as donald trump makes a third bid for the white house and is the the first votes are to be cast in iowa in just under two weeks. trump s lawyers say the 234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting the presidents for official acts, despite calls to do so from across the political spectrum, provides powerl evidence. no president prior toth donald trump tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. had his attorneys point to the likelihood of mushrooming prosecutions. and future cycles. the ex-the president snlt prolsing retribution. his al lies aren t the ones plotting to end the independence of the justice department. the most audacious argument, one yesterday. on this program donald trump cannot be tri a criminal court for role in the january 6th insurrectn because heas acquitted by the senate during his second impeachment the new york times reports both legal perts have disdegreed with that position. not least because the federal charges he s facing are not analogous
so there s a lot here for the court to chew on, but jack smith has stuck with the same argument he s been making all along. do you think if you re team trump that this is about delay, or do you believe you have a the shot of getting this tossed. i think there s three things. he is hoping that eventually if he loses in the d.c. circuit and can get the supreme court to accept this case, he s hoping that he will pull enough justices to say there should be presidential immunity and will agree what he was doing was within the scope of his official act. he wants that because then the case is over. it is done. that s for all the marbles. but in the meantime, he want want thes to delay. as you know, the trial proceedings have been stayed. the judge hasn t officially moved the march 4th date, but nothing is happening now other than jack smith filing things going unresponded to. jack smith did ask in his brief in the d.c. circuit that whatever the d.c. circuit does,
breaking news just in past few minutes, donald trump has asked the supreme court to overturn a ruling in colorado to ensure he can appear on the ballot there and across the country. it was expected that trump would take this case to the supreme court that sets the stage for a huge legal battle that could shape the 2024 election. under the colorado decision, the ex-president s name will remain on the primary ballot there until the supreme court decides to take action. the justices are expected to take up the case. as the washington post notes, quote, colorado case is just one of several novel and significant questions before the u.s. supreme court to have the potential to dramatically impact next year s presidential election. they add, without a ruling from the nation s high court, some states could allow trump on the ballot, while others bar him
she s not being charged under an antiabortion statute. the history of punishing people goes back centuies. but one of the strategies of the antiabortion movement has been to find legs wherever they can in terms of pursing pregnant people, pregnant women. this provides the opportunity to just remember the case in the state of texas. a woman had a brain aneurysm. she was pronounced brain dead. the state of texas made her at 14 weeks pregnant gestate while dead herself, gestate a fetus for 62 days while her husband and parents appealed to say why is she tethered to these machines. she shouldn t be, but texas passed a law that allowed for such a thing. it reminds me of the way in which we saw the two movements very much overlap.
those cases? go ahead. sorry, jordan. go ahead. oh, no, i don t want to interrupt marc, but i think, yes, if they re going to take a case that is just going to affect something like colorado, for example, there is no point to them getting involved because then there is not going to be a national standard, just going to be other states knocking at their door again or trump knocking at their door again if he gets knocked off another ballot. so really the u.s. supreme court needs to do its job and issue a nationwide resolution, one way or the other, so we re not dealing with this every day. especially ahead of the general election. now we re still in the primary. there is maybe ways that the court could wriggle out of it if it didn t want to get involved yet. at some point, before the general election, we re going to need a nationwide answer to this question from the supreme court. marc elias, to this question about what looks strong politically, what looks strong legally, you had