supreme court.not even standing up for themselves july 1 the issued and decision the immunity decision we talked about on the show that said that presidents should be immune from prosecution for their official acts and there are three pages of that opinion the talk directly about that merchan prosecuthe merchanprosecution at use the evidence of what presidents do to prosecute them in state courts. merchan a blue that aside. he did it anyway and waited six months for white six months? so we could sentence donald trump there be no time for an effective appeal because he wants to make donald trump the first felon president in our history. mark: that's exactly right the idea of the supreme court is never stepped in like this before we talked briefly about bush versus gore they stepped in during an ongoing election to stop that count relative to the electoral college which resulted in bush becoming president. they did the right thing in my view but that's not the point. i think who you have on the court

supreme court. >> peter baker, let's talk about that for just a moment, because the justice system, the jury system was really at stake here with the sentencing, according to judge mershon, according to the prosecutor, that's why they wanted to proceed. what about the court's reputation? you know, one of the arguments here was that donald trump has damaged the judicial, the reputation of the judiciary. but the court system, by talking about witch hunts so much. and what about the reputation of the supreme court as this continuest few years. is that, rightly or wrongly, courts and judges and even specifically the supreme court, look increasingly like just another political body. we talk about who appointed the judge, which president appointed the judge as if that was a d or an r next to their name. that wasn't always the case. you know, the supreme court until not that long ago, had republican appointed justices who were fairly liberal and democratic appointed justices who were fairly conservative or

supreme court hearing arguments about the future of tiktok. d if tiktok is banned. it feels like in the court it is not going in the direction of tiktok. >> we are only halfway through. the lawyer for the creator aspect of the lawsuit is making his arguments. the first hour was tiktok's lawyer. i listen to the whole thing. i do not listen to a ton of supreme court oral arguments but i get the idea that tiktok is in trouble. a lot pushed back -- it is also a data and security issue. they did not seem convinced on what the tiktok lawyer was presenting. caroline: certain analysts have theorized what would happen if tiktok is banned. money goes to snap but the key winners are meta and youtube. can you spell out the winners and losers? kurt: you hit the top three. i think meta, google and youtube are probably 1a and 1b because they both have products in youtube shorts and reels in meta that are tiktok clones. easy to migrate to one of these other services and they already have massive advertising services. they do not have to do a lot different to c

back to the supreme court.see them showing up in flotillas of a dozen or more with coordinated amicus briefs. and this whole operation is constantly bombarding democrats, is constantly feeding a false narrative, is constantly at war with the facts. and here we are on our side, and we have no organized operation to oppose what is perhaps the most ferocious political operation and the largest political operation america has ever seen. it is funded by these billionaires. it has unlimited money. it's quite well hidden. there are probably 100 of these organizations that they can call up, again, like piano keys. and we need to just be better. you can't just go on the field against an organized operation like these billionaires run through the republican party and expect that you're going to win. you've got to have some planning center of your own. some way that you coordinate. some way that you figure out who's who and you expose them for what they are. we could do well simply with exposure, if people knew. one of my

and that includes the supreme court. that is not to say the supreme court is perfect. certainly is not. it's to say it does not make decisions i think are wrong. it does. i spend a fair of time writing about that. it's not say that every justice behaves the way we would want every justice to behave. but one looks overall at the behavior of court, its role in our system of government, the role it has been performing and the direction has been heading. i think any fair assessment leads one to the conclusion that it is the institution that is failing the least. and i would also now, if time permitting, i will summarizes at the end that that also appears to be the view of the american people that despite who can continue to view the supreme court much more favorably than other institutions, whether we're talking about congress or whether we're talking about the news media, whether we're talking about other institutions that we rely upon. the one prominent exception being the military. now, when i say that the court is serving us well, what do i mean? well, the court has be

this is a state court matter which is another reason the supreme court may not want to get involved. her to leave because trump hasn't exhausted all of his remedies. he has simultaneously petitioned the court of appeals in new york state, the highest court in the land in new york, as well as the supreme court at the same time, just because of the time constraints here but the supreme court could really punt on this, saying you have not exhausted all the remedies you have in the state, so we are not going to rule on this. they could find a lot of other procedural reasons why they are not going to address this and then allow the sentencing to go forward. >> we will wait to see what the supreme court decides. thank you for joining us here on bbc news. here in washington, d.c., mourners continue to pour into the capital to pay respects to former president jimmy carter for his -- before his estate funeral tomorrow. the body of the 39th president lies in state at the capitol rotunda. you can see members of the public filing around to pay their last respects. mr. carter was in office from 19

