american history, literally. today was the very first televised hearing in that georgia case against donald trump and 18 of his allies. district attorney fani willis and her team revealed three big things about the election interference charges. first, they want to charge and try all 19 codefendants together. secondly, this trial could last for months. and thirdly, they will call more than 150 different witnesses. that means that the former president of the united states could spend a third of the next year sitting in a courtroom. in just one of his cases, while running for a second term. it is just extraordinary. and we are getting a preview of the tensions to come. two of those codefendants, trump's legal advisor sydney powell, and the so-called architect of the coup plot, kenneth chesebro, they want their trials to be separated, even though, through their lawyers, they, today, started pointing the finger at each other, essentially over who is less crazy. >> she was fired before this conspiracy actually even started up. because she said something -- was it crazy? and the trump people got rid of her. >> the evidence will show she was not the driving force behind that. >> in the end, though, the judge did deny the requests. so, it will be tried together. joining me now is jim schultz, former trump white house lawyer, and elie mystal -- and columnist for "the nation" magazine. -- even the judge is skeptical that you can hold a trial for all 19 as soon as next month. but it makes me wonder, is this going to basically ensure that we won't even see this, even in the next year, because of how sprawling this all is? >> look, i think you can see perhaps those two tried on the 23rd. but i think you also have to take into consideration the rights of the other defendants there, and not looking, asking for their speedy trial rights. so, i do think it is very unlikely you are going to see a trial on the 23rd, with all 19 defendants. i think that is virtually impossible to. do i do think there is going to be a lot of pre trial motions. you have 150 witnesses. you are going to have a lot of motions related to evidentiary issues, a lot of motions to dismiss. and, quite frankly, as clean as jack smith's case was, this one is just a mess in terms of trying to manage, it from the judges perspective. sure, there have been cases around the country that, all the defendants, in that number, have been tried before. but i don't think it is likely to happen in this, case given all the complex issues. i think you are not looking at a georgia case until next year or the year after. >> so, elie mystal -- >> -- when i say next year, i mean 2025. >> right. the next year, after the presidential election. elie, the former justice department prosecutor, andrew weissmann, he says that it really is absurd. over trying a case is never a good thing for the government. there is, in a way, a principle here, of trying to get a conviction, not just trying to make a point. is he right? >> no. we only talk about overtrying a case when we have white criminal defendants in the courtroom, right? -- we never talk about it when it's a drug king pin. we never talk about it when it's a terrorist. what we saw -- and i'm glad that the american people got to see -- what is a rico trial. and yes, it is large. it is complicated. but you see why we have the rico statute. because what happened in that courtroom today? within minutes, all the defendants, it oh, it was not me, it was -- i don't know anything about -- right? they all started pointing the finger at each other. and the reason why you have a rico statute is so you can try them altogether so they can't get away with it, so that frankie five angels does not have to know what luka roxie was doing, if they are all part of the same criminal conspiracy. i fundamentally agree with jim that it is going to take a while, although i don't really think that it is going to happen until 2025, because the nature of rico is messy. but i don't think that, because we are doing a rico trial, that necessarily means that anybody is being overcharged or over prosecuted. they all, potentially, allegedly, or part of a conspiracy to overthrow the election in georgia. and so, we are going to try them all together. and that is what rico is for. >> jim schultz, you brought up a -- >> you might even see -- >> yeah, go ahead. >> so, you might even -- see look, these determination still have to be made by the federal judge, in the folks that have said they need to be tried federally. so, that is going to delay it even more. those are issues that are going to be taken up and decided and are going to delay this thing for the down the road. >> so, jim -- >> -- are still live. >> go ahead, elie. >> i was just saying, the federal issues are still very. lead the federal issues are still live. we don't know what -- judge jones is going to do about that case. i don't think meadows has a great case to remove it to federal court. however, because of the nature of rico, if you start taking one defendant out and removing them to federal court, you have an argument. this came up in the hearing today. maybe you have to remove the whole case to federal court. so, there is still a lot to play out. and, again, that means we are unlikely to see sort of -- this is not going to be a snappy law and order resolution before the commercial break. this is going to take some time. but, you know, the wheels of justice to move slowly. but they do move. and what we saw today was the start of movement to hold these people accountable for their alleged crimes. >> look, fani willis is the one who says that she wants to do this quickly as well. some of the defendants have asked for their speedy trial rights. but she said, i am ready to go, next month. it sounds like, based on the case that she put together, it can't possibly be as quick as that for all of these codefendants. jim schultz and elie mystal, standby for me for a moment here. also, new tonight, one of donald trump aides's flipping on him, that mar-a-lago i. t. worker who is threatened with prosecution in the, cases cooperating with prosecutors now. and as a result, he will not be prosecuted in this case. that comes as trump is saying he is willing to testify in his cases. >> if you have to go to trial, will you testify in your own defense? >> oh, yes, absolutely. >> you will take the stand? >> that i would. that, i look forward to. >> now, if history is any indicator, don't hold your breath for that. like, that time he declined to testify in the e. jean carroll