, _ recently deceased justice of the supreme court_ supreme court, sandra day o'connor, who was the first woman _ supreme court, sandra day o'connor, who was the first woman appointed i supreme court, sandra day o'connor, who was the first woman appointed toj who was the first woman appointed to the united _ who was the first woman appointed to the united states— who was the first woman appointed to the united states supreme _ who was the first woman appointed to the united states supreme court - who was the first woman appointed to the united states supreme court by. the united states supreme court by president _ the united states supreme court by president reagan, _ the united states supreme court by president reagan, who— the united states supreme court by president reagan, who has- the united states supreme court by president reagan, who has battle i president reagan, who has battle with alzheimer's _ president reagan, who has battle with alzheimer's and _ president reagan, who has battle with alzheimer's and dementia, i president

evaluation with the participation of the public integrity council. the criteria of integrity must now be approved by the supreme council of justice in consultation with the supreme courtupreme court and the council of judges, and this threatens manipulation and strong restrictions on the interpretation of dishonest behavior. the higher qualification commission continues interviews with current judges and evaluates them for suitability held positions. over the past few weeks , the commission has sent about a dozen servants of themis to dismissal. who failed to prove their professionalism and integrity. this composition of the vkks acts quite rigidly. however , those who are used to under-the-carpet games and still try to follow the old scheme, agree to bypass the system. this is olena izovitova vakim, a judge of the kharkiv district administrative court. the commission began to consider the question of her dismissal from the position of higher qualifications at the end of november, but she does not lose hope. it was really interesting the interview that took place with her. " at the moment, we need to understand the whole level of nonsense that the judge carried at thi

january six trial date in his fate rests in the hands of the united states supreme court, mired in scandal. >> right now what is the compensation of a justice of the supreme court? >> oh, goodness. i think it's plenty. a [laughter] >> new reporting on the money was of clarence thomas and just who has been lavishing him with gifts. >> i feel like i should quit while i'm ahead. >> when all in starts, right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we have a stunning bit of unprecedented news out of the state of colorado tonight. it comes at an unprecedented time, with an unprecedented presidential candidate, donald trump. tonight, the colorado supreme court ruled that the ex president cannot appear, even appear on the republican primar ballot in that state because he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office under section three of the 14th amendment to the united states nstution. that clause reads, in part, quote, no peon shall hold any office, civil or military, under the united states, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of congress, or as an officer of the ipad states, to support the constitution of the uni

henry is a very loose i have enjoyed is now retired from the 10th circuit but he's a very lucid writer justice neil gorsuch of the supreme court is a former 10th circuit judge and he has a very converse occasional more or less folks style of writing, even as a justice of the u.s. supreme court that carries over from his time on the 10th circuit and i. so my perception that that tendency by justice gorsuch to use more contractions, for instance, has has had an influence on the writing of other judges, with it has tended to, i think, to make us a little bit less stilted because after all, if if if a justice of the supreme court can write in a conversational, folksy way, then why can't we? and is that what you go for, that that folksy way? and i'm specifically remembering back to the vaccine mandate case. you talk about deciding it on both the legal opinions, but the common sense and that they both pointed to the same decision, as i recall, in that in that opinion, i probably actually shied away from anything that could be considered to be folksy because the issue was of such grave importance to both sides. i tried to be crystal

of a truly grateful nation for her service. i am humbled to be asked to speak today. to the members of the clergy, the chief justice, justices of the supreme courtw americans, more than 40 years ago on a wednesday in september, 1981, the judiciary committee came to order. i was the ranking member of that committee, and the days' business was momentum. the nomination of sandra day o'conner to become the first woman in american history to serve as a supreme court justice on the united states supreme court. announcing her nomination earlier that summer, president reagan described her as, and i quote, a person for all seasons and it she was a person for all seasons for the world through her extraordinary service as a justice and, i might add, as a citizen. gracious and wise, and civiled. she broke down the barriers of the legal and political worlds, and the nation's consciousness. to her the supreme court was bedrock, the bedrock of america. it was a vital line of defense for the visions of our republican. not to pursue power for power's sake, but to make real the promise of america. the american promise it holds, we were all created equal and deser

