Transcripts For MSNBCW Trump 20240705

Speaking, breathing, eye problems, or Muscle Weakness may be a sign of a lifethreatening condition. Do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. Side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, Eyelid Drooping and eyelid swelling. Tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. See for yourself at botoxcosmetic. Com. Im daniel lurie as and ive spent my careerisk of fighting poverty,cts. Helping people right here in san francisco. Im also a father raising two kids in the city. Deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. Now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. A common sense solution that ensures we use Community Safety cameras to catch Repeat Offenders and hold them accountable. Vote yes on e. Good evening, once again im stephanie ruhle. Welcome back to our special coverage on this big breaking news night. Today the Supreme Court heard the arguments in the case that would take donald trump off the 2024 ballot. The justices seem skeptical for the colorado report decision to remove. Is our colleague Laura Jarrett with more. It just doesnt seem like a steak. All the justices, forced to grapple with mr. Trumps alleged bid but, by pointing to his actions on january six. And the provision in the 14th Amendment. That those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion for Holding Public office again. The attack was a sitting president of the United States to disrupt the peaceful transfer of president ial power. All nine justices, both conservative and liberal, appearing to bristle at the colorados argument. The question that you have to confront, is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. That seems quite extraordinary, doesnt it . Chief justice, john roberts later raising the idea of the 14th Amendment being used as a political weapon by democrats and republicans alike. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the president ial election. Thats a pretty daunting consequence. Mr. Trumps lawyer, arguing, congress not state should decide whos eligible for the presidency. And that the former president did not engage in insurrection. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. It was shameful, violent, all those things. But it did not qualify as insurrection. Lets bring in john allen, International Politics reporter for nbc news, katie benner, pulitzer prizewinning reporter for the New York Times and senior vice and former u. S. When it came to keeping trump off the spell it . I certainly wasnt, surprised that the Conservative Justice were skeptical of the arguments raised by colorado voters, challenging trump. I was really surprised that the liberal justices, especially Ketanji Brown jackson jumped on the attorney arguing, against trump to say, you, know i think that youve got the history. Wrong i think youve got the tax. Wrong and really embracing one of the most farreaching legal theories that trumps attorney had put forth to the court. Justice jackson gets a lot of flak for the right for allegedly being tobias. Or too far for the left. But i think today she really should. She is an independent minded jurist, and of all the justices, nobody else pushed harder to show, or at least to clean that the 14th Amendment disqualification clause doesnt even apply to the president. That was her belief, and she really stuck to her guns. So, yeah it was a surprising day. Going in i thought 63, maybe 7 to 4. Trump now i think 81 or maybe even nine. All katie, how about you . Is this what you were expecting . You know, its interesting. I like to refer to the point that we just heard about Ketanji Brown jackson. So its true that she really did reiterate this argument that trumps lawyer and made about whether the president counted under the 14th Amendment. Whether he was an officer who could be taken off of the ballot. And i think this also speaks not just with the justices were thinking about the performance, essentially of the lawyer, mr. Mary who was representing the colorado voters. I would say that we all heard a lot of our arguments. I dont know if this is the most confident argument ive ever heard. And it feels like there were tons, all the Justices Including and kagan, who he has quick for. Almost frustrated that they werent able to get straight answers out of. In that he had several points the climb to answer the question that had been asked, wanting to answer Something Else and bring up a previous point, or a point that he wanted to get to more and even that exchange with jackson, it was hard to tell whether or not it was something you should truly believe, or she felt that this was not a great argument because if you listen to the Oral Argument with the trump lawyer with mr. Mitchell it was clear that Amy Coney Barrett and others were saying this is a ridiculous arm document. Of course its an officer under the constitution. You can also interpret to mean that she was just trying to get out of him, a potent argument. Should shut down this thing, we were just skeptical of. You just, heard many many of the justices again across the spectrum, be skeptical of the argument put forth by trumps lawyer that it doesnt because the president isnt explicitly named. And she couldnt even get that out of him i, mean luckily these decisions are not made or arguments, theyre made on the fast, theyre made on the briefing, theyre made on the research that people do. But it was a really interesting performance, i, think by the lawyer representing colorado. Joyce, now that this hearing is basically out of the way how could that affect the other case that the Supreme Court could be facing, just days from now. The one for absolute immunity. So, steph, i was the appellate chief in my office before i was the United States attorney and i will tell you that appellate lawyers are a little bit of a breed of hard. They live in rarefied air, especially when youre talking about people who are arguing the Supreme Court and these cases, these lawyers really do deal in law and they dont deal in politics. And the common place of life. At least not in the normal situation. But this situation is far from normal, that certainly not lost on any of these justices that theyre being drawn into a political environment that they do not want to be in. Particularly, with all the drama surrounding the court over the last, year all of the ethics challenges, the concern today about Justice Thomas participating in this case despite his wifes involvement on Donald Trumps behalf, following the 2020 election. So, lots of reasons for the justices to minimize their involvement in these cases, involving donald trump. They certainly do not want to be seen as deciding the outcome of the 2024 election in any way. John, lets talk about takeaways and misinformation. Because, your average american was not listening to the two hours of audio today. But, if you were, you would not have heard any debate, discussion, argument or decision over whether or not donald trump incited an insurrection. Everything was about the language of the amendment, what job in government is considered an officer of past cases. But assuming, and i know im assuming that the justices side with donald trump, isnt there the risk that the right or it least the Trump Machine would use this to say, see, he had nothing to do with the insurrection . Move on yes, absolutely that risk exists stephanie. And, you are right. The justices danced around the hope that with the exception of danced around the idea of whether this was actually an insurrection. And so yes, if donald trump wins this case, i absolutely expect him to go out and be seen. What my lawyer said is a riot, not an insurrection. So certainly didnt participate in an insurrection. I didnt and insurrection. Youre gonna hear that from, him 100 . That doesnt mean that the justices need to find in favor of colorado in this, and as some of the other guests of said. I think it would be pretty surprising, at this point, if they did. Mark, its good it was only audio. Because we do not want to watch any of those justices dance. But, to johns point, its exactly what they did. They avoided the question of whether donald trump engaged in insurrection. Lies that . Well, i think thats obviously the most controversial and political question embedded in this entire. Case, and there are so many other median legal issues. Does this calls cover. The president , is himself executing in states . Making it one of his little courtroom campaign stops. And, the justices are very cognitive of how all of this place on the news, into the nation. They knew that we would be here talking about their audio, examining and scrutinizing their questions. And, they didnt want the coverage to be about whether this was an insurrection. They wanted to look like nine lawyers, doing kind of dry lawyer stuff. And, to that extent, i think they did succeed. And, i do think that they were on, generally, good behavior. There wasnt the kind of grouchiest or anger that sometimes flashes through the justices and major arguments like this. You, know they all wanted to get to the bottom of the case. And, they did end up having consensus towards the. And trump will twist that into something that it isnt, ruling for trump does not mean he didnt engage an insurrection. It just means that the theories put forth by colorado voters here didnt cut it at the court. Joyce, there has been a lot of talk lately, about the quality. The poor quality of Donald Trumps lawyers. But we did not hear that today. What did you think . No, he was capably represented today. And, something that i noticed, and i appreciated was that this was not a lawyer who was pandering to an audience of one. This was a lawyer who conceded arguments, when he didnt have a strong position. He behaved in the way that we assume lawyers would behave when they argue in front of the Supreme Court. There is nothing more marketable about that. Its only remarkable in the context of donald trump, who does not respect or have any regard for the rule of law. And he seems to insist that his lawyers, by and large, stand with him and not with their obligation to the court. So, in that sense, at least, this was a refreshing change of events. Katie, we often say its so important that the country is able to hear the actual arguments, as opposed to just getting the final decisions. Do you believe thats the case in this instance because when you actually listen to this one, its highly technical. And, your average person, who just wants to tune in, they dont care what they think theyre going to. You, know its highly technical, but most Legal Proceedings will be highly technical in many. Points even, though for Something Like the cross by documents case, it feels very straightforward. Did he or did he not keep something he shouldnt have. Even in that case, theyll be a lot of technical jargon. What is good