case, or the time that he refused to testify in the january 6th hearing, or the time he declined to testify in the investigation of his real estate empire, and the time he refused to testify in the hush money case. also, there is the time he would not testify at his own impeachment trial, or the time he did not sit down with robert mueller even though he said that he would. >> i am looking forward to, it actually. i think, yes, they are talking about two or three weeks. but i would love to do it. >> you see the trend here. jim and elie are still with. me elie, who is he kidding? >> not me, jack. look, trump is a liar. so, he is lying. and the fact that he is lying is one of the reasons he cannot testify. because, if he testifies, he will lie. and he will catch himself another indictment, this time, for perjury. joe isuzu is less of a perjury risk than donald trump, putting him on a stand. no lawyer -- no lawyer who has been through, i would say, three months of law school, would dare to put trump on the stand to lie some. or so, no, he is not going to testify. he knows he's not going to testify. is lawyers know he's not going to testify. all of this is another lie from donald trump. >> jim, you know him. you also have the distinction of being a former lawyer for donald trump. what say you? >> so, look. i think this is just more donald trump bravado, right? there is no chance that he is going to testify at these trials. there is no chance that his lawyers are going to agree for him to do that. so, i agree with everything elie is saying there. i don't think there is any chance he testifies. and there is no lawyer in the right mind would allow him to testify. >> so, we were just talking there about the mar-a-lago worker who struck that deal with the special counsel's office. he has agreed now to testify in the classified documents case. in exchange, he is not going to be prosecuted. but, jim, i wonder, this idea that, if you turn on trump and you don't get prosecuted, can the other codefendants or, even unindicted coconspirators, hang their hat on that? that, if they flip, they escape all consequences here? >> it depends on the conduct and the allegations that have been made against those particular defendants in those cases. so, you can't -- you know, there may be some break that they are given. they may not be given immunity. but, i will tell you what. they all have to be flipping over their shoulder right now, looking at the, looking at that, at what that former defendant in the case did, and the deal that he made in saying, maybe i should be doing the same thing to save my skin. that has got to make trump really nervous. and the other defendants in the case nervous, because they are going to be looking around and saying, who is going next? >> yeah, and elie, from a purely psychological perspective, there is a huge impact. how big of a deal is this for the special counsel's team? >> i think the real issue here is that trump does not have any more pardons to sell. he is not the president. he can't dangle pardons in front of these people. he can only say that, if he gets elected president again, maybe he will pardon them. but even that does not work for georgia. so, i do think -- look, one of the reasons trump has been able to avoid accountability, prosecution, whatever for so long, is that most of his people have stayed amazingly loyal to him. roger stone, paul manafort, people have taken the wait for donald trump. right? this might be where it all starts to break down. and once his own people start turning on him and start telling the truth to prosecutors and to the states, things are going to get even worse for a person who is now under four or five indictments. >> i have a feeling there will be quite a few more twists and turns in this case. you have in, at least the documents case, two individuals who have attorneys who are tied to trump. that, in the end of itself, is a big source of potential problems down the road for those codefendants and perhaps or trump as well. jim schultz and elie mystal, thank you very much, both of you. and, up next, a watchdog group sues to keep trump off the ballot, citing the 14th amendment. that group's director makes his case, right here, next. plus, an obama campaign veteran calls his party a bunch of bed-wetters and tells them to -- about biden's chances. hours later, we are learning hunter biden is about to be indicted. and we are now seeing video of how an inmate escape that prison as the man hunt intensifies by the hour. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the biggest ideas inspire new ones. 30 years ago, state street created an etf that inspired the world to invest differently. it still does. what can you do with spy? ♪ remember the things you loved... ...before asthma got in the way? fasenra is an add-on treatment for asthma driven by eosinophils. it's designed to target and remove them and helps prevent asthma attacks. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. get back to better breathing. ask your doctor about fasenra. ♪ chevy silverado has what it takes to do it all. with up to 13 camera views. and the z71 off-road package. ♪ you ok? yeah. any truck can help you make a living. this one helps you build a life. chevy silverado. >> should donald trump be banned from the ballot? a new lawsuit tonight is trying to make that argument. a watchdog is now suing on behalf of six republican and independent voters in colorado to keep trump of the 2024 primary ballot there. their argument stems from a rarely used provision of the 14th amendment that bans insurrectionists from holding public office. colorado secretary of state, jena griswold, a democrat, said in the statement said that she hopes this case will provide guidance to election officials on trump's eligibility as a candidate for office. the executive director of that watchdog group, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, noah bookbinder, joins me now. noah, thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> so, noah, i really want to put you to a test here on some of this, because, while i understand what is so appealing about this for a lot of people, frankly, this is really, really untested. i do wonder, though, first of all, why choose the state of colorado, which biden won pretty handily by almost 500,000 votes? >> colorado really emerged as our lawyers looked through it state-by-state as a particularly good first place for this kind of lawsuit for a couple of reasons. first of all, different states have different laws as to