i want to bring in karen smith. karen, i apologize. we don't have much time with you.lk about why it is you decided to get sworn in on this stack of banned books versus what normally people would be sworn in on, which is the bible. >> sure. thanks for having me. it's actually a friend of mine who mentioned swearing in on the banned books. i immediately thought, yes, after the last two years, what we've been through, here it felt like the right decision. >> were you surprised and that it went viral the way that it did and it has gained the momentum that it has? >> i was surprised, to be honest. but we have quite an important story here in central bucks. these banned books have become a center of the culture wars that have been profligate-ing the last couple years here. and the -- it has just become a real focus of the republican party and they've really lost their way. i feel like it is, you know, we've got to get back to focusing on what's really important in the classroom and representing all students. >> you chose these books yourself for various reasons. can you tal

instead of taking her oath with a hand on the bible, karen smith chose to do so using a stack of sixks as book bucks county has been at the center of book banning, targeting dozens of titles. the book, night, by nobel prize winner, elie weasel, the authors autobiographical account of surviving the holocaust. some others included the bluest eye by tony morrison, which community members in the central bucs school district push to ban last year. lilian duncan, by donna -- features a transgender main character, a local parents group move to ban that one. smith also included all boys are blue by george m. johnson, which velshi banned book club members might remember was our inaugural book. now, smith was already on the school board before she was picked to be president. she served in the minority with democrats while the republican majority passed policies to ban books and to limit lgbtq rights. during the new board's first meeting with smith in charge, it reversed for policies, to which made it easier to remove books from library shelves, one which band transgender girls from playing on

karen smith, thank you so much. we appreciate you. we certainly wish you the best of luck in your time ahead. >>> that wraps up for me, everybody. i'm yasmin vossoughian. i will be back in the chair and excited and sunday at two pm eastern. symone starts right. >>> and greetings, everyone. you are watching symone. impeachment is probably the highest power congress has. that is what speaker of the house mike johnson, that's what he said today and i agree. my question is why would you abuse that power by formalizing a baseless impeachment inquiry into president joe biden? we are bringing in congressman jim clyburn for his take on the expected inquiry vote next week and more. plus, the alarm bells of authoritarianism are getting louder. donald trump's tumbling down on his desire to be a dictator, and just for one day, he says he. we will get into how president biden is responding to trump's plans for revenge and retribution. and retired army colonel eugene vindman is running for congressional seat in virginia. he was targeted by former p

"outfront" now, karen, a former federal prosecutor who worked with jack smith and john dean, former nixon white house council and watergate whistleblower. karen, we're going to get to all of the new. we've got a lot of new. let's talk about maine nofor a moment. what do you makeover this decision by the secretary of state saying that donald trump cannot be on the ballot there? >> so, in order to run for president, you have to be qualified under the constitution of the united states and there's many different requirements to be qualified to run for office. you have to be at least 35 years old. you have to have lived in the united states for at least 14 years. you have to be a natural born citizen. if you recall, trump tried to claim that barack obama was not born in the united states. and another example is you can also not run for more than two terms and we were talking about any of those qualifications, right, if it ever came out that donald trump wasn't born in the united states or if he had served two terms in office, we wouldn't be having these decisio discussions. so this boils down

. >>> and now i want to bring in karen friedmann, former federal prosecutor who worked with special counsel jack smith and also former federal prosecutor michael zeldin. i know that you see some major issues with the rulings here against trump in colorado and maine. what do you make of what sean just said? >> well, he is well spoken. i think he is mistaken on the singular question of whether section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing, meaning it just goes into effect immediately. i think that section 5 requires congress to pass implementing legislation that tells the parties what their rights and responsibilities are when faced with an allegation of insurrection. they didn't pass that legislation. and without it, i think section 3 cannot be self-executing, cannot, in and of itself, be given the force of law. and i think that trump has the stronger argument here that congress needed to have done that in the civil context. in the criminal context, they did do that. they passed an insurrection statute that says if you are charged with insurrection, then here are your rights and responsibilities. t

