the judge is simply saying that he can't lash out against witnesses and prosecutors. it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. but trump can't seem to help himself, case in point, minutes after the gag order was reinstated trump attacked another likely witness in the case. his former attorney general, bill barr, trump called him among any other things, lazy, and a loser. trump was upset with barr again a witness in the case, that's what's important here because of some critical comments barr made about am in a recent interview. >> he's already saying it's about retribution, he's a very petty man, it's all about him, and he's a very, has a fragile ego, something happened to me as a kid and i'm not gonna psycho analyze it. every encounter he needs to come out showing the other guy that he's better, it's all about the assertion of his ego. and i think he'll be self indulgent in a new administration, he won't be as effective as i could otherwise be and probably thinks will start moving toward chaos. >> that's a pretty blunt assessment there by his former attorney general. but also he's a witness, mark meadows, there's a list that continues going, it does not stop there. here's the thing, there's a lot of potential witnesses that trump (inaudible) they may say things he does not like, which means he's likely gonna keep targeting them, which means he's gonna violate the gag order again. we can also us expect him to keep attacking prosecutors, judges in these case, as we kidder consider restrictions as what he's allowed to say. it's worth pointing out there's a lot of people out there who follow the words and actions of the former president, they use them as a guide for their own lives and what they do. just today we learned a man in alabama was indicted for threatening district attorney fani willis and a sheriff regarding the georgia election case. we already know trump will keep washing out, we know why it is dangerous, the question is what will be done about it. he's already been fined thousands of dollars in new york, it hasn't changed is behavior, none of the consequences seem to have any impact. so yes, it's fair to ask the question, could he actually put in jail before his trial, a special counsel jack smith pointed to a provision that allows for detention. we'll have to wait and see what judge chutkan does when trump attacks these people, and attacks them again, and again. as we wait for further developments here won this back and forth over a gag order against the former president, we witnessed another first for the country today. the story of a trial and denver to determine if the front runner for the republican nomination can even appear on the ballot in colorado. this trial stemming from a lawsuit filed back in september arguing trump is ineligible from holding office, citing section three of the 14th amendment, which says that no person can hold office if they engaged in an insurrection or rebellion after swearing under oath to support and defend the constitution. it does sound a little familiar, some constitutional experts say this -- president again. but that view isn't actually universal, it remains to be seen what the courts decide, their cases and other states as well. like i said, all of these questions we're facing tonight are pretty unprecedented, our country, our legal system has never had to consider the constitutionality of a gag order on a former president, or whether or not he can be tossed off the ballot for engaging in an insurrection. we've never had a former president indicted four times, or one who tried to overturn a fair and free election, we've never had a former president that threatens judges in the courts, and tries to intimidate witnesses. so, yes these are absolutely unprecedented actions by the court, but it's not the courts that have changed, they're taking unprecedented steps because of the unprecedented actions of donald trump, it's important to forget that. joining me now is u.s. attorney general, eric holder, there's so much to discuss here and i think so many people are trying to understand it. let me start with this gag order, do you think looking at this, judge chutkan reinstate the gag order after she put a pause on it. it's still under appeal, are you confident or do you feel comfortable with her legal justification for reinstating? >> i certainly think there's a basis for concern, there is a basis for the order that she has put in place. my expectation would be the appellate court will in fact uphold that which she has tried to restrain the former president from doing. it's a pretty limited order, it does not say you can't see anything, it says you can only say you can say negative things about a relatively small universal group of people. you can even comment on the case with but as you said, he's likely to go beyond that watch even she says in that limited order. we'll ask ultimate questions that are gonna be determined, what a judge actually do that watch will happen to a normal person, put someone in jail for violating an order, a gag order, i suspect that's not likely to happen with this defendant, any other defendant would be facing. >> you don't think she put him in jail or that they would decide to put him in jail ultimately? >> i just don't think so. i think there is a number of things, you can put monetary fines on him as the judge did in new york, perhaps trump's ability to use truth social, a number of things, i try to be as creative a possibility where the judge. but i'd be reluctant to take a person, former president, the leading candidate of one of our major parties and put him in jail. >> you'd be worried about the political consequences are the reaction in the country? >> yeah, it's already a pretty divided nation and to do something like that, take someone off the campaign trail, to put him in jail, i just would be very reluctant, really reluctant to do that. >> it seems trump's lawyers are gonna continue to appeal this. with this, the gag order, could this ultimately end up at the supreme court, a decision about whether or not a gag order against the former president's legal? >> it could civilly code. it's a federal case, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over all federal matters, it's possible the gag order could go before the supreme court. i would think again though that this is not the kind of thing that typically ends up before the supreme court. i would think it would probably be resolved at the appellate court level, in front of the d.c. circuit. >> one of the other options the judge has, this is what everyone's wondering, none of the fines are