but ultimately, these questions will go before the united states supreme court. i do think the colorado supreme court got it right, and this is a big precedent for the country. so just like you, we'll wait and see what the united states supreme court says. >> absolutely. i think it's great to kind of talk it out and learn what your perspective is on that. you're certainly very edgeable. with regard to the best way to do this, if that were the outcome, what you say you think would be better, what's to stop judges in texas from holding a proceeding over a couple of weeks and determining that other people engaged in what they call insurrection through their judicial process, without hearing witnesses, without having a criminal standard of evidence, without allowing subpoenas to get the other side -- what's to stop this, which even if people view it as a potentially well-meaning effort, from creating another round of legalized chaos in our elections? i'll give you a couple of bullet points on that and let you respond. because you can imagine these criticisms coming up

supreme court won't even bother to hear this case. it is true the united states supreme court has never said squarely that a president has to follow the criminal laws, but that's because we've never had a president or former president who had the gall to say such a ridiculous, absurd proposition, and in a brief to our nation's highest courts. it's unthinkable. >> neal katya, andrew weisman, exactly who we needed to hear at the beginning of this hour tonight. thank you both very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. colorado secretary of state janet griswold will join us as soon as she can, later in this hour. up next, we will be joined by the person who i've wanted to hear from on this program since the israel-hamas war began. new york times pulitzer prize -winning columnist thomas friedman will join us on the day that the united states government publicly voiced sharp criticism of the israeli government. tom friedman joins us next. with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite r

been rejected, by all 11 members, of the appeals court, is to appeal to the united states supreme court where donald trump also has three judges that he appointed. the appeals court opinion against donald trump says mr. trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency, and there is a strong public interest in what he has to say. but mr. trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a

because you see, what the united states supreme court took, congress can put back in place. [applause] so we need a majority of leaders in congress who simply agree -- here's the thing, simply agree, that the government should not be making those personal decisions for folks. and when congress passes a law that puts back the protections of roe, joe biden will sign it. [applause] so i will close with this. it's going to take all of us to get us to that place. everybody here, and momentum is on our side. we are winning. if roe was overturned, every time freedom was on the ballot, the people of america have voted for freedom. from kansas to california to kentucky, in michigan, montana, vermont, and ohio, the people of america have voted for freedom. and not by a little, by overwhelming margins. proving also, this is not a partisan issue. tens of millions of americans in red states and blue, including here in wisconsin, marched to the polls in defense of fundamental freedom. the voice of the people has been heard, and it will be heard. and then i finally asked, today, wisconsin,

regardless of my sentiments, this is a big case in front of the united states supreme court. and i do believe that the united states supreme court should tell the american people whether a president can engage in insurrection and then again run for that office. >> well, joining me now to discuss, former january 6th investigative counsel marcus childress and also former trump attorney tim parlatore is here as well. gentlemen, let's just take a step back for a moment because this is a very consequential moment. any idea of taking somebody off of the ballot is going to be important, let alone in a presidential election year. it is surprising that maybe trump is just now appealing to the supreme court. but we all know that it was going to end up there at some point anyway. but the fact, tim, that he is saying look, it's not just a matter of me not having been convicted of insurrection, this is a congressional issue, it's up to them to do something about it, does that hold weight for you? >> i think it does. one of the things i was kind of expecting in this brief, it was addressed

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

but ultimately, it's up to the united states supreme court. united states supreme court needs to give clarity to the american people, whether someone who commits insurrection can hold the highest office in the land again. >> what the 14th amendment section 3 is very clear about is members of congress are officers of the court who took an oath and can be barred for insurrection. i'm going to put up a nonexhaustive list of people who could be considered insurrectionists. these are people who attended a meeting to overturn the election. andy biggs, scott perry, andy harris, paul gosar, and then there's lauren boebert. a lot of people would consider a supporter of insurrection. are you surprised that no one has attempted to remove her, who has now switched district in your state of colorado or other members of congress, the same way they're attempting to remove trump from these ballots? >> we have seen some cases over the last year and a half, taeflting to remove candidates. and it has worked in the state of new mexico, where actually i believe the

