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.

it is good to be back with you in this second hour of "chris jansing reports" on this monumental day in judicial history. at this hour, the supreme court facing a major test after historic arguments about donald trump. what we heard and why the justices may be skeptical of colorado's bid to kick him off the ballot. plus, it's the decades old case haunting the high court today. how the ghost of bush v. gore looming as the justices weigh trump's eligibility for a second term. and she's the 91-year-old republican who grabbed her constitution after the january 6th attack. what to know about the unlikely woman leading colorado's ballot challenge against donald trump. but we begin with those hours of critical debate at the

supreme court that could chart the course of the 2024 election. nbc's garrett haake is following this from the d.c. bureau. also here with me, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official, chuck rosenberg and msnbc contributor. garrett, i have been scrolling the headlines in the major national papers. let's see, "the washington post," supreme court seems poised to allow trump to remain on the colorado ballot. "wall street journal," supreme court appears skeptical of challenges to trump's ballot eligibility and the paper of record, "the new york times." supreme court appears skeptical. what are the big take aways that you're hearing. >> i noticed that trend, too, chris, the word skeptical being the operative word here after the more than two hours of arguments before the supreme court. the justices did seem to have some very pointed questions about the colorado case here about whether the former president would be under the 14th amendment at all about the

consequences of potentially leaving someone like him off the ballot here in the real world. and even on questions about whether or not what we saw on january 6th was an insurrection or not, a point of some contention from the attorneys arguing before the justices today. take a listen to a little bit of that slice of the discussion in court today. >> we are here because for the first time since the war of 1812, our nations capitol came under violent assault. for the first time in history, the attack was incited by a sitting president of the united states to disrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power. by engaging in insurrection against the constitution, president trump disqualified himself from public office. >> this was a riot. it was not an insurrection. the events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in section 3. >> interestingly enough in his comments after the hearing was

over, donald trump used the word insurrection to describe what happened on january 6th, although he places the blame for it at the feet of others. he and his team were very confident after what happened today that there will be some ruling that comes out that keeps him on the ballot, not just in colorado but all the other states in which a republican nominee would have qualified to appear. chris. >> all right. so to the man who knows a little more than most people about these arguments, we always ask people to parse what you hear. you can always be surprised, right? nobody's going to say they know with certainty what the supreme court was going to do. although there does seem to be a unanimity of opinion that there is skepticism on the part of these justices. that's what we heard from them. if that is the case, do you think this was not argued well on the part of the colorado plaintiffs? did they not have such a great case to begin with? what did you hear today, chuck? >> well, a couple of things. first of all, i think mr. trump's lawyer argued very well. and i don't mean to take anything away from the other

lawyer, the lawyer for the colorado voters, but jonathan mitchell, mr. trump's lawyer, did a fine job, conceding points where he had to, acknowledging deficits or defects in his argument where he had to. but with that said, the judges or the justices in this case often know what they're going to do. they have read the briefs, they've thought about it, talked to their clerks, so i don't know that argument is typically outcome determinative. this is also a hard case. i mean, there's a lot of ways in which the colorado voters could lose. they essentially had to run the table if you forgive the billiards analogy, by winning on each and every question, whether the 14th amendment applies to a president. whether mr. trump took the requisite oath or the oath as specified in the constitution. there's a whole series of questions that had to break their way. i don't know that it's terribly

unusual that it sound, and i take your point, we don't know how it's going to turn out. it sounds like mr. trump will remain on the ballot. the justices seemed skeptical of the voters' arguments. >> let me take one of those points. you said there were a whole series of questions that had to be answered here. one had to do with trump's lawyers arguing section 3, the 14th amendment, doesn't apply to precedence. take a listen. >> what if somebody came in to the secretary of state's office and said i took the oath specified in section 3. i participated in an insurrection, and i want to be on the ballot. does the secretary of state have the authority in that situation to say no, you're disqualified. >> the secretary of state could not do that consistent with the term limits. even if the candidate is an admitted insurrectionist, section 3 allows the candidate to run for office and win election to office and then see whether congress lifts that disability after the election.

