♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) with the push of a button, constant contact's ai tools help you know what to say, even when you don't. hi! constant contact. helping the small stand tall. choice hotels is a family of brands that helps you get the most for your money, so you can be any traveler you want to be. you can be a free, hot breakfast hero at a comfort hotel. yes! that's how you waffle! a romantic weekend escaper at a cambria hotel. or mr. get the party started! various: hey-y-y! be a pool lounger. or, a big-room relaxer. with 22 brands and the best value for your money, choice hotels has a stay for any you. stay twice and get a free night when you book direct at choicehotels.com. gotta get the corners.

♪ ♪ >> harris: breaking news us our. we are awaiting former president donald trump. he is expected to speak any minute and you see this as mar-a-lago on the bottom of your screen. that is where we expect to see the former president and obviously that is the u.s. supreme court in the top box in the right there. the supreme court is huge, unanimous decision today reversed colorado's decision to ban donald trump from its primary ballot. all nine justices ruled in favor of trump in this case, which will impact the status of efforts and several other states to removed romp from respective ballots. for instance, illinois and maine they were planning to do that too ahead of super tuesday which is tomorrow. this ruling is huge, and we have already heard from his camp. it is a big win for america. this is "outnumbered," i am

harris faulkner. here today for my cohost, kayleigh mcenany and emily compagno also television host and tv personality kym douglas and "fox & friends first" todd piro. todd, i will talk with the legalities, spell it out and how much of the victory as is for trump? >> todd: it is a tremendous victory and coverage this morning, one point made over and over not just his decision that applies to colorado but it applies to all the other states that are going to try this. whether charlie, mccarthy, shannon bream, that point was made over and over again. about why the underlying decision is so important for ouy everybody on this couch knew what colorado was trying to do was fundamentally wrong from democracy perspective. we cannot have some random state bureaucrats decide because they have an animus against donald trump, that the rest of

the country cannot put him in office as president if they so choose. the 9-0 decision made that abundantly clear. those justices, the liberal ones, certainly don't like donald trump, but the decision here had to be 9-0 for the sake of it, wait for it, harris, democracy. >> harris: you know, emily one thing jonathan turley and we were talking about is we are one voice coming from the u.s. supreme court. we are not all one voice in the united states of america right now. we are divided of. they showed us what it looks like with a purpose and a mission. >> emily: you know what i love about this decision and i have on my hand right here how clear it is pure anyone can read this opinion and understand exactly the logic behind the supreme court unanimous ruling. to your point, what we all expected, this is exactly what the constitution stands for. what i love as well, they're opening life has a come out, the

constitution makes congress rather than the states responsible for enforcing section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates we reverse. they go on to explain the 14th amendment expanded federal power at the expense of state economy. this entire decision is saying, look them at the end of the day you are trying to apply something section 3 of the 14th amendment to give the states more power. but that is from congress and ultimately, they say because of the people. we talk about a lot the fear, the tragedy that might happen if they wield it a different way. it was a pitchfork, like colorado to have an impact on people in south carolina decide that the reasoning is absolutely not in camp. at the end of the day, the patchwork from state enforcement would feather the direct link that the founders found so critically between the national government and the people of the united states as a whole. nothing in the constitution,

they say, and/or chaos arriving in a time or different times up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration. >> harris: we have seen a lot of chaos. part of the problem, people continue to lose trust in government agencies and elections. on that list, too come i don't know, i was the team do we have that map that shows the patchwork that emily mentioned? we had it late last week. it shows how divided the country would be all over the place like one state, trumps name on the ballot but know this fighting to get his name off. it would not be a helpful situation for voters. and i think, kayleigh, we want to make it as easy as possible to express their voice is because the time is critical. that is a better look at it come all the states to bar trump from the pilot is all over the place in the pending in yellow. >> emily: i'm so glad you brought up this map, footnote 3, there is a jarring statement

in the opinion. we are aware of one example of state enforcement against it would be federal officer, and it was in -- get this, 1868. the reason i bring this up, this was used once in 1868 and you show that map of states, the patchwork. where is the brazenness of these judges, secretary of state's to think we can do something once in united states history and not just brazen but colorado where they said you cannot write in a canada. maine, it was one unelected secretary of state and then you moved to illinois and they actually use the word suppress. i want to quote them exactly, the illinois state board removing donald j. trump from the ballot and cast him to be suppressed. that is a where they use, the brazenness. >> harris: i thought democrats were fighting against suppression? they need to make what roles they like on certain days clear because we can't keep up. >> kayleigh: so thankful for