smith and win to donald trump for now. >> for now. >>> i want to bring in retired federal judge nancy gertner. also, maggie haberman and cnn legal analyst karen. so judge, i want to start with you: what does it say to you that the supreme court decided not to take this up. special council jack smith had requested? >> i have two feelings about it. one is that you understand that in 19 cases, the supreme court under trump took up an immediate appeal on abortion cases, on student. on affirmative action. cases that were far less weighy than this. on the one hand. on the other hand, the lack of a dissent suggests that the supreme court maybe they think that the dc circuit is moving fast enough. they have oral arguments scheduled january 9th and they are waiting for that decision. and they could move expeditiously. they may want the cover of the district court. the dc circuit decision before they move. in other words, they have already seen a court of appeals moving quickly. so this doesn't necessarily indicate that they are not going to take it up expeditiously. it is already being taken up expeditiously in the dc circuit. that might be one reason

i think that's the way in which jack smith will present it to the jury and it's as karen said. the fact that it's the defendant himself on audio. makes its incredibly credible. for the jury. >> yes. i will say as ryan said, mcdaniel says if you can go home tonight, do not sign it. we will get you attorneys, to which trump added, we'll take care of that. making it clear. ryan, karen, marshall, thank you all very much. >>> as we are just getting this breaking ins in. and next, more breaking news. we have some new video tonight. it is from the southern border. and you'll see what it is. it's a woman and a child struggling to stay afloat in the rio grande. soldiers from the texas national guard are there. we'll show you what they do and don't do. and more on the breaking news in michigan. a special investigation into the state's republican party. the leader of the party being called a dumpster fire. fears it could cost him the election with all the breaking news out of the michigan. that is later this hour. >>> the texas national guard, both appear in danger of drowning as soldiers

karen freeman agnifilo. what does it say to you that the supreme court decided not to take this up directly, as special counsel jack smith had requested? >> i have two feelings about it. one is that you understand that in 19 cases, the supreme court, under trump, took up an immediate appeal on abortion cases, on student loan, on affirmative action, cases that were far less weighty than this. on the one hand. on the other hand, the lack of a dissent suggests that the supreme court may be -- they think that the d.c. circuit is moving fast enough. they have oral arguments scheduled for january 9th, and they're waiting for that decision. and then they could move expeditiously. they may want the cover of the district court -- of the district's d.c. circuit decision before they move. in other words, they've already seen a court of appeals that is moving quickly, so this doesn't necessarily indicate they're going to take it up expeditiously if it's already expeditiously being taken up in the d.c. circuit. that may be why there's no dissent. >> there was no dissent made public. there could have been dissents, right? but we don't

karen freedman agnifilo. do you think they'll take this up? >> i do think they will, anderson. this is what we call direct review, meaning jack smith wants skip the court of appeals and go to the supreme court. >> because it's going to go to the supreme court anyway? >> right. why take the many months it would take for the court of appeals to weigh in. we know it's headed for the supreme court. also, if you look back at recent history, this tactic of direct review was almost never done for a long time. however, the court supreme court has done it. i have to credit our supreme court expert -- 19 times since 2019. for example, joe biden's student loan program. they granted this expedited relief. and many others we have not heard of. this case is more important than any of those, and this case has more time pressure than any of those. so, i do think they will take it on this direct review. >> karen, if the court does agree to hear the case, what does the timeline look like, and when do we expect a ruling? >> hopefully it will be in time so that we can still have the trial march 4th in front of judge chutkan. because if it doesn't go m

karen freeman. what do you think? will they take this up, do you think? >> i do think they will, anderson. this is what we call director review, meaning jack smith skip that middle step court of appeals and go right up to the supreme court. because -- >> first going to go to the supreme court, no matter what. >> right, they know they're taking this somewhere other, so why not have the middleman? why take many months that it would take for the court of appeals to weigh in? we know it's headed for the supreme court and also, if you look back at recent history, so, this tactic of direct review was almost never done for a long time. however, the current supreme court has done it and i have to credit steve atlantic, our supreme court expert. 19 times since 2019. so, it is something they've done in cases we've heard of, for example, joe biden's student loan program. they granted this expedited relief. and many others we have not heard of. this case is more important than any of those and this case has more time pressure than any of those. so, i do think they will take it on this direct review. >> and, karen, if the court does agree to hear the case, w