ballot because the 14th amendment barr's insurrectionist from holding federal office. the colorado primary is march 5th. oral arguments are set for february 8th. similar states mounting challenges the decision comes from the high court could have a seismic impact for the race for the white house. ceo of the leadership conflict for civil champion rights and human rights attorney. maya, great to see you. thank you for coming on to the show. what does it say about the urgency of the case that the supreme court has already slated or arguments to begin february 8th? that is a very fast timeline for the court, is it not? it is an extremely fast timeline, jonathan. as you know, we have an election that has to happen this year. states have to create the ballot. there is a lot of administrative work to get candidates on the ballot, just as a matter of process. they recognize that this is
only being decided in the courts, but it will be the centerpiece of president joe biden's campaign to prove that trump is a threat to democracy. we've got a lot of news to bring you tonight, and cbs's jan crawford is here to start us off. you follow the supreme court so closely. what have they done tonight? >> they are going to decide whether he can be disqualified and they are going to be cited. argument on february 8th and i would expect a decision by the end a decision by the end of next month on whether dump truck and stay on the ballot. this is a case with colorado, where the colorado supreme court ruled trump committed insurrection on january 6th and therefore he is ineligible for office under section three of the constitution's 14th amendment. now that provision was adopted after the civil war ended bars and insurrectionist from holding federal office. up until last month, other state courts had ruled the provision did not apply to trump. colorado was the first and since then we have seen voters in mostly democratic states like oregon and california, the main
that. but if it's a pending case, he basically withdraws the authority of the united states behind the prosecution. and he has the absolute right to do that. >> the conversation we just heard is a conversation that lawyers had with donald trump months ago. >> oh, i'm sure that right. >> which explains why he threw his hat in the ring. he is gaming this thing out, and he thinks he is going to get away with it. what i would say to everybody who is watching this, nobody has seen this indictment. we don't know what's in it. republicans are jumping out there saying this is all about joe biden. joe biden had nothing to do with this. this is the special prosecutor. this is not a porn star thing. this isn't robbing the piggy bank of your charity. this is the federal government talking about possible espionage. and a presidential candidate that has gamed this thing out to get away with it by running for office. if that's what's happening here, we should take this very, very seriously. >> and i think people do. people around this table do, and a lot of people in america do. but alice and myself and others on the republican side have been
venue issue, and people were discussing it, legalers were discussing it, not in the cafes, not in the coffee shops of america. but there was legals. because so much of the illegal conduct that was described in the fbi affidavit took place at mar-a-lago, in palm beach, florida. and the constitution, the sixth amendment provides that a criminal defendant, here donald trump, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a jury in the district and the state in which he committed the crime. >> you mention the justice department. we haven't heard anything from them yet, paula. do you expect that we will? how does the special counsel's office handle this? >> yeah, our reporting right now, kaitlan is we will not hear anything from special counsel jack smith or his office. that is a deliberate choice. they must have known when they offered the courtesy of informing he had been indicted, that's standard, that's what you would do with most defendants you knew this was very likely to
special counsel emphasize and focus on something of, as you're talking about, relative minor consequence. but really in the long run, lawyer to lawyer, thinking about this, the fact that the information is no longer lawfully in the lawful possession of a person who's no longer the president, that carries a great deal of weight, whether we want to discuss. i don't know what the documents, nor do you fully about those things. but i know there has been a lot of talking points that have been raised about what jack smith is looking at and the actual substance of the documents. but the fact they no longer belong to him, that is significant in and of itself and his refusal to return them, right? >> the issue -- by the way, i separate out whrks we talk about the refusal to return them. i separate out the first year they're talking with nara, year and a half, versus when the subpoena gets involved. those are kind of two different standards. under the presidential records act, a president is supposed to take the next two years after they leave office to go through
relates to mishandling of defense information. not necessarily classified information. i should note this also. one of the statutes that was listed in the search warrant application, destruction and concealment of government documents, says on the face of the law, if a person is convict odd this crime, he's disqualified from holding federal office. now big thing we need to know here. that may not be constitutional. that's never been challenged in court. i think there is a good chance that that would not hold up in court. also, i think it's likely, we don't know whether this case will be tried before the election. and even if it is, nothing is final until the appeal is over. that will not happen until after the election. >> david, david urban, you know the former president quite well. his statement on his social media, it paints the picture of how he is going to portray this. >> obviously. but we saw this kind of played out in an ad, that the would haves are coming for me, that the campaign has put together. and we've heard this over and
bit. when it comes to what maggie haberman is reporting, some of these charges are conspiracy to obstruct, willful -- unsealed. >> ultimately, that comes down to it's a document retention case and an allegation of obstruction. so, those two things -- you know, prosecutors will take that and they'll put it in multiple different ways. you have conspiracy to obstruct, obstruct, conspiracy to retain documents, retention of documents. and then they can split things up, perhaps different counts for the documents that are in the storage room versus in the office, things like that. so, you know, the number of counts itself doesn't necessarily mean as much as what is the substance of those counts. what is the range of conduct that is alleged? >> if it's conspiracy, do you expect that other people either have been indicted or will be indicted? >> that'll be interesting to see. you know, we've only really considered up until now that
>> that's a point that a bunch of lawyers have made to me close to him. >> i want to go back to d.c. and kaitlan collins. >> anderson, back with us now is our senior justice department correspondent evan perez with new information on security at the courthouse in miami which is where we expected these charges to happen. what do you know? >> that's right, kaitlan. we know that the justice department is scrambling to move security resource, law enforcement resources ahead of the former president making his first appearance there in miami on tuesday. just to sort of back this up a little bit, the fact is that jack smith has run a very tight ship, very little has come out from the special counsel's office. walled off even from other parts of the justice department. so it wasn't until after this indictment was handed out, it wasn't until after the former president was notified that the law enforcement folks were hold, okay, now you have to get ready to deal with security situation, a potential security situation in miami. and so now we know that, for
are, anderson. we know that the former president was on notice. he knew that he was being investigated for a couple of particular statutes. one is 793, the espionage act. that's the willful retention of national defense information. we know he was also notified that he was under investigation for 2071, which is a concealment of these documents, government documents, depriving them from the use of federal government officials. and of course obstruction of justice. the question is what other charges, possible charges? we know that there are seven charges. and, you know, again, the fact is that this has never happened before, and this is something that the jack smith, the prosecutors in that office have weighed for some time before making this decision. everything according to of course the target letter the president received only recently had to go through merrick garland. merrick garland, the attorney general would have had to review this and decide whether to allow it to go forward.
legal context, could this prevent the former president from becoming president again? >> the short answer is no, believe it or not, someone can run for or be president while under indictment. someone can run for and be president even if they have been convicted. theoretically, even from prit pri -- prison. there's one law in play, part of what got them the search warrant. if a person is convicted from this, he's disqualified from holding federal office. not sure whether that's constitutional. it would have to go through trial and appeal before that bar could be put in place. >> fascinating. elie honig, thank you very much. stay with us, actually. the former president will appear in court on tuesday in miami. that brings a slew of concerns, right, in terms of just how do you do this in florida. john miller intelligence analyst joins us, and katelyn polantz, outside the courthouse in miami. what do we know about what's