state supreme court reversed it. it's a little awed to think that the state supreme court can take away a case from the united states supreme court. that they can somehow affect the jurisdiction of the united states supreme court. the supreme court is the majority and chief justice roberts said we hold onto this judgment that came from the previous case as a technical matter, we are still holding onto it and as a result, when we affirm or reverse, it will affect that judgment in the case. the justice thomas dissent points out that the state supreme court has overturned his decision that was the basis for us hearing this case in the first place. on the one hand, you technically have a judgment but on the other hand, you have the reversal of the precedent that form the basis of the judgment. it's a fight between the majority and the dissent about whether to hear this case. i think there was a sense from the majority that they wanted to address the issue when we are not in the middle of a heat election. -- a heated election. we are deciding this well before any election is happening and well before these issues might co

in this situation, the aclu easily won the case including the united states supreme court because itnvolved what the court has called the bedrock principle of freedom of speech. the viewpoint neutrality. government must remain neutral with respect to the idea of the content. but that was a very unpopular position in the court of public opinion. the aclu lost 15% of our members that resigned. saying this goes too far for us. fast forward to 2017, 50 years later, the aclu does exactly the same thing in charlottesville. we came to the defense of the white supremacist demonstrators in charlottesville virginia. and again f the court sided with that they had a right to demonstrate. no matter how wild their ideas may be and that is also very unpopular in the courts of public opinion. we continue to do it. it continues to be an uphill battle to explain to people what i like to think of as a golden rule of free speech. if you don't expand freedom, even the speech that you both it will not give a gift that you love. >> those are examples that you use in your book hate. what is a component in f

- the florida supreme court issued an opinion changing the deadlines, changing the manner in which votes would be counted. we were stunned, and so we challenged that in the united statesreme court. - the votes are being counted, and all of a sudden the television screen flashes that the united states supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, has ordered the county to stop. and there hasn't even been an argument of an appeal. - here you had a conservative supreme court stepping in with the authority of the federal government to stop what was traditionally a local issue. it was the reverse of everything you heard from conservatism. - the wait is under way for a decision from the united states supreme court. a decision that could keep alive al gore's presidential hopes, or kill them outright and hand the presidency to george bush, in what would be the first presidential election ever decided by the court. - the system had never had this kind of stress test before, and it failed it. the result of all this: chaos and uncertainty as to who the president of the united states would be come january 20th. - everybody in the country was on pins and needles and those of us who were worki

the skokie situation, the aclu easily won that case in the courts of law, including the united states supreme court, because it involved what the court has called the bedrock principle of freedom of speech, viewpoint, neutrality, content neutrality. government must remain neutral with respect to the idea, the viewpoint, the message, the content. but that was a very unpopular position in the court of public opinion. the aclu lost 15% of our members who resigned die free speech supporters who said this goes too far for us. and fast forward to 2017, 50 years later, right? the aclu does exactly same thing in charlottesville. we came to the defense of the unite the right white supremacist demonstrators, charlottesville, virginia, and the court sided with us that they had a free speech right to demonstrate, no matter how loathsome and vile their ideas might be. and yet that's also very unpopular in the courts of public opinion. so we continue to do it and it continues be an uphill battle to to people. what i like think of as the golden rule of free that if you don't defend freedom even for speech that yo

about in just a second because as monroe versus pape the monroe versus pape decision, the united states supreme court in 1961 is a crucial turning point in. civil rights enforcement in our country, it's the first time that the supreme court recognized that people could sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. and so it was an extremely important decision. and and opened the federal courthouse doors to, these kinds of claims before monroe versus pape could only be brought in state court, which state courts were considered far less hospitable to claims against local governments. and as and james monroe's attorney commented after their bringing a claim by an african-american family against a politically powerful white police officer in state court in anywhere in the country was going to be very, very difficult to and so this was the first time that a case like this could be brought in federal court. this why monroe versus is such an important in the history of supreme court decisions about civil rights and that sort of development of this particular ability to sue. but i also

