columbia university history professor, when the pulitzer prize choice for his books, reconstruction, americans unfinished revolution and the fiery trial. and american slavery. thank you both for joining this discussion tonight. professor foner, let me begin with you, this case is going to the supreme court. we all watched the supreme court justices and their courts eagerly play amateur s story in, one place with these questions. when they dig into the 14th amendment, section three, what should they find? i think as a judge littig says, the language is clear. any person who took an oath of office into the united states and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion is disqualified from office, all times, the president and all the way down. i think they will find that
prosecuted for assassinating his political opponents unless he has already been convicted of the same charge in a senate impeachment trial. the most constitutionally important civil case the donald trump is currently litigating is he s appeal tonight in state supreme court asking to overturn the colorado supreme court s decision to ban donald trump for the presidential ballot. we will consider those cases tonight through the lens of law professor andrew weissmann s legal scholarship as well as the wisdom of three pulitzer prize-winning historians who are experts on the clauses of the constitution that donald trump is now clinging to, trying to redefine through the appeals process. the cases that are going to live the longest in a life of defendant trump are probably the civil cases he is facing. he s facing multiple lawsuits by capitol police officers for injuries they suffered on january six. the verdicts in that lawsuit could cost donald trump hundreds of millions of dollars
by, but i really think that is part of what they will have to look at. today, i just went and read some of the case, and i read justice john paul stevens incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people and not trusting judges in the future, i hope that they will not need john paul stevens dissent in bush v. gore. it andrew weissmann, what was a judge luttig talking about there saying, the supreme court will try to find a way to somehow dispose of this case without ruling on these central memes at the 14th amendment? here, this is what lawyers do. they take something seemingly simple and make it complicated.
drop the case and nullify s prosecution. you don t even get into questions of candy pardon himself or anything like that. he s a much more direct route available to him. neal thank you very much for joining us tonight. really appreciated. thank you. coming up, the next big court decision coming defendant trump s way could come any day now, next week, the week after, from the federal appeals court and washington, d.c., considering don trump s unprecedented claim that a president cannot be prosecuted for any crimes that he committed as president because he was never convicted in a senate impeachment trial. don t trump s lawyer argued the donald trump could order seal team six to murder any and all united states senators who might vote to convict him in a senate impeachment trial. and he claims that is what was clearly intended in the impeachment clause of united
justice john paul stevens incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people and not trusting judges in the future, i hope that they will not need elections, and determined somehow to never do this again. only one member of this court was there, and that is clarence thomas. i doubt that he will be haunted by, but i really think that is part of what they will have to look at. today, i just went and read some of the case, and i read justice john paul stevens incredible and unforgettable descent, where he predicted that the greatest winner of that case would be cynicism in the american people and not trusting judges in the future, i hope that they will not need john paul stevens dissent in bush v. gore. it andrew weissmann, what was a judge luttig talking about there saying, the supreme court will try to find a way to somehow dispose of this case without ruling on these central memes at the 14th amendme