henry is a very loose i have enjoyed is now retired from the 10th circuit but he's a very lucid writer justice neil gorsuch of the supreme court is a former 10th circuit judge and he has a very converse occasional more or less folks style of writing, even as a justice of the u.s. supreme court that carries over from his time on the 10th circuit and i. so my perception that that tendency by justice gorsuch to use more contractions, for instance, has has had an influence on the writing of other judges, with it has tended to, i think, to make us a little bit less stilted because after all, if if if a justice of the supreme court can write in a conversational, folksy way, then why can't we? and is that what you go for, that that folksy way? and i'm specifically remembering back to the vaccine mandate case. you talk about deciding it on both the legal opinions, but the common sense and that they both pointed to the same decision, as i recall, in that in that opinion, i probably actually shied away from anything that could be considered to be folksy because the issue was of such grave importance to both sides. i tried to be crystal

the ranking member of that committee. the day's was momentous. the nomination of sandra day o'connor to become the first woman in american history to serve as a supreme court justicelier that summer, president reagan described her as a person for all seasons. it was a person of all seasons that we saw during that hearing. and americans in the world would see her extraordinary service as a justice and as a citizen. gracious, wise, civil and principled, sandra day o'connor, the daughter of the american west was a pioneer in her own right. breaking down the barriers in the political world and the nation's conscience. to her, the supreme court was the bedrock, the bedrock of america. it was the vital line of defense, devoted not to pursue power for powers sake but to make real the promise of america . the american promise that holds that we are all created equal and deserve to be treated equally throughout our lives. the high courts that said, it is a body that all americans look for protection under rights. it is the u.s. supreme court that we all turn when we seek that which we want most from our government. equal justice under law. equal justice under law is a nobl

of justice, the supreme courttens manipulation and strong restrictions, the interpretation of unscrupulous behavior. the higher qualification commission continues interviews with current judges and assesses their suitability for the positions they hold. in the last few weeks. no commission already sent about a dozen servants of themis to dismissal, who failed to prove their professionalism and integrity. this composition of the vkks acts quite rigidly. however, those who are used to... to under-the-carpet games and still try to follow the old scheme, negotiate a way around the system. this is olena izovitova vakim, a judge of the kharkiv district administrative court. the commission began to consider the question of her dismissal from the position of higher qualifications at the end of november, but she does not lose hope. the interview that took place with her was really interesting, for now, here you need to understand the entire level of nonsense carried by the judge on... izovitova vakim, maidan judge, in nove

the loan. we've seen as far as we know an unprecedented pattern of wealthy businessmen subsidizing the life of a supreme court justice. even though the salary was never significantly raised by congress, he was able to attain this higher lifestyle thanks to these people that came into his life. >> he would suggest, of course, this is merely coincidental, nobody was giving him anything in return for something, judicial favor or a favorable ruling of any kind. he would write this off as merely coincidental and the perks of a friendship like anybody else. he, i'm sure, argues propublica has just been picking on him and are trying to single him out. what's your reaction to that, given, of course, there has been recently obviously this code of conduct now that has been issued by the supreme court, not a lot of teeth behind it. i admit that, but what is your reaction to his statements that significant this is merely coincidental and nothing that even hints at impropriety? >> yeah. i guess a couple things. one is we've been talking to a lot of judges, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, and we've been stru

the 2020 election. mr. trump has thrown a lot of spaghetti at the wall here in a pursuit of a stay out of jail free card, and now the nine justices of the supreme court will be the arbiters of the which arguments actually stick. so their opinions matter as always. but especially their opinions as it pertains to what happened on january 6th. and one of those justices has a wife who pressed lawmakers in swing states to overturn the 2020 election results, who cheered on trump supporters the morning of january 6th before things turned into a full-scale assault, writing on facebook, love maga people. and a wife who exchanged at least 29 text messages with former white house chief of staff mark meadows urging him to help overturn the 2020 election. the author of those texts was ginni thomas, wife of jti clarence thomas. now jinny thomas has sworn her right-wing activism does not influence her husband's work. when she was called before the january 6th committee last year she told them it's laughable for anyone to know my husband to think i could influence his jurisprudence. the man is independent and stubborn with strong character traits of independence and

