just in that sort of mind to me. >> kayleigh: you heard the commentary from left wing outlets, conservative justices ruining, i would love to hear them. >> bill: precedent is on the line for u.s. president. and all of these cases, and i'll just repeat after listening to this together, what happens if other cases come before this same u.s. supreme court? >> harris: leo terrell said something might be in the ruling that would communicate that for that not to happen for the 11 or more states. sandra has made it to her studio. "america reports" now. >> question of whether a former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again is just say it, it sounds awfully national to me.

so whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national means. >> no, your honor, because ultimately it's this court that's going to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle the issue for the nation. >> sandra: all right, so any moment now we are expecting to hear directly from the white house. its first reaction to the landmark oral arguments at the supreme court that we all just heard moments ago that could alter the course of the country. hello, welcome everyone, a lot at stake. i'm sandra smith in new york and yes, i did make it up to studio k. >> john: did you take the elevator or the stairs? >> sandra: i did, next time the stairs for sure, that would be a better idea. >> john: good to see you, sandra, john roberts in washington. this is "america reports". court likes to say it's above politics but their interpretation over whether colorado can keep former president trump off the presidential ballot will have momentous implications for the 2024 election as well as the

future of america's democracy. >> sandra: fox team coverage for you, jonathan turley and andy mccarthy how they see the ruling based on the line of questioning today. >> john: first shannon bream is live outside the supreme court. that was quite a presentation today, shannon. do we have any idea whether or not the justices were swayed one way or the other? >> shannon: well, john, they certainly seem to be leaning in favor of the former president, president trump and ability to stay on the ballot and any state that would challenge that under the 14th amendment. i have to say the first part of this case was very wonky. hemmer was talking about it last hour, i did feel like a law school lecture but toward the last third got to the things everybody gets at home, what is the practical impact of this. justice kagan first to bring up do you let one state actually make a decision that ripples down to decide for the whole country. justice barrett followed up if

we rule for colorado that's what will happen. and the chief justice, if we say states have the power to do this, there will be some states that will take that and say great, kicking a dem off the ballot, others say we will kick a republican off the ballot and leaving a handful of states to decide this entire election for the entire country. let me give you a little bit of what justice ketanji brown jackson had to say about the list that's in section 3 of the 14th amendment, who would be subject to getting kicked off the ballot if found guilty of insurrection. >> your point there's no ambiguity with having a list and not having president in it with having a history that suggests they were focused on local concerns in the south, with this conversation where the legislators actually discussed what looked like an ambiguity, you are saying there is no ambiguity in section 3? >> let me take the point specifically about electors and senators if i might, i think that is important. presidential electors were not

covered because they don't hold an office, they vote. >> shannon: so they are talking about that list, doesn't include president or vice president, if there's an ambiguity, why should we construe that against democracy. seemed doubtful there and now from the chief justice we talked about what would practically happen if they rule for colorado. >> goodly number of states will say whoever the democratic candidate is you are off the ballot and others for the republican candidate you are off the ballot. and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> certainly, your honor, the fact that there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision is not a reason -- >> hold on. you might think they are frivolous but the people bringing them may not think they are frivolous. insurrection is a broad term.

>> shannon: likely to have a closed door conference vote and the opinion would come out. this is lightning speed for this court, so i would say you get a decision in a matter of days and weeks, not months. it's not end of the term june kind of situation. >> sandra: shannon, what a morning and day this has been. the former president then stepped out of his mar-a-lago estate moments after the oral arguments concluded, reacting to what we all heard at the supreme court. what did he have to say? >> he sounded very positive and i think that's accurate. a lot of folks from trump world and trump supporters inside the courtroom, even though he was not there, he could listen for himself, hear from them the body language from the justices, get the inside scoop from the courtroom it sounded like a good day for him. and listen, folks in the courtroom who are not fans of president trump, including jamie raskin who led the impeachment drive against him who hope to see the case go a different way. i think the former president's initial reaction was in line with what we think we'll get from the justices. i think it's probably a win. the question is just how far it