working, trump is not, he's continuing to attack people, we all expect him to continue to, if she's not gonna put him in jail what can they do? >> maybe increase the level of fines. i think the judge in new york started at $85, 000, they went from $25, 000, start imposing fines that even for a person who claims to be a billionaire will have some kind of impact, hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of the fines that might be levied. >> we also learned today in alabama man, i mentioned this as well, who is indicted for threatening fani willis -- you've watched hate speech, you watch the impact of trump's rhetoric. what is the connection, do you see a connection there between the allowance of these types of threats, what trump is doing out there publicly, and threats against people like fani willis? >> his comments by the former president need to be viewed as a tax in two ways. one, on the system itself, that needs to be dealt with, but also it creates an environment in which the kinds of things you've just described, where threats remain against people involved in the case are taken seriously by not cases, lone wolf's, who may act upon the very things that he says. the concern i have is not only for the system but for the participants who are actually gonna be attacked by the former president. that threat is real, with all the guns that we have out there in the environment that we now have, i'm sure that there's adequate security for all the people who are involved in these cases. the fact is that security is actually needed, it's a sad thing to say involving a legal matter involving a former president, it means you need to have protection for the people who are simply trying to uphold the law and do the jobs they are left to do. >> it's quite a time. we talk a lot about how immoral, dangerous all these threats are that donald trump is making. talk us through why this is such a problem in attacking potential witnesses in a case, if you were a prosecutor, if you were a judge, leon the obviously the violence which is very important, what else are you worried about? >> you're worried about whether not a witness is gonna be intimidated, the reluctant to share incriminating information against the former president out of fear that one of his followers is gonna do something physical on to that witness. in mob cases, one of which i tried when i was a public corruption prosecutor, we need to relocate, pulp people and witness protection programs, when a whole variety things to only fears people have when they feel threatened. and that is not fundamentally different from some of the concerns that witnesses potentially could have in this case or these cases. >> there's also a case today in colorado, i mention this. where it's questioning whether the 14th amendment could be used to kick trump off the ballot. it's not the only state where there's a case like this, what do you make of that legal argument? >> there are some legal questions as to whether or not it applies to a president, there's a question of, if you look at of and how it's used, for the and how it's used, and i worry about taking him away from the ability to run for president, taking him off the ballot without the people of the united states, taking a choice away from the people of the united states. in the same way i'd be reluctant if i were a judge to put him in jail, reluctant to use this provision of a constitution to take him out of the election. i think, let's have this election, a fair election, let's have it well run and let the people decide. i'm pretty confident we, i can't guarantee that he won't win the popular vote, that i'll guarantee. the question is whether not he'll win in the electoral college. that i think is gonna be a lot closer and i'm concerned about what the results will be there, at the end of the day that is the place to decide whether or not he should be the next president of the united states. >> there's different state cases, i'm trying to understand what the impact would be, if a judge in colorado's rules he should be kicked off, but a judge in minnesota rules that he shouldn't be, then that's conflicting, right, and it can go to the supreme court? >> it would ultimately go to the supreme court, that's the ultimate arbiter of what the constitution says, if you have conflicting rules by judges in different states, it would have to be decided by the united states supreme court. >> i know you don't find yourself agreeing with bill barr often, i suspect, but we did just listen to what he had to say. i wonder what you make of his comments about trump's pledges for retribution and the chaos it could cause, what scares you most about what he could do if he were in a position of naming a new attorney general, overseeing a department of justice? >> attorney general barr has it right there. this is one of the few instances what i would agree, i'd ask him, you knew this about this guy before you decided to be his attorney general. yeah, i'm concerned about what he can do between now and the election and if he were to win the election i'm concerned about what he would do to the rule of law, our system of justice, to the united states department of justice that is near indira to me. there is nothing i would put beyond what donald trump would do in order to save himself, in order to ensure that his interests are protected in those that are's supporters are protected. in essence, the former attorney general's right, you wouldn't be getting the second team, third team, you'd be getting the fourth team in the trump administration. as bad as things may have been forced -- it would be even worse starting in 2025. >> i have a lot more i want to ask you about, including threats on college campuses, anti-semitism, and islamophobia. please stick around, it will take a quick break. we'll be back very quickly after a quick break with attorney general eric holder. stay with us. this halloween, trick or treat yourself to the blendjet 2 portable blender... it's to die for. blendjet 2 gives you monstrous power for a delicious smoothie, shake, or frappé anytime, anywhere. cleaning blendjet 2 is scary easy. just blend water with a drop of soap. recharge quickly with any usb port. boo-gie on over to blendjet.com and order yours today. is it possible my network could take my business to the next level? it is with comcast business. powering all your devices with gig-speed wifi. and you get fast downloads and uploads. pick it up! pick it up! oh we got this! because it's powered by the next generation 10g network. more speed for your business? it's not just possible. it's happening. get