supreme court nominee. other republicans, including people in donald trump's administration, who wanted him to pull the nomination of brett kavanaugh. he didn't know the guy. donald trump, decided to stay and fight. he got the guy on the bench. here, you have his lawyer. very naked on fox. i'm sure that brett kavanaugh watches it. i'm sure the justice watches it. saying that you probably like your job. donald trump, he fought for you. we will see what you do. >> that is a great restaurant. it would be a great shame if something happened to it. on the contrary, we were talking about abortion, death penalty, or firearms. matters that are cultural issues around which there are deep partisan divides. of course, it would be fair to predict a conservative leading in the supreme court to rule a certain way. frankly, we have years of data suggesting that. the issues at play, they affect republican candidates and their opponents. these are not standard issues. these are complex issues from constitutional interpretat

lawrence, we've seen many times, other cases involving trump that the supreme court doesn't take them. they take very few cases a year, about 60. but i suspect that this is one case that the court can't pass up. and indeed, both sides are basically saying to the court, to the supreme court, take this case, we hear this case. i very much suspect that they will. i think they can order a briefing to occur really quickly, and oral argument to take place in a matter of a few weeks. >> andrew weissmann, what stands out to you in the trump petition to the supreme court? >> two things, one is that as a matter of being a lawyer and in the same field that neal is an, the amount that we have become a northward to just how poorly argued and reasoned and the sort of gall that the brief represents, it's really, i think, shocking, when there are some legitimate arguments, but they are buried in there. i am not saying legitimate like they should prevail, but a rational lawyer could make them. here is an example. donald trump is charged with essentially, disenfranchising, trying to disenfranchise 80 m

it's interesting there are multiple grounds i wish the colorado supreme court got it wrong. i think on the merits of it which you concentrated on, it did donald trump actually commit or was he involved in an x direct insurrection? in the trial court make more decisionsll without having a trial. is that mean anyone, any official could decided based on whatever procedures they chose to use who is an insurrectionist and who is not an insurrectionist? wish and feeds in that nonself arguments. unless congress passes a law setting out how you make that determination, you actually do open it up to everett county clerk who is an insurrectionist or not. you do not have to limit it to donald trump either but where people start saying oh, i think joe biden is an insurrectionist. how do you allow us not just 50 differentit states. there with their own election officials. to me the name to flaw in the case is on the merits of the application of the text of the 14th amendment. ed, the strongest issue here for trump is the president is just not covered by the text of the 14th amendment. the

this is what the supreme court has said about about the 15th amendment. what what the court has said is that when congress we added the 15th amendment to the constitution, we dramatically changed the relationship between the federal government and the states. and congress gave the congress new authority over the states to prevent it. no states from discriminating on the basis of race. and it used a very general term like appropriate legislation. and what the supreme court had said about that for decades is it's up to congress. the courts have to respect congress judgment about this. the courts have to respect congress's assessment of the problem and its about what kind of legislation is appropriate. and even something as dramatic as pre-clearance, something that requires the states, as one of my colleagues once said, to come to washington bureaucrats with hat in hand to change their procedures, even that is constitutional. supreme court, in a 5 to 4 decision, disagreed and held and held that the voting rights act interfered with state sovereignty and also

supreme court, 50. that means, as i just said, neal katyal has written more supreme court briefs than i have read. and so, i am more than eager to hear neal katyal's assessment of the briefs, that have been submitted so far, in the case of donald j trump versus norma anderson -- that is the name of the case, the supreme court will hear next thursday. with donald trump appealing a decision of a supreme court of colorado to ban donald trump from the presidential ballot in colorado, on the basis of section three of the 14th amendment, which bars anyone from holding federal office if they have betrayed an oath to uphold the constitution. today, the board of elections in illinois decided that they don't have the authority to ban donald trump from the ballot. they follow the advice of a retired republican judge on that point. and that judges report to the board of election, the judge said the evidence presented at the hearing on january 26 2024 proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that president trump

we expect the former president is going to file with the supreme court asking the supreme court to overturn the decisions that were made by the high court, the state high court in colorado and as well as the decision by the secretary of state in maine. you've seen other states where you've had similar challenges claim that the former president should not be allowed to run for office simply because he engaged in an insurrection and violation of the 14th amendment. what you've seen in other states, though, is the opposite, the opposite findings by courts in minnesota. you can see in michigan, new hampshire. of course, now we're seeing a bunch of these others including, of course, in oregon. this is on a collision course, brianna, not only with the political calendar because iowa, the caucuses are coming up just in the next couple weeks, but also the supreme court is also going to hear likely again from jack smith and his effort to hold the former president on trial again in march. what the former president is trying to do is overturn the issue, claiming he has immunity from prosecution. we ex