with the supreme court, we see them shows up in flotillas. this entire operation is constantly bombarding democrats and feeding a false narrative and constantly at war with the facts. and here we are with no organized operation to oppose what the perhaps the most ferocious political operation and the largest political operation america has ever seen. it is funded by these billionaires. it has unlimited money. there are probably 100 of these organizations they can call up again like piano keys. and, we need to just be better. you can't just go on the field against an organized operation like these billionaires run and expect to win. you need a planning center of your own. some way to coordinate and figure out who is who and expose them for who they are. we could do well for exposure. one of my favorite stories, one of these briefs came in under the name of a front group for another front group. and it didn't disclose to the supreme court that it was just a false name of another front group. so the scheming is actually pretty obvious and we sho

involving donald trump's appeal to united states supreme court. we will keep an eye of what's happening there this hour. as this hour proceeds. we'll have more from los angeles. we'll be right back. os angeles. we'll be right back. asthma. does it have you missing out on what you love with who you love? it's time to get back out there with fasenra. fasenra is an add-on treatment for eosinophilic asthma that is taken once every 8 weeks and can also be taken conveniently at home. fasenra helps prevent asthma attacks. most patients did not have an attack in the first year. fasenra is proven to help you breathe better so you can get back to doing day-to-day activities. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems. serious allergic reactions may occur. get help for swelling of your face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or you have a parasitic infection. headache and sore throat may occur. get back to better breathing. get back to what you've miss

and you think the supreme court - point of view.ill- point of view. and you think. the supreme court will follow through on that?— through on that? post inauguration - through on that? post inauguration of - through on that? post| inauguration of donald through on that? post - inauguration of donald trump? through on that? post _ inauguration of donald trump? i think is anyone yes, but if you look at how certain supreme court decisions happened last year, including giving presidential immunity towards a certain criminal act, i think this supreme court will take its guidance from donald trump. they see him as a unitary executive, so i think they are going to listen to him and they will give him the benefit of the doubt to try to come up with a political solution. i will be surprised if they didn't allow him to do that. and what a change of events a3 when they were looking at a possible ban in a very important market for them. absolutely. the tiktok platform in the us has been phenomenally successful. it was an important part of the p

, or any past supreme court decisions involving the president-elect.o knows that donald trump will take any legal steps possible to try to block the release of special prosecutor jack smith's report and samuel alito knows it is possible those attempts could end up in the supreme court. alito has never had a telephone conversation with a more active litigant before the supreme court them donald trump, or a more predictable litigant before the supreme court than donald trump. i knew yesterday donald trump was going to appeal his sentencing to the united states supreme court. we discussed it on this program last night with andrew wiseman. there is no reason to believe samuel alito yesterday wasn't smart enough to anticipate that donald trump would come to the supreme court today, at the latest, very latest, with the emergency petition he filed. samuel alito is claiming, i couldn't possibly have figured out yesterday was lawrence o'donnell figured out yesterday. that's what he's saying. but samuel alito, one of the most politically compromised supreme cour

here's what the supreme court said in a 5-4 decision. eral justices, along with the chief justice and amy coney barrett, they wrote the following. first, the elected evidentiary violations at president-elect trump's state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. second, the burdening that sentenci will impose on the president-elect's responsibilities is relatively substantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence up on conditional discharge after a brief virtual hearing. unconditional discharge. that means no fines, no jail time, no probation. we are getting your reaction to this this morning. jimmy in erlewine, pennsylvania. hi, jimmy. caller: how are you? host: morning. caller: good morning. i want to say i wish elizabeth were still on. she must be a dei hire or paid by george soros. i am just a straight guy, but you are going to tell me all of these illegals, does she know it is a felony to cross into our border? it is a felony. it is not a misdemeanor. getting back to what she said abou

the supreme court was something that was very familiar territory to him. and i think he knew that's where this would lead eventually. it wasn't just district court judges or even appeals court judges or executive nominations, but it would eventually lead the supreme court. and he had a choice, though. he could have said, well, i'm not going to take that path. instead, he didn't. he took it as an opening and he remade the supreme court sort of in a right leaning conservative image. let's go forward three years to 2016 after this. and the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia. mitch mcconnell had become majority leader by then declare. mr. president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country. so, of course, of course, the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice, and it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent as chairman. gras