>> so that's the argument, right? there are several arguments in there, including whether this is really a decision for congress to deal with. >> right, that's one of them, chris, exactly. whether congress has to enact legislation to permit the states to enforce that section of the 14th amendment. but there's also really interesting timing question. if you read the language of the 14th amendment carefully, and i have. it talks about holding office that an insurrectionist cannot hold office. it doesn't say that you can't run for office. maybe a distinction a lawyer can love, but yet another argument that was available to mr. trump's team. now, i think what the supreme court will likely do, probably should do, is resolve the question, not just kick it down the road. but to your point, a lot of nuance, and a lot of subtlety in these arguments today. >> chuck you're going to stay with me. thank you for that. joining us now, one of the

nation es leading scholars on the 14th amendment who was inside that room listening to all the arguments unfold live. indiana university law professor gerard magliacha, thank you so much for being with us. can you give us a sense, first of all, did it feel in there, the sense of enormity that many of us watching felt just because of the potential outcome of it. what was it like inside there? >> well, i think the atmosphere was pretty serious and then at a certain point, people came to realize that the court is going to reverse the colorado supreme court's decision, and then some of the air went out of the balloon. i think there are probably eight or nine votes to reverse on the ground that states cannot enforce section 3 against presidential candidates. now, there are different problems with that rational, if that's the one they adopt, but i think after the first hour or so, it became clear even before mr. murray took the podium that

that was going to be the outcome of the case. >> on january 6th, you had just written a paper about section 3 of the constitution, which here to fore had gotten very little attention, and suddenly you're the legal scholar of the moment. i wonder on that day, what your initial thoughts were, and today, did anything change your mind? any of these arguments? >> no, i think the arguments have been gone over for years now, and so there's really nothing new in them. my thoughts on that day were sadness about what was happening, and then as soon as members of congress, senator mcconnell, for example, described what had happened as an insurrection, i knew this issue was going to come to the court behind me. how that was going to come out or things were going to play out in the intervening three years, who knew. here we are. the question really is what's going to come next after the court's rule something. >> what is going to come next, do you think? >> well, what's going to come next is that they're not going to say in their opinion that

donald trump is innocent, that he did not engage in insurrection, they're going to say that even if he did, states can't enforce that. that's a problem if he wins because next january, across the street from where i'm standing, people will be able to go to congress and say in the joint session on january 6th, 2025, look, we think donald trump engaged in insurrection, and he cannot be president. it would be better if the court were to just rule that he did not engage in insurrection or that section 3, for example, did not apply to the presidency at all because that would make it much harder to make those arguments. if you just say, well, it's really up to congress in some sense, then people are going to try to press that issue if donald trump wins in november. >> you know, we've heard donald trump mention over and over again that he picked three excellent justices. we live in a very politically divided country. i think it's fair to say and polls bear this out that the

american people don't have a lot of trust in what the court says. so beyond the obvious implications for what they decide, what they decide and how they decide it, how do you think it will be received? do you think that any hope of moving anyone by simply saying this is what the court said is possible? for example, if it's an overwhelming decision on one side. >> first, i think the three justices that he named are excellent justices. second, i think the fact that you're going to have a lopsided decision in his favor will cool things off for a while, but the underlying question, especially as the criminal cases get going as to whether what he did on january 6th is disqualifying is still going to be out there and it's just going to be much more acute when it's on the verge of him taking office next january, if that's where we are. so this sort of is kind of good for now, but not necessarily for

later. >> let me ask you about something that i think a lot of people who had an opportunity to listen to these arguments today might be asking. it seems that two an outside observer, there was a lot of talk that were essentially semantics. let me play one more example of that. >> a lot hinges on the difference between the term office and officer. >> yes. >> is there anything in the originally drafting, history, discussion, that you think illuminates why that distinction would carry such profound weight. >> not of which we're aware. >> you have trump's lawyer here arguing the president is not an officer of the united states, that the oath he took in 2017 was not an oath to support the constitution. so what is the job description for people who have not studied the constitution the way and you have this section in particular?

what would you say to them about what seems to them to be a semantic argument? >> it is basically a semantic argument. at least with respect to this particular provision. there are other parts of the constitution that talk about officers that are different, but when we were putting section 3 together, lots and lots of people, including the president at the time referred to the president as an officer of the united states. so that argument i don't think is going to be seemed like only justice gorsuch was really interested in that, and i don't think that's going to be part of the actual opinion you see from the court. >> gerard, you're going to stay with me. but still ahead, not since bush v. gore has been the supreme court been smack dab in the center of the presidential campaign. the lawyer who argued that case nearly 20 years ago joins me in 60 seconds. onds by migraine, nurtec odt may help. it's the only medication that can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks.