tajik brown and appointed by democrats, the rule of law matters in this as americans institution working. >> harris: kim, i saw you nodding when kayleigh hit the point of taking his name off of the ballot and you couldn't even write it in appearance before you can even write it in and i thought we were supposed e saving democracy but we need to know day today but it is so true and i'm reading a lot on social media, tiktok, getting an update and it was bad behavior so we need to get him off at the ballot. i want each one of you to promise me right now you will not talk about my behavior behind the scenes. if we went on bad behavior to write people off of their jobs, i would be working nowhere. >> harris: you know what, when you put it that way shannon bream fox news sunday anchor, shannon, i don't know if you can hear the conversation, but when you put it that way kym douglas just did come it was like colorado, maine, illinois impending states want to cancel donald trump. i got all caught up, kind of

losing on the cancel culture. >> i do think there are some state officials out there that would be happy to keep him off their ballots. they will not be able to do that now, but i would note during the arguments, chief justice roberts brought up the fact, okay come if we say okay in this instance, that does not mean states will not say let's get democrats off the ballot then. >> harris: there you go. >> that would happen a patchwork of state saying no candidates and no republican ballot. then you have a handful of states that have both the dnr and those are the only people who get to decide who is the next president of the united states. >> harris: that is right. >> the opinions they talked about as well so this patchwork idea emily brought up, essentially, if you allow states to do this it would go against the principle that our country e president represents all of the voters of this country. if you only have 20 or 30 states making that decision, it is hard to say that is where we have

gotten. appearance of the justices spoke with us one voic. again, the 3 of 4 justices who had their explanation they wanted to offer, justice sotomayor feeling the broader opinion went too far and got into questions they didn't think need to be at two-sided. but justice brings the whole thing together and said this, for the present purposes, or differences are far less important than ever decision. they online -- that is the message that america should take home. >> harris: that is amazing that they would actually make this point in their comments. that is how critical juncture that we are at in this country. divided on things and thank goodness that we are because we would be so boring if we were all the same. we get together and we are a great country but we have to be able to do it it with civility. shame and, as you were talking, what are voters in the state who suddenly know today ahead of

super tuesday, that this is in some way settled here and now, look at those states can do what they want and try to fight the good fight, but i'm pretty clear what 9-0 says in the u.s. supreme court. so now i'm wondering, you talk about excitement and intensity in the recent polling and i know you have looked at this because i think you had on "fox news sunday" yesterday but democrats versus republicans, imagine the intensity in the states particularly colorado where people who wanted to vote for trump can say, "and my vote will count." >> exactly because he secretary of state in different officials and the different states say we will let these names beyond the ballot. and as kayleigh pointed out, there was language that pointed out if president trump loses this thing, we will not count his votes with the writing names on the ballot. but they knew they were waiting for this decision from the supreme court. one of the reasons that they talked about that, how are we supposed asked people to go to

these polls and to vote for president trump with no guarantee their vote will actually count were a matter? you can't take that away from the voters. everyone who goes out for super tuesday tomorrow in colorado and maine who was at that without their vote would count, it is going to count tomorrow if you decide to choose to vote for the former president donald trump. >> harris: i want to bring everybody's attention to the box on the left screen. we saw a little camera movement so i don't want to lose sight of what we are doing and that is awaiting the arrival of this point of mar-a-lago of the former president donald trump onto supreme court victory that he and his team, i'm sure, cheering behind the scenes. they call it, you know, an avalanche type of decision here between this and super tuesday, which they expect to lock in a nomination pure they are all shades of optimistic at this point. we expect to see the nation's 45th president momentarily, kayleigh.

>> kayleigh: you know, it is significant that you had the justices joining with the unanimous with 9-0. but the concurrence this way, it is not necessarily to decide more to dispose of the case than necessary not to decide more so basically she is saying the majority of the procure him went too far and sang the role of congress into decision-making. what impracticality does it mean like a 5-4 decision? >> some will argue that but i think again what justice barrett says 9-0 on the question whether or not congress can do this or left to colorado. colorado clearly cannot do that and all nine agreed that that decision and all states cannot do this and the procuring them what would consider the majority opinion in this case that does talk about the historl of those things that those three justices who got together on

concurrence were considered the liberal justice on the court and did not want the court to get into that. one part of their concurrence they said essentially they cleared away questions for a future potential insurrectionist that those questions wouldn't have to be answered in the future cases, which i think a lot of people would say listen i don't think it is clear for someone a convicted insurrectionist to have no recourse what comes to the ballot. what they say in this case, that is left to congress and the states can't do it. those three concurrent from the liberal justices, essentially we don't want all those questions answered appear the court went too far but we agree with the 9-0 bottom line. >> harris: emily before we go to you i want to let you know as the president comes up, the former president, we will go to that right away. >> emily: absolutely, shannon, to expand on what you were saying mentioning concurrent comments, the main decision says, these are not the only reasons the states black power to enforce this particular