could the supreme court delete this ruling? it supreme court delete this rulin: ?lin: ? u, . supreme court delete this rulin: ? u, ., _, ruling? it could and incoming president _ ruling? it could and incoming president from _ ruling? it could and incoming president from asked - ruling? it could and incoming president from asked them l ruling? it could and incoming| president from asked them to ruling? it could and incoming - president from asked them to do so with the theory that once he is in office he could put together some sort of deal. i think that is unlikely to work for the supreme court because there is no legal authority to pause and otherwise valid act of congress because the incoming president finds it inconvenient that comes into effect before his inauguration. and how it is presented until now, i expect the supreme court sometime this week to uphold the law at least decline to block it until it goes into effect on the 19th. over to south korea — where suspended president yoon suk yeol�*s trial is set to begin in a few hours. the constitutional court wi

how do you think he'll do at the supreme court? eporter: well, i think he's in the best court that he could be in, john. now, he's got a lot of uphill here procedurally because to take a case directly to the supreme is court is, you know, highly unusual and highly unlikely. at the same time, really, only the supreme court to say its ruling in july which is based on this idea that we don't want president distracted and stigmatized in the performance of their duties by criminal proceedings, only the supreme court can really extend that. that's the thing that trump wants. i think he has a shot to prevail there in a way he probably never had a shot in the state. >> john: the supreme court did literally write the book on presidential i'm immunity. this court should before enter an immediate stay to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government. but here's what the supreme court wrote in that immunity decision: they wrote that presidents have absolute immunity for acts c

reporter: a few minutes ago the supreme court ruled . ago the supreme court ruled that— ago the supremehe supreme court ruled that not going to slow down sentencing and it is on for tomorrow. sentencing and it is on for tomorrow— sentencing and it is on for tomorrow. ., ., . ., tomorrow. now what? we have called for _ tomorrow. now what? we have called for an — tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal _ tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal and - tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal and as - tomorrow. now what? we have called for an appeal and as you | called for an appeal and as you know they said, no penalty and is no penalty but we're going to appeal anyway just psychologically because frankly it is a disgrace, it is a judge that should not have been under the case, he is a highly conflicted judge and if they called for an appeal so i read it and i thought it was a fair decision, actually, so they can have fun with a political opponent tomorrow, as you know i am under a gag orderfrom a judge, this is an attack of a political opponent and if you take a l

the majority also seems sketchy. >> well, first, on the question of whether the north carolina supreme court is going to make the decision, there is an appeal to the fourth circuit on the decision to send it back. we have to wait and see which court ends up with jurisdiction of the case. you have to remember, it's a game plan. you mentioned the things that trump and the republicans learned from 2020 and that is you do not go into court with crazy theories and weak lawyers. this has been teed up before the november election, to go in and challenge certain categories of voters that they arguably, at least according to the complaint, weren't eligible to vote. on the one hand, you don't want to see writers in the street like we saw on january 6 four years ago, but we also want, if they are legitimate legal questions, to let the court system play out. >> i was talking to the professor at harvard who writes about democratic backsliding. he said this thing that stuck with me. fundamentally, this consensus about this loser conceding and peaceful transfer of power is just a difficult consensus to ref

donald trump to block the sentencing, and that did not work, and the supreme courtjudges decided supreme courtnute bid from donald trump so today the sentencing went ahead and the breaking development, i will repeat it, thejudge decided to development, i will repeat it, the judge decided to sentence donald trump to an unconditional discharge over the conviction in the hush money case and he has imposed no jail time money case and he has imposed no jailtime and no money case and he has imposed no jail time and no fine but the sentence means it is a sentence of guilt on donald trump's record and i suspect thatis trump's record and i suspect that is why donald trump was so keen to go to the supreme court to avoid that eventuality. donald trump taken to court and convicted in the first place, that was the first for a living president, and these other scenes outside the court. our correspondent has been inside and we will talk to them very shortly. donald trump made an appearance before we got the sentencing and it was the first time he was able to testify in this case. in may he did not testify th

