happen with this defendant, but any other defendant would probably be facing -- >> you don't think she would put him in jail or they would decide to put him in jail ultimately? >> i don't think so. >> according to former attorney general eric holder, any other defendant would be sent to the slammer for violating a gag order. so what's stopping the federal judge in donald trump's january 6th coup case from making good on her vow to treat trump just like any other defendant? plus, senate democrats set their sights on a couple of conservative supreme court justices' besties in their quest to impose some level of ethics oversight on the high court. and with abortion rights emerging as a driving force in upcoming elections, does anyone else find it weird that house republicans have chosen an anti-abortion extremist as their new speaker? and we begin tonight with the constitutional question that could determine whether donald trump appears on a state ballot next year. the house january 6th committee laid out in stunning detail the events of that day. using video evidence to show meticulously how donald trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of the attack. now an historic trial is under way in colorado to determine whether trump should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot in 2024 because of his role in inciting the events of january 6th. the lawsuit filed by six colorado voters with the help of watchdog group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, argues that donald trump is ineligible to hold office again under section 3 of the 14th amendment. passed after the civil war. it prohibits anyone from holding office who having previously taken an oath 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. lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that donald trump violated his oath of office, trying to overturn the 2020 election. leading to the attack on the capitol, which was an insurrection. trump's attorneys argue the lawsuit is an effort to get the court to endorse the house january 6th committee report. washington, d.c. police officer daniel hodges was the first witness to testify on monday. he spoke about the injuries he received that day. after being crushed in a door and as he testified, being punched, kicked, beaten, and sprayed with pepper spray. >> i was afraid for my life and for that of my colleagues. i was afraid for the people in the united states capitol building. >> california congressman eric swalwell also testified on monday about how he and other lawmakers monitored donald trump's comments as insurrectionists breached the capitol to try to stop the certification of the election. colorado's secretary of state jenna griswold is named as a defendant in addition to trump. the suit would force her to bar trump from the ballot. griswold has said she will comply with whatever the court decides. other secretaries of state in battleground states have also grappled with the issue of the insurrection cause. one said it is an unanswered question and up to the courts, not to him. new hampshire's david scanlon said he had no legal basis for invoking the 14th amendment and wouldn't block trump. and georgia's brad raffensperger claimed in a "wall street journal" op-ed that he can't block trump, and it should be left up to the voters to decide. and that illustrates the two questions at stake. there is the legal question that will continue through the courts. colorado's trial is only the first litigation on the insurrection clause. last month in california, legislators asked the state's attorney general to seek a court opinion as to whether trump is disqualified under the 14th amendment and trump faces similar lawsuits in minnesota and michigan. michigan's secretary of state, jocelyn benson, said she won't keep trump from the ballot unless the courts direct her to. today, trump filed an injunction to prevent her from blocking him from appealing on the ballot. then there's the political question, how it looks to voters if secretary of states are the one to make the call to keep trump off the ballot. colorado's jena griswold responded to that point. >> i am a democratic secretary of state and i did not bring this case. i am a party as a defendant because i certified the ballot. and i would just say, look, colorado republican and unaffiliated voters brought this case. i think it is very reasonable to determine whether the u.s. constitution is in play. if there's something unclear, it's an appropriate mechanism to file a lawsuit. what is inappropriate is trying to steal an election from the american people. >> i'm joined now by maryland democratic congressman jamie raskin, member of the select committee to investigate january 6th. and the house judiciary committee, as well as the lead impeachment manager in 2021. and laurence tribe, professor emeritus at harvard university. i am lucky enough to have not one but two constitutional scholars in front of me right now, which is exciting to get to talk to both of you. i want to ask each of you in turn to give us your evaluation of the merits of this case. it was brought by four registered republicans and two unaffiliated colorado voters. and they have until march 5th to decide, that's when the primary is in colorado. i will make deference to the congressman and go to your first, sir. you know the facts better than any of us sitting here about what donald trump did on january 6th. is this case meritorious in your view? >> well, i should yield to my constitutional law professor, larry tribe, who taught me everything i know about the constitution. but let me give you my sense of it, joy. i don't really understand people who control access to the ballot saying, well, we'll let the voters decide. if someone showed up trying to run for president at 19 years old, their answer wouldn't be, let's let the voters decide. their answer would be let's consult the constitution which says you have to be 35 years old to run for president. if jennifer granholm, the secretary of energy, or arnold schwarzenegger, both of whom were born abroad and they tried to run for president, they wouldn't say let the voters decide. they would say that violates the rules of the constitution. it's the same thing here. the hard question is not should the courts end up deciding because the courts will have to decide this because it's a constitutional question. the hard part is, did he engage in insurrection or rebellion. that's the hard part for some people. is incitement to insurrection participating in insurrection? the house of representatives already impeached him for inciting insurrection. 