case to trial? and if jack you're thinking about all the options you have to slim down this case in order to get it to trial. >> fascinating, really fascinating. i really appreciate both of you crunching this for us. and i want to turn your attention to another aspect of this so i want to tell our viewers you'll continue to have time to hear from both of these gentleman on all of the above. but i do want to be very clear about what we're learning because this is legal matter. our guests are standing by. i'm going to tell you the implications, walk through an important piece of this cas

bush v. goreearly a quarter sentry ago. now among the questions before the highest court in the land today, did trump incite an insurrection on january 6 as colorado's courts, including the state supreme court determined he did. does the rarely invoked insurrectionist ban apply to a president, to any president, and if so should trump then be barred from the presidential ballot, in the only in colorado but potentially in states across the country? we're going to begin today at the u.s. supreme court just steps away from the u.s. capitol where that january 6 riot played out. cnn's senior supreme court analyst joan bicuspik is there. >> sure, jake. i'm feet from the side of the supreme court where i'll slip in in a few minutes and be able to hear the hours of arguments in this case, and can you not overstate the weight of this because this case could determine who is the next president of the united states. what it will come down to is donald trump going to remain on the colorado ballot and on ballot

and chesebro worked on bush v. gore. so eventually his lawyers did confirm to cnn that he was behind the account. they did say there was clearly a conflict between the tweets and what chesebro told investigators and they get give us this statement where they said, when he was doing volunteer work for the campaign, he gave specific kinds of legal advice based on things that he thought were legitimate legal challenges of verse badgerpundit, who is this guy over there? just being a goof. just being a good as being a goof. right. but of course, he lied. that's that's what happened. at least they say there's clearly a conflict where they put it. >> all right. andrew. thank you very much. and outfront legal analyst ryan goodman is with me now i mean, it's pretty amazing andrew connects all these dots. kfile goes to the team for chesebro and they say clearly there's a conflict, right? but there's no denying this at this point though. it's important to remember just what was so central in the fake elector scheme. that's why andr

just remember bush v. gore when the state of florida wanted to keep counting ballots, they handled everything in a matter of weeks, not months. and between the final decision that they reviewed and the oral argument, there were only a few days in between the oral argument and the decision. there was only one day >> it doesn't make >> any sense to stretch this out this way >> just >> the fact that they are waiting two months when all of the issues have been teed up, where everyone knows how story ends is disgraceful. frankly, the way they phrase the question presented is scary and its implications. instead of asking whether a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for trying to prevent the next president from taking off office. narrow question. the only question they had to decide, they put the broadest possible question whether and to what extent does the former president have immunity for acts alleged to be within the reach of his office well, trump alleges that everything is within t

and trump's bid to retake the white house making it the most consequential election case since bush v. gorea quarter century ago. >> these oral arguments expected to begin in moments and potentially last several hours, and we will be here with you for all of it. >> and joining us now, nbc's ken dilanian outside the court along with andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of the moeller probe. and neal katyal. before we dive into the big question, your thoughts about the gravity of this moment, exploring an issue that this country has never had to confront before. >> the founders of our 14th amendment in the 1860s put this in as an ironclad guarantee that we wouldn't have insurrectionists leading our government, and the colorado supreme court said after five days of the hearing and hearing evidence, donald trump was such an insurrectionist. this is the first time the united states supreme court has been asked to decide this question. it's momentous, and it goes to really the heart of whether the 14th amendment is still part of our constitution or not. >> andrew,

>> i have to say i thought back today to bush v. gorectly being in the courtroom in 2000 when the court stopped the election on a 5-4 vote, and all of us were wrong in our predictions about what the court was going to do. i was sitting with great supreme court journalists and we thought the court wasn't going to get involved. that's given me great caution about predicting what the court would do, especially in these high profile cases which are unprecedented. that said, this oral argument seemed to show more consensus than many, and the fact that liberal and conservative justices were converging around the idea that a single state should not be able to are remove someone from the ballot suggests that there could be grounds for unanimity, which chief justice roberts likes and tries to achieve, and you can imagine a short decision by chief justice roberts suggesting that a single state cannot enforce section 3 on its own. but i really caution to say anything could happen, and with the supreme court surprises are much more common than predi