goes and whether it's unanimous or not. >> john: does seem to be broad sense in this country that it's the voters and not officials in individual states who should decide who becomes president of this great nation. shannon bream outside the supreme court. thank you. >> sandra: our panel joining us now, jonathan turley, constitutional law attorney and andy mccarthy, former u.s. assistant attorney, both fox news contributors. thank you for joining us. first up, this was the former president reacting a few moments ago, some of what we heard. >> i hope that democracy in this country will continue. because right now we have a very, very tough situation. i thought the presentation today was a very good one. i think it was well received. i hope it was well received. you have millions of people that are out there wanting to vote and they happen to want to vote for me or the republican party or whatever you want -- however you want to phrase it. but i'm the one running.

>> sandra: on democracy, andy, remarkable to hear from justice jackson saying at best this is ambiguous and if there is ambiguity why would we construe it against democracy? >> yeah, i think that a lot of the analysis going into this was mostly about politics, like which parties presidents appointed which judges to the court, which justices and i think maybe we should pay more attention to philosophy than politics. sometimes they are sort of interwoven but in this instance, if you think about like philosophical, up hill for colorado and the people supporting that litigation. majority on the court which are originalist texturalist judges and in terms of their

wheelhouse, the text is against colorado here and the history as the court pointed out today is against them as well. they can't come up with an example of where a state struck a federal official under the section 3 of the 14th amendment. then everybody who is looking at the three progressive justices, and thinking they are appointed by democrat, and that's politically true. but they are also, you know, strong progressives. probably the most important thing legally in the history of the united states in terms of the progressive project is the 14th amendment, and as even chief justice roberts pointed out in his questions, the purpose of the 14th amendment was really to put restrictions on the states and centralize and shift more power to the federal government. i imagine that you can pick how one case is affected by one provision, but overall the 14th amendment is very important to the progressive justices and in

order to find for colorado here they would really have to detract from what the theory of the 14th amendment is, which is to centralize power federally. >> john: ambiguity, section 3, says no person should be a senator or representative in congress or elector, vice president, president, or any office civil or military unthe u.s. or any state. does not say president anywhere in there, so brown was right, saying definitely ambiguity there, but the other argument, and john roberts, the other one, spoke to this as well in the supreme court, after kagan brought up this central argument. listen to what she said. >> why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens, but for the rest of the nation. >> john: the other john roberts on the supreme court said you know, we could be kicking off

candidates left and right, democrat or republican and comes down to a handful of states to decide the president of the united states. i kind of chuckled at that, that's the way it works right now because of the politics, who knows, maybe california will be a swing state one day. but jonathan, the idea the political thing could become a legal thing makes it quite different. >> it does, and it was a very interesting argument to listen to, very difficult argument for jason murray who took the brunt of the questions, and he was running the gauntlet. justices were lining up to hit him with tough questions. fascinating how many came from the left of the court. most interesting was justice jackson. she kept on pushing lawyers back to the first threshold question of whether the president is even covered by this provision.

and she would not let that go. she kept asking about it, and she is someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about the 14th amendment, and she went in a bit into the history on that. but i think what really came out of this is that -- how seriously these justices took it but also they really proved how wrong many commentators have been. many other networks all listeners have heard six conservative justices who would have their day and we are going to be biased and partisan in every respect. this really put the lie to that, and it shows these justices once again are united in their commitment to the constitution. these were very good questions. and this was the moment the supreme court was designed for. it was designed to be able to bring clarity, maybe even -- i

presented this case to my supreme court class yesterday and many of those students don't like president trump but they still wrestled with the same questions raised by kagan and by jackson. those questions are obvious. what was really surprising is that murray did not have much of an answer for this parade of horribles as they pushed him to the edges. they pushed him towards the end of the map. he had a real hard time and in some cases he made some small concessions that i think will be repeated in the opinion. >> sandra: to be a student of professor turley's, wouldn't that be something. >> i would sign up for it now. >> john: we feel we are every day he's on. >> sandra: to add to kagan's comments, said kicking a federal candidate off the ballot state by state sounds awfully national. seems extraordinary to let the secretary in state in colorado decide whether someone can be president. what do we think, andy.