, at the supreme court, 6-3. g they're going to definitely rule one way or the other because of politics. that's just not how the court operates. i'd say one other thing about what lisa and andrew were saying a moment ago about the question presented at the court. i guess i disagree a little with my colleagues. it's very rare for the supreme court to rewrite the questions that the petitioner, that is the person asking the supreme court to hear the case, rare that the court will actually do that. in my hundreds of cases at the court, it's only happened a few times. it's not surprising to me the court heard what it generally does, taking the question as the way the petitioner here, donald trump, framed it out to be. i don't think that tells us very much about all the questions that the court has really focused on. i think they're just at this point focused on all of the above, on everything, and they didn't want to do anything further and take something off the table from their consideration. >> lisa, up a question

the worst case scenario here is that the supreme court would uphold colorado, and yet say that the coloradotrict court's factual findings were its to make but certainly not binding on any other secretary of state or state court. and that could set off, katy, a pattern of chaos, the likes of which we still have not seen in the electoral landscape that characterizes our country. >> we're going to have noah bookbinder from crew on to explain what they're arguing. but the colorado court said donald trump engaged in insurrection, that's why he's off the ballot. crew argued it's clear he engaged in insurrection, could the supreme court say we're not so sure he's a part of this. we're not sure we can call this insurrection? >> i don't know that the supreme court would take it on an up or down, we don't know if this is insurrection or not. again, their job here is to review the findings of the colorado district court as reviewed by the colorado supreme court, and my guess is that they will hue very closely to that review role as opposed to making independent findings of their own. my guess is that

and if the united states supreme court disagrees, they can say so. i do think he we have to be very careful in saying a judicial process was not fair. the colorado courts acted fairly. there were witnesses. there was a standard of evidence and procedure. and donald trump had due process. now, we can disagree with that -- >> you wouldn't say he had the due process of like a criminal defendant, would you? >> no, because it's not a criminal case. there's different standards for a criminal case than a civil case. but i do think it's really dangerous to say that the courts in colorado did not do an efficient job that respects the law and due process rights. and i highly disagree with you saying this sets a downward spiral precedent. if a candidate or someone wanting to run for office again engages in insurrection, we need a court to adjudicate those questions and do it looking at evidence, looking at witnesses, having a standard of procedure, just like what happened in colorado. so i don't think that this case should notbe adjudicated. donald trump is a da

i am excited to hear the conversation. >> it's going to be the year at the supreme court. thanks, ali. >>> tonight, 77-year-old donald trump is asking a court where he appointed three of the nine judges to save his presidential campaign. donald trump's lawyers have filed an appeal, asking the united states supreme court to overturn the decision by the colorado state supreme court to ban donald trump from the presidential ballot in colorado. colorado supreme court's decision is based on the 14th amendment, which is ratified in 1868. it does not allow officers of the federal government to be elected to office again if they have engaged in insurrection against the united states. in a 43-page brief asking the supreme court to hear the case, the trump lawyers used less irrelevant trump campaign rhetoric than appears in most trump legal filings, possibly in deference to the supreme court. the trump lawyers argue, that the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states. the states which, therefore, exempts, in their view, donald trump, for any possible sanct

but there is the supreme court. and they have other concerns, they should only have traditional concerns. they're gonna have other concerns, including the politics of this and how it's gonna play out. donald trump and his people have been sending coded messages via cable television about supreme court justices who owe him because he put them on the supreme court. how do all these pressures come to bear on how the supreme court is going to decide this? >> well, as you know, ali, i never speak about politics. and i will not today speak about the politics of this decision. at the supreme court of the united states. i will say this, the supreme court does not want to decide this case. and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible, legitimate way possible, to avoid deciding whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency. having studied the disqualification clause myself for three years now, there are very, very few, if any, off-ramps that would allow the supreme court to avoid a decision in