treat and prevent, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. relief is possible. talk to a doctor about nurtec odt. rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. not since bush v. gore, the decision that made george w. bush in president in 2000 by a

vote of justices of 5-4 has there ban supreme court like this, a case like this. what people remember are iconic moments that stretched over 36 long days, the search for hanging chads on the paper ballots. the daily press conferences, a kind of ongoing debate throughout the country. then finally the rush on the courthouse steps to deliver the printed decision to announce it to the world. >> what do you see? >> i see people running including here comes our runner, here comes our runner. >> reverse, the decision has been reversed. the u.s. supreme court has reversed the decision of the florida supreme court. >> so now, in 2024, a conservative majority court is facing another decision that will significantly impact who can become president. joining me now, someone who played a central role on the team representing george w. bush before the supreme court in bush

v. gore, tom dupree, and indiana law professor, gerard magliocca. the ghost made an appearance in the argument. i want to get your reaction to this exchange today. >> suppose that the outcome of an election for president comes down to the vote of a single state, how the electors of the vote of the single state are going to vote, and suppose that candidate a gets the majority of the votes in that state, but the legislature really doesn't like candidate a, thinks candidate a is an insurrectionist, so the legislature then passes a law ordering its electors to vote for the other candidate. do you think the state has that power? >> i think there may be principles that come into play in terms of after the people have voted that the state can't change the rules midstream on. >> and so, tom, while the facts

of these two cases are obviously different, can you help but view today through the lens of bush v. gore? >> i don't think you can, and look, there's no question that the shadow of bush v. gore was hanging over the com today, and you could see it in a lot of the justices' questions, and frankly, wait that the court has a whole, i think, approached this case. you heard so many questions today, not just about the meeting of constitutional text, and what you can need for our nation's history. but also about the practical consequences of ruling in either favor. we have heard questions from other justices, saying if we were to adopt your understanding of how the 14th amendment works, what would that mean and all sorts of crazy hypothetical situations, battles to come, all of which i think is because the supreme court wants to make sure that whatever rule it establishes in this case, however it decides it, it's articulating a rule of law that can be applied to future cases,

future disputes that are going to come before the supreme court. >> so gerard, let me go back to 2000, december again. you're just, i think a couple of years out of law school, and you go to the steps of the court , so give us a sense of the mood, the gravitas, the feeling then versus now? >> well, of course, when i came then, it was basically empty, and someone was standing in front of the court like i am now, and i was chatting with them saying have you heard anything, everyone was wondering what was going to happen, what's going on. it was unprecedented, of course. this is different. first of all, that happened over a very short period of time, and it was very rushed. and this, by contrast, is something where, you know, we've had a longer period of time to think about it. the other thing, of course, is that back then, it was just a novelty that you could even hear the argument in bush v. gore on audio the way we did today. the court is much more transparent now, so i think that ought to give people some more

confidence in what happens now as against what happens then in a very hurried, more secretive way. >> in 2000, sandra day o'connor told the ”chicago tribune”, the court took the case and decided when it was a big election issue. maybe the court should have said we're not going to take it. good-bye. is there any question in your mind today that this is the right case, the right place to interpret section 3? >> well, i think from the supreme court's perspective, they didn't really have much of a choice. in other words, i don't think justice o'connor's option was viable at this particular point in time. in other words, i don't think you could have a situation where colorado, possibly maine, maybe other states would have disqualified former president trump, where other states might allow him on the ballot. this was a situation where i think the supreme court had no choice but to clarify the rule

of law. the sentiments justice o'connor expressed, looking back somewhat remorsefully on the decision to take bush v. gore, many justices realized the supreme court may have paid an institutional price in bush v. gore, and there's some segment of the country that says it was a politically charged decision, wrongly decided, and they look at the supreme court in a different way. i think the supreme court is always mindful, anytime it dips its toe into the turbulent political waters. it's going to make a lot of people in the united states unhappy. >> gerard touched on this, about what a compressed time it was in 2000. the decision came quickly. oral arguments were december 11th. the court issued the 5-4 decision because of the deadline involving electors. in this case, some of the 20 states now considering whether trump should be on the ballot filed amicus briefs, depending on your point of view, arguing they need a fast answer because