7-2, 8-1 -- >> i think it's 9-0. and even justice sotomayor's question, did have some questions sympathetic to the other side of it. one of her questions i thought was very telling where she said you know, if we rule against you narrowly we could say that only the president is excluded from here, right. so, she seemed to get down to the idea that where you split the hair is should we say only presidents are excluded or should we expand it to federal officials. i thought there was real consensus throughout the court, from beginning to end, all nine of them on the issue that the states do not have the authority to boot federal officials under section 3 of the 14th amendment. they were ready to allow states could take care of their own officials but seemed to me there

was consensus on that point. different reasons for it, different rationales how to get there, they don't have to get into what an insurrection is and point out again the 14th amendment in section 5 gives congress, not the states, congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment. >> john: gentlemen, we talk about how widespread the implications of the decision are, colorado and maine have taken trump off the ballot but 11 other states across the nation that are considering the same thing. so if the supreme court were to rule in favor of colorado, the rest of those dominos, jonathan, would probably fall. so, based upon that, how do you think the supreme court is going to rule? >> well, first of all what's interesting about this case is that colorado was the outlier.

all the other cases either suspended consideration or rejected this on different grounds. there were three basic questions and many of them decided on three different grounds. so it's interesting going to the court to see which of these areas they can find being unanimous. i think john roberts was listening to jackson. many of us thought jackson would be the toughest sell for roberts. it appears maybe sotomayor will be the tougher sell. you could not help but feel some sympathy for murray, it's like "west side story," you show up and find out none of your sharks are there. everyone is a jet. and he did the best he could, you know, but he was looking very lonely at points and i thought he did a very good job. i thought mitchell did an

outstanding job and you know, i think that overall, the argument was really solid. i think at this point if he was -- if you were to take a bet you would say eight of the justices seemed to be prepared to rule against colorado. sotomayor is the outlier in terms of the issues. it's clear again they are not looking at arguing whether this was an insurrection, even though some of the justices were concerned about the lack of due process afforded to the president. i think the big take out of this is that justice jackson seems to want the court to focus on the threshold question of coverage. most of the questions went to whether this is enforced automatically without any act of congress. so that's going to be the interesting dynamic for the conference which is likely to occur tomorrow. >> john: i thought it was interesting that kagan and jackson were making the strongest argument on the core issue against all of this. gentlemen, stand by if you

would, lots more coverage coming up. >> sandra: all right, and that will include ari fleischer. he's coming up, he will react to the political implications of all of this breaking news from the supreme court today. there's an old saying in the navy that the toughest job in the navy is a navy wife. and if you've made the deployments and you've been the wife at home, or you've been the spouse at home, you understand what i'm talking about. your spouse has earned the right to apply for a va home loan. the newday 100 loan allows you to borrow up to 100% of your home's value. so if you're in a situation where you need some help financially, give us a call. you might be asking yourself, what's someone who doesn't wear clothes doing at a fashion show? crashing it— to let everyone know about the america's best designer sale happening now. for limited time, get 50% off lenses with the purchase of select designer frames at america's best. tempur pedic designed the ergo pro smart base, to help you fall asleep more easily.

it's gentle massage and relaxing sounds, help calm your mind, every night. for a limited time, save up to $500 on select tempur pedic adjustable mattress sets. i told myself i was ok with my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. with my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. but just ok isn't 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 once-daily 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 what's yours. abbvie could help you save. when did i call leaffilter? when i saw my gutters overflowing onto my porch. leaffilter is a permanent gutter solution, so, you never have to worry about costly damage from clogged gutters again. it's the easiest call you can make. call 833.leaf.filter today, or visit leaffilter.com. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs.