supreme court.nd i think they are just beginning to get attention. >> one question i think is raised by this -- i'm sorry, deeper question than if congress can change rules of precedent. of course, if the rules of precedentre common-law rules, it may be that congress can change the rules of precedent and create these structures. of course, they are limited. they cannot create special rules forf cases, but i don't think it is clear if you agree that precedent rules or common-law rules that come from the structure of the conot necessarily mean congresss disabled from getting involved. >> they were c in 1787. did they get baked into article three in 1788 so that they are no longer common-law rules but now constitutional ones? >> i don't think so. there were hearsay rules, all sorts of rules and rules of evidence, and i'm not sure they were baked in. they had the unusual power, i think, to create them, but i don't think we would think they are baked in because, of course, the common law can change. i ce

ordinarily, the court lets the state supreme court decide what its own law is. e court decides to tell the colorado supreme court, the best way to interpret colorado law. that is one of the arguments that donald trump raises, and it's one of the reasons that we are seeing all these different kinds of outcomes all over the country. neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme court but was still a lower court judge and said, it's up to states to decide who gets on the ballot. i think that the process is going to be with all of these states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking i'd be surprised if the court decides to tell the colorado supreme court, the best way to interpret colorado law. that is one of the arguments that donald trump raises, and it's one of the reasons that we are seeing all these different kinds of outcomes all over the country. neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme court but was still a lower court

the colorado supreme court stated trump did engage in insurrection. sponsible for many of the actions on january 6th. and because of his engagement in insurrection, he is disqualified from the colorado ballot. but the court added on a caveat that if an appeal was filed, i was to place him on the ballot. you know, donald trump, his name is very likely to be printed on the ballots just given the timeline. if the court were to order that he is not a qualified candidate, well, we have scenarios under colorado law similar to that, that have played out in the past, and we would not count the votes for him if he was a disqualified candidate. >> so that could possibly mean that he would be on the ballot this time. say ballots were cast and votes were cast in favor of donald trump, let's just use a hypothetical that the court comes back and says this person was not eligible to be on the ballot in the first place. that means that those votes in favor of him would no longer be counted in light of colorado law? >> a similar situation happened actually during the 2

and jack smith says no and asked the supreme court to weigh in. they said no. but trump has also filed another court filing on this presidential immunity claim? >> it's going to be all roads lead to the supreme court. the supreme court has opted to not weigh in there. next tuesday, there are org arguments on this issue. the trump team insists over 234 years presidents have not been prosecuted for the actions they have taken in office. a lower court held what we are talking about here was outside the scope of your duty and we saw the special counsel say, look, if we allow presidents absolute immunity for anything you do while you are president, we know people are going to undertake criminal activity to stay in office. we can't have that. now, the entire election -- >> that's a good argument. >> it is pretty good. everyone has to come up with something, but even former members of trump's legal team says the immunity argument is not a winner. what we are trying to do is delay. this entire case is on hold until this immunity question is resolved by whatever the fina

supreme court to overturn the colorado ruling removing him from the ballot. high court under mounting pressure tonight convenient as trump faces ballot disputes in multiple states. our senior justice correspondent evan perez is working this story for us. evan, what is trump arguing in this apoel? >> wolf, the former president is arguing that this extraordinary decision from the colorado supreme court cannot be allowed to stand simply for a number of reasons, including the fact that the 14th amendment should not apply to the office of president. it's not mentioned in the 14th amendment section 3 of the 14th amendment. the former president also points out that he -- that under his -- his belief he did not actually engage in an insurrection, so the colorado decision was incorrect, according to their filing. i'll read you just some more of this 43 pages here that they filed with the supreme court. they say this court should grant certiori and return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters. they go on to say, wolf, this is a ruling, again, the

ordinarily, the court lets the state supreme court decide what its own law is. ell the colorado supreme court, the best way to interpret colorado law. that is one of the arguments that donald trump raises, and it's one of the reasons that we are seeing all these different kinds of outcomes all over the country. neil gorsuch himself is quoted as saying in an opinion he offered when he was not on the supreme court but was still a lower court judge and said, it's up to states to decide who gets on the ballot. i think that the process is going to be with all of these states, and though be deference to the states, but what the court will be looking at is the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and that is squarely in the wheelhouse of the u.s. supreme court. >> and, paul, how might this issue affect other questions that could go before the supreme court, such as presidential immunity and impeachment double jeopardy? >> so, the issue of whether section 3 applies to the president, whether january six was an insurrection, those are hard questions. there's only been one