started for $59.99 a month for 12 months. plus, ask how to get an $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet bundle. ♪ ♪ ♪ comcast business, powering possibilities. >> as the war between israel and hamas rages in the middle east. we're once again at a moment where it feels like the entire world is reaching a boiling point, a boiling point triggered by deep divisions, deep fear, and the most dangerous catalyst of all, hate. take this horrifying scene that played out yesterday in a predominantly muslim republic -- of dagestan. hundreds of people searched for people arriving from a flight in tel aviv and chanting antisemitic slogans. more than 20 people were injured. here at home we're seeing a rapidly growing number of chilling incidents that have intensified the very real fear and anxiety that so many americans are feeling right now. we learned this afternoon a man was arrested and faces federal charges for making anti-semitic threats against a u.s. senator. this evening nevada senator jackie rosen who is duis confirmed she was the target. according to the justice system, the suspect scene here, in a series of calls threatening to assault, kidnap, and murder. that's just one of so many incidents and the last 72 hours that included threats against college students. a cornell university officials are asking for the fbi's help after a series of messages threatening violence against the schools jewish community. again, it's only in the last 72 hours i'm talking about these threats. it would take almost the whole show to go through the alarming list of incidents over the last couple of weeks. the anti-defamation league has recorded 54 antisemitic incidents on campuses since october 7th. 43 of which could be directly linked to the war between israel and hamas. what is happening at our institutions of higher learning is becoming so alarming that the biden administration is now stepping and. the justice department and homeland security are partnered with campus law enforcement agencies to provide federal resources to schools, and track hate filled rhetoric online. they also provide a stark reminder of the islamophobia we're seeing all over the country, the 71-year-old man accused of fatally stabbing a six-year-old palestinian boy was arraigned on murder charges this morning and pleaded not guilty. the boy's mother who was also attacked says he confronted her about the war and our muslim faith. so far this is not the council on american as lamentation says it is seen more than 800 complaints across the country. that's where we are right now in this country, that's where we are, a war playing out on the other side of the world has unleashed a torrent of hate across this country that we're living in. back with me is former u.s. attorney general, eric holder, these are such hard problems to solve, i know people who are afraid, i'm sure you do as well. it's hard to imagine what is needed to address this. i want to ask you, and what could be done broadly as the former attorney general, to help address this for muslim americans, for jewish americans, for people who are living in fear right now? >> we need understand that hate lives in the body of this country and it has for, since we became a nation. i worked on anti-hate crime matters when i was u.s. attorney here in washington, d. c., during the clinton administration, we had a record number of cases when i was attorney general during the obama administration. i think we need to denounce this wherever it is we see a, we also need to make sure that we hold people accountable who engage in these kinds of activities. >> meaning arrests? >> arrests, prosecution, put people in jail, i'm presume that person is innocent but let's assume the person who is alleged to have threatened senator rosen is found guilty and, that person needs to go to jail, we need to be strong and say this is not acceptable in this country. we can have all kinds of spirited dialogue, loud and boisterous nation, this is what makes us great, but when you move into the realm of hate, when you try to threaten people based on their ethnicity, their race, their sexual orientation, that needs to be extremely forceful, the justice department as components that could help people enter into dialogue. and i think that's a positive thing, i don't think we should ever forget that there are laws that say that these kinds of things are illegal, criminal laws, and those laws need to be enforced. >> you often hear, and i've heard people make this argument, that this is free speech, but even threatening rhetoric, rhetoric against others as free speech. where does the law draw the line on that? >> you can't yell, fire, in a crowded theater, when you make a specific threat against somebody, that is something that is -- state criminal laws. these are facts specific kinds of questions, when you threatened someone in particular, what you threatened to do something against an organization, when you threaten them with bombing, use of guns, a variety of things, those things can be prosecutable, and they should be prosecuted, that's what i want to emphasize these are the cases that we can't say, that's really bad and morgan denounced those people, no, hold them accountable, prosecute them. >> that's the where to disincentivize from era law enforcement background. college campuses, we've seen pictures, visuals, a lot of students afraid, they're scared, there have been threats, i mentioned cornell university, what kind of resources does doj in a position to provide, what can they do for these colleges? >> there are components within doj, within department of homeland security that are designed to get out and talk to people, to encourage people to talk through differences that they have. there's a thing call community relations service within the justice department that does the kind of things, lower the temperature where there are incidents that would spark violence or community disruptions. that part of the department, those parts of those departments can be employed in the circumstances. >> i mentioned of course, you mentioned how you think it's got this guy should be put in jail, this threat against the sitting u.s. senator, it feels, i'm not a lawyer but it feels copycat like he saw rhetoric, soft threatening language, how do you view the combination of political violence, threatening rhetoric out there, colliding right now with a political division over a war overseas, how concerned are you about those colliding issues? >> i'm very concerned, i'm concerned that what is happening outside our borders is gonna have an impact within the united states. as this