historic case argued before the united states supreme court earlier today. the question before the court, can the state of colorado keep the former president who that state found credibly liable for inciting an insurrection, can they keep him off the ballot in november. now, on the face of it, it seems like a pretty simple question. but it's a question that has never come before the court. and the debate focuses on section 3 of the 14th amendment, written in 1866 and ratified in 1868. up until this year, section 3 was a vestigial portion of the constitution and the questions it raised were theoretical. it was written at the end of the several war as the country was trying to reconcile the bitterly divided factions from the north and south, including those who had waged war against the united states. many of whom were still bitter about the loss. at that time, the 14th amendment, which was a radical

text in a dramatic departure from previous amendments sought to bring justice to millions of formerly enslaved black americans and to insure that the formerly elected officials who waged war against the united states would not be allowed to serve in elected office again. that is the purpose of section 3. now, knowing all that, at issue today before the court were some key questions. one, do states have the right to enforce section 3 or can only congress do that? two, did the drafters intend to include presidents and vice presidents when they drafted this punishment? and three, is this section self-executing, which is technical jargon for this thing goes into effect without any other mechanisms such as anoct of congress. trump's lawyer jonathan mitchell who happens to be the guy who wrote the texas abortion bounty law, kept referring to something known as the griffin case. what is the griffin case, you ask. if you read any recent stories about the 14th amendment, it's possible you heard of someone

named coy griffin. he was the cowboys for trump guy who was arrested for participating in january 6th and got booted from office under section 3. it's a fairly straightforward parallel to donald trump. but in fact that is not the griffin case discussed today. the reference by trump's lawyer to help support his argument was to a far more distant, historical story, a flawed case from 1869. it's actually a fascinating story. it centers on chief justice salmon p. chase, the guy right there. you see, back in 1869, chief justice chase who was appointed by abraham lincoln made a ruling as a traveling circuit court judge on what section 3 could and could not do. in 1869 griffin case, which was covered by "the new york times," chase found that it was infeasible to determine what individuals are embraced by disqualification without due process prescribed by congress.

and that the language itself was not self-executing. these are two key points that helped trump's current case, right? and are the same points his lawyer jonathan mitchell made. here's the problem with chase's lower court ruling. his position directly contradicted his own previous opinion which came a year earlier. and involved jefferson davis, the first and only confederate president who was tried for treason. you see, chase was one of two justices overseeing that civil trial. and he just so happened to discreetly suggest to davis' lawyers that they could short circuit the trial by claiming that davis could not be tried for treason because he was already disqualified upon the ratification of the 14th amendment, which his lawyers argued was self-executing. chase appeared to embrace that argument, which is the opposite of a ruling he would make a year later. these diverging decisions from the same justice are illogical

and can't be explained. for today's purpose, the griffin case served as a convenient case for trump's lawyers because they could point to it as de facto precedent and giving friendly justices an convenient off ramp. >> so under griffin's case, which we believe is correctly decided, the anderson litigants disagree with us on that point, but if this court would adhere to the holdings in the griffin's case, there would not be any role for the states enforcing section 3 unless congress were to enact a statute to give them that authority. >> so you're relying on a nonprecedenceal case by a justice who later takes back what he said. >> but the key point with griffin's case and why it's an important precedent, it is not a precedent of this court, but the case provided the backdrop against which congress legislated the enforcement act of 1870 when it first provided an enforcement mechanism. >> then did away with it later. but that has nothing to say with

respect to what section 3 means. >> and it was off to the races for mr. mitchell after that. the lawyer got a receptive audience from the majority conservative justices who seemed highly skeptical of colorado's case. and at times they seemed to ask leading questions to help make trump's case. >> justice alito. >> is there any history of states using section 3 as a way to bar federal office holders? >> not that i'm aware, justice alito. >> i appreciate that response. is there anything in the original drafting, history, discussion that you think illuminates why that distinction would carry such profound weight? >> not of which we're aware. >> it's a precedent, although not binding, but your point then is it's re-enforced because congress itself relies on that precedent in the enforcement act of 1870 informs the backdrop against which congress does legislate and then as justice

alito says, the historical practice for 155 years has been that that's the way it's gone. there haven't been state attempts to enforce disqualification under section 3 against federal officers in the years since. whether that's a federalist 37 liquidation argument at all re-enforces what happened back in 1868, 1869, and 1870. you want to add to that, alter that? >> no, i think that's exactly right. >> bottom line, the majority of the justices seemed inclined to keep trump on the ballot. and it wasn't just the members of the conservative majority who seemed dubious. the liberal justices had their fair share of tough questions too. and joining me now is congressman jamie raskin, former member of the january 6th select committee and we always like to point out, a constitutional scholar in his own right. so congressman, in watching it myself, it felt to me like the

