Forward so too does jack smiths other case, the one in washington, d. C. Today special special prosecutors revealedsp when the hope to schedule that trial. Jack smiths team told the court they want to begin the 2020 election case against trump on january 2nd. Prosecutors argued starting the trial on the second day of the new year before any of the nominating contests would vindicate the publics strong interest in a speedy trial. Now, we do not know whether or not the court willno agree to tt date, and trumps legal team will almost certainly push back, but if the court heeds the governments wishes here, then, wow, donald trump has a very busy dance card in the month of january. Take a look at this. A Potential Criminal Trial on january 2nd and then four days later the anniversary of the capitol insurrection, january 6th. Nine days after that it is the iowa caucuses, which of course is the first contest of the 2024 republican president ial primary. And then some time around then, likely
these bombs today exploding feet from the iranian general s tomb. the questions still tonight is who did it. i m kaitlan collins, and this is the source. tonight, donald trump has officially filed that appeal to overturn last month s explosive ruling from colorado s high court that declared he was ineligible to appear on the state s primary ballot, determining that he had engaged in an insurrection. the new appeal tonight is only raising new pressure on the nine justices that you see here to settle this matter once and for all or potentially risk chaos in a presidential election year. with similar battles over the ballot and trump bubbling up in other states as well, we re left with a key question tonight, can the former president be disqualified from holding public office again under the constitution s insurrectionist ban, and do states get to make that decision? trump has also appealed the decision in maine that happened to remove him from its ballot. that was to the stat
republicans do it. he accused president biden of when he visited the border of being a photo op. but just the fact that they re not in washington, where the negotiations are happening, talking to the lawmakers in the senate, their colleagues in the senate about actually passing bills that would actually fix this. because no matter what you talk about what the president could do here, or mayors or other people, it s really congress that everyone looks to that time and time again doesn t actually do anything. yeah. and look, they have a point, the house republicans, speaker johnson when it comes to the fact that the federal government is encharge of forcing the border laws. but the truth of the border is congress writes the laws. congress makes the laws. and the negotiations as you note are in the senate right now. and they are not proceeding particularly well, and one of the reasons is because whatever they agree to in the senate has to be signed off on by the house. and house republi
trading off the influence of the name trump after they got out of office. so i really think that what hunter biden did, i disagree with what he did. i don t know if his father disagreed with what he did. i don t know if he was tormented by the death of his other son and his addiction with hunter. but the more we give them an open playing field to try to pretend like joe biden did something wrong because of what hunter did, the bigger mistake we make. we need to explain to the american people first that joe biden did nothing wrong, they have no evidence he did anything wrong. and secondly, hey, don t look over here. look at the real sleaziness that occupied the white house the last time republicans were encharge. and claire, i absolutely hear the urgency in your voice saying they need to explain because i think a lot of people have maybe democrats have ptsd, for
constitutional crisis. does this mean the same threshold? is this a constitutional crisis? or looming on one? not yet but echos of watergate grow more powerful over the last couple of days in particular. both cases i think there s a parallel that they were challenging the integrity of the rule of law in this country. i think carl has a good point. there are differences, especially on national security. but this threatening the integrity of the rule of law is very serious. in each case in both the nixon case and the trump case, you have the president firing the man who is encharge of an investigation which comes right into the white house, into the staff and potentially the president. we don t know yet where this is going. in each case, nixon and trump, you find questions of whether the president himself is impeding the investigation.