supreme court.ple like kavanaugh who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up. >> reporter: so she has been getting a lot of backlash for that, and obviously indicated there was some sort of quid pro quo because trump had appointed kavanaugh and gone through that process that kavanaugh would step up for him. she has since defended those comments, but i will also tell you when it comes to the former president himself, he has expressed concern to his lawyers, to his allies about this going to the supreme court. he believes that it is possible that some of these supreme court justices will rule against him so as not to seem, quote, unquote, pro-trump, that he believes that could even be people who -- who were appointed by him in the first place. that's something he has expressed. however, again, when i talk to his legal team, when i talk to his advisers, they do ex princess confidence when it comes to whether or not donald trump will be on the ballo

donald trump asking the united states supreme court, the highest court in all the land, to overturn the colorado state supreme court ruling that took him off of the ballot under the 14th amendment's insurrectionist clause. now, team trump says, one, he is not an insurrectionist. they say, what happened at the capitol on january 6th, the crowds breaking into the capitol, forcing lawmakers to literally run for their lives, threatening to hang the vice president of the united states, was not even an insurrection. quote, the colorado supreme court eastward erred in how it described the -- it was not insurrection. and now, president trump, in no way engaged in insurrection. >> we fight like heck. and if you don't fight like heck, you are not going to have a country anymore. >> i will let you decide what you take from the moments that you all undoubtedly saw on january 6th. but this is not just about colorado. last week, maine secretary of state removed trump from the primary ballot, team trump appeal that decision in state court yesterday. there is other states, as they say. but wait, there

i predict the supreme court is going to overturn the colorado supreme court. notwithstanding that, that may go down easier if people believe that trump is absolutely going to face trial in federal election interference case from which the disqualification arguments essentially emanate in the first place. >> i should note, there's one more wrinkle, those oral arguments are happening next week, we're expecting i think all of us in the general consensus is an expeditious ruling from that three judge panel and then an appeal to the supreme court which also may be pending. that's another parallel track that might be happening at that same point as well. scott, your thoughts on the grant today? >> lisa, you've got to believe. you've got to have faith in the supreme court. i think it's good that they have, taking this decision up. the immunity argument, if trump luzon loses it the d.c. circuit that's to the supreme court as well and it's good to hear that they're doing this on a -- basis but the political process continues. i do think that the strict constructionist,

announced that it will review the unprecedented ruling from colorado's supreme court last monthent donald trump ineligible to run for office in that state. colorado's highest court ruled that trump was ineligible to appear on the state's primary ballot because his actions leading up to the january 6th attack on the united states capitol meant the constitutional definition of insurrection, among other things in their decision. now, in a one page order this evening, the supreme announced it will hold oral arguments on the case next month, on february 8th, which to be clear, in supreme court time, it's light speed. following the announcement, the colorado secretary of state confirmed that as a result of the supreme court agreeing to hear the case, she has now certified trump's name on the colorado primary ballot. so, what happens now? how will the supreme court proceed? how will the elections proceed? joining me now, i'm really grateful for this, andrew weissmann, former senior member of robert mueller's special counsel that investigated russian interference in the 2016 election, a

supreme court. what is alleged of the president's official responsibility. there's really nothing in this pleading, which is just a reply to jack smith's pleading filed earlier this week that sheds light on that question beyond what we have heard already. >> to tim's point about the fact we have heard this before. one of the people we have heard it from is donald trump on the trail. that is not an accident. >> can you say the question one more time? >> i was saying that of the people we have heard these arguments from before, is donald trump himself. we have heard it on the trail from donald trump. him trying to make this argument against presidential immunity. >> that's right. it's an important sort of drum beat for him to keep hitting because saying he's being persecuted and he's the victim of a politically tainted prosecution, which is alleged in this new pleading. that he is a victim is incredibly valuable to him as he campaigns and tells his supporters that democrats in control of the department