about being here with the or argument, especially in this instance is as reported, in a year, or more when we had serious questions about the credibility of the court, et cetera, to hear the justices ask their question, the field that they are putting forth good faith questions, that they are listening with respect nomad or what theyre aology, no matter what their belief, to hear Something Like, Amy Coney Barrett was extremely hard on trumps lawyer mitchell. There were times when they can barely musket. She was not buying. It and you really see the law. You hear the law at work. It is not a partisan exercise. It really wasnt today. It was an exercise, getting to the bottom with serious questions. We can debate whether or not they were trying to get to the bottom of the right questions but for the public to hear that i think its really, really healthy. John, last night you said to me how very treacherous this was that it could backfire on democrat. This idea that trying to remove donald trump from the ballot could be seen as highly political. Do you think there are any democrats, tonight, that the court system seems skeptical that colorado should do this . Because at the end of the, day they want to see donald trump beaten at the ballot box. No excuses. They dont want to give him a side door. Absolutely, that is a significant with the democrats ive talked, with a look to the officials whether in washington d. C. , or the states. They definitely want to see donald trump defeated at the ballot box. And some of them, would like to see him and accountable for what they see as criminal activity, with regards to january six. So thats a different case. And i think that there was a significant ceremony that this will have a Backlash Effect if trumps kept off the ballot, in certain states. And you, know the problem, and we saw about this a little bit last night, potentially for backlashes youve got the save colorado main not swing states that might keep him off the ballot. And the reaction in the swing states, its a handful of, states maybe six of them that will decide this election, the reaction from independents from people who dont pay a ton of attention, necessarily to the system. Loose republicans, are loose democrats could be to rally around trump seeing some unfairness in the situation. Joyce, before i let you guys go, i want to go to something that we were talking about in our last segment. President biden, and his report. I just want to draw a comparison. Because in the Trump University lawsuit, donald trump sided, memory lapses, 59 times. And in the modern report, different variations of i dont remember, 30 times. But, even beyond President Biden and President Trump, isnt that what most people say when theyre questioned by authorities, i dont know, i dont remember . You often see some variation of that. It was very frustrating for me as a prosecutor to learn how many people have really bad memories, by the time they sat down in my office to talk to, me and a couple of fbi agents. And, look, sometimes our memories do dim with the passage of time. Events that happened in the couple of years ago may not standout fresh in the case of joe biden some of these documents have been in his home for many years that we were talking about events that transpired for them five years ago. So even someone young and crisp might not have a fresh recollection. But the standard advice, that the lawyers give their clients is dont try to manufacture a memory. If you dont remember, dont be afraid to say that you dont remember. In some cases, that translates to a builtin defense. Where you have a witness, who just consistently says that they dont remember, in order to avoid any possible liability. Joyce, thank you so much. Katie, mark, john thank you also much. Of all of that news, there are delegates up for grabs. And in the state of nevada, and the u. S. Virgin islands in the race for the republican president ial nomination. Its like, oh my gosh, more news. Donald trump is basically running unopposed in tonights nevada caucus. And nbc news projects he hasnt even won. My dear friend and colleague, joins us live from vegas tonight. Ron, Everybody Else in vegas is gearing up for the super bowl, go into parties, and here you are. What are we doing stuff . [laughter] how is it going in vegas tonight, ron . I feel like the conversations were going to have over the course of the, year where folks are having fun with their evening. And im standing at an event like this. Not that this isnt fun, stephanie. Let me be clear here, donald trump is going to be taking the stage or in a few minutes, to celebrate his victory here in the nevada caucus. He also won the four delegates, one of the u. S. Virgin islands and after tonight he would have secured the 0. 8 of the total delegates here so far in available. Here and for donald trump he ran against nobody in this race. It was to lose. He won, all 26 delegates. Of course, none of the above On Tuesday Night Beat nikki haley and she took part in the state primary i am told that donald trump did have dinner with he will be moving on to South Carolina, well have a rally on saturday. Just outside of myrtle beach. He will then be holding an event later in the week, in South Carolina and for donald trump, here, steph, you know its hard. He uses this nature. Its an opportunity. Not only to defend himself legally, but also point to joe biden, who he said is prepared to take on here over the course of the nine months of the general election. What we will see, nikki haley, obviously she wasnt on the ballot. Whats next for her . Excuse, me not ball it to choose nikki haley in this caucus, my mistake. Yes, so, the gop, they wanted to have a caucus. Despite a primary putting effect run by the state, the state government. , and the nevada gop, who are close allies are donald trump of course there gop chairman Michael Macdonnell he is one of the fake electors who was indicted in the state of nevada and the executive nevada of the gop they flew just last month to go meet with donald trump. But where maralago and they called the caucus sixth of all but rigged in favor of donald trump. And so candidates here are representing the option, to take part in the caucus run by the party or the primary read by the state. All by doing that though come to the party run caucus. Nikki haley thought it should be a good headline, by taking part in the primary. And winning the primary willow court she got anything but a good headlight by losing to that of the above. Clearly supporters still coming out just for the purpose of fully beating her. We despite donald trump staved off being on the ballot. Tough night for her. Vaughn hillyard thank you so much, great to see you. And now, i hope you could have a good time in vegas. When we come back, we cover the legal and now its time for the politics. Were gonna get into todays Supreme Court hearing, on the Special Counsel report. With Simone Thompson and, later u. S. Funding to ukraine advances in the senate as president zelenskyy fires his top military commander. Is here to bring that what it all means. Special coverage, when the american out right after this. American out right after this. Its time to feed the dogs real food, not highly processed pellets. The farmers dog is fresh food made with whole meat and veggies. Its not dry food. Its not wet food. Its just real food. Its an idea whose time has come. There are some things that work better together. Like your Workplace Benefits and retirement savings. Voya helps you choose the right amounts without over or under investing. So you can feel confident in your financial choices. Voya, well planned, well invested, well protected. Dealdash. Com, online auctions since 2009. This Playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. This ipad pro sold for less than 34. And this nintendo switch, sold for less than 20. Go to dealdash. Com and see how much you can sa two leading candidates for senate. Two very different visions for california. Steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. He voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. Adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. He helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. The choice is clear. Im adam schiff, and i approve this message. Growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. Those are good careers but i chose a different path. First, as mayor and then in the legislature. I enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. In the face of trump, i strengthened Hate Crime Laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. Now im running to bring the fight to congress. You were always stubborn. And on that note, im evan low, and i approve this message. We are still tracking trumps high stake legal battle before the Supreme Court. So lets bring in simone she was the spokesperson for Vice President harris. We of course no, her as the co host of the msnbc morning show, the weekend. And, former republican congressman david jolly of florida. We have a lot to cover, gang. Simone, lets talk about todays arguments. What were your biggest takeaways . My biggest take away, first and foremost, is that there was great ground for the lawyer who was arguing for the colorados plaintive standoff. I dont feel as though the lawyer adequately stood on those grounds. Ive done a lot of research in the lead up to and there is the federal papers, number 69 hamilton where he rode in the he wrote that the president was an officer of the United States in the last paragraph. If you look at the debate from congress, at the time in the senate in 1866, and the senators own words, there was much debate about section one of the 14th Amendment. The Section Three was also of good debate. And the question about whether the president and Vice President wasnt Officer Of The Court came up. I tweeted about that in this moment, and as soon as i tweeted, it two minutes later, jason murray brought up the argument and then kind of just walked away from. It, so i am not a lawyer stuff. I used to do the Talking Points for the lawyers. I am very well versed on taking what what the lawyers have to say. Taking what the lawyers tell you, and repeating. It and i think that an effective argument, a defense about why, what the colorado Supreme Court came down on the decision that they made was correct was not presented there for the people to see. And i do think the justices were quite tough on all of the legal counsels. But the justices usually. Our i watch Supreme Court cases, so i wasnt surprised at the tough questioning. I was surprised that the defense that was brought. Fourth and all of the conversations, and interviews, and press calls that the council, the cocounsel for the colorado voters at done in the lead up to and, frankly after because jason marie, who argued that case was on with their colleague. And who were, on earlier