how you can challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office. and colorado has a statute that says the secretary of state is required to remove from the ballot anyone who is constitutionally unqualified. it also has a law that citizens can go to court to challenge a candidate who is not qualified. so, it has a procedure built in. it's a quick procedure. and it is relatively early in the primary calendar, so that the case would be ripe earlier than inside of other cases. you also have another terrific group of courageous plaintiffs who are willing to make a stand on this. so, for all of those reasons, we thought this was a good first stop. it won't be the last up. and we had others will bring other cases as well. >> so, just days before trump launched his presidential bid a year ago, over a year ago, you warned him in a letter that you would pursue this very thing, and disqualify him from holding public office. why did you wait a full year to file? >> we wanted to bring the case when the court was going to consider it to be ripe, when a court could not throw it out as premature. and also because we are ready to go in with witnesses, with evidence to put on a full case and prove that donald trump is constitutionally disqualified. that takes time to get a team together, to get all that evidence together. that is what we have been hard at work on for a year. >> so, one of the sticking points here is that the 14th amendment does not have any context about what the due process is for what people who might be subject to it. who does get to decide who has violated the 14th amendment? >> as you said, this has been -- used and that's an unfortunate thing, because we have not had a lot of infections in this country. but, it has been used. there is case law from the 18 60s after the civil war. and there is also a case my organization represented new mexico residents in a case last year against the county commissioner, couy griffin, who was an organizer of the january 6th insurrection -- >> can i just jump in there, on that, for the -- in our viewers, the cases against in the civil war era, in -- and the case you just mentioned about 2022, that individual was actually convicted of playing a role in january 6th. what is missing here for trump is a conviction. >> it's interesting. so, couy griffin was convicted of a misdemeanor offense, eventually essentially trespassing. he was not convicted of insurrection. and, in fact, none of the post civil war cases involve people who were charged with or convicted of insurrection. there is actually a whole lot of case law saying that this is a totally different thing from criminal cases. this is not a criminal punishment. it's like a qualification. it's like the constitution's, as you've got to be at least 35 to run for president. and you can go to court and if a 23-year-old runs for president, you can go to court and say this person is not constitutionally qualified. you have to establish with evidence that they are, in fact, 23 years old, and not 35. and, if you do, they are off the ballot. it is the same thing here. obviously, the substance is much more serious. but, if we can go to court, and it is a civil trial, and you prove by preponderance of the evidence that there was an insurrection, that this person, in this case, donald trump, engage in that insurrection -- and we did that in the case of couy griffin in new mexico, totally apart from his misdemeanor conviction -- and in that case, a judge ruled that he was disqualified. that can happen here as well. >> i don't want to hold you too much to your case of the qualifications on age, because it's pretty clear those are not really that comparable. this is a question of who gets to decide, a, what an insurrection is? whether someone's conduct constituted engaging in an insurrection, whether that should be applied in a particular area -- it is really, actually, quite different. and i will say, because, frankly, you can prove from a factual perspective how old a person's. those are the questions are difficult. but what underlies a lot of this is that the american people are being asked here to say, okay, we are going to let judges decide that. do you understand why some people might not be comfortable with that? >> i certainly do. i would say that, look, deciding difficult issues, particularly difficult constitutional issues, is why we have courts. that is what our courts do every day. i take your point that somebody's age is obviously a much simpler question. but the american court system decides questions of what does the constitution mean and what does it apply to on a daily basis. and, in this case, whether you look at what the house select committee on january 6th found or what conservative scholars, professors baude and paulsen, two major conservative scholars, who wrote a major piece about this -- people all across the political spectrum are looking at this and saying that the law and the facts are actually very clear here. now, it is true that, certainly, when line of criticism is, shouldn't the american people get to vote? and one of the rejoinder's to that is, that's what happened in 2020. the american people got to decide whether they want to vote for donald trump. they did not vote for him. he refused to accept the results of that election. and, actually, incited a violent attack. there is no particular reason that the result would be different this time. so, the idea that we sort of just trust it to democracy, when we are talking about someone who has literally attacked democracy, i think, is not particularly satisfying. >> one of the things you just mentioned that is that you are gathering evidence to go to court, basically, to have a trial on this subject. just explain to us here -- are you suggesting that, basically, you are going to put donald trump on trial in all of these different jurisdictions, and litigate the factual question of whether or not he participated in an insurrection? that sounds, to me, similar to the question that is being investigated at the federal level, by jack smith -- it sounds to me similar to the question being investigated at the state level in georgia. you all are going to do that, state-by-state? >> we are starting in one state. and we may well do others. and these are not criminal trials. we are not trying to have anyone go to prison. this is just a question of qualification. but we are ready to make a comprehensive, factual showing. and then we will see what happens from there. that may enable future court cases. it also may