Everyone. Welcome to Sunday Morning futures. Im Maria Bartiromo if. Thanks so much for joining us today. Happy st. Pattys day. Today, bad policy and alleged corruption in plain sight, and joe biden just told us what four more years would look like; trillions of dollars in higher taxes, no security at the border and a declining military budget. Coming up, Senate Leadership in the spotlight with President Trump endorsing wyoming senator John Barrasso for the second spot in the senate as republicans blast majority leader Chuck Schumer and benjamin and is joe biden. Then, President Trump says bidens Climate Change agenda is driving the auto business into bankruptcy, and the result will be a bloodbath of unemployed workers. The remarks triggering dishonest headlines about what he actually said from the Mainstream Media this morning. Those big, monster Car Manufacturing Plants that youre building in mexico right now, and you think youre going to get that, youre going to not hire americans an
Little january 6th insurrection. The highest court in the land today kept him on the ballot in a ruling a dodges the facts of january 6th and trumps role in it. Instead, the Supreme Court handed trump a second gift on a constitutional technicality. The justices say that states do not have the power to bar candidates from running for federal office. They say, quote, because the constitution makes Congress Rather than the states responsible for enforcing section 3 against federal Office Holders and candidates, we reverse. Theyre referring to the decision by the Colorado State Supreme Court. Now, that court found that trump did engage in insurrection by trying to overturn the will of the voters by any means possible, including violence, and that section 3 of the 14th Amendment does, in fact, apply to the presidency. Now, the Supreme Courts decision today does not touch on either the question of whether trump is or is not an insurrectionist, or whether the text of section 3 applies to him.
they re trying to show you there s a clash between law and a very certain candidate, because the week has now begun, and these judge us unanimously ruling a president could be tried for an election and the states try to bar that same candidate for similar conduct. so what is the distinction here? well, trump lost this appeal yesterday because he s not above the law. he is below the doj and jack smith when it comes to his own conduct and being accountable for it and even if he also, as a matter of job history, once oversaw the federal government including the doj as president. so that case is back on track unless the supreme court weighs in. the case is about rather random states and local judges can simply decide and announce that trump committed insurrection before he even goes on trial. in other words, is it constitutional and fair to ban candidates and basically decide elections that way? i ll tell you right now, most legal experts do not see precedent for colorado to beat
. today marks an historic day at the supreme court. you re looking at some of the footage and some of the protesters there this morning. if trump s conduct for alleged engagement in insurrection bars him from the ballot as colorado has decided, that was the question before the court. the justices at times considered implications. home in a physical sense how the high court operates. the justices referred to that attack at times but careful to avoid pre-judging the other prosecutions from that day. they focused on this question if a state can respond to that attack by deeming a politician an insurrectionist and then booting him off the ballot. everyone realizing today the stakes are high. monumental day in judicial history. donald trump is now at the center of a u.s. supreme court battle. a legal case that could rock the race for the white house. voters in colorado sued aiming to remove trump from the ballot. the supreme court facing a major test. all nine of the
federal judge in louisiana. here s his exchange with republican congressman mike johnson on wednesday. the fbi made the social media platforms pull that information off the internet if it came from conservative sources. they did this under the guise that it was disinformation. can you, can you define what disinformation is? our focus is on malign, foreign disinformation; that is, foreign hostile actors who engage in mr. wray to use our social media platforms i have to stop you for time. that s not accurate. you need to read this court opinion, because you re in charge of enforcing it. paul: joining the panel, columnists dan henninger, kim strassel and bill mcgurn. so, bill, first, let s start with that exchange on disinformation. what do you make of the fbi director s answers? i think he answered very weakly. he came across as a man who either hadn t read the material as congressman johnson suggested, or he just didn t take the whole oversight process very