but the problem is, you don't usually make a bee line right to the supreme court. they like you to go to the district court and second circuit and then you get -- >> dana: in this case isn't it a little unusual? the supreme court has discretion as well to say and yet we understand the timeline here. >> there is an instinctive federal notion that you shouldn't interfere with state criminal proceedings. you are dealing with lawyers -- justice barrett has been not forous for this in her time on the court. she doesn't like the emergency docket or like things come to the court. she likes regular order and like the feds should stay out of it unless they really have to get into it. >> she doesn't like the word interlock tore. the normal process you wait until a conviction after sentencing and appeal everything. i do think there is some reticence to extending this immunity to someone not yet the commander-in-chief. i don't know if he will prevail on the merits. his argument as you have made me a felon and about to have control over every weapon in our arsenal. i don't know

the supreme court, a let's say bipartisan or at least cross ideological segment of the supreme court, said, let's let this play out in the future sentence. this defendant, if he has other arguments in the future, he can raise them. so it's a quite straightforward legal matter. now, there's all kinds of politics around donald trump, and i get it legally. >> i have a question, though. that the court said that it because the judge had indicated that his sentence would not include any jail time. it was going to be just an unlimited discharge that that also gave them the flexibility to to make this ruling. do you think if mershon had not sort of foretold what his sentence would be, that the court would still rule this way? >> that's a great question. they might have, but there were two different arguments trump was making, which is a legal one. i have other arguments to make and a practical one, which is, well, i you know, i might go to jail. and that's problematic for me to be president. and, you know, frankly, he's he's right on that, i think on that practical point, they were saying, lo

supreme court. we'll see if they take it. that's a long way down the road. so today we're focusing back on the trial court, where you're sitting outside of laura coates. >> and of course, the idea that it was a54 decision, we might not have even been at this moment, he has been pushing not to have it sentenced. and now the court is saying you can go forward. a lot of people wondering why he would fight so hard, given the fact that he's not going to get much more than maybe a verbal slap on the wrist. but he is very angry about this case. he always has been. even as recently as this week, i want to bring in chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid. trump has sounded off on how he has felt about this entire process, and why he continues to fight. you have been talking with sources this very morning. tell me how that trump team is feeling even heading into this today? >> well, i will say that his lawyers are feeling a lot more optimistic than the president elect, even though they fought to block today's sentencing, they believe that it's a huge win that thei

the supreme court said in their brief ruling, quote, the burden that sentencing will impose on the president elect's responsibility is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court's stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge in light of the trial court stated intent, justice mershon wisely told the world, told the defense and told the supreme court effectively what his plan was, that it would not impose a burden. and i think that carried the day. carried the day to your point, it got to otherwise conservative votes. chief justice roberts and justice barrett barrett, being a trump appointee who voted for the rule of law, who voted to let the sentencing go forward if anyone wanted the supreme court, i think mershon comes out the winner. he gets his sentencing to go forward. the rule of law wins the day. >> very briefly. i will say it's sort of full circle here and sort of inside baseball. but justice sotomayor, she was a former manhattan prosecutor. oh, wow. under morgenthau, that's true. come full circle. >> so it's she's the one handing down. >> look where it start

the first will be the appellate division the supreme court of new york, and then there will be an appealrk court of appeals, the state's highest court. this case may end up before the u.s. supreme court again, because there are constitutional issues when it comes to presidential immunity. we know the president has a receptive audience, because at least four of the justices were willing to grant that emergency appeal, which would have been extraordinary. the supreme court typically does not hear appeals like that until he conviction is finalized. the president will have three chances to get this conviction overturned on appeal. caitriona: we heard from trump that he had tried to use the supreme court ruling on presidential immunity. will it likely have any impact on the appeal process is outlined? -- they appeal process you have outlined? >> i think so. that is the strongest argument the president has, because a different majority of the supreme court, 6-3, ruled last summer that a president's immunity is very broad. anything that is arguably an official act is subject to immunity. even e

other matters involving trump that could go to the supreme court. looking at last night at the court's narrow ruling of 5 to 4, allowing this sentencing to proceed. what do you read into that about where they might land on trump's legal matters? this one, and also others? >> yeah. not much. i mean, you know, some people read this as sort of a message by justice barrett and justice roberts that they're not going to go along sort of with anything. and i don't mean with anything, i mean with everything. others see it as an invitation to take this case. i think the other four justices, you know, thought the case should be heard, and there wasn't a reason to go forward with the sentencing now because the real immunity issues to be decided here. i thought that the lawyers made a mistake in the way they presented it by focusing on the presidential transition period. there is no real authority in that. the impact is on the presidency. and that's what the olc opinion from 2000 talks about. the stigma this raises and the distraction of conducting. now the full