today with Rachel Maddow. And i felt like he made a very effective case in his post interview, not so much during arguments. David, what did you think . Ive always thought that the challenge for the colorado voters has just been too steep of a hill to climb. , and i think its been a vicious to think that the Supreme Court, much less any real federal court at this point would grant relief and suggests that state by state, the decision could be made by if it was a Supreme Court of the state or Secretary Of State of the court. His state by state, we could have different rules regarding qualifications or disqualifications of donald trump. On the question of insurrection, and i know that there has been some broad, and really from conservative legal scholars who have suggested, no this makes sense. But it really cant make sense in terms. A criminal charge of insurrection, from donald trump, so ive always been a scripted. I think that we are looking at most scholars and observers have said that the colorado voters will ultimately be found to, not be given the relief that theyre seeking. To keep donald trump off the ballot. And thats okay. I think there are more arguments of greater merits, then can ultimately bring donald trump, bring down donald trump, this question of whether or not he can be charged in the january six cases. And then theyll go against donald trump. Ultimately, the legal system, the broad thing here i think, steph, is one of delay and latency. Why are we even honoring the election with all of these questions not being decided . Why has this not occurred earlier . Thats a question for the country. Thats really important. Do you believe, when we look back on the, state that there will be a lot of criticism to Merrick Garland on why are we here . Basically, eight months before the next election. , when it didnt mean to be this. Long, at one of the biggest issues today was, well, he wasnt charged with insurrection. And that was also the choice of Merrick Garland. Absolutely. I. Do i, mean i understand that the legal scholars who say he doesnt need to be charged. But lets be practical about. This if you look at the be george decision there are cases of such gravity that the court realized, as you know, what were just playing referee. And we better be able to back it up but its hard to backup kicking donald trump off the ballot for insurrection, if in fact he wasnt charged with insurrection in this matter. But the real question of latency, why has it taken so long . With the Department Of Justice ended up here with that the january Six Committee of congress . Why does it take congress along . Why does impeachment actually such a partisan issue . Those are hard questions, when youre dealing with such an issue of gravity. The latency, in the system, not only is something that needs to improve but its also something that a person like donald trump knows how to take advantage of. He is going to do it and, say test me, try me, lets see how long it takes it to hold me accountable. Because by, then i might be president again. That is exactly the game he is playing. All, right you too, were not letting you go anywhere. When we come back, we have got to get their thoughts on President Biden responding to the Special Counsel report tonight. When the 11th hour continues. G. When the 11th hour continues. Is that didnt get clean . I dont. Cascade Platinum Plus has me doing dishes. Differently. Scrub, soak . Nope. I just scrape, load. And im done. Platinum plus is cascades best clean ever. With double the dawn and double the scrubbers, it removes the toughest grease and food residue for an irresistible clean and shine. Rewash . Not in my house. Upgrade to cascade Platinum Plus. Dare to dish differently. Hey, brent if you had to choose, upgrade to cascade Platinum Plus. Would you watch paint dry or compare Benefits Plans . Compare benefits. Gusto makes it easier to find the right plan for my team. I think im going to need new glasses. No problem. Youre covered. Choose benefits without the mess. Every day, more dog people, and more vets are deciding its time for a fresh approach to pet food. Theyre quitting the kibble. And kicking the cans. And feeding their dogs dog food thats actually well, food. Developed with vets. Made from real meat and veggies. Portioned for your dog. And delivered right to your door. Its smarter, healthier pet food. Get 50 off your first box at thefarmersdog. Com realfood youre probably not easily persuaded to switch get 50 off your first box mobile providers for your business. But what if we told you its possible that comcast Business Mobile can save you up to 75 a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers . Did we peak your interest . You can get two unlimited lines for just 30 each a month. There are no Term Contracts or line activation fees. And you can bring your own device. Oh, and all on the most reliable 5g Mobile Network nationwide. Wireless that works for you. Its not just possible, its happening. One of the reasons because, in his descriptions you are walberg means elderly man with a core memory. Im well means, an elderly man, and i know what im doing. On the president of this country putting it back on its feet. I dont need its recommendation. How is your memory . My memory is so bad that i let you speak. Do you believe your memory has gotten worse . My memory is not getting worse. My memory is fine. President biden striking to find a tone after the release of the Special Counsel report, Simone Thompson there still with, us you know this white house. What was your take on their response . We dont see the president , many nights a week come out swinging to an angry and aggressive press corps. But thats what he faced tonight. And he knew thats what hed be walking into. Yes, stephanie, this is not a good day for the white house. I always say, that because they were forced off the message. Not particularly because the president handled it poorly, or handled it wrong. He decided to hit it head. On, and i think the challenge here for the press is to show us where Joe Biden Has fallen down, in terms of his ability to govern. Show us where age has impacted his leadership. Because you cant. It hasnt. I would suggest that the white house has an opportunity. And its an important one. Because if there is room for voters to grow more concern about the each question, you really have to redirect us to where it matters. And where it matters, is this. This race in november is not about age. Its about ideology. And, instead of challenging the, press challenging critics on the president s age challenge the critics on the ideology of joe biden versus donald. Trump who is going to raise up an economy for all people. Whos going to protect your franchise and your suffrage . Whos going to look out for reproductive freedom . For access to health care . For immigration and Border Security measures . Who is capable of governing in this environment . All you have to do is look at what republicans are doing right now. You could have a 30 year old republican right. Now age doesnt matter. Ideology does. And Joe Biden Has. It and hes taken the country in the right direction. Serve that to the press on the critics and let them swallow it. Samantha, if you want to make it about, they canceled one another out. You have two elderly men, with the penchant for forgetting things. And donald, trump and joe biden. The differences, as it said in the report, well meaning elderly gentlemen. Is anyone going to make the point that donald trump and his misstatements or actions are well meaning . So, let me say two things. First and foremost, the whole reason there was a report in the first place, on the question on the table was, did joe biden do anything inappropriate for which he had classified documents found in his possession, after he was in office. And, the report says, in the first paragraph, no. We are not charging. Him, and he did not do anything with being in charge. , and pieces of the report detail, that it was the president s own personal lawyers who found the documents in the first place called the white house counsel, who, then alerted the archives. All within one day. , so that is what the report was about. What we read in the report, talking about the president s mental acuity and his age is quantification of the Special Counsel. What david just said is correct. But lets just be very clear, in terms of trump on the ideology, not the age. They have been fighting donald trump on the ideology. Thats utterly joe bidens entire ethos for why hes getting back into running for reelection. He has been making the very effective case that david, said he should. Make which the white house has not done, as take the h question directly to the heart of it day in and day. Out in the way in which, that, they and the president brings his democracy message. His message about the accomplishments of the administration. You, know i used to work in this white house. So, i was not surprised by what i saw today. And they did not get those questions. And then they found out about a last minute press conference. And they were rapid for a lack of a better term. I think that people, who, because we have not had a lot of Press Conferences from this president , which is just the facts, that is not something that folks who tuned in are used to seeing. But, lets just be very, very clear. Her the questions about the president s age, they are not madeup. And, at one point they lived in the black corner, the dark corners of the internet. But they have went out of the conservative random Theory Corners right up into mainstream voters and destroyed, in nebraska wherever democratic voters across the country. And because that is something that voters themselves are bringing up, it is something that the president has to speak to. And i, think if people just watch joe biden it does speak for itself. But the campaign, has to give people the opportunity to see the joe biden that we saw today. Well that is the, thing questions about joe bidens age are just coming from four corners of conspiracy theories. Every day voters all the time to talk about joe biden and Donald Trumps age. There are scores of Public Companies that dont allow Board Members to be over a certain age. Its not a new coptic that comes from a farreaching place. However the right is going to have a field day with this report. But they can talk about the report and things that Joe Biden Has said. Or they can watch this from donald trump. And we did, with obama, we won an election that everyone said couldnt be one. And we have a man that is totally corrupt and the worst president in the history of our country. We would be in world war ii, very quickly if we are going to be relying on this man. They never report to the crime on january six. Nikki haley, Nikki Haley Nikki haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people. Soldiers. National