shannon, this was fascinating. we saw the court in almost total unison on wondering how far colorado was going and why. spell it out. yeah, normally you know, neil, it takes years to get here, maybe months if you re fast tracking. this made it in weeks. showing the urgency the court gets about this happening in an election year. so they d had the arguments. there were tough questions for both sides. at the end of the day, it really came down to whether or not this 14th amendment provision applies to president trump. justice thomas had questions about it. when this was passed in the late 1860s, why don t you look at examples from that time period showing this was meant for states to be allowed to kick people off of federal ballots. here s part of that exchange. the concern is that the former confederate states would continue being bad actors. the effort was to prevent them from doing this. you re saying while this also authorizes state to disqualify candidates. so what i m
thanks for spending part of the day with us. the beat with ari melber starts now. hello. we have breaking news. jack smith s prosecution of donald trump has scored another procedural victory tonight. it goes to questions of accountability, and whether trump will be allowed to use and abuse the following and the power his has to undercut this important method of holding him accountable. the news ruling limits what trump can say in the case. for example, publicly attacking potential witnesses, court staff, and many of the other staff involved. he s tried these antics in other cases. this is the big case currently on schedule to begin in march, and could result in his conviction or imprisonment. one difference, though, is the court did revise the order. the ruling say that some aspects of trump s public statements pose a significant and imminent threat to the fair and orderly adjudication of the ongoing criminal proceedings against defendant trump. now, in the official argum
down here, the former president left washington hours before donald trump before joe biden was sworn in as president, and so that meant that most likely, the best place to bring this case and the most natural place to bring this case was here in florida. it poses a number of issues to prosecutors, which i m sure you guys have already talked about, one of them is, of course, this is probably a friendlier jury pool for donald trump compared to the one in washington, d.c., where a grand jury has been hearing a lot of the evidence. secondly, we know that one of the big pieces of evidence, jake, the issue, the recordings or rather the notes taken by evan corcoran, donald trump s own lawyer, which is going to be a big part of this case, all of that was litigated in the courts in washington. you can bet donald trump s lawyers are going to want to take another crack at that when they get to a judge here in the southern district of florida. jake? all right.
you are in happy go magic land. donald has, repeatedly done this. had evaluations are not 10% different or arguable points but 30 times to 40 times different. fundamentally, that s broad. because, he has filed under oath something called a jarred. loan papers saying he s telling the truth about the value of the assets, and he s done the same thing with property tax papers. he s asserted that his golf course and west chester is only worth about one point $3 million. that s less than the price of two houses on the fairway. but his presidential disclosure it is $50 million, and that s also signed under oath. david, donald trump, has been in around courts and all these businesses for many years. this you have the kind of legal team for this, that knows what they re doing, at this level of
important subpoena ever issued to a president of the united states. a subpoena that ended that presidency and worked its way all this way through the court in three months. that is faster than what we are dealing with tonight. just at the appeals court level on this case that took longer than that. exactly, as i said, it s very dangerous because this is congress which could end up being over before we get the evidence. and evidence is what it takes in order for congress to pass legislation to protect the capital building, to protect democracy. this is annexed essential threat to democracy that the courts have to take seriously. and there is no complicated argument here. this is not a case of first impression that is racing complicated facts. they could take the case and have an argument tomorrow. i assume that the president, as you pointed out, is trying to drag this out.