that's irrelevant when it comes to the united states supreme court. ess the state supreme court on the meaning of their own lock. so that leaves only this other argument that andrew has mentioned, and that you're asking me about, which is, as trump had enough process to be adjudicated and insurrectionist? it's a little ironic the donald trump is saying that today because for the last year, more than a year, he's been trying to delay any criminal investigation into his january six behavior, and now he's trying to delay his two trial dates in georgia and in washington, d. c., with jack smith. on the one hand he is saying well, i haven't been adjudicated an insurrectionist, on the other he's trying to stop those very processes from being adjudicated. in the end, i think the 14th amendment standard for what is an insurrectionist is the isn't the criminalist standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, and trump had every opportunity in the colorado court to present his side of the case. he presented it, you lost. and so at this point he has had, i think, his shot.

appointed to the united states supreme court by. the united states supreme court by president _ the o has battle with alzheimer's _ president reagan, who has battle with alzheimer's and _ president reagan, who has battle with alzheimer's and dementia, i president reagan, who has battle i with alzheimer's and dementia, but she was— with alzheimer's and dementia, but she was a _ with alzheimer's and dementia, but she was a trailblazer. _ with alzheimer's and dementia, but she was a trailblazer. and - with alzheimer's and dementia, but she was a trailblazer. and now- with alzheimer's and dementia, but she was a trailblazer. and now look| she was a trailblazer. and now look at how _ she was a trailblazer. and now look at how many— she was a trailblazer. and now look at how many women _ she was a trailblazer. and now look at how many women we _ she was a trailblazer. and now look at how many women we have - she was a trailblazer. and now look at how many women we have in - she was a trailblazer. and now look| at how many women we have in the supreme _ at how many women we have in the supr

you know how long it took the united states supreme court to rule on a case that decided who would be the next president of the united states? it was an awful case. nothing like bush v. gore had ever come to united states supreme court. none of the judges judges had ever consider the issues presented to them in that case by the very able lawyers who had given unprecedented amounts of time to argue their case, make the oral arguments, to the united states supreme court, which were the very first supreme court oral arguments in history that were allowed to be broadcast live on radio, because the supreme court apparently considered that to be the most important arguments in the history of the supreme court. one day it took the supreme exactly one day after those oral arguments to issue their decision in what they were, in effect, declaring was the most important case that they ever heard. the supreme court scheduled those arguments the way they did that, the way they did it quickly, they were ineffective declaring this is the most important thing we have ever done. and after what the sup

but italy this goes up to the united states supreme court, and wolf, what the united states supreme court decides could apply not just to colorado, but set a precedent for the entire country. so that's going to be a very critical case. >> it's going to be critical indeed. the trump team signaled they will appeal this decision, and they signaled it very, very quickly. how do you think that will go? do you think this should be ultimately decided by the supreme court, the united states supreme court? >> i do, wolf. you can't have a situation where one state is deciding one thing, another state is deciding another thing. ultimately, this is a question of the 14th amendment. the reading of the 14th amendment and whether someone who has aided insurrection can be kicked off the ballot. that's how i read the 14th amendment, but it is a question for the supreme court. it's better that they rule on this sooner than later. >> what precedent do you think this sets for the former president potentially to be removed from a ballot? does his conduct on january 6th outweigh the right for voters to make up

i was not allowed, under maine law, to wait for the united states supreme court. understood. know maine law is different to other states. i want to ask you what we have seen from other, including michigan, that made the decision not to disqualify the former president from the ballot, and we spoke to the secretary of state there yesterday, who says she does not believe it is the role of secretaries of state to make this decision. i want to play you the clip. we have to remember, for matters like this, which involve an interpretation, a novel interpretation of the us constitution, it is the us supreme court whose job it is to ultimately make that call and make that determination. what do you think of that, secretary bellows? i cannot speak to michigan and certainly i hope the united states supreme court will settle this matter, nationwide. that being said, every secretary of state must uphold the election laws in their state. that is why i explained so clearly maine state law and the legal requirements i am held to. but do you expect it to end up in front of the supreme court? c

campaign announced that he will appeal the decision to the united states supreme court. the question before the supreme court will be, how to interpret section three of the 14th amendment of the constitution, which says, anyone who has, quote, previously taken an oath as an officer of the united states cannot, quote, hold any office, civil or military, under the united states if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. joining us now is andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel of former chief of the criminal division of eastern district of new york. he is the co-host of the msnbc podcast prosecuting donald trump. also with us, neal katyal, former acting u.s. solicitor general and host of the podcast courtside we have neal katyal.