we have the mifepristone case, the abortion medication case that is now pending in the united states supreme courtproved, incredibly safe medication. so what we're seeing with this united states supreme court is that the end justified the means. and the ends here is ending all abortion rights as we know it and not just stopping there. what is next on the chopping block? could be birth control. could be, you know, fertility treatments. could be a variety of different things. and so, you know, we have to treat every election as though it matters, whether it is a state election, whether it is a federal election, whether you're looking at who is going to be in the united states senate and who is going to be the president of the united states selecting supreme court justices or whether it is a state election and you're deciding who your ag, governor and secretary of state are going to be. every election when it comes to reproductive rights matters and this matter is never really over. >> attorney general dana nessel, thank you so much. >>> and in her own words, e. jean carroll on her $83 million victor

but regardless of my sentiment, this is a big case in front of the united states supreme court. ieve that the united states supreme court should tell the american people whether a president can engaged in insurrection and then again run for office. >> yes. i want to ask you about one of the arguments being made by trump's lawyers. they are basically saying that this will deprive the american people from choosing to vote for or against a candidate of their choosing at a national level for the presidency of the united states, what do you make of that? and do you think that that will factor into the supreme court as they weigh this question? do you think that there is a risk here, disenfranchising voters? >> i think the biggest risk of disenfranchising voters happened on january 6th, when donald trump tried to steal the presidency from the american people. make no mistake, that is exactly what he intended to do. we are a country of laws and constitution's. there are qualifications for offense, right? so, for example, if a lot of voters wanted to vote for arlette schwarzenegger, it w

the state, as a result of the and the mississippi supreme court, held the support that was a legal under state law. and so the case was all the way up to united states supreme court hope and pray to god. the supreme court ruled that the board call was late because i think that's one of the only means with black people have. and i wanted to let people know in the world them know that we will no longer go back to where it was in the past. and the justices hold unanimously that the 1st amendment protects the right to boycott. and what they say is that boycotting is a practice. deeply embedded in the american political process is a way in which individual citizens can band together to make their voices collectively heard when individually their voices would be lost or silence. html. a safety says that while it is the immediate beneficiary of the fort gibson ruling, the ruling goes beyond that to allow any organization anywhere to use boy cards and select the buying campaigns to support its political grievance. the are appealing, the district court decision in arkansas. and i think that's what appeals parts are for us to correct decisions when dis

so the cases -- this is going to go -- ultimately come before the united states supreme court, it's going way through the state courts in colorado and maine. the maine supreme court is going to hear it as well. i think it's interesting to note at least in the maine case that the secretary of state, one, is not -- two, does have the authority to make these determinations yet they have to make them -- those determinationes in accordance with federal law. so the maine -- the person -- the secretary of state of maine is appointed by the legislative -- elected by the legislative body, not by the people of maine, by the legislative body, meaning the legislative body that is majority democratic. that decision was made, she had the authority to make that decision, now it moves on to the maine supreme court where the maine supreme court will interpret the federal constitution and that will then make its way to the united states supreme court. at that time the teams will make the arguments at that time that the 14th amendment does not apply to the president of the united states. that there are a nu

but the last word will be with the united states supreme court. we look forward to oral arguments on february 8th. >> colorado secretary of state jena griswold, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >>> president biden's top diplomat is meeting with allies today on a high-stakes trip to the middle east. hear what he had to sasay just moments agago when we e come r baback. to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. >>> u.s. secretary of state antony blinken back in the middle east as the u.s. races to prevent the war in gaza from spreading throughout the region. after meeting with turkey's president erdogan, blinken will make stops in is

surely appeal the appeals courts likely denial of donald trump's immunity claim to the united states supreme court. and today donald trump got a head start on his lawyers in appealing directly to the united states supreme court on social media, where he said, a president of elated states must have full immunity, without which would be impossible for him her to properly function, any mistake even if well intended would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at turn and. donald trump did not explain why no president has ever been prosecuted at the end of his term. the trump statement continued saying, even events that cross the line must fall under total immunity. of course, if presidents had total immunity, or thought they had total immunity, certainly the supreme court would have already thought they had total immunity and donald trump would not have to take an appeal all the way to the united states supreme court, asking the court to invent the concept of total immunity for presidents. non trump ended his statement saying all presidents must have complete and total presidenti