time that the supreme court was caught in the middle of a presidential election like this was bush v. gore in 2000. >> yes. but a much different political environment back then. thank you so much, michael. >> thanks. >>> all right, so rescue crews are searching for five missing marines after their helicopter went down in a mountainous area outside of san diego. officials say the marines' ch 53e helicopter took off from creech air force base near las vegas tuesday night heading home to marine corps air force station miramar in california. the chopper vanished, though, during a powerful storm. it was located yesterday morning, but snowy conditions are hampering the search for the missing troops. >>> now to that drone strike in iraq that the pentagon says killed a high-ranking commander of an iranian-backed militia. the u.s. says the commander was responsible for planning and participating in the attacks against american forces in the middle east. cbs' david martin reports from the pentagon. >> reporter: the drone strike in downtown baghdad engulfed a vehicle in flames killing a senior comman

. >> scott mcgrew says it is the most important political case to go before a court since bush v. gore important because the decision from the high court may affect who we can and cannot vote for. the arguments wrapped up a short time ago and a decision won't come today, but should come soon. to remind you the states of colorado and maine have found that donald trump cannot run for president, thus can't be on the ballot, because he was part of an insurrection against the united states. the states say they have that power under the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment is really vague. the amendment says no one who held office, who swore to support the constitution, but who then incited or led an insurrection can be an officer of the united states. the constitution lists examples of who is an officer of the united states, but it doesn't list the president. did the amendment writers mean to exclude the president? it never mentions the office. lawyers representing the colorado voters argue if the purpose of the 14th amendment passed after the civil war was to try to keep those who hurt t

we we know the court can move quickly when it wants to, as it did in bush v. gore move with lightning speed within days and had resolved the issue actually in favor of the majority of the court, which were republicans at the time. but it also in nixon us versus nixon, it took about, it took about just under three weeks 16 days as i recall to get the opinion of the court that nixon had to turn over his secretly recorded conversations. so the court is used to these kinds of big deliberations and it can move with speed when it wants to. >> also then compare that to this timing. if someone's at home watching and confused on the fact that what you just said there, bush v. gore happening being resolved in a matter of days, usb nixon, you said it took about two weeks after oral arguments before we got that and the fact that this took weeks to just hear when the schedule is going to be and now it's happening two months from now >> we don't know until decades after the fact that what happens inside the court and sometimes not even then with watergate, and that court, then t

you could say that not since the 2000 supreme court decision of bush v. gorential election. president biden, too, facing questions tonight about his handling of classified documents from his time as vice president and senator. the long-awaited special counsel report just released included pictures of classified afghanistan documents found in the garage near a dog crate. and while there are no charges, the report says joe biden disclosed classified materials when he was a private citizen. what could this all mean for the upcoming election just nine months away? cbs's catherine herridge has the details from the report. >> reporter: the 345-page special counsel report is critical of president biden over his handling of highly classified documents, including photos of records crammed into desk drawers, some in a damaged cardboard box in the garage at his delaware home. others at a former office in washington, d.c. special counsel robert hur writes that mr. biden's conduct presented serious risks to national security. but hur decided not to bring criminal charges b

going back to bush v. goren the supreme court decision and the united states court decision with briefing and oral arguments here. and yet here, donald trump made his application on february 12th and we're going to wait until april 22nd just to have arguments. so i am not overly optimistic right now. we would have to have a decision from the court that is more in line with the time like neal outlined like may in order to have a trial before the election. why? because the special counsel has already said in public filings, this is a trial they expect is going to last three months, not the four to six weeks, for example, that alvin bragg expects to take it his. the other thing i want to point out, and maybe this is just because i'm a word parser, both of these gentlemen know very well, that's an occupational hazard, but the question presented is about to what extent a former president enjoys presidential fluent from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. alleged according to whom? beca

you could say that not since the 2000 supreme court decision of bush v. gore nation's highest court taken such a direct role in the outcome of a presidential election. president biden too facing questions tonight about his handling of classified documents from his time as vice president and senator. the long-awaited special counsel report just released included pictures of classified afghanistan documents found in the garage near a dog crate. and while there are no charges, the report says joe biden disclosed classified materials when he was a private citizen. what could this all mean for the upcoming election, just nine months away? cbs's catherine herridge has the details from the report. >> reporter: the 345-page special counsel report is critical of president biden over his handling of highly-classified documents. including photos of records crammed into desk drawers. some in a damaged cardboard box in the garage at his delaware home. others at a former office in washington, d.c. special counsel robert hur writes that mr. biden's conduct presented a seriou