at 12:30 pm today, jack smith filed a petition directly to the united states supreme court, asking thereme court to use its power to reach down and take this case off of the appeals court docket for immediate consideration by the supreme court. at the same time, jack smith filed a backup motion with the appeals court to expedite the appeal at the appeals court level if the supreme court refuses to take the case at this stage. and just five hours later, the supreme court responded favorably to jack smith, and a half hour after that, the court of appeals responded favorably to jack smith. the united states supreme court issued an order saying the court granted jackson its request to consider taking the case on an expedited basis. the supreme court has not decided to take the case, but has decided to consider jack smith's argument that the supreme court should take the case. the supreme court then gave donald trump's lawyers until next wednesday, december 20th, four pm, to file and reply brief to jack smith's brief that was submitted to the supreme court today. and the united states court

>> i actually think the united states supreme court will take its sweet time, and then decide -- that is what i think will happen. ultimately, i don't think that's the majority of the justices in the united states supreme court or in any hurry to speed donald trump to his trial. but at the end of the day, they will want a decision that will be a blow against donald trump, because it is indefensible, the arguments that he is making. there are novel. in other words, they have never been made before. because no president has been indicted. they are also absurd. i can imagine the authority of the supreme court, even though they are on the side. >> interesting, and everybody is watching the. i bet you to goodnight, renato. we'll look at your room and full. we'll just look at your holiday scene, just you. i will ask you to weigh in on a more minor question. how long does the christmas tree stay up? when do you take it down? it's wednesday, december 27th, when do you take it down? >> we are taking this down after the new year. i'll tell you, my wife is jewish. we have a menorah behind us as

something that is still going to get ultimately up to the in that state supreme court from the colorado case, and given the composition of the united states supreme court, we can't be completely positive about how that will turn out if given who donald trump appointed to it. >> that news about the court and michigan. there is several news dating back to the pressure trump put on a michigan officials in 2020. carl rove, who is a very conservative republican, although he does not agree with trump on everything. you could be a republican without supporting coups, as you know, renato. talking about how that call by then-president trump -- as well as the party chair of the gop, and what that means. take a listen. >> real quick, is this a problem for rhonna mcdaniel? she is usually cautious about things like. this >> i think it is, i think the chairman is in trouble here, because she said to them, if you agree to make it, change your decision on certification in wayne county, we'll get you lawyers to stand by you. again, i think that was highly inappropriate. >> renato, as we go towards the busy january and iowa caucus and the official s

guess, there is also potential stakes that a supreme court could throw him off the ballot in all 50 states and he would not be the nominee for psident of the united states with four pending criminal trials on top of it. so if you're looking at e len ha baa, she's the spokesperson for trump's legal team. she writes, this ruling issued by the colorado supreme court attacks the very heart of this nation's democracy. it will not stand and we trust that the supreme court will reverse this unconstitutional order. donald trump at his rallies over the last weeks behind him on a big screen has had the words biden is threat to democracy plastered behind him. he keeps uing words election interference. he takes the phrases used against him, or in this situation he is the one under scrutiny or criminal investigation for attacking the democracy, but now he has using those words to suggest that he is the one under attack. when governor kasich was talking about the u.s. supreme court and how they could potentially rule, i think it's also worth noting donald trump has met their ire in the past. one year ago they ruled unanimously he had to turn over his federal i