guards. Whatever they want. They turned it down. We had become a dragoons vested crime ridden nation which is capable of solving even the smallest, smallest problems. We are an institute and a powerful Death Penalty. We will put this on. We have to bring in the Death Penalty to look at even things like supply change, things we never even heard about. You never heard that term. Youre right, i never heard the term supply change. Because it doesnt exist. All of that doesnt include the 91 counts against donald trump. So, on what grounds, david jolly, are people saying its over for joe biden after today . I mean that matchup that we put together, it just took a few minutes. We didnt have to do a lot of digging. Simply because, age is a bad issue for joe biden to take on directly. Its serious. It is a serious liability. But, that mashup shows. And i think the opportunity for biden, to respond with the questions of, age is about fitness. , and donald trump did not suggest you should inject bleach into your veins, this a view from covid. Because he was old, he did it because he was stupid. He didnt talk that mashup of all those because of his, age he did it because hes unfit for office. , and that is the clear answer for joe biden. And on questions of age, seriously stuff, show us. Show us where Joe Biden Has proven incapable of governing because of his age. Sure, he is older. Has he slipped up on an issue thats actually affected his ability to govern . No. You can point to a conservative critic. Now, is it on message for joe biden today to be defending his age, first person. I dont think it is. Because it feeds into the president s highest negatives. One of its highest. But he has to im sorry david. To be clear, the reason the president went out there and said what he said today, this was the second time he spoke about the report today. The first time he spoke, he was very president ial. He did not speak about the age issue or the mental, any of the. But joe biden and his age watch television. And they see the tweets. And every single reporter looked at that Special Counsel reports that eye right there next to me and all tweeted out the same lines. It was the conversation on television across various Cable Networks Uncritically Environment where the president had to come out and defend himself. And frankly no other democrats need to step up and defend him as well. So there is a symone, symone wasnt responsible for people to pick that one piece of the report . I dont think so . I understand your position and your craft but they screwed up with the elsisi reference. He screwed up. He actually showed them again why age doesnt cover his ability to handle that moment but not until government. And thats not my point. He stumbled in that moment. And part, arguably because of age but does that affect his ability to govern . Absolutely not. And if hes gonna be the messenger for his team thats the contrast that he is capable of drawing and the American People need to understand. All right, david jolly, symone sanderstownsend, thank you so much for being here tonight. When we come back. We have got to talk ukraine. Talk ukraine. Im starting to think this was a bad idea. What we could find a better gift on etsys new gift mode. Oh can i see that . Happy birthday. Its a people cake dont panic. Gift easy with gift mode, new on etsy. Sometimes Jonah Wrestles with falling asleep. So he takes zzzquil. The worlds 1 sleep aid brand. And wakes up feeling like himself. Get the rest to be your best with nonhabit forming zzzquil. The two Year Anniversary of the war in ukraines fast approaching. And the war is at a very with, that i want to bring in retired starchy army veteran of vietnam, and the former bottle of so glad to hear. Help us understand what do you make of this move from zelenskyy, at this point in the war . Well, i looked at the ukraine battlefield, its a real mess. Theres been massive casualties, the Artillery Duel now is going into a direction where ukraine is running out of ammunition and there is a request by the commanding general of Ukrainian Armed forces for a half Million Contract to be called up which he didnt think you could do. So he wants to look for a new team. What do you know about this new Military Chief . Hes an older guy, than the current commanding general. Hes trained. Hes been commander, off the ground forces. He was extremely effective in defending kyiv. And, then we captured and destroyed the Russian Forces around kharkiv a year later. He has probably shown less creativity and dealing with the russians on the eastern front. So its not clear to me that hes the new thinker using technology instead of casualties dylans case looking for. But zelenskyy is that hes gonna put five new general zone to colonels to try to reinvigorate ukraine. The current commander general was just fired by the way. Which is all over nato. Saying the war was at a stalemate. Things are political problem for zelenskyy. Thats another reason, i think, that zelenskyy had spoken. So, where do things stand right now in the war . Like, how important are these next few months . Crucial. The United States can get the 50 dollar thousand dollar package through, theres a serious problem. And, having said that nato had stood up to the issue to the european union, 52 Billion Dollar package coming through. And the european union, alone, has a gdp economy that russia has 15 of that gdp. So europe could shoulder more of the burden. Its clear but without the united state, without our leadership, without our ammunition, training, involvement, i think ukraine may well collapse. Weve got 44 million ukrainians, half of them to be in western europe. And it will be a disaster for the u. S. National security interest. Well, hopefully, members of congress are listening to. You general, thank you so much for joining us on this late night. General barry mccaffer, well be right, back after this. Nera be right, back after this. your heart races. your eyes close. and you realize youre in love. Steve . With a laundry detergent. Gain flings. Seriously good scent. And 50 more fresh. Now thats love at first sniff. Hey sarah if you had to choose would you listen to Elevator Music all day or deal with Payroll Compliance . Payroll compliance, for sure. Gusto automatically calculates and files my taxes for me. Hold up, compliance . Easier . Choose Payroll Compliance without the ups and downs. Thats working with gusto. start your day with nature made. The 1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. I got this 1,000 camera for only 41 on dealdash. Dealdash. Com, online auctions since 2009. This Playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. This ipad pro sold for less than 34. And this nintendo switch, sold for less than 20. I got this Kitchenaid Stand Mixer for only 56. I got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. And shipping is always free. Go to dealdash. Com right now and see how much you can save. Okay guys, are you still up with me . I know we say it last around here and it can lose its meaning overtime. , but today, today was one of those days you will remember where you were days. Just think about. It the Supreme Court historic argument, the Special Counsels report, that was very difficult for President Biden. And that he hit back with the fiery response, tonight it is a lot. And, it can feel exhausting, overwhelming, i hear you. I feel you. I know it. So, as we close out another one of those days for the History Books flip do this one thing together. Ready . Lets take a deep breath. I certainly know that i needed one. And my team needed one after today. I hope you feel better. I do. Just a little bit. And, we will be back here again, tomorrow night at the end of the day. To do it all over again. Because i guarantee, its going to be a whole lot more news, tomorrow. And, on that note i wish you all a very good night. If youre extras sleepy, a little late to work tomorrow, Rachel Maddow said she will write your boss a note. But until then, from of our colleagues our colleagues say for the sake of argument, you engage in insurrection. Could you then run for president again . The state of colorado says no. At least not on our ballot. I engaged in insurrection against the constitution. President trump, disqualified himself from public office. Now, the u. S. Supreme court will decide. Well hear argument, case 23 7 19, trump versus anderson. Tonight, donald trump battled to remain on the ballot for the 2024 president ial election. For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. So your point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection . The colorado case, its national implications. The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States. And, dammed if you do, dammed if you dont predictions of chaos. Either way members of this course have disagreed about that. Im asking you tonight, jason, marie appeared live. The lawyer who argued todays case for colorado voters. Joy reid, chris hayes, lawrence odonnell, alex wagner, stephanie ruhle. All here for msnbcs special coverage of the Supreme Court argument. On the disqualification of donald trump. Welcome to our Primetime Breakout of the historic proceedings. Im Rachel Maddow, with my colleagues lawrence odonnell, joy reid, ari melber, and chris hayes. Happy to have you all here. No cameras are allowed in federal court rooms, including United States appearing in court today for the arguments about whether former President Trump should be disqualified for office for having engaged in an insurrection against the u. S. Government, the justices did allow for the sound of the proceedingsaudio to be livestreamed. Here on msnbc, we carry the audio of those Oral Arguments live and in full. Starting just after 10 am eastern time. But we also know that most people have lives. And jobs. And school. And other responsibilities that might make it hard for them to take two hours out of a thursday to stare at an audio speak for hours trying to figure out if that was gorsuch or alito yelling at that poor lawyer. So because of that we are here to recap what happened in primetime. In the 1970s, Watergate Healings were broadcast during the workday. Recognizing how consequential unimportant those were, News Networks during that time started recapping each days Watergate Hearings at night on tv in primetime so no one would miss out on that incredibly important history in the making. We then did the same. During the daytime hearings of the january six investigation in congress in 2022. We know from what we have heard from you, our beloved viewers, but that was valuable, that was a useful saying. And so here we are, together, again, tonight, with basically the same approach. The United States Supreme Court is now considering whether the leading candidate for the republican president ial nomination should be banned from running again or potentially might it