at the supreme court of the united states. i will say this, the supreme court does not want to decide this case. and it will likely look for every legitimate way possible, legitimate way possible, to avoid deciding whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency. having studied the disqualification clause myself for three years now, there are very, very few, if any, off-ramps that would allow the supreme court to avoid a decision in this case. indeed, i believe there are none. section three of the 14th amendment simply could not be any clearer. that the former president is disqualified from the presidency as the colorado supreme court held. >> judge luttig, as you know, we have great respect for you here on the show, and our viewers are grateful to you for your actions before january 6th and your continued articulation of what the law and the constitution says. we thank you again, sir, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, ali. >> judge jay michael luttig is a former federal judge of the united states cour

state of maine. how in principle the supreme court of the united states states can support trump, or could it be that the decision of the supreme court will become sensational and really for the first time in the history of the candidate for the position of the president of the united states will not be allowed to participate in the election campaign? look, i would be glad if it were so, that's how. you just said, but, i'm not a lawyer, but i think that the supreme court is in favor of trump in this case, unfortunately, well, the point is that whatever the ideological views, the ideological beliefs of the supreme court justices, they are judges after all, they follow the law, the point is that trump's pre-election ban, according to the third part of the 14th amendment. to the constitution of the united states, since trump has not been found guilty by any court of law of having participated in rebellion against the united states, it is subject to interpretation by specific officials, such as the state of maine, the state's secretary of state, which is responsible for conducting elections, or the parti

state courts to decide. they want the united states supreme court to, quote, return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters. colorado's high court is not the only one grappling with this question. last week maine's secretary of state barred trump from that state's primary ballot. and trump's candidacy is being challenged in 17 other states. the supreme court 6-3 conservative majority is expected to take up the question of whether trump is constitutionally eligible to run for president and its decision could reshape the race. joining me now is barbara mcquade, former united states attorney for the eastern district of michigan and an msnbc legal analyst and author of a new book coming out next month titled "attack from within how disinformation is sabotaging america." can't wait to get my hand on that. thank you for being here. donald trump's lawyers are latching onto something that has been popularized in the media recently, and that is notwithstanding the constitution, section 3 of the 14th amendment which disqualifies someone who has taken an oath from running for office. the people sh

wanted to focus on this tonight is that it easy to focus on the really big things in the united states supreme courtthat come to the court. but this is the kind of day-to-day way in which the united states supreme court can have this country take a turn that most people won't notice. >> yeah. people don't know what the chevron doctrine in. you can stop somebody on the street and say hey, what's the chevron doctrine? and unless they're a very particular kind of lawyer, they won't know. but what it is, is the doctrine that lets america's regulatory agencies make the decisions where they have expertise. and it's really important when you're up against big industries, that have a lot of experts, to have experts against them, that can call bs on them, who can call their bluff, who can understand the complexities and don't get fooled. and what these industries want to do is shut down the regulatory piece of that and move so that they can make their arguments to courts, which are not expert, which are much more easily fooled, and which, if you pick the right judge, are on the side of the big industries now

trump will appear on the colorado ballot unless and until there is a decision from the united states supreme courther upholding the colorado supreme court or vacating that decision in some way, you know, either way, right now, donald trump is on the ballot, and therefore, the united states supreme court may not feel itself in any hurry. they also may make a determination that it is premature and not right when someone is just running in a primary to invoke section 3 of the 14th amendment. indeed, that's one of the arguments that team trump makes in their brief to the court, and that's a convenient off ramp for the supreme court, particularly a supreme court that might not want to deal with the facts of whether or not former president trump has engaged in or participated in an insurrection. >> that leads me to a lot of questions. one, i'll ask you this, if it gets to the general election and the supreme court is weighing this, would they feel more comfortable in the general election saying that the republican candidate is not qualified? that seems to be even higher stakes. >> it is higher stakes bu