they have to send out their ballots. are you expecting a quick decision this time too. >> i absolutely do. the supreme court, precisely understood what was at stake here, this is a time for the court to move with alacrity, it doesn't have the luxury of spending its unusual months of deliberation to produce a decision. i think they're going to move quickly. my best guess is we'll probably see a decision a matter of weeks, not months. >> do you agree with the time line, and what will you be looking for in particular, or hoping for in terms of clarity about that section of the constitution that you know so well? >> i think we're talking about a matter of weeks, probably within about a month. it would be nice if at least some separate opinion by someone were to talk about some of the deeper issues that the majority of the court is not going to reach. because it would be helpful to at least have some guidance on

that, if we end up, as i said earlier, with this argument being made to congress in january of 2025. that said, i mean, a quick opinion may mean there's not really the time or inclination to do that. so we'll just wait and see. >> i remember back in those days, tom, and you'll probably remember too. i was covering tallahassee, the journalists sitting around saying we'll never cover another case this big, another court case this big. what we find out is there's always another huge case out there. thank you both so much. coming up, how a 91-year-old woman with deep republican roots became the unlikely person leading the charge to kick trump off the ballot. we've got her story. next. next here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now.

boost. [cough] honey... honey. nyquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu relief with a dreamy honey taste nyquil honey,

(vo) if you have graves' disease, 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 (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network.

(ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. rsv can seriously impact breathing, even for the best performer. protect yourself with pfizer's abrysvo... ...a vaccine to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. it's not for everyone and may not protect all who receive it. don't get abrysvo if you've had an allergic reaction to its ingredients. a weakened immune system may decrease your response. most common side effects are tiredness, headache, injection-site pain and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about abrysvo today.

the extraordinary decision now facing the high court is only there because of well, regular americans who saw on january 6th, immediate cause for concern. take norma anderson, 91 years old and a lifelong republican. in fact, she tells a reporter for her local paper that she dated the chair of the young republicans when she was in college and was a hostess at a reception for barry goldwater. but she grabbed her constitution when she saw what was happening on january 6th an unlikely person to lead this charge against a former republican

president. outside the courthouse today, she told reporters why she felt compelled to act. >> you cannot serve if you commit an insurrection. what is trying to throw out an election? i call it insurrection. this is very personal to me. i have lived a hell of a long time, and i've gone through a lot of presidents. and this is the first one that is trying to destroy the constitution. >> joining me now is douglas brinkley, presidential historian, professor of history at rice and coauthor of the nixon tapes, 1971 to '72. doug, norma anderson actually said she we want the night goldwater lost to lyndon johnson. however unlikely she may be to help bring a case against donald trump, is it one of the greatest things about democracy that ordinary people can end up at the highest court in the land seeking justice. >> absolutely.

she's in the history books now. anderson beat trump. you know, i just love the story that she carries around a pocket constitution, and has read it over and over and over again, which gave her the fortitude to forge forward on the 14th amendment, section 3 clause. i should note that she's from our state of ohio. i know you're from fairport harbor, and she's from elyria. colorado is getting all the glory, but she's from ohio originally. and she had already had at least a good university press biography going to be written about her, and maybe more now because she was the first woman who was majority leader of both the house and senate in colorado. so this is somebody who pays attention to the laws, somebody who loves democracy, and cares about us surviving as a fact-based country. >> beyond the plaintiffs and she

was one among several others, i'm wondering about the people who norma anderson saw on january 6th, doug, who attacked the capitol, also those lawmakers who lived through it but now claim it wasn't an insurrection and back donald trump. i just want to play a few reminders. >> there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection in my opinion is a boldfaced lie. if you didn't know the footage was a video from january 6th, you would think it was a normal tourist visit. >> i think the portrayal of january 6th has been highly biassed, i don't think it's been particularly accurate. i think it's driven by the slick video that was produced by the impeachment managers. >> you know, there are people who support donald trump who say it wasn't an insurrection. there are pictures of them, like, you know, blocking the doors to keep the rioters out from where they were. how do you think history will