57 of 100 senators voted to determine that he did engage in incitement to insurrection, so you have robust bipartisan, bicameral majorities defining that as a legislative fact. but i think the alternative argument will be no, you need a criminal conviction first. it's not enough to show that it happened. and you know, against that, i would simply say, the language of section 3 of the 14th amendment says that you can't run for office if you have sworn an oath to the constitution, but then you participated in insurrection rebellion. it doesn't say if you have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. but i think that that will become really the heart of the legal argument. >> now that i have allowed your former student to show you that -- how much he learned i will not ask you to grade him, professor tribe, but i will now turn it over to you. with this case, the 14th amendment actually has been used. this was used to remove from office a new mexico county commissioner who entered the capitol on january 6th. there was a legal trial for him doing that. it has been used in the past. but i would love to hear your take on the merits of this case, and i will really quickly say the judge would like these things addressed. you can respond to it, the history and applicaf section 3 of the 14ict amendment, is section 3 self executed which is an important question. does section 3 apply to presidents, the meaning of engaged and insurrection as used in section 3, and did trump's actions meet the standard for section 3. your thoughts, sir. >> i think the answers to all of those questions are quite clear. it is clear that section 3 by itself says that anyone who engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states, that's the phrase, not just against the government, but against the constitution of the united states, is not entitled to another bite at that apple. now, donald trump says that might apply to a county commissioner in new mexico, but it doesn't apply to him. because it doesn't apply to the president. that is an absurd argument. i won't go into the details but it's clear that if there's any officer in the country who would be a danger to democracy if he were allowed again to manipulate our processes, it is someone who took the oath as president and then turned around and tried to overturn the central part of the constitution, which is the transition from one president to another, and in accord with who actually wins the election, not who says i believe i won, i thought i won, i should have won, how could i have lost to this guy, but the person who our legal process determines as the winner. now, one of the things that mr. trump and by the way, in the michigan filing today, he calls himself president trump 35 times. he seems to think that he won the election, but i have news for him. the constitution says that you serve for only four years. and if you lose the electoral college, that's the end of it. he argues, i never really took the kind of oath that section 3 talks about. it talks about an oath to support the constitution. i didn't take that oath. i took the oath that the president takes. it's an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. now, that's how ridiculous the arguments get. the legal arguments are clear. but the political argument is not so clear. a lot of people say even though congressman raskin's examples are perfect, they wouldn't apply it to a 30-year-old or to someone not a natural born citizen, but they say let the people decide, even if someone is not eligible. that's not the way that people who fought the civil war decided we needed to handle it. they decided that you needed to disqualify anyone who basically is a traitor to the constitution. that kind of person is dangerous. dangerous as a person who might attempt to seize power and then never let go. that's the history of autocracies around the world. somebody manages to make it into office, and then they decide they're going to stay. that's the danger against which this language is designed to protect us all. >> you know, and the irony, congressman raskin, well said, the irony is that donald trump is a birther. so people who supported his view thought that barack obama should be automatically disqualified from being on ballots, and they literally tried to make that happen. and so, you know, he doesn't want to be held to the standard he attempted to illegally and unlawfully and in a racist manner hold an american, barack obama, to. let me go to you on the political question. you're a politician. the question of how it would look to voters, right, this was tried on marjorie taylor greene, she survived it, it was tried on madison cawthorn, he lost a primary so it didn't really matter. how do you think the politics would play out? would it look like the deep state stopped trump from being on the ballot rather than the constitution? >> well, that goes back to the question of democracy you were raising and those who are saying well, just let the voters decide. here's the problem, donald trump tried to overthrow constitutional democracy. and the constitution has a mechanism for dealing with that which is a very strongly pro-democratic mechanism. it says this is a big country. a lot of people can be president. you don't have to go back to somebody who has already proven himself to be untrustworthy by being disloyal to the constitution and trying to overthrow the constitutional order. just as it is pro-constitutional and pro-democratic to say we're going to enforce the provisions that no, a 14-year-old can't run for president no matter how brilliant he is, also if it's been shown that you have engaged in an insurrection against the constitution, you can't be trusted once again to swear an oath to it, and then uphold the whole constitutional system. if you look at what's going on in other countries when people have attempted a coup, and they have been rejected at the last moment, that's a sign they're going to try a coup again. and is there anybody who really believes that if donald trump somehow got his way back into office, he would ever leave? if you believe that, you're