Video

Appearing on MSNBC, former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam stated she didn't see the Supreme Court interested in stepping into the fight between Donald Trump and his lawyers with special counsel Jack Smith over whether the former president has wide-ranging immunity from being charged with crimes.

Reacting to a filing made by Smith on Saturday outlining the types of crimes a blanket immunity ruling could cover, Lam told MSNBC host Paola Ramos that she thinks the nation's highest court will let the D.C. Court of Appeals have the final word.

"What I think the Supreme Court may be thinking is, we are going to let the appellate court consider the issue first, and they've set a very expedited briefing and argument schedule for this," she began. "They're going to hear this argument in mid-January. So, if the Supreme Court or the majority of the Supreme Court fundamentally agrees with whatever the D.C. Circuit says, they may just decide not to take the case up in the Supreme Court, and just let the District of Columbia Appeals Court opinion stand."

"That way the Supreme Court will not have to actually render the ultimate decision on this case; they can just decline to take the case up and then they can leave for another day, deciding this particular issue as to the scope of presidential immunity," she continued. "But I do think that Jack Smith has the better argument because he's raised a number of potential scenarios that would be very problematic if a president could do anything he wanted with respect to trying to stay in office and could not be prosecuted for those things."

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene has Jan. 6 anniversary plans

"I think that would be a very problematic position for the Supreme Court or even the D.C. Circuit to agree with," she added.

Watch below or at the link.

Reacting to Donald Trump's continuous late-night tirades on Truth Social, as well as his ugly "Rot in hell" attack on special counsel Jack Smith on Christmas day, MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton said the ex-president's legal problems are getting to him.

Speaking with fellow MSNBC host Alex Witt on Saturday, Sharpton pointed out Trump shows all the signs of being "rattled" as of late.

With Witt pointing out that Sharpton has known Trump for years, she asked, "Rev, what do you make of all of this?"

RELATED: 'Republicans better wake up': Trump lashes out at Mitch McConnell in overnight rant

"I think Donald Trump is more rattled than people think about the 91 felonies he is facing, the four cases, and civil suit," Sharpton began. "I think that he is showing publicly now that he is becoming even more unhinged, even though many of us didn't think it was possible."

"Because how do you randomly just do all of that," he continued, "unless there is some deep-seated middle-of-the-night anxiety that he is trying to act like a tough guy but he really has concerns?"

Watch below or at the link:

During an appearance on MSNBC on Saturday morning, former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks advised the Republican party to think twice about making Donald Trump their 2024 presidential nominee when there is a reasonable chance the Supreme Court could make him ineligible to serve should he win.


Speaking with fill-in host Charles Coleman Jr., the legal analyst said she feels the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that the former president should not be allowed to run for office based on the 14th Amendment is solid and that the Supreme Court would likely agree.

Having said that, she explained the GOP could be saddled with a candidate at the top of the ticket who would be barred from taking office if he should win in November.

"I just see this as a very clear case of fact and law, coming together, with no possible conclusion other than that he is not eligible to be on the ballot and he is not eligible to hold office," she told the MSNBC host. "So you might say he could be on the primary ballot because it's up to the states and the state political parties. but why put someone on the ballot who then could not be inaugurated, because he can't hold office?"

"That would be much worse to me, than taking him off the ballot, so that the people can choose from people who are qualified," she added.

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene has Jan. 6 anniversary plans

'It seems to me that if you can bar someone who's not old enough or who is not a natural born citizen, or who hasn't lived in the United States long enough as a U.S. citizen, natural born, then you can also bar someone who doesn't meet the 14th Amendment, Section 3 qualification requirements," she later added.

Watch below or at the link.