justices collectively had already kind of concluded they want to keep trump on the ballot and this was a search for the rationale as to why. did it feel that way to you? >> yeah, i think a majority of them certainly came in with their minds totally made up, although a lot of them are seeking to hang their hat on a different hook. some of them like the idea that the president isn't even covered by section 3 of the 14th amendment, which i think the vast majority of the justices reject. others were congregating around this argument you were just discussing that under section tlie of the 14th amendment, congress needs to act and the states don't have the power themselves to enforce the constitution, which is a somewhat weird doctrine because under the supremacy clause, the constitution governs every part of our governmental system. the federal courts, the state courts, the federal congress, the state legislatures and so on. and nonetheless, they are going

back to this justice chase opinion. in the griffin decision. i shouldn't really say justice chase, which is what the supreme court justices were saying, because he wasn't acting as a supreme court justice. he was acting as what we would call a circuit court judge. he just rendered a decision on his own, which totally contradicted the position he had taken just a year earlier in the jefferson davis treason trial. and there, he was advancing the opinion that why doesn't jefferson davis try to get off by saying he can't be prosecuted and convicted for treason because it would constitute double jeopardy because he's already been excluded from serving as president by section 3 of the 14th amendment. as a legal argument, that's totally wrong, of course, because section 3 of the 14th amendment is a civil disqualification, which can be removed by congress ultimately. it's not criminal, so there's no

double jeopardy. that was perfectly clear, according to the framers of the constitution. in any event, all of it is irrelevant because it's not a binding supreme court opinion. so really, they're looking at it afresh, and a lot of them seem to like the argument that congress needs to act. it was only at the very end of the oral arguments today that people began to focus on what the practical implications of that are. it basically means they're going to let somebody go forward on the ballot who may indeed be or may likely be an insurrectionist who participated in insurrection, let it go all the way through the various states and get back to, yes, january 6th in this case, 2025, and at that point, if god forbid 1,000 times, donald trump were to be winning by one or two electoral college votes, it would be up to the new congress to decide whether or not he was an insurrectionist barred from holding office rather than

running for office, which is what their point is. and if you want to talk about a testy potentially violent and explosive encounter on the house of the floor of the house of representatives, the supreme court is basically choreographing it. >> for the audience to understand what that means, that would mean mike johnson, whose majority whip can't count enough for them to pull off the impeachment of secretary mayorkas even though they desperately want to do that, that guy who is barely hanging on to his speakership, that house of representatives would have to decide. let's go through some of these. some of them made no sense. there was the question of the self-executing part. meaning to your point, what they're saying is somebody who didn't meet the age qualifications, for instance, could run. they just couldn't serve unless it was remedies by the time they become president. he was making that argument. they might become of age by the time they actually hold the office.

or somebody who didn't live in the state, well, they didn't live in the state, but then they moved there. then when they hold the office, they're qualified. in the case of an insurrection, though, this is somebody who actually attempted to halt the peaceful transfer of power. they would get to go all the way through the process of having enough electoral college votes and then on january 6th, they would have to get a waiver from congress that says, it's all right, man. you can go ahead and be president. right? that's what you're explaining. >> that's right. and it was galling indeed to see justice kavanaugh trying to invoke democracy as a value on the side of donald trump when donald trump and his followers tried to overthrough our constitutional democracy on january 6th. section 3 of the 14th amendment is all about protecting democracy against those who have proven their propensity to use violence and back room machinations to try to overthrow the constitutional order which

is precisely what happened on january 6th. just to understand how tortured their argument was, at least as i see it, trump's lawyers weren't saying that trump can't be barred from holding office. they were just saying he can't be barred from running for office. why? because the congress might be able to use its authority by a two-thirds vote, to remove the disqualification for him being an insurrectionist. as a practical matter, that will never happen. i can guarantee you, you're not going to have any democrats, much less 75 or 100 democrats voting to remove that disqualification. but as a legal matter, it's a clever argument. i was impressed they were making it. it does show how desperate they are that that's what it's done to, but as a legal argument, i think you can match that hypothetical with another hypothetical which is if hip