they are probably reeling over the bush v. gore and hanging chads.his case does go to an issue the supreme court does want to be involved in. it's the question of separation of powers. not so much an election year, but whether there can be a check or balance on the head of the executive branch. shouldn't the court weigh in on an issue like that? >> back in the day, i was covering the recount in florida. we were having these discussions about will the supreme court want to get involved? i remember people saying, they want to be above the fray. they don't want to be involved. of course,they did get involved. here, it's a similar scenario. there will be members of that court that say, the magnitude of this issue is such this is why we have a supreme court. and if they get strofed in that way, that will be very good news for trump if they grant this stay if he loses the case. i think the ins cushional interest of the supreme court in resolving this question is something that trump has going for him. whether that's five votes for a stay, i don't know. but

and that made me wonder because bush v gore it came down to florida and the supreme court stopped thent and that ultimately led to florida being the state that decided that bush won with the electoral college. for me, it seems like they decided that they do not want to rule because then trump will not -- or anyone will not be able to run if one state decides to bar him from the ballot. i found that that was curious that that was the focus instead of insurrection and whether donald trump's actions applied to the third article of the 13th amendment. host: pat on the line for democrats. caller: yes. good morning and thank you for taking my call. this is a disgrace and shameful, going after his dead son and his family now. it just proves that some people will do anything to throw some red meat on the floor so that people can lap it up. there is something in the bible talking about how you treat your neighbors. i hope that the evangelicals read more than two and three verses. it also talks about liars and how god hates them because when they lie they are haters. there is nothing worse than

given what happened with bush v gore what kind of appetite they have for picking presidents? justices will above did not get involved in cases of political magnitude. the interesting thing about bush v gore is how quickly that was decided. they had oral arguments of the decision was issued the next day. given our primary schedule, colorado is having their primary march 6. they usually take months putting a ruling together. host: david n illinois on the democratic line. can you hear us? we will try to get him back and in the meantime, let us go to the gym and south carolina. caller: good morning, how are you doing? regardless of politics, how many of the justices -- guest: all the justices have great credentials. all of them have different backgrounds. i think that helps complement each other. since 2017 and the changing makeup on the court. some reporters would go years without a new court member and i have seen for. sometimes i wish there were cameras in the courtroom because no matter who they were appointed by they tend to get along. justin kagan and kavanaugh often whispe

given what happened with bush v gore what kind of appetite they have for picking presidents? justices will above did not get involved in cases of political magnitude. the interesting thing about bush v gore is how quickly that was decided. they had oral arguments of the decision was issued the next day. given our primary schedule, colorado is having their primary march 6. they usually take months putting a ruling together. host: david n illinois on the democratic line. can you hear us? we will try to get him back and in the meantime, let us go to the gym and south carolina. caller: good morning, how are you doing? regardless of politics, how many of the justices -- guest: all the justices have great credentials. all of them have different backgrounds. i think that helps complement each other. since 2017 and the changing makeup on the court. some reporters would go years without a new court member and i have seen for. sometimes i wish there were cameras in the courtroom because no matter who they were appointed by they tend to get along. justin kagan and kavanaugh often whispe

back in the year 2000 when they heard bush v. gore, they decided that case in one day.ime is still of the essence here. the general election isn't that far away. really, the thing is whether it's weeks or days, it was like the justices will be coming down on trump's side, erin. resistance from conservative and liberal justices on the supreme court, pushing back against arguments for taking donald trump off the 2024 ballot. >> it will come down to a handful of states. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> chief justice john roberts led the sharp questioning, whether the states should decide for themselves which candidates are eligible for election. several of the conservative jurisdictions warned that allowing states to decide could create chaos. >> there would be conflicts and decisions among the states, the different states will disqualified different candidates, but i'm not getting a whole lot of help from you about how this would not be a manageable situation? >> reporter: even liberal justice kagan expressed concern. >> why should a sing the state have the abilit