state supreme court reversed it. it's a little awed to think that the state supreme court can take away a case from the united states urt. that they can somehow affect the jurisdiction of the united states supreme court. the supreme court is the majority and chief justice roberts said we hold onto this judgment that came from the previous case as a technical matter, we are still holding onto it and as a result, when we affirm or reverse, it will affect that judgment in the case. the justice thomas dissent points out that the state supreme court has overturned his decision that was the basis for us hearing this case in the first place. on the one hand, you technically have a judgment but on the other hand, you have the reversal of the precedent that form the basis of the judgment. it's a fight between the majority and the dissent about whether to hear this case. i think there was a sense from the majority that they wanted to address the issue when we are not in the middle of a heat election. -- a heated election. we are deciding this well before any election is happening and well before these issues might come back to

to be of the united states supreme court. mp's first supreme court nominee, and he was taking a supreme court position that mitch mcconnell has basically held open at the end of the obama administration for the next president. the justices that i'm going to appoint will be pro-life. they will have a conservative bent. donald trump was married three times. linked to porn stars. not the first logical choice for southern evangelicals. so the most important thing trump did to try to cement the allegiance of the cultural conservative vanguard of the republican party was to signal who he would pick for the supreme court. -so help me god. -congratulations. in both cases, they each got what they wanted. the conservative christian groups got the conservative supreme court. and donald trump got their votes to win the election. today, the president began interviewing possible nominees for the supreme court seat that will become open when justice anthony kennedy retires. president trump here nominates brett kavanaugh. [chris] brett kavana

conducted and ultimately to delay the counting of the votes, prompting this to go to the united states supreme court, thereby compromising any victory joe biden might claim. i think that is really important. this was a delay tactic that would force this all the way to the united states supreme court, create a second bushes have gore with all the doubt that understood lay that election for many years following 2000. >> what do you think of the way the legal, conspiritle and possible legal strategies all circle around the lie that something which never happens and it's own participants know is bad would be presented as somehow, quote, routine or just an alternative option? >> again, there's been for many years within the republican party this effort to stoke a narrative that voter fraud is rafr pant everyone though we know, and there's evidence that makes clear, voter fraud is not rampant at all, that our elections are incredibly secure. but that naritive was very present here, and more importantly because of that voter fraud, we could then present this alternative slate of electors. and that date in

make sure that should the united states supreme court decide to go otherwise that that we're protectedposition. >> the california policy center, a conservative-leaning nonprofit think tank focused in part on union policy. >> came out ca 7 arguing it could lead to businesses leaving the state. in a statement the group said politicians, quote, would be helpless to change government policy against union demands. the will of employers and employees will be subservient to special interests. and california will become the state where democracy goes to die. >> because this is a proposed state constitutional amendment need at least two-thirds approval from the legislature to qualify for the 2024 ballot. if it makes it that far, you the voters will have the final say reporting from the state capitol wallace kron. 4 news. >> developing now, trucking company, yellow corp, has a site in hayward, has shut down its operations. that means that 33,000 workers across the country are now without a job. the 99 year-old company received a 700 million dollar bailout from the federal government just 3 years

make sure that should the united states supreme court decide to go otherwise that that we're protected. but the proposal does have some opposition. >> the california policy center, a conservative-leaning nonprofit think tank focused in part on union policy. >> came out ca 7 arguing it could lead to businesses leaving the state. in a statement the group said politicians, quote, would be helpless to change government policy against union demands. the will of employers and employees will be subservient to special interests. and california will become the state where democracy goes to die. >> because this is a proposed state constitutional amendment. it will need at least two-thirds approval from the legislature to qualify for the 2024 ballot. if it makes it that far, you the voters will have the final say reporting from the state capitol wallace kron. 4 news. >> coming up on kron, news at 6 protecting kids elderly adults from highly contagious disease when the new rsv vaccine is coming to your pharmacy. plus, prices are going up again at the pumps counties. you might find the cheapest gas

