results of the 2020 presidential election. unlike his three previous indictments, this, time the former president will have to make a trip to jail, or he will be booked ahead of his arraignment, which is scheduled for the week of september 5th. trump is now facing a total of 91 criminal charges in four separate cases across different jurisdictions. yet, for criminal indictments and the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, has not humble the former president in the least. he remains unrepentant and unapologetic for his actions, and, if anything, he's grown more defiant. nearly three years later, he still denies the result of the 2020 presidential election, even though he hasn't offered up a shred of proof of the sort that has been able to withstand the slightest scrutiny. on top of that, he continues to attack anyone remotely connected to the cases against him, except the one judge that he appointed who will oversee the mar-a-lago documents case. despite receiving multiple warnings from judges to refrain from doing so. his relentless smear campaign is creating a tense atmosphere as criminal prosecutions and the 2024 presidential race get underway. recently, a woman was arrested in charge for making a death threats against tanya chutkan, the judge assigned to the federal election interference case. and in fulton county, local authorities are investigating threats that have been made online, against the grand jurors who recently voted to indict donald trump and 18 others. now, these are alarming developments that are frankly reminiscent of some of the warning signs that led up to the january 6th insurrection. despite this, however, donald trump remains the front runner in the 2024 republican presidential nomination by a country mile. acting like this is of no consequence, bragging, even, this polling numbers increase with each new indictment. but two sentences in this. the united states constitution, suggest otherwise. as it relates to his bid to return to the white house. section three of the 14th amendment is also known as the disqualification clause. it states quote, no person shall be a senator or representative of congress or electoral of vice president or president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the united states or 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 traditional 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 may, by a vote of two thirds of each, house remove such disability. ends a quote. some constitutional scholars have been arguing for years now that this means that trump's actions on or around january six disqualify him from holding public office ever again. and that argument is receiving renewed attention, after william bought and michael stokes paulson, to prominent conservative law professors and members of the federalist society, announced that they have written a paper about the disqualification clause and have come to the same conclusion. that donald trump is ineligible to hold office. now, their conclusion is receiving an important boost of support in a brand new article. it was just published within the last few hours this morning in the atlantic, titled, quote, the constitution prohibits trump from ever being president again, end quote. it is written by the esteemed conservative former federal judge, jay michael luttig, and the harvard legal scholar, lawrence tribe. the article voices support for bought and polson's paper, and makes its own argument for by trump should be disqualified from the race, quote, if donald trump were to be reelected, how could any citizen trust that he would uphold the oath of office that he would take upon his inauguration? as recently as last december, the former president posted on truth social his persistent view that the last presidential election was a quote, massive fraud, and quote. one that quote, allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the constitution, end quote. you've been those found in the constitution. no person who sought to overthrow our constitution, and thereafter declared that it should be terminated, and that he should be immediately return to the presidency can't in good faith take the oath that article two, section one demands of any president elect before he enter on the execution of his office, end quote. what are remarkably important article that implore you all to read in its entirety, as soon as this interview was over. because joining me now are the authors of that article, judge jay michael luttig is a former federal judge on the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. lawrence tribe is a professor emeritus at harvard law school, who taught constitutional law at harvard for roughly five decades. he is the author of the influential treatise on american constitutional law. gentlemen, we are so honored to have you here this morning. thank you for writing what you've written, because through all the indictments, the january six indictment and the georgia indictment, this is the question that mostly people without a legal education ask me. is there anything in here that stop donald trump, who is shooting to the top of the polls, literally every time he's indicted, from becoming the president of the united states again? so >> i put it to you, judge luttig. you have studied. this you have thought about this a lot. you are the man who with whom mike pence's lawyer consulted before january six to make that determination he was not in a position to overturn the constitution and count the wrong electoral votes. how have you come to this conclusion? >> thank you, ali, for having professor tribe and i on this morning. professor tribe is the most celebrated constitutional mind in america. and he has been that for the past four decades, at least. professor tribe has been studying the constitution and even disqualification clause literally, his entire illustrious career. i, first, came to think seriously about the disqualification clause only in january of 2021, after that fateful day of january six. but at that time, i came to the same conclusion that professor tribe had come too many years before. and professor tribe and i have been discussing this profound question between us privately for over the past two years. in some ways, one of the most notable things that we say in the atlantic article this morning, is george washington, america's very first precedent, questionably foresaw and anticipated this moment in american