but the supreme court had a responsibility to defend the supreme court. to defend the federal judiciary and the federal constitution. you have an elected left wing bomb throwing prosecutor, you have a completely rogue state judge at every step he orchestrated this thing just like he orchestrated today's a bomb nation. four justice is wanted to take up this case. they had enough reason to do it. the arguments were laid out not just by president trump's lawyers but also by former attorney general meece's brief. this court if it had rehnquist as the chief justice or scalia on this court it would have been a 6-three. taken the case and fixed it. what do i mean by fixed it? depending on what the state appel at go do. this case is going back to the supreme court. what's the supreme court going to say? we aren't going to take it? of course they'll take it. what will they say then? they said let the process play out. that's all we know from this order. let the process play out. no, you don't let a corrupt process that these gentleman have been talking about from

and then the supreme court on the emergency docket, either six three or five three. we don't know because there's no opinion said that stayed the lower court's opinions and allowed the governor to continue. we're talking 600 people. most of them could go ahead and register same day. so it wasn't a game changer. but the issue is there is on the supreme court docket, we don't know if they thought the statute meant something else or is there a constitutional problem with the statute? so that's there absentee ballot issues there, a whole series that are sort of lined up now. the fifth circuit issued what i think is an outlier opinion that said that it is violates the federal statute, called for states to count ballots that are cast before the election. but arrive and are therefore opened after the election on the basis that election day is tuesday. and so that's a live issue going forward. big push in two states on overseas. voters presumed play a political calculation. they were more likely to be democratic. but in both pennsylvania, north carolina, there are challenges

but yes, the supreme court does have a mixed record and you know, i think we have really seen in the rmath of the dobbs decision, a real disappointment with how politicized the court has been with the general public. however, we see courts as an important piece of protecting democracy. we still argue in front of the supreme court and we still expect a fair hearing. >> well, listen, all i know is we are going to be looking towards you for a lot of information. i think there are a lot of americans looking for pushback. it's great to hear how you are thinking about the road ahead. and we will be in touch in the coming weeks and months. thank you for spending a little bit of the holiday season. i hope you get rest before january 20. thanks for your time again. happy holidays. >> thank you so much. happy holidays. >> we'll be right back. z's bakery is looking to add a pizza oven, arissa's hair salon wants to expand their space, and steve's t-shirt shop wants to bring on more help. with the comcast business 5-year price lock guarantee, they can think more about possibilities for their busin

i mean, and it is different on the supreme court than on the lower courts. it is. are judges on court aware of what people thinking? of course. of course there are. and how does that affect opinions? when i get the to that, i don't know what paul point meant and. yeah, but is it there? yeah. and is that just doing things politically. no. and does it you know, often politically. no. what does it mean? i'll leave you with that question. i don't have a really answer to it, but i do think is one of the three branches of government that it is and it's in the constitution, as one of those three and people are aware that and what does it mean to be aware of that? the taft court was a pretty good court. very good court. how many of us in the audience. how many of you are law students? oh, good. okay. and how many of you would like to clerk at the supreme court? oh, come on, liars. liars. it's okay. okay. so well done. well done. i want to come theresa and the justice because you both were clerks at the court and justice breyer, you were a clerk for arthur goldberg and peop

unless the supreme court steps in. much more ahead just close the doors and you're in a world of your own. >> travel is not just about the destination. it's also about how you get there. fly emirates. fly better. >> what do you got there, larry? >> time machine. >> you're going to go back and see how the pyramids were built or something? >> nope. >> elon and i want to go on vacation, so i'm going to go back to last week and buy a winning lottery ticket. >> can i come? >> only room for one. >> how am i getting home? >> sitting on my lap like last time? ronald? >> fine. but i'm bringing this. >> all right. >> or you could try one of these savings options. >> the right money moves aren't as far fetched as you think. >> there it is. see, i told you, it's going to all work out. thanks. future me. >> you know what's smart? enjoying a fresh gourmet meal at home that you didn't have to cook. upgrade your plate with factor, chef crafted dietitian approved. ready in two minutes. eat smart with factor. >> go friends. >> gather. k