with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win. >> sandra: fox news alert, 20 minutes past the hour, anticipating a white house press briefing at half past the hour, a few moments from now, following the oral arguments that we all just heard inside the supreme court which looks to be moving in favor of a decision for former president donald trump as andy mccarthy just predicted, he could it could be a 9-0 decision, john, we'll see what the white house has to say and what questions they get. >> john: let's ask that question to ari fleischer, former white house press secretary in the burb administration and fox news

contributor. looking at the over and the under on the supreme court vote, what are you looking at? >> well, you know, i'm no a supreme court vote counter but i don't think you don't have to be one, it was a great contribution to democracy to play this and let people hear it in its entirety. what a glimpse into the supreme court. but i think, john, the supreme court is on the verge of saving the democratic party from its own worst excesses. can you imagine if it goes through, what would it do to our country if donald trump were removed from the ballot and make no mistake, what the colorado secretary of state and maine secretary of state have done, insurrection of its own kind. it is an insurrection of a different sort. it's a white collar insurrection done by powerful government officials who sit at desks to rule an opponent off the ballot. that in of itself is insurrection of a different sort and so i think the supreme court is on the verge of restoring

normalcy and allowing people to believe in free and fair elections to prevail. >> sandra: interesting. i feel a lot of people, ari, feel the same way. nice having been told the far left justices are in there and so cruel and mean to the trump lawyer. what do you think -- what do you think -- we heard from the former president immediately following, right. and now he's off to nevada. and you just wonder as you hear this all play out, as you are not a supreme court vote counter, you certainly are somebody very familiar with messaging, what do you see the president doing with the turnout in this oral argument, what we have heard so far, see the decision made and what happens the next few months with voters as they see this play out. >> donald trump has such a good touch about when to communicate. think about what he did today. there was a hearing in the supreme court about whether he

should be removed as a presidential candidate. and what was his response? to act like a presidential candidate. he went right over the various issues to show everybody i am a presidential candidate. i will talk like one, i'll take questions from the press like one, the press shouted like there was a presidential candidate right in front of them. i mean, it just shows how absurd it is to think you can remove him from the ballot when he acts the very role that he is which is a certified legitimate bona fide presidential candidate who very well may become the next president. >> john: there seem to be a number of issues here surrounding this idea of ambiguity around the 14th amendment, section 3, regarding insurrection and insurrection itself. so you don't have the word president in section 3 of the 14th amendment. and then you also don't have donald trump even charged with insurrection, let alone convicted of it. so, how does colorado connect

those dots? >> and that's why i said, john, this, by colorado is insurrection of a different sort. a white collar insurrection by powerful people who sit at desks. and this is why you want a supreme court because they have to overrule the passions of elected officials and there's passion on both sides. what's broken the norms in recent years are efforts to get donald trump. nancy pelosi deciding who can and could not sit on congressional committees and throwing republicans off and appointing her own people and now secretaries of state following that very norm breaking thread to throw trump off the ballot. it wasn't like this but the democrats can't control themselves. and that is why we need powerful institutions that do look long-term, that go beyond the passions of the day to reset the clock and remind us free and fair elections is what's made america strong and colorado and maine are out of line.

>> sandra: so here is more sound from alito inside the supreme court earlier. >> i'm not taking a position one way or the other about whether the experts' testimony should have been admitted or anything like that, or the meaning of president trump's words. i'm just trying to get you to grapple with what some people have seen as the consequences of the argument that you are advancing, which is that there will be conflicts and decisions among the states, different states will disqualify different candidates, but i'm not getting a whole lot of help from you about how this would not be an unmanageable situation. >> sandra: quite a moment there, ari. >> yeah, and it was just repeated question after question after question which is heartening. i hope the justices will issue their ruling soon. i don't know if they'll wait all the way to the summer to do it.