it will certainly be appealed to the united states supreme court. their ruling, i mean depending on what they rule, they could just swat this down and make this go away, but if they engage with it in a more nuanced way or agree with the findings of the colorado supreme court, this will be something that has national implications. p this will apply in many states. so listen, i don't think this is the way that donald trump's political career ends ultimately, because of what we know about this iteration of the united states supreme court. the factual findings about him engaged in insurrection for section 3 of the 14th amendment which said insurrectionists cannot hold office, it's not that you can't run, you can't hold notifies this case because you have broken your oath that is -- it's not a flippant decision. they did fact finding to arrive at that, and it's going to -- it's going to matter some way. i don't believe it will be a magic wand that ends his political career, but this is a substantive finding and real surprise from the colorado supreme cou

before we get a final ruling by the united states supreme court on whether the president of the united states is allowed to commit any crime that crosses the presidents mind while serving as president. that could mean that the very first criminal trial, the scheduling of all that, could be the first criminal trial of donald trump would be prosecuted by the very first prosecutor in history to filed criminal charges against a former president to united states. today our first guest, andrew weissmann, tweeted that the ongoing appeal january 6th case could lead man handed it to tierney alvin bragg to, quote, push forward with the march 2024 trial date that they already have scheduled in that case. andrew weissmann said, so the first criminal case brought against trump will also be the first to go to trial. joining us now, andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel, former chief of the eastern district of new york, the co-host of the msnbc podcast prosecuting donald trump. also with this part mcquade, former u.s. attorney law professor at the university of michigan law school. she is the

united states. and tonight, in a ruling as stunning as it is unprecedented, colorado supreme court said that donald j. trump, 45th president of the united states, is an su insurrectionist and therefore should be disqualified from being president. i'm pamela brown in for anderson. we begin with not just the ruling, which is historic, but what happens when it almost certainly reaches the u.s. supreme court, which could be seismic. starting us off tonight, paula reid. tell us more about this really surprising ruling. >> surprising, remarkable, pamela. and the judges here, they acknowledge that at the top of their opinion. they talk about the weight and the magnitude of the issue that they're deciding here. i mean this is the biggest court decision to impact a national election since bush v. gore. even though this only impacts colorado, the implications could be national because here we're talking about the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. and there's a section of that amendment that bars u.s. officials who engage in an insurrection from holding public office. now, in this case, colorad

not only was she the first woman to serve on the united states supreme court, and she was, as you mentionedr in the state senate in arizona, and as you noted, ronald reagan made the promise to appoint a woman to the supreme court. the problem, of course, is that the republicans had a poor track record of appointing women to the lower federal benched. jimmy carter, as the democratic president preceding reagan did a great job integrating both courts with minorities and women and none of those appointees were women, and when reagan was looking for his nominee, he couldn't look to the federal bench and he had to cast a wider net and found sandra day o'conner who was in arizona. she had been a standout student at stanford law school and could not find a job upon graduating and she was given an offer to be a legal secretary, and she raised her children and was active in the goldwater campaign, and that's when she began to make the political connections and that brought her to the attention of reagan. >> as the ceremony is about to begin. michael, things were so different in so many ways, how reag

breaking news on donald trump's coup charges and the united states supreme court. late today donald trump's lawyers urging the united states supreme court to delay hearing arguments on a monumental question, whether he has absuit immunity criminal prosecution from actions trying to overturn the 2020 election. the filing coming in response to special counsel jack smith who is urging the high court to fast track this case. today trump's lawyers telling the court it should wait until a lower court has ruled while questioning why smith wants to move so quickly. arguing that smith's proposal would lead to a, quote, radically compressed timetable, and that, quote, the special counsel identifies no dpelg reason for the extraordinary haste he proposed. at another point trump's lawyers quoting the phrase haste makes waste. this is the core trump legal strategy across criminal cases. delay, delay, delay. and today trump's lawyers arguing the case should first go through the d.c. circuit court of appeals, already scheduled to hear oral arguments january 9 because that is part