judge them versus a norma anderson? >> well, you know, bob dylan has that line, you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. i mean, we can watch that film and know it was an insurrection. so it just fell into the trap of partisan politics, and once donald trump started tracking out of mar-a-lago and ostensibly taking over the republican party, the big lie that he won the past election, that biden's not really -- should be president. this was just a couple of rowdies that got a little bit out of hand. what today's republican party hates is the word insurrection. they want to call it anything but that, and one of the problems, i think, with the supreme court today, and our culture at large is there's no definition of what is an insurrection. i mean, was john brown at harper's ferry in the civil war era, when he took over a federal arsenal, was he an

insurrectionist or was he an abolitionist boat hero. you're seeing that kind of divide on january 6th. as far as i'm concerned, insurrection is the correct word and anybody that paid attention that day would have to agree unless they're living in an alternative universe. >> i mentioned anderson is one of six colorado voters, and i want to note that four are republicans, two independents. they are not democrats here. they were recruited to challenge trump, and it hasn't been an easy road. some of the republicans were censured by their party in colorado. one says she's been called a fascist, communist, satanist, obviously security surrounding all of this has been very tight. do you worry ever, given what happened on january 6th but just also the rise in threats against anyone who speaks out that it will be tougher and tougher to get the norma anderson's?

>> i agree with that completely. and tougher and tougher to get good people to run for congress or senate or city council because it means you could get elected and make decisions, do the right thing. they're going to be harassed, have your life threatened, have that kind of disruption. we've got to do something about this. i think we need to increase the security around justices, judges, around our legislatures, both democrat and republicans in this sort of violent-prone america that we're in right now, where people are using information of how to reach somebody by, you know, their e-mail or, you know, twitter feed or somewhere, and start putting hate language and death threats out there. many of these people aren't caught or are going unpunished. yes, he's brave and the coloradoans that stepped up are brave, but we have to keep that tradition of an active citizenry

that's willing to speak truth to power when the moment strikes. >> douglas brinkley, always a pleasure to have you on the program. thank yous, doug. we have breaking news following the special counsel's investigation into president biden's handling of classified documents. nbc's julie tsirkin is reporting from the hill. we have them waiting to see when there might actually be copies of that investigation. i know that congress was waiting for that. what can you tell us? >> yeah, well, i can tell you, chris, that in the last 20 minutes or so, two sources are telling myself, my colleague, ryan noblings that the judiciary committees in the house and senate have received a hard copy of this report, meaning it is printed, it is in their hands. it is not something they have received over e-mail. they are going through it now, and it is spiral bound, which of course will take time to go through and see what is in it. certainly congress has been waiting for this report to drop. this investigation has been going on since last november when they first found those

classified documents. this will be very revealing and telling in terms of what is in the report. certainly, chris, we do not know what is in the special counsel report. we know that members of congress have received it. they are looking through it right now. and of course we will bring you the latest when we have it. certainly a culmination of more than a year in which the special counsel has been investigating the president's handling of the classified documents, whether he mishandled the documents, whether it was an issue of carelessness. all of that will come through in this report, which of course as i told you, congress has received in the last half hour or so, chris. >> julie, thank you for that. let's bring in nbc's monica alba in washington for us. i know the white house press secretary was briefing. i have no doubt a question was asked. tell us what's going on there? >> exactly, chris, our colleagues did pose those questions to the white house, but they did not really want to get into any of the specifics here, instead referring to the white house counsel's office as we wait to see what might be contained in this report, but

what's really notable, chris, is what has happened over the last few hours. once we knew that the attorney general had notified congress and the public that this report had concluded, and that it would be transmitted, that did open up this question of whether the white house was going to review it and assert privilege over anything that was in that report. now, we know from today based on the white house that the president, they say, in an attempt to continue to be talking about transparency here decided against redacting anything in this report. so that's where we're starting from, once we do get our hands on this and are able to go through it, we understand it will be presented to the public, really in its totality, in terms of what they can convey here, and in terms of the conclusions from this report, the broader context to all of this, chris, that's really important from the white house is that these are documents, we understand, from joe biden's time as vice

