chutkan reconsidered her decision and her new arguments from the special counsel and donald trump's criminal defense team. trump's attorneys wanted it removed on first amendment grounds, but judge chutkan reiterated in her ruling last night that, quote, as the court hasexained, the first amendment rights of participants and criminal proceedings must yield when necessary to the administration of justice. contrary to defend this argume, the right to a fair trial is not his alone, but belongs austin to the government and the public. defendants repeated appeals to broad first amendmentes, therefore ignore that the court pursuant to its obligations to protect the integrity of these proceedings recognize those values, but and balancing them against potential prejudiced from certain types of statements, found them outweighed. the gag order limits what trump says about potential witnesses in the case, as well as special counsel. it does not stop him from attacking president biden, the justice department, or even judge chutkan herself. one of those potential witnesses is trump's former attorney, william barr, who trump slammed on social media last night a little more than an hour after the judge had filed her decision. at a 21 pm last night, trump posted, quote, i call bill barr dumb, weak, slow-moving, lethargic, got loose and lazy, a rhino who couldn't do the job. that's an all caps, if you're listening. bill barr is a loser, all caps. judge chutkan and special counsel's team have not yet responded to the social media attack on bill barr. the remarks are part of a pattern for the former president. while the gag order was on pause last week, trump lashed out at another potential key witness in the case. mark meadows. on tuesday last, week trump weighed in on a report from abc news that meadows, trump's former white house chief of staff had testified in the case under an immunity deal. and a social media post, trump insinuated that meadows testimony was a, quote, a lie. common judge chutkan now concluded would have been a violation of the gag order, writing in her decision last night, quote, this statement would almost certainly violate the order unr any reasonable definition of taetg. the statement singles out a foreseeable witness for purposes of characterizing his potential unfae testimony as a, quote, to lie, quote made-up to sece immunity, and attacks him as a, quote, we cling and coward if he provides out unfavorable testimony. an attack that could readily be interpreted as an attempt to influence or prevent participation in this case. trump and his attorneys are appealing judge chutkan decision on the gag order, and in just a moment, we will hear from former acting solicitor nil cocktail about their prospects. it's worth remembering, a separate trial, a new york judge in the civil fraud case against trump, has already found trump to have committed to separate violations of a different gag order. after the second violation, the judge find him $10, 000, and talking to imprison him. a penalty that highlights the difficulty of enforcing a gag order on former president of the united states. leading off our discussion tonight, neil cocktail, former -- of the united states and host of podcast courtside with neil and paul butler, a professor of law at georgetown university and former federal prosecutor. they are both msnbc legal analyst. neil, give us reaction to judge chutkan's decision to reinstate the limited gag order in this case. do you agree that trump is unlikely to succeed in his appeal? >> the judge is absolutely right. no, i don't think there's any chance trump is going to succeed on his appeal. so, look, first of all, trump is basically trying to win his court case the same way he's trying to win the 2020 election, which is to mix up a bunch of his lawlessness and intimidation and combined together. the judges order is really hard to appeal. he's going to try, just like he tried 62 times in 2020 with different courts to try and claim some sort of election problems, and he lost them all, he's going to lose this. he's going to lose this, jonathan, for two reasons. one is, the judge's order is very surgical. it allows trump to attack biden, attack a lot of things. the one thing she said you cannot do, drummond violence against witnesses or intimidate the true seeking process. that's exactly what donald trump is doing. that is the second point, i think she's on such firm ground. no one on this planet has made a better case for why this guy quarter needs to be in effect then a guy named donald trump. he provided the very best evidence against his motion and you are referring to that earlier. we talked about his tweets about the william barr. his tweets about mark meadows, all of this shows the guy cord are absolutely necessary because trump is dangerous. he's a danger to the witnesses, he's a danger to the prosecutors, who he lies about, and most of all he's a danger to the rule of law. >> the judge in trump's civil fraud trial is seemed reluctant to bring the hammer down on trump for guy quarter violation. finding him $5,000 for his first violation, 10,000 for a second. but, not much of a penalty for so-called billionaire. self-described billionaire. how do you think judge chutkan will handle any violations? >> i think it is going to be also -- she has the power to put trump in jail if he continues to violate. i think that is extremely unlikely unless he does something super outrageous of the judge thinks is putting peoples lives in danger. but, the two fines last week in the civil fraud case were not the only time trump has been sanctioned in that case. last year, when trump refused to something he had to do, which is to turn over documents to letitia james, then the judge held them in contempt and fined him $110,000. jonathan, guess what? that worked. so, finds may actually work on the former president, but the 15,000 was fined last week was trump change. it's got to be a billion dollar refined sitter suited for a billionaire that might make a difference. >> did he pay that $110,000? >> i believe. >> he paid? it okay. you know. oscar's lawyers. he doesn't pay them. neil, judge chutkan said she might move the date of the trial up if she finds trump has violated the gag order. that would be huge to trump considering he doesn't even want to try to take place until after next year's election. is it more likely she throws him in jail or move up the case? >> i'm so glad you asked