this court could decide fairly quickly, case in point, back in 2000, the supreme court decided bush v. gore where they halted the recount to florida, they decided that case one day after they heard oral arguments. jessica schneider, cnn, washington. >>> donald trump is another step closer to securing the president trump nomination for the presidency. cnn is projecting he will win the nevada caucuses taking all 26 delegates. nikki haley refused to take part. trump told supporters he expects the supreme court to rule in his favor in the colorado ballot case. here he is. >> our supreme court hopefully will be doing something in terms of preserving our democracy. we have to preserve our democracy. and i think they had a very interesting and beautiful day perhaps. i think it was really a beautiful sight to watch. and it is the way it is supposed to be. and, hopefully, the decision will be a very important decision. >> all right, joining me to discuss this is thomas gift. thanks so much for being here with us. let's ignore the questions about biden's age and memory. we'll get to that. but just on

they talk about bush v gore. the bush campaign witnessing the state having the highest court decide the outcome of a contest and clarence was on the bench in the december of 2000 when they put a stop to the recount in sealed the victory. justice amy coney barrett was three years out of law school when she was sent to help bushes team. justice kavanaugh helped oversee a recount in central florida as part of the bush campaign and chief justice roberts had already argued cases before the high court was sent to tallahassee to advise the bush campaign and prepare the layers appearing before florida supreme court. robin from vermont, maryland. caller: i feel that he should be removed from the ballot. he is an insurrectionist and did everything he could to advance the big lie up until the election and all of his actions have been to expand power. he did nothing but sat on his hands for three hours while police officers fought to save those inside the capital. this man should not get within standing distance of the white

it was back in the year 2000 the supreme court actually decided bush v. gore one day after hearing arguments. now, granted, that decision came during a very chaotic time with the recounts in florida, which they halted. and of course it was just weeks before the inauguration. so, there was a bit of a different circumstance there. but in this case, these nine justices also know that time is of the essence here, so we could see something really in a matter of weeks here when often these big decisions might take until june. it probably won't be that long. we saw from the arguments yesterday that it really does look like there would be a solid majority to rule in trump's favor, to overturn what the colorado supreme court did in taking him off the ballot there. there was a lot of pushback and skepticism from several of the justices, conservatives and liberals alike. and the skepticism in their view was that it's unlikely the 14th amendment would really confer this kind of power on states to take individual people off the ballot that they themselves, the states, have

norm, i think this is shaping up to be the biggest election case we have seen outside of bush v. gore 25 years ago. what are you expecting here? >> the common sense nature of the arguments that the colorado voters are making is, look, the january 6 committee found that donald trump engaged in insurrection. the 14th amendment, section 3, says very clearly, insurrectionists can't hold office. therefore, he should not be allowed to run. it does have a common sense appeal. legally, it's right. we know this is a supreme court that has been resistant to these kinds of arguments. it's the correct argument. it's an uphill battle in the supreme court. as you say, the argument is going to be one for the ages. >> yeah. look, it's a monumental one. you and i were talking in the commercial break that there are multiple monumental issues playing out in the courts right now. one coming out of washington, d.c., the election subversion case. the judge in the initial case, the district level case, judge chutkan, may ivacated the march trial date. it's not surprising. it this a win for trump, because we

the next day the supreme court will hear its biggest election case since bush very gore back -- bush vresident trump can stay on the ballot in colorado after the state's supreme court ruled him ineligible. let's bring in jay town, he was the u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama when trump was in office. all right, jay, let's start here. border protection and security are vital. there's no debating that. is it helpful for the state of texas to get into a match with the federal government over razor wire and state constitution versus the u.s. constitution? >> well, i mean, think about even having to pose that question, right? i mean, you would naturally think that they both have an interest in protecting that border together. but here in this case the president of homeland security, cbp is essentially asking the courts to sanction not only their e own dereliction of duty in allowing people to cross into the united states at a place that is not a legal port of entry, but also the ability to destroy texas property which is the concertina wire or the razor wire that you mentio