the republican challenger, of course on the north carolina sprinkler, is trying to get the state supreme court of a federal court. griffin is more than $60,000 from his 2024 election after two recounts showed he lost to democrat alison riggs by fewer than 800 votes. the north carolina board of elections moved the case to the u.s. district court because of its implications for federal voting laws. now griffin is trying to move it back to the state's highest court, saying it would better understand the specifics of his case. >> gee, i wonder why he wanted it in the state supreme court. is it because they have a republican majority that may want to expand? well guess what did i say trump appointed federal judge did just that, kicking the case back to the republican controlled north carolina supreme court, the very court that griffin ran to join and lost. and today the republican majority on that court blocked the certification of that loss, opening the door to them just flat out stealing an election the democrats won narrowly fair and square. do not be fooled for one second and think that republi

out of this chain try to get to the supreme court get it out to the supreme court to take the path thereto take. butch bush versus gore late great ted olson on behalf of the bush campaign filed what he called an emergency appeal. even called a kumquat these are common law asserts its assertive mandamus or something like that with the court knows what you are doing for this no official name for these things because they are not statutes. call it whatever you want you get it to the supreme court you give it the opportunity it takes for justices to decide if they're going to take up the case or not. i mean i could write the brief case after case after case of violation of federal authority, federal jurisdiction violation of federal constitution violation of the position to the nicest department of justice. the attempt to damage in fact cripple incoming president or presidential cam that, it is all federal and the violations of the due process clause, equal protection clause of the fifth amendment the sixth mm of the eight, the 14th from the violation of the federal constitution and has spla

the us supreme court has denied a last—minute bid by donald trump due to a halt sentencing on his hushey case. it will go ahead later today. tiktok will make a final play at the us supreme court today to block a new law which could shut it down in america. the first event to mark bradford's status as the uk city of culture begins tonight, despite the icy temperatures. let's return to the devastating wildfires. officials have confirmed at least ten people have been killed, double the number reported earlier. around 180,000 people have been ordered to leave their homes, and many neighbourhoods have been left unrecognisable. let's get the latest from david willis, who has been on the scene. it willis, who has been on the scene. , , . scene. it is 'ust after midnight, _ scene. it isjust after midnight, seeking i scene. it isjust after midnight, seeking to scene. it isjust after - midnight, seeking to shut off gas valves to prevent any further fires from breaking gas valves to prevent any furtherfires from breaking out here. neighbourhoods like this have been almost devastated by the fires.

the supreme court has a mixed record. e really have seen in the aftermath of the dobbs decision, a real disappointment with how politicized the court has been. we see courts as an important piece of protecting democracy. we still argue in front of the supreme court and we still expect a fair hearing. >> well listen, all i know is we are going to be looking toward you for a lot of information. i think there are a lot of americans looking for pushback. it's great to hear how you guys are thinking about the road ahead. and we will be in the touch in the coming weeks and months. thanks for spending a little bit of the holiday season. i hope you get some rest before january 20th. thanks for your time again. happy holidays. we'll be right back. in. happy holidays. we'll be right back. (children speaking) conflict is raging across the world, and millions of children's lives are being devastated by war, hunger, disease and poverty. we urgently need your help to reach children in crisis. please call or go online to give just $10 a

there was no case in any court that ousupported that proposition, b of course we've seen this supreme courturts have, and kimberly is exactly right. rlthe supreme court's ethics co, which it etjust adopted last ye after much pressure, judges should avoid the appearance of impropriety in all activities and that standard is clearly met when trump calls a justice on the same day that his lawyer asked dthe court to stay his sentencing in coa criminal case. >> as you well know, kimberly, this is not the first time that folks have called for alito to r recuse himself. those surrounding the january 6th attack on the capitol, those cases, the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. help us understand who makes the decision about recusal, is it justice alito's alone or and where does chief justice roberts fit into all of this? >> yeah, so it is currently up to individual justices to make the decision as to whether or not they refuse, under the supreme court's own rules, they're supposed to recuse and give t reasons for that. justice alito, even if cases where he has recused, he has failed to show re

