introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. right now on early start, donald trump asks the supreme court to decide, should he be disqualified from colorado s ballot over january 6. plus the long sealed list of jeffrey epstein s associates was just released. what it means and more importantly what it doesn t mean. and just hours from now, ron desantis and nikki haley will be live on cnn for back to back down halls. is it too late to catch the far and away frontrunner, donald trump. good morning. i m kasie hunt. it is thursday, january 4, just after 5:00 a.m. in washington where of course we are all looking just down the road from where i sit at the u.s. supreme court. donald trump is asking the justices to overturn a historic colorado ruling. two weeks ago the state supreme court ordered t
insurrectionist ban, trump himself is finally joining suit, filing his highly anticipated appeal yesterday. his lawyers arguing that the colorado supreme court erred in how it described president trump s role in the events of january 6. it was not an insurrection. and president trump in no way engaged in snirks. trump also taking issue with the 14th amendment s application to the presidency writing that the constitution s text and structure make clear that the president is not an officer of the united statesen about trump s appeal places the ultimate decision squarely in the hands of the u.s. supreme court. they will have to answer the dwae could determine the results of the 204 ele24 election. does the insurrectionist ban apply to the president of the united states. let s bring in our legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson. good morning. always great to have you on the program. let s start with this filing and then also talk about kind of the
big picture here. we re seeing the trump campaign layout pretty significant constitutional arguments. do you think the justices are going to weigh in in that way or are we going to see something more narrow, more technical to try to answer this question without making a sweeping statement about the constitution here? you know, cakasie, that is t million dollar question in terms of what the supreme court will do if anything. remember, they have the ability to say that we are not weighing in at all and let the decision stand. i doubt they will do that. i think there does need to be consistency and uniformity with respect to whether or not the president s name should appear on any individual state s ballot. but i think there is a lot constitutionally for the court to sink its teeth into should they make the determination that is the way that they will go. you laid out a number of those arguments. whether or not january 6 did constitute an insurrection. whether or not the president
a strict construction alist. and he would interpret the constitution with regard to what it says while looking at the 14th amendment there. and so the issue in the argument as it relates to section three, it doesn t specifically say the president of the united states. it says any federal office. and so the argument is that if those who krubconstructed the constitution wanted it to apply to the president of the united states as opposed to putting any office, they would have put the president of the united states. so it is a technical legal argument, but if you wanted it to apply to the u.s. president, you could have said so. of course the opposite view of that is any office is any office. it does reference federal offices. so to the extent it says that, the presidency is most certainly included within that. so yes technical indeed, but if you are a stribt construction alist of the constitution, you have to give it some weigh. and on another subject, late last night the first batch of