president in the obama administration, but that were discovered during his time as president in his home in delaware, and in a personal office that he had used in washington before he became president. and then that opened up all of these different questions, whether there could be classified documents or materials stored elsewhere. that is what prompted this. and at the time when this special counsel was appointed, the president had said there was no there there. and he expected this was going to amount to some of his aides who packed up his things doing so in a way that was careless or sloppy. that was an original indication in the months when the special counsel investigation started, and then over the course of weeks we learned there was more information to this, there were more searches. there were some additional documents but there were a lot of questions raised about why they would be found where they were found. we have so many questions about

what's in the report, but the white house has been very clear that they cooperated fully with this investigation. remember, the president sat down for an interview with robert hur, the special counsel in this case over the course of two days, which happened to be the first weekend in october, after the october 7th attacks in israel. that's actually when this sit down took place. the president sat down, again, over the course of two days, while so much else was happening on the world stage. so we have a lot of interest, of course, in what's in this report as well from what the president himself offered in terms of those questions and answers. >> and again, very different from what happened with donald trump and the questions that were raised about the classified documents that were found at mar-a-lago and the way in which it was handled by president biden versus the former president. thank you so much, monica alba. still ahead, growing pressure on justice clarence thomas to recuse himself from trump's ballot case. is it too late for him to step

aside? that's next. is overwhelming. but i never just found my way; i made it. and did all i could to prevent recurrence. verzenio reduces the risk of recurrence of hr-positive, her2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer with a high chance of returning, as determined by your doctor when added to hormone therapy. hormone therapy works outside the cell... while verzenio works inside to help stop the growth of cancer cells. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an antidiarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making my own way forward. ask your doctor about

everyday verzenio. have heart failure with unresolved symptoms? it may be time to see the bigger picture. heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms like carpal tunnel syndrome, shortness of breath,

and irregular heartbeat could mean something more serious, called attr-cm a rare, underdiagnosed disease that worsens over time. sound like you? call your cardiologist and ask about attr-cm. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend. - ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no.

neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. so, here's to now. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message.

you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are. ahead of told's landmark case at the supreme court, there was immense pressure for justice clarence thomas to recuse himself. his wife ginni thomas, cheered attempts to overturn the 2020 election. in a letter to justice thomas last month, a group of democrats cited the attendance at the stop the steal rally before the

capitol attack and said not only did your wife attend the january 6th rally, but she was instrumental in planning it and bringing the insurrectionists to the capitol. joining us now, ian mill hiser, senior correspondent at vox, jonathan lemire, host of msnbc's "way too early," and an msnbc political analyst. also back with me now is chuck rosenberg. ian, is that letter in essence beside the point because frankly individual justices decide whether to recuse him. obviously thomas didn't, in fact, he was the first questioner today. >> right. thomas should resign. here you have a guy who's been flying on all of these billionaires' private jets, his kids tuition gets paid by his billionaire buddy. he got a loan forgiven by another rich buddy. this is not behavior we would tolerate in any government official, much less a supreme

court justice. is anything going to happen? no. and, like, the trump case itself, the case that was argued today before the supreme court shows us why. you know, president trump incited an insurrection that attacked the united states senators themselves. he put their lives at risk. and yet we couldn't get the 67 votes we need in the senate to remove trump from office. so if you can't remove the guy who literally sent a mob to attack the senate from office, you're not going to get republicans to vote to remove clarence thomas as long as he keeps doing things they like on the supreme court. >> chuck, as passionate as ian is representing one side of this argument, and i'm talking about regular americans. on the other side are people that feel that even this case and every other case that brings donald trump into court is nothing more than a witch hunt, a phrase that he has used very successfully, which leads me to this decision, and the seeming

opinion, at least all the headlines that we have been looking at that suggest that this is not going to go the way of the plaintiffs. but instead, donald trump will stay on the ballot in colorado. whatever the decision, given the view of the supreme court, which ian is not alone in, questioning it. could a lopsided decision be helpful? >> oh, i think so. i think it's a very salvy question, chris. americans generally are losing faith in our institutions. not just the supreme court. academia, media, congress, big business, and i think that's deeply unfortunate, and perhaps dangerous trend. so if you permit me a little bit of history. >> sure. >> 1954, of course, the supreme court unanimously desegregated schools in brown v. board of education. i think that 9-0 decision sent a very powerful message to the country, even though there was still massive resistance. a very powerful message.