the 1st off you, you said was different now and that had to do with the united states supreme court's decision. it's called the jobs decision last june. that said that roe v wade and casey were no longer the law of the land. meaning there is no rights for a woman to control her own body. we get related to things like abortion, her own health care. and so this ohio vote yesterday was an end around attempting to stymie a constitutional amendment vote that's on the ballot in november in ohio to in flying the right of women to be able to have an abortion up to the date of the viability of the fetus. and with this vote was yesterday was to change a constitutional name and vote from a 50 percent simple majority to a 60 percent super majority. and we know if we look across the united states since wrote the wave was overturned, the states that have held valid issues, votes on reproductive rights. you've seen the voters vote in support of a woman's right to an abortion. and when i see that, and i think conservative had been fighting for decades to, to get route versus wade overturn. they got t

there is no artifact that better defines been the united states supreme court. with generations before the collection. asou he presided over the supree court cases elevated to be an equal branch of the federal government. and today is a recognizable icon. this iconic image has been carried on with chief justice roberts. [inaudible] from the arguments between the court with marbury versus madison and the judicial review with the power and authority to interpret. cothe old supreme court chamber along with of the other justices. through the love and care received over the years by family members and for the ceo and the families the object is a story of the early years of the court and represents the strength of the democracy. we are able to successfully conserve this icon because of people like you and many of you are joining us today to help to ensure the environmental factors. we are providing education to the house. we welcome you and now it is my honor [inaudible] graduated with a bachelor's degree in history from the university of virginia and earned her maste

and one state to remove him from the ballot and to get the go-ahead from the state supreme court and then it goes to the united states supreme court. we are going to see if this idea starts to get momentum. it will start rising very fast in this 2024 election. >> we should note, these are originalist law professors. if they believe this, logically, one might presume that perhaps a conservative or multiple conservatives on the supreme court might agree with this line of thinking, what do you think? >> i think it is unlikely, but you never know. liberals have generally disagreed with original is him because they have said, so what if that is what it meant hundreds of years ago. we live in the real world and have to take an account political realities. if the original meaning requires us to not have paper money or something that is totally unworkable in modern society, we have to interpret it in a way that is consistent with how our society works originally, they say we have to follow the text no matter what the implications are. i think these are influential law professors. depending on how these trials play out

that's why i think it has to come from the united states supreme court as the court for the whole nationt i think is even worse potentially than the kind of chaotic different opinions and different courts around the country that you mentioned, if congress attempted to invoke this provision, you know, on january 6th, 2025 after, let's say, hypothetically trump has won the electoral college. i think to take this away from the voters after they cast ballots would be most fraught for peril and the kind of potential violence that you were talking about in an earlier segment on the show, so, you know, there is an argument that congress could invoke this afterwards under the procedures of the 12th amendment and all the reforms that are appropriately took place after the january 6th insurrection to improve those procedures doesn't deal with this issue because this issue goes to the eligibility of a candidate, not the counting of the ballots. >> nbc news election law analyst ned foley, thank you very much for explaining that for us and coming up -- >> it is fascinating. >> it is, but charlie put

better define marshall's career than the robe he wore for his tenure as chief justice of the united states supreme court. the room is cared for by generations of descendents before finding its way into our collection. the robe is a witness object and if robes could talk what a story this one could share. john marsh award this robe is a prison guard -- presided over supreme court cases during which time the supreme court was elevated to an equal branch of the federal government and today the simple black robe is a recognizable icon at the american judicial system and as our curator collection put it this iconic image of the american giant has been carried on by everyone from chief justice john roberts to -- stories from its tailoring as marshall wrote the circuit from the days hearing arguments before the court cases like barbary versus madison which is perhaps his most significant president judicial review asserting the courts power and authority to the u.s. constitution. and stories of activities like the supreme court along with the robes of the other justices to the loving care received over the year

marshall's career than the robe he wore for the 34 year tenure as chief justice of the united states supreme courtwhose care for by generations of defendants before finding its way. if robes could talk what a story this one could share. john marshall wore this robe as he presided over 34 years in cases during which time the supreme court was elevated to an equal branch of the federal government. and today the simple black robe is a recognizable icon in every american judicial system. added to our collection, it's iconic image of the has been carried on by everyone since chief justice john roberts. starting from construction and tailoring the time from the day's hearing arguments before the court cases like marbury versus madison. had significant precedents judicial review. the power and authority to interpret. as activities on the old chamber inside of the f capitol. along with the robes of the other justices. to the loving care received over the years when inspiration by family members and preservation. to quote this object is history of the early years of the court and represents the strength of