thetically, congress were to remove the two-thirds disqualification after trump has been barred from the ballot in colorado, nonetheless, the colorado legislature could then appoint the electors for him. so i would meet their extravagant hypothetical with another hypothetical which is the colorado legislature could go ahead and appoint them electors who would vote for him or the electoral college itself could use their reflective, deliberative capacity to choose him as the president. so you know, there's a lot of complications because of the electoral college, but the bottom line is the supreme court has always looked at the electoral system as a practical matter. as a practical matter, colorado has been doing the right thing, but this court clearly doesn't want to do the right thing, so they're going to throw it back to congress. nothing is going to happen until potentially january 6th unless donald trump is convicted on

some of the 91 federal criminal offenses that are outstanding against him in court. >> and a statute did come up, speaking of conviction. there was a seeming attempt to say is there some other remedy other than barring him from the ballot or should there have been another remedy? there is a law, u.s. code 2383. and it is actually the statute about insurrection. whoever incites, insists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the united states or gives aid or comfort there to should be imprisoned more than ten years or both, and shall be incapable of holding any office in the united states. in your view, does that mean that it might have been a mistake for jack smith to not charge him with insurrection? you were an impeachment manager. donald trump was impeached for attempting insurrection. had he been charged and was facing charges of insurrection, might colorado's lawyers gone in

with a stronger argument saying this man is being charged with insurrection? >> well, the house of representatives did impeach donald trump for inciting an insurrection, and although trump beat the constitutional spread in the senate, there was still a majority vote, 57-43, finding that he had engaged in insurrection within its constitutional meaning, within, you know, akin to section 3 of the 14th amendment. the statute that was discussed in the court today and that you just put up on the screen was actually passed seven years before section 3 of the 14th amendment was written. so obviously, the constitution is supreme to statute, and i would think that the constitutional language is paramount to it. so there's a constitutional definition of insurrection and then there's that older statutory definition, whatever it is. we know there have been lots of people who have been convicted

of seditious conspiracy in the events of january 6th. and that means conspiracy to overthrow or put down the government of the united states, which i would say is completely consistent with the section 3 of the 14th amendment definition. >> it is -- it was fascinating to listen to. it didn't give me a lot of hope that colorado will prevail, but it's always of great value to our audience to listen to you explain these things. we always appreciate you. congressman jamie raskin, thank you. up next on "the reidout," the conservative justices seen poised to rule that states are not allowed to enforce the ban on insurrectionists running for office. which raises the question, so who is? colorado secretary of state jena griswold joins me next. maybe she can help make sense of all of it. "the reidout" continues after this.

i know what it's like to perform through pain. if you're like me, one of the millions suffering from pain caused 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.

i'm daniel lurie relief is possible. and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city.

deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e.

one of the prevailing questions from the supreme court justices today was whether upholding colorado's decision to disqualify donald trump from the ballot would ultimately give an unwarranted amount of power to a single state to decide who gets to be president of the united states. >> why should a single state have the ability to make this determination, not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation? >> because article 2 gives them power to appoint their own

electors as they see fit. if this court affirms the decision below, determining that president trump is ineligible to be president, other states would still have to determine what effect that would have on their own state's law and state procedure. >> well, i mean, if we affirmed and we said he was ineligible to be president, yes, maybe some states would say, well, we're going to keep him on the ballot anyway, but really, as justice kagan said, it's going to have the effect of colorado deciding, and it's true. >> joining me is colorado secretary of state jena griswold. she was represented today by colorado's solicitor general, shannon stevenson, who argued before the supreme court. thank you for being here. i'm going to let you answer that question, because it did seem some of the justs had it. why should colorado get to decide who can be president of the united states for all states? >> well, first off, i don't think that that necessarily would play out like that. but if it did, ultimately, it's

up to states how they choose to appoint the electors. so the electoral college. and it's also up to states, as far as we know, as of now, to be able to have ineligible people kept off their ballots. you know, one of the things that really was striking to me about the court's argument is that if they are so focused on political outcomes, if they're so focused on one state having the ability to swing a presidential election, why don't they look towards georgia and their voter suppression laws? why don't they look at the states that are trying to swing elections by suppressing the vote? so ultimately, i think that line of argument is not founded in the constitution. but we'll see what the united states supreme court decides. >> it's such a good question. i would love to ask john roberts since he was a young lawyer in the reagan administration

