good evening from new york. i'm anderson cooper. >> and from washington, i'm kaitlan collins. you saw there a seething president biden wrapping up a press conference, dealing with special counsel robert hurd's report on his handling of classified documents. president biden denied a critical part of that report.

>> the report clears him legally but could damage him, obviously, politically, which -- mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury as he did during our interview with him as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. joining us now is kate bedingfield, who served as communications director in the biden white house, david axelrod who worked within vice president biden, and former trump communications director alyssa farah griffin, all three are now cnn political commentators. also with us jeffrey toobin. david axelrod, i will start with you. is that the press conference the president should have had? >>, look i understand the concept of why he had the press conference, because this thing was red hot. and it was out there, and he felt he needed to, and his people felt, he needed to respond to it. whether the response was adequate, or whether it creates more problems, i think, is another question. he did contradict elements of the special counsel's report.

and that undoubtedly will go on. and then, he was quite angry, not just at the release, or at the characterizations, of the special counsel, but at what some of the reporters were asking him. it is a fact that this is a problem for the president. anderson, the most damaging things that can happen in politics are things that we reinforce a meme that is out there that is hurting you. and the central meme that is hurting this president is this issue of age. it's a big barrier. people don't give him credit for what he's done. they blame him for everything that happens. a lot of it has to do with their feelings about his age. and so, it's not wise to say to a reporter, that is your interpretation. it is not. it's reams of polling material about this. so, i'm not sure -- i mean, he was feisty and energetic, i will say that. but i'm not sure that he saw his problem tonight. >> yeah, kate bedingfield. i'm wondering what you thought. you worked for the president.

he did call -- he named cc, the president -- of mexico. what did you make of? that >> overall, i agree with david. it was smart for them to recognize that the narrative was not in a great place, but he needed to show some urgency on it and i think a couple of things that he did that were effective that i did was -- he took on directly one of the kind of pieces, the editorializing that heard did that was getting traction, the suggestion he did not remember the year that his son died. i thought he took that on really effectively. he showed a lot of very genuine emotion. i worked for him for a very long. time there is no doubt that everything about what he was saying there and feeling there is very real. and so, i thought he took that on directly, which was effective. you know, i think the second thing he did that was effective here is he did show a little swagger. and i think that the swagger does kind of combat the. age i think you never want to be defensive. and you don't want to seem angry or like you are riled up.

but i do think, in getting a little combative with reporters, he is showing, i've got a lot of energy. i've got a -- i've got a lot of life in me. and so, i think him doing that was a good thing. >> alyssa farah griffin? >> listen, i don't think the president did himself any favors in that. speaking undercut two of his biggest messages. the adults are back in charge by being dismissive, yes, he's not going to be convicted or tried for this, but there's some really damning pieces of information in there. he had deliberations around afghan war plans with. nba spoke to a biographer who did not have classified clear. is this showed a decent level of recklessness handling classified information. >> he said that he didn't. >> he said that he didn't. so, i think is a dismissive to the seriousness of this, and then on the other hand, this bizarre line to say he stepped away from an international crisis, the biggest attack on our ally, israel, since the holocaust, to go deal with a self inflicted self inflicted investigation by the department of justice. i was asked voice to inspire

confidence? i do not know why he went back out. he already said most of this in virginia today. but this is becoming a five alarm fire for the white house. >> dave toobin? >> mexico? mexico? where did that come from. i mean, that is the only thing anyone is going to remember from this. he was exonerated here. and i think it is an easy call that he was exonerated. and i think, legally, he's never had a problem with this. because the issue of criminal intent was quite clearly absent in the biden case. and certainly, according to the accusations, in the jack smith indictment, is very much present in the trump case. i think they are very different. and the report even spelled this out. but, mexico? i mean, politically, how do you explain that? >> if i may, say if we were living in the donald trump era, and is 91 indictments and he willfully in his handled classified documents, and he did cooperate with investigations, if this was ten

years, ago this would be a huge story. yes, he was exonerated. but there are details in here that show just a level of recklessness and leg legends. and i think it was far worse than what the public -- >> oh, i don't buy that at all. classified information is so over -- people over classify so much. retired people take classified information all the time. i think, legally, this is not an issue. the issue was biden's age. and that did not see -- >> kaitlan collins? i >> to his point about mexico, he misspoke on the name of the country, in the context of a larger answer on what he's doing to try to get humanitarian assistance into gaza. is it a perfect answer? is it great to misspeak? no, it's never great to misspeak. i promise everybody on this panel right now has misspoken and said the wrong name or the wrong date in a conversation. but he is explaining in great detail the work that he is doing to try to ease that crisis. and so, i don't think that he