constitutional provision and respective offices, but they are important. it is important to know but not the only reason so that dispels clearly the notion that, well, there is room for interpretation or perhaps there can be wiggle room later for states. i found it fascinating as well we dig into the bones, shannon, the supreme court noted not only is there president's worth of course federal authority over the states here about zero precedents for the states to utilize to apply the section ine the supreme court said if we allow this to happen in part, a preponderance of the evidence and maine and substantial amount of evidence in california. there is absolutely no uniformity. that is what voters in americans deserve and federally, uniformity that we can count on. what do you make of the political tone as well that this administration can sort of wheeled a blowup of the federal government as to when they want that in the supreme court

strikes that down and other times, states can try to rise up in the supreme court will knock them down? there is definite delamination of the supreme court and this particular that shines in favor of the american voters autonomy. >> i think that is what this court is all about. they want to set all of these questions and of course fights between the feds and the states but the other big one that comes to mind right now is the issue of immigration. you have a number of state battles and state laws remembering covering sp 1070 years ago out of the high courtr the fed and which is for the state? they may get to that with this law challenged in texas as well. but in going through all of those things, they did look at the historical record. emily, as you mentioned, where are the examples of this in the past? during arguments back on february 8th over this, that is one of the questions the attorneys got. i think if i remember correctly, it came from justice thomas who

said, "where are the examples when this was passed it being used in the way that you are arguing it should be used now to keep eight to allow estate to keep a federal canada off of the federal ballot and the attorney could not answer that question? that was a big mom on the eighth. >> todd: shannon, todd piro here i have a different take on the concurrent dissent from the three liberal justices. obviously your point is well taken. the decision is the same. it is 9-0 and this will change what happened in colorado and other states. but to me this whole self evident seem like they were trying to throw some red meat to their base. they made a huge deal in their concurrence that it was self-evident that this section s to carry itself out, but there is a recent section 5 was written in there. it basically gives congress, requires congress to take the

steps needed to enforce article 14. so why do you think that they made such a big deal and wasted so much paper on something that should have been patently obvious to everybody and was to the five justices who wrote in what i am going to call the majority majority? >> right. i love how you refer to conferences as concurrent dissent because i had to keep stopping myself from calling it a dissent because it definitely takes issue with the broader procuring him of the majority in this case. but they want to land some blows what they see was wrong with that. again, come to the same conclusion but they don't agree with how they got there or the court should have gone so far, which takes me back to justice barrett. she talks about this, the court has settled a politically charged issue in a bullet to a presidential election, particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up here that seems very much

pointed out that concurrence. it feels like a dissent to say we all got to the same place but let's not try to score political points in the middle of a difficult decision on this case and more broadly in election season. >> todd: great point. >> harris: you know who i wish could do that, kym douglas, the president of the united states. he needs to learn that care how to turn the temperature down, go to the border and i have the biggest story be him go to a place basically competed with former president and was no competition. >> kym: with a big ice-cream cone. >> harris: at this point, we need somebody to turn up the heat to solve issues. >> kym: i love what shannon and todd said about historical record and speaking from social and go about taking the pulse of culture right now. it is so interesting to me that the left tends to be the party about, let's get rid of the historical things. we need to get statues down and kayleigh come i'm sure you read dr. seuss to your kids and that.

even your pancake syrup has to have a different name. but let's go back to what was it 18 -- >> kayleigh: 1868. >> let's bring that historical thing, the hypocrisy is glaring. >> harris: kayleigh. >> kayleigh: i want to focus for a moment what we are looking at this live shot mar-a-lago as we await president trump. this is a big moment for him. you will remember we were on the couch february 8th and heard these oral arguments from a similar set up and he was at mar-a-lago and came out and gave remarks. they were brief remarks on the legal issues and immediately pivoted to the issues in a shannon israel, taiwan, still dogs, ukraine, the border, world war iii. he used a moment where guaranteed wide network coverage to turn it away from him and be about the american people. i anticipate we will see this today but i would love to see him turn this in lincoln rightly as he did so beautifully when he was at the border come i would love to see him turn this and talk about joe biden's executive

authority on that issue so we will see what he does. >> harris: book you heard biden say in his comments in brownsville, texas, that president trump, why don't you join me? i don't think trump needs biden but he certainly courts the entire country. he is not calling half of the country deplorable. that is a left. the u.s. supreme court come i love how that was put. they can come together and show us what it supposed to look like. let's follow their lead to because i don't think we will see it for biden at this point. maybe they will turn over a leaf and be a different person. when we come back, we will cover this pure and formerowne president trump expected to chspeak at any moment. stay with us. why not do what thousands of veteran families have done. call newday and pay off that high rate debt with the lower rate newday 100 va cash out loan. it lets you pay off your credit cards and car loans with one easy monthly payment.