opposed to the voting rights act. the thing is, what did you make of the part of the debate that talked about other forms of ineligibility. if somebody that was born outside the united states said i want to be on the ballot, could they be disqualified from being on the ballot, if somebody was under the required age constitutionally, or if someone didn't even live in colorado, could you exclude them? what did you make of that part of the argument? it seemed almost as if the argument from trump's lawyers was whoever wanted to run in theory could at least run and then it would be resolved later if they win. >> i would say the trump attorneys went even further. not only was the argument that all ineligible people should be allowed to be on the ballot, they went so far as to argue every insurrectionist has the right to be on the ballot, and even if trump was found guilty under criminal insurrection, he

could still be on the ballot and president because presidential immunity. so it's just one more of the same playbook from donald trump. he refuses to recognize what he did, what he did was incite a violent mob, caused congressmen to run in fear of their lives and assault the constitution in an insurrection. and he continues to say even if he is guilty of the insurrection of other crimes, well, it's fine because the laws and the constitution just don't apply to him. so i sure hope that the united states supreme court sees through the trump mob boss mentality and makes him face the consequences for his actions. >> under the argument, you know, you were an attorney so you can explain this. under the argument that was made today, could a jefferson davis, somebody who had, to your point, committed insurrection, then

turn around and run? because it wasn't clear to me who in their mind could not be on the ballot. >> well, i think just to take one step back, we shouldn't read too much into the questions the justices are asking. you know, in the colorado supreme court, some of the justices who ended up disqualifying president trump from the ballot were asking pretty aggressive questions that would lead you to think that they were on the other side. so i do think it's premature. but part of this is, it's such an unprecedented situation because it was literally quite some time since the civil war that we had an insurrection like this. donald trump broke the law. he needs to face consequences for everything he did to try to steal the presidential election, which was not just the insurrection. >> let me play one sound bite for you. this is chief justice roberts, pause the other thing they seemed to be concerned about, as

you pointed out, were the political consequences of taking donald trump off the ballot. take a listen. >> i would expect that, you know, a goodly number of states will say whoever the democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others, for the republican candidate, you're off the ballot. and it will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. that's a pretty daunting consequence. >> well, certainly, your honor, the fact there are potential frivolous applications of a constitutional provision isn't a reason -- >> hold on, you might think they're privilous, but the people who are bringing them might not think they're frivolous. >> is that something we should consider and be concerned about? >> well, i guess united states supreme court is. but i personally do not think that far right republican witch hunts are a reason to not apply the constitution to trump's action in the insurrection.

you know, there can be bad political actors that accuse this, that, and the other, but we have a judicial system. just like in colorado, donald trump had a five-day trial. he had an appeals process with the colorado supreme court, and ultimately to the united states supreme court. this case isn't based on political accusation. it's based on real fact, testimony, witnesses, and a judicial proceeding. so i sure hope the court does not focus its decision on that because temper tantrums from a political party is not good reasoning to not enforce the law and protect the nation from an oath breaking insurrectionist. >> colorado secretary of state jena griswold, thank you for your time. >> thank you. up next, justice clarence thomas took the lead in questioning the attorneys today under a cloud of ethics scandals and the enduring question of whether he should have recused himself entirely due to his

wife's vocal support of trump's big insurrectionist lie. we'll be right back.

we're travelling all across america, talking to people about their hearts. ooh, take this exit. how's the heart? i feel like it's good. —you feel like it's good? how do you know when it's time to check in on your heart? how do you know? let me show you something. it looks like a credit card, but it is the kardiamobile card. that is a medical—grade ekg. want to see how it works?

yeah. put both thumbs on there. that is your heart coming from the kardiamobile card. wow! with kardiamobile card, you can take a medical-grade ekg in just 30 seconds, from anywhere. kardiamobile card is proven to detect atrial fibrillation, one of the leading causes of stroke. and it's the only personal ekg that's fda—cleared to detect normal heart rhythm, bradycardia and tachycardia. how much do you think that costs? probably $500. —$99. oh, really? you could carry that in your wallet. of course you could carry it in your wallet, right? yes, yes. kardiamobile card is just $89 during heart health month. don't wait. get kardiamobile card at kardia.com or amazon. two leading candidates for senate. don't wait. two very different visions for california. 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. this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. and we have breaking news in just the last few minutes from our white house team. president biden will deliver remarks from the diplomatic reception room at 7:45 p.m. tonight. we'll of course bring that to you live. joining me now is democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of

