On a technicality. then he said, we ll let the courts deal with it. there can be criminal prosecution later. i think some people in the supreme court might be thinking, let s kick this back over to congress, or the people. we ll let them deal with it. the 14th amendment says that nobody who swears an oath to support the constitution of the united states, that violates that oath by engaging an insurrection or rebellion, shall never be allowed to hold federal or state office again. unless the congress reverses that divestment of ability to serve by two thirds vote. it is very clear. if you are an original, as a textualist, if you want to go by the language of the constitution, it is clear. it is the supreme law of the land. the question is, what we follow that or not? i was a little despairing that the supreme court would take the responsibility seriously. until last week, when trump s lawyers went to the d.c. circuit on a different case and
Hours later. and the shamelessness, i don t think, it surprises us at this point, and yet, the drumbeat of disregard is hard to ever mobilize. reporter: i m sorry, for his mother-in-law s funeral. because he s going to a campaign event. and you can tell, because of the change positions, no matter what proceeding is in, whether the supreme court back in 2020, whether it s in the d.c. circuit here in 2023. whatever position suits his purposes in the moment, that is the position he will take, and shamefully, his lawyers will take that position. like we expect this from trump. but to have lawyers, unable that, which is with frauds on the court, i think some of these lawyers will, at some point, and should be held to account. reporter: i want to broaden up a little bit. because all this conversation is here, and, now in the moment. but thinking ahead to what our system looks like for future presidents, what are some of
Always protected because of immunity. does it fly? is that the rest of us, speaking to both sides of his mouth? how does the court see that? because now it has a different color, because there s a real case and controversy in front of him. reporter: it s interesting. because the d.c. circuit has already ruled with respect to presidential immunity in this break. braces that brought by congress members for civil liability, for harm done based on january 6th. and what the court said there is that, at least at this stage of those proceedings, there is a big difference between what the former president did is part of his official acts, and what he did as an office seeker. so when campaigning for election. and the court actually pointed to what mr. trump and his lawyers wrote when they sought to intervene in the supreme court in that period between the election in 2020, and january 20th, 2021, when the
Power was turned over to president biden, and they argued then that he should be allowed to intervene in that case as a candidate for president. this is something they filed in the u.s. supreme court. he was clear, that whole time, he was still trying to get that office. so if you apply the reasoning of the d.c. circuit in a civil case, saying, look, there is no immunity for what you seek, what you do when you are seeking office as a candidate. that certainly should carry over into the criminal context. and as we know, with the arguments in the criminal case about immunity that occurred last week, almost one week ago, the court there was skeptical but he gets immunity at all, even for additional acts. reporter: i think that s a big part of the rest of the story. is how does the court come down on questions like immunity. because that goes directly to the office of the presidency, but you ve got to have a clear delineation, being a candidate. reporter: and i used to work in the white house. it would ve never occurred to me that i could do a crime and say, oh, will i was a deputy assistant to the president, i
About iowa and the other primaries, to be one of the questions is what did these episodes say about donald trump? and i think they say a lot, because jen, when you and i were in the government, if we made any sort of straight remarks that could wind up hurting someone, we would bend over backwards to make sure that didn t happen. we d issue corrective statements, this, that, the other. it s not just us in the government, every kid who was watched spider-man nose with great power comes great responsibility. and trump had put an end to all of this with a single social media post. the public knows it, the officials know it, trump knows it. he is making a deliberateness engine to stay quiet, about these threats, and stirred up, and then pretend, who, me? i had nothing to do with them. it s preposterous and horrible. i want to just look ahead here, because there are so many cases that we are waiting on, including the d.c. circuit to rule on trump s claim of immunity any day now. so let me ask both of you, if they do rule against trump,
Preventing the transfer of power. a huge, huge allegation. much different than keeping confidential documents, or pain off a former pair more. i think the magnitude of it, and the trajectory of that, alex, i think judge duncan is committed to keeping the case on track. i think how that argument wet last week, in the d.c. circuit, suggests it will be a prompt victory for the special counsel, and the supreme court might not take the case. in which case, that case goes to trial closed to march 4th. maybe even on march 4th. that is the one most likely, because of the legal status, that gets result first. i think it s the one that is ultimately the most possible change in peoples minds because of the nature. we have seen that in polling. people suggest that if you are found guilty and that, that can change their mind. that s how they cast their vote. here is a critical question. if that happens, and the trial is decided, is it possible that
For the d.c. circuit. i think they re not going to sit on it. the big question is, and i think that we all everyone is expecting him to lose. yes. maybe three or, at least two on, but there s some judges on the panel. the big course there s a big washington post tiktok on this, is timing, what do they do on timing? what is your anticipation of what they will do or what do you think they should do timing wise? so i think this is all about timing. i think everyone discusses the merits of this. there are no merits to this. it s a preposterous notion. i ve never been as convinced that the supreme court may take a pass on this, as when i heard the oral argument, because it was so frivolous that as much as you think the supreme court might want to weigh in on this to make it absolutely clear, if you listen to the argument, it was childish. everything, though, for donald trump, is he could be like, yeah, you know what, i m losing the battle, and winning the war,
Constitutional lesson that any law school would have been proud. that was a better lesson than i got when i went to law school in kamala class. she really delivered. she won the week for me. absolutely. that s a good answer. and related. i like that there s a theme. i don t know if you re gonna stick with the theme, george. another lawyer, another female lawyer. yes. judge florence panicky, of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia s circuit, who basically took part trump s lawyer, and mercilessly destroyed his argument. i m proud to say that i met her, i first met her 30 years ago, i was a sound by my law firm to recruit her and for the good of the republic, i failed. i was a miserable failure, and we are all better off for it. all better off for it. the d.c. supreme court judge, now she s on the u.s. court of appeals. and she won the week. she won the week, absolutely. my answer for who won the week is actually a little bit of a troll. there s a certain billionaire who is extremely angry that claudine gay exists. her scholarship is on firsts.
Try to get it from the supreme court, but he has to go somewhere, because now the default position is in five days. she goes forward. so there s a timer and it s ticking down and you ve got to do something. exactly. presumably again, the colorado state supreme court put a time-limited, in this 14th amendment case, that the supreme court, they expedited it, again, for, them quite fast. really. fast we ll hear arguments on cyber eight, if i m not mistaken. yeah. that would then push him to go back to the court, probably the supreme court. yeah, he might try and go to the panel, and say, you know what, i want to hear the whole circuit here it. that s not happening. there s no way the whole circuit is going to weigh in on this. the big open thing is why with the whole circuit do this? this is a frivolous argument. the issue really will be whether the supreme court wants to weigh in or not. if they do, they will say it.
Why him. not only did willis have the biggest staff of any judicial circuit to choose from, she also had more experience, experienced felony prosecutors. a one time federal prosecutor says if the allegations are true, it is an unforced error and challenges the integrity of the case. cases are not lost because of some matlock moment, somebody finally finds the evidence. cases die by the death of 1000 cuts. this is a cut on the case. i was shocked and appalled. reporter: he faced off against wade. what stood out is not the alleged romance between weight and willis that is shocking, it is the exhibit in the filing