get the cash you need and the peace of mind you deserve. 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®. dry skin is sensitive skin, too. and it's natural. treat it that way with aveeno® daily moisture.

formulated with nourishing, prebiotic oat. it's clinically proven to moisturize dry skin for 24 hours. aveeno®

♪ ♪ >> kayleigh: any moment now we

will hear from former president trump on 9-0 unanimous decision by the supreme court. you are looking at mar-a-lago as we wait for president trump. andy mccarthy, u.s. attorney and fox news contributor appeared and the come i want to move forward beyond the case that we are all looking at today and look down the line as we head towardr and election day and what the president's legal timeline looks like. you postulate one of the jack smith cases can go to trial. >> that is right, kayleigh. in fact the most important thing that happened last week that didn't get much coverage was smith's team in the florida case announced that in their view, the one at 60 day rule unwritten justice department guidance that you are not supposed to take actions close to election that could influence the election, they say they don't consider that to be operative as to trump because he's already been indicted and everybody knows about that. you can disagree with that.

i think it is conveniently twist that so-called rule as it suits them. but the importance of it is, they are very much planning on a september trial of trump, i think my january 6 days. that could go straight through election day. what people need to realize his criminal defendants have to be present in court for every day of their trial. >> kayleigh: andy the supreme court's decision which we will likely get in june, perhaps late july. but i want to lay out by a political magazine a deep dive on the hard choices before the judge. they said the supreme court could do is this: they are still ways the supreme court can delay the proceedings further here they could, for instance, give instructions for further analysis against trump to ascertain whether some of them might plausibly be covered by a presidential immunity. in other words, it might not be

as clean-cut of a decision but give think the judge instructions for further analysis to push that date out, no! >> that is possible that they could say there is confusion and we need clarity about what is an official act of the presidency versus what may be outside the perimeter of legitimate executive action. but i have always thought, kayleigh, more important than the immunity case, which is important in terms of timing is the obstruction case that the supreme court is also going to decide this term. probably at the end of june. because i believe that case could dismantle jack smith january 6 prosecution. president trump is not a party in that case. it involves defendant was charged in connection with a capitol riot who objected to the way the justice department has applied the federal obstruction statute to them. that statute is the key to the

january 6th case against former president trump. and if the supreme court says the justice department has not been applying it correctly, then it is incorrectly applied and by the way, it is much more simple simply apply to the capital rioters then former president trump's case but if they make a decision like that, that could blow up smith's indictment. if i were he come i would be much more worried about that than immunity. >> kayleigh: so briefly follow-up that is the fisher case and t the presidential immunity case could affect the special counsel case. >> i think much more so. >> kayleigh: andy mccarthy, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> kayleigh: emily commit is interesting to think about. i'm not sure the founders intended for an automate of a party to be in a federal court room leading up to an election, but it can be what we are looki. >> emily: i know today kayleigh, the hill had an interesting article that

essentially said should jack smith throw in the towel? that argument was sort of quoting a lot of big time democrat sarah goods and also commentators, legal analysts who are saying siding through the c, they should give up and it looks like it will not make it in time. it almost seems resigning themselves to the transparency of it was simply strategy the whole time to prevent the american people from having that choice in their own pen. it was not about justice but about getting president trump off of the ballot. at the end, maybe jack smith will provide a report like the mueller report. it will be in the form of investigative reports that they submit to the attorney general so at the end of the day, no trials and i guess it is up to the american people after all. it poses as a question, perhaps the democrats, perhaps the prosecutors are seeing the light, which is that of the supreme court illustrated today, there really isn't a lot there there. this is frankly a boldfaced attempt to remove a candidate

from the americans choice. ultimately after all the rigmarole it will not be for nothing but indeed, have that power be given to the people for him to be on the ballot at the end. >> kayleigh: todd, the way the legal cases falling, it is interesting because the president made a comment about weaponizing the justice system and clearly 9-0 they believe the judges acted inappropriately. but you look at alvin bragg and the hush money case and never before we have a former president -- >> excuse me, the president put out on his social that he will speak at 12:30 and it is 12:29:. i wanted to be prepped and ready and i did not mean to interrupt but at this point, we do not want to be looking at the screen. so the former president, donald trump, you can hear a little bit of movement in the room because them microphones are open in there and the camera readjusted one more time and see but i watch for that.