it was the supreme court that did something different. but it's that trial court idea here, that look, he should not be removed because there had not been a finding, a conviction, a criminal charge of insurrection, that the actual language of the constitution does not contemplate a president being someone who could be removed someone. does that hold any weight for you? >> it really doesn't. i mean, the trial court actually held an exhaustive process. there was a five-day trial. there were 15 witnesses. there were thousands of pages of documents. there were hours of video. there was extensive argument from top lawyers on all sides. there was a great deal of process. and this idea of not having a conviction is really a red herring. over 150 years courts have on eight occasions, most of them after the civil war but one of them last year, held people disqualified under the 14th amendment. not a single one was convicted of or even charged with insurrection. it's a separate thing. this is a qualification. it's not a criminal punishment. it has a

this is from "the politically incorrect guide to the supreme court." ours president and congress deferred to the justices to settle our most divisive national controversies rather than mount a challenge to the court. why do you think that is? prof. yoo: this is one of the complicated reasons. i think hamilton's vision turns out to be a mistake, and because they thought each of the three branches of our federal government would compete and fight with each other to control policy, they did not actually think one would actually always win, and they thought constant fighting would be good between the three branches because it would ensure the government agreed on something and it would represent a broad consensus and the constant fighting would make sure liberty would be preserved. but what happened i think in reality is that members of congress -- i worked in the congress for a senator and presidents. i worked for presidents. they don't mind these controversial questions in the supreme court. you will not get elected by saying i will work on election, race

this is from "the politically incorrect guide to the supreme court." ours president and congress deferred to the justices to settle our most divisive national controversies rather than mount a challenge to the court. why do you think that is? prof. yoo: this is one of the complicated reasons. i think hamilton's vision turns out to be a mistake, and because they thought each of the three branches of our federal government would compete and fight with each other to control policy, they did not actually think one would actually always win, and they thought constant fighting would be good between the three branches because it would ensure the government agreed on something and it would represent a broad consensus and the constant fighting would make sure liberty would be preserved. but what happened i think in reality is that members of congress -- i worked in the congress for a senator and presidents. i worked for presidents. they don't mind these controversial questions in the supreme court. you will not get elected by saying i will work on election, race

supreme court. donald trump warning the justices they would unleash what he is calling chaos and bedlam if they allow colorado to remove him from the state's ballot. our justice correspondent jessica snider has details for us. jessica, give us the latest. >> reporter: wolf, the former president's legal team they're laying this out broadly. they're saying the colorado supreme court simply got it wrong when they court ruled to take donald trump off the ballot there, and they're asking now the supreme court to rule in their favor or else they're warning as you said that it will unleash chaos. so on the first page of this 50-page filing this is what trump's legal team is writing. they're saying the court should put a swift and decisive ends to these ballot disqualification efforts which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of americans and promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow colorado's lead and exclude the likely republican presidential nominee fro

has ruled against trump, and more than once, this supreme court, let's say, has ruled against him. trump during trump's challenge to the results of the 20th election, he ruled against trump when trump did not want to provide, say, his tax returns, and several more times, that is, when there is a law, then the judges, who would be their ideological belief, whoever appointed them, they are still judges, and they are simply guided by the law, when there is no clear law in some cases, then they can be guided. your beliefs with their own feelings, how these or other things should be interpreted, but when there is clearly a law, then i think that at least the vast majority of judges of the supreme court will be guided by the valid, valid law. well, there is also a question about public trust , you remember that the supreme court of the united states once passed mr. igor, an absolutely fundamental decision for the future of the country in the gore v. bush case, when the vice president of the united states, albert gore, tried to object the victory of george bush jr. in the elections f

the supreme court may interpret it differently. i think that since there is no court verdict against trump, no guilty verdict against trump about his participation in the rebellion against the united states, then the supreme court will most likely say that, well, since there is no conviction, then it cannot be said that he participated in the rebellion against the united states. so, he, he can take. participation in the elections, although i would be happy if he did not participate in the elections . tell me, please, how much in general in the united states such decisions can be based, in particular, on the personalities of the judges of the supreme court, because well, i will just remind you that a certain part of them was appointed during the term of office of donald trump, we in ukraine are used to believing that you know who the judge was appointed for, that he will be in... in any way fence off where he can afford it, i hope that this tradition is already slowly changing in our country, but can something like this even exist i