rhode island. before i get to the supreme court goings on today, i want to get your comment on this special counsel report that i'm holding in my hot little hands here about the biden classified documents situation. their nonprosecution decision. your thoughts. >> well, the department of justice did what it should do, which is to appoint a special prosecutor, a special counsel to look into the matter. special counsel's independent. looked into the matter. decided there was nothing to prosecute. as far as i'm concerned, that settled the question. >> we will hear what the president has to say about it a little later on in the hour. i do want to get to this hearing today. it was fascinating to listen to. just to my ear, just listening to it as these oral arguments were made, it was striking to me to hear the first voice in each of the segments and sessions being justice clarence thomas. he is the senior most judge, which is for our audience why he

was allowed to speak first each time, so he gets that deference. but i think we all remember that his wife, ginni thomas, was materially involved in the insurrection. she sent multiple emails to mark meadows. she was a huge advocate of donald trump remaining in power after losing the election. i could go on and on. these guys did sign this brand-new ethics, you know, their sort of new ethics guidelines. what do you make of the fact he did not recuse? >> well, let's start with the fact that the failure to recuse isn't just an ethics violation. it's a violation of law. congress passed a law requiring recusal in certain circumstances. so this isn't just something within the judicial branch that's just a matter of judicial propriety. it's law breaking to sit on a case where you don't belong. and with respect to thomas, this is the third time he has sat on

and decided a case related to the insurrection. sat on the case of the january 6th commissions access to records, which might well have revealed the records of his wife's contacts with the trump chief of staff. he sat on the arizona election investigation case, after his wife was involved with calling into arizona to ask to have ballots overturned. and now he's involved in this case. and the problem across all three of those cases is we don't know what the facts are. in any other proceeding, you would have to do some sort of fact finding. you would know what his wife did, what he knew, when he knew it. and all of that is simply not present. this supreme court hides behind a cloud of obscurity with respect to the facts. and that allows a judge like thomas to make his own decision

without anybody being able to check on him and say actually, on those facts, that's not right. you start with fact finding in any legal matter, and the court refuses to allow fact finding. >> it just was sort of striking to see, you call him leo 6, leonard leo's pals. samuel alito arguing across the room from the guy who wrote the bounty hunter bill in texas. his coconspirator in trying to deprive women of rights over their own bodies. and he's also another vacation, expensive vacation fan. you have three people who sat on -- who worked for george w. bush in the bush v. gore case, including chief justice roberts, amy coney barrett, and kavanaugh being the other two, arguing that one state shouldn't get to decide who the president is. hello, that was the case y'all worked on in bush v. gore. >> they let florida decide. they decided it for florida, one

state. >> correct, so i just wonder if we're at a point now where the supreme court's reputation is so desiccated that a ruling to keep trump on the ballot, which seems to me to be their political decision they want to make, will just feel kind of grimy to a lot of americans. >> i think it will. and it's not just the supreme court as an institution. it's also the principles that they purport to champion. if you listen to the argument, the questions were all about, well, what happens if. and what are the political outcomes, what are the results, what are the policy outcomes? how do we balance the interests here? those are all considerations that they pretend to score. they pretend to be plain language folks, strict constructionists, originalists until plain language, strict construction, and originalism would lead them to throw trump off the ballot in colorado and then all the documents they have

long purported to scorn are driving their questions. >> the other piece is this idea of attempting to force congress to say that section 3, number one, didn't apply to a president, meaning didn't apply to somebody, if jefferson davis decided he wanted to be president of the united states. it didn't apply to trump because he was an elected official so the oath didn't count. all of the arguments felt so tortured, but the one that was the most sort of eye-popping is that this congress, this house of representatives specifically, mike johnson's house of representatives, they ought to decide whether he's eligible if he wins. we would go to another january 6th, but this time, it would be mike johnson's house deciding if donald trump can be president. your thoughts. >> there is a bit of a gap in the article 3 of the 14th amendment about who actually gets to decide. but into that gap, we fill the fact that elections are decided by states.

that's why we have state election officials. that's why we have different state laws covering elections. we have different candidate requirements covering elections. and it's a state official that says, let's say you try to run for a third term as president, the constitution says you can't. the state official says you can't do that. you don't wait for congress to say you can't do that. the ballot in the state is the function of the state to determine. so back to my point about how plain language, strict construction and originalism all got thrown into the can in this argument, how about states' rights? they live by states' right as a doctrine for so long, and now no, no, congress has to decide, even though every element of the ballot is really settled on by the states and state election officials. >> one wonders what might happen if arnold schwarz nagin decided, let me try to run. i'm going to leave it there.