history. almost 250 years ago in his farewell address. turning to the merits of -- explained in this article. constitutional analysis, as you well know, does not lend itself to soundbites. in this case, though, it does. when coupled with the reading of this article that we've done this morning. and that soundbite is literally the constitution. amendment 14, section three, four bids the precedent from holding the office of the presidency again, because of his conduct in and around january six, 2021. and specifically, in his conduct that either constituted an insurrection against the constitution of the united states, or a rebellion against the constitution of the united states. or aid and comfort to the insurrection, or rebellion, that occurred on that fateful day. under the disqualification clause, literal terms, but plain meaning, and now we know through the magnificent research of professors bought and carlson, the original meeting of section three disqualifies the former president from ever holding the presidency again, ali. >> and it's not a complicated read. for those americans who have not, i am a naturalized american, so when you become a citizen, you get a copy of this and you can't take your phone into the court. so i've read it several times as i became a citizen. it's 30 pages long. everyone to just read this. professor tribe, in the article, you wrote the former presidents efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the resulting attack on the u.s. capitol place him squarely within the ambit of this disqualification clause, and he is very for ineligible to serve for president ever again. the most pressing constitutional question facing our country at the moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the 14th amendments disqualification clause. end quote. tell me how this works? because you to our constitutional experts. i'm not. but we come to the same conclusion. there are a whole lot of people outside in america who are not coming to this conclusion. so, who's the one of the authority to say that donald trump or anyone who comes up against this clause is ineligible to run for office under the disqualification clause? in other words, who enforces this? >> first of all, ali, thank you very much for having me on this morning. it's an honor. to share the stage with my friend and perhaps the most distinguished judge in america, though he does not, at the moment, serve on the supreme court. we're a long go, i thought he ought to serve. it's an honor to be here, discussing this extraordinarily vital question. now, you put your finger on it. the constitution says a lot of things. but it takes people to honor it and to enforce it. now, some people have made the mistake of thinking that the many charges against the current precedent represent the forum in which all of this will be decided. the 91 pending criminal charges in four separate indictments. but in fact, although those criminal prosecutions are terribly important, and it's vital that the president be held accountable and not get away scot-free, the disqualification clause operates all by itself. all of those prosecutions, important us that our, are beside the point when it comes to this clause. this clause says that no one who did what donald j trump obviously did, and he doesn't really deny it. he plays games with what we call it, but he doesn't deny it. in fact, he proclaims probably that he thinks the electoral count should have been stopped. he still blames vice president pence for not overturning the election. constitution itself says that he can't be president. now, who in force of that? in the first instance, it is the officials who decide whether his name could be put in nomination, can he run as an official candidate? in michigan, wisconsin, the better, georgia, any other state? usually, is the secretary of state who must make that call. just as he or she must decide if the president is a natural born citizen, follow trump said nobody should allow barack obama to run for president because he was disqualified. trump didn't suggest we need a lawsuit to settle that. of course, he was wrong, and therefore secretaries of state did let barack obama run. but would any secretary of state decide either to put donald trump's name on the ballot for president of the united states in 2024? or to keep his name off the ballot? anyone standing to challenge that decision, either, way anyone who is harmed by, if a competitor, a voter, will presumably take the secretary of state to court and say you did it wrong. this clause of the constitution doesn't mean what it says. or, it was repealed by the amnesty act of 1872. there's all kinds of strange arguments people have made. in order to make that costco away. or, they will say you should have enforced it. you shouldn't have passed the book. whichever way a secretary of state goes, that case will go to court. and because the issue is so momentous, it will end up in the supreme court of the united states. now, that court, even though it has length in favor of donald trump on a number of occasions, has sometimes done its duty. in all of the cases that reached the court in 2020, the claim that the election was a big lie and that states should be allowed to do with the coconspirators most recently charged in georgia said that should be done, those people were ultimately turned back by the supreme court. i apologize for that fire alarm in the background, but i hope it will not hurt anyone's eardrums. >> if it gets louder, professor, let us know. we'll let you go and get your -- but for now, we hope everything is okay. >> it will turn off. it happened once before. it will turn itself off, but i think is running the alarm bell for all of us, because this is a crucial moment for america. >> it is, in fact, the metaphor. judge, in this very closet you talk about, the disqualification clause, the last sentence as, but congress made by a foot by two thirds of each house remove such a ability. lawrence really about and william stokes paulson wrote, quote, section three is self executing. operating as an immediate disqualification from office without that need for additional action by congress. the closet self says that congress only role in this clause is to remove it if they think it's not true. that means it's not necessary for congress to act to disqualify donald trump as a presidential candidate. is that how you read it? >> it is, ali. that specific finding is perhaps the