it's amazing when we hear that the united states supreme court may have to render judgment on what aney may have to render judgment that donald trump, whose fingerprints are all over the makeup of the supreme court, it's amazing to me and tragic to me that the members of this court have cared more about bolstering their own integrity. they watched it plunge. we need people in this country to have faith in the integrity of the united states supreme court, if something as grave as this could end up on their desk. >> that's right. that's why in many ways, i was glad to see the conservative thoughts leaders write this article. over 100 pages long. it's worth reading. what's really important line is that post civil war, why would you give the keys to political and bureaucratic power in this country to people who have decided that they want to see it torn down? that is the principle at heart here. why would you give the power to control a military to people who want to see or use that force to impact their own needs. so it's an important argument to make. i'm concerned that we don't have th

eventually the united states supreme court. >> harris: all right and want to bring this impure legal analyst and panelist pointing to two-tiered system of justice with the justice department's and length of hunter biden say for example president trump era terrel seuss at a baltimore police commissioner and he actually spent time in prison on tax charges nearly identical to hunter biden's. he was prosecuted by leo, the same person who cut hunter the sweetheart deal. the one judge blew up last week. here is a he is from today. >> i went through that storm in my life. this is the way the criminal justice system is supposed to be. and again, i have to say i wanted to own up and take accountability for what i did. this is the way the justice system is supposed to be designed. it should be, everyone should be accountable first and foremost. the same standard as me or someone else that unfortunately had to go through this. >> harris: but brand biden was not going to let that happen with it interview with hunter biden's business partner pre-rigged when you compare the cases, the texas $600,7

marshall's career than the robe that he wore for his 30 34 your tenure as chif justice of the united states supreme court. the room is cured for a generation of descendents before finding its way to our collection. the rope is a witness object and if roads could talk, what a story this one could share. john marshall wore this rope as he i presided over 34 years of supreme court cases during which time the supreme court was elevated to an equal branch of the federal government. and today is simple black robe is a recognizable icon of the american judicial system. and as our spirited collection put it this iconic image of the american giant has been carried on by everyone sent chief justice john roberts. stories from its construction and tailoring -- traveling to raleigh as marshall wrote the circuit from the days hearings arguments before the court, cases like marbury v. madison, which is perhaps marshall's most significant president judicial review. asserting the court power and authority to interpret the u.s. constitution. and stories of activities like hanging -- inside of the u.s. capitol. along with

>> tonight the legal battle over a widely used abortion pill appears headed back to the united states supreme courtt will ask the justices to review a new federal appeals court ruling that the medication should stay on the market but with limits on access. cnn senior supreme court analyst has details for us. walk us through this decision and what it means for the availability of the abortion pill. >> reporter: sure, wolf. good to see you. today's development is part of the most important abortion-related litigation since last year when the supreme court reversed roe v. wade and constitutional abortion rights protections and now this case is headed right back to the supreme court. it involves fda approval for the abortion medication drug mifepristone. the fda decision dates back to 2000, they said it is safe and effe effective for women and it is the most common way that women end pregnancies in america. now, just so you know, nothing changes today in terms of the availability of the drug but it could based on developments in lower courts. last april a judge in texas completely suspended fda approva

hind hindrance, he writes this, we are prepared to take the lead until legal battle to the united states supreme courtsecure the border. this border is wide open, i spoke with kari lake over the weekend and she said they literally have welded the gates open in arizona and to have the homeland security blame new york city for this. 100,000 migrants have come into new york city i guess in the past year. >> my first comment, wake up voters of new york city, don't feel that you have to vote democrat year after year, election after election. i am part of biden administration this was a gross dereliction of duty and in fact to be clipped under perfectly honest what is going on is the biden of administration turned over control of the southern border to the mexican drug cartels, they are the people who were responsible for bringing these illegal immigrants to the border and thereafter. we elected men as kari lake said these gates are wide open and they can walk right through writing to the united states without any hindrance. maria: what should the parents be doing, if parents are seeing their children schoo