too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself. >> yeah, indeed. very quickly, with the time we have left, i want to ask a slightly different question to you, professor tribe. former attorney general holder said that donald trump would be in jail if it was anyone else. i think every legal expert agrees on that. what do you think are the chances that one of these judges or at least this judge in the january 6th insurrection case, will eventually use jail as a sanction if he continues violating the protective order? >> i do think she will use the threat of jail. there are a lot of things she can do in between. she can escalate financial fines, a million dollars a day, $2 million, eventually, even donald trump might notice. in any event, the idea that because he's donald trump and calls himself president, and was once president, that we certainly can't put him in jail. frankly, i don't buy it. what's the -- what's the immunity? there is no legal immunity, and the secret service could accompany him. so i think we have to start thinking that he is not above the law. no one is above the law. real politic would tell me that judge chutkan might only threaten it, use it as a last resort, not going to be easily done, but i can't take it off the table. >> this has been so much fun. i could do this for an hour. thank you all for making time. it's always a treat to talk to both of you. congressman jamie raskin, laurence tribe, two of the very best at telling the constitution. telling you what's in the constitution, making it make sense. up next on "the reidout," senate democrats would like to ask a couple of wealthy conservative activists about their history of chumming around with and lavishing expensive gifts on america's conservative supreme court justices. "the reidout" continues after this. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. only pay for ♪hat you need. i don't ever want to go back to wearing a 4xl shirt or not being able to climb up stairs without taking a break. so i'm committed to golo for life. the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. at this point, it has become abundantly clear a certain number of associate justices on the supreme court have ignored some pretty basic ethical standards for their own personal benefit. we know much of this because of the dogged word of propublica and other media organizations. what we have learned is a truly disturbing array of obviously questionable behavior from justices interacting with wealthy benefactors who have very specific political agendas and just so happen to share their generosity with the justices. justice samuel alito got a luxury vacation paid for by republican donor paul singer, who has key cases before the court this year. justice alito was also accused of previewing an upcoming decision about contraceptive access to antichoice lobbyists who were breaking bread with him and his wife. he denied sharing the information. then there's justice clarence thomas, who almost deserves a category of his own for behaving like a kept man. this year alone, we learned he failed to report many, many, many gifts including from his besty harlan crow, a billionaire neppo baby with a penchant for nazi memorabilia. the gifts included a string of luxury vacations, private jets and private school tuition for his nephew. he also bought thomas' childhood home, making crow her landlord. we also learned that thomas attended the exclusive annual men only summit at bohemian drove, care of the koch brothers who also have key interests before the court. oh, and did i mention justice thomas who loves to tell americans he's just a humble man preferring a simpler life behind the wheel of an rv, got that rv from a rich friend? they said it was a deal or a loan, gut guess what we found out yesterday from the senate judiciary committee by "the new york times," thomas never repaid a substantial portion of the $267,000 loan from that rich friend. raising questions about whether the loan was properly reported on his taxes. many of these stories have a common thread. and that is leonard leo. the man who single-handedly reshaped the supreme court and the federal bench across the country. five of the current conservative justices are hand-picked from the federalist society. an organization he used to run. leo has marshalled billions of dollars into reshaping the court and the country. and he is close personal friends with justice thomas and harlan crow. to the point where he is in a painting crow commissioned that includes justice thomas and a number of other conservative activists. leo has worked closely with ginni thomas, as she promotes right wing activism. in facts, according to reports, leo helped send money her way without a clear explanation of why or for what. yesterday, the senate judiciary committee announced they will vote to authorize issuing subpoenas for a few of those benefactors. this includes real estate billionaire harlan crow, mortgage company owner robert arkly ii, and leonard leo. i'm joined by california senator alex padilla, member of the senate judiciary committee. thank you for being here, senator padilla. let's talk about this. the reaction that you have gotten on the senate judiciary committee from people like harlan crow and leonard leo has been dismissive t say the least. leonard leo has said the llowing, i would not bow to the vile and disgusting liberal mccarthyism that seeks to destroy the supreme court. what do you expect the reaction to be to the subpoenas? >> well, this is not the first step, not the last step in our investigative efforts, joy. first, let me say happy halloween. with the senate committee on the verge of doing is certainly not a trick or a treat. issuing subpoenas by the committee has only been done a handful of times over the years. so it's a very, very significant step, and it wouldn't be necessary if we had individuals willing to cooperate with the committee. you know, for the folks who want to criticize or critique the senate judiciary committee for wanting to impose an enforceable code of ethics on supreme court justices, it's not that we're not trying to do it the other way, they have had opportunities to do it themselves. they refused. we had begun an investigation. thank god for the propublica and the other investigative reporting. we know there's lot more there, and that's why we give harlan crow and the others an opportunity to come forward with the inform