in 1973, we're coming out of a very divisive period, vietnam, watergate, nixon is still president, and he's subpoenaed for his white house documents and tapes. and by a 9-0 decision again, the supreme court required him to turn those over to the special prosecutor. that 9-0 decision, by the way, included four justices that mr. nixon had appointed. i don't know if this court is going to be unanimous this this particular case. but i do worry about the lack of faith that americans have in our institutions, and i think there are times, and this may be one of them, chris, when a 9-0 decision or an 8-1 decision sends a powerful signal that we can put politics aside. it doesn't mean everyone is going to agree. that's okay. at least the justices of the supreme court might, and i think there's some value in that. >> if somebody is going to surprise us in this, who might it be? >> i don't know. i was struck today when both justice ketanji brown jackson and justice kagan seem to agree

with chief justice roberts about the historical analysis and historical importance of the 14th amendment, not designed to give the states more power. it was designed to circumscribe the power of the states. they were singing from the same sheet of music. you could agree or disagree. that's fine, but it struck me that the more so called liberal justices were aligning with some of the more so-called conservative justices. >> this obviously jonathan lemire would be if it goes the way that many people are predicting, a huge victory for donald trump. obviously it keeps him on the ballot. but also there is, frankly, he's had some other cases go against him, some other rulings, some other situations go against him recently. and the way donald trump operates and we've watched it over the years and over the decades, this would be very big for him to be able to declare victory, to be able to move forward with some of the other

things that we know from your reporting and other reporting have weighed on him quite heavily recently. >> yeah, there's no question, and people around trump that i speak to and other reporters as well, say that, you know he is feeling the pressure of legal cases. the clearest window to his soul is the truth social account in the middle of the night, when he posts all caps what is on his mind. that's a more accurate representation of what he thinks and feels and fears than what he might say at a rally, let's say. his team was confident that they would win, and still, you know, it's not done just yet. but looks like they will. and that will be a relief for him. it's hardly the end of his run of legal woes. we know that there is, of course, the immunity decision that just came down against him. we'll see if the supreme court picks that up. we know of course he was ordered to pay, $83.3 million to e. jean carroll.

we know the new york civil case about the fraud. that verdict is coming down really any day, and of course we're all wait to go see when the criminal cases will ramp up as well, and what goes first, new york or the federal case in d.c., about election interference. this looks like it will be a win for him, and he'll say he beat back the witch hunt this time, but expect him to continue to stoke the politics of grievance, and use this to fire up supporters and raise money off it too. >> and i think there's little doubt he will be successful at that. that has been the way we've seen it work all along. >> yeah, i mean, he has been not attending rallies, not holding rallies, so he could attend many court hearings. he clearly feels this is a great way that he can raise funds and rally his supporters by acting like he's the subject of some sort of witch hunt. based on what happened at today's supreme court argument before today, i'm not sure he's going to get much of a victory today. you know, what the justices seem to be inclined to say was that a

state court cannot disqualify a president from the ballot because they didn't want, you know, there to be 50 different rulings, saying 50 different things, but they seemed open to the possibility that a federal court could step in or some federal form could be involved. we could be having this conversation again in a month once a federal lawsuit is filed. there's going to be a ton of trump cases going up to the supreme court, rising out of his criminal trials, and other things like that. and i mean, i share the concerns about the legitimacy of this court. i mean, this is why i feel so strongly that we can't have people like clarence thomas on the court because this court is at the center of our politics right now. and we need people we can trust on that court making these decisions. >> clarence thomas, i think it's fair to say isn't going anywhere, but he does make a good point. we could see any number of cases, right, coming before the supreme court, and maybe it also goes back to your point, whichever way this goes, if there is some level of unanimity

of opinion, maybe they would go into the next case with a little more public perception of bipartisan, i don't know if bipartisanship is the right word. nonpartisanship is the word i'm looking for, thanks. >> you're welcome, not for me to give you words. you're much better at this than me. there is a value in the court, and our other institutions, trying to reclaim not just the middle ground but the perception that they live in that middle ground. you know, i've lived most of my life between the 40 yard lines, and my guess is a lot of americans live in the same place, but the perception is that these institutions have become corrupted in some way. i don't mean by crime, i mean they are beholden to the left or right, when, in fact, that may not be true, and so, you know, it would be -- unanimity would be great. better than unanimity would be unanimity with a thorough,