should lose sight of the fact that he is explaining the work that he's doing as president, and get so hung up on one word. is it perfect? i am sure -- that he we she said egypt rather than mexico? i'm sure he does. but i think, again, misstating one word, i don't think we should overcorrect on. that >> mj lee, you were in the room. i'm wondering what you made of that tonight. >> yeah, anderson, this was a president by that seemed pretty ticked off, to be honest with you. he was ticked off about the special counsel report. and particularly, coverage of it. he said, even though there is language in there that says he did willfully retain some of these classified documents, he said there is also language this is conference contrary. and the coverage should reflect that. he mentioned specifically one part of the interview and the report where robert hur asked him about the death of his son, and when that happened. and he said, how dare he raised that. it is none of your business. he was also clearly ticked off about the questions that this

report, and all of the memory issues, that this report raises. all of the questions that will get fueled even more about the concerns about his age, the concerns about his mental acuity. and he was pretty ticked off when i asked my question to him, which was, the fact that, you know, he has been saying for a while, when people have raised concerns about his age, watch me -- well, a lot of american people who have been watching are making clear that they have concerns about his age. they think he is too old. so why does it have to be him? when i asked that question, he said, this is your opinion. this is not anybody else's opinion. public polling clearly suggest that this is a serious concern that a lot of people have. so, i took this as a president who clearly wanted to sort of get out there, show the sort of fighting side to him. and we know the conversations that we have had with biden and people who know him really well that they think that he does sort of well in that setting, when he is sort of shouting, that sort of fighting, and

fighting back at questions, fighting back at the concerns. so, i wonder if there was this opportunity that the white house not to put it in that setting, take some of these difficult questions that they expected that he would have. but i know you were talking about this with your panel. the fact that in the press conference, where he was getting asked, a lot of questions about his age, his memory issues, he did this important mistake, this notable mistake, saying president of mexico, el-sisi, that clearly does not help his. cause but i think -- president that wanted to sort of use his own words to address everything that has happened today. this white house and this president, they know that these questions about age, his memory, is misspeaks, his misstep, they are not going away any time soon. >> yeah, and you reference the moment where he talked about his son in the report, that references his son, the former president, according to the report, could not in that moment remember the date of it. let's play what the president

said tonight. >> i know there were some attention paid to some language in the report about my recollection of events. it was in reference that i don't remember when my son died. how in the heck deer he raised. that frankly, when i was asked a question, i thought to myself, was wasn't any of his darn business. let me tell you something. some of you comment, i wear, since the day he died, every single died, the roads he got from the lady of -- every memorial day we hold a service and -- attended by friends and family and people who loved him. i don't need anyone, i don't need anyone to remind me of when he passed away. >> david axelrod, you went on to say that you thought that was a moment that weighs effective. and clearly, obviously, very real and emotional. >> oh, absolutely. look, when i saw the report, honestly, that was the hardest

part to comprehend. because anyone who knows joe biden and anyone who has watched joe biden knows just how impactful the loss of his son was to him. and so -- and i thought that was very genuine, and very powerful. it is the rest of the stuff that was a little worrisome. and we just responding to kate. it is true, all of us make mistakes, at times, and misstate things. that is -- we are human beings. the problem is, this has become a real thing. and -- becomes a story. and, goes viral on social media, where he is getting pounded on this age issue, particularly among younger people. so, that is a stubborn problem that is an obstacle to get in his campaign moving forward.

>> so, david -- kate, somebody who worked in the white house, from a campaign standpoint, what does that mean? in terms of putting him how? it going out there? we heard in the early hour, commentator saying that he needs to get out there more. people need to see him as being a vital. is that what the campaign is going to look like? >> i think that is what it should look like. i think it argues to put him out more, not less. i think the more people see him, the more they hear him describing what it is he is doing, what the goals he is trying to achieve, the more they see him interacting with people, out on the campaign trail, as the campaign heats. obviously, some of his best moments are when he is talking one-on-one, or in small groups with people, we are he shows an incredible amount of empathy and understanding for their lives. so, i think the more he's out, they have the better. it also reduces the amount of focus on every individual misspeak. again, people who, essentially speak publicly for a living, of course they're going to misspeak from time to time.

so, the more he is out showcasing what he is fighting for, what he's achieved, and again, that contrast with donald trump, this conversation we sort of lost a little bit somehow the biggest news from this report today, which was the special counsel talking about the very clear differences between the way donald trump essentially obstructed the investigation into his own handling classified documents, and it will fully mishandled them versus what biden did, which he said was much more about, essentially, unintentional moving of these documents. so, again, i think the more biden does -- more people see him, the more they see his vigor and also his passion for what he is working on the better. again, the less focus on each individual misspeak. >> by, the way it was outrageous that her put in some of that stuff in that. report that had no place in it. there is no reason why this report had to be 300 pages.