we really need as a nation to move beyond this, get it behind us, and if this were to hold up, i don't think it will, it punishes all republicans in colorado and maine, republican office holders and candidates. without a president at the top of the ticket turnout drops. so a shot aimed at donald trump but the side effects hit republicans up and down the ballot from dog catcher to mayor to congress. and that's important, too. >> john: you know, ari, we pointed out before, too, that justice john roberts off the back of kagan saying if we rule in favor of colorado it's going to have a domino effect. call for number 4. >> what do you do with the -- what would seem to me to be plain consequences of your position. if colorado's position is upheld, surely there will be disqualification proceedings on

the other side and some of those will succeed in very quick order, i would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, i would correct that you know, a goodly number of states will say whoever the democratic candidate is you are off the ballot, and others for the republican candidate you're off the ballot, and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> john: the way it works right now because of the politics there is only a handful of swing states that decide these elections but that's the way the politics blows in the country. this would completely fundamentally change how a president is picked. >> well, what -- change how a president is picked, republicans up and down the line getting elected in those states and lead to retaliation. every time one party breaks the norms just as pelosi did with the two impeachments now you

have republicans trying to impeach joe biden, removing people from committee. every time the democrats do one of these things, republicans will copy because you can't just let it go and so who is next? republicans try and disqualify joe biden from office in certain states, and kamala harris, release the rioters on bail, why should she be allowed on the ballot if she's done something like that. she should be removed in mississippi, alabama and other red states. so, when you break the norms, the other party will follow. we are a better country and stronger country if the norms are honored, not violated, and that's why i think the supreme court will slap colorado and maine down, which is good for america. >> sandra: it has been an interesting and very revealing morning and day. could you please stand by with us as the breaking news continues? >> will do. >> john: we'll take that as a yes. and coming up next, kerri urbahn

was watching all the proceedings, thoughts what will happen, the arguments themselves and the way forward for the country. stay with us. meet the jennifers. jen x. jen y. and jen z. each planning their future through the chase mobile app. jen x is planning a summer in portugal

with some help from j.p. morgan wealth plan. let's go whiskers. jen y is working with a banker to budget for her birthday. you only turn 30 once. and jen z? her credit's golden. hello new apartment. three jens getting ahead with chase. solutions that grow with you. one bank for now. for later. for life. chase. make more of what's yours. the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance

on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information,

and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information. a force to be reckon with. no, not you saquon. hm? you! your business bank account with quickbooks money, now earns 5% apy. 5% apy? that's new! yup, that's how you business differently.

>> sandra: fox news alert, it has been one -- quite a day with the white house now expected to offer a press briefing in the wake of the supreme court oral arguments that we listened to for a couple hours this morning, and screen right, the supreme court where it all went down, and joining us now is fox news legal editor kerri kupec urbahn. kerri, what surprised but what we heard as we do await the response from the white house? >> i think i was surprised as how as has already been said most of the justices seemed pretty resistant to the arguments that colorado was making. beyond that, i was, you know, happy to hear the questions related to what kind of due process the former president would get in all this, i was

just talking to john before we came back and i was telling him how i thought brett kavanaugh's questions about insurrection were particularly interesting, he made the point we have been making on air for sandra, for months here, that the former president has not been charged nor convicted under the federal statute which directly addresses insurrection, so looking at insurrection in this section of the constitutionality brett kavanaugh said what does it mean, who designs it, who defines it, and i don't think you have to be a lawyer to ask and want to know the answer to and colorado did not have a good answer to it. >> john: kavanaugh brought up there are provisions to remove a person from office if they are found guilty of insurrection. but to be found guilty, a person has to be charged, tried, and convicted. none of those things have happened with donald trump. so, the state of colorado just says oh, we think it's insurrection and therefore we are going to bar them from the

ballot. i think a lot of the members of the supreme court said well, who are you to make that decision and then the broader question of and why should you get to decide for everybody else. >> and then how does it not create untenable patch work. and justice alito asked jason murray who was arguing for colorado, he said you are not helping me understand how this will not become an unmanageable situation. p>> sandra: kerri, i believe jonathan turley is back with us as we continue to wait, i believe we are inside the two-minute warning now to the white house. jonathan, this will be interesting to see what the messaging is from the white house after the developments this morning. >> yeah, you know, particularly interesting because the president really once again decided not to take the high ground on the issue. he was asked whether he felt