. >> the supreme court denies donald trump tonight. the breaking news that president elect of the u.s. will face criminal sentencing hours from now. >>> at what point did you realize, i'm not going to save the house? >> when my son-in-law grabbed me and said we got to go. >> with the largest fire uncontained, the devastation of life and property grows. >> the winds continued to be of a historic nature and a key factor of this firestorm. >> the latest from los angeles and the difficult task of finding facts in an information environment filled with lies. >> elon musk response to my report laying out some of the evidence was true. >>> the american scene inside the national cathedral at the state funeral for president jimmy carter. >> stand up, my dad used to say, the abuse of power. >> when trent -- all in starts now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. a lot happening. in 13 hours, donald trump will be sentenced for his 34 felony convictions into your. that's after the supreme court denied his request for delay. barely, 5-4

but nevertheless, the supreme court rejected that emergency reprieve request. has really signalled that he will sentence donald trump without any punishment. so this is expected to largely be a symbolic blow. donald trump is very unlikely, almost certainly not going to face any prison time, any probation, perhaps not even a fine here. and that's because the judge said, with the inauguration coming with the start of donald trump's second term, that really is the most practical and favourable solution. it brings the case to an end. it also allows donald trump to go on to appeal the verdict, which he said he wants to do so that will be getting underway shortly here in new york. but very much i would say many see this as kind of a whimper rather than a bang to an end of what has been a historic and historic trial. and now, is he likely to appear because we're hearing he maybe will just appear virtually? donald trump is expected to appear virtually. that's right. thejudge had given him that option, kind of noting that he is in the middle of his transition into takin

far, what the appellate courts in new york and in the rejection of the stay last night from the supreme courtabout some of that evidence that was brought before the court and the extent to which it may have been protected by the immunity decision that could be brought during the appeals process. but for now, at this moment in time, the system has played out in lower manhattan, and donald trump is leaving that courtroom as a convicted felon. >> 34 felony counts, 34 convictions. was this sentence in line with what someone else in a similar position might get? no. >> and it wasn't in line with what any person convicted of a felony in new york state would get. this is a wholly atypical sentencing. and the judge noted that, chris, because it was like the collision of a typical trial of an ordinary citizen who happens to be by other ordinary ordinary citizens, will return to the white house. and therefore, he said, the only lawful sentence that he could conceive of was one of unconditional discharge. but he was very clear this was not about him thinking that the presidency is a mitigating factor, i

tiktok�*s last chance — the social media platform will make a final plea at the us supreme court todayock a new law which could shut it down in america. and clamping down on touts — the uk unveils a plan to put a price limit on re—sold event tickets. welcome to business today, i'm tadhg enright. the british government has been defending its handling of the economy after a turbulent day on the markets on thursday saw the pound drop to its lowest level in more than a year and government borrowing cost surge to a 16—year high. today, sterling is down once again as pressure mounts on chancellor rachel reeves. she's on her way to china with a delegation of city executives, as labour seeks closer economic links with beijing as part of its quest for growth. our asia business reporter sura njana tewari has more. rachel reeves under quite a bit of pressure over this trip to china, given what's going on on the uk markets. but the goal could actually ultimately benefit the uk economy, with her defenders saying the trip is important for uk trade and investment. china is the uk's fifth largest trad

tiktok will make its final appeal to the supreme court on friday at a potential ban in the us. and as wildfires in la continue we look at the hefty cost to residents and insurers as they brace for losses in the billions of dollars. hello and welcome to business today. i'm steve lai. the us supreme court is set to hear arguments on friday on an impending law what would force the chinese company bytedance, to sell social media platform tiktok to an america company, or bebanned in the us. the bbc�*s north america technology correspondent has more on how this could unfold. congress passed that law in april on national security grounds. lawmakers expressed concerns that tiktok�*s chinese ownership, bytedance, means that the data of millions of americans could be compromised, and that they are also prone to manipulation by china's communist party. tiktok has consistently denied those allegations. they have expressed confidence that they will get the outcome that they seek from the supreme court. president—elect donald trump, meanwhile, has weighed in, despite once trying to ban the a

legal team argued the president-elect should be immune from criminal proceedings because of the supreme court'sr on presidential immunity. but judge juan merchan and a state appeals court judge had already denied those arguments before the case reached the high court. the sentencing is now set to take place at 9:30 this morning in new york city with trump expected to appear virtually. judge merchan made it clear last week that he would not be including any prison time for the president-elect, trump responded to the supreme court's decision during a round table with republican governors at mar-a-lago last night. >> they acknowledged what the judge said about no penalty, there is no penalty, but we're going to appeal anyway, just psychologically, because frankly it is a disgrace. so i read it and i thought it was a fair decision, actually. so i'll do my little thing tomorrow, and this is a long way from finished. and i respect the court's opinion and it was a -- i think it was actually a very good opinion for us because you saw what they said. but they invited the appeal and the appeal is on the