supreme court looking at the decision as well? >> if you want to focus under maine law, the supreme court has to move quickly and hear the case. of course if the united statesstate proceedings, and you have stayed proceedings in almost 20 states, and i hope we will get a single ruling from the united states supreme court. we are talking about colorado and maine and michigan, what they have done and they have done different things, but if the united states supreme court steps in, as i think they ought to, you will have one ruling, i hope, that sets the standard across the country. the danger whether you loathe mr. trump or love mr. trump is that you might have proceedings in different states with different rulings from each, and that's unattainable. i expect maine will move quickly unless the supreme court tells them to stop because they are going to take the case and issue a single ruling. >> whether it's the superior or supreme court, there could be a backlash and there's some that say that might need to be considered? what is the job -- bring it down to if you discipline the child for getting into a fight, and then you think maybe i will not discipline hi

>> the government is distorting the well-established rules that the united states supreme court has articulated in the case of nixon v. fitzgerald. it's already the law, your honor, that a president is not immune for these wild hypotheticals we've been hearing today. no. the united states supreme court has said that a president is immune for their official acts. well, if there was an assassination or all these things, that's not an official act. that's what we call beyond the bounds. we want to take this well-establish rule that works, your honor. it's in civil cases. it should apply more in criminal cases. the danger to the normal functioning of our country is greater. we don't want bush prosecuted. we don't want biden prosecuted. we don't want president trump prosecuted, either. let's not apply the rule -- the district court even refused to apply this rule. please remand to district court so they can follow common sense. >> you play that role. you have been u.s. attorney before. what's the argument? >> with respect, my friend's st lack confidence. the presidents haven't broken the law before.

that is the case that is going to go up first in the united states supreme court and there is a very good chance that if and when the united states supreme court takes the colorado case, it will announce a rule of law, a decision that will apply to all of the states considering these 14th amendment challenges. whatever the supreme court says in the colorado case i think will likely apply also to the proceedings and maine and oregon. >> there is an article in rolling stones magazine saying that trump's attorneys are going to turn the case from special counsel, jeff smith into a freak show and try to flood the trial with all these various conspiracies. do you think they will be able to succeed in getting these conspiracy theories into the trial and what impact that could have? >> reporter: from what we've seen of the district court judge, i think the trump team will have an uphill battle if they try to flood the zone with irrelevant information. we have seen this is a judge who is pretty serious about running a tight ship in the courtroom, about ensuring the case focuses on the facts, a

state of maine. to what extent, in principle, can the supreme court of the united states support trump, or can it be that the decision of the supreme court will become sensational and indeed, for the first time in history, a candidate for the office of the president of the united states will not be allowed. to participate in the election campaign? look i'd be happy if it was , like you just said, but i'm not a lawyer, but i think the supreme court is on trump's side in this case, unfortunately, well, the thing is because whatever the ideological views, the ideological beliefs of the supreme court justices, they are still judges, and they follow the law, the fact is that ... trump's exclusion from the election, according to the third part of the 14th amendment to the constitution of the united states, since trump has not been found guilty by any court of law of sedition against the united states, it is subject to the interpretation of specific officials, such as in the state of maine, the secretary of state, which is responsible for conducting elections. or particular court, the supreme court of the s

. >> the government is distorting the we'll establish roofs the united states supreme court's articulatee case of naked nixon v fitzgerald, it's already the lawyer honor. that a president is not immune for these wild hypotheticals we've been hearing, the united states supreme court has that a president's immune for their official acts, if there was an assassination, or all these things. that is not an official act, that is beyond the bounds. we simply want to take this well-established rule that works, it is in civil cases, it should apply in criminal cases, the danger to the normal function of our country is greater. we don't want bush prosecuted, we don't want biden prosecuted, we don't want to bomb a prosecuted for ordinary activities. we don't want president trump prosecuted either. but, let's just apply the rule, we're not even you asking you to prejudge the rule this car refuses to apply the rule let's see how it goes please remand to diss report so they can follow common sense. >> let's hear from counsel for the government, we'll have you play that role harry, you've been attorney

