Biggest News aggregator with 200 million news articles | vimarsana.com
just heard mr. olson responding to, is this claim that the term officers, as it's used in the insurrection clause, does not include the president. i tend to side with colorado and mr. olson on that one. you can carve that up linguistically either way, but i think just common sense, as mr. olson says, how could it not apply to the president? but all this is new, caitlin. whatever happens here, we're all gonna learn together. >> john dean, if you're a supreme court justice, what are you thinking about tonight? you know, as this is, it seems, inevitable to lay out in their laps. >> well, i think the brief actually, the petition, and to dissipates the court and that they are very, very light on the argument that there was no insurrection, and trump wasn't involved. i don't think the court wants to go into that, as ali said. there's a fact finding body in colorado that really looked through early at that, they had a trial on it for five days, and they're not gonna go there. so what i am looking at is, what is gonna solve this