and a majority of americans agreed, but then a year and a half ago the supreme court, this supreme courte an extreme decision overturning rowe with their dobbs decision, stripping away a constitutional right from the american people which had never been done before, a fundamental right ripped away , a right vital to a country founded on the idea of freedom. i said on that day that rowe was overturned the health and lives of the women of this nation would now be at risk and that has unfortunately proven to be true. they've been at risk, made them at risk, put them at risk. are turned away from emergency rooms, forced to travel hundreds of miles to get basic health care in another state that may have a different rule, forced to go to court to plead for help. thanks to the mothers of two in texas, a mother of two in texas, who was pregnant with her third child, from her doctor she received the news no one wants to hear. the life of the child and her own life were at risk. she continued her pregnancy. instead of being able care from her doctor, she was blocked by the state of texas attorney

moreover, i have a question as to how the chairman of the supreme court got access to zmi just before, that is, his interview was released just before, and it happened on mind.ua, where a rather warm and complimentary interview of the head of the servant of the people party , olena shuliak, was published. well, there are some. the question, because ms. olena shulyak represents the servant of the people, there was a petition to the president's office and citizens demanded to cancel his ukrainian citizenship more than a year ago, and here is the question, please, the judge's interview appeared on my andua, and shulyak appeared on my andua , and there is no position of the president's office, what is happening, but can we now assume that all this is being done with the knowledge of the president's office? well, look, these will only be speculations, we will not, like the chief justice of the supreme court, suggest any theses, but what, you really correctly noticed that what the chief justice of the supreme court said in his interview is reflected in the decision, and very the important t

state supreme court decision to remove him from the ballot. as on the basis of the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment. this puts the highest court in the land squarely in one of the hottest clinical battles. >> they have to take it up. this primary ballot access question and the immunity question has never been tested in our lifetimes or in recent memory. the fact that colorado and maine have booted him from the ballot, illinois is trying to join the effort, minnesota and michigan have said no. you have a patchwork of state decisions. i think the prosecutor you had on earlier makes a great point. we have to look for now whether the supreme court does a big broad universal decision or goes very narrow. for a court that puts a lot of emphasis on the constitution and with the framers meant, i'm looking forward to seeing them may be upholding the colorado decision. amna: a lot of this does come down to the wording. how do you look at this? >> i would be stunned if they upheld the colorado ruling. i look at the crisis of legitimacy we are liv

the supreme court said pass. back to the appeals court. do you think they're going to comply with his request? >> i think the d.c. circuit will move quickly on this. i think they'll comply with -- whether even them moving expeditiously is fast enough to get things wrapped up in time, i worry about that. >> when we take a look at the 2024 legal calendar facing drum here, let's talk about how this might lay out, norm. how realistic is it that more than one of these criminal cases actually goes to trial this year? >> well, you have the combination of the legal calendar, brianna, and the political calendar. a lot of it will depend on what the d.c. circuit judges do with this immunity case. smith has said, instead of the usual long delay, when you decide -- and i think they will decide within a week or less of the hearing on january 9th, when you decide you should give trump no more than five days in which he's going to need to seek a stay, seek some further relief, or we're back on that trial schedule, the supreme court -- say it makes it to t

supreme court that is. and the fact that oregon is now looking at a similar challenge, it tells you what the problem is for the former president. they're going to be fighting these types of battles in state after state unless the supreme court steps in and decides once and for all what really is the law here. does the 14th amendment apply to the status, the candidate as president, which is one of the things that trump mentions in his brief today. he says the 14th amendment does not apply to the office of the presidency. so we anticipate that a similar argument as you saw today in this maine decision we'll see a similar argument in the case of colorado and we expect that because there have been some states that have decided in the opposite direction that the supreme court will try to settle this once and for all because you have some states that have gone in the opposite direction saying that these 14th amendment challenges don't really stand any ground. so we expect that the supreme court will have to make

iryna, well, look, even before today's court decision, the chairman of the supreme court of ukraine, spoke a lot about what should be discussed at today's court, about the fact that the previous decision of the previous head of the supreme court is his own opinion, it should not be like that, that is, he motivated buckets even before the decision. he motivated the decision, why it should be adopted , in this way he put pressure on the decision of the judges, in the end we know the result, the decision was made as it was made, the lviv judge finally got what he was trying to get, reinstatement , payment of 4 million salary, which he lost mrs. irina, i have a question for you, please tell me whether there will be an appeal against today's decision. of such a court, and does the chair under the judge of the supreme court, stanislav kravchenko, not at all wobble , since he openly pressed for the decision, for the adoption of today's decision? well , first of all, it became known literally in front of eter that the supreme court made a statement that they will appeal, and they will not imp