supreme court does have to take up. i think our democracy sort of demands that an issue as essential as this, what name will be on ballot for president of the united states is something that should be decided by the supreme court of the united states. as you indicated in your opening, alex, there are many other cases pending in other states. some of them may have different state laws, and that was the basis for a ruling, for example, in minnesota, dismissing the case there. so in colorado the state law gives it a little bit -- puts it in a little bit of a different position than the united states. but the constitutional issue should be decided by the supreme court and i think will be decided by the supreme court. >> and you have a kind of over-under about whether trump's name ultimately goes on the primary ballot and the real issue sort of being litigated here is whether if he is the nominee he goes on the general election ballot. january 5th is the deadline to effectively print the ballots in colorado. asking the court to rule before then seems -- asking the court to rule quite expeditious given all else that's on its plate. >> there is a provision the

trump is ineligible to be on the presidential ballot. >> that's why it's imperative that the united states supreme court weighs in. i think what some people have a problem with with maine is that was one person. the secretary of state was making that decision. whereas, in colorado, there was a trial and then it went to the state supreme court. it was a judicial process. however, maine allowed that one person, the secretary of state, to make the decision that she made. that is maine law. california has a different law. the secretary of state can't do that. that's why california is keeping trump's name on the ballot. so because every state has different laws and what is -- that is why the united states supreme court is there. they will be the ultimate decider on whether or not donald trump will be on the ballot in -- throughout the country. it will be one decision that will apply to all of the states in the united states. >> kathryn. , you actually base for me the sweet spot in this whole situation with respect to the supreme court. because every state has their own way of making that decision, numb

obviously, the supreme court reversed that and made it easy for them to reverse that as a matter of law. so i believe that he should not be running for president of the united states and that's why i'm a candidate. i want to see him beat at the ballot box, and the voters will have to hold him accountable, more so than the courts. but the supreme court needs to be definitive about this. we don't want this to be an albatross around the gop's neck. and will that is what it will be unless the supreme court is definitive in their decision. >> i'm going to play for what you ron desantis said about this. >> my fear is that democrat states will go and move on this ground to do. republicans, can we go in and say, biden, take biden off the ballot? he complete the 8 million people illegally into this country. he did not satisfy his oath of office. >> fundamentally, is that a legitimate argument? he's trying to compare a disagreement over border policy with trump's role in an insurrection against the united states. >> no. it's not a good comparison. desantis is a better lawyer than he is acting like he is there. and there's a specific constitutional disqualifying for someone

supreme court does have to take up. i think our democracy sort of demands an issue as essential as this, what name will be on the ballot for president of the united states, is should be something that is decided by the print supreme court of the united states. and as you indicated in your opening alex, there are many other cases pending in other states. some of them may have other different state laws, i was in case for the ruling of minnesota, dismissing the case there. so in colorado, the state law gives the president a little bit of a different position than other states. but the constitutional issue should be decided by the supreme court and i think will be decided by the supreme court. >> and, do you have about an over under about whether trump 's name go out on the primary ballot and the real issue that is being litigated here is whether he is a nominee, he goes on a general election ballot. january 5th is the deadline to effectively print the ballots in colorado. asking the court to rule before then, asking the rules the courts rule quite expeditiously. >> while there is a provision in the opinion of the supreme's colorado supreme court ruled tod

this now comes a day after colorado republican party has asked the united states supreme court to overturn colorado's ruling, firing trump, which basically means trump will appear on that states ballot for now. late today the high court was asked to fast-track its review of the colorado ruling for the six colorado voters who brought the lawsuit in the first place. joining me now is color disagree of state, janet griswold, so glad to have you here. before we even talk about your state, let's talk in unpack some of this breaking news out of maine. what is your reaction to this move? and what it means for the future of all of these challenges? >> good evening. thank you for having me on. honestly, i think it's great that shenna bellows, secretary of state of the state of maine, followed superior court in ruling that don trump is disqualified to the bell. it is clear donald trump engaged in insurrection. it's also very clear that the language in the constitution says that if someone swears to uphold the constitution and then engages in insurrection, they cannot be placed in office again. so i