there is no reason why this fairly straightforward case had to be treated this way. this was just like what james comey did to hillary clinton when he supposedly cleared her of the use of classified information. and then, talked about how reckless and terrible he. was the job of prosecutors is to put up or shut up. if you have a case, bring your case. if you don't have a case, shut the heck up or say as little as -- >> you think he's playing politics? >> i absolutely do. merrick garland pick a republican prosecutor, someone who worked for donald trump. i don't know why merrick garland chose him. democrats seem to have this idea that if they think republicans for these tough jobs they will get some credit for it. it didn't work with james comey who appointed by democrat. it did not work with her. and i think this was -- there was no case to be brought here.

but hur did his best to damage biden politically. now, unfortunately, for biden, biden did not help himself today and his response. but the idea that this was put in this report, that he was elderly and -- that did not belong in that report. >> some of it did feel very gratuitous. i do agree with that. but i do caution, i see an emerging narrative from democrats that this is a partisan investigation by the doj. this was a republican and a trump appointee. so, therefore, he's putting this in -- the message of the democrats has been, we should trust our institutions. we can trust the department of justice. it's not weaponize. republicans are misrepresenting it. and i'm seeing a bit of that coming in response to this report. now for me specifically. but from some of the democrats that are depending defending biden today. >> all right, kate bedingfield, jeff toobin, alyssa farah griffin, mj lee. thank you. as well, go back to kaitlan collins, kaitlan collins? >> i'm joined by audie cornish -- doug heye and -- let's start

on the age thing. what's important here is the context, that this is not just one moment that this is -- where he mixed up mexico and egypt, as he just did there. this comes with a lot of backdrop and a lot of concerns. and it's not just one moment in the report either. also, in the last week, he has referenced did european leaders who have not been allies since the 90s, confusing them with current or almost current leaders. i think it's a bigger picture of the questions and clearly the white house felt the need to address that. that is why they made him come out for these abruptly scheduled remarks tonight. >> yeah, a couple points. firstly joe biden and donald trump are both old americans. there is nothing that we are going to be able to do in this election cycle to change that narrative, except go directly at it. and i think -- i mean, i hear a lot of people tonight saying, i don't think it was a good move. you can't just hide. because that is -- we are not in a normal political media atmosphere.

you have to -- voters want to fight. voters want to, say you come at me, and you talk about my son envy not remember when my son died? i'm going to tell you something. and so, will it be the thing that folks decide in november? whether or not donald trump and -- on age. probably not because their age actually cancels them out. it's who is going to stand up for me, who is going to fight. there were moments that when he mixed up mexico and the president of egypt. but i will argue in his remarks that young voters, the thing that they were listening to, is what he said about gaza. and that -- he went as far as i have ever heard him say to without saying the word cease- fire. he said, i want an extended pause on hostages. that's where young people are looking at. not whether or not he mixed up the president. they want to know, what are your actual policies. i'd be here is to see with the polling shows, if they get out there with this message, if it gets more traction. his age is not going to change. so, he has to take it on straight ahead. he did a little comedy, the way he did with the fox reporter,

talking about my biggest memory loss was that i even let you speak. because we know that antagonistic behavior. it might not work for all voters. but he can't hide on this. >> doug, is that the case? because when you look at polling, voters way more register that concern on age with biden than they do with trump, even though trump's, as ashley allison noted, just a few years behind. him >> that's very true. you hear that from younger voters. you hear from older voters. my 90-year-old aunt in little silver, new jersey said today, this guy is too old. and we hear this over and over again. the problem for biden is, he has, the issue is not going away. because biden is not going away. every time he presents himself, there is a problem like this. david axelrod was praising him earlier when he invoked his son beau. what is what i heard was he mentioned the rosary from our lady of, and then he didn't mention the church. -- frank sinatra at -- merriweather post not far from here. and when come fly with me was amazing, a few minutes later he

can barely remember the words from my way. what did he remember? that he could remember the words to my way. this is going to be a republican -- recurring -- a lot of people forget things, too, he was slightly less responsible than donald trump. and three, there was a lot going on in the world with israel. so, let's cut him some slack. that is not strong messaging. >> audie cornish, what did you hear that? >> i guess i'm the only one that is not as alarmed. because i'm looking at it kind of holistically. this report comes out, and this line is in. it and they have to address it right away. there is no scenario where you let that see it. and in terms of media management, you want to be out. they are because what happened after he had his speech, we played a clip, of him saying, how dare you speak about my son that way? we did not play a clip of him saying mexico instead of egypt. and i think people take these things in a different way than they used to. they are not sitting home with a couch looking for him to speak. what they are going to do see a

number of clips. and your point is very well taken, that essentially, there is a lot of young people who have been waiting for him to speak in some kind of striking way about israel and gaza, and specifically him saying i think, overboard, that kind of language. that is going to be very striking in the social media space. and also, seeing all the reporters barking at him, yelling at him, saying -- and then he's got quick, fast, snappy defensive replies. i don't think necessarily again, generally truly, they are going to be, like, whoa, he was sarcastic. i like a nicer by. that hasn't been with a been asking for. so, i just want to pointed out. there i know everyone has said that this was bad for a number of reasons. but i would challenge our thinking on this and that people don't take it in the way we do. nitpicking at it because that is our job. they are going to get these emotional clips. and they are going to walk away with his emotion, which was very intense, almost enraged,