the first semester of one of her classes. imagine what class it was in. civics. sandra day o'connor got a b in civics. in the presence of the president, the supreme court justices and all of you today, i ask you this. based on her 40 years of dedication to promoting the rule of law and democracy at home and abroad, do you think she has earned enough extra credit to raise that lowly b in civics to an a? [ applause ] what was she like? quite simply, she was a force of nature. when she walked into a room, everything was more vivid. she willed things into action. people had a very hard time saying no to her, except her three sons and some of her lively colleagues on the supreme court. she had unearthly energy as one of her law clerks said of her. her way of relaxing after a long work day was to play three sets of tennis or 18 holes of golf. as we heard, she would often drag her clerks out on big outings or hikes each year, rain or shine. she brainwashed us as kids to think our turbo-charged level of family activities was normal. did we need to go to a three-family parties and a square dance, yes, a square dance, in one night? it was not normal. she drew people in,

i'm wolf blitzer in washington, and this is special live coverage of the funeral of former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor, the first woman to serve is on america's highest court. the service over at the washington national cathedral is set to start right at the top of the hour. president biden left delaware for washington, d.c., earlier this morning. he is set to arrive at the funeral any moment now, we are told. and he is going to be delivering a eulogy along with chief justice john roberts. o'connor first met them in 1981, and roberts helped her to prepare for her confirmation where biden was the top person on the judiciary committee. and she earned in 1952 a law degree from stanford university in two years, but despite graduating top of the class, her gender kept her from joining a law firm, so she opened up her own law firm. she was mostly known for being appointed to the high court in 1981, but she is quickly one of the most influential justices of her era, and truly a crucial swing vote on issues like abortion, affirmative action and the 2000 presidential election and perhaps th

those are some of the key questions that the nine justices of the supreme court will have to confront when this case reaches them in the days ahead, and their decision could have far-reaching consequences, and similar lawsuits are currently pending in multiple states. i am joined now by one of the people who brought this issue to the forefront of the nation's public consciousness, and who has helped us understand the nuances of the case, but the esteemed formal federal judge g.a. michael lunyk, judge lunyk, thank you for being here. you and i have talked a couple of times this week, but it's not enough, because there is so much to this important case, this important 68-page ruling, that i want to talk to you again. so again, thank you for being with us. let's start with the colorado supreme court disagreeing with the lower court in colorado on one key point. i think that the president is an officer of the united states. on the other hand, both courts agreed the january 6th was an insurrection in that donald trump engaged in it. colorado supreme court addressed that issue in the ruling

the supreme court. >> i will send to the senate the nomination of judge sandra day o'connor of arizona court of appeals for confirmation as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. she is truly. a person for all seasons possessing those unique qualities of temperament. fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to the public. good, which have characterized the 101 brother and who have preceded her. >> o'connor was confirmed unanimously leading to praise and recognition across the country for her monumental achievement. but through all the fame and attention, her confirmation broader o'connor remain determined to keep her focus on our work. >> i have i'm holding >> while considered by many as a classic conservative o'connor made a point to listen to every case individually with a focus on how the law should judge the argument rather than her personal beliefs. and because of that, she became known as one of the most independent judges on the court and an important swing vote on divisive cases. despite strong conservative opposition o'connor cast the deciding vote in cases reaffirming and preserving affirmative action and abort