be okay to allow him to run again to allow him to be on the ballot, to allow him to compete and potentially even when the election, whereupon only then would he be prohibited from actually taking up the job . Now, why would you allow someone to run for an office if they are ineligible to hold that office . I dont know. But for the non lawyers among us, i think we can all take comfort in the fact that that idea sounded just as cockamamie and nuts today at the United States Supreme Court as it would if you tried to explain to somebody on a street corner. I think it would create a number of really difficult issues if the court says theres no procedure for determining President Trumps eligibility until after the election. And then what happens when members of congress On January 6th, when they count the electoral votes, say were not gonna count electoral votes cast for President Trump because hes disqualified . Thats a kind of disenfranchisement and constitutional crisis in the making. And all more reason to address these issues now on a full evidentiary record so everyone can have certainty before they go to the polls. If we think that the states cant enforce this provision, for whatever reason, in this context, in the president ial context, what happens next in this case . I mean, is it done . If this Court Concludes that colorado did not have the authority to exclude President Trump from the president ial ballot on procedural grounds, i think this case would be done, but i think it could come back with a vengeance because ultimately members of congress may have to make the determination after a president ial election if President Trump wins about whether or not hes disqualified from office and whether to count votes cast for him. If he might be ineligible to hold office in the United States. But states arent allowed to keep him off the ballot. Then how does the constitutions ban on insurrectionists Holding Office getting forced . Just think about it logically. If states cant enforce it by keeping people off the ballot before the election, then congress would have to enforce the ban after the election. This would Mean Congress would have to decide after the election but before inauguration on, say, january six, 2025 . They would have to decide then and they are whether theyre going to count electoral votes for trump or not, based on whether or not congress believes, at that point, the trump is eligible or ineligible for office, depending on whether in their infinite wisdom, congress thinks he engaged in insurrection the last time around. Congress will just work it out in congress, on the spot, On January 6th itself. What could possibly go wrong . You just heard jason murray there, who did most of the arguing today for the plaintiffs, who was successfully sued in colorado for keeping trump off the ballot. Were gonna speaking live with him tonight. But that same point of boathouse stranger would be to do what trumps lawyers propose, two to decide whether hes eligible to be president until after he has potentially been elected president. That same argument was made in a different way by the second lawyer, the colorados Solicitor General who today also defended colorado taking trump off the ballot. The petitioner contends that colorado must put him on the ballot because of the possibility there would be a Supermajority Act Of Congress to remove his legal disability. Under this theory, colorado and every other state would have to indulge this possibility, not just for the primary, but through the general election and up to the moment that an ineligible cabinet was sworn into office. In other words, do not make us do this. In other words, do justices, rule that hes eligible, rule that hes ineligible, but do not force the situation in which he must be allowed to run but he might not be allowed to serve if hes elected. If you thought last year six was bad, wait to see what you would unleash for the next one if we followed this course. His chief Justice John Roberts today. Counsel, what if somebody came in to a State Secretary Of States Office and said, i took the oath specified in specifiedi Section Three, i participated in an insurrection and i want to be on the ballot . Does the Secretary Of State have the authority in that situation to say no, you are disqualified . No, the Secretary Of State could not do that consistent with because even if the candidate is an admitted insurrectionist, section 3 still allows the candidate to run for office and even win election to office and see whether congress lists that. Even though its unlikely or difficult for individual says you know, i am an insurrectionist and i have taken the oath, that would require two thirds of votes in congress. Thats some pretty likely scenario. A pretty unlikely scenario. Thats 0. 1 from todays Supreme Court arguments. The proposed remedy here from trump side with congress has to in force the ban on Insurrectionists Serving in office, that ban can only be enforced after the election, that trump has to be allowed to run even though he might not be allowed to actually serve if he wins. The practicalities of that, what that might mean for the country, those implications that are both bizarre and daunting, is described by lawyers in the case today, i think thats point number one. Now lets talk about a second fundamental point that didnt necessarily go as expected today at the court. Its that the very basic question of whether or not former President Trump did engage in an insurrection. Everybody knew this was going to be something that was going to have to come up today. But there is less discussion on this point today than many observers expected. What they had was punchy. Lets start with justice Ketanji Brown jackson in Jonathan Mitchell, the lawyer who today argued former President Trump. Ormer President Trump. We colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner supporters in this case on january six qualified as an insurrection, as by Section Three, and i read your opening brief to accept that those events counted as an insurrection, but danya reply seemed to suggest that they were not. What is your position as to . That we never accepted or conceded in the brief that this was an insurrection. What we said in the opening brief was that President Trump did not engage in any act that could be characterized as such. Your argument that it is your reply brief says it was not because i think you say it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government. Thats one of many regions, for an insurrection, there needs to be in organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the u. S. Through violence. A chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an effort . We did not concede that it was an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson. None of the criteria is met. It was a riot, not an insurrection. The violence was shameful, all those things, but it did not qualify as an extortion, as the term was used in Section Three. Thanks. If it was chaotic, it was not an insurrection. The way you can tell us something is an instruction because they march in lines, part of what does a little right after the with anything . Justice Brett Kavanaugh elicited some of the strongest push at this point, the point of whether this was an insurrection and the implications of that. He elicited some of the strongest pushback on that today from jason murray, one of the lawyers in colorado. In trying to figure out what Section Three means to the extent of its elusive language or vague language. What about the idea that you should think about democracy, think about the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice, of letting the people decide. Your position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. What about the background principle, if youd agree on a good like to make three points of that, justice kavanaugh. The first is that constitutional safeguards, but for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come. Second, Section Three is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. The framers of Section Three new from painful experience that those who violently expose their oath to the constitution cannot be trusted with our whole power again, because they could dismantle our constitution of democracy from within. They have created a democratic safety valve. President biden can go asparagus for amnesty vote, but unless he does, that from insurrectionists. Third, this case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply Section Three as were in, because the reason that we are here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million americans who voted against him, and the constitution is not required that he be given another chance. Thank you. The constitution does not require that he be given another chance. The constitution protects us from insurrectionists. So, well talk tonight about the justices, discussing what it would mean to prosecute trump federally for the crime of insurrection, rather than having adjudicated, for example, in a colorado trial court. Well talk about the Justice System debating trumps lawyers claims that he is the only former u. S. President who cant be banned from office for committing insurrection. All the others would be banned from office for committing insurrection but trump, personally, cant. We are going to talk about the justices asking why one state should be able to do something this consequential, something when the contestants went out like cannibals, but the answers were pretty good. We have a lot to talk about tonight, but lets start with these first couple of takeaways here. Was this an insurrection, and if there is a ban in the constitution on insurrectionists Holding Office, but you cant enforce it by preventing an eligible candidates from running for office, then how exactly does that ban get enforced . Our email burr, you are in the room today, when it happened. You are there for the arguments. First of all, let me ask you to critique my summary. The tickets for it to pull out those points as some of the pillars on which this argument was held up . I think its very fair. Its the first time that we have seen the actions of the insurrectionists discussed by the Supreme Court. In terms of the argument about on the point of insurrection, i felt like i was going to be here a lot today about what counts as an insurrection, that snuck from Justice Jackson was priceless, but we did not hear a lot of substantive other discussion about what it takes to call something an instruction. Does that tell us something important about where they just see their sort of, the edge of their Job Description here, in terms of what they ought to consider . It also speaks to how bipartisan this was, if you go by the differences disappointed by different parties, based on the questioning, which is all we have to go on, i would give you