senator sheldon whitehouse, always a pleasure. >> joining me now is katie phang, trial attorney and host of the katie phang show. michael steele, cohost of the weekend, and david k. johnston, author of the big cheat and founder of d.c.report.org. i'm going to let each of you respond. katie phang, you were in the room where it happened. talk about what you expect to happen. it felt to me like the justices had already decided to keep him on the ballot, just looking for a reason why. your thoughts. >> i think we all know where it's going to go which is why i think the conversation you just had with sheldon whitehouse is so important because i think we have to move beyond to a conversation about the electoral college. why? because article 2, section one of the constitution allows colorado to do what it does, to decide who to select as presidential electors. brett kavanaugh today waxed about disenfranchisement of voters. that's what scotus did in bush v. gore in 2000 when it told the florida supreme court it

couldn't decide how to do its state's election in terms of a presidential election. bush v. gore federalized a presidential election in violation of the united states constitution. that's why al gore lost, because bush got the electoral college votes. the electoral college is dissen franchiing the voters. if you want to do one person one vote under equal protection, you have to have a popular vote. what's happening is they're federalizing elections through what happened today in the colorado case. states should have states' rights. it works for abortion, right? hey, let's kick abortion back to the states. when it comes to not having trump thon ballot, if you want to have a patchwork result, that's exactly what the constitution contemplated and joy, my last word is that it's what the constitution wants. if you don't like it, amend the constitution. >> that was a word, michael steele. i'm going to go to you on that because they seem to love the states deciding whether a woman has to give birth, but on this,

they say we want congress to do that. it seems like situational originalism to me. what did you hear today? >> it is situational originalism. and so forth. i want to applaud my friend, my dear friend katie phang for making the case for the national popular vote. thank you so much, katy. because that's exactly the space we need to move into. and there's a lot around that. but unpacking today, my quick takeaway was really rested on justice ketanji brown jackson, because at the end of the day, she went to a space that i found interesting, where she was making the case that trump's lawyer could not make or was making inartfully. i think it really speaks to the reality that the justices do not want to be in a position where they're telling the states that they can't -- they have to kick someone off a ballot, either a,

while voting is taking place, or b, with voting yet to come. i think at the end of the day, my takeaway is 9-0 decision against colorado in this matter. >> i'm going to give you very, very short time, david k. johnston, but quickly, your take. >> i think not only are we going to see donald on all the different ballots but we need to start a discussion about updating the constitution in a number of areas, including the electoral college and pay close attention to judge jackson, the smartest, savviest thinker on the supreme court. >> i concur with that. let's bring in -- thank you all very much. let's bring in white house correspondent mike memoli. what do we know about this press conference? >> i think it's clear that this report from special counsel third landed like a bombshell for a lot of democrats who were already plenty nervous about president biden and his standing as we begin this election year. while we have already heard from the president today, he did speak at the top of his remarks, the house democrats today about this report, about its findings.

it's clear that the president and the white house felt he needed to do some more as quickly as possible to reassure not just his party but the american people about what some of the contents of the report were. i think specifically, the comments as special counsel third put it, about the president being elderly, about the fact he was so forgetful -- >> let me hold you there. i want to read this for our audience. i highlighted this as well. this is on page six of this ruling. it said we have considered at trial, mr. biden would likely present himself to a jury as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. that is what you are referring to, correct? >> that's exactly right. we know that has been at the heart of concerns democrats have about the president's continued candidacy, the age issue. so more than anything having to do with law or legal theory or whether the president did things with classified documents that he should not have been doing, this is perhaps the most damning

thing politically that democrats are worried about tonight. and all week, it's really interesting, the president, the white house all week had been teasing off the record on background the idea that he might take questions. you'll remember president biden himself when he did take a question or two talking to reporters on tuesday, indicated he would speak to reporters on thursday. we had been poised all week, joy, for a potential news conference. so the one thing i'm going to be looking for closely is beyond what the president says today, tonight, does he take an opportunity to answer questions? because whenever the president, and i have covered him a long time, has been asked through the 2020 campaign or since he's been in office about questions about his age, for a long time, his answer was simply, watch me. for a lot of democrats that's been exactly why they're so nervous. they haven't necessarily seen the kind of president willing to take the case, able to take the case to the country against donald trump in the way they feel that he needs to. we have seen him come off so far starting the year with some pretty strong speeches, the valley forge speech, the event he did on abortion rights with