used the word seething. and people may hear particular clips and think, maybe it was justifiably. so >> yeah, i think some people covering biden, you realize he does of a temper. this whole staff, his allies keep -- i'm sure, would acknowledge that, that that is something known about him. >> the report is saying, he's mr. magoo. he can't be mr. magoo. he's got to come out and be punchy. -- a >> key part of this, elliott, to go back to what jeffrey toobin was saying there, the special counsel, robert hur, did issue -- which we were expecting. it was him trying to explain why he did not charge biden, why that was going to be so wrong. what was your read on what he said? >> first of, all this report is acquired by the special counsel regulations. and if we want a press in if someone is doing a very long special counsel report without recommending a charge, look no further than robert mueller. who issued a 400-page special counsel, portended not specifically say, i recommend criminal charges. he was ambiguous.

and testified. let me be clear about this. this is a very close call. i have written and read 1000 of these documents and they're called prosecution most. they lay out the facts and you say here's the recommendation is the charging or not charging. joe biden is correct that your winds conduct was worse. but his conduct was still very close to the line. here are the facts. joe biden established by this report. joe biden retained sensitive classified documents after he left the vice presidency. >> -- marked classified? >> yes, marked classified, top level, mark secret sci. they related to international affairs, to foreign relations. he knew it he knew. it he's on tape after he's out of the vice presidency saying to his autobiography for the classified documents are in the basement. he knew it. >> but he just denied. that that's a -- is the second sense in the report. and he just denied sharing that with the ghost writer. i just looked at this closely.

they had recorded conversations with -- >> exactly. that is what blew my mind. about joe biden's statement. two major things he just outright contradicts or is contradicted by, whoever you look at this. in this report. he -- two things he said that are completely the opposite of what robert her found. who do you believe is -- up to the individual consumers. first, joe biden, i did not act willfully. willfully just means voluntarily, intentionally. the second piece of this whole summary says president biden willfully retain to disclose classified materials. the facts and your show is, willful. he knew. he talked about. at the second thing he says it is, i did not disclose classified documents to maya ghostwriter. page three, he says that he did that. mr. biden shared some classified information from those notebooks with his ghost writer. >> what is the distinction -- and i want you to make your -- point but what is the distinction on what he said, well, they were at my, house because we saw the picture, there at the garage, that box

of documents. and trump went to mar-a-lago, where people come by. it is true there's an estimation that i think 48,000 guests came through mar-a-lago in that time period. how does the justice department see that? >> to me that is an irrelevant distinction. they are both in unsecure facilities. i didn't understand what he was driving out there. maybe he was saying there is less foot traffic. that is barely a factor in my consideration would have been here. as a prosecutor. and ultimately, what robert hur says in this report is, essentially, the technical elements of a crime, it appears robert hur is saying, we are -- what what he ends up doing is looking at the south factors. you're allowed to do. that you have to do that as a prosecutor. he takes into consideration things like what he says and maybe this is over -- we will leave that to the political folks. what he says, essentially, joe biden would have created a sympathetic picture in front of a jury. he had memory issues. he had aj shoes. and that goes into -- was he able to form the mental intent? here and also, look, the fact that joe biden cooperated.

it's not a free pass. you can't break the law and say, well, i cooperated, it cancels out what they did before. we can take that into account as a prosecutor. it's perfectly appropriate to say from the moment we engage with him they were cooperative and to give that a pause on the scale. >> is that a pass, though? given that the entire framing in terms -- that this is a comparative scandal. meaning it's about what trump did versus what biden did, or pence did. so, fundamentally, the thing that trump is still in trouble for is not cooperating. i know in isolation you are making a very specific argument. but politically, he's going to look out in the public and say, hey, look, fundamentally, i did what was asked. he did not. that's why you still in trouble. >> that's a great question. you very much in line with what the special counsel rights in here. no question donald trump's conduct is worse than this. there's no way to spin that any other way. robert hur, the special counsel, goes out of his way in this document to write out the ways that don't trump's conduct is worse. and the primary distinction is exactly. that joe biden cooperated and,

donald trump obstructed. that makes a big difference to prosecutors. >> what is this not helpful to trump's team, though? >> oh, it. is >> we have a former trump attorney waiting in the wings. >> yes, it's helpful. >> -- when it is atmospherically, right? we've all seen 1000 times the voters of documents strewn around bathroom in the stage at mar-a-lago. now they are similar looking photos in his report. but here is the technical way that donald trump's team is going to use this. mark my words. donald trump's team in the federal jacks mitt classified documents case and mar-a-lago is going to bring a motion for what is called selective prosecution. very, very hard to win these motions. when you have to do is show a judge somebody else did essentially the same thing i did. i was prosecuted, he was not. now donald trump has the basis to make that motion. >> so, i will just say, everything he said, brilliant, you are a wonderful -- and, yet most americans are not going to read that report. most americans did not even -- the report, but what they will know is joe biden's not charged