wade, the united states supreme court recognized the fundamental, constitutional freedom. d for nearly half a century, americans relied on this freedom , protected by row. howe 19 ago, the highest court in our land, the court of thurgood and our bg, rm the people of america, from the women of america, and now, on the 51st anniversary of rowe, we speak of it in the past tense. in the last 19 months, in states across our nation, extremists have proposed and psed la s that criminalize doctors and punish women, laws that threaten doctors and nurses with prison time, even care. laws that in some states make no exceptions, even for rape and now many of you know i started my career as a prosecutor, specializing in crimes against women and children. what you may not know is one of the reasonwhy.when i was in higi learned that one of my best friends was being molested by her stepfather. and so i said to h got to come stay with us. i called my mother, and my mother said, of course she should, and she did. so the idea that someone who survives a crime that is violence to their body, a

decision. so far this is the state of colorado, it is still the state of maine, how much in principle can the supreme court of the unitedtates support trump, or can it be that the decision of the supreme court will become sensational and indeed for the first time in history a candidate for the position of president of the united states will not be allowed to participate in the pre-election campaign campaign? look, i'd be happy if it were, but as you just said, i'm not a lawyer, but i think the supreme court in this case... holding trump, unfortunately, well, the fact is that whatever the ideological views, the ideological beliefs of the supreme court justices, they are still judges, and they follow the law. the point is that not allowing trump to run for office, under the third section of the 14th amendment to the united states constitution, because trump has not been found guilty by any court of law that he... he participated in rebellion against the united states, then it is subject to interpretation by specific officials, such as the maine secretary of state state, which is responsible for conducting elections, or a

the colorado republican party appealing the decision, and so we are waiting to see if the united states supreme court will take up the appeal. we're also waiting for the ex-president to file his own appeal in the colorado case. right now, in addition to colorado and maine, 15 other states also have pending lawsuits to remove trump from the ballot. in gold color. and two others, west virginia, arizona, in green color have pending appeals. coming in to discuss this is andrew weissmann who spent years working in the parliament of justice, most recently as the lead prosecutor for special counsel robert mueller's team. kristy greenberg was the head of the -- for the attorney general's office for the southern district of new york. andrew, i will start with you. what do you think of trump's appeal of the maine ruling? in theory and sort of a high school civics brain, i can understand someone saying hey, the secretary of state shouldn't be able to unilaterally make this decision. but by all accounts, it seems like she was following the law and trump is saying she wasn't following the law. >> i think the proc

there are nine people in the united states who can make that determination and it's the united states supreme court actually rule on whether or not he is an insurrectionist and they can give the guidelines as to who decides. is it a secretary of state, is it the state supreme court. is it a federal court or is it congress and that's an open question that is being teed up for the supreme court. i want to be clear, john and you as a student of government know this as well as everybody else, this is why you have the supreme court. this is literally why the framers crafted a body of individuals to decide these thorny questions of constitutional law and this is a thorny one and an open one, who decides, how do they decide, when do they decide, someone's got to fix it. >> the reason i was going to ask you is former attorney general bill barr who stipulates he does not want donald trump to be president says that he does not think there is a 14th amendment argument with the states to get him out and his argument is because trump hasn't been charged with insurrection. >> right. an argument is made does it n

it is one thing for justice and going on in the united states supreme court to decide you're out of 1n dollars, but it's another thing to anger the court of appeals judges who might be deciding his immunity from criminal prosecution. >> you've talked about the courts and levels, let's go high. in fact, let's go to the highest of the highs. we do not believe, and i tend to agree with you that donald trump is going to have as much rhetoric around his d.c. court of appeals case. now we have the supreme court involved. we have the supreme court involved, potentially around the 14th amendment. we have heard whispers, and some rhetoric publicly to his followers for the most part about the fight that he went through to get kavanaugh on the bench. what is the strategy there? why are you talking about what you did to get supreme court justices seated before they are going to hear the case that will ultimately determine your future. what am i missing? >> is that a rhetorical question. you know the answer. he's probably talking about kavanaugh as if to say, hey, i helped you out, no help me out.