that his opponent should be disqualified and he punted it. he called him an insurrectionist and said that the supreme court will decide the matter. it was a chance for biden to say no, like many politicians, including democrats have said this is wrong. we shouldn't be doing this. he once again didn't do that and i think that he lost another opportunity as the president of the united states to speak those values, those constitutional values you heard from the court today. what was really telling today was that the court is trying to speak with one voice, that they are showing that they can t transcend divisions. it's a divided court, no question about it, but justices speaking as americans and jurists and trying to get to the merits and the implications of these arguments. it was not partisan. it was not bitter.

and i hope that this is the moment the court is designed for and they will speak with near or absolute union. what the white house needs to address is the vacuum from the president on this issue. at a very least, he should be expressing some concern about barring the leading opponent in the upcoming election. he just hasn't done that. the same response when asked about packing the court, refused to say whether he would pack the court with the first campaign for president. >> john: let me ask you, jonathan, that there is provision in congress to bar from office somebody who has been convicted of an insurrection. donald trump has neither been convicted, charged nor tried. nobody is even thinking about charging him with insurrection. yet the state of colorado says we think he is an

insurrectionist and therefore he clears the bar to be taken off of the ballot. by what legal measure do they make that determination? >> well, i think the justices really capture that point. you don't have to imagine what could happen. you just have to see what did happen. this is the outlier of all of the states, most states rejected this. their record consists of, for example, sociology professor who said he can divine meaning in coded words from the speech that people heard. and a couple of the justices raised professor simi and you know, asked is that really the record we are supposed to review? but it really did capture the implications here of what we are looking at and some of the justices actually had questions that were not answered by these lawyers that were very important procedurally and technically. they said what's the stand we

are supposed to use. are we just supposed to accept professor simi and colorado and that's the record as it exists? are we supposed to look at this de novo, and one said am i supposed to just watch the tape of the speech and reach my own conclusion? they didn't get much help because the standard invites chaos and the key is the supreme court culture is not to be an agent of chaos. really deep in the dna is to bring stability to the constitutional system and they saw this for what it was, that down this road lies madness. >> sandra: kerri, highlight what the viewers are seeing in the bottom of the screen, karine jean-pierre came out, did some housekeeping, john kirby is up at the microphone, per usual she'll take it back a short time from now and take questions. see what they will say, obviously some questions what we heard at the supreme court

today. meanwhile what we heard from the former president, donald trump, following the arguments, stepped outside mar-a-lago estate and this about what he heard. >> well, i'm a believer in the country and believer in the supreme court. i listened today and i thought our arguments were very, very strong. and can you take the person that's 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'm leaving it up to the supreme court. >> sandra: what did you think of his remarks there? >> i thought they were very good, presidential, hit all the right notes, came out, addressed policy issues, careful not to weigh in too much to the proceedings of the supreme court, wise, he did a good job. >> john: folks stand by, lots more coverage ahead. >> sandra: a live look at the white house as we await the white house press briefing with karine jean-pierre. john kirby at the microphone. we'll monitor this and get in

with the questions and answer with kjp in a bit. we'll be right back. day is a ue blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day. [ tense music ] one aleve works all day so i can keep working my magic. just one aleve. 12 hours of uninterrupted pain relief. aleve. who do you take it for? and for fast topical pain relief, try alevex. (vo) explore the world the viking way from the quiet comfort of elegant small ships with no children and no casinos. we actually have reinvented ocean voyages, designing all-inclusive experiences for the thinking person. viking - voted world's best by both travel + leisure and condé nast traveler. learn more at viking.com.