with a crime because robert hur decided that, and that robert her also did editorial comments about his age. those are the two takeaways. the question, is when donald trump's case comes up, will those still matter to people? or will his case of not cooperating in the antics that we know donald trump will pull when he is up for trial, will cancel out what joe biden did today? >> everyone, standby. we have a lot more to catch up on, as we are breaking down those abrupt remarks from the president at the white house. up next, also, today's historic oral arguments that happened at the supreme court. that has to do with keeping donald trump off the ballot in colorado under the 14th amendment insurrection is clause. laurence tribe and retired judge michael luta, who played a key role in that debate, will join anderson after a quick break.

it sounds awfully national to me. telling words during oral arguments today from supreme court justice elena kagan, part of the chorus from her fellow justices, signaling a deep skepticism for colorado state

supreme court decision barring donald trump from the ballot. in a moment i'll talk to the two constitutional scholars, laurence tribe in judge michael luttig, who have been a key part of this debate over. this but first, cnn yes paula reid. >> and one of the most anticipated supreme court cases of the, year the justices signaling they will side with donald trump on the question of whether he's eligible for the 2024 ballot. the former president did not attend thursday's arguments. most justices did not address his role in the january 6th insurrection, instead focusing on legal arguments around the 14th amendment. trump's lawyer, jonathan mitchell, an experienced supreme court advocate, argue trump is not covered by the so- called insurrectionist ban. >> a ruling from this court that affirms the decision below would not only violate tournaments, but take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of americans. >> and argue january 6th was not even an insurrection.

only one justice asked about whether it was. >> why -- a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection? >> this >> was a riot. it was not an insurrection. >> jason murray argued for colorado voters who won their case at the lower court. >> by engaging in insurrection against the constitution, president trump disqualified himself from public office. states have the power to ensure that their citizens electoral votes are not wasted on a candidate who is constitutionally barred from holding office. >> but the justices appeared much more skeptical. an ominous sign the chief justice said murray's arguments were at war with history. >> it seems to be a position that is at war with the whole thrust of the 14th amendment, and very a historical. the whole point of the 14th amendment was to restrict state power. >> and question the consequences of a ruling in favor of colorado and other

states, then following suit. >> it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that is a pretty daunting consequence. >> even liberal justice elena kagan asked this. >> i think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. >> it was marie's first time arguing before the high court. he engaged in several contentious exchanges with the justices. and he even got a scolding from justice gorsuch, who he once clerked for. >> a little less -- >> no, no. we are talking about section three. please don't change the hypothetical. >> even though they argument seem to go well for trump, he's the one of the last word, addressing reporters outside mar-a-lago. >> can you take the person that is leading everywhere and say, hey, we are not going to let you run? you know, i think that's pretty tough to do. but i am leaving it up to the supreme court. >> paula reid joins me now. do we know how long it is going to take to get a decision?

>> it is unclear. we know the chief justice is under enormous pressure to build consensus across party lines, come up with something, maybe a narrow ruling, that would have bipartisan support. if you listen to the arguments today, it appears that that is possible. and it is important, anderson, because we know this court is under scrutiny for concerns about ethics, and partisanship. but something like that also takes time. and it's unclear if the chief justice will be able to accomplish this and get out in opinion before super tuesday, which is just a month away. >> all right. paula reid, i want to get perspective now from preps to best known voices behind the argument that the 14th amendment bars to form president before from the ballot. both distinguished collars, judge michael luttig in harvard law school is laurence tribe, whose latest book is titled to end the presidency, the power of impeachment. professor tribe, morning what your takeaways from today's historic hearing. >> it's quite clear that the colorado decision to exclude

donald trump from the primary ballot is going to be overturned, and perhaps 90 nothing, perhaps 8 to 1. what i took away from it was quite a different lesson. the two members of the court who were my former students, the chief justice and justice kagan, who you quoted just a couple of minutes ago, saying, isn't it amazing that just one or two states might determine who becomes president? -- where have they been all this time? when they studied constitutional law, there were something they learned about the electoral college. i doubt they have forgotten about it. but to listen to the argument, you would think that they have. the fact is that the court is engaged in sort of selective remembering and selective forgetting. they seem to have forgotten that the way our constitution is structured under article two, it is the states that

basically run even the election for president. and it is true as the chief justice pointed out that the thrust of the 14th amendment was to give the federal government more power, and the states less. and it did not change the basic structure of food decides who gets on the ballot. if i can just take a step back, let me just say, would judge luttig and i wrote back in august of last year was that donald trump is constitutionally disqualified. by the most democracy protecting provision of the constitution. it is there to prevent someone who squares to support the constitution, and then mountain insurrection against it to prevent that person from coming back into power. we said that under that provision donald trump is disqualified. nothing the supreme court decides in this case is likely to contradict that. they are likely to say that the