i think it probably won't because what's going happen is the united states supreme court will be asked to hear the case. then undoubtedly hear the case and make a ruling and that will govern all 50 states. but for now donald trump is not allowed to run in colorado. there is a technical stay, of course, of division as the court imposed. that's the bottom line. it follows directly from the text of the constitution. so, you know, someone like donald trump, who claims to be a strict textualist when it comes to the constitution has been hoisted on his own pittard. >> and, neil, you pete me to the punch. you, obviously, have a complete and total read on scotus. there is a lot of conservatives on that bench that love to be strict constructionists, textualists, they believe in the text of the united states constitution without any type of interpretation of it that devats from same. you talked about the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment is clear in the text that somebody engaged in insurrection can no longer hold another office. and so in light of that, do you think then, if they are

. >> the answer to that, really, it's dependent whether other states follow the colorado supreme court precedent and whether the united states supreme court weighs in. i hope that we should know very quickly if the united states supreme court is going to weigh in. at the end of the day, section three in the 14th amendment that no person who takes an oath to uphold the constitution can hold office again. the very basis of this entire court case is that donald trump stormed, incited the insurrection, people stormed the capitol with the intent of disenfranchising voters across this nation by stealing the presidency from them. no matter what happens, we are only here because donald trump has put the nation in this situation. >> so in a previous life, i worked in voter engagement, particularly for communities that have often been left out of the process. latino voters, one of the things i learned during that period of time as it often when you talk about disenfranchisement, when you talk about making it harder to vote, it could sometimes have the unintended consequence of the motivating folks. of making them feel like they

to me, that is the judgment the united states supreme court is going to have to make. i would like to see the make it decision now and not later. >> so, when it comes to your kind to see for the presidency, you told local paper that you are flying coach, you told him you are living paycheck to paycheck. your advance are mostly empty chairs for flyers from your campaign. at least right now, you are not going to make any of these debates it seems. when are you going to decide about staying in the race or dropping out? >> well, i have decided. i am in the race. i have made that clear. the fact is that the pressure for candidates to drop out is not strengthen the alternatives, it's actually strengthens donald trump, wherever you see the latest poll by the des moines register, they show that trump went up whenever we had mike pence and tim scott went out, he went up in his numbers. >> but we have also seen candidates like nikki haley going up in the polls recently to as the field has windowed. we know would. at some point, do you think that it is the responsible thing to do

the press here is that the united states supreme court is going to get involved in this case. hink there's an excellent chance that they will reverse the colorado supreme court's decision. we're in a universe right now where you have state supreme courts throughout the country that have split on this very important issue, this very important constitutional issue. the colorado supreme court is bucking the trend all the other courts that have decided it up to this point have ruled in favor of president trump, this is an important issue. i have no doubt that the united states supreme court will get involved in this case and decide it sooner rather than later. >> bret: matt, "the new york times" agrees, believe it or not, the opinion friday wrote this. the purpose of section 3 was to stabilize the country after civil war, not the cause another one. at it unfold, the efforts to disqualify mr. trump could make him more popular than ever and democrats do nothing to increase their popularity by setting out to save democratty when it looks as if their legal base is proceeding too flimsy

fact that there is now disagreement among the states does make it far more likely that the united states supreme court will step in. that's one of their big rules. when you have issues that split the lower courts where you have different state supreme courts disagreeing with one another on a question of constitutional law. that's a situation where the supreme court steps in to set the law right. >> dana: one of the things i saw last night from a liberal commentator if conservatives claim to believe in state's rights they will say colorado made a good decision here. how did conservatives push back against that? >> sure. states rights are very important but states rights like everything are bounded by the limitations of the united states constitution. and so even if a state says this is how we interpret our law and what we think our law requires they are still subject to the requirements of the constitution of the united states. so i think states rights is a good argument but not sure it carries the day in this case. >> bill: number three, guys, here is what it reads in part. no person shall be a

continue to get increased pressure from people in congress who are pushing him, and i think the united states supreme court is going to take a look at this, but on the schedule that they want to do. i think the supreme court is going to take the perspective that they need to make sure they have enough time if they want to take this case and decide it now. that they have enough time to think about it, decide the legal issues. it goes without saying, these are absolutely momentous questions and i don't think the justices are going to say, "we are going to make this schedule around jackson is preferred trial schedule." it is something they might take into account, but i think he's fooling himself if he thinks that, by demanding the supreme court, decide this case in the next few weeks, that they'll do it just because he's pushing them to do it. >> mike: thank you so much for your analysis and your time tonight. >> thank you, mike. >> mike: the crisis at our southern border not slowing down, with the situation in arizona growing more dire. texas governor greg abbott promising to fly additional migrants t