vice president harris. some of the campaign stops he's made since then. but they are certainly looking for, especially given the damning report as it came out today, some reassurance, and i think that's the goal of the white house advising this event on very short notice and likely potentially looking for an opportunity for the president to take some questions from reporters as quickly as possible. >> stay with me, please, if you could. i want to bring back my panel. michael steele, i want to go to you on the politics of this. that line on page six feels politically like a gift to donald trump and republicans. what do you make of the timing of this information and the content? >> so let's just thank god this is not october. because if it were, it would be, you know, a comey moment in the hillary clinton situation where the the three branches weigh in. it is weighty, it is damning,

and it's going to be important for the president to sort of clean that up for himself and for his presidential narrative, because you have this other branch now sort of weighing in and saying, yeah, he's sympathetic because he's forgetful. >> katie phang, i would be remiss not to point out what's not in here is any allegation that joe biden hid documents in his basement, hid documents in his house, or changed the locks on a room so that he could hide documents even from his own lawyers or refuse to give them back. i think that's important to note. >> that is the only important information to note. special counsel appointment to investigate a crime if any. the only relevant portion of that ridiculously long, completely irrelevant report is the fact that there was no intent by president joe biden to commit a crime versus what we do know is evidence of donald

trump's criminal intent to be able to commit fraud, to make sure that he kept these classified documents, to mishandle classified information. the fact that special counsel third added all of these irrelevant stuff is partisan, it's hackary, and it's completely ivelerant and it should have been stricken. i understand transparency and i laud the president for making sure it came out, merrick garland to whatever extent i can, but the only relevant point is the intent and that's the only part we should be focused on. >> the merrick garland to the greatest extent we can, david k. johnston, i think is relevant. what donald trump has enjoyed throughout his time in the public life is tremendous luck with timing. right? he gets the apprentice job when he's broke. it covers over his terrible stretch as a businessman and his failures. and now, he gets this at a time when he's accused of crime.

biden is accused of being old. >> donald has benefitted beyond belief from timing issues. from the james comey matters, to many others, and many people have forgotten numerous other bad things donald trump has done. one thing that we should keep in mind, though, about this report. donald trump did more than just take all these documents. he showed them to people. we have video or audiotape of him talking about classified documents. we have the >> secrets we spent tens of billions of dollars developing. and if you think that that is all donald did, the two examples that we know about, and we know know nothing about him. he shoots his mouth off. he has no muffler on his mouth.

we're never going to hear about in our lifetimes how he's jeopardized national security because he damaged our national security. >> katie, let me go back to you on that. there are allegations in this report the president biden did it share or show, or at least share information from these classified documents, that it was with his ghost writer, that apparently he viewed himself as an historic figure, as every politician does, with a little ego, and was writing a book, and that when he's writing a book he wanted to write about things like his opposition to a surge in afghanistan, and his need to end that war. that's why he shared. he wasn't sharing them with random party guests at mar-a- lago, for instance. >> the report also shows that there is zero mention of that classified information in any of the books or any of the writings. there was zero corroborating evidence that actually happened, that joe biden actually shared that information with the ghost writer. that is what we have to hang

our hat on. it is not just, was there evidence? it's was there evidence that was corroborated in some way? and joe biden mentioning it but maybe it not happening is really the case here, and that is what we need to remember. there had to have been evidence of a crime. donald trump has plenty of it, but there's none of that for joe biden. >> let me go to you, michael steele, let's talk about the raw politics. out in the streets and in a barbershop people are saying, how come biden doesn't get prosecuted for it and trump does? and there is that sense among some regular folks out there that are not necessarily playing pay intention to minutiae, they feel that it's a double standard. that's something that trump can exploit. >> that is something that trump will exploit. it is something that he will exploit cynically. i think to both points made, that you have the facts of what this report lays out.

you're going to have the president addressed a lot of the aspects of that. but then you get to the wrong politics of it, and that is where all the organs within the democratic infrastructure, within the democracy space, who were supporting a joe biden candidacy because the other guy is such a big threat, we'll have to go and to make sure that the clarifying points are made here, aligned with what katy has said, for example, that makes the case. that is why it is important that this is happening in february and not in october. so you have the runway now probably three weeks, two weeks, where this is going to bubble and make noise. it will be talked about, certainly on fox. then by the time you get to summer and fall, this storyline, because there will be so many other greater storylines that will suppress it and diminish it, will become the important factor. if we are in october, it's a

different conversation, because that will leave an imprint on the voters mind as they go to the ballot box for general election. >> and we're talking about all this in the context of the supreme deciding whether trump can be on that ballot at all, and we assume that he will, but there does seem to be really strange juxtaposition here. there is the question of whether or not you are careless in leaving notes in your garage because you are writing a book and whether you're trying to overthrow the government and trying to implement a cool. and it is sort of a wild time to be alive that these two things are submitted as parallels to the american people. >> well, would that joe biden had not done this even know he was using it is basically a memory aid to work on this book about his career. but what the biden administration needs this needs to do is get this out, take the hits, and start working on the economy, the incredible success we're having with the economy.