cases, i think justice clarence thomas is the only one on the bench was there during the 2000 bush v. gore. i wonder what you make of how they are considering and looking at it through that lens? >> that was my first election i ever voted in. so it was disappointing to see the supreme decide what i feel like the outcome of an election. and surprisingly, i might be in agreement with tonight, my republican colleague here, i don't actually want the court to make this decision to take him off the ballot. i think that it will divide our country. do i think he is an insurrectionist, absolutely. i think the american people should stand up and say we don't want, him know, unfortunately the republican party is not, there he likely will be the nominee, but that is why it is so important that he is defeated in november, because i don't think an insurrectionist should have hold the highest office. i'm just afraid of what will happen if he is removed, and his base, and they have already said threatening things. donald trump and himself has not said he will try to stop the violence if people got upset w

justice roberts has been clear about that over time in some of his speeches that in the aftermath of bush v. gore, he was going to try to keep the court out of those type of disputes. i think the january 6 will be adjudicated. it could begin in may. what the trial judge said is she will give them a day for every day that the case has been stayed to prep. if the supreme court makes this decision, let's say, whether to take the case and assume they don't, by the end of this month, which i think is likely, then that's two months. add two months on. may 4th, the trial is probably a six to eight-week trial. it will be done. my guess is that he will be a convicted felon when he gets on the stage to accept the republican nomination for president. >> you put so much time and money into new hampshire. why did you drop out when you did? >> i didn't see a path to beating donald trump. that was my goal all along. by the time we got two weeks out, we had been polling regularly. we just didn't see ourselves within striking distance of him. because of that, i didn't want to continue on in what was going to be a

atmospherically it is interesting, when you say that it is different you meant that because of bush v gore are four dust justices who could support the florida supreme court one way and five who -- you are saying this time it's more unanimous. but atmospherically, tell us, -- >> that was different. remember during bush fee gore, remember that it hung on to one vote. you and i thought once they cut off the votes in florida, because of the year 2000, that the court was going to rule for george w. bush. indeed it did. but there was a lot more tension among the justices, a lot of interrupting, rapid fire questions. this was much more tepid. not only could you feel quickly where it was going, the rhythm was not confrontational. the rhythm was not confrontational among the nine. i've told many times how they talk to each other during oral arguments. they make it their own case to each other. that was not happening. >> in bush fee gore? >> in this case. in this case you could feel that they were not making the case to each other. there was enough of them that came into this argument, ready to rej

many of us remember bush v. gore, and the outcome after that case and how the court was regarded by many, perhaps even to this day, as having helped influence a presidential election. i think there are many ways they can resolve this without weighing the question of whether the president is himself an insurrectionist. >> i think it's stunning to so many people that a question like this would even reach the supreme court, but this is where we are. anyone can listen to these oral arguments, by the way, as they're happening on thursday. what are you going to be listening for? because often times how oral arguments go is how the justices end up deciding this case in terms of who gets the majority and why. >> yeah, john roberts, john roberts, are you listening. i'm looking for sort of his way of asking questions and how he might be trying to steer his colleagues to unanimity. i'm not in the business of pop psychology. i think it's in the interest of the chief's justice to have the court's reputation and integrity preserve

. >>> it's the most political court case since bush v. goreime i step on that field, i'm just so overwhelmed. >>> a group of bay area teenagers heading to the super bowl. we are live in las vegas this morning to explain when can you see them take the stage. this is "today in the bay." >>> a very good morning to you. 6:30 right now. thanks for starting your day with us. i am laura garcia. >>> i am marcus washington. first, more than 12,000 customers still without power this morning. here's a live look for you at pg&e's outage map. almost all the power has been restored to san francisco and the east bay, and the peninsula has 1,500 customers without the power, and the north bay about 8,000 without power, and about 3,000 in the east bay. >> meteorologist, kari hall, joins us now with a look at what we are looking like today. >> we are starting out with a chance of rain in the forecast. it's clear for now. temperatures are dropping, so we do have a cold start to our morning all around the bay area. also a coastal flood advisory will be in effect a

we all know san draw day o'connor wanted george bush to be president and thus appointed him in bush v. gore because she wanted to retire under a republican president. this is how republicans roll. >> wow. on that note we are going to have to leave it there. the conversation is by no means over. please come back. thanks so much for your time and your passions tonight. really appreciate it. >>> still to come this evening, the man who's arguably the most responsible for the 6 to 3 conservative majority supreme court dropped a balk shell of his own today. we'll get to that plus another breaking story. for the third time donald trump has been kicked off the state ballot. what happens now? more on that coming up next. t. ♪ ♪you... can make it happen...♪ ♪♪ try dietary supplements from voltaren for healthy joints. >>> we have breaking news tonight. a judge in illinois has disqualified former president trump from appearing on the state's republican primary ballot. cook county judge tracy porter cited the 14th amendment's insurrection clause in her ruling, ordering the state's election board to remo