eight or nine votes likely against the colorado trump a ballot ban. Thats not because all eight or nine at the people or soft an insurrection. An insurrection. snoring if you struggle with cpap. You should check out inspire. Honey . Inspire. Sleep apnea innovation. Learn more and view Important Safety Information at inspiresleep. Com covid19 . Im not waiting. If its covid, paxlovid. Paxlovid is an oral treatment for adults with mildtomoderate covid19 and a highrisk factor for it becoming severe. It does not prevent covid19. My symptoms are mild now, but im not risking it. If its covid, paxlovid. Paxlovid must be taken within the first five days of symptoms, and helps stop the virus from multiplying in your body. Taking paxlovid with certain medicines can lead to serious or lifethreatening side effects or affect how it or other medicines work, including hormonal birth control. Its critical to tell your doctor about all the medicines you take because certain tests or changes in their dosage may be needed. Tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, hiv1, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeed. Dont take paxlovid if youre allergic to nirmatrelvir, ritonavir, or any of its ingredients. Serious side effects can include allergic reactions, some severe like anaphylaxis, and liver problems. These are not all the possible side effects so talk to your doctor. If its covid, paxlovid. Ask your doctor today. I think hes having a Midlife Crisis im not. You got us tmobile Home Internet lite. After a week of streaming they knocked us down. To dial up speeds. Like from the 90s. Great times. All i can do say is that my life is pre i like watching the puddles gather rain. Hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. Oh, ew i think youve said enough. Why dont we just switch to xfinity like Everyone Else . Then you would know what year it was. I know what year it is. Its because the things that you race, and we heard some of the questioning about. Ill give you a detailed legal answer if you want, but ill start with something simple, which is, it was clear by the end of the argument that most of these people do not want to go near ballot bands. The reasoning came second. It was more honest than usual, they said we dont want to do this. We dont want to cosign this. How do we get out . I would liken it to, if anyone at a Destination Wedding invite that they are not excited about. These people used to know better, for a while back, and its in antarctica, and our first like, look, straight up, that is far away, i heard it is cold weather. Also, i think its expensive. Tickets, are barnstorming all you can go. Sore back how close are we . Any of those things might also be true, and someone then my come to you and say, theres a supercell, because not many people want to go to antarctica. Even if it was not the ticket, there are other reasons. Thats what it felt like to me. So, if youre looking for this to be the case that stops trump, i would tell you not you, i mean the viewer, anyone listening, the citizen. If youre thinking, this the courts to work on a nonpartisan basis, in some ways, we saw that answered with how much it was like that. They then jump and briefly to your legal question. The big thing was, even if it is an insurrection or something that should be kicked off the ballot for, who decides that . Is it just a random Secretary Of State in one state, and we have a lot of different types of ways that we pick Secretary Of States, they vary in partisanship . Is it the justices at the state, and Chief Roberts put it, as blunt as he could, not talking law or attacks but he said, only, if we did allow this, other states would punch back. If we get them the power and say, any state can do this, then they all will be knocking each other on the ballot. Let me tell you, Rachel Justice roberts raised that issue, in other justice raise that issue as well. Good answers from the issue from the lawyers representing colorado. A very substantive answer, which is that there was an insurrection televised. There is only one people that called them to town. I even had insurrectionists popping up everywhere, its not factually true. The courts concerned about, that which i think includes i think Justice Jackson was a biden appointee, well versed on how they tried to stop at thenPresident Biden from coming into office. I dont think he is minimizing an insurrection, i think her point is, yes, we will still run into who can resolve that. You can be factually right but still have an arms race across the states, and that is a concern for the court. This became if i was going to bottom line it legally, this became a debate about the remedy, that they should be dealt with in some other part of government. The problem is you. Let me stick on that for a second, already, because were talk in more detail about the parade. What if a state can take a person on the ballot, what would that mean. There would be retaliation, there would be unreasonable actions taken by other states to take other people off the ball. Well talk about that a little bit, but on this issue of whether or not the states to this or somebody else does, we also got a parade of horses today about what happens with the state does not do it. If there is a ban and it cant be enforced by the states, then asked to be enforced by congress, which is inviting another january 6th disaster. That is the rejoin or, its one way or the other. You may not like the states doing, but they dont do it, the caucus will have to do it. That will be a disaster to. Weve seen that before. The sound like a lawyer, i think that is a non frivolous point, a legitimate point. We saw in the Oral Argument, youre offering chaos, i see you with chaos. That the, duthie dont. Theres a saying in the law about constitutional hardball. This is beyond hardball, this is constitutional fragrant fouls or constitutional violence, whatever you want to call. Trump and his fans, he is now convicted fence, not convicted of Sedition Charges with the, he was for Something Else, but his fans and people he summoned, many convicted of sedition, they had no sparked this back and forth. Well here as you mentioned, with a lawyer later tonight, who mentioned having gone down the road, there needs to be strong remedies pushed back. Having said that though, i think that the justices, including the democratic appointees basically said, yes, but not at the state level. Figure out some other bar and what you are proposing at the end of the argument here doesnt scary, lets point on that for now. Our special coverage of todays historic Supreme Court hearing, its just getting started. Still to join us, as ari mentioned, the attorney for the california voters in this case, who argue today in the court, to summer it would be with us live, stay with us. States had the power to ensure that their citizens electoral votes or not we state on a candidate who is constitutionally barred from Holding Office. States are allowed to safeguard their ballots by excluding those who are under age, foreign born, for a third president ial term or as here, those who have engaged in insurrection against the constitution in violation of the oath. I welcome the courts questions. Justice alito . Is there any history of state to cSection Three as a way to bar federal officeholders . Not that i am aware of, i welcome the courts questions. Justice alito. Not that i am aware of, this is toledo. Nope, this is not before, i wonder why that is. Welcome back to our Primetime Recap of todays Supreme Court proceedings, On Whether Former President Donald Trump is eligible or ineligible to ever again stand for office in the United States, after what happened the last time. What you just heard there was a nice short jab from conservative Justice Samuel alito, answered by President Trumps lawyer Jonathan Mitchell today. The real rejoinder to what excuse me, what Justice Alito was asking there came if you minutes later, from a lawyer on the other side. The lawyer for a lot of voters, its a summary, in a back and forth with chief Justice John Roberts, in which the Chief Justice essentially says that the lawyer, hey, this is crazy that we had to decide Something Like this, isnt it . The lawyer response, yes, its crazy, but the reason its crazy because theyre running a guy as candidate for president who just recently told his fans to overthrow the u. S. Government. Yes, and that is crazy. That has never happened in the country before at least since the civil war. Yeah, its crazy, and, yeah, you do have to put up with it. Listen. Counselor, what do you do with the consequences of your position. If colorados position is upheld, surely, there will be Disqualification Proceedings on the other side and some of those will succeed. Some will have different standards or proof. Some will have different rules of evidence. Although, my predictions have never been correct. I would expect that a good number of states will say, whoever the democratic candidate is, youre off the ball and, others, four republican candidate, youre off the ball. It will come down to the handful of states to decide the president ial election. That will be a daunting consequence. Certainly, your honor, the fact that there is potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision does not reason you might think that they are frivolous, but the people bringing them may not think it is frivolous. Insurrection is a broad term, and if there is some debate about it, i suppose that will go the decision and then, eventually, what we will be deciding, whether it was an insurrection, where theyre when president did something, as opposed to somebody doing Something Else. When we do, do we wait until near the time of counting the ballots and go through which states are valid and which states arent . Theres a reason Section Three has been dormant for 150 years, because we have not seen anything like a january six since reconstruction. Insurrection against the constitution something extraordinary. It seems to me youre voting the question which is that other states may have different views about what constitutes insurrection. Now you say, its all right, because somebody, presumably us, will decide, they thought that was an instruction, but there are wrong. Maybe they thought it was right, and we had to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection. Yes, your honor, just like this court interprets other constitutional provisions, this court can make clear that an insurrection against the constitution is something extraordinary. In particular, it really requires a concerted group effort to resist the violence, not some ordinary application of state or federal law. Councillor, youre saying that someone, presumably us, would have to develop rules for what constitutes an insurrection . Unfortunately, yes, sir, we have come to that moment in u. S. History. Yeah, we will