well-reasoned, thoughtful, forceful opinion. we'll see. you're right, too, there may be any number of cases going to the supreme court. i'm not yet convinced they're going to hear the immunity claim. they don't have to. you have a very well reasoned opinion from the d.c. circuit court below. there might not be a reason for the supreme court to wade into that now. we shall see. reclaiming some of that middle ground, and being perceived as claiming some of that middle ground, i think, could be valuable to us as a society. >> chuck, it's so good to have you here. ian, jonathan lemire, thank you all so much. once again, we appreciate it. following today's historic oral arguments on whether donald trump's name should remain on colorado's primary ball lot. the former president is due in las vegas, where he'll be rally supporters on caucus day. vaughn hillyard is on the ground. what are we hearing? what are we expecting. >> reporter: yeah, chris,

look -- >> i'm sorry, i have to interrupt you. we have breaking news on the special counsel report. julie tsirkin is on the hill for us. what can you tell us. >> >> reporter: house judiciary republicans said just in, special counsel robert hur recommends no criminal charges against president biden in the classified documents case. again, we have not seen the report ourselves. they continue to say despite the fact that hur acknowledges biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen, saying it's a double standard, referring to the special counsel investigation into the former president's handling of classified documents. right now, we are really just waiting to see this report, which i'm told is nearly 400 pages. they received this in hard copy, scanning it, wait to go see what it says, according to house republicans in their reading of the report, they say no criminal

charges are recommended and certainly this is not going to make rents in the house, especially who are leading the charge on impeaching the president, unrelated to this. it's not going to make them happy and push ahead to see what else they can get, what other information, what other lines they can connect. certainly they are seeing this as a double standard already. to be clear, we have not read this report ourselves. >> julie tsirkin, as we get more information we will look for you to get, but just to give people sort of the background of it, and i'll let you fill in the blanks from where i am, this is a case where documents were found. the lawyers for president biden found documents from when he was vice president, when he was in the obama administration. in d.c., there's the penn biden center, and later in his garage at his home in delaware, there were no -- there was no question

about them being turned over, no questions raised previously, we'll see what the investigation finds and what the report says. but he sat down with a special counsel. the documents we were told at the time were turned over, correct? >> yeah, that's exactly right, chris, and that is a difference in what happened in the former president's case where he was not upfront about the documents that he had from the time he was president. it's an important distinction that you make here. this is certainly an investigation that has been going on for over a year, and the way this process works, that a report, no matter the outcome, no matter the decision, that the special counsel makes, the report is required to be transmitted to congress so they can get their hands on the full report and make their own determinations, when of course in this case, house republicans are saying is a double standard, according to their words because they said that while hur acknowledges that biden retained this information and disclosed the classified materials, they did not recommend that any charges be filed against the president for retaining these

documents. only time will tell how democrats, of course, interpret this news, which i assume will be very very different than what republicans are saying here, chris. >> worth reminding folks, on donald trump's documents case, there are 40 criminal accounts, obstruction of justice, lchl retention of national defense information and the headline here, at least according to tweets we have heard from members of congress, there is no criminal charges recommended against president biden. thank you so much for that, julie tsirkin, that's going to do it for us this hour, i'm chris jansing. katy tur reports right after the break. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon.

good to be with you, i'm katy tur, we have breaking news, special counsel robert hur has declined to prosecute president biden for his handling of classified documents. forgive m i'm reading directly from our top lines. biden's practices present

serious risks to national security, and added that president biden portrayed himself as an elderly man with a poor memory who would be sympathetic to a jury. our investigation uncovered evidence that president biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen, the report said. but the evidence does not establish mr. biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. this is the special counsel investigation by robert hur who was confirmed under donald trump in to president biden's handling of classified documents. a reminder of what special counsel hur has been looking into. for more than a year. in the after math of the discovery of dozens of boxes containing thousands of government documents, including 300 with classified markings, some labeled top secret that donald trump took with him, and both withheld and allegedly hid at mar-a-lago, president biden's lawyers did a