errol, the most significant case the supreme court weighed in on in terms of the presidency since bush v. gore. it sounds like they're going to decide we are not going to determine the presidency here. >> that's right. >> what i found robert's questioning on the 14th amendment and states rights really, really interesting and what he wants here is unanimity for the reasons that he has always wanted people to perceive this court as not political. i wonder how important you think that is here for democracy. >> it was extremely important. i mean, there should be some clarity around this. the main thing that the court can give us on this is some clarity. i thought what they kept come bag k to whether or not this is self-executing, do we need an actual law and procedures to bring this to life, not to say that this section is null and void or not relevant, but you've got to have a procedure, like, when and how do you get declared an insurrectionist, when and how do you get a chance to maybe rebut that if you think you weren't an insurrectionist. they raise good and important questions. then the pract

this is also the supreme court that reviewed bush v. gore in four days and its own written decision in briefing and arguments inde between. just four days. it also made a decision in the nixon case often used as sort of the precursor to this, seven weeks from the district court opinionwe to the supreme court opinion, again, with lots of briefing and argument in between. this supreme court is capable of moving, whetherof it wants to - >> is an entirely different -- >> correct. >> donald trump has had two master shows in this it feels like, michael. one is making the basic prosecution of trump and his inner circle appear to be a partisan witch hunt, right? that's apparently part of the reason merrick garland sat on his hands for lack of a better metaphor in the early days of the biden administration. the other thing he's done that's been remarkably effective is to suggest pex aditing these trials, getting a verdict whether guilty or innocent is somehowil partisan. that idea has really seeped into the ground water here, and it sort of feels lik

bush v. gore was another case in point. they could slow it down. >> exactly. ases you mentioned, bush versus gore and nixon versus united states were decided within a month. for all of trump's attacks on judge chutkan, she's a former public defender who is very concerned about the rights of criminal defendants. she said that for every day the case is on the trial in order to give trump's team enough time to prepare. so what that means is depending on what the supreme court does, we could be looking at a trial this summer including during the rnc convention, or even during the height of the fall campaign season. the other thing judge chutkan said is that court dates take precedent over a defendant's day job, which means that she's not going to factor in trump's presidential ambitions until when she sets the trial date. that could have enormous consequences because a criminal defendant has to be in court every single day. >> and susan page, let's talk about the biden white house and the reelect campaign. some significant white house aides have gone over to the ca

terry brought up the bush v. gore case in 2000.some ways this is far more consequential than that. >> this is a huge moment for the supreme court. it is a huge moment for the country. look, george, this supreme court is a conservative court. three trump justices. it's a court that's been mired in some controversy. but while it is a conservative court, this has not been a trump court. in fact, this court has repeatedly ruled against donald trump or shown independence from him. think about it. trump expected his justices, as he considered his justice, to help him overturn the election results. they rejected the efforts in that texas case in december of 2020. the january 6th committee wanted his white house records. trump went all the way to the supreme court to try to block them from getting them. the supreme court ruled for the january 6th committee. they even ruled prior to that to allow congress to get his tax records. the court has shown real independence from trump. you know, looking at this, let's hope this decision is not one

the span of a few weeks about one of the most consequential presidential election matters since bush v. goreto cross their minds that this is a real issue for them, whether or not the american public is just going to exceed to this ruling the way they did after bush v. gore, i think it just shows what different worlds we live in where you and i and andrew can think this is kind of a problem for the court. the court doesn't seem to have much belief that it's a problem for them at all. >> thank you so much for taking the time to be with us. andrew weissmann, thank you. for more analysis on the courts and the big legal stories we cover, sign up now for the "deadline: legal newsletters." sign up using the qr code your screen. >>> next, jack smith telling a judge today of online threat made to potential witnesses in the donald trump classified documents case. those details are next. those det ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪ ♪ you don't... ♪ ♪ you don't have to worry... ♪ ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if sh