a few years ago, i came to saona, they told me there's no electricity on the island. we always thought that whatever we did here would be an emblem of what small communities can achieve. trying to give a better life to people that don't have the means to do it. si mi papá estuviera vivo, sé que él tuviera orgulloso también de vivir de esta viviendo una vida como la que estamos viviendo ahora. es electricidad aquí es salud.

hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ i don't ever want to go back to wearing a 4xl shirt or not being able to climb up stairs without taking a break. so i'm committed to golo for life. i found a cheaper price on my meds with singlecare. did you say singlecare? i use singlecare. whenever my customers ask me if there's a cheaper price on their meds. i always tell them about singlecare. i found a cheaper price with singlecare! i know.

download the singlecare app free today. >> sandra: all right, so fox news alert as we are awaiting a lot of live events, another one top of the hour is on this, that happened january 27th new york city, remember those migrants, the illegal migrants that attacked new york police officers, the two migrants they stomped, kicked on the officers. it was a vicious times square attack. they have yet to be arrested. alvin bragg, eric adams, expected to be holding a news conference top of the hour on the ongoing investigation into this. this was just announced. certainly be watching and listening when it begins. stay tuned.

>> i hope that democracy in this country will continue. because right now we have a very, very tough situation. >> john: that's donald trump outside his mar-a-lago estate as the white house is briefing right now, john kirby is up there talking about what's going on around the world. well potentially dip back in when karine jean-pierre comes up if she fields questions on what happened at the supreme court today. let's bring in andy mccarthy, former u.s. attorney, assistant, to give perspective on what happens. if as you believe heavily weighted against colorado and in favor of trump when the supreme court decision comes out, do all the other states who are considering this just fold up their tents and go home, or do they try a challenge on another grounds? >> no, i think they fold up the tents on this theory, john, and when you were talking about the dominoes before, i was thinking

it's not just backward-looking, it's forward-looking because if the court would have sustained colorado, i think that opens the flood gates for every place that has not raised this up until now and that again goes to exactly what i think the court was most honed in on today, the potential for chaos. as i've tried to point out, it's not just one round of chaos, it's potentially two rounds of chaos because you are not only have 50 states potentially ad hoc making up their own rules which as justice barrett pointed out with all their own standards of evidence and a lack of clarity about what the court's standard of review would be, but you could have two waves of it, because we have the primary process first, the general election second, and the constitutional considerations are not exactly the same with both of those things. so, you know, potentially it's like 50 times 2 and a whole bunch of different standards and

no clarity about how the court would referee it. >> sandra: i suppose that this all, andy, creates a new precedent. >> you know, i think sandra, not only does but part of the reason i think colorado position is on its back foot from the beginning is you know, we have spoken a lot about how justice jackson was honed in on the fact that the word president is not in the statute. but the other textural argument i thought was very interesting is that colorado is not asking for application of section 3 of the 14th amendment. they have changed section 3 of the 14th amendment, right. what the amendment says is that you can't be, and then you have the laundry list of positions that they have listed, tellingly not president or vice president. it doesn't say you can't run for office, it says you can't be. so what they are asserting is that they have a right not just under the 14th amendment, but they want to expand the 14th

amendment and keep people even from running, not from serving. and i think what that shows is that if you are going to have this 50-state free for all and don't feel they are bound by the text of the 14th amendment but can mend it or stretch it the way they determined to do that, if that's not a recipe for chaos, i don't know what is. >> john: andy, i just want to ask you a very basic question and this may be more political than it is legal. but why is colorado so afraid of voters? >> see, john, i think the problem with that question, which is a very good pointed question, is that what's colorado, because i think if you ask the people of colorado the consensus of those people would be we can be trusted to elect whoever we want to elect and we can, you know, evaluate donald

trump without you having to take him off the ballot. it's this thin fringe progressive part of the government that's taking this step. >> sandra: andy, thank you so much for joining us on that. could you please stand by with us? because the breaking news is going to continue. awaiting a couple big live events. new york city, also the white house and karine jean-pierre. so we are going to take a quick break. we'll be right back. have grav', your eye symptoms could mean something more. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds.

that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪ type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it.

stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®.