way colorado did it at this stage when they are simply deciding to run through the primary election, that is not permissible. but they are simply kicking the can down the road. because when people argue that he is disqualified by the constitution, either at the stage of the general election or when congress meets in january of 2025 to count the electoral votes, this problem will rise again. and the report will not have avoided chaos, but simply have postponed. it >> judge looted, i'm wondering what your's takeaway was. surely you heard the skepticism from the justices today about the colorado court decision. >> anderson, the first thing i would say is that i agree with every single substantive constitutional point that professor tribe just made. it's where, anderson, that you

can tell what the supreme court is going to do from oral argument. but sometimes you can tell what the court is not going to do. and this is one of those times. the supreme court of the united states is not going to decide whether the former president is disqualified under section three of the 14th amendment, not now, and i don't believe, ever. to that, kicking the can down the road, professor tribe is exactly right. under our constitution, the states have the power under the elections clause to administer and conduct federal elections, including the election of the president of the united states. that's all the supreme court needs to know to say that the state of colorado had the constitutional power to

disqualify the former president. but as professor tribe says, that they have now kicked it down the road, if not kicked it off the road forever. in particular, if they have only kicked it down the road, there will come a time when the general election is approaching, that the supreme court will have to decide the case. and that would be a-less timely decision then it would have been to make that decision today. but with a supreme court is hoping, without any question whatsoever, is that it will never have to decide this question. they are hoping and banking on the fact that donald trump will not win the presidency because, in the rearview, and in the argument that was properly made by his lawyer, section three

only disqualifies a person from holding the office. by its terms it does not disqualify one from running for the office. in either the primary for the general. but if the supreme court waits and it does come to pass that the former president is elected president of the united states in 2024, then the supreme court of the united states will have to address whether that newly elected president of the united states is disqualified under the 14th amendment. that is a recipe for national chaos. >> that seems -- how would they even -- you are saying that if trump was actually elected, then the supreme court would have to decide whether the 14th

amendment -- we prevent him from actually assuming office. >> that's exactly correct, anderson. because section three, by its terms, only prevents a person who engages an insurrection against the constitution from holding the office. and indeed, that former presidents lawyers actually argued in their reply brief that the supreme court of the united states never will have the power to -- why? they argued. and -- can at any time, and -- the qualification. so, they literally argue to the supreme court one, the court does not have the power to decide the case. this issue at all. >> right. >> and it certainly can't decided until 2029. >> that would be -- >> after the president will be

out of office if we were elected. >> professor tribe, just, briefly, nobody really thought, or a lot of people, a lot of observers, thought, and it seems like, it was the case either than justice jackson the court largely avoided discussion of whether january 6th was an insurrection. i assume that's -- you anticipated that. >> right, except i do want to add, january 6th wheeze only the climax. what we did not hear today, and are going to hear going forward is whether the president who was then -- whether donald trump orchestrated a coup against the -- fake electoral slates, and elaborate plot. if that plot had succeeded, and they -- stormed the capitol. it was the entire course of conduct that was -- an insurrection against the constitution. and the court could've made

that clear. that would have solved at the national level what is otherwise still going to bedevil people through different definitions of insurrection. >> professor tribe, i appreciate your. time judge michael luttig as well. thank you so. much i will go back to kaitlan collins. >> thanks, anderson. of course, we heard from the former president a moment ago, he had this to say about what happened in court today, which i should note was an appearance that he chose not to attend. >> i thought it was very beautiful process. i hope that democracy in this country will continue. i thought the presentation today was a very good one. i think it was well received. i hope it was well received. >> and i'm joined now by an attorney for donald trump, jim, trustee and what did you make of how the arguments went today and how -- argued it.

there was different levels of hostile fire as we heard before, in terms of justice gorsuch turning the tables on his own former law clerk for a minute. it was not particularly aggressive, not what i call annexed a hot bench. they got their points, now i thought there was some interesting areas that were really different from the last two folks that anderson was talking about. a couple, things number, one it is not a surprise at all to me that they didn't really get into the rabbit hole of what is insurrection, and what was the proof? if you want to get to the heart of what i think strikes a lot of people is wrong with the proceeding, it is not that they are well versed about article three section three of the 14th amendment, it is this idea of having a mini trial, of having a political report serve as evidence with a sociologist come in and say i know what trump really meant. those are things that are bizarre due process challenges. if the supreme court goes on, that if they say we do not like