his team sent out on social and i just checked it out, his post, he wanted to give a healthy heads up. we have been waiting since the top of the hour and the former president said he is coming up. forgive the interruption, but we will make another one when he walks up to the microphone. >> kayleigh: we will take you right there, that is to be for sure. todd, the way it is shaking out 9-0 victory, president trump will hear about that today but the hush money case comes next. that one is unprecedented and never has new york law been used to prosecute a federal situation. "new york times" analysis and the fani willis situation, each of these legal matters like dominoes seem to be very much bolstering his argument. >> todd: while that is true, my concern for trump's even though all of these cases are against him, there seems to be more checks and balances in the federal case. i worry about the newer cases, jonathan turned or

andy mccarthy, the real estate case and no basis and by hush my case has no basis. but my major concern for trump is that it doesn't matter in new york city because we saw a politicized judge in the hush money case, politicized jury. so, while this is certainly a day for trump to celebrate, this is deafly not a time to spike the football. if i am donald trump going forward i continue to harp on the fact this is a weaponized justice system and one decision and the supreme court case that the supreme court had no option but to deliver 9-0 decision. that does not make everything go away. he needs to keep up the fight and point out the weaponizing of the justice system to make that to the american people. it is me today, you tomorrow. >> kayleigh: that will be the assessment in november, the assessment of the american people and it does move the needle. there is a polling that shows this is a lot of victim. >> emily: trump ke trumping.

if jack smith goes forward in september and it seems like it gives him more and more exposure, which is exactly what the dems don't want. so, i think he just keeps winning. >> harris: so it is interesting, under earned media. i was reading today that potentially nikki haley won't be running more ads at this point, that we won't be seeing as much of her and the pretake form for money. it means potentially that there is less cash to spend. so you want under earned media. she and donald trump have done a ton of interviews. but it is not quite the same thing as every time you decide that you want to do something, you walk out and camera is ready for you. it is one of the reasons he uses his own platform true social to tell everybody, this is when i will be there. you know, he has been president before. he knows how to do that already. biden after 50 years should be a

master at it i would think. >> kayleigh: you are right. such an important point you make about earned media, this is a point where the president will stand up and half a ton of eyes. moments like this can move the needle. todd, as we head to november, what an unconventional way for a presidential campaign to take place. moments like this, discrete moments like this supreme court rulings where the president outside of the court room and the state of union for president biden's more conventional. this is the unconventional look we will see in november. >> todd: find a way said it is not a moment to spike the football but to celebrate a win and to make harris point between nikki haley not being in the public with commercials anymore, what winds does nikki haley have to celebrate besides a swamp in d.c.? this is a powerful moment and he gets to tell the american people and the noon hour that he won, the supreme court ruled in his favor. for those people not dissecting all of these cases as much as we

are, that may resonate with them, oh, trump had a win, yea trump. he will win in november. >> harris: that is a good point, if there is a conviction. but we have not seen -- >> kym: that is a great point. >> harris: if there are many victories, what does that do? so we get the percentages of people sagging, well, you know, it we think a bow but what if he wins? what does it look like? i want to bring in for everyone to talk to david spunt. justice correspondent. i warn you ahead of time, there are a lot of people who want to talk to you. we are waiting for the president of the united states to react, the former president to react to the u.s. supreme court justices today 9-0 decision on colorado's decision to keep him off of the ballot and he said, no way. >> it is a big day no question for former president donald trump. we are expected to hear him momentarily. forgive me if you brought this

up because i didn't hear, but it is a big day for the former president because today was the day that his trial was supposed to start here in washington, d.c. jack smith, the special counsel, we have been covering from the beginning, was to take him to try with jury selection today for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. that is not happening right now. it is kind of being held up on pause because the supreme court is hearing this immunity issue whether or not donald trump can or is immune from prosecution of. they will hear that in april, the end of april, likely pushing the trial back to mid-summer, possibly even later this summer or fall. another big legal win for president trump at least for now. >> harris: the complications of that, emily, what we have david talking about that, the closer you get to the election, what happens? >> emily: i think that is a huge question. i have to throw this in there as we talked about earned and

unearned media coverage. the president, the current president of the united states when asked about this ruling today, should by peter doocy, should trump be allowed on the ballot? that is fine. i know a missed opportunity of the supreme court justices have the power i firmly believe in and support. i support 100% their ruling. talked about a missed opportunity to restore faith in an institutional where the left keeps telling us to add more voices to be legitimate. >> harris: that is really fascinating. he could have even spiked the football. i realize it's not his day, biden's day for a victory if he looks for the polling that came out this morning. but he could have said, "i put one of those justices on the court, so i fully understand how thoughtful of a decision this was and to reach 9-0, the whole country takes a looks at this and sees what is possible in terms of reaching a conclusion together and not being divided."