al gore took it to the united states supreme court and availed himself of the legal challenges and when the courts were done, al gore said i still don't agree with it but the courts are done. i'm backing off. donald trump has been much different and i said this to the president in december of 2020 the last time he and i spoke. you availed yourself of the courts there is nothing left. you need to concede the election and he said i will never, ever, ever admit it. well, look, if you are going to continue to use the power of the presidency, which he was doing, to put pressure on people, you are going to put yourself in a dangerous circumstance and let's take it aside for a second from the criminal. we can't normalize this conduct. this has never happened before in this country ever. where you had a candidate for president of the united states conduct himself in this way to disrespect the election process in this way, to refuse to accept the verdict of the voters. and what does it say about his judgment, guys? what does it say whether or not he is fit to sit behind that desk? is this really

chief justice of the united states supreme court prepares to administer the oath of office to franklin♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [cheering] >> do you franklin delano roosevelt not only swear that you will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states. and a will, to the best of your ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states so help you god? >> i franklin delano roosevelt do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states and will come to the best of my ability preserve, protect, defend the constitution of the united states to help me god. [cheering] ex-president hoover, chief justice my friends. this is a day of national. i am certain that on this day my fellow americans expect that on my induction into the presidency i will address them with a canned door and a decision with the present situation of our people. this is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth frankly, and boldly. nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. this great nation will en

i especially thought that in june of 2015, when the united states supreme court issued the oberg fell decision. that decision meant that my son could marry the man he loves. i was so glad to be living at that moment in history and so glad that my children were coming into their adulthood at that moment in history. i really thought that they were going to live in an era where we all had equal opportunity becoming a reality for everyone. that same month, there was an anti-black mass shooting in charleston at the emmanuel episcopal church. in 2017 we saw the fateful white supremacist rally in charlottesville, virginia. 2018 there was an attack at the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh. the pulse nightclub, outcrops of shootings, too much hate. yes, the moral arc of the universe, i do believe that it trends towards justice. but i don't know that it is inevitable. it takes hard work, sacrifice, and incredible leadership. that is why i am so happy to be a member of the eeoc and the dedicated civil rights advocate at this point in history. thrilled to be here today with the ambassador disc

conducted and ultimately to delay the counting of the vote, prompting this to go to the united states supreme court, thereby compromising any victory that joe biden might claim. >> meanwhile, all eyes are on the court schedule and the classified documents case in florida. what wall nauta and queloz -- the despite the fact that oliveira has said he cannot find a defense attorney, i claimed that a whole lot of florida lawyers see is just another delay tactic. while trump's month scheduled to appear, his lawyers are still filing motions, most recently they ask that the government reestablish a sensitive compartmented informations facility. you know what that. is ask. if they want to skip at mar-a-lago so trump can view sensitive discovery materials in his arm. let me just make this clear for you. in a criminal case accusing the former president of illegally keeping classified documents at his palm beach club, he now wants special permission to view those classified documents at the alleged scene of the crime, and one more time, trump and his allies keep arguing that there are two justice systems in th

make sure that should the united states supreme court decide to go otherwise that that we're protected. but the proposal does have some opposition. >> the california policy center, a conservative-leaning nonprofit think tank focused in part on union policy. >> came out ca 7 arguing it could lead to businesses leaving the state. in a statement the group said politicians, quote, would be helpless to change government policy against union demands. the will of employers and employees will be subservient to special interests. and california will become the state where democracy goes to die. >> because this is a proposed state constitutional amendment need at least two-thirds approval from the legislature to qualify for the 2024 ballot. if it makes it that far, you the voters will have the final say reporting from the state capitol wallace kron. 4 news. i checked this out of berkeley teen u.s. women into the history books. 15 year-old maya marriage. >> is now the youngest person to swim the 21 mile catalina channel. yeah. just a few weeks ago she actually swept around the island of manhattan