under federal governance, the supreme court does not reach into. issues there, that i am sure donald trump will raise and i'll be interested in, as to whether this was procedurally done correctly. there are lots of, as judge luttig says, off-ramps. -- and officer, are ones that could lead to further fact finding by the colorado trial judge. if the court says, the standard of proof was wrong, or you need to follow the definition of insurrection, that could go back to the trial court for their findings. it's not clear exactly how the supreme court will do this to get an off ramp that gets this completely done with and gone for all persons. >> professor, can you help the supreme court to find a word officer in section three and the word insurrection? >> no, they will have to decide that for themselves. there is no precedent really. david blight pointed out, bush v. gore is pretty close, but there is no precedent for a presidential candidate being disqualified from office for reasons like this. so, there is no existing definition in the jurisprudence t

it just underscores how important it is for the supreme court, and if the supreme court doesn't do it ethics rules on the supreme court so that it is not just up to clarence thomas to make this decision himself. >> i want to turn to your other labor's of the day, of the oversight committee. on the democrats on the committee issued a report today titled white house for sale, our princes prime ministers and premiers paid of president trump. there's been a lot of reporting on this today, of china being the biggest payer of donald trump. over $5 million. and as i understand this report, this covers only two years of the trump presidency. >> that's right, lawrence. but finally after a full year the oversight committee of the house of representatives has discovered corruption of foreign influence peddling by a president of the united states. it's been a yearlong investigation. whether republicans just hadn't realized is that it's not joe biden, it was donald trump. donald trump who received over nearly $8 million, and yes, just the first two years of his four year presidency, from 20 foreig

they cannot appeal against what the _ supreme court has set? gainst what the supreme . appeal against what the supreme court has said, but, if they chose to, they could ignore the ruling which would bring a constitutional crisis to israel. because let's say there was another decision that the government made to appoint someone who had no experience in a position or even had previous criminal behaviour in this position, for example, the finance ministry post. i'm giving you that example because it is actually a real example of when the supreme court said, no, this person, it is an unreasonable nomination, to put this person in this position when he has been convicted for, example, tax evasion. so in other words, they can ignore it, but it is unlikely during this war time that the judicial review is now shelved for a long time. thank ou ve now shelved for a long time. thank you very much _ now shelved for a long time. thank you very much for _ now shelved for a long time. thank you very much forjoining _ now shelved for a long time. thank you very

we asked the supreme court to do so along with the petitioners. the republican state party, donald trump and our clients asked that. we are also gratified the court is setting it on expedited schedule. we had asked for argument by january 19th. that was probably pretty ambitious but having it on february 8th is pretty close, and we think the court will have the decision well in advance of super tuesday. >> there is the issue as evan was going to the calendar, there's the issue of mail-in ballots. for overseas colorado voters, those go out january 20th. does it have an impact? >> we hope not. i think everybody is going to be pretty aware at this point that the supreme court is going to weigh in on this issue in relatively short order. people will receive their mail-in ballots before i think the court reaches a decision, but if people hold off sending in their mail-in ballots they have plenty of time to do so until march 5th. then they will be able to see what the supreme court rules. >> do you think that many people will hold off? >> well, i hope so

he also gets 90 days to petition to the supreme court. if the d.c. court of appeals preempts that's, and says we're putting this on a hold, unless you petition to the supreme court, it fast-tracks us straight to the supreme court. i think that's what the d.c. court of appeals will do. then, the question is, what will the supreme court do when this is before them? will they take it up quickly, or will they drag this out? i think the supreme court will take this up quickly, especially because they have this other issue that they're dealing with, that is disqualification from the ballot. i think the supreme court is going to find -- comes out donald trump's way. going to want to be able to not say they are tipping the scales one way or another, so, i think they will also take this issue of immunity, which is clearly a loser for donald trump, up quickly. >> okay, christian greenberg, we'll see if your predictions are correct, as they usually are. thank you so much. well, he has one job, in the world is watching him this weekend. that story is next. is nex