need to have some rules around this. Joy reid, i dont think anybody thinks that the colorado petitioners are going to get their way from the Supreme Court today, but some of these questions, the way that they were raised and the way that the lawyers had to say, the Supreme Court justices, were sorry were here, but we are here. Its really striking. Its not like its every day that people try to overthrow the government. To that question, you actually have some facts around which to organize an attempt to throw a random democrat off at the ballot in the republican state. Its not like you can just do it. Lets just review the record here. Donald trump was not just declared an insurrectionist because the democrats of colorado were mad. A bunch of republican practitioners took this case to court. There was an actual trial, at which Data Thurmond and adjudicated based on republican petitioners, saying he tried to be an insurrectionist. Fact number two, he was impeached, specifically, according to him, for supporting an insurrection. There are plenty of facts on the table that say that the point of what they are saying, with just a riot, it was not a right for no reason, because the people were not having a good day. It was a right to attempt to replace the winner of the president ial election with the loser of the president ial election, thereby to replace the government that was supposed to take effect would a government that was over. By definition, that was attempting to pull an insurrection and replace the government. I thought some of the arguments were so circular, and the idea that they cant adjudicate, cant make a decision here out of the fear, at some point in the future, democratic states with ten republican states with then tried to say that different person wasnt insurrectionists, based on some of those facts, all of dozens happen, yeah, there would be an insurrection. Again, alex, out but the state you. Thank you for joining us. Its good to be here. This is something that was raised by both liberal and Conservative Justices today. The idea that if colorado done the whole thing, trump then, other states might retaliate by doing this in unfair ways to other candidates. The reply to that is, yes, you can also bring frivolous and malicious prospect actions if you ever get caught for anything in the criminal law. The idea is that our systems exists. The structure of government and testing exist in the courts, and, therefore, if somebody is going to unfairly retaliate or retaliate not based on the fact pattern that joyce is describing, then we catch that and we let it go through. Right . Well, here is what i will say. I think its farfetched to suggest that all of the sudden, this will lead to a spate of efforts to get joe biden off of the ball in red states, but i do think there is what did alito call it, manageable consequences . Imagine, forget your biden, a match and you have a bunch of red states where donald trump placed on the ball and a bunch of boost eight for donald trump is oft about, that in and of itself is problematic. I dont even have to game out the scenario whereby biden is the victim of some related to this decision. You have to work out a scenario where Donald Trumps name does not appear on all the ballots in the United States. Its a huge problem. That is a problem that happens for third Party Candidates. There are candidates running as a third party, who get on the ballot in some states. Its a quantitative matter, not a qualitative matter. Major Party Candidates dont tend to have that problem, but each states ballot looks different. I am not arguing that that should be the reason for what they decide, but it seems really clear, as one person, among many, who sat looking, watching a blank screen stared at a speaker. All of these justices seem very much less concerned with the textural interpretation, the originalism at the constitution and much more concerned roundly about the political reality that is ahead of them. To the degree that they may say its not up to states to decide that this congress or the federal judicial system needs to decide this, in which case, you will inevitably have a lawsuit in the federal courts on the same day in store order. Isnt that a consequence of the actual fact that our elections are decided by the states, thats actually the system. The states get to decide the election. To get the side who qualifies for their state. That is the system, so try to say that because states decide, and what you had to do essentially disenfranchise, right, all of the states where trump won the Electoral College in that state, on january six, 2025, i say, oh, guess what, hes not getting a waiver. Whos getting two thirds of a vote in the House Of Representatives to get a ways waiver. Youre saying let the people go vote for trump, go to 2025 but they are not going to use that. Clearly, they are not going to do that. Its absurd. I would say that there is a real weird thing part of what was weird about today is that there is a sort of calvin ball that conservatives play with, their methodology on this court, which is a day left actualize mixup when they dont need it. Exactly. Actual sum is like, look, we have our personal policy preferences, have outcomes that we want, we kept thinking about outcomes, we are debate looking ahead. The text tells us that everyone can have a gun in every public space of america in the year 2023, per ruin, and thats what we got to do. Yes, if you got a kindergarten er, walking around, youre like, sorry, that is constitutional demands. Yes, there are pragmatic concerns that we should not do that. Sorry, cant do it. So they do that, when they like the outcome, and then the moment they dont like the outcome, they just struck it over, and we also took over the textualists today. I guess the weird thing that i want to say, the sort of pop on the other side of the hypocrisy is, personally, i am not excellence, and i think pragmatic considerations are a ok to think about. Actually, that is how we should be thinking about the constitution. I am a legal realness, and i think pollsters for richard posner, the judge who talked about this pragmatism. All of these pragmatic questions struck me as perfectly legitimate. The other thing to your point, joy, they are all apostates deciding to snuff. Thats right. Except in two places, bush v. Gore, where the couldnt ratify, because the override it thats. Right now, here, what are you talking, about states. State rights . Were going to let states do it . By the way i think we are. Keep doing that, not to abortion. They literally said the opposite. Sorry, still to come, we got a lot more from todays Supreme Court hearing, including, the very, very poignant and moment where the lawyer for the pontiffs took a question from his old boss, no gorsuch. Do you agree that the states powers here over its ballots for federal office or an election have to come from some constitution . Members of the score of disagreed about that. I am asking you. Asking you. I told myself i was ok with my moderate to severe Rheumatoid Arthritis symptoms. With my Psoriatic Arthritis symptoms. But just ok isnt ok. And i was done settling. If you still have symptoms after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. Rinvoq is a oncedaily pill that can rapidly relieve joint pain, stiffness, and swelling in ra and psa. Relieve fatigue for some. And stop joint damage. And in psa, can leave skin clear or almost clear. Rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. Serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. People 50 and older with a Heart Disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. Serious allergic reactions can occur. Tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. Done settling . Ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. And take back whats yours. Abbvie could help you save. Im kareem abduljabbar. I was diagnosed with afib. And take back whats yours. When i first noticed symptoms, which kept coming and going, i should have gone to the doctor. Instead, i tried to let it pass. If you experience irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, or lightheadedness, you should talk to your doctor. Afib increases the risk of stroke about 5 times. When it comes to your health, this is no time to wait. Sleep more deeply. And wake up rejuvenated. Purple mattresses exclusive gelflex grid draws away heat relieves pressure and instantly adapts. Sleep better. Live purple. Right now save up to 800 off mattress sets during purples president s day sale. Visit purple. Com or a store near you. we come from a long line of cowboys. when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. your record label is taking off. But so is your sound engineer. You need to hire. I need indeed. Indeed you do. Indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your Job Description. Visit indeed. Com hire mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, we are here because for the First Time Since the war of 1812, our Nations Capital came under a violent assault. For the first time in history, the attack was incited by a sitting president of the United States to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. By engaging an insurrection against the constitution, President Trump is disqualified himself from public office. As we heard earlier, President Trumps main argument is that this court should create a special exemption to section 3 that would apply to him and to him alone. He says section 3 disqualifies all Oath Breaking Insurrectionists except a former president who never before held other state or federal office. There is no possible rationale for such an exemption. The court should reject the claim that the framers made an extraordinary mistake. Did the framers make an extraordinary mistake . Welcome back to our Primetime Recap of the u. S. Supremes deliberations today, their Oral Arguments today over whether or not former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from standing for office. Jason murray is a denverbased lawyer whose argument helped convince the Colorado State court that trump should be disqualified from colorados ballot. Today mr. Marie made his debut, representing six colorado voters who brought the challenge to trumps eligibility. In addition to more than a decade as a trial lawyer mr. Murray has worked closely with two of the justices up there today. He worked for Justice Neil Gorsuch when Justice Gorsuch sat on u. S. Court of appeals. He also clerked for Justice Elena kagan at the u. S. Supreme court. Mr. Murray appeared before those justices in a different capacity, making the case to them that the ruling he wanted in colorado should stand, a donald trump should not be allowed on the colorado ballot. Joining us now, after a very long very stressful day, mr. Jason murray. Mr. Murray, congratulations on your appearance of the court. Thank