single most important conclusion that was drawn by the professors from their scholarship. namely, that as professor tribe said, the clause is automatic. it is self executing. which means that as professor tribe just explain, and he won state or federal, who's charged with listing the candidates for the presidency, it's obligated under the constitution to make the decision himself or herself, as to whether donald trump is qualified to be put on the ballot under the constitution of the united states. the as to the rule for congress, frankly, until the scholarship by two professors, i was not aware of the self executing feature of section three. i'm sure professor tribe was. he's written the fault and written about the disqualification cause his whole life. but this is a momentous, significance itself. because neither congress nor congress through impeachment, nor a judicial order, nor the results of a criminal conviction, or needed. as of this moment, under the professors reading of section three, and of my reading and professor tribes, the former president is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency in 2024. >> professor tribe, you know, on january 7th, i remember having a debate with people about whether this was a coup or an insurrection or whatever the case is. interestingly enough, none of the charges, none of the indictments, discuss insurrection. it's something the january six committee wanted done, but it didn't get done. given that this clause depends on insurrection, does that have to be proved by a court or do we believe our eyes and the video and the statements of a truth social posts? how is that litigated? how do we make the determination that donald trump violated this section of the constitution by implementing an insurrection? >> the answer is that whoever is responsible in the first instance for applying those words must use his or her own ice and common sense and, the statements made by the president himself, when he was president, and everything we know, when you actually strip away all of the rhetoric and all of the slogans of those who say the president at that time should not be held responsible, they don't deny the facts. they don't deny the fact that he encouraged those people to storm the capital when his plots that we now know about in detail you have fake electors and two pressure the vice president when all of that failed, the facts are really undisputed. the presidents responsibility is there for all to see. a lot of people have become obsessed with criminal trials. it's all over television. they are presumed innocent until you're proven guilty. yes, he's presumed innocent before we can decide otherwise in a court of law, and inflict punishment, but that's why the 14th amendment took great care not to treat this as a punishment. it's a disability. they call it that. it is not imprisonment. it's not removal from office, and impeachment. because it is not a punishment, because it is not a deprivation of any right or entitlement, nobody has a right to be president without meeting the qualifications, it has to be applied in the first instance by an ordinary human being who is then challenged in court. what made you think this was an insurrection? the constitution uses the term insurrection over and over again to make clear what it means when it means, and organized effort, using all means available, up to and including violence, if necessary, to prevent the government from performing its functions for the american people. and one of those central functions is the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next. so, i think any secretary of state offer rating without any partisan motive, whether this was donald trump or any other president who did it, we have to conclude this was an insurrection and, at the very minimum, he gave aid and comfort when he decided to let it continue, when he cheered, on when he pointed a finger of blame at the embattled vice president in the face of the gallows that had been constructed, he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the constitution of the united states. and to put the icing on the top of that, rather and tasty cake, he said i would terminate the constitution if necessary. hold on to power. how could he do that and then take an oath to uphold? it >> -- >> folding's fingers crossed. he is not qualified for the presidency. >> most law students would not have the privilege of having this conversation with the two if you, and i appreciate and i'm honored by your time, include, jeff looting, anyone who redouble those indictments will your fingerprints all over some of the decisions that were made to uphold the constitution and not overthrow the last election. , so we thank you for your service to the country. of course, lawrence, you continued analysis that you've provided with the american people, and many of her lawsuits with over the last 50 years. we are grateful to both of you. i implore our audience to read the article that has just been published this morning. we will, in fact, i'm going to tweeted that right now so that our audience can read it. judge jay michael luttig is a former federal judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit. lawrence tribe is professor emeritus at harvard law school and the author of the book, american constitutional law. a quick programming note, tomorrow night, all be hosting special coverage. join msnbc's many often, in hidden, elation ended, al sharpton, and, before analysis of the gop reckoning with republicans facing a seminal moment of a front-runner facing federal charges. that's tomorrow night, eight pm eastern, on msnbc. you are watching velshi. velshi. on a hard seltzer budget... wayfair's got just what you need! what... y'all this is nice. salad plates? kelly clarkson? i'm fancy now! i have always wanted statement lighting. get nice things at nice prices at wayfair! ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ (dad) we got our subaru forester wilderness to discover all of the places that make us feel something more. (vo) subaru is the national park foundation's largest corporate donor, helping expand access for all. more shopping? you should watch your spending honey. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. check it out, you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my phone. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport? ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc jus