donald j trump versus norma anderson, which is the title of donald trump's appeal to the united states supreme courtourt decision banning donald trump for the president about, section three of the 14th amendment. it's been enacted in 1868. sex sin three at the 13th amendment says that no person shall be a senator or representative in congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the united states, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of congress, or as an officer of the united states, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the constitution of the united states, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. but congress made by a vote of two thirds in each house remove such ability. former federal appeals court judge michael luttig, who is appointed to the court by republican president george h. w. bush believes section three could not be any clear. >> the supreme court does not want

supreme court potentially to act here? >> it can pick and choose which cases it wants to accept. a lot of states, in fact more states, have reached the opposite conclusion. the unitedeme court is uniquely suited to step in, clarify the law, and make a rule that everyone will understand, everyone can live with, and everyone can apply going forward. >> rich: all of this is testing the system, the court system, the constitution. there's an issue of whether president trump has immunity. there's a question as to whether or not the number of defendants who have been charged with a specific law, whether that actually applies to them. does this just further create more questions >> they are percolating and making their way up to the supreme court. i can tell you this, i don't think there's a single justice on the supreme court who wants to be in this position, who wants to be deciding who has a direct bearing on the election. they don't like getting dragged into it and having to decide at all, but i think events have left the supreme court with pretty much no choice. as i said, i think they have to take this disqualification question. i think there is a good chance that th

. >> and i think we are a going to see some action from the united states supreme court because last night the united states department of justice filed an emergency application for a stay of the injunction. the injunction prohibits the feds from interfering and cutting down the barriers that texas has put into place. and so now there is an emergency application pending before the united states supreme court, i'm very interested to see what ends up happening with that. >> trace: yeah. it's fascinating because, you know, that could change the dynamic of how a lot of these cities handle this. speaking of cities, here is a chicago resident saying the homeless do not get the same care from the local governments as the migrants. watch. >> not only are the chicago residents who are homeless not getting the same annuities that the migrants are getting, they're not getting help at all. they're not receiving the same services. some of the migrants are being put up in hotels. >> reporter: i mean, that from new york state, abe hamade to chicago, you name it the same complaints are the migrants a

few weeks, then special prosecutor jack smith would surely appeal that decision to the united states supreme court. and if the united states supreme court agrees with donald trump that he can't be prosecuted for crimes committed while president, then the washington d. c. federal criminal case against donald trump for crimes leading up to and on january 6th would collapse. the criminal prosecution of donald trump in georgia for election fraud in georgia would disappear. the criminal prosecution of donald trump by manhattan district attorney alvin bragg would probably collapse since much of the conduct alleged in that case occurred while donald trump was president. the only criminal case that can survive a supreme court opinion saying that a president of the united states has total immunity from prosecution from anything that happens during their presidency would be jack smith's criminal case against donald trump in florida for the illegal possession of classified material in violation of the espionage act, after he was president. that is a case presided over by a judge appointed by donald trump who

just like the colorado supreme court said, there should not be a loophole in the constitution for the president. i am hopeful that the united statesme court will uphold colorado's decision, but just like you, we will see. >> at the color of the supreme court, also cheekily including a neil gorsuch ruling from a few years back. we'll be interested to see what he does with this. in the wake of this lawsuit, you said you've received a lot of death threats, so many that you stopped counting, which is horrible to hear. i hope they are safe and well tonight. it just reminds us all that this is not about a one filed insurrection for a january 6th with trump supporters, it's about a ruling insurrection, ongoing threats against election officials like yourself. >> that is right. i think that there is a tendency to get very focused on the latest events. this lawsuit has caused violent threats against me, the supreme court of colorado, the secretary of state of maine. to share with you, it didn't start with this lawsuit. violent threats and death threats, against secretaries of state and election officials started in 2020. they've not stoppe

