presented with evidence about what happened, and she came to the conclusion that he falls into the category of those who would be disqualified, but for the fact of the office that he seeks, or the office that he once held and the oath that he took. and so i think that s relevant. certainly, maybe not in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, the idea that this looks like insurrection and he looks like an insurrectionist, i think is very relevant. thank you to both of you. i actually have a lot more to discuss with you, but this is the way things go these days. melissa murray is a law professor at nyu and an msnbc legal analyst. julia lithwick is the senior editor at slate, and author of the important book lady justice, women, the law, and the battle to save america. still to come, we continue our coverage of the breaking news and the fight over donald trump s eligibility to run for president again. just moments from now, i ll be joined by the colorado secretary
harvard s laurence tribe and the retired conservative federal judge jay michael luttig, declared that the constitution prohibits trump from ever being president again, based on section three of the 14th amendment. since then, there s been movement in court in multiple states where efforts have sprung up to enforce the 14th amendment. one case, seeking to disqualify trump was dismissed by the minnesota supreme court, but that case was specific to trump being on the primary election ballot for the republican nomination, so the argument could be brought before the court again for the general election ballot. in another case in michigan, a judge ruled that it was a non-justice-able political issue, that should be decided by congress, not by the state. just yesterday, the petitioners appeal that ruling to the michigan supreme court. but this ruling out of colorado is particularly interesting, because the opinion goes further that any of the other judges have been willing to vent