that, because i agree with paul that jail is relatively unlikely right now. that's because she does have this interim remedy available to her. she said from the start, which is, donald trump if you keep violating these guy orders, i have a remedy, and it is to move the trial of because we do not want to have sumoylation of witnesses and intimidation of witnesses. she has that fully in her toolkit. i expect her to use a. that will sidestep the whole questions about, oh you know you're chilling a presidential candidate this in that before trial. it will just be move the trial up, and there's nothing donald trump fears more than a trial. his entire shot a g is always july, delay, delay. he's afraid of a courtroom the way a vampire is afraid of sunlight. >> i was going to ask you something else. paul. i'm going to come to you by the column you wrote in the washington post with the headline, the prosecutors ticking on trump know what they're up against. you write that trump, let me just quote to you, which he wrote, you said trump's attack on these prosecutors's transparent attempt to rile up his base against black prosecutors who have the gall to focus on him. his incitement squarely aimed to remind his supporters with a real criminal supposedly are, black and brown fo trump seems too long from the days black police officers in some jurisdictions could not arrest white people. like any accuse person, trump deserves due process, and he is getting it many times over. any black defendant who is viewed chose by the rhetoric about judges, witnesses, and prosecutors would have been locked up by now. paul, can you expand on that for us? is trump getting special treatment in these cases? >> the former president is getting extra, extra, extra due process, jonathan. make no mistake, if you or anybody else, he would have been locked up. the courts are going out of their way to give him special consideration. i do understand his concerns. he's running for president. but, the concern is that there is never been a criminal defendant who has the kind of megaphone that donald trump has. jack smith keeps reminding us that we do not have to speculate about whether trump can rile up his supporters to commit acts of violence. the special counsel says that that is exactly what he did on january 6th. jonathan, when i was a public correction prosecutor, i got used to people. they discounted me because i am black. they discounted my qualifications. i answered my critics by winning my cases. i think that is exactly what letitia james, what's fani willis, and what they are all going to do. african american prosecutors are very glad that their leaders, and this fight to bring the former president to justice. >> neil, on a similar point. the justice department announced it charged alabama man for threatening fulton county d.a. fani willis, and the fulton county sheriff allegedly saying in a voice mail, and that quote, if you take a mugshot of the president and you are the reason it's happened, some bad expletives gonna happen to you. neil, is that an example of why it is important to limit what trump can say in these cases? >> exactly. that is an example a and. this you think about that effect on witnesses. not just the bars in mark meadows world, but other people who may testify this including the so-called fake electors in the like. you see trump strategy, which is to try and scare these witnesses from testifying against them, and ruining their lives by causing security threats in the light to them. most judges do not impose, jonathan, these kind of guy quarters, because most defendants know better than to threaten witnesses and condemn violence. when you got someone who's got the impulse control of a toddler, he got to treat them like one. that is when i think these judges ultimately have been doing and where they're going to have to keep doing and escalate to the point where serious remedies, including possibly jail time are on the line. >> neal katyal, paul butler, thank you for coming to the last word. coming up, donald trump is now on trial in colorado. today, a group of voters argued that donald trump is ineligible to hold off this again under the 14th amendment for his role in the january 6th attack on the capitol. congressman eric swallow who testified in that case today joins us next. next. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. i was a bit nervous at first but then i figured it's just walking, right? [dog barks] oh. no it's just a bunny! calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ ( ♪♪ ) we're in the security business... our job is to help people feel safe. not only our customers but those who matter most to them. just like our company does for us. we have great benefits from principal. so i know i'm taken care of. and (pause) not just me. but the ones who matter most to me. ( ♪♪ ) she found it. the feeling of finding the psoriasis treatment she's been looking for. sotyktu is the first-of-its-kind, once-daily pill for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis... for the chance at clear or almost clear skin. it's like the feeling of finding that outfit psoriasis tried to hide from you. or finding your swimsuit is ready for primetime. dad! once-daily sotyktu is proven to get more people clearer skin than the leading pill. don't take if you're allergic to sotyktu; serious reactions can occur. sotyktu can lower your ability to fight infections including tb. serious infections, cancers including lymphoma, muscle problems, and changes in certain labs have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection, liver or kidney problems, high triglycerides, or had a vaccine or plan to. sotyktu is a tyk2 inhibitor. tyk2 is part of the jak family. it's not known if sotyktu has the same risks as jak inhibitors. find what plaque psoriasis has been hiding. ask your dermatologist about sotyktu for clearer skin. so clearly you. sotyktu. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch ask your dermatologist about sotyktu for clearer skin. mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? have we piqued your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. >> a trial is underway in wireless that works for you. it's not just possible. colorado to determine whether donald trump should be disqualified from running for president, because of his role in the january 6th insurrection at the capitol. the lawsuit filed by six colorado voters argues that donald trump is ineligible to hold office again under section three of the 14th amendment, which disqualifies anyone who having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the united states,shall have engaged insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. lawyers for the colorado voters tied donald trump's words and actions to the violence on january six. they argued that he summoned the mob that he knew was armed and dangerous, and help them by, quote, refusing to mobilize resources to stop the attack. we are here because trump claims after all that he has the right to be president again. our constitution, our shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do. so washington d.c. police officer daniel hodge was the first witness to testify about how he feared for his life as he was brutally assaulted by trump supporters who chanted that the election was stolen and to fight for trump. democratic congressman, eric swalwell, testified about how he and other lawmakers monitor trump's comments as rioters breached the capitol to stop the certification of the election. [inaudible] this belief that this was happening, that we were taking our coats off, that we were looking for weapons or how to use gas masks. we connected the president's tweets to our own safety, our own safety in the chamber. >> joining us now is democratic congressman eric swalwell of california. he was impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial of donald trump. he is a plaintive in the civil suit against donald trump for his role in inciting the january 6th attack on the capitol. congressman eric swalwell always great to see you. what did you tell the court and why were you called as a witness? >> jonathan, i will start by saying, unlike some individuals, i could follow a judges order. i am not going to talk about the merits of the case and the testimony. that was public and you played it. but, i will talk about donald trump's accountability or just lack of accountability. he's been a stranger to accountability for most of his career. as we see him being held accountable in a courtroom in new york from every guy order that he violates or being held accountable in washington d.c. as he threatens prosecutors are down in georgia, this is what it looks like when our rule of law comes together. so many of your viewers have told me and my own constituents have told me that he's going to get away with it. i know, what he's going to get away with this. people have just lost faith in the rule of law. i assured them so many times, and you and lawrence, have that it can work. so, all of these proceedings is the rule of law working. an independent jury stunt, a jury of peers will ultimately decide what happens. >> congressman, the judge weighed out some questions to be addressed about this civil war provision, whether it applies to presidents and the meaning of engaged an insurrection as used in the 14th amendment. what are your thoughts on that? >> the 14th amendment does lay out the qualifications to hold office. that is what the judge will ultimately have to decide. i will just say that, as a member of the house, i think every day what would have happened if the speaker of the house was in on what donald trump wanted to do. we had speaker pushed lucy provide him, we had mike pence who did not want to go along with what donald trump asked. maga mike, and that is not my >> that's what republican colleagues call him [interpreter] speaker of the house was the architect of the idea that donald trump could overturn the election. so, if republicans were to win the house in the upcoming election, and there was another challenge by donald trump, the speaker who believes that the will of the voters was not, matter and that violence can be more powerful than voting. >> what we have seen up until, now speaker mike johnston, maga mike as he is called by his colleagues. there were republicans who were trying to whitewash what happened on january 6th. regular tourist visit. or, something about political discourse, rational political discourse. what do you make of republicans who are still trying to whitewash the violence of that day? >> the reserve of looking colleagues are whitewashing what happened on january six is because it has to be a fiction in the reality of the voters if donald trump is going to be their nominee. spoiler alert, donald trump is well on his way to be nominees. so, they have to lie to the voters to, essentially take out of the voters mind what donald trump did that day. look, the republican party is a party that's no longer interested in governing or leading, or helping anyone who watches the show with any problem they have in their life. they are a law firm. insurrection led by maga mike johnston, who is only duty as they see it's a wake up every day and litigate the grievances of one client, and that's donald trump. that's what's going to be on the ballot. make sure democracy lives long enough to live forever, this upcoming election, or will we lose it forever? donald trump prevails. >> last week i talked to officer harry dunn about his new book recounting what happened to him on january 6th. his feelings about what folks are doing to try and erase the history, officer hodges testified in quote. i'm gonna read what he said. he said i was afraid for my life and my colleagues. i was afraid for the people in the u.s. capitol building. congressman, the vice president, what these people would do to them, and how it would affect our democracy. how important was officer hodges testimony which video, reminding people of just how violent this was? why trump supporters were there, and what they intended to do. >> jonathan, because of what officer hodges did that today, i am still alive. my colleagues are still alive. we were able to go back to the capital and count the votes. i displayed officer hodges bravery when i was one of the impeachment managers in the senate. for your viewers, they don't have to do it officer hodges did. they don't have to get beat up, bear spray, hit by a mob to be patriotic and to show their love for this country. they just have to register to vote and show up to vote to make sure we are never a country that has an attempted coup put on it. again. you could be just as patriotic as what dani hundred that. >> the vote is the citizen's most powerful weapon. congressman eric swalwell as always, thank you for joining us tonight. >> my pleasure. thank you. >>