supreme court takes action.mp's lawyers argue the 14th amendment statute does not apply to the presidency, slammed the ruling that, quote, if allowed to stand, he said, will mark the first time in the history of the united states the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate, end quote. in a separate statement, the trump campaign quote, "democrats are obsessively violating the american voters' constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice. this is un-american, unconstitutional act of election interference that cannot stand." that's from the trump campaign. the supreme court hasn't announced whether it'll accept the case. joining us now, conservative attorney george conway, and andrew weissmann, host of "prosecuting donald trump." good morning to you both. andrew, let me start with you. this appeal up to the supreme court, where does this go from here? do you suspect the supreme court will hear any of this? >> i do think that they will

of the american media would say that the judges did it, precisely because the majority of the supreme courtustices the courts of the united states are appointed by republican presidents, the judges are appointed by democrat presidents in the minority, i think the media can say that, it is quite possible, as i agree with the decision in favor of bush in 2000, it was more then.. . than based on laws, although bush won in florida quite honestly, there was a recount afterwards, he got about 500 more votes, but there was no clear definition, because it was the first time in history, it was not regulated in any way, therefore, this was precisely the case when judges could rely on their convictions, whether conscious or subconscious. and i think that if there is a decision in favor of trump in this case , of course there will be media who will not like it, they will say that it is precisely because there are three judges appointed by trump, and most of the judges are appointed republican presidents, well, again, i think that the vast majority of judges will use the law, but if there is a clear def

, so it is necessary to watch when and exactly what decision the supreme court will make on this matter. oleksiy, despite legal problems, donald trump remains a favorite among republican voters. how can these cases affect the course of the presidential race? in fact, these cases directly affect the course of the presidential race, and, as we have already said, a lot depends on the decision of the supreme court. of the united states of america. this amendment, which we talked about, has never happened before was not applied. and there has never been a relevant decision of the supreme court regarding the use of this amendment. the more so the use of this amendment in relation to a presidential candidate. that is, obviously, if the supreme court of the united states of america, it will not uphold the decision of the supreme court of colorado, and in that case all these lawsuits, and we know that except for colorado and maine. similar lawsuits. they are in more than ten us states, if the us supreme court does not support this decision, then accordingly these processes will not matter

. >>> a major move by israel supreme court striking down a contentious law.n more division in the country at more. >>> as we start 2024, some of the 2023 political predictions that were also wrong. how is it looking this new year? welcome to the lead. i'm casey in for jake tapper. we start with destruction in a japan after a 7.2 magnitude earth right. four people were killed when the 7.5 magnitude quake hit western japan just hours into the new year followed by a series of aftershocks. the weather agency says those could continue up to a week. it also triggered tsunami warnings along the coast and residents have been urged to evacuate. the warnings have been downgraded but there is still a tsunami threat. multiple buildings caught fire or collapsed including a home on the upper left of the screen. it was reduced to a pile of rubble. we start coverage off from japan where more than 8000 military personnel are on standby to help emergency relief efforts. >> frightening scenes. homes and businesses destroyed by the powerful impact. this woman pleaded for aid as

puts it, quote, this is just the latest in a long pattern of cozy relationships between supreme courturt. elie mystal, jill wine-banks, are both back with me to break it down. elie, your reaction to this latest conflict of interest at the nation's highest court, is anything in what we just presented there to you not jive or doesn't make sense, or incorrect? >> it's not incorrect, but i will say that neil gorsuch has been on this idea of destroying this case and taking the power for himself to determine what the vikings tory state looks like. he has been on that for. years it's almost like you don't have to pay him to do that. he already wants to do that, because it goes back to his mother. this case we are talking, about chevron deference, this case arose out of a 1984 epa decision made by his mom. when his mom was the head of epa. his mom was trying to, as a reagan appointee, was trying to destroy the epa from the inside out. and all neil gorsuch is doing now is carrying on the family business and so one of the reasons why these millionaires and billionaires, to use the phrase, wante

they went to the supreme court, we won again. then the alabama government still refused to comply with the court order. it was only the court on a composing a map. there is a lot of work still to be done. we desperately need federal legislation. >> thank you so much for joining us here at the table. really appreciate you. next, new accusations that the republicans are targeting hunter biden are misleading the public. you're watching the weekend. ing the weekend. as the world keeps moving, help prevent covid-19 from breaking your momentum. you may have already been vaccinated against the flu, but don't forget this season's updated covid-19 shot too. right now get a free footlong at subway. like the new deli heroes. buy one footlong in the app, get one free. it's a pretty big deal. kinda like me. order in the subway app today. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vit