. >> he had promised to nominate a woman to the united states supreme court before he was nominated and you have to give him credit for that. >> in our lifetime, it was stunning to name a woman to the high court. it was controversial. he made a campaign promise in october close to the campaign, and he said not the first, but one of the first appointments would be a woman to the high court. and when he had the chance, he did. >> he did not appoint a ideologue, but a pragmatist trying to find the center of things, and took into account public opinion who ruled. so now we have a court that is much more ideological in nature, and ronald reagan who many thought was a real ideologue appointed this woman who was not. >> and interestingly, i have always studied her, and obviously as a lawyer, we take for granted nowadays that there are women on the supreme court, and a vice president who is a woman, and thankfully my daughter is going to look and say, why is this historic? but the reality, it was so historic to have a qualified person, period, but to have a woman and what it meant to have women

ultimately, i don't want really think that the majority of the justices of the united states supreme are in any hurry to speed donald trump to his trial, but at the end of the day i think they'll want to duck a decision that would be a blow against donald trump because it's indefensible the arguments he's making. they're novel. they've never been made before because no president's been indicted before and they're also absurd, and i can't imagine the majority of the supreme court, even who they are signing on to that. >> interesting. everybody is watching that before. a bid you good night renato. we'll look at the room in full, just at the holiday scene and i'll ask you on a more minor question. how long does the christmas tree stay up? when do you take it down? this is wednesday december 27th. when will you take it down? >> we are taking this down after the new year. i will tell you, my wife is jewish. we have a menorah behind me as well, you can see it, but she loves christmas more than i do, so we have to keep the christmas tree up as long as possible. >> you're a january person. s

determined that he engaged in insurrection and is disqualified from the ballot unless the united states supremert holds otherwise. looking forward towards ballot certification, we will wait to see if this case is appealed and if the united states supreme court takes the case and go from there. >> if he appeals, but they haven't taken it, what do you do then? i think the state supreme court said that if he shows any sign of appealing, if he files an appeal, it's stayed, it's on hold. >> we assume trump will appeal. what the court order said is basically, if he appeals, the case basically resets. it's assumed he is on unless the united states supreme court intercedes or decides that they aren't going to take the case or decide the case. the big picture is that i think we have to wait to see how this plays out. i'm confident we will have great elections in colorado, just like normal. we are considered the gold standard of the nation's elections. i believe that will hold true for the presidential primary. >> what if the supreme court has taken the case but it has not reached a decision by march 5th

. >>> shocking new details have been revealed about the inner workings of the united states supreme courtade. >>> president biden teaming up with his old boss, barack obama, to celebrate one of their signature achievements together. hey, you should try new robitussin honey medi-soothers for long-lasting cough and sore throat relief. try new robitussin lozenges with real medicine and find your voice. you know? we really need to work on your people skills. the long-lasting scent of gain flings made it smell like dave was in his happy place... ...the massage chair at the mall. but...he wasn't. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. (vo) in three seconds, janice will win a speedboat. (woman) bingo! i'm moving to the lake. gotta sell the house. (vo) ooh! that's a lot of work. (woman) ooh! (vo) don't worry. skip the hassels and sell directly to opendoor. (woman) bingo. (vo) get your competitive offer at opendoor dot com. ♪ if there's pain when you try to poo ♪ ♪ and going sometimes feels like you ♪ ♪ pushed through a pineapple or two ♪ ♪ colace is the brand you need ♪ ♪ to soften stools, we're

