from actual voters and caucusgoers instead of faceless polling percentages. what will they say and how much say will they have? there s so much swirling around the republican primary this year. so much that could change everything and yet so much that could change nothing. let me explain. the accepted wisdom right now is that donald trump will be the nominee. but what happens if he can t get on the ballot? there are two states, maine and colorado, saying someone who incited an insurrection can t run for federal office. will other states follow? and if they do, will the supreme court be forced to get involved? there s also the issue of the other legal cases against donald trump. the federal criminal cases. the election interference case is still technically scheduled for march 4th. will it still happen? briefs are due today at the d.c. appeals court where a three-judge panel is going to decide whether donald trump immune from prosecution. if they say no and the case does go to
per perhaps marjorie taylor greene. what should happened to them? should they be censured? should they be removed from committees? what do you think? well, i guess that s a decision for colleagues, right? i mean, my job is to put evidence out there. as i said at the end of that, it s like, i only know of one reason to seek a pardon. because you re worried that you re guilty, that you committed a crime. this is something they have to answer to their constituents. you know, i can t enforce rules of the house or do certain things unilaterally. but i think the bigger point is, listen, america, do you really want your members of congress out there trying to bend or break the law so that they can maintain political power? that is like, anafma to everything we ever learned in history class whether you re in third grade or whether you re a senior. and that s got to stop. it s interesting because you had three trump loyalists, rose and donahue and engel, testifying today. these ar
republican parties making it easier for donald trump to grab the nomination. what is your insight on that? one, it s not surprising. we operate in a very different political world but the mechanics are similar. each state party is able to administer its own election or caucus or however it wants to do it and those rules change every four years. if we go back to iowa 2016, donald trump said that process was rigged. it was rigged because he lost. donald trump s pretty comfortably ahead in iowa now. doesn t really have a problem there. so i understand the other candidates and campaigns being upset with this. ken kuch nelly said the process was rigged. but here s the political reality. all these people complaining, they re complaining about the referees while their teams aren t doing anything to win the game. nikki haley has a new ad. it s about desantis. for months and months they ve
of evidence that the president knew what he was doing. the breaking the law part, i think yes, personally. but, again, i like to leave that to doj. ironically, doj was on the stand today. they probably have a special interest in what happened at this moment. you mentioned the voting machines. think about this. the president asked rosen to seize voting machines. he said, i can t do it. so, the president calls cuccinelli at dhs and says, rosen here says you can seize voting machines. he never said that. that goes to show, you can t trust anything the president says. thankfully ken kuch nellie said, we can t seize machines, either. i guess the thing that s telling i guess we ve known this for years now, but to see it play out because of the committee hearings is that, you know, a few people different in those roles you know, a bunch of jeffrey clarks serving as vice president, serving as acting attorney general, serving
what do you think? i think there s a lot of dhs officials that yowe an explanation. jeff among them is joseph maher, who replaced me. he shut down all of the collection we had in place that would, sure as i m sitting here, that we would have found and detected. these people were not hiding. this was in plain sight and he shut that down and he s now on the committee as a member. serving under one of the republicans. i m for the committee, you know, finding the truth, the objective truth, and i m concerned one of the people needs to testify is actually working on the committee. investigating himself. you alleged that chad wolfe and ken kuch nelly cavgave the orders. do you think they got this directive from the white house? is there anything that indicates that they got this from the white house because i remember from covering the administration