of the dobbs decision. he was certainly responsible for the list of judges that trump touted when he was running for president, that this is where the supreme court justices come from. by the way, all of them were smart people who knew they were taking a lifetime appointment, and a cut in salary. i'm not going to feel sorry for clarence thomas. >> me neither. >> if these subpoenas are approved by the senate, and it's a civil contempt, and it goes through the courts. guess where it ends up? at the supreme court. so, this will be interesting to see. this is a real question on checks and balances. does the u.s. senate have the right to ask questions about the ethics, about the conduct of the supreme court, which appropriates funds for? that is a question that is not decided on our country, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. it's a sticky wicket. >> lots of tests on our system. okay, claire give you a well deserved complement their. what do you make of the questions she posed? i think, to summit, there are limits to what, how congress can do to investigate supreme court justices. they don't want to get into the internal deliberations of the court

the supreme court. next, we remember former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor, who died at the age of 83. >>> tonight we remember a trailblazer. justice sandra day o'connor, the first woman to serve on the supreme court, died today at age 93. o'connor paved a path for generations of women, including the five who followed her onto the supreme court. >> in my lifetime, i have seen unbelievable changes in the opportunities for women in positions of power and authority that women are well represented. that it is not an all-male governance. as it once was. >> during her nearly quarter century on the bench, justice o'connor was a key swing vote. she stepped down in 2006 who care for her husband, who was suffering from alzheimer's. five years ago, o'connor shared her own diagnosis of dementia. 1971, i guess, justice o'connor, then sandra day o'connor, asked the president to name a woman to the supreme court. ten years later, she was that woman. thanks to president ronald reagan. what does that tell us about the kind of person she was and the legacy she leaves behind? >> she was an extraordinarily strong wom

in all of these matters, the common theme is is that fact finding, the very basis of due process -- fact finding is not performed around the supreme court justices. fact finding, despite being the essence of due process, this court avoids like the plague. all of this -- the behavior of our friends in the committee, the cooperation and support from billionaires and judges and others, the mischief of not answering basic fact questions -- all of it signals that there is a lot going on here, that there is a lot to investigate, and that our investigation must and will continue. to be continued... and with that, i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. cliffy young is with us and the number of topics. i want to start with the americans views on president biden. >> their resid big story in the "washington post" yesterday that president biden becoming frustrated about his dismal polling numbers in the "washington post." >> what do you know about biden's approval rating? >> they are not good. and they've been hovering in the ipsis genera

with the iowa caucus is just 23 days away, some of those issues are finally reaching the supreme court purview, setting up the pivotal role of the nine justices will play in the months ahead. yesterday, the supreme court denied special counsel jack smith's request to fast-track an appeal regarding donald trump's claim of presidential immunity. some background here. trump's lawyers had argued that trump's role in questioning the results of the 2020 election was within the, quote, outer perimeter of his official presidential duties. that would provide him with immunity from federal criminal charges. ordinarily the appellate court would consider the matter since the trial judge, tanya chutkan, had ruled against donald trump on the manner. only after that with the question be put to the supreme court. jack smith requested that the supreme court circumvent the normal appellate process to quickly decide the process -- and presidential immunity. it is an important question about the powers of the presidency that the courts have really considered before. it could determine whether the criminal election interference cases against trump in washington d

to the members of the clergy, the chief justice of the supreme court, past and present, members of thembers of the congress, distinguished guests and other americans. 40 years ago in september of 1981 the senate judiciary committee came to order. i was the ranking member of that committee and the day's business was momentous. the nomination of sandra day o'connor to become the first woman in american history to serve as a supreme court justice on the united states supreme court. announcing her nomination earlier that summer, president reagan described her as, and i quote, a person for all seasons. and it was a person for all seasons. we saw in that hearing and the americans and the world would see through her extraordinary service as a justice, and i might add as a citizen. gracious and wise, civil and principled, sandra day o'connor, a daughter of the american west was a pioneer in her own right breaking down the barriers in legal and political worlds and the nation's consciousness. to her, the supreme court was bedrock. the bedrock of america. it was a vital line of defense for the v