the trial, then they keep the door open for every state to have its own trial and get an assessment by the supreme court eventually. i think they are looking at, roberts looking for a foundational procedure that can shut all of this litigation down. what was interesting to me, the one had a lot of traction was the idea of whether or not this part of the 14th amendment really applies to the president. remember, the colorado lower court says i think he is an insurrectionist, but does not apply to him. >> and what it does, it takes you to this really, maybe fascinating for -- but literally you had justices talking about what happened in 1860, eight and 19, 70 how does that shed light on if jefferson davis ran for president of the newly united states, what was going to happen. to me, that is all fascinating history. what was interesting to me is of all people, that justice jackson weighed in on that. i heard it as if there is a bit

of disappointment in the voice, but it really does not look as if here the president was supposed to be a part of this particular regulation. she looked at it and said -- >> even though she seemed to believe, i don't want to speak for, her but she seemed to believe that he had maybe engaged in the insurrection just not necessarily this ban on this cause it would apply dating back to that conversation. >> she is basically tracking the lower court in colorado. essentially, i have also to problems with their conduct, it would be in from the comment, but i just don't think this applies to all. if that is the, case if it stops itself had appointed officers not at the president of the united states, then all the litigation just falls off. >> how different are the implications of what they do, decide if they decided on a technical procedural ground, more on the merits. >> i think with a lot of the procedural grounds, they can amputated all of the rest of the litigation. >> does it open up to further litigation in the future?

>> no, not particularly, but there are some avenues that could still get there. i think justice sotomayor was talking about some issues of federalism, whether stakes versus feds, i think my issue is setting up the possibility he could still have litigation on this issue but federal court. so there may be in agreement that we don't want to get to the due process, we don't want to do it one by one in the main colorado differences with different processes to talk about the trial, but there may be disagreement on the exact role procedural bases that could shut this down. as you are pointing out, some of it may not amputate the rest of the litigation, some of it could. >> donald trump was not there today, as you, know we have talked recently since you no longer represented, but time is gone to court. how much of a difference do you think that makes when he is in the room with a attorney making the argument or not? >> i think the last time we talk about, it it is good for him to be able to take things in firsthand. it is not something where an

all gangster movie where the judges freak out because he is there. >> i meant his attorneys, more they acted differently or argue a little differently. >> i would hope that they don't really cater to the politics as much as knowing i am in front of the supreme court, highest court of the land. i have to answer the question and have the best foot forward. so my impression, a few soundbite moments in terms of talking about insurrection. he disqualified himself i think was the line. but most of it was very much responsibly reacting to the questions. >> you said not a hot, bench what does that tell you about how the court is bridging this. do you think they have made their decisions? >> no, i, mean gloria straight back on the supreme court are going to go quickly on those predictions, i did not bear any money on. it i do think there seem to be a flavor of looking for procedural foundational component that they can agree on to basically and this without arcing about the child for insurrection itself.

>> jim trusty, always good to talk, to we will wait to see what they decide. obviously we have many more legal issues will be the former president talk about going forward. thank you for joining us here on said tonight. and of course, as we are looking at what has happened in the last hour alone, the entire busy, day or arguments have been talking about the happened at the supreme court, also as we have been discussing president biden himself now weighing in in those abruptly -- at the white house after a special counsel legally cleared him for mishandling classified documents, but also doing so in a way that created a political headache. the president began by talking about the legal aspect of that case. >> let me say a few things before i -- as you know, the special counsel today they are looking to my handmade of classified documents. i was pleased to see the conclusion, that no charges should be brought against me in

this case. this was an exhaustive investigation, going back more than 40 years, even the 1970s when i was still a united states entered. our the special counsel acknowledged cooperated completely, did not throw up any roadblocks and saw with no delays, in fact there was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed, i went forward with five hour -- over two days, on october the 8th and ninth of last year. even though, israel had just been attacked by hamas on -- how israeli occupied. it was in the middle of handling a crisis. i was especially pleased to see the special counsel make clear new york distinction and difference between this case and mr. trump's case, special counsel wrote, i quote, several material distinctions between mr. trump's case and mr. binance are clear. most notably, that given multiple chances to return classified documents, to avoid

prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turning classified documents to the national archives and department of justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his home, -- for a voluntary interview in an otherwise cooperated with the investigation. >> in addition to the legal aspect of this report, he also saw president biden address his age, and his mental acuity. we will talk about that shortly here in this hour. but, first more on the supreme court taking up the colorado supreme court decision to barr donald trump from the ballot citing the 14th amendment. got a very skeptical hearing an oral arguments today. we listen to them just as -- speaking volumes with this question to the attorney representing the plaintiffs

here jason murray. >> i think that the question you have to confront is why is single state should decide who gets to be president of the united states. in other words, this question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection, to be president again is just -- it sounds awfully national to me. so whatever means there are to enforce it, they have to be a national means. why does, if you in from colorado, and you are from wisconsin, or you are from michigan, and really what the mission and secretary of state did is going to make the difference between you know, whether a candidate is, elected or candidate b is elected, it seems quite extraordinary, doesn't it? >> no, your honor, because ultimately it is this court that will decide that question a federal constitution and federal biloxi. settle the issue for the nation. >> and joining me now, new york