but i think the question is, what does the united states supreme court do? oing to let the decision in the d.c. circuit court of appeal stand. >> interesting. i told you, we'll be watching this closely. it is one of the biggest questions. year. if they let it be, if they take a sort of beatles approach, you get the case on the same calendar. if they take it, it slows it down, number one, and then number two, what are you taking it for? a close question to remind everyone, the supreme court rejects 99% plus of the questions to get involved. the other thing, when it comes to post presidential immunity, it doesn't exist. period. the constitution specifically imagines a criminal president and it does say you have to impeach him in office. it is complicated. if the doj was trying to try their own boss, that's complex for a four or eight-year problem. i'm reading from this. the constitution explicitly provides for an impeached and convicted president's criminal prosecution for the same. you could be a strict texture list and you would still land on saying the const

court cases, 60. trump lost the republican-controlled states. trump lost trump-appointed judges. and trump lost before the united states supreme court. l, he lost. [applause] trump lost recount after recount after recount in state after state, but out of desperation weakness, his maga followers went after officials who insured -- they had their lives upended by attacks and death threats for simply doing their jobs. in atlanta, georgia, a brave black mother and her daughter were doing their job as election workers, until donald trump and his maga followers targeted, threatened them and forced them from their homes releasing racist vitriol. trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani was does hit with a $148 million judgment for cruelty and defamation he inflicted against them. other state and local elected officials faced similar personal attacks. in addition, a record 787 main dollars has agreed to be paid for the lives they told -- lies they told about voter fraud. let's be clear about the 2020 election, trump exhausted every legal avenue available to him to overturn the election, everyone. the legal path just took trump back to the truth.

going to throw out dawn trump's claims really quickly, and trump has always been hoping united states supreme court will get that case and stopped his trial pending it. i'm just not sure that's right. there is so little to trump's claims that it is perfectly plausible to think u.s. supreme court's not gonna hear the case and not going to delay trump's trial. so much fourth or thereabouts can still occur. >> andrew, what do you still see when you have this trial calendar? >> the same reaction as neal listening to the argument, and particularly judge pan take apart the argument. many ways just getting the lawyer to actually say what they are arguing because it was so preposterous. so the more that argument went on, the more you thought, i think, as neal does that the odds of the supreme court saying, you know what? don't need to hear this. what you are arguing is just so preposterous. it doesn't mean that they won't, but if that does happen, it's possible for this to go, the federal case to go in march. if not, i think we are going to see a reversal. we are going to see the state new york case go at

state court. that would require that case going up, jose, to the united states supreme court. and again, there, if the united states supreme court says there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for a former or even current president who exceeds the boundaries of their duties with respect to the conduct with which they've been criminally charged, then, i think, you have an argument that it's not only influnable, but it will be binding on the judge. >> just trying to keep track of all of the different cases the former president is dealing with. on thursday, clorguments are expected in trump's new york civil fraud trial james filed a motion asking the judge to fine the trump organization $370 million. more than the $250 million originally estimate. she also wants to ban trump and two former executives from the real estate industry in new york. trump denying any wrong doing in this case. how did the attorney general's office get to the $370 million figure? >> well, let's start, jose, with the premise that this isn't just an ordinary fine. the relief that they're requesting is

we begin today's show with breaking they was out of washington, d.c., with the united states supreme courting to take up a challenge to donald trump's eligibility to run for president. late friday afternoon, the highest court in our land announces it will resolve the question of whether states have the power to disqualify trump from the republican primary ballot. specifically, the court will be reviewing a ruling by the colorado supreme court that disqualified trump, due to section three of the united states constitution's 14th amendment, which prohibits those who engaged in insurrection from holding office. the eventual decision, though, will have national repercussions. several states across the country have begun to grapple with how to manage the questions surrounding trump's in eligibility. oral arguments before the court slated for february 8th, adding to what will already be a daunting legal year ahead for the former president. joining me now is glenn kirschner, former federal prosecutor, msnbc legal analyst, and the host of the justice matters podcast. glenn, we were waiting for thi