. >> andrew, this will go to the united states supreme court. chutkan, donald trump will take to the united states supreme court. jack smith would take it to the united states supreme court if the appeal went against him. >> absolutely. the supreme court does not have to take the case. you apply to do that. the circuit will hear this. the supreme court, you could apply for it, they take a tiny fraction. just remember, they have yet to rule on this issue. they have ruled on presidential immunity in the civil context. they have never ruled on presidential immunity in a criminal context. while i think judge chutkan's decision will ultimately be vindicated and there will be enough votes, the issue is this day of the trial because if there is any case where the effort in justice delayed is justice denied, it's this one. there's not a large window for judge chutkan to hold this trial. it is really important for the justices and judges who are going to hear it in the court of appeals to really move it forward, and to keep their foot on the pedal. it do

. >> reporter: the colorado gop has already appealed that state's ruling to the united states supreme court. asking the justices to take up three key questions, does section three of the 149 amendment apply to a president? and is section 3 of the 14th amendment to be enforced by states? also asking whether the gop has a first amendment right to choose its candidates. trump also expected to appeal. >> they trying to take the election away from the voters. >> reporter: even in michigan and minnesota where they opted to keep trump on the primary ballot, those judges left the door open to relitigate in the general election. so if the supreme court doesn't weigh in, this is an issue that could hang over the 2024 election through november. victor. >> paula, thank you. joining me now to discuss, legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson. good morning. let me pick up where paula left off. the supreme court taking this up. now you've got several states who have kept trump off the primary ballot. it is your expectation that they will have to weigh in here. right? >> it is indeed.

. >> i could not, unfortunately for -- or fortunately, wait for the united states supreme court to makeecision. david: tom, i could not wait for the supreme court. i had to do this. all on my open. i mean, it's -- can her at a tuesday towards the constitution is so frivolous, it kind of gives me goes bumpsing make -- goose bumps, makes me worried about whether people have any respect for that wonderful document. >> well, look, i had a very similar reaction when i saw that interview. i mean, typically when you have a public official rendering what's the equivalent of a judicial decision. they don't then go on television and kind of explain themselves in what i think a lot of americans perceive as a partisan way. and that's the real concern here is that i think a lot of people, including but not limited to the people who are prepared to vote for president trump, you know, mainers who disgee with president trump are criticizing this as a partisan decision. and when you have the secretary of state kind of making the rounds of talk shows to explain her decision and justify it, i think that j

all seven of those justices were appointed by democrats, here in the united states supreme court, you have nine justices and i think rather famously not only six of them appointed, but three of them are appointed by donald trump himself. i would be surprised if the supreme court ultimately affirms the colorado decision not based on merits necessarily but just because i suspect those judges may look at this as a political issue we try to find an offramp or a way out from making a decision which is what the judge in michigan donato while -- did as well. >> they could remove trump from the general election ballot, they did not hear a case for the gop primary ballot. what is the difference in that lawsuit? >> it will be interesting to see whether or not there is a different result, it depends on what judges it is in front of, they put out to establish to engage in insurrection which it was established in colorado. ultimately that move was basically the judge is trying to say as little as possible, in other words the question of whether or not you should be on the general election ballot w

colorado supreme court made a completely flawed decision, and we will quickly appeal to the united states suprememocratic verdict. we have every confidence that the us supreme court will quickly rule in our favor and thus put an end to similar anti-american lawsuits. voter groups have tried to get trump removed from the race in the courts. his competitors in the election race within the republican party came out in unison against an unexpected legal incident. we 're going to win fair. we'll do what we have to do, but the last thing we need is judges making decisions like this. strong winds sweep the orenburg and chelyabinsk regions, tatarstan and bashkyrtastan, on sections of the m5 ural highway, traffic is limited, trucks and public transport are temporarily unable to pass. our correspondent, murat zaripov, is now in direct contact with facts from bashkiria. murat, greetings, tell us what the situation is on the highway at these minutes? yes, good evening, well right now the situation is gradually starting to work out.