wow! >> todd: n2 shannon bream's point, it keeps him on the ballot in red states and stick , the border and all the other issues we have in the country right now. we should be celebrating. that is a great point. >> harris: david spunt, what is next? >> what is next for donald trump you will be coming out here soon and we got a two-minute warning. as far as the supreme court is concerned, the supreme court, what will they do about the immunity issue? is he immune from prosecution because of these actions, these alleged actions that took place when he was president whereafter president? that will be decided possibly in may earliest or perhaps june at the latest, that is when the supreme court typically decides for the end of the term. the other question is documents case i was in fort pierce, florida, and judge aileen cannon that deal might cannon up to move that trial back. that was to start may 20th so the longer these trials get moved back in the front that they get pushed back in the

calendar is good for the former president although the justice department says listen we are ready to do a trial in the fall, even if we need to to your question to emily. the doj will prosecute no matter what time this comes down on the calendar. >> harris: it is so interesting before hunter biden, they waited how long? five plus years? in the american people are so smart. they get this whole process here they have seen it play out before, particularly with this man who wants to run for president again. the question becomes, well, are you on the side of justice, and does timing matter? why isn't it urgent with one as much as another? >> emily: so true. just keeping, if i may come at the football theme come i will throw a hail mary. in the bible. >> harris: of the former president of the united states donald trump, let's watch today. >> former president trump: today was an important decision and we are well-crafted.

it will go a long way to bring our country together which our country needs. and they worked long, hard, and frankly, they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about 100 years from now and 200 years from now, extremely important. essentially, you cannot take someone out of a race because their opponent would like to have it that way. and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is the leading candidate, but that the leading candidate or a candidate well down on the totem pole, you cannot take somebody out of a race. the voters can take a person out of the race very quickly, but a court should not be doing that. the supreme court saw that very well. i really do believe that will be a unifying factor because while most states were thrilled to have me come at there were some that didn't. and they didn't want that for political reasons. they didn't want that because of poll numbers because the poll

numbers are good. we are beating president biden in almost every poll. "the new york times" came out yesterday with a big poll for us. so, they didn't like that, and you can't do that, you can't do but they tried to do. hopefully, colorado is an example and will unify. i know there is tremendous support. they brought strong support in colorado because i thought people in colorado thought that was a terrible thing that they did. and while we are on the subject and another thing that will be coming up very soon will be immunity for president. not immunity for me but any president. if a president doesn't have full immunity, you really don't have a president because nobody latest serving in that office will have the courage to make in many cases what will be the right decision or it could be the wrong decision. it could be in some cases the wrong decision. but they have to make decisions, and they have to make them free

of all terror that can be rained upon them when they leave office or even before they leave office. some decisions are very tough. i can tell you as a president some decisions to make our tough. i took out isis, and i took out some very big people from the standpoint of the different part of the world. two of the leading terrorists, probably two at the leading terrace ever that we have seen in this world. and that was a big decision. i don't want to be prosecuted for it and i know the president wouldn't want to be prosecuted for it. it had a tremendous positive impact. it stopped everything cold. sometimes, you have to make tough decisions. sometimes you have to make decisions like that. when you make a decision, you don't want to have your opposing party or upon or even somebody that thinks you are wrong bring a criminal suit against you or any kind of a suit when you leave office. i have that right now at a level

nobody has seen before. i have rogue prosecutors, and i have rogue judges, judges that are out of control. it is a very unfair thing for me serving perhaps as a sample to others of what should not be happening when you make good decisions. in my case, the economy was great. we did not go into any wars and we totally defeated isis. we provided the largest tax cuts in history and we provided the largest legislation in history. but think of it, no wars. we beat isis 100% with the caliphate. there were no wars. we did a child that was great but maybe i would not have done that if defeating them was very powerful and it would take four years. it would take me for months, but it was a strong victim that i gave. i said, "get them, defeat them, end it!"

we were fighting 20 years against isis and we did it quickly. i don't want to be prosecuted and in that case it worked out. there will be some things, perhaps, don't work out so well but i don't want to be prosecuted because i decided to do something that is very much for the good of the country and actually the good of the world. a president should not have that on his mind. he has to have a free and clear mind when he makes very big decisions or it will be nothing more than a ceremonial post. you will be president, a wonderful thing, and you won't do anything because you don't want to be hit by your opponent or somebody else because who wants to leave office and go through what i have gone thr through? i am being prosecuted by biden, my opponent. every one of these things whether fani willis, alvin bragg, these are local and state, but they are in total coordination with the white house. you can't do that. it shouldn't be done. i think like that here and in