republican congressman -- the house republican conference chair and highest ranking woman in house leadership i should know congressman thanks for being here on this busy day. i am just curious, what is this to you about the u.s. that the supreme court is even hearing an argument like this about a former president and whether or not he violated the insurrectionists clause. >> well it shows that he left and democratic party in joe biden's campaign, they know they are going to lose at the ballot box, which is what you are seeing witch hunt after witch hunt, court case after court case, going after joe biden's top political opponent which is donald trump. today was a very bad day for joe biden. it was a very bad day in court for the left. it was a very bad day for the colorado court case. it was a very good day for president trump. it was a good day for the constitution and american people. the american people are going to make this decision in november, not radical bureaucrats from the state of colorado, not radical judges for far-left prosecutors. >> but even though it is republican and independent

voters who brought this lawsuit in colorado, i think that is an important part of this as well. >> this is a witch hunt against president trump. it is not a coincidence that it is while president trump is skyrocketing in the polls, meanwhile we saw a disastrous day for joe biden. joe biden started this week -- for a modern-day president an incumbent president, and yet you saw a feeble mental acuity lacking and the president of the united states so this is a horrible day, a disastrous day for joe biden. it is a winning day for donald, trump and the supreme court case is likely to have multiple liberal justices that side with the conservative justices in this case, setting for the constitution. >> you think the court here is going to rule and overturn any supreme court colorado decision? >> absolutely, you heard questions from whether -- you heard multiple questions from the liberal justices who are likely i believe this could be a nine, 081 or seven to case. >> so the next thing in the supreme court could potentially take up is the question of

donald trump's argument, his assertion of presidential immunity. if you trust the supreme court decision on the 14th amendment, will you accept what they decide on presidential immunity as well? >> certainly, they will have something to say when the court makes that decision but i already put out a public statement, of course they have presidential immunity, you can't go face sitting president of the united states were premature presidents to go after them but not allow them to do their job in official capacity. that was a -- i expect they will overturn that as well. >> the appeals court decision. does that extend to president biden? do you think you could do whatever -- prosecuted as well? >> that is what is the trump campaign put out. they said this is a slippery slope because it means if you are of an opposing party, you could go after your president predecessor based on policy disagreements or official acts. that is why this is so egregious. the reality is, kaitlan, the issues the american people are concerned about, they're concerned about the border, the inflation crisis, they're concerned about the lack of leadership from the sitting president of the united states joe biden. that is why they will make the

decision to vote for president, trump and that is where u.s.- ing despite a lawsuit after lawsuit, president trump's numbers continue to go up because this is not a fair justice is done right now. you see the justice system being what pianist against joe biden's top political opponent, that is donald trump. >> i think the scathing report that came out today, that you referenced on president biden's handling of documents with suggested is not weaponize because it was quite brutal. but, if he had been charged -- if he had been charged, would you make the argument he should have been charged because -- >> first of all, if you look at what the special counsel, said it was a willfully not abided by rules when it comes to classified information. willfully breaking the law. the only reason they are not pursuing prosecution is because of the lack of mental acuity of the president of the united states. this disastrous press conference -- it's politically because of the mental acuity. that was pointed out in the document. that is why you saw a panicked white house force out an unfit

president of the united states for disastrous press conference to try to clean it up. it only did more damage. the reality is, kaitlin, donald trump will win this, november and democrats are spiraling out of control because they see that joe biden continues to plummet, his polls will go back further tomorrow based on that horrific conference today, and it is selective prosecution. the fact that it is not only if you slap on the wrist when the prosecutor himself, the special -- >> -- we are not pursuing the prosecution. >> but they talked a big part of this is that president biden went and sat down with him for two days over the course of two days, obviously that is the interview you are talking about where they talk about his age. donald trump hasn't cooperated. don't you think if he had cooperated -- >> at the behest of joe biden -- >> know, first of, there is a difference. president trump has according to presidential records act, he has declassification authorities, joe biden does not have that when he was vice president of the united states. joe biden also had classified

documents when a sitting senator, that does not, that is not covered whether presidential records act. -- >> i have read the presidential records act, it also does not give trump the authority to take documents and keep them in a vault. >> this was a raid on mar-a- lago, caitlin, versus joe biden and think he will fully broke law but refusing to prosecute. >> selectively. that is my point. they did not hand over the documents -- just -- >> from joe biden's doj ordered by merrick garland not to prosecute against joe biden, even though it's basically found he willfully broke the law. on top of that, the reason why they are not prosecuting is because they say he is mentally unfit to put and pursue that. that is unheard of. it is selective prosecution. it is why people inherently know across this country, if -- biden or clinton, you get to live by defensive ross than every day average americans. >> i think hunter biden would disagree with that. i will note -- >> he got a sweetheart deal. let's talk about that. hunter biden