you so much. And i appreciate you having me on. I know that this was not your first time in that courtroom, and you are very familiar with Supreme Court procedure, and you seen a lot of lawyers step up to the podium today. How was it for you to do it for the first time . Certainly a source of pride for me to get to argue in the Supreme Court for the first time and also to be able to appear before my former bosses. In terms of how things went today, i dont think its going to come as a surprise to you for me to tell you that most observers think that the case is not going your way. Most observers think that President Trump will be allowed on the ballot, that colorados decision to take him off the ballot will effectively be overturned by this court. I have to ask if you share that common wisdom, if you feel like you have a sense of where the justices are going after what he went through in court today. I wont sugarcoat it. It seemed like the justices were asking difficult questions, mostly procedural questions, about whether the states had the ability to enforce Section Three of the 14th Amendment. I will say we got a lot of really difficult questions of the colorado Supreme Court as well. And when the colorado Supreme Court sat down to right their opinion, they realized we were right on the legal issues. We hope that hope that is the court gets deeper into the legal issues here they will realize that the law and the history is clearly on our side here. But certainly they did have hard questions today. I dont think the court would decide a hard case like this without asking hard questions. Let me ask you to go back into one of the questions on which i think you got some of the hardest questions, at least im not a lawyer, islay of server, and i think some of the journalism has seen people reflect on some very hard questions on whether or not colorado is an individual state or indeed any other state should have a role that moving directly but would effectively remove a president ial candidate from consideration by the voters of the whole country. That issue, that prospect was raised a few different ways by the justices today. I wonder if you would take it holistically and address that criticism of the take that colorado Supreme Court, and your clients, brought to the court today. Its an important question. I think its based on a misunderstanding. We werent here today to ask the Supreme Court to allow colorado to decide these issues for the nation. We were asking the u. S. Supreme court to decide, as a matter of constitutional law, whether donald trump is eligible to be president again based on his own conduct of engaging in insurrection. That isnt a political question for a state to decide. That is a legal question for the court to decide. And although the case came up through a state court, many important cases of federal law, federal constitutional law, come up through state courts. But once they are at the u. S. Supreme court, it is for this court to make the final decision that will govern for the whole country about the constitutional eligibility of the candidate. That was the case we were trying to make today. I jason, ari melber here. Congratulations to you one of the lawyers today. When the most difficult things to do is to be in that bench with nine justices. So congratulations to all of you. Two questions. I dont know if you want to answer both of them. But given what he went through today, the whole thing is so fast and complex, is there any part where you would want to do it over or exchange remarks or build on an answer, because that can happen in any part of life. Im curious if that happened at all, and would you share that with us. And second, we discussed today on this panel, and it was clear in the courtroom, that there was bipartisan skepticism about one of your key points, which is that the insurrection was this unique and rare event, and i wonder, is there a way that through your arguments that the brief that sometimes matters more than the Oral Argument that you could better to phrase it differently to a different legal standalone insurrection is one you know what when you see it and were not going to have a ton of frivolous made up insurrection claims if some bananas official or some bananas stayed says biden did insurrection when he gave an interview. And we were like yeah, that was a different than the live tv documented insurrection when that we lived through. You know it when we see it. Absolutely. Let me take the first point. I wouldnt characterize it as someone as a doover as a fact that there are a lot of questions asked where i get ten words in before i get another question, and wouldnt have so much of a chance to respond. One thing i would like to emphasize now, because we didnt come up with so much an argument, is just how clear the evidence was and how lucid the colorado Supreme Courts factual findings here were on the fact that President Trump engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. Its not a secretive thing that relies on dubious witness testimony. This was in plain sight for everybody to see. We saw the tweets. We saw his words. We saw his Campaign Manager the day of, his former Campaign Manager, call this a sitting president asking for a civil war. We saw that even after the capitol came under violent attack, members of the mob were chanting hang mike pence, President Trump or more fuel on the fire on twitter by putting a target on the back of Vice President pence and egging the attacking mob on. We saw his tweets at the end, where he praised the attackers and justify their actions, saying these are the things that happen when an election is stolen. His case isnt close to a virtual confession of intent to incite insurrection you can possibly get. And so i thought that some of the discussion about, well maybe one state will have one evidentiary record, another state will have another, didnt fully engage with that central point. I was gonna ask you to remind me what your second question was because now i have forgotten. It insurrection, do you know it when you see it . I think its more than that. The history is really clear on what an insurrection. Isnt insurrection is more than a protest gone. Wrong and insurrection is more than a riot. In insurrection is a coordinated attack for the purpose of resisting execution of law by force. And section 3 requires an insurrection against the constitution. And that hasnt happened since the civil war. Because here an insurrection against the constitution requires that you are attacking a function mandated by the constitution, not just an ordinary law. Into here we have an attack on congresss constitutional duty to certify the president ial election results. So hypotheticals about the idea that estate might misuse Section Three to go after their political opponents, i think just misses the point. You can always have frivolous applications of law, frivolous cases that are factually and legally baseless, and we trust that our Justice System will put an end to them by saying this is baseless. I dont see why section 3 should be any different. I jason, its joy reid. As a product of Denver Public schools, i will congratulate you and steve collateral for making history. Justice clarence thomas, he didnt ask a lot of questions, obviously yes the first question is hes the senior justice. But there was one point where he was pretty animated with you. There is some irony, and ill just say this myself, that his wife, her relationship with the insurrection i found ironic when listening to him speak. It was a point at which he talked about the plethora of confederates still around after the civil war. There are any number of people who can continue to run for state office so it would seem, he said, that that would suggest that there would at least be a few examples of National Candidates being disqualified if your reading is correct. There was a lot of engagement with you on this question. If this is such an obvious point, in Section Three is self executing, why arent there other cases that we can cite where insurrectionists were disqualified in the way that you are arguing donald trump should be disqualified. I would love for you to say more on that. If we could have a longer exchange, what more would you say . One of the extraordinary things about this case is that we have about 50 professors of history who are the leading scholars in civil war reconstruction file briefs on our side in this case. They explained that history. They said that immediately after, before the amendment was ratified, and even before, congress was flooded by requests for amnesty from people who knew they would otherwise lose their jobs and be kicked out of office. The union army was evicting hundreds of people on a weekly basis for officers in the south that they were ineligible to hold. And we had a number of state court cases where state courts were determining eligibility under Section Three. I took it what Justice Thomas was asking with something much more narrower than that broad question, which is, where states ever trying to restrict federal officials from taking federal office . . And the answer is no. But thats because of how balance work differently. Biden states have power to run elections in control the ballots. Thats incredibly clear from article two of the constitution. And the difference is that back then states didnt write the ballots. They didnt run the ballots. Essentially everyone was a writein candidate. So the only way that federal officer who was elected like a member of congress would have their eligibility determined is after the election when they came to congress and said i one and then congress decide whether to seat them. But history doesnt answer the question here because nail states are using that power to do Ballot Access determinations and so then you have to ask, well, if states can exclude a person whos not a natural born citizen, or person whos under age for the president ial ballot, which theyve been doing for many decades, why cant they exclude an oath breaking insurrectionist . Jason murray, the lawyer representing colorado voters, defending that decision today at the United States Supreme Court, a big stage for your First Time Ever before the Supreme Court. I know that theres pride that goes with it, but i hope you get some rest thereafter and that the adrenaline come down is not too painful. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. All right. Good luck. Much more to come in our coverage of the Supreme Court hearing today over whether donald trump is disqualified from the ballot. First, a moment for the named plaintiff in this case, whose lawyer we just met, she is 91 yearold colorado republican norma anderson. This is very personal to me. Ive lived a hell of a long time and ive gone through a lot of president s. And this is the first one that is trying to destroy the constitution. If t