supreme court justice. at age 61 when most normal people are thinking about retiring, he was appointed to the united states supreme court by roosevelt where he served for nearly 30 years writing a series of famous and usually dissenting opinions that were later recognized by the full court having the better of the argument to secure freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants to manifest those -- against the manifest injustices and ending decades of , reactionary opposition on the court to opposition regulating the rights of workers , consumers and the economy. and if that were not enough , he deserves to be recognized as one of great america literary figure from the letters that he wrote. there is an estimated 10000 personal letters of his in the harvard law school archives and every one of them is a gem. he writes about his philosophical thoughts, friendship, aging, death , he writes with very raw humor and wit about the folly of mankind in the writes about washington society and washington personalities in the books he is reading and the original reactions to them. keeping up friendships over de

lawyers can bargain over the working conditions, make sure that should the united states supreme court decide to go otherwise. >> that that we're protected. but the proposal does have some opposition. the california policy center, a conservative-leaning nonprofit think tank focused in part on union policy, came out ca 7 arguing it could lead to businesses leaving the state. in a statement the group said politicians, quote, would be helpless to change government policy against union demands. the will of employers and employees will be subservient to special interests. and california will become the state where democracy goes to die. >> because this is a proposed state constitutional amendment. it will need at least two-thirds approval from the legislature to qualify for the 2024 ballot. if it makes it that far, you the voters will have the final say reporting from the state capitol wallace kron. 4 news. >> legal bills are apparently skyrocketing for donald trump. his political action committee save america has spent more than 40 million dollars on legal fees for himself and his associat

california congressmember ted lieu said thomas had "brought shame upon himself and the united states supreme court no government official, elected or unelected, could ethically or legally accept gifts of that scale. he should resign immediately." and jess search, award-winning producer and co-founder of doc society, has died at the age of 54 after a battle with brain cancer. the visionary filmmaker was a champion of documentary film, which she believed had the power to change the world, often telling others -- "if you are going to move people to act, first you have to move them." during her 18 years at doc society, formerly britdoc, the organization supported such films as laura poitras' oscar-winning "citizenfour" about nsa whistleblower edward snowden. more recently, jess search was an executive producer on the acclaimed "while we watched" by director vinay shukla about journalism in prime minister narendra modi's india. oscar-winning filmmaker lucy walker was one of many who paid tribute to jess search, saying -- "she championed so many underdogs - because she loved them. she knew their potenti

>> well, look, merrick garland wanted to be a united states supreme court justice.know if that's swaying his decision in any way. but this has never been about january 6. this is about november 5 fifth f 202024, that's the presidential election in 458 days. the democrats are scared to death that donald trump will get back into office and start cleaning house the way he should have done in his first term. we've got to make sure that there is not a two tiered justice system in america. we have lost faith in our justice system, america has lost faith in the media for the most part, they've lost faith in our federal law enforcement and we've got to get back to righting that in america. we have confidence in our system. maria: you're right. there is a complete drop in confidence. but the question is what are you and your colleagues doing about it? you can understand the frustration of some people who see the bad guys getting away with things over and over again. we all lived through the russia collusion hoax where, you know, one political campaign came up with a lie abou

what happens here could lead to illegal showdown that goes all the way to the united states supreme courtor for free speech for people, the group that sent the letter to those five secretaries of state, ron fine is here. dahlia lithwick is back with us as well. ron, we've heard from judge luttig who kind of legally put this out there by locking arms with progressive law professor laurence tribe. we've heard from a secretary of state on our program that they're looking at this, along with other secretaries of state in other battleground states. take me inside your effort and your understanding of how the constitutional bars donald trump from being on the ballot. >> thanks, nicolle. well, section three of the 14th amendment says that anyone who took an oath to support the constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states is forever barred from public office unless and until two-thirds of both houses of congress vote to grant that person amnesty. january 6th was a violent insurrection that not only took over the u.s. capitol, nearly assassinated the vice pr

leaving out the question of whether the appeal tries to reach outside of georgia to the united states supreme courtwhat would that appeals timetable look like? >> again, i think with the speedy trial demand on the docket, the judges of the court of appeals or the justices of the supreme court will try to rule as quickly as possible. i certainly think you are trying to see that from the federal level with judge jones, and so, again, i think now we have a speedy trial demand that is going to force all parties or at least encourage all parties to come to decisions quickly, so it's really hard to say how long things may take. >> joyce vance, the speedy trial issue is so fascinating to juxtapose to the trump lawyers saying we're going to be getting this massive amount of discovery that we need a very long time to study. one would think that chesebro needs time to study that same pile of discovery material. is it possible that down the road there could be discovery that emerges after chesebro's trial that is actually relevant to it? >> so it's an interesting question, and it's a risk that gets run in eve

