the republicans to come to his defense and call for future pardons and destabilizing department of justice and the call of other republicans here, and we are through the rubicon, and what are we doing here is what i say to the party. this reads clear as day, and the photos are, there and the photos are there, and this is very similar to what many of the republicans were criticizing hillary clinton for, except it is 1,000 worse. i think it is just requires a moment to think about the gravity of this. it does seem like a lot of the language that we are hearing of the spokesperson from former president there, and some of the elected officials is pretty dangerous language that is clearly designed to just di side the country as much as possible all to the benefit of one guy, the former president. well, there is an overwhelming majority of voices out there at this point in time, and we will see how it plays out, but last night, chris christie was not here singing from that hymn
acknowledging he took those documents and claiming he had every right to take them. under the presidential records act, which is civil, not criminal, i had every right to have these documents. in other words, whatever documents a president decides to take with him, he has the right to do so. it s an absolute right. this is the law. independent legal experts say that s not true. it could hurt him at a trial. is he betting on an election victory for republicans and getting the case dropped? i will speak to former top cia attorney jeff smith about the legal strategy. are more republican politicians, including some rivals, now willing to criticize donald trump s handling of national secrets? the handling of classified materials is a very serious matter. i had a chance to review the indictment over the weekend. this indictment contains serious charges. i can t defend what is alleged. the former president has a right to his day in court. i know he pled not guilty. i will
we are here every day, so when they do, it will be ready. joyce, thanks. joyce vance is a former attorney for the northern district of alabama. that s our show for tonight. time now for the last word with lawrence o donnell. lawrence, i think i ve eaten up half a minute of your show every night for the last tonight. so i think tomorrow night i will give you back a pile of it. orrow ni according to my clos 25 sections. i wasn t ready to go until you came anyway. so this is perfect. keep doing. it have a great show, my friend. the impeachment clause of the united states constitution seems to be headed to the supreme court if don trump s criminal defense lawyers can get it there. we re going to consider the impeachment clause tonight from two perspectives, first, a lawyer and law professor, andrew weissmann, and then, a historian, stanford jack greg of who is an expert on the impeachment clause. his book, original meanings, politics and the ideas in the making of the c
not just say that liz cheney and i were on different proverbial teams. i would say we were from different proverbial planets. and they are planets that are mostly at war with each other. and she s a politician. i m not a politician. i m just a person. but i am definitely a liberal and she is definitely a hardcore conservative. and i disagree with liz cheney on like really on everything you can think of. on the environment, on abortion rights, profoundly. i think she s not just wrong on abortion, she is capital w wrong on abortion in a terrible way. i disagree with her vehemently on voting rights and on the iraq war and the afghanistan war and our relationship or lack thereof with iran and our approach to terrorism and torture and guns and like mining and intellectual property and the rules of the house of representatives. honestly, i once even got mad at liz cheney about fishing. and it s the one thing you d think we have in common. right? even on fishing i got mad at her a
it cannot be more perfect. also, call about a secretary of state, jena griswold is going to join us. colorado is headed apparently to the supreme court without trump. the only thing all those people have in common is that they would like to supreme court to actually weigh in on this thing and get it moving. i am excited to hear the conversation. it s going to be the year at the supreme court. thanks, ali. tonight, 77-year-old donald trump is asking a court where he appointed three of the nine judges to save his presidential campaign. donald trump s lawyers have filed an appeal, asking the united states supreme court to overturn the decision by the colorado state supreme court to ban donald trump from the presidential ballot in colorado. colorado supreme court s decision is based on the 14th amendment, which is ratified in 1868. it does not allow officers of the federal government to be elected to office again if they have engaged in insurrection against the united state