you can vote for donald trump, is now the subject of a fight that will end up before the nine justices of its conservative super majority. the colorado supreme courting up a dramatic ruling tonight to disqualify former president trump from the ballot. the colorado court answered yes, over 213 pages, to question after question. yes, the january 6th storming of the capital was an insurrection. yes, donald trump engaged in that insurrection. yes, donald trump expected, and wanted, violence on that day. and yes, the courts have the authority to enforce the 14th amendment. yes, again, section three of the 14th amendment does in fact apply to the presidency, and arguing otherwise is, quote, flatly unfaithful to what the framers demanded. now tonight, the trump campaign is quickly pressing send on a statement, promising an appeal. saying, quote, we have full confidence that the supreme court will quickly rule in our favor, and finally put an end to these un-american lawsuits. now trump himself took to the stage in waterloo iowa just a short time ago, after the colorado decision broke. but, he made no mention of what the courts said there. now the supreme

out really explicitly. >> so, and along the vein of salary, in 2022, the average american salary was $60,000. members of congress made 174,000 supreme court justicesfinancial situation was what it was, which was not good when he took a lifetime appointed. any person taking a job would know they are walking into when it came to a salary. so, was there more to it than just him as an clarence thomas looking for some type of financial padding to what he was doing for the rest of his life? >> yeah. by the standards of average americans, thomas is extremely wealthy. we are doing extremely well. compared to some of the columns of the court, he was not rich. he did not come from family money, and he was 43 years old. that was relatively new when thomas was appointed to the court to have somebody become a supreme court justice to that young of an age. so, he perhaps idan have the savings one might have, and he said most of his career working for the government. as he neared the first tenth anniversary in the court, he was having more expenses come up. he took in, became the legal guardian to relatives and told raising this his son, and he was also buying t

the divine right of kings. >>> plus an american icon is gone. we'll look back at the life and remarkable legacy of the first female supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor. she passed away today at the age of 93. we'll bebe right bacack. >>> we're back now with breaking news tonight. u.s. district judge tanya chutkan handing down a decisive blow to donald trump and his team, rejecting their attempts to dismiss charges on the january 6th case in washington, d.c. joining me to talk about this, zachary cohen. zachary, what do we know? >> this is really a forceful rebuke of trump's argument that he should have absolute immunity for any crimes he may have committed while in office, and that includes what he said and did after the 2020 election. the judge in this case, judge chutkan, really making clear that she does not agree with what trump's lawyers are arguing in this case. i'll take you through a couple passages. the first passage compares trump to a divine king, says, four years as commander in chief do not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability. she goes on to say, whatever immunity a sitting president may enj

>>> we begin with breaking news right now from the supreme court this morning. retired associate justice of the supreme court sandra day o'connor has died at the age of 93. she is a trailblazer in so many ways. she was the first female member of the supreme court. our ken dilanian is joining us right now with more. ken, what do we know? >> we are just getting right now a statement from the supreme court announcing her death. the first woman ever appointed to the court, appointed by ronald reagan. the statement said that she died of complications related to advanced dementia, probably alzheimer's, and a respiratory illness. again, she was 93 years old. justice o'connor was appointed to the court by president reagan in 1981, and she retired in 2006 after serving more than 24 years on the court. she's survived by her three sons, six grand children, chief justice john roberts said the following about justice o'connor in this statement from the court. a daughter of the american southwest, sandra day o'connor blazed a historic trail as our nation's first female justice. she met the challenge with

supreme court. that is all members of the democratic party, all were appointed by democratic governors. and they ended up with a, a, a for 3 opinions. even the chief justice of the supreme court, a democrat opposed to govern moving from from the ballot. he's now been reinstated to the ballot in colorado. and i think the same thing is going to happen and named ultimately this is going to get to the supreme board because you have a mix of states. i'll have them denied the removal of trump, others. and these democrat run states are trying to remove him from the ballot because they don't think he can beat him. when joe biden is bearing is as boiled, as you pointed out, the supreme court's ultimately going to jump in and rule on this. and, and i think it will be a 9 o decision from the supreme court, and i think it'll tell me pretty quickly. it just underlines again that the democrats attempt to use the, adjust the system, the criminal justice system, the, the bogus cases that are pursuing against the missouri as courts, all driven by a fear of trump already. some of us refer to it as from derangement syndrome where their hatred of donald trump is causing it t