that's what they need to do. get this behind them, get on to their own agenda, and don't let donald trump put you on the defensive. stay on the offensive. >> let me go back to you, katie, about the timing. it is interesting, but what do you make of it? >> i was gonna say two words, mike pence. is everyone forgetting mike pence? mike pence investigated, he didn't get charged. that's the answer to any of those conversations. well what is this double standard? mike pence also did not commit a crime, was not charged for it, and because of that, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. that's why justice is supposed to be blind. but the timing of it is obviously suspect and we always kind of have to wonder why now? why in this manner? but what's amazing is what's happening is that we want to preserve the institutions as much as we can because the normalization of trump has become so prevalent. so that when we see a rule of law institution, like where we

want to make sure transparency, how do you not have transparency when it comes to justice? you have to have it, no matter if you're a democrat or republican. that is why we get freaked out when we have this kind of transparency, and we have to be reminded, president joe biden is an institutionalist. he is a rule of law president. he wants to err on the side of making sure that america knows what is going on versus the obfuscation, the hiding, the trickery, the crime-ing the donald trump trying to normalize through his administration and presidency, which is why again i still go back to mike pence. want to have a conversation? let's talk about mike pence not again charged. >> i have to apologize. two minute warning. go quickly. >> i can say real quick, to put a pin on both what david and katie have both said. being old is not a crime. with donald trump did with classified documents, it is. >> indeed. >> you've got to they, or brother. >> let's go to mike memoli

really quickly. what are we expecting to hear? we've heard a lot of analysis. here what do we actually expect to hear from the president? >> of course white house officials are being very guarded about what to expect from the president. we have indications that these will be brief remarks. the thing to watch is, is this an opportunity for the president to take some questions? i think that would be the most fulsome answer he could give to these charges. it is an opportunity and as we see the presidents advisors are now filing into the room so it's only a matter of time here for the president to address some of these issues head on. for all the focus on the age issue and some of the comments from the special counsel in this report, which obviously are significant, there are also questions to be asked about the handling of classified documents because it is clear, in the way that her report extensively lays out, the way in which this as vice president joe biden was keeping extensive note taking, notes of every kind of meeting he was, in his interactions with other officials, his launches with president obama.

we remember of course they had weekly lunches. and while the special counsel made the decision not to ultimately bring charges in this case, the fact that biden was recorded by his ghost writer, for instance, acknowledging six years ago, right after he had left office, that he knew he had retain some of these documents in his possession, i think are also areas where i would be, if i was in the room, interested in asking a question about some of the developments today. i think it's also worth noting that the way we've heard pushback from the white house, from the president's lawyers and from other democrats and that we may hear again from president biden, especially the way in which they thought the special counsel went beyond -- in commenting on the president, commenting on passing judgment on memory last losses when biden was doing an interview, by the, way within a day of attacking israel and all the president was dealing with at the time he was sitting down for this interview, but the same judgment was not made. >> approaching the podium.

>> as you know, the special counsel released its finding today about looking into my handling of classified documents. pleased to see he reached a firm conclusion that no charges should be brought against me in this case. this was an exhaustive investigation, going back more than 40 years. even into the 1970s when austell was a united states senator. special counsel acknowledged i cooperated completely. i did not throw up any roadblocks, and sought no delays. in fact i was so determined to get special counsel what he needed, i went for a five hour in-person interview over two days on october the 8th and ninth of last year, even though israel had just been attacked by hamas on the seventh and i was very occupied. it was in the middle of handling an international crisis. i was especially pleased to see

special counsel make clear a stark distinction the difference between this case and mr. trump's case. special counsel wrote, and i quote, several material distinctions between mr. trump's case of mr. biden's are clear, continuing the probe. most notably, after giving multiple chances to return classified documents, to avoid prosecution, mr. trump allegedly did the opposite. according to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. in contrast, mr. biden turned in class classified documents to the national archives in the department of justice, consider the search of multiple locations, and including his home. i've seen the headlines since the report was released about my willful retention of documents. this is not only misleading, it's just plain