it will stand the task of time, as they say, and i think that the supreme court of the united states to affirm this decision and, based on the objective law in this instance, the 14th amendment to the united constitution, i believe the u.s. supreme court will affirm this decision. >> then let's talk about that, because lots of folks will hear, oh, it is going to get to the supreme court and there are those conservative judges, they're. but in the opinion, it points out that then colorado supreme court judge neil gorsuch's decision to exclude a candidate from the ballot was what helped them come to this opinion. do you think when this makes its way to the supreme court judge gorsuch will be that -- we'll stick to the law following constitutional law? or do you worry that, again, politics will get involved? >> stephanie, i don't even recognize politics within the judicial system, and i will not do that tonight. i believe that the sitting justices on the supreme court today, all nine of them, will apply the constitution as it is written. i believe that, as written, the disqualification c

silva united states supreme court look not have to take. i think the effect of the supreme court not fast-tracking this appeal is likely to delay the trial a matter of weeks. if the supreme court ends up taking that appeal, and does not deal with it expeditiously. you can see that direct on quite a bit further. >> michael, we're talking about a duality here, which is, this moment is testing the supreme court. but that testing of supreme court the is also testing our nation, our faith in that court. our trust in that court. our trust in institutions grip large. >> that's an excellent point, alicia. because this is a space that the chief justice, roberts, did not want the court to be. and it did not want to be caught in the cross heroes of political factions across the country who expect the court, literally expect the court, to do a thing a certain way. have a certain outcome. which, you know, takes out of the mix and a consideration of jurisprudence, the rule of law, the constitution. so now you've got these political battle lines that have

state law issues? >> that's right, and that doesn't help donald trump and the supreme court because the supreme court of the unitedhas no business countering what state courts say about state law. the last word on issues of state law is a state supreme court. >> so does the supreme court, correct me if i'm wrong, guys, has to decide when an insurrection is, decide what an insurrection is and also decide whether the president is indeed an officer of the united states. those are two sort of crucial issues, constitutional issues. >> the reason i even raised the state court part. i didn't think the dissenters were weak. >> it doesn't help. >> it doesn't help in the appeal, but it's real for what's happening in colorado because under the state election laws -- >> it's over. >> under the state election law they showed the laws there. >> that's rid. he's done in colorado. he's got no further avenue or review for the state law issues that the dissents raised. >> one other thing on that, wolf, which is why it's important for the supreme court to come in and rule on this in a co prehencive way is is there any due process wi

. >> reporter: the colorado gop has already appealed the state's ruling to the united states supreme court asking the justices to take up three key questions, does section three of the 14th amendment apply to a president? and is section 3 of the 14th amendment to be enforced by states? and also asking whether the gop has a first amendment right to choose its candidates. trump is also expected to appeal. >> they are trying to take the election away from the voters. >> reporter: and in states like minnesota and michigan where they opted to keep trump on the ballot for the primary, the judges left the door open to relitigate the issue for the general election. so if the supreme court does not step in here, this is a question that could hang over the 2024 election through november. paula reid, cnn, washington. >> and as she mentioned, california secretary of state pushed back against some calls from her own democratic party and decided to keep trump on the ballot. here is what she told cnn. >> we have looked and looked and we have observed and watched every case that has come out. i have

united states. [applause] [cheering] now it is my pleasure to introduce the archivist of the united states. [applause] now it's my pleasure to introduce the chief justice of theob united states supreme, john roberts junior. [applause] and now again another pleasure to introduce the first lady of the united states of america, doctor jill biden. [applause] [cheering] as we start the ceremony i would ask everyone please rise for the presentation of colors by the navyvy colorguard followed by te singing of the national anthem. ♪♪ ♪♪ oh say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming. ♪♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight or the ramparts we watched were so valiantly streaming. and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air. ♪♪ gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. say does that * spain all banner yet wave through the land of the free end at the home of the brave. ♪♪ [applause] on behalf of the national nationalarchives foundation i wo welcome you to this very special event. our foundation, the national archives foundation has been the nonprofit partner for over 30 years. we are th