but i think you will probably win the united states supreme court.with the grant review and they should grant review. when you have the president of united states people going after his opponent in a political election, it has to be beyond reproach. has to be without any prompt the strongest case in history this doesn't meet that standard. >> well said all of you, great analysis. tonight, editor-in-chief and founder breaking news report on evidence given to the special counsel at the 11th hour, this from former nypd commissioner, bernie -- he joins us not to explain. this is very interesting. there was a lot written about this last-minute material that was handed over to the special counsel. you apparently know what was in it. >> these are the investigative files that bernie as a chief investigator for rudy giuliani, put together between november and december. they're very interesting. they show us with the police like investigation expect to carry out a police like investigation. scores of allegations, and had affidavits from people, it had statisti

proceeding, should be televised, which would be a decision by the chief justice of the united states supreme court had conversations about this. i just don't know. i would leave that up to the justice department. i don't give them advice. i could make the argument either way. the letter is a very powerful one about why it should happen. i think we leave that up to the justice department. as you say, that would be the chief justice of the supreme court, beyond the justice department. i think the point is right now that we just have clarity and we have respect for the legal process. and that is one of the sins of donald trump is that he has disrespected the rule of law and the judicial process in our country. that's just not right. because that is a very important pillar of our foreign policy -- not our foreign policy. i say foreign policy, because as we go into other countries, we make judgment about their rule of law. it's a very important part of our democracy and a judgment we make about others. >> how do you feel about the push by the house republicans, many of them -- flirted with this idea of

we have got a united states supreme court where people take gifts and do not even report them even thoughequires them to report. they somehow think that that is all right. it is not all right. we do not have a set of ethics that apply to the supreme court. we have a problem with the revolving door. people come into government and from industry and they write regulations for the people they used to work with and then they leave government and go back to working for the same industry and cashing in on their time in government service, selling off their access to our elected officials. i understand that it is hard for republicans and democrats and independents to say we have got to have a set of ethics that apply to everyone and that means we have got to be willing to say to our friends and to people who are not our friends the same rules apply across the board. we have got to shut down the revolving door. we have got to have ethics rules that apply to everyone. that is what we have got to do both to make government function better but also so the american people can have confidence in their

leaving out the question of whether the appeal tries to reach outside of georgia to the united states supreme court, again, i think with a speedy trial demand on the docket, the judges of the court of appeals or the justices of the supreme court will try to rule as quickly as possible. i certainly think you are trying to see that from the federal level with judge jones. and so, again, i think now that we have a speedy trial demand, that is going to force all parties, or at least encourage all parties, to come to decisions quickly. so it's really hard to say how long things may take. >> joyce vance, the speedy trial issue is so fascinating to juxtapose to the trump lawyers saying, we're going to be getting this massive amount of discovery that we need a very long time to study. one would think that chesebro needs time to study that same pile of discovery material. is it possible that, down the road, there could be discovery that emerges after chesebro's trial that is actually relevant to them? >> so, it's an interesting question. and it's a risk that gets run in every case. something that prosecutor

but i think you will probably win the united states supreme court.e grant review and they should grant review. when you have the president of united states people going after his opponent in a political election, it has to be beyond reproach. has to be without any prompt the strongest case in history this doesn't meet that standard. >> well said all of you, great analysis. tonight, editor-in-chief and founder breaking news report on evidence given to the special counsel at the 11th hour, this from former nypd commissioner, bernie -- he joins us not to explain. this is very interesting. there was a lot written about this last-minute material that was handed over to the special counsel. you apparently know what was in it. >> these are the investigative files that bernie as a chief investigator for rudy giuliani, put together between november and december. they're very interesting. they show us with the police like investigation expect to carry out a police like investigation. scores of allegations, and had affidavits from people, it had statistical ana