the case of the d.a.'s office, they put one of the top people and may be person in the manhatn d.a.'s office to get trump. they had a hillary clinton lawyer leave the law firm, very prestigious law firm leave the law firm to go into the d.a.'s office to get trump, pomerantz, mr. pomerantz. so he goes in to become a prosecutor. work for the democrat party and hillary clinton and goes into prosecute donald trump at a local level in total coordination with the department of justice with biden. you have fani willis or as you would say, fani, fani, and she hired somebody and it wasn't before long this horrible prosecution took place. she went out and she paid an unbelievable amount of money, more money than ever dreamt

possible. much more money than other people that do that for a living. he never did it at all and no experience at all. and they had obviously a conflict. we don't have to go into that, but they were able to get a lot of money because it was a high profile person. me, i'm a high profile person. so they were able to pay close to $1 million when he was not equipped to do the job and she is not equipped to do the job. that k should end immediately. that case is so conflicted that nobody has seen anything like it. and you have deranged jack smith who is a trump hater represents all the trump haters and he's going wild, wild math and overturned unanimously by the supreme court, went after other people and he's a great failure. he is mean, nasty, unfair and the judges on this case are trump haters. other than we have one or two i think can be fair. but you look at new york what

has happened. these people have tremendous hatred. you can't do this to a president. again, i'm not talking about me but the future. a president has to be free. a president has to be -- if the president had a good job, i did. some people would say a great job. but if a president does a great job, a president should be free and clear and frankly, celebrated for having done a good job. not indicted for times and not gone after on a civil basis. and not demanded to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines when something that was absolutely perfect weather there were no victims or the financial statements were absolutely flaws where you have labored clauses. i was not given a jury. i have a clubhouse judge come up with this number. but very conservative financial

status but even at that, if you look at this language, don't rely on the financial statements on any way, shape or form here to go do your own work. the bank in question the most sophisticated lawyers and the world, frankly one of the top law firms in the world. and they can defend themselves. guys like alvin bragg, letitia james, fani, and deranged jack smith, what they should be doing is fighting violent crime. and that would lead me to the end. i will say that president biden, number one, stop weaponization. fight your fight yourself. don't use prosecutors and judges to go after your opponent to try to damage your opponent so you can win an election. our country is much bigger than that. the other thing i say to president biden, close the

borders now! this is not sustainable for our country. it is not sustainable for our cities. our country is under siege. this is a violent thing that you have done. and many people are dying. many, many people are dying pure they die on the trip up and they die going through the border, and they die and our country. but many of the people coming up are from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums, many terrorists, many, many are terrorists. i believe the real number that we have right now is closer to 15 million people. by the time, i believe the president's term and i believe it will be close to 20 million people. that is almost larger than any state in the union. our country, it is not sustainable. many of these people are tough.

many of these people are bad. they come from some of the roughest countries in the world and some of the roughest prisons. we have prisons in the congo, africa coming. we have people coming from all parts of the middle east. they are coming from yemen and yet we are bombing yemen. you have to stop and close the border. you have absolute authorization. you don't need congress. i have the safest border in the history of the country. i didn't use congress going forward. i built hundreds of millions of wall and the reason i built it my considered it an invasion of our country and took the money from the military and army of engineers did it with me. we did a great job. we have the safest border we have ever had and now we have the most unsafe border and there's never been a border like this any country anywhere in the world. they would have fought with sticks and stones to stop the horrible situation that is

occurring. our people can't stand it, and the people coming in really can't stand it because they are dying. many are dying on the trip up. they are dying in the country, and also command any of the cris are doing tremendous harm. i call that migrant crime, migrant crime, a new category of crime. they are hurting our country horribly. we have become a laughing stock all over the world. i say respectfully to president biden, you have the authorization right now -- i did it. i didn't go to congress and say i have the right to foreclose. but close the borders. you have everything may use my policies, and my policies are great. everybody said it, use my policies. so chose to finish, i have great respect for the supreme court, and i want to thank them for working so quickly and so diligently and so brilliantly.

and again, this is a unifying factor. and they can go after me as a politician, they can go after me with votes, but they are not going to go after me with that kind of lawsuit that take somebody out of a race who is leading, in this case, but even if the person wasn't leading. i want to thank you all for being here. do we have any questions? >> reporter: the poll numbers are massive as we go into super tuesday. we found a lot of people where agnostic politics in general see these legal cases against you and they see how life was back under the trump administration. do you think that will hold the voters into the next election seen that new cases are unfair and have no merit and also the poll numbers for trump? >> former president trump: it is an interesting question because historically what i'm going through would have hurt a political party or candidate terrifically.

you wouldn't be able to run and you would get out if this happened over many years many times. but in this case, the polls show much more popular than i was before urbanization. it has been weaponize like it has never been. this is for third world countries but not for us. biden ought to drop all of these things and frankly, he may do better because people would say that is reasonable. look, the state, the city, the federal, they are all coordinated. fani willis' lover spent hours and hours at the white house with white house counsel in doj plotting out this plan. nobody talks about that. they are all coordinated with the white house. it is weaponization that is never been done in this country. it has been done in third world countries and the ba banana republic but i believe they should go out and stop all of this nonsense.