the courts have being drawn in to politics. i'm sure chief justice john roberts and the justices of the supreme court would love nothing more than to have to say nothing act the 2024 presidential election. now there's two separate lines of cases that are going to require the supreme court to get involved. one is this. can donald trump be on the ballot in all the 50 states? they have to get involved. because they don't want 50 different standards. they don't want states retaliating against each other. imagine in a red state said i think joe biden is committing insurrection because he's letting in these illegal aliens across the southern border and bars him from their ballot. that's one problem. then you have the appeals coming up as you mentioned, neil, the immunity questions, whether president trump is immune from prosecution by the biden justice department. that's coming up on a slower trek. trump is not eager for that to get to the supreme court quickly. it may be that the supreme court hears that, but may not be until after the election. >> neil: think about it. the former president lost colorado by 13 points. but if this wer

of vindication here to see the colorado state supreme court rule this way? >> it's definitely encouraging to see the rule of law working. the colorado supreme court justices in the majority did a really sensational job of answering every legal question and reconstituting what happened on january 6th to explain why donald trump did engage in insurrection, which in the meaning of section 3 of the 14th amendment. but it was a very powerful and exhaustive opinion dealing with everything from is this really just a political question up to congress to a question of whether the president is an officer under the section 3 of the 14th amendment to whether he'd, in fact, engaged in an insurrection and what an insurrection means. so i was very pleased that the rule of law was vindicated by the colorado supreme court in this way. and i would think that any u.s. supreme court justice who looks at this case through either the prism of textualism or the prison of originalism will find the colorado supreme court has been extremely faithful to the text of the u.s. constitution and also to the original meaning of the words that were put in by the framers of the 14th amendm

the legality of preventing trump from participating in the election, on the basis of the fourteenth amendment, and whatever this decision is, one of both sides will definitely not like it. the justices of the us supreme courthave to give a clear answer. it may or may not be a separate state, in this case colorado. keep trump off the ballot, and this despite two opposing decisions from local courts. the deadline is january 5, when colorado will complete its list of candidates for the republican primaries. dmitry melnikov and nikolai koskin, news from washington. the head of the nikolaev region, military administration, vitaly kim believes that not only 500.00 should fight mobilized, all 40 million citizens of ukraine. true, judging by the footage of the work of ukrainian military commissars, the queues of ukrainian ones. few embassies agree with this. andrey grigoriev, about this in detail. ukrainians in europe hastily rushed to apply for international passports; all diplomatic missions are overcrowded. this is what the consular section looks like. the country is in a stalemate, today the head of the tax office everyone knows that the financial situation in the rada committee getmantsev reported that the na

the supreme court justice set the first phrase, the concept of the emergency standard, louis brandeisinterestingly enough the first jewish justice on the supreme court. he first framed that content -- concept in a dissent. he said the fitting remedy to people councils is good ones. -- people councils is good ones bid it is not good enough for those of us who opposed censoring speech and his content we find load some, we have the responsibility to firmly raise our voices to down -- provide the kind of education and support that will deepen understanding and ultimately hopefully eliminate or reduce the hateful attitudes of which the speech is just a symptom. dean brown-nagin: thank you so much. let me go to keith, who is a political scientist. you have argued that free speech is under attack on campus and you have made the important point that these attacks have come from across the political spectrum. you also argue that these attacks are corrosive to the very mission of our education. i wonder if you can say more about your diagnosis of the problem. prof. whittington: i appreciate the

