of trump s argument that the maine secretary of state, we just heard her, was politically biased against him? i think that s probably the least-effective argument he ll make in the courts of this proceeding. the court is unlikely to take that into great consideration. the maine secretary of state serves i think at the discretion of the governor. she was appointed in her position. most folks in those positions have political affiliations. i don t think any of those indicators undermine her decision. but it s the questions of process, the questions of what is the sort of due process that he was entitled to in this according to what s happened in maine, and was that standard met? that s the more substantive and potential more effective argument. marcus quhild recess, in his appeal trump s attorneys write this. section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution does not apply to president trump. he has never served as an officer of the united states and has never taken an oath to s
it s a little different than some of the other oaths that other officers, as defined under federal law and the constitution, take. so there is that difference. that s why the supreme court is going to have to settle that officer question. you know, when we think about it in lay terms, we think, well of course the president is an officer of the united states. but there is actually sort of extensive constitutional debate over that. and that s supreme court territory. speaking of the supreme court, andrew, how much pressure is the u.s. supreme court under right now to take this into consideration? enormous. enormous amount of pressure. the simple the fact that we are looking at the possibility of multiple states deciding this issue, not only differently but on different grounds, that is a conflict that the supreme court was born to resolve. inconsistency across the states and the interpretation of the constitution, the execution of federal matters, really. they absolutely must weigh
court reviewing the matter. and i will uphold whatever the court instructs me to do, because the constitution and the rule of law are what matter. do you think the u.s. supreme court, madam secretary, needs to take this question up in order to clear up any ambiguity? we would very much welcome guidance from the u.s. supreme court. chris christie, as you know, he s a fierce trump critic, warns this move risks turning trump into a martyr. how do you respond to that? and do you have any concern taking trump off the ballot risks tearing the country apart? my duty under maine election law and the constitution and the oath i swore to the constitution is to look exclusively at the hearing and the evidence before me and make a decision based on the law. neither political considerations nor personal considerations for my safety could enter into that decision. i had a duty and obligation to follow the constitution, as do all of us who serve in
challenging the to remove him from the primary pal lot in maine based on the 14th amendment s insurrectionist ban. we ll speak live with maine s secretary of state, shen that bellows, in just a few moments. first are cnn s chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. what is trump s team arguing, and what happens next? reporter: now it s up to the main maine courts. the trump team is asking the court to overturn the decision by maine s secretary of state of c maine, shenthat bellows. she opted to remove trump from the ballot. if you don t like what the secretary of state says about your ballot eligibility, you can appeal that to the court system, which is what they ve done here, asking them to overturn her decision. trump s team arguing, the secretary was a biased decisionmaker who should have recused herself and had no local
about the things that they do know, the things that have been reported on publicly, in the instance of harlan crow and justice thomas. but, it is hard to ask for the things that you don t know exist. and that s partly why we re watching this senate judiciary committee or democrats from that committee move forward in trying to make the court be more transparent in things of this nature. so what they re asking for from harlan crow in this instance is everything from an itemized list of all transportation and lodging to real estate transactions to the more obvious, gifts and donations. all of those sort of run afoul of the ethics that this committee thinks the supreme court should uphold, but doesn t actually have to according to the rules that are on the books right now. on the books now. that s why the supreme court is saying they re asking for this as part of their efforts to help the court monitor itself. there are republicans on the same committee that say this is not the senate s jo