they are nonsense cases and everybody sees it. you look at atlanta, it is such an embarrassment to georgia what is happening there. but jack smith come i don't think there is any better. letitia james is terrible and get iowa, and it goes before a campaigning judge. the whole thing is a rigged deal. the public understands it. i'm lucky that i'm able to explain it to the public because if you were not able to explain it, the public wouldn't know. they would believe what they see. so i don't want to win this way. look, i want to win based on my policies are better. we will cut taxes, get interest rates down, buy homes again. you can't buy a home today because the interest rates are so high. i want to win unsafe borders and stop wars, stop the war in ukraine with russia. i want to stop what is happening in israel. israel would never be attacked if i were president. ukraine would never ever be

attacked if i was president. you would not have had inflation. inflation was caused by high energy prices. i would have kept them down easily. and probably maybe caused were with ukraine because putin became rich all of a sudden. it went up so much and i watch president biden talking about putin. putin became very rich because $100 a barrel, he's got so much money to fight a war at $40 a barrel, he doesn't have money to fight a war. he wouldn't have done it anyway because i told him not to. so, i want to thank all of you for being here. it is a very big day for america. it is a very big day for liberty, and i think it is a great day for this country. again, i hope it is a big step towards unification of. i hope that the justices because working on some other cases, but one in particular, presidents have to be given total immunity. they have to be allowed to do

their job. if they are not allowed to do their job, it is not what the founders wanted, but perhaps more importantly, it would be terrible for our country. think you all very much. spin when the former president took a question there. we were not sure what this would look like. we thought it would be a victory lap, but he talked about so many things, it was wide-ranging. that is your former boss. you sat here and said just like you did earlier in february, he is measured. he is ready. >> kayleigh: has come he is measured and ready. that was general election footing of a c. he talked about legal issues and that is what today was about. he gave pape he feel what immunity argument is, but then he pivoted. you hurt the economy, you heard wars, ices, you heard the borde. he used multiple minutes of his speech with network coverage of this to say, you have absolute

authorization, president biden. close the border. you don't need congress and he even said use my policies. how brilliant at the end i don't want to win because of legal cases but i want to win based on state borders and i want to stop wars. he used today to make this about the american people. biden, democrats, make this about trump. try to disqualify him but he's making it about you and that is a winning message. >> harris: todd this is a answer back, biden cole donald trump, "work with me." this is an answer back but he said here is how i >> he said something else in addition to that. if you want to do better in the polling, get all the cases dropped, this weaponization coming down from the top of the biden administration to go after your number one political opponent. his exact words, he's much more popular trump than before weaponization and predicted biden would do better if he dropped the prosecutions.

what a message to the white house only cares about the political optics and only when the optics demand, the border, the youth, we need more student loan bailouts. >> and get on tiktok. >> what a message from 45 to 46. >> harris: emily, what he said was take me on yourself. don't use those upper echelons of justices, doj and all that. and i mean, it was like -- i looked at emily, and like preach. >> emily: reminded me of, permit me to say this, the joke between the scientist and god where they each say, the scientist says i can make my own man, all right, start with dirt here, and then god says hold on, find your own dirt and that's what trump was saying. my policies are the reason why this country worked. my policies are the reasons why people were safer at the

southern border. so you want to get somewhere, use my policies. it's ok, right? and i thought what's interesting about him today, he was measured, authoritative, and firm, and he unlike 46 said i have great respect for the supreme court justices. he said this is a big step toward unification and refreshing to hear a president that spoke highly and great reverence and rightly so for the supreme court decision. >> he never plays the victim, he was like keep weaponizing, i keep winning. i thought he was super presidential today. >> harris: i was watching social media from some democrat, and surrogates, and even who we know on the channel, and one said this is not exciting, this is not boring. that's why the networks cover him, they want the moment to react and say he's this, he's that, a liar. and when he's measured and down his list of ways when it worked

when he was in office, he even got to what he wants to do next. >> kayleigh: and the american people are given a contrast. the contrast between trump and this moment and biden in reaction to the robert hur report, he was angry and defiant and got in tiffs with reporters and then scurried off. who do you want as commander in chief, you certainly have a contrast. >> harris: some of the argument has been well, you get chaos with trump. what do you think we have now? if this isn't chaotic, definition of, go to the southern border and when you go, take your full heart with you. you are gonna need it. it's a disaster. thank you for watching. glad we were able to cover the breaking news with and for you. "america reports" now. >> i want to start by thanking the supreme court for its unanimous decision today. it was a