of the colorado supreme court issued a similar ruling. and that ruling is now being appealed by both sides the nation's highest court. the nine justices of the supreme court are being position to settle the issue of whether trump's serving as president, under section three of the 14th amendment which bars and the candidate from holding the office who engaged in insurrection. in a, ruling tonight, secretary of state road, and i quote, i have little trouble concluding that the events of january six, 2021 or an insurrection within the meaning of section three of the 14th amendment. the record establishes that mr. trump, over the course of several months in culminating on january six 2021 use the false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters in direct them to the capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power. mr. trump was aware of the likelihood for violence, and at least initially supported its use, given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric, and took no timely action to stop it. the weight of the evidence makes clear that mr. trump was aware of the tender lead by his mu

of the justices who made the decision? >> unfortunately the statue just referred to, where the death threats that came in within three weeks of the case being filed, they have increased since the colorado supreme court has made the decision to disqualify trump. both against me and against the justices of the supreme court. and yes, unfortunately i believe that they will continue throughout the united states supreme court action. at the end of the day, donald trump has incited violence to try to get his way. he incited violence on january 6th, leading to the death of police officers. he incited violence on some of the people who are listening to him were intent on hanging the vice president of the knighted states. and he has incited violence to election workers and secretaries of state all over this country. i just think it underlines that he is a danger to democracy, he is a danger to the right to vote, he is a danger to women, and people of color in this country, and whether or not he is on the ballot, americans have all of the power come november to protect our democracy and fundamental freedoms. >> we've had so much breaking news around maine and everything else that we didn't even get to the con

supreme court justices. is there any way to monitor or control these threats? what does the justice department, the fbi do when they see these horrific threats within 24 hours against the justices ofthe most challeing issues for law enforcement in these situations is doing attribution, trying to identify who actually launched these threats, and certainly if they were able to be identified, they would be criminally prosecutable offenses. the challenge, though, as you know people are hiding in plain sight. they're using anonymous capabilities. they're using anonymous personas, and it's very, very difficult. they'll work with social media. they'll be able to issue subpoenas, et cetera, but being able to identify the perpetrators is really a difficult situation, andrea. >> shawn henry, thanks to you. happy holiday. >>> and allies of president biden are starting to get nervous, according to interviews with multiple campaign advisers and voters in key voting blocks done by nbc news. they say that biden has not -- president biden has not laid out a second term agenda yet. and that he needs to. pointing to polls that show cratering support among young voters in particular. one campaign ad

especially crushing setback to donald trump's hopes in the supreme court is that the member of the court fully agrees with judge chutkan is one of the three justices appointed by donald trump. that means there are likely tonight at least four votes against donald trump on the supreme court, but only one more vote is needed to crush the trump appeal. the breaking news of the night is actually 25 years old. in july, 1998, brett kavanaugh wrote a 38-page article for the george town larger in all, complete with 167 footnotes. the title of what is now the most important thing brett kavanaugh ever wrote before becoming a supreme court justice is, the president and the independent counsel. brett kavanaugh reviewed the history of special prosecutor's going back to the administration of president ulysses s grant. on page three of the article brett kavanaugh writes, congress can answer a question that the constitution does not explicitly address. is the president united states subject to criminal indictment while he serves in office. congress should establish that the president can be indicted only after he leaves office voluntarily or is impeached by the h

court really wants to hear from the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is filled with supreme court justices in waiting. a lot ofrt justices, you know, over the years have come from the d.c. circuit court. they may want to respect that process. but in the end, i think a compelling argument can be made here for the speedy trial provisions and in the public interest to get this thing over with. either he has immunity or he doesn't, and the supreme court is going to have a ruling on it either way. so i think that's really what's want to drive their decision-maker. >> yeah, and of course, this is a court, the supreme court, that president trump put three of these justices on the bench. at the same time, it's also a court that has consistently ruled against him in some of these cases related to january 6th. so, is this something that you can really make bets on, or is this really going to come down to the actual arguments here that are presented to the justices? >> look, i think they really have to take a hard look at the public interest argument. i don't put a lot of stock in the fact that they were appointed by pre