>> sandra: fox news alert, a few minutes from the top of the hour and all-star line-up with us, amazing, jonathan turley, andy mccarthy, ari fleischer, kerri kupec urbahn, jonathan, got this sketch out of the supreme court because of course we were just hearing the oral arguments, we were not seeing the justices, and this is the first look from the sketch at what we were seeing inside the courtroom. while all of this was going on, i should say after it -- briefly after it concluded, and the president took to the microphone to react and give his analysis over what he heard at the supreme court, there was a media moment, i can tell you that we were watching because we took the president live, and there has obviously been questions

about other networks taking the former president live and there was this moment on cnn. watch. >> they had no money to give to hamas, they had -- >> ok, i think we have gotten all the illegal analysis out of president trump. it's odd there -- this is actually an opportunity for him to come out and say -- >> it's odd -- >> it's not, he wants to talk about himself. >> sandra: jonathan, allow your -- whatever hat you want to put on to react to that. but they laughed off hearing the reaction from the former president, they got out of him while he was still speaking as we were watching, i think they got back in for a bit, and then out, almost like they could not make up their minds. what did you think when you saw that? >> it's not a laughing matter. what they are talking about is censoring comments from the leading candidates for the presidency. we saw on msnbc an open promise

or pledge that they would continue to censor trump because they felt that he was lying and so the viewers of those networks will not be able to hear from currently the leading candidate for the presidency. however you feel about trump, it's news. he's news. and half of this country, according to polls, are supporting him for the presidency. and you compare what you just saw on cnn with what you just heard from the supreme court. those were nine people who share very different political viewpoints and deeply divided ideological viewpoints. and yet they came together. they gave a fair hearing to both sides. they were not partisans at that key moment. it troubles me that when people see these other networks they were told for months that the only people that would raise concerns over this theory were hard right conservatives. that this was -- that this was a slam dunk on the law and they

produce all these experts saying that it's clearly being used correctly by colorado and you can understand why people are very angry when they see something different, hear justices expressing different viewpoints. that's why they go to their homes and harass them because they don't know, or they are not informed that this was always a novel and a dangerous and in my view unfounded theory. >> john: hey, i want to come back to kerri urbahn for a second on the 14th amendment section 3 and kerri, you were pointing out that the hard language of section 3 says no person shall be as opposed to no person shall seek to become. what do you make of that? >> just that colorado i think was attempting to change the qualifications for president and that's part of their argument. to your point, john, the section is clear about an office holder versus an office seeker. donald trump is an office seeker and this gets into whether it's self-executing, should be self-executing sword, part of

the conversation among the justices as well. >> sandra: real quickly, karine jean-pierre is already taking questions, stepped up to the microphone live at the white house. being asked about the her report. >> the white house counsel has not, office has not said those specifics. >> honestly, you can just reach out directly to them. they have been pretty, as you know, my colleagues there have been pretty responsive. i could direct you to them specifically. >> and multiple times this week the president has remarks talked about having conversations in 2021 with european leaders who were deceased at that time. can you give us an explanation why the president was referring to those people and conversations and what happened there? >> a lot of focus on this. step back for a second and kind of think really kind of top level what the president was talking about when he was having as he tells the story about having these conversations with world leaders, which are obviously important conversations.

he was underlying the january 6th events in 2021, what happened, the message that it sent around the globe, around the world, to our leaders, to world leaders, how dangerous it is, our democracy, how important democracy was or is, continues to be, obviously and he was asked, he was asked when he was, after he was elected when he went to the g7 he said and you saw this, it was something that we were saying throughout that trip america is back, america is back and what was asked of him was for how long. and that whole story is just to reiterate, to really land, obviously, how important what we saw at that event, how important it is to continue to fight for our democracy. and also how important, how important it is, united states, you know, their leadership, our leadership here in the globe. and so he never thought, this is someone who was a senator. he was a